You said: Her erroneous writings on science (not to mention her downright ugliness regarding widowhood) makes me wonder if her politics are really correct. If she cannot even get statements of science correct, why should we believe anything else she has ever said. (Same logic as with Clinton's lying.)
***
Assuming her writings on science are erroneous, that does not make her a liar or untrustworthy (just as Bush is not untrustworthy if it turns out there were no WMDs in Iraq).
As for her "ugliness regarding widowhood," you should read what she said more carefully and reconsider your post. She spoke not of widowhood in general, or even of widowhood as a result of 9/11 terror, but of those who use (or allow to be used) their widowhood for political purposes, and appear to revel in the fame brought on by it. Applying your logic to your own post, no one should read what you say, but I will continue to do so.
Ok, I reread it. It's worse than I thought. I've always expected this from the Left; now such comments seem common on the right.
The difference is that Bush's WMD statements seem to have been based on observations but made in good faith. (It's not clear how such observations could be checked.) In no way can Coulter's comments on science have been made in good faith; she gets facts (not just opinions) wrong. It's not like there aren't thousands of people who could have proof-read her stuff.
This speaks directly to her ability to reason.
If she can't understand this, how can she understand the complexities of other issues?