Basically, yeah. I probably agree with 70% of what she says (I even agree with her abstract point about the kids of single moms, but the "strippers in training" comment is simply insulting hyperbole). I just think her style of getting her message across does more harm than good for the conservative movement.
Science may not be her forte but she was absolutely correct in what she wrote about the fallacious canard dubbed "human evolution".
Her book on the subject was so riddled with errors as to be useless for any serious discussion on the matter. She's better off sticking to what she knows, which is politics and social issues.
You're making an informed judgment and that is what FR encourages. It also encourages debate. To posit that her style does more harm than good for the conservative movement should require some proof.
How do you quantify that statement?
Can you please provide some examples of conservatives whose style is good for conservatives?