[Dave S]

Does Sullivan believe that if Ann disappeared, Moore would go away? This is hardly the case. Until recently, the left had a monopoly. There was no Sullivan, no Coulter, no Limbaugh, no Fox. No intenet. No Free Republic. Until recently Walter Cronkite could say things no more extreme than Moore and get paid to say it. And no one would refute him

If you really think Ann does anything but preach to the converted you're delusional. No one but firebreathing right wingers are going to even bother to listen to her arguments. The vast middle that you want to persuade is totally turned off by her attitude and crude behavior.

[Reactionary]

"If you really think Ann does anything but preach to the converted you're delusional. No one but firebreathing right wingers are going to even bother to listen to her arguments. The vast middle that you want to persuade is totally turned off by her attitude and crude behavior."

Call me delusional. You don't convince most people by holding forth a Socratic dialogue. On the contrary, you convince them by making the other side into the enemy.

Her book is number two on the New York Best Seller List. Who's "turned off" by Ann Coulter? You tell me.

[marron]

Again, I haven't yet heard anyone refute any substantive point she has made. I would say that they can't. For one, I remember the history, and she is right. For another, if they could, they would. They don't.

If you want to convince people, start with bold. Speak up boldly. But you will notice that if you are effective in debating the left, if you are effective at pointing out the inaccuracies and inconsistencies and internal contradictions in their case, they will accuse you of being hateful no matter how nice and even-toned you are. Thats when the venom starts, and you had better be prepared for it.

So, I vote for bold, if it fits your personality. Go with whatever works for you. But expect to be vilified whatever you do.