Ann is factual, therefore Ann is responsible; if anyone can show me that Ann has not been factual, then I will concede that she has not been "responsible."
As for the point that Republicans have been "very calm" about their politics, I will concede that Republicans have often been very dull and boring in their presentation, which has often made them losers politically, but which has gained them welcome tepid admiration from the people who really count: academics, media people, the New York Times. I take it too many "good Republicans" would rather have Republicans lose nobly than win by making their points in a berserk Coulteresque manner.
For my part, Ann scoring points for conservatism has never lost her any credibility with me, however mad it makes people like Jonah Goldberg, Dave Horowitz, Chris Matthews, Ellis Henican, etc.
I can't tell if you read me the wrong way. Just on the chance that you did: I've read Ann's books. I've read her footnotes. I consider Ann to be very factual and very responsible. I also consider her interesting and fun to read.
I see a lot of Conservatives are also factual and responsible -- but not as interesting or fun. I was attempting to make a distinction based on the "fun" part of the equation, not the "factual" or "responsible" aspects.
Cheers.