And quite ignorant too, even of matters that are common knowledge. (Such as her astonishing claim that Canadian soldiers fought in Vietnam, uttered on live TV. A fine TV moment.)
What you call Coulter's "reply to Franken" is just that : a reply. Nothing of substance. If you are accused of being a thief and evidence is presented to that effect, if you reply with a thousand-word document without addressing the accusation head on, without refuting the evidence, then yes, you "have replied" -- but that does not mean the accusations were addressed.
Ann Coulter has been accused in Al Franken's book of being an almost pathological liar (perhaps more accurately would be the term
a professional liar). And this is claimed with some pretty strong evidence in Franken's book! (How about using as evidence Coulter's own book? [img]/images/graemlins/grin.gif[/img] Where she directs readers, for example, to a footnote that supposedly backs up one of her claims, except that the footnote is not referencing any source but is more "opinion" -- or does not exist at all!) I have read Franken's book and all the "replies" of Coulter I could find and she has nothing to counter Franken with. So she keeps mostly mum -- or writes up op-ed pieces like that fluff you linked to.
Ann Coulter does not "bother" me. I wish the Right had more of her. I wish there were a thousand Coulters. That would make the job much easier.
Some neo-cons I know are bothered by Coulter. They wanna bed her -- seriously. For some weird reason, they find her sexy.
