I thought her piece had its funny spots, almost Dennis Millerish at times. Notably superior to AirAmerica at any rate.

I suggest this is just more evidence of the declining importance of newspapers. I agree with Lileks: as far as news is concernend, the daily rag is good for the Metro section and little else.

The person writing those comments was an EDITOR? Good lord, I'm in the wrong business; life must be easy for any editor who can "get" simple sarcasm.

“USA Today has at least made some apparent efforts at political balance in their paper. Maybe we chalk this up to teething pains?”

Perhaps, however I read the Coulter piece and frankly it wasn’t very good (came off like the political equivalent of a car alarm in the Target parking lot). If the McPaper opted to hire Jonah Goldberg instead, it would probably work out better for conservatives since he’s a much better (in terms of humor and subtly) and effective advocate for conservatism than Coulter has been of late.

Actually come to think of it, the editor probably did us a favor by choosing a more effective conservative columnist while saddling the Democrats with Michael Moore to give their side of things.

I agree. Coulter's column was, well... just plain bitchy. Coulter's work has become increasingly vitriolic and less coherent over time, and getting rid of her is probably a good thing.

On the other hand, Goldberg has just as much snark, but more substance. I agree with Thorley, he's a better spokesman for conservatives than Coulter's bombast. Every once in a while Coulter has a good piece, but she's rapidly entering Michael Savage territory, and I'd rather not have the conservative movement associated with that crowd.

The first half was rough, like it was hastily done without anyone to bounce ideas off of. I liked the second half. She loses me when she's shrill, but she's got an amazing skill with language when she's really does a good job.

Her and Moore, perfect opposites if you ask me, except that one is grounded in fact.

Personally, I thought the piece itself was poor. On its own merits, it didn't have all that much to recommend it. I can agree to an extent with both Thorley and Aodhan on this.

Comparisons with Moore are less valid. I think Coulter, when she's not off the rails, is much more factual than Moore.

If Moore had begun his column:

"I'm here at the Jesus Freak convention in New York...the people on my side are wearing normal clothes, the people wearing shirts that say "God Hates Fags" are my opponents."

You'd all be lambasting him as showing more Bush-hatred.

And you'd be right.

Coulter is showing more liberal-hatred. I'm just sorry they spiked the column; I think it shows just how desperate and rattled the right has become.

Jeff Fecke wrote:

""I'm here at the Jesus Freak convention in New York...the people on my side are wearing normal clothes, the people wearing shirts that say "God Hates Fags" are my opponents."

You'd all be lambasting him as showing more Bush-hatred."

Actually we’d be wondering which convention he was actually at since the guy (Fred Phelps) who runs the site named after that particular invective is in fact a Democrat.

Jeff -- point well made, but I do have one quibble. To me it is a given that some pundits on both sides can go over the top in the imagery they concoct. If done right and can be funny and informative, done wrong it makes one groan.

My quibble is that when someone on the right goes over the top, it is ususally one of the pundocracy. When it is on the left, it can be either an office holder OR a pundit. To me there is a difference.

Now back to Ann. Seems to me that Ms. Coulter no longer writes to persuade anyone on the issues. Or at the very least, her methods of persuasion have become rather ham fisted.

IMO, her success has gone too her head. She seems to direct her writings at the amen corner vs. the general public. Too bad, because when she does it right, she can be just deadly with her pen.

Come on Ann, you can do better!! lol