is Ann Coulter the nemesis for the Republicans

I’m talking about her controversy around the 911 widows

according to this article:

Will this incident be the most harmfull incident for the republican in the 2006 and 2008 election?


I don’t think most people see her as a representative voice for the GOP. She doesn’t hold any public office or anything and most people recognize her for the troll that she is.

Probably not. If Iraq, Social Security, the Rove scandal, the charges of voter fraud, Guantanamo, and various other idiocies of this administration don’t sink the republicans, then one unbalanced pundit isn’t going to do it, especially if few mainstream conservatives admit to liking her in the first place.

I’m starting to wonder if Ms. Coulter is losing it, myself. Her foot-in-mouth disease appears to override her brain on a regular basis now, to the point that she’s become a caustic parody of the obnoxious pundit she strove to be before. I think it’s gotten bad enough she’s shocked nearly everyone, and I highly doubt it will be difficult for Republicans with a molecule of “moderate” in philosophy to distance themselves from her. In a way, she could even provide a convenient foil, sort of like “Pat Roberson may be bad, but, you know, it’s not like he’s not Fred Phelps or something.” “Oh, Hannity may be combative sometimes, but it’s not like he’s Ann Coulter.”

Naw, that was always the point of the act. Her stuff has been over the top for years. The people that buy her stuff like it that way.

If her sales start slipping, maybe you’ll see her lose it. (And won’t that be fun!) Meanwhile, she knows what she’s doing.

Nope. During the silly season in mid August up until Labor Day, the tired old one trick pony Cindy Sheehan might mouth off again. It won’t make any difference. Neither does the “Look at me!” Ann Coulter blabber.

Coulter will help the Republicans, not hinder them. The Republicans are clearly looking to rally the arch-conservative base: witness the sudden upswing in legislative concern over gay marriage, flag-burning, the estate tax, and now assisted suicide. All of that is the carrot for the far right. Coulter’s latest outrages are the stick…“why we fight”, albeit translated from English into Lunatic: “Vote Republican, because the liberals won’t let anyone criticize Cindy Sheehan! (Never mind that I’m criticizing her right now.)”

And to make sure the moderates don’t get scared off, we have lots of “voices of reason” patting us on the head and telling us that Coulter doesn’t matter and that this time she’s gone over the line and this time she has no credibility with the right. Something I’ll believe when I see the list of speakers at the 2008 Republican National Convention, and not before.

She will push fence sitters away if they get the impression that this is what it means to be a conservative. But I doubt it’ll really matter much.

I object to a comparison of Ann Coultner to Cindy Sheehan. Both may have similar motives, but Sheehan at least has a legitimate grievance she is trying to air.

Hmm. No publicity is bad publicity, eh? Plausible.

Coulter makes her audience tingle in the warm, dirty crevices they can no longer admit to having. Her role is not about debate. It’s about fueling the rage, and she does it well.

I concur strongly with Orbifold. She will continue to be a popular speaker at GOP gatherings, as she has been thus far.

Coulter does provide two benefits for conservatives:

For the loonies on the right, she gives them a fig leaf of approval for their radical views. “Hey, mass-converting Muslems to Christianity isn’t such a crazy idea, because nationally-reknown columnist Ann suggested it too!”

For the slightly-less-loonies on the right, she gives them a “kernel of truth” opening to play their own kooky ideas, usually along the lines of “If Ann wasn’t so shrill, you might see that she actually has a point.”

Coulter is a political shock jock with all the class of Howard Stern. She seeks to offend and get publicity, not to educate or explain. She feeds raw meat to her lap dogs…

A liberal columnist made a cartoon about the widows.

Your point being?