Ann isn't Backing Down . . .



Ann Coulter

. . .but, then again, we didn’t expect anything different from her did we? Some people are rolling their eyes and saying that Ann’s opposition to Roberts (or, more precisely, her skepticism) is just her being typically provocative. I think that’s a wee bit uncharitable and doesn’t give her argument its due. She lays it all out today in “Fool me 8 times, shame on me.” Worth a read.

Beyond the substance of her argument, which is worth considering, the more interesting question is whether or not she is doing this as a Machiavellian move to psyche out the Left. . .


You may also like...

1 Response

  1. RD says:

    Amen. Was station-flipping recently…one of the hosts (Boortz? Prager? don’t know who) discredited Coulter unfairly by suggesting she objected to Roberts’ nomination because she felt he wasn’t conservative enough. I say: bunk! (He continued the ridicule by pointing to all kinds of new evidence suggesting Roberts might be quite conservative indeed: “Take that, Ann!”)

    But as she’s made quite clear, that was never her point. What I understood was, why are they picking someone they’re not 100% sure about when there’s a list of folks they ARE sure about? Why wonder about it at ALL? (Besides, why give the appearance they’re afraid of the Democrats by suggesting they have to “hide” their candidate’s views from everyone – including themselves?)

    As to the host: Clearly quality control issues are alive & well in the alternative media 🙂