Tim, I don't think Ann Coulter has remotely the importance you - or apparently Wooldridge - credit her with. She can sell lots of books and draw a crowd when she speaks, but then so could Lord Archer. I suppose we did have a 'Lord Archer problem' ourselves because he was almost our candidate for Mayor and before that an MP and our Vice Chairman, but I don't see the Republicans doing the same with Coulter. The closest she has come to elected office was being rejected as a Congressional candidate almost a decade ago - by the Libertarian Party.
I don't think the extremist quotations you often see from Coulter represent a large number of people in America, or even necessarily her own views. She can't really be that naive about the amount of controversy such remarks will provoke - she does it so reliably to generate publicity to sell books. For example, I was at CPAC last year when she infamously joked that she would otherwise comment on Senator Edwards, but didn't want to use the word 'faggot'. In the same speech she was also applauded around the hall for saying she was pro-gay and didn't know any conservatives who disliked gay people, mocking liberals for suggesting otherwise. That probably reflects her real sentiments, but those are hardly words to draw the sort of controversy and publicity she is after. Attack Ann Coulter herself all you like (as long as you realise doing so only plays into her hands). But don't write as if the American conservative movement is guilty by association.
Recent Comments