Not me, seperate those fools from their cash. It's no different than when some self serving televangelist guilts his audience into buying a ticket through the pearly gates by sending him a payment for his limo. If not for him, they'd have to get up and drive to church,thereby clogging the roads with more drivers. As well with the Edwards suckers,they feel less obligated to go out and volunteer ("Hey, I sent a check") AND we get the extra added bonus of having all of that dem sympathetic cash going to an absolute hopeless loser. I'd say we have not a little debt of gratitude to one Miss Ann Coulter. She saved the day again.

Now,if you can prove that a mess of that money was from angry GOPers...Well, then I will be securing a knotted bit of twine to a rafter in my garage and go about the task of suspending myself from it.

I have to agree with Pudge, here.
The bottom line is that the democrats will use any event at all, as an excuse for fund raising. In that regard, Coulter is no different than anyone else to the right of Castro.

The bottom line is that the democrats will use any event at all, as an excuse for fund raising. In that regard, Coulter is no different than anyone else to the right of Castro.

But more cash would come in using Coulter's name, face, and words over a lesser-known person on the right. Say, James Joyner.

My experience with Coulter's fans tells me no amount of vitriol out of her will turn them away. Because if they did they would be "giving in" to the Left. It smacks of tribalism with Ann as the blond chieftain.

Yeah Bit! Stop being such a tribalist, you, you, you tribalist you! I'll bet you're against open borders too! Aren't you,AREN'T YOU ! You're not enlightened like us, is he H ? (If you think that's insulting, you have no idea how easily your condescension is read, and disregarded, by folks like me.)

Pudge, your response is what I expected. It's thin-skinned and you tossed in something totally from left field ("open borders") for good measure. Just like your heroine Ann Coulter.

I love Ann Coulter-she's the best Democratic fund-
raiser that money can buy, and she's the GOP pin-up girl for human compassion and kindness.

Ain't nothing worse then watching a donkeylover gratify itself, ick!!

I must admit I thought Coulter initially had a point about Edwards being a wimp, but now that he had his wife fight his battle for him it's clear I was wrong.

Ooo, G.A.! Stop it with the imagery, I'm trying to eat here, do ya mind ?

Sean Hackbarth,

I know you are but what am I ?

James,

I appreciate the newsworthiness of your posts on Coulter, but it really brings out the worst in the trolls around here. Any way you might declare a moratorium?

Sean;

But more cash would come in using Coulter's name, face, and words over a lesser-known person on the right. Say, James Joyner.

Of course not. Celebrity , or infamy, regardless, always works better in terms of fund raising. Simple fact of life. And just in case you're missing the point here, let's replace Coulter with Dick Cheney. his comments, however authoritative, are not nearly as biting as Coulter's. which one do you think is going to draw more dollars when the democrats start whining about each?

My experience with Coulter's fans tells me no amount of vitriol out of her will turn them away. Because if they did they would be "giving in" to the Left. It smacks of tribalism with Ann as the blond chieftain.

I guess the fastest and best way to give you an answer to this point, would be to point to a comment that I put up in another thread.

Aw, comon, Pudge... jeez.

Might someone answer this directly, instead of throwing around substance free troll references,"It (the Edwardsian technique of whining for cash when big bad Mis Ann is "mean" to them)(i)s no different than when some self serving televangelist guilts his audience into buying a ticket through the pearly gates by sending him a payment for his limo. If not for him, they'd have to get up and drive to church,thereby clogging the roads with more drivers. As well with the Edwards suckers,they feel less obligated to go out and volunteer ("Hey, I sent a check") AND we get the extra added bonus of having all of that dem sympathetic cash going to an absolute hopeless loser. I'd say we have not a little debt of gratitude to one, Ann Coulter. She saved the day again."

I realize it's blatently obvious to some of you why that makes no sense, but please, won't you enlighten me ? (You don't have to agree that she saved the day,but can you at least admit that it is a useful byproduct -to her side- of her sparring with them, to cause tons of, otherwise going to a frontrunner, cash to go in the coffers of a guaranteed loser ?)

Sorry Bit,

That was stupid. I was just responding in kind to what I saw as a childish and non-responsive set of cliches tipped with a patronising warhead.

How is it any different to stereotype the supporters of a certain pundit, like Ann Coulter, than it is to do the same with any other group ? (Left wingnuts notwithstanding)

Sad, as if people who'd believe Edwards lies are thinking people. Based on your rational Michael Moore and Rosie O'Donnell are the GOPs best fund raisers. Really sad to see the Kennedy wing of the RINOs baying at the moon again.

That's an interesting angle, Tom. In a somewhat less than literal sense, perhaps they are. The question then is, what of it?

History, to my memory, seems replete with such examples. Was Jimmah Carter, for example, the best fundraiser that Ronald Reagan ever had? I suspect he was. Mike Dukakis, similarly, Tanker's helmet and all, I suspect was responsible for raising quite a bit of money for the republicans in his defeat, as well. Certainly, bill Clinton was a large fundraiser for republican interests as well, which led to 1994's Republican congressional takeover.

Howard Dean and his "I have a scream" speech doubtless raised a pile of cash for the Republicans, as well.

Conversely, Ronald Reagan was a focal point for fund raising by the democrats. As I have been Newt Gingrich, Bush 41 and Bush 43, similarly. And so on, and so on.

The point I'm making, of course, is this is the normal progression of things. Nothing unusual about it.

The logic of your post reminds me of those who say we shouldn't defend ourselves against terrorists because it will just create more terrorists. We need more people like Ann and we need to kill more terrorists. The "it will just make them mader" theme is puerile.
I guess we just should have ignored Hitler and Tojo too--after all, I'm sure all those bombs made a lot of Nazis and Japs pretty pissed back in the day.