I have to wonder why neither option occurred to the editor?

"... who'll be lauded as national heroes right up until the Democrats pack up and leave town on Friday, whereupon they'll revert to their natural state of being fascist, racist pigs."

Any professional writer would catch this as ambiguous - leaving the reader to interpret who turns into pigs.

Other editorial comments did make them look slow witted and biased, though. I think Coulter, with whom I disagree, did a sloppy job here. It's not the content that got her kicked, it's the writing.

Try to keep up.

This whole column reminded me of James Watt's "black, two Jews, and a cripple" remark from before a bunch of you were born. Thing is, that comment was actually kind of funny. Offensive out the wazzoo, but funny. You can see the irony.

Coulter, though, doesn't seem to really understand what irony is. Definition 2 from Webster's:

"A sort of humor, ridicule, or light sarcasm, which adopts a mode of speech the meaning of which is contrary to the literal sense of the words."

Is she implying that Dem women aren't unwashed hippies? Is she implying that the Dems and the police have a good relationship? No. The place I can see any true irony is where she's comparing GOP women to Dem women, saying that GOP women are better looking than the Dems. There, though, the contrast breaks down when she starts into the hippie part.

USA Today said "I don't get it." I have to agree. She's trying way, way too hard. And the commenters screaming "Michael Moore!" need to put down the straw man and walk away.

I grant the column in question is arguably not her best effort... However, The more important issue here is not the quaility of Coulter's column, or lack of it. Rather, the bias within Useless Toady.

I will be watching with some interest to see if Jonah Goldberg, her replacement, comes off a bit more reined in than usual. I would take that as an indication of the basis of Gannet's objections to Coulter.