Anne Coulter is kind of like the voice of my "id" - she says the things I'd like to say but I'm too nice :-)

That being said, I think she's outrageous because it gets her attention, book sales, etc. Although I agree with a whole lot of what she has to say, I totally see your point in removing her from your blogroll

Bill, I hear you...for me, it's a decision based on style over substance, because I'm getting "substance" in spades from other similar but less "outrageous" sources.

Eric, a good point. However, I've kept a link to Ms. Coulter's site because every once in a while, we all need a fresh blast of pure oxygen in the form of political truth.

I don't necessarily endorse all that she writes, and I know that she is preaching to the converted. Those who don't already believe would be unlikely to be converted by her sometimes harsh message.

Cheers.

We already have lots and lots of opportunities to read material that is toned down, homogenized, with the sharp edges sanded down. With Ann Coulter, you can get your red meat.

In sum, I like her, because reading her is a bracing, and clarifying experience.

Sometimes we need to really read our comments before posting. The "cheers" goes after the last sentence.

Cheers again.

Jack, thanks for weighing in. In hindsight, I was probably a little overly-dramatic when I wrote that I wasn't interested in what she has to say. I just don't intend to imbibe on a regular basis.

What I will do is let the blogging process work its magic, and use folks like you and a few others as filters to let me know when there's something of particular interest over at Ms. Coulter's place. That, after all, is one of the reasons blogging is the best invention since sliced bread.

Strange that you posted this today. I don't run in the same political circles as you, and I only had the opportunity to read Ms Coulter for the first time yesterday.

And, my response was essentially the same as yours but for different reasons. I am not interested in following someone who I disagree with politically and whose chief argumentative tool seems to be to mock other points of view.

I don't confine my reading to people that I agree with, but I do avoid people that I both disagree wtih, and who are not interested in engaging in a dialogue with different points of view.

Hey, Dan...thanks for dropping by, mate.

Just curious. Is your comment about "different political circles" tied simply to the fact that we're in different hemispheres, or is it more specifically directed to things like our possibly different views on the war in Iraq, etc?

I haven't agreed with everything I've read on signposts, but I've never felt there was anything but openness to discussing the issues and -- if appropriate -- just agreeing to disagree. That doesn't have to be a test of fellowship, in my mind (to put it into "churchy" terms). I appreciate that about you guys.

I like to encourage valid dialogue of all points of view because I'm a liberal who believes in respecting the opinions of others. Ann, is not a conservative with logical arguments or coherant statements, rather, she is a self-righteous harpie who lumps all liberals together as one large negative stereotype. I will however respect her right to express her opinions on various issues; I just wish she would stop passing them off as actual facts.

Tell us what you really think, Liz! ;-)