I don't remember Ann Coulter ever accusing innocent people of rape and refusing to apologize for it (on multiple occasions spanning 25 years), or seriously and furiously spewing racist bile. So with all due respect, don't be a moron. You don't like Ann Coulter, and that's great. But don't be one of these idiots who draws insane comparisons to horrendous historical figures for people who clearly are not the same, in any manner, as the horrendous historical figures they are being compared to. George W. Bush is not Hitler, the World Trade Center wasn't occupied by "little Eichmann's" and Ann Coulter is not a race-baiting bald-faced liar who strong arms people by leveraging her race.

"Political correctness is best challenged by people who understand that it has some good points. Using the word “faggot,” for instance, to describe a Presidential candidate is rightfully frowned upon because it is rude. It’s when political correctness demands more than mere politeness that it needs to be opposed."

Not calling people names is not political correctness. As you mentioned, it's "mere politeness". Political correctness is not being able, by threat of punishment, to say, or even think, a particular word because it is found to be offensive by one minority group. Wop, mick, honkey, whitey, white boy, cracker and redneck are all acceptable for use in the public square, but faggot, spic or, dare I even say it, the "N" word, are not. That is hypocrisy. That is political correctness. If you had been at all aware of some of the entertainment news headlines that were going around at the time when Coulter made the remark that so offended your sensibilities, you might understand the satirical and humorous undertones. You see, a prominent actor at the time was forced by his employers and pressure groups to seek rehabilitation because he called a co-worker "faggot" during the course of an argument. As it turns out, another one of his co-workers, completely unrelated to the argument, was homosexual, and so the remark apparently called into question his mental health. So when Ann Coulter responded to a question at the CPAC by saying "I would comment on John Edwards' campaign, but apparently you have to go to rehab if you say the word faggot", she was making what's sometimes called a social commentary, using irony to make light of a situation considered to be serious. Some people find statements that highlight some irony or hypocrisy in society (often done through analogy) to be humorous. In fact, some professional entertainers (called "comedians" within the entertainment field) base their entire careers on such commentary. There are even entire feature-length films based around the concept.

"And so that’s what this comes down to: a dispute between those who think that the best way to respond to name-calling is to respond in kind and those who would rather not become the thing they despise. In other words, nine-year-olds versus adults. "

Not at all, actually. Using that same analogy, what it really comes down to is some people being unable to recognize that it is not possible, nor desirable, nor necessary to have complex, deeply involved discussions about very serious issues with belligerent 9 year olds. Instead of inviting a belligerent 9 year old to a formal debate of academic standards and acting as if his belligerent 9 year old viewpoints are worthy of scholarly scrutiny, sometimes you just have to treat a 9 year old like a 9 year old. The fundamental reason for your rabid hate of Ann Coulter is a complete lack of understanding of her message and her methodology, and your irrational belief that we should treat illogical, hypocritical ideas, ideologies, and situations as if they are worthy of some higher level of debate when they in fact are not, all in the name of some perceived moral high ground.

"General rule for would-be satirists: if you constantly have to explain to people when you are joking, you’re probably doing something wrong."

That a satirist of a conservative political persuasion has to explain him or her self could be considered proof positive of the very object they are satirizing! Judging by your statements, I'm doubtful that you actually have a working knowledge of satire from any first-hand exposure to it, but in case you're ever exposed to it in all of its hideous vulgarity, it is often times defined by irreverence for, and breaking of, prevailing social taboos (defined in our present society as PC New-think orthodoxy). And, as you are illustrating quite humorously by your comments, it is often times rejected by people who hold the object being satirized as dogmatic social doctrine.

That was an obscenely ridiculous remark for Kennedy to make. Of course. Agreed.

…"Ann Coulter may be the most important conservative in America."….

If this is true, then conservatism has already gone the way of liberalism, the way of all flesh.

P.J. O'Rourke, Mark Steyn, and Jonah Goldberg use humor to "expose the liberals." Coulter's attempts at humor (1) are usually not funny and (2) impossible to distinguish from her serious points. General rule for would-be satirists: if you constantly have to explain to people when you are joking, you're probably doing something wrong.

The stuff about "big government" and my "ivory tower" and starving colonists is hilarious, but irrelevant and/or wrong (i.e., I don't have and ivory tower, and I don't support big government). But feel free to throw in whatever.

Here's an idea: Ann Coulter is a disgrace, and everyone should stop buying her books and reading her columns. Is this a good idea? Let the market decide. I don't understand why attacking someone's style offends you so much: If my style were to respond to your post by calling you names (or by absurdly demanding that you "get out of your ivory tower"), of course you would object. And it would be rank hypocrisy for me or one of my defenders to get all sniffy about "personal attacks" and how hvance isn't "attack[ing] [my] message with solutions" in the "marketplace of ideas."

Nonsense. She is the actualization of the caricature liberals have constructed of conseratives. Liberals are as justified in criticizing the conservative movement for paying her respect as conservatives are in criticizing liberals for being solicitious of Al Sharpton. Her books are exceptionally unfunny, and they certainly make otherwise respectable conservative opinions seem deranged.

Political correctness is best challenged by people who understand that it has some good points. Using the word "faggot," for instance, to describe a Presidential candidate is rightfully frowned upon because it is rude. It's when political correctness demands more than mere politeness that it needs to be opposed. Coulter opposes any decorum whatsoever, but whines about liberals calling conservative's names. After all, she'll say, they started it.

And so that's what this comes down to: a dispute between those who think that the best way to respond to name-calling is to respond in kind and those who would rather not become the thing they despise. In other words, nine-year-olds versus adults.