HI...
I'm new here and I was wondering about the 'limits' of commentary. In most media, public figures are seen differently than others, in that one may rail more
personally and attack them AS public figures (this is not to say using vile language or such). How would that apply to the following column...
Anne Coulter, a la mode...
A serving of hot and very cross buns.
So there you have it. The big, bad, bully once again shown to be the coward… the wimp… the spineless namby-pamby who isn't prepared to stand up to an incident of comic hazing lifted straight out of that seventies decade. Yes, you could say that Anne Coulter has won the uh, 'no-balls prize'...running away...
So there she is, the motor-mouthed centerfold for "Let's get past the prelims and KILL everybody who disagrees with us" Magazine, defiling some lectern in Arizona, when she looks to her left, abject terror spreading across her usually smug countenance.
Suddenly, she's running for dear life from - wait for it - a couple of guys with pies!! That's right - she's been 'attacked' by 'Al PIEda', a political gag harkening back to the 1970's, when various politicians and famous faces were publically humiliated by groups who could not resist eclair-ifying their positions.
Now given her history of histrionic hatred for what the late Vice-President Spiro T. Agnew called "nattering nabobs of negativity", (i.e. liberals and pretty much everyone else) One might, (and I certainly would) expect her to stand firm as Mount Rushmore, so as to embarrass her foes with her strength, her fortitude, her pluck… We might have expected that this vituperious vixen, who has thrown down gauntlets at a rate that would have emptied the glove department at Saks in minutes, might have stood up to such nominal abuse with style and grace.
But no. This is the real world where Ms. Coulter is a prattling mouth, with no actual guts, worthy of no actual glory. She flailed off into the darkness like... like... a GIRL.