... and closely monitor and record all of her correspondances. They would also keep tabs on all of her fanatics. After all, imagine if someone said similar things about Bush, Cheney, DeLay, et al. We all know that is not how things work in today's America where environmentalists and Quakers are viewed as threats, but vitriol-spewing right-wing extremists are supposedly just misunderstood. And as much as I like the make-them-take-a-stand suggestion, that will also only work in a world where politicians are honest and genuinely care about the common folk. In reality, politicians are skilled at avoidance. In this case, something like the following scenarios would be more likely:

1. [to a republican ideologue]

Q: Do you agree with Coulter?

A: I respect Rep. Murtha and obviously I wouldn't wish violence against anyone, but I think the humorless liberals and the liberal media are blowing this way out of proportion. It wasn't in the best of taste, but those who know her know that she is passionate and can sometimes get carried away with respect to her unusual sense of humor.

Q: So you're condoning this threat?

A: I am not condoning threats, especially non-existent ones. I am condoning freedom of speech rather than political correctness.

And so on.

2. [to a media outlet]

Q: Aren't you afraid you will be seen as agreeing with her positions by giving her air time?

A: Her opinions are not ours, but like everyone she has the right to express them.

Q: Everyone? So we can expect to see Michael Moore on your show in the future?

A: Yes [which will, of course, be an outright lie].

And so on.

However it plays out, the republogues will avoid getting nailed down and try to use the opportunity to make points against liberals. When they push for yes/no votes, they are just as interested in democratic obfuscations as they are the actual vote- they make for great sound bites to use as chum for ignoramuses. They play the game well and make sure their sound bites contain all the accepted buzz phrases and talking points.

Coulter is a sideshow for these people. She's someone they can bring on periodically for brief periods of time. After she's done her seagull schtick [swoops in, makes a bunch of noise, craps all over everything, and leaves], the less expressive right-wingers all of a sudden look safe and mainstream. I agree with Karen M. The best thing progressives can do is point Coulter out more often by making passing- rather than obsessive- references to her more outrageous comments. Again, in a perfect world the democrats would use one of her more egregious appearances [like right now] to GENTLY make her more obvious [a sadly humorous approach?]. They'd make sure pictures of her with various republogue leaders were available and encourage the press to display and play her quotes while displaying these pictures. Hopefully, this would reach the people that can be influenced- the undecided moderates and true conservatives. There's no need to reach the liberals, and no point in trying to reach her followers or any of the right-wingers. If Coulter wasn't available, they'd find some other living/breathing absurdity to give voice to their fears and ignorance. Of course, this isn't a perfect world, so who could do this? The democrats and the MSM? I seriously doubt it. And it would probably take more polish and a bigger reach than most blogs have.

I hope unbeliever will forgive me for not seeing "sheer brilliance" here, but instead unrestrained grasping. It would be nice if it were possible to raise the bar for certain definitions. Words like "genius" and "mastermind" should be reserved for people like Newton and Einstein and their counterparts in other fields. It somehow cheapens their meaning when they are casually used in reference to people with at best above-average capabilities, but who make up for their lack of outstanding ability by having the-end-justifies-the-means mentalities. There could be many more "geniuses" by the current definition if so many people were not constrained by moral standards. Take Rove for example. Sure, he understands the nuances of politics better than most, but certainly no better than a lot of people. The difference is he is willing to throw ethics out the window to get what he wants. An even less palatable example is Coulter with her quest for riches and attention by serving as a demagogue to the right wing. And the worst example is referring to people who convince other people to become walking bombs for the killing of innocents as "masterminds." None of this isn't brilliance or genius! It's the amoral preying on the ignorant at the expense of the rest of us.

Without being able to observe the body language and hear the vocal intonations that typically accompany the presentation of an idea, it can be difficult to separate emphasis from aggression from passion, etc. [ e.g., when reading posts on-line]. Your interpretation of my post as aggressive is incorrect, unbeliever.