"Ann Coulter is a controversial figure to be sure..." That is, in my opinion, a serious understatement. Coulter is a lightning rod, and makes a very nice living as a lightning rod.

In my opinion (again), the fact that it is Coulter who has published a truthful article about the Davis case hurts rather than helps, because she has severely damaged her own credibility by making outrageous statements at almost every given opportunity. Therefore, the other side need only say "look, Ann Coulter says Davis is guilty," and that is enough (for many people) to prove the opposite.

My point may be summed up as follows: With friends like Ann Coulter, who needs enemies?

The most conspicuous thing about notablogger's comment is that it doesn't contribute anything at all substantive to the discussion. What notablogger said has nothing to do with the issue itself. It's just an ad hominem remark, and not a particularly witty one either. Even by the most liberal standards his comment shouldn't be judged welcome. It's just trolling.

But then, I suppose, much of that could be said of my responsive comment here... not that that makes what I said any less true.

I think notablogger makes a point worth discussing. The particular Coulter column is correct and an important correction to the very heavily biased press coverage this case has received. For the press to continue to report Davis's PR machine's spin instead of the court findings is a disgrace.

On the other hand, Coulter does say a lot of cringe-inducing things. I don't agree with notablogger that the article hurts rather than helps because of that association, but I understand where she is coming from.

Sorry, but I disagree. The strength of Coulter's arguments has nothing to do with what she has elsewhere said. The merits of her current claims can be assessed no more intelligently with reference to anything else she has said than without. It wouldn't matter if she were retarded, clinically insane, or a person who finds "The Family Circus" funny (in which case she would be profoundly insane albeit not clinically so). If she'd been 180 degrees wrong about everything else she's ever said in her entire life, it would have no bearing on whether she's right about this. Everything she's saying, we can check for ourselves.

My only point is this: It is regrettable that a lightning rod like Coulter seems to be the only one reporting the facts of the Davis case. I disagree with williamsa, in that the credibility of the speaker is a critical component of the value attributed to the speaker's comments by others. For example, I deal with several attorneys who, based on their past conduct, are given little credibility by the courts in which they appear. This makes it very difficult for these attorneys to make a good point when they have one to make.

Kent also made my point much better than I apparently did: the "cringe-worthy" statements in Coulter's article serve only to further diminish the credibility of her reporting on this case.