Ann Coulter provides the actual editorial comments from the clueless USA Today editor who spiked her column.

“Apparently," said Coulter, "USA Today doesn’t like my ‘tone,’ humor, sarcasm, etc. etc., which raises the intriguing question of why they hired me to write for them in the first place. Perhaps they thought they were getting Catherine Coulter.”

In a sort of package deal, USA Today plans to have Michael Moore offer commentary at the Republican National Convention next month. “My guess is they will ‘get’ his humor” said Coulter.

Meghan Keane has given a similar treatment to Bill Clinton's speech last night.

Certainly no great column and some points were not very well made or clearly written. But obviously from the 'editorial' comments the US News editor is completely and utterly clueless.

I really miss the smart, funny, iconoclastic libertarian Ann Coulter. She seems to have metamorphosed into a vicious, deceitful, partisan a-hole. She's in no position to complain about other people using hyperbolic name calling. The editor is stupid, but I'll take stupid over vicious and deceitful any day.

I don't recall Ann ever being a libertarian, Andrew. She was always a conservative, at least for as long as I've been aware of her (since at least '98).

PJ O'Rourke:
"Ann Coulter, on the cover of Treason, has the look of a soon-to-be-ex wife who has just finished shouting."

I just read her column. The USA Today editor was right--it is not funny. They were right to kill the column. Coulter's defense is also lame--"What did you think you were getting when you hired me?" A good writer, obviously. But that's not what they got.

Coulter should be repudiated by Republicans (just as Moore should be repudiated by Democrats). Her commentary is awful and serves no real purpose.

But her biggest problem is that she is stuck in a spiral descent--she thinks she has to keep topping herself by getting more and more extreme. She just looks stupid. USA Today rejected her for the right reasons.

I'm going solely by her appearances on Bill Mahr's late lamented show (the name of which I shall remember after I hit 'post'). She was certainly in the libertarian half of the lib-statist/left-right plane, though now I think of it she was certainly small 'l' libertarian capital 'c' Conservative even then. Still, it's a little sad to see someone so smart and articulate choose to spend her talents on such pointless vicious partisanship.

I find it interesting to read some of the vicious criticism here about Ann Coulter when people like Frank Rich, Robert Scheer, Ted Rall, Maureen Dowd, the whole NY Times editorial page, the Los Angeles Times....the list goes on for quite a while....smear and defame people right of center every day. True, she is falling off her normally high standard of wit but after some of the attacks I have seen on her, it's hard to completely disagree with her. I wonder if USA Today will apply the same standard to Moore? I bet not.

Andrew, I think the name you're struggling for is "Politically Incorrect," which is pretty ironic considering that there were few more politically correct shows on television that Bill Maher's.

I wish we had ten more of Ann, but I have to ask what standards is she supposed to hold to? If only one in ten of her columns were worth reading I'd be praising her, but the fact is most of her work is outstanding... because not only is it witty, but it's based on facts.

Nobody gets it right all the time. Her columns represent the outrage felt by many people and if she can be humorous at the same time... wow, that is a talent.

Often that outrage comes out outrageous... killing all muslims or converting them to christianity seems a bit extreme to me, but at the same time this dark humor is funny, considering what this nation experience on September 11th, because sometimes outrage must be vented.

Have any of you ever said something you didn't quite mean because you were angry? But the fact is we need to hold on to the anger we had right after 9-11 because we're going to need it to see us through this thing even if it takes a generation.

As far as her USA column that got tossed... It wasn't her best work, but I'll keep reading.

ken-Have any of you ever said something you didn't quite mean because you were angry? But the fact is we need to hold on to the anger we had right after 9-11 because we're going to need it to see us through this thing even if it takes a generation.

You're first sentence is an argument against anger, and your second sentence is a claim that it's a good thing. Better calm resolve to deal with the real problem than passionate action aimed at what may or may not be the problem.

The other thing that's wrong with the bit I quoted is that it implies that Coulter's hatred of Democrats is somehow related to winning the war with extremist Islam. I realize that there are people on the right who are pushing that idea, but they are confused at best and calculating liars at worst. There is a long hard slog ahead, and trying to turn the conflict to partisan advantage damages the bipartisanship required to sustain that slog. It's one thing to believe GWB would be more effective in fighting Al Qaeda than JK, or that certain Dems are slowing down progress against the enemy. It's another matter entirely to act as if JK is effectively in league with Al Qaeda. Such rhetoric is damaging to national unity and as such makes it harder for whoever is elected to take effective action against the enemy.

Of course, this being the blogosphere that kind of distinction is lost on most people, but as we've already established, I'm a Taliban sock puppet.

You know why I love Ann Coulter? I mean, besides the fact that she's great in the sack? Because when she wants to take you down, she's as direct as a punch in the nose. What I can't stand about the Moorons of the left is the sneaky insinuating Wormtongue weaseling style of their hostility. (Except maybe for Al Franken, who's refreshingly direct.)

I'm OK with a broadsword cut to the head, delivered with a fiendish yell. At least you know who your enemies are and what exactly they want to do to you. Better that then the stiletto in the back which Ann's ideological opposites use.