Only liberals have the effrontery to write about books and authors they haven’t read. The handful of major newspapers that have acknowledged HUMAN EVENTS contributor Ann Coulter and her four New York Times bestsellers think that being objective is simply mentioning a conservative. One tactic they employ, particularly with conservative women, is filing articles in the Style section. Apparently, it gives liberal journalists a license to be catty. Journalists’ attacks on Ann Coulter range from absurd to irrelevant to downright vile. Recently Vanity Fair contributing editor James Wolcott commented on the physical attack on Miss Coulter at the University of Arizona. After narrowly avoiding the two thugs who came after her, Wolcott writes, “The skank can shift a** on a dime.” As program director of an organization that bears the name of a former Vanity Fair editor, it is particularly appalling that the once-respectable magazine tolerates such filth from one of its own. In response to liberal journalists’ underhandedness and sheer perfidy, millions of people flock to Ann Coulter’s website and line-up to buy her books. Being a faithful reader of her weekly column is like having a hip friend who can spot the trends and lets you in on the secret. Perusing How to Talk to a Liberal (If You Must) is like having access to her diary. Her new book is a compilation of some of her best columns with more than one-third of it new material, “Ann Coulter’s Private Stock.” Previously published columns appear in their entirety, free from word limits and uneasy editors afraid of the punch line. Columns on the Clinton impeachment, airport security post-9/11, the 2004 Democratic primary, among many others offer familiar laughs and envy from fellow writers. In the opening chapter, Coulter states, “Most of this book will explain how to argue with liberals by example, not exergesis.” For those of us who check the Drudge Report each week looking for a new Coulter column, How to Talk to a Liberal brings back some favorites and reminds readers of her gift for cutting to the heart of an issue. A personal favorite is “Capitol Punishment,” originally published in the April 1999 issue of George magazine. Nearly six years later, the column still rings true. It’s Sex and the City for women who actually like being women. Recalling a conversation with a woman on the inability of Washington men to ask women out on dates, Coulter writes, “I asked her if waiting for women to ask them for dates had worked for these guys. No, they just sit around with friends, year after year, waiting for their theory to play out. This is also how government programs are conceived and tested, so it makes perfect sense that only in Washington are males still waiting for action on the no-ask dating policy.” Ann Coulter’s knack for seeing into the future–or perhaps accurately observing the present–is remarkable. How to Talk to a Liberal gives readers several nuggets of wisdom on the graying feminist movement. In an article solicited by National Review, but not published, Coulter wrote about radical feminists’ anti-family, anti-male and, ultimately, anti-woman agenda. “It’s not just because bras burned while men fiddled that I hate the feminists. The real reason I loathe and detest feminists is that real feminists, the core group, the Great Thinkers of the movement, which I had until now dismissed as the invention of a frat boy on a dare, have been at the forefront in tearing down the very institutions that protect women: monogamy, marriage, chastity, and chivalry. And surveying the wreckage, the best they have to offer is: ‘Call me Ms.'” In the same article, which was written in 1991, Coulter foretold feminists’ blind support in 2001 of Andrea Yates, convicted murderer of her five children. She states, “Feminist legal theorists may credit themselves with this much: They have demonstrated that there is something worse than [child murder]. And that is privileged academics sitting in their comfortable offices thinking up Twinkie defense theories to exculpate infanticidal mothers as part of an ideology.” Few books can change a reader’s worldview. More often, they simply affirm what we already believe. Sadly, Good Housekeeping missed an opportunity when it asked Coulter to write an essay on a proverb in the fall of 2003. Deemed “too hot” for Good Housekeeping and not “personal” enough, the essay was scrapped. Just for comparison, this month’s issue of Good Housekeeping‘s “Getting Personal” section touts co-host of the “View” Joy Behar’s “rant on low-carb foods.” Ann Coulter’s essay on the proverb, “If you sup with the devil, use a long spoon” ends with this: “But it’s never too late to stop and begin taking steps toward God. It’s a lot easier to make that journey with companions who know the way.” Would that we all could have the political and moral clarity that seems to come so effortlessly from Ann Coulter. At the very least, she is our companion on the journey along the way.