The difference between a dangerous Conservative and a hawt one.

Michelle Malkin wrote a book, "In Defense of Internment", which outlines her belief that not only was the internment of people like my cousin fair, but that my cousin's efforts to speak out against the internment of Japanese Americans is compromising the security of America. Forget for a moment that she is Conservative; her rhetoric is absolutely dangerous, and quite frankly, she is an idiot. In fact, the media purposely preys on Malkin, just because she IS an idiot.

Then there's Monica Crowley. I barely agree with her commentary on the McLaughlin Group, but she's just so hawt, and non-offensive as a Conservative commentator. Most of the time she disagrees vehemently with Eleanor Clift, but generally she does so on basic Conservative dogma much as Pat Buchanan does. When she disagrees with Buchanan, it's because she's politically blinded, unable to get beyond politics. BUT, it must be said that unlike other firebrand conservatives, she does not go down the path of lunacy and dangerous rhetoric of that of Michelle Malkin. If I were to ever meet Monica and she was interested in me, I'd chase her in a heartbeat...who cares about her politics. She's not a dangerous firebrand, after all.

Now I know, many Conservatives think that Ann Coulter is hot...but I have bad news for them; she's just another blowhard idiot. Most of the stuff that she states as fact, are actually lies, and she cannot stand up to the light of critical review by Harry Smith in an interview on the Early Show. No way does Ann Coulter compare to Monica Crowley.