You’ll note that I do not often mention Ann Coulter on this site, partly because it’d be too easy to criticize her, partly because it would be responding to unrepentant liberal-baiting, partly because it would be giving her even the smallest morsel of legitimacy, and partly because my mom told me never to say bad things about crazy people. Of the ten times I’ve mentioned her name here (out of about 1850 posts), only one post was actually about Coulter, only one other had more than one sentence on her, and the rest were either lists of right-wingers or were indirect references. I honestly consider her, without exaggeration, to be part of the lunatic fringe, not worth paying attention to.

But here’s a thing: people seem intent on granting parity. By that, I mean that there is the odd tendency to equate everyone on one side of the political divide to someone on the other. The presumption is that both sides are equal, and everyone has an equivalent counterpart. Ann Coulter’s is often stated as being Al Franken. Although, with the relatively lower number of high-profile left-wing pundits, Al Franken is usually considered the equivalent to Rush Limbaugh and Bill O’Reilly as well. That alone should begin to demonstrate the inherent unbalanced nature of representation of both sides in the media.

Parity like this does not exist. Just because Franken and Coulter happen to be easily recognizable as firebrands for either side does not make them equivalent. Franken’s speaking is not even on the same scale as Coulter’s when it comes to sheer hatred and invective. And Franken, like him or not, is a hell of a lot more careful of facts than is Coulter, and is far more willing to publicly concede error. In tone, language, and emotional quality, the two could hardly be more different. And yet somehow they’re considered in the media as being equally shrill and objectionable.

But here’s the kicker: Ann Coulter is an out-and-out loon. I have no doubt that there is someone on the liberal side just as hateful, just as insane, just as offensive as she is. But that kind of a person could never become as popular, as well-liked and accepted, or nearly as often defended in the liberal world as Ann Coulter is on the right.

Most recently, Coulter’s new book, Godless: The Church of Liberalism, and her media tour to promote that book, has stirred up all kinds of ill will. In it, she portrays liberalism as the “religion” of America, claims that actual religions like Christianity and Judaism are “prohibited by law,” that evolution is “bogus science,” and starts getting outrageous from there. But what she has been most criticized for lately is her attack on the 9/11 widows, saying of the “self-obsessed women,”

These broads are millionaires, lionized on TV and in articles about them, reveling in their status as celebrities and stalked by grief-arazzis. I’ve never seen people enjoying their husbands’ deaths so much.

Now, I don’t think I’m going too far in saying that Coulter is being a loon. Massively and unacceptably offensive. And think about it: if the 9/11 widows had instead become flag-bearers and cheerleaders of the Bush administration, and those same words were spoken by Al Franken, do you think liberals would defend him?

Not for a freakin’ microsecond. I myself would be horrified to have someone as dependably repugnant as Coulter on my side of the issue, and would not hesitate to attack such a person were they to gain any sort of recognition as a spokesperson for progressives.

But somehow, some conservatives have little trouble either quietly accepting Coulter, or actively coming out in defense of her. True, some conservatives have spoken out against her, but most of those have been equivocal. Even though Bill O’Reilly said that Coulter “bombed,” he couched it in criticism of his own against the 9/11 widows, and compared Coulter favorably to Al Franken, claiming that while Franken’s lies are easy to spot, Coulter “never lies.” Coulter has been defended and even praised by people on the right like David Horowitz, Rush Limbaugh, Mary Matalin, and others. Even Lou Dobbs went easy on her–and he himself attempted to draw a left-right parity in comparing her with Michael Moore (which I’m sure from the conservative side must be a horrific insult, but in real terms is again highly inaccurate in favor of Coulter), to which Coulter responded by comparing herself with Mark Twain and H. L. Mencken.

Sometimes there is no parity. It is wholly possible and very real that one side of the political spectrum can have a far greater number of oafish louts and liars, that one side of the divide can be accepting of far more people guilty of vulgar and repulsive behavior which is massively disproportionate to what the other side will withstand within their own ranks.

And Coulter is an excellent example of this.