It really doesn't take as long as it has with Ann Coulter. Lesser people would have given in to the obvious long before.
Having uttered the gender identity slur she did, was not intended as hateful, or even remotely disrespectful. Ann Coulter's form of writing is one in which she takes the same thought process a liberal would take (an inductive logic), but twists it to the ultra conservative side in order to make it appear that much more absurd. Until very recently she has maintained that meaning through metaphor, albeit acerbic at times.
Recently she has stopped using the explanation to allow the reader, or listener to deduce the inductive punchline on their own, and has resorted to far shorter versions. One liners, that she understands and finds amazingly clever are, to the observer, placing the focus of the punchline on the comic and showing an aggravation and impatience, or perhaps a far greater seeded, highly restrained anger. Only a true devoted person could feel that anger, but it is not the right thing to show at a time when doing so can be so quickly captured and used, literally in context (since she has neglected using the potential of the reader or listener's perspective) from what she says or writes.
Being witty and vastly intelligent as the attorney who writes sarcasm, is not the same thing as being the crusading savior of the realm. To be understood better she needs to go back to her intellectual writing and leave the reactionary phrases to the bloggers, the liberals and the politicians who hardly ever run for office.
The 'obvious', in this instance is the inductively perceived concept or image of the people who have lived inductively, and find nothing at all wrong with applying a form of logic that itself, is illogical.
Coulter 'obviously' finds those people highly transparent and is amazed every time she writes, at what she is writing about, which accounts for how her article structure is so closely mimicked from piece to piece.
There are very few ways to align a reasonably concise article that are right. There are many ways to create one that is wrong.
But to assume that since she continues to write and speak in the same 'right' structure, that she should be absolved for having become disgusted with her inability to feel like she makes a difference: is to make the inductive logic connection, that should not be made.
We all slip, even under the most trying of times, but it takes a stronger set of brakes to stop an emotional roller coaster, especially one painted red, white and blue.
Just being aware that more brakes are needed is a good thing. Hopefully Ann will catch wind of the suggestion and in turn, know that pomp can return and she is not alone.
Her poor choice of phrase, one that employed an eluded stereotype, to make a point could only have been caused by frustration or disappointment at being unable to act out one's devotion.
Devotion to a country is patriotism itself. It is what President Bush asked the people to show way back when, he requested people put country above self.
Something greater than you is a problem many people have accepting. Did you ever wonder about the logic behind that issue?
If you cannot accept that anything is greater than you, you are stating you are the world's greatest, and that simply cannot be true except for perhaps one individual (unless it reaches 1, the greatest has not been achieved) which means a person who cannot accept something could be greater than them is actually delusional.
One's relationship, one's family, one's children, one's community, one's state, one's country: are all things that are greater than the sum of their parts and you are just one part.
There are consequences of having an awareness that one's concept of reality is somehow flawed. But it is far better to just have to put on the brakes than to have to live like most and not know where the brake pedal is.
Most people would have succumbed far earlier.