Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Screed: With Treason, Ann Coulter once again defines a new low in America's political debate
Spinsanity ^ | july 2, 2003 | Brendan Nyhan

Posted on 07/02/2003 4:50:57 PM PDT by The Raven

With her new book Treason: Liberal Treachery from the Cold War to the War on Terrorism, syndicated pundit Ann Coulter has driven the national discourse to a new low. No longer content to merely smear liberals and the media with sweeping generalizations and fraudulent evidence, she has now upped the ante, accusing the entire Democratic Party as well as liberals and leftists nationwide of treason, a crime of disloyalty against the United States. But, as in her syndicated columns (many of which are adapted in the book) and her previous book Slander: Liberal Lies Against the American Right, Coulter's case relies in large part on irrational rhetoric and pervasive factual errors and deceptions. Regardless of your opinions about Democrats, liberals or the left, her work should not be taken at face value.

Context: The syndicated column and Slander

As we documented back in July 2001, Coulter's writing is not just inflammatory but blatantly irrational. For years, she has infused her syndicated columns with cheap shots and asides directed at targets like President Bill Clinton, the American Civil Liberties Union and Hustler publisher Larry Flynt (among many others). Liberals are indiscriminately denounced as a group as "terrorists" or a "cult" who "hate democracy." Slander, her bestseller from last year, quickly became notorious for its errors and distortions of the facts, which we detailed in our examination of the book. From deceptive footnotes to mischaracterized quotes to outright lies, Coulter broke all standards of reasonable political debate in her quest to paint a picture of a media that is unambiguously hostile to conservatives.

Jargon: How Coulter blurs distinctions in her rhetoric

In Treason, similar techniques are employed with aplomb. Consider her use of language. The accusation of treason is, of course, one of the most grave that can be made against a citizen of any country. Article III of the United States Constitution specifies that "Treason against the United States, shall consist only in levying war against them, or in adhering to their enemies, giving them aid and comfort."

In latching onto a powerful word with a specific legal meaning and casually leveling the charge as a blanket accusation against a wide array of people (as she did with slander, which is a defamatory verbal statement), Coulter is attempting to smear virtually anyone who disagrees with her views on foreign policy as treasonous. "Liberals have a preternatural gift for striking a position on the side of treason," she writes on the first page of the book. "Whenever the nation is under attack, from within or without, liberals side with the enemy. This is their essence." (p. 1)

At times, Coulter portrays liberals and the left as engaged in a grand conspiracy to destroy the United States:

While undermining victory in the Cold War, liberals dedicated themselves to mainstreaming Communist ideals at home... Betraying the manifest national defense objectives of the country is only part of the left's treasonous scheme. They aim to destroy America from the inside with their relentless attacks on morality and the truth. (p. 289) At others, she instead insinuates that disagreeing with her about US policy toward various hostile foreign countries or taking any action that could be construed as favorable to those countries' interests is equivalent to treasonous support for those countries. Here are two classic examples of this tactic:

As a rule of thumb, Democrats opposed anything opposed by their cherished Soviet Union. The Soviet Union did not like the idea of a militarily strong America. Neither did the Democrats! (p. 171) Democrats always had mysterious objections and secret "better" ways, which they would never tell us. Then they would vote whichever way would best advance Communist interests. (p. 177) In the end, Coulter doesn't care about such distinctions, and goes so far as to specifically reject any distinction based on motive in judging her standard of treason:

Whether they are defending the Soviet Union or bleating for Saddam Hussein, liberals are always against America. They are either traitors or idiots, and on the matter of America's self-preservation, the difference is irrelevant. Fifty years of treason hasn't slowed them down. (p. 16) Of course, Coulter must engage in a complicated set of rhetorical tricks to accuse liberals of "fifty years of treason" (in a 2001 column, it was only "[t]wenty years of treason" - did inflation set in?). The book is primarily focused on the controversy over real and alleged Soviet espionage in the post-World War II era. We can certainly stipulate that Soviet agents who worked covertly inside the United States government did commit treason. But Coulter broadens the term to include virtually every liberal, leftist, Democrat or member of the media, in each case obscuring distinctions between individuals and stereotyping the entire group.

(Excerpt) Read more at spinsanity.org ...


TOPICS: Culture/Society; Editorial; Government; Politics/Elections
KEYWORDS: anncoulter; anncoulterbashing; bookreview; joestalin; josephmccarthy; liberals; mccarthywasright; michaeldobbs; reddiaperbabyalert; reddiaperrash; reddupes; simpleminds; stalinsusefulidiots; treason; unclejoe; waaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-5051-100101-150151-179 next last

1 posted on 07/02/2003 4:50:58 PM PDT by The Raven
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: The Raven
The TRUTH hurts!
2 posted on 07/02/2003 4:53:11 PM PDT by BIGZ
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: The Raven
I read Treason from cover to cover this week. It rocks. Period.

The Democrats have every reason to be scared sh!tless of a telegenic babe who calls a spade a spade.

3 posted on 07/02/2003 4:58:13 PM PDT by NativeNewYorker (Freepin' Jew Boy)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: The Raven
You people all notice that he levels unsubstantiated charges against her that the Ann Coulter who routinely verbally body slams any liberal through logic, reasoning and cutting wit, when composing her book uncharacteristically becomes "irrational".

Nothing but platitudes and whining. "Nothing" also describes the contents of their case against her.
4 posted on 07/02/2003 5:00:06 PM PDT by Dr Warmoose
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: The Raven
.......quickly became notorious for its errors and distortions of the facts, which we detailed in our examination of the book.

As I recall, SpinCity's review of "Slander" was notorious for its errors and distortions of facts (commonly called lies). Brendan is at it again with "Treason".

Spin-Whatever is certainly aptly named.

5 posted on 07/02/2003 5:01:47 PM PDT by jimtorr
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: NativeNewYorker
I read Treason from cover to cover this week. It rocks.

I haven't purchased her book. Slander started off like gangbusters, and towards the end it looked like she ran out of steam, was under a deadline, or just had to fill up fifty more pages with something. I hope that this isn't the case in Treason.

6 posted on 07/02/2003 5:02:02 PM PDT by Dr Warmoose
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: The Raven
All of the foot note material is very painful.
7 posted on 07/02/2003 5:02:25 PM PDT by Lion Den Dan
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: The Raven
If the writer and the dems can't stand the heat let them get the heck out of the kitchen!!!!
8 posted on 07/02/2003 5:03:32 PM PDT by cubreporter
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Dr Warmoose
For someone with a sick mind, 2 + 2 = 4 is "irrational" and beyond their ability to understand.
9 posted on 07/02/2003 5:03:44 PM PDT by Hunble
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: Dr Warmoose
Ann Coulter ......... when composing her book uncharacteristically becomes "irrational".

Remember, now, that in the "liberal" world view, anybody who disagrees with the party line is by definition irrational.

10 posted on 07/02/2003 5:04:35 PM PDT by jimtorr
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: Dr Warmoose
Well, it ain't The Rise and Fall of the Third Reich.

It is uneven, and reads as if it were dashed off on deadline, yes.

For well-informed FReepers, there's not much new material.

But as a popular broadside aimed at a clueless public, it is fine.

11 posted on 07/02/2003 5:05:32 PM PDT by NativeNewYorker (Freepin' Jew Boy)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: The Raven
These college Democrats crack me up.
You can almost see this one crying in anger like a six year-old as he tries to compose his little "review" of Ann's thoroughly documented book.
12 posted on 07/02/2003 5:06:00 PM PDT by Lancey Howard
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: The Raven
Barf alert??
13 posted on 07/02/2003 5:06:28 PM PDT by <1/1,000,000th% (And where are the pictures??)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Dr Warmoose
In a radio interview I heard recently, Ann asked that a caller be allowed to continue his rant as it was a perfect example of the tactics liberals use. They don't dispute the facts, they attack the "bearer" of the facts. Ann mentioned that is one of the things her book talks about.

I just bought my copy at B&N, I couldn't resist buying a copy after all I've heard about it on FR.
14 posted on 07/02/2003 5:07:42 PM PDT by TheDon ( It is as difficult to provoke the United States as it is to survive its eventual and tardy response)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: The Raven
Truth hurts
Truth scars
Truth wounds and mars
Any heart not tough
Or strong enough
Take a lot of pain
Take a lot of pain
Truth is like a cloud
And it holds a lot of rain
Truth hurts
Oooh, truth hurts.


You're wrong, I know
Baby, what's so
I know a thing or two
Ooo honey, I learned from you
I really learned a lot
I really learned a lot
Truth is like a stove
It burns you when it's hot
Truth hurts, (ooooo), truth hurts

15 posted on 07/02/2003 5:10:01 PM PDT by Right Wing Professor
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: The Raven
Ah Annie
That's my girl!!!
16 posted on 07/02/2003 5:10:52 PM PDT by hatfieldmccoy (Just a country boy with an agenda :)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: The Raven
Typical slam of a conservative political argument... they can't deny the facts so they resort to name-calling and unsubstantiated accusations against the author.

It was entirely to be expected :-)
17 posted on 07/02/2003 5:11:53 PM PDT by Tamzee (Peace is the prerogative of the victorious, not the vanquished.... Churchill)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: The Raven
Wow, Ann really hit a never. She must have struck the truth.
18 posted on 07/02/2003 5:12:38 PM PDT by ChadGore (Piss off a liberal: Hire Someone.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: The Raven
Gee, I wonder what as the liberals so mad? Could it be ...

Top 100 Bestsellers
Updated Hourly

1. Harry Potter and the Order of the Phoenix (Book 5)
by J. K. Rowling, Mary GrandPré (Illustrator)
Price: $17.99 You Save: $12.00 (40%) Used & new from $12.00
2. East of Eden (Oprah's Book Club)
by John Steinbeck
Price: $9.60 You Save: $6.40 (40%) Used & new from $8.15
3. The Da Vinci Code
by Dan Brown
Price: $14.97 You Save: $9.98 (40%) Used & new from $11.99
4. Treason
by Ann Coulter
Price: $18.87 You Save: $8.08 (30%) Used & new from $14.85
5. The South Beach Diet
by Arthur Agatston (Author)
Price: $14.97 You Save: $9.98 (40%) Used & new from $12.95
6. The Essential 55
by Ron Clark
Price: $13.97 You Save: $5.98 (30%) Used & new from $12.95
7. The Kennedy Curse
by Edward Klein (Author)
Price: $20.97 You Save: $8.98 (30%)
8. Harry Potter Paperback Boxed Set (Books 1-4)
by J. K. Rowling, Mary GrandPré (Illustrator)
Price: $21.67 You Save: $9.29 (30%) Used & new from $18.90
9. Living History
by Hillary Clinton (Author)
Price: $16.80 You Save: $11.20 (40%) Used & new from $14.45

19 posted on 07/02/2003 5:15:38 PM PDT by Bubba_Leroy
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

Treason has been beating Hitlary's Lying History since before Treason started shipping.
20 posted on 07/02/2003 5:17:48 PM PDT by Bubba_Leroy
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 19 | View Replies]

To: ChadGore
Nah... Ann is atrocious when it comes to fact checking. Before you guys get all in a tiff about this guy shredding Ann, please note that he did the same thing to Michael Moore. He was even more critical of Michael Moore's disregard of the truth to prove a point.

Ann Coulter blatantly missuses the footnote. It's a fact. Her general argument is valid, but she lets herself get carried by excess. If a person writes an op ed in the times, she says "The Times says...". It is intellectually dishonest of her, and she knows it, but she is more interested in proving her point than being scrupulous with sourcing and footnoting. She is the Michael Moore of the Right.

21 posted on 07/02/2003 5:18:19 PM PDT by dogbyte12
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 18 | View Replies]

To: The Raven
I'm tempted to Fisk this silly spinsanity screed, but the effort would be wasted.

He seems to be bent on proving Ann's point.

22 posted on 07/02/2003 5:19:13 PM PDT by absalom01
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: The Raven
Throughout the book, she attributes outside book reviews, magazine profiles and op-eds to media outlets as if they were staff-written news reports, feeding the perception of bias on the part of these institutions. These include a New York Times Week in Review article by historian Richard Gid Powers cited as "According to the Times..." (p. 6);

Oh, this example just shatters Ann's credibility. We all know that the NYT Week in Review has a wide variety of opinion from right to left, and this citation just happened to be from a left wing historian.

The other examples of "factual errors" the writer cites are like this. Mainly technical errors that do not detract from the essential truth that Ann conveys.

23 posted on 07/02/2003 5:29:50 PM PDT by Plutarch
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: The Raven
"Screed: With Treason, Ann Coulter once again defines a new low in America's political debate"

So the unvarnished TRUTH is now deemed a new low in America's political debate.

24 posted on 07/02/2003 5:46:20 PM PDT by Dacus943
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: The Raven
For years, she has infused her syndicated columns with cheap shots and asides directed at targets like President Bill Clinton, the American Civil Liberties Union and Hustler publisher Larry Flynt

That the author sees this as a bad thing is all you need to know about him.

25 posted on 07/02/2003 5:51:51 PM PDT by JennysCool
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: The Raven
At times, Coulter portrays liberals and the left as engaged in a grand conspiracy to destroy the United States:
While undermining victory in the Cold War, liberals dedicated themselves to mainstreaming Communist ideals at home... Betraying the manifest national defense objectives of the country is only part of the left's treasonous scheme. They aim to destroy America from the inside with their relentless attacks on morality and the truth. (p. 289)

All true, so ... his point is???

26 posted on 07/02/2003 5:53:06 PM PDT by zip
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: NativeNewYorker
For well-informed FReepers, there's not much new material.

It is well documented (footnoted) and I use it for easy (and immediate) references. That alone makes it worthwhile.

27 posted on 07/02/2003 5:56:33 PM PDT by zip
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

To: The Raven
He(Brendan Nyhan) gets, it.
The most serious challege to the democrat socialist machine since I've been an adult (that I know of).. Useing the word irrational of this book telegraphs dis-information because the book is supported in ever detail by solid data... One of the first many efforts to discredit it I believe.. The time is so right for this book... The democratic party has been totally co-opted and seemingly the co-opting of the republican party is well advanced... I think soon the biggest threat to the credibilty of this book will be from so-called conservatives.. since democrats have none.

The book is so well written it could be the most important and timely political book in the last 20 years because it goes for the bedrock issues of what is mainly wrong with America. Just saying "liberal" or "Socialist" are too weak because after all Communism "IS" Socialism and is where all Socialism is heading in the end.

I think this book is so important because of what it DON'T say but implies. No doubt in my mind that is the intent of the book, and it will work. Ann Coulter merely inseminated the reader with a seed.... and a fetus is growing.. Because if this book is true what have the american communists been doing since the House Commitee on Un-American Activitys CLOSED...

A very pregnant question, not asked directly, but implied..

28 posted on 07/02/2003 5:57:39 PM PDT by hosepipe
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: dogbyte12
Nah... Ann is atrocious when it comes to fact checking

Excuse me? I heard her debate with numerous people on television and radio and she has substantiated her point of view very well. That is why the libs hate her so much.

Ann Coulter blatantly missuses the footnote.

Can you point to a few examples, or are you merely venting?

29 posted on 07/02/2003 5:59:08 PM PDT by Nachum
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 21 | View Replies]

To: The Raven
Unbelievable. I went to Waldenbooks at the mall and Ann's book was in the entryway with #2 prominately displayed in front of 2 rows and 1 row of hitlery's book with #3. B&N didn't have any Treason's displayed but said they were just sold out. They would take my name and hold a copy yada, yada, yada. They did have many Lying History's laying around.
30 posted on 07/02/2003 6:01:25 PM PDT by zip
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: The Raven
Sounds to me like she qualifies for an Academy Award!!


31 posted on 07/02/2003 6:02:36 PM PDT by optimistically_conservative
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: dogbyte12
She is the Michael Moore of the Right.

Totally off the mark and straight out of DU. You've been around too long to post crap like that. Since when is the use of facts/logic equated to lies/feelings of the left?

32 posted on 07/02/2003 6:06:34 PM PDT by zip
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 21 | View Replies]

To: JennysCool
That the author sees this as a bad thing is all you need to know about him.

Excellent point. Thank you for bringing it out.

33 posted on 07/02/2003 6:09:37 PM PDT by zip
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 25 | View Replies]

To: The Raven
If a writer wants to make a point he should try not to put the reader to sleep with minutiae.
34 posted on 07/02/2003 6:13:33 PM PDT by CaptainK
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: zip
Her sourcing is atrocious. I will not repent on that fact. She misquotes, misconstrues, and misleads. She is polemicist. The fact that I agree with her points does not change that fact. I would rather her have a "more boring" yet fairer book, but I know that sells less copies.

Read the entire article, and tell me if you genuinely believe she doesn't take liscence. I also just read the author's deconstruction of Michael Moore, and I think it is a valid analogy. Liberals agree with Michael Moore, and they ignore his shoddy research. Just because Ann Coulter is correct that McCarthyism for example, was completely overblown, it still does not justify her in misquoting, misidentifying, and obfuscating the context of the comments in question. The excesses of the left are great enough without resorting to such tactics. That is my point.

If you want to read a more serious refutation of the McCarthyism charging left, read Brent Bozell's work. His father worked with Joe McCarthy, and the book is more serious and scholarly in tone. Then again, 30 times more people will read Ann Coulter. It comes down to a measure of taste though I suppose. I prefer Hugh Hewitt over Michael Savage. Polemicists aren't my bag.

35 posted on 07/02/2003 6:14:03 PM PDT by dogbyte12
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 32 | View Replies]

To: dogbyte12; ChadGore
Nah... Ann is atrocious when it comes to fact checking. Before you guys get all in a tiff about this guy shredding Ann, please note that he did the same thing to Michael Moore. He was even more critical of Michael Moore's disregard of the truth to prove a point.

Spinsanity does go after both the right and the left for lies and distortions, but the two guys that run it openly admit on their own "About Spinsanity" page that they're card-carrying liberals, and IMHO they do have a tendency to attack those on the right for supposed "lesser crimes" that they would let slide if it were coming from a RAT. It's not an overt bias on their part, but it does exist.

Besides, we all know Ann Coulter is a professional bombthrower given to rhetorical flourishes. So what? And it's really quite lame for liberal columnists (of whom Nyhan is but one of dozens thus far) to use the Constitutional definition of "treason" in order to attack Ann's book, when the dictionary definition of "treason" means as little as "a betrayal of trust or confidence" ... a charge that can EASILY be made against almost any prominent liberal.

Unless Ann specifically says at the beginning, "I hereby accuse all the following liberals mentioned in this book of the CRIME of Treason as defined in Article III of the US Constitution," then it's disingenuous for any reviewer, including Mr. Nyhan, to judge her book by the legal definition of the word. (I have yet to read the book; I'd appreciate someone telling me whether or not she actually does this.)

For Nyhan or any other critic to claim otherwise is the equivalent of a newspaper concert reviewer hearing the band's guitarist backstage after the show saying "Wow, we really murdered them tonight!" and then spending the entire 1000 words of his review the next day complaining about how nobody at the concert was actually killed.

36 posted on 07/02/2003 6:26:40 PM PDT by Dont Mention the War
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 21 | View Replies]

To: Dont Mention the War
Bottom line is: not all Democrats are traitors, but all traitors are Democrats.
37 posted on 07/02/2003 6:35:52 PM PDT by jlc
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 36 | View Replies]

To: The Raven
"Sweeping generalizations"? This article is one entire sweeping generalization. What a nut.
38 posted on 07/02/2003 6:35:54 PM PDT by john the bowler
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: jlc
"Not all Democrats are traitors, but all traitors are Democrats."

The well-turned eloquence of the day!

39 posted on 07/02/2003 6:40:26 PM PDT by friendly ((Badges?, we don gots to show no stinkin' badges!))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 37 | View Replies]

To: The Raven
Ann's getting to them. Life is good.
40 posted on 07/02/2003 6:41:15 PM PDT by b4its2late (FOOTBALL REFEREES - We're not in the game, we are the game.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: dogbyte12
I read the article, and the guy seems most peeved that she quotes a writer from the NYT Magazine and says, "The New York Time says..." Well, she's right. Newspapers don't write themselves. They're written by people. So if an author writing for the Times writes something, Ann is quite correct in saying, "The New York Times writes..." Before I take seriously anything else this guy has to say, I would need to check out his accusations against her book and a Lexus/Nexis search. I really think taking his article as some definitive refutation of Coulter is a bit unwise, as is likening AC to that fat, surly, uneducated Marxist, Moore.
41 posted on 07/02/2003 6:46:42 PM PDT by No Left Turn
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 35 | View Replies]

To: Dont Mention the War
So, if Spinsity or someother lib outlet writes "even Freerupblic acknowledges that Coulter's book is full of inaccuracies" when the truth is DogByte, posting on Freerepublic made those claims, this is perfectly ok and correct?

One should cut the ordinary "man in the street" a lot of slack on choice of words, etc. But an educated person who writes for a living ought to be more careful with their words and their meanings. Call me old-fashioned, but when I read something from Wm F Buckley I get the message that the writer respects his readers.

R.
42 posted on 07/02/2003 6:49:49 PM PDT by nm_realist
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 36 | View Replies]

To: The Raven
Question. Is Brendan Nyhan any relation to that fat liberal puke David Nyhan who used to "grace" the pages of the liberal rag, the Boston Globe?

He sure sounds like the spawn of that garbage.
43 posted on 07/02/2003 6:50:14 PM PDT by jackbill
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

Comment #44 Removed by Moderator

To: nm_realist
So, if Spinsity or someother lib outlet writes "even Freerupblic acknowledges that Coulter's book is full of inaccuracies" when the truth is DogByte, posting on Freerepublic made those claims, this is perfectly ok and correct?

Technically, yes. Most "mainstream" media outlets have no problem allowing one person's comments to represent that of an entire organization, whether they ought to or not. (Example: In any given article about the latest rehash of some abortion argument, the story will likely start with a line like "One side says X, but the National Organization for Women says Y." And then four paragraphs later, you find out that they only talked to one woman who happens to work at NOW. An even simpler example: When quoting movie reviews, a newspaper will have no problem writing "The Today Show said 'It's the best film of the year!'" even though it was only Gene Shalit saying that, and the Today show as a whole really has no comment on the movie one way or the other.)

Call me old-fashioned, but when I read something from Wm F Buckley I get the message that the writer respects his readers.

I don't think anyone would argue with you that Mr. Buckley's nonfiction works are far more carefully crafted than Ann Coulter's. I'm only saying that with Ann, you know what you're getting before you even pick up the book, so it's a bit of a laugh to see all these liberals running around like chickens with their heads cut off trying to follow the instructions in the tattered old Politics of Personal Destruction Guidebooks. We get the joke. They don't. And that just makes the joke funnier.

45 posted on 07/02/2003 7:00:09 PM PDT by Dont Mention the War
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 42 | View Replies]

To: Dr Warmoose
And never once is she called a liar.
46 posted on 07/02/2003 7:02:02 PM PDT by Puppage (You may disagree with what I have to say, but I will defend to your death my right to say it)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: jackbill
Question. Is Brendan Nyhan any relation to that fat liberal puke David Nyhan who used to "grace" the pages of the liberal rag, the Boston Globe?

Send him an email and ask him. The couple of times I've written him, he's responded. (I did write respectfully, for the record. I don't know how he'd respond if you called his (possible) father a "fat liberal puke. ;) )

47 posted on 07/02/2003 7:02:13 PM PDT by Dont Mention the War
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 43 | View Replies]

To: dogbyte12
Well said. I share your opinion about TREASON and quite possibly your preference in political historical scholarship.
48 posted on 07/02/2003 7:04:17 PM PDT by jonna
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 35 | View Replies]

To: BIGZ
That's exactly what I was thinking, his article is like a loud cry of surprise from the kid caught with his hand in the cookie jar.

They don't like the TRUTH, do they?

The cockroaches hate it when the light is shined on their activities...

49 posted on 07/02/2003 7:11:20 PM PDT by Im Your Huckleberry
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: jlc
Exactly.
50 posted on 07/02/2003 7:12:52 PM PDT by Im Your Huckleberry
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 37 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-5051-100101-150151-179 next last

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson