Has she no shame? [Conason on Coulter--Some Men Just Can't Handle Blondes]

Salon ^ | July 4, 2003 | Joe Conason

[liberallarry]

My post was directed at Publius who claimed that Conason didn't engage his subject. He's wrong.

I said that I haven't done the work necessary to speak to whether Coulter or Conason is right - but I do have an opinion.

So the rubes who buy "Treason" will believe her when she accuses George Catlett Marshall, the great general who oversaw the reconstruction of Europe, of nurturing a "strange attraction" to "sedition" and of scheming to assist rather than hinder Soviet expansion.

If she really does accuse Marshall I don't have to read any further - her stuff is trash.

More generally, she's right that far too many on the Left reflexively take anti-American positions - always criticising us, never seeing the faults of our enemies.

But she's wrong to label that treason and to put such great emphasis on supressing it. I have paid some attention to the development of atomic weapons and to the "loss of China". Spying and treason were not the reason Chiang lost and not the reason the USSR got atomic weapons.

[x]

Conason, as one's learned to expect from him, indulges in some "McCarthyism" of his own. Some of the liberal sources about McCarthy, J. Edgar Hoover, and others are quite questionable. Surely left-wing charges and conspiracy theories ought to be examined as critically and skeptically as right-wing ones.

But Coulter is a shallow opportunist. If she were an anti-communist in 1951, she would be grateful for the assistance of people like Reuther and Niebuhr, regardless of their leftist inclinations, and concerned about some of McCarthy's wilder charges that distracted from and hindered the actual uncovering of Soviet agents in government and society.

When things are on the line, tough choices have to be made. The same urgency that led anti-Communists to countenance some of Hoover's and HUAC's and possibly even McCarthy's more questionable actions, also made many of them applaud those leftists or liberals who saw through Stalinism and joined the opposition to it.

It's facile and cheap to come along fifty years later and play armchair games with history. It's reminiscent of Lew Rockwell's maligning of all historical figures who don't accept his own view of economics and history. The 30s and the 40s were dominated by left-wing ideas, and nothing would have been achieved against Stalinism, if one refused to come to terms with the prevalent views of the day.

[skinkinthegrass]

funny how her new book "Treason" is tearing up the bestseller charts but my local library STILL has no copies on the "Bestsellers" rack. Thanks a lot Louisville Free Public Library!

...Lexington, is more than likely the same...esp. after what the NAZI/Queens did (Smoking Ban/Water Co. deal) on Tuesday, 7/01/03.

[Darksheare]

Usually, when asked to backup ridiculous statements or shut up, they do neither.
They spout more vitriol and lunacy and never get to the point, nor defend or explain anything.
And when you finally DO get out of them what they honestly DO believe, it's pure BS.

[squidly]

Hard for me to comment, since I haven't read Ann's book. But man has she struck a nerve with the liberals. If her charges were truly baseless and needlessly inflammatory, I'd expect they would pay her no mind. Yet they do pay her a lot of mind, leading me to believe that she may be onto something. Guess I'll have to read it sooner or later.

[NYC GOP Chick]

In fact, she doesn't mention the Voice of America investigation at all

Funny. I could *swear* I read about that just yesterday...page 82, to be exact.

Anyway, I think she turns him on in a hugh way {g} and he knows that she'd just laugh her ass off at him. Then again, he should be used to that. The guy's a total jerk and I should probably repost the email exchange I had with him after the Wellstone Funerally just for giggles.

[Cindy]

Summing it up...Don't like the message? Attack the messenger.

[Cicero]

It sounds as if Joe Conehead is mad. I couldn't quite manage to finish his article, because it has nothing to say.

[Darksheare]

Do you know about Clinton's sale of F-16 fighter technology to China?
No?
Amazing.

I guess some people like you and the article writer just cannot handle a powerful smart AND funny blonde woman who is genuine instead of a comlete fabrication like HILLARY.

[publius1]

There have been some wonderfully silly posts in here by lefty-lurkers and others, yours among them, so let me clear some things up:

1. Yes, I can read. I read Conason, and I read Coulter. Unlike you (and some others) I actually read both! Worse for me, I suppose, I actually lived through most of the years she discusses, so I know first-hand what she's talking about, and trust me, she's right. By the way, a personal request: Please, in the future, when are trying to be witty, say something that's actually witty; otherwise you just seem silly and petty.

2. The theme of Coulter's book is that for fifty years the left has in general acted and spoken publicly in such a way as to always give aid and comfort to the enemy. The occasional specific exception (e.g., Scoop Jackson, or the occasional moment of an Al Gore--most people probably won't remember; it was in the 80's) does not disprove the general thesis. That's the subject Conason fails to or refuses to engage. Instead, he spends however many words name-calling like a six year old, which is the kind of exertion that should raise the antennae: why, in that much space, can't he at least try to answer her general charge? Instead, the strategy of his piece is to claim that she left some things out, or got this or that specific instance of things wrong. The fact is (for example), there were communists in the State Department, and they were defended by Democrats, and promoted by Democrats, despite warnings by authorities. More recently, Democrats led the charge not just against the Viet Nam war, but for Ho Chi Minh. They praised Sadaam.... One should be entitled to ask, after a certain point, what's with these guys (and women)? Why do they always--always!--take the anti-American position? These are sensible questions, asked by Coulter, unanswered by Conason.

If you're a controversialist like Coulter, you could then ask the next logical question, which is: how would the positions taken by Democrats be different if they were actively seeking to undermine the country? Again, from Conason, words and words, but no answer, other than to call Ann in so many words a penis-head.

The point of the headline to my post was that some men refuse to take women seriously. Name-calling is not a serious argument. Ask yourself this question: if treason had been written by, say, Christopher Hitchens or George Will or Bill Buckley, would Conason respond with this bitch-screed?

I hope this is helpful.

[Pravious]

Right. It's also the second liberal "review" of the book I've read that complains about name calling, while spewing forth some of the nastiest vitriot towards the Right I've ever read.

Hypocritical Rats. I'm glad Ann's out there, tromping on their tails and making them squeal.

[Uncle Hal]

When libs go after Ann, you know she is hitting a raw nerve. Richard Cohen (WashPost) attacked her in his column earlier in the week and Frank Rich (NYTimes) has a hit piece on Ann today. I love the smell of libs imploding. You can judge how successful conservatives books are by the number of libs that smear them.

[Darksheare]

By the by, my post 69 isn't aimed at you two, I was just letting you know what was said in case liblarry freaks and rants.

[rockfish59]

Don't get emotional with me, Mr. Conason!

[Dont Mention the War]

Let's see if I have this right: Coulter's a liar, her readers are dumb, McCarthy's bad, and--and... and then what? What's striking is the failure to engage the subject, other than by claiming that Coulter's book is a smear, which is, is it not, an example of argument-by-smear?

This is how Conason "writes" all of his columns. It was a lot easier for him back when he a Clinton water-carrier and they had water to carry. But in the Bush era, he no longer has a purpose, so he thrashes around wildly every week (or however often he managed to publish ... I don't even pay that much attention), like a feces-flinging monkey, randomly attacking the whole of conservative and hoping some small piece of it hits the target.

[CholeraJoe]

he knows that she'd just laugh her ass off at him.

"You'd know it if you saw his stuff
The man just isn't big enough"

The King of Hollywood by The Eagles.

[Dont Mention the War]

*plonk*

[MissouriForBush]

So Coulter is a "shallow opportunist." Give me a break!

She is the FIRST writer to REALLY challenge the prevailing Liberal mindset of this country -- and NOT in a sloppy manner. She is a gutsy, bold, original thinker. If you want to peg a few shallow opportunists who write plenty sloppily, all you need to do is point out a few Clintons, Kennedys, Cuomos, Jesse Jacksons, etc.

Coulter is a brilliant blonde and a great role model for American women. Enough said.

[CyberAnt]

The liberals never learn ... this "smear" of Ann's supposed "smear" does nothing more than prove - beyond any shadow of a doubt - that Ann's book is exactly correct ...!!