[ml/nj]

“You might recall my lengthy and negative review in The New Republic a few years ago of (Arthur) Herman’s book on McCarthy; well, she is 10 times worse than Herman. At least he tried to use bona fide historical methods of research and argument.”

Mr. Sullivan:

(I'm hoping you are vain enough to scan what is written about you here.)

Couldn't you have told us one place where Ms. Coulter got it wrong in her book if you are going to be so critical?

You quote some fool who does the same thing (fail to point out any inaccuracies) as if that were evidence that Coulter hasn't done her homework.

Surely you can do better.

ML/NJ

[Dec31,1999]

Don't expect any serious refutation.

[John H K]

You quote some fool who does the same thing (fail to point out any inaccuracies) as if that were evidence that Coulter hasn't done her homework.

The "fool" Sullivan cites is a noted McCarthy scholar who was himself attacked for pointing out that most of McCarthy's targets were in fact Communists.

Said "fool" says that Coulter misused and distorted the footnoted cites of his own book.

This may come as a surprise to some of you out there that have never seriously studied history or politics in an academic setting but simply having footnotes doesn't mean a given work is magically accurate.