A Conspiracy So Vast: Meet Ann Coulter, the Maureen Dowd of the conservatives

Opinion Journal ^ | 07/14/03 | DOROTHY RABINOWITZ

[Pokey78]

John G. Adams, a key figure in the proceedings that effectively ended Sen. Joseph McCarthy's career, passed quietly from the scene last week at age 91. Not surprisingly, his death made no news; it's been a while since those heady days when McCarthy launched his investigations of the Army, which had, he charged, been shielding countless Communist agents at Fort Monmouth and elsewhere. It fell to Adams, the Army's chief counsel, to deal with the charges, which he did to devastating effect in the Army-McCarthy hearings that held the nation in thrall in the 1950s.

[sinkspur]

Rabinowitz has clearly chosen the side of the enemies of honor and decency, the scumbag liberals. So what's that make her?

You make another stupid statement, Lancey. Dorothy is not "siding" with anybody, and if you had read any of her columns you would know that.

This is not about ideology. It's about the truth. All of it.

If you listen to Ann Coulter, she's spouts nothing but ideology.

Has blonde hair made you blind?

[Bonaparte]

The easy way to settle all this is for Ann to publicly challenge Rabinowitz to a formal debate on McCarthy's record. Rabinowitz will back down and that will be the end of it.

[nopardons]

Peggy isn't always correct either. No one is and Dorothy is dead wrong, in this piece ! Her vituperation is palpable and without much cause. Most people don't actually know all that much about McCarthy, the truth about all of the Commies and fellow travellers in the USA government, or even what's in the Venona Papers. How many people, on this site, were even adults, when all of this stuff was happening ? How many were children, who were NOT exposed to any of it ? How many weren't even born then ? How many still believe all/some of the leftist propaganda about it ?

If Colture's book can open just a few eyes and/or get some people to begin thinking about even a small portion of this historical happenstance, then she's done a GREAT job; unlike this bomb throwqing, smarmy piece by Dorothy.

[sinkspur]

Rabinowitz will back down and that will be the end of it.

Wanna bet? Coulter's a lawyer, not an investigative journalist like Rabinowitz.

[drjimmy]

But at least Ann is on the side of good over evil. Rabinowitz has clearly chosen the side of the enemies of honor and decency, the scumbag liberals. So what's that make her?
Ann Coulter is on the side of selling her books. Dorothy Rabinowitz is now and has always been on the side of telling the truth. Those who are so blinded by their hero worship of Coulter that they call Rabinowitz liberal scum are certainly worthy of DU, since you clearly don't have a clue that Rabinowitz is a true conservative.

[justshutupandtakeit]

What does McCarthy's alleged actions on behalf of SS men have to do with the book? Hint: nothing.

[hoosiermama]

The book TREASON is 292 pages long plus another 40 pages of references. Only the first hundred pages deal with how McCarthy was correct about how the democratic party was infiltrated and used by the communist to futher their cause. The rst of the book deals with Vietnam, North Korea and the Cold War.

McCarthy is just one of many examples Coulter uses to show how the populus has been taken in by the wrong thinking/error in reasoning of the liberals.

It appears that the book review was written by reading the Jacket cover and first 100 pages of the book.

[MJY1288]

sink, have you read the book?, If so, you would know that the book is not about McCarthy.

I don't know about the author of the article and was wrong to say she was a lemming for the left, but she might think she has pointed out a major flaw in Ann's book, but she hasn't.

I have read the book and McCarthy is used as an axample of how effective the left is on demonizing people who point out that they (The Left) don't have what it takes to defend America.

She uses the Venona Project to prove that McCarthy was correct about Alger Hiss and the other spies in the democratic party, and she uses what McCarthy went through to comapre how the democrats today claim everyone is questioning their patriotism whenever they are asked why they choose to support America's enemies over their own country.

She points out haw fast Jimmy Carter will rush to the defense of Castro, or any other third world dictator who is under the spotlight. My take from her book is that she is poving that Democrats can not be trusted with our National Security because they are liberals and liberals are unable to stand up for America.

I found her book to be spot on

[nopardons]

Some Americans stole the stolen art and/or monies that the Nazis had stolen. Some Americans, unfortunately did also commit atrocities. It's historical fact.

[wireplay]

Hmmmm, I don't believe Dorothy has ever shirked from an issue before. I assume you are familiar with her tenacity and willingness to fight for her beliefs? She is good, make no mistake about that, and she doesn't just bait with snide comments. She is very factual and truly and investigative reporter.

As I stated earlier, I haven't read Ann's book and I am unfamiliar with the history here but given my views of the two women's approaches to an argument, Dorothy would smoke Ann hands down.

[MaxPlus305]

If Colture's book can open just a few eyes and/or get some people to begin thinking about even a small portion of this historical happenstance, then she's done a GREAT job; unlike this bomb throwqing, smarmy piece by Dorothy.

Oh, and Coulter didn't throw any bombs at all in her book, did she? Give me an effin break. Are you also a fan of Michael Moore, because despite the fact that he whitewashed the facts about guns, he made more people think about guns in his "Bowling for Colubmine"? Truth is the most important virtue of all in honest debate--not getting people to "begin thinking".

[justshutupandtakeit]

A thumbnail sketch is not a biography.

[sinkspur]

Most people don't actually know all that much about McCarthy.

Ann Coulter among them. She obviously has cherry-picked for a very short expose of McCarthy, so any honest "defense" of him would include some warts, if there were any.

There obviously are, but if Coulter had included McCarthy's defense of Nazis in her book, nobody would have paid any attention to anything else.

Does that sound like propaganda to you?

[MJY1288]

LOL, Ann threw more bombs in her book than anything I have ever read :-), In fact, I found myself laughing out loud on many occasions with the bombs she threw in this book. But the point of the book was clear and supported with facts

[Lancey Howard]

Nah. You're too clever by half.
If you can't articulate your thoughts ("You siding against Rabinowitz") and spell people's names correctly ("Junita Brodderick"), at least try to stick to the topic at hand. Which is Rabinowitz's hatchet job on a very good book.

[sinkspur]

What does McCarthy's alleged actions on behalf of SS men have to do with the book?

Coulter wants the reader to think better of McCarthy, the man and politician.

Defending the SS in a specific case when they have killed Americans is indefensible, which is precisely why Coulter left it out of her book.

[wireplay]

My guess is that Joe McCarthy was probably correct in his assertions that Communists infiltrated the US government (hell the Soviets admitted it). My guess is also that Joe McCarthy was more about promoting Joe McCarthy than anything else. I have watched his videos and he is more a PT Barnum than a crusader (as if senators are ever anything but PT Barnum).

That said, 1950s politics wasn't my history focus so I will defer w/o more of the facts.

Based upon what I did study of that era, the liberals were very much in ascendency as they would prove in the 1960s. I firmly believe the complacency of the US and the UK allowed Communist infiltration throughout the 30s and 40s. Joe highlighted that fact. Doesn't mean he wasn't an ass and a complete showman.

[GmbyMan]

If McCarthy were correct on the influx of Communists in the Federal Government (which we know he was), why does it matter that he may have defended Nazis earlier on. That is, if he were wrong before, that has nothing to do with him being right later.

Also, I never hear people saying bad things about McCarthy because he defended Nazis. People say bad things about him because he was Commie Hunter... something which Coulter rightly points out was a GOOD thing!

[section9]

Here's the thing: the most important part of the book is the retelling of the Hiss Chambers affair and Nixon's role in exposing Alger, Harry Dexter White, and others. I wasn't terribly impressed with the McCarthy part of the book, at all. Nevertheless, this is a polemic, not a history.

Be Seeing You,

Chris

[MaxPlus305]

Nah. You're too clever by half. If you can't articulate your thoughts ("You siding against Rabinowitz") and spell people's names correctly ("Junita Brodderick"), at least try to stick to the topic at hand. Which is Rabinowitz's hatchet job on a very good book.

You're right about the misspeling of Broaddrick. But "siding" is used as a verb. Nice try, though. And I notice you've conveniently backed off from accusing Rabinowitz as being a liberal because she takes on an anti-Ann position. Or maybe you haven't. Maybe you're still a Clinton apologist when it comes to rape.