[sinkspur]

This is a serious charge, and not one to be dismissed. Why didn't Ann put this in the book?

Because McCarthy would have looked like a Nazi-symp, and it would have destroyed Coulter's book.

[ladyinred]

I don't know anything about the Nazi thing. In fact, like a lot of Americans, I don't much about any of this. Wish I did, and by reading Ann's book, and the Verona files that a link was provided for, I hope to educate myself.

One thing I do know is that the real point of Ann's book is about how liberals never met a communist they didn't like. McCarthy is only part of story she writes about. Naturally, most of the media is only discussing that point since Joe was so demonized over the years. Since I am convinced many in the present Democrat leadership are very much aligned with the communist policies, I am very interested in learning about what happened then, and now.

[duckln]

Coulter is one of the best 'conservative' writters today. She's in the ranks of such greats as Buchanan, Horowitz and Hitchens.

They are always 'must reads' and have confounded the 'liberals'. They dominate Amazon.com and FR. Of course if you can't bash a 'priest', Buchanan or now even Coulter will do.

One good thing the Supreme Court ruled on was that the lower courts abide by Statue of Limitations, preventing them for 'kangarooing' a 'few' old priest based primarily on Homosexual 30yr old questionable accusations.

[Publius6961]

Because McCarthy would have looked like a Nazi-symp, and it would have destroyed Coulter's book.

As usual, you are relying on the ignorance of the lemmings to hope that the statement makes sense or makes a footnote relevant to the subject in any way.

You are changing the subject and attempting to attack the messenger and hoping that the rest of us, like you, ignore the message.

Historical attorneys, even some of our founding fathers, defended in court less than squeeky clean defendants. It is so common that it's comical that this should be deemed relevant to the book.

I was gonna say "nice try", but "lame" seems more appropriate.

[RinaseaofDs]

Or perhaps because it wasn't a book about McCarthy's entire political career.

Treason is about liberal mythology - a system of tall tales that liberals used to retain power in Congress for 40 years or more.

Had the book been an exhaustive biography of McCarthy, then the Malmedy massacre's omission might have been more glaring.

Rabinowitz may just have been pissed. The germaine fact of the book is that McCarthy was proved right, all faults, shortcomings, and slanderous mythology aside. So, Coulter asks herself and us, how bad was it? She researched it and came up with Treason. The book wasn't about Saint Joe McCarthy, but about the fact that he was right and no one on the left would cooperate with him.

No one wants to believe the stuff that Ann's writing about. I don't want to believe this about the government, left or right, because it is further evidence that what we have in place today doesn't work.