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

Skip to comments.

The Letter the Wall Street Journal Refused to Run [ Evans defends Coulter against Rabinowitz]
http://www.anncoulter.org/refused.htm ^ | M. Stanton Evans

Posted on 07/27/2003 9:24:58 AM PDT by Akron Al





The Letter the Wall Street Journal Refused to Run

To The Editor:

A pretty good rule of thumb for judging media comment on Joe McCarthy is that people who most vociferously deplore him seldom know the facts of record.

Vide the recent Dorothy Rabinowitz piece in the Journal attacking Ann Coulter’s new book Treason and its McCarthy chapters. In her double-barreled blast against McCarthy/Coulter, Ms. Rabinowitz makes statements that indicate extensive ignorance of McCarthy’s doings and can but compound prevailing myths about him.

Treason!



Treason: Liberal Treachery from the Cold War..., Coulter
.

Sponsors
<br> a:link {color:800000; text-decoration:none} a:hover {color:800000;text-decoration:none } <br> .regular {font-size:8pt; color:800000;font-weight:normal;text-decoration:none} .adHeadline { font-size:9pt; font-family:arial; font-weight:bold; color:800000;text-decoration:none } .adText { font-size:9pt; font-family:arial; font-weight:normal; color:800000;text-decoration:none }

Start Advertising Now

Human Events
.

E-Mail List

One need go no further to see the point than the first of the McCarthy cases Rabinowitz refers to, and that Coulter discusses in her book: The episode of Annie Lee Moss, the U.S. Army code clerk so memorably portrayed by Edward R. Murrow, and others, as a pitiful victim of McCarthy. Ms. Rabinowitz, sad to say, obviously knows nothing at all about this matter.

As it happens, there is a voluminous official record on the case, accessible to Ms. Rabinowitz and anyone else who cares to view it. This shows Mrs. Moss had been identified as a member of the Communist Party in the District of Columbia by FBI undercover agent Mary Markward, who had access to the party’s records. This information was passed on from the Bureau to the Army, which nonetheless promoted Mrs. Moss from cafeteria worker to code clerk, and security-cleared her for these duties.

The outrageous Joe McCarthy, if you can believe it, actually wanted to know how such a thing could happen. When Mrs. Moss appeared before him in March of 1954, she denied she was a communist, indicated she had never heard of Marx, and allowed that she was being confused with some other Annie Lee Moss who must have been the guilty party. This mistaken-identity theme was echoed by the Democrats on the panel, and has been repeated often since.

Unfortunately for Mrs. Moss and for such as Murrow, she inadvertently gave the game away in testifying--volunteering as one of her addresses 72 R St. S.W. in the District. This proved to be the crucial evidence in the case when, four years later, the Subversive Activities Control Board (SACB) obtained the records of the D.C. party, and there found an Annie Lee Moss, of 72 R St. S.W., listed as a member in the middle ‘40s. Thus Markward’s testimony was confirmed by the Communists’ own records, reflecting this particular Annie Lee Moss, and no other, as a party member.

Ann Coulter’s discussion of the case quite accurately sums up the foregoing information, while Rabinowitz -- though with Coulter’s book before her -- ignores it entirely. The Coulter-Markward-McCarthy version gets the matter exactly right; the Murrow-Senate Democrat-Rabinowitz version is wrong, as shown by an extensive record (the SACB revisited the case on a number of occasions).

The question of Annie Lee Moss is important in itself, as it is so often mentioned in discussions of McCarthy. However, it is even more important as a kind of template for his other cases -- Peress, Amerasia, the speech at Wheeling, Owen Lattimore, and many more. There can be no intelligible discussion of these matters without knowing what the facts are, and these won’t be found by re-cycling Edward R. Murrow’s version of our history.

Anyway, that’s already being handled by The New York Times. Faithful readers of your pages expect something better from the Journal.

M. Stanton Evans
Washington, DC

return to column archives

home | columns | bio | events | images | contact | chat | extras | links

All content copyright 2000 - 2003 anncoulter.org.

anncoulter.org is a proud member of

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 


TOPICS: Front Page News; News/Current Events
KEYWORDS: anncoulter; communists; coulterbashing; joemccarthy; joestalin; mccarthywasright; mediabias; mstantonevans; reddupes; treason; usefulidiots; wallstreetjournal; wsj
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-5051-80 next last

1 posted on 07/27/2003 9:24:59 AM PDT by Akron Al
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: Akron Al
bump for truth
2 posted on 07/27/2003 9:26:57 AM PDT by RobFromGa (Sen. Joe McCarthy helped win our death-match against the USSR- Freedom baby, Pass it on!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: RobFromGa
usually, the WSJ editorial page is pretty good about running rebuttal letters like this one. I wonder why they didn't run it. I am a fan of both Rabinowitz and Coulter. I think they are both pretty sharp cookies and would like to see more give and take from them on this matter.
3 posted on 07/27/2003 9:34:54 AM PDT by vbmoneyspender
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: Akron Al
The WSJ 'refuses' to run most letters to the editor.
Newspapers are like that.
4 posted on 07/27/2003 9:36:18 AM PDT by gcruse (http://gcruse.blogspot.com/)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Akron Al
Typical ploy of the Democrats today,when they are wrong they cover it up with lies and never admit the truth regardless of the facts. What makes them so much more powerful is that the so called "Mainstream Media" ignores the truth and helps perpetuate their lies and agenda. They always look subjectively at a situation and it only matters what they preceive and the truth never matters. Sad also is as long as they can keep a certain element of the population uneducated and not able to investigate for themselves they have at least 25% of the nation in their corner to start with following like sheep, then they spend an enormous amount of their time and our tax dollars attacking the truth and manipulating it.
5 posted on 07/27/2003 9:37:26 AM PDT by gunnedah
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Akron Al
There is something about Coulter's appearance and presentation that always puts me off. To corrorborate my feelings and give them credence, I read Treason.

While the book is entertaining and, even hilarious, in parts, it is more of a history book than a political screed. I am old enough to havee met the Senator and recall the intense, hostile press he faced. Coutler's book is a masterpiece of inductive reasoning salted with spicey writing. When I went to college it would be called "Modern Civ."

I am grateful for her careful attention to detain and the very readible and followable endnotes. A good job no matter what you think about her!

PS: People who challenge and correct mistaken conventional wisdom are never appreciated --they are usually burned at figurative stake called public opinion.

6 posted on 07/27/2003 9:38:39 AM PDT by shrinkermd (i)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Akron Al
Coulter's book has a pretty obvious bias. And it probably should.

She has stimulated a re-examination of the era and all the lies the Left and libmedia like to spin about it.

Besides, Ms. Coulter has infuriated all the right people. That deserves some applause in itself.
7 posted on 07/27/2003 9:43:57 AM PDT by George W. Bush
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Akron Al
It gets a little tiresome to hear Ann declare victimhood every time a conservative disagrees with her. I'm expecting her next book to be titled "TREASON!: Why Everyone in the Nation is a Traitor But Me."

And seeing as how the WSJ probably gets thousands of letters a day, I'm not scandalized that they "refused" to publish this letter. It's not a Vast Left-Wing Conspiracy... it's called limited space.

Let's leave the victim card to the libs. Ann's a big girl; she should be able to handle different opinions.

8 posted on 07/27/2003 9:52:19 AM PDT by inkling
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Akron Al
Being a big fan and follower of Dorothy Rabinowitzs'
writing in the WSJ (especially her long and tedious work on the persecution of the accused in the McMartin child abuse case), I was shocked to read her column on Coulter and also wrote a letter to the editor. I wanted to point out that it was appearant that Rabinowitz was writing about Ann's book, without looking at her extensive footnotes/index. I think because of Rabinowitzs' age, she probably had a front seat and being young was swept up with the group think and her urbane buddys.
Dorothy Rabinowitzs is a respected talented lady, who goofed up this time.
9 posted on 07/27/2003 9:55:10 AM PDT by seenenuf (Progressives are a threat to my children!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: inkling
It gets a little tiresome to hear Ann declare victimhood

Care to point out one instance where Ann paints herself as a victim? It looks to me like she's always on offense, without much regard for who is offended.

10 posted on 07/27/2003 9:59:35 AM PDT by kylaka
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: Akron Al
...

...

11 posted on 07/27/2003 10:18:43 AM PDT by RaceBannon
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: BartMan1
ping
12 posted on 07/27/2003 10:28:58 AM PDT by IncPen (The liberal's reward is self disgust.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: vbmoneyspender
I am a fan of both Rabinowitz and Coulter. I think they are both pretty sharp cookies and would like to see more give and take from them on this matter.

Them's my sentiments, also.

Both of the ladies can take care of themselves, and should be allowed to do pitched battle.

13 posted on 07/27/2003 10:36:58 AM PDT by Ole Okie
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: Akron Al
Coulter is a RINO exposeing machine.....
Due to her detail in working out her books and her footnotes. Her ideas can be easily researched. PC cowardice HATES THAT... They hate it SO much that it exposes them (to me). Since the entire democrat party is a lie and many/some republicans are really un-registered democrats Ann Coulters books tip over the chess board and say let a real dialog begin. The time for playing political games with TRAITORS has ended.. And its about damn time someone did that..

Buckley and others in their books were pretty much ignored. Ann CoulterStein is uniquely positioned (for some reason) to say again "Are you a communist/ socialist/ liberal/ Progressive/ Fellow traveler/ democracy espouser or any other kind of TRAITOR to the American Constitution, AND when did you become one"....
(McCarthy is ALIVE again, ITS ALIVE, ITS ALIVE) lol...

14 posted on 07/27/2003 10:38:33 AM PDT by hosepipe
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: kylaka
Care to point out one instance where Ann paints herself as a victim?

Posting a pro-Coulter letter on her Web site with the tag line "The Letter the Wall Street Journal Refused to Run." Of course it wasn't that the WSJ didn't have the space to run an unsolicited, column-length letter. Rather, it had to be a Vast RINO Anti-Coulter Conspiracy.

Coulter can be entertaining, especially when she so offends the norms of "polite" Manhattan liberalism (Ann vs. Katie Couric was a classic). Nevertheless, I respect Rabinowitz, David Horowitz and many other conservative writers far too much to label them all traitors simply because they disagree with Coulter's beatification of McCarthy.

15 posted on 07/27/2003 11:11:04 AM PDT by inkling
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: RaceBannon
Love the icon ;-).
16 posted on 07/27/2003 11:13:32 AM PDT by sauropod ("Come over here and make me. I dare you. You little fruitcake, you little fruitcake.")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

To: inkling
I have been an admirer of Rabinowitz's work as well. I think Coulter is full of herself generally (a lot of successful people are), but she does good work in addition to being easy on the eyes.

Rabinowitz apparently goofed here and Coulter should have run a rebuttal column about it rather than put someone else's on her site. She's syndicated.

Would have had much bigger impact that way.

17 posted on 07/27/2003 11:17:01 AM PDT by sauropod ("Come over here and make me. I dare you. You little fruitcake, you little fruitcake.")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 15 | View Replies]

To: inkling
Sorry. I don't see that as victimhood, just another brick in the wall. Daschle plays the part much better.

Coulter merely said Horowitz was wrong, and Horowitz has as much since agreed with her. I don't recall Ann ever saying or implying that those who disagree with her are traitors or treasonous.

Cripes. It won't be long before some editor (who hasn't read her book) starts off a review by calling her an "Arian" and uses swastikas for quote marks. The liberals are getting very shrill. Even the moderates are beginning to notice.

18 posted on 07/27/2003 11:35:06 AM PDT by kylaka
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 15 | View Replies]

To: inkling
Did the WSJ NOT refuse to run Evan's letter?
Either cite a valid example of Ann Coulter shouldering the mantle of victimhood or stop tossing it about.
Coulter is not everybody's cup of tea, and needn't be, but be honest about your reasons.
19 posted on 07/27/2003 11:45:16 AM PDT by thegreatbeast (Quid lucrum istic mihi est?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 15 | View Replies]

To: kylaka
The liberals are getting very shrill.

First off, Ann's whole act is shrillness. Second, by "the liberals" do you mean Dorothy Rabinowitz? The WSJ Editorial page?!

I guess what annoys me about these ersatz defenses of Coulter is their Buchanan-like absolutism. If you criticize St. Ann, you're a liberal and a traitor. A conservative isn't allowed to disagree with her for any reason since to do so would make that person a RINO/Liberal/Traitor.

If Ann is going to pad her generous bank account by constantly blasting others, she should have a little thicker skin when people reasonably disagree with her.

20 posted on 07/27/2003 12:02:38 PM PDT by inkling
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 18 | View Replies]

To: thegreatbeast
I think it's pretty obvious that her use of the word "refused" implies that the WSJ was blacklisting Coulter's defenders. If you wish to parse the headline a la Bill Clinton, you can say it was value-neutral. But semantic gymnastics aside, her headline places blame upon the Journal.

The WSJ Editorial page spent a lot of the Nineties blasting Clinton -- was it then their obligation to print every pro-Clinton letter they received in response? Newspapers have VERY limited space to print letters and they are under no obligation to print any of them. A less accusatory headline would be "An Open Letter to the Wall Street Journal." That wouldn't imply guilt by the WSJ Editorial Board.

21 posted on 07/27/2003 12:15:04 PM PDT by inkling
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 19 | View Replies]

To: inkling
"If you criticize St. Ann, you're a liberal and a traitor".

Ann hasn't said that, nor have I implied it. Jumping from telling someone they are wrong to calling them traitor is a big jump.

If you call a desire to spin the wheel in the opposite direction shrill fanatisism, so be it. Conservatives have barely begun to slow it down, let alone change the direction.

As far as the RINO's go, aiding and abetting isn't treason, but its not helpful either. Especially when the other side thinks truth is not absolute.

22 posted on 07/27/2003 1:07:33 PM PDT by kylaka
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 20 | View Replies]

To: gcruse
Not the small town papers around here. But, I bet the big papers do have to choose what letters to print due to due to space.
23 posted on 07/27/2003 1:10:14 PM PDT by rwfromkansas (http://www.collegemedianews.com *some interesting radio news reports here; check it out*)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: inkling
Ann's a big girl; she should be able to handle different opinions

If someone disagrees with her, they just have "different opinions." If they say nasty things about her, they just have "different opinions." And if she ripostes, she is being a whiner. In fact, even if someone else replies in her defense, she is being a whiner. Riiiight.

24 posted on 07/27/2003 1:14:05 PM PDT by xm177e2 (Stalinists, Maoists, Ba'athists, Pacifists: Why are they always on the same side?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: inkling
I agree that it is no slight that they refused to print this letter.

But, you got it wrong......ANN DID NOT WRITE THE LETTER, but somebody else that runs a site supporting Ann.

Ann is not crying victimhood, but somebody else.
25 posted on 07/27/2003 1:21:51 PM PDT by rwfromkansas (http://www.collegemedianews.com *some interesting radio news reports here; check it out*)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: rwfromkansas
But, you got it wrong......ANN DID NOT WRITE THE LETTER, but somebody else that runs a site supporting Ann.

I never claimed Ann wrote the letter, but she did give it prominent placement on her Web site under the headline I was discussing. If you are informing me that Ann Coulter isn't affiliated with a Web site named "AnnCoulter.org," then that's news to me and I stand corrected.

26 posted on 07/27/2003 1:46:54 PM PDT by inkling
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 25 | View Replies]

To: inkling; rwfromkansas
I think that the writer of the letter, Stan Evans, is a historian who specializes in McCarthy, which puts a different light on WSJ not publishing his letter. Surely, out of all of the letters to the editor received by them, you'd think that this would be one that they would want to print. Just my opinion. :-)
27 posted on 07/27/2003 3:29:50 PM PDT by ditin
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 26 | View Replies]

To: inkling; Akron Al
<< It gets a little tiresome to hear Ann declare victimhood every time a conservative disagrees with her. >>

I have listened astutely to Ms Coulter for years now and have read pretty much every word she has published since she became a public figure and have yet to detect the slightest hint of "victimhood" emanate from Ms Coulter or from any of those of us who endorse and/or validate her.

For those who disagree with her she has only scorn, derision, humor and, on rare ocasion, sympathy.

I believe you animus is showing.

On this occasion, by the way, Rabinowitz did not "disagree with" Ms Coulter. Instead Rabinowitz ignored history, ignored truth and, worse, ignored the book she pretended to criticize and personally attacked Ms Coulter and attempted to demean the quality of Ms Coulter's painstaking research, all of the evidence presented in Treason -- and to overlook history and truth.

And Ms Coulter ignored her.
28 posted on 07/27/2003 3:39:59 PM PDT by Brian Allen ( Rebellion to tyrants is obedience to God - Thomas Jefferson)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: inkling; kylaka
<< If Ann is going to pad her generous bank account .... >>

Your animus is showing again.

No: Make that "still."

And you don't "disagree" with Ms Coulter any more than did Rabinowitz. You simply give vent to your animus.

As did Rabinowitz.
29 posted on 07/27/2003 3:46:51 PM PDT by Brian Allen ( Rebellion to tyrants is obedience to God - Thomas Jefferson)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 20 | View Replies]

To: DPB101; HISSKGB; backhoe; nopardons; quietolong; marron; Stultis; NormsRevenge; RaceBannon; ...
bump
30 posted on 07/27/2003 3:58:03 PM PDT by Tailgunner Joe
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Akron Al
Resource Thread:

Tailgunner Joe--Where Have You Gone, Joe McCarthy?

31 posted on 07/27/2003 4:13:56 PM PDT by Stultis
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: ditin; Travis McGee; Jeff Head; kattracks; kristinn
I think that the writer of the letter, Stan Evans, is a historian who specializes in McCarthy, which puts a different light on WSJ not publishing his letter. Surely, out of all of the letters to the editor received by them, you'd think that this would be one that they would want to print. Just my opinion. :-)

Mine too!

Bump!

32 posted on 07/27/2003 4:16:54 PM PDT by Paul Ross (A nation which can prefer disgrace to danger is prepared for a master, and deserves one!-A. Hamilton)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 27 | View Replies]

To: Brian Allen
<< If Ann is going to pad her generous bank account .... >>

Your animus is showing again.

Why is pointing out the fact that Coulter is rich indicative of "animus"? There is certainly nothing wrong with being rich. Furthermore, Coulter has made her fortune on her vociferous animus to liberalism. It seems a little odd for a Coulter devotee to consider "animus" such a bad thing.

33 posted on 07/27/2003 4:23:33 PM PDT by inkling
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 29 | View Replies]

To: inkling
Ann Coulter really bothers you, doesn't she?
34 posted on 07/27/2003 4:32:07 PM PDT by Lancey Howard
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 33 | View Replies]

To: gcruse
Aha! Another brilliant addition to our discourse! Thanks!
35 posted on 07/27/2003 4:46:40 PM PDT by Pharmboy (Dems lie 'cause they have to...)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: inkling
Nobody labeled Horowitz and Rabinowitz "traitors." Many of us on this board are disappointed that both of them appear to have gotten their facts about McCarthy incorrect in their attack-columns directed at Ann.
36 posted on 07/27/2003 4:50:46 PM PDT by Pharmboy (Dems lie 'cause they have to...)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 15 | View Replies]

To: Lancey Howard
Ann bothers ALL liberals...ain't it grand?
37 posted on 07/27/2003 4:59:32 PM PDT by Pharmboy (Dems lie 'cause they have to...)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 34 | View Replies]

To: inkling
Nevertheless, I respect Rabinowitz, David Horowitz and many other conservative writers far too much to label them all traitors simply . . .

Who called them traitors? Both Horowitz and Rabinowitz made egregious errors of fact in their reviews. Are we supposed to ignore that?

Rabinowitz claimed Phillip Loeb was a victim of the Red Scare and, by association, a victim of McCarthy. Loeb was no such thing. Loeb was a victim of himself.

38 posted on 07/27/2003 5:02:13 PM PDT by DPB101
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 15 | View Replies]

To: inkling; Tailgunner Joe; DPB101; HISSKGB; backhoe; nopardons; quietolong; marron; Stultis; ...
Your loaded, twisted, spun, animus-spewing #33?

Bullshit.
39 posted on 07/27/2003 5:03:02 PM PDT by Brian Allen ( Rebellion to tyrants is obedience to God - Thomas Jefferson)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 33 | View Replies]

To: kylaka
It won't be long before some editor (who hasn't read her book) starts off a review by calling her an "Arian" and uses swastikas for quote marks.

Its been done already in a snide fashion. In Slate, Sam Tanenhaus, compared her to Elizabeth Dilling.

40 posted on 07/27/2003 5:12:00 PM PDT by DPB101
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 18 | View Replies]

To: Akron Al
........Anyway, that’s already being handled by The New York Times. Faithful readers of your pages expect something better from the Journal.

Hahahahahahahaha.

Alright, Stanton! Way to stick the knife in and turn it!

41 posted on 07/27/2003 5:24:59 PM PDT by DoctorMichael (>>>>>Liberals Suk. Liberalism Sukz.<<<<<)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Pharmboy
Ann bothers ALL liberals...ain't it grand?

I have noticed that she also bothers "big-boned" women.

42 posted on 07/27/2003 5:32:15 PM PDT by Lancey Howard
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 37 | View Replies]

To: Tailgunner Joe
I just picked up my copy of Treason yesterday - I plan to read it real soon, but I feel like I know the basic gist already.

As I've said before the ideas in the book are not new -
Ann's contribution is making them available to the masses. And as is often the case that is at least as important if not more important than coming up with the ideas in the first place. My hunch is that this book is going to end up as one of those books that matters - I can see the change happening already. Before this book the commie-left would always hold up their false cloak of patriotism - would always say that they're only speaking up because they "love their country so much" and that that's the point living in America anyway and "how dare you question my patriotism". The usual crap. Now after Ann's book, people are willing to stand up and say that the Daschles and the Gephardts and the Clintons don't love their country at all - in fact they hate it and are trying to destroy it or turn it into something it was never meant to be. And I think that's huge.

I think one of the next books I'm going to read is "Witness" by Whitaker Chambers. I heard someone call Ann on a call-in show and say he'd read it 7 times and that it was the "book of the century". Ann said he'd get no argument from her (and that "Treason" was #2 ha-ha).

Chambers is the intellectual Godfather of Buckley, McCarthy, Nixon and probably many others. Probably the Great-Godfather of Ann. I feel like I need to read his book which many have called a masterpiece.
43 posted on 07/27/2003 5:48:26 PM PDT by 2 Kool 2 Be 4-Gotten
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 30 | View Replies]

To: inkling
Care to point out one instance where Ann paints herself as a victim?

Posting a pro-Coulter letter on her Web site with the tag line "The Letter the Wall Street Journal Refused to Run."

Unless Akron Al is Ann Colter's freeper ID she did not post this. So how does that back up your claim that she "paints herself as a victim"?

Try again.

44 posted on 07/27/2003 5:50:46 PM PDT by Hugin
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 15 | View Replies]

To: 2 Kool 2 Be 4-Gotten
I'll bet than when you get 2/3rds of the way through Coulter's new book you will be pleasantly surprised. As it starts out you will see the usual anti-pro but her writings pick up speed and are excellent in condensing and fine tuning some the myriad of commie/liberal anti-American episodes.

Although I thought I was well versed in the leftist traitorism, I learned new and abominable things the US commies had perpetrated such as Clinton/Carter's gift of unsupervised nuclear reactors to North Korea. This was so shocking to me that I had to verify this. It was even worse than Coulter described!
45 posted on 07/27/2003 6:25:25 PM PDT by HISSKGB
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 43 | View Replies]

To: Akron Al
This should have been posted on the internet, but you have to do it immediately when you read the article, or it will be too late. I unfortunately failed to respond the night I read it because I was too tired to make sense. I did send my letter anyway, with the hope that Rabinowitz would at least read the responses.

Her article was about her worst written article that I have read. Her whole premise was a non sequitur, especially the part about Hollywood and the last dig about McCarthy supporting the Nazis was totally off base. She obviously wrote the article without doing ANY research.
46 posted on 07/27/2003 6:34:42 PM PDT by Eva
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Akron Al
"The Wall Street Journal...National Review...That's the OLD Right...."
----With apologies to Sec'y. of Defense Donald Rumsfeld
47 posted on 07/27/2003 6:39:57 PM PDT by Map Kernow ("I love the Vixen of Vitriol---Ann Coulter")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: gcruse
The WSJ 'refuses' to run most letters to the editor.
Newspapers are like that.
Most letters to the editor are not written by M. Stanton Evans, either. Read
The Theme Is Freedom
Religion, Politics, and the American Tradition
and get a clue what that means. Note also that Mr. Evans plans to write a book on the McCarthy era . . .

48 posted on 07/27/2003 6:43:45 PM PDT by conservatism_IS_compassion (The everyday blessings of God are great--they just don't make "good copy.")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: George W. Bush
Coulter's book has a pretty obvious bias perspective.
For a perspective to be so egregious to be a bias, the perspective has to be unconscious, so that the writer is deluded into thinking s/he is "objective." Found in all journalists, most notably of all in those working for The New York Times.

49 posted on 07/27/2003 6:49:52 PM PDT by conservatism_IS_compassion (The everyday blessings of God are great--they just don't make "good copy.")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: gcruse
Your response does not work. M. Stanton Evans has good standing in the conservative Republican circles and this direct and specific refutation of a column should have been printed. There is no excuse other than thin skins.
50 posted on 07/27/2003 6:50:16 PM PDT by ontos-on
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-5051-80 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