Posted on 08/27/2003 8:14:21 AM PDT by dogbrain
Ann Coulter's critics prefer to quote each other rather than deal with the arguments contained in Treason.
Talk about inferiority complexes! You know, it really tosses some “elites” into paroxysms of envy that Ann Coulter has the moxie to write her convictions in plain English while their cowardice condemns them to a life of paycheck prostitution.
As the elite intelligentsia pathetically shuffle through life staring at the insignificance of their politically correct Hush Puppies, Coulter ventures to the leading edge of thought. She makes a tough case and then documents her positions. Unlike the liberal idol Hillary, who employs numerous paid ghost writers, Coulter actually writes her books.
I have in fact read Coulter’s latest book, Treason, two times and followed each endnote before writing this commentary. This is more than can be deduced from reading the scathing critiques of Coulter’s critics.
Talk about bright minds! Andrew Sullivan leads diatribe with intellectual verve, “Few would dispute that she’s a babe.” And happily for his testosterone, “Lanky, skinny, with long blonde hair tumbling down to her breasts...” Good thing he wasn’t writing about Living History...
When Sullivan finally takes a shot at some substance, he asserts that Coulter is “defending the tactics of Joe McCarthy....” If Sullivan had actually read Treason, he would know that Coulter documents that the “tactics” attributed to McCarthy are little more than historical fabrication created by lying propagandists and their liberal devotees. Sullivan makes a better jilted suitor than serious writer.
It only gets worse. Kevin Canfield, a writer for the Hartford Courant, took his best shot on July 18th with side-by-side articles smearing Coulter and “Right-Wing Critics Of Big Media.” Of course, Canfield’s lead take on Treason is a reference to Coulter as “the right-wing pundit.” I guess that makes Canfield a “left-wing nobody.” At least Ann was correct when she wrote in her second book Slander that “ad hominem attacks is the liberal’s idea of political debate. They...make snippy personal comments about anyone who is actually talking about something.”
After assuring the reader that Treason is “getting almost universally negative reviews,” without defining which universe he lives in, Canfield naively cites “fellow right-winger” David Horowitz as a leading Coulter critic. While former radical Horowitz’s brand of neoconservatism is better than no conservatism at all, he is a Johnny-Come-Lately to the conservative fold. Coulter is a thoroughbred conservative, having founded the Cornell Review as an undergraduate. There is a difference between a fish and a human who has had swimming lessons.
Canfield does what all the Coulter critics do -- they quote each other and refute no specifics. They bring nothing to the table except hearsay commentary. With each of Coulter’s books, it has been the same old story from the left. From her hundreds of endnotes, the critics always dredge up some obscure source that can find, at best, maybe five “questionable” references. We’ve had Presidents who weren’t that good under oath!
In Canfield’s other piece, he argues that there is a “well-organized, well-funded drive by some on the right to dominate certain parts of the media.” One of Canfield’s confirmations for this point is the ascendance of Fox News. Of course, Canfield works for the Hartford Courant, which is owned by the Tribune Company that boasts of the earnings derived from the Fox affiliate stations it owns. Hey Kevin, tell it to the boss.
Reading Coulter’s critics is as laughable as reading a restaurant review written by Ronald McDonald. There is not one specific refutation of her facts in any of these criticisms, only name-calling and innuendo. Coulter’s use of decrypted Venona Project cables and intensive research to document her work is mysteriously ignored by her critics. Can’t let facts interfere with biased debunking.
Rather than regurgitating the “he said-she said” of one another, these critics should do their jobs. It’s easy: put Coulter’s specifics under the same microscope used to study the credibility of presidential cigars and either factually refute specifics or shut up and enjoy the book. And do Ann a favor: be careful about STD’s on that microscope.
Sounds like Buchanan's critics. Probably left-wing whackos.
Is he saying that Ann Coulter is so hot she can make a gay man go hetero?
Who's voice is on the tape?
(remember, there's no such thing as a stupid question...)
(remember, there's no such thing as a stupid question...) I said this many times in my classroom.
Good thing he wasn’t writing about Lying History...
With each of Coulter’s books, it has been the same old story from the left. From her hundreds of endnotes, the critics always dredge up some obscure source that can find, at best, maybe five “questionable” references.
After reading "Treason", I see why the left cannot stand Ann.
We’ve had Presidents who weren’t that good under oath!
Slick Willie and Hitlery come to mind
But I don't think I could get through 2 pages of something like that without retching...
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.