McCarthyism: The Rosetta Stone Of Liberal Lies (Ann Coulter Upsets Liberals Again Alert)

Ann Coulter.com ^ | 11/07/2007 | Ann Coulter

[mjolnir]

You make some good points, AndyTheBear. “Ad hominem attacks by leftist, which tend to strengthen their articles (being that they got nothing else)” certainly describes Maureen Dowd, Bill Moyers and many other public leftists to a t.

[Albion Wilde]

Is David Horowitz correct in this assessment? Maybe, maybe not. But he at least attacks the argument rather than the person and doesn't simply assume malicious motives in those who disagree with him.

Your link didn't work. Could you repost it, or the title of the article to which you are referring?

[RonDog]

Is David Horowitz correct in this assessment?

Maybe, maybe not. But he at least attacks the argument rather than the person and doesn't simply assume malicious motives in those who disagree with him. - mjolnir

Your link didn't work. Could you repost it, or the title of the article to which you are referring? - Albion Wilde

That would be THIS article:

The Trouble with "Treason"

By David Horowitz

FrontPageMagazine.com | 7/8/2003

I have always admired Ann Coulter’s satiric skewering of liberal pieties and her bravery under fire. Not many conservatives can fight back with as much verve and venom as she can, and if politics is war conducted by other means, Ann is someone I definitely want on my side.

I began running Coulter columns on Frontpagemag.com shortly after she came up with her most infamous line, which urged America to put jihadists to the sword and convert them to Christianity. Liberals were horrified; I was not. I thought to myself,  this is a perfect send-up of what our Islamo-fascist enemies believe – that as infidels we should be put to the sword and converted to Islam. I regarded Coulter’s phillipic as a Swiftian commentary on liberal illusions of multi-cultural outreach to people who want to rip out our hearts.

Another reason I have enjoyed Ann’s attacks on liberals is because they have been so richly deserved. No one wields the verbal knife more ruthlessly than so-called liberal pundits like Joe Conason, to cite but one example. I have been the subject of many below-the-belt Conason attacks. If people Joe Conason admired were the objects of acid Coulterisms, so much the better. If Conason was outraged, I was confident that justice had been done.

But now to my dismay, I find myself unable to find such satisfaction in Conason’s reaction to Ann’s new book Treason, or in the responses of other liberals like The Washington Post’s Richard Cohen (who has also attacked me in the past). In a review in the Post, Cohen dismisses Ann’s book as “Crackpot Conservatism,” reflecting the fact that their responses are not so much yelps of outrage as cackles over what they view as an argument so over the top that only true believers will take it seriously.

It is distressing when someone you admire gives credibility to liberal attacks. But that, unfortunately, is what this book has done...

[mjolnir]

Thanks, Rondog. Albion Wilde, that’s the one!

[Albion Wilde]

Thanks for the link to the Horowitz article!

[Albion Wilde]

By the way, here's the direct link to Horowitz's criticism of Ann Coulter's hyperbolic characterization of "liberals", The Trouble with Treason: http://www.frontpagemag.com/Articles/Read.aspx?GUID=85013A39-1679-49EF-9799-DE762C337F95

This article was written in 2003. By now, Horowitz may have come to accept that the classical definition of liberal that he is defending in this article has long been abandoned by today's fascist/socialist Democrats who call themselves "liberal".

[Ghengis]

I caught part of Glenn Beck’s interview of M. Stanton Evans on Mr. Beck’s radio show. It was veeeeeeeeeeeeeeery interesting.