I have no idea why you are posting to me. My comments were limited to what the article said on the topic, not the content of the book.
Please read my first post - I provided a link to a FR post from 2003. That’s all.
Then I posted, in response to your eruption:
The article says “...shattering revision of half a century of lies about Joseph McCarthy and “McCarthyism”...”
The point is, M. Stanton Evans didn’t just discover this truth. Somehow, Coulter already sold 396,600 hardcover copies on the topic.
I’m sure her’s is not as scholarly, LOL.
Well, Donna, I guess I still do not understand your point.
My points are as follows:
(1) Evans’ book provided newly discovered documentation which Coulter never saw much less discussed in her book
(2) Coulter is not a scholar or researcher nor does she have any record whatsoever of research/writing about the McCarthy period — other than her one book which is just a polemical attack — not a calm analysis of available evidence.
(3) Many prominent and reputable scholars have differing views about McCarthy but it is also true that even when they disagree with one another, they do not question each other’s integrity or character or patriotism or intellectual honesty.
BY CONTRAST, in this thread, McCarthy admirers insist that only their personal opinions should be considered valid and all critics are “lying” or “smearing” McCarthy.
NO serious student of this complex subject believes that the McCarthy period in our history is subject to only one interpretation or one conclusion.
A lot of the comments which have been posted in this thread are utter falsehoods which appear to be based upon personal bias — not familiarity with, and careful examination of, available factual evidence.
And to directly answer your inquiry about why I am posting to you, the reasons are:
1. You provided a link to the NewsMax article which recommended Coulter’s book, Treason.
2. That article characterizes the debate about McCarthy with hysterical terminology—i.e. “lies about Joseph McCarthy and McCarthyism”
3. You seem to think that since Coulter’s book (Treason) was published before Evans’ book, that perhaps Evans “didn’t just discover this truth”. The inference being that maybe Evans relied upon Coulter for his “truth”?
The problem with that inference is (as I have previously mentioned)
(a) What Coulter presented in her book is not “truth”; she is a professional polemicist who derives her income from writing and speaking in a manner which draws attention to her hyperbolic (and often false) statements and personal opinions. At best, she is a pundit (not a scholar nor even someone recognized for any contribution to public understanding about complex matters)
(b) Unlike Coulter, Evans engaged his critical faculties and did years-long seminal research which turned up new primary source documentation which had never been revealed before his book was published. [I had some of that material long before Evans did from my FOIA requests.]