Treason: Horowitz v. Coulter

Mensnewsdaily.com ^ | 7/11/03 | Bruce Walker

[Endeavor]

Your venomous attacks don't count for much, huh?

Fruitloop hardly goes as far as your savaging of my opinion. Really, if you want to influence people try being civil.

Pinkerton's abortion stance is not relevant to his opinion of Ann's book. In your world, does one have to be foaming at the mouth far right wing to avoid your caustic attitude?

Ann's done some great work in the past and I've been a vocal champion of hers. However, I'm beginning to see some inconsistencies with her though, and that sends up red flags. "Treason," as I've stated before, is way over the top to the detriment, in my opinion (which I believe we're still allowed to have in the United States), of the great points she does make, and will not advance her cause except among those who worship her.

You seem to have a problem with my opinion of the book. You aren't going to change my mind. Let it rest.

[Map Kernow]

That was the reason that I said I was not sure about what I was reading. I came to a dead end when I tried to research Freda Utely. I know that she was a prolific political historian and writer, but without reading any of her work, I can't make a judgement. I just know that I was attacked for quotintg her and that if I was attacked, I am sure that McCarthy was also.

OK. I'm not trying to "lock horns" with you. Let me simply state this: In 1955, William F. Buckley organized an editorial staff for a new magazine, National Review, that he wanted to make the flagship publication of a revived, mainstream conservative movement consciously purged of anti-Semites---in fact, Jews were on the original staff. Freda Utley was a member of that original National Review staff, and I sincerely doubt she would have made it if she were a Jewish conspiracy theorist or Nazi sympathizer. That's all.

[Map Kernow]

"Treason," as I've stated before, is way over the top to the detriment, in my opinion (which I believe we're still allowed to have in the United States), of the great points she does make, and will not advance her cause except among those who worship her.

I don't "worship" Ann---I like her writing, and I agree with her points of view. I've read "Treason" cover-to-cover, think that her research and conclusions are impeccable, and have challenged you to rebut them. You have responded by calling me "naive," a "village idiot," and a "worshipper" of Ann Coulter---you even darkly suggest that I am trying to deprive you of the right to express your opinion. What I am trying to do, "if I'm still allowed to do that in the United States," is to challenge you to back up your opinion with substance. If you can't, you can't---you don't have to start crying.

You seem to have a problem with my opinion of the book. You aren't going to change my mind. Let it rest.

I have a problem with vituperative "conservatives" like you who attack a well-researched, well articulated book like Ann's on a topic like "McCarthyism" (which by the way is not the sole topic of her book, contrary to what so many people who haven't read her book seem to think) that is still relevant thanks to the War on Terror and which needs revisiting, with "opinions" they refuse to back up with anything but spleen and epithets.

I don't want to change your mind. I just want you to read Ann's new book. Fair enough?

[Naspino]

I am guessing that Horowitz did what most liberals did -- write a hit piece without ever picking up the book. Pure laziness.

[Endeavor]

I haven't been vituperative. I have read the book, cover to cover. My assessment, as I've stated until the cows come home, is that it's over the top. That's an opinion. It's basis is stylistic. There is no need to "debate" it. So you can reply to this and have the last word, because I'm sick of going around and around with you.

[Naspino]

It's a perfect explanation why some of us conservatives have a problem with "Treason."

Have you read Treason? If so then why is this half page article a perfect reason for having a problem with it. The writer starts in 1950 then two lines down is in 1954 at the censure. What happened in between and as the most important question "Were there communist spies in the government?". The answer is yes -- and so McCarthy for whatever faults you want to attribute to him was correct and nobody cared.

[Map Kernow]

My assessment, as I've stated until the cows come home, is that it's over the top. That's an opinion. It's basis is stylistic. There is no need to "debate" it.

A very clever tactical retreat, Major Strasser! You could have avoided this whole damn sandbox snit by saying that in the first place. Now here's my opinion---don't jump on a thread dealing with whether or not Ann's book is factually accurate if you just want to bitch about her "smashmouth" style. It's not topical; it's irrelevant; it's dishonest; it wastes time.

So you can reply to this and have the last word, because I'm sick of going around and around with you.

And you think this pointless exchange has been a bowl of cherries for me?

[kegler4]

Here's a column on a site that is indeed run by Democrats but also criticizes Democrats when they go over the top. They cite numerous instances of what they say is Coulter's sloppy documentation and inaccuracies. I don't know; I haven't read the book because I simply don't read these types of books -- by conservatives, liberals, or anybody else. There's also another column describing how Ann didn't or couldn't respond to some of these things when asked by Alan Colmes.

http://www.spinsanity.org/columns/20030630.html

[Map Kernow]

Here's a column on a site that is indeed run by Democrats but also criticizes Democrats when they go over the top. They cite numerous instances of what they say is Coulter's sloppy documentation and inaccuracies. I don't know; I haven't read the book because I simply don't read these types of books -- by conservatives, liberals, or anybody else. There's also another column describing how Ann didn't or couldn't respond to some of these things when asked by Alan Colmes.

Funny how no one seems to have read Ann's book on his own or to be able to refute any of the assertions or conclusions in her book. In columns, in reviews, and in posts like yours, we're simply "redirected" to a website, very often "spinsanity," supposedly "objective" because somewhere, sometime it objected to some of Michael Moore's work.

Well, you know what? I've been to "spinsanity," I've read Brendan Nyhan's hit pieces, and I'd like to know exactly which "point" he made that you think shows Ann is "inaccurate" in her book "Treason"? Both Nyhan and Alan Colmes (whose exchange with Ann is extensively quoted as if Colmes had effectively refuted any position Ann had taken by badgering her to name "traitors" in the Democrat Party) simply take up the now standard quibble with the title of Ann's book "Treason." It amounts to nothing but a childish whine: "Mommy!!! She called me a 'TRAITOR'!!!!! WAAAAAAAAHHHHH!!!!!!"

Is there anything specific you want to address, or are you just going to disappear now in a cyber-*POOF!*?

[Eva]

Thanks for the information, I feel better about having posted the link to her article. Some posters had been telling me that she was a Nazi apologist and that so was I.
My search on her came up empty, except for the titles of books she had written and the names of authors who had quoted her in their work.

[kegler4]

I have not read the book and do not intend to. I neither criticize nor praise her book or her. I have no opinion of her or her book.

I simply pointed out a web site with a column that, if you read the whole thing, has some very specific instances where they (not me) say she misquoted, got some facts wrong, or wrongly attributed things. Yes, they start with a general criticism of her style and her book, but then they get down to some very specific things. It's not just whining about her calling Democrats traitors.

You, on the other, hand indicated in earlier posts that her book is virtually flawless. So I'm asking you, since you've read the book, what about some of the very specific instances where they say she blew it? Just grab a few. For instance, where they say that she criticized the NYT for calling Reagan a cowboy when in fact it was somebody in his administration who said that. I'm curious because these "little" things do matter. They go to credibility.


"Is there anything specific you want to address, or are you just going to disappear now in a cyber-*POOF!*?"

Believe it or not I have a life off the Internet. I don't hang around breathlessly waiting for replies.

[Map Kernow]

I have not read the book and do not intend to. I neither criticize nor praise her book or her. I have no opinion of her or her book.

"Do not intend to"??? "No opinion of her or her book"??? Strange way to try to establish your objectivity, keg.

I simply pointed out a web site with a column that, if you read the whole thing, has some very specific instances where they (not me) say she misquoted, got some facts wrong, or wrongly attributed things. Yes, they start with a general criticism of her style and her book, but then they get down to some very specific things. It's not just whining about her calling Democrats traitors.

"Very specific" WHAT? Did you read the article? Why should anyone care if Ann can identify a single Democrat as indictable under the Constitutional definition of "treason"? That's not the point of her book---she probably didn't even pick the title of the book, because she didn't pick the title of her last book, "Slander": her editor did. The whole article is a giant red herring. Once again, what specific point?

You, on the other, hand indicated in earlier posts that her book is virtually flawless. So I'm asking you, since you've read the book, what about some of the very specific instances where they say she blew it? Just grab a few. For instance, where they say that she criticized the NYT for calling Reagan a cowboy when in fact it was somebody in his administration who said that. I'm curious because these "little" things do matter. They go to credibility.

"Somebody in Reagan's administration called him a cowboy"? Here's the exact quote you're referring to in "Spinsanity":

In one particularly dishonest case, she claims that the New York Times "reminded readers that Reagan was a 'cowboy, ready to shoot at the drop of a hat'" after the invasion of Grenada (p. 179). However, the "cowboy" quote is actually from a Reagan administration official quoted in a Week in Review story who said, ''I suppose our biggest minus from the operation is that there now is a resurgence of the caricature of Ronald Reagan, the cowboy, ready to shoot at the drop of a hat.''

"Dishonest," hunh? Read what Ann wrote: the NY Times "reminded readers" of the "cowboy caricature" of Reagan. You mean the quote didn't present Reagan as a cowboy caricature? You mean the "Week in Review" section of the Sunday Times is not published by the New York Times? You mean the reference didn't "remind readers" of Reagan's "cowboy caricature"? I'd say her quote was 100% accurate---as Bill O'Reilly would say, "Tell me where I'm wrong."

You see, funny guy, "little things" like this do matter---the kind of stupid, trivial quibbles over phrasing and diction that stupid, trivial leftists try desperately to elevate into epochally consequential lies, cover-ups, misstatements and deceits. They go to credibility, you see, and your citation of this purported "inaccuracy" on Ann's part doesn't do much for your credibility or "Spinsanity's".

"Is there anything specific you want to address, or are you just going to disappear now in a cyber-*POOF!*?"

Believe it or not I have a life off the Internet. I don't hang around breathlessly waiting for replies.

Hey, listen, pal, you made the first move. I'm not going to go through every one of Spinsanity's trivialities and "refute" them---it's a waste of my time to do so. If you don't want to talk about a substantive "inaccuracy" in Ann's book that's bugging you--and you obviously don't want the responsibility---go back to your "life" and leave this field to serious, knowledgeable debaters.

[Map Kernow]

Thanks for the information, I feel better about having posted the link to her article. Some posters had been telling me that she was a Nazi apologist and that so was I. My search on her came up empty, except for the titles of books she had written and the names of authors who had quoted her in their work.

Thanks for your reply. Freda Utley is mentioned numerous times in George H. Nash's 1996 book, "The Conservative Intellectual Movement in America Since 1945" published by ISI, a very good history, as one of the founders of the modern conservative movement. She was one of a distinguished number of highly educated ex-leftists, even ex-communists, like James Burnham, Whittaker Chambers, and Eugene Lyons, whose experience of the "Evil Empire" led them in the '30's and '40's to the right side of the political spectrum and leadership in modern conservatism.

[Eva]

I am really glad to hear that she is one of the good guys because I sent the link to her McCarthy article to the Wall Street Journal in response to the Dorothy Rabinowitz article and I was beginning to think that I may have made a fool of myself.

I guess the anti-Bush people on FreeRepublic were just issuing unfounded smears, again.

[Noumenon]

You have conspired against our royal person,
Join'd with an enemy proclaim'd and from his coffers
Received the golden earnest of our death;
Wherein you would have sold your king to slaughter,
His princes and his peers to servitude,
His subjects to oppression and contempt
And his whole kingdom into desolation.
Touching our person seek we no revenge;
But we our kingdom's safety must so tender,
Whose ruin you have sought, that to her laws
We deliver you. Get you therefore hence,
Poor miserable wretches, to your death:
The taste whereof, God of his mercy give
You patience to endure, and true repentance
Of all your offences! Bring them hence.

--Wm. Shakespeare - King Henry V, Act II Scene III

[kegler4]

"Do not intend to"??? "No opinion of her or her book"??? Strange way to try to establish your objectivity, keg."

And how is this not objective? I have no interest in reading her book or any like it by liberals or conservatives. It's not personal. I have time to read only so many books and this simply is not the kind of book that interests me. Besides, I already know the gist of it from reading about it. I also won't read Hillary's book. Does that also make me unobjective?

"If you don't want to talk about a substantive "inaccuracy" in Ann's book that's bugging you..."

Good god, you're the one who went off the deep end just because I posted a link. Why don't you settle down; have a stiff drink. Nothing in Coulter's book is bugging me BECAUSE I HAVEN'T READ IT. I have no problem at all with your critcism of the column -- in fact I wanted to know what you and others thought -- but I have a hard time understanding why you're so mad. You might consider some therapy for this obessession with Coulter and anger at people who don't idolize her.

[Map Kernow]

Good god, you're the one who went off the deep end just because I posted a link. Why don't you settle down; have a stiff drink. Nothing in Coulter's book is bugging me BECAUSE I HAVEN'T READ IT. I have no problem at all with your critcism of the column -- in fact I wanted to know what you and others thought -- but I have a hard time understanding why you're so mad. You might consider some therapy for this obessession with Coulter and anger at people who don't idolize her.

I try to engage you about allegations in a website you post, and which you hotly defend, and now all of a sudden I have an "anger management" problem? This is a thread about allegations that Ann Coulter is guilty of "inaccurate" statements. If you jump on, I'm going to assume you want to discuss whether or not she is chargeable with making false statements in her book---not simply post a link, challenge me to "grab a few" allegations thereon of "inaccuracies" and refute them, and then run away crying that I "need therapy." If you're not prepared to discuss this topic on a mature, substantive level, then please do go away in a cyber-*POOF*!, just like I always knew you would.

[kezekiel]

She has marginalized a bit her message because of her choice of presentation methods and style.

Ann's style is to convey the truth with frequent hyperbolic stingers aimed at the left and liberals. She uses hyperbole and acid humor to great effect. What she does not do, in my experience of reading her and watching her, is lie.

Her message marginalizes, in my opinion, only the left and liberals (and who cares, because they deserve it), and those unfortunate conservatives who want liberals to like them and respect them. I gave up on that back in college.

[Map Kernow]

What she does not do, in my experience of reading her and watching her, is lie.

"She says what she means, and she means what she says,
Ann Coulter is faithful---One Hundred Percent!"

(adapted from "Horton Hatches the Egg" by Dr. Seuss [Theodor Geisel])

[Paul Ross]

I particularly like your point and that cited which was made by Ann:

Ann Coulter didn't "concede" he injured the anti-Communist cause because she doesn't believe he did. Treason Page 70

"The rote smirking at McCarthy by conservatives is linked to their own psychological compulsion to snobbery. McCarthy was a popularizer, a brawler. Republican elitists abhor demagogic appeals to working-class Democrats. Fighting like a Democrat is a breech of etiquette worse than using the wrong fork. McCarthy is sniffed at for not playing by Marquis of Queensberry Rules--rules of engagement demanded only of Republicans. Well, without McCarthy, Republicans might be congratulating themselves on their excellent behavior from the gulag right now. He may have been tut-tutted on the golf course, but McCarthy made the American workers' blood boil.