Replies

For the level of charges and accusations she makes(like Treason) she paints with too broad a brush in her book. In SOME ways it comes across similar to the rants of a Carville, but with a basis in 90% truth, versus his 2% kernal of truth. Innuendo and carrying ideas to their logical conclusion are great ways to illustrating a point, but poor ways to support damning accusations.

Its a real shame, because there is so much excellent info and points made in the book. But it is presented in the argumentative equivalent of an entirely shouted presentation, with an overuse of invective. That's a great way to excite the choir, a much poorer way to debate. Perhaps the simple shouting will win some converts, there are situations where such methods play a role. But its spice, not foundational material.

Sorry, I am not going to get into a point by point dissertation, that is for others. I am just giving you feedback on tone and perception. Like it or not, these do play a role in effectiveness. She has marginalized a bit her message because of her choice of presentation methods and style.

But I guess since I am trying to be objective in evaluation, I'm a sellout and never was a true conservative, in the eyes of some.

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

You could be right. But it seems to me that part of what drives Ann is the feeling that the Republicans have been very calm about their politics, very factual, and responsible. Republicans want to explain to people what "obstruction of justice" means. Republicans want to discuss the Cosntitution and what is meant by "treason" or "impeachment". Meanwhile, all of that gets lost because James Carville is jumping up and down shouting "SEX! It's all about sex! They is pryin' into our president's sex life!"

The careful approach used by Republicans has frustrated Ann, so she's giving to the Democrats what they usually give to Republicans. This invective-filled approach sticks in the craw of many Republicans (it's just not their style) and it may be that it is counter-productive. But I think it opens the eyes of a lot of people. As you pointed out, Ann includes a lot of truth along with her invective -- that's something the Democrats don't do.

Sorry Professor, but most people won't read a dry academic tome. It is Ann's wit and sharpness that is enabling me to get through this. The history of the period is extraordinarily important, but dry. I think that's how the liberal/communists are able to misrepresent it so well.

And I also believe that the charges made by Horowitz are simply not true. I was disappointed by Horowitz review, because I enjoy his writing for many of the same reasons I enjoy Coulters'.

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.