Replies

It's important to not go overboard in defending McCarthy. I stand by that statement. He drank heavilly due to his sinus condition. And he hired a sleazy advisor who attempted to bully key military personel to help out his peculiar 'friend' in the military. His advisor manipulated him to that end, and McCarthy didn't realise what was going wrong until it was too late.

I agree that McCarthy had the right, general idea. But in the end, he was an easy target for the left. They had a field day with him.

Defending McCarthy is a difficult tight rope for us to walk on. I'm sure whatever Coulter wrote was factually accurate. [Wish I had time to read it.] The real challenge is for freepers to know just how far we can go defending McCarthy.

I'm sure whatever Coulter wrote was factually accurate. [Wish I had time to read it.]

You absolutely must make the time.

. . . Defending McCarthy is a difficult tight rope for us to walk on. . . . The real challenge is for freepers to know just how far we can go defending McCarthy.

Actually, Ann--along with being factually accurate--is noted for clarity of exposition. She pushes you to think you should back McCarthy 'til you start to back off and say, "that's a bit too far". Then she gives you a zinger which makes you laugh at the idea of backing off, and you read further.
The net effect is that you finish the book resolved that liberals who talk about "McCarthyism" have no case. Conservatives should in future react to an allusion to "McCarthyism" with a blank, uncomprehending stare, forcing the liberal to cite chapter and verse right down the line, just the way Clinton did when stonewalling the legitimate beefs against him.