Blasts at liberal 'traitors' win US book war

The Observer ^ | Sunday July 27, 2003 | Lawrence Donegan in San Francisco

[lodwick]

Goldwater's "disastrous" campaign was mainly due to the capping of JFK, and Lyndon's Daisy nuke ad.

Good post - thanks.

[gitmo]

Thank you. I was getting ready to look it up.

I wouldn't say Ann's writing has a strong implicit point of view. I would say it has a strong explicit point of view.

[conservatism_IS_compassion]

The Guardian's view on Ann's book is that her logic is "tendentious". After looking up the word, I agree.

I'm not sure you got the drift: if someone's logic is tendentious, they are trying to snow you. Do you agree that Coulter is trying to deceive the reader? I don't.

[Forgiven_Sinner]

"I'm not sure you got the drift: if someone's logic is tendentious, they are trying to snow you. Do you agree that Coulter is trying to deceive the reader? I don't."

Yes, I thought tendentious meant that; it's often used that way. But this is the definition, from post 18:

tendentious- Marked by a strong implicit point of view; partisan: a tendentious account of the recent elections.

Obviously Ann has a strong point of view--but she isn't trying to "snow" or fool anyone. She wouldn't generate 40 pages of footnotes if she were.

I detect a pattern among historians--they don't refute her, but condemn her for her style.

Of course, no one else refutes her either. I think she's getting though.

[exDemMom]

I got so tired of walking into bookstores and seeing multiple covers of Hillary staring at me. (I felt like a fly.) Yet many conservative titles are tucked away out of sight.

Oddly, I have yet to encounter that problem. At the Borders store in ultra liberal Davis, CA, I don't recall ever having a problem finding (and buying) conservative books. At the Waldenbooks in somewhat conservative Woodland, the conservative books are displayed prominently. On the best-seller rack, it was: Harry Potter/Lying History/Treason. (I bought two of the three.)

[weegee]

...heading Penguin's attempt to exploit the trend.

'We have several imprints that serve the Left, but none that serves people who are coming from the Right

And yet there are those who deny that there is bias in the media. That the librarians, editors, and even the people who compile the "best seller" lists are liberals and use their politics in their decisions is not "proof" that there is bias. Whatever...

[weegee]

And identifying Fox News as "Rupert Murdoch's" is "fair and balanced" Mr. Lawrenth?

Doesn't bother to mention that "Mr. Murdoch" also published Michael Moore's tendentious piece of socialist propaganda.

[conservatism_IS_compassion]

I thought tendentious meant that; it's often used that way. But this is the definition, from post 18:

tendentious- Marked by a strong implicit point of view; partisan: a tendentious account of the recent elections.

I have no problem at all if you say that Coulter has a strong point of view; those who do not, simply don't understand the situation.

But the "implicit" part of the definition goes to the point that a "tendentious argument" always is concealing its agenda. Just like The New York Times would have you think that it's a bastion of nothing-but-the-facts truthtelling when in fact its "facts"--lately is some disrepute--have been carefully selected to avoid helping Republicans with too much inconvenient truth.

The article could have said "opinionated", and gotten away with it. But "tendentious" is always a perjorative.

[Forgiven_Sinner]

Thanks for clearing that up. I wonder how they could say her point of view is implicit? She is extremely explicit in her views.

[KittyKares]

Re: definition of tendentious

Thanks, I was too lazy to look up that word!

[KittyKares]

Re: not having trouble finding conservative books in liberal cities

I am surprised. I live in a moderate to conservative county in California, and the bookstores here were shoving Hillary in your face as you walk in. Maybe these particular bookstore owners are liberal. I assumed it was this way everywhere. Thank goodnes it is not.

[Bigg Red]

a great book

^^
Yes, it was. It's been a few years since I read it, but I recall that Aldrich was at great pains to warn his readers that the focus of his book was not the sexual scandals but the horrendous security breakdown that occurred during the Clinton infestation of the WH.

[gitmo]

It's been a few years since I read it, but I recall that Aldrich was at great pains to warn his readers that the focus of his book was not the sexual scandals but the horrendous security breakdown that occurred during the Clinton infestation of the WH.

There was scant mention about sexual scandals, other than Hillary's Christmas tree. But the systematic dismantalling of White House security was shocking.

[exDemMom]

It's not that I don't see Hillary's mug, it's that I also see Ann's smiling face. I've yet to see the conservative books hidden.

[DPB101]

A classic use of the word:

"I have seen the Khmer Rouge and they are not killing anyone...Wars nourish brutality and sadism and sometimes certain people are executed by the victors but it would be tendentious to forecast such abnormal behavior as a national policy under a communist government once the war is over."

-- Sidney Schanberg. New York Times. Shortly before Pol Pot's Khmer Rouge took power and murdered between one and two million Cambodians.