His book was meant for the "haters." Don't pretend that it represents any sort of scholarship.
Yeah, without addressing so much as a single word of what Masters wrote.
Do you deny that's what they wrote about Masters, or that it is a correct assessment?
It was a partisan and biased assessment of him, specifically to call his book on Lincoln "prejudiced" as if to indicate its position was taken without prior knowledge of Lincoln. Nothing could be further from the truth as Masters' position on Lincoln is thoroughly reasoned out and, whether you agree with it or not, built upon evidence that he offers to support it. The only "fault" with his Lincoln book in the minds of people like you is the fact that it's harshly critical of Lincoln. That does not mean it is without factual validity or intellectual rigor, but since you refuse to address its factual validity and prefer instead to throw bombs at Masters' character, you will likely never know that.
I could just as easily say, and with substantially greater accuracy, that Harry Jaffa's books are meant for the Lincoln idolaters. But that is not enough of a basis to reject his arguments outright. His arguments may be and have been rejected on the basis of failures within their construction and failures to mesh with historical evidence, not the simple fact that he's a Lincoln worshipping hack which only explains the incidence of his books. If you wish to say an equal and opposite hatred of Lincoln is true for Masters, I can't stop you but the burden is still upon you to discredit or rebut his arguments if you wish to dismiss them.