Ann Coulter, Saucy Siren Of The Right, Sounds Off

The Day.com ^ | Published on 10/19/2003 | By FRAZIER MOORE

[Mr. Peabody]

Interesting post. What are you saying McCarthy did in your excerpt? He "attacked" someone during hearings? With words? So what? What did McCarthy do that was so evil? I really want to know.

[RatSlayer]

Thanks for the book recommendation, Yosemitest.

I'll have to try to track down a copy.

[Mr. Peabody]

Interesting. Also on this page you read,

"I (Jesse Friedman) wrote this report in November, 1996, for my 8th Grade Social Studies research essay."

[Semper]

Semper said: ... "In her book “Treason,” Ann Coulter lionizes Joseph McCarthy"

No, I said that this thread begins with the statement: "Ann Coulter lionizes Joseph McCarthy". Go the the beginning of this thread and read what it says. I did not imply that you said this. In order to debate, it is important that you first read and understand what is said.

The most important aspect of this debate to me is the fact that Senator McCarthy's peers found that he had acted improperly and they condemned him. It was my experience in Marine Corps Officer's Candidate School that the most reliable assessment of character was peer evalations. You can fool a lot of people but it is most difficult to fool your peers. Why would Ann Coulter be a better source than Senator McCarthy's peers?

[rohry]

Some history to make this post as clear as I can make it:

In #69 I was quoting Semper's #41 post which linked to the article about McCarthy which I though was overly simplified and I pointed that a perusal of the guys page would reveal that he was "out there."

In Mr. Peabody's reply to me he said:

Interesting. Also on this page you read (the link by Semper),

"I (Jesse Friedman) wrote this report in November, 1996, for my 8th Grade Social Studies research essay."

I went back to the link and indeed it's true!

I'm laughing so much my wife is telling me that I have to leave the room!

[Burr5]

Who isn't "dying to nail her?" ;)

[rohry]

Check out my post #125...

It's funny!

(Credit to Mr. Peabody for catching it)

[Semper]

What did McCarthy do that was so evil? I really want to know.

For starters he did enough to get himself condemned by his peers in the Senate. He managed to render himself impotent in his job as a Senator and then drank himself to death. Along the way he managed to get himself much public attention which ultimately did him little good.

[RatSlayer]

I'll give my interpretation of the events that led up to Welch's quote. I assume it will be much different than Semper's since he is using it to justify his dislike of McCarthy:

Roy Cohn was approached by someone (I think Mr Welch himself) in the days before the hearing in question. In this private meeting Cohn agreed that their side (i.e. McCarthy's side) would not bring up the issue of Welch's associate having ties to a communist front organization, the Lawyer's Guild and in return Welch would not bring up some embarassing information on Mr Cohn. In my opinion, Welch set this up intentionally, because he new that as soon as he started yanking McCarthy's chain, McCarthy would use it.

I've forgetton what it was, but I think it had to do with how he was trying to get an better military posting for a former
McCarthy aid. This aid had been 4F, but the Rats in the Senate put pressure on the draft board and got him reclassified 4A. So Cohn was putting as much reverse pressure as possible to get him a good posting.

This gets really long to try to explain fully and I think it shows that McCarthy enemies took a political issue and turned it into a personal vendetta against McCarthy. You really need to read Cohn's book to get the full story from his prospective. I'm not doing it justice here.

Anyway, the hearing comes and Cohn is on the stand and Welch starts pushing McCarthy's buttons by inferring that Cohn was trying to help the soldier because they were homosexual lovers and by a bunch of other remarks. Welch eventually said something to the effect that if Cohn knows of any communists on his [Welch's] staff that he would hopefully tell them right away. This was said in a sarcastic tone and for Joe it was the last straw.

He blew his cool and blurted out the info about Welch's associate (info that had already been printed in the newspapers by the way).

Now Semper would apparently have us consider only McCarthy to be a fault here. But I know I've lost my temper and said things I shouldn't have. But, was that an unjustifiable means or was it just an imperfect man losing his temper.

And why is it only McCarthy that got tagged for playing politics and not Welch. In my opinion it was only because McCarthy was rocking the boat in public and Welch did all
his assasinations behind closed doors.

[truthandjustice1]

"at the pukes entrenched in our State Department"

you're right about that.

Wait, wasn't Colin Powell a Bush appointment? Is he a puke, too? Does that make Bush a puke? Just wondering...

[Mr. Peabody]

Sounds like he did, "enough", "drank himself to death", and got a lot of "attention". Care to go into any more detail? I know people over the years hear again and again how bad McCarthy was but have nothing to back it up. The modern world is a real echo chamber sometimes.

[truthandjustice1]

"McCarthy was a drunken clown who was an embarrassment to this country. Why Ann can't figure this out is puzzling"

And your agenda would be?

Fi

[Mr. Peabody]

Rat, I was amused that his link was from an 8th grader's homework assignment. Seriously, /i don't have a dog in this fight. I haven't read Ann's book. I just want to know who was hurt and did they have a communist background.

[truthandjustice1]

"know that is not a scientific way of determining his character but he never did anything to alter my opinion."

As a fellow Vietnam Vet, I would strongly suggest you find a better way to back up your statements. Your posts read like: "Clinton was never fully impeached by Congress, therefore he was good President."

I would expect more...

[Semper]

Are you laughing too much to explain why the Senate condemned Senator McCarthy?

Actually, it is somewhat humorous that an 8th grade social studies report contains facts that are a credible rebutal to Ann Coulter's thesis.

[Plutarch]

...she treats conservative Republicans to a spicy brand of reassurance...

Oh, it is reassurance that Ann's books provide conservatives, is it? We conservatives are just a bunch of dopes, frightened and confused by all the changes our liberal betters are providing for us, and we need reassurance that we are right before we go to bed.

Such patronizing ill-informed elitist pap! The only reassurance being provided is by the reviewer to his skittish liberal audience: "Don't worry, we'll tar and label this girl, so we don't have to debate her."

[truthandjustice1]

The Senate voted not to impeach Clinton. Does that make him right? I don't follow your logic.

[RatSlayer]

Semper said:

"The most important aspect of this debate to me is the fact that Senator McCarthy's peers found that he had acted improperly and they condemned him. It was my experience in Marine Corps Officer's Candidate School that the most reliable assessment of character was peer evalations. You can fool a lot of people but it is most difficult to fool your peers. Why would Ann Coulter be a better source than Senator McCarthy's peers? "

Big sigh, I thought you had agreed many messages ago that in the absense of any evidence these peer group ostracizations say nothing about the character of the person being ostracized. I'll go even farther and claim that no they aren't a "reliable assessment of character". They are only a reliable assessment of who's unpopular.

Unfortunatly, it has become clear to me that trying to get you to actually debate your point is impossible. You seem to be a one-trick pony who's only line is to say that McCarthy was bad because 70 or so old men, most of whom never did an honest days work, decide Joe was unpopular and not fun to play with.

BTW, does the fact that JFK abstained from voting on the censure at all? Or are you still cock-sure that he must be bad because he lost the vote?

I guess these are probably rhetorical questions, since you have really addressed any of my other questions. Oh well.

I really was hoping that you'd, look at the evidence, think for yourself and come to some opinion, even if it is still that McCarthy was using unjustifiable means, rather than letting 70 guys 50 years ago do it for you.

I'm off to other more likely to be fruitful pursuits.

[Semper]

Your posts read like: "Clinton was never fully impeached by Congress, therefore he was good President."

Where did you read that? Not from me. You obviously did not understand what I wrote. Just so you understand my position on Clinton: I think he was the worst president this country has ever had and he did more damage than most people now understand. Clinton did more damage than anyone McCarthy was hunting and it will take a very long time to get over the damage he has caused this country.

Go back and read what I wrote and think about it a little more before you jump to some totally incorrect conclusion and insult me with your misconception.

[truthandjustice1]

"and insult me with your misconception"

No insult intended. But have you done comparable research into McCarthy as Coulter has done? Not that you need to in order to express your opinion. My gosh, having read your home page, you are certainly entitled to your opinion