[CatoRenasci]

Actually, this book (and the authors' other works) are infinitely more important in the long run than either Charon's or Ann Coulter's works. Theirs are popular works which are not (despite Ann's footnotes) particularly carefully argued or adequately sourced for their main assertions. Ann is great, and she's usually right, but she does play a little fast and loose with the record.

These guys are academic historians who have examined the primary source documents, and have laid out their findings carefully. Over time, their work will have great impact on the rising generation of scholars now undergraduates or in the early stages of grad school, which is probably a little less left wing than the current faculty anyway. In 20 years, it will be as hard to find someone arguing the Rosenbergs were innocent, or that the Communists weren't soviet dupes and spies, as it is now to find a supporter of the Dunning (exceptionally hostile) view of Reconstruction, or someone who doesn't accept (at least in part) Fritz Fischer's Germany's Aims in the First World War.

[razorback-bert]

I pray you are correct

[FreedomPoster]

Agreed, to a point. Both are important in the long run. We'd never get the popular impact of the information in this book, without Ann and Mona's efforts at putting that information in a format that will reach a mass audience. With that popular impact, we reduce the chances of the history being effectively re-written via Big Lie techniques, and this book being ignored/marginalized.

[Liz]

Nice deconstruction.

BTW, Ann Coulter is a social critic, and a good one.