[stimpyone]

The more I read of Coulter the more I think she is becoming a liability to Conservatives. She is our version of Al Franken, mildly entertaining at first, but the more you read, the more you realize she doesn't know what she is talking about.

IMHO, we're conservatives, we're right, and we don't need to embrace liberal smear tacticts to make our points. We instead do better making well thought out, well reasoned arguments that disarm liberals on the basis of the facts.

[RJayneJ]

Quote of the Day by Cicero

[Bush2004]

Your view is Baloney.

The fact that she draws the attention she does speaks volumes. The fact that this article exists solely to feebly attempt to smear her is a testament to her significance.

[AZLiberty]

And finally, in a similar accusation, Coulter claims the Times "barely mentioned" the release of decrypted Soviet cables (the Venona Project), saying "[i]t might have detracted from stories of proud and unbowed victims of 'McCarthyism.'" The Times actually ran a 1000 word story on the declassification of the Venona cables. It did not run on the front page, but neither did the stories in the Washington Post, USA Today, Newsday or the Seattle Post-Intelligencer (among others). Among major newspapers, only the Los Angeles Times put the story on its front page.

OK, the other newspapers should be tarred with the very same brush. This weakens Coulter's point?

[agitator]

Seems to me that this guy, who happens to be a favorite of Salon.com, just doesn't like Ann's opinions. And frankly, for all of the nitpicking, I don't see much in the way of anything substantive to complain about. My guess also is that Ann would rip this guy a new @#$hole in a heartbeat if he had the coglioni to show up.

[SkyPilot]

cheap shots and asides directed at targets like President Bill Clinton, the American Civil Liberties Union and Hustler publisher Larry Flynt

Gee, and those three are deserving of so much honor, respect, and dignity!

[hosepipe]

The only people that could possibly be upset over makeing things right for ol' tailgunner Joe are communists, other socialists, democrats and of course RINOS <<-- that both democrats and conservatives despise..

Since the democrats are not credible on any subject, obviously some "conservative" will have perform the hit piece against ANY of Ann Coulters books... especially TREASON... some are watching closely to see whom those "conservatives" are... Let the ad-hominum's begin..

[MaxPlus305]

Already been done:
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/939529/posts


I agree, though...just because Ann is saying what we want to hear doesn't mean we should automatically be satisifed with her methods in reaching those conclusions. This author may think she's the anti-Christ but he still makes some pointed claims about her credibility that are worth examining (and tearing apart, if they are erroneous).

[Jim Scott]

I often wonder whether Ann Coulter's political views are just a pose. Having seen her on television, she is bright, witty and appears to be the product of a good education and good grooming. There is nothing about her which suggests she has spent any time crawling on her belly in the mud at a right-wing militia training camp in Idaho. But when she opens her mouth or logs on her computer, Dr. Coulter is transformed into a political creature that could take Pat Buchanan's breath away.

The inference being that Ann is 'too smart' to be a conservative. Another liberal canard: Only liberals are intelligent so if you demonstrate any intelligence, you must really be a liberal. How condescending - and how typical. Ann Coulter is doing fine and the more 'conservatives' and liberals whine about her the more successful she becomes. Very telling.

[Nick Danger]

I don't agree with the author's thesis. I think Coulter fills a necessary role and she fills it pretty well.

Ann Coulter does not claim to be a think tank scholar. I'm sure there are many civilized panel discussions one might attend in Washington where domeheads from the Heritage Foundation square off against pointyheads from the Brookings Institution, quoting Hegel and Plato as they joust and parry. Perhaps they are interesting. I do not know. I've never been to one, and neither has anyone else.

I've been listening to Snakes From The Dark Side call the guys on my side every name in the book for thirty years. We're nazis, we're racists, we throw grandmothers out of windows. You look for somebody on our side shooting back, and they give you Tucker Carlson.

Is Ann Coulter over-the-top? Yes. And it's about time. She has a fast mind, an acid tongue, and a lightning wit. Plus brass ovaries... she'll go right on the Morning Show and call Hillary Clinton "Thunder Thighs." Well shocked-I-say-shocked. The same people complaining about that have been writing "The President is a Dunce" columns for three years. Scroom.

Let's have no more of more of these pablum-fed eunuchs up against Carville and Begala so the networks can demonstrate their "objectivity."

I just love the idea that these liberals are finally getting a dose of their own medicine. Traitors! That's what they are... frigging traitors! Go, Ann, go... and pile it on.

[freebilly]

Of course, Coulter must engage in a complicated set of rhetorical tricks to accuse liberals of "fifty years of treason" (in a 2001 column, it was only "[t]wenty years of treason" - did inflation set in?).

So, the problem is not liberal treason. The problem is whether liberal treason goes back 50 years or only 20....

[expatguy]

...IMHO, we're conservatives, we're right, and we don't need to embrace liberal smear tacticts to make our points...[sic]

Sorry but you seem to be off the mark.

Socialism has more in common with Communism that is does with our own political system and the Democrats are determined to pull us in that direction.

Keep your eye on the ball next time.

[DPB101]

The more I read of Coulter the more I think she is becoming a liability to Conservatives.

No..she is making other conservatives appear moderate and worth dealing with.

The left has used this tactic for over 70 years. They have the Communist Party out front paving the way, then greens, then progressives, then the DLC. It works very well.

The right needs more bomb throwers on the front lines. Gives cover to the troops bringing up the rear.

Besides, she is correct in what she says.

[Jabba the Nutt]

When liberals are being really hurt, they attack the messenger, they promote 'civility' and they question whether this will hurt the conservatives. It's so heart-warming that the liberals are concerned about the welfare of conservatives. That's so white of them.

I skimmed through this blob of an article and couldn't come up with any substantive way that Coulter was wrong. It is probably her opinion that when the 'Times' or the 'Post' publish something, they are promoting their opinion. She may have explained her citation rules in her book somewhere.

Bottom line, the liberals know they are anti-American and Coulter is hitting the target.

[Jumper]

This only shows that the LEFT is bankrupt and the average intellectual capacity to reason is greatly diminished today in America in addition to "feelings" being more important than the rule of law to the democrats (who feign offense) than actual substance. Ann Coulter is merely having fun dismantling the myth of the socialist elite in America – a group of people who scream bloody murder that a child might be spanked but defend the notion that the child should have not be born but rather terminated via abortion. The Book Treason is making waves because it shows America (at least those in America who can still read) the truth well documented and undeniable with a dose of journalism right out of the socialist slander playbook. Liberals now suffer from the politics of personal destruction syndrome…, of their own making, in which they defame people and switch facts to suit their agenda – only now they are being mocked and exposed for their hypocrisy.

[rdd17]

I think it may be very dangerous to try and bring back Joe McCarthy as a beacon of the new right. The man was disgraced not for his hearings on the communist spies, but for his attacks on the military of this country, which would be despised by any right-thinking person. Dwight Eisenhower is a much better role model this country should look towards from 1950's conservativism

[Wingy]

Bull. This is a common tactic of the left. Accuse the right of doing the same things the left does commonly. I'll just pick one example: Toward the end of this article, he accuses Ann with understatement in the case of the Times reporting on the Verona Papers. Why, they wrote 1000 words on the Papers! He doesn't tell you that the Times article uses 750 words describing the process that brought the papers to light. 150 words "detailing" some of the findings, and a final 100 words replete with quotes from unbelievers that the Verona Papers are a complete sham.

But Ann is wrong to say that The Times barely covered them. Huh??? Oh yeah, The Times put the story on an inside page. But it's OK. All the rest of the lefty rags, save one, did the same thing! That makes Ann completely off base. Right!

Take some time to read the words in front of you, before you throw Ms. Coulter to the wolves. This article is cr@p but you missed that part.

[beckett]

I have never been a fan of Coulter, as a few people on this site are aware. Nyhan very skillfully points out a number of reasons why I am leery of her, e.g., a mean streak a mile wide and a tendency to play fast and loose with quotes. In a few places above Nyhan definitely proves that Coulter misled her readers by a deliberate misuse of quotes.

Coulter is quite brilliant and funny, and I'm sure she'd be great at a dinner party. But as a spokesperson for conservatism she is too often too harsh, and as such undermines the cause she purports to champion.

[WOSG]

Liberal syndicated columnist Molly Ivins is described as coming "[f]rom the traitor lobby's women's auxiliary." (p. 134)

Coulter is dead right on that. How is this wrong or 'over-the-top'? or a smear? I've read way too much Ivins cr*p ... btw, Ivins is a deliberate liar. If you or Nyhan want to be media critics, start with Ivins, an easy target.

[WOSG]

"Misleading quotation and sourcing of claims Coulter engages in a series of deceptive practices in quoting people and sourcing her claims. Most commonly, she distorts the authorship of articles she's citing. Throughout the book, she attributes outside book reviews, magazine profiles and op-eds to media outlets as if they were staff-written news reports, feeding the perception of bias on the part of these institutions. "


This man is wrong and he knows it. Salon editors buy the opinions they like. So does the NYT. The editors shape what is printed. Last year, Kissinger came public and said the NYTimes wanted him to write a column *only* if he was critical of the Bush administration on Iraq. He declined. He did not get printed.

So realsticly speaking, Coulter is *right*: If it is in the New York Times, it is fair to say "The New York Times" said it or printed it. The New York Times only prints what they consider 'fit to print', so they give it their editorial imprimatur to everything run in the paper ... THAT is why the Jason Blair scandal is not a mere personal scandal but a *scandal for the whole paper*.

His whining on Venona and on a guy's obit are really telling. We *know* how the Times operates. they 'bury the lead' on paragraph 29 of a 30 paragraph story. the evidence of being a soviet spy is buried, and not put in the headline. Did the Times obit for Alger Hiss read "Soviet Spy Alger Hiss dead" ??? If not -- point for Coulter!


The more I read of the complaints, the more it is clear this is just the back-lash of the Liberal pundits, with insubstantial charges and whining.

The complaints remind me of ...
"Give 'em Hell, Harry!"
"I tell the truth and they think it's Hell" - Harry S Truman

[axel]

YOU stimpyone are a SIMPYone.... another words a limp wristed, liberal stympathizer.
ax