Replies

Conason, as one's learned to expect from him, indulges in some "McCarthyism" of his own. Some of the liberal sources about McCarthy, J. Edgar Hoover, and others are quite questionable. Surely left-wing charges and conspiracy theories ought to be examined as critically and skeptically as right-wing ones.

But Coulter is a shallow opportunist. If she were an anti-communist in 1951, she would be grateful for the assistance of people like Reuther and Niebuhr, regardless of their leftist inclinations, and concerned about some of McCarthy's wilder charges that distracted from and hindered the actual uncovering of Soviet agents in government and society.

When things are on the line, tough choices have to be made. The same urgency that led anti-Communists to countenance some of Hoover's and HUAC's and possibly even McCarthy's more questionable actions, also made many of them applaud those leftists or liberals who saw through Stalinism and joined the opposition to it.

It's facile and cheap to come along fifty years later and play armchair games with history. It's reminiscent of Lew Rockwell's maligning of all historical figures who don't accept his own view of economics and history. The 30s and the 40s were dominated by left-wing ideas, and nothing would have been achieved against Stalinism, if one refused to come to terms with the prevalent views of the day.

So Coulter is a "shallow opportunist." Give me a break!

She is the FIRST writer to REALLY challenge the prevailing Liberal mindset of this country -- and NOT in a sloppy manner. She is a gutsy, bold, original thinker. If you want to peg a few shallow opportunists who write plenty sloppily, all you need to do is point out a few Clintons, Kennedys, Cuomos, Jesse Jacksons, etc.

Coulter is a brilliant blonde and a great role model for American women. Enough said.

"When things are on the line, tough choices have to be made"

This statement is true - however, your "tough choices" speak to relevance - more like people who make one "tough choice" because it suits their motive (like the dems in congress did in giving Bush authority to execute the war on terror), and then the dems made another choice by saying they really didn't agree with it.

Sooooo ... which was it! Did they make the right choice for the right reason - or did they make the choice for the reason which would gain them the most at the moment.

To me ... there is no tough choice - there is only RIGHT OR WRONG. Liberals live in the grey inbetween those two. They only make "tough choices" based on what is best for them - and never for the truth or what's best for the rest of the country.