Replies

Right on Mojo. Also, I think the fact that Radosh has criticized the book (which perhaps may have been exaggerated by Sullivan) for jumping to conclusions is important.

Ron Radosh is an extremely credible historian whose work is so good that liberal historians are finally giving him his due. Anyone who would call him a "fool" (not you) has no idea what he's talking about.

That said, however, there is a good thing about Treason in that it enables average people to know some of the things that Radosh and others have been saying for the past few decades. This is good. That said, very very few liberals or moderates will be convinced but they likely would never read any book by a real conservative historian so in that sense, it may be a wash wrt moderates/liberals.

Coulter does some good but she is far from the godess that many on here perceive her to be.

Coulter's book does indeed serve the purpose you describe. The recent (trendy) wave of popular books in general by conservatives - O'Reilly, L. Elder, Coulter, etc. - fill a niche quite nicely. Most of their readers, as you mentioned, will never delve into any of the scholarly works by historians and political scientists. Great for checking out of the library, but they look kind of ridiculous on the bookshelf after a few months.

I think that Ann Coulter is trying to start a debate on a point that needs to be in the public consciousnees: the left always finds the United States [its culture, history and policies] to be lacking when measured up agaist other countries and ideologies. The left feels a need to disrupt pride in the US, and dissent from patriotism. It is by now a long-lived trend. Are people denying this mystery in broad daylight? Of course not, it is manifest. She deserves a lot of credit for bringing to consciousnes this fact that is observed by everyone, but rarely if ever spoken about.

So what is the objection with Coulter's book? Frankly, I do not yet know because noone -including Sullivan--feels the need to cite a specific thing that she got wrong. I do not see her shouting out others on TV; she is usually shouted down by the lefty types who just interrupt and never ever respond to what is said [and really meant]. They always try to make debating points on turns of phrase or other minutiae.

She keeps saying that the McCarthy of history is largely a myth by the left - wing press. I do know that when Welch was attacking Shine on McCarthy's staff as a way to get at Cohn's homosexuality and some minor favoritism, McCarthy went after some facts about a junior staff member in Welch's law firm. That piece has beeen played ad nauseum in my youth with out the explanation one learns only on one's own. So, wasn't it McCarthy who was vilified? & wasn't McCarthy right in his charges. Isn't Ann's point that the CIA was reading the cables and knew that there were all this infiltration in the government. Wasn't the Army and the State Dept a site for Red spies?

Why didn't the Democratic party suffer for this? Wasn't part of the reason the villification of McCarthy, which was done in order to shift the onus from the left?

It seems that Ann Coulter is correct and the left is at its same old game of villifying the ones who speak this truth.