The Trouble with Treason (David Horowitz regarding Ann Coulter)

Frontpagemagazine.com ^ | 7/8/03 | David Horowitz

[TheDon]

Why Hoosiermama, coming from you, that almost qualifies as a compliment!

[DPB101]

How do you account for the flat out untruths in this article? Horowitz claims Coulter did not acknowledge the anticommunism of Hubert Humphrey. She did. She said Humphrey was rougher on communists than McCarthy was. There are several more inaccuracies cited at the start of this thread. I suspect Horowitz did not read the book. He certainly didn't fact check.

[hoosiermama]

Yelp! That's the point! She know how to reach them. Just take a look at the cover of her book. She know how to market herself AND reach the vast majority....(most products of public schools)....

Doesn't take herself very seriously!...Look at the twinkle in her eye! Do you realize what buttons she is pushing.... even among conservatives? She's a tease! And she's enjoying the game!

[hoosiermama]

Geeze am I THAT critical?

[GregoryFul]

And as I boarded the train, the MPs confiscated the bat on the basis it could be used as a lethal weapon." A guard took Mineta's baseball bat as a child, and as a result he was subjecting all of America to the Bataan Death March.

I think Ann could empathize with Mineta! As I recall she told a story of while being processed by airport security, she had a charm necklace (bracelet) confiscated from her, as it had a bullet charm on it. (It could be used as a weapon, dontcha know)

[Kevin Curry]

Good catch; devastating post. Horowitz is making stuff up. He didn't even read the book. At most, he skimmed through it.

[DPB101]

She tears Mineta apart for airport screening and refusing to profile. Rightly so. He did the typical liberal emotional thing--told about what happened to him 60 years ago to justify not doing what everyone knew had to be done: profile young mideastern males--not search grandmothers and Al Gore.

[Kevin Curry]

If we take the present leadership of the Democratic Party can we really say that Gebhardt, Lieberman, even Kerry are traitors. I think not. Dangerously mistaken, yes. But enemies of the United States?

Tools. Useful idiots easily manipulated to do damage to the United States by enemies of the United States.

[savagesusie]

She is only doing what David, himself, has so successfully done which is to shine a bright light on all that liberal sleaze which has been so injurious to our culture. Ann, YOU GO, GIRL!!

David has obviously skimmed the book. Ann uses hyperbole but that is obvious to any rational person.

[FreedomPoster]

That, I believe, sums up Ann and Treason as well as any thing I've read. Bravo!

And BTW, if the attack dogs of the Left are busy refuting Ann, and attacking her, they aren't spending the time attacking Bush, or Ashcroft, or any number of others. This is A Good Thing^TM.

[hoosiermama]

Yelp! ....and ......Thanks for the compliment!

[hoosiermama]

I agree David perused the book. Actually read in twice the first 48 hour the book was in my hand. It was much funnier the second time through. She is so often off the wall a person has to actually think. Something we aren't used to doing.

[xm177e2]

Horowitz makes the mistake of many: Democrats aren't necessarily liberals.

Did you mean "Coulter" instead of "Horowitz?" Here is what Horowitz said in this article:

In Coulter’s book, Democrats (whom she inexplicably conflates with liberals)

[DPB101]

Another misrepresentation of what Anne has written. Horowitz is remarking on how Coulter undermined her case by not crediting anticommunist liberals:

There were many liberals – Scoop Jackson and Jeanne Kirkpatrick among them – who were just as worthy defenders of America and prosecutors of the anti-Communist cause . . .

Treason, page 180:

New York Times columnist Flora Lewis scoffed at Jeane Kirkpatrick's "remarkable" claim...that "the Russians had nearly taken over until the Reagan administration." Where? Lewis demanded to know. As Ambassador Kirkpatrick said in her speech--just a sentence or two later--in the decade preceding Reagan's inauguration, the Soviets had expanded their influence into South Vietnam, Laos, Cambodia, Afghanistan, Angola, Ethiopia, Mozambique, South Yemen, Libya, Syria, Aden, Congo, Madagascar, the Seychelles, Nicaragua and Grenada. Other than that, no place really.

As far as Scoop Jackson, on page 11, Coulter uses him as a prime example of an anticommunist, patriotic Democrat.

[leprechaun9]

Bob Kerry also said as part of that speech:

"I will not give my vote to the other side of the aisle to bring down my president."

So the much respected highly decorated veteran, on this vote, placed a political party above the interests of the American People!

[DPB101]

The Truman Administration did dismiss Republican charges of Communist influence as partisan politics and was lackadaisical before 1947 in taking the internal Communist threat seriously. But in 1947 all that changed . . .

This is Horowitz at his slickest. He doesn't mention why all that changed in 1947.

The answer is simple: Republicans won a landslide election in 1946 even greater and more unnerving to the liberal establishment than the GOP victory in 1994.

Coulter points out in Treason that Truman turned anticommunist for the same reason Clinton signed Welfare reform: the American people had spoken and taken away control of Congress from the Democratic Party.

[1L]

I'm unclear why David is having such a hard time with the very simple notion that the current RAT party, with only one true voting wing, is what Ann says it is, and that is not inconsistent with admitting that historically, the Democratic party prior to the 70's, with multiple wings that included conservatives every bit as conservative as those on this forum, the party was not inherently treasonous. In other words, the party in the day of JFK is not the current party, so Matthews asking whether JFK was guilty of treason comes nowhere near the point.

I haven't read the book, but if Ann is correct, here is the point: the RAT party of today is treasonous. If current members of that party are not necessarily predisposed to that view, them following along blindly with Bill Clinton and Al Gore make them, as one poster above brilliantly put it, useful idiots. The difference between today and 1960 is that then the conservative and moderate wings of the party were stronger than the liberal wing. Today, that is not the case. I don't understand why Horowitz is having a hard time with this.

[hoosiermama]

BINGO! You haven't read the book, he says he has. You get it he doesn't! You must be a genius or he's.......

[hoosiermama]

BTW See The Don's post 178. I believe he is correct. Second meaning of treason needs to be considered.

TREASON: Betrayal of trust, disloyalty to a cause.

[hoosiermama]

News Max article on TREASON

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/942656/posts