The Trouble with Treason (David Horowitz regarding Ann Coulter)

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

[Ichneumon]

I see a different persuasion device. He draws the reader who would otherwise reject Coulter out of hand and makes the more subtle case that she is right. He is a master pursuader.

Bingo. He gets them reading to look for juicy anti-Coulterisms, then he hits them with stuff they'd never dare read if they knew it was coming.

I got that impression halfway through reading his piece.

[Ichneumon]

Ann does nothing more than preach to the converted. How does that help the conservative cause?

Even if she only "preaches to the converted" -- and I strongly disagree with you on that -- even that alone would "help the conservative cause" by providing us with tons of factual ammunition to use when *we* "preach to the unconverted".

Or are you going to try to tell me that you already knew every single bit of information and example and quote from all three of her books before you read them?

[HISSKGB]

McCarthy was a demagogue.

How do I know?

Horowitz said so.

Did he explain this?

No.

[willyboyishere]

I wasn't saying that Ann gave short shrift to Kennedy by
mentioning him positively once, then, surprisingly, many chapters later, finding something to criticize about him.
I had just assumed she was finished with him. Interestingly, though, I'm near the end of the book, and so far, no mention at all of Geo. Bush the elder.

[happygrl]

Old Europe has been put in its place.

"Why is it that this aspect gives me the most perverse pleasure," I thought to myself.

Because it was for these nations, yes, even more than for ourselves, for which the Cold War was fought.

Then the events of the last year played out.

Taking names and making lists.

See ya around the forum.

[happygrl]

Old Europe has been put in its place.

"Why is it that this aspect gives me the most perverse pleasure," I thought to myself.

Because it was for these nations, yes, even more than for ourselves, for which the Cold War was fought.

Then the events of the last year played out.

Taking names and making lists.

See ya around the forum.

[happygrl]

Old Europe has been put in its place.

"Why is it that this aspect gives me the most perverse pleasure," I thought to myself.

Because it was for these nations, yes, even more than for ourselves, for which the Cold War was fought.

Then the events of the last year played out.

Taking names and making lists.

See ya around the forum.

[MEG33]

1st chapter of Treason Bush senior was accused of using McCarthyite tactics when he says"Dukakis probably thinks a naval exercise is something you'd find in a Jane Fonda workout book"and again McCarthism was raised when Clinton's trip to Russia was mentioned.McCarthyism is the word used against Republicans in the silliest manner.They don't think we notice when we are accused of jingoism and wrapping ourselves in the flag when we rail against those that say Bush's rhetoric is more dangerous than terrorism?I'm sick of the comparisons to Hitler.

[happygrl]

Hiccup.

[MEG33]

It was so bad the army intelligence wouldn't share with the OSS/newCIA because the commies were everywhere.Army intelligence had decoded some messages that told them so.

[NYCVirago]

What is with Horowitz, anyway? Ann draws fire because she is refreshingly blunt and direct.

No, somebody who was "refreshingly blunt and direct" would not equivocate in interviews, the way she repeatedly has. Look at how she tried to worm out of Matthews' JFK question.

[NYCVirago]

"Though McCarthy is sniffed at even by conservatives for his flamboyant rhetoric, in 'Witness', Chambers explains the importance of a fellow such as McCarthy. Referring to the Hiss hearings, Chambers writes that theatrics were 'almost the only weapon the commitee possessed.' Without a 'flair for showmanship,' the committee's extremely important work exposing the Communist conspiracy would have been smothered in silence and reduced to nullity."

Ann is being intellectually dishonest here, and selective with her Chambers' quotes. Chambers spoke out against McCarthy for tainting the anti-communist movement.

[DPB101]

Look at how she tried to worm out of Matthews' JFK question.

She didn't try to "worm out" of anything. The question was badgering. She wrote an entire book laying out her thesis and rather than discuss the contents of the book, Matthews wanted her to accuse an individual of treason so liberals would have one sound bite they could use over and over again.

[DPB101]

Ann is being intellectually dishonest here, and selective with her Chambers' quotes

Why don't you write a book about how Chambers opposed McCarthy then? That isn't the topic of her book. Her book is about Democrats who favored enemies of America. Coulter spends about 35 out of 292 pages on Chambers. I am sure there is a lot she didn't say.

[NYCVirago]

She didn't try to "worm out" of anything. The question was badgering. She wrote an entire book laying out her thesis and rather than discuss the contents of the book, Matthews wanted her to accuse an individual of treason so liberals would have one sound bite they could use over and over again.

If you write a book where the thesis accuses the entire Democratic Party, past and present, of treason, then you should be prepared to be questioned on individual names. How is that "badgering" for Matthews' to ask her about JFK? And Horowitz showed just how ignorant she was in that response.

[NYCVirago]

Why don't you write a book about how Chambers opposed McCarthy then? That isn't the topic of her book. Her book is about Democrats who favored enemies of America. Coulter spends about 35 out of 292 pages on Chambers. I am sure there is a lot she didn't say.

Don't you think that Chambers speaking out repeatedly against McCarthy is pretty darn relevant to the subject of her book, particularly when she cherrypicked one quote to make it appear that Chambers was a McCarthy fan? If Michael Moore had done something like that, freepers would be all over him, particularly if he spent 35 pages on the person, and never mentioned that fact.

Sorry, I don't like people who are intellectually dishonest, no matter what side they're on, or how shiny their hair is. And Ann Coulter is doing more harm than good with her bomb-throwing in this book. I haven't thought much of her since I heard her flippantly suggest that Timothy McVeigh should have bombed the New York Times building.

[DPB101]

Coulter says she should have said everyone except the editors and reporters should have been evacuated first.

Yeah, its a huge deal Chambers said negative things about McCarthy. Huge, huge deal. Negates Ann's entire book. She didn't mention that in a book which isn't about that! What dishonesty.

Guess Democrats didn't aid and abet treason after all. Whew..that is good to know.

[Steel Wolf]

Sometimes, a post is so good you just have to post it three times. ;-)

[MEG33]

Have you read the book?

[Aquinasfan]

What is the diagnosis, Professor Timoféeff?

She strikes me as chronically angry, deliberately deceitful and highly agitated. These are not fruits of the Spirit.

1 Corinthians 13

4 Love is patient, love is kind. It does not envy, it does not boast, it is not proud.
5 It is not rude, it is not self-seeking, it is not easily angered, it keeps no record of wrongs.