Posted on 07/08/2003 2:45:10 AM PDT by DPB101
30-40 years ago I was an anti-communist Democrat.
Because of the hatred, pandering, ever-increasing Anti-Americanism and seismic shift to the left of the Democratic Party, I became a Republican.
Looking at the two Parties today, Ann is spot on and Horowitz, as is usual, blows smoke to obfuscate the political landscape. The Democrats (and if anyone doesn't think they are liberal, look at who their leaders and candidates for President are) are still full of hatred, pandering, anti-American and still moving to the left with even more alacrity.
Unfortunately, they have now established a "Three Class" system in the United States.
The first class is the workers. Two salaries are now equal to what one used to be. One salary now goes for food, clothing, shelter, transportation and the other salary goes to pay taxes, health and child care.
The Second class is the "Gimme" class. A collection of minorities, government employees, union workers, deadbeats, ne'er-do-wells, single welfare mothers that are nothing more than bastard factories, feminists, sexual deviants and other assorted kooks that feel if they shout loud enough they will get eveything they want. And so far, they are correct.
The third Class is the "Ruling elite" whether elected, anointed or just members of the Lucky Sperm Club. They pay lip service to the first class, but mostly the lip service is to disparage them as not knowing what is best for them and their families. So they take the money from that class and give it and preferential treatment to the second class so the ever-increasing numbers of the second class will keep them in power.
Meanwhile, the first class keeps looking for a Deliverer from the burden of supporting the other two classes.
And remebers that Horowitz was on a team of lawyers that took the race card to a despicable new low in making sure that one more murderer can walk among us with impunity
I completely agree with that. I think that the substance of what Ann does is incredibly useful in many cases. But she could accomplish the exact same thing without intentionally antagonizing people who might otherwise listen to her. You don't sway opinions by intentionally pissing off the people you are trying to convince.
As for the liberals out there, I could care less. They're not open to reason anyway. But there are an awful lot of people who may be open to reason if you can present them with your arguments in a reasonable manner. You don't have to be bland and boring to do that. Limbaugh toes that line well. He gets attention by saying things that tick off liberals. But the moderates chuckle, and consider the substance of what he says. That's how he's built such a huge audience, and even some libs admit they listen to him.
But Ann doesn't do that. She says things that piss off moderates, even when she could make the exact same substantive point in a manner that wouldn't piss them off. Regardless of whether you personally feel her methods are effective, the fact is that a lot of conservatives are not happy with her style. And if goes too far for some conservatives, how in the world can we expect her ideas to get through to moderates?
McCain made that clear. Want to bet Kristol, Podhoretz, and Saffire (in that order) are the next to trash Ann Coulter? That is the order in which they jumped on the McCain choo-choo.
I'm two thirds of the way through "Treason" and I think I know why Horowitz and that Dorothy babe don't like it. (Hint - I was an East coast red diaper baby with Oberlin/Yale (over) educated parents with such an ultra liberal family still that I escaped when I was 16 and live 3 thousand miles away):
Ann doesn't write like a hoity toity scholar. She writes in a vernacular that a GED auto body worker can read, appreciate and laugh at. Hoity toity types also hate humor.
The unfortunate fact is that some conservatives are unwilling to give a Democrat or liberal credit where credit is due. The question is what was Truman's overall record fighting communism not particular errors he might have made. His overall record was outstanding. Yesterdays Dems are not the same as todays as Horowitz, hardly a liberal apologist, has pointed out.
Coulter says that Truman had as much anticommunist credential before the Republicans took Congress in '46 as Clinton had a welfare reform credential before the Republicans took Congress in 94. That is, essentially 2 years elapsed before Truman did anything to control the subversion menace--and that, he did grudgingly.The Army undertook the decryption of the Venona files on its own initiative and against Truman's orders. The project--and its findings--had to be kept secret from the POTUS; it revealed things that Truman was patently unwilling to hear.
After Churchill's "Iron Curtain" speech in America, Truman had Acheson snub Churchill--and offered Stalin a ride to America on the USS Misouri to respond to Churchill.
Truman was probably better than Roosevelt, but that is hardly any praise at all--the fact that Eastern Europe ended up under Stalin was according to FDR's plan. FDR started trying to get Hitler to fight the US from the moment Hitler invaded the USSR. From FDR's POV WWII was essentially a war to save the Soviet Union.
. . . with a little help from the Democratic party in Congress . . . so Ann says; I don't remember that part.
Those were all tactical and strategic decisions made in the fight against communism.
Hear the liberal talking point comparing the JFK, the Bay of Pigs and Cuba to Eisenhower's inaction during the Hungarian revolution a lot. There was one huge difference: Soviet tanks were not going to roll through the Fulda gap into Key West Florida. Besides, had Ike acted, traitors in the Democrat party would have bitched and screamed.
No comparison between what you cite as the GOP being soft on communism and having a Soviet spy in your administration, knowing about it, and promoting him--as Truman did. Republicans were not the ones who gutted the CIA and FBI in the 1970s, Republicans were not the ones who squealed like stuck pigs when Reagan decided not to contain but to bust the Soviet Union.
Remember, Democrats passed the Boland Amendment, making it ILLEGAL to fight Soviet expansion in Central America.
What else do you need to know about the Rat party than that?
Horowitz flat out misleads and mistates what Coulter wrote. The debunking of Horowitz starts here:
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/944360/posts?page=1#1
George Crockett, a Democrat House member from Michigan, refused to sign a resolution condemning the Soviet Union for shooting down Korean Air Flight 007. Crockett began his career as a lawyer for the Communist Party USA.
Ron Dellums, a Democrat who chaired the House Armed Services Committee and sat on the House Select Committee on Intelligence, said in 1993: ""We should totally dismantle every intelligence agency in this country,piece by piece, brick by brick, nail by nail."
Samuel Dickstein (D-NY) served 11 terms in Congress. He was a Soviet agent. It is difficult to believe no other RAT in the 1930s, noticed Dickstein's agenda was very close to that of the Soviet Union. It is also improbably that the agents exposed by VENONA were the only spies in the Democrat party. What we don't know, even today, is most likely worse than what we have discovered about the Truman and Roosevelt administrations.
President Reagan's flaws can be recounted for pages and pages, but still, all and all, he was still the most magnificent and loved president we have had since Teddy Roosevelt...and some would argue since Lincoln!
Coulter is a like-minded fire-brand, who, if she inadvertantly overstates a case, does not diminish the conservative movement in any way, as it would tend to be her own credibility impaired not the philosophy. And she knows she is not perfect in all things. She knows all the above. We know that. And the liberals know that, but have lied since day one. They are the one's attempting the ad hominem attacks based on lies and guilt by association. So all in all, the firebrand in these times of PC insanity is more than welcome. She is essential if we are to make ANY progress at combatting and reversing our losses in the culture wars. The instance where Horowitz slams her for her momentary hesitations and mentally stammering about JFK's place are normal in ON-AIR debate. Not everyone can have the razor-wit ALL THE TIME. Undoubtedly Ann was equivocating to try and predict how the interlocutor would MISUSE her defense of JFK to attack her thesis, and so was not sure whether to buy into the question, or challenge its premise. This one instance of normal, rather than superhuman rhetorical performance is neither disappointing...or totally unexpected.
I pray and hope that she be prosperous and effective in her efforts to restore the republic. She is doing more than any of us.
8.Pick the target. Target an individual, personalize the attack, polarize and demoralize his/her supporters. Go after people, not institutions. Hurting, harassing, and humiliating individuals, especially leaders, causes more rapid organizational change.The history of conservatism since FDR (probably before) is the history of one person, time and again, being picked out for demonization by the left while what that person said and stood for is mistated or ignored. Weak conservatives become rattled by the attacks, polarized, and do the left's work for them.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.