[DPB101]

Why is she equivocating about Jack Kennedy anway? Kennedy was not only not a traitor, he was not even a weak anti-Communist, as she claims.

Treason, page 11: "John F. Kennedy's pronouncements on Communism could have been spoken by Joe McCarthy. His brother Robert worked for McCarthy."

Treason, page 101: "John F. Kennedy fiercely defended McCarthy. . .in response to a speaker's lighthearted remarks that, unlike the law school, Harvard College could be proud of never having produced either an Alger Hiss or a Joe McCarthy, Kennedy erupted, "How dare you couple the name of a great American patriot with that of a traitor?"

[Support Free Republic]

"Please contribute to FreeRepublic and make these posts go away"
	Donate Here By Secure Server Or mail checks to FreeRepublic , LLC PO BOX 9771 FRESNO, CA 93794 or you can use PayPal at Jimrob@psnw.com
STOP BY AND BUMP THE FUNDRAISER THREAD- It is in the breaking news sidebar! Thanks Registered

[DPB101]

Join the fun...Horowitz has distorted or ignored one fact after the next. For instance:

A lot of what she says about Democrats is true, but nearly half the members of the House Committee on Un-American Activities and the Senate Internal Subcommittee (McCarthy’s vehicle) were Democrats.

What good was that if they weren't there? From From July 10, 1953 to January 25, 1954 every Democrat on the Senate Internal Subcommittee boycotted every session of the Subcommittee. In the House Committee, little was done until Republicans became the majority party in 1947. HCUA itself was the creation of a Soviet agent--Samuel Dickstein (D-NY).

[David Isaac]

It seems as if as many people make the mistake of equating liberals and Democrats, as those who make the mistake of equating conservatives and Republicans.

Coulter's book is not a hundred percent defensible, which does not mean it's wrong, just not defensible. In many cases, she more than likely points the finger at those in the spotlight, the ones who ostensibly make the decisions. Weasels and moles shun the light.

If Truman was not guilty of treason he was guilty of terminal stupidity or ignorance and possibly just plain political blindness. (Truman Article - NewsMax, July 2nd) Links, I do not do yet.

[Alberta's Child]

One of John F. Kennedy's many sexual affairs was with a woman named Ellen Rometsch, who was later revealed to be an agent of the East German government. That itself may very well have been the most treasonous action ever taken by a U.S. president.

[Jumper]

When the actual facts of the book are disputed and shown to be false I will be swayed by these writings, however, her last book was demonized by the Left/Press and stood the test of documented history on Ann's side. To make the book seem less legimite, the author grabs a sound bite from and interview!

[MEG33]

That's why Ann should hone her debating skills.She doesn't explain or justify her comments well verbally and someone like Matthews discombobulates her.I,too don't like the word treason used as a blanket condemnation of the Democratic party,though I believe the progressives are dangerous,socialists, and anti the America I want.There are those in office who play footsie with the World Workers groups in anti war protests which turns my stomach.The moving force behind anti war groups are communists.Not all anti war folks are communists,however.

[goldstategop]

The quotes make one wonder: did David Horowitz read all of Treason or did his critique stem from what he heard from media reviews and her liberal critics? Yes, there were Democrats and anti-Communist liberals who were loyal to America. Ann should have made a mention of this fact before going on to deal with those liberals who were either supporters or fellow travelers for the Communist cause. I don't think Ann's right about McCarthy's tactics, which were morally flawed and politically indefensible but she is right about the fact the American people were in agreement with the Wisconsin Senator about the larger menace that America faced at the time. I think Irving Kristol himself stated as much in a celebrated essay about the distinction Americans made between the enemy McCarthy said was a danger to the American way of life and the tactics he used to expose those in its service. Treason does tend at points to overgeneralize and fall into the trap of making too much of McCarthy. But its also right that with a handful of exceptions most of his famous victims were really malefactors working on behalf of the most aggressive and brutal tyranny known to human history. It may be for that alone that we owe Ann a debt of lasting gratitude.

[Loyal Buckeye]

The essence of the issue: Were there Communist spies in positions at the highest levels of our government or not? If so, what did those in charge know, when did they know it, and what did they do about it?

Based on recent actions by leaders of the Dems, my hunch is they tried to sweep everything under the rug way back when. I believe that AC is, in essence, saying the same thing.

[HiTech RedNeck]

In fact the decisive battles of this era took place inside liberalism.

What is called "liberalism" has morphed greatly over the years. The liberals of old, the classic liberals, the ones whose minds were open but not so open that their brains constantly fell out, now comprise a large chunk of today's conservatives. Why have so many former Democrats become Republicans? The typical comment you get from them is not some Damascus Road conversion experience, but rather "I didn't move; my party did." "Conservatism" is an empty term if not accompanied by a clear understanding about what is being conserved.

[Cold Heat]

One cannot parse Ann's book by referencing individuals.

During every show that she has been on recently, the liberal talking head takes this individual reference method and attacks the premise of the book which only states the obvious.

As a whole, the democrat party is traitorous and defective.

Parsing the book down to the individual level creates a indefensible position and Ann has been unsuccessful in keeping them from doing it. They cannot win the argument otherwise.

[the gillman@blacklagoon.com]

...Everyone says liberals love America, too. No they don’t. Whenever the nation is under attack, from within or without, liberals side with the enemy. This is their essence.”...

I'm sorry, but this is the plain truth.
The only question is to define liberals.

[hosepipe]

What David don't get, Ann gets...
In a nation that half of them that voted, voted for Al Gore, a certified half wit, IMO... And a part of the other half that voted believes America is a democracy.. Separating the nuances of colors of what stripe of Socialist their dealing with is beyond them, and is beyond me too.

The fear of McCarthism has been and is palpable. So much so that a discourse on the DSA was done only in whispers, or among the choir to themselves. Now that may change because of this book. Ann said what dummys like me would love to have said, in a best selling book for all to see(COVER) and read. David missed that in his screed. The democrats, all of them includeing Lieberman have no credibilty. So that is why it will depend on a "conservative" to discredit her or try to. Takeing the sting of her words away or try to.

Resurrecting McCarthy she did and inflamed and breathed life into the hearts of defeated and disgusted voters like myself. Maybe voting will work again. Powerful words that needed to be said. So guys like myself can invoke his name again. And maybe even in Wash D.C. cloakrooms too because obviously most of our reps. are as dumb as me. Us dummys can't no won't separate the Hiss's and Bonior's, or Howard Deans.

Ann writes with a (KISS)keep it simple stupid flair documented and referenced. A scholarly approach to writeing about a burning building bores me and I maybe not be alone. Powerful book that cuts McCarthy baiting off at the knees..

[Constitutional Patriot]

bump for later...

[William McKinley]

In fact, the Palmer Raids were triggered by a massive domestic campaign of terror conducted by anarchist organizations. It involved a hundred mail bombs and an attempt to blow up the Attorney General of the United States (Mitchell Palmer) and J.P. Morgan among others. One anarchist bombing killed 40 people – the biggest terrorist atrocity in American history until then. Another plot -- to poison 200 members of the Archdiocese of Chicago who were attending a dinner party -- failed when the guests only became sick.

Anarchists suck. And their violence started a few decades before 1920 if I recall...

[Poohbah]

That's Horowitz's point: she says nice things about JFK in the book, then attacks him in an interview with Chris Matthews--on the same points.

If that's not equivocating, pray tell what is?

[TheDon]

"The problem with Coulter’s book is that she is not willing to concede that McCarthy was, in fact, demagogic in any sense at all, or that that his recklessness injured the anti-Communist cause. Ron Radosh, Harvey Klehr and John Haynes have distinguished themselves as historians by documenting the Communist menace that many liberals discounted. But they have also documented the irresponsible antics of McCarthy, which undermined the anti-Communist cause. Coulter dismisses such conservative criticisms of McCarthy as caving in to the liberals. She is wrong."

Looks like he missed this part of the book:

"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."

So far, Ann provides the most specific mention of Joe's tactics, and it merely mentions theatrics. Ann does provide her reason for Joe's tactics, and her own. You may disagree, may conservatives do, but they are effective. Ann's book isn't where it is because she was "nice", and scholarly.

[Rummyfan]

Et tu David?

[Richard Kimball]

bump

[bmwcyle]

David gets so confused sometimes.

[dasein64]

Other considerations aside, I'm with Ann, David Horowitz is the first person I have read who gets the title correct about the House Committee on Un-American Activities. That committee is always referred to, on this board and by most writers on the subject, as the Un-American Activities Committee. This reversal was made deliberatly by the communists and promoted over the years by their allies. The object was to brand the committee as un-American tho the point is probably lost on todays conservatives. As far as I am concerned, Ann could not say anything bad enough about the communists who travel under different covers these days and roam about the United States, seeking whom they may destroy. As in the bible.