[governsleastgovernsbest]

You argue that Horowitz's goal is "to make the book seem less legitimate."

But as pointed out at the top of his column, Horowitz has been a big fan of Coulter, even running her column on his web page. He is a bold and courageous conservative.

So he certainly has no axe to grind, no reason to distort the facts in order to delegitamize Coulter.

I'd say this column was definitely written "more in sorrow than in anger."

[DPB101]

Why did Horowitz flat out distort or ignore what Ann said in the book? Why is he claiming she said things she did not?

[VRWC_minion]

I'd say this column was definitely written "more in sorrow than in anger."

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.