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.