Replies

I still maintain that yesterdays Dems are different than todays. You simply can't cite a few examples of Truman's missteps early on in his presidency, and deny his Marshall Plan, support for loyalty oaths and other anti-communst measures, and his response to communist aggression in Korea. The same with Kennedy. To believe that the Dems have always been subversive leftists waiting for the chance to install communism is absurd. There is a Cult of Coulter on Free Republic. And let me state to her loyal fans even Coulter can be wrong, and I'll further state that I too am a fan of hers. But read Horowitz's comments about Coulter's book on his website. And try to keep an open mind about things.

But read Horowitz's comments about Coulter's book on his website.

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.

You are of course correct about the cult of Coulter, and also equally correct that she too can make mistakes. Frankly, I have seen FAR MORE repeated mistakes by Horowitz than Ann has ever made. Disquieting and disturbing mistakes. Frankly, Ann is a considerably more diligent researcher than Horowitz, but she is too tied to Lexis/Nexis. She needs to crack some old books occasionally. And as for overstating the case, it is okay for the Left to ALWAYS be calling conservatives Nazi's and 'McCarthyites', etc. but apparently it is NEVER okay to be over-the-top of a conservative to be over-the top in rhetorical retaliation. Everyone has some flaws.

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.