Replies

"It is important for conservatives to make distinctions between those on the Left who were (and are) traitors or self-conceived enemies of the US, and those who were (and are) the fellow-travelers of enemies of the US, and those who are niether traitors, nor enemies,
nor friends and protectors of enemies, but are American patriots who disagree with conservatives over tactics and policy issues. It is important....because it is a condition of democracy....In order for the democratic process to survive, all parties must refrain from attempts to de-legitimize those who disagree with them, provided they have legitimate concerns and dissents."

This I think is the crux of Horowitz's problem with Treason.

If we take the present leadership of the Democratic Party can we really say that Gebhardt, Lieberman, even Kerry are traitors. I think not. Dangerously mistaken, yes. But enemies of the United States?

Of course there are a significant number of Dems whose knee-jerk, what did we do to deserve this, reaction to 9/11 gives the game away. But those Dems who did not react in that way should be debated, vigorously, but should not be lumped in with the hate America crowd.

Yes, a point well taken, e.g., that to lump all the democrats together is to be blind.... However, when one starts with the precept that Republicans and Democrats disagree, then it is healthy to have a reference point that assumes you must look for those who you can work with for the good of the Nation. Therefore, Ann has essentailly make the correct assumption - and her toung-in-cheek barbs at liberals is nothing but a page right out of their politics-of-personal-destruction-handbook that they normally operate from with impunity. The problem the left has with Ann is that she sees their game and by documenting her attacks and barbs is head-and-shoulders (Beautifully I might add:)) above the best of them!

>>This I think is the crux of Horowitz's problem with Treason.

I agree with you on this, but the problem is that even though there are some who aren't traitors, they choose to associate closely with so many that plainly are, and they get lumped together. I'm thinking names like our own ousted Jihad Cyndy McKinney, Sheila Jackson Lee, anyone defending Sami Al-Arian, etc.

If we take the present leadership of the Democratic Party can we really say that Gebhardt, Lieberman, even Kerry are traitors. I think not. Dangerously mistaken, yes. But enemies of the United States?
Of course there are a significant number of Dems whose knee-jerk, what did we do to deserve this, reaction to 9/11 gives the game away. But those Dems who did not react in that way should be debated, vigorously, but should not be lumped in with the hate America crowd.

OK, so let me get this straight: The Democrat with invisible friends that tell him things, the Jewish Democrat weather vane, and the French Looking Democrat, are only dangerously mistaken, not power hungry elitists who will do or say anything to retain/gain power over us common folk? So we should think they love America, the constitutional republic, as opposed to Amerika, the one nation under party bosses and judges?

"In the 20th century, treason became a vocation whose modern form was specifically the treason of ideas."
Whittaker Chambers as quoted in "Treason".

I've yet to read/hear anyone having discovered this nugget, which explains the title. Everyone assumes the legal definition of treason is being intended. It is fun listening to the pundits make this mistake.

If we take the present leadership of the Democratic Party can we really say that Gebhardt, Lieberman, even Kerry are traitors. I think not. Dangerously mistaken, yes. But enemies of the United States?

Tools. Useful idiots easily manipulated to do damage to the United States by enemies of the United States.