Replies

By failing to draw a clear line between satirical exaggeration and historical analysis, by refusing to credit the laudable role played by patriotic, anti-Communist liberals like Truman, Kennedy and Humphrey, Coulter has compromised her case and undermined her attempt to correct a record that desperately needs correction.

I think this criticism misses the point. Ann is selling a ton of books from what I hear. Who thinks she could do so with a book designed only to create a tedious, careful and thoughtful "record"?

Horowitz, if anyone, certainly understands the need for hyperbole and exaggeration.

I haven't read Ann's book, but I'm sure it's a real corker. LOL

Ann is selling a ton of books from what I hear. Who thinks she could do so with a book designed only to create a tedious, careful and thoughtful "record"?

That is the point exactly. A conservative professor in tweed could produce a well documented, exact tome pointing out all the errors and omissions of past history. It would go no where. Few would read it: Make no impact.

Ann in her "ZIp a dee doh dah" --let it fly --cartoon super-hero way" is making BIG waves: Everyone seems to be discussing it, not just FR. She WILL make an impact. Ten years from now no one will remember a mistake here or there. Only that she helped create a difference.

David missed this line from "Treason":

"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."

David really seemed to be trying hard to find something wrong with Ann's newest book. 90%+ of his review seemed to praise the book, and the rest was a lukewarm criticism at best. Perhaps he wanted to appear "objective"? Since he claims he didn't like somethings about Ann's book, his readers will be more likely to accept his praise of her book? Perhaps that's just his way of flirting.

Horowitz, if anyone, certainly understands the need for hyperbole and exaggeration.

I'm two thirds of the way through "Treason" and I think I know why Horowitz and that Dorothy babe don't like it. (Hint - I was an East coast red diaper baby with Oberlin/Yale (over) educated parents with such an ultra liberal family still that I escaped when I was 16 and live 3 thousand miles away):

Ann doesn't write like a hoity toity scholar. She writes in a vernacular that a GED auto body worker can read, appreciate and laugh at. Hoity toity types also hate humor.