ANN COULTER ON HARDBALL TONIGHT (Wednesday 9th) with Chris Matthews.

TV | July 9, 20003 | self

[Imagine]

ANN COULTER will be on the Chris Matthews HARDBALL Show tonight. Freeper alert.

[Francisco]

I guessed correctly, and thanks for your posts.

Francisco

[ggekko]

I read Horowitz' critique of "Treason" and I found it to be a partial, well-reasoned dissent from some of the points in the book. With respect, however, I think Mr. Horowitz missed the bigger picture.

In the mid-1990s a voluminous series of Soviet diplomatic messages that had been decrypted by the NSA and CIA were declassified. These decrypts covered a period of almost fifty years since the end of WWII. A book describing the explosive content of these decrypts was released in 1997 entitled "The Venona Secrets".


The explosive revelations of this book were largely ignored and trivialized by the mainstream media. Among the more controversial issues corroborated by the Venona decrypts were the following:

*Alger Hiss, a key advisor to FDR on Russian
issues, was a paid Soviet agent since the 1930s;
the NY Times ignored the confirmation of Hiss'
treasonous behavior in their obituary for Hiss,

*The Rosenbergs were paid Soviet agents and actively
conspired to steal A-bomb secrets,

*All of the alleged Hollywood martyrs of the HUAC
committee in the 1950s were indeed active Soviet
agents,

*The Soviets maintained active networks of agents in
the so-called peace movements, in various media
outlets, in academia, and the labor movement.


Since the 1960s the public has been brainwashed about the anti-communist movement by a seemingly endless stream of Hollywood movies and sympathetic documentaries that painted the "Hollywood Ten" as martyrs of hyterical anti-communist witchunts. This is the background surrounding Ann Coulter's book.

Ann Coulter has done a tremendous public service by making the contents of the Venona decrypts accessable to the general public. I wish she had been a little more generous to the conservative wing of the Democratic party but on balance she is right.

[2iron]

I rest my case. That this forum has plenty of cranks like Francisco is both a plus and a minus. Sure, the Franciscos are a trifle embarrasing to the conservative cause but they can be amusing.

[zook]

I just don't think that's "the bottom line."

[Eva]

Actually, I didn't think that David Horowitz' critique was all that good. I think that his real issue with the book is not what is stated. My complaint about the book is that she fails to differeniate between a liberal and a leftist. I know that there are few true liberals around, but I don't think that it is fair to lump all Democrats into the leftist group and call them traitors.

What I see as Horowitz real problem with the book is that she is essentially labeling what is basicly a thought crime, as traitorous. I know that Ann is aware that the alien and sedition laws expired over 200 years ago and that the use of the word traitor is satirical hyperbole, but it does go a little over the top for a man whose parents were openly communists.

There is another aspect of this book that would rub Horowitz the wrong way, also. Ann states that religion is the impetus for the zeal that makes the conservative movement strong. It is the inspiration as well as the glue that holds us together. She states that Reagan knew this and used it to make the country strong again and that the communists know it also. She states that this is a war of ideas (pg.189) and that the left is out to undermine our way of life by attacking our moral underpinnings. The book is basicly aimed at stirring up the conservative right to fight the treasonous philosophic war with the left. She is singing to the choir, preaching to the liberals (if there are any left) and outraging the left. The a-religious neo-cons are left out in the cold with this book, there is nothing in it for them.

Note that she does not go into the recent truly traitorous acts of the Clinton administration.

[zook]

Good points.

[mr.pink]

...perhaps the same mistake that Ann Coulter is making.

I like Ann and her cutting wit, but sometimes she's a little too quick and it gives openings to her enemies to pounce upon.

Mathews exploited one opening for pretty much the entire first interview, I'll try to catch tonite's round two.

[DPB101]

I've read two (reviews) in the past two days that come from thoughtful conservatives.

Such as the review by Dorothy Rabinowitz? She cited the case of Phillip Loeb who didn't have the "resourcefulness" to fight back and was destroyed by McCarthyism.

The trouble with that is Loeb was not poor and McCarthy had nothing to do with his downfall.

Loeb was blacklisted in 1950 by "Red Channels"--a Free Republic of its day. The magazine listed entertainers who were allied with communist fronts. Exact same thing freepers do when we call for a boycott of Garofalo. Loeb had defended the Stalin show trials. He could have gone public and told what he knew of the CPUSA but he refused to do so.

In 1951, he wasn't invited back to his TV show "The Goldbergs". No sponsor wanted anything to do with him. His union, SAG, negotiated a $85,000 settlement for him not working---the equilivant of over $550,000 in 2002 dollars.

Four years later, Loeb was broke. He had slightly over $200 in the bank and a tax bill from the state of New York for around a grand. He wrote the tax people a letter saying he was destitute and a few days later killed himself.

A fitting end, in my opinion, to someone who thought high high taxes were fine and Stalin just swell.

Loeb was the only case of "the many" Rabinowitz cited in her article who were destroyed by "McCarthyism."

[Long Cut]

"I rest my case."

Good...it needed the rest.

RIP.

[ALOHA RONNIE]

...After DEMOCRAT (Treasonous) CHRIS MATTHEWS' full frontall attack on ANN last week...

...my TV goes off MSNBC right after its 'SCARBOROUGH COUNTRY.'

...WHY would ANN even consider going back for more..?

[MEG33]

Just when I was honing my analytical skills!

[PISANO]

Not many more conservative than I, and she is NOT an embarrassment to me. Her book is WELL SOURCED and the idea that the Gimmies are NOT commie lovers is put to rest by her work.

[Long Cut]

*All of the alleged Hollywood martyrs of the HUAC committee in the 1950s were indeed active Soviet agents,

*The Soviets maintained active networks of agents in the so-called peace movements, in various media outlets, in academia, and the labor movement.

Bears repeating...OFTEN.

[sauropod]

Oh please! Did you even read "Slander?"

[Long Cut]

I wouldn't bother...he'd just call you a name, like "crank" or "dummy" when you present facts he doesn't like. See above.

Since he's a) unwilling to debate the central points; b) prefers emotional invective-slinging; c) is convinced of his own superiority (LOL), I have decided against any further waste of effort on him.

Unless I want a few laughs, that is.

[sauropod]

Joe Lieberman is anti-American. He helped try to steal an election, REMEMBER?????

[MEG33]

I love the obvious ones....such fun.

[Long Cut]

"The a-religious neo-cons are left out in the cold with this book, there is nothing in it for them."

I'm sorry, but I must disagree. I am not, nor have I ever been, particularly religious, and I , whilst detesting Leftist-inspired terms like "neo-" and "paleo-"con, find myself in agreement with more of the "neos" than the "paleos" on many issues. Nonetheless, I find Ms. Coulter's work excellent and highly educational.

Talk about swinging too broad a brush...

[Long Cut]

Yep. The funniest thing about them is how smart they THINK they are.

People with an oversized opinion of themselves make for laughably easy marks.

[Imagine]

yes it is.

(unless, you've got a better bottom line about those traitorous, filthy, scummy, sick, perverted democrats)