The Letter the Wall Street Journal Refused to Run [ Evans defends Coulter against Rabinowitz]

http://www.anncoulter.org/refused.htm ^ | M. Stanton Evans

[Akron Al]

The Letter the Wall Street Journal Refused to Run
I Dare Call It Treason | Sample Audio from Treason | Treason on CD
TREASON: NOW AVAILABLE! Slander: Hardcover | Audio CD | Large Print High Crimes: In Paperback!

The Letter the Wall Street Journal Refused to Run

To The Editor:

A pretty good rule of thumb for judging media comment on Joe McCarthy is that people who most vociferously deplore him seldom know the facts of record.

Vide the recent Dorothy Rabinowitz piece in the Journal attacking Ann Coulter’s new book Treason and its McCarthy chapters. In her double-barreled blast against McCarthy/Coulter, Ms. Rabinowitz makes statements that indicate extensive ignorance of McCarthy’s doings and can but compound prevailing myths about him.

Treason!

Treason: Liberal Treachery from the Cold War..., Coulter
.

Sponsors

<br> a:link {color:800000; text-decoration:none} a:hover {color:800000;text-decoration:none } <br> .regular {font-size:8pt; color:800000;font-weight:normal;text-decoration:none} .adHeadline { font-size:9pt; font-family:arial; font-weight:bold; color:800000;text-decoration:none } .adText { font-size:9pt; font-family:arial; font-weight:normal; color:800000;text-decoration:none }

Start Advertising Now

Human Events
.

E-Mail List

One need go no further to see the point than the first of the McCarthy cases Rabinowitz refers to, and that Coulter discusses in her book: The episode of Annie Lee Moss, the U.S. Army code clerk so memorably portrayed by Edward R. Murrow, and others, as a pitiful victim of McCarthy. Ms. Rabinowitz, sad to say, obviously knows nothing at all about this matter.

As it happens, there is a voluminous official record on the case, accessible to Ms. Rabinowitz and anyone else who cares to view it. This shows Mrs. Moss had been identified as a member of the Communist Party in the District of Columbia by FBI undercover agent Mary Markward, who had access to the party’s records. This information was passed on from the Bureau to the Army, which nonetheless promoted Mrs. Moss from cafeteria worker to code clerk, and security-cleared her for these duties.

The outrageous Joe McCarthy, if you can believe it, actually wanted to know how such a thing could happen. When Mrs. Moss appeared before him in March of 1954, she denied she was a communist, indicated she had never heard of Marx, and allowed that she was being confused with some other Annie Lee Moss who must have been the guilty party. This mistaken-identity theme was echoed by the Democrats on the panel, and has been repeated often since.

Unfortunately for Mrs. Moss and for such as Murrow, she inadvertently gave the game away in testifying--volunteering as one of her addresses 72 R St. S.W. in the District. This proved to be the crucial evidence in the case when, four years later, the Subversive Activities Control Board (SACB) obtained the records of the D.C. party, and there found an Annie Lee Moss, of 72 R St. S.W., listed as a member in the middle ‘40s. Thus Markward’s testimony was confirmed by the Communists’ own records, reflecting this particular Annie Lee Moss, and no other, as a party member.

Ann Coulter’s discussion of the case quite accurately sums up the foregoing information, while Rabinowitz -- though with Coulter’s book before her -- ignores it entirely. The Coulter-Markward-McCarthy version gets the matter exactly right; the Murrow-Senate Democrat-Rabinowitz version is wrong, as shown by an extensive record (the SACB revisited the case on a number of occasions).

The question of Annie Lee Moss is important in itself, as it is so often mentioned in discussions of McCarthy. However, it is even more important as a kind of template for his other cases -- Peress, Amerasia, the speech at Wheeling, Owen Lattimore, and many more. There can be no intelligible discussion of these matters without knowing what the facts are, and these won’t be found by re-cycling Edward R. Murrow’s version of our history.

Anyway, that’s already being handled by The New York Times. Faithful readers of your pages expect something better from the Journal.

M. Stanton Evans
Washington, DC

return to column archives

home | columns | bio | events | images | contact | chat | extras | links

All content copyright 2000 - 2003 anncoulter.org.

anncoulter.org is a proud member of

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

[inkling]

I think it's pretty obvious that her use of the word "refused" implies that the WSJ was blacklisting Coulter's defenders. If you wish to parse the headline a la Bill Clinton, you can say it was value-neutral. But semantic gymnastics aside, her headline places blame upon the Journal.

The WSJ Editorial page spent a lot of the Nineties blasting Clinton -- was it then their obligation to print every pro-Clinton letter they received in response? Newspapers have VERY limited space to print letters and they are under no obligation to print any of them. A less accusatory headline would be "An Open Letter to the Wall Street Journal." That wouldn't imply guilt by the WSJ Editorial Board.

[kylaka]

"If you criticize St. Ann, you're a liberal and a traitor".

Ann hasn't said that, nor have I implied it. Jumping from telling someone they are wrong to calling them traitor is a big jump.

If you call a desire to spin the wheel in the opposite direction shrill fanatisism, so be it. Conservatives have barely begun to slow it down, let alone change the direction.

As far as the RINO's go, aiding and abetting isn't treason, but its not helpful either. Especially when the other side thinks truth is not absolute.

[rwfromkansas]

Not the small town papers around here. But, I bet the big papers do have to choose what letters to print due to due to space.

[xm177e2]

Ann's a big girl; she should be able to handle different opinions

If someone disagrees with her, they just have "different opinions." If they say nasty things about her, they just have "different opinions." And if she ripostes, she is being a whiner. In fact, even if someone else replies in her defense, she is being a whiner. Riiiight.

[rwfromkansas]

I agree that it is no slight that they refused to print this letter.

But, you got it wrong......ANN DID NOT WRITE THE LETTER, but somebody else that runs a site supporting Ann.

Ann is not crying victimhood, but somebody else.

[inkling]

But, you got it wrong......ANN DID NOT WRITE THE LETTER, but somebody else that runs a site supporting Ann.

I never claimed Ann wrote the letter, but she did give it prominent placement on her Web site under the headline I was discussing. If you are informing me that Ann Coulter isn't affiliated with a Web site named "AnnCoulter.org," then that's news to me and I stand corrected.

[ditin]

I think that the writer of the letter, Stan Evans, is a historian who specializes in McCarthy, which puts a different light on WSJ not publishing his letter. Surely, out of all of the letters to the editor received by them, you'd think that this would be one that they would want to print. Just my opinion. :-)

[Brian Allen]

<< It gets a little tiresome to hear Ann declare victimhood every time a conservative disagrees with her. >>

I have listened astutely to Ms Coulter for years now and have read pretty much every word she has published since she became a public figure and have yet to detect the slightest hint of "victimhood" emanate from Ms Coulter or from any of those of us who endorse and/or validate her.

For those who disagree with her she has only scorn, derision, humor and, on rare ocasion, sympathy.

I believe you animus is showing.

On this occasion, by the way, Rabinowitz did not "disagree with" Ms Coulter. Instead Rabinowitz ignored history, ignored truth and, worse, ignored the book she pretended to criticize and personally attacked Ms Coulter and attempted to demean the quality of Ms Coulter's painstaking research, all of the evidence presented in Treason -- and to overlook history and truth.

And Ms Coulter ignored her.

[Brian Allen]

<< If Ann is going to pad her generous bank account .... >>

Your animus is showing again.

No: Make that "still."

And you don't "disagree" with Ms Coulter any more than did Rabinowitz. You simply give vent to your animus.

As did Rabinowitz.

[Tailgunner Joe]

bump

[Stultis]

Resource Thread:

Tailgunner Joe--Where Have You Gone, Joe McCarthy?

[Paul Ross]

I think that the writer of the letter, Stan Evans, is a historian who specializes in McCarthy, which puts a different light on WSJ not publishing his letter. Surely, out of all of the letters to the editor received by them, you'd think that this would be one that they would want to print. Just my opinion. :-)

Mine too!

Bump!

[inkling]

<< If Ann is going to pad her generous bank account .... >>

Your animus is showing again.

Why is pointing out the fact that Coulter is rich indicative of "animus"? There is certainly nothing wrong with being rich. Furthermore, Coulter has made her fortune on her vociferous animus to liberalism. It seems a little odd for a Coulter devotee to consider "animus" such a bad thing.

[Lancey Howard]

Ann Coulter really bothers you, doesn't she?

[Pharmboy]

Aha! Another brilliant addition to our discourse! Thanks!

[Pharmboy]

Nobody labeled Horowitz and Rabinowitz "traitors." Many of us on this board are disappointed that both of them appear to have gotten their facts about McCarthy incorrect in their attack-columns directed at Ann.

[Pharmboy]

Ann bothers ALL liberals...ain't it grand?

[DPB101]

Nevertheless, I respect Rabinowitz, David Horowitz and many other conservative writers far too much to label them all traitors simply . . .

Who called them traitors? Both Horowitz and Rabinowitz made egregious errors of fact in their reviews. Are we supposed to ignore that?

Rabinowitz claimed Phillip Loeb was a victim of the Red Scare and, by association, a victim of McCarthy. Loeb was no such thing. Loeb was a victim of himself.

[Brian Allen]

Your loaded, twisted, spun, animus-spewing #33?

Bullshit.

[DPB101]

It won't be long before some editor (who hasn't read her book) starts off a review by calling her an "Arian" and uses swastikas for quote marks.

Its been done already in a snide fashion. In Slate, Sam Tanenhaus, compared her to Elizabeth Dilling.