[inkling]

Care to point out one instance where Ann paints herself as a victim?

Posting a pro-Coulter letter on her Web site with the tag line "The Letter the Wall Street Journal Refused to Run." Of course it wasn't that the WSJ didn't have the space to run an unsolicited, column-length letter. Rather, it had to be a Vast RINO Anti-Coulter Conspiracy.

Coulter can be entertaining, especially when she so offends the norms of "polite" Manhattan liberalism (Ann vs. Katie Couric was a classic). Nevertheless, I respect Rabinowitz, David Horowitz and many other conservative writers far too much to label them all traitors simply because they disagree with Coulter's beatification of McCarthy.

[sauropod]

I have been an admirer of Rabinowitz's work as well. I think Coulter is full of herself generally (a lot of successful people are), but she does good work in addition to being easy on the eyes.

Rabinowitz apparently goofed here and Coulter should have run a rebuttal column about it rather than put someone else's on her site. She's syndicated.

Would have had much bigger impact that way.

[kylaka]

Sorry. I don't see that as victimhood, just another brick in the wall. Daschle plays the part much better.

Coulter merely said Horowitz was wrong, and Horowitz has as much since agreed with her. I don't recall Ann ever saying or implying that those who disagree with her are traitors or treasonous.

Cripes. 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. The liberals are getting very shrill. Even the moderates are beginning to notice.

[thegreatbeast]

Did the WSJ NOT refuse to run Evan's letter?
Either cite a valid example of Ann Coulter shouldering the mantle of victimhood or stop tossing it about.
Coulter is not everybody's cup of tea, and needn't be, but be honest about your reasons.

[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.

[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.

[Hugin]

Care to point out one instance where Ann paints herself as a victim?

Posting a pro-Coulter letter on her Web site with the tag line "The Letter the Wall Street Journal Refused to Run."

Unless Akron Al is Ann Colter's freeper ID she did not post this. So how does that back up your claim that she "paints herself as a victim"?

Try again.

[ontos-on]

There is absolutely nothing wrong with "The Letter the Wall Street Journal Refused to Run." I presume it was sent to the WSJ and they were told it would not be printed. "not enough space" indeed. Do you know who M. Stanton Evans is? The not printing of a letter from him on this topic is not a meaningless event. It is a refusal, a decision to not print what they otherwise should have printed. They started the controversey by printing Rabinowitz's article.

Really, What is your angle here?

[justshutupandtakeit]

Who has labeled those folks traitors? Being incorrect doesn't make them traitors.