The Letter the Wall Street Journal Refused to Run (in defense of Ann Coulter)

Anncoulter.org ^ | 07-30-03 | M. Stanton Evans

[Norm640]

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.

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

[sine_nomine]

The key is being feminine. Coulter and her kin are feminine rather than being feminists. The definition of feminist is "not feminine."

The feminine conservative women are outspoken, accomplished, articulate. I have not heard them blame men for keeping them down.

[sine_nomine]

The key is being feminine. Coulter and her kin are feminine rather than being feminists. The definition of feminist is "not feminine."

The feminine conservative women are outspoken, accomplished, articulate. I have not heard them blame men for keeping them down.

[sine_nomine]

The key is being feminine. Coulter and her kin are feminine rather than being feminists. The definition of feminist is "not feminine."

The feminine conservative women are outspoken, accomplished, articulate. I have not heard them blame men for keeping them down.

[sine_nomine]

The key is being feminine. Coulter and her kin are feminine rather than being feminists. The definition of feminist is "not feminine."

The feminine conservative women are outspoken, accomplished, articulate. I have not heard them blame men for keeping them down.

[adam_az]

Are you calling Phyllis Schafely a hottie???

What a shallow, useless measure of human worth.

It's why the Hollyweird elitists are given any credibility at all.

[adam_az]

Ann Coulter is very pretty, but her giant adams apple is hardly a feminine feature. :)

Then again, no one is perfect.

[austinTparty]

The WSJ doesn't print MOST letters... making the non-publishment of a letter to the editor an issue is frankly silly.

[George W. Bush]

Hasn't this already been posted about five different times in the last week?

[Arrowhead1952]

Are you calling Phyllis Schafely a hottie???

Not just NO, BUT HELL NO! Ann Coulter is the HOTTIE I'm talking about!

[Deb]

Rabinowitz is still my hero because she was the only person in the media who brought the horrors of the 80s child abuse injustices to light. Many people are home, who would be rotting in a jail cell had she not been such a tenacious warrior.

She's a life-long Democrat and can't be expected to cancel 50 years of Democrat dogma over night. But she's smart enough (maybe) to come around at some point.

[Sangria]

Thanks for reminding me of her wonderful work on the Fells Acres false child abuse charges.

I don't blame her for being a Democrat, but that article she did on Ann Coulter was really undeserved.

[Norm640]

How would I know? I'm not the moderator. If it's been on too many times, I don't know, remove the thread or something.

[Norm640]

The non-publishment of the letter isn't the issue, smartie: it's what is said in the letter.

THe title of the thread is actually the title of the letter where I got the letter from. I had nothing to do with it.

The fact is, if a columnist is in such grave error as Rabinowitz seems to be on Coulter, and a guy like M. Stanton Evans writes to correct her, that stuff is usually published. These aren't disagreements between average folks.

Me not getting a letter published in the journal is on no plane whatsoever with M. Stanton Evans not getting a letter published. Considering what the letter was about, the WSJ is implicitly taking a side on this issue, even if it may be the wrong one (that of their own columnist).

I think what is silly is your ignorance of all of that.

[mvpel]

Vide the recent Dorothy Rabinowitz piece ...

Viddy well, o my droogies, viddy well!

[zygoat]

I have to wonder why they did'nt publish your letter. Was this your first attempt with this publication? My first attempt was not published, but at least two subsequent letters were published. And I must admit that they were caffiene induced rants sent at about 5:30-6:00 am, before work! Your letter was well written and backed up by factual excerpts.(Much better than my diatribes!) Perhaps the fact that you questioned one of their own DID have something to do with it.At any rate, Coulter seems to be poison to many of the, ahem, highbrow publications and web sites.

[austinTparty]

No. There are many experts whose letters on their areas of expertise refuting others whom they perceive to be in error don't get published. All you generally see is what is published, not that which isn't. Your awareness of THIS letter does not mean that it is an exception.

If Ann Coulter herself wrote in to correct a column of grave factual error, then that letter is likely given more consideration. The WSJ not publishing a letter is their prerogative, your--or Mr. Evans--personal support of Ms. Coulter notwithstanding. And non-publication is not that unusual, your opinion of Mr. Evans notwithstanding.

[lepton]

Tina Fey is rather cute. Her opinions are hysterical, but she's certainly not physically ugly.

[steve8714]

fine tag team with Helen Thomas- only their voices set them apart. Lights off for the love of God!

[Those_Crazy_Liberals]

I just finished her book last night. I have to say, I wasn't all that impressed. Perhaps its my fault for purchasing the book with the knowledge that it does devote a great deal of time to discussing the whole McCarthy era. I suspect it was a sop to her buddy the McCarthy historial who helped with the book research. It was a slow read and not real interesting. I did enjoy her discussion of some of the more contemporary political happenings.

[Those_Crazy_Liberals]

Don't forget, Ms. Rabinowitz makes her living claiming people were falsely accused.