Assuming you read "Treason", what passages in the book do you take issue with?That would be THIS book:
Posted on 12/12/2007 3:00:06 PM PST by Rummyfan
The October 2007 Vanity Fair had a long, gaseous article explaining how the pro-Bush bias of the mainstream media cost Al Gore the 2000 presidential election. (For you kids out there too young to remember, Al Gore is a vaguely gay, morbidly obese former Clinton administration official who raised campaign cash from Buddhist monks and claimed he invented the Internet.)
Meanwhile, Republicans can barely remember that just a few years ago, former Clinton crony and current Hillary adviser Sandy Berger stuffed top-secret national security documents in his pants, snuck them out of the National Archives and destroyed them.
But liberals are still fighting the 2000 presidential election -- if only to take a break from fighting the 1973 Chilean coup by Augusto Pinochet. They never rest, they never give up, they never stop lying. Liberals lie and lie and lie and then, the moment conservatives respond, they shout: OLD NEWS!
By my rough estimate, there have been one zillion books, movies, plays, allegories, interpretive dances and limericks about the Dark Night of Fascism Under Joe McCarthy (DNFUJM).
The anti-McCarthy oeuvre has zippy titles, such as "The Nightmare Decade: The Life and Times of Senator Joe McCarthy," "Joe McCarthy and McCarthyism: The Hate That Haunts America" and "How I, Al Gore, Stopped Joe McCarthy's Hate Campaign" -- although that last one may have been made up during the 2000 campaign by a hostile media.
Fifty years later, the only true history book ever written about McCarthy has finally been released: M. Stanton Evans' "Blacklisted by History: The Untold Story of Senator Joe McCarthy and His Fight Against America's Enemies." Liberals have responded with vicious attacks and –- naturally -- claims the book merely recites "old news."
So I think I'm entitled to at least a few columns on the book that finally tells the truth about the DNFUJM.
Maybe if you were to use your 12 year old brain to read some of her books (I know that’s asking a bit much) you would find some of that intelligence you seem to lack. Certainly you would find the information that you obviously lack.
I’m sorry, did I address you, Joisey boy?
Those eyes make you feel like a deer in the headlights.
Dude, that comment made me laugh! Al Gore does cause my gaydar to go off.
ROFLMAO.
She has found her niche and is performing it outstandingly.
I found Joseph McCarthy by Arthur Herman (The Free Press, 2000) to be a balanced and well-researched account of the life of the Badger State solon.
"...Fifty years later, the only true history book ever written about McCarthy has finally been released: M. Stanton Evans' "Blacklisted by History: The Untold Story of Senator Joe McCarthy and His Fight Against America's Enemies." Liberals have responded with vicious attacks and –- naturally -- claims the book merely recites "old news."Here are the FR discussion threads about her OTHER recent columns about Senator McCarthy:So I think I'm entitled to at least a few columns on the book that finally tells the truth about the DNFUJM." [Dark Night of Fascism Under Joe McCarthy ] - Ann Coulter
THEY'LL NEVER FORGIVE YOU
[Ann Coulter on Ron Radosh, Joe McCarthy, "Blacklisted by History"]
Posted by RonDog
On News/Activism 12/05/2007 3:25:21 PM PST · 102 replies
AnnCoulter.com ^ | December 5, 2007 | Ann Coulter
McCarthyism: The Rosetta Stone Of Liberal Lies
(Ann Coulter Upsets Liberals Again Alert)
Posted by goldstategop
On News/Activism 11/07/2007 3:22:31 PM PST · 106 replies
Ann Coulter.com ^ | 11/07/2007 | Ann Coulter
National Review has not gone “leftist”, they have merely “matured” into “Country-Club” pragmatism. (Or maybe “lapsed” is a better word.)
By appearing to be conciliatory, and even going out on a limb, the National Review staff members are trying to win the love they have so obviously craved for about as long as the Reagan leadership of the party was relinquished in 1989.
The Bush Family is not, and never has been, “conservative” so much as they are “pragmatic”. While they have demonstrated some good canny understanding of the problems of statesmanship, both Bush 41 and Bush 43 have had some huge blind spots, especially when it comes to securing the benefits for American citizenship for those who are actually American citizens, and willing to exercise that franchise.
The National Review has adopted this same unilateral blindness, in their attempts to cover over the very real basic differences between the true conservative, and the pragmatism that has been the trademark of both the Bush Presidencies.
Which tends to make the Mitt Romney candidacy especially appealing to NR.
Assuming you read "Treason", what passages in the book do you take issue with?
Assuming you read "Treason", what passages in the book do you take issue with?That would be THIS book:
Why yes, that is the very book!
:o)
You're right, that "obese" crack was uncalled for. It's not nice to make fun of fat people.
The "vaguely gay" remark, OTOH, is funny... because it's true. Whenever he speaks , it's with a hint of a lisp, and with such a dullness that he sounds like Mr. Rogers' retarded gay brother. Everyone is thinking that. Ann just said it openly.
Indeed she has and I, for one, find it quite refreshing that she doesn't feel the need to play nice with these creeps. She just says what needs to be said, in straight forward fashion, and lets the chips fall wherever they may.
I reckon you're referring to the John Birch Society.
I've never heard that connection, ever. I depended upon the American Opinion Bookstore in the 1960s for "the rest of the story." We did not have the Internet and the "Fairness Doctrine" prevented what we have today thanks to modern talk radio.
TV network news was pretty much owned by the "free speech" crowd (later the "anti-war" crowd), there were still some conservative newspapers for current news, and Time and U.S. News and World Report were real news magazines and fairly well balanced but again it was mostly news of the past week.
To get information about such things as the "suicide" of U.S. Dept. of Agriculture agent, Henry Marshall*, I depended upon groups like the John Birch Society. Ditto information about Bobby Baker.
I am not challenging your opinion but I'd sure like to see some sources for my information. Every anti-communist group and government agency is attacked over and over so I rarely give any credence to such criticism.
*Note: More than a decade latter the NY Times would report: "Billy Sol Estes, the convicted confidence man who bilked Texas farmers out of millions of dollars in the 1960's, has told a county grand jury that Lyndon B. Johnson ordered the murder of a Federal official to keep him from disclosing Johnson's purported involvement in the fraud . . . ." True or not at least the charge was known and reported at the time of the "suicide" by the alternate news sources and the JBS was one of the sources.
Damn! Just damn!
I can see why. There is a personal aspect to it. She has been smeared by NR in the past, both as an alleged bigot and as a supposed Bircher - including by Buckley on the specific subject of McCarthy. And she was and is simply right on the subject, and those were all smears. Going right back to the rift between Ike and McCarthy in the 50s really.
I hear ya!
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.