Andrew Sullivan: It’s all getting a little hysterical (Ann Coulter = Michael Moore)

The Sunday Times (U.K.) ^ | 07/06/03 | Andrew Sullivan

[alnick]

His pants are as low-slung as the ones that I saw on a pic of Britney Spears the other day.

[Eva]

No, I think that the term liberal needs to be redefined as leftist. I don't think that there are many "liberals" in the pure sense of the word in the Democrat party. That's the only problem that I see with Ann's book. I think that there are the "progressive" (socialist/fascist) Democrats and the old fashioned working class Democrats who don't really understand politics. Other than that I think that the book was pretty much right on.

My grandfather was one of those accused of being a communist. He was accused by the Democrats though, not the Republicans. He was a Democrat New Jersey Assemblyman for Camden County who didn't follow party line. His opponent in the primary accused him of being a communist. They must have already been following him because the only evidence that they came up with was that he was seen perusing the headlines on a communist newspaper at a news stand. He not only lost the primary, but they ruined his life. The FBI followed him everywhere, questioned his church members, his neighbors and his fellow employees at RCA where he was the top tool and die maker and held a top security clearance. He was president of the union and made all the parts for the first color tv. He was also a good Christian man, not at all the type to go for communism. The FBI even attended his funeral in 1954.

[Pharmboy]

This was a hit piece. Andrew is quibbling here; it has been the LEFT for the past half-century that has been using hyperbole, exaggeration and outright lies to attack. Ann gives it back to them in spades and they're all running for cover or doing smear jobs like this.

The stakes here must have been high for Sullivan to go to so much trouble. He has dropped considerably in my eyes after this.

[Dave S]

Anyone who would willingly be a member of that Party which has been hijacked by radicals long ago (last quarter century or so) should indeed be considered either a traitor or a fool

But Ann is going back to the 40's and 50's to make her case. Reagan was a Dem in the 50's. Kirkpatrick was a Dem until Reagan ran for President in 80.

[xm177e2]

Sullivan is right. Not all left-liberals are communist traitors. Do you think every left-winger serving in our armed forces is a traitor?

[Tax-chick]

But her style (of both debating and writing) is a little intemperate for my taste.

You said what I was thinking! On television her snap one-liners can be very effective, but I don't really go for her writing very much.

And my husband just noticed all the pictures on the screen, and said she wasn't much to his taste, but he probably has an ulterior motive.

[Mr. Mojo]

And my husband just noticed all the pictures on the screen, and said she wasn't much to his taste

Your husband has good taste :)

[Search4Truth]

# 3 Amazon Top Sellers

Treason: Liberal Treachery from the Cold War to the War on Terrorism by Ann Coulter Average Customer Review: Usually ships in 24 hours

# 89 Amazon Top Sellers

Stupid White Men ...and Other Sorry Excuses for the State of the Nation! by Michael Moore Average Customer Review: Usually ships in 24 hours

[GulliverSwift]

Right on Mojo. Also, I think the fact that Radosh has criticized the book (which perhaps may have been exaggerated by Sullivan) for jumping to conclusions is important.

Ron Radosh is an extremely credible historian whose work is so good that liberal historians are finally giving him his due. Anyone who would call him a "fool" (not you) has no idea what he's talking about.

That said, however, there is a good thing about Treason in that it enables average people to know some of the things that Radosh and others have been saying for the past few decades. This is good. That said, very very few liberals or moderates will be convinced but they likely would never read any book by a real conservative historian so in that sense, it may be a wash wrt moderates/liberals.

Coulter does some good but she is far from the godess that many on here perceive her to be.

[Tax-chick]

You are a gentleman!

[liberalnot]

ann is not the "extremist" that the media makes her out to be.

for example, bill handel of kfi los angeles had an interview with her, and he called her "right wing" and "really out there". he was insulting.

she is correct. for example, as late as the early 1980's when i returned to grad school i had a girl friend who said, "ortega and his party are the good guys"! referring to the war in central america. never mind that it was decades after stalin was proved to be a killer.

she's now, of course, a ph.d., and tenured at a university. surprise, surprise.

[Endeavor]

Lookout, I'm about to terminex you, cybercrunch and it won't be pretty (and your little dog, too, hehe).

[alnick]

Joe Lieberman has consistently advocated a strong national defense, and I believe actually supports the missile defense program.

How does throwing out military ballots fit in with Lieberman advocating a strong national defense?

[Dave S]

Does Sullivan believe that if Ann disappeared, Moore would go away? This is hardly the case. Until recently, the left had a monopoly. There was no Sullivan, no Coulter, no Limbaugh, no Fox. No intenet. No Free Republic. Until recently Walter Cronkite could say things no more extreme than Moore and get paid to say it. And no one would refute him

If you really think Ann does anything but preach to the converted you're delusional. No one but firebreathing right wingers are going to even bother to listen to her arguments. The vast middle that you want to persuade is totally turned off by her attitude and crude behavior.

[GOPcapitalist]

Andrew Sullivan's stance on gay rights and liberalism on other social issues is a little off-putting, but other than that, he is a strident conservatism. He's also reasonable.

I have to disagree with you on that. Sullivan is a whiny self promoter who is constantly trying to find a way to distinguish himself from the "conservative" mainstream and thus draw attention to himself. He did this obviously on the sodomy issue, in which he has a vested interest, but also on other issues. The PC-monger smear of Trent Lott over Strom Thurmond is a classic example where Sullivan not only called for Lott's ouster (but then again, everybody wanted him to go because he was incompetant as a leader) but fully endorsed the race hustler attacks as reason to do so. His participation in that charade makes even the worst tactics of Coulter look moderate, professional, and sensible.

In those few cases where Sullivan does actually inject the tools of reason into his arguments (and IMHO they are few and far between), he has tendency to quickly lose it by injecting his own rabid homosexuality into whatever given issue it may be, no matter how far fetched his case is, and from it launch another attack in his personal attention-grabbing crusade.

We as conservatives can, and have, done better. Sullivan and Noonan, National Review and Weekly Standard. All good standard-bearers, that are not throwing around insults half the time.

Noonan is fine. Weekly Standard, though too liberal for me at times, is also respectable. National Review, however, is a sad shell of what it used to be and better resembles Rich Lowry's college frat house than a professional magazine of intelligent writers. Once again, I would have to choose Coulter, despite her flaws, over NR if for no other reason than that the worst of her tactics look professional to Jonah Goldberg writing about "mega wedgies" and telling the intellectual equivalent of fart jokes.

[Tax-chick]

You guys are cute!

[Mr. Mojo]

Coulter's book does indeed serve the purpose you describe. The recent (trendy) wave of popular books in general by conservatives - O'Reilly, L. Elder, Coulter, etc. - fill a niche quite nicely. Most of their readers, as you mentioned, will never delve into any of the scholarly works by historians and political scientists. Great for checking out of the library, but they look kind of ridiculous on the bookshelf after a few months.

[Capt. Tom]

"I attempted to open the door and window of the car but I have no recollection of how I got out of the car. I came to the surface and repeatedly dove down to see if the passenger was still in it. I was unsuccessful in the attempt. I was exhausted and in a state of shock and I recall that I was able to get back to some friends who had a car parked in front of the cottage. I asked someone to bring me back to Edgartown. I remember walking around for a period of time and when I suddenly realized what happened, I immediately called the police," Kennedy said.

[Dave S]

But she doesn't make that claim. Her accusaion of treason is against the democrat party as an entity, as she has stated in every interview that I've seen her give to promote "Treason."

Whether she states it directly or merely skates close to saying it, that is what the nuckledraggers who read her trash take out of her book. Look at any Ann Coulter thread and you will see TLBSHOW and others agreeing that ALL DEMOCRATS ARE TRAITORS.

[Dave S]

It will have the opposite effect and make liberals sputter and backpedal. It already has sometimes.

Duh? The objective is not to flumox the liberal she is debating, it's to persuade the audience. Acting like a pig, whether Coulter or Moore is not going to win friends and influence viewers.