The "fool" Sullivan cites is a noted McCarthy scholar who was himself attacked for pointing out that most of McCarthy's targets were in fact Communists.
Said "fool" says that Coulter misused and distorted the footnoted cites of his own book.
This may come as a surprise to some of you out there that have never seriously studied history or politics in an academic setting but simply having footnotes doesn't mean a given work is magically accurate.
And now you play the part of the fool.
You repeat the charge without addressing my question about an example of a specific inaccuracy or two.
As for you hoity-toity comment about those who have never studied history in an academic environment, let me assure you that I have. Unless you make you living as a college history professor, I doubt you read as much academic history as I do. We're not all ignoramuses here at FR.
I haven't read Coulter's book yet. (My copy is supposed to arrive tomorrow.) And I haven't read anything that this guy Sullivan has written. To be honest I've never really been that interested in McCarthy, maybe because I've bought the conventional wisdom about the guy. Lots of "noted scholars" are wrong about lots of things though, and they can get downright catty when someone comes along and destroys the basis of their supposed expertise.
So I'll start reading Coulter's book this week. If just one of you naysayers had cited two specific errors she made in the book, I probably wouldn't have ordered it.
ML/NJ
Your adversaries have only pointed out that you have no basis for anything -- other than "x says she made a mistake". Sullivan says she made mistakes. Sullivan says Radosh says she made mistakes. and John H K says she made mistakes. But .........
not one mistake is cited. I wonder why.