[Mr. Mojo]

She is very smart, and I agree with her views most of the time. But her style (of both debating and writing) is a little intemperate for my taste.

[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.

[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.