Replies

Here's a column on a site that is indeed run by Democrats but also criticizes Democrats when they go over the top. They cite numerous instances of what they say is Coulter's sloppy documentation and inaccuracies. I don't know; I haven't read the book because I simply don't read these types of books -- by conservatives, liberals, or anybody else. There's also another column describing how Ann didn't or couldn't respond to some of these things when asked by Alan Colmes.

Funny how no one seems to have read Ann's book on his own or to be able to refute any of the assertions or conclusions in her book. In columns, in reviews, and in posts like yours, we're simply "redirected" to a website, very often "spinsanity," supposedly "objective" because somewhere, sometime it objected to some of Michael Moore's work.

Well, you know what? I've been to "spinsanity," I've read Brendan Nyhan's hit pieces, and I'd like to know exactly which "point" he made that you think shows Ann is "inaccurate" in her book "Treason"? Both Nyhan and Alan Colmes (whose exchange with Ann is extensively quoted as if Colmes had effectively refuted any position Ann had taken by badgering her to name "traitors" in the Democrat Party) simply take up the now standard quibble with the title of Ann's book "Treason." It amounts to nothing but a childish whine: "Mommy!!! She called me a 'TRAITOR'!!!!! WAAAAAAAAHHHHH!!!!!!"

Is there anything specific you want to address, or are you just going to disappear now in a cyber-*POOF!*?

I have not read the book and do not intend to. I neither criticize nor praise her book or her. I have no opinion of her or her book.

I simply pointed out a web site with a column that, if you read the whole thing, has some very specific instances where they (not me) say she misquoted, got some facts wrong, or wrongly attributed things. Yes, they start with a general criticism of her style and her book, but then they get down to some very specific things. It's not just whining about her calling Democrats traitors.

You, on the other, hand indicated in earlier posts that her book is virtually flawless. So I'm asking you, since you've read the book, what about some of the very specific instances where they say she blew it? Just grab a few. For instance, where they say that she criticized the NYT for calling Reagan a cowboy when in fact it was somebody in his administration who said that. I'm curious because these "little" things do matter. They go to credibility.

"Is there anything specific you want to address, or are you just going to disappear now in a cyber-*POOF!*?"

Believe it or not I have a life off the Internet. I don't hang around breathlessly waiting for replies.