"Do not intend to"??? "No opinion of her or her book"??? Strange way to try to establish your objectivity, keg.
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.
"Very specific" WHAT? Did you read the article? Why should anyone care if Ann can identify a single Democrat as indictable under the Constitutional definition of "treason"? That's not the point of her book---she probably didn't even pick the title of the book, because she didn't pick the title of her last book, "Slander": her editor did. The whole article is a giant red herring. Once again, what specific point?
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.
"Somebody in Reagan's administration called him a cowboy"? Here's the exact quote you're referring to in "Spinsanity":
In one particularly dishonest case, she claims that the New York Times "reminded readers that Reagan was a 'cowboy, ready to shoot at the drop of a hat'" after the invasion of Grenada (p. 179). However, the "cowboy" quote is actually from a Reagan administration official quoted in a Week in Review story who said, ''I suppose our biggest minus from the operation is that there now is a resurgence of the caricature of Ronald Reagan, the cowboy, ready to shoot at the drop of a hat.''
"Dishonest," hunh? Read what Ann wrote: the NY Times "reminded readers" of the "cowboy caricature" of Reagan. You mean the quote didn't present Reagan as a cowboy caricature? You mean the "Week in Review" section of the Sunday Times is not published by the New York Times? You mean the reference didn't "remind readers" of Reagan's "cowboy caricature"? I'd say her quote was 100% accurate---as Bill O'Reilly would say, "Tell me where I'm wrong."
You see, funny guy, "little things" like this do matter---the kind of stupid, trivial quibbles over phrasing and diction that stupid, trivial leftists try desperately to elevate into epochally consequential lies, cover-ups, misstatements and deceits. They go to credibility, you see, and your citation of this purported "inaccuracy" on Ann's part doesn't do much for your credibility or "Spinsanity's".
"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.
Hey, listen, pal, you made the first move. I'm not going to go through every one of Spinsanity's trivialities and "refute" them---it's a waste of my time to do so. If you don't want to talk about a substantive "inaccuracy" in Ann's book that's bugging you--and you obviously don't want the responsibility---go back to your "life" and leave this field to serious, knowledgeable debaters.