This week's Time magazine gives Ann Coulter, conservative hack extraordinaire, an opportunity to hawk her new book, Treason.

Take a look:

Hack Extraordinaire

Obviously, I don't think much of her.

So, the question for debate is: What good is Ann Coulter? This can be reworded as: What harm is she doing?

Perhaps no good and no harm. She is so over the top, IMO, that nobody takes her seriously. Yet she has found readership with her first piece of rant, Slander.

I'll remove the gloves and go bare-knuckled on this. Coulter represents a part of US political thought that, in her words, wants the Democratic party to "go away. It's got to just hang up its stirrups [huh?]."

Well, you hang up your guns, Ann. But that would be saying something against the NRA, eh? Okay. stirrups it is then. I suppose we liberals who might vote Democrat need to take a knife to the old saddle to get those stirrups. Then hang them up somewhere for really no good reason other than to appease Ann and her sponsors.

So what good is she? What harm is she doing?

None. Zero. Nada. Zilch.

Ann Coulter makes her living taking personal shots at people she know won't/can't fight back. It doesn't take a lot of skill to pick a fight with people you know can't hit back. What's going to happen? Bill and Hillary write an "Ann sucks" book? Maybe go on CNN and say Ann is an idiot? Of course not.

Bush could pull down his pants, tell his next WOT victim to kiss his hairy white butt, give Haliburton a contract worth $300 trillion, and she would reply that liberals suck.

Bush could take two months off on vacation never to be heard of and she would say liberals suck.

We could find the smoking gun that shows how we invaded Iraq for oil and she would say liberals suck.

The question I have for Ann, Rush, Sean, and Weiner (savage) who continually bash liberals: What do you have to say to the families of the 10's of thousands of our young military men and women that gave the supreme sacrifice to our country that were liberals? What do you have to say to the 10's of thousands of our young military men and women stationed at our bases all over the world and in harm's way that voted for Gore? What do you have to say to our firefighters and policemen that save our lives everyday that thinks Bush is a nutbag like much of the world does?

Ann takes the easy way out by being an uninformed blowhard. Anybody that could find a way to justify the McCarthy hearings needs to get their Thorazine scrip refilled. She might as well say Hitler did ok because he managed to squeeze out a few bad Jews.

It takes a coward to parrot the party line while using a wide paintbrush to cover roughly half our population. It makes anybody who is a conservative look bad and it amazes me how much support she gets. She should just shutup and start eating more. She looks skanky as hell.

Come on folks, Ann Coulter is controversial, to the point and hard hitting. So basically a conservative Paul Begala, but since she's conservative she's horrible. Controversial is not nessesarily bad.

CP

She's not horrible because she's conservative. She's horrible, because her arguments are inflammatory and riddled with blanket statements. She's not a well reasoned individual, and it has nothing to do with being a conservative. There are many well-reasoned conservatives out there.

If Ann joined this site tomorrow, I gaurantee you that she'd be banned within hours.

Given, she is obviously controversial. But she does present her side using facts, I have yet to see the liberals on Crossfire outsmart her. She is their worst nightmare, yeah, she probably would be banned, but then again so would James Carville [basically the leftist Ann Coulter, btw I meant Carville when I said Begala].

CP

I don't know Carville, Pat, but if he's anything like Ann, I probably wouldn't have anything good to say about him either.

I started reading Slander a while back, and I couldn't even get through it. She just spews trash talk. Presentation is equally as important as the argument itself.

James Carville is the opposite of Ann Coulter. His wife is Bush strategist Mary Madeline. He can live with conservatives. I don't think Ann Coulter could bring herself to use a salt shaker assembled by a liberal.

I've heard just as many inflammatory comments from Carville as Coulter. The man yells just as much as her. So I fail to see the problem with Coulter, other than she is passionate.

CP

Well, in defence liberals have been proven wrong throughout the USSR history. Liberals were wrong to think that anybody who thought that the NKVD was penetrating Americas was a paranoid nutcase.

However I would agree thatAnn Coulter seems a bit on the populist side, perhaps but than there is some truth in her allegations.

Where are those people "defending to the death her right to say (insert statement here)"?

What harm is there is debating the liberal mindset? Conservatives are lambasted all the time (just mention Rush Limbaugh or Sean Hannity to any liberal and watch them wince), now add Coulter to the list.

I must admit I haven't read either of Coulter's books. I don't need others to point out the fallacies of the liberal argument . Her style is a bit "in-your-face" but from what I have seen in her TV appearances, she seems to be well-researched.

I don't see how she does any harm, though.

Count me as a Coulter fan.

I haven't yet read Coulter's books, but I have seen her on TV many times and read many of her columns. Her style might not fit in here, but I enjoy it. She's brash and in-your-face but I think she's right more often than not. What's appropriate in a formal debate setting and on a TV format based on controversialism are very different, as should be expected - they're very different mediums. The comparison with Carville seems fair, whom I enjoy also.

Nobody is trying to take away her right to say anything. Authormusician asked "What good is she?," so we're all giving our honest opinions. That doesn't mean that those who don't like her are advocating the silencing of Ann Coulter.

Ann Coulter is very good at what she does. She knows how to market herself and be controversial. Being controversial is a key element is selling your book. She has established herself as talking head and is therefore asked her opinion on any number of issues in the media. While I disagree on pretty much everything I've heard her say (or write), I will always defend her right to say it. She promotes debate and discussion which is never a bad thing...that is what good she is. She gets people talking about issues. She does no harm that I can see. She may harm fragile opinions held by some, but fragile opinions need to be harmed so those that hold them might do some homework and come back with a stronger opinion. All in all, she's just another face on the television and at the bookstore giving her two cents.

Chris Matthews did and so did Alan Colmes when she went on their show's to hawk her book.

All you have to do is ask her to name who in the present democratic party she believes is treasonous. Then watch her stutter and get red in the face. Why are all these shows allowing her to come on and get free publicity for the trash she writes?

I also love how she tries to rewrite history by making McCarthy out to be some kind of hero for his role in using fear of Communism to ruin the lives of innocent people that he disagreed with politically. She is a walking spin machine and nothing more.

Ann Coulter is the Andrew Dice Clay of conservative commentators. Like the Diceman, she says the most provocative, in-your-face things and she does so with her long blonde hair, longer legs and very short skirts.

Sex sells. It even sells conservative books. Mona Charen has a new book out bashing liberals, but she's not a hottie so nobody cares.

The phrase "media whore" springs to mind, but that sounds too much like something Coulter would say, so I won't. She treats politics as a bloodsport where it is not enough for her to be right; she must demonstrate that her enemies are not only wrong, but evil as well.

I don't think most serious conservatives take Ann as a deep thinker or leading light in the philosophy. She's a cheerleader and more annoying than threatening to those on the other side of the political equation.

As Nu Marx says, Coulter is an expert in selling controversy and in the process her books. Titles like Slander and Treason stand out on a crowded bookshelf. I don't blame her for stooping to conquer. Anyone familiar with her bomb-throwing writing style should not expect anything less.

When it comes to conservative cuties Michelle Malkin is just as conservative, much prettier and doesn't try to use sex appeal to move product.

Right, Nu Marx, same as I'd say about Carville.

And right, nighttimer, I love anybody who appreciates Michelle Malkin.

I like James Carville. He can be pretty out there at times, but he's funny.

Ann Coulter probably is a lot like him. It's a shtick, and it's making her wealthy.

She's just another form of entertainment. (I wish I had her lovely, swanlike neck, but not that sharp tongue!)

I read Michelle's stuff on TownHall.com (hey, gotta keep up with what the other side is talking about) and agree with virtually none of it. She fierce and fiesty and I would love if she posted on America's Debate anyday!

I watched her talk about illegal immigration on C-SPAN one night. I disagreed with her but she looked so good saying it I couldn't turn the channel.

WOOF!

I have no problem with Coulter exploiting her access to the airwaves any more than most straight men have no problem with her exploiting the mini-skirt. She has every right to spout as much vitriol as she likes. The only thing that astonishes me is that some people in this country actually take her seriously! Unlike many pundits like Paul Begala or George Will or Larry Kudlow or James Carville or Mona Charen - or any of the journalists turned talking head - Ann Coulter has absolutely no credentials. When she was given her first job as a pundit by MSNBC in 1996, she had been a right-wing congressional aide, period. Her resume consisted of her vicious tongue, her extremist opinions, her blond hair, and her long legs. She had gained notoriety on Capitol Hill, in short, for being a bitch - and not much more. Granted, the Carvilles and Begalas can be just as bitchy on occasion, but at least they had done something with their lives apart from shrieking insults before being handed a microphone.

Having gained national recognition on the basis of being irrationally controversial, she began committing her primal screams to print - and sold. But her book sales should in no way be taken to imply credibility, though. The only thing worse than Coulter's relatively unfair and extremely personal insults are her egregious errors of fact. Some, from one of her books are documented here. Eric Alterman has documented additional errors in What Liberal Media? - including the facts that she frequently misquotes her sources and that her footnotes are, "in many significant instances, a sham".

To answer AuthorMusician's questions:

So what good is she? None. Extremist commentators are one thing, but vicious liars like Coulter are something else. Even as an entertainer, there are many who are far wittier and who aim their poisonous darts with much more accuracy.

What harm is she doing? Insofar as there are those who actually believe some of her rants, she could be doing great harm in terms of feeding bigoted hysteria. Sad, but the fact that someone of Coulter's caliber is allowed near a microphone, never mind a printing press, is evidence of the ethical and intellectual bankruptcy of our so-called journalistic culture. While perhaps not that virulently dangerous on her own, she is certainly a symptom of the sorry state of the American media - and a goad to those who support some of the worst, most amoral agendas in our history.

I didn't realize credentials were needed in order to write a book or appear on TV. Are those to be issued by another government agency or what?

Most of Coulter's stuff is true at the core but somewhat overstated. I wish she'd tone it down because then she'd be a real thorn in the liberals' side. At least she's not holding elected office and publishing books filled with outright lies.

I never said credentials were required. But if I wanna hear the asinine opinions of a bitchy gopher, I can walk into the break room of any corporation in America. If someone is going to appear as a nationally broadcast commentator on politics and economics, I tend to prefer those who have more skills than pulling on pantyhose and more experience than giving ####-#### to Bill Maher. (Sorry - every time I start talking about Coulter, I start to sound like her. )


I'm kinda glad she doesn't tone it down - she tends to discredit conservative opinion in general.


Well, let's just say "at least she's not holding elected office" and leave it at that.

-Edited for language (saying it & then saying you're sorry, doesn't quite cut it). -Jaime

Coulter and Moore, political opposites, otherwise birds of the same feather.

I just wonder why conservatives feel she is any more qualified to speak about politics than someone like Susan Sarandon or any other Hollywood celebrity that get's ripped for voicing their supposedly unqualified opinions.

They like Dennis Miller, though.

Because Susan is an actress. She is an entertainer and that is her job.

Ann and Dennis are entertainers as well, but to do their job, they must research the topic, compile their findings, then write/speak about it. etc etc.

I would say any journalist (conservative or otherwise) is automatically more qualified in regards to current events, than any Hollywood actor/actress.

It's the nature of their jobs.

Oh, and what has anyone said about Susan, that hasn't already been said about Ann in this thread?

--cheers

I would like to point out that Coulter is an attorney. Odds are she is better educated than the typical Hollywood star.

Oh - I wasn't apologizing for the language per se - just for the tactic of using exaggerated, unverifiable, personal smears to characterize someone. Very Coulter. The rough language just goes with the territory - and was kinda incidental to my "sorry".

:::::::::::::::::::::::::


Yes, but one of those you mention doesn't research the topic - at least not honestly.


Why on earth would you say that?


Oh - is that why??? And you actually believe that all journalists - especially populist commentators - actually do their jobs? And more thoroughly than someone who has a deep personal interest in or commitment to a political issue? Hello, DP, you and I do more and better research on a daily basis than Ann Coulter has done in her entire career as an entertainer. Susan Sarandon has been a long-term political activist and speaker in addition to being an actress - and she tends to be very well-researched. The same simply cannot be said of Ann Coulter. Fortunately, she is not the norm - many other journalists (conservative or otherwise) - especially reporters - do take their jobs a bit more seriously. Coulter doesn't - and she doesn't seem to care that half the stuff she says is either untrue or "off-topic".

Come on, Wertz. You have no idea how much research she does or what the quality is.

The website you linked earlier that pointed out "factual" errors is hardly damning. Depending on how you interpret the quotes from the book, most of those statements can be made to jive with the facts. Pointing out that she incorrectly uses Lexus-Nexus doesn't refute her argument. The fact that she says the "truce" on Bush lasted only 3 weeks after 9/11 and then makes reference to a NYT headline that was from November (6 or 7 weeks after) doesn't necessarily mean that the truce ended with that particular headline.

Most of the items mentioned on that silly site were self-admittedly "nitpicking".

You have no basis to say that she does no "honest" research.

Yep. Just like MOST computer guys fix computers. MOST sales reps sell their product. MOST waiters wait tables. MOST taxi drivers transport people. And MOST journalists research what they write.

ALL? Nope, but the vast majority. If they don't do their jobs, they get fired. Simple as that.

You might not like Ann, the way she writes, or her presentation. But I think you're being overly harsh and laying down some pretty large blankets in the process.

--cheers

As oppossed to Hillary (once again) Rodham Clinton's non-hawkish attempts to sell her book to anyone and everyone. Who's the real hack?

Saying that every journalist knows more about politics and current events than any actor or actress (regardless of the situation) is like saying that every actor knows more about good movies than any journalist. People have different opinions on movies, and people have different opinions on politics. Simply being a journalist doesn't mean your political views are "better" than anyone elses, and being an actor doesn't make them any "worse." You can be a journalist and make conjecture and you can be a actor and make a good case. Your profession has nothing to do with it.

Coulter is a gimmick. I wouldn't even really call her a journalist, more like a satirist, a satirist of herself and her right-wing nutcase viewpoint. Out of all the people in journalism I have little respect for, she's lowest.

I think it was interesting to bring up Hillary Clinton in the interview and also here. If Coulter is the opposite of Moore, then I'd say Pat Buchanan is the opposite of Hillary Clinton. Coulter did snip that Hillary's book was ghost written. Awe, poor Ann. She had to do it all herself.

Coulter's and Moore's rants differ, though. Coulter may find herself coined into a synonym for straw man, such as:

"This argument has been coulterized beyond all rational thought."

"I refuse to recognize your coulterism."

It could be useful in courtroom dramas, eh?

I'm going to do a quote from an editor I work with around here. She did a piece on freedom of speech, but this isn't a rag that has an online presence. So this is from the July, 2003 edition of The Locally Owned Retailer, Fort Collins, CO, page 2:

"That's the American Way [people respectfully expressing differing views]! I saw it in action at a fun double lecture by Mary Matalin and James Carville in May--one of the events of 'Bridges to the Future, American History and Values in Light of September 11th,' sponsored by CSU and the University of Denver.

"As you may know, Mary Matalin is a staunch and committed conservative who has served several Republican presidents. She was an important advisor to George W. Bush until deciding her two small children needed her at home more than the president needed her at the White House.

"Matalin's husband, James Carville, is a staunch and committed liberal who was President Clinton's campaign manager and after the election, one of his closest advisors.

"Now how does a marriage like that come about, and how does it endure? Matalin and Carville kept the audience laughing with the political barbed zingers they tossed at each other, yet their affection and respect was evident for all to see. At the end of the evening, they took questions from the audience, and, of course, one of them asked how they managed to stay married!

"After the laughter died down, Matalin and Carville got serious. 'It's because we share the same core values,' they agreed. 'Even when our beliefs and opinions differ greatly, our values are remarkably similar--woven from the same fabric.' Each believes in a political party; each loves America; each loves their children; and they love each other.

"They believe that core values are the same for all Americans. 'All of us want the same ending: moving toward universal human values--the rule of law--limited power of the state,' Matalin told the now quiet audience. Carville added, 'People seek freedom and dignity. The essence of democracy is freedom.'

"Another question from the audience asked, 'How do we bridge the gaps in a divided society? 'You have to listen,' Matalin explained. 'Others' views are held as deeply as yours are held.' And Carville emphasized, 'Debate is good! Nothing wrong with fighting!'

"Both agreed that the key to our American Way is respect for the opinions of others, no matter how much we disagree. 'There are many ways to express patriotism, ' Matalin said. 'It's a challenge to continue the dialogue, but we must each take responsibility for all others; we must be citizens who care about our country.'"

I don't think anyone is saying Ann Coulter doesn't have a right to write drivel. She does, and so it goes.

I am suggesting that she is making a fool of herself--but it is disturbing that she has a strong readership. Are people actually taking her seriously?

Is calling the opposing political party treasonous helping or hindering our efforts to solve problems? Does Moore call Republicans treasonous? Hillary Clinton?

Would starting a dialog like this goad the opposition into equally inane attacks, unfounded in neither fact nor logic?

Matalin would never call Carville an un-American traitor because the response would come: you war-mongering money grubbing woman without a country! Or other domestic insults that lead to divorce.

Coulter talks about how the country is divided, yet she's stoking the fires of division. I think that amounts to purposefully causing harm to make a buck. It's rather disgusting, but not illegal.

As well they do. Of course everyone is entitled to their own opinion, but many actors have gone to school. Taken acting lessons. Study such terms as Charactor Development, Plot, etc etc. They know the difference between good movies and bad movies from a critical standpoint. But as I said before, everyone is entitled to their own opinion.

Actors know acting. Journalists know journalism.

--cheers

I have to disagree, DP. I think your statement is proven wrong every day on America's Debate. How many of us are polysci grads? How many politicians? And yet we manage to be, on the whole, well-read and knowledgeable about political issues. There are a number of debaters here, both liberal and conservative, who would make good elected officials. I am a musician, but that hasn't stopped me from studying politics, religion, philosophy, et cetera. I know I want my arguments measured on their own merits, not my personal background. Just because someone is famous for what they do does not mean they are any different from us in terms of having a range of knowledge broader than their particular specialty.

I just read Coulter's chapter on Alger Hiss. Is she wrong in saying he was a communist spy? Is she wrong in saying that damning evidence was presented to Roosevelt, and laughed off? Is she wrong in saying the US gov't was riddled with communist spies and sympathizers during that time? Was she wrong in saying that Acheson continued to defend Hiss, even after he was convicted for perjury?

Passion51,

Be careful. Wrong conclusions can be drawn from documented fact.

I see it going on all the time from the likes of Coulter and Buchanan.

Ann's conclusions regularly go beyond the evidence. Has she taken historical context into consideration? Sure there were a lot of Communist Party members in the US and in government.

Before the Cold War, communism was very popular in the US. Shoot, we had a communist ally in WW II!

The spying thing was highly controversial at the time. However, just like some weak thinkers do today, extending spying to all communists is a bad conclusion. Ann extends treason to all liberals and especially all Democrats. She wants to see the Demos just go away.

Yeah, right, Ann.

I just wonder how many of our recently nabbed spies were registered Republicans. Maybe we ought to make that party illegal? I mean, they're just a bunch of spies!

See what I mean?

While I understand your point, you seem to have ducked the question. Was she wrong about the specifics I mentioned?

As far as I can see, you've presented no evidence except "Ann Coulter said it." Maybe you should try to prove that all these people were Communist spies actively divulging secrets to Russia instead of trying to make us prove they didn't? I mean, the burden of proof is on you.

Not hardly. After all the original bashing done at the outset of this thread it seems quite fair to ask that those who blasted her take the time to debunk what she's written.

Sure I do. I've read her work. I've read tons of other material related to the stuff she writes about. I can compare and contrast - I can do my own research. I may not know in detail how much research she does (or how much is done on her behalf), but the quality of that research is evident on every page she produces. In fact, the bulk of her work is not related to research at all - which is a large part of the problem. Most of what she writes is pure, unfounded opinion. Granted, she often presents it as "fact", but it is nothing of the kind. One point to bear in mind about the web site linked above is that it deals with a majority of the actual research that was done on her book. The fact that there's so little of substance in her research to critique is hardly the fault of her critics. Have you read any of her stuff?

When she describes Bill Clinton as "a pervert and a felon" or Hillary Clinton as "white trash" and "pond scum" or Jim Jeffords as "a half-wit" or the late Pamela Harriman as a "whore" or the editors of National Review as "girly boys" or Christie Todd Whitman as a "dimwit" and "birdbrain" or when she compares Katie Couric to Eva Braun - when she suggests that the debate about the Clinton presidency should have been a question of "whether to impeach or to assassinate" or writes of all Arab peoples, "we should invade their countries, kill their leaders, and convert them to Christianity" or that "we need to execute people like John Walker in order to physically intimidate liberals" or when she jokes about the proposed "savage attack" and murder of Norm Mineta - however much you may agree with her opinion, do you see this as the fruit of research??

:::::::::::::::::::::::::


Oh, come on. I've worked as a journalist (well, as a critic, anyway), I live with a journalist/broadcaster, I have worked with journalists, drunk with journalists, and slept with journalists. The fact is, MOST journalists do the minimum to get a story. One unnamed source, one off the record confirmation from an anonymous "official" (maybe) and - hey, presto! - research done. This is especially the case, as I mentioned, with populist commentators, most of whom do no research whatsoever - they have assistants who cull the "disciplined" research of others (as outlined above) often for someone else who's scripting their material for them. The result is often extremely shoddy work and research which couldn't be described as rigorous by anyone's definition. Ann Coulter is one of the worst examples of this. Have you read any of her stuff???

The difference between journalists and computer guys or sales reps or waiters or taxi drivers is that you know when your computer is fixed, you know when you've been sold a product, you know when your food has been served, and you know when a taxi drops you at your door. You don't know when a journalist has done their research - all you know is that they produce x number of words by their copy deadline.

Have you ever seen a newspaper that did not have corrections and retractions of previous stories buried in their bowels? What does that say about the job our journalists do? What does the fact that so many of our political stories - especially the more scandalous - are first reported in alternative, fringe press or in the foreign press - only to be picked up by the mainstream press weeks or months later - if at all? How many weeks ago did members of this board trash the Nigerian uranium report? And it's really only getting half the coverage this week in the mainstream American media that it should have got two days after the State of the Union address? This is journalists "doing their job"? Not on my planet.

I might be lying down a few blankets about journalists in general, but deranged hacks like Coulter made the bed.

:::::::::::::::::::::::::


As a former actor, director, and theatre and film critic, I wish what you say were true! Most actors have very poor critical faculties - and beyond what they think it takes to make themselves look good, know little about the other crafts involved in theatre and film production. Most movie-goers know the difference between good movies and bad movies better than most actors. Even more than most movie-goers, journalists tend to know far more than actors, especially those who work as critics many of whom (like myself) have studied what all actors should study: history, psychology, politics, philosophy, and Theatre Theory and Criticism (my major at PSU). Sadly, an overwhelming majority of actors study only acting - with maybe some voice, dance, and make-up courses. Most are hardly equipped to read a script, never mind analyze it - and forget about viewing any of the results of their work or that of their rivals with an objective critical sense! Most of those who do study history and the other liberal arts and sciences, who take an interest in the life of their country and the state of their world (like Susan Sarandon and James Wood) rather than the life of their career and the state of their hair-do, are better actors.

:::::::::::::::::::::::::


Sorry, P51, some of us have better things to do with our time. I have read Slander - and its criticism - and it is hogwash. I posted a few references discrediting that book and its author. I'm not about to waste any more time wading through another compendium of her filth. As much as I enjoy reading oppostition writers, I can no longer count Coulter as either a coherent voice for the opposition or as a writer with any factual or ethical credibility whatsoever. Ann Coulter is not a political writer, she is not a historian, she is not an economist and, if her writing is anything to go by, she can't possibly be much of a lawyer. She's a worthless hack specializing in personal attacks - often without foundation - who is prone to misquoting, misrepresenting, and lying.

If you want to defend her "honor", then, as a gentleman, the onus is on you - if you think the [Coulteresque expletive deleted] is worth it.

Passion51,

No, I'm not ducking the question. I am pointing out that bad conclusions can be made from documented fact. So Ann is technically correct but logically challenged.

I don't have her book so I can't map the syllogisms for you. Just be careful, that's all. I'd be glad to help out on any Web-published articles with coulterisms in them, though.

You know, just because some Republicans have been caught doing illegal things doesn't make them all crooks, nor does it mean that all conservatives are crooks, either.

Author, I've not made any blanket statements or assumptions. Seems to me she's right on the money about a number of communist spies having been in high govt positions and that they were, and still are, being defended by some left-wingers whose loyalties should be examined.

And which loyalties are those? Are we back to swearing oaths again already?? There is nothing illegal, immoral, or disloyal about being an American Communist. Nor should there ever be. Anyone who would refuse to defend someone who is presumed innocent, should take a long, hard look at their loyalty. If you want an example of "making blanket statements", read the sentence which follows your denial of making blanket statements.

Whether they are defending the Soviet Union or bleating for Saddam Hussein, liberals are always against America. They are either traitors or idiots, and on the matter of America's self-preservation, the difference is irrelevant. Fifty years of treason hasn't slowed them down.

While undermining victory in the Cold War, liberals dedicated themselves to mainstreaming Communist ideals at home... Betraying the manifest national defense objectives of the country is only part of the left's treasonous scheme. They aim to destroy America from the inside with their relentless attacks on morality and the truth. --- Ann Coulter


http://www.spinsanity.org/columns/20030630.html


Why is it that I am certain Ann Coulter wouldn't last a week on America's Debate?

This kind of button-pushing rhetoric would be noxious enough coming from a male, but coming from a supposedly educated and intelligent woman, it is even more disgusting. Ann Coulter will say anything about anyone living or dead as long as they were a Democrat and/or a liberal. There seems to be a presumption that because she has a college education and a lawyer that gives her sweeping generalizations creedence.

Actually, all it does is make her an educated idiot.

If serious conservative thinkers believe the extremism of Ann Coulter helps their cause, they are sadly mistaken. Most people don't like extreme voices from The Left or The Right. At the end of the day the cause Ann Coulter is most interested in advancing is the enrichment of Ann Coulter.

The evidence presented was of spies, not merely members of the communist party. The evidence presented was that those spies held high govt positions and used those positions to pass info to Russia.

Continue to ignore the evidence if you will, but it's there for all to see. It's interesting how those accusations and that evidence are conveniently ignored while the messenger herself is attacked. Much the same as McCarthy himself was.

Well, I'm just recently getting exposed to Coulter, but one thing she wrote that was just confirmed, is that Harry Truman was an anti-Semite. CNN just aired the release of his diary on 7/12, and she was dead on.

Passion51,



Who are these current left-wingers that need examining?

aquapub,

Please provide a link to supporting evidence. Also, does Ann go into the Nixon tapes?

Do you mean besides those here on America's Debate?

We can start with the more radical groups, such as ANSWER. Move ever so slightly towards the middle and we can take a look at the publisher and editors of the NY Times. They still publish fawning articles on communists and other sworn enemies of America. One of the most glaring recent ones to come to mind was their virtual deification of Stalin on the anniversary of his none-to-soon departure from this life and descent into hell. Slide into the TV media and dial up Ted Koppel or Peter Jennings. They both fell all over themselves glorifying Stalin also.

As for those in politics, I'll leave that to others for now. But I will say this, virtually all anti-American rhetoric comes from the left, and the left makes up a huge element of the Democratic party.

Good God. We get it already. Is that really necessary?

There's a good deal of screeching going on in this thread, attacking Ann Coulter. But there hasn't been any talk at all about the specific information in the first couple chapters, some of which I mentioned previously



One of the things she also says often of liberals is that when they are confronted with damning evidence of the un-American activities of those they're aligned with politically they respond by personally attacking the messenger and ignoring the evidence altogether. Kinda like is being done right here in this thread.

Seems she's got it right there too!

Speaking of "ignoring the evidence..."

Ms. Coulter's work includes an admiring if brief biography of McCarthy's political career. One that for some reason excludes the senator's remarkable efforts on behalf of the members of the SS battle group who executed 86 American POWs in the Ardennes campaign in December 1944; otherwise known as the Malmedy Massacre. In his impassioned efforts on behalf of the accused--one never to be repeated in his investigative career--the senator charged that the U.S. Army had cruelly mistreated the former SS men.

All things considered, Sen. McCarthy's reputation would be hard to refurbish, but give Ms.Coulter credit for an all-out effort. The senator--who knew something about the art of outrage merchandising--would have understood the latest of his public advocates.

http://www.opinionjournal.com/medialog/?id=110003713

What's more "un-American" that sticking up for Nazis? Sticking up for jerks that stuck up for Nazis is a good example of "un-American" behavior.