It’s the Carnival of the Vanities!
Is John Hawkins interviewing who I think he’s interviewing? If he is, I hope he is doing a phone interview because that woman scares me (but in a good way, as Rachel Lucas would say; kinda like how Rumsfeld scares me).
Weird. I wonder if this is all really true?
No, I don’t speechwrite for Gephardt, but he does sound like parody of himself. Actually, no, that stupid statement of his about an executive order overiding a Supreme Court decision could use more parodying. Ah! A topic for tomorrow. Muh ha ha ha!
I just saw Ann Coulter promoting her book on H&C on Fox. It looks like load of revisionist crap to me.
She actually believes that Joe McCarthy was a just and moral leader who was demonized by liberal Democrats on Joseph Stalin’s payroll. She postulates that all “liberals” are guilty of treason.
What she’s really saying is that there should only be one political party, the GOP, and that if you dissent from the party line, you’re un-american and a traitor. That sounds more like Stalinism to me!
Coulter is more than scary. She’s a modern-day Leni Riefenstahl, using her talent to distort the truth and appeal to a popular cause. In the end, she will have done nothing but damage the cause of conservativism and rightly be ridiculed for it. The only thing she doesn’t do is directly address the Jewish conspiracy that she hints at.
McCarthy was a power-hungry, tactless fool who hurt his party far more than he hurt those who were brought to testify before the House Un-American Activities Committee. You have to be a complete moron not to see that.
Recognising McCarthy’s failings doesn’t make me a traitor, a liberal, or a communist. We’ve heard this kind of rhetoric before. It is called propaganda — in the tradition of Hitler, Stalin, Mao, and Saddam Hussein. American’s are above this. Ann Coulter book isn’t worth the paper it is written on.
Hey Fritz, you should actually read the book, which I’m doing at the moment. She makes a pretty good case.
I watched her on H&C too, and I was kinda surprised how she was politician-evasive to C’s questions when she was just trying to sell a book.
Marc, If I want to read fiction, I’ll buy Hillary Clinton’s book. Coulter is a nut. I read her first book “Slander” and I won’t waste my money on this one.
What’s next? Will she assert that Nixon was framed and the moon landing was a hoax? She is just as bad a Hillary Clinton, who believes some kind of right-wing conspiracy is to blame for her husband’s infidelity.
The fact is communists are very politically active today. They are deeply entrenched in most of our labor unions and it is likely that if you belong to a union part of your paycheck ends up finding the Socialist party (they don’t call themselves communist anymore). Neither Republicans or Democrats are willing to address this because BOTH parties get huge contributions and support from the unions.
These union leaders are real traitors. You should read some of the minutes from their national conventions. They strategize about how to polarize the country and convert more liberal Democrats to their cause. That is one of the reasons why so many labor unions endorsed Ralph Nader in 2002. They WANTED Bush to win.
Coulter’s attempt to make Joe McCarthy some kind of GOP martyr is similar to Trent Lott’s praise of Strom Thurmond. Why bother with these relics? They are irrelevant and distract from current matters that need to be attended to — like Bin Laden, Mid-East Peace, etc.
When Coulter said that the history books are all written by “liberals”, I was on the floor laughing! What a nut. And, she then she says “when liberals disagree with US, they call US crazy.”
Well, I’m not a liberal and I’m saying Ann Coulter IS crazy.
I, too, was dismayed at Ann’s anti-answer to Colmes’ question “Name one liberal/Democrat alive and serving today that you would label a traitor”. She said she would need an eventual historical record to expose any, thus hurting her case that ‘Liberalism Is Treason'”.
I consider Ann a guilty pleasure, not a super-serious historian. Maybe it’s my liberal upbringing but McCarthyism still means “making serious charges based on flimsy — and often, baseless — evidence in order to further a narrow agenda”. I haven’t read Ann’s book, so I don’t know what she knows. But my guess is that McCarthy/Clinton/Coulter understand each other better than they’d each be willing to admit.
Colmes is pretty damn smart. He doesn’t say as much as Hannity (who could?), but when he has a point to make he doesn’t pull any punches.
He knew Coulter couldn’t name a living Democrat guilty of treason. Why? That would have been SLANDER! Wouldn’t that be ironic?
You know there is a line of liberal Democrats just waiting for Ann to open her big mouth and say something even remotely slanderous so they can slap her with a civil suit. Wouldn’t that make a great headline? “Slander Author Sued for Slander.” Just wait. It’ll happen.
“McCarthy was a power-hungry, tactless fool who hurt his party far more than he hurt those who were brought to testify before the House Un-American Activities Committee. You have to be a complete moron not to see that.” – Fritz
Only a moron would say that SENATOR McCarthy had anything to do with the HOUSE Un-American Actvities. Just in case you don’t understand civics, McCarthy was in the Senate. HUAC was run by the a House of Representatives. BTW… The Venona Project has vindicated Senator McCarthy. If he was wrong, it was because he UNDERESTIMATED the degree with which communists had infiltrated the U.S Goverenment In the 40’s and 50’s.
I love when liberals make fools of themselves!