McCarthy in a mini
RFCSAC627N
Treason: Liberal Treachery From the Cold War to the War on Terrorism, Ann
Coulter, Crown Forum: 368 pp., $26.95
By Jacob Heilbrunn, Jacob Heilbrunn is an editorial writer for The Times.
Ann Coulter is a trailblazer. In the 1990s, she paved the way for a bevy of
blond, leggy Torquemadas in miniskirts to earn notoriety on television by
denouncing feminists and Bill Clinton. "It's enough" to be impeached, she
declared in her 1998 bestseller "High Crimes and Misdemeanors," "for the
president to be a pervert." Now that George Bush is president, she's widened
her assault on liberalism to include the last 50 years of American history. Her
aim is to depict not simply Clinton but liberals generally as traitors. The
result is "Treason."
Since the collapse of the Soviet Union, much new scholarship has detailed the
role of American Communists and fellow travelers who spied for the Soviet Union
in the 1930s and 1940s. To some extent, it has amounted to a dotting of the i's
and crossing of the t's when it comes to the likes of Alger Hiss or Julius and
Ethel Rosenberg. John Earl Haynes and Harvey Klehr, for example, have confirmed
that the American Communist Party really was, as Theodore Draper argued decades
ago, largely the creature of Moscow. In "The Haunted Wood," Allen Weinstein and
Alexander Vassiliev offered juicy tidbits about pro-Soviet aides to Franklin D.
Roosevelt. Anyway, as George F. Kennan observed in his memoirs, the Roosevelt
administration was unconscionably lax in ferreting out members and agents of
the Communist Party who had entered government, but the problem was largely
corrected by the late 1940s.
But Coulter, whose Web site displays a photo of her aiming a rifle from a back
porch, will have none of this. Her farrago of a book pilfers the latest
scholarship in the hopes of creating some shock and awe about an immense
liberal conspiracy that has functioned since the Roosevelt administration to
paralyze the United States. Whether her latest exercise in self-promotion will
create either is another question.
In outlining the liberal web of deceit, Coulter seeks to revive the charges
that the right made against Harry S. Truman and advisors such as Secretary of
State Dean Acheson during the early years of the Cold War. Richard Nixon
denounced the State Department as "Dean Acheson's cowardly college of communist
containment." Sen. William E. Jenner damned Acheson as the
"Communist-appeasing, Communist-protecting betrayer of America" who had lost
China to the Reds.
But no one of course was a greater enemy of Truman than Sen. Joseph McCarthy.
Central to Coulter's case is that McCarthy had it right. Drawing on Arthur
Herman's fanciful biography, "Joseph McCarthy," Coulter dispenses with any
pretense of scholarly throat-clearing and objectivity to announce that "The
myth of 'McCarthyism' is the greatest Orwellian fraud of our times. The
portrayal of Senator Joe McCarthy as a wild-eyed demagogue destroying innocent
lives is sheer liberal hobgoblinism." Far from cowering in fear from McCarthy,
liberals were besmirching his name and wrecking the ability of the nation to
defend itself from the traitors who had infiltrated the government. Hiss is
thus trotted out as Exhibit A of liberal perfidy — as though anyone but a few
hapless souls still cling to the belief in his rectitude. (Incidentally,
Coulter grossly inflates his importance in the State Department hierarchy,
comparing his position to Deputy Secretary of Defense Paul D. Wolfowitz's, when
he was, in fact, one of a number of assistants.)
In her zeal to revive the passions of a bygone era, Coulter dilates upon her
contempt for the patrician types like Acheson with his British suits and
mannerisms, claiming that they had an XXY chromosome anomaly that led to overt
treason. "Angry ethnics," she says, "like Joe McCarthy made much better
Americans." Even McCarthy's drunkenness is adduced as a sign of his virility in
contrast to Democratic effeminacy: "After a solid night of drinking, McCarthy
still was never at a loss for a clever comeback."
Jews, like Army Capt. Irving Peress, dubbed the "pink dentist" by McCarthy,
don't fare much better at Coulter's hands: "[N]eedless to say, the scrawny
pinko was also a failure as a soldier." By the time Coulter is done, Peress and
the Rosenbergs are responsible for the gulag and the Soviet nuclear threat.
Coulter's less than charitable streak also manifests itself when she refers to
an alleged Soviet operative named William Remington, who, we are told, was
"later killed with a bar of soap in prison by a patriotic inmate." Perhaps the
most bizarre passages in Coutler's book are about a harmless black code clerk
named Annie Lee Moss, who worked in the Pentagon. According to Coulter, "Moss
played the fool when she testified before McCarthy's committee." Moss said
there were other people named Annie Lee Moss in the Washington phonebook.
Coulter declares that at most there was an Anna Lee Moss and an Annie Moss as
well, constituting irrefragable evidence that "the poor put-upon washwoman was
lying."
Beyond Coulter's bargain-basement attempt at aping McCarthy is the problem that
the right was MIA before and even after World War II when it came to communism.
The GOP was isolationist. Kennan sounded the alarm about Moscow's global
ambitions. Truman launched the Cold War against the express objections of the
leader, mind you, of the Republican Party, Ohio Sen. Robert A. Taft, who
inveighed against foreign entanglements as the road to a corrupt American
empire. Does he count as a traitor as well?
By the time she's reached the present, Coulter has drawn a straight line from
Roosevelt's perfidy to the flaccidity of liberals in confronting Islamic
totalitarianism. "[W]hen confronted with terrorists who despised both America
and the Jews," she writes, "there was no doubt whose side the left would take."
Hold on there, Ann. What about Christopher Hitchens and Paul Berman, who have
decamped from the left to their own brand of neoconservatism to support the war
in Iraq? Given the scope of the conspiracy Coulter purports to have uncovered,
it is amazing that the United States not only won the Cold War but also remains
the most powerful nation in the world.
Coulter's latest jeremiad is occasioning much tut-tutting in conservative
circles. Coulter, you might say, is the alter-Iago of the movement. After Sept.
11, she was disbarred from the National Review for calling for a crusade to
convert the Muslim world forcibly to Christianity. Now, Andrew Sullivan and
others detect someone giving aid and comfort to the enemy. Her unhinged attack,
so the thinking goes, plays into liberal stereotypes about conservatives. The
real traitor, it seems, is Coulter! But conservatives may be being a little coy
in piously distancing themselves; it was Sullivan, after all, who warned of a
potential "Fifth Column" in the ranks of what he called "the decadent left" on
both coasts after Sept. 11. Sullivan may have regained his senses, but when it
comes to Coulter, what else is new? Coulter's true cause isn't conservatism but
something different. In accusing almost everyone else of treason, Coulter has
remained loyal to one thing: herself.
copyright 2003 Los Angeles Times
James Neibaur
rfcsa...@aol.com wrote on 7/13/03 9:49 AM:
> After Sept.
> 11, she was disbarred from the National Review for calling for a crusade to
> convert the Muslim world forcibly to Christianity.
Forced Christianity? (sigh)
However wagging heads like this always end up merely the answer to a trivia
question after a few short years. Just relax and wait till she falls.
JN
George Shelps
>After Sept. 11, she was disbarred from
>the National Review for calling for a
>crusade to convert the Muslim world
>forcibly to Christianity.
This is totally untrue.
>Given the scope of the conspiracy
>Coulter purports to have uncovered, it is
>amazing that the United States not only
>won the Cold War but also remains the
>most powerful nation in the world.
Yes, it ~is~ amazing, given the sympathy
towards the Soviet Union displayed by so
many on the left---like CC.
But conservatives were indefatigable in the face of the evil empire and
after being written off after the Goldwater
debacle, they finally elected one of their
own in Reagan.
RFCSAC627N
>Richard Carnahan quoted:
>
>>After Sept. 11, she was disbarred from
>>the National Review for calling for a
>>crusade to convert the Muslim world
>>forcibly to Christianity.
>
>This is totally untrue.
>
National Review Cans Columnist Ann Coulter
By Howard Kurtz
Washington Post Staff Writer
Tuesday, October 2, 2001; Page C01
George Shelps
rfcsa...@aol.com (RFCSAC627N)
wrote:
>>>After Sept. 11, she was disbarred from
>>>the National Review for calling for a
>>>crusade to convert the Muslim world
>>>forcibly to Christianity.
>>This is totally untrue.
> National Review Cans Columnist Ann
>Coulter By Howard Kurtz
>Washington Post Staff Writer
>Tuesday, October 2, 2001; Page C01
She was "canned" for publicly disagreeing
with editorial policy, not for the content
of the article. And she did not call for
a crusade to ~forcibly~ convert the Muslim world.
RFCSAC627N
>>>>After Sept. 11, she was disbarred from
>>>>the National Review for calling for a
>>>>crusade to convert the Muslim world
>>>>forcibly to Christianity.
>
>>>This is totally untrue.
>
>>=A0=A0=A0=A0National Review Cans Columnist Ann
>>Coulter By Howard Kurtz
>>Washington Post Staff Writer
>>Tuesday, October 2, 2001; Page C01
>
>She was "canned" for publicly disagreeing
>with editorial policy, not for the content
>of the article. And she did not call for
>a crusade to ~forcibly~ convert the Muslim world.
>
This is what she wrote:
"We should invade their countries, kill their leaders and convert them to
Christianity."
What other way than "forcibly" could this be accomplished?
And she was fired--her words to Howard Kurtz--for refusing to allow racist
remarks to be edited from her column.
Why must you defend pond scum?
Richard Carnahan
Constance Kuriyama
A bad habit, perhaps, like attacking innocent, fuzzy-brained liberals?
Connie K.
--
"Our century is inconceivable without its . . . inconclusive mob of isms."
George Shelps
rfcsa...@aol.com (RFCSAC627N)
wrote:
>>>After Sept. 11, she was disbarred from
>>>the National Review for calling for a
>>>crusade to convert the Muslim world
>>>forcibly to Christianity.
>>This is totally untrue.
>>She was "canned" for publicly
>>disagreeing with editorial policy, not for
>>the content of the article. And she did
>>not call for a crusade to ~forcibly~
>>convert the Muslim world.
> This is what she wrote:
>> "We should invade their countries,
>>kill their leaders and convert them to
>>Christianity."
> What other way than "forcibly" could
>this be accomplished?
She wasn't advocating "forcible"
conversion. You're conflating the
the first two components of the sentence
with the last. Learn to read.
>And she was fired--her words to Howard
>Kurtz--for refusing to allow racist
>remarks to be edited from her column.
Wrong. She was fired for discussing the
issue in public and calling the editors
of the magazine "girly boys."
>Why must you defend pond scum?
I admire Coulter and am proud of it.
Feuillade
> I admire Coulter and am proud of it.
I'm sure you do.
Here you go, George. Read and learn. And when I get around to taking on
"Treason," I'll make sure you get a copy:
* * * * * *
In her book Slander, Ann Coulter portrays all contemporary political discourse
in America as "insufferable" and "a nasty sport." The responsibility for this,
she alleges, lies solely with liberals. Liberals are "bitter and angry," they
"hate America" with "a species of primitive religious hatred." Their "idea of
political debate" is "ad hominem attack," and a "central component" of their
"hate speech is to make paranoid accusations based on their own neurotic
impulses." Intriguingly enough, though, the more Coulter describes liberals as
hate-filled, bitter and neurotic, the more they come off sounding remarkably
like Ann Coulter.
Coulter's cartoonish Manichaeanism might be easier to take if it was supported
by rational argument, but Coulter is to rational argument what Jackson Pollock
was to painting – she just splatters invective in all directions and hopes
that some of it hits the canvas. She does score an occasional hit (after all,
as Gibbon once put it, "faction exaggerates, rather than invents"): her
description of how serial tongue-prober Bob Packwood was depicted by the press
before and after his fall from power has the ring of truth about it. And her
advocacy of Phyllis Schlafly as an unjustly neglected intellectual is an
intriguingly heterodox position which makes me want to see if Schlafly really
is the towering intellect that Coulter depicts.
Coulter's own prose style is serviceable without being flashy. She uses the
term "hoi polloi" correctly more than once, which always impresses me. But she
repeats points over and over again, as if she believes that her ideal reader is
a mental defective with a short attention span who needs to be hit over the
head several times before they get the point. It's not enough for Coulter to
claim that Ronald Reagan "won the Cold War" (a dubious enough assertion in any
event) – she has to say it eight times. She is also addicted to the word
"starlet," which she tosses around like Hedda Hopper in her heyday (at one
point four times on the same page). Her contempt for women who are more
attractive than she is knows no bounds, and one gets the feeling that Coulter
thinks that a person should lose all right to express themselves politically
once they've received a SAG card (Charlton Heston, I suppose, would get an
exemption). Ironically, Coulter reveals less of herself and her opinions when
she bellows than when she attempts to understate, as when she refers to the
Wall Street Journal as a "conservative" – in quotes – newspaper, or when
she posits that "Fox News may modulate slightly to the right" (she also refers
to Washington Times writer Tony Blankley as "telegenic," at which point we
enter the realm of science fiction).
Coulter in her endless interviews, when she's not bemoaning the fact that
Timothy McVeigh didn't blow up the New York Times instead of the Murrah
Building, tends to take great pride in the fact that her book has oodles of
footnotes when in fact it has none (she is to be congratulated, however, for
having made it through law school without learning the difference between a
footnote and an endnote). Her endnotes are revealing, however. The number of
actual books read and cited is depressingly skimpy – most of what evidence
Coulter has accumulated has come from trolling through the electronic database
Lexis/Nexis – which, incidentally, is too expensive to be accessed by the
general public. I suppose it could be a coincidence that Coulter has seen to it
than none of her readers will be able to check up on her references unless
they're in what conservatives refer to suspiciously as the "mainstream media,"
but I tend to doubt it.
She pours disdain on liberals who referred to Ronald Reagan during the 1980s as
"dumb," in spite of the fact that Norman Podhoretz left his first meeting with
Reagan "wondering whether he had any brains at all" (the quote can be found on
page 618 of Stephen F. Hayward's book The Age of Reagan). She condemns former
Secretary of Defense Robert McNamara for "losing" the Vietnam War (which ended
seven years after he left the government) and "condemning millions of people to
live under a communist tyranny," when a celebrated Republican president did
exactly the same thing. Coulter states that "Truman got the country into a war
in Korea, and couldn't get us out for two and a half years. Eisenhower was
elected and ended the war in six months." The fact is that Truman, when faced
with Communist aggression, went to the UN and assembled a multinational
coalition to stop that aggression – actions that conservatives tend to
approve of, so long as they're being done by a Republican whose surname is
Bush. Eisenhower, on the other hand, was so anxious to bug out of Korea that he
blackmailed South Korea's President into acquiescing to a stalemate that handed
half his country over to the Communists by threatening to withdraw all American
troops immediately if he didn't accept the truce. As a result the war never
officially ended, 37,000 American troops are stationed in Korea to this day,
and 22,000,000 people (North Korea's current population), are, as Coulter put
it when discussing Robert McNamara, condemned "to live under a Communist
tyranny." Even Stephen Ambrose admits that, had President Truman tried to end
the war under the same terms, the Republicans in Congress would have tried to
impeach him.
To quote that well-known Freudian Peggy Noonan in her most recent book on
Ronald Reagan, "A lot of people have a way of projecting their own flaws, their
own sins, onto others. They see in others the transgressions they themselves
routinely commit." The more you read Slander, the more it becomes obvious that
Coulter's book is nothing more or less than a 256-page-long exercise in
projection, and in the final analysis, her career is nothing more than
conclusive proof of how far you can go in this country with a maximum of
self-promotion and a minimum of class.
Tom Moran
"The people can always be brought to the bidding
of the leaders...All you have to do is to tell them
they are being attacked, and denounce the
pacifists for lack of patriotism and exposing the
country to danger."
Hermann Goering
Doug Sulpy
<feui...@aol.com> wrote:
> G-H...@webtv.net (George Shelps) writes:
>
> > I admire Coulter and am proud of it.
>
> I'm sure you do.
>
> Here you go, George. Read and learn.
Gee, thanks. Another 1000 words of off-topic leftist hissy-fit... just
what the group needs...
George Shelps
>>I admire Coulter and am proud of it.
>I'm sure you do.
>Here you go, George. Read and learn.
>And when I get around to taking on
>"Treason," I'll make sure you get a copy:
Bah, humbug.
Your late-arriving rant against Coulter
is a farrago of ad hominems (or should
I say "ad feminams"), distortions and
left-liberal fantasies.
And your triumphant disclosure of the difference between "endnotes" and
"footnotes" surely settles the question,
once and for all, of Coulter's merit as
an author.
(That represents the level of argument
presented in your review of "Slander.")
Both "Slander" and "Treason" were
best-sellers and she just signed a contract for a $3 million dollar
advance for her
next book.
AC is talented, beautiful, intelligent, telegenic, and skewers her
opponent in a way you can only dream about. And now a millionaire.
And aren't you still waiting to hear from
that Hollywood contact you bragged about
years and years ago here?
Feuillade
>Bah, humbug.
Gee, George, I am as always dazzled by your dialectical skill.
> Your late-arriving rant against Coulter [...]
It's a reprint, babe. Pubished elsewhere months ago.
> [...] is a farrago of ad hominems
> (or should I say "ad feminams"),
> distortions and left-liberal fantasies.
Hardly. It's called logic. Not something you know much about, so it doesn't
surprise me that you can't recognize it when you see it.
> And your triumphant disclosure of
> the difference between "endnotes"
> and "footnotes" surely settles
> the question, once and for all,
> of Coulter's merit as an author.
I never claimed that it did. It is, however, a nice little insight into both
Coulter's arrogance and ignorance -- two qualities that conservatives have in
spades.
> (That represents the level of argument
> presented in your review of "Slander.")
Hardly. I notice you don't both mentioning the comparison of Coulter's
treatment of Truman versus the historical record of Eisehower -- or is that "ad
presidentam"?
> Both "Slander" and "Treason" were
> best-sellers [...]
So was "Jonathan Livingston Seagullll." Read it lately?
> [...] and she just signed a contract
> for a $3 million dollar advance for
> her next book.
If we're judging authors by the size of their advances, Hillary Clinton would
be considered twice the author than Ms. Coulter is.
(By the way, George, I also reviewed Senator Clinton's book negatively. So
much for "liberal bias.")
> AC is talented, beautiful, [...]
You always did have a thing for skanky blondes, George.
> [...] intelligent, telegenic, [...]
That depends on how attractive you find the anorexic.
> [...] and skewers her opponent in
> a way you can only dream about.
She has more than one opponent, George.
> And now a millionaire.
Wow. Almost a sentence.
Uday and Qusay were both millionaires as well. Is wealth de facto evidence of
virtue?
Hugh Hefner is a millionaire. So is Larry Flynt. Are they both virtuous by
virtue of their wealth?
> And aren't you still waiting to hear
> from that Hollywood contact you
> bragged about years and years
> ago here?
I'll have to ask my agent. :)
Shush
> In her book Slander, Ann Coulter portrays all contemporary political discourse
> in America as "insufferable" and "a nasty sport." The responsibility for this,
> she alleges, lies solely with liberals. Liberals are "bitter and angry," they
> "hate America" with "a species of primitive religious hatred." Their "idea of
> political debate" is "ad hominem attack," and a "central component" of their
> "hate speech is to make paranoid accusations based on their own neurotic
> impulses." Intriguingly enough, though, the more Coulter describes liberals as
> hate-filled, bitter and neurotic, the more they come off sounding remarkably
> like Ann Coulter.
Coulter's current popularity must be a bitter pill for conservative
commentators like George Will and William F. Buckley. I don't often
agree with them, but they're certainly intelligent, articulate
thinkers who can craft an argument with a little more depth to it than
"All liberals are stupid, all liberals are liars, all liberals are
traitors."
--Shush--
(Welcome back, Tom)
Feuillade
> Coulter's current popularity must
> be a bitter pill for conservative
> commentators like George Will
> and William F. Buckley. I don't
> often agree with them, but they're
> certainly intelligent, articulate
> thinkers who can craft an argument
> with a little more depth to it than
> "All liberals are stupid, all liberals
> are liars, all liberals are traitors."
I can't wait to see her next book, "All Liberals Should be Shot on Sight."
That *is* where she's heading, isn't it?
George Will is a pretty classy guy (you could say I used to work for him), and
I'd be interested in his opinion of Our Miss Coulter.
>--Shush--
>(Welcome back, Tom)
Why thanks. :)
Feuillade
> Shus...@yahoo.com (Shush) wrote:
>> (Welcome back, Tom)
> You must be joking, Shush.
He can't help it, George. He's been pining away for some intelligent
discourse.
And it's not like he's going to get any from you... :-Ţ
James Neibaur
feui...@aol.com wrote on 7/31/03 6:15 AM:
> I can't wait to see her next book, "All Liberals Should be Shot on Sight."
> That *is* where she's heading, isn't it?
I have come to the conclusion that Ann Coulter is merely putting on a show
to sell books. That she doesn't really believe everything she writes.
Her latest book does not appear to be doing as well in sales. Of course
debuting at number two and holding for a couple of weeks is great, but the
numbers are beginning to fall already. If Treason doesn't have the same
success as Slander, then she may take on a different persona.
In any case, I don't know about her longevity.
JN
Constance Kuriyama
poisoning:
Fed up with the attention Ann Coulter's new bestseller Treason is getting
all over the media? NationBooks has the perfect antidote in Norma
Barzman's acclaimed memoir The Red and the Blacklist: An Intimate memoir
of a Hollywood Expatriate.
While Coulter weakly tries to associate Barzman and other radicals from
that era with treason, The Red and the Blacklist proves exactly the
opposite. In fact, The New York Times described Barzman's memoir "as an
intimate evocation of the...life of an American family driven away by
rascals who should have been in jail themselves."
The Red and the Blacklist is a unique record of the political tempests of
the time, marked by the author's dazzling power of reflection, and
animated by a larger-than-life cast of supporting characters. Barzman's
extraordinary memoir fizzes with the wit and energy of classic Hollywood
comedies, yet is also laced with the fear and claustrophobia of film noir.
It's perfect summer reading guaranteed to keep the Ann Coulter blues
away.
For more info:
http://www.nationbooks.org/book.mhtml?t=barzman
Don't miss what Vanity Fair calls "the raunchy memoir of a Hollywood
insider turned outsider by the McCarthy witch-hunts."
RFCSAC627N
>Here's an antidote for those of you suffering from acute Coulter
>poisoning:
>
>Fed up with the attention Ann Coulter's new bestseller Treason is getting
>all over the media? NationBooks has the perfect antidote in Norma
>Barzman's acclaimed memoir The Red and the Blacklist: An Intimate memoir
>of a Hollywood Expatriate.
>
>While Coulter weakly tries to associate Barzman and other radicals from
>that era with treason, The Red and the Blacklist proves exactly the
>opposite. In fact, The New York Times described Barzman's memoir "as an
>intimate evocation of the...life of an American family driven away by
>rascals who should have been in jail themselves."
>
Norma Barzman was also interviewed--along with a number of other blacklist
victims--in TENDER COMRADES by Patrick McGilligan and Paul Buhle, and she
supplies audio commentary for the recently-released DVD of CHRIST IN CONCRETE.
Richard Carnahan
Pen Gu Win
<jnei...@wi.rr.com> wrote:
> I have come to the conclusion that Ann Coulter is merely putting on a show
> to sell books. That she doesn't really believe everything she writes.
Yeah. Right. Maybe her ulterior motive is to make more money, so she
can pay more taxes, thereby supporting the left.
> Her latest book does not appear to be doing as well in sales. Of course
> debuting at number two and holding for a couple of weeks is great, but the
> numbers are beginning to fall already.
Hmm. Last I saw (which I think was yesterday) it was at Amazon's #2
place (after "Kate").
> If Treason doesn't have the same
> success as Slander, then she may take on a different persona.
Bizarre.
> In any case, I don't know about her longevity.
Me, either, though I hope she continues to annoy the Left for many
years to come (nothing's funnier than an angry liberal, after all!).
In the interests of full disclosure, though, I should confess that I
haven't read either of Ann's books (why do I need someone to tell me
that liberals are treasonous, morally challenged rats? I already KNOW
that!).
:-)
D.
James Neibaur
chi...@northpole.com wrote on 7/31/03 11:41 AM:
> Hmm. Last I saw (which I think was yesterday) it was at Amazon's #2
> place (after "Kate").
I was going by it being at Number Five on the NY Times Best Seller list this
past Sunday. It could have since moved up.
The NY Times piece on her recently was interesting and revealing (the fact
that she took no part in a heated political discussion occuring at her table
while at dinner). I really think she is working the crowd. She taps into
an angry fringe. It is easy to do that, right or left.
JN
George Shelps
feui...@aol.com (Feuillade)
wrote:
>Shus...@yahoo.com (Shush) wrote:
>>>(Welcome back, Tom)
>>You must be joking, Shush.
>He can't help it, George. He's been
>pining away for some intelligent
>discourse.
>And it's not like he's going to get any
>from you...
I doubt that Shush shares your opinion
of my "discourse," but he's certainly revised his opinion of yours as
expressed
once on the Yahoo Group Chaplin site:
"But in my view, Lou and George
put together aren't as bad as that one guy with the funny French name,
who left us in disgust some months ago.
He was either dismissive/condescending or a snarling pit bull 100% of
the time, as
he still is in alt.movies.silent. But I would never look for ways to
muzzle him when ignoring him is just as effective"
Amen.
Feuillade
> feui...@aol.com (Feuillade) wrote:
>> Shus...@yahoo.com (Shush) wrote:
>>>> (Welcome back, Tom)
> Amen.
I think I can say with some confidence that he has changed his opinion -- if in
fact that *was* his opinion (since I'm not about to take your word for
anything).
But people *do* change, George. After all, your beloved Ronald Reagan was once
a Democrat...
Shush
> I doubt that Shush shares your opinion
> of my "discourse," but he's certainly revised his opinion of yours as
> expressed
> once on the Yahoo Group Chaplin site:
>
> "But in my view, Lou and George
> put together aren't as bad as that one guy with the funny French name,
> who left us in disgust some months ago.
>
> He was either dismissive/condescending or a snarling pit bull 100% of
> the time, as
> he still is in alt.movies.silent. But I would never look for ways to
> muzzle him when ignoring him is just as effective"
Yep, Tom could be pretty monstrous in those days, often choosing to
bully rather than to argue. But that was then. Though he's been gone
from this newsgroup the last couple or three years, he's remained at
alt.movies.silent, where he's been far more cordial than he used to
be. He can still be blunt, but I don't think that's so horrible. More
often now, when he argues a point, he just states his case and leaves
it at that.
(I remember when he declared that VHS was in its death throes,
doomed to be replaced by DVD, and *no one* believed him. People
scoffed, but Tom didn't lash out as he would've in the past. He just
sat back and patiently waited for us to realize that he was right all
along... as he certainly was.)
He's intelligent, he's knowledgeable about Chaplin and early
cinema, he can debate as well as anybody and (to me at least) his
posts are always interesting. If you don't like him, killfile him, but
I think he can add something good to the group, and I'm glad he's
back.
In fact, I e-mailed him earlier this week and invited him to come
back.
And besides Tom, I also sent Leslie a similar invitation. She
replied that while she's busy with other interests these days, she may
stop by sometime soon. I hope she does. I sent an e-mail to Crooner,
who hasn't been seen in these parts for two or three years, but it
bounced back. Even though he used to drive me crazy sometimes in the
old days, I'd like to see him return too.
I also sent an e-mail to our official newsgroup princess, CC41689.
When we last heard from her, she was a very ill 16-year-old,
undergoing some sort of chemotherapy. She stopped posting to this and
her other newsgroups a couple years ago.
My e-mail bounced back... her AOL address no longer exists. I hope
the same can't be said for little CC41689.
--Shush--
Mary
>I sent an e-mail to Crooner,
> who hasn't been seen in these parts for two or three years, but it
> bounced back. Even though he used to drive me crazy sometimes in the
> old days, I'd like to see him return too.
>
I used to wonder what happened to Lou as well. I remember seeing his
name with Worldwide Web World (web design service), and then noticed
that this site name and the name Lou Comunale were tied in with the
Maschil ministry. It left me wondering if this was the same Lou who
posted here for so long. Crooner's sense of humor is definitely
missed.
Feuillade
> Yep, Tom could be pretty monstrous
> in those days, often choosing to
> bully rather than to argue.
Monstrous? Moi?
Compared to whom? :)
> But that was then. Though he's
> been gone from this newsgroup
> the last couple or three years, [...]
Otherwise known as the "His Dead Newsgroup" period. There may be a causal
relationship there.
> [...] he's remained at alt.movies.
> silent, where he's been far more
> cordial than he used to be.
Hate to disagree with you, Shush, but I don't think my posting style has
changed at all.
I have always said that the style in which I post merely reflects the style of
the person to whom I am responding. I treat people the way they treat me.
So if my posts have been less "monstrous" over the past few years, perhaps it's
because I haven't been responding to George and/or Connie.
> He can still be blunt, but I don't
> think that's so horrible. More
> often now, when he argues a point,
> he just states his case and leaves
> it at that.
I would argue that I've done that pretty consistently.
> (I remember when he declared
> that VHS was in its death throes,
> doomed to be replaced by DVD, and
> *no one* believed him.
That's an understatement. I was ridiculed.
> People scoffed, but Tom didn't lash
> out as he would've in the past. He
> just sat back and patiently waited
> for us to realize that he was right all
> along... as he certainly was.)
I didn't "lash out" because I couldn't believe that people refused to see what
was so obviously staring them in the face.
I still can't believe that, to tell you the truth. How could you not know that
the minute DVD showed up, VHS was over?
(In the interest of full disclosure, I should point out that, even though I
have a DVD player, I have been buying up VHS cassettes lately, since stores are
now practically giving away VHS, and a lot of these films are not going to make
it to DVD soon if ever.)
> He's intelligent, he's
> knowledgeable about Chaplin
> and early cinema, [...]
I'm more knowledgable than some, far less so than others.
> [...] he can debate as well as
> anybody [...]
Okay, this I'll grant you. :-Ş
> [...] and (to me at least) his
> posts are always interesting. If
> you don't like him, killfile him,
> but I think he can add something
> good to the group, and I'm glad
> he's back.
I haven't decided whether I'm going to post regularly or not. I understood a
long time ago that, as entertaining as it might be in a bear-bating sort of
way, life is way too short to waste it debating with George. He's a living
example of that line of Polemarchus in Plato's Republic that you cannot
persuade someone who refuses to listen.
dsulpy
<feui...@aol.com> wrote:
> I haven't decided whether I'm going to post regularly or not. I understood a
> long time ago that, as entertaining as it might be in a bear-bating sort of
> way, life is way too short to waste it debating with George.
If your only reason for "posting regularly" here is to "debate with
George"... please don't.
George Shelps
feui...@aol.com (Feuillade)
wrote:
>Shus...@yahoo.com (Shush) writes:
>>Yep, Tom could be pretty monstrous
>>in those days, often choosing to
>>bully rather than to argue.
>Monstrous? Moi?
Bully? Oui!
>>[...] he's remained at alt.movies.
>>silent, where he's been far more
>>cordial than he used to be.
>Hate to disagree with you, Shush, but I
>don't think my posting style has
>changed at all.
No, it hasn't. He's simply been extensively killfiled on alt silent.
>I have always said that the style in which
>I post merely reflects the style of the
>person to whom I am responding. I treat
>people the way they treat me.
Oh, baloney. There's usually an undercurrent of contempt and
provocation.
Do you think it's an accident that your
posts generate such hostility?
You also descend to smears and slander.
as when you called me a "fascist."
And most of the posters here and on alt
silent ~share~ your political orientation
and familiarity with the topic
of film, so it has nothing to do with your worldview---as is the case
with me.
>I haven't decided whether I'm going to
>post regularly or not.
Please don't.
> I understood a long
>time ago that, as entertaining as it might
>be in a bear-bating sort of way, life is
>way too short to waste it debating with
>George. He's a living example of that
>line of Polemarchus in Plato's Republic
>that you cannot persuade someone who
>refuses to listen.
Especialy when someone refuses to alter
his views when commanded to do so.
George Shelps
ckur...@ttacs.ttu.edu (Constance Kuriyama) wrote:
>Here's an antidote for those of you
>suffering from acute Coulter poisoning:
Yes, the truth can often be toxic to
fans of totalitarianism or its apologists.
>Fed up with the attention Ann Coulter's
>new bestseller Treason is getting all over
>the media?
Last time I checked, top selling books normally get media attention.
> NationBooks has the perfect antidote in
>Norma Barzman's acclaimed memoir
>The Red and the Blacklist: An Intimate
>memoir of a Hollywood Expatriate.
>While Coulter weakly tries to associate
>Barzman and other radicals
Oh, I like that "other radicals." Try
"CPUSA members."
> from that era
>with treason, The Red and the Blacklist
>proves exactly the opposite. In fact, The
>New York Times described Barzman's
>memoir "as an intimate evocation of
>the...life of an American family driven
>away by rascals who should have been
>in jail themselves."
And Barzman's heroes would have had you marching to the Gulag.
> It's perfect summer reading guaranteed
>to keep the Ann Coulter blues away.
Yeah, for those who celebrate traitors.
Feuillade
> feui...@aol.com (Feuillade) wrote:
>> Shus...@yahoo.com (Shush) writes:
>>> Yep, Tom could be pretty monstrous
>>> in those days, often choosing to
>>> bully rather than to argue.
>> Monstrous? Moi?
> Bully? Oui!
I wasn't asking you, George.
You are hardly an unbiased observer where I am concerned.
>>> [...] he's remained at alt.movies.
>>> silent, where he's been far more
>>> cordial than he used to be.
>> Hate to disagree with you, Shush,
>> but I don't think my posting style
>> has changed at all.
> No, it hasn't. He's simply
> been extensively killfiled on alt silent.
Oh, please.
To say that's an exaggeration is an understatement.
>> I have always said that the style
>> in which I post merely reflects the
>> style of the person to whom I
>> am responding. I treat people the
>> way they treat me.
> Oh, baloney. There's usually
> an undercurrent of contempt and
> provocation.
But you *deserve* contempt, George. :)
> Do you think it's an accident that
> your posts generate such hostility?
On which newsgroup?
You have not done enough research on my posts to know that my tone changes
radically depending on which newsgroup I post on.
I am known as one of the calmer presences on some newsgroups.
On rec.music.opera, for example, which makes this newsgroup look like a tea
party by comparison.
Why do you think that is, George?
I repeat: my tone here says far more about the people to whom I am responding
than it does about me.
> You also descend to smears
> and slander. as when you called
> me a "fascist."
I should think you would consider that a compliment, George. :)
> And most of the posters here and
> on alt silent ~share~ your
> political orientation and familiarity
> with the topic of film, so it has
> nothing to do with your worldview---as
> is the case with me.
George, you really need to do something about this monstrous self pity of
yours.
>> I haven't decided whether I'm going
>> to post regularly or not.
> Please don't.
I'll take it under advisement, babe.
>> I understood a long time ago that,
>> as entertaining as it might be in
>> a bear-bating sort of way, life is
>> way too short to waste it debating
>> with George. He's a living example
>> of that line of Polemarchus in
>> Plato's Republic that you
>> cannot persuade someone who
>> refuses to listen.
> Especialy when someone refuses
> to alter his views when commanded
> to do so.
Ah, George. Often in error but never in doubt...
George Shelps
feui...@aol.com (Feuillade) wrote:
>>Shus...@yahoo.com (Shush) writes:
>>>>Yep, Tom could be pretty monstrous
>>>>in those days, often choosing to
>>>>bully rather than to argue.
>>>Monstrous? Moi?
>>Bully? Oui!
>I wasn't asking you, George.
Oh, mercy me.
>You are hardly an unbiased observer
>where I am concerned.
Well, I agree word-for-word with
Shush's original description of you.
>>Do you think it's an accident that
>>your posts generate such hostility?
>On which newsgroup?
>You have not done enough research on
>my posts to know that my tone changes
>radically depending on which newsgroup>I post on.
Well, you can't be continually churlish.
It would alert potential targets.
Hitchcock always made his villains smooth and articulate. It's easier
to set people up that way.
Feuillade
> feui...@aol.com (Feuillade) wrote:
>>> Do you think it's an accident that
>>> your posts generate such hostility?
>> On which newsgroup?
>> You have not done enough
>> research on my posts to know
>> that my tone changes
>> radically depending on
>> which newsgroup I post on.
> Well, you can't be continually
> churlish. It would alert potential targets.
> Hitchcock always made his
> villains smooth and articulate.
> It's easier to set people up that way.
Oh, George, this is pathetic even from you.
Can we please take up a collection to get George the help he so desperately
needs?
George Shelps
feui...@aol.com (Feuillade)
wrote:
>Can we please take up a collection to
>get George the help he so desperately
>needs?
I would like to see you vanish from this
newsgroup and go pollute someplace else, but I have a feeling your
darker
urges are driving you back here.
I certainly don't need any "help" in
dealing with the likes of you, Monsewer.
But I had hoped that the great opportunity from Hollywood that you
pretentiously
announced several years ago was
consuming your rancid ego and that your
relative retirement from alt.silent was
going to become a permanent self-exile
from Usenet.
Leslie
> bully rather than to argue.
You know, I once thought Tom had ill-treated another poster on this
group. However, after getting to know said poster, I found myself
agreeing with Mr. Moran's opinion of this person (this is NOT Mr.
Shelps, btw. I still think their usenet repartee is hilarious and if
they wanted could be the most famous comedy team since Martin and
Lewis).
>>
> I also sent an e-mail to our official newsgroup princess, CC41689.
> When we last heard from her, she was a very ill 16-year-old,
> undergoing some sort of chemotherapy. She stopped posting to this and
> her other newsgroups a couple years ago.
>
> My e-mail bounced back... her AOL address no longer exists. I hope
> the same can't be said for little CC41689.
>
Me too, Shush. I think the last time I heard from her was about three
years ago. I offered to give her my Chaplin videos since I'd gotten
DVDs. They got a different home, and I haven't heard from her since.
Hope she's ok.
Leslie (just poking my head in)
James Neibaur
la...@yahoo.com wrote on 8/2/03 12:36 PM:
> (this is NOT Mr.
> Shelps, btw. I still think their usenet repartee is hilarious and if
> they wanted could be the most famous comedy team since Martin and
> Lewis).
Well, maybe Allen and Rossi.
JN
RFCSAC627N
>sting.google.com, Leslie at
>la...@yahoo.com wrote on 8/2/03 12:36 PM:
>
>> (this is NOT Mr.
>> Shelps, btw. I still think their usenet repartee is hilarious and if
>> they wanted could be the most famous comedy team since Martin and
>> Lewis).
>
>Well, maybe Allen and Rossi.
>
Certainly better than Duke Mitchell and Sammy Petrillo.
Feuillade
> feui...@aol.com (Feuillade) wrote:
>> Can we please take up a collection to
>> get George the help he so desperately
>> needs?
> I would like to see you vanish
> from this newsgroup and go
> pollute someplace else, but I
> have a feeling your darker
> urges are driving you back here.
Nothing is "driving" me back here, babe.
Shush specifically requested that I return, and I dropped in for a bit, noticed
that you were making your usual ass of yourself, and couldn't resist having a
little fun.
> I certainly don't need any "help" in
> dealing with the likes of you, Monsewer.
What you need is professional help, George. That is palpably obvious.
> But I had hoped that the
> great opportunity from Hollywood
> that you pretentiously announced
> several years ago [...]
And what exactly would this be?
You wouldn't have a quote for this mythical statement, would you?
(Hopefully this will keep George busy on Gooogle looking for a statement that I
doubt very much exists, except in George's perfervid imagination.)
> [...] was consuming your rancid
> ego and that your relative retirement
> from alt.silent was going to become
> a permanent self-exile from Usenet.
Sorry, babe. You thought wrong.
But that's nothing new... :)
Feuillade
> Shus...@yahoo.com (Shush) wrote:
>> Yep, Tom could be pretty
>> monstrous in those days,
>> often choosing to
>> bully rather than to argue.
> You know, I once thought Tom
> had ill-treated another poster on
> this group. However, after getting
> to know said poster, I found myself
> agreeing with Mr. Moran's opinion
> of this person [...]
I wish I knew who the hell you were talking about. :)
It wouldn't be the infamous Doc Bender, would it? You do know that after
sparring memorably with me on this and other newsgroups, she has become one of
my closest friends.
> [...] (this is NOT Mr. Shelps, btw.
> I still think their usenet repartee
> is hilarious and if they wanted could
> be the most famous comedy team
> since Martin and Lewis).
There are times when I'm apt to agree with you. :)
James Neibaur
rfcsa...@aol.com wrote on 8/2/03 2:20 PM:
>> Well, maybe Allen and Rossi.
>>
> Certainly better than Duke Mitchell and Sammy Petrillo.
Well, that's a judgement call
JN
RFCSAC627N
>>> Well, maybe Allen and Rossi.
>>>
>> Certainly better than Duke Mitchell and Sammy Petrillo.
>
>Well, that's a judgement call
>
Ouch!
Leslie
Actually, the two who come to mind (even though they were never a
comedy team) are Edgar Kennedy and George Saunders.
Now guess who is who (whom?) ;-)
Leslie (hoping Shush is not thinking of rescinding his invitation...)
James Neibaur
> Actually, the two who come to mind (even though they were never a
> comedy team) are Edgar Kennedy and George Saunders.
You probably meant Edgar Buchanan and Colonel Sanders.
JN
Shush
> I still think their usenet repartee is hilarious and if
> they wanted could be the most famous comedy team since Martin and
> Lewis).
I love it too. They're better than "The Odd Couple."
--Shush--
George Shelps
>>But I had hoped that the
>>great opportunity from Hollywood
>>that you pretentiously announced
>>several years ago [...]
>And what exactly would this be?
>You wouldn't have a quote for this
>mythical statement, would you?
Why, yes. I do:
alt.movies.chaplin
Date: 1998/03/03
>>>By the way what's doing with *your* screenplay?
>>>Has Shannon Tweed gotten back to
>>>you yet.
>>Hey, pal, *I'm* not the wannabe who
>>posts in screenwriting newsgroups!
>I see you've been pulling a Connie (that
>is, trolling around in Deja News looking
>for ammo). Very bright, George.
>But after the conversation I had this
>evening with a producer out in L.A., the
>"wannabe" label might not stick any more.
>I'll let you know when the check clears,
>George...
We're still waiting, Tommy.
Feuillade
> Tom Moran wrote:
>>> But I had hoped that the
>>> great opportunity from Hollywood
>>> that you pretentiously announced
>>> several years ago [...]
>> And what exactly would this be?
>> You wouldn't have a quote for this
>> mythical statement, would you?
> Why, yes. I do:
(Note the ease with which I can send George scurrying to Google at my beck and
call.)
> alt.movies.chaplin
> Date: 1998/03/03
>>>> By the way what's doing with *your* screenplay?
>>>> Has Shannon Tweed gotten back to
>>>> you yet.
>>> Hey, pal, *I'm* not the wannabe who
>>> posts in screenwriting newsgroups!
>> I see you've been pulling a Connie (that
>> is, trolling around in Deja News looking
>> for ammo). Very bright, George.
>> But after the conversation I had this
>> evening with a producer out in L.A., the
>> "wannabe" label might not stick any more.
>> I'll let you know when the check clears,
>> George...
> We're still waiting, Tommy.
Oh, George. Sad George.
I've had lots of conversations with producers. And agents. And publishers.
Major actors whose names you'd know have been interested in my material.
That none of it has quite jelled so far is not my fault. And it leaves me
quite hopeful, and not *nearly* as bitter as you seem to be.
In the meantime I have made a living for the past dozen years exclusively as a
writer for some major news organizations. Can *you* say the same.
And I have every hope that my latest project will come to fruition. It's a
tender love story between an aging and bitter right-wing Republican and the six
foot tall blonde Amazon who helps him achieve climax by stepping on him with
her six-inch heels while simultaneously spitting on a photograph of Barry
Goldwater.
Producers seem to think that this is not true to life.
Care to call them up and disabuse them?
Feuillade
> Leslie wrote...
I have to admit, it's all due to George.
It wouldn't be nearly as funny if George didn't take it all *so* seriously.
George Shelps
feui...@aol.com (Feuillade) wrote:
>Shus...@yahoo.com (Shush) writes:
>>Leslie wrote...
>>>I still think their usenet repartee
>>>is hilarious and if they wanted
>>>could be the most famous
>>>comedy team since Martin and
>>>Lewis).
>>I love it too. They're better than "The
>>Odd Couple."
>I have to admit, it's all due to George.
>It wouldn't be nearly as funny if George
>didn't take it all *so* seriously.
Yeah, I do take being called a fascist
seriously.
George Shelps
>I've had lots of conversations with
>producers. And agents. And publishers.
Talk is very very cheap in Hollywood.
And even auto mechanics are writing screenplays out there.
>Major actors whose names you'd know
>have been interested in my material.
"Interest" doesn't count.
>That none of it has quite jelled so far is
>not my fault.
I'll say what you said to me when you
found someone else selling a script
I coauthored on the web:
"you're a failed wannabe screenwriter filled with bitterness and envy of
those with more talent than you have."
> And it leaves me quite hopeful, and not
>*nearly* as bitter as you seem to be.
>In the meantime I have made a living for
>the past dozen years exclusively as a
>writer for some major news
>organizations. Can *you* say the same.
I think you need to keep that day job.
Feuillade
> Tom Moran wrote:
>> I've had lots of conversations with
>> producers. And agents. And publishers.
> Talk is very very cheap in Hollywood.
Not as cheap as your talk, George.
> And even auto mechanics are
> writing screenplays out there.
When are you planning to tell me something I *don't* know?
>> Major actors whose names you'd know
>> have been interested in my material.
> "Interest" doesn't count.
According to whom, George? You?
>> That none of it has quite jelled
>> so far is not my fault.
> I'll say what you said to me when you
> found someone else selling a script
> I coauthored on the web:
Let's break this down into its component parts, shall we?
> "you're a failed wannabe screenwriter [...]
One cannot be said to have failed if one has not yet quit.
> filled with bitterness and envy of
>those with more talent than you
> have."
I am neither bitter nor envious.
Would that we could say the same about you, babe. But bitterness and envy
drips off you like mucus off a runny nose.
>> And it leaves me quite hopeful, and
>> not *nearly* as bitter as you seem
>> to be.
I should amend this to read: "as bitter as you are."
>> In the meantime I have made
>> a living for the past dozen
>> years exclusively as a
>> writer for some major news
>> organizations.
And have received fan mail from Pulitzer Prize winners on the quality of my
work.
>> Can *you* say the same?
> I think you need to keep that day job.
I think you need to answer that last question.
Can *you* say the same?
Feuillade
> feui...@aol.com (Feuillade) wrote:
>> Shus...@yahoo.com (Shush) writes:
>>> Leslie wrote...
Gee, George, you admire Ann Coulter so much, I should think you wouldn't at all
mind if someone uses her exact methodology on you.
And *unlike* Ann Coulter (who is even starting to disgust her fellow
conservatives), I tell the truth.
The truth hurts, babe. At least where you're concerned...
George Shelps
>And *unlike* Ann Coulter (who is even
>starting to disgust her fellow
>conservatives),
Who envy her $3 million dollar
advance for her next book---a record
for a conservative author.
> I tell the truth.
>The truth hurts, babe. At least where
>you're concerned...
Then swish those skirts, Margo. It's gonna be a bumpy night here on
ams.
Feuillade
> Tom Moran wrote:
>> And *unlike* Ann Coulter (who is
>> even starting to disgust her fellow
>> conservatives),
> Who envy her $3 million dollar
> advance for her next book---a
> record for a conservative author.
I'm so sure that's it.
Even when they write stuff like this?
"The problem with Coulter’s book is that she is not willing to concede that
McCarthy was, in fact, demagogic in any sense at all, or that that his
recklessness injured the anti-Communist cause. Ron Radosh, Harvey Klehr and
John Haynes have distinguished themselves as historians by documenting the
Communist menace that many liberals discounted. But they have also documented
the irresponsible antics of McCarthy, which undermined the anti-Communist
cause. Coulter dismisses such conservative criticisms of McCarthy as caving in
to the liberals. She is wrong."
That's not Eric Alterman, George.
That's David Horowitz.
>> I tell the truth.
>> The truth hurts, babe. At least
>> where you're concerned...
> Then swish those skirts, Margo.
> It's gonna be a bumpy night here
> on ams.
Oh, George. You're so fucking priceless. :)
George Shelps
>Tom Moran wrote:
>>I tell the truth.
>>The truth hurts, babe. At least where
>>you're concerned...
>Then swish those skirts, Margo. It's
>gonna be a bumpy night here on ams.
And on amc, too. :-)
George Shelps
feui...@aol.com (Feuillade)
wrote:
>>>And *unlike* Ann Coulter (who is
>>>even starting to disgust her fellow
>>>conservatives),
>>Who envy her $3 million dollar
>>advance for her next book---a
>>record for a conservative author.
>I'm so sure that's it.
There's a lot of professional jealousy
on the right. Coulter is immensely
more successful than most conservative
writers.
>Even when they write stuff like this?
"The problem with Coulter’s book is that she is not willing to
concede that McCarthy was, in fact, demagogic in any sense at all, or
that that his recklessness injured the anti-Communist cause. Ron Radosh,
Harvey Klehr and John Haynes have distinguished themselves as historians
by documenting the Communist menace that many liberals discounted. But
they have also documented the irresponsible antics of McCarthy, which
undermined the anti-Communist cause. Coulter dismisses such conservative
criticisms of McCarthy as caving in to the liberals. She is wrong."
>That's not Eric Alterman, George.
>That's David Horowitz.
Horowitz has long been on record as
an anti-McCarthyite. Many conservatives
agree with him. Even Whitaker Chambers
thought McCarthy hurt the anti-communist
cause.
It would be inevitable that he would reject
Coulter's views on McCarthy.
However, when she was dropped from
National Review Online, Horowitz picked
up her column.
And no "disgust" is evident in Horowitz's
comment.