Dafydd Ab Hugh’s defense of Ann Coulter, that is. Given her stature, Coulter could have written a non-over-the-top analysis of the McCarthy era that would have been just as widely read as Treason will be, and that could not as easily be dismissed as crackpot conservatism. Moreover, because the popular perception of the period is so skewed, such an analysis, written in the Coulter style, would have been inflammatory enough to create plenty of buzz. There is enough treason to write about without questioning the patriotism, or denying the contributions, of Democratic cold warriors. In any case, when one writes about history, the primary obligation is to get it right, not to put the left on the defensive. And, to the extent that Coulter didn’t get it right, the obligation of conservative commentators is to point this out (though not to “purge” Coulter in any sense).
-
-
Most Read on Power Line
Donate to PL
-
Our Favorites
- American Greatness
- American Mind
- American Story
- American Thinker
- Aspen beat
- Babylon Bee
- Belmont Club
- Churchill Project
- Claremont Institute
- Daily Torch
- Federalist
- Gatestone Institute
- Hollywood in Toto
- Hoover Institution
- Hot Air
- Hugh Hewitt
- InstaPundit
- Jewish World Review
- Law & Liberty
- Legal Insurrection
- Liberty Daily
- Lileks
- Lucianne
- Michael Ramirez Cartoons
- Michelle Malkin
- Pipeline
- RealClearPolitics
- Ricochet
- Steyn Online
- Tim Blair
Media
Subscribe to Power Line by Email
Temporarily disabled
Notice: All comments are subject to moderation. Our comments are intended to be a forum for civil discourse bearing on the subject under discussion. Commenters who stray beyond the bounds of civility or employ what we deem gratuitous vulgarity in a comment — including, but not limited to, “s***,” “f***,” “a*******,” or one of their many variants — will be banned without further notice in the sole discretion of the site moderator.