aquapub said:
The implacations of what she says are huge. And liberals refuse to read her stuff and try to refute it like normal adult human beings. They just regurgitate phony, easily disproved smears spoonfed to them by liberal web sites.
Seriously, I've tried to get them to refute her work.
To be honest...I never accepted a "Liberal " label until joining this site. Within a few months of watching the likes of you, and gaining some insight into todays concervative....I have decided the label is just fine in comparison. That said....I have read the book, and was inclined to get another of hers to see if I was mistaken in my interpretation of her intellect....sadly I was not.
So.....you want a couple snippets of how bad she is posted here....ok:
SLANDER. Liberals have been wrong about everything for the past 50 years. FACT. To support this claim, AHC tells us that the southern Senators opposing the Civil Rights Act were "liberals." SALON.COM
SLANDER. Journalists are, on the whole, biased to the left. FACT. To help prove this, she says that Rush Limbaugh and his right-wing ilk don't count because they are commentators, not journalists, but does quote liberal commentators such as Maureen Dowd to demonstrate journalists' bias. SPINSANITY.
SLANDER. AHC chooses Noam Chomsky and Susan Sontag as typifying liberal reaction to 9/11. FACT. This is absurd on its face. SALON.COM.
SLANDER. Conservatives do not stoop to name-calling. Liberals do it all the time. FACT. GOPAC, Newt Gingrich's captive PAC, famously issued a memo suggesting the following words to describe Democrats: "sick, traitors, destructive, corrupt, bizarre, cheat, and steal." Such constructive advice is the sum total of the memo – how to (shall we say?) slander Democrats. DAVIS.
1.
SLANDER. The NYT on Tom DeLay: "For his evident belief in a higher being, DeLay is compared to savage murderers and genocidal lunatics on the pages of the New York Times. (“History teaches that when religion is injected into politics—the Crusades, Henry VIII, Salem, Father Coughlin, Hitler, Kosovo—disaster follows.”)" FACT. The quotation comes from an NYT article, 6/20/99, that starts off criticizing DeLay. However, the quoted sentence directly refers to—Al Gore! (it can be read to indirectly refer to G.W. Bush as well). HOWLER.
2.
SLANDER. "Americans wake up in the morning to “America’s Sweetheart,” Katie Couric, berating Arlen Specter about Anita Hill ten years after the hearings. . ." FACT. Specter went on the Today show to promote his book, which included a discussion of the Clarence Thomas hearings, and Couric asked, "you accused [Anita Hill] of publicly, quote, “flat out perjury.” Any regrets?" COMMENT. This is "berating?" Especially when Specter, in his book, brought up the subject himself. HOWLER.
2.
SLANDER. "Liberals dispute slight reductions in the marginal tax rates as if they are trying to prevent Charles Manson from slaughtering baby seals." FACT. This is mere hyperbole, neither true nor false. But it tells us something about the care with which the book was written; image is everything. Dr. Limerick, a liberal who has never spent more than two consecutive days in New York, does believe that tax policy is the more important. Although Charles Manson slaughtering baby seals would be an appalling and heartbreaking sight, the actual damage to the nation would be small. But even slight reductions in marginal tax rates (on the prosperous; I typically don't object to reducing tax rates on the poor) can in many cases do large damage to the commonweal, both because the government is starved of necessary revenue and because of the bad effect on the distribution of income and wealth. Dr. Limerick.
2.
SLANDER. "Time magazine columnist Barbara Ehrenreich gives two thumbs up to 'The Communist Manifesto'" FACT. No such article appeared in my search of Lexis's Time database; apparently she is referring to "Communism on your coffee table!" which appeared not in Time but in Salon.com, 4/30/98. (Misdirection alert! There's no traction in showing that Salon.com is a little pink—what else is new?--so she tricks you into thinking the "Manifesto" piece appeared in Time.) But Ehrenreich does not give any thumbs up to the Manifesto. The article mocks the issue of an upscale edition aimed at the "sybaritic classes," and the state of capitalism that would encourage such a thing. The single positive thing she says about the Manifesto itself is that its message -- "The meek shall triumph and the mighty shall fall," is similar to that of Isaiah and Jesus, and is one that bears repeating. Dr. Limerick.
2.
SLANDER. Dan Rather called Bill Clinton an "honest man." FACT. True, sort of. Rather said this on the O'Reilly Factor, 5/16/2001. But, it leaves out most of Rather's point: "I think he's an honest man. . . . I think at core he's an honest person . . . . I think you can be an honest person and lie about any number of things." A Coulter trademark: prevarication by misdirection. Dr. Limerick.
3.
SLANDER. "We wade through preposterous news stories on Enron, global warming, Tawana Brawley, “plastic guns,” the melting North Pole, the meaning of the word “is”—until you can’t keep up with the wave of lies." FACT. What does she mean by "preposterous"? Clinton's parsing of "is," for example, struck many as "preposterous," but as far as I know, the news stories reported it straight. (By the way, Ann, no word, certainly not a common word like "is," has one and only one interpretation. You should have learned that in law school. Indeed, awareness of such ambiguity is essential in a good lawyer.) What "preposterous" story about Enron would she mean? Its bankruptcy? The fact that its officers got away with millions of dollars while its employees lost everything? The fact that half the Bush administration has had close ties? Its manipulation of the California power crisis? I would agree that these are preposterous, if she means "outrageous." Does she think "global warming" and "the melting North Pole" are two different stories? Now that ice floes the size of Rhode Island have fallen off Antarctica, and the EPA itself has admitted the phenomenon, would she concede that maybe the stories were not so preposterous? I don't know about plastic guns. Much about the Tawana Brawley story was preposterous, but my understanding is that the mainstream media corrected itself at the end. Dr. Limerick.
4.
SLANDER. November 5, 2001 was "precisely three weeks" after September 11, 2001. FACT. It's a day less than eight weeks. It's four weeks after the first attacks on Afghanistan. Trivial? Sure, but it shows how well she proofreads. TAP
4.
SLANDER. "Liberals variously call the flag a 'joke,' 'very, very, dumb,' and—most cutting--'not cosmopolitan.'" FACT. Richard Roeper of the Chicago Sun-Times ran this down; none of the three is what AHC would like you to believe. Ann's source for "joke" was Robert Altman, who was criticizing the commercialized overuse of the flag. "[V]ery, very, dumb" came from a controversy over whether the flag should be flown over a 19th century Hawaiian palace; a University of Hawaii professor said of people who accused Hawaiians of being unpatriotic: "This is when people start acting very, very dumb in their patriotism and flag-waving. I'll take Dan Inouye's empty sleeve as patriotism long before I'll take a passing bumper sticker on my car that says, 'America Forever.' " "Not cosmopolitan" comes from a (pre-9/11) comment by a New York history professor: "New York has just been too much of a cosmopolitan town for flag-waving. It is the home of the UN, and a place filled with tourists, with immigrants, with people doing trade," i.e. "cosmopolitan" in its dictionary sense of "belonging to the world." Altman is the only one of the three who is even demonstrably "liberal," and none of the three is denigrating the flag. They are all denigrating the thoughtless anti-patriotic uses to which it is often put. Roeper's conclusion: "How utterly bogus." ROEPER.
5.
SLANDER: In a column published soon after 9/11, Frank Rich (of NYT) demanded that Ashcroft ignore Muslim terrorists and focus on anti-abortion extremists. FACT. Rich said no such thing. REBUTTAL. On Hannity & Colmes, 6/25/02, AHC said this was an "accurate paraphrase."(?) DAVIS
5.
SLANDER. In the aftermath of 9/11, Prof. Bruce Ackerman (Yale Law) recommended dropping the war on terror to concentrate on "home-grown extremists." FACT. Ackerman does mention "home-grown extremists," but only in passing. DAVIS COMMENT. "Home-grown extremists" are suspected of the anthrax murders of October 2001.
5.
SLANDER. Paraphrase of Jerry Falwell, 9/14/01: "Falwell had remarked that gay marriage and abortion on demand may not have warmed the heart of the Almighty." This was used to slam Walter Cronkite for calling Falwell's comments "abominable." FACT. As is well known, Falwell took the occasion to blame all his usual enemies (gays, abortionists, ACLU, etc.) for the 9/11 attacks. DAVIS
5.
SLANDER. 9/11 "provided liberals with a religion they could respect." FACT. AHC provides absolutely no documentation for this claim. Scoobie also points out, correctly, that a lawyer (magna cum laude from Michigan, no less!) should understand the difference between forcing school kids to pray and permitting the prisoners at Camp X-Ray to pray. DAVIS
http://slannder.homestead.com/
Seriously....the list of falsehood, misdirection, and poor literary skills goes on for some time......that you actually respect this as anything short of fiction is telling, and sad.
