Centerfield

Absolutely. The wild charges thrown around by the likes of Coulter don't mean there aren't some on the far left worthy of that level of condemnation.

Rick:

Well said.

And, in defense of Coulter: She often shines a harsh light on liberal hypocrisy or illogic. But for her and similar writers, the left's sometimes indefensible positions would often go unchallenged.

For example, her book Treason was a launching-off point for your correct conclusion that International ANSWER's call for support of terrorists in Iraq is wrong. Indeed, you go a long way to validating Coulter's central theme in her book: that too often lefty loyalists are quite comfortable in advocating and perhaps even committing Treason. This being the case, it is unclear why you still feel it necessary to take the obligatory shots at Coulter.

Nikita,

You have correctly detected my centrist strategy of taking a potshot at the right before gunning for the left.

However, the jab at Coulter is legit, because she overstates her case so broadly that one can't take it seriously. She's somewhat like Al Franken in this respect, in that one isn't always sure whether her tongue is in her cheek or sticking out at you. In particular, her attempt to redeem Joe McCarthy fits her to a T. Just as McCarthy undermined the anti-Communist cause, and the reputation of true heroes like Whittaker Chambers, by grandstanding, Coulter's schtick clouds the real line between patriotism and treason.

Her central theme isn't that some liberals fall into that trap, but that liberalism itself inherently falls into it ... and that pretty much all major liberal leaders have been treasonous.

Isn't that what she says?

I found David Horowitz's reaction piece pretty interesting.

And I think it's a very good idea for any of us with any political persuasion be careful who we allow to represent us. I think conservatives should be about as comfortable allowing Coulter to speak for them as I am at allowing Gray Davis, as a centrist politician, to represent me.

I have hear Coulter recently on several talk shows and I have a suspicion that at least some of her stridency is a deliberate attempt to get attention and sell books.

I am not suggesting that she does not believe that liberals are evil but that she realizes to some degree she is going overboard.

I think that's quite possible, tallan. She is a very bright person.

Treason is like history: it is defined by those in power. I have an ancestor who would have been branded as a traitor who received his just reward, had history turned out differently. Instead, there's a statue marking the place that he fell at Guilford Courthouse.

That said - there are tools of manipulation that are so easily recognized that I would expect anyone with the ability to think for themselves NOT to fall for them:

1 - Find an extreme statement by some wingnut and then use it to make blanket assertions about anyone you don't like to whom you can possibly tie it with any characteristic that they might share with the wingnut.

e.g. A certain group who opposed the US invasion of Iraq is encouraging the Iraqi resistance. Over there is another group of people who (for various reasons) thought the Iraq invasion was the wrong course for the US to take. Therefore, those people also want to see our troops killed by Iraqis.

A is a member of set B.
C is a member of set B.
Therefore, C = A.

It's easy to see the fallacy in this logic whgen you reduce it to symbols, but people fall for it all the time. If you give it enough credence to even argue it, you're falling into the manipulator's trap.

2. Take some isolated facts out of context, string them together, ignore or denigrate anything that doesn't support your theory, and justify the unjustifiable.

A favorite of the "Hitler was right" and "Joe McCarthy was right" folks. Even a stopped clock is right twice a day, but if someone tries to sell you one that's stopped at the current time as a working clock, it's fraud.

3. Beat up on "the other side" with everything that you can find, no matter how unrelated to the argument (for example, if someone reports an observation that is uncomfortable for you, albeit verifiably true, attack the reporter's sexuality, politics, religion, or nationality - after all, everybody knows that you can't trust anything they say) . Brush off anything negative about your side, like the fact that you said something that turned out to be completely false, as "just a political attack" when anyone calls you on it.

4. Claim complete credit for everything that turns out well, especially if it happens on "your side's'" watch, whether or not you had anything to do with it. Blame anything that goes wrong as the legacy of the other side, even if it happens on your watch and no matter how long it's been your responsibility.

5. Big lies always sell better than little lies. Make preposterous claims, and you'll get the gloss of "when there's smoke, there must be fire." Make sure there is some small fact (even irrelevant) worked into your big lie, and then use it to "prove" that you must be telling the truth. The problem with little lies is that they can be easily shown up - make your lie massive and with many allegations, and then demand that every portion of it be refuted (that's where your little irrelevant facts come in handy... "but you can't deny that (blah)").

6. Project, reflect, deny ....

I guess there are some "centrists" who are there because they think for themselves, recognize the manipulative tactics of the "sides," and make their own decisions, and there are some who just get swept back and forth by whoever manipulated them last.

What kind of centrist are you?