's 700 Club. That's the Pat Robertson outfit. We were struck by her unsteady performance and especially her failure to speak at lenghth about what "good" McCarthy had done. As a result, we wondered if Coulter had written all of her book, of if a substantial portion was ghost-written. In any event, we provide the complete transcript of the interview below:
| Ann Coulter. Ann has written three best-selling books including her latest, Treason, Liberal Treachery from the Cold War to the War on Terrorism. Ann, it's a pleasure to welcome you back to the 700 Club. | |
| Thank you, it's nice to be here. | |
| You have made a reputation writing provocative books and making provocative statements over the years, but wow, you've really tackled a big one here with your latest book defending Joe McCarthy. And just to refresh everyone's memory here, McCarthy was a Republican senator from the state of Wisconsin, who led the investigation of alleged un-American activities in government. He's been vilified ever since. So what prompted you to take up his cause? | |
| Um, because of the Orwellian behemoth nature of the myth. In fact, what you just said about him is not right. He was not on the House Un-American Activities Committee, it was a Senate Permanent Committee on Investigations, investigating the federal government - after the Hiss case and the Rosenberg case - two Soviet spies working for the government, passing in the Rosenbergs' case atomic technology to our mortal enemy. Senator McCarthy thought it might we wise not to have security risks working in the code room of the Pentagon. He had nothing to do with the HUAC investigations, the Hollywood blacklisting, he never called private individuals before his committee. It's just a huge Orwellian fraud that the left has maintained for fifty years so that no one will notice that they sheltered, defended, traitors. | Interviewer did not say McCarthy was on HUAC. (see row above) |
| Even one that conservatives buy into (obviously) now. | |
| Yes! It's quite a myth that has to be dismantled. | |
| You spend a lot of time in Treason talking about what you call "the myth of McCarthyism." You say whatever we think we know is basically a lie. What is the truth about McCarthy? | |
| Um, the truth is, well, what I just described. Um, he was investigating, um, loyalty risks in the federal government. Um, um, I suppose the other point about him is the big argument against McCarthy has always been that he was imagining some crazy Communist conspiracy to infiltrate the government. Um, and we now know on the basis of decrypted Soviet cables that if anything McCarthy underestimated the problem. There were hundreds of Soviet spies infiltrating the government, turning over secrets to the Soviet Union. Because of the Democratic Party's moral infirmity and incompetence, all of America lived under the threat of nuclear annihilation for the next fifty years. It's a shameful history. The Democratic Party did that to this country and they've hidden their collaboration with a regime as evil as the Nazis by making McCarthy the issue. They were screamed [sic] and were hysterical and described some fictional event: McCarthy holding the nation captive. Um. liberals were not cowering in their bedrooms, afraid of Joe McCarthy. They were having a ball. Um, they were caterwauling, screaming from the rooftop about this brute McCarthy. All elite establishmentarian opinion was against McCarthy, but Americans were with him. | Note the lack of any detail about what McCarthy did. |
| You also say that liberals get upset when anyone questions their patriotism. But you say that liberals are not as patriotic as conservatives. That's a provocative statement right there, because I think of someone like George McGovern - who could be more liberal than him - but he was a decorated World War Two bomber pilot. How do you say that they're more, that they're less patriotic than conservatives. | |
| Well, two points. The first one is, that is the one thing we're not allowed to talk about in America. That is banned from free speech during the war on terrorism. There have been, you know, vast peace marches, anti-war protests, American flag burning, denunciations of the president - even from abroad. No one is intimidating those people. No one is trying to stop those people from speaking. But I say liberals and the Democratic Party just aren't as patriotic as the Republican Party and, wow, then, then people really get angry. Everyone's yelling and hysterical. They're the ones trying to intimidate me, from bringing this table [sic] up for discussion. The Democrats feel perfectly comfortable saying that Republicans aren't as good on civil rights, aren't as good on women's issues, are Fascist racist dogs, curs. But you may never say that the Democratic Party is not as patriotic as the Republican party. Meanwhile, this was a party that was a refuge for Soviet spies and traitors during the 50's, it loses wars, lost continents to Communism, our embassies are stormed, hostages taken. Throughout eight years of the Reagan administration they nay-sayed and caterwauled Ronald Reagan's every, every move in the Cold War. Ronald Reagan called the ball, the shot, and the pocket and he won the game. And liberals called their ball, their shot, and their pocket and they were completely wrong. And now in the war on terrorism we're getting the exact same nay-saying, and "Oh, we have to be nice to the enemy. They need our tender ministrations," and "Back down and don't upset the enemy." It's a strategy that has just been proved not very long ago not to work. So why are they hauling it out again? What is their goal? | |
| I just want to ask you, how do you think the liberals would handle - let's say Al Gore won the election - how do you think he would handle the war on terrorism? | |
| I think he would wrap himself in a warm blanket and hold a town hall meeting. | |
| (chuckles) All right. Let me ask you this, what do you think liberals want this country to be? | |
| Um, I don't think they really care about this country. I think they see themselves as part of an international elite. Why were they demanding we get approval from global organizations, from foreign countries, before acting in this country's national defense? I mean simply making that argument, "Oh no, we can't attack Iraq until we have the approval of the allies" - France and Germany. Um, I suppose you could call them allies. It's a theory that's never been tested. Um, but why were they stamping their feet and demanding that? It is one thing to make the argument that it's not in America's self-interest, national defense interest, to be invading Iraq, invading Afghanistan. I happen to think that's a tough argument to make, but that's at least a principled objection. To be saying we can't act when we think it's in America's self-defense because we haven't gotten approval from the Vichy government. That is just - automatically - outrageous. | |
| Ann, I don't have too much longer for this, but I wanted to get something that's not directly related to your book. I want to ask you a question about the Supreme Court. If and when an opening for a new justice occurs, do you think President Bush will have the courage to nominate a true conservative? Or have the Senate filibusters over the lower court nominees totally intimidated him? | |
| No. I think that is the one thing, one of a few things, you can absolutely count on President Bush for. Perhaps these will be famous last words, but I think he's learned from his father's appointment of Justice Souter. And I think that is not a mistake he's going to make. | |
| Ann Coulter's book is Treason. It's available at bookstores and through our website at CBN.com. Ann, thanks for being with us again on the 700 Club. We appreciate it. | |
| Thank you. | |
