Well, I expect that hoopty's goons will try to sue the endorsers, too?
LOL...that should prove a real hoot!
LMAO

Posted by: jcom972 at August 13, 2007 7:36 AM

Robert - congratulations on the book. I have placed my order. As for the endorsements - Anne Coulter? An unfortunate choice, despite her glowing words. I would hate to see Robert and JW associated too strongly with her, as she is too likely to actually help the other side by launching feel-good but over-the-top tirades (something you Robert meticulously avoid) which they can them use in their eternal victimhood campaigns....

Posted by: BunrattyBill at August 13, 2007 7:38 AM

Who's sending the book to Doug Loser at CAIR, LOL?

Posted by: darcy at August 13, 2007 9:15 AM

Robert, congratuations on the offical release of the new book and the endorsements as well. I do hope that your friend in the truth about jihad fight, another excellent source of needed information whom I like very much, Daniel Pipes had put a good word in about this new book. Keep up the good work and God Bless.

Posted by: bigcatgirl13106 at August 13, 2007 9:22 AM

I will probably read the book, but it will take a lot to overcome the utter revulsion I feel at the very MENTION of the names Ann Coulter and Michelle Malkin. I think their inclusion among the endorsements was and is a huge mistake that will drive away many would-be supporters. Frankly, I just don't get it. If this is truly an apolitical endeavour, why include characters who exude such shrill partisanship?

Posted by: GetBornAgain at August 13, 2007 9:37 AM

Re: Ann Coulter and Michelle Malkin,

Good grief! One minute it's "Where are all the feminists?" The next, two such endorsing this book are suddenly toxic waste. Make up your minds, gentlemen.

Posted by: Abscedere at August 13, 2007 10:14 AM

GBA:

Get with it. You're no longer a liberal; you've been assaulted with reality.

As for "shrillness"... no one can compare to Elinor Clift, Susan Estrich and Hillary Clinton!

Posted by: atheling at August 13, 2007 10:23 AM

I wasn’t going to read the book. What more do I need to know? However, Coulter taking a kick at D’Souza (although not by name) makes me wonder what’s in the book. I’ll have to read it …

Posted by: JasonP at August 13, 2007 10:56 AM

Uh, 'scuse me, but I find Doug Hooper and Joe Sandler to be enormously "shrill."

"Shrillness" is not confined to the female of the species.

Shrill: "To make a high-pitched, piercing sound." Yup, that's Dougie Hooper allright.

I have to disagree that Michelle Malkin is "shrill," though Coulter certainly is. How could anyone feel "revulsion" toward Michelle Malkin? She's as reasonable as they come.

Posted by: darcy at August 13, 2007 11:18 AM

As I recall, Michelle Malkin wrote a book saying that the internment of Japanese-Americans during World War II was a good thing. Imagine an American of Japanese ancestry coming across the book. What's he or she supposed to feel upon seeing Malkin's name among the endorsers? Just like that, a potential supporter of our anti-jihad efforts is turned away. So yes, I'd place her in the same group as Coulter, though perhaps not as high up on the shrillness scale. Honestly, I fail to understand why Mr. Spencer would accept endorsement from such polarizing figures.

Posted by: GetBornAgain at August 13, 2007 11:47 AM

GBA,

Who would you suggest to endorse Robert's book, in a non-polarizing way, of course?

Posted by: awake at August 13, 2007 12:11 PM

awake, I'd go with more people like Daniel Pipes--I disagree with him most of the time, but he is not as polarizing as the other two. Including Ann Coulter and Michelle Malkin only gives further ammunition to those (jihadists and others) who claim that Jihadwatch is just some vast conservative conspiracy.

Posted by: GetBornAgain at August 13, 2007 12:19 PM

GBA,

That's it, Pipes? One example with your disclaimer that you disagree with him most of the time?

Just out of curiosity, do you consider Robert to be "polarizing"?

I'll tell you what is polarizing...Islam.

Posted by: awake at August 13, 2007 1:06 PM

awake, Daniel Pipes supports the war in Iraq. I never did and never will. There's one example. (and I never claimed that Islam wasn't polarizing. If I had, why in L. Ron Hubbard's name would I be on this site?)

As for Robert Spencer, no, I don't believe he is polarizing--not in the same way as Malkin and Coulter. Spencer is putting forth an apolitical proposition based on facts, which is that Jihad is a critical threat to the west. Coulter and Malkin, on the other hand, are very partisan, very polarizing, very shrill. They are to the right what Hugo Chavez and that fat bastard Michael Moore are to the left. There is a difference.

Posted by: GetBornAgain at August 13, 2007 1:19 PM

GetBornAgain and Bunratty

I'm pretty sure Robert would have gladly accepted endorsements from Pope Benedict, George Bush, or Gordon Brown. (perhaps dubya will select Robert's book as his reading assignment while he vacations in at his Crawford, Tx. ranch?) Or should Robert have waited for glowing approvals from the likes of say, a Jimmy Carter, William Jefferson Clinton, Kofi Annan, Ehud Olmert? Until that happens, I'll take Coulter and Malkin any day if it means more people will read the book.

Coulter and Malkin are as much part of the current conservative movement as any other well known commentators, and it is conservatives such as these two ladies that are advancing the message of Robert's book, and I for one, am quite thankful for it. And at this point, anyone, of any celebrity, who can call attention to it is satisfactory to me.

BTW- just got back from Barnes & Noble- they had 8 books at opening- after my purchase there were 4 remaining.

Posted by: Leave Iraq Now at August 13, 2007 1:20 PM

"And at this point, anyone, of any celebrity, who can call attention to it is satisfactory to me." That's the problem, though--people who will read the book because of Coulter and Malkin are people who are already in Robert's corner. If he is hoping to gain new allies, he will fail to do so. The names "Coulter" and "Malkin" are a scarecrow to many.

Also, I have to disagree with Coulter and Malkin being "as much part of the current conservative movement as any other well known commentators." They are far on the fringes of the right, which is why I've met more than my share of conservatives who view them with disdain, whether rightfully or no. For this reason I think it's a mistake to include their endorsements in the book--or to seek them out in the first place. I think Mr. Spencer is making a mistake by driving away potential supporters. We need all the allies we can get.

Posted by: GetBornAgain at August 13, 2007 2:45 PM

An endorsement from Pope Benedict - now THAT would be good. Since Robert is a practising Catholic it would make perfectly good sense - imprimatur and all that. Robert's very first book on the dangers of Islam WAS written specifically for a Catholic audience, after all.

Have nice signed presentation copies of all Mr Spencer's books on Islam been sent to il Papa at the Vatican? (Does anyone know if copies have made their way to the Vatican Library?)

Perhaps jihadwatchers of the appropriate communions should send copies to their spiritual leaders - e.g. if you are Greek Orthodox, send them to the Ecumenical Patriarch and the head of the Orthodox Church in Greece; if you are of Russian origin, send Robert's books to the Patriarch of the Russian Orthodox Church and his brethren (and urge them upon your parish priest!). If you are English, send the complete set of Robert Spencer to the Archbishop of Canterbury.

Posted by: dumbledoresarmy at August 13, 2007 4:21 PM

Oh man...
if two GENUINEly "strong women", who call a spade a spade, like Coulter and Malkin do, are such a big issue with anyone (based on these reactions to them), then islamofascism isn't their biggest problem.

Posted by: jcom972 at August 13, 2007 7:12 PM

Agree with you, jcom972.

Their biggest problem is male chauvinism.

You Go, Michelle Malkin. Brava.

(Coulter I don't like because of her comments about the 9/11 Widows).

Posted by: darcy at August 13, 2007 7:17 PM

Doug Hooper (male) - SHRILL!

Posted by: darcy at August 13, 2007 7:20 PM

No...it's not male chauvanism, believe me.
(the 9/11 "widows" were LEFTist widows making a political issue by exploiuting their spouses deaths, which itself is despicable and as low as one could ever get, NOT the entire group as a whole...re-read her blog on it. The militant moveon.orgs, bush-haters and conspiracy kooks put words in her mouth).

But yes...overall, you're right on.

Posted by: jcom972 at August 13, 2007 7:21 PM

P.S. Bought the book at Barnes & Noble today - they have it!

Posted by: darcy at August 13, 2007 7:25 PM

Excellent...out here they're really slow about putting it out on the new shelves (common tactic here in the proto-marxist state of the peoplez republik of kalifornia...*yawn*), but there's enough pressure they have no choice.

Watch for them to try to put it in, say, the fiction section, the sale counter (where books that don't sell go to, like "earth in the balance" went here), and even at times the very back of the store...anything but where it belongs, right up front where everyone can see it.
Borders, waldenbooks, and b dalton have done such things too, so watch for it...if you don't see it, ask for it, and make a point (no, not "a scene") of asking for it by the entire title.
You'll get a good idea of whom you're dealing with by their reactions to the request...and don't be surprised at all if it's...ummm, "less than enthusiastic", especially in san franpsycho, lalaland, and other notable bastions of "hippiedom".
It's actually funny the reaction, so just be ready...if nothing happens, you know to buy your books there again in the future without hassle or guilt trips.
Above all, watch out for roving bands of durkanese, or their brownshirted allies of the politically correct thought police, watching to see who buys the book...I do not make this stuff up, I've actually seen it myself-they WILL actually try to confront (read that as HARASS) you.

In that case, buy TWO.
My son's gone to get it now...and believe me, they WON'T hassle HIM...he has, err, special attributes
(When you're 185cm/6'2", 130kg/289lb, a football linebacker & NCAA hammer thrower, built like and look like WWE wrestler "triple H", a BMOC at school known as "THOR" with a cross & muellner medallion, hair longer than Mel Gibson's from Braveheart, and "eats" PC professors for lunch in classroom discussions...believe me, they don't mess with him at all!)...lol
That's my boy!

But...that's another story...

Posted by: jcom972 at August 13, 2007 7:52 PM

If the widows are guilty of any political sins (and I don't think they are guilty in the least), then so is Ann Coulter for using them to further her own political screeds.

Also, there is a difference between being a strong, independent woman and being a you-know-what (for the sake of propriety, I won't mention the word here). Ann Coulter belongs in the latter category. I have heard many conservatives express similar sentiments about her. I dislike her and Malkin as much as I dislike the likes of Hugo Chavez and Michael Moore. Shrill partisans on either side disgust me. And this is why I feel her inclusion among the endorsements to be an error in judgment--the very sight of her name will drive off many would-be supporters, some of them otherwise quite conservative in their outlook. This is not the best approach if Mr. Spencer hopes to reach a wide audience and not just the people who agree with him already. I'm not saying "include no conservatives"--just that people who are so far to either side, left or right, are not the best choice here.

Posted by: GetBornAgain at August 13, 2007 8:32 PM

What I would have done is to forgo the endorsement blurbs altogether and just let the book speak for itself. This way there would be no room for charges of partisanship, which Mr. Spencer usually does his best to avoid.

Posted by: GetBornAgain at August 13, 2007 8:34 PM

GetBornAgain

You are aware that Italians and Germans were also put into internment camps arn't you? How come you only mention the Japanese?

People tend to do that so they can make it into an entirely racial issue.

Besides if you were growing up back then, then you might have even supported internment. It's a lot easier to judge with 20/20 hindsight, then it would have been for people at that time.

Posted by: GuitarBob at August 13, 2007 9:15 PM

GuitarBob, Michelle Malkin has also had the benefit of hindsight and has nonetheless chosen to support internment. I am aware that Germans, Italians and others were also interned, but her book deals mostly with the Japanese, which is why I brought them up. Whatever the mindset was at the time--and I am not so naive as to consider myself immune from such thoughts had I been alive back then--it has since been almost universally condemned by people of all political persuasions. Yet Michelle Malkin clings to it--and thus shows herself to be alongside Ann Coulter on the far fringes of the right. This is why I think that putting her name--or the name of someone on the far left, for that matter--on the book is a mistake. Imagine what a person of Japanese ancestry would think upon seeing the book. He or she is not very likely to give it a read. Thus we lose a potential ally. If Mr. Spencer wanted to keep this project strictly apolitical--and I believe him when he says he does--he could have simply foregone the endorsements and allow the book's strong content to sell itself. Instead, he is giving additional ammuniton to jihadists who accuse him of pandering to the far-right, while the book will now reach only those who are already supporters of the cause. My opinions on internment are just opinions, and I do not expect everyone to agree--and I'm fine with that. But the scarecrow effect caused by Coulter and Malkin here is an undeniable fact, one that I think Mr. Spencer needs to adress if he is to avoid alienating would-be supporders.

Posted by: GetBornAgain at August 13, 2007 9:33 PM

Sorry, but Anne Coulter demeans everything she touches. Her single agenda is to promote Anne Coulter and since she is devoid of talent and ideas, she has to stoop to over-the-top outrageous statements. A female Howard Stern is all she is, only Stern is better looking. There are plenty of better people to endorse and bring credit to Robert's scholarship.

Posted by: BunrattyBill at August 13, 2007 10:39 PM

Don't be sorry for speaking your mind.
We're not going to agree, and it's ok as it won't bother me one bit...it's not for us to judge in the end...it's history that will judge.
That's why I'm not worried about that part at all.
;-)

Posted by: jcom972 at August 13, 2007 11:32 PM

By the way...got your pepto...
http://www.newsmax.com/archives/ic/2006/6/8/101032.shtml
...just like I said.
First rule of modern warfare:
never bring a knife to a gunfight
*WEG*

Posted by: jcom972 at August 14, 2007 1:31 AM

I agree with BunRattyBill: strike Coulter from your list of endorsements. She does the right (GOP) far more harm than good and only give ammunition to the left. Forget her, she is plain not worth it.

Posted by: bonncaruso at August 14, 2007 5:53 AM

Being anything but a committed rabid leftist gives ammunition to the left, so Ann Coulters endorsement won't matter a hill of beans.
Besides, Robert wouldn't print it unless they agree in principle on the subject...so to go after an endorser but not the author, who accepts said endorsement makes said rabid critics` takes disingenuous...and warrants the rabid critics` position of said endorsement subject reconsideration.

So she's abrasive...so was George S. Patton.
Both were also something else:
NOT politically correct, which speaks volumes.
nuf sed
;-)

Posted by: jcom972 at August 14, 2007 6:34 AM

Well, I found my copy yesterday right where it should be - in "New Arrivals," with other hardcovers.

This is something I did, however: The books were laying flat on the table (horizontal), but I put 'em up on the shelf above where they could be seen vertically at eye level!

I also bought a biography of Virginia Woolf. My check-out person remarked upon neither.

Posted by: darcy at August 14, 2007 8:39 AM

Please don't kid yourself. The very notion that RS is proud to publicise an endorsement from the Ann Coulter Hitler Youth Brigade will be fodder to the fire. I’m proud to be a citizen of a country where neo-Nazis and Ku Klux Klansmen can speak openly of their hatred for Jews and other minorities… Because as despicable as their statements are, they are able to freely speak their mind. But when you align yourself to such hateful organisations or individuals who thrive on ignorance, you relegate your work and yourself to the heap of the laughing stock. This is a Ross Perot moment for RS and all of his work. How very sad.

Posted by: robertdb at August 14, 2007 11:42 AM

You're the sad one, robertdb.

Spencer's work is heroic and the farthest from "laughing stock" you can get.

Posted by: darcy at August 14, 2007 12:14 PM

robertdb,

Please do elaborate. Are you suggesting that Spencer's legacy will deteriorate due to an endorsement of his book by Ann Coulter?

Or are you just venting and calling Ann Coulter a neo-Nazi, Ku Klux Klansperson all wrapped into one?

"Ann Coulter Hitler Youth Brigade"? Are you serious with that statement?

Are you suggesting Robert Spencer supports, condones and contributes to the haterd of Jews and other minorities?

Serious clarification is required here.

Posted by: awake at August 14, 2007 12:44 PM

"ann coulter hitler youth brigade"? LMAO
Ummm, son you need another beverage too since that kool-aid ain't making it...and lay off the kook-fringe websites, they make you look like the idiot you just came off as.

This is not "thedailykook" http://www.dailykos.com
this is realityland, where your rabid colleagues` take has LONG been shown to be as bogus as your judgement skills.
*yawn*

Posted by: jcom972 at August 14, 2007 9:34 PM