Andrew Sullivan, playing the "responsible conservative," is dismissive of Ann Coulter's book Treason in this column from Sunday's Times of London -- although he praises her motives and expresses agreement with a number of her points (and also, bafflingly, declares her "sexy"). But I'm less interested in what he has to say than I am in this, which appears near the end of his column:

One of the most reputable scholars who has studied the McCarthy era in great detail, Ron Radosh, is appalled at the damage Coulter has done to the work he and many others have painstakingly done over the years. "I am furious and upset about her book," he told me last week. "I am reading it - she uses my stuff, Harvey Klehr and John Haynes, Allen Weinstein etc. to distort what we actually say and to make ludicrous and historically incorrect arguments. You might recall my lengthy and negative review in The New Republic a few years ago of Herman's book on McCarthy; well, she is ten times worse than Herman. At least he tried to use bona fide historical methods of research and argument." Now Radosh has endured ostracism and abuse for insisting that many of McCarthy's victims were indeed Communist spies or agents. But he draws the line at Coulter's crude and inflammatory defense of McCarthy. "I think it is important that those who are considered critics of left/liberalism don't stop using our critical faculties when self-proclaimed conservatives start producing crap."

Terrific, Professor Radosh. Now, do you plan to say this under your own byline? Maybe in The New Republic? Or in that column you write for David Horowitz's Front Page Magazine? (I see Treason is the lead item in Front Page's online store. Surely that won't prevent you from explaining in detail to your fellow neocons how sloppy and irresponsible Coulter is -- will it?)