Rating: 
Summary: Why no mention of Robert La Follette Jr?
Review: Despite all the dozens of pages on McCarthy and all of the names she mentions about the period, there was not one mention (from my reading of it and a search of the index) of Robert La Follette Jr., likely because it would ruin her premise that McCarthy has been unfairly deemed a demagogue. La Follette Jr. was the incumbent Republican Senator in the 1946 race for the Wisconsin Senate who McCarthy ran against. McCarthy claimed that he had avoided service during WWII and engaged in war profiteering. These charges were false, as Follette was 46, too old to serve in the military and his investment in WWII was in a radio station, but they still hurt him and he went down in the primary. He retired from politics, led a sad life afterwards, and eventually committed suicide in 1953. The case of Robert La Follette Jr. is sort of ironic because La Follette Sr., like McCarthy, was censured by the Senate. Unlike McCarthy, however, he is now regarded as one of the country's great congressmen (perhaps sobriety proved the difference here). Another case is Carl Greenblum. He was an army engineer who was called in before McCarthy's committee and questioned about his mother in 1954. McCarthy hassled him over why he didn't know that his mother was a Communist and eventually Greenblum broke down crying because his mother had just died two days earlier. Surprisingly, McCarthy granted him a recess to settle down, but then went and told the press during the recess that Greenblum had cracked "after some rather vigorous cross-examination by Roy Cohn." He continued, "I have just received word that the witness admits that he was lying the first time around and now wants to tell the truth." This was false and the inquisitions into Greenblum cost him his job as an engineer. Having done nothing wrong, Greenblum managed to get a court to reinstate him in 1958, a year after McCarthy's death. It is almost understandable that Coulter failed to mention him because the subcommittee transcripts exonerating Greenblum were released only a few months before Treason's release. Still, her silence on this speaks volume about her willingness to ignore evidence so to distort and spew. Greenblum was one of 42 Army Engineers who lost their jobs as a result of McCarthy's accusations. Of these, 40 managed to become reinstated, having been involved in no subversive activity. Also, her logic that the Venona cables exonerate McCarthy is deeply flawed. Of all those accused by McCarthy of being subversive, only about a half dozen appear on the cables. Also, the Communist spy rings were mostly broken up by the time of McCarthy's crusade. I give her credit (hence, the 2 stars) because she made a good effort, but overall, this is an empty tome of little historical value.
Rating: 
Summary: A book with a whole lot of nothing in it.
Review: Finally there is a book by Ann that has toilet paper potential.
Until Ann gains some intelligence we wont have any shortage of it.
Can Ann make a single paragraph without the use of the word "Liberals"?
Knowledge is undoubtedly something she lacks since this book has no real points.
Books like these are meant to be entertainment for the ignorant.
Unlike others of her age Ann's behaviour is really immature and unprofessional.
She is very narrow minded and conciders all against Bush to be idiots.
Hence all she does is argue like a child calling everyone "Liberals".
Rating: 
Summary: Let's Be Serious for a Moment
Review: Honestly, I can't understand why people are giving this great book one star. I'd be willing to bet most of them never even read the book. It's more likely that they are conservative bashers who routinely come to this site to bash any book written by any conservative. Don't believe their lies. You'll notice each of their negative reviews lacks one very important element: facts to back up their claims.
Rating:
Summary: RELY RELY GUD
Review: i can tel by reding this buk that an rely nos what she si saing its tim we had pepl that can spek th trut to pepl lik me lik an can wen she sas tat mcarti was a gret patrit an liberals are all trators u no she is rit becas it is in a buk also u can tell by her pictur dat she is a nic blond ladi who wudnt li.
Rating:
Summary: Coulter Hits the Nail Head!
Review: I could not put this book down. Point after point after point, Coulter defines liberalism as what it is at the heart. Liberals side with the enemy over and over again throughout the history of this great country. At least some of the Libs will leave and infest Canada now that the Presidential election is over. Fingers crossed.
Rating:
Summary: A great book
Review: I enjoyed Coulter's voice and her humor in this book. It's not easy making a hero out of somebody like McCarthy, and going against the strident voices of Hollywood cannot be something one does without plenty of good, solid ammunition. Ann simply analyzes the information that everybody has had, and puts her spin on it. While some might question her conclusions, none have come out to prove she's wrong. She's not nearly as mean-spirited as many anti-Bush "comics" are, but it's still nice to hear someone stick one to the liberals now and then.
Rating:
Summary: Obnoxious, if slightly amusing
Review: I find it always quite entertaining while listening to or reading some ultra, on the edge of fanatism, conservative (as in this case) or liberal. It's almost funny but reading this book and trying to follow the logic of the author, her many quotes from various sources, creates a totally opposite effect from the one the author desires. Just in this particular sense the book is a failure - it failes to convey the message. Besides, it's full of hatred and very obnoxious. Al Franken called this book a political pornography and I totally agree. The book contains a few interesting points and arguments but the way Ann Coulter writes about it kills any potential interest in these points and arguments (in the end people don't watch pornography to find some interesting ideas).
Rating:
Summary: Preaching to the fundamentalist choir
Review: I firmly believe that she has made a very compelling case that Republican Presidents tend to act with honor and with America's best interest at heart when it comes to fighting tyranny and terror and that Democratic Presidents tend to act without honor and without America's best interest at heart when it comes to fighting tyranny and terror, thus the apt title of this book "Treason". Come on. To assume that to disagree with the Republican party line is treason is not only simplistic it is insulting. As I recall FDR was a Democrat and took opposing someone fairly out there on the tyranny scale rather seriously. Factcheck.org has a good analysis of both Coulter and her detractors. But, I'm sure the converted will pass non-partisan analysis off as liberal media spin. It is amazingly convenient, if someone doesn't agree with you, they are a liberal hack who probably had a hand in Vince Foster's death and everything else that is Clinton's fault.(..)
Rating:
Summary: Wriiten by a woman who should be in an Asylum
Review: I have read several pages from Ann Coulter's book, "Treason", and I, being a liberal, am very personally offended by it. Never have I, or any other liberals I have heard of, felt as though America is a bad place. I do not think it is fair for Coulter, or any other conservative for that matter, to call liberals "America Haters". Liberals do not say Republicans are unpatriotic, bat-s*** insane, or any other cruel name. We are not baby killers, we are just the only ones smart enough to see that an embryo is not a living thing. After the baby can be considered living, it IS wrong to get an abortion.
And just because some liberals have distorted veiws, that does not mean all of us are. Bill Clinton was by far one of America's best presidents. Bush is a complete idiot. Michael Moore never once said he wants more people to die in Iraq [he has done an awful lot to try to get the troops back home]. John Kerry never once 'flip-flopped' on a subject.
All Ann Coulter does in every book she writes is distort the truth, misenterpret what liberals say, and makes things up. Yes, some of her opinions are correct in retrospect, but just because words came from the same article, it doesn't mean you can rearrange them to your own choosing.
Liberals are not power-hungry. How can anyone say that about a party who has lost more than 40 percent of the Senate, White House, and every other political election of 2004?
Rating:
Summary: The Lowpoint of American Politics
Review: I'll own up that I'm one of those people who fail all liberal and conservative litmus tests. I have strongly held beliefs that I came to one issue at a time. I suspect I am like most Americans in that respect.
Having said that, the fact that a best selling author can distort the facts or use blatant falsehoods to slander fifty percent of Americans as traitors is a lowpoint for America. Doesn't anyone remember the warning "United We Stand...Divided We Fall"?
I highly recommend the Christian Science Monitor's series "Talking with the Enemy" that came out before the 2004 election and shows how American citizens of varying political viewpoints reach out to each other and, in the process, work together to make America the best it can be.
| 
