Rating: 
Summary: You want Liberal Ranting? you went to the wrong place
Review: Can you stand Michael Moore? Neither can I. He seems to find great joy in ranting and raving about how much he hates bush, and how our country is rampant with gun violence and whatnot using vauge terms like "Frankenstein syntdrome" making for nothing more than a bathrrom reader. But Alan Colmes backs up his opinions with those incredibly stubborn things called facts. He makes good points that are hard to refute, and he makes me proud to have him on the liberal team. If you are a conservative or a liberal, you MUST read this book, for it wont have you curling your toes in digust.
Rating: 
Summary: Much Better Than People Think
Review: To be honest, I was skeptical about picking up this book because I thought it would be boring. Alan gets a lot of critisism from liberal commentators about being too soft against the radical right wingers that Fox News presents on a daily basis. In Alan's defense, I think he knows the true agenda of Fox News and doesn't want to bite the hand that feeds him. This is why he limits himself to strictly facts and presents his arguments in a rebuttal fashion rather than spewing extreme accusations towards the other party. In other words, Alan doesn't get to "hate" like Hannity has the luxory of doing. And let's face it, "hate" sells in the political show biz industry (just ask Hannity, Limbaugh, Coulter, Franken, Moore, Savage, etc). I'll tell you what, I was not bored at all reading this book. I almost agreed with every point that he made. The only dissapointment was Alan arguing against the FACT that Fox News is a biased news channel leaning towards the right. (I hope he was laughing while writing that chapter.) Alan re-itterates the fact that anyone who is 100% liberal or 100% conservative is dangerous. I also enjoyed the points that he made regarding the Republican party trying to cliam ownership of god, the military, and patriotism (for example, Republicans ignorantly claim that anyone who opposes the war is anti-american, or the falsehood surrounding their thoughts that Democrats are against the military). In my own opinion, I think that proclamation of a political party should be illegal. The notion in this country that we must choose a political side is just a breeding ground for hatred. It's okay to have liberal beliefs, or conservative beliefs, but to feel forced to believe something because it is the opinion of your party is, in my opinion, unpatriotic!
Rating: 
Summary: Its Time to Be Serious
Review: Alan's book explains the Liberal View of believing only what one wishes. Alan argues that O.J. is still Innocent. In these troubled times, definitive rights and wrongs must be dealt with quickly and correctly. One can only recommend Hannity's new book.
Rating: 
Summary: Read the Editorial Reviews Before Purchasing
Review: Please read the Editorial reviews of Amazon and Publishers Weekly before considering this book. They are polite and to the point in their analysis. I, for one, should have followed this advice. The book is boring and self serving; there is no Inspirational Liberalism between the covers, just some more of his confusing opinions and semi-illogical beliefs one hears on his show.
Rating:
Summary: Poor Alan
Review: having to deal with that blowhard Hannity everyday must make him crazy. Writing a thoughtful and interesting book like this while living like a prisoner on FNC is a miracle.
Rating:
Summary: Alan's Bomb
Review: Well, its been over two weeks since the last reviewer submitted their review of Alan's latest wimpering tome. Its sitting at 5600 or something on the Amazon list. I've tried again to plow my way thru its dull, looney prose; Alas to no avail! Alan, sadly one comes to the final conclusion, Your book is a Bomb...
Rating:
Summary: Alan is from Pluto!!!
Review: The book is a Bomb, no a Total Lemon!! It just makes one pucker up in total distaste!! The Looney left dislikes the tome more than the Conservatives who listen to his drivel nightly. Please save your money and time and invest in a good and highly interesting " Money, Blood & Power". Alan, you seem to be a reasonably serious, good guy; but an author, you are not...
Rating: 
Summary: Colmes a decent guy with an impossible job
Review: It really is difficult to write a good book in defense of liberalism, mainly because in a good book you actually have to present a cogent, logical argument in support of your thesis. Problem is, liberalism as we witness it today is based on the rejection of logic and supplanting of it with emotional populism. Colmes does a decent job of presenting the liberal side of things, such as it is. He drives me up the wall sometimes with his "Clinton was the best President ever" line, and other such claptrap, but then I realize that's just Alan playing the "agent provocateur"--which is what Fox pays him to do. The book, when it seems ineffectual, is so because there really is no cogent, logical argument that can support liberalism...we not only know it has failed every time it has been tried, we know why it has failed: because it turns every citizen into either wards or servants of the state, and people refuse to live that way for long. The book seems namby pamby to other liberals because they are not used to anyone stating their positions without demonizing conservatives. Leftism, with all its demagoguery stripped away, really is a rather pathetic sight, and Colmes book straightens its ties and dusts off its lapels as best he can.
Rating:
Summary: This is liberal? Did the conservatives create this guy?
Review: The introduction to Alan Colmes new book "Red, White, and Blue: How the Left is Right and the Right is Wrong" left me entirely dissatisfied. While I acknowledge that Colmes is certainly no radical left-winger, as a liberal myself, I am disheartened that this is the very best a mainstream liberal American can do. First off, I take issue with the title. I understand the desire to show that the Left (liberal) is Right (correct), and the Right (conservative) is Wrong (incorrect). Unfortunately, a completely opposite meaning can be constructed from this which leads you to wonder if it weren't insidiously intentional: that the Left (liberal) is really Right (correct), and that, as being Right (correct), they are Wrong (incorrect).
Thus, we see a supposed liberal clumsily making a malapropism on par with our linguistically challenged and conservative commander in chief. Or, perhaps I'm wrong. Perhaps the real meaning is that the Left (liberal) are really Right (closet conservatives), and that the Right (uh, conservatives again, I guess) are really Wrong (incorrect? incorrectly named?). At any rate, the title stinks. If you're going to take issue with how the Right defines the Left, just say so. Next, we are treated to 14 paragraphs in which Colmes practically apologizes to anyone who reads his book. Hmmm. That's not a good sign. Colmes drones on about how he doesn't mean to irk so many conservatives, but he it's just the right thing to do. Whoa, Alan - easy on the convictions there, my boy. In an even more pandering tone, Colmes proceeds to
define liberals first in the very terms that conservatives use: tree-huggers, proponents of big government, supporter of the ACLU, etc. Is this mockery and capitulation masked as heart-on-sleeve honesty? Oh, please! Are we to walk away from this thinking that to be a liberal, you just have to fall into
the correct category as defined by the conservative power elite? Halfway through the introduction, Colmes decides to use a dictionary definition of the word, in case he doubts the meaning himself, perhaps. So we have the characterization by the Republicans, and we have a dictionary definition. How about a characterization of liberals by liberals? To do so would merely require some conviction and commitment to liberal ideals, something that Colmes seems to lack. One reason I will definitely not read this book in its entirety is the likelihood of insipid statements like the following:
In stating why he favors the Democratic party over the Republican party, he says "those two parties are the only viable infrastructures for electing candidates to office." Colmes
has unwittingly bought into the very same rhetoric that most Democrats have been brainwashed by: that we can only work within the existing framework, and it's not possible to create new pathways when the old ones have proven archaically ineffective. Colmes peppers the introduction with emails sent to him in order to illustrate, one supposes, the very tough liberal row he is made to hoe. They are, funnily enough, exceedingly vitriolic, threatening all manner of violence against Colmes. With almost puckish delight, Colmes responds with milquetoast offers of friendship despite political disagreement. OK, I'll admit, I found this kind of cute, but I would rather see clear statements of belief and conviction supported by facts as defense. Then, the one person who stands up for Colmes is as milquetoast as he is: From: beth
Sent:Wednesday, February 05, 2003 6:10 AM
To: colmes
Subject: Hang In There
Hi Alan-I know you have a tough job-but keep fighting for us liberals.We need a voice so badly. I pull for you every night.
Thanks. Beth Am I the only one here for whom the "Hang in There" invokes that poster on the wall of every elementary school library of the adorable kitten dangling helplessly from a tree branch? Clearly, Beth's assumption that we are all helpless kittens allowed her to see kinship in Colmes, who fervently believes
that it's just a conservative's world and we've got to stick together. This is the most unliberal thinking I can imagine. Any true liberal would not capitulate, acquiescing that we are so underrepresented and so lacking in great numbers that we 'need a voice so badly' and need to be "pulled" for
every night. "Oh save us, Obi-Wan-Alan! You are our only hope!" Sorry, but I am completely unable to fathom an image of Alan Colmes leading a charge of liberals marching on Washington and getting in the face of injustice - instead, I see real liberals working with numerous other real liberals. There
IS a strong voice out there - and it's not Alan's. To his credit, I will say that Colmes plugs the very sad issue of veterans and the lack of respect they incur from the government. He also lightly addresses the Republican party's preponderance for lying, contrasting it's type of lies as very different from (from, not than, Alan. Check your grammar) the lies that got Clinton into trouble. Unfortunately, this is mitigated by the 4 paragraphs Colmes spends apologizing for his position on Vietnam and his risk of being considered 'antiestablishment.' Sorry, Alan, if you're really a liberal, you're not worried about that a bit. If this is the kind of hard-hitting defense of liberalism that I have to look forward to in this book, I might as well spend the evening listening to my Republican father wax poetic about "the good
old days." So, while Colmes is defnitely not a liberal's liberal, I suppose his gentle, convictionless manner will present only a slightly less revolting opportunity for conservatives to bash him more, while assuring the masses of nonthinking Democrats that there is someone championing their causes, and that they need to encourage him to keep up the good fight, wherever that fight is, anyway.
Rating:
Summary: A likeable liberal?
Review: While I disagree with Alan Colmes on a lot of issues and probably agree with Hannity more, (it even scares me) Colmes is much more likeable and tolerable than the annoying self righteous Sean Hannity. I didn't read Hannitys book and don't even listen to his show anymore as he cannot discuss an issue with someone he disagrees with without picking a fight and calling names. (sound like Moore or Al Quaida Franken?) Colmes is much more grounded and open to discussion without back-biting and dissent. This book has so much I disagree with but much that has made me think. (totally disagree about Clinton and OJ still) Not the best written book around, but I've yet to read one in this class that is.
|
