Rating: 
Summary: Ann Coulter is The Diva of the Right!!
Review: Believe it or not, Ann's new book is more compelling than her last best seller: Slander! Ann's creative vocabulary, singular and dinstinctive wit, irrefutable logic, and stunning documentation place her and her book in the category of profound genius! Ann is truly amazing in her orginality of thought, and her ability to set the record straight about the last fifty years of US History. Some of the reviews written sound as though Paul Begala (arch enemy of truth) dictated to the writers. All Americans, especially young Americans, should read Ann's phenomenal book to get a correct reading of history. Bravissimo to Ann. DIVA!!
Rating:
Summary: Awesome
Review: Ann's books keep getting better. If you see reviews below 3 stars they're from biased liberals. Get your copy or copies today!
Rating: 
Summary: Egregious errors of fact
Review: Being a Canadian with basic cable, Ann Coulter has largely passed under my radar, though I was peripherally aware of her. The cult of punditry seems to be more an American than Canadian phenomenon. But writing a book about the greatness of Joe McCarthy? Implying that half of the population of America is guilty of treason?? Obviously, neither of those claims can hold up to basic scrutiny. But they were outrageous enough to finally grab my attention.There have already been epic takedowns of this book at Spinsanity and on salon.com, which attack Coulter's logical inconsistencies, her many, many errors of fact, her deliberate distortions, misquotations and quasi-slanderous innuendoes. The footnotes and sourced material provide a patina of 'scholarship' over a shamefully shoddy work. Commentators on the right and left have criticized Coulter for her poor journalism and faulty reasoning. This book will only impress those who don't follow up on any of the references and those who are already convinced of the wisdom of her hate-filled rants. There is a tremendous wealth of information on the nasty things Coulter's idols McCarthy and Hoover did, and on how little they actually did to halt the 'Red Menace.' The idea that these are her icons of manliness makes me smile: I can't help but admire her chutzpah, but she's dead wrong. Is she having us all on? Does she actually believe that McCarthy was some sort of national hero? She's obviously made a number of millions by being outrageous, and few of her detractors' dismissals have stuck. She could go like this forever, without any substantial ideas, lacking everything except beauty, energy, ambition and a certain nasty wit. Coulter's hysterical revisionism and name-calling is obviously entertaining, but her presence and the prominence of her voice in the political arena impoverishes what is already a pretty sorry debate.
Rating: 
Summary: Are Republicans Traitors?
Review: Ann Coulter's "you are either with me or against me" approach delineated in her latest work necessitates asking some basic questions once one accepts her basic premise. In Coulter's view those who have cooperated in defiling and demeaning the reputations of Richard Nixon and Joseph McCarthy, two patriotic bulwarks in the fight against Communism, have provided aid and comfort to the enemy and are inevitably traitors. One person we would have to put in the traitor category according to Coulter would be the political ideological father of Ronald Reagan, Arizona's Senator Barry Goldwater. It was Goldwater, after all, who went to the White House that summer of 1974 to convince Nixon that he had no support in the U.S. Senate and needed to resign the presidency rather than face an ultimate Senate trial he could not win. Afterwards he referred to Nixon with great frequency as a "phony" and praised the work of the Washington Post's Bob Woodward and Carl Bernstein, who exposed Nixon. Since Goldwater was a major player in this "cabal" to bring down one of Coulter's favorite patriots, he must have been a traitor. After Nixon left office in disgrace a whole phalanx of Republicans, including subsequent GOP presidents, shunned Nixon like the plague. Since the destruction of Nixon was part of a liberal cabal then we must assume by Coulter standards that presidents Gerald Ford, and yes Ronald Reagan, as well as George Bush I were part of it. That apparently means that all of the aforementioned Republican presidents, including the Reagan she highly praised, were traitors. Who was the president who invoked criticism within Democratic ranks by welcoming Nixon back to the fold and calling regularly to solicit his advice? That was Bill Clinton, but wait a minute, this was the same president Coulter fought to have removed from office. How, pray tell, can he be a patriot and a vile traitor at the same time? After all, Coulter cannot think of enough dirty names to call Clinton. Then again, on the subject of Nixon, according to Joseph McCarthy's most trusted subordinate, his chief counsel to the McCarthy Committee, Roy Cohn, Nixon deserted his boss in his hour of need. Cohn called Nixon a "phony," the same name Goldwater used. Something has to give here. Pray tell, Ann, in this case who is the patriot and who is the traitor? When the subject of whether or not we should declare war on Iraq was being debated, Ann was reminded by Chris Matthews that prominent Republicans, former National Security adviser Brent Scowcroft and Congressman Jack Kemp, opposed going to war. She was quick to label both of them traitors, conservative Republicans no less, who happened to be guilty of disgreeing with Coulter. General Norman Schwarzkopf also voiced the same misgivings. Apparently the Commanding General of Desert Storm I is also a traitor? How about it, Ann? Oh yes, and after 9-11 Ann recommended that we bomb all the Arab nations and then, amid the rubble, convert anyone left to Christianity. She never retracted the statement, being fired from National Review in the aftermath. Now she has all kinds of terrible things to say about National Review. Is National Review also part of the liberal media, cabal, Ann? Is it a publication of traitors? As for liberals, they are universally traitors. If anyone disagrees with Ann on foreign policy or any other issue that matters to her, like the little girl in the schoolyard who sticks her tongue out, makes faces, and calls names, she will label you a traitor. I have a good reason for not giving this petulant tirade of juvenile screed the 1 Star rating it deserves on the merits. I think people should read for themselves what passes these days for conservative comment. Hopefully some more balanced minds will surface in the future to write books about foreign policy that propose programs for action and do not rely on juvenile name calling and twisted reasoning.
Rating:
Summary: Coulter purposely lies and mispuotes in new book
Review: For those interested in a NONPARTISAN review of Treason go to spinsanity.com. They attack irrational rhetoric on both sides of the political debate, and present the truth, whether it's lies by liberals or conservatives. Highly recommened for people that have the ability to critically think and not be swept up in emotional tirades by either side.
Rating: 
Summary: It's not that simple, Ann
Review: Coulter makes a most contentious statement, claiming that liberals and democrats (indeed anyone on "the left") are all traitors and have been all throughout the 20th century. The absurdity of this all encompassing statement makes it hard for me to take her seriously. Such a blanket statement can only ring true for the simple-minded. The ones who want to boil politics and life down to a "rational" 'For us or against us' Bushism world. Coulter is biting in her criticism and sometimes hits things dead on. True, there are facts that she has uncovered that are embarrassing for liberals. However, many times there are facts that blatantly contradict her thesis that she cleverly omits. Indeed her thesis is so ambitious that she is asking for people to blast her on its factual errors. No statement as broad and all-encompassing as "all liberals are traitors" could not find any evidence to the contrary. In fact her one-sided, self-righteous rants prove convincingly that something is wrong with this book. It does not contain rational thought; it is too black and white, too partisan. It should not be about liberal or conservative; it should be about common sense. This book must be taken with a large grain of salt. When Coulter is right, points should be conceded; however more than a healthy sense of skepticism is needed to swallow this at times slandered and bitter pill.
Rating:
Summary: Simply awful.
Review: This book is a misleading, cursory, and careless biased view of history. Although I am a longstanding Libertarian, this book puts conservative thought to shame.
Rating:
Summary: Should be required reading.
Review: Once again, Ann Coulter has written an excellent, well researched, well DOCUMENTED book. Anyone who doubts her word can check out her sources in the approximately 46 and a half pages of footnotes. ...Thanks to the Venona intercepts, we have all the proof we need that MCCARTHY WAS RIGHT!
Rating:
Summary: Is she an undercover Democrat?
Review: Coulter is one of those "patriots" who loves her country and hates 90% of the people in it. If you're someone who believes that McCarthyism was bad for America, safety nets like social security and welfare are a good idea, or that it's okay to criticize the government's actions, you may as well hand yourself over to the FBI right now. According to Coulter, you're no different from Benedict Arnold or the Rosenbergs. The venom and bile in the book grows so vicious, it makes you wonder if Coulter is actually a Democratic trying to make Republicans look cartoonish The ideal reader for this book would be someone far-right enough to agree with Coulter's views, and emotionally insecure enough to need to hear that people who think differently are trash. Since reviewers found factual errors on nearly every page of her last book, it's hard to imagine someone with a serious interest in history who would find a use for it.
Rating:
Summary: Blond Ambition
Review: Nobody believes Ann Coulter's extraordinary accusations. Do not blame it on her baby doll looks.
The Encyclopedia of World History, Sixth Edition (Peter N. Stearns, General Editor): "The charges made by Sen. Joseph McCarthy of large-scale Communist infiltration into the State Department were found to be untrue by a Senate committee. The senator's careless accusations brought great hardship to many people."
Professor of History (Rutgers University) David Oshinsky wrote in United State History (Oxford, University Press, 2001): "McCarthy's hearings did not uncover any communists. They did, however, ruin numerous careers, undermine government morale, and make America look ridiculous in the eyes of the world... The Senate censured McCarthy for bringing that body "into dishonor and disrepute."
U.S. government funded "Radio Liberty" broadcasted (06/19/03): "Atmosphere of McCarthy's hysteria and anti-Semitism played the major role in the Rosenberg's conviction."
To whom you will believe? US government and History Professors or the ambition blond.
| 
