Rating: 
Summary: Some things never change
Review: The book begins with Joseph McCarthy holding hearings to discover why known Soviet agents are working in sensitive US military positions. McCarthy couldn't care less about communists in Hollywood or any other private lifestyle. Ann Coulter documents how government officials from Roosevelt and Truman on down knew about Soviet infiltration but would do worse than nothing: they retained these agents as their closest advisors while the accusers (Whittaker Chambers, for example) were pilloried before the nation. To measure the real damage of McCarthy vs. the contrived "McCarthyism," Coulter juxtaposes the actual deaths of millions under communism with concern that a few people graced with living in the US may have had to choose a new career, or worse, hang out by their own choice in the night clubs of Europe with "trendy" people.Check the facts yourself. The endnotes are there to confirm or dispute a pattern of liberal behavior that closely resembles political events that we continue to see today. If you are a skeptic, you can do the research. If you are a lazy skeptic, you can argue that the information is not available to mere mortal researchers. There's a sub-theme to the book and much a part of Ann's public discourse - when liberals are faced with facts, they will not just change the subject. They will attack the messenger. Not every fact is documented in this manner, and in some cases truth is hard to distinguish from shameless hyperbole. But don't be fooled. When, for example, Ann says that that novelist, poet, and film critic James Agee denounced atrocity films of Hitler's death camps as a hoax, the reference to the source material is in the endnotes. But there is no endnote to the subsequent remark that the Harvard Graduate School of Education now has a James Agee chair of Social Ethics. While this might be assumed to be a sarcastic embellishment by Ann, just the same, there is such a position. She just shows that anyone who does some small amount of honest research will become familiar with liberal patterns to the point that a certificate of authenticity is not always needed. Ann's technique can be used to analyze any liberal counterargument and, for that matter, actually classify a counterargument as "liberal." In McCarthy's case, Ann may suggest asking "Yes, but were there 205 identified security risks (or was it 57 communists?) working for the State Department?" in response to the assertion, by the publisher of the Las Vegas Sun, that McCarthy was a "disreputable pervert." Okay, so how about asking "Yes, but did Saddam Hussein pose a threat to our national security through terrorism or any other means?" in response to the assertion that George W. Bush lied when he said "The British government has learned that Saddam Hussein recently sought significant quantities of uranium from Africa." Some things never change.
Rating:
Summary: Treason or Reason?
Review: Hey guys, lighten up. I'm sure that the truth lies closer to the middle. But whatever your political leanings, if you can tolerate dark humor, scathing sarcasm, and idiot-bashing, then this is a terrific book and one helluva' lot of fun to read. I've read a dozen different reviews of "Treason" and all of them said how terrible this book is and/or what an evil, mean-spirited b*tch the author is! BUT NONE OF THE REVIEWS attacked Ms. Coulter's research or her specific facts. In fact, all the reviews I've read sound just like the types of whining, flaming, knee-jerking mud-slinging Ms. Coulter tells us that liberals retreat to when their patriotism and/or intelligence is questioned. The irony of this is so thick it could be sold by the loaf. Now, having said that, and assuming that the truth is somewhere in the middle, if only 20% of Ms. Coulter's facts are true, then the American public should demand the liberal community ask for our abject forgiveness. Oh, and one more thing... Ms. Coulter does present recent history in a different light, but much of her tattlings on the liberals are things mainstream Americans have known for years. We haven't done anything about it because those treasonous liberals keep the ultra-conservatives from getting outa' control and the liberals are just a damned lot more entertaining! Buy "Treason" today, even if it max's out your Discover Card.
Rating: 
Summary: Hyperbole will get you nowhere
Review: I am neither liberal or conversative, but the mere title of this book which equates an entire branch of political philosophy (a branch that does not agree with itself) with treason is not only unconversative, but a Maoist style tactic of propaganda. The claims are mostly hyperbole and any decent conservative thinker would be appalled at the blanket condemnation. It is a Radical Right thing to do, but may I remind you that Radical Right and Conversative are not the same thing. A conversative is not a reactionary, a conversative does not sling hyperbole. Even conversatives that use hyperbole well . . . such as Florence King, Arthur Herman, Norman Podhoretz, and P. J. O'Rourke as well as conversative thinkers like Walker Percy would be appalled. Indeed, Miss Coulter seems to make more of a carear out of bashing liberals than actually defining a point. Its not a point that is going to make a neo-conversative viewpoint more appealing.
Rating:
Summary: Inadvertent satire?
Review: Ms. Coulter's latest tract comes fresh from the far right's lunatic fringe. Her puerile notion of "true patriotism," i.e., untrammeled defense spending, reckless unilateralism and suspicion (if not outright hatred) of foreigners, would be hilarious if it weren't so troubling. At times, Treason reads like a satire of the ultra-nationalist right; indeed, it is difficult to imagine an educated woman like Ms. Coulter writing "Goodbye, Walla Walla, I'm off to smash Allah," without tongue planted at least partially in check. And yet a fanatic's earnestness pervades her writing, leading to a ridiculous and patently offensive provincialism that no thoughtful pundit would touch with a ten-foot pole. Perhaps Ms. Coulter is unaware that many Americans--myself included--lack the blond hair, blue eyes, shotgun and dog-eared Bible that seem to be the sine qua non of her "patriotism."
Rating:
Summary: Is she serious?
Review: Here's what you do. See if you can read even the first paragraph without laughing out loud and shaking your head at the stupidity.
Rating:
Summary: Comments from a U. S. Patriot
Review: I love the reviews that attack the other reviews for not being fair. I love them because Ms. Coulter's only argumentative strategy in interviews is the ad hominem argument -- personal attacks and insults that have nothing to do with her thesis -- going so far as to say that she can always spot the conservative women in her audience because they're the "pretty ones." While Ms. Coulter's rhetorical skills are somewhat better than your average first grader, she should be thankful that there are some people (God only knows who) who find her attractive: A book this sloppy, with so many logical fallacies it boggles the mind, NEEDS a selling point, and Ms. Coulter's supposed good looks are it. If her publisher honestly believes that this book is anything more than pure dreck, I propose a challenge: Cut her hair and zoom in on her face for a tight head-shot, and then let's see how many copies of this book will sell. Better yet, take her off the cover altogether. Let the quality of the argument alone sell the book. My biggest disappointment is with Random House, the parent company, for publishing this book. Their standards for political discourse, whether conservative or liberal, should be higher. The readers in this country not only deserve it, they need it.
Rating:
Summary: Don't buy this book people...
Review: From all the jibes going back and forth, you would think this is a great work of political theory. It isn't. It's a poorly written, factually suspect, hastily compiled work of mere opinions. Liberals will hate it because it is clearly biased, and only the dumbest conservatives will believe all of the things she says in here. If you have to read it, wait until it gets in the bargain bins (and it will). The sad thing is that, since this book has managed to generate so much controversy, this woman is bound to be published again. Like Morton Downey Jr., like Rush Limbaugh, even, I might add, like Joe McCarthy himself, Coulter and her opinions are a fad who will fade in time and no one will even remember what all the fuss is about.
Rating:
Summary: Dispatch From The Lunatic Fringe....
Review: Few women in this country have risen (or fallen) to the status of politcal bimbohood but Anne Coulter has managed it handily with this and her previous book, Slander. As I mentioned in a preview of that book, just wait a few weeks and you can pick up a copy of Anne's magnum opus at your local bargain basement trash bin. As for the substance of this book, UNWORTHY OF REFUTATION.
Rating:
Summary: Liberal reviews are weak at best
Review: So far the biggest arguments I have seen against this book is that Ms. Coulter is "dumb" and "childish." There were however three actual arguments pertaining to facts that I found interesting. One liberal reviewer states that McCarthy supported SS troops! Ridiculous! The German boys (mostly teenagers and non-commissioned officers) allegedly killed 86 American P.O.W soldiers. Regardless, if guilty, these boys needed severe punishment (maybe even execution). The problem was that German reformists and unfortunately some overzealous Americans were beating, torturing, hanging and performing many other atrocities to illicit confessions from these boys without a fair trial. McCarthy simply said "everyone deserves due process." I would hardly call this support for the SS. Another anonymous reader below claims that Truman was anti-communist because of his "containment doctrine" and sparing Greece from communist takeover. Well, if he/she had actually read Ms. Coulters book they would see that Greece was the ONLY country spared by this weak doctrine! Every other country around Russia fell, including China! "Americans preferred victory rather than containment." Finally some criticism by Ron Radosh was stated. I have read Mr. Rodosh's books and he says roughly the same thing as Ann, just not as articulate or entertaining! Why he derides her can only be chalked up as pitiful jealousy because the former communists books have done nowhere as good as Ann's book in pure sales volume. Also a reviewer states that Kennedy removed missles from Turkey because they (missles) were old!?! Please!!! Talk about laughable. Strike one, strike two, strike three! Nice try liberals keep swinging maybe one day you will get a hit. Also to my friend below, remember liberals will never call you an "evil person" (too religious). "Dumb" "childish" and "hateful" are the liberal equivalents. This was one of the best and most entertaining books I have ever read. If you want to know what really happened in Vietnam, Watergate, McCarthy era and the war on terrorism, pick this book up!
Rating:
Summary: She can't even get her lies straight
Review: Well, when you call George Washington and Abe Lincoln traitors you have pretty much blown your credibility with me. Filled with silly fluff and poorly written to boot. The books fairly drips with paranoia. Certainly puts Ann firmly in the wack pack.
|
