Rating: 
Summary: Labelling again
Review: To begin with, words like "Liberal," "Left" etc, are misunderstood. Liberal means, essentially, the belief that legal adults are free to live the lives they want if they don't harm others (the right-wing Sen Goldwater was somewhat like that: being against big government, he supported Gays being allowed to serve in the military, if only because private lives shouldn't be legislated). Liberalism is a belief in open markets and free trade(something some "Liberals" and even protectionist conservatives oppose) yet which conforms to the idea of market-driven economies. As for the Democrats inclination toward being Liberal/appeasing: The A-bomb was dropped twice, with President Truman's approval; the original Sandinista government was installed with Roosevelt's basic approval;Clinton's regime saw important cutbacks to the welfare system.As for Liberal "treachery," the Kennedys, including JFK, were McCarthy supporters during the Cold War, with RFK jockeying with Roy Cohn for the position of McCarthy aide.
Rating: 
Summary: Nothing New Here
Review: Ann Coulter's latest book begs the question: Which came first, the title of the book or the book itself? Given the tone and information detailed within, it appears that Ms. Coulter didn't happen upon a thesis while doing research, rather she scoured the newspapers and conservative literature to support a liberal hating screed that lacks balance and fairness. This is not journalism, this is simply more leftist hating propaganda that tries to portray liberals as anti-American, ideologically corrupt, and always on the wrong side of history. I tried several times to get through a single chapter that didn't distort historical fact or reduce itself to immature name-calling. I eventually gave up all together as I grew tired of having to sift through nonsense to get to the heart of any intelligent argument. But can you expect anything less from Ms. Coulter? This book isn't about re-examining history, it is about feeding the "Hate Liberals" machine that has made millions for Ms. Coulter and others like her (Michael Savage, Rush Limbaugh, Sean Hannity). True, liberals have their "bomb throwers" as well--and I would equally criticize those writers. No, my criticism of Ms. Coulter's book is that it never raises itself to a level of being worthy of consideration by others of opposing view. It is too easy to dismiss her work because it is so prejudiced and uninformed. So, if you are a conservative and are looking for a book that only attacks liberals-this is it! If you are looking for an intelligently written treatise, insightful analysis of history, and a thought-provoking argument on liberalism and its place in history, you best look elsewhere.
Rating: 
Summary: Don't believe the 1 star reviewers who haven't read the book
Review: Have you noticed that almost all of the bad reviews so far haven't provided any substantive challenge to the central thesis Ann posited in her book. They don't question her facts, breakdown any errors in the logic of her reasoning or provide any counter arguments or facts. No, they prefer the shrill language of general and unsubstantiated attacks. Could it be that the bad reviewers have no counter arguments because they haven't read the book and are really just scared Democrats desperate to discredit the book in any small way? It couldn't be. It probably just proves that Ann is right in her book when she says that when liberals can't win an argument they scream, call their opponent names, and then cry. Some earnest liberals will try to score a point on the margins, like Chris Matthews on Hardball, when he exposed some of Ann's hyperbole: she implied Arabs smell. Ooooh! See, that proves it. Alger Hiss was not a spy. The Rosenbergs weren't spies. There were no communist spies in the State Department. The Venona intercepts are a made up right wing conspiracy trick. The vicious smear campaign against McCarthy - began by liberals in the press and passed down to later generations by liberal historians - was justified because, see, McCarthy was evil. Ann implied Arabs smell. So, there you have it. McCarthy was indeed evil. Such is the logic of Democrats. Unless and until critics of the book challenge her central arguments head on with credible, factually based, substantive counter-arguments, more and more people will see through the b.s. of the critics, read the facts in the book and come to see that, by and large, Ann's right!
Rating:
Summary: Powerful prose, better than "Slander"
Review: The controversy that surrounds Ann Coulter is that she stubbornly disseminates the truth, something that many people simply prefer not to deal with. In "Slander," Coulter announces what we've always suspected: the media tilts left, sometimes far left. In "Treason," Coulter once again spreads the truth like wildfire, this time defending Joe McCarthy. "Treason" is almost separated into two parts. In part One Coulter deals with McCarthy and the attacks that *he* endured for investigating the many Soviet spies who had already infiltrated major positions in US government. During McCarthy's day, it was McCarthy himself who, despite his popularity with the public, was eventually attacked unfairly, often smeared and disgraced. At best, he was quite effective at focusing attention on America's enemies. Later in the book, Coulter deals with the predictable liberal opposition to the invasion in Iraq, the continuing controversy over North Korea's nuclear weapons, and the countless celebrities with a knack for uttering the most uninformed statements one should ever hear. Coulter's theme is resounding clear and rather repetitive: Liberals without fail side against American interests irrespective of the facts. Why this is so is not clearly explained, but one might guess that those who would attack America and fail to defend her so consistently take their country and freedom for granted, magnifying America's faults and failures, rather than simply acknowledging that America remains the most free country on earth. Coulter ends with a scalding conclusion which is impressive and truthful to say the least, but may be interpreted by some to be overly aggressive. Still, it would not be Coulter writing without her throwing rhetorical bombs at the opposition. Recommended.
Rating: 
Summary: Ann you are scaring us, I need a group hug!
Review: I am mostly libertarian so I only agree with some of her actual politics. McCarthy you say... Those who whine about her attempted resurrection of McCarthy should consider how we got to the point where this is even plausible --that is the Left has taken us down this road with it becoming more and more extreme in its promotion of primitivism, fatalism, laziness, stupidity, and the otherwise undeserving. McCarthy is the product of your "id" so get used to it! Heck, I have even forgone the once-precious and non-negotiable issue of "Choice" to help the other side stop the madness of the once respectable Left. Over history most of the rest of the world has traditionally been productive only as needed for survival, but modern North Americans are industrious beyond all conceivable need. This allows us to live better than royalty did just a hundred years ago. This makes us a target for all sorts of misplaced envy from failing cultures. Its not our problem --failing cultures are part of the natural order, but some wish to make it our problem. This guilt-born desire on the "left" seems to be pathological, self-esteem related, and can probably be treated with antidepressants. Perhaps her most basic premise is that some people will sell out our security and industrious cultural identity in order to glorify laziness and promote a fatalistic, primitive world view. This for reasons that are probably unknowable but certainly, the anarcho-progressivism that so hates Ms. Coulter is certainly not comporting to any natural law. At least that is what I take away from her writing. This lady can rub people the wrong way, and its probably an intentional part of her schtick. Because of the messenger, people who really need to read this, probably wont.
Rating:
Summary: Right on Point, Again!
Review: Ann Coulter has an incredible grasp of words - which translates beautifully into a grasp of liberal behavior. I've read her past books, and also those of "the left", and have concluded that Ms. Coulter is in the right with her observations. I find myself pulling out the dictionary, but it's a small inconvenience to realize the depth of what she is saying. She clearly states the facts and has done what a good book should do - - make me thirst for more knowledge of the past events she has touched upon. I'm now a regular at the library and on the 'Net, deciding, based upon my own research, what "really" happened in history. But one can't rely on the liberals' written bias! This book is a must read, and I'm glad I did!
Rating: 
Summary: Ugly Book for Ugly Americans
Review: An Ugly book for Ugly Americans. Much like Sean Hannity's "Let Freedom Ring" and other classics in this genre of political fiction, this book is written on a third-grade reading level, so the majority of Americans, who are boarder-line illiterates, will find it fairly easy to follow. No pictures, however.
Rating:
Summary: Spend your $$$ on Harry Potter if you want quality fantasy
Review: Ann would like to topple Hillary Clinton's perch, but this "work" is so implausible, inaccurate, self-indulgent, and long-winded that it had me aching for G. Gordon Liddy's old commentaries for something conservative, yet digestible. The rhetoric spewed in this simply-written diatribe reminds one more of Goebbels than of a sound political analyst. At least O'Reilly appears to speak from a platform of educated scrutiny, not a shrill cry for attention by spinning tall tales. I managed to get through this book in one reading, but not without a lot of head-shaking and several smirks. Coulter's from CORNELL? The college, right? Thanks for the laughs, Ann....but readers are best advised to save their money for "Harry Potter and the Order of the Phoenix" if they want quality fantasy. Yes, you're cuter to look at than Limbaugh, but I'll settle for Gingrich's observations for their substance. Heck -- Hillary Clinton's too, for that matter.
Rating:
Summary: Love her or hate her, she has a point.
Review: Ann Coulter's latest book, "Treason: Liberal Treachery from the Cold War to the War on Terrorism" has a very important point: that liberals sided with this country's enemies in the Cold War rather than side with their domestic political opponents, the (conservative) Republicans. It's amazing to me that for almost half a decade that any American would make such a choice, but as Ann details, the choice as viewed by liberals was not one of an enemy over their country, but rather a similarly-minded foreign power over a domestic enemy. This is why Republicans failed to grasp the nature and extent of liberal opposition during the Cold War. With few exceptions, the liberals chose to ally themselves with someone they felt would further the cause of socialism (or as it is called in this country, "liberalism"). The true depth of this course of action has gone unnoticed both in the media and the classroom. Our history is not one of noting that Harry Truman offered to give Stalin a "rebuttal" in response to Churchill's "Iron Curtain" speech, but one of itemizing the excesses of the conservative side only. Ann makes a very important point, and does a good job of supporting it, but fails to concede that McCarthy was vilified as much for HOW he tried to expose Communism and Socialism for the threat they were as for what he believed in.
Rating:
Summary: Bad! (and not in the good way)
Review: Coulter has weak arguments and not a whole lot to back them up. I'm a conservative and even I can recognize that this author couldn't argue or debate her way out of a wet paper bag. If someone's going to present the conservative point of view we need someone who can rise above the level of the talk radio and present some credible arguements. She does the conservative movement a disservice by making us look like humorless idiots.
|
