Rating: 
Summary: A must read for every U.S citizen
Review: I am neither Liberal or Conservative. Neither Democrat or Republican. I always vote for the best person. Anne Coulters research is well founded. I have noticed the similarities in this book to corporate politics. Everyone has their on agenda regardless of the cost or well-being for their country or their corporation. Anne points out the;'self interest' at any cost attitude that runs rampant through out our society. The blind stupidity of following ones party must stop and Anne has certainly started the ball rolling. Hell, some people in New York really believe Hillary hails from their state.
Rating:
Summary: Hey Liberal reviewers...refute with DOCUMENTATION! :)
Review: Coulter's TREASON is absolutely fabulous. It's about time someone told the truth about Hiss, the Rosenbergs, and the dozens of other TRAITORS that Venona PROVED were guilty as sin. To echo an earlier reviewer: Liberals, if you're going to argue with the grown-ups, insults aren't going to be good enough--documentational refutation and logic, please. Grow up.
Rating:
Summary: Free speech, except when it's conservative
Review: How could anyone not enjoy reading Treason ? or Slander ?
or High Crimes ?Calling Ann Coulter unkind names and/or referring to her work
with disparaging remarks is so petty and childish.
I would prefer to read something that refutes her writing, but
that isn't going to happen. I do not believe that Coulter "hates" the Clinton's but she
is, like many normal people, tired of that crowd's supporters still defending them in spite of the trail of serious problems. If you do not have a sense of humor, don't read this book because you will be offended. Great work again Ann, Keep it up!!
Rating:
Summary: Stupid Is as Stupid Does
Review: As a college English composition instructor, I have some advice for all of you 1-star reviewers: proofread your work. Or at the the very least, don't comment on a published author's intelligence if you can't spell or use mechanics and grammar correctly. We readers can't take your bashing seriously if we can't even give you the benefit of being literate.
Rating:
Summary: Like scared little kittens
Review: I sat here and read several dozen of the negative reviews given to this book on this site and I noticed something interesting. Most of those reviews claimed that the book was full of lies, yet not a single example of a lie was presented. You would think that with an entire book of lies, mistatements and fabrications (as is claimed by all the negative reviewers) someone would have cited one example. But I guess that's too much to expect. I guess the reviewers would like me to just take their word and believe that Miss Coulter just made up a whole bunch of things. The second interesting point was how many people suggested that readers should instead go read some history books to get the real facts about the subjects. Part of what the book talks about was how the "history" books did, and still do, contain information that is not factual. Her point is that these books are produced by an industry that is itself liberal leaning and has an interest in distorting the facts as they happened. I don't know if this is true, but to call her a liar and then suggest that I get the real information from the very people she is accusing of lying just doesn't make sense. Laslty, in response to the reviewers that claim that Miss Coulter is calling all liberals unpatriotic, this is simply not true. To think that is to completely miss the point of the book. I thought her point was more that during the past fifty or sixty years of our history, it seems that the most unpatriotic members of our government (including all those who were eventually proven to be actual soviet spies) tended to be liberal democrats. Also, the people who defended / protected / promoted those spies were also liberal democrats. If this fact can be disputed I'm sure Miss Coulter would welcome the challenge, and I would certainly be interested in hearing it as well. The people who did not like this book would be better served in pointing out what they think are the factual flaws in it and not whether the author wears "skimpy outfits" or is a "witch" as many here have so eloquently stated. If you're going to take the time and effort to write a review, please put a little more thought into your review, and don't just resort to schoolyard tactics like namecalling, it cheapens the whole concept and only makes your argument seem weak.
Rating:
Summary: "Stupid Is As Stupid Does"
Review: As a college English instructor, I have a hard time taking to heart anything you 1-star reviewers say when you can't spell, fail to use mechanics correctly, use poor grammar, etc. PLEASE--if you're going to be critical of a book you've read or its author's intelligence, take time to proofread your work; at the very least, don't write the review if you lack basic skills. Your inadequacy only makes your "cause" a joke to those of us who are actually literate.
Rating: 
Summary: Conservative wit with lots of grit
Review: Always entertaining, Anne Coulter has articulated not only the essence of what is in the hearts of many political conservatives (like me), but backed up the thesis with extensively footnoted references and quotes that make a compelling read. Her conclusions about [radical] liberalism and revisionist history seem hard to refute, at least from my perspective. Judging by the perjorative name-calling that preceeds most of the negative reviews, the darts she has thrown must have hit pretty near their target! I guess it is easier to attack the author than the facts. Who knew that nasty red hunter, McCarthy, was the godfather of Robert Kennedy's child? For readers that want independent conformation of much of what Coulter writes about the Cold War and another fascinating read, check out "Dark Sun" by the Pulitzer Prize-winning author Richard Rhodes. It sure looks like there really were Communists behind every tree -- and with the coming of "freedom of information" about those years, it sure looks like the ivory tower emperors of revisionist history have no clothes. Sorry, Anne -- don't think you'll get the Pulitzer, but it was a great read. I would certainly reccomend that even your detractors should read it on the outside chance that they might wish to consider the content, even if they still disparage the author.
Rating: 
Summary: More pseudo-scholarly tripe from Coulter
Review: As someone who is neither a liberal nor a Democrat, I find it amazing that so many self-professed "conservatives" admire Ann Coulter. Every column she writes, every chapter of every book she writes, every on-air appearance she makes is nothing more than a simplistic rehashing of the same idea over and over again. If you want to know what Ann Coulter thinks (and I use that term loosely), it is simply this: "If there's something wrong, it's the lib-ruls fault." It's her catch-all scapegoat for everything. Is the economy faltering? Don't look for complex causes. Just blame lib-ruls. Is Washington, D.C. a mess? Don't consider the fact that it might be the fault of both major parties because the Republicans are infallible. Just blame the lib-ruls. Is your cat obese? Well, according to the one-note mind of Ann Coulter, that's probably the fault of the lib-ruls too. I'm just waiting for the column (or book) in which she blames AIDS, menopause, the current European heat-wave, and the Fall of the Roman Empire on Democrats and lib-ruls. The kind of simplistic tripe that passes for "analysis" in all of her writing is a joke. It's entertainment passing itself off as serious critical thinking. Coulter's caustic one-liner style sells well in the shout-a-thons that call themselves news programs today, but it should not be confused with intelligent, reasoned, and thoughtful argumentation. She's a cheerleader. Nothing more and nothing less. And like all cheerleaders, she doesn't have to think. She just has to reflexively root for her side no matter what.
Rating: 
Summary: A Waste of Paper
Review: To put it simply, don't bother buying this book regardless of your political affiliation. If you're a liberal (like I am), the half-truths, exaggerations, and outright lies will make you want to throw the book across the room. Get it from the library and don't waste your money on it. Go to the library even if you're a conservative. This book does nothing to raise the dialogue of political discussion in this country. Instead it is merely inflammatory and crude. If you plan to engage in serious political debate with someone, you can't quote her because her sources are either incorrect or obviously politically skewed. My advice: go to the library and read it, while you're there make sure you read something from the other end of the political spectrum. If you suffered your way through Slander, pick up What Liberal Media? by Eric Alterman. Or read Noam Chomsky's take on 9/11. Basically, read it if you want to, but don't plan to be swayed if you're liberal or feel anything but justified if you're conservative.
Rating:
Summary: Great Book
Review: Most of the low scoring reviews, attack Ann Coulter and not the content of her book, which is an interesting parallel to Coulter's argument in Treason. I found the book to be intellectual and entertaining. My next book purchase will be Al Franken's "Lies and the Lying Liars Who Tell Them: A Fair and Balanced Look at the Right." Even though I don't like Franken, I won't score his book one star, unless it deserves it.
| 
