Rating: 
Summary: Dusting off History
Review: In "Treason," without so much as five minutes of literary foreplay, Ann Coulter, the bold new voice of the conservative right, wades right into the most unlikely issue to stake a career on: McCarthyism. Thus begins a history lesson, one not taught in public schools or in the mass media. For fifty years, disgraced Republican Senator Joseph McCarthy has been so successfully vilified by the left that even the average conservative grants the excesses of "McCarthyism" to liberals. McCarthyism embodies the Inquisition-like, Nazi Final Solution-like purging of communists from positions of power in America in the late 1940s and early 1950s. But hold on. Coulter did some research, which she has proven to be quiet good at. It seems that Joe may not have been as bad as we thought, and that he may have been the early victim of "Borking," that nasty political assassination style liberals save for otherwise well-meaning Americans such as Robert Bork, Ken Starr, Clarence Thomas, John Ashcroft, and various judges waiting in limbo for confirmation. It turns out that Joe was right; there were commies in the U.S. Government. Coulter may have you wondering why Joe isn't an American hero.Coulter then carries the history lesson forward with a fresh view of the Alger Hiss affair, Nixon's presidency, the senile old Reagan's lucky win in the Cold War, and Bush's politically incorrect "axis of evil." Her impressive documentation and arrow-splitting sagacity take the book far beyond liberals' claim of "political diatribe." This book is meaty, thought provoking, and historically important. As a writer I'm primarily interested in an author's ability to convey messages in their prose. Coulter is cogent and entertaining at a high level. She is convincing. Ironically, in reading through the 1-star reviews of Treason here on Amazon, we see the liberal minions again proving Coulter's point in her other bestselling book, Slander. Rather than debate her research and conclusions, they simply call her an "ignorant witch," "legally blonde," "intellectually challenged," "a disgusting woman," etc. But with books knee-deep in footnotes like Coulter's Treason, name-calling is no longer enough to carry the argument. The left needs to grow up and leave their political debating style on the playground. My only gripe is the choice of "Treason" for the title. This is a stretch. True treason--"the offense of attempting by overt acts to overthrow the government of the state to which the offender owes allegiance or to kill or personally injure the sovereign or his family"--may apply to Hiss and a few others, but to paint with broad stroke the entire liberal left, most of whom believe their cause is good and are as patriotic at heart as any, is an overreaching mistake that tends to detract from an otherwise fantastic book.
Rating: 
Summary: An Embarrassment to History
Review: An embarrassment to history and an embarrassment to any intelligent Republican. Ann Coulter's interpretation of historical events is absurdly warped and cannot be trusted. Those who read this and repeat it are not open to truth nor anything which contradicts the agenda of the right. Be a critical thinker and do your own research.
Rating:
Summary: How to get nowhere: turn left only or right only...
Review: Amazing. "Stupid White Men" (Michael Moore's liberal book) and this (conservative) one. Is this bashing what the United States of America is truly about? (Hmm...maybe so...looking back at history I suppose it's nothing new). Try spinsanity dot com. No love for liberals or conservatives (or any other group) there... Pardon me, now. I need to dry my "Old Glory"...it's becoming wet from my weeping...
Rating: 
Summary: A Few Rules of Thumb concerning History
Review: I find it ironic that in these times of hating attorneys that millions of people still love a good argument. Still, as any good attorney does, they present their views in their best possible light, with support of evidence, while leaving out or attacking what deters from the argument. Still, what people tend to dislike about attorneys, especially talented ones is that they can make equally eloquent arguments on both sides of a case, leaving the observers to wonder what really happened. I assert that this book is a well made argument, but nothing more. I present some rules of thumb about history that help support my assertion. 1) No-one, be they an individual, group, organization, or nation is always right or wrong on a subject. We, as a race are simply not that perfect. History is much more subtle and complex in how it how it occurs than any simplified theory or single argument can capture. 2) Although individuals, groups, and so forth may have specific philosophies and agendas, these are almost never the same for all involved in historic events. Every person has their own views and acts accordingly. This makes the interactions of people interesting since they tend to challenge their own beliefs and the outcomes of interaction more complex that simply reviewing the results. As in this book, the beliefs are too universally pure and identical to be credible. 3) Everyone is the hero of their own story. This means each person believes what they are doing is right and good, even if others disagree. This applies to such disparate people as Einstein and Hitler. A critical examination of events as they happened versus the points-of-view of those who participated in the events is critical in gain a historical perspective. This means examining how people see Truman, Kennedy, and well as McCarthy as 'good' as well as 'bad'. 4) Depicting a whole group as evil often leads to tragedy. This has been observed many times in history with the holocaust of WWII, the Cambodian massacres, the Rwanda genocide, and more recently, the al Qaeda attacks on the United States. Disagreement allows for civil intercourse to resolve differences between groups. While pointing out acts that might be viewed as treasonous is worthy of reflection, branding a whole group as traitors can only lead to further tragedy. Hence, I believe the book makes an interesting argument, but appears to distort history in making it. And, as per the fourth point, it could propel some into undertaking tragic action. From observing with the results of terrorism, we have seen enough of this type of thinking to oppose it, regardless of the argued righteousness of the cause. It would be an interesting task for others to look at the same facts and come up with the exact opposite conclusions. Ironically, I think Coulter could do equally well on this task.
Rating:
Summary: Complete and utter fabrications....
Review: How can Ms. Coulter sleep soundly when she and her ilk are so soundly full of hatred and bigotry? This is the most contemptuous diatribe I have ever read. This book proves why the right has no business being in any positions of power. They will destroy us all and enjoy every minute! I want my money back!
Rating:
Summary: Ann is RIGHT on!!
Review: Great book,especially for poolside reading. Asks AND answers questions that have needed to be asked for years. Re the reviewer who asked if anyone would want Joe McCarthy to marry their daughter: someone did want him to...Joe Kennedy.Look it up. By the way, anyone else get the feeling that the same reviewers who are giving this book 1 star are the same people who give "Stupid White Men" 5 stars? Buy this book!
Rating:
Summary: Reminded me of Mein Kamf
Review: It was funny and easy to read. Sounded an awful like a really mad, long "letter to the editor" that come out in local papers in the editorial section. All she tries to do in sell books, nothing more. She is a joke to any true conservastive who is not married to their cousin.
Rating:
Summary: Definitely NOT a Liberal
Review: I am not left or right wing, rather I consider myself to be a rational American woman. This woman is [stupid], this book is comical ( I read it in several sittings at my sister's house). I don't know how anyone could take what she says seriously, particularly if you have ever seen her on TV - she is such a fool, I am embarassed for her - I mean, really, she does try to re-write history. Due to the old double standard, if she were not good looking, nobody would giver her any attention at ALL - I have seen her verbally shredded by Chris Rock!!! Go away already. How arrogant - disagree with Ann Coulter and you are treasonous?
Rating:
Summary: A slam to revisionist history...
Review: Why should we expect anything different but whines, screams, and shrieks from the left? Name calling, hatred, and the like is all that they have to use in their reviews, continually ascribing their own traits to those on the right. Ms. Coulter, with a heavy dose of wit, exposes the truth about many of the left's virtual icons, such as FDR and HST... with a heavy dose of research. Unlike most liberal diatribes, she backs up her statements with an extremely large section (50 pages fine print) of footnotes. Coulter is one of the few people in the country with the "gonards" to stand up and say what she thinks and knows. If only more on the right could develop such a backbone.
Rating: 
Summary: A Good Start
Review: For the unititiated, this book is a good starting point into the world of political deception. For the initiated there are some new insights and a reminder of things past. Ms. Coulter has laboriously cited the facts in her work to original source material, understanding who would be on the front lines targetting her. For those who have read the book, the 1-star commentaries given here are completely predictable, in scope and in style. Liberals would rather engage in personal attacks than actually read the facts and put together a substantive rebuttal. Unless liberals learn to deal with facts, they too will end up in the ash heap of history, as a curiosity.
| 
