Rating: 
Summary: These reader reviews are hopeless
Review: Folks, is there one among you capable of reviewing a politically charged book for its literary merits? It is, after all, like...you know...a BOOK. It's not a speech on Fox News, it's not a handout at a rally. It's . . . a . . . B-O-O-K. And as books go, this one is passing. Literate, witty, argumentative, but by no means vitriolic to the point of alienating intelligent readers who might disagree with her points (please note "intelligent"). If you can't review a book for its form as WELL as its content, what are you even doing here?
Rating:
Summary: Way to go, Ann, but stop pulling punches!
Review: I always suspected liberals were responsible for everything evil today, and now Ann has proved it with her use of footnotes and funny sentences! Democrats who write that this is garbage prove her point, because she said they would say that! I used to be sort of a bleeding heart but the U.S. was attacked by Al Qaeda and now I know that the only thing the world understands is force. I give it 3 stars just because I had a few problems with some of the arguments. A columnist at my local paper said it best:Aside from becoming rather tedious after about page 10, Treason fails to explain a number of pertinent points. For example: Who's a liberal? And what is "the left"? Coulter appears to believe that these terms are synonyms, and further confuses both of them with the Democratic Party -- which has, she claims, been suffering from "pusillanimous psychosis" since World War II. But Scoop Jackson was a Democrat, Jeanne Kirkpatrick was a Democrat, even Ronald Reagan started out as a Democrat (and this was after World War II). Robert F. Kennedy actually worked for Sen. McCarthy, as Coulter herself mentions, but fails to elaborate upon. Half the members of the House Committee on Un-American Activities were Democrats. The Truman administration prosecuted Alger Hiss. Kennedy stood up to the Soviet Union in Berlin and Cuba. Indeed, there were members of the left who were active anti-communists. Coulter actually quotes George Orwell a couple of times without mentioning that he was a socialist, presumably because she doesn't know. She doesn't mention the anti-communists in the American trade union movement, presumably because she hasn't heard of them, either. Her cartoonish, childlike interpretation of history allows for no nuances -- nor can it help her explain the present. She is notably silent on the subject of Democrats who supported the war in Iraq, for example, making only two glancing references to Sen. Joe Lieberman, and implying that every single Democrat who voted in favor of the resolutions to invade Iraq did so for crude political reasons. But if you tar everyone with the same brush, how can you know, really, what actually happened? All of this, of course, might be funny if it were meant to be funny, but it doesn't seem to be. Coulter hasn't got an ironic or witty bone in her body. Her insults are crass and dull-witted, and her jokes fall flat. She has no sense of history and skips back and forth from the Truman administration to the Reagan administration, as if 40 years made no difference. She quotes liberally from newspaper cuttings, television interviews and other conservative diatribes, apparently having done no actual research at all. Worst of all, this is the kind of rhetoric that will allow everyone else to dismiss her as a crank, putting off real debate about these issues for another decade at least.
Rating: 
Summary: Liberals Hate Freedom?
Review: So, Ann, liberals hate freedom, hunh? Which freedoms might those be? Freedom of choice? Freedom of religion? Yeah, so many liberals just hate those, don't they :-) If that weren't funny enough, now she says the Democratic party should be dissolved. Seems to me she is the one who hates freedom, since she wants to take away the right for so many to be free to choose which party they belong to. You know, honey, getting rid of everyone who disagrees with you won't make you any better.
Rating:
Summary: Ann - Were you home schooled?
Review: William F Buckley, smart man...good read. He makes me think. He doesn't dumb down his view to lowest common denominator. I dont agree mostly, but I respect his position. He's a beautiful writer. Ann Coulter? Who is she? The Joan Rivers of political commentary? I shake my head. Does anyone understand or care about truth and history? McCarthy a hero? What about the whole Roy Cohn stuff? Look it up. She takes advantage of a public that does not take time to read and investigate matters for themselves. Name 5 things Conservatives have done to better the lives of lower and middle class people in the last 60 years? I could name more than ten that Liberals initiated. Civil Rights (Conservatives fought) Social Security, Medicare, workers rights, rural electrification, peace corps. Just a start. What about Roosevelt. He saved this country. The great depression, WWII. Lets talk Truman. What about the Truman Doctrine and the Marshall Plan. Europe would have been lost. Republicans fought it and wanted to revoke it in 1952 when they took control of the Senate. America Wake UP! Read the Consitution! Read about Franklin, Jefferson and Washington! They are not what conservatives say they are. The Democrats should be ashamed of themselves for letting a person like this define them! I make my decisions based on the issues. Democrats are not always right and neither are Republicans. I like John McCain and I like Howard Dean. I am in fiscal conservative. I believe the goverment should stay out of the bedroom. I believe the goverment has a responsibility for education, border defense and should add health care to the list. It is as clear as day the Republicans stand for big multinational corporations ( and the rich) and not with the average workers. They bow to the evangelical right. The idea is to make everyone believe like they do or at least act like they do...intolerant. I am a Catholic. They (the evangelicals) do not accept me and thats ok. The difference is that I do not insist that other people must worship the same as I do or believe what I believe. It's their journey to discovery. Live and let live. What a better world we would have if people could open their minds and hearts. It is obvious that Ann's heart is hard. Her mind and heart are both locked up tight. Ann, read the beatitudes. Read it several times. Maybe you can be one of the first conservatives to understand it.
By the way Ann, I served in the Military, the real one. More than your President did. Shrub AWOL for a year! Yes I lean left on some things. I'm a traitor? You haven't earned the right to make that statement.
PS: Vietnam was not started by Kennedy. It started post WWII and colonialism is the culprit. Roosevelt, Truman, Eisenhower, Kennedy, Nixon. The half the deaths were during the Nixon administration. Plenty of blame for everyone on that. But I blame Charles De Gaul the most.
I got half way through this and just pitched it. Tonight she was spewing on Larry king and I had to write this.
Do yourself a favor. Read books that are better written and make better arguments.
Rating: 
Summary: No one could have said it better
Review: For many years I have noticed that some writers lose their edge once they become successful, although this is not the case with Ann. She was talented to begin with, but her work just gets better and better as time goes by. I have long believed that McCarthy was right and we should have listened. I'm glad that somebody has enough nerve to explain what really happened. But in a larger sense, she is making it easier for conservatives to express how they really feel without having to worry about being labled unfairly. I hope she writes a hundred more, and if she does, I will read everyone one of them.
Rating:
Summary: Helps to fortify notions about where liberals come from.
Review: What is a liberal Democrat? Someone who has hijacked a political party that used to belong to decent hard working people. It's too bad to see soviet spies and communist sympathizers revealed in broad daylight, and yet still blindly defended by people who would get sick if they knew the truth. But rather than challenge their concept of who's really running their political party, traditional Democrats will continue to refuse to educate themselves about what has really been going on behind the scenes, and continue to believe in all the lies that are spoon fed to us or kept away from our eyes when we turn on the evening news. The only way to cure a cancer like this is with courageous and intelligent authors and columnists like Ann Coulter. Regarding one of the main topics in this book, it's like she says: we conservatives are still waiting for liberals to name one person damaged by McCarthy who truly did not have ties to communists. And all we get is bluster and redirection away from the subject.
Rating:
Summary: This liberal/progressive says "KEEP UP THE GOOD WORK, ANN!!"
Review: Ann does it again! In another attempt to "expose" liberals she does nothing but give conservatives a black eye. She is the best spokesperson liberal/progressives have. I have nothing but glee when Ann is on some talking head show because I know everytime she opens her mouth (or picks up her pen) fewer and fewer people will be voting conservative! I can't wait for her next book, "Jaywalking: Why Liberals Won't Cross at the Corner."
Rating:
Summary: Valuable history lesson...
Review: Ms. Coulter has written an excellent book about deception. Most Americans-including this one-have assumed that they understood the McCarthy era. McCarthy has been etched in stone as an over-reaching anti-commie who was an embarassment to this nation. Regardless of whether one believes that or not, he was clearly right about the Communist infiltration of the government.
The negative, vitriolic reviews noted here appear to avoid the truth and attempt to defend Democrats, liberals and the left without acknowledging that their support of the Communist and turning a blind eye to them was wrong. Most of the one-star folks probably have not read the book which makes their review all the more dishonest-another deception.
The book is entertaining, forthright, and never turns off the hotlight on the left-a group that clearly spied for the Communists or supported their utopian mania. Why does this infuriate the modern Democrats? For one thing, it is irrefutable. The NKVD files prove the spies were throughout the government and the media.
The anger of the Democrats (and, of course, the media) against Starr appeared to be eerily similar to the McCarthy years. Perhaps if the present day Democrats would own up to Clinton's perjury-which was and option the former president could have avoided and chose not to-and other Democratic indescretions, our devisive political culture would be different. (Simply put, no one made Bill Clinton lie, repeatly, and the Democrats and the fawning media- did not appear to care about that fact which has destroyed their credibility).
Now, the Democrats are pulling for the terrorists, an Iraq "quagmire" and a bad economy so they can try to re-take the presidency and congress. Does that sound too harsh? Listen to the Demo candidates and the media. It is true-and it diminishes the Democratic candidates and their followers to be so anti-American.
Read this book for the history lesson or the entertainment. I suppose the next book will be "Terrorism." (Not even I would venture a sub-title).
Rating: 
Summary: Accurate but too vitriolic
Review: A quick Google search of the "Venona project" will take you directly to the NSA files that support Coulter's history of the McCarthy era attacks on communism. Sad thing is that school children were taught the "McCarthyism" lie from the 60's through the 90's. Had we known in 1952 what we know now as a result of the collapse of the Soviet Union, Truman would have never been re-elected and our modern picture of Joe McCarthy would be vastly different than the one we grew up with. The liberal elite need to start reading and doing research before they condemn Coulter. Even the New York Times, whom she condemns repeatedly in her book, admits she is historically accurate (unlike Michael Moore who makes up his documentary content). The only negatives: she is a little to acidicly sarcastic and she repeats herself a few too many times.
Rating:
Summary: Coulter Achieves Her Goal
Review: Wow! Has Ann Coulter hit a homerun or what? As I write this review, her book has past Hillary's boorish tome on a variety of Best Sellers lists and over 1,000 people have taken the time or felt obligated to write an Amazon book review of Treason. That is double the amount of people who have written reviews of Living History. Coulter is a shrewd lady. Her goal in writing this book appears to be threefold: As a capitalist, her first goal is to make money by selling her book. Second, she desires to bring further light on the liberal biases in historic reporting. Finally, she wants to stimulate intellectual discourse and discovery. She has accomplished all three resoundingly. By choosing a highly provocative title like Treason:Liberal Treachery from the Cold War to the War on Terrorism, Coulter has assured her book of notice. Conservatives will by the book to see how she trashes liberals, and liberals will read her book, moan about, write reviews to refute it, thus causing more conservatives to buy the book. Moderates will buy it to see what the hubbub is about. The title will also get free publicity for the book by causing cable talk shows, particularly those with a political bend, to have her on as a guest to talk about or debate her book. Just count the reviews! People are paying attention. In championing a long vilified figure like Senator Joe McCarthy, Coulter has created a real backlash from the liberal elite, and also by conservatives who lack the backbone to admit that she is more correct than incorrect in her reasoning. The prose on this subject area will cause many such as myself to check her sources, and review this important period in our history. Coulter's style adds fuel to the firestorm created by her highly provocative title. Coulter is always acerbic in her attacks on liberals and this book like its predecessor Slander: Liberal Lies About the American Right, another highly provocative title (she seems to have found a winning formula), is no exception. Coulter liberally uses hyperbole to get across her points. Many readers seem to miss the point that this hyperbolic style is purposeful in driving home salient points. Some reviewers are unnerved by Coulter's heavy use of quotes and notes to sources. Some have offered refutations of author's carefully worded conclusions by quoting snippets by Ron Radosh, Harvey Klehr and John Haynes. The reality is that she is more in line with what they say than most realize. It is her use of hyperbole that has angered the three aforementioned gentlemen. Haynes and Klehr were involved in a symposium on Coulter's book with noted liberal Harvard law professor Susan Estrich and archconservative writer Phil Brennan of NewsMax. While Brenna and estrich tangle from ideological perspectives, Klehr and Haynes offered a great deal more insight. Neither liked Coulter's use of their book to "lionize" a grandstander like McCarthy. However, Haynes agreed that McCarthy accurately pointed out the "belatedness and shortcomings of the Truman administration's anti-subversion measures." Haynes pointed out that McCarthy went to far is exaggerating, maligning and angry partisan rhetoric. The use of the word "treason" referring to the President and his close advisors was inaccurate and went to far. Symposium moderator Jamie Glazov points out that while Coulter clearly went over the top in her allegations (again the hyberbole that makes her work so controversial, thus increasing sales readership and intellectual discourse) is more correct in her assessment of the "McCarthy Era," the communists and the New York Times. Haynes sites Professor Ellen Schrecker has said that "McCarthyism" is a loaded word" and "is invariably pejorative." He points out that the use of words that are pejorative should be used with care. But the liberal academic community uses them to protect the Communists they view as heroes and to denigrate anti-communists. Klehr points out that McCarthy was right about one major point - "there had been a significant problem of Communist subversion in American government." He further agrees that Coulter is "right to emphasize the anti-anti-communist (yes that is correct, anti-anti-communist) mindset that dominates the New York Times and other major media outlets" but he disagrees with her on many of the details. He also agrees with Glazov that the use of the name the "McCarthy Era" allows the "left to define the debate." He points out that in his considerable opinion, McCarthy's influence has been "exaggerated all out of proportion." The Era should be called the "Anti-Communist Era." One of the more salient points of the book is Coulter clearly pointing out that Left-liberals have engaged in historical amnesia to hide the crimes of their political comrades, and that many liberals were dead wrong in during the cold war. Another realization from further study prompted by this book is that McCarthy was not a "Great Satan of left historical myth but he was a minor devil," in the words of Haynes. Ann Coulter has successfully written a provocative Best Seller that will incourage intellectual discourse, change the way we view the so-called "McCarthy Era" and increase her wealth.
|
