Rating: 
Summary: Very Entertaining
Review: I agree this book is very entertaining, but I'd much rather spend my time reading a more uplifting book like The Dittohead Guide To Adult Beverages. Franken makes some good points and the book itself is wrought with a number of one-liners and witty retorts. But Franken's outlook is too pessimistic. He lets republicans get under his skin. He should be more confident. The world will not come to an end if George Bush wins re-election.
Rating:
Summary: From a Republican-Hilarious but I disagree with message
Review: I almost feel like writing reviews here on Amazon are worthless which is unfortunate. However, this book is well written and as a republican I felt it was necessary to at least mention this to be fair. It seems that almost all reviewers here are either faithful democrats or staunch republicans and incapable of fair reviews. This is illustrated by all of the 1 star reviews and all of the 5 star reviews. Seemingly, Mr. Franken has written a well researched book. Sadly, how do we know if this is 100% true or not? Do you actually read and research the footnotes in each chapter. It's my opinion that after 9/11 this country has pulled even further apart. There seem to be no independent thinkers but rather partisan ideologues that continue to divide this country at its most crucial point in its young history. People like Al, Hannity, Coulter, etc. are unfortunately polarizing the masses. Truth be told there are a lot of not too smart people in the U.S. I'm amazed at all of the people that get there news from the aforementioned people whether on t.v. or book and don't check the facts but simply believe the self-serving and partisan rhetoric spewing from the mouths of today's leaders in journalism, politics, etc. It seems everyone has a motive today and few think of the Country first. Read this book if for nothing else for the humor.
Rating: 
Summary: Irrefutable
Review: I almost wish that Franken had not narrowed his topics here to deceits he could controvert through his teams thourough research, as there are insidious acts of The Administration that make much more telling. (Anybody remember "If you are not with us, you are against us"? Not exactly right in line with "E Pluribus Unum," is it?) Nevertheless, if there were that many folks who weren't quite ready to pull the trigger on Iraq, they all need to get inspired by TeamFranken's indignation, and get started with their local voter registration campaigns. The prospect of making a difference has never been easier than it is today.
Rating: 
Summary: Hypocritical
Review: I also noticed some inconsistencies in some of Frankens comments. For instance, he says that O'Reilly compared the Koran to Mein Kampf when really, he compared making Americans read the Kuran to the hypothetical situation of making Americans reading Mein Kampf during World War II. There is a difference. He also writes that O'Reilly is talented. I saw him a few nights ago on Conan O'Brien where he said that the reason O'Reilly doesn't do USO tours is because O'Reilly has no talent. I imagine Franken would say this is just an example of his satirical style but it appears that he is disingenuous in his attempts to not be as politically simple as he accuses his targets of being. I wonder what Franken actually covers in his USO tours. I find it hard to believe that the commentary in this book would be very well recieved by US troops. And if the material he chooses for these tours is different, isn't that a kind of lie as well? And, in that case, what is his motivation to do the tours at all?
Rating:
Summary: A Good Read & Worth The Time But Truth Goes Both Ways!
Review: I always enjoyed Al Franken on TV and have respected his views even if I disagree with them. He has written a delightful book and has not disappointed me. The book makes some interesting fodder for very careful thoughts in a very hilarious way for all readers. He gives back to his targets what he sees as flaws in their sermonize claw paws that have scratched up some Liberal Media Elites in the process. Ben Franklin believed in a Free Press where any person can tell the truth or lies but overtime an educated electorate would learn the difference to the credit or discredit of either author. It is the educated electorate that may be the missing link and why I read so much just to stay up with others. However, this was in the days when Print Media was King and not so easily erased. In today's News and Internet Media, the philosophy of facts on searching for the truth to solve real problems with genuine solutions is simply sometimes lost in the name calling by Left or Right Wings. Thus, the Liberal-Conservative debates will continue without resolutions, but calmer minds rule among moderates in the end. In the book, the author is giving back to Conservative Commentators some humorous banter hoping they will take it seriously and they did, hook, line and sinker! Thus, a best seller courtesy of his critics and a lawsuit, a delightful outcome for a liberal or conservative, but leaves me questioning if these people are working together? Now I am more paranoid, but this is what these kinds of book can do to you, if you understand my own humor! What I admire about Al Franken is that he took the time to educate himself at an Ivy League Institution, works hard to provide for his family and does it while making many people laugh such as me for years dating back to the 1970's. What a great way to make a liberal living with conservative values, but that is the exact point of his book. These values exist with many people who need not be labeled either liberal or conservative. Better yet, the book points out why it is important to drop the label tagging and just go to the ideas from the few that help the many in the end, without calling it communism, conservatism, fascism or socialism. Let your ideas define you not label by others! I loved him on "Saturday Night Live" and I respect him even more now. Michael Moore and Rush Limbaugh failed to have the discipline to acquire a college education, but love to preach. I wish both of them would go back to school. They could enhance their own thinking before we hear either preaching. Al Franken took the time to learn with his two ears twice as much as Michael and Rush talk too much with only one mouth. My only disappointment is that the author let himself down using the same judgments he made on his targets in this book. Al was caught doing what he is accusing others of doing. When he wrote false letters to Government Officials doing exactly what Conservatives claim Liberals do in real life, distort reality for an evil end. Although it was humorous, Al cannot be taken seriously if does what he accuses others of doing. In the end, if the book is read in the light it was intended you would enjoy it. If you take it as gospel, or think it proves something, the joke is on you! O'Reilly took it too seriously and still does and has Al Franken laughing to the bank!
Rating:
Summary: Entertaining if nothing else
Review: I always get a chuckle from an entertainer like Al, but as far as his ability to present a serious argument or position to actually consider-- I do not think so. I would say to pick-up a copy if you would like some easy or superficial reading like a magazine.
Rating:
Summary: Proof that not all liberals have rolled over and died
Review: I always knew that Bill O'Reilly was a lying hack, but now I have the proof. But it goes much deeper: Franken describes in this book the systematic lying of the right-wing propaganda machine that has created the mess our country is in today. Instead of pulling facts out of thin air to support his allegations, though, he uses FACTS - yes, clearly documented, supportable facts - to break down the arguments of the oppressors in our society (I'm talking to you, Bush, Rush, and Ashcroft). A worthwhile book and very funny.
Rating:
Summary: A Must Read
Review: I always wonder why we see one Al Franken book for every two or three from someone like Sean Hannity or Ann Coulter. Now I know why! It takes longer to actually do research rather than just mis-speak, mis-quote and mis-represent! Al Franken unravels some of the myths and downright lies that others continue to repeat. How any person who considers themselves a journalist can NOT do the same is amazing to me. Al's book is an enjoyable read, but tended to depress me all the same, because it is not a hopeful sign when we see that the people that get the most airtime in the media show no social conscience about what information they spread to the masses. If you want to know the truth about how the 'right' operates, then read this book. If you just want to hide your head in the sand and let life happen then don't bother - it would probably be above you anyway.
Rating:
Summary: Entertaining and Hard-Nosed
Review: I am a 30-year-old male and am generally not interested in politics. Whereas I do not claim to speak for my generation, I will venture that there are a lot out there like me, who have come to assume that anyone who discusses politics is really just promoting his or her own agenda with no regard for the truth. Little did I know how accurate I was. Thanks to Mr. Franken, however, nasty little secrets don't stay buried long. I am forever amazed at how much I love Al Franken's political commentary, considering that I still have an abiding hate of all things political. If anyone can reignite the passion for politics in the next generation of Americans, it's not Rush, or Bill, Sean, or any of those here-today, gone-tomorrow political commentators, who rely on personality and childish petulance to advance their political careers. Al's the man, because Al's pants aren't on fire. There's no need for him to hang them from a telephone wire. The facts back him up.
Rating:
Summary: A few thoughts about liberal vs. conservative media ...
Review: I am a big fan of these kinds of books and enjoy reading from both the right-wing perspective (Coulter, Goldberg, etc.) and the left-wing perspective (Franken, Moore, Eric Alterman, etc.). I thought that this book was an excellent example of the genre. And yet I have to say that, as to the specific issue of whether the media tilts to the right or to the left, I find authors on both sides to be persuasive. And yet how can this be, given that they are arguing diametrically opposing viewpoints? I think it is because the two sides are not in fact making directly contradictory arguments (all appearances to the contrary). Rather they are arguing at cross-purposes like ships passing in the night. The argument from the left (which is particularly well argued in Eric Alterman's "What Liberal Media?" among other books) is that it is ridiculous to say that there is a liberal bias when the vast majority of commentators on TV and newspapers and especially on talk radio and on the Internet proudly profess their conservative leanings. For example, it is probably far easier to name 10-15 self-proclaimed conservatives in the media than self-proclaimed liberals. I think that this is a perfectly valid argument. The argument from the right however is somewhat different and frankly a bit more subtle. They claim that it is not the media you know that is the problem--it is the media you don't know. More specifically, it is not the famous commentators who are at issue since you know where they are coming from right from the outset and there is no hidden agenda there. Rather (at least accoring to the right) it is those (relatively) nameless, faceless people who write not the editorials but the actual news stories which appear in the news articles, which, in theory, are supposed to report "just the facts". However rather then reporting just the facts, they manage to do their own little editorializing within the context of these supposed "straight news" articles. These writers tend to lean well left of center and tend to be concentrated at the large city papers (the New York Times being the prime example, with the Washington Post and Los Angeles Times right there as well) and the writers of the newtwork news shows. The book "Journalistic Fraud" by Bob Kohn (which focuses solely on the New York Times) provides numerous examples of how the liberal leanings of the Times may be discerned not from the editorial pages (which are fair game for any viewpoint) but rather from the sneaky ways in which the writers of the news articles surreptitiously inject their views into what are supposed to be editorial-free articles. Although there are countless examples of how this technique is used, an oft-mentioned example would be the use of the adjectives "conservative" or "right-wing" to describe a person who is in fact conservative or right-wing, but NOT to use the adjectives "liberal" or "left-wing" to describe a person who leans equally far to the left. Thus, if the question is one of counting heads, i.e. how many KNOWN and self-proclaimed liberals vs. conservatives are there in the media (which is a perfectly fair question), then there is no way that the media can be described as liberal. If the question is, what are the true political and social leanings of all the behind-the-scenes writers of the supposed NEWS articles in the newspapers and TV (also a perfectly fair question), then the argument for the liberal media becomes persuasive indeed even if it is somewhat harder to pin down and less easily demonstrable.
| 
