Rating: 
Summary: Not necessarily required reading, but still enlightening
Review: There isn't much to add to the other reviews on here, although I should mention that there is some pretty good non-partisan humor in this book as well (such as mentioning Dennis Rodman and John Updike in the same sentence -- you'll see what I mean). After reading this you will basically have to either call Al Franken an all-out liar (in which case I suggest you kindly double-check his facts before doing so), or leave with a very unsettling view of just what kinds of people O'Reilly, Hannity, GW, et al. really are. Likewise with the Wellstone chapter. Franken gives new insight into where all those half-baked headlines (such as CNN.com's awful "Memorial Service turns into Political Rally") came from, and you'll wonder just what exactly the "liberal media" was actually reporting that night.I'm a little disappointed that there are so few (if any) negative reviews on here that seem very well thought-out (or even worse, not written in ALL CAPS). For every point there is generally going to be a very reasonable counterpoint that is at least worth considering, and Franken should by no means be assumed to be infallible. It's just too bad that his opponents haven't done much better so far than resort to broad-stroked cheap shots without offering any backing for what they are saying.
Rating: 
Summary: A Limerick
Review: There once was a guy named Al,
Who couldn't score with a gal,
With a book for the masses,
He fogged up his glasses,
While smooching his teenage pal.
Rating:
Summary: IF YOU READ THIS BOOK, I WON'T TAKE YOUR GUNS!
Review: There seem to be a lot of knee-jerk reactions to nearly everything that is said about politics, the economy, the war(s), the environment, and the personalities of our leaders. Too bad that so few people are carefully assessing what is true or false about these statements. And too bad that so few people have a clue about WHY they have knee-jerk reactions. I suspect that it's largely because of one or two deeply ingrained prejudices or notions: if it seems as if anyone is opposed to "our thing" (be it "equal opportunity" or "right to life" or "right to choose" or our "God-given right to carry a hidden assault weapon" or whatever), we just freak out and want that person silenced some way. Why do so-called blue-collar people support Repubicans? Probably because they don't notice they're getting financially screwed (or don't care as much about that) as long as (a) "people of color" are screwed even worse and (b) nobody takes away their guns (or their "right" to pray in school). Why do they NOT support Democrats? Probably because the term "Liberal" is krazy-glued onto them by the GOP, and THAT is code for (a) people who give equal treatment to African Americans and Hispanics, etc., and (b) people who are going to support gun control (or oppose prayer in school). (BUT WAIT: even Ronald Reagan supported gun control after he left office, and don't blame it just on "old-timer's disease.") So--I'm from Long Island (born here, left, served in the army, worked in Kansas, and came back 27 years ago). It's the place where Bill O'Reilly CLAIMS he was born in a blue-collar town. That is ONE of his lies, and one that Franken documents in humorous fashion. O'Reilly's silver-spoon background is clearly laid out for us--as are other shady aspects of this pundit's life and doings. O'Reilly is just one of many who are exposed as liars by Franken and his "team" of young researchers--who will probably be black-balled for life by the big businesses who fill the GOP's coffers with soft money for favors ("the finest legislation money can buy"). Too me, the biggest eye-opener is how the WALL STREET JOURNAL's editorial page is full of self-serving lies. I'd always thought they were a reliable paper, albeit one that fosters greed by focusing people's attention on their stock portfolios. (Anyone else besides me believe that the reason stock values went UP last month is because of costs being cut--by cutting jobs? Who is responsible? The Clintons?) Franken, among much else, points out a lot of eye-opening stuff about income and what kinds have been taxed and what kinds have not. A lot of it was news to me. Dare to find out? One of the saddest and most moving chapters in Franken's book is how the so-called Right ganged up and lied about the tribute to Paul Wellstone. If you think Franken is merely about laughs, try THIS chapter. AND try reading or viewing his sources. Ultimately, this is a very useful book to "the choir." They can feel pleased that somebody besides Michael Moore is paying attention and getting the word out about the ways America is being sold out from within while the public sleeps. It is, sadly, not a useful book for convincing anyone who isn't already a believer. Witness the many one-star "reviews" on this website: clearly they have (a) not bought the book and (b) not read anyone else's copy. They have just gone nuts and logged on to dis it 'cause they think it's a danger to their way of thinking. And they are right--it is. But NOT in the way they fear. It might just O-P-E-N their eyes, their minds, and (dear me) their hearts to something new. And for people who shut down these three things at age 12 (when they were convinced they knew everything worth knowing), that IS pretty scary. Let me issue a challenge to one or two of the One-Stars: look up Franken's sources and write a refutation of what you find. That, when I see it, will open up MY eyes and mind and heart, and I will welcome you to THINKING PERSON LAND. Sound too snobbish? I'll welcome you to the human race, for you will have left the slime and evolved. Too darwinian? Then I'll (figuratively) give you a friendly slap on the back and will (figuratively) buy you a beer. AND I WON'T TAKE YOUR GUNS AWAY FROM YOU IF YOU DO READ READ FRANKEN'S BOOK. I PROMISE.
Rating:
Summary: Actually, this is a serious book
Review: There was a gigantic flap over this book, and the catchy in-your-face title makes it sound trivial. Actually, nothing could be further from the truth. The book is funny, but in a serious way. Between jokes and funny stories, Franken meticulously documents untruths that have been put forward as fact by politicians and pundits. Along the way he makes a distinction between mistakes and lies -- mistakes are withdrawn, corrected and not repeated. He documents that in many cases lies are repeated louder the second time. As a democratic society, we depend on the press and our representatives to help us make good choices based on the facts. It is reasonable for us to hold political commentators to a standard -- it's fine to have a viewpoint and express it, but not to support that viewpoint with falsehoods. Hopefully, this book will help make the targeted pundits more careful with the facts, and more apt to acknowledge their mistakes rather than turning them into lies. A reasonable criticism of this book is that he only takes aim at the pundits of the right. Have pundits of the left been similarly loose with the truth? The job of exposing them is left to an author with different motives.
Rating:
Summary: Excellent Content, Inconsistent Pace
Review: There's no doubt that Mr. Franken knows politics and policy, and he is, throughout much of this book, funny and cut-throat, laying bare the lie-machine that the right-wing press is. One complaint, however: His pacing. He starts out well, mauling the losers who really deserve it: Coulter, O'Reilly, Hannity, Colmes. But then he seems to get off track, going off on a long tangent about tricking Bob Jones University or whatever. A good book, fun read, but only about the first 2/3.
Rating: 
Summary: Genuinely Sharp and Funny
Review: There's not a lot of genuinely funny stuff in our media today. Our humor has been kind of dumbed down and a lot of it now is just shock humor or sex humor without any wit. Don't get me wrong: I'm not offended by potty/baudy humor; I'm just bored by it if it doesn't have wit. Having said that, Franken's book is a genuinely funny book. It's got sharp political commentary, but this book is worth reading for its humor value alone. If you like The Simpsons or The Daily Show, then you'll enjoy this book. Even die-hard Republicans out there should get a kick out of this book if they like the brand of sharp, witty humor I'm talking about. I enthusiastically recommend this book.
Rating:
Summary: God Bless Al Franken for Being "Fair and Balanced"
Review: There's nothing more dangerous than an idea --- particularly when you only have one. Right now, there are a bunch of Americans who have reduced a richly complex philosophy called conservativism to one ugly idea. That is to win. Crush. Destroy. Al Franken, bless him, has stepped forward to take these so-called conservatives on, one by one. He starts with Ann Coulter, the leader of the pack. In case you don't watch cable, she's against liberals, Democrats, most of the media. They're all traitors, every last one of them. This is very difficult to prove, given that it's a crazy idea. So Coulter has to lie (or, to take the charitable view, be the most incompetent person ever to graduate from a good law school). She says it took the New York Times two days to put the death of blue-collar hero Dale Earnhardt on the front page. Nonsense, says Franken --- and he shows you a picture of the Times front page the day after Earnhardt died, with a big circle around the piece. Better, he exposes how Coulter confuses quotations with endorsements. (What Coulter does is like Bill Nobody writing in Bookreporter, "John Grisham is, for my money, the worst novelist alive," and you telling friends, "Bookreporter says Grisham sucks." Nothing of the kind. Unless you think quoting someone is endorsing him --- an idea taught in no journalism school I've ever heard of.) One good reason to buy this book: Franken holds Coulter to the standards of her profession. So far, she hasn't thanked him for that. Or commented at all. (But don't we breathlessly await her response?) Then there's Bill O'Reilly. Alone among mortals, he lives in the penthouse of the tower of truth. He never makes mistakes. With a bully like O'Reilly, refutation is easy. He said he won a prestigious journalism award. So Franken looked up the award and found that, no, he didn't. The show he was on did win another award, though --- the year after he left. Or his childhood home. O'Reilly has sworn it's Levittown, New York, a working class suburb. In fact, he grew up in nearby Westbury. (Source: O'Reilly's mom. Franken looked up an article that quoted her.) Confronted with the truth, O'Reilly lied again, insisting he grew up in "the Westbury section of Levittown." Alas, that doesn't exist. Summary won't do justice to Franken's demolition of Fox's Sean Hannity. So rush out to a bookstore and read pages 85-87 for his confrontation with Hannity, whose allegiance to Rush Limbaugh is so great that he makes himself look like a total idiot. This passage ends with a side-splitting "tribute" to Alan Colmes, Hannity's "liberal" sidekick, and all the odd jobs he does at Fox (in addition to being trounced by Hannity on a daily basis). Which brings me to the big difference between screamers like Coulter/O'Reilly and Saturday Night Live grads like Franken: Franken's book is downright funny. Here, you might almost want to make the case that "liberals" are funnier than "conservatives." Because unless you're really, really political, you'll giggle when you read that O'Reilly's new book is LIVING WITH HERPES and Coulter's is THE SLANDER DIET. And you'll smile knowingly at Franken's take on the Bush response to terrorism: "At the orange level, the second-highest level of alert, people are still encouraged to go to the mall. At the red level, the highest state of alert, the President suggests that you stay away from public places and instead shop online." Along the way, Franken makes some serious points. If the press is so liberal, why did it kick Gore around? What were the 18 months of Monicagate about? No, if the press has a bias, he says, it's for profits. He compares conservatives to four-year-olds who blindly love Mommy and think anyone who criticizes Mommy is bad; liberals, in comparison, "love America like grown-ups." He examines media coverage of Sen. Paul Wellstone's memorial service to show how Rush (of course), Peggy Noonan (surprised me) and Tucker Carlson (ditto) didn't do their homework and, with no apparent concern, repeated a libelously slanted account of that event. And he wonders why real conservatives who abhor the culture of hate in the media don't speak out against the Coulters and O'Reillys. The bad news: Along the way, Franken delivers a lot of stuff that's just...filler. A ten-page cartoon about "Supply Side Jesus" isn't funny. Neither is a ten-page one-act play. His encounter with Barbara Bush is six pages, but it also feels like ten. And I get a little tired of Franken squabbling with O'Reilly. On the other hand, that jawing made O'Reilly crazy. And it's probably the reason that Fox News sued Franken and his publisher for violating its "fair and balanced" trademark. As everybody now knows, Fox not only got laughed out of court, but the pre-publication publicity pushed Franken's book to #1 on Amazon.com and sent his publisher back to press. So much for O'Reilly never making a mistake. In our daily lives, when we run into someone who is always angry and insists on simple answers to complex questions and lies a lot, we tend to think, "Wow, this person is in a lot of pain. He/she is acting out all over the place. He/she needs help." In book publishing, when an editor runs into someone like that, he/she gets a fat book contract. Which means we can expect more and more "conservative" books that rant and rave but never quite tell us how we're going to get our jobs back or pay for our retirement or make peace in the Middle East. Which means that more and more "liberals" will be writing books like Franken's --- books that have some verifiable facts, books that offer the occasional solution, books that even have a bit of humor. How will the so-called conservatives respond? Take a wild guess: They'll go on the attack. Says Franken, "I don't want to make it personal, and Bill O'Reilly really has. He's gone after me and said I'm a smear artist. He has not pointed out one thing I've said that isn't true." Don't stay up waiting for O'Reilly to do that. But do catch Franken as he takes his victory-lap tour around the country. Because, whether you agree with him or not, at least he'll give you a laugh. And these days, we can sure use one. --- Reviewed by Jesse Kornbluth from [website]
Rating:
Summary: anyone who gives this more than 1 star needs a beating
Review: There. I've already wasted enough of my precious time on this junk.
Rating:
Summary: More and more lies!!!
Review: These bookas about Liars are great although hear are a few quotes and lies Mr Franken missed. "One way or the other, we are determined to deny Iraq the capacity to
Develop weapons of mass destruction and the missiles to deliver them.
That is our bottom line."
- President Clinton, Feb. 4, 1998 "If Saddam rejects peace and we have to use force, our purpose is
clear. We want to seriously diminish the threat posed by Iraq's weapons
of mass destruction program."
- President Clinton, Feb. 17, 1998 "Iraq is a long way from [the USA], but what happens there matters a
great deal here. For the risks that the leaders of a rogue state will
use nuclear, chemical or biological weapons against us or our allies is
the greatest security threat we face."
- Madeline Albright, Feb 18, 1998 "He will use those weapons of mass destruction again, as he has ten
times since 1983."
- Sandy Berger, Clinton National Security Adviser, Feb, 18, 1998 "[W]e urge you, after consulting with Congress, and consistent with
the U.S. Constitution and laws, to take necessary actions (including, if
appropriate, air and missile strikes on suspect Iraqi sites) to respond
effectively to the threat posed by Iraq's refusal to end its weapons of
mass destruction programs."
- Letter to President Clinton, signed by Sens. Carl Levin,
Tom Daschle, John Kerry, and others Oct. 9, 1998 "Saddam Hussein has been engaged in the development of weapons of mass
destruction technology which is a threat to countries in the region and
he has made a mockery of the weapons inspection
process."
- Rep. Nancy Pelosi (D, CA), Dec. 16, 1998 "Hussein has ... chosen to spend his money on building weapons of mass
destruction and palaces for his cronies."
- Madeline Albright, Clinton Secretary of State, Nov. 10, 1999 "There is no doubt that ... Saddam Hussein has invigorated his weapons
programs. Reports indicate that biological, chemical and nuclear
programs continue apace and may be back to pre-Gulf War status. In
addition, Saddam continues to redefine delivery systems and is doubtless
using the cover of a licit missile program to develop longer-range
missiles that will threaten the United States and our allies."
- Letter to President Bush, Signed by Sen. Bob Graham (D, FL,)
and others, December 5, 2001 "We begin with the common belief that Saddam Hussein is a tyrant and a
threat to the peace and stability of the region. He has ignored the
mandated of the United Nations and is building weapons of mass
destruction and the means of delivering them."
- Sen. Carl Levin (D, MI), Sept. 19, 2002 "We know that he has stored secret supplies of biological and chemical
weapons throughout his country."
- Al Gore, Sept. 23, 2002 "Iraq's search for weapons of mass destruction has proven impossible
to deter and we should assume that it will continue for as long as
Saddam is in power."
- Al Gore, Sept. 23, 2002 "We have known for many years that Saddam Hussein is seeking and
developing weapons of mass destruction."
- Sen. Ted Kennedy (D, MA), Sept. 27, 2002 "The last UN weapons inspectors left Iraq in October of 1998. We are
confident that Saddam Hussein retains some stockpiles of chemical and
biological weapons, and that he has since embarked on a crash course to
build up his chemical and biological warfare capabilities. Intelligence
reports indicate that he is seeking nuclear weapons..."
- Sen. Robert Byrd (D, WV), Oct. 3, 2002 "I will be voting to give the President of the United States the
authority
to use force-- if necessary-- to disarm Saddam Hussein because I
believe that a deadly arsenal of weapons of mass destruction in his
hands is a real and grave threat to our security."
- Sen. John F. Kerry (D, MA), Oct. 9, 2002 "There is unmistakable evidence that Saddam Hussein is working
aggressively to develop nuclear weapons and will likely have nuclear
weapons within the next five years ... We also should remember we have
always underestimated the progress Saddam has made in development of
weapons of mass destruction."
- Sen. Jay Rockefeller (D, WV), Oct 10, 2002 "He has systematically violated, over the course of the past 11 years,
every significant UN resolution that has demanded that he disarm and
destroy his chemical and biological weapons, and any nuclear capacity.
This he has refused to do" Rep.
- Henry Waxman (D, CA), Oct. 10, 2002 "In the four years since the inspectors left, intelligence reports
show that Saddam Hussein has worked to rebuild his chemical and
biological weapons stock, his missile delivery capability, and his
nuclear program. He has also given aid, comfort, and sanctuary to
terrorists, including al Qaeda members
.. It is clear, however, that if left unchecked, Saddam Hussein will
continue to increase his capacity to wage biological and chemical
warfare, and will keep trying to develop nuclear weapons."
- Sen. Hillary Clinton (D, NY), Oct 10, 2002 "We are in possession of what I think to be compelling evidence that
Saddam Hussein has, and has had for a number of years, a developing
capacity for the production and storage of weapons of mass
destruction."
- Sen. Bob Graham (D, FL), Dec. 8, 2002 "Without question, we need to disarm Saddam Hussein. He is a brutal,
murderous dictator, leading an oppressive regime ... He presents a
particularly grievous threat because he is so consistently prone to
miscalculation ... And now he is miscalculating America's response to
his continued deceit and his consistent grasp for weapons of mass
destruction... So the threat of Saddam Hussein with weapons of mass
destruction is real ..."
- Sen. John F. Kerry (D, MA), Jan. 23. 2003 well I guess there liars, if Franken is right they must be.
Rating:
Summary: Splotchy Al
Review: These reviews from the liberals getting their "unfiltered truth" from a guy like Al Franken are absolutely hilarious. Imagine being in an argument with an emotional lib who counters you with "But Al Franken says..." ROFLMAO! Anyone who caught Al Franken on C-SPAN could clearly see that he definitely needs to be de-splotched. He looked like a cross-eyed toad with diaper rash. But I heartily recommend this book for pathetic liberals. I can't help but feeling sorry for a group in such disarray. I'm looking forward to the 2004 election where the greatest President ever --George W. Bush-- spanks his Democrat rival. So show the proper respect Mr. Franken. It's not Bush - it's President Bush, got it?
| 
