Rating: 
Summary: Good Reading
Review: my college journalism prof once told us that for a book to have value it must entertain, provoke, or educate. this one, in my view, does all three. i devoted 45 minutes to reading the 400 or so reviews listed for this book. based on the volume of interest, one certainly cannot say that coulter's latest does not provoke. with this one, the lines are clearly drawn, with all the one star liberals on one side, the 5 star conservatives on the other. i should admit up front, that i am no different. well, maybe so in one small way. as a small boy, i can vividly recall my father's reaction to "mccarthyism". a veteran of WWII, he was certainly no fan of communism. his opinion of the destruction of senator mcarthy's credibility and reputation certainly mirrored this "anti red" bent. a modestly educated man, he was well read, and followed the hearings with great interest. he, LIKE MANY OTHERS, believed that the senator was on to something. anyway, getting back to the book, i will avoid the usual"intellectual" arguments pro and con, staying away from the pseudo intellectual jargon (i.e. vitriolic, diatribe, histrionics, etc). i choose rather to appeal to the potential buyers curiosity concerning the history of our country after WWII, during the cold war and beyond. as pointed out in numerous articles, journals and and "right leaning" books, textbooks relating to american history have been "sanitized" by authors who are almost invariably liberal in their political beliefs. the fact that academics are inordinately liberal is well chronicled and normally left undisputed. today's youth, if they are familiar with the phenomena of "mccarthism" at all, are firm believers in the story line that he was not only evil, but incorrect in his pursuit to root out communist sympathizers. ann coulter is not the only author to point out that the Democratic administration of the times was riddled with communists. in fact, as her sources point out, this fact was well known and accepted at the time. i believe that, in its essence, her book is factual and her suppositions correct. many of her detractors suggest that her sources are poorly researched or misquoted. others suggest that, due to her conservative leanings, she has outright lied. i would ask, though, how would they know? few historians or individuals intimately familiar with the facts write these reviews. the accusors are guilty of precisely what they accuse ms coulter of, jumping to conclusions without factual basis. this is a good book. it gives the reader a fair assesment of the mcarthy era and, i'll say this controversially, a good idea of how the democratic party got to where it is today. i'm not suggesting that all democrats are unpatriotic. i know this to be untrue. i do suggest though, that a minority of democrats (those residing in the left extreme) call the shots and have socialist leanings.
Rating: 
Summary: unfounded garbage
Review: Don't be fooled. Ann Coultier is on intellectual par with Howard Stern. This book is is a pile of unfounded garbage by an irrationally conservative shock jock.
Rating:
Summary: To the reader in SF from July 8th
Review: you wrote:"many of you may not know that in an article that came out today, she calls Nixon one of the 5 heroes of this century (she includes J Edgar Hoover and McCarthy in that list)." That's not exactly true and your rephrasing of Coulter's words is misleading. What Coulter really wrote is "ON OUR NATION'S birthday, it is appropriate to honor the five men who did the most to defend our freedom in the last century. The names are easy to remember Ð they are the five men most loathed by liberals: Joseph McCarthy, J. Edgar Hoover, Richard Nixon, Whittaker Chambers and Ronald Reagan." Now, mind you, there is a certain difference between saying simply "5 heroes of the this century" and what Coulter writes. (Not to worry though - if we think globally, Yeltsin is not on the list ;) ). you also wrote: "she seems to have forgotten about that little matter of Watergate" No she hasn't. It is always good to read an author with a certain perspective which may be elusive if you forget the author's earlier books/works (I have the beginning of High Crimes in mind). And Ann is certainly NOT condoning Nixon's indiscretions. It would be silly to think that.
Rating:
Summary: OTHER BOOKS FOR FANS OF ANN!
Review: If you love this book, there's another book from a German author you'd probably dig. It's called "Mein Kampf."
Rating:
Summary: You Can't be Serious
Review: What disheartens me about the reviewers who gave this book 5 stars is how willing they are to take a history lesson from someone who is obviously so biased, vitriolic, and narrow in her views. I think Michael Moore is fun to read too, but I wouldn't rely on him to teach me about an important piece of our historical past. If you are serious about wanting to know about the McCarthy era or the Cold War, read about it from someone who knows what they are talking about (like a historical scholar), not from a woman who gets paid for being shocking. And, yes, there are many lies and unsupported evidence in this book - again, why does this surprise you?? Ann Coulter HATES liberals - why would you expect her to be objective in her writings? For those of you who are still unconvinced, I challenge you to read some of her other writings, or to go onto anticoulter.com for thoughtful line-by-line explanations of why her columns have been untruthful. And lastly, many of you may not know that in an article that came out today, she calls Nixon one of the 5 heroes of this century (she includes J Edgar Hoover and McCarthy in that list). While she derides Clinton for his lies, calls his supporters treasonous, and implies that he is the root of everything wrong with America (including the Enron scandal), she seems to have forgotten about that little matter of Watergate (I guess that was the fault of the liberal media too, huh?)
Rating:
Summary: Emotionally Satisfying Fiction
Review: Like all right-wing ideologues, Coulter relies on 'emotionally satisfying fiction' for financial gain. She's interested in finding a sensitive audience to sell books and stir people in the process. The book is well-researched, but her problem is that she starts her research with her conclusions already made and attempts to find facts and opinions to build around it. No individual with any intelligence should take her work seriously. Try Paul Krugman instead.
Rating:
Summary: Can she go any lower?
Review: Quite likely the most dishonest book written in the last decade, and one that makes any thinking conservative ashamed of the label. Shoddy research, distorted facts, logic twisted to the breaking point. Like her previous book, this will convince nobody but those who are already converted. I went through page after page howling in laughter at how badly this gets history wrong. Want proof? Simply go to the sources she cites and you will find yourself saying time after time, "How could she write this? How can she get things this wrong? Is this incompetence or deliberate dishonesty?" You can find a detailed list of her howlers at the non-partisan spinsanity.com Conservatism was once a legitimate and rigorous intellectual movement that captured both hearts and minds with a strong vision of a renewed America; this has given way to thugs like Coulter. She's neither a historian nor a scholar; she just plays one on TV, which merely shows the intellectual fraudulence of media journalism and the poor education level of her readers. She's worse than the Michael Moore of the radical right because she's not even funny.
Rating:
Summary: An unfortunately popular collection of lies.
Review: I won't spend much time with this review as others on the internet have done far better than I could in debunking the many lies, half-truths, distortions, out of context quotes, outrageous generalizations and slander contained in this book. I recommend checking out spinsanity.com and salon.com for a taste of the types of falsehoods perpetrated in this book. If it wasn't for the boldfaced deceit this book contains, it might actually be an entertaining read. Unfortunately, Coulter is so bent on destroying liberals (or anyone with beliefs other than hers) that she will resort to anything to make her points. Skip this book. If you are looking for well-reasoned and thought provoking commentary from a conservative perspective, you can do a lot better.
Rating:
Summary: Dishonest, through and through
Review: Many reviewers have taken issue with Coulter's use of "facts"; I use quotes because many of the "facts" she cites are proven falsehoods (the NYT not mentioning Dale Earnhardt's death on their front page, etc.). spinsanity.org, a media watchdog that critiques those on the right AND left, has a lengthy list of the "facts" Coulter uses to support the arguments in her books and how they are, in fact, FALSE. So caveat emptor -- for you Ann fans out there, that means "Buyer Beware" in Latin.
Rating:
Summary: Reading reviews has taught me a lot
Review: I have to admit, reading reviews for this book has taught me a lot about how certain people think. I love reading books of a political nature, and I have to admit that having read both of Ms. Coulter's books, I have learned a lot on how liberals think. And you can tell exactly that by reading reviews in here about her books. It seems she only gets 2 different ratings, 5 star and 1 star. And the content of what is written tells a lot of the views of who made that review. 1 star reviews are invariably short, rarely more then 1 paragraph. Basically, all they say is "She is wrong", "She is stupid", or as one reviewer stated, "She is a skank". Amazing, because her last #1 selling book talked all about how liberals resort to namecalling when they have no point to make. Her other reviews often go for several paragraphs, stating facts. Her own books are full of facts, over 31 pages of footnotes covering her source material. Try to find that in any book from the other side. They all use each other as source, while she tends to use the "enemy" as her material, proving her points very clearly. And as far as one person stated about the NY Times having a 1,000 word article on Project Venona, 1,000 pages in the Times is NOTHING. I am sure that their review of her book ran for more then that. And she is right, in that any following stories they wrote about the horrors of Sen. McCarthy, none of them mention the revelations of Venona. Her last book (Slander) is dead on right to the fact that when the left has nothing valid to say, they attack. I skimmed through the hundreds of reviews for this book, and in none of the negative ones were there any real arguements. They just said over and over how she was wrong, with no realistic reasons why. And *THIS* is exactly what happens in the reviews here also. In short, if you are conservative, you will love this book. If you are liberal, you will hate this book. If you are moderate, it will really make you think.
|
