Rating: 
Summary: Great book and should be read by all!!
Review: Next to Mike Savage's The Savage Nation and her own book, Treason, Ann Coulter's Slander is a great read. In the book, she indicates how the left is desparately trying to steal America by slandering their own country as well as those who are trying to protect it. A must read for government officials and anyone else who cares about the United States.
Rating: 
Summary: She's out of her mind
Review: I read the book. It nearly killed me but I read it. "Slander" is an excellent title for this book because that's all Ann Coulter does. There are numerous mistakes and outright proven LIES in this book. And her attacks on liberals are so childish. She tries to sell this idea that the media has a liberal bias and conservatives never get fair treatment even though she's been ALL OVER the "liberal media" promoting herself! If it wasn't for the "liberal media" nobody would know who Ann Coulter is! Her tone in this book is full of hate. I wonder how often she says the word "liberal" with a disgusted face. I'm guessing 805 times a day. She needs to reevaluate her ideals and perhaps try and be nice to people for a change. I wish I could give ZERO stars to this book of hate.
Rating:
Summary: Slunder? How ironic...
Review: This book is a horrid ecuse of right hypocracy. She lies throughout this "book", at a meager 206 pages. Thank god for people like Al Franken who expose this hypocrits.
Rating:
Summary: A nazi bible for the right or how toilett paper is cheaper
Review: Just one thought, if you think for just a second you'll realize that this is the same kind of fundamentalism that gave us terrorism. Save your money!!! toilett paper is way cheaper.
Rating:
Summary: Pathetic. Coulter is reviewing her own book here.
Review: Hahaha- check out the NY, NY "review".Hi, Ann!
Rating:
Summary: Blonde Rush
Review: What a gig--a good looking woman with the mouth of and brains of Rush Limbaugh (not a compliment). Why do these half wits always start a book with "XXXX:"? Her facts are plain wrong, her logic flawed. Instead of coherent arguements, she resorts to junior high level insults. Does she really believe what she writes (could anybody who has an IQ over 80?) or is it a clever scheme to rake in the bucks.
Rating:
Summary: Sorry guys, but the book isn't too accurate.
Review: I will say that some of the observations Coulter provided are alright, but much of what this book has to say is inaccurate. For starters, the very first claim in the book is about how liberals treat Tom DeLay. She complains that the New York Times compared him to the Crusaders and witch-hunters. However when one looks up the Maureen Dowd column that she cites, they find that though she started off criticizing DeLay, the quote about religion is not about Delay, but Al Gore! Secondly, it was not a comparison to the crusaders and witch-hunters, but
noting that religion-in-politics has resulted in such. Secondly, she claims that just three weeks after the 9/11 attacks, the NY Times succumbed to the pressure to bash Bush with the editorial, "Half a Commander in Chief". However, this article appeared on 11/5, over eight weeks after the attacks. Third, she claims, "[W]hich women are constantly being called ugly? Is it Maxine Waters, Chelsea Clinton, Janet Reno, or Madeline Albright? No, none of these. Only conservative women have their looks held up to ridicule because only liberals would be so malevolent." This claim is ridiculous on its face, as their are many instances in which conservatives mock liberal's looks. One is this gem from John McCain, "Why is Chelsea Clinton so ugly? Because Janet Reno is her father." Another is Jay Leno calling a man dressed up as Janet Reno, "An ugly Bi###." (Let's not forget the many times on the comedy and late-night shows where they compared Janet Reno's looks to that of a man). Want more? According to James Retter in Anatomy of a Scandal, Rush once was "Commenting on how 'lovely' Nixon's daughters, Julie and Trish, looked at their father's funeral, Limbaugh said, 'so unlike another First Family-and you know what I mean.'" Once on his radio show he mentioned Donna Shalala and sarcastically commented, "Oh, that's a beautiful thought." Ann Richards, , "was born needing her face ironed." On Letterman's show, Limbaugh said how Hillary Clinton looked "like a hood ornament on a Pontiac." (this incited boos from the audience). Also, Limbaugh repeatedly made fun of Robert Reich's height (FYI, Reich's height is due to a bone disease that he's had since he was a child. Somehow, I don't find that too funny). Another statement not in this book from Limbaugh is that "Feminism was created to allow unattractive women into the mainstream." Moving on, she claims that Al Gore, at the Monticello mansion, asked, "Who are those guys" referring to George Washington and Benjamin Franklin and that only USA Today reported the story. First of all, dozens of papers and sources reported it; Newsday, British newspapers, The Washington Times, two articles in The NY Times (ironically by Maureen Dowd and Frank Rich back when they were reporters), the Associated Press, and other local papers (due to the Associated Press story). Secondly, she misquotes Gore (he said "Who are these people", not "Who are those guys"). Thirdly, as one who has watched the video can attest, when he said it, he was nt looking at Washington and Franklin, but John Paul Jones and Marquis de Laffeyette! Washington and Franklin were on opposite sides of the room, Gore was looking in the middle. If you don't believe me, go on over to mrc.org's Gore Gaffes section and watch the video for yourself. I hope to post more on this later, but that's all of the time I have for now.
Rating:
Summary: there is something seriously wrong with Ann Coulter
Review: Ann Coulter has pointed many a fingers at liberals who clearly understand that she isn't the exactly 'sane'. I under stand this too, and I'm only 11! I mean, who says 'liberals hate America' while knowing what they are talking about? Slander is a great book, if you would like a laugh. I didn't even read the chapter called 'the joy of arguing with liberals: there stupid!' because already I knew it was total poppycock. This book is good for raving conservative lunatics. For every normal person its good as a dartboard, a coaster, and a poorly made Frisbee.
Rating:
Summary: Boring extremist political drivel
Review: This book is definitely boring and uncovincing to anyone who has ever doubted these extremist political writers(left or right). All I see in this book are shaky "facts", overly broad stereotypes, and ridiculously views. The media may be liberal after all but I wouldn't believe that just from reading this book. All of Ann Coulter's statements about liberal hatred of conservatives become meaningless when she herself exhibits so much hatred. The whole thing about liberals hating conservatives becomes even MORE meaningless when you hear other conservatives yammer on and on(ex. Michael Savage). As you can see, I don't agree at all with Coulter's views. Even if I did agree I'd still have problems with her writing style which bores me to death. So, I wouldn't recommend this book to anyone who is moderate let alone liberals. However, if you are a die hard conservative republican, you would love this book if you like how Coulter writes. PS. Slander has to be spoken, so the New York Times can never really commit slander. But they can commit libel but that's up to opinion. This is not really a big deal unless you think it shows that Coulter is sloppy.
Rating:
Summary: Aah, Ann Coulter
Review: Thank God for someone like Ann Coulter who exposes lying liberal apologists like Al Franken and all the leftist media who have mocked good, conservative values over the years. I admire Ann's thorough research, intelligence, forthrightness and wit. She utterly annihilates the leftwing propaganda that is passed off as truth and "news" and sucked up by some of the nitwits that posted comments here. As liberals do, they whine like babies and attempt to malign Ann's character because they are stumped by the facts.
| 
