Rating: 
Summary: This is the Worst Work I've Ever Seen
Review: Don't waste your time with this book. It's really the worst work I've ever seen. It's poorly written, poorly researched, and completely biased. Ann, please go see and Enlgish intructor and learn about run-on sentences. I'm sure many greatful readers will be glad you did. Or, better yet, get a ghost writer. I'm sure you can afford one. I'm really scared that this book is so popular. I didn't read very much because it wasn't worth my time to try and dig out real information. It's a bunch of gibberish. Her premise basically is that liberals are to blame for everything. That's it. So, if you are looking for any analysis, there isn't. Any reaching view of the true issues, there isn't. It's just one rant after another. (Yes, it's grouped in paragraphs of rants. There is no form to the book at all. It rambles from one section to another, in presumably chapters. There is no main idea; i.e., Chapter One This is why Republicans are misundersood. Or maybe a Chapter Two... What Repubicans really stand for... Now something like this I would have really liked to read.} Positive reviews supporting this book claim that the reader has misunderstood the book's intention. Apparently we took this seriously... we need to look and see that it was meant to be humerous. Kinda reminds me of the schoolyard bully if you ask me. So, if you are looking for humor and immature viewpoints on America's political problems... This is the book for you. My general feel was that this was projection identification. Basically, a republican is feeling bad about her views... and is projecting her bad feelings on liberals. I don't even think this person has a good handle on what constitutes a liberal mind-set. You could insert 90 percent of her liberal-bashing views... and replace that with what the republicans are actually doing. IMHO she is doing a great disservice to our country. But, she has the right. Thank God we still have free speech!
Rating:
Summary: I did not realize
Review: I had no idea about the relationship between Coulter and Karen Hughes. Though I am not judgmental, I wish the two of them would work out their "differences." No one expects them to publicly express their love or sexual preferences, but this pretense is downright disgusting.
Rating:
Summary: What utter crap
Review: I wish there was an option for voting nil stars for a book. I feel like sending her a bill to recover the costs of the book and overseas shipping.
Rating: 
Summary: No, not coulter
Review: "by the rebuttal reviewer who posts as "A reader from New York, NY." This person is undoubtedly aware of the speculation concerning their identity (as the author)." No, I am NOT coulter. I am an Amazon customer dating back to 1999, I am from NY (coulter, if I am correct, resides in Washington DC), my IP address and the shipping/residential address I have registered with Amazon can confirm this, and the behind the secenes techies at Amazon can verify that (if theyre so inclined). I am aware that some authors have attemped to anonymously place good reviews on their books, (they were caught when due to a technical error, their identites were revealed on the amazon site recently just weeks ago, but Coulter, as you will note, was not one of them)
Rating: 
Summary: Open letter to AHC
Review: While this is a review of "Slander," I will also attempt to address some comments made by the rebuttal reviewer who posts as "A reader from New York, NY." This person is undoubtedly aware of the speculation concerning their identity (as the author). I would like to see "Slander" (and "Treason") as satirical characterizations of the sad state of our national discourse on the issues of the day. Throughout the Cold War and now the War on Terrorism, views that would traditionally be labeled as either liberal or conservative have led to a plethora of demonstrably silly statements issued more for political purposes than for information. On either side, one could selectively pick such foolish statements and make a case that the people making them, as a group, are extremists. We have usually relied on the political comedians, from Mort Sahl and Mark Russell to Bill Maher and Dennis Miller (the old one, not the new post-9/11 version), to help sort out the silliness of extremism. It was all in good fun. As "A reader" points out, words evolve with time, both in primary meaning and emotional force. But there has been a change that I've noticed in the last 15-20 years. In my older experiences, the great majority of people did not identify themselves as liberal or conservatives, instead reserving those terms for classification of politicians and pundits. But lately, people have taken liberal to mean what used to be called "bleeding-heart liberal" and conservative to mean "ultra-right-wing conservative," effectively excluding the middle from consideration. Name-calling doesn't contribute much in any debate, but with the middle excluded, it becomes particularly dangerous and counterproductive. On a similar vein, I personally object very much to morphing the term "Christian" to mean "fundamentalist, evangelical Christian" with the exclusion of Catholics and Protestants. When mischaracterizing an opponent's views to make them extremist versions, people go over the top, however. Is it silly to remove the words "under God" from the Pledge of Allegiance? Yes. Is that a Communist plot to make us atheists? No. Is anyone trying to ban prayer in our schools? Not that I've seen. Are people banning mandatory and organized prayer, particularly when led by the teacher? Yes. Does this mean that religion is being outlawed? No. (These are my views, like them or not.) If Ann Coulter has skillfully cherry-picked the record to show us how far such tendencies can be taken, I applaud her for a job well done and would happily rate her books with 5 stars. Unfortunately, if that is the case, she doesn't "drop character" and give us stronger hints of her intent. On the other hand, if she really means what is in her columns and books, then she makes the Amish look progressive. There is a certain responsibility to living in a democracy. We have a rather fragile form of government, particularly in its representative form. Limitations are necessary, and the rule of majority does not always hold. Personally, I still marvel that our leaders of 230 years ago, in a primarily agrarian state, had the foresight to organize the country in such a nearly timeless and masterful manner. But that was the "Age of Reason," though we might tend to forget what that means as time passes. One thing I can say with conviction. If we allow our election campaigns to continue with name-calling, spin-doctoring, and misrepresentation of the opponent's records, we have only ourselves to blame. We are in a position to punish those who degrade that process by simply voting for their opponents. If I walk into the voting booth not knowing what a candidate stands for, but only what nasty things he/she has to say about their opponents, they will get my NO vote every time. So if Ann Coulter can get us to wake up and see where we are headed, she has done a public service.
Rating:
Summary: Cartoonish views of liberals
Review: "Coulter's final solution--generally implied, occassionally spelled out--is that people she considers inferior need to be economically crippled, removed from society, deported or, when all else fails, executed." Coulter has no such "solution". Nor does she "imply" it. See, there's the key word: "imply". It's the lefts way of putting words in other peoples mouth. "According to Coulter, disagreeing with her or questioning other conservatives is "slander." Coulter argues that disagreeing with her or the politicians she's carrying water for is an attack on America, the Bill of Rights, the Bible, and all other things good and, according to Coulter, there is no penalty too severe for those who have differing opinions." No thats not according to Coulter. Thats according to you and your cartoonish view of conservatives.. "Hatred in its Purest Form" As I examine our current political climate, I am distressed by a very powerful word that is being redefined in a totally political context -- hate. I understand that language is constantly evolving and that many words today don't have the same definitions they did years ago, but this word is different. The word hate is being used by the intellectually lazy to attack and silence those who oppose them. And it works too often. Webster's defines "hate" as "to have strong dislike or ill will for; loathe; despise." This is not the politically correct definition. The liberal definition is "a failure of someone to disavow their own beliefs and totally accept yours." We no longer have an honest debate on many issues in America. When liberals are out-pointed in an argument, they start calling conservatives racists, bigots, sexists, homophobes, extremely extreme extremists, closed-minded and intolerant, among other things. Afterwards, it is impossible to get a word in edgewise with falling prey to a barrage of personal attacks. That's the easy way out. All you have to do is hop on a white horse, pronounce condemnation on your opponents, and then ride off into the sunset. It doesn't require any mental exercise, since all you have to do is throw epithets at someone. All too often, standing on your principles is decried as intolerant because the left can't stand anyone disagreeing with them. Those who lack the courage to stand up for what they believe in are praised by the left, while people who won't roll over are told to be more open-minded, more compassionate, less hate-filled. Dissent is not hate. There's a crucial difference. I wish some of the liberals would learn that.
Rating:
Summary: Hatred in its Purest Form
Review: I've spent a lot of time working up this nine word synopsis of Coulter's book, so don't skip it: "I hate everyone who thinks differently than I do." Coulter's final solution--generally implied, occassionally spelled out--is that people she considers inferior need to be economically crippled, removed from society, deported or, when all else fails, executed. She's really quite an intellectual. According to Coulter, disagreeing with her or questioning other conservatives is "slander." Coulter argues that disagreeing with her or the politicians she's carrying water for is an attack on America, the Bill of Rights, the Bible, and all other things good and, according to Coulter, there is no penalty too severe for those who have differing opinions. I understand Joseph Stalin thought Coulter was scary.
Rating:
Summary: A very strange "book"
Review: I wanted to get some insight into all of the liberal bashing going on these days, so I read Slander. All I learned was that the author is very unhappy about most of the reporting done by the media (except Fox News?) and labels it liberal. No working definition of "liberal" is even offered. The author also throws in a great deal of tirades about Bill Clinton, as if that makes her points. If you go in for this sort of thing, you will probably find Mike Savage's rants more entertaining.
Rating:
Summary: Riiiiiiiight.
Review: "Ann Coulter is a joke as a journalist and commentator. This book is even worse than her last. I don't know why I keep reading her silly books" As if you did read the book or any other book she wrote.
Rating:
Summary: The literary equivalent of "Plan 9 from Outer Space"
Review: Ann Coulter is a joke as a journalist and commentator. This book is even worse than her last. I don't know why I keep reading her silly books -- I guess I keep expecting something, ANYTHING, of value, and I haven't found it in any of her books yet. She appears to be completely clueless on TV and her books make her look even worse.
| 
