Slander

Rating:
Summary: Right vs Left: SLANDER by KO
Review: Ever since the Kennedy years, both conservative and liberals have been accusing each other of the very worst sort of demagoguery. The conservative right claims that the media is slanted against it while the liberal left says much the same. Out of all the recent books that deal with the issue of media domination, the ones that are the most convincing are written by conservatives, with SLANDER by Ann Coulter leading the way. Her thesis differs from Bernard Goldberg's BIAS who similarly claims a media slant tilted against the right. Goldberg describes a left wing mentality that does not view conservatism as a deliberate target of invective; rather, he sees the left as those who are indecently sure that theirs is the only political philosophy worth a red penny and that there is no need to create a cabal against a rightist viewpoint that simply does not exist as a mainsream mode of thought. Coulter takes a harsher interpretation. She asserts that the bias is real, it is deliberate, and it is meant to hurt.

Whenever any writer attempts to convince the reader of a media bias, it is incumbent on that writer to present a series of convincing arguments that are not taken out of context and are thoroughly documented. This Ann Coulter has done beyond question. She lists dozens of examples that illustrate that not only does the left engage in the very same invidious activities of which it accuses the right, but when confronted with proof positive that it has done so, it invariably lies, changes the topic, or simply ignores the incriminating evidence of its own culpability. When Michael Bellesiles wrote ARMING AMERICA, a book that was supposed to prove that our founding fathers were not as heavily armed as the NRA insisted they were, the liberal press, headed by The New York Times, hailed Bellesiles as one who 'has dispersed the darkness that covered the gun's early history in America.' And if our colonial forebears were not so fortified with guns, then the NRA could not claim history as a justification for the current ownership of guns. Unfortunately for Bellesiles and The New York Times, several scholars who tried to duplicate his research discovered that Bellesiles had faked and forged nearly every bit of evidence. And just how loudly did the liberal media trumpet Bellesiles' plagiarism? Not a peep was heard. Can you imagine if the reverse had happened and the Times had caught a conservative scholar playing footsie with history?

What makes Coulter's arguments so convincing is that she documents her claims with hundreds of footnotes, none of which have been disproven by the left. The unalterable conclusion of her book is that the liberal left is indeed as biased as she claims. The next time a democrat accuses a republican of being dumb, racist, homophobic, or a member of the religious right, I would ask that democrat for the same proof that Coulter would use to prove the contrary. I don't think that this democrat could do that, and this is why SLANDER is the stunning book that it is and why it should be read by anyone who has an interest in knowing to what our nation's media bias is.

Rating:
Summary: Why write something like this?
Review: Well, I've tried finding useful criticism of this book somewhere, but nothing of much substance so far. The book itself makes me really glad I'm not a liberal, or alternatively, that Ann Coulter is not. It's true that Ann is more vituperative than your average conservative would prefer, but she does not alienate herself fro mainline conservative thought.

The books hits hard and I certainly would not want to find myself on the other end of it, but it's nevertheless true. No one expected a liberal to like it.

What made the book necessary and justifies her extravagant criticism is the fact that she is right about modern political discourse: It is all but pointless because people are afraid to express their views openly for fear of being called racist or fascist or what-have-you. There was a time (such as America's early years) when political discussion was always open and frank and could be found anywhere. Nowadays you try to bring up politics and people are awfully bashful about it. That's not the fault of those who pursue arguments; it's more likely to be the fault of those can only hate their opponents with a venom and call names.

The fundamental thesis of the book is that conservatives debate and liberals call names or throw accusations. i.e. those who oppose affirmative action hate minorities, those who support welfare reform hate the poor, those who oppose abortion hate women, and those who oppose homosexual marriage hate gay people. That's no way to have a discussion. At one point, she says you can't have a discussion when "one side is making arguments and the other side is throwing eggs...". If liberals have very good reasons for the positions they hold, it sure doesn't show, considering the tired old cliches they resort to whenever an issue comes up. "Tax cut for the rich", "equal rights", "in bed with big oil" to name but a few.

Many liberals will claim that she focuses too much on the remarks of extreme leftists and associate them even with the party's moderates (personally, I think that's why MSNBC hired Michael Savage). That happens with a lot of people, but I don't think she does it all that much. She uses the remarks of liberal journalists, liberal commentators, liberal authors, liberal politicians, liberal professors, and if that's not an accurate gague of liberal thought, than liberal thought is awfully evasive.

If there is some sort of un-heard from majority of liberals who are calm and controlled, who can see their opponents as something other than racist bigots who need to be silenced, who don't resort to smear tactics and can argue in a perfectly polite manner, I haven't heard from them. They are clearly not the ones at the forefront of the liberal establishment.

Can anyone deny how much media commentators and editors called Reagan or Bush dumb, or Gore Smart? Can anyone deny how much the media focused on Enron while considering the Clinton scandal to be a private matter? The media focused an awful lot on Bush and the world leaders quiz, but barely deigned to mention Gore's gaffe at Monticello. Walter Cronkite was outraged by Falwells remarks (which I personally would not quite concur with), but had no outrage for when Clinton blamed slavery and indian disposession for 9/11 in a speech he gave at Georgetown in November of 2001. In a collumn around that time, Coulter wrote: "We're all on tenterhooks waiting for the pious windbags who denounced Jerry Falwell (Walter Cronkite) to express comparable indignation with Clinton's remarks. At least Falwell restricted the cosmic payback to this nation's current ills. Clinton went back to the first Crusade. 'Those of us from various European lineages are not blameless,' he said."

That's basically what this book is about: Liberals in the media and other areas of the public square, not about the liberal who lives down the hall from you or up the street.

Liberals have been lying about conservatives for a long, long time. I for one am not ouraged that someone wrote a book about it.

Rating:
Summary: Ann Couter is Good for the United States
Review: And here's why. She gives all those right wing folks someone to hate.

The truth is ultra-conservative folks aren't really allowed to vent a whole lot of hatred these days because even they are affected by the PC ("political correctness")trend. The Republican party is trying to be "inclusive" so they're not allowed to (openly) express hatred for blacks, latinos, Jews etc. They're not even allowed to hate homosexuals (but it's OK to hate the acts, 'cause that's in the Bible, see Senator Rick Santorum on this one). It's sort of OK to hate foreigners, but only if you portray it as patriotism. It's also OK to hate communists, but they've become irrelevant and have pretty much disappeared. Also, the dark legacy of Sen. McCarthy (Ann Coulter in a prior life?) makes that seem just a bit unseemly.

Let's face it, hating others is part of human nature (comes from our survivalist instinct). You gotta hate someone, and liberals are the best victim because they really don't suffer for it. Can't really discriminate against liberals, because they mostly look the same as other folks. No one's gonna get riled up enough to lynch 'em (OK maybe Ann would but she's obviously an extreme case). Unlike other potential victims, it's easy for liberals to go incognito and blend in, when the circumstances require (e.g. put a flag on your car if you're feeling threatened).

So Ann is really doing a huge service to all the minorities out there by taking some heat off of them.

Now, what we really need is the Ann Coulter for us liberal folks, someone who can spout off a lot of nonsense about how stupid all conservatives are. Because, liberal people need to vent a little hatred now and then too. Of course, maybe that person is already out there and I haven't found them yet. Any suggestions?

Rating:
Summary: Liberals will hate it...
Review: and that is exactly why I love it! Coulter's fearless writing is refreshing amidst the "politically correct" bull that is drowning our society. She shouldn't be taken offensively, but undoubtedly, people with label her racist and other such nonsense. Liberals don't like her because she uncovers their lies. They use the same quote to describe her every time. She is a supposed "right wing tele-bimbo." The fact that she has blonde hair makes her stupid, I guess. It is hilarious because liberals prove her point when they twist her quotes to make her out to be something she isn't. When you are as brazen as her it's easy to do. She must be admired.

Rating:
Summary: Ann Attacks America
Review: In this book,you will witness Ann Coulter's hatred and bigotry as she attacks Liberals,Clinton and women.Yea,you heard me right-Ann attacks her own gender.Ann has decieved America by spreading vicious lies about the things she attacks,and she has made herself and the GOP filthy rich by the money she gets from her America-attacking books.You plop down your hard-earned tax dollars to make the rich richer and the poor poorer by buying Ann's books.Ann has taken it upon herself to destroy what good Liberals do,and to help multiply the damage the right wing does.This is not fun or entertainment-it is just a book of lies,deciet and hatred.Ann abuses the Free Speech Amendment by attacking women,Liberlas and other countries.Perhaps it's time you fans of her opened your eyes and see how Ann is dividing America and attacking God.

Rating:
Summary: It's just entertainment, folks!
Review: Ann Coulter is one of the newest faces in a long line of conservative pundit entertainers. Her primary claim to fame seems to be her gender, as she is a younger, attractive woman in a field comprised almost exclusively of older, white Christian men. Her book Slander can best be described as a bitter, and often hateful, diatribe against liberals and what Coulter perceives to be liberal establishments, particularly the mainstream news media. The text literally overflows with petty sarcasm and spiteful invective; her goal is not to prove that conservatives are right, but that all liberals are wrong, bitter, deviant, and anti-American. And in the interests of book sales, she goes out of her way to be as sensational and obnoxious as possible. She opens her book with the revelation that "It's all liberals' fault," and a few pages later states matter-of-factly that: "Liberals hate America, they hate 'flag-wavers,' they hate abortion opponents, they hate all religions except Islam. Even Islamic terrorists don't hate America like liberals do. They don't have the energy. If they had that much energy, they'd have indoor plumbing by now." This style, which some would consider to be merely an acerbic wit and others would consider outright slander, continues throughout the book.

Coulter is the type of lawyer that amuses juries and annoys judges. Her arguments are colorful and emotional, but vacuous and devoid of fact. Like most pundits, she uses isolated, extreme examples (in this case, ultra-ultra-left liberals and columnists) to paint the vast majority of moderates as misguided and anti-American. She pads her book with an impressively long list of citations, many of which are taken out of context or misrepresented, and others which reference opinion columns and editorials instead of legitimate news or academic sources.

Slander is not a serious political work; it's just entertainment for a small but vocal audience. Traditional conservatives will be disappointed by her rude demeanor (which hurts her argument) and slavish devotion to every aspect of current Bush administration policy, regardless of whether or not it follows true conservative doctrine (which undercuts her credibility). Liberals will see her as yet another bitter closet-fundamentalist wacko. And moderates and centrists, who will spend the most time trying to actually analyze her arguments, will regard her as little more than an entertainer trying to make money by pandering to gullible people.

Rating:
Summary: Too funny
Review: I think it's really quite funny that "a reader" from Dallas, Texas who posted on 4/27/03 states that he or she has been unemployed for the last eighteen months (Bush administration) but was quite "well-employed" during Clinton's presidency. Also, Iraq is not to blame for the September 11 attacks -- that's just another lie the the right-wing would love to have us believe. As for the book, well, having read it once, the only comparison I can draw is to escargot. It's interesting to try it, but once you realize what you're eating, you spit it out and never try it again. I would have given this book no stars, but unfortunately that wasn't an option.

Rating:
Summary: Ann, Darlin', What Have You Done?
Review: It's common knowledge that the left is intolerant of dissent--that to oppose affirmative action one is a racist, to challenge NOW is to be a chauvinist, to be against abortion one is a religious fanatic. The high priests and priestesses of political correctness have chastised, marginalized, critized, and demonized conservatism for more than 30 years; entrenched and enforced in news dissemination, higher education, wool-gathering think tanks, and the entertainment industry, they've had the bully pulpit to hammer home their leftist agenda and excoriate conservative dissent at will.

Conservatism, of course, has fought back, often in the face of the most venomous vitriol imaginable. Rush Limbaugh. Michael Reagan. George Will. Cal Thomas. Sean Hannity. The success of talk radio and the 24-hour cable news cycle has given conservatism a strong foothold in its battle against the leftist status quo. Outside of the antics of Rush and several off-the-wall comments by G. Gordon Liddy and others of his ilk, the conservative voice has been much more restrained and subdued than the in-your-face namecalling from the left.

But then comes blonde, petite Ann Coulter, the epitome of a wolf in sheep's clothing. The very title of her book, SLANDER: LIBERAL LIES ABOUT THE AMERICAN RIGHT, is akin to walking into a biker bar to pick a fight. And judging from the reviews on Amazon alone, the fight is on.

In a nutshell, Coulter is over the top. She is pure spit and vinegar as she attacks liberalism, blaming it for virtually everything but the common cold. And it's darn funny, some of it laugh-out-loud funny, as she lambasts Clintonianism/feminism/activism with a crisp, witty style so reminiscent of her numerous appearances on the cable talk shows. (Calling the Florida Supreme Court, during the 2000 election ordeal, a "kangaroo court" was priceless.) Coulter gigs, gouges, pokes, and punches enough to make liberal pit bulls like Carville and Begala look like choirboys. And her high-octane tone is relentless, almost to the point of exhaustion.

Alas, the vituperation of SLANDER: LIBERAL LIES ABOUT THE AMERICAN RIGHT only serves to drag Coulter's arguments down to the level of her emotional antagonists. But then, come to think of it: maybe it's high time the left got a taste of its own medicine.
--D. Mikels --This text refers to the Hardcover edition

Rating:
Summary: Really Funny, If It Weren't So Scary
Review: Here's the book in under a minute.

"Liberals are stupid and the stupidest thing they do is call Republicans stupid because we're smarter than they are."

That's the book. Really. I'm not kidding.

She's very precise about how horrible Liberals are. "Liberals hate America, they hate "flag-wavers," they hate abortion opponents, they hate all religions except Islam (post 9/11). Even Islamic terrorists don't hate America like liberals do. They don't have the energy. If the had that much energy, they'd have indoor plumbing by now."

Coulter includes 35 pages of footnotes painstakingly documenting her documentation of Liberal wrongs. She must have learned in college that the more footnotes you use, the more impressive your paper looks and the less likely the professor is going to read the footnotes. But following the footnotes yields untold treasures. The best/worst is citing a gossip column in the Boston Globe that trashed Katherine Harris because of her make-up. Does this pass anyone's standard for journalism?

Here's her paraphrase of Jerry Falwell blaming 9/11 on gays and lesbians - "Falwell, it seems, had remarked that gay marriage and abortion on demand may not have warmed the heart of the Almighty."

This is entertainment. There's not a trace of plausible political thought in the book. If you read the Weekly World News, think of Ed Anger in a dress. As she says herself "A guy in a dress is hilairous".(p. 17)

Rating:
Summary: Veritas!: Facts the Rabid Left Hoped You Would Never Learn
Review: Like a one-woman rescue party bent on recovering the priceless twin pearls of wisdom and truth, Ann Coulter clears a wide swath through the minacious, well-tended undergrowth of liberal lies and distortions which has been choking out verity and supplanting reality in American political thought for far too long, effortlessly smiting all manner of venomous leftist ophidians as she uncovers their dens along the way.

Smarting quite deservedly from her direct, take-no-prisoners style, the left has predictably undertaken to obscure the invincibility of Coulter's logic and blunt her unassailable command of the facts by employing their favorite weapons: sophomoric derision and baseless character assassination. Judging from the best seller lists, they are not having much success.

Coulter is no pretender to mealy-mouthed diplomacy and she seems to genuinely enjoy being rather acerbic at times -- qualities which lend a certain vivacity, readability and authenticity to her work.

Most conservatives will thoroughly enjoy "Slander" and the illumination it provides, but ALL liberals should also read this book! The vituperative reception it has received from leftist mouthpieces alone is abject proof (for the discerning) that the left is frantic to supress it and enraged that their house of cards has been knocked down. Liberals who choose instead to "drink the kool-aid" and pass up this opportunity for true enlightenment will have only themselves to blame for "not getting it" henceforth.

Probably the most remarkable aspect of "Slander" is that virtually all of the incriminating revelations presented therein -- leftist lies, distortions, cover-ups, character assasination plots, and worse -- have actually emanated from the pens and lips of the guilty liberals themselves. Coulter actually does very little editorializing, apparently preferring to simply amass and present the facts while allowing the self-evident truth to stand on its own bottom.

For anyone not stultified by blind liberal ideology and idealism this book, along with "Useful Idiots" by Mona Charen and "The New Thought Police" by Tammy Bruce, serves to complete a compelling mosaic of the bankruptcy, malignancy, and felonious fraudulence of liberal thought in general (and the elite liberal media and politicos in particular) over the last few decades.

Read them all! Buy each of your children and grandchildren copies as well, and pass on something priceless: the truth.