Rating: 
Summary: The book doesn't even deserve 1 star
Review: You can't take anything at all of what she says as "the truth." Let's take a look at some of her famous quotes:
To a disabled Vietnam vet: "People like you caused us to lose that war."---MSNBC "[Clinton] masturbates in the sinks."---Rivera Live 8/2/99 "Women like Pamela Harriman and Patricia Duff are basically Anna Nicole Smith
from the waist down. Let's just call it for what it is. They're whores."---Salon.com 11/16/00 "If you don't hate Clinton and the people who labored to keep him in office,
you don't love your country."---George, 7/99 "We're now at the point that it's beyond whether or not this guy is a horny hick.
I really think it's a question of his mental stability. He really could be a lunatic.
I think it is a rational question for Americans to ask whether their president is insane."---Equal Time "I think we had enough laws about the turn-of-the-century. We don't need any more." Asked how far
back would she go to repeal laws, she replied, "Well, before the New Deal...[The Emancipation Proclamation]
would be a good start."---Politically Incorrect 5/7/97 "The presumption of innocence only means you don't go right to jail."---Hannity & Colmes 8/24/01 "Originally, I was the only female with long blonde hair. Now, they
all have long blonde hair."---CapitolHillBlue.com 6/6/00 we not only need to carpet-bomb every Arab country on the map, we also need to conduct a
war at home, especially on "swarthy males," who need to be singled out at airports and
elsewhere. "If National Review has no spine, they are not my allies," Coulter said yesterday.
"I really don't need friends like that. Every once in awhile they'll throw one of
their people to the wolves to get good press in left-wing publications." "Bush scored a 600 on his SAT, two times higher than Al Gore, a little higher than of Bill Bradley's." -Real Time with Bill Maher 2/21/03
Rating:
Summary: A difficult book to review
Review: SLANDER: LIBERAL LIES ABOUT THE AMERICAN RIGHT is a difficult book for me to review because, well, it is sort of a "bible" for conservative America. In other words, I know that by giving this book a negative review I am just labelling myself as a liberal. Then, of course, readers of the conservative persuation will just discredit my review on the grounds of my political affiliation. Besides, does a book with over 700 reviews really need my review? Alas, I want to offer my three cents. The basic premise of SLANDER: LIBERAL LIES ABOUT THE AMERICAN RIGHT is that all the problems the United States of America is experiencing are the fault of us liberals. Of course, I find that rather amusing considering that our economy is doing horribly and it is a conservative Republican who currently occupies the top spot in our government. I also find it amusing that Ms. Coulter accuses the liberals of this country of committing slander, and then turns around and refers to Katie Couric as the "Eva Braun of morning television." To my knowledge, Katie Couric has no verifiable ties to Nazism. But there I go trying to review a book that really is review proof. SLANDER: LIBERAL LIES ABOUT THE AMERICAN RIGHT is not really a book in the conventional sense. It's a manifesto for the already initiated, unlikely to win many new converts. If you agree with Anne Coulter's premise then you are willing to overlook her poor writing skills. If you find her premise distasteful then you will find the poor writing - and many other things - very disconcerting. Coulter basically wants to draw a line in the sand that says, "All liberals on this side. All conservatives over here." Her argument is completely black-and-white, placing all the blame on the "others." Whether conservative or liberal, most people will agree that an awareness of gradation is often an indicator of objectivity. There is no gradation in Ms. Coulter's work.
Rating:
Summary: Full of errors
Review: Ann Coulter says liberals make fun of people's looks and conservatives don't. She can't seriously believe that. I heard a conservative female guest predict on tv that Janet Reno would lose because people wouldn't want to look at her. Conservative humor and activist websites are always showing doctored pictures making fun of the looks of liberals and democrats. Ann Coulter wrote that Jim Jeffords voted for Clinton's 1993 budget which included a tax hike. He did not. She wrote he voted against Clinton's impeachment. That is impossible, because the senate didn't vote on impeachment. These are just a couple errors in a book filled with errors. You can go to the website based on Eric Alterman's book whatliberalmedia and click on the appendices to see more like this. If you want multiple sources the dailyhowler and Scoobie Davis are also good.
Rating:
Summary: This book is written in a very ignorant and childish manner
Review: Simply, all the reasoning in the book is written in a very sophomoric fashion. Gives a very small and closed minded view of the world.
You will get plenty of childish ideas from this book.
Rating:
Summary: Ms. Slanderer
Review: What a depressing book. How is it that those people who constantly complain about the coarsening of our society and the harsh partisanship of our politics, turn a harpy like this into their goodess? Read this only if you can't find the same stuff for free almost every where you turn on your radio dial.
Rating:
Summary: We should invade their countries....
Review: "We should invade their countries, kill their leaders and convert them to christianity..." Ann Coulter She travels fast because she travels light...unburdened by facts or any deep reflection...Is she trying to be the dumb blonde of politics?
Rating: 
Summary: Moore asks his citizens worthy questions...
Review: There are certainly books out there with a greater depth in terms of political analysis, greater coherence (Moore does tend to jump about from topic to topic), and there are political books with much greater academic credibility. And some people may even read this book and think the humour is childish. So why am I giving this book such a high rating? Is it because I simply agree with Moore's political views? Some I do, but certainly not all, and some I disagree with strongly. And for the record, I'm not anti-American (I'm British born and bred) or looking to endorse any anti-American view that comes along (not that I think this book is anti-American anyway). Although Moore's evidence and examples are selective, that does not bother me. What political writer is not selective or opinionated for that matter? Almost by definition, they all are. Every field has contrary evidence, and politics is no different. But at some point a writer will take a view and present their (selected) evidence. Moore is a passionate citizen. He is passionate about democracy and preserving it in the true sense of the word. He is passionate about social justice, economic justice, and he is passionate about the welfare of his fellow citizens. He doesn't claim to be an academic and he doesn't pretend to have written an academic text. Moore, through this book, asks questions. He asks why a CEO and other executives have nearly all charges dropped against them for hiding pollution which could cause cancer to thousands (after the executives admit guilt), while a man is given a life sentence for stealing because it's his third (minor) offence. He takes politicians at their word and questions them when their actions don't remotely match what they say. He asks why politicians will not respect the elections in Venezuela and then talk about the importance of democracy abroad. He asks why the US government has gone to war to reinstate non-democratic governments. Moore embodies the qualities of a good citizen, and his sin is to believe that in order to be a good citizen, you have to question hard what you see around you and speak loudly when you think something is wrong. If he gets called anti-American for that, so be it. But any country should be proud to have individuals like Moore bringing to the public spirited opinions, openness, some well researched arguments (anyone who argues with the level of his research, should just spend a few minutes looking through the 'notes and sources' section at the back) and, for me anyway, entertainment. Congratulations Moore.
Rating:
Summary: Don't be fooled
Review: Ann Coulter believes that if you say a thing stridently enough, it will be true. This entire book is an exercise in sophistry, and it's a sad commentary on American culture that she gets any attention at all. Ms. Coulter is, in the end, a circus freak willing to say and do just about anything to get attention. Do you really want to take your ideas about politics in America from someone like this? As Bill Maher said to Coulter a few weeks back -- when she actually had the gall to claim that George W. Bush got into Yale on his own merits -- Coulter just makes this [stuff] up.
Rating:
Summary: Very thought provoking
Review: Let me start by suggesting that the scathing negative reviews probably represent the views of the far left that see the book as a series of insults. Blah Blah Blah...we see the same thing from ultra conservatives in the reviews for books by the liberals as well. Put on your thinking cap and open your mind before you read the book. Leave the conspiricy theories at home. If you are conservative, you will love this book. It picks apart liberal ideology and backs it up with many anecdotes and referenced facts. I am under no illusion that some of these facts are selectively used to make a point and might in some cases be out of context, but this is one of those situations where you should be outraged if even 10% of the facts are accurate. The most compelling points deal with the liberalization of the media, which is supported by identifying the backgrounds of many of the well-known TV and newspaper personalities and highlights their liberal upbringing, so to speak. This is contrasted with the conservative representation from the news media and the relative numbers are shocking. The media bias is repeatedly demonstrated by historical phraseology in the published news. The argument against is that these are accepted terms that have found common usage (e.g. moderate conservative). An equally frightening topic is the media's reaction and coverage of the 2000 presidential election. Many of the facts are undeniable, but without having them assembled, the larger picture goes unnoticed. The examples of the media's acceptance of liberal politicians' public mistakes is contrasted to their harsh treatment of conservatives' shortcomings (Quayle's potatoe and Bush's subliminable). The examples she uses are hard to argue with. Having said all of that, you will probably hate this book if you have strong liberal views. While the author scolds liberals for name-calling, there is a fair amount of that ocurring in the book. I do have to say that the arguments are pretty logical though. If you choose to dismiss them as right-wing rhetoric without applying critical thought, the book will seem tedious. If you are truly trying to expand your perspective of left vs. right bias (regardless of your own position), I think it is a very good read.
Rating:
Summary: Very thought provoking
Review: ... If you are conservative, you will love this book. It picks apart liberal ideology and backs it up with many anecdotes and referenced facts. I am under no illusion that some of these facts are selectively used to make a point and might in some cases be out of context, but this is one of those situations where you should be outraged if even 10% of the facts are accurate. The most compelling points deal with the liberalization of the media, which is supported by identifying the backgrounds of many of the well-known TV and newspaper personalities and highlights their liberal upbringing, so to speak. This is contrasted with the conservative representation from the news media and the relative numbers are shocking. The media bias is repeatedly demonstrated by historical phraseology in the published news. The argument against is that these are accepted terms that have found common usage (e.g. moderate conservative). An equally frightening topic is the media's reaction and coverage of the 2000 presidential election. Many of the facts are undeniable, but without having them assembled, the larger picture goes unnoticed. The examples of the media's acceptance of liberal politicians' public mistakes is contrasted to their harsh treatment of conservatives' shortcomings (Quayle's potatoe and Bush's subliminable). The examples she uses are hard to argue with. Having said all of that, you will probably hate this book if you have strong liberal views. While the author scolds liberals for name-calling, there is a fair amount of that ocurring in the book. I do have to say that the arguments are pretty logical though. If you choose to dismiss them as right-wing rhetoric without applying critical thought, the book will seem tedious. If you are truly trying to expand your perspective of left vs. right bias (regardless of your own position), I think it is a very good read.
| 
