Slander

Rating:
Summary: A take no prisoner ... must read
Review: I admit that I prefer reading what Ms Coulter writes to listening to her. She is a take no prisoner person and in many ways I respect that. She is an unapologetic conservative who has firm beliefs. ... I guess that is why I at least respect her. And while I am not of her political persuasion I must admit she does her homework when she has a topic in mind and then she sets out to make her case. And the book is timely and should be read by conservatives, moderates and liberals.

Rating:
Summary: Thoughtful and Intelligent, Yet Flawed
Review: In her most recent work SLANDER, Ann Coulter performs a wonderful exegetical job regarding the liberal media and their control over the political realm today. Using numerous footnotes to back up her claims, Coulter convinces one of the illogical, slanderous name-calling that modern liberals have been guilty of for the past fifty years.

And yet, there are a couple of things I simply cannot get over. Ms. Coulter, though well-meaning, is a wonderful example of how a well-meaning intellect can go terribly wrong. To those who have no background in logic (and I pity you), Ms. Coulter commits the logical fallacy known as "poisoning the well." She delves into the name-calling of which she accuses liberals. Though her book contains much logically valid argumentation, Ms. Coulter could do well to drop this liberal style of fallacy. Ms. Coulter also employs a fallacy known as the "red herring" fallacy; she would do better to drop the attacks on the intelligence of moderate (aka liberal) Republicans and the entire op-ed staff of the New York Times.

Other than these two minor discrepancies, this book is a wonderful read and can be knocked out in a weekend. I highly recommend it to my conservative bedfellows. Her book seems to embody what a friend of mine said: "It's not so much that I'm pro-Republican, it's that I'm anti-liberal."

Rating:
Summary: hot
Review: Ann Coulter is a fine, fine, fine woman; however, her writing skills are poor, poor, poor! As a "flaming" Republican I resent her use of sex to sell her book. (This is a typical liberal tactic which I abhor!) It's unfortunate, though she brings up a good issue or two, her desire to be "sexy" muffles any validity she may have had. Too bad.

Rating:
Summary: Wonderful Book
Review: Very well written. Great research. If you prefer to be brainwashed by media - don't read this book, you won't like it.
If you prefer to have opinion of your own - you'll certainly enjoy it.

Rating:
Summary: Not just an exercise liberal bashing!
Review: No, Coulter's Slander isn't just an exercise in liberal bashing...although she engages in her fair share. Rather this tome is a marvelous exercise in contradiction and (dare I say it?) "liberal" use of facts to back up Coulter's thesis that the majority of conservatives are good and the majority of liberals are beyond bad and more like borderline evil.

Her selective use of quotes, footnotes and the ever-present Lexus Nexus search has been well documented throughout the Internet. To say the least, "Slander" twists words out of context like a birthday party clown manipulates ordinary balloons into animal hats. She gets facts wrong (Jesse Jackson, Jr. never had a television show in Chicago, Dale Ernhardt's death was reported on the front page of the NY Times, etc, etc.), and copiously engages in the same sort of name calling that she claims "liberals" rely on to win arguements.

Here's a new angle on objections to Coulter's diatribe. She staunchly defends the Christian Right, particularly Jerry Falwell. Coulter doesn't quote the much-repeated Falwell/Pat Robertson exchange after 9/11 (wherein they suggested the attack on the Twin Towers was divine punishment on America for homosexuality, abortions, feminists, and the ACLU among others). Rather she quotes Walter Cronkite's reaction to to Falwell's remarks and claims this is a typical liberal reaction by an out-of-touch elitist. So why not quote Falwell to counterpoint Cronkite?

Coulter also displays a sly anti-Semitism early in the book. While she vigorously defends the likes of Falwell and Robertson all the the book, early on she bashes liberals for bashing conservatives in the wake of Matthew Shepard's murder.

Here's what Coulter writes: "In another translation from the liberal rabbinate, a Washington Post columnist casually compared serious and substantial men like Shelby Steele and Clarence Thomas to a cringing, servile slave from the miniseries 'Roots' on the basis of...a 'metaphor.'" Page 14. That's the exact quote. Coulter manages to defend two conservatives while cleverly linking those horrible liberals with Jewish rabbis. Doesn't do anything like this elsewhere in the book. An accidental or arbitrary word choice? Coulter's too smart for that. She's subtlely linked Jews and their learned leaders with those awful liberals, smearing the good names of good conservatives. No accident for this fan of Falwell (who as of this writing on 10/31/02 still has a section on his website claiming that the anti-Christ will be a Jewish male.)

1 star for her ability to get this nonsense published. It's hard to get a book published in America; Coulter's managed to hit the best seller lists with a poorly researched and ultimately polarizing tome.

Rating:
Summary: Counter-Coulter
Review: P>Perhaps it is a case of professional jealousy; perhaps envy; perhaps political bias. Whatever the reason, I found the reviewers to be wrong...dead wrong.

Ms. Coulter's book is a well reasoned, "steel trap", quick read. It is fun to read through from cover to cover, then worth reading again. It is an "eye opener". Well documented (and for this fact only she was severely criticized), well written, and to be truthful, quite frightening.

Regardless of your political persuasion, you owe it to yourself to read this book. I would suggest keeping it on the table right next to you as you read the NYT or other major big city newspaper editorials. Then, read her chapter on the media and see if "deja vue" doesn't occur.

She's right! By heaven, she is!

Five stars!

Rating:
Summary: Two thumbs up for Ann Coulter!
Review: Ann has done her research and has presented the world with a fair and accurate description of the Liberal Left. There is so much media bias and unfair coverage of the "Right". Read this book and you will be convinced that being conservative is more than just a title it is a conviction.

Rating:
Summary: MY GOODNESS, BUT THIS BOOK HAS LIBERALS TWITTERPATED!
Review: COULD IT BE BECAUSE ANN IS THE MOST COURAGEOUS, WELL INFORMED, ACCURATE, INDISPUTABLE WRITER CITING DOCUMENTATION PROVING MEDIA LIBERAL BIAS?

NA, OF COURSE NOT.

THIS BOOK IS PROOF THAT THE LIBERAL MEDIA HAS BEEN DISTORTING AND LYING TO US FOR DECADES. READ IT AND HAVE YOUR BLINDERS RIPPED OFF. SCARY? SURE IT IS. IT'S ALSO HEALTHY. KNOW THE TRUTH. READ IT.

Rating:
Summary: (Whack!) Is this horse (Whack!) really dead (Whack!) yet?
Review: Coulter's point, exhaustively footnoted and unimaginatively presented, is that conservatives are good and liberals are bad. What would have been more interesting as a 750-word essay was inflated into a 205-page book with 35 pages of footnotes. After 4 pages, you get the point.But her sarcastic speaking style, which plays well on CNN's Crossfire, doesn't quite make the trip in prose. Save yourself some money -- read the liner notes on Amazon.com or at your local bookstore.

Rating:
Summary: Proves that Turnabout is Fair Play
Review: In "Slander" Ann Coulter shows how the leftist establishment scurrilously maligns conservative America with a barrage that regularly stretches the truth and often utilizes unbridled mendacity. In addition to documenting the vitriol and spurious assaults inflicted by liberal muck-a-mucks (including most of the mass media), the conservative movement's diva returns fire with both barrels. Throughout the cumbersomely annotated work, she displays the acerbic humor that readers of her syndicated column appreciate so well. Along the way she engages in some of the opponents' very same tactics--but provides corroboration for every accusation she propels.

No liberal mantra is left standing. On feminism which she says "hasn't made much of a dent in America (but) has taken the worlds of news and entertainment by storm," she compares yesteryear's Hollywood stars like Grace Kelly and Sophia Loren who personified class with today's flash in the pan crowd (Brittanies, Madonnas, Sarah Jessicas etc.) who personify crass. She sarcastically summarizes "whatever feminism is alleged to have accomplished, it did not create a world in which women are admired for something other than playing or being sluts."

She addresses the tedious refrain of calling successful Republicans dumb; Ronald Reagan who won the cold war was regularly dismissed as a dunce despite making the world a much safer and more prosperous place to live. Of the current scene, she points out that "George Bush (43) with degrees from Yale and Harvard is ridiculed for his stupidity by Hollywood starlets whose course of study is limited to what they've learned from bald sweaty men on casting couches." To elucidate how disingenuous the left's concept of smarts is, she explains that "liberals idea of intellectual engagement is Bill Clinton 's adolescent cramming in all-night slumber parties leaving the place littered with pizza rinds and women's panties." Regarding the few Republicans who avoid the "D" brand, she discusses the curious exception of Christy Whitman who inaccurately earned the smart label due to her lack of true Republican principles. Skimming over several of the former New Jersey governor's accomplishments (aka goof-ups), the author provides an apt summation: "the woman is a dimwit."

She also talks about the unfair distortions in news coverage of liberals vs. conservatives; Bush-speak "subliminable' for example is a lot closer to 'subliminal' than "was the inspiration for 'Love Story' is to 'knew the guy who wrote 'Love Story.'" A Clinton-era shibboleth dictates that exposing personal corruption should be forsaken because it will deter good people from going into politics. Ann Coulter counters that "another possible response to adultery scandals involving politicians is not good people avoiding politics, but politicians avoiding adultery."

In a mordant, tables-turning passage she unloads, "the good part about being a Democrat is that you can commit crimes, sell out your base, bomb foreigners, and rape women, and the Democratic faithful will still think you're the greatest. The bad part is that you must effortlessly follow the party orthodoxy, which is completely impenetrable to human logic." No longer can it be said that conservatives can't dish it out as well as liberals!

No section is as right on the money or as wickedly risible as the chapter appraising media coverage of that elusive phoenix, "the Religious Right." By meticulously documenting a plethora of chronological articles from liberal-leaning media (primarily "the New York Times" and "the Washington Post") she cites repeated inconsistent references to the mythical "Religious Right" as interchangeably wielding great influence or waning in persuasive heft. No events seem to cause the steep fluctuations in its power, and no supporting criteria are offered to explain the divagations. As to who or what comprises the "Religious Right" none of the sources (nor the author) seem to be able to say. It's a chimerical force that liberals fear but fail to pinpoint exactly why.

It's ironic that one of the book's strong attributes actually becomes a minor drawback. To obliterate any critics, who question the veracity of her arguments, Miss Coulter has painstakingly notated the work. Certain pages are literally laden down with superscript in, alas, what will probably prove a futile undertaking. This phenomenally successful book likely preaches to the choir. It is doubtful that many of the liberal traducers will read a work that so efficaciously deconstructs their strategy.