Slander

Rating:
Summary: when will political debate in America grow up?
Review: The success of this book demonstrates the degree to which inflammatory rhetoric rather than facts dominate contemporary political debate in the U.S. Coulter is right about one thing: "the country is trapped in a political discourse that increasingly resembles professional wrestling." ... this book contributes to the very phenomena that Coulter seems to complain about.

The notion that a bias is revealed by counting the number of times a publication uses a certain phrase, such as "Christian conservatives" or "moderate Republican" or "atheist liberals" is just absurd. ...

Coulter falsely asserts at least four times in this book that Al Gore claimed he was the inspiration for the book "Love Story". Gore did mistakenly say that the character of Jenny had been based on his wife Tipper, but he based this comment on an incorrect report in the Nashville Tennessean. ...

Coulter falsely says that New York Times columnist Frank Rich demanded that Attorney General Ashcroft stop monkeying around with Muslim terrorists and concentrate on anti-abortion extremists.
The column she sites ... makes no such argument. Check it out. ...

Coulter ridicules a study that showed that the New York Times published 50 percent more anti-Gore than anti-Bush articles during the 2000 presidential race not by engaging the actual substance of the study but simply by dismissing it as an example of "the sheer joy liberals take in telling lies."

I only have enough space here to point out a handful of the hundreds of flaws, distortions and falsehoods contained in this book.

Coulter's basic idea is that everything about conservatives in America is good and everything about liberals in America is bad. I don't regard myself as a conservative or a liberal. I agree with some well-known people who are called conservatives on some issues, and I agree with some well-known people who are called liberals on other issues, and I agree with neither liberals or conservatives on many issues. ... But books like this simplify a more complicated reality, and make people of opposing views close-minded and hateful. ...

Rating:
Summary: Love
Review: I love Ann. She's brilliant, insightful, and she sees it all as clearly as I do. When things are as obvious to someone as everything is to her , you don't need to have courage. You simply can't keep your observations to yourself. ... If Ann's an extremist then so am I.

Rating:
Summary: Coulter's got the facts on liberal mendacity
Review: I know, I know-persuading conservative readers that there is liberal bias in the media is like persuading Al Sharpton to have another doughnut.
Still, it's good to re-examine the evidence, which is what Ann Coulter does in "Scandal: Liberal Lies About the American Right." Meticulously researched, with more than 750 footnotes, Coulter blows away the vacuous blatherings of liberal news anchors, politicians, and college professors.
Dan Quayle slipped up one time and misspelled "potato." For this, he was crucified, pilloried, drawn and quartered by liberal pundits. But when a liberal politician makes a mistake, the press ignores it, or even covers up the transgression. Have you ever heard of these misstatements by well-known liberals?
• Bill Clinton: "This is still the greatest country in the world, if we just will steel our wills and lose our minds."
• Barbara Boxer: "Those who survived the San Francisco earthquake said, 'Thank God I'm still alive.' But, of course, those who died, their lives will never be the same."
• Janet Reno: "I always wait until a jury has spoken before I anticipate what they will do."
• Al Gore: "A zebra cannot change its spots."
• Hillary Clinton: "I'm having a great time being presi-"
The main reason for liberal media bias is that many so-called "objective" reporters once worked for Democratic politicians. They include Tim Russert, Chris Matthews, Jeff Greenfield, Ken Bode, Bill Moyers, Brian Williams, Jane Pauley, James Fallows. All moved effortless into straight-news reporting jobs with major media outlets, and no one raised an eyebrow.
But when conservatives, such as George Will or Pat Buchanan, move from the political realm to a media job, they are shunted into commentary jobs and are clearly labelled as the "conservative" viewpoint. Just once, could we see the words "liberal hack" appear under Dan Rather's face during the CBS Evening News?
The media, of course, deny any bias. "Hearing media people describe liberals," says Coulter, "is like listening to a fish characterize water: Water? What water?"
Whenever conservatives can bypass the monopolistic death grip of the newspapers, TV networks, and news magazines, they find a large audience among the American people for conservative ideas and policies. The internet and talk radio have become alternate news sources for many people tired of liberal bias in the mainstream news. Conservative books (such as "Slander") routinely rank in the top ten best-seller lists.

But even these alternatives, says Coulter, drive liberals crazy and provoke them to censorship. A favorite trick is to hide conservative books in bookstores and in libraries.
What drives the liberal mind to censor, twist, and demonize conservative ideas? Basically, they don't trust you, and think you're an idiot who cannot manage your life. A New York Times reviewer said that Rush Limbaugh's "appeal is to a part of middle America-call it the silent majority or the American People or the booboisie."
Calling conservatives 'stupid' is the topic of one of the chapters in "Slander." Other favorite liberal epithets are 'racist,' 'fascist,' 'homophobe,' and 'ugly' "The 'you're stupid' riposte is part of the larger liberal tactic of refusing to engage in ideas," writes Coulter. "Sometimes they evaporate in the middle of an argument and you're left alone, arguing with yourself."
There's much, much more in "Slander" that will delight and enrage you. Reading it gives one a greater understanding of liberal psychology.

Rating:
Summary: Just the Facts Ma'am, Just the Facts
Review: When I read this spectacular book, this phrase kept coming to mind. Ms. Coulter didn't fill the pages with "feelings" or inuendo. She presented clear, concise arguments with facts to back them up. What a refreshing book.

I have listened to several "liberal" interviews with Ms. Coulter and every one has tried to steer the conversation to "feelings", or "intent" or tried to paint Ms. Coulter as "An angry white female". Ms. Coulter just keeps pointing them into chapter and verse and asks them to dispute any of the facts. So far Ms. Coulter 10 - Liberal Media 0.

It is so much fun finding "Coulter-isms" in the liberal media. It's similar to playing "Buzz word Bingo".

Just the facts ma'am, just the facts. Thanks Ms. Coulter.

Rating:
Summary: Just Finished The Whole Book
Review: If you are unsure about the value of this book, start with chapter 5 on the 2000 election; you will be hooked.

I would categorize about 1% of the issues Coulter raises as 'stretching things a bit', the other 99% is an air-tight case. The liberal media has been 'outed' once again (see also "Bias" by Bernard Goldberg).

Regarding Coulter being 'hypocritical' in the book for being biased, or 'attacking' people, that's exactly the point -- she does not hide behind the guise of objectivity while at the same promoting an agenda. This is the point of the entire book -- the 'mainstream' media pretends to be objective, but most non-liberal ideas and individuals are criticized disproportionately. Coulter documents this exhaustively throughout the book.

Many of the negative reviews here reflect individuals who have not actually read the book. This is obvious because Coulter's evidence is so overwhelming, so complete, and so thorough, that any attempt to discredit her position is laughable. She has done her homework. Similarly, the NY Times negative review of this book falls right into Coulter's trap, and ignores the overwhelming facts of an entire chapter on the 2000 election, and tries to discredit Coulter's position based upon one sentence -- a sentence which was backed up by the entire chapter preceding it! It is obvious the NY Times 'reviewer' either did not read the book, or refuses to acknowledge empirical evidence (a phenomenon also covered in the book!).

Regardless of your political affiliation, the information presented here will be eye opening.

Highly recommended.

Rating:
Summary: Sheesshhh
Review: While it is true that Ann Coulter may be a bit more intelligent than say, Rush Limbaugh, their writings are the same. Coulter's major complaint with Democrats? First off, she says that they should not be allowed to exist. That tells you something right away about the "patriotism" of this author. So much for Freedom.
What struck me most is her complaints that Democrats do not tell the truth. Yet she rants on and on against the alleged trashing of the White House when the Clinton Administration left. Fox News- where Coulter is- or was- a commentator- retracted that report. The Bush White House publicly apologized for the "inaccuracy" of the reports- and yet the mere "idea" that Democrats would do such a thing is so appealing to right-wing extremists such as Ann Coulter that she cannot resist repeating the false-charges in her book. She knows those charges were false and yet she published them anyway. What else is untrue but fits her extremist ideology? Who has difficulty "telling the truth?"
I found this book to be just the rantings of another fanatic. If hatred sells, this book will do well. If you enjoy divisiveness, below-the-belt insults and hate-mongering- you will enjoy Ann Coulter's writing. Nothing new here.

Rating:
Summary: Lip service for the hateful
Review: I must say, reading the high reviewers of this book, that they too are misguided by the same hate, vitriol, and uneducated name-called and finger pointing that Coulter is. I would NEVER believe a similar book written by a liberal, either. Like so many liberals and conservatives these days, Coulter revels in bashing and cruel hurtling of blind insults, instead of trying to seek a common ground or find a solution. There are two political giants in this country, and neither will work with the other side to get any proper work done. It's totally embarrassing, and this book is yet more proof of how that works. To take anything this type of book states as an unshakeable truth is buying into it's hate-mongering. The negative reviews here do not AT ALL support her ramblings...in fact they support the opposite - That there are many liberals, and conservatives, who don't want to buy into this playground name-calling, and that generalization is an argument for the lowest and weakest common denominator of our country.

Rating:
Summary: Coluter is the Pot Calling the Kettle Black
Review: P>This book is patently ridiculous. Coulter presents herself as cutting through the lies, untruths and distortions of the media - and then proceeds to lie, tell untruths and distort reality like some cheap conjurer.

There is undoubtedly bias in America's media, both on the right and on the left, and an insightful book could have been written pointing out liberal bias (New York Times, the New Republic, once upon a time CNN) and conservative bias (the Wall Street Journal, Fox News, Time Magazine). However, Coulter has written a waste of paper.

Rating:
Summary: The Queen Of One-Liners, To Be Sure!
Review: I love this woman! She makes me laugh in spite of my efforts not to on certain issues.

I literally could not put this book aside and move on to other things that I needed to be doing until after I had finished reading the entire book.

"Slander:Liberal Lies About The American Right" by Ann H. Coulter, blasts the liberal bias that she claims is so very obvious in the 'media world' of today. No one is safe when this entertaining woman is around -- Ya just gotta love her!

I think my favorite part of the book was when Ms. Coulter argued her point of view over the conservatives and the liberals, her words..., "The conservatives read and the liberals don't!" I'm still laughing over that line.

"Slander:Liberal Lies About The American Right" is a book I know you won't want to miss! A definate, "MUST READ!"

Rating:
Summary: Ann Coulter Hits a Home Run!
Review: Ann Coulter is, without a doubt a giant among the intellectuals of the conservative movement. In her latest novel Slanders: Liberal Lies About the American Right Miss Coulter shows the truth about not only the bias in the media against all things conservative, she also exposes their arguments and ideas for what they are: Shallow attempts by followers of a discredited philosphy to hold on to power at all costs.

The strongest point of the book, in my opinion, is Ms. Coulter's exposure of the liberal bias in the media. The facts are irrefutable. Media icons such as Tim Russert, Jeff Greenfield, Crhist Matthews, Bill Moyers, Brian Williams, Rick Inderfurth, Elizabeth Brackett, Jane Pauley, Pierre Salinger, Cokie Roberts, and Maria Shriver are all either ex democratic party operatives or related to Democratic Party Icons. Miss Coulter notes that none of this draws a single note of condemnation from the Media (of course because these people ARE the media). How many ex Republican's are "journalists"? Diane Sawyer, Susan Molinari (short lived) and Pat Buchanan are the only three names which come to mind. Miss Coulter also mentions the media fire storm that occurs when a Republican becomes a member of the media while this firestorm doesn't occur when a democrat like George Stephanopalus does the same thing.

Miss Coulter's book is back up with numerous facts, and is well documented (about 100 or more footnotes per chapter). The book is well written and the arguments are obviously those of an intellectual heavy-weight. If you are interested in conservative thoughts and ideals this book is a must read.