Rating: 
Summary: WHO THE VAST RIGHT WING CONSPIRACY CONSISTS OF
Review: The vast right wing conspiracy consists of millions of patriotic American citizens who register and vote. They might also be called the Christian Coalition, the Silent Majority, or the people not invited to cocktail parties hosted by Pauline Kael.STEVEN TRAVERS
Author of "Barry Bonds: Baseball's Superman"
STWRITES@aol.com
Rating: 
Summary: One Half Of A Great Debate
Review: Whenever a writer bandies the word 'conspiracy' around, he usually uses it in a context of an accusatory attack against a shadowy foe. It is quite rare that a writer chooses to use it in a defensive way. In THE OFFICIAL HANDBOOK OF THE VAST RIGHT-WING CONSPIRACY by Mark W. Smith, the cabal of conspirators is nothing less than the entire right spectrum of conservative American politics, the Republican party. Smith exults in and glorifies the role that Republicans supposedly play in their conspiracy to present 'the arguments you need to defeat the loony left.' (from the advertisement on the book's cover) New York lawyer Mark Smith divides this thin text into twenty-eight brief chapters, each of which follows a similar structure. He begins with what he terms the 'liberal lunacy.' In his chapter on the desirability of maintaining and using racial profiling as a means to target potential Moslem radical terrorists before they board commercial aircraft, he gives the liberal spin: "Law enforcement should not be allowed to consider race at all." He then proceeds to give the opposite conservative spin, most of which deals with sound bytes with which the readers of The New York Daily News are well familiar. Smith likes to quote conservative sources like Ann Coulter: "100 percent of successful terrorists attacks on commercial airlines for twenty years have been committed by Arabs. When there is a 100 percent chance, it ceases to be a profile. It's called a 'description of the suspect.' "
What emerges from this book, which is witty and well written, is one half of a spirited debate. It is almost as if the Lincoln-Douglas debates were missing Douglas. The squelching of the left side of things is telling, but far from complete. A more thorough dismantling of the left would have entailed having a left spokesman engage in reply. Still, the OHVRWS is a handy starting point that succinctly sums up the major hot button issues of the looming presidential election of 2004.
Rating: 
Summary: utter dreck
Review: A quick point about the "Endangered Species List" argument: Anyone who has a basic understanding of ecology would point out that the ESL is not premised on a supposed "hierarchy" of the value of various animals. It is premised on the concept that each species (or, each one of God's creations, if you prefer) is integral to the ecological balance of our planet. If we need to save an insect that (hypothetically) eats other insects that in turn make cattle ill, it's probably valuable to include said insect. Secondly, as far as creating more terrorists vs. creating more Native Americans: Native Americans are a people. Terrorism is an ideology. Anyone can become a terrorist by contorting their mind into that state. Not quite that simple to qualify as a Native American. And it takes nine months to produce another Native American, whereas a terrorist can be created in a matter of minutes. This is a difference in kind, not degree and a very poorly chosen example. I'm disappointed because I hear conservatives calling for a return to traditional values and basics. Well, traditional values include things like diligence, intellectual integrity, consideration of all available facts, and honesty in the face of a valid counterpoint. By positing itself as humor, this book seeks to let itself off the hook for its shortcomings, but in actuality it does conservatives a big disservice by feeding them poor information and faulty argument techniques. They may think they have some ammo against those "fast-talking liberals" but they are just going to end up looking like a bunch of frat boys who spent their time lighting their farts while the other kids were studying if they rely on this utter drivel.
Rating:
Summary: Kill those looney liberals!
Review: I admit that I did not read this entire book. I couldn't. The palaver against "liberals," whatever the hell they are (those who value liberty over totalitarianism?), was too embarrassing to sustain for very long. If you read this book and read Francione's, How To Save America, you will understand why Smith says what he says and just what his agenda really is. If you've labelled yourself a conservative, you'll love this little "pat each other on the back" book. But it lacks meaningful analysis and relies on superficial let's-just-take-a-quick-peek criticism that anyone with vocal chords can accomplish. It's greatest value is in naming many of the important social topics to get you thinking. Unfortunately it doesn't stop there but rather sabatages that thinking by leading the reader into illogical and hasty conclusions that ignore the complexities of many issues. This is propaganda at best. Francione is a better read and infinitely more honest.
Rating: 
Summary: Depends on who you talk to
Review: You'll find this book useful and insightful if you only talk to other conservatives. You'll find a lot to pat each other on the back about. But if you ever talk to actual liberals (and assuming you have the intellectual honesty to admit when you're wrong) you'll quickly find that Smith grossly distorts some liberal positions for the sake of knocking them down (straw man argument), or else offers shaky support for his points. Just like Coulter, Hannity and Limbaugh, Smith has to be selective and sometimes dishonest in his presentation in order to make a case.
Rating:
Summary: great read
Review: For more great recommendations, please visit:
http://www.campaign2004.com/ There's a lot of great info on John Kerry, George W Bush, and their bids for Campaign 2004 during the November 2004 Presidential Election. http://www.campaign2004.com/
Rating:
Summary: Serious Issues, Analyzed Clearly and Directly
Review: The title of Mark Smith's book may be glib, but the book is full of substance. It takes on complex subjects and distills them to their essence, especially with respect to the war on terror and national defense. The analysis marshalls facts, adds wisdom and common sense, and is presented in direct and lucid prose. Wherever you are on the political spectrum, this book deserves your attention.
Rating: 
Summary: an impressive book
Review: a better title for this book would be "Conservative Answers to Liberal Arguments" This book lists many arguments made by liberals and offers excellent rebuttals. The book itself is well written and I think the authour tries his best to give a balanced account of things. There are many things in this book which I agree but other things I don't. I consider myself an economic liberal and social conservative. The comments this book has on why welfare programs should be scrapped, are best described in the well known phrase "give a man a fish and you feed him for a day, teach him how to fish and you feed him for life." This book is sure to become popular with conservatives.
Rating:
Summary: Very Informative
Review: This is a great book and well worth the read. Im sure liberals will bash this book with all they have but every conservative and/or republican should read this and keep it close at hand for those long, exasperating arguments with lefties. Not only does this book give you the arguments to prove liberal insanities it also backs it up with facts that 'anyone' can find. A must read, must have for any true thinking American.
Rating:
Summary: Beware Any Book Endorsed by Ann Coulter
Review: I was browsing my local bookstore when I came across this gem. The first thing that caught my notice was the ringing endorsement (and the author's praise for) Ann Coulter, probably the most notoriously dishonest pundit being published today. So of course, I was curious to see what kind of sources he cited. So I sat down with a coffee and perused this thing for an hour, and what do you know? *Every damn source* cited by Smith is either a.) a right-wing think tank, subject to neither the checks and balances of academia nor journalistic ethics, or b.) a secondary source, for the most part in the form of an Op-Ed by a conservative columnist. No credible, independent primary sources are to be found. The only people to whom I'd recommend this dreck are progressives -- after all, we all need a good laugh every once in a while.
| 
