Customer Reviews

How to Talk to a Liberal (If You Must): The World According to Ann Coulter

5 star:		(317)
4 star:		(69)
3 star:		(39)
2 star:		(39)
1 star:		(320)

 

 

I recently finished Ann Coulter's latest book. It did raise some interesting points, although some are exaggerated or given slanted coverage in the book.

What interests me, looking through the reviews, is that nerly everyone has given the book either "5 stars" or "1 star" reviews. Many people who read these books do so with their minds already made up from the start.... if they read them at all. I would bet that a quarter of these reviews are written by political "zealots" who have never actually read the book.

Think about it.

This book should have a strong warning label. My face still hurts from laughing so hard. This book is a masterpiece of sarcasm, irony and a good degree of truth. If you can't take a joke or don't appreciate mild scarcasm, it's probably not for you. But if you are familiar with any of Ms. Coulters prior works or her persona as a talking head, you will enjoy it thoroughly, as I did.

It's not out until October 5, so stop reviewing it. To the person that gave this book one star already, don't review the author, review the book as soon as YOU HAVE READ IT!!!

READ IT FIRST, REVIEW IT SECOND

Let me start out by saying I like Ann Coulter alot. I find her witty informed and a good writer. One thing I tell her is that unless someone is a mass murderer, I am most happy to talk to them regardless of their politics.

Her book is entertaining and very well written. I enjoy reading Anne and listening to the ultra right wing talk show hosts on radio because they are a lot more interesting than the moderate hosts or those that are ultra left.

One thing Anne sees and many people that express her views, is a world where everybody is extreme right or extreme left with no middle ground. The truth of the matter is that most people I know are middle ground. Regardless, if you are not offended by Ms. Coulter's assumptions, you will really enjoy this book.

There are certain authors I make a point of reading only if someone lends their work to me, or I'm near the library. I had that intuition before I picked up her book, and it served me well. The only thing that annoys me about this screed is that I took the time to read it--most of it.

While others have found her a great writer, I'm afraid I missed it. Her logic is narrow. When she talks about who ended the cold war, she suggests that the reader just say, Ronald Reagan. This is an oversimplistic response, because Harry Truman's Berlin Airlift, Eisenhower, Kennedy's enforcement of the Monroe Doctrine and others also set the stage for Ron's appointment with destiny. Two of those presidents were mighty liberal too. Let's not forget that Reagan got nowhere with Russian leaders Breshnev and Andropov. His success came with the ascendancy of Gorbachev, and his programs of glasnost and perestroika. It didn't hurt that both got on famously with each other. This is an example of where Coulter chooses to see things through the narrow tunnel of her assumptions, and shuts the door on any other factors that do not fit her frame of reference.

Coulter adds a lot of her previous columns. If I wanted to read them, I would have bought the papers. Adding this filler to her book, suggests that she lacks the acumen to write a book of any length or profound thought. Coulter also added some of her columns that weren't published. She claimed that they would have been published if we lived in a free America. Oh well, that's free market economics for you! This is the same Ann Coulter who suggested that Robert Walker Lindh, the captured American who was fighting for the Taliban, should be executed. It would be a lesson, she added, to other liberals that the same thing could happen to them. This is, of course, if we lived in her idea of a free America. Incidentally, Lindh was fighting for a reactionary, ultra-conservative government, but that too must have escaped her attention.

This author's book is the equivalent of "shock jock" radio with one liners that are as banal as the Sahara is dry. There are no illuminating statements here, only clever ones.

Personal attacks are always thought to be the last resort of a poor argument. You'll find this book is filled with them.

First off, I'd like to make it clear that I am not a liberal. To be fair, I'm not a conservative either. I'd classify myself more as a political spectator, who occasionally takes sides based on certain policies. Regarding Miss Coulter and her newest book, I am adamant in my dislike. I have nothing against the fact that she's a conservative. I know many intelligent, rational people who are conservatives, and I consider them to be good, honest people who happen to align themselves with a certain ideology. That's what America is about: accepting that there's a difference, and meeting in between. Miss Coulter fails to realize this. Her attacks are based entirely on personal belief and she expects readers and the United States government to take this belief as their moral dictum. Miss Coulter oversteps the boundaries of individual authority. By claiming that we (the US) should "convert them to Christianity" she disregards the selfsame freedoms and liberties that she personally advocates in this book. First and foremost, then, Miss Coulter contradicts herself: in defense of her own position, she claims that the state is obligated to give its constituents freedom of belief, but at the same time argues that liberals are just plain wrong, that their beliefs should be disregarded, and that they are (because of their beliefs) enemies of the state.

Anyone who imagines that Ann Coulter is a feminist should read one of the last items in the book, never published before, which makes it abundantly clear that she has enormous "issues" with feminism. I'm sure plenty of people will call her "mean-spirited" and "ignorant" for failing to toe the Party Line, but for me this essay was by far the best thing in the book.

I am _still_ waiting for a review that isn't partisan: Could someone in the center please read this book? I feel like the only ones who read it do so either so they can agree with everything she says or solely so that they may hate her even more than before.

I suspect, however, that someone who is completely non-partisan would say that though the book is funny, it is funny in a way that is insensitive and low-brow; valid points about liberals may exist, but the amount of ad hoc insults and exaggerated vituperatives she uses tends to discredit her to a point where she seems incapable of reasonable thought, convictions aside.

I also think too many of her opinions are based on Christianity. Conservatism isn't exclusive to that religion.

Further, compromise is not a sin; personal integrity regarding one's opinions is admirable but stubborn close-mindedness is not.

Coulter refuses to put _any_ fault with conservatives (aside from those who supposedly cater to liberals); that is ridiculous. It is seldom that one side is totally innocent.

Frankly, this book is childishly opinionated -- as a graded essay, I suspect it would receive a very low score. She presents no counter-arguments. She insults. She replaces colloquy with contumely. It is very difficult to read, like a many-paged internet rant.

And all of my own personal reactions aside, I have heard it said that the number of fabrications and inaccuracies in her books is rather unbelievable -- and that her publishers refuse to correct them. I don't know it that's true or not. I haven't the inclination to do counter-research.

From a literary stand-point, I would call the writing amateurish, but that's nothing unusual for a political book.

I think this book is too radical and near-sighted to be appealing to anyone who doesn't already believe what Ann Coulter says... I doubt she's doing any converting. It takes reasoned argument to do that.

Political orientation nothing: I would give this book as bad a review as one by Michael Moore. The only compliment I would give either is that each presents their propaganda in forms which are _meant_ to be opinionated -- as opposed to journalists, who are supposed to be non-partisan. (And that goes both ways, despite what Coulter says: The newspapers may be liberal, but television is conservative. More people watch television, anyway, so I don't know why she's complaining.)

I may have to rescind even that compliment, however: Both seem to present to the unsuspecting and uneducated public what they would have dubbed "facts." Readers don't seem to know better.

I do not recommend reading this book.

This is a collection of Coulter's columns from "Human Events" and her syndicated column for Universal Press Syndicate. This series of essays provides you with a lot more breadth but not as much depth as the typical book topic.

Ann Coulter is at her best or worst, depending upon your perspective, once again leveling liberals with a rather cranked vocabulary, to say the least. Her writing (and I assume speaking) style leaves me cold--I think rants weaken arguments not strengthen them--but her points of view are worth considering and from time to time she gets off a one-liner that is downright funny.

Would I recommend this book--as opposed to others worthy of your time and money? Nah. Would I go across the street to hear Coulter speak? Nah.

As much as I like Ms. Coulter and her humor, and I loved 'Demonic'. I learned a great deal that I did not already know from 'Demonic'. I was disappointed by the content of 'How to talk to a liberal'. It was not what I expected. I really wanted to learn how to talk to and present arguements to a liberal. Instead the book was mainly old op-eds that Ms. Coulter wrote. They are good and they are valid, but just not what I expected based on the title.