Customer Reviews

Slander: Liberal Lies About the American Right

5 star:		(529)
4 star:		(103)
3 star:		(55)
2 star:		(61)
1 star:		(448)

 

 

Slander is often brilliant: painstakingly researched, witty, and often making its case with breathtaking power. But it's also flawed: to make her case that liberals and the
news media demonize conservatives, author Ann Coulter consistently demonizes THEM.

It's a shame because Coulter often makes her case but resorts to the same tactics and language that she's criticizing. After you read it you wonder: then, what was the point?

She contends our political discourse increasingly resembles "professional wrestling," yet uses that exact style when writing about individuals and groups who she often effectively demolishes with facts. For instance, how does calling former CBS anchorman Walter Cronkite a "pious left-wing blowhard" make our political discussion more issue oriented -- even if it IS INCREDIBLY funny (which it is) and may indeed be true (I would not be a bit surprised)?

If you are a conservative Republican (I am not) you will LOVE Slander and want to gift it to like-minded friends. If you are a liberal Democrat (I am not) you will HATE Slander and not finish it. If you're an independent (like me) you may feel sad since Coulter, an attorney, at times makes her case so well. But her slash-and-burn rhetoric turns Slander into a case of the pot calling the pot a pot.

She makes many points with wit, such as on how New York Mayor Rudolph Giuliani was demonized by liberals until 911: "After September 11, the average New Yorker faced a risk of death or bodily harm not seen since David Dinkins was mayor...The
characterization of Giuliani as a heartless brute vanished into thin air like the blather it always was."

ABC's hiring of former Clinton aide George Stephanopoulous, she writes, is "the equivalent of a major network hiring Chuck Colson immediately after Watergate."

Coulter did her homework well, using extensive quotations, facts and statistics to bolster her case on several points. A few of the many:

--An overall defense of Fox News Network and what happened on its election night reporting.
--The number of high-profile Democrats who left politics to work in the news media's upper echelons. She names names -- and it's DEVASTATING.
--How opponents constantly characterize conservatives as stupid and link them with things related to Nazis to spread fear and activate their own political base.
--Media and liberals' exaggeration and misinformation about the Religious Right's actual power and alleged "threat".
--How the media use "ultra" and "far"-right labels on conservatives but neglect to use these words, or even "liberal" on Democrats. This is her most devastating knock-out punch, using precise LexisNexis search statistics. She effectively PROVES bias.
--How liberals, feminists and the news media have ignored and ridiculed conservative author and activist Phyllis Schlafly's considerable education, accomplishments and ideas.
This is among her strongest sections.

Yet, this section points out Coulter's problem: to boost Schlafly she simply cannot resist attacking feminist Gloria Steinem who, she writes, "had to sleep with Mort Zuckerman, a
rich liberal media mogul" to keep the magazine Ms. afloat. This is elevating political discussion??

Her weakest contention: she writes of conservative women being branded as ugly by liberals adding: "Only conservative women have their looks held up to ridicule because only liberals would be so malevolent." Patently FALSE: conservatives have ridiculed Janet Reno, Chelsea Clinton, and others for their looks and conservative talk show hosts still liken Clinton administration cabinet women to the bar scene in Star Wars (by the way I love ALL this ridicule and hope it continues...but we are talking about what's FACTUAL here).

Elsewhere, she writes: "Liberals have been wrong about everything in the last half-century" while "conservatives in America are the most tolerant and long suffering people in the world...If a conservative calls you stupid, you are stupid...Liberal lie even when they call people names."

Coulter is definitely on the right track with Slander. Her writing, research and theme are topnotch. Slander WILL sell -- but its impact will be greatly reduced by its author's
nuclear-attack mode execution which, in the end, undermines its credibility.

Anne Coulter documents the bias in the news that all of us have heard over the years and inserts her sharp commentary about media bias. Many people may not agree with what she says, but I don't think that's the point. She provides extensive, well documented quotes from those in the main stream media and lets readers know exactly what she thinks about it. This is what makes the book so enjoyable. I think her perspective is interesting and I love the sarcastic wit and humor of the book.

This book, crackling with intensity and fervor, is of course far too brash to be read too seriously by anyone; except maybe Karl Rove or anyone else who has a penthouse in the Right Wing. To be fair I must say that the book has it's moments. The points expressed are over the edge, but then that's her schtick isn't it? If you go into expecting some sort of schollarly and balanced review then you either have been nastily misinformed or expect a bit much of her.

Ms. Coulter says it's for entertainment, and I undersatnd why. Look at the thing! Read it all the way through and honestly tell me that it wasn't like reading a transcript of Stand-Up night at the GOP. After all I'm a Conservative and I found more than a few of the passages were just ridiculous. Liberals don't eat babies for breakfast, and I know that, and that's how I can read this book and take it with a grain of salt.

If you really want to know what true Conservatism is about read The Portable Conservative Reader by Viking Press/Penguin. If you want to enjoy a few hours of Slander...and come on isn't that a witty title for a mud-slinging book?...then indulge yourself. Either it'll make you laugh, scream, roll your eyes, or become an active member of the re-elect Bush team. No matter what, if you want to see what the average FAR-FAR RIGHT person thinks but you don't want to visualize Limbaugh in a skirt, read Coulter.

This book will drive the far left crazy. Ms. Coulter does a wonderful job of exposing how pervasive the misrepresentation of conservatives in America has become. She supports it all with references, and adds a touch of her special wit. Well done.

I found the uniquely homogenous string of single star reviews to Ms. Coulter's book so unusual that I figured it must be an organized smear campaign. If her book was so frightening as to evoke such vile and mean spirited response, well then, there must be something in there that is so blindingly truthful that it scares small minded people.

Well, I read it cover to cover and interestingly enough, there really wasn't anything that I found all that objectionable. I found myself disagreeing with a good bit of it while other parts made me laugh out loud. Perhaps not intentionally, there were sections that made me ponder my own paranoid illusions. I found conflict, humor, empathy and some of the zaniest postulates this side of the X-files.

Bottom line is, wether or not I agreed with any of it, I enjoyed it, which is a whole lot more that I can say for a lot of highly rated, politically correct books that I've read lately.

I will say that some of the observations Coulter provided are alright, but much of what this book has to say is inaccurate.

For starters, the very first claim in the book is about how liberals treat Tom DeLay. She complains that the New York Times compared him to the Crusaders and witch-hunters. However when one looks up the Maureen Dowd column that she cites, they find that though she started off criticizing DeLay, the quote about religion is not about Delay, but Al Gore! Secondly, it was not a comparison to the crusaders and witch-hunters, but
noting that religion-in-politics has resulted in such.

Secondly, she claims that just three weeks after the 9/11 attacks, the NY Times succumbed to the pressure to bash Bush with the editorial, "Half a Commander in Chief". However, this article appeared on 11/5, over eight weeks after the attacks.

Third, she claims,

"[W]hich women are constantly being called ugly? Is it Maxine Waters, Chelsea Clinton, Janet Reno, or Madeline Albright? No, none of these. Only conservative women have their looks held up to ridicule because only liberals would be so malevolent."

This claim is ridiculous on its face, as their are many instances in which conservatives mock liberal's looks. One is this gem from John McCain, "Why is Chelsea Clinton so ugly? Because Janet Reno is her father." Another is Jay Leno calling a man dressed up as Janet Reno, "An ugly Bi###." (Let's not forget the many times on the comedy and late-night shows where they compared Janet Reno's looks to that of a man). Want more? According to James Retter in Anatomy of a Scandal, Rush once was "Commenting on how `lovely' Nixon's daughters, Julie and Trish, looked at their father's funeral, Limbaugh said, `so unlike another First Family-and you know what I mean.'" Once on his radio show he mentioned Donna Shalala and sarcastically commented, "Oh, that's a beautiful thought." Ann Richards, , "was born needing her face ironed." On Letterman's show, Limbaugh said how Hillary Clinton looked "like a hood ornament on a Pontiac." (this incited boos from the audience). Also, Limbaugh repeatedly made fun of Robert Reich's height (FYI, Reich's height is due to a bone disease that he's had since he was a child. Somehow, I don't find that too funny). Another statement not in this book from Limbaugh is that "Feminism was created to allow unattractive women into the mainstream."

Moving on, she claims that Al Gore, at the Monticello mansion, asked, "Who are those guys" referring to George Washington and Benjamin Franklin and that only USA Today reported the story. First of all, dozens of papers and sources reported it; Newsday, British newspapers, The Washington Times, two articles in The NY Times (ironically by Maureen Dowd and Frank Rich back when they were reporters), the Associated Press, and other local papers (due to the Associated Press story). Secondly, she misquotes Gore (he said "Who are these people", not "Who are those guys"). Thirdly, as one who has watched the video can attest, when he said it, he was nt looking at Washington and Franklin, but John Paul Jones and Marquis de Laffeyette! Washington and Franklin were on opposite sides of the room, Gore was looking in the middle. If you don't believe me, go on over to mrc.org's Gore Gaffes section and watch the video for yourself.

I hope to post more on this later, but that's all of the time I have for now.

Coulter serves a 5 course meal of truth in this book and my guess is that it will draw the same phony indignation from libs that many conservative books do. This book is both funny and sad at the same time. The party of JFK has (sadly) come a long way and Coulter spells it out in capital letters. If you are a conservative, this book will cement your beliefs. If you are a liberal, pass the Prozac!

Any book about conservatives with as many negative reviews as it's gotten on this web site has to be a great book. I highly doubt any of the reviewers who gave this book such negative reviews actually bought this book much less read it, just a forum to spout their anti-conservative rhetoric and give authenticity to Ann Coulter's thesis. I have bought this book and read it just yesterday. These reviewers have no facts to back up their argument against Miss Coulter's book so they like any good liberal have made their book review a personal attack against Miss Coulter showing their true colors of intolerance. My suggestion is for all liberals to buy this book, read this book and then write a review on Amazon.com. For conservatives there's nothing in this book that you don't already know but buy it any way and give it to a liberal in your office or your cousin Eddy the Liberal. Read and enjoy

Another review posted here complains about the lack of civil tone in Ann Coulter's book. Anyone familiar with Coulter understands that invective is her personal forte, but it is not as these other reviews contend, blind rage. Far from poorly reported, it is mercilessly footnoted, with many of the quotes of liberals damning in and of themselves without Coulter's help. Face it, people will buy this book because it is funny and because the subject matter here is cause for outrage. It is doubtful the negative reviews posted here were by people who actually read the book. More likely they are the people who can't stand the idea that anyone could ever question the liberal agenda as anything but the saving grace of all humanity. If you know Ann Coulter's work, you're going to love this book.

For those of you who are liberal, and have obviously not read the book but still feel like your qualified to critique it (a good liberal never lets facts get in the way of their agenda), the truth really hurts, doesn't it. It started with Bernard Goldberg's Bias and continues with Coulter's Slander. No one who has lived in the country for the last several decades can honestly deny what Coulter writes in her book. Unlike liberal arguments, Coulter backs up her arguments with historical facts and concrete examples. How can liberals deny the race-baiting that occurred during the 1998 and 2000 elections? How can they deny the fact that liberal debate on affirmative action starts and ends with accusations of racism and re-segregation? To liberals, the debate on abortion is not about when does life begin (a serious issue), but why conservatives want to control women (complete nonsense). Coulter's book simply highlights what ordinary Americans have known for years, regardless of party affiliation. Liberal debate consists of nothing more than name-calling, demagaugery, race-baiting, and scare tactics. Thank you Ms. Coulter for being honest, even if your book is, admittedly, a bit too venomous. Unfortunately, your critics will use the book's venom to draw attention away from the truth, thereby putting form over substance.