Slander: Liberal Lies About the American Right

Writing with the cajones so many other commentators lack, Coulter goes right for the leftist jugular, sinking her well-sharpened fangs in its flabby neck. Laser-like in its focus, "Scandal" scrutinizes the leftist bias in the news from a true conservative's viewpoint, further expanding on the basic theme of Goldberg's "Bias".
Rather than rehash what many reviewers have already noted, I'll stick to what is most compelling. Coulter makes her case on several topics and provides details rarely heard or seen elsewhere. For one, I was not aware at the incredible time differences of the news outlets in calling states for Gore and calling them for Bush in the 2000 election. Without fail, they rushed to call states for Gore and held off calling them for Bush (even though the Bush states were less close between the two candidates.) Coulter also thoroughly dismantles the "Christian right" voting bloc construct so often cited by the liberals who run the media by showing less common ground in right-wing voting patterns than in those of the liberal left.
Others have noted that Coulter stoops to namecalling and some of the dirty tricks she accuses liberals of using. There is a distinction, however, that is being forgotten. Coulter claims that liberals say, "Bush is dumb," and they leave it at that. Coulter's namecalling takes more of the form "Gore is dumb because...." It's one thing to call your opponent a name, but it's entirely another to call them a name and then prove why that name is appropriate.
Personally, I found this to be the book "Bias" was not: thought-provoking and well-written by an erudite insider. While I enjoyed her deft wording, most liberals will be unable to complete "Slander" simply because they cannot handle the multi-syllabic words. Still, the audience for this is a puzzler; if you are conservative, she preaches to the choir, and if you're not, well, you probably won't get past the first few pages without your head exploding.
Amusing and witty throughout, "Slander" is a worthy bestseller and a compelling look at the leftist obfuscation in the news.

BR>Ann Coulter is passionately conservative, and those of you are are as well will enjoy her book. This book will help galvanize some of your opinions on media bias and political dirty tricks, as Ms Coulter is an intelligent writer who obiviously did a lot of reserach for this book.
Many liberals will be turned off by this book, as Coulter is more combative and prone to attack liberals than someone like Sean Hannity, for instance. However, the viciousness of her criticism is overshadowed by the cruelty of those she's criticizing. At least read the first chapter, "Liberals Unhinged", and decide FOR YOURSELF if Ms Coulter gives these people fair treatment.

It is interesting that so many unimpressed reviewers fault Ms. Coulter with being biased, repetitive, and unfair in her arguments.
It just so happens that the point she set out to make is exaclty what she thoroughly demonstrates with this book, and she did so with aplomb. If that makes her biased, unfair and repetitive, then so be it.
She did not take into account all bias in the media precisely because it is leftist bias that she found to be gratuitous and luaghable, not bias in general. Neither do I think it fair to call her vitriol and sarcastic tone proof of her hypocracy, as many disaffected leftists have in their reviews, since, as she her self noted in the book, her ridiculing is well deserved. Insults common amongst the liberal media elite, such as conservatives thoughtlessly being considered "ugly", "stupid", "greedy", and fringe, Coulter claims, are slung about dogmatically and unapologetically. Conservatives are ridiculed without justification.
However, all the insults issued in this jewel are well deserved. Throughout this profusely indexed book, no insult is made without ample evidence to warrant it.
Ann Coulter is a skinny little woman with a big mouth and an even bigger mind. The exhaustive evidence presented in "Slander"
makes trying to attempt an honest debunking of her assertion almost impossible. Perhaps if an equally clever and astute individual could anul her thesis by scraping up enough evidence to expose a conservative bias in mainstream media, her thesis would have little or no validity. That is the only way.
But the truth is that such that task is impossible. Therein lies the power of this book. "Slander" is an awesome read first and formost because it is sadly, hilariously, and infallibly true.

I found this book quite enjoyable. As always, Ms. Coulter's research is without question (many have tried). It is unfortunate that many truths are hidden from those who only see the headlines in the NYTimes or on NBC. There is definitely a double standard to be exposed.

I enjoyed her historical correction that the Republican party does NOT stand for racism, sexism and many other -isms it has been accused of. There were also interesting facts about cover-ups during Democratic reign. I found it a quick read and a nice option to learn "the other side of the story".

"Prevarication and denigration are the hallmarks of liberal argument. Logic is not their (liberals') métier. Blind religious faith is". This is Ann Coulter's thesis in "Slander", one of the must-read political books of this decade. It is devoted to the proposition that, due to the facts that a) liberalism is based on emotion, and b) liberals had monopolistic control of the media from about 1950-2000, liberals for a long time did not have to debate, and therefore no longer know how to debate--most of their arguments are not arguments, they are epithets.

Coulter comprehensively demonstrates just how liberal the mainstream media is. This is buttressed by the liberals' own denunciations of Fox News and talk radio--why on earth would liberals ever complain about other opinions being broadcast, unless they believed that their opinions should be the only ones broadcast? Coulter answers by stating that "liberals don't try to win arguments, they seek to destroy their opponents and silence dissident opinions". As Coulter explains in one of her other books, Treason, "As long as liberals refuse to concede a point, it remains 'unsettled'...liberals think they can defeat the truth with loudness." (Loudness and repetition, I might add.)

This phenomenon was on display after the Democratic debate in Pennsylvania on April 16. Asking tough questions of liberals is simply not done. Charles Gibson and George Stephanopolous of ABC found this out. They were excoriated for asking tough-but-fair questions that Hillary and Obama would rather not have had to answer.

If liberals are so secure that their ideas are better than conservative ideas, why not allow tough questions to be asked and allow all points of view to be heard? If everyone had access to the views of both sides, wouldn't the public simply reject conservative ideas if they were so manifestly inferior to the ideas of liberals?

This leads to the next theme of the book--liberals don't want alternative views to be made available because conservatives (and those who agree with them) are too "stupid" to see the merit of liberal ideas. Stupid, in the mind of liberals, is anyone who disagrees with them. When a conservative answers a liberal non sequitur with a cold fact or with logic, the liberal instantly denigrates the conservative as "stupid", "divisive", "extreme", "hate-filled", "insensitive", etc.

Liberals derided Coolidge, Eisenhower, Reagan, Quayle, and Bush 43 as stupid. They knew they could not get away with calling Nixon and Gingrich stupid, so they were labeled "evil". Someone like Bush 41, who cannot be pigeonholed in either of those categories, is usually lambasted as an out-of-touch patrician. Because he was very conservative, Barry Goldwater was even called insane in 1964. Coulter also compares SAT scores of some liberals and conservatives (and shows which ideology was on the right side of the Cold War and other policy disputes) to demonstrate just how baseless the "conservatives-are-stupid" charge is.

This book is essential reading for those just becoming politically active. It demonstrates some of the double standards inherent in our politics today, and how those double standards stifle and warp much of the political discourse on cable news channels and in other forums of our politics as well.

Ms. Coulter, fast becoming the bete noir of liberals, has penned a masterpiece exposing the intellectual dishonesty, and outright savagery of the mainstream press toward things conservative.
It is very difficult arguing against someone who quotes the very words you use in order to buttress their contention. This is exactly what Ms. Coulter does, and she does it relentlessly! We have become so conditioned to the "blabocracy's" prattle that we hardly notice just what fools they really are. But when you have what amounts to a compilation of their thoughts on the substantive issues of the day, you begin to see a pattern; a pattern of half-truth, in some cases no-truth, and generally a wanton contempt for the truth, if the truth does not jive with their worldview.
Slander has exposed the literati for what they are; petty, mean, vindictive, and intolerent of viewpoints other than their own. What is practiced by the mainstream press today is nothing more than de facto censorship, yet the talking heads piously proclaim their innocence. This in the face of literally mountains of evidence to the contrary (see "Bias," and "The Vision of the Anointed).
Ms. Coulter has made a significant contribution to the political dialogue in this country, this despite the fact that she has been virtually ignored by ABCCBSNBCCNNTHENEWYORKTIMESWASHINGTONPOST, et. al.
After reading this book you will see why sane people no longer rely on the "BIG 3" and their fellow mouthpieces for the Democratic party for their news, but rather are turning to alternatives such as Fox News, and the Internet for their information.

Not surprisingly, reviewers of this book either love it or hate it--give it 5 stars (as have I) or 1 star, and those who do the latter protest because they can't give it no stars at all.

The reason? Ann Coulter writes passionately, and she minces no words--she is a conservative, and she dislikes the liberals' polemics, which she claims are mainly lies, ad hominem attacks and slander--a claim she backs up very effectively with detailed quotes, naming names and places.

She discusses, in detail, the left-leaning elite media and gives examples of the way in which they ignore people with whom they disagree, like Phyllis Schlafly, and build up liberals like Gloria Steinem, who--according to Coulter--is a ridiculous figure and a failure at all she attempts, who had to sleep with a media mogul to get money to keep her magazine, Ms., going.

And, yes, she names him.

Love it or hate it, this is a book to reckon with. It is certainly polemical, but she lists her sources, names names, gives explicit quotes, and makes her argument hard to refute. The result? Liberal readers go nuts! They can't argue with her, so they indulge in name-calling and disparage her parenthood--the very things she says they do, in the book, rather than make coherent arguments.

When they don't like what they hear from someone who accuses one of their icons--i.e.: Linda Tripp, Paula Jones or Catherine Harris--they attack their looks, calling them "ugly and evil," "a snitch, and an ugly one at that," "Barracudaville," or "smelling of gunpowder and garlic," instead of refuting the accusations. "This," says Coulter, "from the party of Bella Abzug."

She makes a good case for media bias, as well, and says that the elite media is far more liberal than even the Democrat constituency. And she pretty much makes an irrefutable case for her claims.

So, as a conservative--biased as I am--I think it is a good book. From my standpoint, it reads like the truth. But then, I am, as the liberals would say, just a "Redneck" in "Flyover" country; not a Hollywood star, like Sean Penn, with vast knowledge of foreign affairs. Or Barbra Streisand, who advises presidents. What do I know, anyway?

Joseph Pierre

author of "Handguns and Freedom" and other books

The author could have easily covered all of the key points in this book in half the number of pages. Yes, the liberals enjoy almost monopolistic control of the press. Yes, they resort to name-calling and other childish tactics when confronted. And yes, their party platform brings far more comparisons to commmunism than it does a free, democratically-based society. But I found myself skipping paragraphs and sometimes whole pages because I grew tired of reading the same message over and over again.
The book is also inconsistent in its use of references. Although Ms. Coulter makes an attempt to provide factual references to backup her statements, on many occasions she fails to cite the references for her quotes. In my opinion, this makes those quotes meaningless. A similar, but far superior example of fact-based conservative writing is "Useful Idiots" by Mona Charen.
Finally, I can't deny that the writer makes little effort to keep this book on an objective level. She labels and uses name calling in much the same way as the people she's writing about. If you're going to criticize someone for being juvenile and emotional you'll make a much better case if you don't use the same tactics yourself.
While I myself am a strong conservative, I could not consciously use this book to defend my arguments against liberals, because it is inconsistent in the use of references and far too subjective to be taken seriously.

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.

Ann Coulter has given us a book that describes, in detail, how the left continues to do nothing but lie about the American right, and not only how they continue to get away with it, but how they also, on occasion, actually convince a person or two that they are telling the truth. Ann makes the point that liberals can only argue on a 6th grade level, which inevitably leads them to their ultimate in logic and persuasion...."you're stupid". The only thing Ann got wrong in this book, is her statement that liberals don't read books. One quick glance at all the negative reviews of this particular book resoundingly refutes that statement, and I thank all the liberals out there who actually took the time to read it. The fact that you bothered to read the views of the "enemy" indicates a certain level of maturity on your part that has yet to be attained by most of your peers.

A very pleasant companion for the lunchroom table [also John-friendly] this feverish litany of over-the-line Liberal "slander" of the Conservatives does provide sufficent...food for thought. Although, I didn't learn much more than what I noted in this review title and in the statement that former NJ Republican Governor [anti-Union, Pro-Privatization] Whitman was/is a favorite among Democrats because philosopically she leans to liberalism on key issues. I'll have to check with about seventy Democrats I know who disagree with Ann on this one.
I don't care how many books she sold with "Slander", she could have sold twice as many: have the Publisher use a head to toe shot of this lady dressed in the mini skirt she wore on the Matt Drudge TV show and include 16 pages of pictures from the various other shows she frequents. She's even sexier than Don Rumsfeld.

Coulter's brilliant spoof of conservative tomes ranks with "A Modest Proposal" in the pantheon of mockery. So subtle is Coulter that many in the press have taken her at her word when she suggests, in a typically over-the-top commentary, that the US should kill foreign leaders and subject whole populaces to Christianity. It is a measure of popular credulity that madness like this could be presumed to emanate from someone so clearly intelligent as Coulter. In reality, she is a demure, thoughtful, almost self-effacing individual whose Andy-Kauffman-like television appearances have earned her wide respect from her fellow practitioners of comedy.
The only reason I didn't give this book five stars is that, um, it's for real.

President Bush's tasteless and insensitive wmd jokes at a recent black tie media dinner has created a wide-spread epidemic of Bush Fatigue Syndrome, according to World Health Organization officials. BFS is a tragic disease afflicting Bush supporters who suffer from exhaustion from the daily need to defend the president's blunders. These crude, inappropriate remarks came on the heels of Richard Clarke's, Against All Enemies allegations
of incompetence in fighting the war on terror.
Bush Fatigue Syndrome:
an illness similar to chronic fatigue syndrome. It is caused by the strain of the constant daily need to defend or rationalize the poor decisions, horrible domestic record, and foreign policy blunders of the president. Die-hard Republicans are especially prone to get this disease. It reached epidemic porportions after no wmds were found in Iraq, and Bush supporters had to sell the case that we "really" went to war to "liberate the Iraqi" people. Additional flair-ups occured after the last SOU address, after every monthly employment report, general accounting reports regarding the historic deficits (especially when inheriting a budget surplus is referenced), and the president's fumbled interview on Meet the Press. Symptoms include extreme exhaustion, irritability, and dizziness.
Republicans inflicted with BFS must stay quarantined until after the November election.

President Bush's tasteless and insensitive wmd jokes at a recent black tie media dinner has created a wide-spread epidemic of Bush Fatigue Syndrome, according to World Health Organization officials. BFS is a tragic disease afflicting Bush supporters who suffer from exhaustion from the daily need to defend the president's blunders. These crude, inappropriate remarks came on the heels of Richard Clarke's, Against All Enemies allegations
of incompetence in fighting the war on terror.
Bush Fatigue Syndrome:
an illness similar to chronic fatigue syndrome. It is caused by the strain of the constant daily need to defend or rationalize the poor decisions, horrible domestic record, and foreign policy blunders of the president. Die-hard Republicans are especially prone to get this disease. It reached epidemic porportions after no wmds were found in Iraq, and Bush supporters had to sell the case that we "really" went to war to "liberate the Iraqi" people. Additional flair-ups occured after the last SOU address, after every monthly employment report, general accounting reports regarding the historic deficits (especially when inheriting a budget surplus is referenced), and the president's fumbled interview on Meet the Press. Symptoms include extreme exhaustion, irritability, and dizziness.
Republicans inflicted with BFS must stay quarantined until after the November election.

The reviewer bashing Coulter seems to have a grudge against her. Smells like self-righteousness to me.

Ann is well informed and not afraid to expose the nonsense going on around us. She is refreshingly politically incorrect, and this earns her a jab by hypocrites, who her "mean."

As with her other work, this one is intelligent, thoughtful, and articulate. This is a must read for liberals (victims and perpetrators of brainwashing).

As its title suggests SLANDER is not really a book about issues. It is instead a long harangue about how the liberals and the media they control attack conservative politicians and their ideas. Naturally a few issues do get mentioned in the process.
Coulter is at her best in the concluding chapter where she cites such conservative public policy ideas as Privatizing Social Security, the Strategic Defense Initiative, Pollution Tax Credits, Welfare Reform and the Flat Tax. Throughout the book she also frequently gives credit to Reagan for ending the Cold War.
SLANDER may serve a purpose in reminding conservatives that they have a tough opponent in the media. However, the book is very repetitious and Coulter's writing style can get wearisome.

This book again provides evidence that the extreme right wing cannot present their ideas coherently: most conservatives like myself are much too intelligent to read, or buy, this junk. If this book had been submitted to any university professor, it would have been given an F for research, organization and logic. It contains an absurd and incoherent mixture of conflicting positions and muddled ideologies. This is the same lack of logic the brings together in the extreme liberal camp abortion-rights supporters & anti-death-penalty advocates. At least the Pope is ideologically consistent in this case: he advocates both an anti-abortion and an anti-death penalty platform. Either all life is sacred or it is not.
Coulter, by writing (sloppily) such a vitriolic piece of propaganda is certainly no spokesperson for conservative thought. This is not the approach of someone wishing to discuss issues and persuade the open-minded. It is a marketing ploy to get the naive and uncritical reader to make a knee-jerk purchase of a unbelievably badly written book. If you want to read about conservative thought, start with Conservative Mythology and Public Policy in America, by Arnold Vedlitz and The Meaning of Conservatism, by Roger Scruton. You can also try The Killing of History: How Literary Critics and Social Theorists are Murdering Our Past, by Keith Windschuttle, which helps explain how everyone (right to left) is distorting history to fit ideologies.

The fact that the media is liberally biased against the right is simply that with which is established fact, and this fact is known by those who are honest, able to read, and have access to information. To deny it is tantamount to saying, for instance, "California is not a State in the Union," or "America did not win the Revolutionary War."
STEVEN TRAVERS
Author of "Barry Bonds: Baseball's Superman"
[email protected]

I am currently listening to audio cassettes of Ann Coulter's "Slander" work for approximately 30 minutes per day while walking for health.
She relentlessly pursues the thesis of contemporary liberalism and liberals as the pits.
As a political junkie, I am enjoying a poltical-social polemic.
I am laughing as the author trashes and bashes.
I have listened to the first two cassettes which cover several of the book's initial
chapters.
Coulter is cataloguing contradictions.
She is highly entertaining.
Moderation is not a virtue.
She challenges liberal
orthodoxy from appetite to a-hole/from a to z.
She is colorful and sarcastic.
She makes the case for Phyllis Schaffly as a gigantic intellect and influence.
Gloria Steinhem is sliced, diced, and de-constructed. Coulter explicitly pays little to no homage to the modern feminist movement.
The work is an unmitigated diss of
what is considered liberalistic and radical chic (Tom Wolfe's phrase) today.
I'm not gung-ho sold on her perspective, as I try to retain a modicum of objectivity.
For the brisk walking in the cold nights, I am enjoying the blunt rhetoric, despite or because of its emphatic, unambiguous, incessant skewering.
And I hereaby make a politically icorrect but mere human acknowledgement, as per her in-your-face candid vein of social reality, that it does make an impact on me that she is an unusually attractive blonde presence on tv.
I am neoliberal, and so I can in neoliberal conscience award 4 stars to an heretical, offensive attack-book.

... tend to get run over.

My opinion on anyone reading this book is that they already go into this either believing they'll love it or hate it. My, my, aren't I the dissenter to be almost ambivalent towards it...

The good news is: if you're conservative, you're going to love it.

The good news is: if you're liberal, you're going to hate it.

The bad news is: Thus far, I find no solution to opening up a discussion of politics as a free-flow of constructive ideas bent on formulating policy instead of casting blame & calling names...

The thing is, one reads a book like this to validate his or her own opinion or to denigrate those of others - conservatives: "We all knew the liberals were these complete pongs who control the media"; liberals: "We all knew the conservatives were wimpy whiners who can only blame their unpopularity on the media."

Both sides: grow up, tell the truth, stop playing games on my tax dollar.

Coulter makes a strong case that liberals have long given up legitimate debate in favor of name-calling and demonization. At the same time, her return fire is so hot she makes a case for herself as the most gifted polemicist of the last decade. Not even William F. Buckley at his most withering generated the kind of heat Coulter does. It's clear that this book is the glove that slaps a face with every intention of starting a fight. As a conservative frustrated by being constantly compared to Nazi's and racists for opposing things like high taxes, I found myself hoping someone would accept her challenge.
The only possible criticism of the book is that Ann stoops the level of her opponents on several occasions by calling them dumb. In fairness to her, she provides the evidence for her charge more often than not!

Reviewers seem to be missing the point of Ms.Coulter's argument, which she supports with ample documentation. She accuses liberals of "tu quoque" attacks which ignore the substance of conservative positions. By tarring conservatives as racists, "far-right extremists", etc., liberals have, in an atmosphere of political correctness, not been called to defend their positions rationally. Since 9/11 more Americans are questioning the assumptions of the left, and Ms. Coulter's book frightens and angers the liberal establishment because it resonates with emerging mainstream conservative sentiment. It is a fun read; the former editor of the U. Michigan Law Review is not afraid of a fight, but she has her facts straight. The negative reaction to her book is precisely based on the problem the book illuminates.

In the spirit of full disclosure, I'm a political conservative, not a moderate, not a liberal. So if I'm a bit hard on Coulter, it has nothing to do with political ideology...of thrashing this book simply because her ideology is different than mine (it isn't). It isn't her premise that's the problem for me. It's her style - it's best in small doses.

Coulter's point in this book is that the mainstream media is biased to the left.

Duh.

If you're a conservative, you don't need a book to tell you this, you see it daily. If you're a liberal, you sniff, "nonsense...the media is fair and centrist and balanced," and fold your arms. As such, I really don't think this book will do much to change any minds. If you come to the party already of the belief that there is MSM bias, Coulter will simply add ammunition to your arsenal. If you come to the party with the opposite opinion, even though Coulter gives 200+ pages of "in your face" examples of blatant media bias, you're still apt to leave with the same opinion...sort of the old "a man convinced against his will is of the same opinion still." I guess I've yet to meet anyone who says, "as a result of Ann Coulter, I've changed my position on this topic." And the reason is that the bombastic style tends to just entrench people more into their existing positions.

I know Coulter has made a name for herself as the queen of scathing sarcasm (she would probably prefer the term "witty ripostes"). However, what we have is an entire book of scathing sarcasm and at some point it moves from being provocative to being over the top.

Each chapter has something like 100 citations of liberal comments or gaffes or absurdities. But essentially what we have is one sentence of sarcasm from Coulter, followed by two sentences of absurd statements from a liberal (complete with citations), followed by another sentence of sarcasm from Coulter, followed by...

You get the picture.

As I said, I find it easier to digest Coulter's style in small doses - such as via her syndicated weekly columns. Like espresso, most prefer it by the cup, not the gallon.

If Coulter's goal was to rile up controversy, puff up the faithful with self-righteousness and make her opponents angry, she succeeded brilliantly.
If Coulter's goal was to entertain and put together a fast, enjoyable read, she succeeded again. If she just wanted to make a lot of money, again she hit the mark.
Coulter's goal wasn't, however, to add anything useful to public debate. That's fine - there are writers on the left, such a Michael Moore, that are Coulter's equivalent. If you mistake either Moore or Coulter for a person providing genuine analysis or debate, you really need to read more.
Both Coulter and Moore have the same world view: there is an "enemy," be they the "liberals" or the "conservatives," that embodies a relatively monolitic and purely evil philosophy, which manipulates the incredibly gullible citizens of this great country with pathetically illogical arguments and outright lies. These people are dangerous, and Moore and Coulter are sounding the alarm. There is nothing good, pure, or sensible in the so-called ideas of the enemy, and the opinions of the faithful are the purest common sense.
The reality, of course, is that 75% of the population is somewhere in the middle, and "left" and "right" are simply labels used to demonize those on the other side of an issue. Politicians don't follow a philosophy, or they are tossed out - their main job is to bring home the bacon for their states or districts, and dress up the rationale in the empty catchphrases of the party platform. This isn't a bad thing: it is the way a representative democracy works.
Having watched Bill Clinton sign welfare reform and Ted Kennedy campaign with George Bush on education reform (although the alliance was short-lived) gives most people a clue that the world is not black and white. Once someone (like Moore or Coulter) announces that he or she is going to advance a vision of politics that makes Star Wars seem morally complex, they forfeit any claim to be considered as anything more than entertainers. The fact that these sorts of authors throw in footnotes to support their overblown claims doesn't exactly make them scholars.
If you want to learn about policy, read a book that covers a limited number of topics in detail, by someone with the credentials to explain it with authority. For example, if you are looking for conservative social commentary, try Alan Bloom or Richard Posner. If you want to escape into a fantasy of pure good versus pure evil, watch a John Wayne movie. If you want to be entertained by the excessive rantings of people like Moore and Coulter, go for it. But you'll only embarrass yourself if you take them seriously.

This book should be a must-read for conservatives. Coulter convincingly demonstrates and documents (with thirty plus pages of endnotes) the way the liberal Left caricatures the right as mean, uncaring, stupid and intolerant. The mainstream media response to the book simply served to confirm Coulter's basic premise. Of the five or so interviews with Coulter I saw on the cable news networks only TWO interviewers attempted to take the book seriously, Judith Reagan and Sean Hannity, both on Fox. The other interviewers attempted to pin Coulter into a corner arguing with her over trivial details in the book having no direct correlation to the book's premise. No one on the Left could make cogent, intellectual counter-arguments so they just nit-picked the book to death or went after Ann personally. Unfortunate as this was for an author trying to discuss her work intelligently and have it taken seriously, nevertheless it also made for great PR as it demonstrated exactly the point Coulter makes in the book. I think what bothers the Left is that Coulter is able to use reason, logic and sound scholarship to make her point. This is something the Left doesn't seem to know how to do. The Left can't or won't defend its position in an intelligent, reasoned fashion. It is therefore left with name-calling, character assasination and avoidance of the issue. Which Coulter masterfully chronicles in the book. As demonstrated in the interviews with Coulter, in its response to this book, the Left indicted itself.

The same strategy that will win the war on terrorism can win the war against the left: Namely, giving back to the terrorists 10 times what they hit us with. Bloody a bully's nose, and the bully will run away crying.
Ann Coulter understands this, and this is the tack she takes in this book. With profuse footnotes, Coulter shines the bright light of truth on the dominant media cockroaches and their clients on the political left. It is an unrelenting bare-knuckle slugfest that is a delight to read....if you are a conservative.
Coulter takes the words of the dominant leftist media (The New York Times and the 3 major TV networks are the most frequent targets) and turns them against them, exposing a breathtaking pattern of deceit and mendacity that will be shocking to the uninitiated. To veterans of the war for the truth, it is a much-needed exlixhir that reminds us that our enemy has no shame and cares nothing for the truth when it interferes (as it almost ALWAYS does) with their utopian vision of an Orwellian America.
The sheer weight and breadth of Coulter's sources dispel any notion that this book is just a vicious diatribe. It is loaded with ammunition for soldiers of the truth to go back out onto the field of battle with. The very words of the most "respected" stars of the radical left are used to pummel them into oblivion.
It is a quick and fun read, and you will find yourself shaking your head in disbelief at the sheer audacity of the mainstream media as their concerted and sometimes coordinated schemes against the truth are exposed.
We on the right can learn a great deal from the approach of Ann Coulter: No more Mr. Nice Guy! Ann Coulter is as mad as hell, as should be anyone who seeks the truth, and truth-seekers will be armed to the teeth after they take a dose of Coulter's high-octane elixhir.

Ann Coulter has compiled a devastating fusillade to those of the liberal spectrum still left holding the Left's tattered and torn banner post-9/11.
Liberals, you are really better off to remain in your bitter and spiteful delusions, unless you are prepared to open up your door to the Left's constant, consistent failures, both in politics, and in the court of public opinion
If you are conservative, this is just the weapon to boost your arsenal while dispelling any slight fleeting doubts you might have about who is right and who is wrong when it comes to the ongoing political debate. Coulter magnificently and efficiently demolishes any and all lingering hesitation in a style somewhat reminiscent of the voice of Gandalf the White, dispersing the fog of Saruman's enchanting voice with a laugh.

Most conservatives are able to detect the liberal nuances in "objective" media reports, and columnists, but it's always just too subtle to put a finger on. Then along comes Ann, and she's got a net in which she catches each little catch-phrase and platitude until she's got a writhing, wriggling mass of them, painting a foreboding picture for Left-wing reporting.
Stepping back in history (but not too far), Coulter takes us through the historical record that liberals hope like mad no one will point out. Hypocrisy abounds, from leaving a ignoring a philandering statesmen (solely because they happen to agree with them on issues such as abortion) to shoving the lie of "conservative" bias in the media down American citizens' throats.
I found chapter five fascinating in particular. Going back to the 2000 election (you know, the one that liberals can't seem to get over?) Coulter demonstrates the left-wing media's responsibility for the election mess, from calling certain regions for Gore (before the polls closed) to reporting that polls closed (when in fact they hadn't). Suddenly, it all becomes clear; left-wing journalists fouled that up from the beginning.
Then we go back and look at the lie that the public was told about Bush (and the same lie that was attempted to be passed off about Reagan), that he was unintelligent. I must confess even I had fallen prey to the idea that perhaps George W. Bush isn't the most eloquent in the world, based strictly on media reports of foul-ups, misstatements, and verbal slip-ups. Coulter smashes that idea by pointing out documented proof of media celebrities who emphasize Bush, and downsize Gore (who had a fair share of his own slip-ups!)
Finally, Coulter crushes the myth of the "religious right" that is constantly referred to. The problem regarding that is, it is both an enormous bullying lobby, and a weak and feeble organization that has been wiped out, it seems liberals can't decide which.
Newsmax Magazine calls Ann Coulter the "acid-tongued Joan-of-Arc of the Right", and make no mistake about it. Coulter's exhaustive footnotes (thirty-five pages' worth) spell out the sad and sordid tale of liberal deception that has plagued Washington politics for decades. If enough thinking Americans could get this book into their hands, it would spell a sad and sordid fate for the Left too.
Conservatives, wash your minds out with this. Liberals? If you're going to post negative reviews, do us all a favor and read the book first. If you won't, then stick to your hate-filled mouthing-off books by Michael Moore and Al Franken, and leave the intelligent dialogue to us.

I love Anne Coulter. After reading this work (and then picking up her other books to see what else she had to say) I felt myself being transformed somewhat. Like most of the nation, I watch the evening news, read the local paper, tune into NPR and take it all in. I make assumptions that what I hear and see is accurate and unbiased. It hadn't really struck me that the political bent presented on the airwaves was so stilted. Reading this book was like walking around, not knowing you had myopia, just assuming that the world was fuzzy on purpose, and suddenly going to the local optometrist, getting corrective lenses and WHAM!, seeing clearly for the first time.
Do I think that Ms. Coulter is nuts? No, but then I'm not a liberal either, and that is definitely going to be a disadvantage when reading this tome. Is Ms. Coulter unbiased? Obviously not, but considering the liberal crappola I'm exposed to everyday, this is a nice balance of sorts. I do think Ms. Coulter is angry, but I also love getting the other side of the coin presented to me. I also find her use of end notes refreshing, not detrimental to the argument, as this is rare and if you don't believe her, look it up and read if for yourself.
Reading the other commentaries on this book were amusing, the way an Al Franken book is amusing: you imagine a bratty child sent to their rooms and stomping about petulantly and muttering under their breath 'I'll show you!'. These are obviously not commentaries written by people who like reading the other side's response. I also think Al Franken is neither a deep thinker nor a polished writer and the more of him I read [like Michael Moore, another 'Big, Fat Idiot'] the more I think he's an imbecile and don't look forward to reading more of his drivel. To each his own, I guess.
For every Michael Moore film you see, a Rush Limbaugh commentary should be included. For every Hiliary Clinton mock-up she has ghost-written for her, there should be a Bill O'Reilly follow-up. For every liberal, there is the common press and wire services. For the rest of us, there is enough Anne Coulter to bring us back to reality.

Forward: Sorry for the delay in my reply. the store.com hasn't posted my last refutation to your rebuttal so I submitted it again.
I was amused by your critique of my critique, but it really falls short.
First, Delay. You promised the quote in full, but didn't give it. Here it is (from the hardcover edition):
"For his evident belief in a Higher Being, Delay is compared to savage murderers and genocidal lunatics on the pages of the New York Times. ("History teaches us that when religion is injected into politics - the Crusades, Henry VIII, Salem, Father Coughlin, Hitler, Kosovo - disaster follows.")." This is in fact a direct reference to the New York times commenting on DeLay's religiosity, but again, it was about Gore (it can also be inferred to being about Bush). And again, it wasn't a statement about religious belief, but the desire to inject it into politics, a big difference (BTW, I`m pretty sure that Dowd also believes in God).
According to you, "She complains that Delay, not just Delay, but anyone else who holds his philosophies, is compared to "savage murderers and genocidal lunatics on the pages of the New York Times... The quote about religion is about Al Gore, and Delay and Bush, and Dowd directs the quote to everyone and anyone who mixes politics and religion. And nowhere does Ann claim that quote was about Delay. " However, when you read what Ann wrote, she did directly say that Delay was compared to the murders and genocidal lunatics. I guess you're the one who didn't read it.
Moving on, you responded to my two cents on Ann Coulter's lack of calendar reading. Here is what Ann Coulter said in Slander (Emphasis mine): "The bipartisan love fest lasted PRECISELY THREE WEEKS. That was ALL THE NEW YORK TIMES could endure. Impatient with the national mood of patriotism, liberals returned to their infernal griping about George W. Bush- or "Half a Commander in Chief," as he was called in the headline of a lead New York Times editorial on November 5, 2001. FROM THAT MOMENT ON, the left's primary contribution was to complain."
Either she is intentionally making her readers think that the article was "precisely three weeks after", or she's simply an incompetent writer. She explicitly said that three weeks was all that the New York Times could endure, but her supporting article came eight weeks after. If your mind still is not made up, read the last sentence of that paragraph, where she said "From THAT MOMENT ON.." yadda, yadda, yadda. Since the article came eight weeks after, her claim that the NY Times could only handle three weeks is directly contradicted by her own words.
You say, "You believe that she must quote from an Oct 2 article, rather than use an article from a later date that better illustrates her point. Please indicate why she must satisfy you rather than using the more illustrative example. Also, the attacks did not necessarily come from the Times. That was just the example that she used."
This however, avoids what Coulter said. She should cite an early October article because she says "three weeks" "was all that the New York Times could endure". She provides no other documentation. By the way, you can read the article at [...] . It is not a vicious, divisive piece as Coulter would have you believe.
You also said something strange which caught my attention. You said that Ann was too lenient in her charge because Andy Rooney criticized Bush before Ann's "three weeks". That however, is a very weak point considering that Rooney is only one person and doesn't speak for the left (in fact, polls showed the vast majority of Democrats supporting Bush months after 9/11, you can probably check at pollingreport.com) It's even weaker since that almost immediately after the attacks, many conservatives began attacking liberals. Whether it was Jerry Falwell and Pat Robertson blaming the attacks on gays, atheists, Michelle Malkin and others on Hilary Clinton, Bob Dornan on Clinton (The morning after the attacks, he remarked on Fox News that it`s good that we have Bush as president rather than the "Crying Clintons"), or Coulter herself on Muslims, FDR, etc.
Finally, the Monticello incident which Coulter misrepresents. You concede that she got the coverage wrong in "Slander"'s first release. However, you are wrong to say that it is a minor error in how it was covered. It is significant that she got it wrong because her point was precisely that only USA Today covered it. In her correction, she still gets it wrong, failing to note that the Washington Times and Associated Press reported the story, saying that only "three papers" reported it. Hundreds of local papers rely upon the Associated Press for stories, so the AP's coverage surely made even more reports in these papers.
You also concede that she misquoted Gore slightly. You also appear to believe the fact that Gore is looking at John Paul Jones and Lafayette rather than Washington and Franklin. However, you say, "We can't see just which busts Gore was pointing at." Yes we can. One can tell by watching the MRC video and if you watch the original C-Span video, it leaves no shred of doubt.
You didn't address my analysis of Coulter's claim that only conservative women have their looks made fun of, so I guess you concede that, too. That makes me 4 for 4 on my analysis.
Addressing your claim that I haven't read the book, I have, in fact, read a good portion of it. The errors I listed were, in fact based on on-line criticisms, but I checked them for myself.
Finally, people have recently been questioning whether you're Ann Coulter herself. I was the first to raise the question on my website. It's just that you appear to mimic Ann's writing/dissembling style. Since you deny that you are, I'll accept your denial won't make any accusations for now.

I consider myself to be politically independent, having voted for nearly as many republicans as democrats. The biggest thing this book taught me is that Ann Coulter is not for moderates like myself.
The hypocrisy really bothered me; I found it insulting to my intelligence. For example, she likes to point out that liberals fight dirty by calling conservatives stupid, or by calling them liars. Then she spends several pages "fighting dirty" by directing the words she just criticized towards liberals.
But that's minor compared to the end-notes....oh the end-notes. There are 30+ pages of endnotes (almost 700 notes in all) to qualify the statements she makes. In some cases, the endnotes actually make it obvious that she is intentionally misleading the reader! Again, insulting to my intelligence. Take this example - she agues that democrats are the racist party. She then provides a list of words that democrats have used to describe Colin Powell to support her point (with several end-notes that sentence). In that sentence, she says that democrats have called Powell an "Uncle Tom" and a few other racist terms. Then you check the end notes and see that Jesse Jackson is the one who called him those names! So let me get this straight - democrats are racist because Jesse Jackson called Colin Powell an Uncle Tom??? Are you high Ann Coulter???
If she were concerned about her integrity, she would use footnotes, which appear on the same page as the text in question and are much easier to find, rather than 35 pages of end-notes buried in the back of the book.

This book is definitely boring and uncovincing to anyone who has ever doubted these extremist political writers(left or right). All I see in this book are shaky "facts", overly broad stereotypes, and ridiculously views. The media may be liberal after all but I wouldn't believe that just from reading this book. All of Ann Coulter's statements about liberal hatred of conservatives become meaningless when she herself exhibits so much hatred. The whole thing about liberals hating conservatives becomes even MORE meaningless when you hear other conservatives yammer on and on(ex. Michael Savage). As you can see, I don't agree at all with Coulter's views. Even if I did agree I'd still have problems with her writing style which bores me to death. So, I wouldn't recommend this book to anyone who is moderate let alone liberals. However, if you are a die hard conservative republican, you would love this book if you like how Coulter writes.
PS. Slander has to be spoken, so the New York Times can never really commit slander. But they can commit libel but that's up to opinion. This is not really a big deal unless you think it shows that Coulter is sloppy.

This is another excellent expose of one of the true, powerful destroyers of everything good about America, the media. The left is good, we must admit it and this book exposes it, at not debating the issues or truthfulness of an incident, but rather spinning and namecalling until one becomes so sick and tired ot it. Thus, America is not at all impressed nor trustworthy of mainstream media anymore, with the exception of Fox News. God bless that we have them around.
Her analysis of a madeup "Christian right" and the reluctance of publishers to print conservative books is truly worth the cost of this and reading it and keeping it around.
For me the best punch was the shot she made about the dog food executive who laments not selling as much dog food as he would like, proclaiming we're doing it all right with our image and promotion, but why, why aren't the consumers buying it. The answer: the dogs just don't like it!
The liberals don't get it: the stupid, moronic, Christian right that comprises most of America just doesn't like their thinking and ideas and governance.
Keep 'em honest. Ann, we'll listen and follow when it matches up with the facts.

Ann Coulter's recent work entitled, "Slander" is a fun, fast and interesting read for anyone who is at all familiar with the public battle in the media for the political hearts and minds of the American electorate.
On the other hand, the now-infamous Borkean blonde bombshell crosses the line in far too many places, and in some cases, actually slanders the hapless and loony Left she so justifiably and consistently despises.
As Ms. Coulter is no doubt well-aware, truth is an absolute defense to the charge of slander. And there is a grain of truth to many of the charges leveled at conservatives by liberals as set forth in her book. Thus, in my view, the jury is still out on the issue as to whether liberals (and particularly, media liberals) are ultimately guilty of collective slander in their overall treatment of conservatives in the media.
Furthermore, Coulter herself (and her conservative compatriots as well) are often guilty of the same irrational and unfair behavior that she claims characterizes the liberal attitude toward conservative political discourse. In particular, conservatives in the media treat libertarians and their political arguments in a generally dimissive manner, preferring to use ad hominem attacks and name-calling rather than legitimate debate in order to "discredit" libertarian arguments levied against conservative inconsistencies.
Moreover, much of what appears in Coulter's book has already been written elsewhere, most recently in Bernie Goldberg's book outlining the liberal bias of the media. In my view, Coulter has simply reorganized and regurgitated many of the arguments and observations made by many other conservative pundits on this issue, and would have been better served by simply compiling excerpts from those works as a series of essays on the subject, and then taken credit as the "editor".
Finally, the parameters of the traditional debate between "liberals" and "conservatives" is now decidedly shop-worn and irrelevant. The true debate is between the advocates of statism (both conservative and liberal) and the advocates of liberty. And Coulter's book conveniently ignores the nature and quality of that debate . . . apparently, she's afraid to look in the advocacy mirror where she would surely find the face of a statist.

Re: The middle east- "We should invade their countries, kill their leaders and convert them to Christianity". Yes, she actually said that.
I wish I could find humor and truth in that the way so many others do (maybe my life would be happier if I only reasoned at such a simplistic level) but I just can't. Ann is full of this type of reasoning. According to her the world is black and white. Conservatives=Good, Liberals=Bad. My only worry about this is there are so many people who are deeply entrenched in that type of reasoning. They believe her words (which are proven to be misleading at best/straight falshoods at worst in this book) and go about vomiting out her hatred and lies to others. The world is a complex place, and not everything is quite as black and white as some would have you believe. At least TRY to look a little deeper than what people like Coulter would like you to think.
The sad part is, many of these people who take Ann's words at heart probably have children, who will absorb this ignorance and develop to be as biased, one-sided and misguided as their parents.
My best wishes go out to all of you who read this book and take it at face value. You'll need the help.

... Coulter is one of the most refreshing columnists whose material is freely available on the web. If you have read her columns, you know her prose drops like bricks with clear, shining, logic to construct the house of reason, each sentence building on the one before. Its a beautiful thing to behold, someone that can write so clearly over the course of a thousand or so words.
But how does that translate to a book of roughly 80,000 words? In Slander, Ann Coulter pulls it off in an incredibly well documented and footnoted tome. From her devastating proof of liberal bias in the media during the 2000 election, to her revelations of the so-called "revolving door" between Liberal administrations and the Press that reports on them, and her discussion of why Republicans are branded "dumb" and Democrats "to smart for voters to agree with," Ann Coulter continues and expounds on the thesis of Bernard Goldberg's book, Bias.
In this book, Ann Coulter points out why Gucci Democrats (ANWR should be saved from the oil companies, but keep your damn greasy, scummy feet off my Public Beach in Malibu) should rightly be ridiculed. She details the way these same Liberals, including Katie Couric, which she calls the Eva Braun of the Liberal Media Empire, fume that in a competitve marketplaces namely, radio, books and the internet, conservative viewpoints predomintate, thus depriving the Liberal media empire of its control.
She points out how the media protects politicians with favorable viewpoints and turns on them when they are no longer needed.
She decontructs the myth of the Liberal media's favorite boogieman, the religious right, detailing how its been pronounced dead repeatedly in the past 20 years, only to be resurrected to scare voters when needed.
In conclusion, she states that there have been no great Liberal acheivements over the past century and that the only thing Liberals have to cling to is the right to abortion, so its no wonder, since their viewpoints have been consistently and overwhelmingly discredited, that they resort to name calling and outright lying to push their vision, rather than rely on the marketplace of ideas and honest debate.
Point made, superbly.

The book's popularity and the the store's reviews (6 so far)seem to be at polar opposites. Could it be that Ms. Coulter's reports have struck a nerve and folks want to read about it? I think so! Ms. Coulter's commentary is quite partisan but most readers know this already. I suspect that many conservatives will purchase this to have more examples of the ever apparent liberal bias that exists in the media today, Fox News notwithstanding. The reader will have many examples of liberal lies of the American Right. I look forward to the second edition!

I have seen or heard Ann Coulter interviewed many times, and I picked up this book in hopes of reading a lot more of her wit and her straight forward style.
This book has neither her humour or straight forward style. This book is more of an "In your face" style.
It's true that she has 36 pages of footnotes to doccument her quotes and comments.
However; this books "in your face" style will be enjoyed by conservatives, but any open minded liberal will become quickly offended and put the book down in disgust and believe the book is more hate mongering by Republicans.
In my opinion she should have offered her book AFTER removing MANY of the phrases that cause knee jerk reactions with liberals.
Unfortunately; this book sheds more heat than light. Two Bears.

Oh yeah, its Ann Coulter speaking out of her *ss! But in all seriously, how can anyone bear a minute of this? Denying evolution and pretty much every free right, whats next Ann, denying that the world is round?

For those of you that actually read this garbage, mind explaining to me ONE thing good thats happened since Bush took office?

And for the record, Im neither liberal nor conservative, so dont try to pull that crap on me.

After decades of being deliberately misrepresented by the liberal left, conservatives strike back -- with Ann Coulter as their Jeanne d'Arc.

Coulter isn't trying to make new friends here, so let's not go getting all upset about her stern language. She's demonstrating -- in a book that surpasses Bernard Goldberg's _Bias_ in scope and detail -- that time and again, indeed systematically, left-liberals simply do not (cannot?) tell the truth about conservatives. But there is method to their madness, and Coulter carefully shows us the propagandistic pattern.

Despite what some readers (if they really read it) seem to have supposed, Coulter is not complaining about polemics. She's a polemicist herself and freely admits it. Her objection is not that left-liberals aren't being nice but that they aren't being accurate or honest; their so-called political analysis generally amounts to a third-grader's cry of 'You're stupid!', an imprecise and incorrect personal attack that has nothing to do with whatever issue is really at hand. In other words, her objection to calling conservatives 'dumb' is not (merely) that it's mean but that they aren't.

Coulter can (and does) call names with the best of them. The difference is that the targets of _her_ name-calling generally deserve it; she's done her homework and made sure the names really do apply. (And she doesn't use polemic as a way of _distracting_ from the real issues; just the opposite.) So, here and in general, she cuts loose on them freely, with hilarious results.

And like it or not, she _is_ 'a uniter, not a divider' -- of conservatives. Of course she thinks left-liberalism is essentially treason against the United States of America (see _Treason_ for her elaboration); I'm not sure why anyone would expect her to Reach Out A Hand of Friendship to people she regards as traitors to the Republic.

But she does unite the people she's trying to unite. The book is really intended to be a moral shot in the arm for conservatives, and in that respect it's a success. It's not supposed to 'convert' any left-liberals, so it's pretty pointless to bellyache that Coulter isn't Dale Carnegie.

Ann Coulter has outdone herself this time with her masterful handling of the subject of Liberal Lies.The book shows what is going on behind the scenes in the Liberal mind and even more importantly exposes the lies we have been fed by the media for the last few decades and how they actually manipulate what is going on in Washington to suit their purposes.Surely this book will enflame liberal readers to strike out at her,for she has uncovered what they have been hiding from the public for so long.
An honest observer of what was written has to admit that she has spoken the truth, for the claims are backed up with proof of their validity by numerous footnotes.I would recommend this book for every citizen in the U.S. for it will help them sort out the trash we have been raised on from the Liberal media and make us more informed to make the best decision while in the voting booth.

Examining most of the obviously liberal reviews of the book (those with one star) on this site and one finds evidence of what Slander is about: the gross use of ad hominem attacks (e.g. she's called mentally ill and anorexic), generalizations and (liberal) epithets (e.g. far right-wing, extremist) by liberals when demonizing conservatives--and a lack of any sort of substantive engagement with the ideas presented by conservatives. The more things change...
Anyhow--good read, recommended.

The recent publication, Against All Enemies, by former counter-terrorism czar, Richard Clarke, is believed to be causing a wide-spread outbreak of Bush Fatigue Syndrome in the US, according to World Health Organization officials. Be on the lookout for symptoms referenced below:
Bush Fatigue Syndrome:
an illness similar to chronic fatigue syndrome. It is caused by the strain of the constant daily need to defend or rationalize the poor decisions, horrible domestic record, and foreign policy blunders of the president. Die-hard Republicans are especially prone to get this disease. It reached epidemic porportions after no wmds were found in Iraq, and Bush supporters had to sell the case that we "really" went to war to "liberate the Iraqi" people. Additional flair-ups occured after the last SOU address, after every monthly employment report, general accounting reports regarding the historic deficits (especially when inheriting a budget surplus is referenced), and the president's fumbled interview on Meet the Press. Symptoms include extreme exhaustion, irritability, and dizziness.
Suffers of BFT must stay quarantined until after the November election.

Examining most of the obviously liberal reviews of the book (those with one star) on this site and one finds evidence of what Slander is about: the gross use of ad hominem attacks (e.g. she's called mentally ill and anorexic), generalizations and (liberal) epithets (e.g. far right-wing, extremist) by liberals when demonizing conservatives--and a lack of any sort of substantive engagement with the ideas presented by conservatives. The more things change...
Anyhow--good read, recommended.

The recent publication, Against All Enemies, by former counter-terrorism czar, Richard Clarke, is believed to be causing a wide-spread outbreak of Bush Fatigue Syndrome in the US, according to World Health Organization officials. Be on the lookout for symptoms referenced below:
Bush Fatigue Syndrome:
an illness similar to chronic fatigue syndrome. It is caused by the strain of the constant daily need to defend or rationalize the poor decisions, horrible domestic record, and foreign policy blunders of the president. Die-hard Republicans are especially prone to get this disease. It reached epidemic porportions after no wmds were found in Iraq, and Bush supporters had to sell the case that we "really" went to war to "liberate the Iraqi" people. Additional flair-ups occured after the last SOU address, after every monthly employment report, general accounting reports regarding the historic deficits (especially when inheriting a budget surplus is referenced), and the president's fumbled interview on Meet the Press. Symptoms include extreme exhaustion, irritability, and dizziness.
Suffers of BFT must stay quarantined until after the November election.

Ann Coulter's latest and best book brilliantly skewers the Left by employing the most sneaky underhanded method ever devised -- SHE TELLS THE TRUTH.
Especially adept at exposing the Left-Wing biased media who continually screams "We have NO Liberal bias" while unashamedly hiring Clinton Spinmeister George Stephanopolis to run their premier "news" show, (!!!) Coulter makes it hard for any reader of this book to continue sleepwalking through the Left's relentless minefield of media lies.... Like "Bill Clinton was a Rhodes Scholar" -- (actually, he flunked out of Oxford) "G W Bush is a moron" (actually, he has advanced degrees from both Yale and Harvard) "Reagan was an airhead" (who just happened to win the Cold War and end the Soviet Union, through -- what, LUCK?)
Coulter's best point is that the Left has not had an original thought since the 1960's. Because of their total monopoly over the mass media, they have forgotten the art of debate and clear thinking, and now rely solely on name-calling and cartoon-demonization of Conservatives instead of, what were those things called -- oh yeah, IDEAS.
If any book you have ever read will open your eyes in startling new ways -- THIS IS IT! Fabulous book!!

Ann Coulter's books are typically well-documented and quite accurate in opposing left-wing media bias. For this reason and this reason alone her books deserve three stars at a minimum, for few people on the Right are as skilled technically at making the claims that she makes and as dedicated to factual research.

But, there are two caveats. In trying to stir up outrage in the reader and to skewer the supposed hypocrisy of her opponents (that often, I should add, is all too genuine) she not only lacks proportion and balance, but more importantly, perspective and depth. In other words, within the frame of reference that she describes - American pop culture within a certain economic framework, her observations are correct, poignant, and well-stated. Yet, perhaps because of her familiarity with the intricacies of the American system, she fails to see it in its global and historical context, and fails to understand the relationships between systems. In other words, those accused of being liberal are not necessarily liberal Americans, but those with another, fundamentally non-American ideological viewpoint (on property rights, the importance of individualism versus group grievances in public affairs, the role of religion in public life, the need for universalism in ethics, the role of economic and class conflict in history, and so on). Note that I define as 'American' Anglo-Saxon and Protestant and sympathetic to pre-1950s and 1950s America. She does not distinguish effectively from what are liberal Americans and what are fundamentally non-Americans ideoligically. Moreover, within these two categories, she fails to understand their relations and their strengths as well as their weaknesses.

The second standard criticism is tone. If you seek to encourage civility in dialogue and mutual respect, the best way to start is to display it. Yes the 'emperor has no clothes' trick is fun for a while, but in fact those who she refers to as 'liberals' (see above) would not be where they are were it not for structural inadequacies and social injustice in the US, that she is so quickly and jingostically dismissive of. She should be cognizant of this fact.

Which brings me to my final point. Is she trying to raise arguments about Truth, or to merely inflame a conservative reader into political action and to stir up a mob? Because if her goal is to establish truth her tone and presentation would be different, and if her goal is merely to play on the emotions of the conservative reader, how is she ethically any different than the media that she derides?

Finally, someone has taken the time to meticulously document the myriad of lies and accusations that the left has been waging against the American right for decades. Slander not only debunks the many myths that the liberal media have created about conservatives (ie. how does one become a member of the non-existant religious right?) but it also delves deep into the liberal psyche to expose the true cause of their malicious ways...HATE. Liberals hate conservatives and their ideas and the only way to keep them quiet is to systematically discredit their every thought and idea by repeating mind numbing propaganda so that the average American doesn't have a choice but to eventually accept what their being told...in their predictable 3rd grade liberal mentality...Liberals are good, Conservatives are bad (and of course my daddy can beat up your daddy, too.) Coulter has exposed liberals for what they are (idealess, hate filled, quasi-communists) with air tight research and documentation that could easily rival the Starr report in its depth and accuracy. I highly recommend Slander to anyone who wants to know the truth about the American left and how it is trying to sabotage the American way via Orwellian tactics. Ann is my hero!

Most people in the Democratic Party and those in the left have no idea how tained the media is showing only their viewpiont and distorts the conservative side. Whether you're a liberal or conservative, you ought to support an unbiased media!!!! Ann points out that over 90% of the Washington bureau chiefs voted for Clinton in the last election, which is far greater than the Registered Democrat population, if that doesn't show liberal bias in the media, I am not sure what will.
This book displays not only her viewpoints but also her witty personality! Most liberals are offended by her and this book because it shows them what their party leaders are doing to themselves -- how the left are using the poor as their weapon to attack conservatives, by throwing out meaningless "tax cuts for ONLY the poor" and flaunts their superior monetary power from the liberal left by telling people that they LOVE paying taxes, because they can afford it. The all "inclusive" party has been torn to threads by Ms. Coulter. She may look cute on the cover, but she has that rare passion and fire inside of her that would, as she puts it, "make the strong men cringe and weak men who became Democrats".

....After reading this book, which is very well written and researched (not lies), I realize.... What Ann says is true! THEY RUN THE NEWSPAPERS, THEY BRAINWASH STUDENTS BY TEACHING HIGH SCHOOLS and colleges, they run Hollywood...Is that really what this country has come to? If you're one of us, we'll help you, but if you're not, you're the enemy and we will destroy you?
If your neither a liberal or conservative, do yourself a favor and buy the book. You can always return it. Don't give these activists the right to censor freedom of speech. Listen to what she says.
Ann is a fine writer. She basically backs up everything she says. She brings up important points as to what the media has been able to do, how they bias and throw elections and how they discredit Christians and the Right in general. Basically it's picked up like a battlecry.
My problem with Ann is that she sometimes lets her emotions take over her rationality and it's here that she screws up. Notice I gave her four stars, not five because of this. I am not a republican, nor a liberal, but voted independent the last three times. I also didn't vote for president last time out.
But these attacking and discrediting reviews have thoroughly convinced me that much of what Ann says about liberals discrediting conservatives is true. She is a fine writer, with a very easy-to-read style and sense of humor. She makes herself an authority on the topics at hand. I enjoyed reading her.
John

Ann Coulter, author of High Crimes and Misdemeanors: The Case Against Bill Clinton, has written another hard hitting polemic targeting the left's sacred cows. Ann has managed to become a lightning rod for Clinton supporters and leftists, and so has first hand experience of the topic she discusses.
The main focus of the book is the inability of the left to debate politics and policy on their merits. Instead personal attacks, invective and an almost reflexive use of reducto ad absurdem has become the norm. She peppers the book with witty examples of this.
One need look no further than the 'seminar callers' reviews posted here on the store that claim she is inciting militias, advocating the round up of liberals, etc. The constant refrains from many leftist and socialist writers is "George Bush is an idiot" not "we disagree with his policies for these reasons". This represents a breakdown of political discourse. This extended essay may be a case of preaching to the choir, as most conservatives probably are familiar with the dishonesty and absurd name calling that are the base of too much of the lefts rhetoric these days.
All in all a solid follow up from an author who's previous book arguably effected politics more than any in the last 20 years, as it laid the foundation for the impeachment of Clinton. Ann shows she was not a "one hit wonder" and offers up an engaging and thought provoking book.

Ms. Coulter articulates everything that I, as a Republican and conservative, feel when I watch or read the news or listen to what passes for political debate from the left. It's a shame the media and the left will ignore the book (as well as Bernard Goldberg's book).
She successfully makes the case that discussion and debate over ideas has been killed by the personal attacks and unbridled hyperbole of the left and the media. She uses footnotes to document every claim and comment (unfortunately necessary from a book coming from the right; the left needs merely to make an accusation without proof).
My beliefs have been painted --- without evidence to back such false and ludicrous claims --- as racist, bigoted, mean, evil, homophobic, anti-environmental (yes we conservatives want to destroy the earth, sea and sky --- somehow, I guess we're going to survive in some secretly-constructed bio-dome) and intolerant.
The media never brands such claims as hate speech, yet call any perceived criticism of, or fight against, leftist programs and as virulent hate speech that will mobilize the KKK, the right-wing book-burners and abortion doctor killers from fly-over country.
Ms. Coulter goes after the New York Times, ABC/NBC/CBS/CNN, news magazines, feminists and Hollywood.
Her analysis of the attack on the hugely successful Fox News Channel is superb and enlightening. Ms. Coulter outlines the outrageously idiotic media sensation over the supposed impact a Bush relative (an employee of Fox and a long-term employee of a major network)had on the 2000 Election. How can someone have impact on the vote when they call an election at 2 a.m. --- yet the network (who all use the same information) not had ANY impact when they called the election before all the polls closed in Florida?
Mr. Coulter also documents the left and the media's hatred of the religion and Christians in general, and it's antipathy towards the citizens and the "oppressed" for which it claims to fight.
If you read "Bias" and "Coloring the News," this book takes those subjects forward and looks at the entire agenda for the left and its effective game plan to eliminate real analysis and debate over government programs and our culture.
This book is an easy and engaging read.
Buy it.

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.

Please! 'Liberal Bias' in the media? Who owns the media? Ralph Nader? Michael Moore? NO! G.E. etc. etc. infinitum.
Only a moron could buy this bill of goods. Listen to CNN or FOX, or Rush or Hanratty etc. How many 'liberal' commentators do you find to counterbalance these frothing right-wingers who distort the truth freely and practice demagoguery a black art.
Only a fool could believe that a media that is increasingly concentrated in the hands of a few large multinational corporations could have a 'liberal agenda'.
Only a fool could fail to see that Whitewater garnered millions of words more coverage than the S&L crises or the Enron debacle - both of which wiped out milions of pensioners. (and Bush family involved in both).
See the movie 'Bob Roberts' and learn something about how you are manipulated.
Wake up and stop being spoon-fed this tripe. It simply fails under the slightest critical scrutiny.

After reading several dozen of the more critical reviews of Slander, it is obvious that many of those who dislike the book and its author never actually read it and posted a review with the sole intent of hurling invective at the author. If one already hates the author and despises her ideas, then he/she is not likely to waste several hours reading a book with which disagreement is a foregone conclusion.
Yes, Ann Coulter is controversial and she can be polarizing. I have seen her on TV and after reading Slander, I can tell you she is far more articulate and less excitable in print than she is in a discussion. Here she really spells out so many instances of bias against even mildly conservative thinkers and ideas by the mainstream media that every thinking person has to sit back and say that she is so right. That doesn't mean liberals should not gloat about it. If I were liberal, I would be quite satisfied with the media's demonization of things conservative, and I would recognize and even revel in the anti-conservative bias of nearly every major media outlet.
Coulter says little new to those of us who recognize bias on a daily basis, but she has a lot to say to those fair-minded liberals and moderates who never really had the occasion to think about how the American people are basically fed managed, scripted news stories designed to provoke certain emotions. She tells us who, where, when and why and provides copious footnotes to document her charges against those deemed guilty.
I highly recommend Slander to anyone interested in politics, particularly to the non-conservative who can by reading the book get a better grasp of why conservatives appear to be angered by media bias against them.

A famous person once said "when an argument is lost, all is not hopeless, you can still call the other person vile names." Many of the reviewers of Ms. Coulters book have done exactly that. Rather than critiquing the work honestly, they resort to name calling and labeling. As long as the author is hate-monger, homophobe, blond, Republican and conservative, she can be dismissed. These are the tactics that all liberals automatically and instinctively use to squelch public debate on their outworn, outdated and harmful policies. Read the book for yourself, and decide.

A good political analyst will be enjoyed by all. A truly great political analyst will be loved by some and hated by others. Ann Coulter has provided us a well doumented thesis of political analysis. She does what the great analysts will do, she uses actual statements and actual events to support her thesis of the nauseating attempts being made to sway the public mind. I stayed away from this book for as long as I did due to the hyperbole Coulter garners from those who hate her. I hate to say it, but I allowed the hateful comments of idiots like al franken to color my view of Coulter to the degree that I thought she was too extreme. That is, until I began reading comments like: "Columnist Molly Ivins has a coffee cup that 'bravely' proclaims, 'Well Behaved Women Rarely make History' and a book of her columns was titled 'Molly Ivins Can't Say That Can She?' What precisely," Ann asks, "does Ivins say that everyone else is not saying?" I believe this could be called the thesis statement of her book. They're all saying the same things, they're all attacking the same boogey men, and often they're even using the same words to do so. "The Republican president is dumb." She documents how unfortunate it is that such a childish statement when repeated often enough will cause people to start to believe it. She proclaims that every Republican president, and candidate, since Eisenhower, has been called dumb. Every democrat, on the other hand, is well-traveled and well-read. She documents Bob Packwood's rise to liberal, Republican power through press clippings only to lead to an historical fall when the media no longer needed him. She states that there is a myth called the "religious right" that is so mythical in stature that both parties, both sides of the religious spectrum, and all of those engaged in political analysis can attack the "religious right" without fear of recourse. I didn't want to take up too much of your time with this review, but I thought you should be given the chance to see through the hyperbole and judge some of the content yourself. Agree with her or not, Coulter has slammed her foot into the synthetic turf the media has created for us, and she has demanded to be taken seriously. Me thinks that none of us will be able to ignore her for YEARS to come. I hope those of you with a curious mind will enjoy this as I have.

A very revealing and thought-provoking book. Having read it and read the 'reviews' of it, lets take some of Anne's philosophy and run with it...CHALLENGE HER FACTS! Please don't use cliche-garbage phrases like 'Right-Wing Conspiracy', 'Clinton-bashing', 'Ditto-heads', 'it's all lies', and so on. Please just say 'yes' or 'no' as to whether the accusations in this book are valid.
I don't want to hear about how great things were economically under Clinton, (mind you, I have no idea what Clinton did to deserve credit for the economy, other than just being in office at the right time,) or 'it's all about sex'...I merely want to know is what she says the truth, and if it's not, than what is?
The only fault I can find in her writing is sometimes she gets a bit too passionate about some items in the book. It's great to finally see someone who cares, though...and to get another perspective on current events other than the mainstream media.
Keep it up, Anne! We love you!

Myself: The biases of a reviewer are very important in judging a review of a book of this nature, so here are mine. I am a libertarian because the classical word liberal used to describe Thomas Jefferson has been hijacked by the Democrats, who only believe in affording me liberty when I agree with their agenda. The Republican Party has plenty wrong with it too, and looks good only when compared to the alternative. I believe in limited government, maximum individual freedom and peaceful coexistence through minding our own business, staying strong and eradicating terrorists. In the words of that immortal song, GOD BLESS THE USA.
THE BOOK: As my rating indicates, I found this a very enjoyable and informative book. The subtitle, "Liberal Lies About The American Right", accurately conveys the book's thesis. The voluminous footnotes (almost 1000) more than adequately illustrate her points.(Any reveiwer who says that she does not document her case is either totally biased or hasn't read the book.) SLANDER begins with an overview of Miss Coulter's viewpoint and then examines the media coverage and liberal viewpoints regarding several issues such as John McCain's presidential campaign, the adolation and subsequent vicious attacks on Bob Packwood as the liberals' agenda changed, the Clinton impeachment fiasco (regardless of which side you were on), and best of all, the coverage of the 2000 presidential campaigns by Bush and Gore and the subsequent Florida election brouhaha. And she does a wonderful job of showing how the media treatment of George W Bush changed in the patriotic fervor that followed the events of 9/11. Her well deserved prime example is the New York Times, which she credits in her introduction with making the book possible because of the target rich opportunity which they provide. She also illustates the many examples of the liberal supporters of free speech and art trying to suppress through such devices as campus speech codes opinions and political speech with which they do not agree.
The author's insights combine with rapier like phraseolgy to skewer the opposition, and she puts her linguistic skills to excellent use. In fact, one of my few criticisms is that occasionally she gets carried away by her own hyperbole, an accusation which she frequently makes regarding her adversaries. Also, the frequency of the footnotes is almost overwhelming; yet I felt they should be read because many additional information regarding the referenced subject and I am a political junkie interested in all the details. As the title hopefully makes clear, this is a book with a point of view and not an attempt to provide a balanced study of the subject. But it is required reading for anyone who either agrees with the point of view or is simply interested in it.

Read an unfavorable review of this book and it will certainly have been written by a liberal. Ann Coulter's piercing and probing book speaks the truth about the liberal bias in this country especially with regard to the major news networks as well as the liberal propaganda used against conservatives in the American political arena; lies, lies and more lies. Tell enough lies over and over again and people will begin to believe them. Due to Ms. Coulter's meticulous research, she is able stand behind everything she has stated in her book. Ms. Coulter is wise beyond her years and I would recommend this book to anyone who is ready to know the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth. For 26 years I myself rang the bells and banged the gongs of the liberalist ideals and reviled the conservatives, dismissing them as quickly as I would some annoying insect. Mark my words, the demise of our great nation will not be because of the pollutants in our atmosphere, nor attacks by terrorists, but will be a direct result of the liberalist ideals of "political correctness".