counter create hit Slander: Liberal Lies About the American Right - Download Free eBook
Hot Best Seller

Slander: Liberal Lies About the American Right

Availability: Ready to download

The hottest and most controversial book of the year! Find out who really controls the media in America. “[Ann Coulter] is never in doubt. And that, along with her bright writing, sense of irony and outrage, and her relish at finally hitting back at political opponents (especially in the media) is what makes Slander such refreshing and provocative reading.” —Los Angeles Times The hottest and most controversial book of the year! Find out who really controls the media in America. “[Ann Coulter] is never in doubt. And that, along with her bright writing, sense of irony and outrage, and her relish at finally hitting back at political opponents (especially in the media) is what makes Slander such refreshing and provocative reading.” —Los Angeles Times “[Ann Coulter] is a fluent polemicist with a gift for Menckenesque invective . . . and she can harness such language to subtle, syllogistic argument.” —Washington Post Book World “The most popular nonfiction book in America.”—New York Times “The real value of Slander . . . is not in the jokes or devastating exposés of liberal politicians and their allies, but the serious and scholarly study of just how entrenched the media prejudice is against anyone whose politics are even faintly conservative.” —New York Sun “Written with a great deal of passion . . . the real source of its strength—and its usefulness—was its painstaking marshalling of evidence . . . More important than [High Crimes and Misdemeanors] because it addresses a much broader issue, and one of lasting significance.”—National Review


Compare

The hottest and most controversial book of the year! Find out who really controls the media in America. “[Ann Coulter] is never in doubt. And that, along with her bright writing, sense of irony and outrage, and her relish at finally hitting back at political opponents (especially in the media) is what makes Slander such refreshing and provocative reading.” —Los Angeles Times The hottest and most controversial book of the year! Find out who really controls the media in America. “[Ann Coulter] is never in doubt. And that, along with her bright writing, sense of irony and outrage, and her relish at finally hitting back at political opponents (especially in the media) is what makes Slander such refreshing and provocative reading.” —Los Angeles Times “[Ann Coulter] is a fluent polemicist with a gift for Menckenesque invective . . . and she can harness such language to subtle, syllogistic argument.” —Washington Post Book World “The most popular nonfiction book in America.”—New York Times “The real value of Slander . . . is not in the jokes or devastating exposés of liberal politicians and their allies, but the serious and scholarly study of just how entrenched the media prejudice is against anyone whose politics are even faintly conservative.” —New York Sun “Written with a great deal of passion . . . the real source of its strength—and its usefulness—was its painstaking marshalling of evidence . . . More important than [High Crimes and Misdemeanors] because it addresses a much broader issue, and one of lasting significance.”—National Review

30 review for Slander: Liberal Lies About the American Right

  1. 4 out of 5

    Michael

    THE SLANDER REVIEWS. Review the first: An Appeal to Those Who Take Her Seriously This first review is specifically for those who take Ann Coulter’s ideas seriously. If you do, I really hope you’ll read this review and seriously think about the arguments I’m making. Here’s a quote from the first paragraph of Coulter’s last chapter: “Like all propagandists, liberals create mythical enemies to justify their own viciousness and advance their agenda. There is no bogeyman that strikes greater terror in THE SLANDER REVIEWS. Review the first: An Appeal to Those Who Take Her Seriously This first review is specifically for those who take Ann Coulter’s ideas seriously. If you do, I really hope you’ll read this review and seriously think about the arguments I’m making. Here’s a quote from the first paragraph of Coulter’s last chapter: “Like all propagandists, liberals create mythical enemies to justify their own viciousness and advance their agenda. There is no bogeyman that strikes greater terror in the left than the apocryphal "religious right." The very phrase is a meaningless concept, an inverted construct of the left's own Marquis de Sade Lifestyle.” To give you an idea of how this quote sounds to a liberal, here’s the same quote with just the quote’s political direction changed: "Like all propagandists, conservatives create mythical enemies to justify their own viciousness and advance their agenda. There is no bogeyman that strikes greater terror in the right than the apocryphal "godless left." The very phrase is a meaningless concept, an inverted construct of the right’s own “Holier than Thou” Lifestyle.” Does this make any sense to you? Or does it just sound like a mean blanket statement being thrown over roughly half the people in the country? It’s impossible to take someone seriously who insists the ‘religious right’ is some vague, meaningless concept, yet insists liberals are all rich, snooty, atheistic hipsters who never make any sense when they talk. This is the equivalent of saying, “Those liberals are all the same! And they’re so mean with their stereotyping, too!” Ann Coulter assumes the following things: (1) Her readers aren’t going to notice she pulls all of her quotes about the ‘liberal media’ from the same five newspapers and the same two news stations all the time. (2) Her audience won’t notice that she is doing the exact same thing throughout this book that she is accusing liberals of doing: glossing over all of the facts that don’t fit in with her narrow and paranoid view of the media, and (3) she intentionally takes sources out of context in a way that no one who really wanted to debate would. Lets look at that last one real quickly, because I don’t want it to appear that I’m saying all of this just because I’m some ‘angry liberal’. . . actually, before we even get , let’s talk about the word ‘liberal’ real quick, because it has multiple meanings. We could be talking about someone who supports higher taxation for the haves in order to provide for the have-nots. Or, we could be talking about those who are liberal about individual rights, such as giving homosexuals the same rights as straight people. These are two different meanings for the word liberal, and those who consider themselves liberals don’t necessary agree on these. Similarly, some conservatives are more concerned with economic conservativism, but aren’t all that concerned with homosexual rights or certain other hot-button issues; it depends on the particular conservative. Back to what I was saying before that tangent, though: she takes quotes out of context. Want specifics? Citation 33 in chapter 2. Ann Coulter says: “Schlafly is preposterously demeaned with articles reporting that she is trying to remain 'relevant.'” This is in support of Ann’s argument that the press is constantly picking on conservatives. However, all of the quotes picked from this article by Coulter are insults coming from conservatives, actually (a member of Republicans for Choice and a GOP consultant). The author of the article itself is, if anything, positive towards Schlafly. Through my reading, it looks like this is what Ann does a lot: she doesn’t outright lie, but she misleads her audience into thinking something is happening that simply isn’t. We’ll do one more example, because I want to show that it is possible to research this stuff and see how insincere it is, but I don’t want to bore either of us with going overboard with examples. If you are curious, please do some investigating on your own. Sources can be bad, or can be taken out of context. This next one is just a lame attempt at argument on Coulter’s part: on page 15, she uses a LexisNexis search to see how many times the New York Times (a liberal publication) uses the terms “far right wing” (109 times) and “far left wing” (18 times). Clearly, the publication favors referencing a far right wing; therefore, this publication is definitely a far left wing propaganda piece. However, she doesn’t mention that a LexisNexis search for the same time period in the Washington Times, a journal that she even admits leans conservative in this book, shows almost the exact same proportions (37 for FRW, 7 for FLW). The NYT has a very slightly higher ratio of “far right wing” uses, but a very comparable one. So, first off, this brings into question whether the usage of these terms is evidence of anything. Secondly, it brings up the question of whether this term is used as condescendingly as Coulter would like us to believe: she even refers to the “American right” in her book’s title, although she avoids the word “far.” So, does adding “far” make it a negative comment? I’m skeptical, since I saw a bumper sticker this morning that said “Extremely right-wing.” I felt the need to address a review to you (those who think they’re in agreement with Coulter) because I don’t want anyone to think I’m some angry liberal calling conservatives stupid. I genuinely want conversation. In contrast to Coulter’s explanation of how liberals react to argument, I’m giving facts and not just rhetorical sophistry. If you pay attention to the way Coulter uses quotes, you’ll realize her books are sound and fury signifying almost nothing. Review the Second: Coming Soon to a Bookstore Near You. As we all know, Ann Coulter is a polemicist for the conservative movement. Polemic is of course from the latin word “polemas,” meaning “annoying hack.” But, not everyone knows that her bestselling books are written under very specific conditions: on Saturday nights (Sunday mornings) after extensive partying (i.e. sitting at martini bars and arguing about whether liberals are stupid assholes or merely ignorant fuckmuffins). Her writing process, usually beginning at four in the morning on Sunday, begins with a few sniffs of coke and a quick shot of jagermeister, and then she lets the spirit move her. However, the tone she takes in this state is often one that yellow godless liberal assholes don’t like reading. That’s why Random House is releasing this all-new version of her classic original: Slander: Liberal Lies about the American Right, the Sober Edition. This is the exact same book, except it has been edited by Coulter on Saturday morning. Saturday mornings are punctuated by smoking a joint and having lots of sex, so the tone is markedly different. For instance, here’s the original version of a paragraph from Slander: “The liberal catechism includes a hatred of Christians, guns, the profit motive, and political speech and an infatuation with abortion, the environment, and race discrimination (or in the favored parlance of liberals, “affirmative action”). Heresy on any of these subjects is, well, heresy.” (page 2, no sources cited.) Now, here is the same paragraph, from the sober edition: “Liberals’ chief positions include caring for our planet, restrictions on the actions of businesses, restrictions on the kind of weapons people can carry, preserving women’s right to choose whether to have a baby or not, and preserving religious freedom in our country. If you don’t value all of these positions, some liberals will disagree with your opinions.” See how much more calm and reasoned she sounds now? Now, all of your friends who are liberal fuckmuffins won’t give you that derisive look when they see you walking around with one of Coulter’s books. Here’s another section from the original, full of those numerous citations everyone loves: “What happened to (Bob) Packwood is a stunning example of the media’s power both to destroy and protect. It’s absurd enough when the media describes Teddy Kennedy as a man of principle and Jesse Helms as a pandering bigot. In the case of Packwood, the media’s good dog/bad dog descriptions were applied to the exact same human being. When they needed him......Packwood was destined for “political stardom,” according to the New York Times. He was called “a successful lawyer and bright young man.” As soon as he became dispensable....Packwood was a man who “might have been successful selling insurance or probating wills back in Oregon.” When they needed him....He was the grandson of “a member of the 1857 Oregon Constitutional Convention.” As soon as he became dispensable...He was the “nerdy son of a timber lobbyist in the state legislature.”.........(continues for six more quotes)” (citations 16-25) Now, here is the same passage, revised just after rolling off of Bill Maher: “I’ve located two articles that say neutral things about (Bob) Packwood before he was charged with sexual harassment, and two articles that reflect negatively upon him from after this controversy came to the public’s attention. Amazingly, it seems that at least a handful of democrats turned against him after these allegations came up. Here are some quotes to illustrate this. . . .” And, finally, we realize in her final chapter that this revision has changed the thesis of her book slightly. Here’s the original: “Only people who are grounded in a sense of their own value and who do not think the good life consists of being able to sneer at other people as inferior can resist the lure of liberal snobbery. If liberals couldn’t exercise their adolescent sneers through their control of the mass media, there would be no liberals at all.” And now, the same section, this time from the sober version: “I, Ann Coulter, am a liberal.” Your communist socialist far left wing liberal friends who spend all their time showing off their wealth by helping the poor might take some time out of their busy, elitist schedule to give this new version a read. So, if you know any liberals who haven’t already migrated to an even more socialist country like Canada or Switzerland, consider buying them this new edition for CHRISTMAS. And remind them it’s CHRISTMAS TIME in the city, and all those foreign holidays can fuck off.

  2. 4 out of 5

    Jon

    The truly unfortunately thing about this book is that she does have some very interesting and valid points. Unfortunately, she makes repeated blanket statements such as: · “Liberals are driven by Satan and lie constantly.” · “Liberals love to lie.” · “Liberals hate religion because politics is a religion substitute for liberals and they can't stand the competition." This destroys all her credibility because it reduces her to just another polemic who is trying to shake things up and irritate people. The truly unfortunately thing about this book is that she does have some very interesting and valid points. Unfortunately, she makes repeated blanket statements such as: · “Liberals are driven by Satan and lie constantly.” · “Liberals love to lie.” · “Liberals hate religion because politics is a religion substitute for liberals and they can't stand the competition." This destroys all her credibility because it reduces her to just another polemic who is trying to shake things up and irritate people. Furthermore, she does everything she can to widen the “us-and-them” gap in a world where we really need to learn how to work together dispite our political (or religious, or phylosophical) views. No one honestly holds their personal beliefs because they’re evil or want to take everything for themselves. We all hold our personal political philosophies because they follow what we feel is best for the nation and will benefit those we care about. I am a liberal and read this book hoping to better understand a conservative viewpoint. Instead, I found myself trying to debate a book that was filled with blanket statements, quotes used out of context and repeated namecalling. If you want to change people’s opinions, I’d recommend doing it intelligently. Not dropping down to the childish misrepresentations that you constantly complain the left is doing.

  3. 5 out of 5

    John

    Coulter is the most irresponsible political writer in America. Her books are absolute trash; and in fact, I threw this book in the garbage when finished reading - something I never do. ps - regarding all the comments below from people who say the critics don't actually "read" her or "verify" her claims. I have - I do. Now re-read line one of this review. . . Coulter is the most irresponsible political writer in America. Her books are absolute trash; and in fact, I threw this book in the garbage when finished reading - something I never do. ps - regarding all the comments below from people who say the critics don't actually "read" her or "verify" her claims. I have - I do. Now re-read line one of this review. . .

  4. 5 out of 5

    Skylar Burris

    Oh, come on. She's funny. People take her way too seriously. On the other hand, it's not as if her books aren't extremely well documented; the idea that she doesn't back up her claims is laughable. She can certainly be far too vitriolic at times, resorting to the same emotional, name-calling style of argumentation conservatives usually claim to detest in liberals, but I confess she often makes me laugh. Unfortunately, she's a lot more fun to read than the more erudite, calmer, better reasoned co Oh, come on. She's funny. People take her way too seriously. On the other hand, it's not as if her books aren't extremely well documented; the idea that she doesn't back up her claims is laughable. She can certainly be far too vitriolic at times, resorting to the same emotional, name-calling style of argumentation conservatives usually claim to detest in liberals, but I confess she often makes me laugh. Unfortunately, she's a lot more fun to read than the more erudite, calmer, better reasoned conservatives.

  5. 4 out of 5

    Daniel

    if you hate yourself and want to drive yourself to depression read this book. I would never advocate burning a book, but if you need to stay warm, this should be one of the first books you should use for fuel.

  6. 4 out of 5

    Gagan

    I actually didn't read this book, because the font size is like 20. I think this book is intended for the visually impaired and after reading the first page I think it's also intended for the mentally challenged. Thank you Ann Coulter for making me feel good about myself. I actually didn't read this book, because the font size is like 20. I think this book is intended for the visually impaired and after reading the first page I think it's also intended for the mentally challenged. Thank you Ann Coulter for making me feel good about myself.

  7. 4 out of 5

    Richard Derus

    “You need to win elections, and that’s how you actually change stuff. I was working for the U.S. Senate after the 1994 election,” Coulter said. “Things were going gangbusters. … And yet, the government got shut down in the end of 1995. … It really, really hurt Republicans.” From The Daily Caller website. As much as I loathe this bag of baboon shit called Coulter, I have to say she's completely correct in this instance, and it gives me some small measure of hope that Murrikins isn't styeeeooopud e “You need to win elections, and that’s how you actually change stuff. I was working for the U.S. Senate after the 1994 election,” Coulter said. “Things were going gangbusters. … And yet, the government got shut down in the end of 1995. … It really, really hurt Republicans.” From The Daily Caller website. As much as I loathe this bag of baboon shit called Coulter, I have to say she's completely correct in this instance, and it gives me some small measure of hope that Murrikins isn't styeeeooopud enough not to see the harm these Rethuglikins is a-doin' to us ALL.

  8. 5 out of 5

    Natalie

    I made a deal with an ultra-conservative former co-worker: I would read this book if he'd read a book with a libertarian bent to it (Larry Elder's "The Ten Things You Can't Say In America"). He came back telling me he'd switched parties and would only support libertarian ideas from then on, but what I got out of Ann Coulter's "Slander" was that she's a piss-poor writer with holes in her logic large enough to drive a truck through. My favorite of her personal attacks: pointing the finger at those I made a deal with an ultra-conservative former co-worker: I would read this book if he'd read a book with a libertarian bent to it (Larry Elder's "The Ten Things You Can't Say In America"). He came back telling me he'd switched parties and would only support libertarian ideas from then on, but what I got out of Ann Coulter's "Slander" was that she's a piss-poor writer with holes in her logic large enough to drive a truck through. My favorite of her personal attacks: pointing the finger at those egg-headed liberals with their fancy college degrees, while she herself attended Cornell and received a law degree from the University of Michigan.

  9. 4 out of 5

    Andi

    I struggled to read the forward by Rush Limbaugh, and then after reading (I swear) 2 pages of the book, I threw it across the room. It still sits directly under my tv stand where it came to rest. let it be known that i bought it to see what all the hype was. well, turns out i wasted 14 dollars and change on a piece of rubbish. which is probably what coulter wanted me to do. bitch.

  10. 4 out of 5

    Mike

    The liberals have control of most of the media megaphones and they pretty much lie all the time about conservatives. Read Ann’s book and you will have examples aplenty. I’ve read her columns and another book of hers. This one is less polemical than her usual writing, probably because she approaches the topic with so much research and data. Ann Coulter nails the liberal mind to the wall for all to examine. Judging from the erudite reviews by our liberal colleagues here, she was accurate about the The liberals have control of most of the media megaphones and they pretty much lie all the time about conservatives. Read Ann’s book and you will have examples aplenty. I’ve read her columns and another book of hers. This one is less polemical than her usual writing, probably because she approaches the topic with so much research and data. Ann Coulter nails the liberal mind to the wall for all to examine. Judging from the erudite reviews by our liberal colleagues here, she was accurate about their inability to get beyond the “you’re stupid” method of argument. Contrary to what the left-wingers say, she provides loads of examples to back-up her contentions. With the data underpinning her accuracy, the only way for liberals to deny her positions is to call her a bitch, demand the book be used “for fuel” or throw it across the room, probably at a conservative. She opened my eyes to the massive media effort to disguise the events surrounding the 2000 election in Florida. I was aware of some of the left-wing spin but her explanation of the VNS data and the networks “projections” was new to me. The chart showing how fast the networks declared Democratic winners and how slow and reluctant they were to declare Republican winners was sobering. Think they will be any fairer in the upcoming election cycle? Ann Coulter is funny, she’s attractive and has a razor sharp mind. I’m sure if she was a left-winger, conservatives would squirm. But we wouldn’t throw her book in the trash…we’d probably wish we had someone so intelligent on our side…thank God we do. I only have one critical comment…she uses “contradistinction” about “80 billion times”. For some reason, it started to get annoying halfway through the book. Not much of a criticism, I know. Get the book, read past the first two pages and keep an open mind.

  11. 4 out of 5

    Rhonda

    Another over the top book from the lovely and brilliant Ann Coulter. Why people dislike this book can't be because Ann gets her facts wrong. Ms. Coulter does brilliant research and even her hyperbole is well stated. The prose is fun to read and the book very well laid out. Each of her books is a must for anyone who actually wants to think and, perhaps, do something about modern issues rather than follow the emotional issues to the so-called correct knee-jerk social decisions. One thing is absolu Another over the top book from the lovely and brilliant Ann Coulter. Why people dislike this book can't be because Ann gets her facts wrong. Ms. Coulter does brilliant research and even her hyperbole is well stated. The prose is fun to read and the book very well laid out. Each of her books is a must for anyone who actually wants to think and, perhaps, do something about modern issues rather than follow the emotional issues to the so-called correct knee-jerk social decisions. One thing is absolutely clear: if you want to get involved in social issues, you have to go make a difference yourself rather than expect the government to fix anything. Like Reagan said, the easiest way to strike terror in anyone's heart is say the words, "I'm from the government and I'm here to help!" The next thing we are going to hear is that she is a bigot because she won't allow homosexuals to marry....or did I confuse her with her father who wrote an older and bigger book?

  12. 4 out of 5

    Travis

    I read this trying to see what the big deal is about Ann, figuring she couldn't possibly be as bad as people said. Actually she's worse. The humor isn't that funny, mostly a lot of name calling. she plays fast and loose with the facts, maps out a set of rules for how political discourse should be, to set us liberals straight and then breaks all her own rules or ignores them when discussing conservatives and is just generally not that strong a writer. This book is just a huge slab of unintentional i I read this trying to see what the big deal is about Ann, figuring she couldn't possibly be as bad as people said. Actually she's worse. The humor isn't that funny, mostly a lot of name calling. she plays fast and loose with the facts, maps out a set of rules for how political discourse should be, to set us liberals straight and then breaks all her own rules or ignores them when discussing conservatives and is just generally not that strong a writer. This book is just a huge slab of unintentional irony and 'do as I say, not as I do'. My review would be meaner, but since I borrowed the book from the library, I'll cut Ann some slack. it didn't cost me any money to find out what a feeble book this was.

  13. 4 out of 5

    sologdin

    basic problem with this text, assuming that the allegations are true (i.e., that there are such things as 'liberal lies,' whatever those might be), is that the plaintiff ('the American Right,' what that happens to be) is not defamable, as the plaintiff's reputation could not possibly get worse at this point. basic problem with this text, assuming that the allegations are true (i.e., that there are such things as 'liberal lies,' whatever those might be), is that the plaintiff ('the American Right,' what that happens to be) is not defamable, as the plaintiff's reputation could not possibly get worse at this point.

  14. 5 out of 5

    Stephanie Goldsmith

    Funny....very witty, almost cruel insight to Conservatism vs. Liberalism

  15. 4 out of 5

    Ivonne Rovira

    The danger, of course, of naming a book Slander: Liberal Lies About the American Right, as Ann Coulter has done, is that you're inviting people to check out your own accuracy. And, unfortunately, in Coulter's case, that was a big mistake. That's why The Weekly Standard, right wing but with integrity, panned the book. Let's start with the very title. Coulter named it "Slander," but, of course, what she means when speaking about the media, whether print or electronic, is "libel." Sloppy? Just a prev The danger, of course, of naming a book Slander: Liberal Lies About the American Right, as Ann Coulter has done, is that you're inviting people to check out your own accuracy. And, unfortunately, in Coulter's case, that was a big mistake. That's why The Weekly Standard, right wing but with integrity, panned the book. Let's start with the very title. Coulter named it "Slander," but, of course, what she means when speaking about the media, whether print or electronic, is "libel." Sloppy? Just a preview of things to come. Coulter slams "liberal" newspapers for using the term "Christian right" and "religious right." She says that shows the evil of the mainstream press. But she's so lazy that she never ran a Nexis search on the term. If she had, she'd realize that The Washington Times uses the same term all the time. Coulter contends that Maureen Dowd attacked Tom DeLay for his religiosity in a June 20, 1999, column. In fact, the object was Al Gore. Sloppy? Par for the course. I'm not going to go into Coulter having to backpedal on her charges against Katie Couric, even on the puffball kind of interview she was subjected to on Fox's The O'Reilly Factor on July 11, 2002. More serious is how incredibly lazy she was in putting this book together. She laments on the hard time George W. Bush got in campaign 2000. A Nexis search for 1999 and up to the election in 2000 reveals that The New York Times had two stories mentioning Harken Energy. Gee, that was probing! No major newspaper investigated Bush's 1976 DUI conviction in Maine until a smalltown paper broke the story late in the campaign. They were just as lazy -- well, just as lazy as Coulter! Who did a story on Bush's being AWOL from his Air Guard commitment for a 17-month period in the early 1970s? Well, except for The Boston Globe, no one uttered a peep until days before the election. The "liberal" media certainly didn't put Bush under the same microscope as Bill Clinton, whose Vietnam woes surfaced early in 1992. But then the well-funded right-wing media network isn't interested in exposing Bush's faux pas. Oops! Coulter maintains that there is no Richard Scaife-funded media machine. She'll be writing next that the world isn't round. That's why she conveniently left this episode out of her book: In February 2001 at a media panel, Paul Begala noted that, on Nexis, he "found 3,641 stories about Bill Clinton 'dodging the draft' ...and there were 49 stories about Bush and the National Guard." A lot of people think Coulter twists facts. She does, of course, counting on the fact that most people don't have access to Nexis to double-check her sources. But, mostly, she's too lazy to research and, therefore, relies on her own prejudices to fill out a book. Do women get a harder time about looks in the media, as Coulter contends? Of course, they do. But it's been N.O.W. and Ms. magazine who make that point -- not the Independent Women's Forum that gave Coulter her start. An IWF, by the way, that's funded by none other than that non-existent right-wing conspiracy.

  16. 5 out of 5

    John

    A VERY informative book. Well documented and thoroughly researched. All the other Goodreads reviews I read for this book (and I didn't read them all) attacked her intelligence, her ideas, and her writing ability, but I didn't see anyone quoting anything from the book to support these claims or prove her wrong on any of the issues. Yes, she does unfairly group all liberals together in terms of their ideology, and obviously not all liberals are as narrow-minded as she suggests. On the other hand, A VERY informative book. Well documented and thoroughly researched. All the other Goodreads reviews I read for this book (and I didn't read them all) attacked her intelligence, her ideas, and her writing ability, but I didn't see anyone quoting anything from the book to support these claims or prove her wrong on any of the issues. Yes, she does unfairly group all liberals together in terms of their ideology, and obviously not all liberals are as narrow-minded as she suggests. On the other hand, show me a liberal who doesn't think that all conservatives are narrow-minded! However, if you are truly interested in unique political perspectives and aren't easily offended by rampant sarcasm, hyperbole, and insensitivity, then by all means give it a shot.

  17. 5 out of 5

    Russell

    She's an insane evil witch!!!!!!. I like to think of my self as open minded and willing to listen to points of view that I don't agree with,but I felt like I needed to take a shower after reading her book to wash the smell away. Being bombastic and intelligently putting one's ideas foward are two different things. This concept seems to be beyond Ms. Coulter's grasp.She manages to do exactly what she accuses the left of doing, namely painting the other with a broad brush. In MS. Coulter's eyes un She's an insane evil witch!!!!!!. I like to think of my self as open minded and willing to listen to points of view that I don't agree with,but I felt like I needed to take a shower after reading her book to wash the smell away. Being bombastic and intelligently putting one's ideas foward are two different things. This concept seems to be beyond Ms. Coulter's grasp.She manages to do exactly what she accuses the left of doing, namely painting the other with a broad brush. In MS. Coulter's eyes unless you are a neo con,bible thumping Bush worshiper then you are unpatriotic,immoral,naive,evil,hate America,"Want the Al Qaida to win",blah,blah,blah. WHAT A BITCH!!!!!!!!!!!!

  18. 5 out of 5

    Tarin Allen

    See my review of Bill O'Reilly's book. My reaction to this one was even more ferocious. I just don't get it. And I think I'm through trying to understand the other side. I just end up feeling sickened by the total lack of regard for anyone who dares to be even a little different! See my review of Bill O'Reilly's book. My reaction to this one was even more ferocious. I just don't get it. And I think I'm through trying to understand the other side. I just end up feeling sickened by the total lack of regard for anyone who dares to be even a little different!

  19. 4 out of 5

    Maria

    Very well documented and a fascinating read.

  20. 4 out of 5

    David

    Ann Coulter is a great book seller. Not a great writer. Or a great author. But a book seller. It's her schtick. Give it a One Star. With the rest of her writing. Ann Coulter is a great book seller. Not a great writer. Or a great author. But a book seller. It's her schtick. Give it a One Star. With the rest of her writing.

  21. 4 out of 5

    Adam

    no, i didnt forget to put a star - doesn't deserve one. no, i didnt forget to put a star - doesn't deserve one.

  22. 4 out of 5

    Chris

    Great book, exposes the hard left for the same things they accuse the right of. Coulter is right on in this one.

  23. 4 out of 5

    Mark

    I didn't try too hard, but spent half an hour trying to give it a chance. Very jumpy and not a little bit slanderous itself, it exemplifies a technique my mom would distill to "the pot calling the kettle black." This book is like rabble rousing, but not cogent enough to really get excited about or even follow. If you're already on the team, then it suffices as sound bites suitable for fist pumping and a rousing "Amen, motherfuckers!" after each phrase. Since you couldn't convince anyone with this k I didn't try too hard, but spent half an hour trying to give it a chance. Very jumpy and not a little bit slanderous itself, it exemplifies a technique my mom would distill to "the pot calling the kettle black." This book is like rabble rousing, but not cogent enough to really get excited about or even follow. If you're already on the team, then it suffices as sound bites suitable for fist pumping and a rousing "Amen, motherfuckers!" after each phrase. Since you couldn't convince anyone with this kind of argument, it's very much preaching to the choir and in that sense seems a little dishonest, since it won't advance the cause. Perhaps it would stiffen the ranks of the already faithful, or just be good entertainment for them. The cover's good though: I wanna punch her, which has got to be the objective, right?

  24. 5 out of 5

    Hillary

    This book is totally up your ally if you are a Cspan addict, and know the names, voting record, political career, personal lives, favorite color, favorite meal, etc. of every senator and/or their affiliates/advisors. It reminds me why I don't follow politics much- it is a full time job just to keep up on the names, let alone the scandals and debates going on in Congress. Yikes. It did, however, have a rather humorous air about it. So really, if you are a political junkie, and a hard-core Republi This book is totally up your ally if you are a Cspan addict, and know the names, voting record, political career, personal lives, favorite color, favorite meal, etc. of every senator and/or their affiliates/advisors. It reminds me why I don't follow politics much- it is a full time job just to keep up on the names, let alone the scandals and debates going on in Congress. Yikes. It did, however, have a rather humorous air about it. So really, if you are a political junkie, and a hard-core Republican, you would probably love this book.

  25. 4 out of 5

    Molly

    Ann Coulter is notoriously caustic, but I think people get so wrapped up in hating her that they forget she really is highly-educated and obsessed with research. Every assertion she makes in this giant thesis is backed by a footnote and often Web addresses, making it easy to see primary sources. I admit I already thought of the MSM as biased before reading Slander, but I was floored by the extent of the deliberate fact-twisting that has been going on for years at some of the most respected media Ann Coulter is notoriously caustic, but I think people get so wrapped up in hating her that they forget she really is highly-educated and obsessed with research. Every assertion she makes in this giant thesis is backed by a footnote and often Web addresses, making it easy to see primary sources. I admit I already thought of the MSM as biased before reading Slander, but I was floored by the extent of the deliberate fact-twisting that has been going on for years at some of the most respected media houses.

  26. 5 out of 5

    Nancy Zorn

    What did I think? Torture. Sheer torture. A conservative "friend" lent it to me. I thought it would be good for me to read it. You know, "good" as in "read all sides" kind of good. Ann Coulter blathers on about how liberals are unable to sustain an argument without resorting to name calling. She then proceeds to do everything she accusses the nasty liberals of doing. Basically hundreds of pages of the pot calling the kettle black. I should have stopped and returned the book but NO. I read the wh What did I think? Torture. Sheer torture. A conservative "friend" lent it to me. I thought it would be good for me to read it. You know, "good" as in "read all sides" kind of good. Ann Coulter blathers on about how liberals are unable to sustain an argument without resorting to name calling. She then proceeds to do everything she accusses the nasty liberals of doing. Basically hundreds of pages of the pot calling the kettle black. I should have stopped and returned the book but NO. I read the whole freakin' thing. What a waste of time. My recommendation: run

  27. 4 out of 5

    Mike (the Paladin)

    Early Ann, if you were hacked off by her later books you will be by this one to. Funny, insightful and of course "in your face". Early Ann, if you were hacked off by her later books you will be by this one to. Funny, insightful and of course "in your face".

  28. 5 out of 5

    Eric

    This book is well-researched, fun, and entertaining, but I don't know if it's a serious book. Coulter begins by stating that American political debate sucks, and it's all the liberals' fault. Libs call names and accuse their opponents of being Nazis. Libs have done this for so long, they've forgotten how to argue ideas. Until the emergence of talk radio and the Internet, the libs rarely had to argue for their positions, because the media and intellectual elite did it for them. Few conservative v This book is well-researched, fun, and entertaining, but I don't know if it's a serious book. Coulter begins by stating that American political debate sucks, and it's all the liberals' fault. Libs call names and accuse their opponents of being Nazis. Libs have done this for so long, they've forgotten how to argue ideas. Until the emergence of talk radio and the Internet, the libs rarely had to argue for their positions, because the media and intellectual elite did it for them. Few conservative voices were heard or given equal time. But wimpy Republicans are also to blame for this sad state of affairs: "Yet the left's hegemonic control of the media had one again cowed a nominal Republican into averring to the left's preposterous demonization of Republicans. It always follows the same script: First there is the outrageous accusation from the left, then the abject apology from some pathetic panty-waist on the right, and then - who's to say Republicans are not racist scum? The cycle of Dumb and Dumber bickering with each other continues without end in sight." So there it is. Libs like Democrat representative Major Owens say of Republicans, "These are people who are practicing genocide with a smile; they're worse than Hitler," Republicans apologize and grovel, and on and on it goes. If you're not familiar with contemporary politics, you may be surprised Owens said something so viciously untrue about his fellow Americans. But that's nothing compared to what they dished out to Clarence Thomas. Such caring folks branded Thomas a "colored lawn jockey for conservative white interests," "race traitor," "black snake," chicken-and-biscuit-eating Uncle Tom," "house Negro," and "handkerchief head," "Benedict Arnold," and "Judas Iscariot." The New York Times called Thomas the "youngest, cruelest justice." Syndicated columnist Julianne Malveaux said she hoped Thomas' wife "feeds him lots of eggs and butter and he dies early, like many black men do, of heart disease." Coulter then adds wryly: "And thus were exposed the logical flaws in Thomas' judicial philosophy! If liberals have a principled argument against Justice Thomas, they're not telling. But they really don't like him. Thus they malign Thomas in terms that would constitute a hate crime if it came from anyone but a liberal." Republicans may be mean-spirited murderers, but their women are also ugly. Linda Tripp, Paula Jones, and Katherine Harris were all vilified because of their looks. Malveaux referred to the "ugly stick [Tripp's] been beaten with - there's something wrong with that woman." Tripp was also "ugly and evil," "Howard Stern in a fright wig," and "Barracudaville" and "smelling of gunpowder and garlic." Columnist Liz Langley said Tripp and Jones were neither "attractive nor possessed of human DNA." They "look like a bloated carcass and whatever's pecking at it." Coulter has other beefs with the Left. Libs and the media are elitist snobs who promote and elevate their own and ignore or demean everyone else. Anita Hill is a hero, Paula Jones is trailer-park trash. Ted Koppel's Nightline is a venerable institution that must always exist no matter far its ratings sink, but Rush Limbaugh can be ignored. Gloria Steinem is a hero for meager accomplishments and sleeping with the right man, while conservative Phyllis Schlafly is ignored or demonized despite greater accomplishments and influence. Coulter also describes what she calls the Left's hypocrisy with Bob Packwood, the philandering Republican senator. Feminists knew of his boorish behavior for years but did nothing because they needed his pro-abortion vote in the Senate. As soon as they no longer needed his vote, they turned on him and suddenly he was Public Enemy Number One. Her other gripes: * Several Democrat staffers and officials end up with plush media jobs, a reward offered to few Republicans. * Fox News is called conservative because it strives to be balanced and does not toe the liberal line. * Fox got grief when a Bush cousin working for the network correctly called Florida for Bush at two in the morning on election night, but other networks who called Florida for Gore before the polls even closed got a free pass. * The liberal media monopoly hates any conservative alternatives. * Conservative books and authors are not published nearly as often as they should be, even though these books and authors are often bestsellers. Conservative authors with bestsellers fight and claw to get published, while liberal authors who write unsuccessful books receive six-figure advances. * Conservatives read books and liberals don't. * Liberals want to censor the Internet because conservatives are popular on it. * Liberals always call conservatives dumb, like Reagan and Dubya. That's quite a list! Some of her claims are well-documented and substantiated, others are weak. For example, I think liberals do read books, and as far as censoring the Internet, she quotes only an obscure book by an equally obscure professor for support. And while it's true that libs did call Reagan and Dubya dumb (and Palin), they did not call Bob Dole or Dubya's father dumb, or too many other conservative politicians. And I just don't see the big conservative censorship thing. Conservative books are published all the time and are constantly on the bestseller lists. Heck, this book was on prominent display at my local library. And Coulter should not accuse libs of name-calling, because she engages in it herself. Katie Couric is an "affable Eva Braun," Al Gore is "Fibber McGee," the Clinton Administration was the "Caligula" Administration, and so on. And this leads me to my biggest problem with Ann Coulter and this book. It's impossible to take her seriously. She often says and writes outrageous things merely for effect, or to produce a reaction. It's hard to know when she's serious and when she's just kidding around. Too often, her important and substantive points are overlooked because everyone responds to her nonsense. It's one of two reasons she's on TV all the time (the other reason should be obvious). Any valid points in this book (and there are countless of them) are obscured by her rhetoric and name-calling, clever though they are.

  29. 5 out of 5

    Julia

    Slander by Ann Coulter is a novel based on various political themes from the author ’s conservative perspective. Ann Coulter is a commentator, author, and lawyer who has been involved in politics for the majority of her life. Slander focuses on main themes such as, who controls the media in America, religion, abortion, and the different tactics that Democrats use to ‘attack’ the conservative viewpoint. Having never read anything by this author before, it was easy for me to see that Coulter falls Slander by Ann Coulter is a novel based on various political themes from the author ’s conservative perspective. Ann Coulter is a commentator, author, and lawyer who has been involved in politics for the majority of her life. Slander focuses on main themes such as, who controls the media in America, religion, abortion, and the different tactics that Democrats use to ‘attack’ the conservative viewpoint. Having never read anything by this author before, it was easy for me to see that Coulter falls into the far-right perspective of the political spectrum. Published in 2002, this novel discussed current political leaders of the time such as President Bush and Clinton. Even though the novel is nearly twenty years old, most of the topics that Coulter discusses are still important issues today. The fact that the United States still has many of the same concerns was very interesting for me to read about due to the fact that I expected the book to seem outdated. Coulter uses both her humor and extensive research to justify her main points throughout the novel. The overall main topic discussed in Slander is “liberal lies about the American right”. Coulter spends a vast majority of the novel arguing that when it comes down to political discussions between democrats and republicans, democrats only resort to name calling in order to belittle the opponent. Throughout the novel, Coulter addresses many of the go-to arguments that Democrats use time and time again against the Republican party, “The liberal trope of associating Republicans with slavery is a daring smear inasmuch as the Republican Party was formed for the express purpose of opposing slavery,” (Coulter, 11). The next several pages of the novel include example after example on different sineros where democratic politicians attack conservatives not on their viewpoint, but on their persona. For example, Coulter gives an example when a report from the Post attacked Katherine Harris, “One wonders how this Republican woman, who can’t even use restraint when she’s wielding a mascara wand, will manage to use it and make sound decisions in the game of partisan one-upmanship,” (Coulter, 23). Although the author makes an important point about the fact that politicians often resort to name calling instead of sticking to actual issues, I believe that this could be said about both major political parties. Coulter fails to list even one instance when a conservative resorted to name calling of their opposition, and I sure that there are plenty of instances to choose from. In this regard, I feel that although Coulter may have a point about attacking the belief and not the person, she missed the mark when all she did is list example after example in her novel. The next main argument that Coulter focusses on in Slander, is why can the faulty arguments and name calling work so well for liberal politicians. Coulter exclaims that the reason liberals can get away with attacking conservatives is that they have no accountability since the media is overwhelmingly controlled by Democrats. Since the media is controlled by Democrats, there is no one to call them out, “Perhaps if conservatives had had total control over every major means of news dissemination for a quarter of the century, they would have forgotten how to debate too,” (Coulter, 2). In my opinion, democratic control of the mainstream media is one of the most valid points that Coulter makes in her novel. The author makes many important points on why the two major political parties are sometimes held to different standards, “The media determines how the news will be served up, how the players are characterized, what news to report, and what news not to report,” (Coulter, 72). One of the main arguments that Coulter uses to discuss liberal control over the media was the controversial calling of Bush’s win during the presidential election of 2000. Fox News correctly called Florida for Bush fifty-five seconds before any other station called it, long after the polls were closed. This was a major controversy in the election because many other mainstream media networks accused Fox News of prematurely calling the election and skewing the results in Bush’s favor. Coulter then goes on to discuss how John Ellis, who made the call on Fox News, became slandered by the other networks even though the numbers showed that Bush would win Florida. I believe that Coulter has a valid point when discussing the control over media. However, some of the examples she uses, such as Fox News calling the election early, has a very loose connection to how the media is controlled. The idea that Democrats control the media was also brought up again and again throughout the book. I understand that this was one, if not the main theme in the novel but, many of the author’s points were simply repeated without introducing any new ideas or additional thoughts. Another main point that Coulter argues is how difficult it is getting the conservative viewpoint out into the public, “National magazines and newspapers give hallucinatory reviews of books by their fellow liberals and snub books by conservatives,” (Coulter, 122). Coulter spends a large section of her book discussing the various hoops that conservatives have to jump through in order get their novels published. She talks about how publishing companies are less likely to publish conservative books and how bookstore will often hide books written by conservative authors. Slander includes lists of book reviews in which mainstream magazines describe conservative top-selling books as “surprise best-sellers”. Coulter points out that since the media and publishing companies are so biased, the only platform that conservatives can be heard fairly is on the internet, “The Internet has undermined the major media’s capacity to enforce a strict party line,” (Coulter 143). In my opinion, it makes sense that there would be an overwhelming amount of negative book reviews on conservative books since Coulter sites traditionally liberal magazines and networks as the sources who review them. I feel that Ann Coulter backs up her point with many examples. Unlike other arguments Coulter makes throughout the book, she does look at democratic book reviews from the same magazines and networks. She points out that when a democratic novel is released on the best-seller list, the reviews never refer to it as a “surprise best-seller”, while if it is a conservative book, there are dozens of reviews that say that. Throughout her novel, Coulter briefly touches on other controversial topics such as abortions and religion. She argues how the term “religious conservative” is a made-up phrase used by Democrats to convey irrationality and infallibility. Coulter also briefly touches on the mainly conservative viewpoint that abortions are morally wrong. These topics are by no means the main theme of her novel, and almost does not make much sense to be included at all. The novel’s purpose is to bring light to the fact that conservative viewpoints are being smothered by the liberal control of mass media. I feel that her discussions of religion and abortion does not match up with the overlying theme and seems somewhat out of context from the rest of the novel. Reading Slander was both entertaining and information to me. The use of sarcastic humor throughout the novel, although extremely funny, is something that may have been relied on too heavily when trying to prove a point. I believe there to be a fine line between adding humor for the sake of it and adding humor to cover up a somewhat weak argument. Coulter made many fair points throughout Slander and the novel itself was extremely well researched. The last 46 pages were solely dedicated to all the citations and relative sources that Coulter used. Although I personally agreed with many of the main points that the author made, I do feel that she repeated herself to the point of exhaustion. The novel could have gotten the same point across with 100 fewer pages due to the amount repetitive content Coulter uses. Often times, the author uses extensive lists that are fairly redundant to justify her main points. Many of her points did not address any of the counterpoints and some of her sub-points were randomly inserted in the novel with little to no connection to the overall theme. Slander may be an extremely well-researched novel, but I believe that most of the points are backed up not by fact, but the author’s opinion. Coulter is definitely a biased writer, which is to be suspected by most novels that are written by politicians. I was not surprised to find out that the novel took on the conservative viewpoint because it aligns with the author’s personal ideologies. When political commentators publish a novel, often times the main focus is to get their personal viewpoints heard and Slander is no exception. As far as the overall enjoyment of the novel goes, I personally had a positive experience reading it. Because many of my ideas line up with Coulter’s, I was able to get both information and comedy out of her novel. Looking at the informational side of things, however, I do feel that there are better novels on the market than this one. I would recommend this novel to anyone who is looking for a pleasure read, not a primary source to gain more information.

  30. 5 out of 5

    Steve Mitchell

    Although my politics are diametrically opposed to those of Ann Coulter, I agree totally with her underlying argument in this book which she sums up in one single sentence in the conclusion; “Lies and personal attacks are deeply corrosive of public debate and democratic compromises.” Her opinion that people who resort to childish name calling are nothing short of stupid idiots is one I can accept totally. In this book she mentions - among others - Hugh Hefner (smut peddler), Michael Moore (workin Although my politics are diametrically opposed to those of Ann Coulter, I agree totally with her underlying argument in this book which she sums up in one single sentence in the conclusion; “Lies and personal attacks are deeply corrosive of public debate and democratic compromises.” Her opinion that people who resort to childish name calling are nothing short of stupid idiots is one I can accept totally. In this book she mentions - among others - Hugh Hefner (smut peddler), Michael Moore (working-class-phony), Larry Flynt (redneck), Gloria Steinem (feminist harpy), Jim Jeffords (half-wit), Christina Todd Whitam (dimwit) and Lara Flynn Boyle and Heather Graham (worthless silicone nothings); so it is hard to take her seriously when she disagrees with their opinions if you judge her by her own standards. I found her constant assertion that the USA won the Cold War single handed under Ronald Reagan a bit difficult to swallow: my memory is Mikhail Gorbachev abandoned the hard-line stance of enforcing the Communist regimes of Eastern Europe and disbanded the Warsaw Pact; no country actually won anything except for a tentative peace. Coulter also talks as though the USA saved the world by winning the Second World War; my history books point out that the UK started fighting the Nazis in 1939 - two years before the USA decided to turn up - and that the Soviet Red Army were the first into Berlin! This is the second of Coulter’s books that I have read so far and it is basically a severely warped and biased take on the liberal left by a member of the conservative right; it is also hugely - and unintentionally - funny.

Add a review

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Loading...
We use cookies to give you the best online experience. By using our website you agree to our use of cookies in accordance with our cookie policy.