Slander: Liberal Lies about the American Right

( 183 )

Overview

"Ann Coulter, whose examination of the Clinton impeachment was a major national bestseller and earned widespread praise, now takes on an even tougher issue. At a time when Democrats and Republicans should be overwhelmingly congenial, American political debate has become increasingly hostile, overly personal, and insufferably trivial. Whether conducted in Congress or on the political talk shows, played out at dinners or cocktail parties, politics is a nasty sport. At the risk of giving away the ending: It's all liberals' fault." Cultlike in their
... See more details below
Available through our Marketplace sellers.
Other sellers (Hardcover)
  • All (243) from $1.99   
  • New (20) from $1.99   
  • Used (223) from $1.99   
Close
Sort by
Page 1 of 2
Showing 1 – 10 of 20 (2 pages)
Note: Marketplace items are not eligible for any BN.com coupons and promotions
$1.99
Seller since 2010

Feedback rating:

(120)

Condition:

New — never opened or used in original packaging.

Like New — packaging may have been opened. A "Like New" item is suitable to give as a gift.

Very Good — may have minor signs of wear on packaging but item works perfectly and has no damage.

Good — item is in good condition but packaging may have signs of shelf wear/aging or torn packaging. All specific defects should be noted in the Comments section associated with each item.

Acceptable — item is in working order but may show signs of wear such as scratches or torn packaging. All specific defects should be noted in the Comments section associated with each item.

Used — An item that has been opened and may show signs of wear. All specific defects should be noted in the Comments section associated with each item.

Refurbished — A used item that has been renewed or updated and verified to be in proper working condition. Not necessarily completed by the original manufacturer.

New
2002 Hard cover New in new dust jacket. Sewn binding. Cloth over boards. 272 p. Audience: General/trade. Conservatism & Liberalism; History & Theory; Non-Fiction; Political ... Ideologies; Political Parties; Political Process; Political Science; Read more Show Less

Ships from: Lakewood, NJ

Usually ships in 1-2 business days

  • Canadian
  • Standard, 48 States
  • Standard (AK, HI)
  • Express, 48 States
  • Express (AK, HI)
$1.99
Seller since 2014

Feedback rating:

(109)

Condition: New
Hardcover New 1400046610.

Ships from: Atlanta, GA

Usually ships in 1-2 business days

  • Canadian
  • International
  • Standard, 48 States
  • Standard (AK, HI)
  • Express, 48 States
  • Express (AK, HI)
$2.49
Seller since 2010

Feedback rating:

(1819)

Condition: New
1400046610 BRAND NEW. A portion of your purchase of this book will be donated to non-profit organizations. We are a tested and proven company with over 900,000 satisfied ... customers since 1997. Choose expedited shipping (if available) for much faster delivery. Delivery confirmation on all US orders. Read more Show Less

Ships from: Nashua, NH

Usually ships in 1-2 business days

  • Canadian
  • International
  • Standard, 48 States
  • Standard (AK, HI)
  • Express, 48 States
  • Express (AK, HI)
$2.90
Seller since 2014

Feedback rating:

(18)

Condition: New
New NEW! PERFECT SHAPE! LIBRARY BINDING! EX LIBRARY NEVER IN CIRCULATION LIBRARY MARKING ON 1 PAGE INSIDE MYLAR OVER DUST COVER SAME DAY SHIPPING! bdshlf.

Ships from: Rockford, IL

Usually ships in 1-2 business days

  • Canadian
  • International
  • Standard, 48 States
  • Standard (AK, HI)
  • Express, 48 States
  • Express (AK, HI)
$2.95
Seller since 2014

Feedback rating:

(73)

Condition: New
1400046610 Only 1 copy left! Clean, unmarked copy. Hardcover, with dust jacket- In excellent shape! I can send expedited rate if you chose; otherwise it will promptly be sent ... via media rate. Have any questions? Email me; I'm happy to help! Read more Show Less

Ships from: Los Angeles, CA

Usually ships in 1-2 business days

  • Canadian
  • International
  • Standard, 48 States
  • Standard (AK, HI)
  • Express, 48 States
  • Express (AK, HI)
$3.25
Seller since 2005

Feedback rating:

(1673)

Condition: New
2002-06-25 Hardcover New HARDCOVER with DUST JACKET, STORE DISPLAY ITEM, UNREAD NEW, NICE, CLEAN & COMPLETE PAGES & COVER.

Ships from: San Antonio, TX

Usually ships in 1-2 business days

  • Canadian
  • International
  • Standard, 48 States
  • Standard (AK, HI)
  • Express, 48 States
  • Express (AK, HI)
$3.74
Seller since 2014

Feedback rating:

(57)

Condition: New
1400046610 ?The immutable fact of politics in America is this: liberals hate conservatives.? Ann Coulter, whose examination of the Clinton impeachment was a major national ... bestseller and earned widespread praise, now takes on an even tougher issue. At a time when Democrats and Republicans should be overwhelmingly congenial, American political debate has become increasingly hostile, overly personal, and insufferably trivial. Whether conducted in Congress or on the political talk shows, played out at dinners or cocktail parties, politics is a nasty sport. At the risk of giving away the ending: It?s all liberals? fault. Cultlike in their behavior, vicious in their attacks on Republicans, and in almost complete control of mainstream national media, the left has been merciless in portraying all conservatives as dumb, racist, power hungry, homophobic, and downright scary. This despite the many Republican accomplishments of the last few decades, as well as the Bush administration?s expert handling of the country?s affai ... Read more Show Less

Ships from: Northridge, CA

Usually ships in 1-2 business days

  • Canadian
  • International
  • Standard, 48 States
  • Standard (AK, HI)
  • Express, 48 States
  • Express (AK, HI)
$4.25
Seller since 2010

Feedback rating:

(48)

Condition: New
2002 Hardcover Excellent jacket Coulter is one of the fiery new breed of conservative commentators, and one of the twenty most fascinating women in politics. A BRAND NEW BOOK ... at exceptional value. We ship in 24 hours and guarantee satisfaction. No need to pay more. We sell books from New to Acceptable. We take care to be accurate in our description. Most of our books were gently read and in fine condition. BNCTucsonbooks ships daily. Proceeds from the sales of books support an endowed scholarship to Brandeis University, Wa. Read more Show Less

Ships from: Tucson, AZ

Usually ships in 1-2 business days

  • Canadian
  • International
  • Standard, 48 States
  • Standard (AK, HI)
  • Express, 48 States
  • Express (AK, HI)
$4.96
Seller since 2007

Feedback rating:

(558)

Condition: New
2002-06-25 Hardcover New FIRST EDITION STATED (with all numbers). Hardcover w/ DJ. You are buying a Book in NEW condition with very light shelf wear. Buy it Now! ! !

Ships from: Wilmington, NC

Usually ships in 1-2 business days

  • Canadian
  • Standard, 48 States
  • Standard (AK, HI)
  • Express, 48 States
  • Express (AK, HI)
$5.95
Seller since 2006

Feedback rating:

(126)

Condition: New
New York, New York, U.S.A. 2002 Hard Cover Pf New in Fine jacket 416a5h400

Ships from: MESQUITE, NV

Usually ships in 1-2 business days

  • Canadian
  • International
  • Standard, 48 States
  • Standard (AK, HI)
  • Express, 48 States
  • Express (AK, HI)
Page 1 of 2
Showing 1 – 10 of 20 (2 pages)
Close
Sort by

Overview

"Ann Coulter, whose examination of the Clinton impeachment was a major national bestseller and earned widespread praise, now takes on an even tougher issue. At a time when Democrats and Republicans should be overwhelmingly congenial, American political debate has become increasingly hostile, overly personal, and insufferably trivial. Whether conducted in Congress or on the political talk shows, played out at dinners or cocktail parties, politics is a nasty sport. At the risk of giving away the ending: It's all liberals' fault." Cultlike in their behavior, vicious in their attacks on Republicans, and in almost complete control of mainstream national media, the left has been merciless in portraying all conservatives as dumb, racist, power hungry, homophobic, and downright scary. This despite the many Republican accomplishments of the last few decades, as well as the Bush adminstration's expert handling of the country's affairs in the wake of the worst attacks on American soil and of the war that followed.
Read More Show Less

Editorial Reviews

From Barnes & Noble
Those on the right who aren't too crazy about liberals will find plenty to cheer in this aggressive assault on the left by national political pundit Ann Coulter.
From the Publisher
In Praise of Ann Coulter

“Ann Coulter is one of the fiery new breed of conservative commentators who don’t worry what the Establishment thinks of them.” —Robert D. Novak

“The conservative movement has found its diva.” —Bill Maher

“Coulter, like her ideological opposite, the late William Kunstler, is obsessed with protecting civil liberties and free speech. But the speech she is trying to protect, which includes every form of controversial political incorrectness . . . is threatened by liberals.” —Harper’s Bazaar

“There’s nothing artificial about Ann. She has a vision of the Constitution and the government’s rightful role in our lives that is much different from the mainstream, and much different from mine, but she represents a significant constituency.” —Geraldo Rivera

“Ann Coulter is a pundit extraordinaire.” —Rush Limbaugh

“One of the twenty most fascinating women in politics.” —George magazine

From the Hardcover edition.

Read More Show Less

Product Details

  • ISBN-13: 9781400046614
  • Publisher: Crown Publishing Group
  • Publication date: 6/25/2002
  • Edition description: 1ST
  • Pages: 272
  • Product dimensions: 6.48 (w) x 9.60 (h) x 0.94 (d)

Meet the Author

Ann Coulter
Ann Coulter is an attorney and legal affairs correspondent. Her first book, High Crimes and Misdemeanors: The Case Against Bill Clinton, was a New York Times bestseller. She lives in New York and Washington, D.C.

From the Hardcover edition.

Read More Show Less

Read an Excerpt

From Chapter One

Liberals Unhinged

The natives are superficially agreeable, but they go in for cannibalism, headhunting, infanticide, incest, avoidance and joking relationships, and biting lice in half with their teeth. —Margaret Mead

Political "debate" in this country is insufferable. Whether conducted in Congress, on the political talk shows, or played out at dinners and cocktail parties, politics is a nasty sport. At the risk of giving away the ending: It's all liberals' fault.

As there is less to dispute, liberals have become more bitter and angry. The Soviet threat has been vaporized, women are not prevented from doing even things they should be, and the gravest danger facing most black Americans today is the risk of being patronized to death.

And yet still, somehow, Tom DeLay (Republican congressman from Texas) poses a monumental threat to democracy as we know it. The left expresses disagreement with DeLay's governing philosophy by calling him "the Meanest Man in Congress," "Dangerous," "the Hammer," "the Exterminator," and the "Torquemada of Texas." 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 that when religion is injected into politics-the Crusades, Henry VIII, Salem, Father Coughlin, Hitler, Kosovo-disaster follows.")

Liberals dispute slight reductions in the marginal tax rates as if they are trying to prevent Charles Manson from slaughtering baby seals. Progress cannot be made on serious issues because one side is makingarguments and the other side is throwing eggs-both figuratively and literally. Prevarication and denigration are the hallmarks of liberal argument. Logic is not their metier. Blind religious faith is.

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. The most crazed religious fanatic argues in more calm and reasoned tones than liberals responding to statistics on concealed-carry permits.

Perhaps if conservatives had had total control over every major means of news dissemination for a quarter century, they would have forgotten how to debate, too, and would just call liberals stupid and mean. But that's an alternative universe. In this universe, the public square is wall-to-wall liberal propaganda.

Americans wake up in the morning to "America's Sweetheart," the Today show's Katie Couric, berating Arlen Specter about Anita Hill ten years after the hearings. Or haranguing Charlton Heston on the need for gun control to stop school shootings. Her co-host, Matt Lauer, wonders casually why the federal government has not passed a law on national vacation time. The New York Times breathlessly announces "Communism Still Looms as Evil to Miami Cubans" and Time magazine columnist Barbara Ehrenreich gives two thumbs up to "The Communist Manifesto" ("100 million massacred!").

We read letters to the editor of the New York Times from pathetic little parakeet males and grim, quivering, angry women on the Upper West Side of Manhattan hoping to be chosen as that day's purveyor of hate. These letters are about one step above Tiger Beat magazine in intellectual engagement. They are never responsive, they never include clever ripostes or attacks; they merely restate the position of the Times with greater venom: I was reminded by your editorial that Bush wasn't even your average politically aware Yalie; he was too busy branding freshmen at his fraternity house.

In the evening, CBS anchor Dan Rather can be found falsely accusing Republicans of all manner of malfeasance or remarking that a president who has been impeached, disbarred, and held in contempt for his lies is an "honest man." Diane Sawyer pronounces that "the American people" are yawning at the news that the president was engaging in sodomy with a cigar and oral-anal sex with a White House intern.

Hollywood movies preach about kind-hearted abortionists, Nazi priests, rich preppie Republican bigots, and the dark night of fascism under Senator Joe McCarthy. Hollywood starlets giddily announce on late-night TV how much they'd like to give Bill Clinton a "certain type of sex" (as Paula Jones called it).

And then Americans wake up for another day of left-wing schlock, beginning their day with the CBS Early Show's Bryant Gumbel somberly asking smut peddler Hugh Hefner for his views on a presidential campaign.

We read national magazines that pretend to be reasonable while seething with the impotent violence of women. We wade through preposterous news stories on Enron, global warming, Tawana Brawley, "plastic guns," the melting North Pole, the meaning of the word "is"—until you can't keep up with the wave of lies. It's like being in an earthquake listening to all the gibberish.

When arguments are premised on lies, there is no foundation for debate. You end up conceding to half the lies simply to focus on the lies of Holocaust-denial proportions. Kind and well-meaning people find themselves afraid to talk about politics. Any sentient person has to be concerned that he might innocently make an argument or employ a turn of phrase that will be discerned by the liberal cult as a "code word" evincing a genocidal tendency. The only safe course is to be consciously, stultifyingly boring.

It isn't just public figures who have to be worried-though having millions of people listening to their spontaneous on-air remarks obviously raises the stakes a bit. But even a private conversation can be resurrected a decade later. Just a few years ago, a killer walked largely because a detective involved in the case had used the "N-word" almost ten years earlier. In a conversation with his then-girlfriend, Mark Fuhrman spun out imaginary dialogue for a movie script, and in so doing committed a hate crime. If the jurors in the O. J. Simpson case could have given Fuhrman the death penalty, he'd be sitting on death row right now. Cutting off your ex-wife's head is a lesser offense in America than using certain words.

Vast areas of public policy debate are treated as indistinguishable from using the N-word (aka: the worst offense against mankind). Thus, Representative Charles Rangel (D-N.Y.) took issue with the Republicans' proposed tax cuts, saying: "It's not 'spic' or 'nigger' anymore. They say, 'Let's cut taxes.' "

The spirit of the First Amendment has been effectively repealed for conservative speech by a censorious, accusatory mob. Truth cannot prevail because whole categories of thought are deemed thought crimes.

For a fleeting moment, after the September 11 attack on America, all partisan wrangling stopped dead. The country was infused with patriotism and amazingly unified. The attack on America was such a colossal jolt, liberals even abandoned their endless pursuit of producing some method of counting the ballots in Florida that would have made Al Gore president.

Liberal sneers about President Bush's intelligence suddenly abated—at first for reasons of decorum, but then because of the indisputable fact that Bush was a magnificent leader. In a moment of crisis, the truth overcame liberal naysaying. After having demeaned President Bush as a lightweight frat boy hopelessly ignorant of foreign policy, even Democrats were overcome with relief that Al Gore was not the president.

The bipartisan lovefest 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 to the war effort was to complain.

They complained about the detention of terror suspects, they complained we were going to lose the war, they complained about military tribunals for terrorists, they complained about the Bush administration's failure to solve the anthrax cases instantly, they complained about monitoring terrorists' jailhouse conversations, they complained about the war taking too long, they complained about a trial for John Walker, they complained about (nonexistent) ethnic profiling at airports, they complained about the treatment of prisoners at Guantanamo, and they complained about Bush's "axis of evil" speech.

And they complained about all the damn flag-wavers. The infernal flag-waving after 9/11 nearly drove liberals out of their gourds. For the left, "flag-waving" is an epithet. Liberals variously called the flag a "joke," "very, very dumb," and-most cutting-not "cosmopolitan." New York University sociology professor Todd Gitlin agonized over the decision to fly the flag outside his apartment (located less than a mile from Ground Zero), explaining: "It's very complicated."

It must have been galling that no one in America cared. Eventually, the New York Times gave up harping about Bush's handling of the war and turned its full attention to attacking Enron.

Here the country had finally given liberals a war against fundamentalism and they didn't want to fight it. They would have, except it would put them on the same side as the United States. In the wake of an attack on America committed by crazed fundamentalist Muslims, Walter Cronkite denounced Jerry Falwell. Falwell, it seems, had remarked that gay marriage and abortion on demand may not have warmed the heart of the Almighty. Cronkite proclaimed such a statement "the most abominable thing I've ever heard." Showing his renowned dispassion and critical thinking, this Martha's Vineyard millionaire commented that Falwell was "worshipping the same God as the people who bombed the World Trade Center and the Pentagon" (the difference being liberals urged compassion and understanding toward the terrorists).

Indeed, an attack on America by fanatical Muslims had finally provided liberals with a religion they could respect. Heretofore liberals deemed voluntary student prayers at high school football games a direct assault on the Constitution. But it was of urgent importance that Islamic terrorists being held in Guantanamo be free to practice their religion. This despite the fact that we had been repeatedly instructed that the terrorists were not practicing "true Islam."

Less than three months after Islamic terrorists slaughtered thousands of Americans, ABC's 20/20 ran a major report titled "Abortion Clinics in U.S. Targeted by Religious Terrorists." As Jamie Floyd reported: "Since September eleventh the word 'terrorists' has come to mean someone who is radical, Islamic, and foreign. But many believe we have as much to fear from a homegrown group of anti-abortion crusaders."

New York Times columnist Frank Rich demanded that Ashcroft stop monkeying around with Muslim terrorists and concentrate on anti-abortion extremists. Rich claimed that only pure political malice could explain Attorney General Ashcroft's refusal to meet with Planned Parenthood while purporting to investigate "terrorism."

Yale law professor Bruce Ackerman recommended dropping the war against global terrorism ("declare victory at the first decent opportunity"!) and instead concentrate on "home-grown extremists." In lieu of a military response against terrorists abroad and security precautions at home, liberals wanted to get the whole thing over with and just throw conservatives in jail.

Rarely had the great divide in the country been so manifest. Liberals hate America, they hate "flag-wavers," they hate abortion opponents, they hate all religions except Islam (post 9/11). Even Islamic terrorists don't hate America like liberals do. They don't have the energy. If they had that much energy, they'd have indoor plumbing by now.

Long before the war, conservatives had a vague sense that liberals didn't much like them. Consider that a president whom liberals themselves called "indefensible, outrageous, unforgivable, [and] shameless" had staved off removal from office merely by calling his opponents "right-wing Republicans." It was apparent then that we were dealing with a species of primitive religious hatred.

Clinton's lies under oath in a judicial proceeding were such a shock to the legal system that just weeks before every Senate Democrat would vote to keep him in office, the entire Supreme Court boycotted Clinton's State of the Union address—one of many historical firsts in the Clinton years. That stunning rebuke was meaningless. Liberals were impervious to any logic beyond Clinton's mantra that his opponents were "right-wing Republicans."

Professional Democrats have clintonized the entire party and they will destroy anyone who stands in their way. All that matters to them is power. They believe their moral superiority allows them to do things that would appall ordinary people.

In May 2001, former Clinton strategists James Carville and Paul Begala released a "Battle Plan for the Democrats" on the op-ed page of the New York Times. Their central piece of advice was for Democrats to start calling President George Bush names. "First," they said, liberals must "call a radical a radical." Other proposals included calling Bush dangerous and uncompassionate: "Mr. Bush's agenda is neither compassionate nor conservative; it's radical and it's dangerous and the Democrats should say so."

That's it. That's the new plan. It's the same as the old plan. Call Republicans names.

In a comic spasm of sophistry, the Democrats' Big-Think men wrote: "We don't believe the spin that stopping Mr. Bush's assault on middle-class programs will hurt Democrats with voters." Evidently someone was retailing the yarn about an "assault" on the middle class being hugely popular. But Carville and Begala begged to differ. (Even the editor must have been overwhelmed by the spin on that one.) These must have been the guys who helped President Clinton formulate his thoughtful response to Newt Gingrich's "Contract with America." In his unifying, statesmanlike way, President Clinton referred to it as a murderous hit man's assignment, repeatedly calling it the "Contract on America." Go out right now and ask any liberal what was objectionable about the "Contract with America" and see if you get a more reasoned argument than that.

Meanwhile, the left's political Tourette's syndrome has gone completely unremarked upon. All parties to the debate carry on as if it's totally normal for two of the most famous Democratic consultants to be recommending name-calling as political strategy. Clinton seemed to be making a good argument against impeachment by perseverating about a "right-wing" conspiracy out to get him.

An annoying typical Republican response to liberal hate speech is to attack one's friends in order to appease one's enemies. Democrats still hate the Republican appeasers; they just hate them a little less. And when it comes time for the left to tear down the conciliators, these Republican "moderates" won't have many friends left willing to defend them. As Winston Churchill said, appeasement reflects the hope that the crocodile will eat you last. With some portion of (admittedly craven) Republicans casually acknowledging the liberal premise that conservatives are mean and hateful, the left is emboldened to carry on with ever greater insolence.


Copyright 2002 by Ann Coulter
Read More Show Less

First Chapter

From Chapter One

Liberals Unhinged

The natives are superficially agreeable, but they go in for cannibalism, headhunting, infanticide, incest, avoidance and joking relationships, and biting lice in half with their teeth. -Margaret Mead

Political "debate" in this country is insufferable. Whether conducted in Congress, on the political talk shows, or played out at dinners and cocktail parties, politics is a nasty sport. At the risk of giving away the ending: It's all liberals' fault.

As there is less to dispute, liberals have become more bitter and angry. The Soviet threat has been vaporized, women are not prevented from doing even things they should be, and the gravest danger facing most black Americans today is the risk of being patronized to death.

And yet still, somehow, Tom DeLay (Republican congressman from Texas) poses a monumental threat to democracy as we know it. The left expresses disagreement with DeLay's governing philosophy by calling him "the Meanest Man in Congress," "Dangerous," "the Hammer," "the Exterminator," and the "Torquemada of Texas." 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 that when religion is injected into politics-the Crusades, Henry VIII, Salem, Father Coughlin, Hitler, Kosovo-disaster follows.")

Liberals dispute slight reductions in the marginal tax rates as if they are trying to prevent Charles Manson from slaughtering baby seals. Progress cannot be made on serious issues because one side is making arguments and the other side is throwing eggs-both figuratively and literally. Prevarication and denigration are the hallmarks of liberal argument. Logic is not their metier. Blind religious faith is.

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. The most crazed religious fanatic argues in more calm and reasoned tones than liberals responding to statistics on concealed-carry permits.

Perhaps if conservatives had had total control over every major means of news dissemination for a quarter century, they would have forgotten how to debate, too, and would just call liberals stupid and mean. But that's an alternative universe. In this universe, the public square is wall-to-wall liberal propaganda.

Americans wake up in the morning to "America's Sweetheart," the Today show's Katie Couric, berating Arlen Specter about Anita Hill ten years after the hearings. Or haranguing Charlton Heston on the need for gun control to stop school shootings. Her co-host, Matt Lauer, wonders casually why the federal government has not passed a law on national vacation time. The New York Times breathlessly announces "Communism Still Looms as Evil to Miami Cubans" and Time magazine columnist Barbara Ehrenreich gives two thumbs up to "The Communist Manifesto" ("100 million massacred!").

We read letters to the editor of the New York Times from pathetic little parakeet males and grim, quivering, angry women on the Upper West Side of Manhattan hoping to be chosen as that day's purveyor of hate. These letters are about one step above Tiger Beat magazine in intellectual engagement. They are never responsive, they never include clever ripostes or attacks; they merely restate the position of the Times with greater venom: I was reminded by your editorial that Bush wasn't even your average politically aware Yalie; he was too busy branding freshmen at his fraternity house.

In the evening, CBS anchor Dan Rather can be found falsely accusing Republicans of all manner of malfeasance or remarking that a president who has been impeached, disbarred, and held in contempt for his lies is an "honest man." Diane Sawyer pronounces that "the American people" are yawning at the news that the president was engaging in sodomy with a cigar and oral-anal sex with a White House intern.

Hollywood movies preach about kind-hearted abortionists, Nazi priests, rich preppie Republican bigots, and the dark night of fascism under Senator Joe McCarthy. Hollywood starlets giddily announce on late-night TV how much they'd like to give Bill Clinton a "certain type of sex" (as Paula Jones called it).

And then Americans wake up for another day of left-wing schlock, beginning their day with the CBS Early Show's Bryant Gumbel somberly asking smut peddler Hugh Hefner for his views on a presidential campaign.

We read national magazines that pretend to be reasonable while seething with the impotent violence of women. We wade through preposterous news stories on Enron, global warming, Tawana Brawley, "plastic guns," the melting North Pole, the meaning of the word "is"-until you can't keep up with the wave of lies. It's like being in an earthquake listening to all the gibberish.

When arguments are premised on lies, there is no foundation for debate. You end up conceding to half the lies simply to focus on the lies of Holocaust-denial proportions. Kind and well-meaning people find themselves afraid to talk about politics. Any sentient person has to be concerned that he might innocently make an argument or employ a turn of phrase that will be discerned by the liberal cult as a "code word" evincing a genocidal tendency. The only safe course is to be consciously, stultifyingly boring.

It isn't just public figures who have to be worried-though having millions of people listening to their spontaneous on-air remarks obviously raises the stakes a bit. But even a private conversation can be resurrected a decade later. Just a few years ago, a killer walked largely because a detective involved in the case had used the "N-word" almost ten years earlier. In a conversation with his then-girlfriend, Mark Fuhrman spun out imaginary dialogue for a movie script, and in so doing committed a hate crime. If the jurors in the O. J. Simpson case could have given Fuhrman the death penalty, he'd be sitting on death row right now. Cutting off your ex-wife's head is a lesser offense in America than using certain words.

Vast areas of public policy debate are treated as indistinguishable from using the N-word (aka: the worst offense against mankind). Thus, Representative Charles Rangel (D-N.Y.) took issue with the Republicans' proposed tax cuts, saying: "It's not 'spic' or 'nigger' anymore. They say, 'Let's cut taxes.' "

The spirit of the First Amendment has been effectively repealed for conservative speech by a censorious, accusatory mob. Truth cannot prevail because whole categories of thought are deemed thought crimes.

For a fleeting moment, after the September 11 attack on America, all partisan wrangling stopped dead. The country was infused with patriotism and amazingly unified. The attack on America was such a colossal jolt, liberals even abandoned their endless pursuit of producing some method of counting the ballots in Florida that would have made Al Gore president.

Liberal sneers about President Bush's intelligence suddenly abated-at first for reasons of decorum, but then because of the indisputable fact that Bush was a magnificent leader. In a moment of crisis, the truth overcame liberal naysaying. After having demeaned President Bush as a lightweight frat boy hopelessly ignorant of foreign policy, even Democrats were overcome with relief that Al Gore was not the president.

The bipartisan lovefest 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 to the war effort was to complain.

They complained about the detention of terror suspects, they complained we were going to lose the war, they complained about military tribunals for terrorists, they complained about the Bush administration's failure to solve the anthrax cases instantly, they complained about monitoring terrorists' jailhouse conversations, they complained about the war taking too long, they complained about a trial for John Walker, they complained about (nonexistent) ethnic profiling at airports, they complained about the treatment of prisoners at Guantanamo, and they complained about Bush's "axis of evil" speech.

And they complained about all the damn flag-wavers. The infernal flag-waving after 9/11 nearly drove liberals out of their gourds. For the left, "flag-waving" is an epithet. Liberals variously called the flag a "joke," "very, very dumb," and-most cutting-not "cosmopolitan." New York University sociology professor Todd Gitlin agonized over the decision to fly the flag outside his apartment (located less than a mile from Ground Zero), explaining: "It's very complicated."

It must have been galling that no one in America cared. Eventually, the New York Times gave up harping about Bush's handling of the war and turned its full attention to attacking Enron.

Here the country had finally given liberals a war against fundamentalism and they didn't want to fight it. They would have, except it would put them on the same side as the United States. In the wake of an attack on America committed by crazed fundamentalist Muslims, Walter Cronkite denounced Jerry Falwell. Falwell, it seems, had remarked that gay marriage and abortion on demand may not have warmed the heart of the Almighty. Cronkite proclaimed such a statement "the most abominable thing I've ever heard." Showing his renowned dispassion and critical thinking, this Martha's Vineyard millionaire commented that Falwell was "worshipping the same God as the people who bombed the World Trade Center and the Pentagon" (the difference being liberals urged compassion and understanding toward the terrorists).

Indeed, an attack on America by fanatical Muslims had finally provided liberals with a religion they could respect. Heretofore liberals deemed voluntary student prayers at high school football games a direct assault on the Constitution. But it was of urgent importance that Islamic terrorists being held in Guantanamo be free to practice their religion. This despite the fact that we had been repeatedly instructed that the terrorists were not practicing "true Islam."

Less than three months after Islamic terrorists slaughtered thousands of Americans, ABC's 20/20 ran a major report titled "Abortion Clinics in U.S. Targeted by Religious Terrorists." As Jamie Floyd reported: "Since September eleventh the word 'terrorists' has come to mean someone who is radical, Islamic, and foreign. But many believe we have as much to fear from a homegrown group of anti-abortion crusaders."

New York Times columnist Frank Rich demanded that Ashcroft stop monkeying around with Muslim terrorists and concentrate on anti-abortion extremists. Rich claimed that only pure political malice could explain Attorney General Ashcroft's refusal to meet with Planned Parenthood while purporting to investigate "terrorism."

Yale law professor Bruce Ackerman recommended dropping the war against global terrorism ("declare victory at the first decent opportunity"!) and instead concentrate on "home-grown extremists." In lieu of a military response against terrorists abroad and security precautions at home, liberals wanted to get the whole thing over with and just throw conservatives in jail.

Rarely had the great divide in the country been so manifest. Liberals hate America, they hate "flag-wavers," they hate abortion opponents, they hate all religions except Islam (post 9/11). Even Islamic terrorists don't hate America like liberals do. They don't have the energy. If they had that much energy, they'd have indoor plumbing by now.

Long before the war, conservatives had a vague sense that liberals didn't much like them. Consider that a president whom liberals themselves called "indefensible, outrageous, unforgivable, [and] shameless" had staved off removal from office merely by calling his opponents "right-wing Republicans." It was apparent then that we were dealing with a species of primitive religious hatred.

Clinton's lies under oath in a judicial proceeding were such a shock to the legal system that just weeks before every Senate Democrat would vote to keep him in office, the entire Supreme Court boycotted Clinton's State of the Union address-one of many historical firsts in the Clinton years. That stunning rebuke was meaningless. Liberals were impervious to any logic beyond Clinton's mantra that his opponents were "right-wing Republicans."

Professional Democrats have clintonized the entire party and they will destroy anyone who stands in their way. All that matters to them is power. They believe their moral superiority allows them to do things that would appall ordinary people.

In May 2001, former Clinton strategists James Carville and Paul Begala released a "Battle Plan for the Democrats" on the op-ed page of the New York Times. Their central piece of advice was for Democrats to start calling President George Bush names. "First," they said, liberals must "call a radical a radical." Other proposals included calling Bush dangerous and uncompassionate: "Mr. Bush's agenda is neither compassionate nor conservative; it's radical and it's dangerous and the Democrats should say so."

That's it. That's the new plan. It's the same as the old plan. Call Republicans names.

In a comic spasm of sophistry, the Democrats' Big-Think men wrote: "We don't believe the spin that stopping Mr. Bush's assault on middle-class programs will hurt Democrats with voters." Evidently someone was retailing the yarn about an "assault" on the middle class being hugely popular. But Carville and Begala begged to differ. (Even the editor must have been overwhelmed by the spin on that one.) These must have been the guys who helped President Clinton formulate his thoughtful response to Newt Gingrich's "Contract with America." In his unifying, statesmanlike way, President Clinton referred to it as a murderous hit man's assignment, repeatedly calling it the "Contract on America." Go out right now and ask any liberal what was objectionable about the "Contract with America" and see if you get a more reasoned argument than that.

Meanwhile, the left's political Tourette's syndrome has gone completely unremarked upon. All parties to the debate carry on as if it's totally normal for two of the most famous Democratic consultants to be recommending name-calling as political strategy. Clinton seemed to be making a good argument against impeachment by perseverating about a "right-wing" conspiracy out to get him.

An annoying typical Republican response to liberal hate speech is to attack one's friends in order to appease one's enemies. Democrats still hate the Republican appeasers; they just hate them a little less. And when it comes time for the left to tear down the conciliators, these Republican "moderates" won't have many friends left willing to defend them. As Winston Churchill said, appeasement reflects the hope that the crocodile will eat you last. With some portion of (admittedly craven) Republicans casually acknowledging the liberal premise that conservatives are mean and hateful, the left is emboldened to carry on with ever greater insolence.

Read More Show Less

Customer Reviews

Average Rating 3.5
( 183 )
Rating Distribution

5 Star

(106)

4 Star

(16)

3 Star

(8)

2 Star

(11)

1 Star

(42)

Your Rating:

Your Name: Create a Pen Name or

Barnes & Noble.com Review Rules

Our reader reviews allow you to share your comments on titles you liked, or didn't, with others. By submitting an online review, you are representing to Barnes & Noble.com that all information contained in your review is original and accurate in all respects, and that the submission of such content by you and the posting of such content by Barnes & Noble.com does not and will not violate the rights of any third party. Please follow the rules below to help ensure that your review can be posted.

Reviews by Our Customers Under the Age of 13

We highly value and respect everyone's opinion concerning the titles we offer. However, we cannot allow persons under the age of 13 to have accounts at BN.com or to post customer reviews. Please see our Terms of Use for more details.

What to exclude from your review:

Please do not write about reviews, commentary, or information posted on the product page. If you see any errors in the information on the product page, please send us an email.

Reviews should not contain any of the following:

  • - HTML tags, profanity, obscenities, vulgarities, or comments that defame anyone
  • - Time-sensitive information such as tour dates, signings, lectures, etc.
  • - Single-word reviews. Other people will read your review to discover why you liked or didn't like the title. Be descriptive.
  • - Comments focusing on the author or that may ruin the ending for others
  • - Phone numbers, addresses, URLs
  • - Pricing and availability information or alternative ordering information
  • - Advertisements or commercial solicitation

Reminder:

  • - By submitting a review, you grant to Barnes & Noble.com and its sublicensees the royalty-free, perpetual, irrevocable right and license to use the review in accordance with the Barnes & Noble.com Terms of Use.
  • - Barnes & Noble.com reserves the right not to post any review -- particularly those that do not follow the terms and conditions of these Rules. Barnes & Noble.com also reserves the right to remove any review at any time without notice.
  • - See Terms of Use for other conditions and disclaimers.
Search for Products You'd Like to Recommend

Recommend other products that relate to your review. Just search for them below and share!

Create a Pen Name

Your Pen Name is your unique identity on BN.com. It will appear on the reviews you write and other website activities. Your Pen Name cannot be edited, changed or deleted once submitted.

 
Your Pen Name can be any combination of alphanumeric characters (plus - and _), and must be at least two characters long.

Continue Anonymously
See All Sort by: Showing 1 – 20 of 183 Customer Reviews
  • Anonymous

    Posted December 31, 2007

    Fantastic - written to inform, rather than persuade

    I received this book for Christmas and finished it in four days. I was laughing out loud at her incredible, biting wit and sarcasm, an understandable response to the maddening idiocy she exposes and handily debunks. I was confused for a while as to who her intended audience was - it by no means attempts to appeal to or persuade liberals, which I had assumed was the purpose of the book. I believe the aim was more to educate and embolden Conservatives so as to better equip them to go on offense. With this in mind, it's easier to read and enjoy the book for what it is instead of being constantly shocked at her unwillingness to give every point a 'PC' qualifier: 'While not EVERY liberal despises 'organized religion'...' Of particular value is her exposure of many false assumptions and premises used by the liberal media that are so repeated, they are treated as fact, even by Conservatives. For example, she points to constant media updates on the actions of the non-existent 'religious right' as though it were an official, organized movement with 'members,' while conspicuously never discussing the 'atheist left.' Note to those who claim Coulter doesn't back-up her points: ARE YOU INSANE? Agree or disagree with her, it is simple fact that a full 35 pages of notes meticulously document each and every quote and fact she uses throughout the book.

    2 out of 2 people found this review helpful.

    Was this review helpful? Yes  No   Report this review
  • Anonymous

    Posted April 28, 2004

    Brilliant Expose' on Liberal Media Bias!

    Ann Coulter's book 'Slander: Liberal Lies About the American Right' is right on. Not only does Coulter provide foot-notes which give her book credibility, but it does NOT read like a boring 'Works Cited' sheet. Instead the insipid comments of the left are sprinkled throughout Ms. Coulter's often hilarious and true commentary. I could not put this book down. I have always believed there was a liberal bias in the media, but I was never aware of how much there was. You'll be surprised!

    2 out of 2 people found this review helpful.

    Was this review helpful? Yes  No   Report this review
  • Anonymous

    Posted February 14, 2007

    I can take only so much ranting

    Ann's writing style takes getting used to. Hard to read her point of view which is much like her on-air talking points. Chop-chop, hard to follow. I agree with many of her themes, it's just hard to read instead of listen.

    1 out of 1 people found this review helpful.

    Was this review helpful? Yes  No   Report this review
  • Anonymous

    Posted June 9, 2006

    good for her

    i am myself moderate, but i do get tired of the extreme left making crazy propoganda, that is just childish and petty, and no one calling them out on it. At least Ann has the stones to throw it right back. Even though she might exaggerate she comes no where near what the extreme left does on a daily basis. She's the balance to an uneven equation, because for every action there is and equal and opposite reaction.

    1 out of 1 people found this review helpful.

    Was this review helpful? Yes  No   Report this review
  • Anonymous

    Posted April 30, 2005

    A hilariously biased work of fiction

    In the best-selling book 'Slander', Ann Coulter writes a highly-developed plot involving the conspiracy of the New York Times to corrupt the balanced, unbiased media for the explicit purpose of furthering the horrific gay agenda. Her grasp of the real-world issues, while somewhat tenuous at best, has been known to draw in the most conservative readers, and her dramatic use of footnotes merely serves to heighten the illusion that Rupert Murdock has, in fact, been kidnapped and brain-probed to spout liberal bias everywhere he goes. Coulter doesn't shy away from what is commonly regarded as 'politically correct', and goes to great lengths to prove that no matter who she's talking to, she can always find someone to offend. A brilliant work of satire from the master of deception -- comparable to Jon Stewart's 'America' in sheer hilarity.

    1 out of 2 people found this review helpful.

    Was this review helpful? Yes  No   Report this review
  • Anonymous

    Posted October 16, 2004

    awesome!

    This book puts into writing the liberal bias of the media. No one can argue now. She uses facts, quotes, and examples to make her point. How can you argue with that? This book is an awesome read for anyone looking for the truth!

    1 out of 1 people found this review helpful.

    Was this review helpful? Yes  No   Report this review
  • Anonymous

    Posted May 7, 2004

    'Slander', a great read!

    Ann Coulter's, second New York Time's best seller, 'Slander' is an important tool in defeating any liberal in a debate. After reading just three chapters into 'Slander, I was able to crush my 1960's through back neighbor.

    1 out of 1 people found this review helpful.

    Was this review helpful? Yes  No   Report this review
  • Anonymous

    Posted November 18, 2013

    To You must be joking

    No one is paying me, so relax. Really....there, there. The only "dirty liberals" are the ones who are speaking slander. Now that is dirty. Slander is wrong and from what I've heard from the main stream media in the past several years - they're all in need of a delousing.

    Was this review helpful? Yes  No   Report this review
  • Anonymous

    Posted December 3, 2012

    Superb

    Read this a few years ago, well written, entertaining , provocative and even more true today fhan when it was written

    Was this review helpful? Yes  No   Report this review
  • Posted January 8, 2009

    You must be joking...

    Did she pay these other reviewers to write those comments? Are there really people out there who can look other human beings in the face and use the phrase "dirty liberals" like it's some kind of disease? Grow up, people.

    0 out of 4 people found this review helpful.

    Was this review helpful? Yes  No   Report this review
  • Anonymous

    Posted May 10, 2007

    A joke?

    I picked this book up at a friend's house just for fun and to see why Ann Coulter is so controversial. After reading just the first page, I found this book mildly entertaining. Not because I agree with her viewpoints, but because her arguments are just so ridiculous that I wonder how this was ever published. I am convinced that the only reason that it was a bestseller was because people like me needed a good laugh. It's pretty funny to me how she thinks that just because someone is a liberal, they hate God and Christians. Obviously this is far from the truth. The best thing about this book is that Coulter actually believes that she is writing facts instead of what is clearly opinion. She does absolutely nothing to back up her points, which makes her look even more uneducated. In addistion, her writing style is very confusing. Coulter jumps back and forth between topics and can't seem to stay focused. There doesn't seem to be a point to this book besides criticize liberals using the same topics over and over again. A good author could at least come up with a thesis and try to prove it using well supported facts. Nothing was proven in this book. I don't know what Coulter was trying to accomplish, since only conservatives would actually take this book somewhat seriously, and they hardly need convincing. I'll just assume she was trying to entertain both liberals and conservatives. Maybe she meant to write it as a joke, which is what it is anyway.

    0 out of 2 people found this review helpful.

    Was this review helpful? Yes  No   Report this review
  • Anonymous

    Posted May 5, 2006

    Too Much Vitriol

    I am a staunch conservative, but I could not finish this book. I didn't even get halfway through. Mrs Coulter's arguments are well reasoned, but the vicious attack verbiage on the liberals detract from her arguments. She should leave the personal attacks to the liberals who cannot debate without them.

    Was this review helpful? Yes  No   Report this review
  • Anonymous

    Posted December 28, 2004

    Left/Right Blue/Red Blah, blah, blah. More BS

    This book is no different then any liberal political book. It only covers one side. It doesn't expose the lazy minds to any sort of critical thinking. How does that song go 'Clowns to the left of me Jokers to the right. Here I am. Stuck in the middle with you'

    0 out of 1 people found this review helpful.

    Was this review helpful? Yes  No   Report this review
  • Anonymous

    Posted August 25, 2004

    Vitriolic Truth

    Ann Coulter masterfully describes and proves (to any reasonable analyst) that the main stream media is filled with blatantly biased liberal liars. The liberals only used ad hominem slander against conservatives before the book and all they do now is use the same logical fallacy against her after the book. Be very cautious of her caustic style and sharp sense of humor. If you don't pay attention, you'll miss something, guarenteed. Great read.

    Was this review helpful? Yes  No   Report this review
  • Anonymous

    Posted May 22, 2004

    Oh, come now.

    I am somewhat disappointed that her attempt to 'raise the level of debate' results in this shrill indictment of all things liberal. The larger problem, though, is that this book continually seems to twist facts and take references out of context to prove her points. There's a lot of pot calling the kettle black in this book, which is pretty much par for the course these days in socio-political writing, regardless of the author. Unfortunately, the ultra-conservatives (like Coulter, O'Reilly, Limbaugh, etc.) AND the ultra-liberals (Franken, Moore, etc.) are the only people fighting for airtime and column-inches, so that's all we tend to hear. I suspect that the average American is like me - moderate, with beliefs on both sides of the Right/Left barrier. This wealth of extreme thinking, though, makes all people think that liberals are like Franken and conservatives are like Coulter. Thank GOD that's not the truth. Spend your time on something else. This book will just give you more reasons to be mad - either at Coulter for getting your hard-earned money, or at liberals because you didn't bother to check the author's references.

    0 out of 1 people found this review helpful.

    Was this review helpful? Yes  No   Report this review
  • Anonymous

    Posted February 27, 2004

    Very Poor work!

    Very disapointing read. As a life long conservative I feel this is the kind of writing that allows the public to make fun of the conservative. The author has difficulty in distinguishing fact from fiction. Being a retired English teacher, I am glad not to count the author among my students.

    0 out of 1 people found this review helpful.

    Was this review helpful? Yes  No   Report this review
  • Anonymous

    Posted February 5, 2004

    What a lying bitch

    I beg anyone who reads this book and believes it to read it again and stop and look up every endnote as it comes up, she took everything out of context and spun it into propaganda.

    Was this review helpful? Yes  No   Report this review
  • Anonymous

    Posted March 9, 2004

    Dear Propaganda,

    Welcome to the world of liberal media. Oh, my goodness, she twisted it to make it look like conservatives are actually caring people. How unfair, that's reserved for only the left! Get a life! It's a great book and more and more people are starting to realize what is going on in our media today. Change is coming and she has done a great job of pointing out why it needs to.

    Was this review helpful? Yes  No   Report this review
  • Anonymous

    Posted December 1, 2003

    In Her Defense

    After reading Slander, I viewed most of the media in an entirely different light, or perhaps for what it is, liberal, and full of lies. It's ashame that Coulter's critics can only argue the semantics of 'footnotes' and 'endnotes', such as Al Franken, or like one reviewer, critique her hair instead of dissproving her factually based defense of conservatives. The problem is, they can't. Instead they resort to the same mudslinging which was the major theme of her book. They are actually doing her much more of a credit than a disservice, by further proving her point.

    Was this review helpful? Yes  No   Report this review
  • Anonymous

    Posted November 18, 2003

    wow...

    It's really funny - I just read the review by 'A reviewer, a criminal defense lawyer in Texas', which was left on October 31, 2003. I find it ironic that he commends Ann on her 'footnotes', of which the book contains NONE. Please read Al Franken's 'Lies', especially the chapter on 'how to lie with footnotes', where he mentions that she has 837 (I believe, if not - the number is close enough) ENDnotes, not FOOTnotes; as well as showing a number of misrepresentations of her sources, misinterpretations of quotes and 'just making 'stuff' up' (direct quote from the book uses a different word, but it looks like I'm not allowed to use the language). a very sad book indeed.

    Was this review helpful? Yes  No   Report this review
See All Sort by: Showing 1 – 20 of 183 Customer Reviews

If you find inappropriate content, please report it to Barnes & Noble
Why is this product inappropriate?
Comments (optional)