Slander: Liberal Lies About The American Right (2003) - Plot & Excerpts
THE SLANDER REVIEWS.Review the first: An Appeal to Those Who Take Her SeriouslyThis 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.
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.
What do You think about Slander: Liberal Lies About The American Right (2003)?
I really enjoyed this book despite all the name calling which I think only weakens Coulter's excellent points. If you can look past the play ground "na nan nan na" she does an excellent job documenting liberal bias in the media especially on the night of the 2000 election. She goes minute by minute pointing out which network declared what and when. Looking at the time line it is undeniable that Fox was the only network that had any sense of responsibility in reporting results while the lame-stream media couldn't report Gore wins fast enough, even when the facts weren't there. So, if you can read this knowing she's going to point the finger, look past that, and gleen all the good stuff this book has to offer I definitely recommend it.
—Karl Tenney
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.
—Skylar Burris
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!!!!!!!!!!!!
—Russell
