Blogging for review of many books....!!

Guilty: Liberal "Victims" and Their Assault on America (Hardcover)

Product Description
In her most controversial and fiercely argued book yet, Ann Coulter calls out liberals for always playing the victim – when in fact, as she sees it, they are the victimizers. In GUILTY, Coulter explodes this myth to reveal that when it comes to bullying, no one outdoes the Left. GUILTY is a mordantly witty and shockingly specific catalog of offenses which Coulter presents from A to Z. And as with each of her past books, all of which were NYT bestsellers, Coulter is fearless in her penchant for saying what needs saying about politics and culture today.

About the Author
Ann Coulter is the #1 New York Times bestselling author of If Democrats Had Any Brains, They’d Be Republicans; Godless; How to Talk to a Liberal (If You Must); Treason; Slander; and High Crimes and Misdemeanors. She is the legal correspondent for Human Events and a syndicated columnist for ­Universal Press Syndicate. Her weekly column can be read at

Ironic, January 10, 2009
By MegaReader (Virginia, USA)

It is quite a twisted, delicious irony that Ann's central thesis - that a left-wing mob has awarded itself "victim" status and swarms in coordinated attacks to discredit anyone who disagrees with it - has attracted all these 1-star reviewers who obviously haven't read the book but who've swarmed in an attack to try to discredit it. Are there any liberals who understand "irony"? I guess not.

Anyway, while it's true that so-called "moderate" conservatives and FoxNews neocon types (who mainly just want to get along and not become completely irrelevant in the Obama era) have tossed Ann under the bus, she continues to deliver strong insights and provocative ideas. The thing is, much of what she says in this book is true. Anyone on the left or right who can't see that our culture has reached the saturation point with the tired, sappy victimology stuff is deluding himself. The five people who actually open and read this book (as opposed to the hundred who rate it here, or the thousand who'll show up on cable news to debate it) may well discover that she has something important to contribute to the discussion.

Having Ann around is a good thing, even for liberals. At least she provides someone to get mad at, and ideas to get worked up over. What's the alternative? To listen to the Beltway Boys drone on about how impressively the Obama transition is going or how hard it is for them to argue with flushing another trillion down the toilet on bailouts when times are tough? Or perhaps to listen to Olberman and Maddow prattle for the thousandth consecutive night about how much Cheney/Palin/Bush/etc suck. Ann Coulter represents the 1/3 of the population that is non-collectivist, kind of bitter about the bullying from the Obama-borg, and not going to melt away just because of some recent election losses. Maybe that group is 32 or 36 % now instead of the 50 or 55 % it was at its peak, but it's still there. There will be more elections, the pendulum will swing again just as it has for the last 7,000 years of political history, and uncooperative individualistic "No, maybe we can't" conservatism will be back. If nothing else, Coulter provides a window into a way of looking at the world that liberals cannot even believe exists inside the minds of non-mentally-impaired people but in fact does exist....and they'll want to keep an eye on that as the Messiah's honeymoon wraps up later on this year and politics - that is to say, the competition of ideas and for resources - resumes in earnest.

This book is good, and worth reading. Even with the big tire treads on her back, Ann's still in the game, and is still an articulate proponent of a way of looking at the world that a lot of people share. She uses satire, sarcasm, humor, and hyperbole to cut through the background noise, and, when taken literally, those techniques do tend to drive uber-sincere leftists into a rage. But people of her own ideological persuasion easily sift through her rhetorical flourishes and find themselves in agreement with her core ideas.

Interesting, informative read...., January 11, 2009
By Reader "toronto-reader" (Toronto, Ontario Canada)

Unlike many of the reviewers, I'm actually reading Ann's book "Guilty", and I'm finding it interesting and informative. For one thing, Ann provides very helpful insight into issues that I recall seeing played out during the US presidential election. For example, we all recall how Sarah Palin was mocked for supposedly not knowing what the "Bush doctrine" was. Ann gives useful insight into this on page 241:

"Gibson [from ABC] asked Palin if she agreed with the "Bush doctrine". Palin reasonably responded, "In what respect, Charlie?" Gibson refused to tell her what he meant, requiring her to try to pry it out of him. Eventually Gibson exasperatedly informed Palin that "the Bush doctrine" was that America has "the right of anticipatory self-defence."

"Cut to: the Politburo issuing hysterical denunciations of Palin for her alleged inability to identify Charlie Gibson's definition of "the Bush doctrine." Wikipedia, the online encyclopedia, which can be "edited" by anyone, promptly rewrote its entry on "the Bush doctrine" to correspond with Gibson's definition. The New York Times claimed Palin "visibly stumbled" and "did not seem to know what he was talking about."

"But in short order, columnist Charles Krauthammer, no slouch on foreign policy matters, pointed out that there is no one "Bush doctrine" and named at least three distinct possibilities for the title. The Washington Post ran an article quoting a half dozen foreign policy experts from the Carter, Clinton, and Bush administrations, who agreed on one thing: There was no single "Bush doctrine." The only exception was Richard Holbrooke of the Carter and Clinton administrations, who gave a direct quote from a Bush administration strategy document as "the Bush doctrine." But Philip D. Zelikow, one of the principal authors of that very document, told the Post, "I actually never thought there was a Bush doctrine."

The above quote from page 241 is an example of Ann's well researched, well balanced approach in her book.