In a battle between liberal science and republican Ann Coulter I wrote a dueling review pitting this book against Denying Science here: http://www.adventuresinpoortaste.com/...

Ann Coulter is an amazing herald of our time. Many people make this point, not least of which is Coulter herself. She brings together a great ability to tie quotes and opinions together in order to create credible arguments. Unfortunately, many of her arguments are not very believable.

I find many of her points school yard in nature. She brings in many good quotes and good evidence to back up her arguments, but more times than not she tends to belittle the subjects she doesn't agree with in order to defame their point of view. This is a false way of proving a point. It’s especially true when some of her arguments are thin and are padded with emotionally charged language so people fail to see the argument isn’t very strong. I understand her intentions, but I like to hear an opinion that has clear minded points of view.

An example I can give is page 257 when a "boston radio host" that is not named stumps George W. Bush on the names of "obscure" foreign political leaders. She frames this interaction as a "no name" host, as if it doesn't matter, and ends the paragraph stating, "He was a star for a week...and then was never heard from again. But for a brief shining moment this punk was part of the herd! The Joy" The language she uses is very angry, very manipulating. I understand her intentions are to persuade her audience, but to do so without facts and hotty language is unnerving. This is precisely why I disliked parts of "The Wrecking Crew", a political nonfiction on the history of conservatives and their “evil” intentions. I want facts and quotes, not persuasive language as it wrongfully attempts to manipulate my reasoning with peer pressure speak.

The overall point of this book though, is one to almost laugh at. Quoting Mark 5:2-9 Coulter explains,

“The Demon is a mob, and the mob is demonic. It is the nihilistic mob of the French Revolution;...”

She then gives examples of nihilistic mobs finishing off explaining how the Democratic Party is defined ultimately as a mob. Thus, if you’re following along with this logic, the Democratic Party are demons. I’m not sure how literal she’s thinking when it comes to demons, but she definitely intends to demonize the Democratic Party.

Its an interesting argument, mostly because it’s a crazy far out imaginative way to think about a group of people. Unfortunately it all serves as a front to rant about Democrats sucking for 250 pages. There comes a point where the reader realizes even though she spends a lot of time setting up her argument, its’ not the point of the book, and that weakens the impact of the book.

I'm sure most fans of her writing are looking for a political book that will get them hot and bothered about the issues, and it does that very well. This book is not a good source for political ammo. If someone took these arguments into a debate most of them could be refuted with some simple questions or evidence. She frames her subjects and arguments well, but much of her evidence is empty. I like my political commentary with no spin.