She is very biased towards her opinions but at least she doesn't make apologies for that. When she was arguing ideas it was hard to know at what frequency her examples occur since she never sights anything like that. However, I preferred her arguing ideas than the name calling. She is obviously writing to neo-cons and just rebuffing the anti-neo-con ideas. Once, I got used to her bias I find it to be a decent read. I'd prefer the arguments to be made in a dialog instead of completely one sided and biased however.
The final chapter (11) about the response her book had received was very intriguing. I have no idea why democrats wanted to ban her book in congress, it is just a political book full of anti-other party ideas. Not that different than any campaign so I'm not sure what their objection was. It would be easier to defend the book without the insults, had she just stuck with facts and discussed them allowing the readings to come to their own conclusions about the intelligence of the ideas she was arguing for and against there would not have been room for discussion of banning the book. But, that also wouldn't have appealed to her target audience as much.
The comparisons of the liberal agenda to religion was amusing and accurate. The ability for schools and public institutions to teach and encourage open and honest debate is suffering right now. As I understand liberalism there is an idea that everyone has individual truth and should do that they feel best, however schools are not allowed to teach/instruct students in skills and methods to find their truth since only liberalism is allowed to be discussed in public schools.
Her assault on evolution was interesting also. I think she could have put a few pages into explaining how regardless of evolution existing or not it doesn't effect the creationist's view. But, it was still an interesting read.
Overall, it was a decent read. However, it leaves a very biased taste and now I want to read something on the other side and leave the final conclusions to myself. I like open and honest debate so she wasn't really writing to me, but the book is an interesting insight into the mind of a neo-con (at least her version of being a neo-con).
