I don’t understand why it has to be all or nothing. Why can’t a book’s overall thesis (that Obama is a loony radical falsely trying to pass himself off as a moderate) be correct but the book still be shoddily written? Lord knows there are enough tenured professors who are excellent researchers and academics who nonetheless jump to the wrong conclusions (like concluding that an anti-Christian, socialist, vegetarian, art lover was a man of the right) with alarming regularity, I see no reason why the opposite can’t be true as well.