(Larger Image)
|
by Ben Stein, Phil DeMuth
ISBN: 1401903339
Binding/Media: Hardcover - 207 pages
Condition: Used: Good
Comments: Sold with pride and shipped with confirmation for US addresses. Book in good condition with minimal reading wear. EX LIBRARY copy. Library markings present but no further markings or imperfections.
More Product Infomation
|
Customer Reviews
|
The extreme right's view of the left
Rating  (2)
Date: 2009-02-20
Stein and DeMuth write from real positions of strength when it comes to finance, since both have solid backgrounds in finance and law. But also, as too often is true of others with business degrees, they speak from positions of almost total ignorance when it comes to social and political issues. Their idea of "thinking" apparently means a one-sided, completely biased way of thinkijng from a completely right-wing perspective. It is true that there are some who hold views they describe in their book, which are as wrong-headed as they are unthinking. However, Stein and DeMuth -- as do others in the far-right crowd --- speak from positions of ignorance and an inability to distinguish shades of (political) coloration. One has the impression they view any criticisms of the United States as fundamentally unpatriotic, something to be suppressed if not banished entirely. That being the case, it is no exaggeration to call their opinions fascist, even by the strictest and most literal meaning of the term.
Moreover, if it's extremism that concerns them, where is their critique of the even more dangerous forms of it we have encountered from the extreme right in the last few decades? As far as I recall, the only -- and the last -- time this country faced threats from the left was in the early 1970s. Right-wing zealots, on the other hand, have sprouted up in all directions both here and abroad, many of whom have declared themselves openly as enemies of the United States. Furthermore, they almost all of these groups have their roots in various stripes of religious extremism: intolerant, fascist, Christian wackos in this country; Jewish/Zionist zealots both here and in Israel; and the murderous, takfiri Muslims concentrated in parts of Europe and the Middle East. That said, one can conclude that hasn't been the lefties who have been our biggest threat, but the sundry, right-wing groups of many kinds and persuasions have been presnted the greatest danger to America, the American ideal, and the American way of life. So, Ben and Phil, if you're looking for intolerance in its most destructive forms, it's OK to look left... but then look far right, too, perhaps even in your own (unwitting) midst.
|
|
Satire?
Rating  (1)
Date: 2008-07-11
3 out of 6 customers found this reveiw helpful
I recently attended a talk by Mr Stein, in which he articulated, very well, the real problem facing America. That the concentration of wealth in America is in the hands of fewer and fewer people. Yet in this books he aligns himself with some of the nations true intellectual lightweights (O'Reilly, Hannity, Limbaugh, Coulter, Ingrams, Buchanan, everyone on FoxNews... the list goes on) and places the blame at the door of "liberals." I hear he's also made a movie blaming Darwin for Hitler and promoting the farce that is "intelligent design". I know he's a smart man.... perhaps he's the new Stephen Colbert and this is an extremely well constructed satire.
|
|
Keeping up with the truth facts
Rating  (5)
Date: 2008-06-22
1 out of 1 customers found this reveiw helpful
I found the topic very interesting and enlightning on the facets of what really happens in the government and the media.
|
|
Problems
Rating (1)
Date: 2006-10-03
14 out of 26 customers found this reveiw helpful
The problem with writing a rebuttal to the extreme left is that people begin to think that radical liberal views are characteristic of all liberal views. This book is a great disservice to the debate between liberals and conservatives. By allowing conservatives to feel content in their ideology by bashing the far left obliterates any rational inclination to consider valid points from the "other side" that everyone should think seriously about. America has descended into an extremely dangerous form of arguing - that of getting a point across and winning the argument, regardless of facts. I hope people will begin to draw conclusions from facts and not from rebuttals to the perversions of the far left.
|
|
A Strong Stand for America
Rating  (4)
Date: 2006-04-16
13 out of 17 customers found this reveiw helpful
Firstly, this not an unabashed attempt by conservatives to bash liberals. Instead, as the authors verify (albeit a bit late into the text), this is a rebuttal of those in the extreme left who truly hate America. The line of argument tries to expose the extreme good being done by America and capitalism in the world. I think that it is necessary to affirm these goods and continually strive to better America further (as the authors proclaim). Envious hatred of America is never an edifying force. The act of dissent must always be one that builds up and never aims to tear down. It is against the crowd of those attempting to tear us down that the authors argue.
My disagreements with the authors are as follows:
They often begin their discussions with a variety of quotes that are taken from a variety of radicals, drawing their argument into an almost ad-hominem fallacy (as noted by another reviewer). However, this can not be fully maintained, for they do not use the character persons quoted to disprove their arguments. The real problem with this is that it could be interpreted as a narrow attempt at researching the views of America haters. Of course, I will argue that it is often difficult to discern a unified front in extreme liberalism because of its (often part and parcel) denial of objective truth and subsequent elevation of subjective understanding as the ultimate goal. (This is, of course, not meant to make humans into purely subjective computing machines. Instead, I mean to emphasize that a grounding of truth is necessitated because anything else would be a contradiction and yet this contradiction is often maintained by the elite for the sake of being "enlightened", but I digress.)
Furthermore, they are a bit too optimistic about capitalism's ability to lift up the world. I do think that the freedom in capitalism can do much good. However, we must never hope, like communism does, that we humans can work out perfection on our own. There is always the chance for humanity to fall. The authors do not directly assert this but lean that way at times. In all fairness, they hint at the advantage of capitalism: freedom is given to all. Next to the possibility for corruption, we must also acknowledge that we are also directed toward the Truth. Therefore, freedom must be maintained for all, a point truly made by the authors, although masked by an almost overzealous fideism in capitalism.
Finally, their review of "Phariseeism" is incomplete and also unreflecting upon the notion of wealth. I do not, however, read with a hermeneutic of suspicion. Based on the other ideas of these writers, I think that they have just chosen not to address this greatly and directly (although a brief mention is made with respect to gross extravagance).
In Conclusion,
All-in-all, however, this book gives a refreshing look at America. It serves as a reminder of what all we have done as Americans. From this we must take our forward thrust. This tradition must always remain a key motivating factor in progress. From the great things done in America, we must go forward in the hope of always helping our brethren in the world.
|
(Larger Image)
|
by Richard J. Ellis
ISBN: 070061155X
Binding/Media: Hardcover - 264 pages
Condition: Used: Acceptable
Comments: Sold with pride and shipped with confirmation for US addresses. No writing, no highlighting, binding is firm. This is an EX LIBRARY copy with the usual library markings on the outside. There is some rubbing on the edges. No further imperfections.
More Product Infomation
|
(Larger Image)
|
by David A. Schultz
ISBN: 0816043299
Binding/Media: Hardcover - 542 pages
Condition: Used: Good
Comments: Sold with pride and shipped with confirmation for US addresses. Book in very good condition with VERY LIGHT reading wear. EX LIBRARY copy which did not spend much time in circulation before being released. Library markings present but no further markings or imperfections.
More Product Infomation
|
(Larger Image)
|
by Micah Sifry, Nancy Watzman
ISBN: 047167995X
Binding/Media: Paperback - 240 pages
Condition: Used: Like New
Comments: Sold with pride. Gently read copy in like new condition.
More Product Infomation
|
Customer Reviews
|
Uncritical
Rating  (3)
Date: 2009-11-25
The authors spend 99% of the book detailing abuses in the current system, but spend little time going into details on the proposed solution (Public Financing of Campaigns). They seem to feel uncritically that having the government take over the financing of campaigns will eliminate all abuses. It will certain eliminate many of the abuses they have documented, maybe all of them, but they do us all a disservice by blandly assuming that there won't be serious problems with the current proposals for public financing as well.
For example, in the state of Arizona, there has already passed a law for the public financing of campaigns, and it has led to some serious AND PREDICTABLE abuses. For instance it only takes 220 $5 donations to qualify as a candidate for the state legislature, and to receive $14,000 in public campaign funding for the primary election. Yes that is right, all you need is 220 donations of $5 each. And the average legislative district in Arizona has about 200,000 people. That means that someone qualifies for public funding after they have gathered the casual support of only about .2% of the general electorate!!!! So naturally, the ballot for the primaries are crowded with fringe candidates, crazies, and people whose only interest in running was TO GET THE FREE CAMPAIGN MONEY. How are we better off by being given such a confusing list of poorly qualified candidates to choose from? The good people are lost in the noise.
|
|
Naive to believe that we can eliminate corrupt influence on the political process
Rating (2)
Date: 2007-05-08
2 out of 3 customers found this reveiw helpful
Sifry and Watzman in their book, Is That A Politician In Your Pocket, argue that the campaign finance system benefits a privileged few at the expense of the average citizen. They claim that wealthy special interests buy favors from Congress and the White House using campaign contributions. The authors make their case that corporations and wealthy individuals benefit from legislation passed in Washington by the way that campaigns are financed and by how they influence the election process. The authors also bring transparency to the significant amount of time politicians must spend on fund raising rather than on running the government. The authors' intent is to identify a very real problem in the American political process and provide ammunition to support campaign finance reform.
Sifry and Watzman support their position using a substantial amount of research and data from the Center for Responsive Politics (CRP). The Center for Responsive Politics is a non-partisan, non-profit research group based in Washington that tracks money in politics, and its effect on elections and public policy. The authors present a number of case studies on issues such as drug policy, food safety, the environment, public safety, and tax fairness to support their claim that large dollar contributions to political campaigns influence politicians in favor of special interests. Data reported by the CRP is a credible source of information to support the author's claims.
The book clearly adds fuel to the ongoing debate about campaign finance reform and Congressional ethics. Critics of the current campaign finance system claim that the amount of money pouring into elections is having a self-serving or even corrupt affect on politics. The book supports these critics and provides examples that can be used to argue their case. However, politicians need money to run political campaigns. If they do not get it from the current system, then how will campaigns be financed in a fair and unbiased manner? As long as politicians regulate business, then business should have an opportunity to influence politicians. Sifry and Watzman do not consider such opposing viewpoints in their book.
There are several other areas where the authors' approach in developing their arguments can be criticized. First, the causal relationship that they develop between campaign contributions and political influence should be questioned. Do campaign contributions influence politicians or do politicians with a particular bias attract campaign contributions? The second criticism of the authors' work is that it does not offer a balanced perspective on the issue. It is clearly a one-sided viewpoint on campaign finance issues and as such, affects the authors' credibility. The final criticism is that the authors only offer one solution to the problem, that being clean money elections. They do not offer viewpoints on possible issues with clean money elections as a solution. For example, who is to say which politicians get public money and how much?
The impact of Sifry and Watzman's book will depend on the reader's political bias. An audience in favor of campaign finance reform and one that is distrustful of politicians will embrace the book and the evidence provided within it. Members of the Democratic Party may find the book useful because of how it appears to point a big finger at the motives of the Republican Party. Members of the Republican Party will likely find the book biased and attack the credibility of its claims and arguments. If nothing else, the book provides good, controversial material that should serve as a point of dialogue on the issue of corporate influence on the political process.
|
|
An excellent though disturbing read...
Rating (5)
Date: 2006-01-23
Years from now we'll look back in wonder about how politicians in 2006 could take money, gifts, and free vacations from lobbyists and corporations with business before congress. In any other country they'd call these actions bribery and payola. In America we call it freedom of speech. These people should be thrown in jail, not re-elected.
This is an absolute must-read if you care about the future of your country. The author's solution is public financing of campaigns at a cost of $5 to $10 per taxpayer. That'd be a bargain at a hundred times the price.
|
|
BIASED LOOK AT MONEY IN POLITICS
Rating (1)
Date: 2004-10-12
3 out of 23 customers found this reveiw helpful
The entire book is basically bashing Bush on ways that he obtained fortune through politics. All evidince in the book is subjective. Sifry is a hardcore liberal, and feels that we need to get Bush out of the White House; so if you feel the same way, read this book and Sifry will brainwash you into hating Bush more than you already do.
|
|
Or are you one of the 99% who can't afford to buy one?
Rating (5)
Date: 2004-07-24
11 out of 13 customers found this reveiw helpful
After reading this book you'll want to shout from your window, "I'm mad as hell and I'm not going to take it anymore!" I've always known money drives policy in Washington, but this book makes it so crystal clear in a quick-read and fun-graphics way! Also, there is no doubt Campaign Finance reform must be an issue for the November elections - it's the only way 99% of us that don't have access to politicians through money can be heard!
|
(Larger Image)
|
by Theodore H. Friedgut (Editor: Jeffrey W. Hahn)
ISBN: 1563244047
Binding/Media: Paperback - 292 pages
Condition: Used: Like New
Comments: Sold with pride and shipped with confirmation for US addresses. No publisher marks. Light shelf wear.
More Product Infomation
|
(Larger Image)
|
by Bill Sammon
ISBN: 0060723831
Binding/Media: Hardcover - 368 pages
Condition: Used: Like New
Comments: Sold with pride. Gently read copy in like new condition.
More Product Infomation
|
Customer Reviews
|
An HONEST look at George W. Bush
Rating (4)
Date: 2010-07-03
Bill Sammon is one of the best political analysts in Washington. He seems to lean to the conservative side of most issues. However, he is completely unbiased in his look at George W. Bush. This is an excellent, straight-forward read. If some of Bush's critics would openly and honestly read this, I believe they would look at the former president much differently. They would see him as a good and decent man, looking do do what he believes in his heart is right for the country -- his country -- no matter what the cost to himself. Smmon takes an up-close and in-depth look at what really makes this man who he is. As time goes on, I believe this will be considered one of the best and honest looks at George W. Bush.
|
|
Misunderestimated: The President Battles Terrorism, John Kerry, and the Bush Haters
Rating (2)
Date: 2009-03-30
ISBN 0060723831 - For a while, I'd found that books with a religious tone sort of almost required two separate reviews: one for the believers, one for the rest of the world. Political books are beginning to fall into that sort of category, for a different reason. There's the quality of the writing, all by itself, and then there's the accuracy of the details and the degree of the slant. Fitting that into one review ought to be fun!
In Misunderestimated, author Bill Sammon presents the reader with what seems to be a somewhat behind the scenes look at George W. Bush's first term in office. (It should be noted that the book is copyrighted 2004 and ends before the 2004 election; the timing matters a great deal more than you'd think it would.) Beginning with Bush's besieged appearance at the Hilton Hotel in Portland, Sammon tells the story using the words of the participants often. This strengthens the sense of glimpsing behind the scenes details and gives some of the smaller stories within the big story great emotional impact.
The main purpose of the book seems to be summed up by the subtitle "The President Battles Terrorism, John Kerry, and the Bush Haters". The trouble with that is simple: "The President" is almost a bit player in this book. The bulk of the writing is about Iraq, including a biography of Saddam Hussein, and Secretary of State Colin Powell is a larger figure than the president. "Battles... John Kerry" is a bit odd to throw in the title because Kerry doesn't make an actual appearance as a presidential candidate until the last chapter. Even then, there's little campaign information and no interaction between the two men. "Battles... Bush Haters" seems gratuitous as well; other than the first chapter, the "Bush Haters" don't seem to appear as a group and are never very well defined by Sammon. With all of that in mind, Sammon fails to live up to his own (somewhat whiny) title and earns himself 2 stars.
Sammon is an unusually biased author. Sure, there are left-wing and right-wing authors out there by the dozens, but Sammon - for the moment - stands out from the lot of them for me. First, he takes every opportunity to mock and belittle "the press" and "the media"... but on the cover, Sammon is noted to be the "Washington Times Senior White House Correspondent", making him part of the group he ridicules. Either he's got a superiority complex or he's irrational. Or both.
In addition, throughout the book, Sammon ridicules fairly constantly: he disparages Jessica Lynch for "cowering in the backseat of a Humvee" when she was taken hostage and blames only the Post for writing her as a hero, failing to mention that the Pentagon reported (April 2, 2003) that she had been shot and stabbed, even though she hadn't. He seems gleeful as he reports that she was raped, which isn't the only somewhat despicable moment on his part.
Sammon pointlessly dedicates an entire chapter to ridiculing Dan Rather's interview of Saddam Hussein, mocking Rather for being polite to Hussein, a mad man with a history of killing people who tick him off. More than anything else, Sammon seems to gloat, at every opportunity, about how Bush won not just one but two wars, referring to Afghanistan as over and Iraq as a "three week war", all the while failing to point out how many times the Bush Administration lied when they tried to implicate Hussein in the September 11th attacks. This is the problem with trying to write history as it happens - you get a lot wrong, because it's not over yet. We remain "bogged down in the quagmire" (a phrase Sammon takes exception to often) of war in both countries, and the comparisons to Vietnam (another thing that bothers Sammon) have gone on for years after both Bush and Sammon declared "Mission Accomplished".
On the up side, this is a very easy read. The riots in Portland and Bush's surprise visit to Baghdad for Thanksgiving are both very well written vignettes, as is the look at Powell's angst over his presentation to the United Nations. (A note about that portion of the book - almost word for word, it appears in a 2006 Washington Post article titled "Falling on His Sword" by Karen DeYoung; that article is an excerpt from her book Soldier: The Life of Colin Powell (Vintage), which makes me curious if she credits Sammon for it.) Even though it doesn't flow smoothly, fails to live up to the title, and is biased, it's always good to get the story from all sides and Sammon's managed to present this one in a read-able way. The only other failing, in my opinion, is that there's no index, an egregious omission in any non-fiction title.
- AnnaLovesBooks
|
|
Reads Like a Novel
Rating (5)
Date: 2007-09-06
0 out of 1 customers found this reveiw helpful
Sammon does a great job of holding your interest. I read 'Strategery' and loved it. I just finished, 'Misunderestimated', and found it every bit as captivating as 'Strategery'. Both books written by Sammon about the Bush administration.
I think we are living in one of the greatest moments in US history. The Bush administration fully understands this from the top down. Condi Rice is an incredible person who plays a key role in both books.
People should read these books just to see how the Bush administration plays the left wing news media for the shallow imbeciles that they are.
In the chapter titled, 'Whining Pool', a reporter asked Bush if he was concerned about what the media writes about him. Bush matter-of-factly responded, "People don't make up their mind based upon what you write."
I know that's true for me. It felt great to read that Bush feels the same way and isn't afraid to say it out loud.
|
|
Presidential Understandings
Rating (5)
Date: 2007-01-21
Read this book with some trepidation. Since the press tries to hold the ground on what they want the public to percieve of any given person, this was a refreshing read. Really shows how President Bush sticks to his principles and morals, despite the constant slamming of the media. His true power comes out in this book and how he has been able to fool over and over his detractors.
It's a great read regardless of your party. Could be a window into how power really works when you stick to your plan.
|
|
Take it for what it is
Rating (3)
Date: 2006-01-26
7 out of 16 customers found this reveiw helpful
Bill Sammon, Senior White House Correspondent for the Washington Times and political analyst for the Fox News Channel, recounts the events that occurred while he followed George W. Bush through his first term and into his second. Given the context of the book, Sammon's journalism wavers between unapologetic partisanship and a guise of objective journalism. Sammon relates to the reader through real events but adds commentary and narration with dramatic effect, and while his sources are not meticulously noted, he cites dates and publications sporadically. Many citations are from the Washington Times.
In some of Sammon's narrated dialogue one might wonder whether Sammon actually heard every word he quotes or if some of the narration is included for the sake of drama. For instance, the first Chapter, "Rise of the Bush Haters", tells the story of Bush's trip on August 22, 2002, to Portland, Oregon, for the purpose of attending a fundraiser for Oregon senator Gordon Smith. Bush's visit incited organized rioting from many of the Portland residents, and those who lined the streets to jeer at the President bravely ignored demands from local law enforcement and Secret Service personnel to stay back and/or disband. By Sammon's account, these protestors were viciously inhuman to not just the fundraiser attendees, but to anyone entering the Hilton where the fundraiser was held regardless of their political affiliation. Sammon describes a situation met by Donald Tykeson, an attendee of the fundraiser and a man diagnosed with multiple sclerosis, where a protestor blocked the man's motorized wheelchair as he tried to make his way into the Hilton's entrance. Sammon details the conversation between the protestor and Tykeson, but never indicates whether he was actually there or if he heard about the incident second-hand. Perhaps Sammon neglects this detail because it would take away from the feeling of the moment, as it is this feeling that Sammon wants to convey to the reader. Appealing to the reader's emotion is perhaps Sammon's best trick in this purported non-fiction publication, and therefore it is sometimes difficult to dig deeper into the facts, rather than getting lost in the descriptive (or possibly deceptive?) narrative.
Sammon then steps away from dramatic reporting and offers a textbook summary of Saddam Hussein's reign as Iraqi dictator, though even in this case sources are few and far between. The entire second chapter is an in depth history of Saddam Hussein's rise to his eventual position as dictator of all Iraq. Sammon recalls events in history where Saddam ordered executions and assassinations, though here too he gets carried away in the emotion of the story and leaves citations scattered about the text for which the diligent reader must scramble to find. Perhaps Sammon is certain that any red-blooded American reader is already sold on the tales of Saddam's bloody reign, and therefore he sees no need to waste effort on validating the credibility of his sources for the reader. Sammon's book would be an unlikely candidate for a primary source in a formal research paper, and his lack of meticulous citation is his quiet acknowledgement of this fact. Through this descriptive history of the Iraqi dictator in the second chapter, Sammon outlines the reasons for the escalation of the Iran-Iraq war and the eventual Iraqi invasion of Kuwait. After the continued refusal of Iraqi officials to cooperate with U.N. inspectors and U.S. diplomats, Sammon states that "Saddam's emasculation of the Clinton Administration was complete." It is moments like these when Sammon's partisanship comes forward to remind the reader this is not a text to be used in a history class; it is instead a publication of the opinions and facts gathered by one man with a decidedly conservative view of American politics.
Chapter 3, "A Milestone and a Mission", begins a year after September 11, 2001, at the site where Flight 93 crashed in rural Pennsylvania. Sammon provides adequate description of the surrounding field, the mood of the audience, and Bush's speech to the people. Then, Sammon jumps to Bush's speech at the ruins of the World Trade Center which occurred later that day. The inclusion of the speech is appropriate, as it reminds the reader about events that have clearly defined the agenda of the Bush Administration through its first and second terms. Sammon recounts the events that led to sources of conflict between the U.N. and the United States concerning Iraq, including Bush's eventual declaration to the U.N. that "...(T)he Security Council resolutions will be enforced, the just demands of peace and security will be met - or action will be unavoidable. ...(A)nd a regime that has lost its legitimacy will also lose its power." By late summer of 2002 it had become clear that the intention of the U.S. was to go to war with Iraq, though no official statements had yet been made. Sammon uses this chapter to build up to the events that eventually led to Operation Iraqi Freedom.
At this point, Sammon has laid the groundwork for the meat of his story. The public attitude concerning the Bush administration has been established, the history leading to the current conflict in Iraq has been outlined, and the stance of the President has finally become clear. Up to this point, the book has maintained a delicate balance between opinion and fact through a thin veil of objectivity. Chapter 4, "Midterm Meltdown", upsets this balance somewhat as Sammon grumbles through the details concerning the 2002 Minnesota election between Coleman (R) and Wellstone (D). Things turned for the worst when Wellstone was killed in a plane crash. The results of the election would mean the difference between a Republican or Democrat majority in the senate, which is why the election received elevated publicity prior to the death of Wellstone. What started as a memorial gathering for Wellstone mutated into a poorly disguised Democratic rally. By Sammon's account, the Democratic Party used Wellstone's death to unfairly solicit viewers of broadcast television. Sammon concludes that this event damaged the credibility of the Democrats, and that Bush's political savvy and resulting campaign swung the election toward Coleman (the eventual winner), thus embarrassing Democrats and "the liberal media". While Sammon says that Bush did not gloat, Sammon does it for him. Even after outlining the importance of the global issues at hand, Sammon falls in to the same habits for which he criticizes the Democrats; he celebrates a victory for Republicans at all governmental levels, and his satisfaction with this accomplishment oozes from the book like oil from a broken gasket. Sammon is warming to his own theme by the end of this chapter, and therefore any remaining objectivity is certainly gone.
By the way, Sammon likes the phrase "warming to his theme". He uses it a lot.
Chapter 5, "The No-Gloat Zone", continues to warm to the theme, and Sammon gets a chance to gloat about his buddy-buddy relationship with George Bush and how, through his own body language during press conferences, he notifies the President that he has a question. The reader even learns here that the President has a nickname for the author: "Superstretch." Whenever Sammon writes about his relationship with the President, he adopts a humble, admiring posture, as if he yearns to gain approval from the man.
Sammon recalls Helen Thomas' prying questions about Bush's plan for Iraq during the November 7, 20002 press conference following the midterm elections. Sammon has an obvious distaste for Thomas, and he gladly illustrates through his own transcript of the press conference that Bush easily silenced Thomas with firm answers concerning his policies toward Iraq and North Korea. Here, like many places through the book, one can see small, seemingly irrelevant discrepancies with Sammon's translation of Bush's public statements. If one simply goes to the Whitehouse.gov website and looks for press conferences, the transcripts are all there. A comparison of the Sammon transcript with the White House transcript reveals minor - though notable - differences. While this could be considered a minor quibble, it is interesting to see that Sammon takes editorial liberties when quoting the President, eliminating many of his redundant statements, his verbal stumbling, and the way that he often constructs sentences in staccato packets of English words. Sammon never removes or changes the general meaning of Bush's statements, but in Sammon's world, President Bush speaks succinctly and without a stumble, almost as if everything he says is very clear.
In this chapter, Sammon even reveals that Condoleezza Rice told him that the administration had originally drafted three different resolutions concerning the Iraq problem for the UN; one on terrorism, one on human rights, and one on weapons of mass destruction. The decision to justify the Iraq war with the WMD argument, according to Sammon's conversation with Rice, was chosen because "...'the WMD was what people considered most pressing.'" What materialized was resolution 1441, which held Saddam in "material breach" of resolutions that had been passed before. Sammon goes on to explain conversations he had with Colin Powell that reveal how 1441 was written specifically to find Hussein in breach of U.N. sanctions, such that the final result would be his guilt. Sammon quotes Powell: "We built a lot of ambushes or traps into 1441 for Saddam Hussein... (T)he big one was the initial one, where we said, you're in material breach now. That took a couple of weeks to get that in there." Sammon ends the chapter with a quote from our President: "I don't spend a lot of time taking polls around the world to tell me what I think is the right way to act. I've just got to know how I feel. I feel strongly about freedom. I feel strongly about liberty. And I feel strongly about the obligation to make the world a more peaceful place. And I take those responsibilities really seriously."
Chapter 6, "Whining Pool", is Sammon's account of a trip to Bush's ranch with a select few of the press corps. Again, when writing about the President, Sammon assumes a humble writing style in stark contrast to his typically haughty prose. Sammon portrays Bush as a confident, athletic, well-spoken man who takes pride in hard work. Bush shows the reporters the land surrounding his ranch in Texas, explains some of its geology, and even invites the reporters into his house for refreshments. Sammon describes George and Laura Bush's *4000* square foot home as "... a modest affair, almost unnoticeable amid the live oak trees." This chapter comes closest to revealing any charisma that the President may have, which is undoubtedly Sammon's goal.
Chapter 7, "Hosed by the State of the Union!", provides more background for Colin Powell's increasingly tense deliberations with members of the U.N. concerning the upcoming conflict with Iraq. According to Condoleezza Rice, "There was a thought at one time that it would be one day of WMD, one day of terrorism, one day of [human rights abuses]." Instead, the case made to the U.N. hinged primarily on the WMD factor, with notable mention of the other issues at hand. Sammon takes his chance to jibe at the Democrats he doesn't like (all of them), including John Kerry. He criticizes Kerry for wavering on the Authorization for use of Military Force Against Iraq Resolution of 2002, a fact that came up repeatedly in Kerry's presidential campaign. And then Sammon applies generalist criticism to Germany, France, and Russia for their growing resistance to the war resolution, connecting France's contracts to build a nuclear power infrastructure in Iraq to their opposition to an American invasion. Sammon even throws this in: "Ever since the Cold War, Paris had grown increasingly resentful of America's status as the world's sole superpower." Colin Powell was resistant, as well, as Sammon admits "...much of the evidence against Saddam did not meet Powell's standards for an airtight case." Through candid conversations with Sammon, Powell admits his fears, worries, and concerns about the talks with the U.N.
At the end of the chapter, Sammon declares that Powell had his turn to "electrify the world," and that his presentation "... painted a terrifying picture of Saddam's deadly arsenal." As one may recall, when Powell defended Operation Iraqi Freedom to the UN, the speech was accompanied by audio recordings and a PowerPoint presentation with excerpts from these recordings. In addition, satellite photos and computer-generated images of mobile weapons vehicles were used to illustrate Powell's point. While Sammon may think Powell "... painted a terrifying picture", the U.N. did not unanimously agree that the evidence was substantial enough to justify the invasion of Iraq.
Sammon also uses the phrase "electrify the world" a lot, too.
Sammon devotes all of chapter 8, "The Get", to a dramatic transcript of Dan Rather's interview with Saddam Hussein. In the second chapter, Sammon criticized George Galloway for his adulating questions during an interview with Hussein, and in this chapter, Sammon does the same, even when he admits that many of Rather's questions to Saddam were pointed and direct. It seems that Sammon is unhappy with anyone who achieves personal audience with Hussein. Or perhaps Sammon is just unhappy that the interviewer is Dan Rather, as Sammon despises any self proclaimed liberal on principle.
Sammon uses much of the rest of the book to illustrate how the press can distort the truth. He goes into depth about the loaded questions given to Donald Rumsfeld, Ari Fleischer, Colin Powell, Dick Cheney, and President Bush himself. In all cases, Sammon is disgusted with the way in which the press sensationalizes all things negative. Never really including himself as a member of the press, Sammon transcribes dialogue between the members of the Bush Administration and the Press Corps as if the politicians were the parents and the members of the press were the children. Sammon cites numerous conversations where Rumsfeld directly admonishes the press for slanted and inaccurate reporting. While the many members of the press were/are guilty of false reporting, Sammon never once criticizes Fox News or Sinclair, his own employer.
Perhaps one of Sammon's biggest complaints about the press is the constant attempt by self-proclaimed liberals to compare the operations in Iraq to Viet Nam. The comparison is truly inaccurate, no doubt, as the number of deaths in Viet Nam climbed to tens of thousands very quickly. Sammon criticizes the common use of the word "quagmire" used by the press to describe Operation Iraqi Freedom. From Sammon's perspective, the press is a bunch of mindless goons who obviously do not see the genius in the Bush administration.
Sammon is really impressed with President Bush. Bush can fly airplanes, as he proved during his flight to the USS Lincoln for his "Mission Accomplished" speech. Bush is in great shape for his age, and he is daring. Sammon was one of the lucky few who got to fly into Baghdad with Bush for Thanksgiving. As the story goes, Bush and a few members of the White House press corps were whisked away under the nose of the Secret Service, loaded onto Air Force One, and flown into the Iraqi capital to serve food to hungry American soldiers. Everyone was back within 48 hours. Sammon is tickled pink to admit that he was one of those lucky few.
Sammon wears his conservatism like a badge of honor, as if he is a minority trapped in a sea of oppressive liberal idealism, as if his voice is the only source of rationalism in a crazy world. His book is no doubt highly entertaining to read, full of interesting information (most of which should be researched and compared to other sources), and represents a rare opportunity to see a different side of modern history. However, do not forget that this book has its own brand of sensationalism, written by a tall man with a boyish admiration for the current President of the United Sates. Between Fox and CNN, Sammon and Dan Rather, one might be able to piece together a picture of actual events. In either case, one should research their sources!
The rating of the book will vary wildly, depending on which side of the fence the reviewer sits.
|
(Larger Image)
|
by (Editor: HUEY L. PERRY)
ISBN: 0813014816
Binding/Media: Paperback - 240 pages
Condition: Used: Good
Comments: Sold with pride and shipped with confirmation for US addresses. No publisher marks, no writing. Some shelf wear.
More Product Infomation
|
(Larger Image)
|
by Andrew E. Busch
ISBN: 0742534979
Binding/Media: Paperback - 208 pages
Condition: Used: Good
Comments: Sold with pride and shipped with confirmation for US addresses. Book in good condition with minimal reading wear. EX LIBRARY copy. Library markings present but no further markings or imperfections.
More Product Infomation
|
Customer Reviews
|
This is the real deal!
Rating (4)
Date: 2005-12-06
8 out of 11 customers found this reveiw helpful
As an independent who has voted for George Bush and Ralph Nader in the last 5 years, I want to commend Caeser for a thoughtful analysis of last year's elections. His conclusions are meaty and well-supported. In no uncertain terms, he explains why 2004 really was one of the most significant and extraordinary elections of the last 100 years. There are rich details, a lot of statistics, and yet the whole thing is very readable. He covers the entire gamut well, from state elections all the way to Bush's surprisingly-strong victory. Don't let the title fool you: this is not propoganda, and Caeser maintains clear neutrality and objectivity. This is no triumphal tome, and he does not read into the results anything which isn't there (he does not guarantee continued dominance by the Republicans, for example). A minor criticism: he could have said a bit more about the clear divide in geographic terms; Democrats really DO rule in just a few places which are characterized by urbanness (NYC, L.A., Chicago, etc.), secular academia (university towns), strangeness (San Francisco), and loose morals (Las Vegas, New Orleans, etc.) Virtually the entire rest of the nation is red. Here is a nice piece of work which is not afraid to put it all on the table, for the most part, and to explain why things unfolded as they did.
|
|
Red Over Blue
Rating (4)
Date: 2005-09-30
3 out of 14 customers found this reveiw helpful
I only began to read the book, It was purchased as a text for my American Presidency class. I am a big fan of George W. so i found this book very appealing. Every American citzen should read both this and the Natural. This book was purchased brand new so it was in excellent condtion and as always Amazon was much, much cheaper than the book store!
|
(Larger Image)
|
by Spencer Overton
ISBN: 0393061590
Binding/Media: Hardcover - 224 pages
Condition: Used: Like New
Comments: Sold with pride and shipped with confirmation for US addresses. Gently read copy in like new condition. No reading/ shelf wear.
More Product Infomation
|
Customer Reviews
|
Balanced Approach to Election Reform
Rating (4)
Date: 2008-01-14
Spencer Overton has developed a thoughtful critique of our elections system. From dealing with onerous voter ID requirements to redistricting, the author examines many of the current controversies in our elections. Unlike some books that make emotional appeals to change our election system, Overton takes a balanced and factual approach to the subject. With case studies, statistics and demographics, the author explains the issue in depth and recommends ideas for change.
Overall, this book would be useful to anyone interested in researching more on the topic. It's an easy read, and I would recommend it.
|
|
Good overview of Voter Suppression
Rating (4)
Date: 2007-01-11
It's easy to overlook the complexities involved for many people in providing voter id at the polls. Sometimes we who can easily get a driver's license do not remember how difficult this could be for somebody else. Overton discusses this and rebuts arguments that this is not a case of voter suppression.
|
|
Balanced, Bland and Basic
Rating (3)
Date: 2006-08-05
3 out of 5 customers found this reveiw helpful
Gerrymandering by both sides has lead to a preponderance of "safe" districts. Almost all other democracies use independent commissions or panels. More than half the world's democracies use independent officials or commissions to administer elections. Another quarter allow the government to manage elections but have an oversight panel composed primarily of judges. Overton suggests having a governor appoint election officials, subject to a 75% approval in the legislature.
"Stealing Democracy" then reviews some of the 2004 shortage of equipment problems in Ohio, acerbated by a long, complicated ballot. Rather than simply blame political maneuvering, Overton outlines instances where the result was supported by a supervising Democrat to save money, and came about through logic (eg. redistribute machines to the suburbs - growth areas).
Apparently the U.S. is one of the few nations where local officials have extensive control over federal and state elections. It's not that we have 50 separate state election systems - effectively there are 4,600. Rules on provisional ballots, registration deadlines, types of equipment, eligibility of ex-felons, early voting, etc. differ from one jurisdiction to another. Precluding ex-felons helps Republicans (studies show almost 70% would vote Democrat), while scrubbing overseas military helps the Democrats. Overton also documents the importance of the black vote to Democrats.
|
|
fascinating read
Rating (5)
Date: 2006-07-07
8 out of 9 customers found this reveiw helpful
Mr. Overton's insightful, eye-opening presentation of critical and often overlooked problems with America's system of voting and democratic representation is a must-read for political science students, law students, and, quite frankly, anyone who votes (and wants his or her vote to count). Stealing Democracy is comprehensible, elegant, and highly stimulating.
|
|
What the Supreme Court Should Be Reading ... Overton's Stealing Democracy
Rating (5)
Date: 2006-06-30
6 out of 6 customers found this reveiw helpful
Overton tells us in plain language how the working class and the poor are being eliminated from the political process. Interestingly, he is able to cast the old stories of poll taxes and lynchings in a 21st century surround-sound format. Using real-life examples from the lives of real people, Overton illustrates how certain people are stealing the country right from under our own noses. I certainly believe the Supreme Court could have benefitted greatly from reading his "how to rig an election" chapter before deciding the recent Texas gerrymandering case. Spencer's point ... Voters should choose politicians, politicians should not be choosing the voters!!!!
His parallel of this country's voting system to the "matrix" is also quite brilliant. If some of the new restrictions that Overton warns us about takes place, we will need the powers of the Oracle, Neo, Morpheus, and Trinty just to be able to cast a vote (and more importantly make it count). If you are serious about voting rights or if you just want to be able to predict the outcomes of the 2006 mid term elections, this book is a must read. I highly recommend it to all audiences.
|
(Larger Image)
|
by Ronald Brownstein
ISBN: 0143114328
Binding/Media: Paperback - 496 pages
Condition: Used: Like New
Comments: Sold with pride and shipped with confirmation for US addresses. This is a previously UNREAD copy which has been removed from our shelves.
More Product Infomation
|
Customer Reviews
|
We never learn the lessons on history
Rating (4)
Date: 2009-02-02
1 out of 1 customers found this reveiw helpful
Politics and History--
This is a well written book, well thought out and thoroughly researched. The strongest case it makes is neither for conservatives nor liberals, but the need for moderation. Those rare times when the parties have worked together have been the only times that the Washington powers have achieved worthwhile goals. Polarized and uncompromising times produce nothing but threats, and not since the Civil War--not even Vietnam and Iraq--has the country be so divided. We might as well be shooting at each other as killing with wrong headed policies and laws that express nothing but the extreme views that are arrived at by brute power rather then compromises and modeeration. That, too, is a civil war, just a different kind, but, in many cases, just as damaging.
|
|
Thought provoking, impeccably researched and argued
Rating (5)
Date: 2008-09-29
6 out of 8 customers found this reveiw helpful
Why is is so difficult for Congress or the President of the United States to get anything done? Why is it that our elected leaders cannot tackle so many of the deep and important challenges facing the nation? Journalist Ron Brownstein attempts to answer these important questions in this provocative and illuminating book.
Full disclosure: I know the author. We both covered national politics, he for the Los Angeles Times and I for Reuters in the 1996 and 2000 presidential race. We were friendly but and not personal friends, although, I deeply respect his judgment and talent.
Brownstein argues that partisan politics have become so bitter, toxic and divisive that neither party has any interest in cooperating with the other even when the national interest demands it. Both parties have become beholden to their political bases which have become bitterly antagonistic, professing loyalty to widely divergent cultural values. Yet, in order to get anything done, it remains necessary to build bipartisan coalitions. It may be possible to narrowly win elections based primarily on energizing the base, as Bush did in 2004, but when important national challenges loom, a president who has not reached out to the other party invariably finds it impossible to govern effectively on the shaky basis of such a narrow majority.
In an exhaustive historic review, Brownstein goes through previous periods of American history. The Republicans from the 1890s to 1929, governed in a similar way -- and were turned out of power after they were blamed for the Great Depression for decades. In the 1940s and 1950s, both sides reached out more to the center, forming bipartisan coalitions. In those days both parties were much more diverse than today. There were southern Democrats who were more conservative than many Republicans and moderate Republicans more liberal than many Democrats. Was this a golden age of bipartisan cooperation? Hardly -- the southern Democrats were mainly concerned with preserving their racist, exclusionary Jim Crow society.
In analyzing our current predicament, Brownstein puts most blame on the Republicans -- Gingrich, Tom DeLay and the Bush-Karl Rove team who set out deliberately to exclude Democrats from power and to rule for the benefit of their own narrow segment of society. Democrats, in order to survive, had to respond in kind and themselves have become tougher, less willing to compromise and more interested in frustrating the other side than cooperating to do the nation's business.
But history teaches that a party that governs for the benefit of the few eventually awakens the wrath of the many. The pendulum always swings -- as it is about to do again.
For more about me and my latest book The Nazi Hunter: A Novelgo to www.alanelsner.com.
|
|
Interesting But Disappointing
Rating (3)
Date: 2008-04-13
9 out of 15 customers found this reveiw helpful
Brownstein's book provides a wealth of detail and some really interesting US political history for a little over a century. The book is well researched, at least in a historical sense. I don't believe he absolutely proves his case that partisanship is the worst that it has ever been because it has clearly been very bad in the past. Unfortunately, though I believe Brownstein tried very hard for impartiality, his bias, perhaps unwitting, shows through. Republicans are nearly always excessive and provocative, Democrats are nearly always only responding to Republican over reach. Democrat solutions are almost always conveyed as the only realistic ones. To be fair, he doesn't completely whitewash Democrats, it's more a matter of scale. As to be expected, he gives major media a pass for the most part, while indicting Fox for partisanship. Even so, I would have give the book four stars instead of three simply because of the useful information it contains and the fact that it's well written. But when the 'Fairness' doctrine is offered up as one of the solutions to the problem that was a real crippler. Any objective observer knows that there is no problem with people's access to opposing points of view, the only problem is that the liberal left for decades had almost total control of the media and they simply can't accept that the right now has at least a semblance of a public voice. Too bad the LA Times mentality showed through in the end.
|
|
Must read for political junkies
Rating (4)
Date: 2008-03-24
1 out of 1 customers found this reveiw helpful
Ron Brownstein provides an excellent historical context for how we have come full circle to again embrace extreme polarization in our political system. He leaves the judgment to the reader as to whether this is someting we should decry or embrace for a great portion of the book and then postulates a rational critique as to what this does to the system and potentially how it might be overcome. This book is not for those for whom history is a mystery, but is for those who understand how politics is an everchanging and dynamic system and that we are at a point where we must decide if, at this critical time, can accept continuing gridlock.
|
|
phenomenal masterpiece but dry
Rating (5)
Date: 2008-03-05
1 out of 1 customers found this reveiw helpful
i have to say that this book is extremely well documented. it is well written. it offers hope and pragmatic possible solutions for many of the problems our nation faces in the next 20 years. it is also one of the driest books that i've read in the past year or two, falling asleep or shifting to something different after a dozen pages or so ... it's captivating, but, well, simply dry. well worth the read and the price, new. it is an excellent book that, i wish, more politicians and decision-makers would read, especially the last half of the book. thank you for this masterpiece!
|
|
|
|
|
Amazon Bestselling Books
|
|