Not long before the chads stopped swinging in the last presidential election, pundits and pollsters were sharpening their wits and dusting off their finger pointing apparatus. Their goal was to isolate the who, what, where, why, and how of the controverial election results in Florida. That election brought everybody who was anybody, including the Supreme Court, to the edge of their seats for days. The indefatigable Sultan of Soundbites, UVA Professor Larry J. Sabato, had seen enough and done enough in politics to realize this was history, and deserved to be given a thorough investigation. So he collected a group of insiders and commentators to take their best shot at turning over stones and writing about what crawled out. The result was Overtime! The Election 2000 Thriller. No casual or serious student of US history should be without a copy. Congratulations to Dr. Sabato and Joshua Scott, his coauthor and editorial assistant from the UVA Center for Governmental Studies on a job exceptionally well done. Buy this book for yourself, and at the reasonable price, grab a couple copies for friends as well. It's guaranteed to reveal facts that even the media savvy US public has not to this point realized. Alyson L. Taylor-White, Editor, Virginia Review

Will only political junkies or long-ago residents of Florida (I plead partly guilty of the first and fully guilty of the second), appreciate this book? I think not, but it does help to have given up excessive idealism ("Politics is so corrupt!") and excessive cynicism ("People are so corrupt!") in favor of an occasional visit to realism.

With the media giving us mainly--and often only--sensation, and seeing law as a struggle by imperfect human beings to create some justice in the world, I liked best the stories told by the attorneys for both sides.

Overtime is a great look back it this election. For me, it was interesting to go back and put the whole campaign/election in perspective from start to finish. It's also nice to read a book like this that seems to be written from a non-partisan viewpoint. Sabato presents both sides of all the issues and is equally critical of both campaigns. In about 12 years when my son is taking his high school civics class and needs a topic for a book report or paper - I will dust off this book and hand it to him. On a side note, I recently saw Mr. Sabato speak at a conference I attended. If you ever get the chance, go see him! He is very informative and quite humorous.

Having read the introduction, I understand (finally!) what happened in last years election.

The collection of key cases found here is superlative.

I highly reccomend this examination of election 2001 to any reader interested in an organized clarification of the events last fall.

I think Dave Valdez, President Bush's Official White House photographer, did an outstanding job depicting President Bush, the statesman, the family man, and the friend, beautifully in his book of pictures and very few words. Dave Valdez captures it all: from vital moments in world affairs, to lighter family times--all the while gaining an insight into George Bush, our 41st President. A wonderful coffee table book and gift book.

In this book, you will find out why? This is easily one of the funniest books that I have read in a long time.

Yes, it is very easy to poke fun at our president, no matter who that may be, but President Bush sure makes it simple. In this diary-style book, the president's innermost thoughts are scribbled out in 3rd-grade penmanship.

The book is outright hilarious. We get an in-depth look at the president's IRS audit list, his thoughts on making a movie about his "poppy," his feelings about Dick Cheney, and his outright fear of Hillary Clinton. The mental notes are also hilarious, and the added illustrations make for a complete funny experience.

This book was a really fast read, and it was extremely humorous. It is definately for anyone with a mere pulse of a sense of humor.

I spotted this highly satirical masterpiece on accident, and loved every page of it. I tried reading it to curb bordem, and kept laughing out loud so much that everyone one had to know what was so funny. All of my freinds, right and left alike, thought it was utterly hilarious. I have lent it out to everyone; My Goverment teacher read it aloud to the class; it even had a bit of a waiting list from time to time.

The scariest element- it is all too true! The book is filled with mispellings, childish handwriting, and mis-informations that sound as if they came from the mind of a 3 year old. Therefore perfectly accurate for the 42nd, er, 43rd President of the United States. ("I wonder if Trent Lott is related to that guy in the Bible whose wife turned to salt?"). Bravo, and encore!

This book is a hilarious spoof on our president's first 3 months in office. I can just picture this as a SNL skit. It's great airplane reading - funny and quick.

Abner Greene opines in his afterword how, while the legal decisions in the 2000 presidential election aftermath seemed politically motivated, law itself remains above politics. This comes 175 pages into an analysis that carries mostly a political slant on the outcomes.

I commend Greene for being one of the first to write a highly-readable legal account of the 2000 election, unlike others written in bland legalese. This book can be understood by all non-lawyers, but it doesn't mean that it has been dumbed down.

The author winds through the legal wranglings with ease but often cheerleads for the left and Al Gore, always calling Bush's legal arguments "weak" and going to great lengths to come to Gore's defense.

His Monday morning quarterbacking is typical. His blasting of the U.S. Supreme Court is transparent. His defense of the butterfly ballot lawsuits is comical.

I don't have a problem with his partisanship. Greene's is the least rhetorical in the volumes out about the 2000 election. But clearly, the embers haven't cooled enough to provide a truly non-partisan view of the outcomes -- if there is such a thing.

Abner Greene has done a terrific job in breaking down the choas that was the 2000 election. Greene is always clear, always even handed. He is a master at explaining difficult legal issues in layman's terms. All in all, an extremely informative and fun book!

This is an "author responds" note: The commentator says my book is slanted toward Gore and that I have blasted the Supreme Court. This is of course not the venue to debate this, but it's important to note that I am one of the few commentators to *agree* with the Supreme Court's holding on the merits, i.e., that the "intent of the voter" standard is unconstitutional. My reasons are different from the Court's, but I hardly blast the Court on this crucial issue.

Zelnick's exploration into the Bush v. Gore controversy serves as an entertaining narrative and gives personality to the faces behind the legal battle. With a twinge of Republican bias (and by twinge I mean satanic Bush worshiper), Zelnick recounts Election 2000 in an entertaining day by day story. If you're looking for insightful legal or political analysis into the decision, then this is the wrong place to look, however, if you want quick read to familiarize yourself with the Conservative perspective of the case, then this is a good buy.

In "Winning Florida: How the Bush Team Fought the Battle", Robert Zelnick provides an honest portrayal of the behind-the-scenes action in the Bush camp. He does not hesitate in describing (and criticizing) the inconsistent or the legally inaccurate views taken by the Bush attorneys, while also giving a fair analysis of the legal positions taken by Gore.

Overall, the book is a must read because it vividly presents the issues that were and have been ignored by the popular media. For example, one reading the daily newspapers would not know that Bush won the legal battles on MOST fronts (in federal district courts as well as in state courts); the only place he repeatedly lost was the Florida Supreme Court (which tended to, unsurprisingly, overturn lower court rulings adverse to Gore, disregard the factual findings at trial and rewrite the underlying statutes).

Not only is the book a must read for the information in it, it is also a very engaging read.

The most unsettling thing about this book is it becomes clear that the news media, Gore's lawyers and many others, including the Florida Supreme Court, knowingly conspired to steal the election of 2000

The saddest thing to me was that both Gore and the media knew what they were doing, and that Bush had clearly won the election, and yet Gore continued to mount a case he AND his attorney's knew was a lie, and the media assisted in the plot by allowing attacks on Sec. Harris and any others who wouldn't "Play Ball"

This book is the single greatest case against allowing partisans to have any part in elections. The Gore team cared little about legal votes and less about the law.....

Algore's beard is a visible example of how much he believes in the Taliban code of justice.....our way or die.

This book showed me a whole different side to our president. I was very shocked to hear some of the stories of his college days and some of his outrageous acts even after he graduated. His entrance into politics was not always an assured one, as he seemed to have more interests in enjoying his youth. The author seems to gloss over some things that have a potential to be more damaging to his image than they already are. The story of how he crashed his car into the garage after his wife criticized one of his speeches was one such example. I had also expected him to be more successful at business than he is said to be. Surprisingly, the Bush family has had their share of persecution while living in Texas. In Texas they were not seen as true "Texans" and in the schools George W. attended his views were opposite of a majority of the student population. Given his private school training and Ivy League preparation, it really makes the office of president seem only attainable by those with money. I was disappointed that there wasn't more information on his accomplishments as a Texas governor but I was pleasantly surprised to find his State of the Union address in entirety at the back of the book. The litigation details of the 2000 election were helpful in understanding why the selection for our new president had taken so long. Overall, I would recommend this book to any young reader looking for a biography to read, however, I would warn them that they may have a less respectful opinion of our president after their reading.

Beatrice Gromley's biography of George W. Bush was supposedly the first children's biography to be published about the forty-third president. This is probably because the book ends on December 13, 2001, the day after the U.S. Supreme Court ended the Florida recount and the president-elect spoke from the Texas State Capitol; other juvenile biographies get as far as the inaugural. Gromley focuses on a quote from the new president, who once said: "I never dreamed about being president. When I was growing up, I wanted to be Willie Mays." This gets to the heart of the problems Bush presents for a political biography, since he never held political office until elected Governor of Texas in 1994. Compare Bush's life to that of either his predecessor, Bill Clinton, a hardcore political junkie, or his father, George H. W. Bush, with his most impressive political resume, and you will see incredible differences.

That being said Gormley certainly provides a more than adequate juvenile biography of George W. Bush. Yes, you will find out more about the man's life than his politics, but that is indeed a reflection of his life. Gormley does a particularly nice job of boiling down the legal arguments regarding the recount to the legal issues and developments, without including the hot rhetoric that characterized the news coverage. However, I must admit I found a couple of things in this book that could be taken the wrong way (e.g., Bush is proud he can still remember the starting lineup of the 1954 New York Giants baseball team; well, I can do the New York Yankees for a couple of decades, so, should I be President?). But maybe I am just being overly sensitive since, as I said on top, this is not the story of a man driven to be in politics or to become President from early in life. The book is illustrated with photographs and quotes, and also has a list of books, magazines, newspapers and a videotape young readers can turn to for further information. Certainly by this point, students will have a better appreciation for Bush as president and will be able to see for themselves connections between the things he has done throughout his life and his presidency.

If you are looking for a book that you can use for your kids' social studies extra credit and your own cocktail party banter, this is the easy read you need. Want to be current on all the little Presidential family tidbits without spending a lot of time plowing through the family history and heavy details? I read A Charge to Keep and some of the other Bush Family tomes, but I really enjoyed this one and my 7th grader grabbed some quick end of quarter extra points toward her "A" by learning about our current Prez.

Writer Christopher Andersen has always managed to capture the nature of those relationships that have shaped American history. When a few of my friends and I got together to start a book club one of them told me about Andersen and ever since I have been hooked. From John F. Kennedy to George W. Bush he has offered readers a glimpse into the lives of America's great figures. Ever since September 11th the nature of the country's leader has become ever more important as he leads the United States through the war on terror. Send a message to mud-slinging writers like Kitty Kelly who cannot help but personally inject their own views in every story and refuse to capture the essence of their subjects. Kelly's books, compared with Andersen's, are completely unfulfilling. In the end, George and Laura answers the questions that every American wants to know.

Christopher Andersen takes us behind the scenes and back in history, as he details the growing-up years of George and Laura Bush. They grew up in the same town, and at one time even lived in the same apartment complex in Houston, yet their paths never crossed until some friends introduced them at a barbeque when they were both over 30. "Georgie" was the son of a wealthy, influential man and, although he loved and respected his father, he had a hard time forging his own identity. Part of a large family, George was a naturally outgoing young man and the quintessential "party animal". Laura was the only child of a well-respected builder and in her ladylike way she always tried to please her parents and do what was right. They each experienced the tragic death of a loved one, and although deeply effected, they got through it to become stronger people in the long run. When Laura came into George's life, her influence on him was immediate. She is cited throughout the book as a person who has a calming influence on those around her and she was instrumental in slowing George down from his frenetic pace and endless quest for fulfillment. Theirs has been a solid marriage, which is,in turn, the foundation for his attitude that his job is not everything because he also gains a lot of fulfillment from his family. This is an interesting story and shows how George particularly has grown and matured over the years. As he himself says, "Even a 'C' student can grow up to become President of the United States."

I really learned a great deal about the Bush family from this book, and I felt that it was a fair and unbiased biography of George and Laura Bush.

Beginning with early childhood, and the all the years in between, this book takes George and Laura all the way to the White House. The good times, the bad times and the wild times of George W. are here for all to read. He seemed to be a lovable child who had friends and was very popular. When he had any problems, he seemed to be able to handle whatever consequences that he faced and to land on his feet. The President was born with the gift of gab and could talk and charm his way out of most situations. Laura on the other hand appeared to be the dream daughter of doting parents. Their personalities are quite different. Laura is quiet, calm and pays a lot of attention to details. She's also very lady-like, kind to people and loves to read. George W. is more emotional, outspoken and seems to have a keen understanding of people and, is able to joke easily and put people at ease. He's proud of being a Texan, and enjoys that role in his public life. He's not stuffy and if he mispronounces a word or makes some type of social mistake, he laughs about it, even when the press responds with some type of critical comment. Laura knows how bright her husband is and she's resentful of the cracks that are sometimes made at his expense.

The President and First Lady are both loyal to family and friends and from what I took from this book, really compliment each other in their marriage relationship. Her calmness and gentleness seems to take the edge away from her husband's stronger personality when he might tend to be a little sarcastic. They each had a very tragic incident in their lives that made a lasting impression and perhaps gave them another connection. I enjoyed the excerpts about the President's parents and found the bound and closeness that they share to be touching. George W. and his father, sometimes refer to each other as Forty-one and Forty-three.

The book is well written and it has an enormous amount of information and details about the Bush family. I felt that the author Christopher Anderson did an amazing job of laying out the personalities of these two people and explaining how their families and the circumstances of their lives shaped their characters. I finished reading the book, knowing that President and Mrs. Bush are both strong and very intelligent people and I also learned that there is nothing phony about either one of them.

As my title says, this book is really NOT about GWB's quirky verbal stammers. It is about George W. Bush the man. It is an analysis of his political positions, his background and his personal politics.

Beware: after reading this book you will have good reason for thoroughly disliking this man, but not because he makes a bunch of funny verbal mistakes. If you're afraid of being thoroughly skeptical and possibly oppositional to the policies of our "commander in chief", then don't buy this book.

There are many many things in the book that I already knew, but the author defintely does lay out a very damaging portrayal of our current President's personal politics and ideology.

Please, get the newest paperback version, released AFTER 9-11. Do NOT get the old hardcover version printed before the September events. You'll miss out on a lot of extra materials if you don't.

This book is very parochial and does not go very deep into foreign policy, class analysis, or deeper and longer standing issues of US society (issues that are often laughingly painted as "class warfare" in the commercial media whenever they are hinted at, and thereby sidestepped in favor of fluff), but it does paint a very convincing picture of a president who is fully devoted to the most reactionary and privileged elements of the ruling class in the United States.

This is NOT about some supposedly "stupid" president who is "incompetent" or "dumb". These kind of appeals to Goerge Jr's supposed "stupidity" only show how stupid and gullible Democrats and "Liberals" really are, and how they really fall all over themselves to play into the hands of the Bush administration who want nothing more than to portray George W. Bush as a "regular joe" who cares about the "working man" and is trying his best to protect "America" from any number of mysterious and devious enemies waiting to pounce on us.

"Make no mistake", GWB is none of these things, but instead is as much a blue-blood, silver-spoon ivy-leaguer as is Al Gore and actually quite more so. And, is as thoroughly calculated and schooled in propaganda, public relations and polls as was Bill Clinton or his father George Bush the First, or the Reagan administration before them.

It's about a president who is very much aware of what he is doing to America and who seeks to, and IS using the deaths of 3000 people to advance a reactionary and regressive agenda, all wrapped in the flag.

I actually suggest that readers that already realize this NOT read this book, don't bother, but rather read some more in-depth analysis of foreign policy of the kind of class warfare and nationalism that is now and always has used "patriotism" (since the dawn of recorded history and beyond) as a tool to convince the general population into accepting policies that thoroughly harm them and to draw them into subservience under protection of the fearless leader.

If what I've said above seems odd or outlandish to you, then just read this very good book on the personality of our president (the best currently available), get from it what you can, and then move on to more broad analysis later.

Josh

Not only does Mark Crispin Miller's book expose the political facade of G.W. Bush, it goes deeper into the political culture that allows these things to happen. He analyzes how language is twisted, television soundbytes and political slogans rule our thoughts, and how Bush's stupidity is a clever facade, that masks a political genius that would give Machiavelli chills.

Author Mark Crispin Miller gets (as Bush Sr. might say) the real "message" learned from campaign 2000: that our once vital democracy has been practically transformed into a plutocracy.

Miller traces the short history of television in presidential politics with the recent evolution of the Republican party to show how corporate control of the media has helped the rich dominate our society to a degree not possible before.

Miller writes in a refreshingly vivid, lucid and candid style. His sharp prose is a welcome and needed antidote to the incoherent soundbites and superficial analyses masquerading as serious journalism in today's vapid media culture (especially on TV).

As the spoiled brat son of wealth and privilege, it is perhaps fitting that George W. Bush was put into the highest office of the land by the sort of anti-democractic shenanagans that once upon a time were deployed only in banana republics (or did we just get another taste of this last week in Venezuela?). Miller suggests that Bush benefited both overtly and covertly from a coalition of right-wing factions who, frustrated with the absence of the communist boogie-man, have channeled their considerable energies towards the destruction of their hated "liberal" compatriots (even if -- or especially because -- the left's point of view is vaguely understood by GOP true believers).

Miller's book is a wake up call to the citizens of the U.S. If you are a Leftist, you might find it exhilarating to read words that for much too long were left unwritten. If you are a Conservative, you are challenged to read this book to learn more about the real George W. Bush and the agenda you are supporting. In either case, I think most people who read this book will agree with Miller's assertion that our democracy is currently situated in a very precarious place. The author stresses that the vast majority of us should be very concerned with the issue of balancing the rights of average citizens with the exponentially-expanding power of the privileged few.

I have heard people say that Election 2000 will be for my generation what Watergate was for the generation before us. That is, the cause of a loss of faith in the government, or in this case, the Supreme Court. Like many Americans I think, I was confused and angered when the Supreme Court stopped the hand recount and handed the election to Bush. And although I didn't understand the legal reasoning, what seemed obvious to me at the time was that the Court's decision was based on politics and politics alone. Dershowitz's book both confirmed this suspicion and helped me to gain an understanding of the Court's decision despite my lack of knowledge of Constitutional and election law. Although he may have repeated himself in his attack on the majority justices, he certainly proved to me that "the decision in the Florida election case may be ranked as the single most corrupt decision in Supreme Court history..." A must read for anyone who felt betrayed by the Supreme Court's decision last winter and is looking for some answers.

Like several of the reviewers here, I am a lawyer. I, too, was baffled at the Supreme Court's decision in Bush v. Gore, which purported to find Constitutional issues in a case that appeared to be limited to the interpretation of state election law; i.e., the conflict between Florida State law governing the counting of votes and the State certification statute. The Court's decision was also inconsistent with the previously opinions of each of the 5 prevailing Justices regarding the scope of federal court review of questions concerning state law (let alone election law, let alone on a conflicts issue).

While Dershowitz is a bit too quick to draw conclusions about the motives of the Justices who voted to stop the election, he is very effective in explaining in layman's terms both the complex legal and constitutional issues at stake and the reasons why the Supremes' decision makes no sense in terms of the Constitution, legal precedent, and the Justices' own views. After reading this book, you may agree with him that the only reasonable explanation for these discrepencies appears to be the most obvious one: that the decision was motivated by political (if not personal) concerns. If so, then the decision was a tragedy, not only for the Court, but also for the country, since the right to vote and an independent, dispassionate judiciary are the foundations of democracy.

In the spirit of full disclosure I should add that I am a Democrat, but have voted for Republicans on occasion (for state assemblyman in Nov. 2000, e.g.) and would have accepted (although not welcomed) a Bush victory, had it been fairly achieved.

Remember the names of Scalia, O'Connor, Kennedy, Rehnquist, and Thomas. Those are the justices who produced the worst Supreme Court decision in over 100 years. How many decades will it take to undo the damage to the Supreme Court's credibility that they caused with the nonsense decision and opinion in Bush versus Gore during the recounts in Florida? I don't know, but Professor Dershowitz should be commended for calling these justices on the carpet for injudicious use of their power.

As a lawyer, I used to feel comfortable with the Supreme Court's ability to handle important issues. Whether I agreed with the conclusion of the case or not, I could predict the line of argument that led the court to its decision. I also knew that the court would try to intervene as little as possible. The only time that comfort level was violated was when the second Supreme Court decision came in Bush versus Gore and included a stay of the recount in Florida. I was flabbergasted. This book helps me to understand how such a result could have occurred. Every attorney, lawmaker, and citizen who cares about having a government of fairly administered laws should read this book, and take appropriate action to see that whatever happened in Bush versus Gore in the Supreme Court does not recur.

Professor Dershowitz makes a bold claim that "the unprecedented decision of the five justices to substitute their political judgment for that of the people threatens to undermine the moral authority of the high court for generations to come." "I believe that they would not have stopped a hand recount if George W. Bush had been seeking it." "In this book, I marshal the evidence in support of this charge."

The book describes in a layperson's terms the legal issues behind the case, and goes on to provide hypotheses about what happened.

Basically, two laws were in conflict in Florida. One called for elections to be certified by a certain date (determining who won and lost). The other called for the ballots to be counted in order to ascertain the intent of the person voting. For over 200 years, it has been established law that courts should decide such conflicts of laws. The Supreme Court of Florida had done so, and concluded that the recounts should continue. Candidate Bush appealed that decision. The Supreme Court of the United States took the case (something that it did not have to do), and remanded the case back to the Supreme Court of Florida for further clarification. That action seemed both proper and appropriate. Then candidate Bush appealed again, and the Supreme Court of the United States heard the case again (which it did not have to do).

The national Supreme Court voted 5-4 to stay (stop) the recount process, pending arguments, arguing that to allow the recounts to continue would cause irreparable harm to candidate Bush. The effect was to bring the electoral victory to candidate Bush. That decision made then and makes now no legal sense. There was no irreparable harm done to anyone by letting the recount continue. There was irreparable harm to those who ballots were discounted and to candidate Gore by stopping the recount. I cannot fathom this decision. It is the sort of thing that happens in tin-horn dictatorships all of the time to legitimize the conclusions of the person in power.

The final decision then rested on an argument that equal protection under the laws required that the certification law hold sway over the accurate counting law. This is the first time that that section of the Constitution had ever reduced the rights of voters. In the past, it had been used to expand the rights of people to have their votes included and counted. The origin of the section was to deal with racial descrimination against blacks after the Civil War so that their ability to vote would be protected. Now, suddenly, the intent of that part of the Constitution was being used to say that some votes didn't count. That's a very strange argument. In the future, that argument could be used to deny the ballot to minorities and people whose opinions are not popular.

The Supreme Court of the United States also said that the Supreme Court of Florida had no right to decide on the conflict of laws issue. There is simply no legal basis for that conclusion.

The problem with these arguments is that they would undermine all sorts of cases from the past. What is the lawnow, as a result? The Supreme Court of the United States said that they would interpret the law this way only in this one case. In other words, they made up the law to fit a compromise that they reached behind closed doors. That's not law, that's dictatorship!

Professor Dershowitz found lots of potential motives. He finds possible reasons for this conclusion for each of the five justices. O'Connor is reputed to want to retire and be replaced by another Republican judge. Having Bush be elected obviously would help. Kennedy apparently wants to be the next chief justice, and has a better chance with Bush. Thomas may want revenge against former Senator Gore's opposition to his nomination. Scalia may want to have more colleagues of his ideological persuasions be appointed. Rehnquist is described as continually meddling on behalf of Republicans in earlier decisions. Whether these motives were in play or not, many will believe that they were. That will hurt the court's credibility.

Obviously, the five justices could decide the case in whatever way they thought the law required. But they owed the rest of us a duty to follow the plain words of the law and legal precedents in the Anglo-Saxon tradition. They did not meet this test. Whether you wanted one candidate or the other to be elected, you were robbed by this decision.

Since these justices are still sitting, Professor Dershowitz argues that the problem can only be solved by appointing better justices who know the law and behave in the ways that Supreme Court justices have done for over 200 years. I agree. Whether you are an Independent, a Republican or a Democrat, I hope you will, too.

We need fairness in the Supreme Court more than anywhere else. What's more, we need the appearance of fairness just as much!