This is one of the best Canadian plays that I have ever read. It is full of passion, chaos and the bumbling humour of verezzi. I highly recommend this play to anyone with a dominant or submissive attitude.

George Lee Walker wrote this classic work of business fiction long before Stanley Bing's "Lloyd." Find this book -- if you can -- and see into the crazed early-eighties world of an auto business speechwriter. Obsessed with Japan, the company (Chrysler?) will do just about anything to try to catch up.

Whatever happened to George Lee Walker?

This book is definitely for anyone who wants to know what corporate life is REALLY all about.It beautifully satirizes what we in the United States are supposed to do in relation to our jobs and career sucess.Although I have not owned a copy of this book for at least ten years, I have suggested it to many people and most have enjoyed it.Read this book and revolt against the coporate mind numbing.

I read this book three times and couldn't get enough of the strange, forbidding atmosphere of Walker's demented corporate America, where life lies in the delicate balance of power in one very strange company indeed. Read this one if you can get your hands on it, then give it to your friends. This is what "The Firm" should have been; it'll make a great movie someday.

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.

George F. Walker has a knack for creating astonishing, vivid characters that exist beyond the confines of the stage. After seeing his plays, you leave convinced that these people were not simply dissolved into nothingness when the play concluded. Their lives continue on, as is sometimes most obvious when Walker revisits his characters down the road.

SUBURBAN MOTEL is a series of six plays, all taking place in the same (supposedly) seedy motel room. Each play stands alone, although some characters do pop up in more than one. The interconnecting theme, besides the location, is the despair that these characters feel.

As in most Walker plays, the plot is secondary. These are character-driven pieces, with no pat answers or Neil Simon-type wit. The inhabitants of these tales are stuck in lives they want out of, but with no clear idea as to how to leave.

Everyone will have their favorite play. Mine is CRIMINAL GENIUS, in which several criminals (including a few from previous Walker productions) decide to overthrow a vicious crimelord. Sadly, they fail miserably. I give nothing away by this; the enjoyment here comes from the characters, not the plot.

Overall, some plays don't measure up to others. They lack the bite of Walker's best plays (see ZASTROZZI or NOTHING SACRED). But less-than-perfect-Walker is still good theatre, and good reading.

There are six plays. Did you even read the damn thing

This book is essential for the library of every scholar of American constitutionalism. For those who have studied the subject, the superb selection of essays on different aspects of American political thought is enlightening. Those who are simply interested in America's founding may however be at a loss and overwhelmed by the wide range of arguments put forward in the different essays even if Gary L.Gregg did an excellent job in the introduction giving an overview to the reader of what he should expect in each essay. Thus, since all and even the American constituiton and its origins is a matter of perspective, this book can only be enjoyed after a thorough study of American political thought. For constitution freaks however it is not only useful to have, it is a real joy to browse through the essays.

There is a palpable fear that America has lost its way, and perhaps even been untrue to itself. Examples of this loss abound, from school violence to a youth culture nihilism. "Vital Remnants," a collection of essays by some of America's top scholars in history, philosophy, political science, and law, shows, with remarkable clarity, the ways in which contemporary American society has radically altered the course upon which it was originally set. To be sure, our century looks at America with a different set of assumptions than that of our ancestors. "Vital Remnants" gives us clues by which we might stay the course for the benefit of generations to come.

I suppose it is indicative of the times that we live in that the marriage of President George W. Bush and the First Lady is the subject of a book less than two years after they moved into the White House. However, it is refreshing to look at a solid partnership like this one after the endless tales that were news fodder with the previous First Couple.

There are no great surprises in GEORGE AND LAURA. The drama of the administration immediately preceding this one --- mysteriously convenient deaths, defensive secrets transferred to enemies of this country, the clandestine rendezvous with interns on the Presidential Seal --- is gone. George and Laura Bush are...boring. The most interesting tidbit in GEORGE AND LAURA is that George, during his misspent youth, served as a dinner escort for...Tricia Nixon.

Sure there was tragedy in both of their pasts --- the death of his sister and the accidental death of her friend, but none of this is news to most readers. And yes, the background on each of their families that opens the book succinctly fills in gaps for anyone who has not studied their world, but none of what we read is earth-shattering revelation.

To his credit, Andersen tries to liven things up; the tales told in GEORGE AND LAURA would be far less interesting in the hands of a lesser writer. But there's not much in the way of explosions, karate, and ripped bodices here. Yes the First Couple has trouble with their teenage daughters, but to anyone with a teenager in the house, this is hardly novel. George is an alcoholic, in recovery some 15 years now. His wayward youth is recounted in some detail, and it is impossible to read about his behavior in his younger days without noting that the immediate past president behaved in a similar manner. The difference between the two is that 42 never stopped. W's wild days --- the drinking, the wenching, the carousing --- are over. His predilection toward a well-turned ankle disappeared upon his engagement to Laura; his drinking stopped a few years after their marriage.

It may be politically incorrect to note that women, in general, have a civilizing effect on men, but the thrust of GEORGE AND LAURA is that in the case of the President and the First Lady it is undeniably true. However, to me, Andersen does not really give W enough credit for the cessation of his destructive behavior. You cannot effectively stop such behavior for someone; you have to do it for yourself. But Andersen's account certainly demonstrates his penultimate point, which is that Laura gave the President ample reason to reform.

Andersen, to his credit, subtly drives home that the predictability of the Bushes relationship is a good thing. The lack of high drama in their relationship to each other is matched by their quiet passion, their mutual love and, of equal importance, their respect for each other. The First Lady is strong enough to unconditionally support the President, even when she strongly disagrees with him; this gives him room to do what he does best, which is the job he was elected to do. As Andersen so brilliantly and succinctly concludes, it is in their very ordinariness that they have proven themselves to be extraordinary. It is a standard, and an example, to strive for.

The bonds in their relationship gave them strength as this presidency was tested by fire within its first nine months, and surpassed even unreasonable expectations. There are those who have suggested that Bush was transformed by monumental, monstrous tragedy from an inept figure to a strong leader. What this theory ignores is that the magnitude of the attack on September 11th was such that it did not leave room for a transformation; those effected either had the right stuff to rise to the occasion or they did not. Bush, by his actions, demonstrated and continues to demonstrate that he has it. And to some extent GEORGE AND LAURA explains why.

If there is a disappointment with GEORGE AND LAURA, it is that many of Christopher Andersen's journalistic sources are known to be hostile to the President. The New York Times, The New Yorker, The Washington Post, Time, and other sourced periodicals have been uniformly, if predictably, anti-Bush since his nomination by the Republican Party. When Andersen quotes a columnist he quotes Molly Ivins, whose unrelenting hostility toward all matters Bush often approaches the level of incoherence. If there is a balance here, it is that Andersen is an obvious fan of Laura Bush; the thinly veiled thread that runs through GEORGE AND LAURA is his conclusion that Laura is the great woman behind the President.

As Andersen points out, Laura Bush does not consider being First Lady tantamount to having been elected co-president. She leaves him room to be great, while providing him with the additional incentive to do so. She coaxes, prods and helps him to refine his weaknesses --- his dress, his occasional tendency toward inappropriate goofiness, his much-reported malapropisms --- while at the same time adding to his considerable strengths in the areas of leadership, integrity and courage. This marriage is a partnership that makes both people stronger for its own strength. And their story is one that a lot of Americans can take stock in --- and feel good about leadership and values again.

--- Reviewed by Joe Hartlaub

I had positive expectations when I picked up this biography, and they were more than met. George and Laura is a page turner, light and interesting reading, with plenty to make you chuckle or stir your heart.

Yes, George Bush was born into wealth and privilege, but he really seems to have spent most of his life trying to be just a regular joe, albeit with a very substantial safety net. But his core character trait has always remained very consistent...fierce loyalty to his family and friends.

Laura also had a privileged childhood, but like George, her parents successfully instilled in her the values of middle America. Its heartening to know that the closest friends of both George and Laura are the ones who've known them for 30 or 40 years...not the here today, gone tomorrow relationships of convenience.

The book clearly reveals the source of the strength of this powerful union...a strong foundation in faith, family, and values.

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."

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.

The mean-spirited snorking of conservatives in response to THE BUSH DYSLEXICON made it a must-read for me. It was a clear signal that Miller might have hit a home run loaded with truth into the rightfield bleachers. I read it and found that he, in fact, hit a grand slam. I strongly urge every American to read it; it should be required reading in every school and university in the nation!

Anyone who recognizes the historical significance of the Constitution, knows how vital that hard-won document is to our individual rights and freedoms, and, most important, knows what is required in and of a leader to respect and protect it in an increasingly complex world, will be alarmed by this insightful analysis of our president's scrambled thinking and utterings. Miller uses W's own words to show that we are, indeed, as was so eloquently put by George I, "in deep doodoo." Individually comical or pathetic, Bushisms in sum reveal a level of ignorance and incompetence that is terrifying. That they come out of the mouth of a 21st century U.S. president, raises serious questions about the viability of our nation. Frontman Bush and the snarling crowd behind him are not only an international embarrassment, they're a distinct threat to democracy and the American way of life. Mark Crispin Miller's treatise is a Thomas Paine-like call to action. Please, read it!

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.

This is the polar opposite of Sammon's _At Any Cost_ (see my review).

As an attorney, having witnessed some of the greatest travesties of justice since being admitted, the Supreme Court's decision in Bush v. Gore drove me over the edge. No one with an ounce of sense, and with any education about the recent SC, could have predicted the SC's bizarre 5-4 decision. We expected, strangely, honesty, integrity, consistency with prior decisions. Dershowitz does an exemplary job showing, with the opinions of the crooked 5's own past decisions, how the result was the cynical attempt by politically motivated partisans to undo an election. Where did all this "Federalism" go? Where were "state's rights?" Were they really all that concerned with Equal Protection all of a sudden? If so, then I wonder why they attempt to prevent this case from being stare decisis (which I believe in itself is probably unconstitutional). An excellent expose of the debasing of the final bastion of! justice by politics.

Lately, the SC's supporters have been promulgating the myth that the decision was 7-2. However, it is clear from the decision, and from Dershowitz's book, that while 7 justices found equal protection challeneges, 4 voted to not stop the counting while 5 politically motived justices stopped the counting, knowing full well that this would ensure their guy got in.

I doubt the Freepers who posted their one-star reviews have read it, or would undertstand it, but educated people from either party will benefit from this analysis.