If you're a news or politics junkie and weren't totally exhausted by the news coverage of America's 2000 presidential election, you'll love Jeff Greenfield's "Oh Waiter! One Order of Crow!" Greenfield's affable personality comes through in this quick, enjoyable account of last November's craziness. At times it's "laugh-out-loud" funny, and at other times you'll just shake your head as you recall the events from not that long ago. The most interesting part of the book is the

author's description of the election night coverage: who knew what when, what they were thinking when things went wrong, and how they felt about it afterwards. He also does a great job bashing the partisans on both sides who so blatantly and obviously stuck to their absurd talking points during the Florida court fights.

Greenfield's enthusiasm for the whole affair is evident throughout (it's a political analyst's dream situation, his laundry emergencies due to long hours

notwithstanding). The book's key points, aside from the fascinating explanation of what caused the network glitches, are: (1) The primary reason Gore lost the election was Bill Clinton; (2) After the votes were cast on Nov 7, there was *no way* the machinery in place was going to allow Gore to become president; and (3) the Republicans "wanted it" a whole lot more than the Democrats, who didn't have the same energy invested in the outcome.

Greenfield, as usual, is both objective and witty in his writing. He is able to share thoughts he couldn't say on TV (though he never gets particularly shocking or controversial). At just over 300 pages (with very clever "butterfly ballot" page numbers), "Oh Waiter! One Order of Crow!" is a very quick, enjoyable read for anyone who won't get too riled up by an objective and nonpartisan review of last year's election.

Jeff Greenfield is one of the premier political analysts in America, and as this book proves, he's also a terrific writer. I originally was going to "skim" this book in a local bookstore and wound up spending two hours in the store reading it before I decided that I simply had to buy it and finish it. There are already several books out in print about last year's marathon, history-making presidential race, but this one is by far the best. Greenfield manages to combine both a serious analysis of the election - why Bush and Gore were so perfectly matched as opponents (they mirrored each other's strengths and weaknesses), why the South voted Republican while the North went Democratic, why Bush won (and Gore lost), the "what-if" scenarios (and why he believes that Bush would have won the election even if all the "what-ifs" had broken Gore's way), and even why John McCain couldn't defeat Bush despite his huge wins in the New Hampshire and Michigan primaries - with a delightful, biting sense of humor that shines through on every page. Greenfield's analysis of the strengths and weaknesses of Bush and Gore's personalities is both hilarious and on-target, as are his comments on the supporting players from Bill Clinton to Katherine Harris. And, as the title suggests, Greenfield doesn't spare his own profession - the media - from his barbs. His two chapters on covering the election night for CNN are by themselves worth the price of the book. If you're looking to buy just one book about one of the closest (and strangest) presidential elections in history, then "Oh, Waiter" is by far the best choice. Not only will you learn a great deal about the 2000 campaign and the "behind-the-scenes" battles that you didn't know about before, but you'll also find yourself laughing out loud at many of Greenfield's comments. A great book!

There's an old 19th century joke: If you are lost in the woods, catch a crow and boil it with one of your boots. After cooking both for a week, eat the boot. The title of Jeff Greenfield's book refers to that embarrassing predicament but you don't need to follow 19th century sayings to follow this book. This follows the 2000 Presidential Election from the point of view of a Political Analyst. Greenfield was a Democratic Speechwriter but that in no way taints this book. It is one of the most balanced books on the subject. Of course, Republican's who are seeking "Every vote was counted" and Democrat's seeking "Bush stole the election" would probably disagree. Greenfield chronologically follows the election, which resulted in a Bush Presidency. He does acknowledge partisan opinions but in no way does he support them.

As a Political Analyst on CNN, Greenfield is a fine talking head with just a touch of sardonic with that came in handy while writing for National Lampoon. His wit is put to good use in this tome. The political focus aside, the book offers a unique perspective of working with CNN and Political Analysis in general.

This book is well written, although the footnotes frequently break the flow. HOWEVER, the book is wretchedly biased against George W. Bush. It starts out describing George's feelings about grade school and high school without a scintilla of authenticity. This book is loaded with footnotes, but when it comes to telling George W.'s thoughts and motives, the author takes great liberties, again without any footnotes to support them. If you want to learn about George W. Bush,Jr. don't stop at this book.

I really enjoyed this book. The research is thorough and the stories are well-documented. I will recommend this book to anyone looking for unbiased information about George W. Bush.

This book is about a man who was born to privilege and extreme affluence. Who has been cushioned from the struggles of austerity and poverty. Yet he beleives himself a excellent candidate for not just the presidency but also denial of abortion rights to the raped and poverty stricken members of the female underclass. To which he has never belonged and would never want to meet.

What does George Bush junior care about ? Well not women's rights that's for sure.. Mr Bush is exposed here as being an incompetent business man. Not one of his worst failings as far as I am concerned by far his greatest error of judgement is to believe that every one who refuses to "accept Jesus as his(her)savior will go to hell"

Having George Bush Junior with his scant intellectual abilities and his reinforcment of the exploitation of natural resources for profit would be the real hell... This is a man without a shred of compassion who deserves to be exposed.

Can people really be that misinformed about reality and what really matters? Why waste your time even reading these reviews. This is a Joke, nicknamed a book.

Seek the truth in all matters, not the perception of the truth...this is very likely only someone's false perception of the truth.

As a previous reviewer stated, if edited correctly, this book would have gotten the highest rating possible, and even more. The author successfully shows how GW is an oil-addicted, old-time republican, sort of a fox let loose in the chicken coop. Anyone who doubts that this administration is corrupt should this book. Anybody who does will see through the evil Bush Empire.

If you have any doubts about Bush's attitude toward the environment this book will eliminate them once and for all. It never ceases to amaze me, a book written factually with supporting evidence is always maligned as the commie, pinko, or liberal media by corportists, incidentally defined by Mussolini as fascists . I give the book five stars for anyone wanting a clue about who and what is running the country, and the ground they are running it into.

The irony of a President who believes in maintaining a healthy body but has no regard for maintaing the health of our living planet earth is beyond comprehension. We overpopulate the earth, strip and mine out the land, suck the oil up from the ground, only to spew it back into the atmosphere increasing the hole in the ozone, thereby raising the temperature of the planet. We contaminate our water supply and soil by dumping toxic chemicals and nuclear waste. Deforesting the Amazon decreases the earth's ability to produce vital oxygen we need to breathe. I don't exactly see the correlation between exercise and a healthy body as long if we continue to pollute the earth as we do.

A healthy body needs fresh clean air, water, and a proper atmosphere that will effectively filter out harmful radiation from the sun in order to live. Our planet is no different than our bodies. Global warming is akin to a human running a fever, a sign that we are not living on a healthy planet.

Money can't buy a new body anymore than it can buy a new earth to live on. It's probably time to put homo sapiens on the endangered species list. It may just be that the earth we live on will begin to consider man a virus and start fighting to eliminate the virus in order to ensure it's survival as any living organism does. Mother Nature can pack a powerful punch, something to ruminate on.

Crossfire Commentator and former Clinton Adviser Paul Begala's book "It's Still the Economy Stupid" is an excellent examination of what is wrong and will continue to be wrong with the Bush Administration's economic policies. It is well-written, has a cutting sense of humor, and its assertions are well-supported by hard evidence. However, don't let any of that fool you: Begala has an agenda, and this book IS propaganda.

I think it would be instructive for anyone who likes reading books like this to read some Republican and Democratic propaganda back to back. The differences really come out. As a general rule, the Dem propaganda very rarely tells direct lies or makes outrageous fabrications about anything. Instead, they simply OMIT the material that they would rather not deal with. Begala's book definetely fits that mold - if you read his book, you would think the 90s were peaches and cream for everyone in America. They were not. However, this does not change the plain fact that they were pretty good, and better than anything Republican policies would have resulted in. Furthermore, you would believe George Bush caused the current recession. He did not - however, he did make it worse and has done nothing to correct the true difficulties confronting the economy.

Dems also usually are easy to read and have a friendly sense of humor about what they are doing. Compare that to say, Ann Coulter. Her footnotes, if you bother to check them out, are a literal papertrail revealing just how much lying she has to do to make it look like there is a factual basis for anything coming out of her word processor. Furthermore, if the spirit of Dem propagana is humor, the spirit of Repub propaganda is hate.

The book is surprisingly light reading, given how full of hard facts it is. It is an excellent little bit of propaganda concerning Clinton's positive accomplishments and Bush's lack of them. Anyone who reads this book and walks away without serious questions regarding what Bush is doing to the wallets of 98 or 99% of all Americans is either stupid, blind to the facts, or has been listening to Ann Coulter and Rush Limbaugh for so long they have forgotten what facts actually look like.

When George Bush took the oath of office under extremely controversial circumstances, I was prepared to give him a lot of slack. I think he handled the tragic events of 9/11 very well (although, seriously, wouldn't any president have acted the same way...even a Carter or Ford? I think so), but I haven't been impressed by anything he's done other than that. This book helped me understand why.

One of the reasons I respect Begala's work is because he documents his sources so well. Virtually every paragraph is footnoted to a credible (repeat...credible) media source (often a conservative one) or official U.S. government entity. I have checked out many of these sources myself...and they're accurate. That's what makes me appreciate Mr. Begala's book so much.

Apart from the accuracy of his information, it's a darn good read. Funny, angry and fast-moving. It's the straw that broke this reader's back in terms of no longer giving the Bush administration the benefit of the doubt. I now believe that everything that was said about Bush being a devious lightweight is frighteningly true. The one exception would be his flawless ability to say "yes" to any corporation who will line his party's pockets (the Democrats, to be sure, are not immune from this themselves, but I've never seen a president jettison the well-being of the population as a whole with such reckless abandon...and lie about it so often, as Begala painstakingly documents).

This is a book that needed to be written, yet I fear it only scratches the surface. I look forward to Mr. Begala's next book.

This book was absolutely right on the mark. Fast reading and backs up its claims with references.

Frank Bruni accomplishes what few journalists have been willing or able to do. He gives readers a true sense of George W. Bush, contradictions and all. During the campaign, most of the media portrayed Bush as a dim, inexperienced fool whose family lineage was his only qualification for the Presidency.

But that caricature is debunked by Ambling Into History. Bush is far more complicated than that caricature, and Ambling literally takes the reader on Bush's odyssey from the Texas State House to the White House. From the earliest days on the campaign trial to those intense days after Sept. 11, we have a front-row seat as Bush grows from a reluctant and awkward candidate to a supremely confident, yet still awkward, wartime president.

I was especially struck by the chapter about Bush and his father. Bruni brings alive their complicated relationship -- the anger Bush felt at his Dad's loss in 92 to Clinton, as well as the deep pride and protectiveness that the former president felt for his son during the bruising campaign. In particular, Bruni's description of the pride the two men have in each other's accomplishments is as touching as it is poignant.

The book is also an illuminating look inside the modern presidential campaign. Better than anything I have read, it shows how and why reporters become tired of writing about issues, choosing instead to devote so much airtime and print to the candidates' personal styles and verbal gaffes.

Bruni is a first-rate writer with a keen eye for those small, often humorous details that tell so much about a person or a moment. Like its subject, Ambling Into History cannot be easily shoved into this category or placed in that box. But I am sure you will agree Ambling Into History will explain George W. Bush better than anything you have read. And, here is a bonus: it is almost impossible to put down.

George W. Bush has plenty of his presidency left, and there is much history ahead of him. How great of a president he will have been is yet to be seen. However, in Frank Bruni's chronicle of GWB, in "Ambling into History: The Unlikely Odyssey of George W. Bush," we get a look on the stupidity, and at the greatness. GWB has lived a paradoxical life, and we've gotten the good with the bad. Bruni helps us sort through some of it.

There is a fair chance the conservatives will cheer this book, but a similar chance the liberals will love it as well, for entirely different reasons. Like in the extremely popular "Bias: A CBS Insider Exposes How the Media Distort the News," this book gives us insight on how presidential campaigns are covered.

This might be a great tool for high school teachers to help bring to life the current occupant of the Executive Office.

Regardless of differing views, Gore and Bush probably get along better privately than their supporters would like to admit. And Bush might come across plain-spoken, but he is far brighter than his occasional spoken fumblings.

Buy "Ambling into History: The Unlikely Odyssey of George W. Bush" and benchmark Bush. Go back in five years, and see if Bruni was on target, or full of baloney.

I fully recommend "Ambling into History: The Unlikely Odyssey of George W. Bush," by Frank Bruni.

Anthony Trendl

Read this fun, meaty, fast-paced portrait of George W. at your own risk. Those who voted for Bush, who saw him as the kind of guy they'd like to have a beer with, will find themselves wincing -- again and again -- at his juvenile behavior and shocking lack of in-depth knowledge about almost everything save the flora and fauna on his beloved ranch. They will be forced to admit that they helped elect a lightweight class clown. Then again, those who enthusiastically voted against Bush, as I did, will come away with from this incredibly nuanced, insightful and entertaining biography feeling something akin to real respect for the man (did I write that?) -- for his flexibility, his deep love of family and country and perhaps most importantly, his new-found focus and commitment to ridding the world of terrorism. Frat boy or Zen master? You decide. Bruni's book is about as balanced and fair as journalism gets. And he writes with great wit and intelligence and a healthy dose of self-deprecating humor as he drags us with on the exhausting campaign trail -- where every journalist gains weight, outgrows his clothes, resumes smoking and drinks too much on little to no sleep. I went willingly. What a blast.

After reading David Frum's The Right Man, I'm a bit at a loss as to what the fuss was all about. Not to ruin the surprise, but all the Bush-critical quotes you've heard are all that you'll find in the book. By and large, the portrait the book paints of the President and those who toil for him is balanced and respectful, and judging by the apoplectic reviews by the "Saddam isn't evil, but Ashcroft is" contingent, it's annoying all the usual suspects. Good.

In this book, Frum styles himself as a unreconstructed Gingrichite (albeit one largely unmoved by the social issue agenda). Frum supported Bush, not McCain, in the primaries, thus setting him apart from his fellow neoconservatives. But he openly admits he was slow to warm to candidate Bush and his "compassionate conservative" philosophy.

This skepticism is a rising Republican leader isn't a first for Frum. In August 1994, Frum famously published Dead Right, which in its broad outlines proclaimed the conservative movement impotent and the Reagan presidency a failure. This was followed three months later by a 52-seat Republican gain in the House.

Not anticipating September 11th and its "transformative" effect on his new subject is no doubt more forgivable than misjudging the results of a biennial election. Still, Frum's "conversion" to Bush, the palpable theme of the book, is more grudging than it needs to be. Frum goes into a fair amount of detail about the months before September 11, enough to be reminded of how remote the bite-sized politics of that era feels today. Frum's argument was that Bush wasn't doing especially well in 2001, and that he may have found himself a one-termer based on his performance those first few months.

This prediction seems implausible and unnecessarily glum. My judgment then was that Bush did indeed face some stern tests domestically, but the brunt of them would arrive not in 2001 but in 2002 - with ample room for recovery in 2003. As for the charge that little got accomplished in that time, how soon we forget that what we were emerging from: the Clinton era, when virtually nothing got passed in six years. Characteristically, Bush benefited from all the low expectations coming out of the election, when critics pronounced him the functional equivalent of an Italian prime minister whose fractious minority government was near collapse. On this basis, the Washington elite simply assumed he wouldn't bother pushing a big agenda. Their first indication that Bush wasn't playing by the received wisdom was the tax cut, which Bush executed through masterfully - leaving in the dust all the mandarins who predicted in February that no tax cut would ever pass the Senate. Bush's early success seemed like the supreme vindication of the Colin Powell aphorism "You don't know what you can get away with until you try."

September 11 has enabled Bush to transform the Presidency into something more meaningful than it was throughout all of the 1990s, and it's by this measure that the pre-September 11 period (and by extension the Clinton era) seems impossibly small in comparison. Frum certainly isn't the first to posit this transformation, but a few of his insights into this overanalyzed period are worth exploring further.

Perhaps this book's most significant contribution is the author's account of how Bush's views on the wider implications of this conflict for the Islamic world hardened as the fall of 2001 wore on. In those initial few days, the President and everyone around voiced support for Islam as a "religion of peace" (Frum condemns this tack bitterly, but concedes there was probably no alternative to it). By November, Edward Said nemesis Bernard Lewis was speaking to the White House staff and the notion that Israel's struggle against terror was inextricably linked to Bush's war on terror was gaining currency. In a parallel evolution, Bush lost patience with Arafat and instructed his U.N. Ambassador to insert language condemning by name Arafat's own Al-Aqsa Martyrs Brigade into any new U.N. demand for Israeli withdrawal.

During this time, Frum takes great pleasure in wryly quoting conservative war hawks warning about the next Bush "wobble." After the magnificent culmination that was the axis of evil speech (yes, there's stuff in there about that, too) and Bush's June 24, 2002 call for new Palestinian leadership, it finally sunk in that the vaunted Bush betrayals were not to come.

Frum's most enjoyable and original formulation involves a Civil War analogy. Would our war on terror be a "small war" to restore the status quo ante, as Copperhead Democrats had argued during the Civil War? Or had our enemies already pushed the envelope so far that nothing less than a "big war" - involving a complete social revolution - would be required to reform the slave-holding South/despotic Middle East? However distasteful the analogy, Frum's right: to secure a lasting peace, we have no choice but to attempt Radical Reconstruction once this war is over.

This is the first major work by a true insider from the Bush White House and it paints a very detailed and vivid picture of the nature of Bush's approach to both the Presidency as well as how his White House staff operates.

Frum is a former Wall Street Journal writer and has written on conservative social and political issues. He worked in the White House as a speech writer, focused on economic matters initially and then refocused on international issues after September 11th. While he's philosophically aligned with Bush he nevertheless was somewhat uninformed about Bush both personally and politically when he first appeared on the national scene (weren't we all) and somewhat ambivalent about him when he went to work for the Bush Administration. That sense of ambivalence comes through subtly throughout the book and lends it, to my mind, an additional layer of credence.

The boom is very detailed and wide ranging. It covers policy, Bush's personal leadership style, his political philosophy, the usual White House intrigues--pretty standard stuff for this sort of effort.

Several tings set this book apart, however. One is the simple dearth of genuine, detailed insider White House reporting that has emerged on this administration to date. Frum deftly explains that this is a function of several factors--this White House's penchant for security, the unusually close knit operating structure in the White House as compared to, say, the Clinton era, but most especially the incredible loyalty George Bush naturally inspires. Frum gives this penchant for loyalty the full treatment and it's a fascinating phenomenon to behold in this day and age.

Another truly interesting facet is the ways in which the deep Christian fundamentalism of many bushies affects both the policy aspects of the administration but also--much more interestingly to my mind--the general day to day operations and culture of the White House. Frum also gives this the full treatment and it is, again, a fascinating look at this extraordinary aspect of the current administration.

Frum also gives us an insider's insight into the wiles and intrigues of Washington politics. This is best exemplified in the "Axis of Evil" phrase, which Frum essentially originated (though his actual phrasing was "Axis of Hatred" modified to evil by Bush himself) and the aftermath of Frum's getting "credit" for it.

The only negative I'd voice--and it's why this gets 4 rather than 5 stars--is that Frum inserts himself into the meat of the book a bit too much for my taste. This is neither billed as or written as a memoir as much as an insider takes on the WH--not on Frum. It's a minor quibble but nevertheless a bit less focus on Frum's personal situations would have been welcome once his qualifications, bonafides and so on were established. It's not so much that what he writes isn't interesting (he tales about being a foreign national (Frum's Canadian) working in the White House and the complications that this causes are often interesting and even entertaining, but nevertheless distracting from the main focus of the book.

In the end though it's what he learned about Bush and what he came to believe about his abilities and destiny that are key, and they form genuinely fresh and enlightening look at the man, who he really is, and what he really stands for. What he has to say won't in general shock anybody who's read the title of the book, it's nevertheless firm and thoughtful insight about a man whose destiny is so critical and about whom we really, truly know very little.

Highly recommended.

Throughout this book I found the tone similar to David Gergen's "Eyewitness to Power." Whereas Gergen was trying to fit 4 presidents in one book, Mr. Frum deals only with our current president. That focus sets this book apart.

On the jacket, the book talks about Frum's "honest admiration" for George W. Bush. This might set alarm bells off for some potential readers. It shouldn't. It is easy to perceive Frum's surprise (and he does tell us outright) at feeling this admiration after his doubts during the 2000 campaign.

The book is insightful and intimate. The focus is personal, but you can directly compare this profile with those of Nixon, Ford, Reagan, and Clinton in Mr. Gergen's book. The observations are of a similar vein. More than that, it is an opportunity to get to know a president who, as Frum admits, is pretty insular. I hope you enjoy it as much as I did.

I though this was George W's gaffes, but it turns out his father mispoke quite a bit himself. A little bit too politically motivated, these people obviously had no idea how much worse things could get when his son would be elected, er, annointed, or ah, democratically- you know what I mean!

Is intelligence learned or inherited? It's a question that has puzzled scientists and philosophers since the beginning of time. On the one hand, you can argue that this book proves the latter conviction, since it's obvious that Papa Bush is as grammatically challenged as baby Bush, but on the other hand, who taught Baby to speak? Seriously though, this book is hilarious, a welcome companion piece to more recent versions attacking the more recent Bush. I've owned it since it came out and it still makes me laugh. If you can find it, buy it.

If you are looking for symbolism or imagery I might suggest a different book, but for some of the funniest quotes this side of Yogi Berra I definitly recommed "Bushisms". (Of course if you are a big Bush/Republican fan AND have NO sense of humor this one may not be for you.)

People have been quick to dismiss this book as right wing apologia written by a sneaky Bush supporter under the guise of analysis. However, those same people see Dershowitz's "Supreme Injustice" as an objective, non-partisan account? Dershowitz is a defense lawyer. What do they use? Rhetoric. Posner is a judge. What do they use? REASON.

As one who did not voter for Bush, Gore or Nader, I can say that this is the most intellegent, thorough and fair accounts given of the 2000 fiasco. The one thing it's NOT is the most readable. If you don't want numbers, textual explanations of obscure state clauses and discourses on democratic theory, this one will be a doozy. If you DO want a beach read, I direct you to Bugliosi. Also, if it's conservative apologia you're after, do yourself a favor and just watch Fox News.

Posner is not a pundit, he is a judge. He does not defend Katherine Harris's decision not to accept late recounts as a 'conservative,' he does so because the law gave her discretion. He refrains from bashing the supreme court decision, not as a conservative (he correctly disagrees with their 'equal protection' reasoning), he does so as a judge realizing they did the best they could in the time they had.

The key thing to take from this book is that he doesn't slam anyone (except for some overzeolous pundits). Second guessing motive is a slippery slope and he admirably refrains from left or right bashing. What we are left with is facts. As mentioned earlier, Dershowitz, as a defense lawyer, has proven one of the most effective rhetoricists on the planet. My guess is that a major reason this book didn't sell so well is because the rhetoric is absent.

The major flaw is that if Posner wnated to write a book for the lay person, he failed. This book, if you've no coffee around will make you dizzy. My reccomendation, read Bugliosi for a warm-up, Dershowitz for a light jog, and these will have worked you up to Posner. This is serious business!!

This is another Posnerian tour de force in which he carefully analyzes both Florida and US election laws and demonstrates that, far from being a lawless body that stole an election, the US Supreme Court decision was right -- and that in any event Bush was better positioned to win any fight that would have ensued in Florida, Congress and elsewhere had the Supreme Court decision gone the other way.

But, readers may find his review of the performance of the so-called "experts" the most entertaining feature of this book. After you read how he takes apart Alan Dershowitz and others, you'll be sure to put less stock in their outlandish "expert" commentary in the future.

I highly recommend this book for those looking for a non-partisan, dispassionate analysis of the events in Florida.

Judges, as a class of humanity, have always seemed to me to embody the worst aspects of lawyer, priest, and politician, all rolled into one self-important package. One of the few judges who have ever seemed worth much is Richard A. Posner, author of this fine and devastating book. Millions of gallons of ink have been spilled over the 2000 election, but Judge Posner may be the only author who brings both a dispassionate eye and an almost unmatched legal mind to the vexed constitutional and legal issues involved.

The result, as a whole, doesn't do much for the reputation of Judge Posner's legal brethren, especially the members of the appropriately nicknamed SCOFLA, or Supreme Court of Florida. As Judge Posner deconstructs the logic -- for lack of a better term -- employed by the Court in Bush v. Gore, you'll be left wondering what in the world they were thinking.

If this book makes anything clear, it's that the Left is correct to call the U.S. Constitution a 'living document.' It lives in the same way the Frankenstein monster 'lived,' as a monster formed by two centuries -- or at the minimum 70 years -- of 'progressive' jurisprudence. The crowning glory of this, as Judge Posner makes clear, may well be the performance turned in by SCOFLA in 2000.

This book wrestles with important issues, but it is well written and extremely readable. The final two chapters -- 'Critiquing the Participants' and 'Consequences and Reforms' -- lift this book beyond the many 'instant histories' we've seen of the 2000 election and make it something well worth studying by people on every (or no) side of the question. The legend of the 'stolen election' has already entered the Left's mythology, up there with 'Reagan's massive budget cuts' and 'impeachment was all about sex.' It would be nice if this excellent book could help us get beyond the partisan grousing so we could address more important issues. But I don't think it's gonna happen.

I located a hard copy of this book and decided to just hear what the then Gov. Bush had to say. It was a few months after the rollercoaster of the presidential election.

To be honest, I can't figure out why this book has received such low ratings. I went into the book with an open mind (I was one of those who were on the fence this past election and opted for who I thought was the best man). I had concerns on some of the views and stances Mr. Bush took as Gov. of Texas.

I found this book extremely easy to read and follow. It was almost like spending a weekend in conversation with someone while touching a vast array of topics in getting to understand the person. It was rather enjoyable, especially if you embarked on reading this with an open mind. I have read far worse and/or "dry" books.

I suggest if you would can open this book with an open mind and would like to hear President Bush's thoughts, rational and stances that the reader could come out with more insight to George W. I don't think the book itself would have swayed me during the election but I appreciate the openness of discussing various topics. On hindsight, maybe had I been open enough to have read the book, I would have had an easier time making my presidential decision this past election.

To me, this book deserved a three plus star rating but I have no qualms recommending it to interested readers and giving it a four star rating, in my opinion.

"A Charge To Keep" is a revealing look into the personal stories and public life of one of America's most intriguing political leaders. I also found it to be inspirational and optimistic. I enjoyed seeing the fifteen pages of pictures in the center of the book. At the end of the book you will find an Index so you can look up his views on anything from baseball to social security.

I have been following the news for a while now and found it enlightening to finally get the other side of the story on many issues. You will so enjoy reading the other side of so many stories the media distorted for their own use. I have always believed that it is best to go to the source and learn the truth. In this book, you will finally hear George W.'s side of the story and also hear the truth about how he has successfully worked with Republicans and Democrats to enact Texas' two largest tax cuts.

This is a book filled with personal and political experiences which have shaped his values and led him to his decision to become a candidate for President. You will read about everything from his experiences as Governor to his love of baseball.

I found it interesting to read about his inspiration for his philosophy of "leave no child behind." This actually came from his working for an inner-city poverty program. You will fully understand how this man developed his compassionate conservative philosophy. You will truly see the heart of a man who is now our President.

There are qualities we all want to see in a President: Honesty, discipline, leadership, a proven track record of success, the ability to solve problems, a love for America, a love for the people of America, a can do attitude, moral values, a man who gives of himself, an insightful leader, someone who can keep the peace and knows that to do this means keeping our military strong, a man who can propose creative solutions and a man with a proved record of serving his country.

I love the fact that he served in the Air National Guard, that he and his wife Laura have a love of reading and want to help every child learn to read, and that he knows that he is responsible to a higher power. He lives his faith, but does not flaunt it.

"America is a great country because of our religious freedoms." --George W. Bush

"Reading is to the mind what food is to the body." --George W. Bush

For anyone who thinks that George W. Bush is cashing in on his father's good name...they have not read this book! This is a self-made man. I noticed that his values have not changed over the years. You will see this by reading the information on his past political campaigns. You will also see why reporters should read his book to get the real story. Through his life, he has also seen America's culture change dramatically and knows it is time to usher in an era of personal responsibility. He is a student of history and has studied the events that shaped America's political story. Men will love the story of his first solo flight in an F-102 on page 53, and the story about "the cuff links" given to him by his father, on page 42. Women will love how he finally was introduced to Laura and how much he loves her and their daughters.

"Unconditional love is the greatest gift a parent can give a child." --George W. Bush

George W. Bush makes me want to stand up and say I am proud to be an American. He believes in the American people and wants us to seize the moment. He inspires HOPE!

"I am optimistic our children's lives will continue to improve in material terms. The risk is that their moral and spiritual lives will not improve. You see the strength of a society should not be measured only in the wealth it accumulates or the technology it develops. The strength of a society should be measured in the values its people share." --George W. Bush

What do I like most about the publishing of this book besides the fact that it tells a wonderful story of a kind and generous man? He has donated his share of the proceeds to the Boy Scouts of America, the Girl Scouts of America, and Girls, Inc.

This is not a monumental piece of literature, but it was not writen to change the world. The books job was to tell the people who George W. Bush is, and it accomplished this job very well! It covers his life from childhood to today. And most importaintly, is clearly states his political beliefs and convictions, so you KNOW the man well when you finish. No psychobabble, no theories, just cold, hard facts on the content of his character. By the way, conserning his "Jesus Christ" answer as his favorite philosopher in the debate...if you think that a part, even a very small part, of that answer was political positioning, you NEED to get this book! This is not a boaring preachy read, just a good man shareing his past and present self, as well as his optimistic view of the future.

Before you even think of buying this book, do a little research about who Bill Kristol really is. Kristol is a flunky for rich right-wingers, whose career is underwritten by ultra-conservative, tax-exempt foundations.

Be a smart consumer and an educated reader. Know the bias of an author before you read their work. To review a full report on Kristol's background, go to:

http://www.mediatransparency.org/people/bill_kristol.htm

The only reason this book has any value is because of the opinions from the courts that take up the first half of the volume. The rest of the book is filled with op-ed pieces from various newspapers and magazines, liberal and conservative. They are all pretty much worthless. They are too short to offer any real insight, and instead simply seek to use very abrasive rhetoric to whip their respective troops into a frenzy. Reading the court cases however, is clearly an essential part of understanding what happened in the election of 2000. To me, it is fairly clear that what happened to Gore was blatently undemocratic and unfair, but also completely legal under Florida's statutory scheme. So the fundamental question that the book raises, though it never directly address it, is, should we be pursuing a basic sense of fairness, or strictly adhereing to laws, even when it is apparent that they are not functioning in a democratic way, or to the benefit of the citizenry whatsoever. If you think that op-ed columnists will adequately answer that, think again. But at least this book allows thoughtful readers who want to ponder the question for themselves the opportunity to see some source materials.

The Brookings Institution is a rabbit warren of liberals raised for food, who are, it seems, preserved so that the elite can think well of themselves; Nixon contemplated fire-bombing the joint, and ever since its denizens have been somewhat cautious. For some time, neoconservatism has been the real political philosophy of the elites of The Beltway and Manhattan, but for purposes of public relations the pretense is made that we would be liberal if we could, were it not for dose foreign terrorists and dem welfare queens who take advantage of us.

My experience from Eastern academia and elsewhere is that in actuality liberals in our society tread a narrow path and must avoid giving offense to what William Jennings Bryan called, and which remains, the dollar power.

One way in which they do this is by being "fair" and "balanced." Now to some diehard liberals, such as John Rawls, fairness is being just to the least well-off, and is constituted in such deeds as slipping the local wino the contents of the poor-box. However, fairness has been redefined in recent years by neoconservative pressure as "balance."

Thus Bush v Gore, rather than presenting ONLY E. J. Dionne's liberal, pro-Gore viewpoint, presents (1) the text of all relevant court cases and (2) a balanced selection of views from liberals and conservatives.

The problem is that there really is no common ground.

The case for Bush, it is obvious from this book, is incoherent, wrong, and based on force majeure and Gore won the election by the generally accepted standards of modern democracy, which are on record in the United Nations' founding documents and which the US has helped to enforce in Haiti and elsewhere...but not in Florida last year.

Scalia's majority opinion of Dec 12 is incoherent because it has to maintain, against the entire trend of American history, that we really are a Roman republic, in which the vast majority of people have a limited choice of top man every year by grace and favor of successful used-car salesmen; for Scalia leans heavily on his claim that we, the people, are dependent upon the grace and favor of the moneyed bozos in our STATE legislatures for our right to vote.

In this Animal House model the country is run as a toga party by George Bush's fraternity brothers; I mention the Belushi film advisedly because these films manufacture consent to the superior wisdom of dyslexic clowns.

But this model is not Rome, it is at best, Byzantine. In this model our elections become like the ability of the citizens of Byzantium to root for sports teams named after primary colors; a meaningless diversion. Indeed, and as Chomsky has suggested, the programs of the Democratic and Republican candidates are so close together that random numbers may determine how we vote, there being no strong arguments or differences presented, and this, to Chomsky would naturally bias the results toward close ties, with the result that Bush v. Gore was not a fluke; the problem may recur as long as candidates do not present clear alternatives.

The Roman republic was maintained by the collective ability of the Romans prior to Octavius Caesar to maintain, over and above personal appetite, a distinctly Roman legal culture. The Roman stance was that of a Brutus (not the one who killed Caesar but an earlier Brutus) who allowed his sons to be killed rather than violate the Roman Republic's law. The theme was sacrifice of personal advantage to the commons.

The early Brutus manifested republican integrity because he was willing to sacrifice his sons to abstract legal principles. It might seem that the later Brutus had the same integrity (and a superficial reading of the Shakespeare play would indicate that this is so): but Shakespeare ultimately makes Plutarch's point that murder had no place in republican Rome and that Brutus' form of integrity was actually a form of corruption. Brutus and Cassius, after all, violated their own laws by killing Caesar and their rebellion was morally and legally equivalent to that of Spartacus.

The last time republican integrity was celebrated in popular political culture in France and America was not a conservative time at all. It was instead the revolutionary climate of France in 1789, and, to a lesser extent, in America of 1776. The paintings of Jacques-Louis David and Benjamin West celebrated a political willingness to sacrifice bourgeois interest for the greater good. They state visually that if we want a res publica we need men like Marat, General Wolfe dying on the Plains of Abraham, and Brutus catching hell from his old lady for his sacrifice of his sons.

Now, nothing further from modern conservatism could be imagined, which demands that people NOT be made to sacrifice for the greater good of the Republic, or the Revolution. No, in modern conservatism, lesser folk only sacrifice for dear old Enron...not the republic. And the top men are never discommoded at all.

The game is so deeply cynical that many honest American voters are completely unaware of what's being done to them. Liberals who've run "focus groups" to study the opinions of voters have found that many voters are not aware of how far to the right the in-group Republicans have drifted and the minimalism of their commitment to representative government. The Brookings Institution has dropped the ball, for its "balance" and its retainer of Bill Kristol shows institutional cowardice in which the FACT that the election was a bloodless coup d'etat becomes a meaningless opinion.