The Book on Bush: How George W. (Mis)leads America
by Eric Alterman, Mark Green, Mark J. Green
Average Customer Review:
Hardcover (05 February, 2004)
list price: $24.95 -- our price: $9.98
(price subject to change: see help)
US | Canada | United Kingdom | Germany | France

Editorial Review

While other liberal-minded books, written by everyone from documentary filmmakers to political strategists to comedians, have been broadly critical of the entire early 21st-century conservative universe, Eric Alterman and Mark J. Green have narrowed their focus to the man living at 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue. And unlike some of their contemporaries, they choose to largely eschew the clever metaphors and whimsical storytelling to get right at their pointed criticisms of George W. Bush, whom they accuse of being less than honest with the American people while serving the interests of large corporations, the religious right, and neoconservative ideologues. Such charges, by themselves, are so commonplace by this point as to be unremarkable but Alterman and Green provide voluminous, detailed research and come at the case with the vigor of prosecuting attorneys certain of a defendant's guilt or maybe a pair of exceptionally ambitious graduate students ready to present a final dissertation. They contrast sections of Bush's public statements, especially campaign rhetoric, that seem to strike a centrist, conciliatory tone with evidence of his actions that veer hard right and contradict the very things he had said. Some of Bush's words come off more as simple talking points on complex issues than outright deception, and the authors do stop short of calling Bush a liar, but even in these situations, the president still comes off as either out of touch or disingenuous. And though some of their supporting material comes from opinion pieces in publications like the New Republic, serving more to echo the authors' perspective than document it, there's plenty more from objective sources and raw factual data. Liberals will find plenty in The Book on Bush to arm them in arguments against conservatives and they'll have the evidence to make their case. --John Moe ... Read more

Reviews (41)

Chilling..thought provoking and very scary
If you want to understand the mindset of George Bush, read this book. If you want to understand the U.S. invasion of Iraq, read this book. If you want to understand the foreign policies of this administration, read this book. If you want to truly understand the benefits of the 'Tax Cuts' read this book. If you want to understand the environmental and societal policies of this administration, read this book. Because its all here in black and white.

And if you love 'America' or the basic values that 'America' once stood for, read this book. Because We as Americans has been blind deaf and dumb too long.

On The Far Right Wing And A Prayer
Through this whole book, I was impressed by these authors restraint.They steered clear of off handed and juvenal remarks about President Jr.They stuck to a just the facts type of reporting and left the name calling to pundit crowd.This impressed me even more given that at least one of these authors, if not both have been roundly criticized by the far right and painted with the now too familiar anti American label basically because they dare to look past the surface on the current administration.The authors take the Bush presidency on one issue at a time and they painstakingly cover each mistake and policy decision and the effects they have on the country.

What impressed me was the clear and steady march the authors took in revealing the Bush administration missteps.One area that might leave the average anti Bush book reader a little disappointed with was the no-nonsense approach the authors took.One might even call it dull, but they just did not stoop down to any name calling or cheep shots.I always like a fair and balanced book , but even I was wanting them to take a cheap shot or pointed barb here and there.With the authors taking this high handed review, it sometimes came off a little pompous.Regardless of this slight criticism, this book was even handed and I think fair. The authors tell you right up front that they think the Bush team has made a number of mistakes and they then spend the next 300 pages detailing them out.

Given the large population of anti Bush books I have read, it is my opinion that this one falls into the top tier.It provides a large amount of detail and does not spend a lot of time on minor issues.The book probably would have been better served if the authors would have included maybe one of two items that they felt the President handled well, because it does seem to be a bit of a piling on about 200 pages into the book.Then again these types of book are usually meant to bolster a persons opinion and not create a fair historical look. Overall the book was well written, interesting and not overly negative.It had a tendency to get dry about the mid point of each chapter, but always finished strong.If you are an avid reader of this topic or if you are just getting started, this book is a nice addition to your collection.

Stark document that will soon require a revised update
Alterman and Greenpainfully chronicle the deliberate deceptions and wanton devastation wrought on our democratic system, the environment, the economy, education, national security, national pride, and international standing during the first 30 months of George W. Bush's administration.What has transpired since the publication of their book with respect to totalitarian mendacity, immoral means to accomplish supposed "moral" ends, and the utter incompetent stupidity in conducting foreign and domestic policy, dwarfs by comparison much of the damning evidence Alterman and Green have meticulously laid out.Nevertheless, their comprehensive review of Bush's first 30 months goes a long way in understanding the catastrophes that are continuing to unfold.The question that is now before us is: can America survive George W. Bush?

History will not be kind to this malignant little man. Nor will history fondly remember the prevailing American cultureof lazy and greedy simpletons that helped get him elected. ... Read more

Isbn: 0670032735
Subjects:  1. (George Walker),    2. 1946-    3. 2001-    4. Bush, George W    5. Bush, George W.    6. Ethics    7. General    8. Government - Executive Branch    9. Government - U.S. Government    10. Political Science    11. Politics - Current Events    12. Politics and government    13. Politics/International Relations    14. U.S. Federal Government    15. U.S. Political History    16. United States    17. United States - 21st Century   

What Liberal Media? The Truth About Bias and the News
by Eric Alterman
Average Customer Review:
Hardcover (04 February, 2003)
list price: $25.00
US | Canada | United Kingdom | Germany | France

Editorial Review

The incredulity begins with the title What Liberal Media?, journalist Eric Alterman's refutation of widely flung charges of left-wing bias, and never lets up. The book is unlikely to make many friends among conservative media talking heads. Alterman picks apart charges made by Ann Coulter, Rush Limbaugh, George Will, Sean Hannity, and others (even the subtitle refers to a popular book by former CBS producer Bernard Goldberg that argues a lefty slant in news coverage). But the perspectives of less-incendiary figures, including David Broder and Howard Kurtz, are also dissected in Alterman's quest to prove that not only do the media lack a liberal slant but that quite the opposite is true. Much of Alterman's argument comes down to this: the conservatives in the newspapers, television, talk radio, and the Republican party are lying about liberal bias and repeating the same lies long enough that they've taken on a patina of truth. Further, the perception of such a bias has cowed many media outlets into presenting more conservative opinions to counterbalance a bias, which does not, in fact, exist, says Alterman. In methodically shooting down conservative charges, Alterman employs extensive endnotes, all of which are referenced with superscript numbers throughout the body of the book. Those little numbers seem to say, "Look, I've done my homework." What Liberal Media? is a book very much of 2003 and will likely lose some relevance as political powers and media arrangements evolve. But it's likely to be a tonic for anyone who has suspected that in a media environment overflowing with conservatives, the charges of bias are hard to swallow. For liberals hoping someone will take off the gloves and mix it up with the verbal brawlers of the right, Eric Alterman is a champion. --John Moe ... Read more

Reviews (258)

Alterman does a great job dismantling the lib. media myth
I found this book very enjoyable and chock full of examples of bias in the media that run in the opposited direction of the commonly held mythos of the media--a conservative bias.

The only people unconvinced by this book will be those who consider anything less than complete obedience to conservative dogma to be leftist/socialist/communist propaganda...paranoid, right-wing nutjobs in other words.The kinds of people who see the UN as the vehicle for the Antichrist.The kinds of people who view liberalism (even economic neoliberalism!) as a tool of satan, and they do mean that literally.Yes, ultra-conservatives will despise this book as much or more than any other critique of US policy, and with good reason.This book undercuts the poor, angry white guy conspiracy theories that pervade conservative culture in this country, and exposes the claims of liberal media bias for the melodramatic and dishonest nonsense they are.

Misinformed Liberal Socialist
Eric Alterman is delusional.
There is unequivocal evidence that their is a media bias in the News Papers, TV, and Magazines. Another Marxist lie to distort facts.

What Looking Glass?
This tome has received a plethora of good reviews so I was hoping for a intelligent fact filled discourse that could prove the title worthy. Instead this book is simply written for the hard left choir, readers whose main ideas of fact checking is believing that anything bad said about the center or the right is correct.

The best quote of the book starts on page XI in the preface when the author admits it is "complicated psychologically to write a book that so perfectly contradicts . . . wisdom. . ." Perhaps if Eric had studied his first sentence he would have seen perhaps it be better to be wise than to open ones mouth and prove that they are a fool.

This book starts out `un-wisely' but continues downhill from there, his many undocumented, exaggerated assertions have the flavor of self-parody rather than reasoned argument. Some examples.

In Chp. 2 Eric admits that most journalists are liberal. "The vast majority are pro-choice, pro-gun control, pro-separation of church and state, pro-feminism, pro-affirmative action, and supportive of gay rights." (21)

But in the lefts orwellian doublespeak he has no problem contradicting himself by denying that journalists are liberal just TWO paragraphs later. "Nevertheless the overall pattern is undeniably consistent, and it is not `liberal'". (21)

The next 4 chapters (75 pages) of the books talks about opinion writers, Eric calls them the punditocracy. This is the main point that he hopes to cement home that guess what people; there are right wing pundits out there. Everybody let out a huge collective gasp.

What Eric and the rest of the SCLM (Socialist Communistic Loving Media) doesn't get is that when the center complains about liberal bias they don't mean the nattering nabobs of the opinion page or talk radio, they mean the news anchors and the page one writers. Since Eric chose not to address the TRUE problem, he simply creates a strawman argument, easily seen by the intelligent, but missed by the choir.

Chp 8 is about the treatment that Free Trade and Enron has received by the media. Free trade is championed by the socialistic left and paradoxically by the neo-cons. The left views it as a way of transferring wealth to the poorer nations making everybody more equal. This mantra of egalitarianism has been taken up by the media to help promote this nefarious idea. Eric nevertheless uses this example of true conservatives (who are against free trade) being in control of the media!

Enron, who was the biggest supporter of Clinton, had its officers spent more nights in the Clinton white house than any other group, had all of its accounting irregularities happen on Clinton's watch, yet Eric doesn't seem to know any of this. Perhaps the most damning piece of factual evidence is who broke open the story about Enron, It was the WSJ and the Economist, both highly conservative publications. Immediately following was Forbes, fortune and Fox News. The liberal media was scarred silly, the biggest boondoggle in liberal corporate America had just happened and it was with one of Clinton's supporters. How in the world will the SCLM report this one, they spin it and blame the conservatives!

Chp 9 is the shortest in the book and for good reason, it is about the media's treatment of Clinton. Most independent observers would grant that the Clinton team caught every break in the world from the American Media. If any one of the multitude of scandals had happened during a Republican presidents term the media would have been relentless in its coverage instead we had most issues barely mentioned. There were no Pulitzer prizes awarded for in-depth investigations, instead we had the biggest cover-up aided and abetted by the SCLM.

Contrast this coverage to that Clinton received in Europe, while the media their loved him as a man they hated his corruptness. The media in Europe excoriated him because of the scandals and did more in depth reporting than any American-I-voted-for-him,-I-love-him,-I-won't-say-a-bad-thing-about-him-reporter.

Chp 10 is a strange chapter about the 2000 election the only thing that it proves is that Nancy Reagan was right. Eric you should have just said NO, because the drugs have done strange things to your brain. Regardless of who you voted for, I voted for neither of them, one thing was imminently clear. Al Gore had been the media's darling since he was picked to be Bill Clinton's running mate 8+ years earlier. The media had crowned Prince Gore while showing universal hostility to Bush (no real surprise here).

Chp 11 speaking about the debacle in Florida can only be graciously said that Mr. Alterman is a supreme liar. The verifiable facts are as follows:

GW won all 4 state recounts

GW won 8 out of 9 NORC recounts. (This was the SCLM attempt to prove that Al Gore Won using their own money - it didn't work either.)

Al Gore filed the first lawsuit in the state to ban the counting of overseas military personal ballots.

The election was called for Gore 2 hours before the polls closed in Florida. This has been estimated by Democratic sources of disenfranchising 15,000 voters in the panhandle region. This region, btw, is the most conservative in Florida.

Al Gore only wanted liberal counties recounted, the state rules said that a whole state recount had to be done. This was what the supreme court fight was about.

The supreme courts first decision was 9-0 (Eric describes this as partisan???)

The supreme courts second decision was 7-2, meaning 3 liberal judges agreed that you can't change the rules after the election.

The demonstration in Miami was because the liberal media and the democrats took all the Dade County ballots and was going to do an official recount in private. Not one center or conservative person was allowed to participate.

As Stalin once said "He who casts the vote decides nothing. He who counts the vote decides everything."
... Read more

Isbn: 0465001769
Subjects:  1. General    2. Journalism    3. Journalism (General)    4. Journalistic ethics    5. Language Arts & Disciplines    6. Law Of The Press    7. Media Studies    8. Objectivity    9. Politics - Current Events    10. Politics/International Relations    11. USA    12. Current Events   

Blinded by the Right: The Conscience of an Ex-Conservative
by DAVID BROCK
Average Customer Review:
Hardcover (05 March, 2002)
list price: $25.95
US | Canada | United Kingdom | Germany | France

Editorial Review

David Brock made his name (and big money) by trashing Anita Hill as "alittle bit nutty and a little bit slutty." But it was Brock's reporting that wasnutty and slutty, he confesses in the riveting memoir Blinded by theRight. He absolves Hill; claims he helped Clarence Thomas threaten anotherwitness into backing down; portrays a ghastly right-wing Clinton-bashingconspiracy of hypocrites, zillionaires, and maniacs; and accuses himself ofbeing "a witting cog in the Republican sleaze machine." Now Brock is sliming hisformer fellows--everyone from the lawyer who argued the Bush v. Gore caseto gonzo pundits Ann Coulter and Laura Ingraham ("the only person I knew whodidn't appear to own a book or regularly read a newspaper") to Matt Drudge andTom Wolfe. Brock excoriates the gay hypocrites of the right wing, includinghimself, and tells how he cleverly spun his own outing. (He calls himself "theonly openly gay conservative in the country," evidently forgetting about the farmore open and famous Andrew Sullivan.)

If Brock says he was a liar for much of his life, how do we know he's not lyingnow? Blinded by the Right is less addicted to anonymous and third-handsources than the madcap character assassinations that made him famous, and it isinfinitely more plausible. But that doesn't make it necessarily true. (AnitaHill's lawyer has acidly observed that Brock confessed his Hill-related liesafter seven years, when the statute of limitations prevents suing for slander.)Dumped by the right after he wrote a non-hatchet-job book on Hillary Clinton,Brock profits by running to the arms of the center and left. But that doesn'tmake this book untrue. All I can tell you is you'll have to read it and decidefor yourself. And I'll bet you'll admit this mea-culpa memoir has the revolting,irresistible fascination of a bad car wreck. --Tim Appelo ... Read more

Reviews (342)

Something for Everyone
The longer reviews have explained well the overall contents of this book. If a book is correct to the extent it elicits howls of protest from those that it jabs, then this one is nearly infallible. Brock's personal journey through the corridors of the traditonal conservative republican wing, and then "dark forces" of the extreme right-wing (or perhaps more correctly the marriage of these two in the early 90s), as a self-described journalistic hit-man, is perhaps less eye-opening to those of us who know of many of the of characters that he presents to us, than it is a primer to what has become a Dantesque corruption of the Republic. It is a history of the win-at-all-costs tactics of mud slinging, splashing numerous people from Anita Hall through Al Gore, with several stops at Station Clinton on the way. For others, there are familiar names aplenty in the world of right-wing politics today.

This is a book for everyone: for Democrats it is an icy look at why the neocons and the thecons of today have somuch power, and why and how they will go to any length to keep it - and they might succeed in the near term. For Independents, the book is a template for making up your mind with whom you wish to align yourself morally when you cast a vote. And for Republicans: read it and then take a hard look in the mirror.

Lest I sound too partisan, Brock identifies weaknesses in the Left, both ideological and political. But I would be hard pressed to imagine that a "converted Liberal hit man" would be able to write such a book, and make it as convincingly scary as does Brock.

Scary insider profile of neocons
After having read Bill Clinton's autobiography as well as Sydney Blumenthal's "The Clinton Wars" and Joe Conason's "The Hunting of the President" as well as countless articles throughtout the Clinton presidency and after, it's hard to argue with Brock's insights about the sleazy and corrupt inner workings of the GOP's neocon movement. And no one really has a credible argument against this reporting in "Blinded."

What Brock's critics lay out as the essential flaws of this confessional narrative are that 1) Brock is unfairly snarky about the wingnuts he outs, and 2) that because Brock was a lying so-and-so before somehow proves he's still a lying so-and-so. Neither critism carries much weight, especially in light of what Brock has to offer readers.

Yes, Brock is guilty of using the same sort of quick and vicious descriptive hits in this book that he used to his advantage when he was a self-described right-wing hit man. In his old world, such "kills" would be met with howling approval; however, in the new territory he's entered -- that of progressives and liberal thinkers -- he's met with only tsk-tsks and reproach. Isn't this sort of holier-than-thou attitude what sent Brock straight to the neocon side in the first place? When Dems and progressives stop fingering worrybeads about every little perceived peccadillo people have, that's the day they'll start winning back voters. After all, Brock didn't write this book because he was at the end of his journey -- he wrote it as someone just beginning to understand where liberals are coming from.

Also, there's not much that rings untrue in "Blinded." Brock fesses up to several things -- such as making up facts in a story in college in order to make a colleague look bad, and to selling out a buddy in Washington (along with Ann Coulter) who he'd promised confidentiality to -- that make his overall confession more believable. He didn't need to spill his guts about these smaller incidents, but does -- which makes his larger confessions all that much more credible.

These two issues together moved me to hear him out, as painful as it was to relive the the grotesqueries carried out against the Clintons. Brock is and protrays himself as imperfect -- his snarky asides are reserved not only for his former friends, but for himself as well. One can see this clearly in his assessment of his own journalistic standards and practices. Take a look at his previous work, such as "The Real Anita Hill" -- irresponsible and unethical (not to mention libelous) journalism, and just plain terrible writing. "Blinded," though, is clearly a turning point in terms of both truth-seeking and truth-telling, and the writing is measured, well-paced and engaging. Further proof of his intentions to seek and tell the truth, for those that need it, are his involvement with Media Matters for America, the Web-based nonprofit devoted to correcting misinformation in the media, and his latest work, "The Republican Noise Machine: Right-Wing Media and How it Corrupts Democracy." Brock's conversion story ends satisfactorily in the book -- especially in that he is alone, between two worlds that both feverishly dislike him -- but also in his living up to the intentions he establishes for his life after that conversion. They say there is no zealot like the newly converted -- in this case, we can only hope Brock's conversion experience and resulting zeal has an proselytizing effect on those he left behind.

Other reviews here miss the point
I always read the one star reviews first. And most of them, for this book, are misguided.

First off, Brock never claims any loyalty or affiliations with the Democratic party. So to call this some leftist hate slander treasonous etc etc is just ignorant. At the end of the book, Brock has broken his last meaningful ties with his ex-conservative friends, and sits in a political purgatory. He is exchanging ideas with a member of the left, Sidney Blumenthal, about Clinton. Brock admits to being very skeptical of Sidney to begin with, as he does not want to become the puppet of the other side just as he had been with the conservatives. His conclusion is that, contrary to his belief, there were some nice people on the left.

The first line of his epilogue, he states "In the fall of 2000, I registered to vote as an INDEPENDENT" (emphasis mine).

I've seen a review state that he changes sides like he changes his socks. Brock was a conservative, in practice, for 18 years. So that claim is absurd.

Brock exposes the journalistic integrity that was gradually forsaken as he strived to become an important member of the party, aided by those who wanted to use his skills to keep Democrats out of power. Brock admits freely that he harbors no ill will towards his ex friends, because HE is entirely responsible for his own actions and self-delusions. his intent was to expose the influences and pressures prevalent in the movement.

The argument that he wrote this to make a buck is silly, too. Brock was well aware that, had "The Seduction of Hillary Rodham" towed the party line, and bashed the first lady, he would, again, have been a millionaire. (He collected his advance, but gave up any future book deals by refusing to discredit Hillary in his book). Initally, after leaving the conservative movement, Brock played the brainwashed role, and refused culpability for his writings (confessions of a right wing hit-man). He makes clear that writing this book is also a way to expose his own lack of integrity and unwillingness to be true to himself as major reasons for his actions. This is the only way to reestablish trust.

I think every time O'Reilly and Hannity (and even the president) refuse to admit their own faults and lies in the face of evidence to the contrary, makes them WEAKER and less trustworthy. I can forgive a guy who says, "Ya, my fault".

ALSO, Brock mentions many times that he thinks the people he was dealing with were NOT representaive of the entire conservative movement, much less the Republican party. He states that those he dealt with, the Scaife's and the Olson's and the Barr's, the ones funding and informing HIS magazines and books, acted this way. Brock notes several times how Republicans often rejected the idealistic extremes of the neo-cons, and that some were appalled by the head hunting of Clinton. Brock is making an observation about his situation, which was no doubt influential in the conservative movement, but is not ever meant to represent everyone on the right. Brock also never claims that no one on the Left acts that way either. But since he doesn't have the experience of 'being on the left', he can't comment on it. That's a major point of the book...the pundits that said the most vile things about Hillary were the ones that were least familiar with her.

So please don't ascribe motives and theories about Brock's book that don't have any refernece to what he actually wrote. ... Read more

Isbn: 0812930991
Subjects:  1. 1946-    2. 1962-    3. 20th century    4. Adversaries    5. Biography    6. Brock, David,    7. Clinton, Bill,    8. Conservatism    9. Conspiracies    10. Government - U.S. Government    11. History    12. History & Theory - General    13. Journalists    14. Political Process - Political Parties    15. Political Science    16. Politics - Current Events    17. Politics/International Relations    18. U.S. Practical Politics    19. United States    20. United States - 20th Century    21. United States - 20th Century (1945 to 2000)    22. Biography & Autobiography / Political    23. Brock, David    24. Clinton, Bill   

Had Enough? : A Handbook for Fighting Back
by James Carville, Jeff Nussbaum
Average Customer Review:
Hardcover (01 November, 2003)
list price: $23.00 -- our price: $16.10
(price subject to change: see help)
US | Canada | United Kingdom | Germany | France

Editorial Review

Veteran political strategist James Carville has always had a knack for being concise. He is, after all, credited with coining "It's the economy, stupid" while directing the 1992 presidential campaign of Bill Clinton. And as host of CNN's Crossfire, he favored a combative in-your-face approach that stood in stark contrast to the stereotype of the mushy liberal. In Had Enough, Carville, along with co-author Jeff Nussbaum, takes that economic phrasing and aggressive style to offer a handbook for lefties tired of losing arguments and elections. To point out how fundamentally misguided he believes the GOP to be, Carville goes straight to the preamble to the U.S. Constitution. While Republicans can be credited with providing for the common defense, Carville says, they have failed miserably on all other directives issued by the founding fathers on what government is supposed to do, including promoting the general welfare, establishing justice, ensuring domestic tranquility, and securing the blessings of liberty for ourselves and posterity. Although the arguments are not remarkably different from those made in a slew of other lefty books (Bush's tax cuts favor the rich, Republicans seek to curtail civil liberties), the book also offers "Had Enough" solutions to pressing issues of public policy that will come in handy for liberals looking to defeat a conservative brother-in-law in a political argument or even hold their own on Crossfire. These solutions always sound eminently reasonable, although that's due in large part to their being contrasted to Carville's interpretation of Bush and company's approach ("Use everything as an excuse to dig, drill, and burn.") Still, Carville and Nussbaum make a cogent, impassioned, and highly entertaining indictment of the Bush administration, which, combined with a smattering of incongruously placed but nonetheless tempting Cajun recipes, makes Had Enough a worthwhile read. --John Moe ... Read more

Reviews (61)

Thank you James Carville!
This book is a turbo charged read from front to back. This book is straight up with info and great recipes! I miss this kind of passion and brilliant logic from a kick ass progressive like Carville. I wish the democratic party could syphon some of these truthful observations and form a platform to stand on!

The Best book for Lefties or righties
I read this book straight through from front to back.It was asbolutely amazing.the Ragin' Cajun makes his points easy to understand and doesn't over-do it with political mumbo jumbo that the regular joe can't understand.

Whether you are a liberal or Neo-con everyone should read it.It brings up valid points with great evidence.By far Carville's best book.

I LOVE YOU, JAMES CARVILLE
Like the title of my review says, I love you James, even though I'm probably young enough to be your granddaughter (I just turned 21).

Ever since I've become politically active (I didn't get to vote in the 2000 election), I've watched you on Cable, and you make the points about how horrible this Bushwacker is so clearly and down to earth that even someone new to politics like me can understand the complicated nature of it all. I went to every demonstration and Democratic rally I could down here in Florida. It is sad that it was all for nothing.

This book continues that plain, truthful speech, only in much more detail. I understood the inner workings of politics and the corruption of that by "Dick" Cheney and Carl Rove, the real Co-Presidents of the United States, so much further after reading this book.

This book is a must read for anyone who hates what Bush is doing to us and is still part of the peaceful, but forceful, resistance. The only book I suggest even more is Bill Jabanoski's SCARECROW because it not only explains what James Carville does, it leaves you in tears with its graphic reporting on the cost in REAL human lives that Cheney, Rove, and their frontman Bush have caused and now will keep causing.

Please. I'm 21. I want to have children someday. I want the same chance that those of you who are older than me had, until four years ago, to live my life in a Free country that doesn't treat justice like it's a joke, deliberately destroys the environment, and can't wait for the next war. Please. Read this book and Jabanoski's. Please don't stop resisting. ... Read more

Isbn: 0743255755
Subjects:  1. General    2. Government - U.S. Government    3. Political Advocacy    4. Political Process - Leadership    5. Political Science    6. Political participation    7. Political planning    8. Politics - Current Events    9. Politics and government    10. Politics, Practical    11. Politics/International Relations    12. United States    13. Political Science / General   

We're Right, They're Wrong : A Handbook for Spirited Progressives
by JAMES CARVILLE
Average Customer Review:
Paperback (20 February, 1996)
list price: $12.95 -- our price: $10.36
(price subject to change: see help)
US | Canada | United Kingdom | Germany | France

Editorial Review

James Carville, chief strategist of Clinton's 1992 War Room, puts the Democrats on the offensive again with this no-holds-barredresponse to the Republican "Contract With America".Witty, savvy, and just plain smart, this may be the most provocative book of the 1996 campaign season. ... Read more

Reviews (68)

Go, James, Go!!!!
To mr_tack_driver

I just had to respond to your question "did you see that happening when Clinton was president?"Just what planet were you living on during those 8 years?So the republicans are just trying to do what is right and not give anyone hell?Does the name Ken Starr ring any bells in that empty head of yours?

Entertaining and unapologetic.
I think Carville's greatest strength comes from being an unapologetic, entertaining, not-overtly intellectual liberal. Although I feel a little bit of trepidation about the fiery, "Conservatives Are Evil" rhetoric (I'm inclined to believe that liberals should stay above the partisan fray that the rabid neo-cons so adore), I'm realizing that possibly the only way we can win back the White House and Congress is by stooping to the lowest common denominator and striving to entertain the electorate.

Anyway, Carville is a hilarious writer, and an inspiring general for young liberals like myself, and this book is excellent at outlining the inherent hypocrisy, immorality, and illogicality of many of the platforms of modern neo-conservatives. I recommend it wholeheartedly.

Time to beat the walls!
This book would be a very funny book if it were not so true.

We have been mislead for years now and many gullible Americans have walked willingly into an imaginary world which has been presented as kind, supportive, and evenhanded. Mr. Carville in We're Right, They're Wrong has turned on the lights and the there is much scarring for the baseboards, as any self-respecting cockroach would.

Read this book... it is time for progressive democrats to stand up and start stomping our feet... ... Read more

Isbn: 0679769781
Subjects:  1. 1989-    2. 1993-2001    3. Economic Conditions    4. Federal government    5. General    6. Government - U.S. Government    7. Political Process - Political Parties    8. Political Science    9. Politics - Current Events    10. Politics and government    11. Politics/International Relations    12. U.S. - Contemporary Politics    13. United States    14. Political Science / General   

Big Lies: The Right-Wing Propaganda Machine and How It Distorts the Truth
by Joe Conason
Average Customer Review:
Hardcover (25 May, 2003)
list price: $24.95 -- our price: $9.98
(price subject to change: see help)
US | Canada | United Kingdom | Germany | France

Editorial Review

Conservative talk show hosts and newspaper columnists have made an industry out of incessantly deriding the American left, citing liberals for everything from moral decay to bad economic policy to a soft approach on terrorism. Often these accusations are bound in book form and sell quite well. Only one problem, according to Salon.com and New York Observer writer Joe Conason: the charges they're leveling just aren't true. In Big Lies, Conason dissects 10 of the most persistent, and--according to him--glaringly incorrect, arguments made by conservatives. Each chapter begins with a quotation ("Liberals control the media and misuse their influence to promote left-wing politics," "Conservatives are the only true champions of free enterprise"), which is then picked apart using statistical evidence and detailed historical research and rejected. The modern right wing, in the opinion of Conason, is not the bastion of virtue and defender of the common man it claims to be. Rather, it is a calculating and shrewdly efficient group of propagandists fueled by revenues generated by a system that rewards cronyism. Granted, it doesn't take much to deflate the bombast of shrill political talk show hosts whose very living depends on making shocking accusations about public figures, a couple of raw facts usually does the trick, but Conason offers more than simple refutation, going deeper to challenge the presumptions that generate such platitudes. And he navigates a highly readable and informative writing style that feels more substantive than Molly Ivins and Al Franken but still a lot wittier than Noam Chomsky. Many of Conason's arguments, like those of his foes, naturally come down to matters of opinion, and published material can readily be found to back up nearly any perspective. Nonetheless, he presents clear and logical points, and his thinking is well supported by both the historical record and empirical data. Accusing Joe Conason of lies (of any size) would certainly be a difficult task.--John Moe ... Read more

Reviews (147)

Liberal Mantra: Bush, LIAR! Bush, WARMONGER! Waaaa, Waaaa!!!

Conason organizes chapters so each "revenges" (hallucinatory liberals' embellishment!) allegedly smearing accusations conservatives fling towards liberals. Displeasingly, this plan's appreciable from strict, coherence stndpoints. Conason's tone isn't as infernal in his monstrously devious cunning as his demeaningly liberal peers, who're ALL hazardously untamed in Bush-antagonism. Shyster Conason's still unforgivable in his slanderous pollutedness of scornfully branding rightists, when he defrauded in his unholy Introduction that his tripe WOULDN'T be narrow-mindedly adverse, like his ostracized peers'!!!! In Ch.7, dissuasively, his furious, up-to-then secretive partiality rears its UGLY head and savages ANY remediableness his "work" has of being reasonable.

Although Ch.8-10 are vilest, treachery in Conason's disrespectable "arguments" materializes. Conason stoops to untrustworthiness in his Introduction, when he incompetently forges that liberals are majority by misusing poll results regarding universal healthcare!!!! Conason vindictively neglects mentioning those biased "polls" occur ONLY during adverse economies, like polls last fall showed because of the economy's unprogressive downturn-which HAS rebounded.

Judo for the Progressive Soul
The most noteworthy aspect of Joe Conason's writing is its clarity and concision.Like some sort of debate monster, he immediately cuts to the core of issues and uses documented research to make his points.That isn't to say that he's wimpy or nonconfrontational.Conason lets the reader know exactly how he feels, but without trying to mislead.He's more than happy to cite the bias of the sources that he quotes, and turns that into another strength-- conservatives' arguments are shown to be fraudulent by their own admission, or at least a simple look at the facts.

As such, is strikes me as being one of the most useful books out there in terms of presenting arguments in the most effective-- and honest-- means imaginable.I admire Conason for his level head and cool dememanor.His media appearances back him up.Conason has the unflappable attitude of a kung-fu flick Zen master.

'Big Lies' is a fascinating and quick read, filled with invaluable nuggets of information that any progressive ought to know.And at the price, you can hardly miss.Highly recommended.

Now watch closely as the right-wing zombie brigade checks off my review as un-helpful.Sheesh.

Not what I was hoping for
I read this book and Ann Coulter's Slander book one after the other.

I'm not American, so it was an exercise of personal interest, rather than something I'm emotionally involved in.

By way of comparison I found this book to be somewhat more rhetorical in nature than Coulter's, and less founded in examples and references. As an analytical writer myself I have to admit to preferring the well documented style of Coulter's book.

I can see that Americans are pretty divided one way or the other over which perspective they hold, but to a foreigner they're both interesting books.

I really wanted to like this book too, but I just found Conason a little too heavy on rhetoric, and a little too light on providing well documented examples and references. ... Read more

Isbn: 0312315600
Subjects:  1. 1993-2001    2. 2001-    3. American    4. Conservatism    5. General    6. Government - U.S. Government    7. Political Doctrines    8. Political Ideologies - Conservatism & Liberalism    9. Political Process - Political Parties    10. Political Science    11. Politics - Current Events    12. Politics and government    13. Politics/International Relations    14. Propaganda, American    15. Right and left (Political science)    16. U.S. Practical Politics    17. United States    18. Political Science / Political Parties   

The Hunting of the President : The Ten-Year Campaign to Destroy Bill and Hillary Clinton
by Joe Conason, Gene Lyons
Average Customer Review:
Paperback (03 February, 2001)
list price: $14.95 -- our price: $10.17
(price subject to change: see help)
US | Canada | United Kingdom | Germany | France

Editorial Review

Unhappy reading for Republicans or political naïfs, The Hunting of the President is the story of a sustained and well-funded effort to discredit and defeat Bill Clinton, dating from his gubernatorial days in Arkansas and eventually leading to his impeachment trial. Award-winning journalists Joe Conason and Gene Lyons have crafted a tale as compulsively readable as a political thriller--paced, and at times worded, like a summer bestseller. Although they provide ample evidence of backstabbing, revenge, deceit, conniving, and "dirty tricks" in the struggle to oust Clinton, arguing that "the better the president and the country did, the more his adversaries appeared willing to endorse almost anything short of assassination to do him in," they also acknowledge that Clinton's reckless behavior, along with the "panicky, defensive, and occasionally less-than-perfectly-honest" responses of the White House press office, didn't hurt his opponents. Investigative journalism at its juiciest, The Hunting of the President is a surprising valediction to a far-from-angelic public leader who often outmaneuvered his enemies with otherworldly skill. --Regina Marler ... Read more

Reviews (190)

George "Duh-Buh-Ya" Bush
I always like to read some of the cute reviews from the conservative "cool-aid" drinkers, and how Bill and Hillary wanted to take our guns away! Yee-Haa!!!! Now we got ourselves a ree-pub-nican president!!!! Did you hear that Elli Mae??? We can now buy 50 caliper armor piercing rounds to shoot that big kill!!!! Or how the "sex obsessed" repug-nicans (MMMM SEX BAD!!), who never have sex or affairs with other women, end up somehow sticking their nose into someone else's little escapades. (A.K.A. Rudi Guliani) and his extra marital affairs with multiple women. Or how "George Of Arabia" sent otherwise good kids to war based on a lie. Or is it how that republicans have that moral high ground over liberals, especially when Newt Gingerich served divorce papers on his wife the day after she was recovering from cancer surgery. I think what is sick and disgusting about the whole Clinton thing, is how the republican controlled congress throughout the late 90's had spent millions of dollars investigating everything of the "Clinton matters", from Whitewater to Lewinsky. I read somewhere that over two-hundred FBI agents were assigned to investigate such matters. What if those two-hundred FBI agents had been doing their real job, like returning phone calls from flight training schools, and protecting the American public??? And I think Mr. Gingerich, and Mr. Lott, and the Republican party, owe the American people, and the families of those 3,000 dead; A HUGE F***ing APOLIGY!!!!! For wasting... for wasting the time of our law enforcement, who should have been protecting the American people, instead of looking at stains on blue dresses!!!!! It was the most disgusting period, and lost time.

to S. Crowe- real name
If you're going to submit a review filled with vitriol and allegations of stupidity, you may want to try using spellcheck.

All You Really Need To Know
I lived in Arkansas from 1993 through 1997. Gene Lyons - who was known far and wide as Gene Liars just within the city of Little Rock - has less credibility than Jose Canseco. All anyone needs to know is this: Lyons is the guy who went on "Meet The Press" during the Lewinsky scandal and said that Clinton had 'NEVER' had an extramarital affair with Lewinsky - and he, in essence, blamed the women in a sort of 'reverse Clarence Thomas' defense.

I read the book and it was even less credible than I thought it would be given Lyons' name on it. The conspiracy is incredibly similar to the movie "JFK" where everyone in America EXCEPT for Lee Harvey Oswald was involved in the attempt to kill him. Arkla, Jerry Jones, Richard Mellon Scaife, Fox News Channel - probably even Jimmy Hoffa - were involved in 'destroying Clinton.'

The problems with the notion of a 'vast right-wing' conspiracy - which sounds like something taken out of Pat Robertson's book, "The New World Order" or its predecessor written by an anti-Semitic author, are numerous.

For starters, the opening scandal of Clinton's administration - and what really caused the problems - was Whitewater. Had the media been 'frothing at the mouth' as is often assumed, the NY Times would have destroyed Clinton in April 1992 when Jerry Brown first brought it up in the NY primary. Yet let's consider the FACTS of the entire thing:

1. The original Independent Counsel, Robert Fiske, was appointed by Attorney General Janet Reno in January 1994 - or an entire year before the GOP took over the Congress.

2. His replacement, Kenneth Starr, was appointed by Reno - also in 1994. How this can possibly be the result of a party out of power is beyond my ability to comprehend.

3. Clinton signed on an extension of the Independent Counsel law after it expired. Do you blame Clinton for keeping it going?

4. In the final analysis, it was the President who lied under oath and then did everything possible including attempting to bribe the Senate for an acquittal. Even if we concede that the GOP hired Monica to perform her only obvious talent, they didn't make him take the stand and they didn't make him lie.

5. If this right-wing conspiracy was so strong why could they not:
a. beat Clinton in 1992?
b. beat Clinton in 1996?
c. remove Clinton from office?

At some point a reality check is due - and this book hardly qualifies as one. Lyons and Conason had NO PROBLEM when it was Presidents Nixon and Reagan - and even the first Bush - who were being investigated by Indpendent Counsels. What did Nixon do? Cover up what we all know parties do to one another anyway. What did Reagan do? Violated an unconstitutional law (the Boland amendments).

I'm not advocating what the GOP 'did' to Clinton; but don't ever forget that it would have been impossible with Clinton's self-indulgent help. Just think: the only reason Clinton met Monica in the first place was because he shut down the government in late 1995 and the White House needed free help. ... Read more

Isbn: 0312273193
Subjects:  1. 20th century    2. Conspiracies    3. Conspiracy & Scandal Investigations    4. Current Affairs    5. Government - U.S. Government    6. History    7. Journalism    8. Libel and slander    9. Political    10. Political aspects    11. Politics - Current Events    12. Politics/International Relations    13. United States    14. Political Science / General   

Lies and the Lying Liars Who Tell Them: A Fair and Balanced Look at the Right
by AlFranken
Average Customer Review:
Hardcover (29 August, 2003)
list price: $24.95 -- our price: $9.98
(price subject to change: see help)
US | Canada | United Kingdom | Germany | France

Editorial Review

Having previously dissected the factual inaccuracies of a single bellicose talk show host inRush Limbaugh Is a Big Fat Idiot, Al Franken takes his fight to a larger foe: President George W. Bush, the Bush Administration, Ann Coulter, Bill O’Reilly, and scores of other conservatives whom, he says, are playing loose with the facts. It's a lot of ground to cover, as evidenced by the 43 chapters in Lies and the Lying Liars Who Tell Them, but the results are often entertaining and insightful. Franken occupies a unique place in the modern political dialogue as perhaps the media's only comedy writer and performer who is also a Harvard fellow as well as a liberal political commentator. This unique and vaguely lonely position lends a charming quixotic quality to adventures such as a tense encounter with the Fox News staff at the National Press Club, a challenge to fisticuffs with National Review Editor Rich Lowry, and an oddly sweet admissions visit to ultra-conservative Bob Jones University (with a young research assistant posing as his son when Franken's real-life son refuses to participate in the charade). Less useful are comic book dramatizations of "Supply Side Jesus" and a fictitious Vietnam War story featuring the numerous righties who, Franken intimates, improperly avoided service. And Franken's criticisms of conservative talk show hosts Sean Hannity, O’Reilly, and columnist Coulter, while admirable in their attention to detail, fail to shed much new light on people who have built careers on broad arguments and relentless self-aggrandizement. But Franken is at his best, and most compellingly readable, when he backs off the wackiness and the personal grudges and writes about more personal matters such as the political circus surrounding the memorial service of the late Senator Paul Wellstone. But even on these more serious topics, Franken's wit is still present and, in fact, grows sharper. In a time when much political discourse is composed of rage and shouting, it's refreshing that Al Franken is able to shout in a witty manner. --John Moe ... Read more

Reviews (2988)

Public Service to readers
May 22nd, 2005, ChronWatch.com reports interesting testimony in court proceedings against the author. To summarize the report, Franken is inundated with libel suits from this book. The path to safety is for the author to testify that this book is not meant to be truthful, it is a fictional joke book. Case dismissed. Isn't this IRONIC!! A book with this title is full of lies??!! The Michael Moore school of journalism welcomes another graduate!I can visualize Moore and Franken seated side by side with former President Carter at the 2008 Dem convention, watching Whoopi delight the crowd with her keen political insight as Kutcher applauds in the background. Laterwe see GOP raise Senate count from 55 to 80!

Everyone is a Liar, A Fair & Balanced Review
From the time you got caught with your hand in the cookie jar at age 3..."Honey, are you taking that cookie I told you not to take?"..."No, Mommy" (while your hand is still in the jar)...to my grandson, who after eating his half of the fries last week, informed me that his tardy brother "didn't like fries"...and during all of humanity, people have learned to lie.At a college party, researchers videoed the conversations, then isolated selected students and showed them the video.The students had to admit, just during meaningless conversation, they lied an average of 50% of the time they spoke.I forgot the real statistic, so I'm lying, but that's close.

In any event, lying is part of life, whether you're a death row felon or the Pope (sorry to break this to the Catholics).The idea is to be the most convincing liar, and that means a liar who is so good at it, he has even deluded himself (He believes his own...well, you know what I mean).

Anyway, since I expect politicians (or anybody else) to lie, I feel guilty that I am not current on the specific lying situation in the highest levels of government, as I certainly should be.I will say that whenever I do read or hear political statements on either side, I hear a lot more polemics than I think are represented in the general public.Academic political scientists assure us that the good old US is hopelessly reddish-blue and centrist, even on abortion, sexual orientation, and other supposedly devisive issues.

Now that I got that out of the way, may I compliment Al Franken on his audio presentation, which was not only extremely funny, but (if he's not lying) very well researched.I'll have to admit, even I realized after only seeing Hannity & Colmes once, that Colmes was pretty wimpy with his liberal rebuttals (not near as good a liar as Hannity).Extrapolating from that controlled study of 1, the rest of Franken's inspired work MUST be true.

A Lying Liar makes it big!Franken play fast and loose!

"Franken says that the Republican party as a whole, is a racist party and finds every excuse he can to justify that label. He scoffs at the party of Lincoln that freed the slaves and disregards the fact that more Republicans than Democrats voted for the civil rights bill.

Franken thinks the Trent Lott comment about Strom Thurmond (Lott said that things would have been better off had Thurmond ) was racist and see's it fit to indict the Republican party with racism. The issue wasn't as black and white (pardon the pun) as Franken dishonestly represents it however. He of course doesn't mention the liberal pundits that supported Lott in saying it was just a freaking offhanded comment at the mans birthday party for Christ sakes, nor does Franken mention the conservatives that hammered down on him over it. Rich Lowry elaborates on the latter point:

Franken deals with the Trent Lott/Strom Thurmond controversy without noting that conservatives helped publicize Lott's comments and called for him to step aside, including National Review. If you are writing a book about conservatives, this would seem a pretty important datum to include. But Franken bulldozes on. He argues that Republicans are "racist," (p. 255) and only make gestures toward blacks to try - futilely - to avoid appearing too "overtly racist." (p. 256) (Later, he does say that not "all Republicans are racist," in what, in this book, qualifies as a generous concession.) (p. 259) He suggests -- sort of jokingly, but not really -- that the Bush tax cuts were motivated by racial bigotry. And he notes that black poverty declined under Clinton without mentioning the Republican-sponsored welfare reform of 1996 that had a big hand in this trend.

Lowry continues:

--Franken partly rests his case for the racism of the Republican party on the defeat of Sen. Max Cleland in Georgia in 2002. He quotes Cleland saying that his defeat was the result of a backlash against a change in the state flag in 2001 by then-Gov. Roy Barnes, a Democrat, to de-emphasize the St. Andrew's Cross - a symbol of segregation - in the state flag. Franken says that Cleland was undone by a "racist avalanche." Cleland himself alleges in the book that the Republican party did push-polling on the issue of the flag, thus doing him in. Franken offers no evidence for Cleland's outrageous claim, I assume because there is none. (Franken didn't even bother to check with the Georgia GOP official mentioned by name as the mastermind of the push-polling - what were those research assistants doing?)

Sonny Perdue, who would defeat Barnes for governor, didn't oppose the change in the flag, but called for a referendum on it. It was on the ballot on March 2, and the Barnes flag won. (CORRECTION: I was wrong about the Barnes flag. It actually lost a couple of weeks ago to yet another version of the Georgia flag, which seems broadly acceptable to all sides. As the Palm Beach Post put it in this story, "Black and white voters across Georgia finally have a flag on which they can agree." I regret the error.)

The only candidate I am aware of who featured the old flag and his support for it on his campaign literature in 2002 was a Democrat, Mike Snow from Northwest Georgia. The Atlanta Journal-Constitution reported in October 2002, "Nearly two years after the fact, a majority of Georgia voters either favor the change made in the state flag-or say they don't care." All of this hardly adds up to a "racist avalanche" burying Cleland.

Also, during this "racist avalanche," Georgia was re-electing a black attorney general and a black labor commissioner. When I tried to figure out why Franken would leave this fact out of his account of the 2002 election, I came up with a few possibilities: a) he didn't know; b) he worried it wouldn't fit his thesis; c) his editor demanded that he trim 28 words from his final manuscript and these just happened to be the ones; d) Franken figured the Georgia "racist avalanche" buried a white candidate, but spared black candidates -- you know, that happens in racist avalanches all the time.

What possibly, then, could have led to the defeat of Max Cleland if not racism? Franken and other liberals have complained bitterly about a tough ad against him which featured Osama bin Laden and Saddam Hussein. Cleland wasn't "pictured with" the two as Franken says. (p. 254) If we're being sticklers for accuracy, neither was Cleland wounded by a "VC grenade," as Franken maintains. (p.163) The ad didn't morph Cleland into either of these figures, or say that he supported them, or question his patriotism. Bin Laden and Hussein were used to illustrate the point that the U.S. was facing threats to its security. It then explained that Cleland had voted 11 times against a homeland security bill that would have given President Bush freedom from union strictures in creating and running the new department. Cleland was voting against a bill sponsored by his popular Senate colleague Zell Miller, a Democrat, setting himself up perfectly for the charge that he was voting with Daschle and the unions against Georgia common sense. If you can't criticize the Senate votes of a Senator in a Senate race, what can you criticize? Cleland had also made himself vulnerable on national security, taxes, and social issues.

Franken mentions none of this because he is so busy advancing his unsupportable racism allegation. In doing so, he relies on a stereotype of Southerners that should be fading into nonexistence. As Zell Miller notes in his book, in 1990 there were 565 African-American officeholders in the South. In 2000, there were 5,579. Georgia has elected seven African-American to statewide office, this in a state that is 70 percent white. There is no other word for Franken's stilted account of all this except dishonest."

http://www.lyingliar.com/lies/racism.htm ... Read more

Isbn: 0525947647
Subjects:  1. 2001-    2. Conservatism    3. General    4. Humor    5. Political Doctrines    6. Political Ideologies - Conservatism & Liberalism    7. Political aspects    8. Politics - Current Events    9. Politics and government    10. Politics/International Relations    11. Right and left (Political science)    12. Topic - Political    13. Truthfulness and falsehood    14. U.S. Practical Politics    15. United States   

Rush Limbaugh is a Big Fat Idiot
by AL FRANKEN
Average Customer Review:
Hardcover (01 January, 1996)
list price: $21.95
US | Canada | United Kingdom | Germany | France

Editorial Review

Rush Limbaugh claims his talent is on loan. With this book, Franken demonstrates that he owns. The frankly Democratic author's shtick reminds us how much of a free ride conservatives have gotten in the mainstream media.For instance, he really drives home the weirdness of the conservatives' preachiness about "family values" in light of Newt Gingrich's and Bob Dole's first marriages, and Rush Limbaugh's first, second and third marriages.And he has great fun with Rush's and Newt's miraculous draft deferments in a chapter where he imagines all of the great conservative "chicken-hawks" out on a Vietnam war patrol under the leadership of Ollie North. ... Read more

Reviews (373)

A Delightful Read
No one shows up the ugly rhetoric and lies of the right better than the adorable Al Franken!A true masterpiece, I'm happy to say.You will particularly enjoy "Operation Chicken Hawk" and Al's "interview" with Rush.He takes Rush's vicious hate filled lies and shows him up for the bully he is.Bravo, Al!We love you: I hear you're writing a new book and I can't wait.

A big fat hit
FRanken's book put the big noisemaker squarely in his sites and hits his target repeatedly. Taking Limbaugh's books and dismatling them almost quote by quote Franken never relents in his attacks against the dj turned political freak. Franken takes potshots, cheapshots, and honest-to-goodness kill-shots at Rush and basically turns Limbaugh's shoot-from-the-hip style against him. All this can basically be found at news and media watchdogs website like FAIR (who constantly uncovers Rush's lies and dis-information)but Franken delivers them with a wink and a punch. This book was really the first salvo against the mighty Limbaugh who enjoyed absolute AM radio dominence in the 1990s and actually brought about his slow steady decline (which only opened the door for other right-wing haters/nazis such as Michael Savage and Bill O'Reilly). As usual, Franken is meticulous in his research and everthing can be backed up by fact. That's why Franken is soooo good, his facts can be checked and proven.

Limbaugh
I've listened to Limbaugh's show a couple of times and have come to the conclusion that Limbaugh's show is not very thoughtful or compassionate. He attacks people all day on the radio and displays so little class. This book is also negative, but you get what you give, and it shows that Limbaugh is a human being with flaws, something Limbaugh seems to forget when passing judgement on everyone under the sun. Skim through it and see what a hypocrite Limbaugh is. It is just returning to Limbaugh what he has given to others. And for that, I applaud it. ... Read more

Isbn: 0385314744
Subjects:  1. 1993-2001    2. 1996    3. American Satire And Humor    4. Election    5. General    6. Humor    7. Political satire, American    8. Politics and government    9. Presidential candidates    10. Presidents    11. U.S. Practical Politics    12. United States    13. United States - 20th Century    14. Limbaugh, Rush H   

The Oh Really? Factor : Unspinning Fox News Channel's Bill O'Reilly
by Peter Hart, Fairness & Accuracy in Reporting
Average Customer Review:
Paperback (01 September, 2003)
list price: $8.95 -- our price: $8.95
(price subject to change: see help)
US | Canada | United Kingdom | Germany | France

Reviews (50)

All you people applauding this crap need to grow up
Folks, I will be graduating in a month with a degree in journalism. It was by watching Bill O'Reilly that I became inspired to become a journalist. There is so much liberal bias in the media and liberals feel threatened by people like O'Reilly and Sean Hannity that want to unspin it. Liberals who claim to be all for diversity are the most intolerant people of all: they accept the free speech of anybody (as long as they say what the liberals want them to say). If they deviat from the liberal rhetoric in anyway, the liberals use their common tactic.They smear the image of the reporter and call him a liar. This book is a perfect example of that, the author simply cannot stand the fact that a conservative reporter is on the television. Mr. Hart is porbably more angry at the fact that Bill is so popular. When he makes a brief passing mention of how popular O'Reilly is he states that this book is not intent on explaining his popularity. Nice try, Mr. Hart, but you can't weasel your way out of it so fast. Let me explain why Bill and Fox News in general is so much more popualr than any other news station. They are the only ones that show things from a different perspective!! Did that ever occur to you? Tey state facts that other left-wing stations conveniently forget to mention. As for Bill being bias, well, I can't deny that he is. But a journalist is not always one who states facts without prejudice there are many type of reporters, and news analysts (unlike straight forward eporters) have the job of giving opinion to the news. If Mr. Hart were really fair and honored the title of his organization, e would also make a book about the bias of Michael Moore, AL Franken, and any other news channel. There is a lot more ammunition there.

Makes O'Reilly look pretty ridiculous
FAIR quotes O'Reilly's citation of a Heritage Foundation study which claimed to show that the average poor family receives $40,000 a year in government subsidies. They note that this study from that great intellectual organization calculated into their $40,000 figure, government programs like Medicare, Pell Grants and reduced school lunches which go to non-poor families. In a show shortly after, O'Reilly would further go off from reality, changing the statistic from $40,000 per family to $40,000 "per person."

O'Reilly claimed in 1999 that the average American was paying twice as much taxes as back in 1985, but his figures cited from the Census Bureau did not include adjustments for inflation which the Bureau provided in a nearby table that O'Reilly ignored. The latter figure made the average figures 1985 at $7,335 and 10,388 in 2001. Of course, incomes, at least of the rich, went up during that time, so taxes inevitably did too. Average incomes figures are skewed upwards because of inclusion of incomes of the rich minority. The average tax payments of the middle fifth of income earners have been relatively stable since 1977, according to Congressional Budget office numbers.

O'reilly claimed that according to the Federal Government 58 percent-then a little later, he lowered it to 52%-of single mother homes are on welfare. He was later forced to admit that the figure was actually about 14 percent, but claimed it should be about 33 percent when single mother food stamp recipients, which should be considered welfare according to him, would be computed into the stat.

During one show, O'Reilly stated that according to a study at Columbia University, 20 percent of welfare recipients were using drugs, 15 percent according estimates of the U.S. dept. of Health and Human Services. Some shows later he was saying that every study, including Columbia's, showed that"anywhere from 30 to 50 percent" of welfare recipients were on drugs.

O'Reilly denounced a black Florida state representative for attacking Jeb Bush on the ground that the latter's policies had resulted in blacks being 37 percent of students at Florida's colleges. FAIR quotes the Jacksonville Sun Times that the 37 percent figure actually accounted for all minorities at Florida colleges.

O'Reilly complained that concern over the tens of millions who lack health insurance was nonsense because he claimed one could receive free care in any emergency room. FAIR quotes an analyses by David Himmelstein and Steffie Woolhandler of a 1987 National Health Expenditure Survey which found that that year, when the number of people w/o health insurance was smaller, that 945,000 were unable to receive care in emergency rooms that year, two thirds of those 945,000 citing high costs of the care or lack of insurance.

O'reilly predictably enjoys bashing the wicked and cowardly French whom he said opposed the Kosovo war but Clinton ignored their objections, "to his credit." Of course, FAIR notes, the French actually supported that war and provided the NATO alliance's second largest air force.

O'Reilly announced on one show that he had a dossier detailing how Al Jazeera didn't report Saddam's slaughter of Kurds in the 80's or in 1991.. His guest pointed out to him that Al Jazeera didn't exist until 1996.Regarding O'Reilly's denial that Rumsfeld's visit to Iraq in 1983, set the stage for U.S. support of Saddam, including giving him materials to make WMD, FAIR quotes a Newsweek article detailing that U.S. support for Saddam

O'Reilly declared that he had never heard at any time whatsoever a pro-life, a skeptic on global warming or any conservative generally on NPR. FAIR points out that David Brooks and Joe Laconte of the Heritage foundation are regular commentators both by themselves and interviewed as sources for news stories. Global warming skeptic Myron Ebell was on NPR three times in 2001 and an official ofNational Right to Life Committeewas used as a source eleven timeson NPR's national broadcasts' news stories in 2001.

On one show O'reilly claimed that Judith Levine's book on children and sexuality contained a phrase that declared adults should "relish" sexual attractions towards children. One of his guests on that show investigated and found that phrase in the book but it was actually Levine quoting someone else to the effect that adults "relish" sexual attraction towards children as demonstrated by child beauty pageants like those Jon Benet Ramsey was in, but are horrified by the sexualization of those pageants at the same time.

He claimed on his February 24th, 1999 show that the Los Angeles Times had never mentioned anything about Juanita Broaderick. FAIR points out that the Times had actually run a short story about her four days earlier, though they couldn't do much in depth about her until the NBC interview with her about Clinton's alleged rape ran a few days later. In a 2001 interview in "Mediaweek" O'reilly was again claiming that the LA Times, "never mentioned Juantia Broaderick's name, ever." Up to the latter point, a seach of the archives of the Times yielded 21 citations of Broaderick.

O'Reilly makes many amusing claims such as that the Nixon-Kissinger bombing of Cambodia was only confined to the Ho Chi Minh trail, that the War Powers Act of 1973 gives the president the power to seize illegal immigrants and deport them, that drug users merely posessing drugs are not thrown in prison, that the Constitution doesn't say anything about treason. He claimed that the Ecstasy trade is run out of Holland by Arab Muslim terrorists , then read a government report to back himself up which stated in contrast that Israeli Mafioso run the ecstasy trade in Holland in conjunction with Russian and Georgian (the Central Asian republic)dealers out of Holland and that the Slav gangsters merely have "Middle Eastern ties."

O'reilly said that putting U.S. troops to guard the Mexican border would save lives "because Mexican wetbacks, whatever you want to call them, the coyotes," aren't going to die anymore trying to get into this country. According to a journalist of an Allentown Pennsylvania paper he also at a particular speech denounced the INS for not keeping out "the wetbacks." Regarding Chicano immigrants, FAIR notes, during one interview he let Dan Stein of the Center for Immigration Reform talk about the Ford Foundation's funding of pro-immigration groups but did not mention that Stein's group receives money from the Pioneer Fund which advocates eugenics.

Grown Ups vs. The Kids
This book and others like it kill me...it supports the idea that conservatives are like the grown ups and the liberals are like the kids. The kids (liberals)want to do what feels good and not have to think of the consequences. The adults (conservatives) have to make the unpopular but sound choices in order to "raise the kids" properly. Why you all beg for a socialist society so badly is beyond me...it never works and Bill O'Reilly deftly points this out time and time again. This book might be good for leveling a wobbly table, but not much more. ... Read more

Isbn: 158322601X
Sales Rank: 36609
Subjects:  1. Essays    2. Film & Video - General    3. O'Reilly, Bill    4. Political and social views    5. Politics - Current Events    6. Politics and government    7. Popular Culture - General    8. Social Science    9. Sociology    10. United States    11. Social Science / Popular Culture   

Thieves in High Places: They've Stolen Our Country--And It's Time to Take It Back
by Jim Hightower
Average Customer Review:
Hardcover (14 August, 2003)
list price: $24.95 -- our price: $9.98
(price subject to change: see help)
US | Canada | United Kingdom | Germany | France

Editorial Review

Author, populist, and radio commentator Jim Hightower is nothing if not direct. In Thieves in High Places, Hightower lambastes the current American power structure and exhorts his readers to fight against it. Hightower's indignation runs deep in this "us versus them" exposé of corporate malfeasance, governmental abuse, the militarization of American society, and the Bush administration's empire building. In the first part of the book, Hightower illustrates how the Bush administration and Congress work with major corporations (including our nation's vast media conglomerates) to add to their obscene wealth at the expense of America's working class, our environment, and (most lamentably) our rights and liberties. "The elites have pulled off a slow-motion coup, radically wrenching America's power balance from a people's democracy to Kleptocrat Nation."

Hightower defines "Kleptocrat Nation" as "a body of people ruled by thieves...a government characterized by the practice of transferring money and power from the many to the few...[and] a ruling class of moneyed elites that usurps liberty, justice, sovereignty, and other, democratic rights from the people."His catalogue of corporate greed and governmental complicity is breathtaking in scope, and though he admits that the fusion of business and government is not new, he persuasively states that "never have so few done so much for so few."Unfortunately, Hightower's serious message is delivered in such a "down home" style, it may lose its impact on the more brainy among us. Also, one wishes there were more documentation for the copious examples and facts in the book. Still, Hightower's call to action is sincere, and his descriptions of the triumphs of average people over corporate power might give some fledgling activists some hope. Thieves in High Places urges Americans to reclaim control of our government--Hightower thinks we can with community organization and grass-roots movements. However, judging from his description of the current power structure, we are going to need all the help we can get. -- Silvana Tropea ... Read more

Reviews (74)

Kleptocrats and Wobblycrats get equal time
In what must be a first for recent political seasons, here's a book that lambastes both the Democrats and Republicans alike in equal measure. And Hightower writes without screaming on the page, either -- how about that? Although Hightower's progressive leanings are on full display here, with some obvious targets,"Thieves In High Places" offers a constructive section of things people of all stripes can do to get involved with the process. Whether you agree with his facts or not, Hightower's a real proponent of getting off one's duff, or even just getting off the fence. Some readers will find Hightower a perfect example of Ambrose Bierce's definition of an optimist: "a proponent of the doctrine that black is white." His approach is to remind the reader that it's always darkest before the dawn. At the very least this outlook, and this book, is a starting point for change.

Jim Hightower's Recipe for a Better America
Do corporations have too much political influence? That is the main question presented in this book by Jim Hightower. Politicians, it seems, are no longer responsive to the needs of the people and have now placed money and power over principle. In this book, Jim Hightower discusses the problems presented by greedy CEO's and the corrupt politicians who happily accept their cash and he mostly succeeds at presenting a good piece of reading material, full of good thinking points and plenty of humor.

Some of Hightower's viewpoints will not resonate well with every reader, since his positions are almost entirely of the liberal persuasion, but he does have a few good points to make. Hightower attacks corporations for spreading their culture of greed into small towns across the land. He criticizes companies and government officials for not doing more to protect the environment. And, more than anything else, he blasts the Bush administration for its numerous failed policies. He feels that George W. Bush is the root of all evil and that we, the people, need to do all we can to minimize the negative effects of his presidency.

This book succeeds in some areas and fails in others. Hightower is definitely correct when he points out how politicians are quickly selling out to corporate donors in return for some quick and easy campaign money. He is also correct when he points out the many failings of government, like the disastrous war on drugs and the many invasions of privacy that our government commits every day, mostly in the name of fighting terrorists. But in other areas, Hightower's views seem a little tainted. He holds democracy to the highest level, but where would he draw the line in his political thinking? Don't individuals need to have some rights to protect against the wishes of the majority? Hightower doesn't say much about this. He seems to think that whatever benefits the most people is the way to go.

One other thing you should know about this book is that it doesn't provide very much intellectual analysis to back its claims. Hightower seems to think that, since his position is the correct one, he doesn't need to do much else to persuade the reader. It would be helpful- not to mention more convincing- if Hightower would present some analysis to back his positions.

Corporations exert quite a bit of influence on politics. But is the power they wield greater than it should be? In the opinion of Jim Hightower, the answer is yes, it is. Hightower feels that everyone should get off their behinds and work in support for populist causes and populist candidates for office. Inaction is the greatest sin of all, and everyone needs to work for change if they want to rid the U.S. of excessive corporate influence and return the country to the rule of the people.

Shrill left-wing edu-tainers trying to be funny
The proliferation of shrill, left-wing books, trying to be funny while telling us the nation has been hijacked by rich white frat boys is getting tiresome. What's getting more tiresome is how few Americans are getting the point.

This book has some good information mixed in with a lot of cliched and not-particularly-funny jokes. He lost a lot of points from me for not providing footnotes. Much of his information is verifiable elsewhere, but I have no way to check his credibility when he doesn't cite his sources. I'm also getting tired of the "patriotic liberal". Not that I assume these guys don't have some affinity for their home country, but Hightower (like Michael Moore) seems to feel they can only sell their idea if they convince the reader they are MORE patriotic than their opponents. When I see the stuff they're talking about, I don't feel love for my country, I feel shame. They also seem intent on convincing me that the vast majority of Americans are certifiable geniuses. Whereas, when I watch the suburbanites flock in droves to Walmart, driving their SUV's while stopping off afterwards at McDonalds, I have to wonder how the average American is still walking upright.

I give Hightower credit for making the corporte scandals less confusing and more accessible, but I just found the book neither intellectual nor entertaining. ... Read more

Isbn: 0670031410
Subjects:  1. 2001-    2. Business and politics    3. Corporate power    4. General    5. Government & Business    6. Humor    7. Political Corruption    8. Political Process - General    9. Political Science    10. Politics and government    11. Politics/International Relations    12. Topic - Political    13. U.S. Practical Politics    14. United States    15. Business & Economics / General   

How to Overthrow the Government
by Arianna Huffington
Average Customer Review:
Paperback (03 April, 2001)
list price: $13.00 -- our price: $10.40
(price subject to change: see help)
US | Canada | United Kingdom | Germany | France

Editorial Review

"Our government is no longer serving us," declares Arianna Huffington in How to Overthrow the Government. "[It] is slow, unfair, corrupt, and peopled by politicians living on graft and sinecure." While the political class gloats about unprecedented prosperity, Americans are more turned off by their rulers than ever before: the public holds deeply cynical views about Washington, voter turnout continues to drop, and "modern campaigns ... are so thoroughly dominated by pollsters and consultants that there's no oxygen left for ideas that might challenge the status quo." Politicians have turned a blind eye to America's real problems. "Glad-handing lobbyists" (there are roughly 38 per member of Congress, says Huffington) and "the seductive allure of incumbency" have made lawmakers resistant to necessary reforms. "It's this vicious cycle that explains why 35 million Americans are living in poverty and more children are homeless than at any time since the Great Depression; why middle-income Americans are saddled with crippling levels of debt; why our children attend drug-ridden schools where they are not safe and cannot learn." Much of this book reads like an extended political column, full of anecdotes and zinging one-liners. Yet there's also more earnestness and less satire on these pages than was glimpsed in Huffington's previous book Greetings from the Lincoln Bedroom. How to Overthrow the Government and its provocative recommendations will appeal mainly to the supporters of America's dissident politicos, such as Sen. John McCain, Ralph Nader, and the Reform Party. --John J. Miller ... Read more

Reviews (31)

THIS IS NOT A "HOW TO" BOOK - THE TITLE IS A LIE
I began to read this book, wondering how this writer proposed we
common folk change the government. About halfway through, after the author trashed money-grubbing polititians, false pollsters, and
the distorted media, I still had yet to read a word about overthrowing anything; I started to skip pages...I know how bad things are in Washington - I really never found any ideas, or information, unless you consider dropping the MoveOn.com website as her idea of an overthrow proposal? Yes, it's a decently written litany of the sins of current political affairs, BUT, when the contents of a book does not connect with the title, well, that's a "D" in my grade book.

A hollow populism
First of all, the book (actually, an oversized pamphlet) is very curious, sharp and certainly worth the time spent for its reading. Overall, the author makes a good point of the bureaucratic government, prone to every kind of lobbying.
However, I found disturbing that the author inadvertently slips into populism. Let me mention a few examples.
The book clearly supports royalty-free production of HIV drugs in Africa. In the case of Microsoft, it's called counterfeiting. This opinion cannot be readily correlated with the professed liberalism of the author, since a permission to counterfeit constitutes robbery. If the government or people want to help drug-afflicted nations, let them collect funds, buy the drugs and send there, not impose charity obligations on the commercial pharmaceutical companies. Besides, such sequestration of property would discourage future research, precluding competition from developing and prices from falling.
The book also argues against pollsters. It's an understandable attitude of an American being disgruntled by phone calls during his Sunday family breakfast. However, this system of asking for public opinion would rise admiration in most other countries, where the government doesn't care what the people think or want. As to the fact that poll results are biased towards opinion of those few people agreeing to answer seemingly stupid questions, it is just the same problems as of the participation in the elections. If you do not take part, you implicitly agree to abide by the others' opinion.
Corruption cases described are appalling, but, again, the ethical standard applied is far too rigid. Everyone would agree that actual government couldn't be free from lobbying, so the point is not to eliminate it, seemingly an impossible task, but at least make it irrelevant for 999 people out of 1000. What the author describes perfectly fits this scheme. It won't be even considered a corruption in many countries, where the bribery is an element of everyday life.
So, the government, which is quite good by international and America's own historical standards, is presented as evil renegade based on the idealist' expectations. This is wrong, diverting attention from the necessity of public control to the utopian idea of the complete rehearsal.
To those interested in the subject, I would rather suggest The Parliament of Whores by P.J.O'Rourke. It's both sharper and more balanced.

An indictment of American politics
A more appropriate title would be "Why the Government needs to be overthrown; and how to do it." Regarding the need for overthrowing, Arianna Huffington identifies a few causes: first, money in politics (her parts on pharmaceuticals and campaign finance are excellent); second, the establishment's resistance to political pluralism; third, the desire to listen to polls instead of standing firm on issues and leading (although Mrs. Huffington criticizes polls, she uses them quite often too).

As for the overthrowing of the government, Mrs. Huffington suggests political activism (including not participating in opinion polls). But she spends little time on this; while Mrs. Huffington has put together an impressive list of political wrongs, her collection of "success stories" is rather modest (not sure if that is the product of poor research or poor activism).

This book is witty and well written, and Arianna Huffington spared none in her criticism. Her ideas should be taken seriously by anyone interested in the health and future of the American political system. ... Read more

Isbn: 0060988312
Subjects:  1. Civil society    2. Current Affairs    3. Political    4. Political Process - General    5. Political participation    6. Politics - Current Events    7. Politics/International Relations    8. Public Affairs & Administration    9. United States   

Pigs at the Trough : How Corporate Greed and Political Corruption Are Undermining America
by ARIANNA HUFFINGTON
Average Customer Review:
Hardcover (14 January, 2003)
list price: $22.00 -- our price: $22.00
(price subject to change: see help)
US | Canada | United Kingdom | Germany | France

Editorial Review

Arianna Huffington, popular pundit, columnist, and author, is not known for her polite criticisms or her carefully worded complaints. In the course of Pigs at the Trough: How Corporate Greed and Political Corruption Are Undermining America, the corporate CEOs, accountants, politicians, and lobbyists at who she takes aim receive little relief from their porcine characterization first intimated in the book's title. And while she is full of invective for Enron's Kenneth Lay, Tyco CEO Dennis Kozlowski, Dick Cheney, and others, she backs up her outrage with dollar figures, dates, names, and specific information. The voluminous research is made more digestible by Huffington's direct and often amusing writing style (she characterizes a CEO's process of getting a loan approved by a corporate board as being akin to Tony Soprano getting a loan from Paulie Walnuts). Interspersed between chapters are entertainingly informative sidebars, including quizzes on executives' avarice and games where you match the CEO to his yacht. Occasionally, Huffington's anger gets mired in name-calling, which deflates her points. And while she spends ample time and space outlining the particulars of a flawed power structure, she dedicates little time to offering practical solutions toward remedying the problems. But Huffington is not trying to write a political science textbook or a party platform. As a highly readable indictment of corporate and governmental excess, Pigs at the Trough: How Corporate Greed and Political Corruption Are Undermining America is highly successful. --John Moe ... Read more

Reviews (60)

Revealing and angry
Glad I got around to reading this one. I have a soft spot for Arianna. I can't tell if she's completely for real but she seems pretty damned sincere. I was fired up when I read page after page of disgusting corporate greed laid out in excruciating detail. She calls them as she sees them. At a certain point I was overwhelmed by all the sick practices that rob us blind. I had to stop reading for a while because it was all so depressing. I know these things exist, I'm really aware of it but reading in black and white got to me. A good book to own a use as a reference.

good for a laugh