Rating: 
Summary: uNpratiotic
Review: iT' s a politcly motivationed attack on a descent man, precedent and patriot.iF you dont like it here in this god given land then why dont you move to iraq?
Rating: 
Summary: Tells it like it is
Review: Being neither a citizen of the USA, nor a resident of it, being in other words one of those whiny Old Europe Peace Nazis that raise the blood pressure of Bush supporters everywhere, I read this book with great enjoyment and a certain amount of fear. I can't understand how journalists constantly tell us how accessible and populist George W. Bush is. Every time I see him on TV he comes across as ranting, surly and/or arrogant. He and his munchkins sneer at everyone they consider a loser, but when the tables are turned they're hopping up and down moaning about "liberal bias" - what bias? You own the world, guys, you might at least enjoy it with good grace. Miller told me a lot about Bush's policies that I didn't already know, such as his blatant lack of interest in higher education - the guy went to Harvard and Yale and he didn't think it was worth it?? (Come to think of, he could have a point about Harvard.) The most unappealing aspect of Bush's persona is his penchant for gloating, such as his joke about the impending execution of Karla Faye Tucker ("Please don't kill me!"). According to Miller, this kind of thing is routinely ignored or forgiven by most interviewers; why? Has the conscience of the US media finally lain down and died? If you're going to support something as disgusting as the death penalty, you ought to at least be encouraged to _act_ pained about it. I'm sure that my opinion is of no interest to US readers, except that Bush's initial (and I suspect preferred) posture of political isolationism, his now-rampant desire to play with guns, and his profound lack of interest in the rest of the world, is putting us all under threat. He may not believe in global warming; all I can say is that thanks to the insistence of millions of US drivers on owning SUVs, Ireland doesn't really have seasons anymore. I hope they've installed a La-Z-Boy in the situation room. It'll get a lot of use. This book was marketed in the UK as a work of humour, but it's not; it's a serious study of how am ignorant frat boy can come to be the most powerful man in the world. I love America; I love the idea of it, I admire the landscape, I enjoy a lot of the products of it, I have always liked the people. This is why it pains me so much to see you, and us, being inflicted with the worst President since Franklin Pierce. God bless America. And God help it, while he's at it.
Rating:
Summary: Not About Dub-Ya But....
Review: Whether a person is apolitical like most Americans, or a D or an R, left, middle or right, one of many questions to ask is not about "W" but about the American intellect and psyche in general: Q: does it matter if a President is not an intellectual? Is it disturbingly bad, or are there benefits to being poorly read at this particular job, which we do in general believe, wields the most power in the world. It may or may not. It depends on the circumstances and occurrences that take place during the particular individual's term. It also depends on the people this Executive surrounds him with. This is something the 43rd has by most arguments done fairly well. That's where the MBA and organizational theory and practice comes into place perhaps. It also depends on personal conviction to some degree. The more simple the intellect the more straightforward (and often unwaveringly) the conviction. Calling Greeks "Grecians," not knowing the leader of Pakistan, and not knowing community college grammar does lead one to wonder. America is not a democracy and never has been. However today, it's more apparent and accepted by the American people, who are likely oblivious anyway. So, does it matter if a President is not an scholastic nor historical intellectual? (I think no). The answer in general, is that it all depends. When it comes to political and policy decision-making, many of the best business minds were not scholars out of MBA business school. Yet, many of the most terrible business leaders did come out of the MBA programs. When it comes to decision-making, leadership, legislative acumen, and political abilities, don't look soley nor primarily upon intellect. It can fool you. He raised more money before the New Hampshire primary than any other individual in the history of American Presidential politics. Who questioned this? This book is not about G.W. Bush.
Rating:
Summary: A book on politics without mudslinging? How refreshing.
Review: For anyone out there who has started to wonder as of late, if they had somehow entered some sort of bizarre "Twilight Zone" dimension, and have somehow been observing a totally different President of the United States, than the majority of the people in the USA seem to see, this then is the book for you. It tells the story of George W. Bush in his own words in a humorous light, that given current world and national situations, is not funny. Not funny at all. Before I read this book, I had heard it dismissed by conservatives as mean spirited mud slinging. Strange how anyone can say that when the author builds his strongest case towards showing the President's true negative character and hypocrital motivations by using Mr. Bush's own words to demonsrate them. If this book is nothing more than mean spirited mud slinging, then I guess Bush must be his own worst enemy.
Rating:
Summary: An excellent must-read
Review: I am neither Republican nor Democrat. I believe every American should read this book and cry for America.
Rating: 
Summary: Just an observation
Review: I was reading the reviews of this book and noticed that, other than the person who wrote the review titled "Bad writing for all the right reasons" that every negative review was written by people who, like myself, haven't read the book. I give it three stars becuase I have no business commending nor savaging things I know nothing about, but it seems as if there are plenty of people who don't agree with this. At least one person deicded that, having read close to three whole pages, she'd seen enough to form an opinion that was worth sharing. Maybe it's just me, but since the typical 'dyslexicon' hater is someone who hasn't cracked the cover, and the exception is someone who opened it during a single commercial break while watching Wheel of Fortune, these are people who have NO business calling other people stupid. By the way the person who wrote "Bad writing..." did NOT say anything beyond his opinion, which is what these reviews are supposed to be. What I find most interesting is that nearly every one of the positive reviews (which far exceded the negative ones) was thoughtful and explanatory. No, I didn't read every one since I didn't want to take the time-it was easy to do that with the negative reviews since they were few, short, and weren't about the book-instead I read the first few and then random reviews throughout the list. I found it very, very interesting that the people who liked the book are split in a way similar to the ones who HATE it, but with the positions of having/not having read the book reversed.
Rating:
Summary: Cover looks silly, but contents are frightening!
Review: Don't let the quizzical look and funny title mislead you. This isn't a collection of "Dumb Quotes by George W. Bush" like you'd find in the humor section of the bookstore. It's an insightful, critical, and often scary analysis of George II's presidency, framed in the context of the language that Bush and his staff have crafted (well... "blurted out" is often more accurate). For a liberal with a lay understanding of this administration, parts of the book will downright shock you (even more than the daily news already does).
Rating:
Summary: Without Mercy
Review: For those of you out there who have had that uncomfortable feeling in your stomach while watching any sort of media encounter with President, Mark Cripsin Miller's book effectively puts that uneasiness to words, citing numerous and well-argued examples of how behind the cute grammatical mistakes and frequent miss-speaks of the belovedly ignorant G-Dub exists the persona of a foolish, unqualified, and darkly sinister man. While we were all pleasantly preoccupied with his silly free-association, down-home anecdote style of pontification, and the barrage of late night jokes about such, a highly selfish and largely indifferent man took our highest office out from under the very noses (and will) of the people. More importantly, Miller demonstrates how this was achieved for the most part by a very complicit, unscruntinzing, and highly conservative media machine. Why was Bush's odd lack of substance, both personal and with respect to his "policies", overlooked? Why were his cynical and often untrue assertions of his own godly-sounding works in the great state of Texas not questioned further by the rare inquisitive reporter? How was he allowed to interpret publicly a well researched, founded, and relavant question from a reporter or opposing politician as a personal attack and thusly disqualify discussion without resistence from media beacons, and, more importantly, from the public. Miller gives solid, researched, and well organized explanations to all of these questions, repainting the entire campaign and subsequent election ordeal to illuminate a media monster quite contrary to the often argued "liberal" media. Anyone who wishes to corroborate that fishy feeling in his gut regarding our dear dunce of a President will do well to read this book, to put words to that disturbing all-gone-to-hell sentiment.
Rating:
Summary: Miller makin some noise.
Review: I strongly suggest this book for the beginning leftist, anyone who believes they are above the low intelligence that the mainstream news media has assigned to them, or anyone who enjoys well written introspective biography.
I first assumed that this book would be nothing but cheap shots at the Bush administrations and our president select's hardly adequate vernacular and complete inability to execute abstract thought. My initial assumptions were only minimally correct. Miller makes a strong case on how our 41st(?)president has strong ties to big industry, and is slowly furthering the decay of egalitarianism in the U.S..
Miller addresses the growing problems of our political system and how the press has abandoned its position as a political watch dog and has taken the position of Washington's lap dog.
Miller also makes insights about other political battles that leaves the reader intrigued and thirsty for more.
Rating: 
Summary: HEY DEMOCRATS, YOU LOST
Review: Democrats, you lost the 2000 election, get used to it. It was very close, but you lost. It now looks like you are going to lose in 2004 as well. I admit that Bush is very inarticulate, but this may actually be to his advantage. The voters realize that a politician who is inarticulate is by definition incapable of sophistry. Since he cannot beguile by words, his character may more accurately be judged when he speaks. If Bill Clinton were not articulate and slick could he have been elected President by virtue of the character he projects? I think not. He would have been seen as the kind of dishonest wiseguy we have all met so many times. In a time when a President can utter the sentence, "It depends on what your defintion of is, is.", the American people may prefer a person with a marked inablity to use language.
|
