Politics Books

This book addresses topics that no one wants to talk about in a humorous and intelligent manner. Don McNay captures the reader's interest immediately in this hard to put down book. He leads the reader in an eye opening journey into the costs of a political age where the integrity and honesty of our politicians no longer matter. This is a must read for any one who wants an inside look at political waste and blunder.

Unlike the vast majority of commentators, Don McNay is entertaining but is NOT trying to be an entertainer. He writes with intelligence and integrity, and it is clear that the content comes first and everything else supports the content, making it more interesting and impactful. Even here, outside of Kentucky, the book is a great read ... and I look forward to the next one!

Entertaining analysis of Kentucky politics and issues, very funny but also makes a point. Good read!

Don McNay is a hard-hitting journalist, and his new book demonstrates his knack for uncovering news stories that have been ignored by mainstream media outlets. This book focuses on not just Governor Fletcher, but rather Kentucky as a whole and what changes need to be brought about on a statewide political level. I reccomend this book: Mr. McNay offers keen insights into Frankfort's political machine and always presents his work in a fun and accessible way.

You don't have to live in Kentucky or be knowledgeable about Kentucky politics to enjoy the humor in this quick, easy read. McNay has a wide target in Gov. Fletcher, and he hits the bulls-eye every time. If you live in any jurisdiction with a clueless politician who tries to buck the system and ends up "bucking" himself, you will love this book.

This is a must for every woman in office or planning to run for office. I have given it to several state legislators who have been complimentary to the editors and grateful that they have the book as a resource reminding them of issues that are important to women voters.

One word describing your hope for leadership?.. for our future?.. What a challenge! This book is a thoughtful collection of snapshots....highlighting real challenges facing our country.
Look inside and feel what is real.
Political responsibility requires a response of action...not rhetoric. Running for office? Your challenge and responsibility......Keep hope alive!

Anyone interested in being elected in this next election should read this book. Women voters will ultimately be the deciders in this election and this book exposes clearly what women want from politicians. Contributors from Georgia to Hawaii, from Alaska to Florida and from all the regions of the country give voice to startlingly similar themes. A must read!

Women from every state asked to pick one word and take one page to say something for politicians to hear - what could be more intriguing in this age of pre-scripted, pre-digested (eww) sound bites? The preface itself is illuminating, with the sad story of an attempt to meet with a U.S. Senator, who was even ready and willing to meet - defeated by the deep-seated cultural assumption that once we've elected someone, we are relegated to listening to THEIR sound bites, or having our photos taken with them. This book allows "real people" to do the talking, at a deeper level than you ever see in politics, but briefly enough that those who have ears can digest in a short time. Yes yes yes, we are all so busy busy busy. But taking time to listen will do us all good. In the Company of Women: Voices from the Women's Movement

What a great idea this book is. Women all over the country have thoughtfully chosen words and the images that go along with them that correspond to the values of the feminine. In these times of change, as we rebalance our priorities as a culture, this book is a must read for policy makers and politicians.

Run don't walk..... before the impending marathon of onslaught writing before the election this is the power bar.

I just finished this book and felt the need to review it (something I almost never do) because I not only did I find it profoundly illuminating but also really, really, really enjoyed reading it!

As both a personal and public narrative it is an extremely fun and entertaining read despite the fact that often deals with complex, multifaceted issues. Admittedly, I'm far from an expert on many of the themes and subjects within, however my sense is even if you are, even if you are a political historian or life long liberal this book will tell you things you didn't know and/or provide a prospective totally absent in the mainstream and alternative medias.

Wolves does not seek to provide answers to our political woes, but it does ask all the right questions (of all the right people), a fact which I think proves Marshall's desire to find genuine solutions to the socio-economic mess America finds itself in.

I highly recommend picking it up!

Very interesting, well written, and disturbing.

Read it, then talk about the elections.

I feared that by exposing the Democrats as faux liberals, Stephen Marshall would bring me into even a deeper state of despair. As I read, I found myself in just the opposite state -- happily taking in every page with new hope that there exists here in America this level of awareness and acuity and most importantly, passion. If this man understands society on this level, there is the possibility of nurturing and spreading this wisdom. I find I have someone to follow. If you need something to believe in, read this book.

This is the story of the death of American Liberalism, told by some of the very people who helped kill it. Far from the typical liberal claptrap or conservative diatribe, Marshall's fiercely independant examination of the left's rightward drift is a unique, character driven narrative that keeps you turning pages.

To be fair about it, this is a funny book. I am a democrat and make no apology for it and even so, in the interest of fairness can find humor in some of the gaffes and faux pas of public figures who are democrats.

I didn't view this as a slam on democrats per se. I viewed it as a compliation of funny stories and comments. Democrats as with any group have a myriad of personalities and abilities. Humor can be counted among them. Democrats have wonderful political humor - check out some of the clever sayings on bumper stickers!

Despite these 449 gaffes and faux pas from well known democrats, Dumbya has the dubious distinction of the leading edge. See, only 449 have been publicly taxed to democrats in this book. Dumbya far exceeds that figure. His verbal gaffes; mispronuciations; barbarisms; faux pas and malapropisms far exceed the compilations in this book.

This is just a little book of 138 pages,but it is packed with some great and humorous things Democrats have said over the years.Some of them may not have been too outrageous at the time,but in a while came back to haunt them.If you are a Democrat, with a thin skin,maybe you better pass this up and leave it for a Republican.I am sure you can find a similar book of Republican quotes which are just as funny.However,if you can get past political affiliations,you'll love this book.
Just to show you what you'll find in this little tome,here are a few I relished:
"If a president of the United States ever lied to the American
people,he should resign"
-Bill Clinton,commenting on President Nixon and the
Watergate scandal while running for Congress in 1974.

"I remember when I first came to Washington.For the first
six months you wonder how the hell you ever got there.For the
next six months you wonder how the hell the rest of them got
there."
-Harry Truman (president,1945-1953)

"Sex is a bad thing because it rumples the clothes."
-Jaqueline Kennedy Onassis (first lady,1961-1963)

"I have been called a 'stupid and pathetic country bumpkin,'
...compared to David Koresch,and blamed for a sixty-five
point drop in the stock market,but never have I been called
anything so repugnant...as a "Washington Insider."
-James Carvill (political consultant)

"I'm not going to have some reporters pawing through our
papers.We are the president."
-Hillary Clinton (first lady,1993-2001),discussing
possible release of Whitewater documents.

"Who is going to find out? These women are trash.Nobody's
going to believe them."
-Hillary Rodham Clinton (first lay,1993-2001),on her
husband's affairs.

"God bless the America we are trying to create."
-Hillary Rodham Clinton

"I have to borrow money from her (his wife)to get a soft drink"
-Jesse Jackson

" Thank you for saving me from the draft."
-Bill Clinton (president,1993-2001),in a 1969 letter to
retired U.S. Army ROTC Colonel Eugene Holmes,chairman
of Clinton's local draft board.

Even after all this,a politican is never lost for words!

I had a blast with this book. It really shows how these Dem's think! I loved the quote by Hillary Clinton "WE are president" if that doesn't say it all. Also, loved "God bless the America we are trying to create." -Hillary Rodham Clinton. Let's all hope she doesn't get the chance.

This is a funny book. Neither party is immune from "Foot in Mouth Disease" It's great that we can laugh at ourselves from time to time. This is very important! There are enough bad and tragic things in the world, and Ted Rueter does a good job showing us where our political funny bone is.

Thanks Ted..

Jeffrey McAndrew
broadcaster and author of "Our Brown-Eyed Boy"

Carefully go down this list of famous politicians/celebrities and answer truthfully whether you like them or dislike them overall. If you like more of the R's than the D's what does that tell you?

(R) Ronald Reagan
(R) George Bush Sr.
(R) George W. Bush
(R) Rudy Giuliani
(R) George Pataki
(R) Arnold Shwarzennegger
(R) Bob Dole
(R) Roger Clemens
(R) Tony Danza
(R) Bruce Willis
(D) John Kerry
(D) Ted Kennedy
(D) Hillary Clinton
(D) Bill Clinton
(D) John Edwards
(D) Jim McGreevy
(D) Al Sharpton
(D) Michael Moore
(D) Ben Affleck
(D) Tim Robbins

"Republicans confront issues head-on and implement consistent structured ideals. Liberals use a more "conversational" approach of dealing with things on a case-by-case basis instead of using a set belief system."
-Vic Gola

I think that above statement is key because "liberal" literally means "one with untraditional, unorthodox values, one not concerned with authoritarian attitudes, views or dogmas and completely tolerant to the ideas and behavior of others." It seems that liberals favor more proposals for reform and prefer new ideas for progress rather than sticking to something that's been done for centuries (whether it's right, wrong, or indifferent that's the republican way). Conservatives (or moderate democrats who have some conservative tendencies) tend to look at those from the far left to be overly loose, broad-minded, morally unrestrained individuals, which often equates to "soft" or "wishy-washy." Which, if further translated can clearly (or subconsciously) equate to "flip-flopping" or being unfit to command.

So I think Kerry lost because with these troubled times in our country, Americans want a little bit more of an old-fashioned guy in power, mainly because he asserts that very "power" with his belief system. And all the famous people on Bush's side agree with that system as opposed to the rebels on Kerry's side. I think people want more of a "Family Ties" type feeling over "Will & Grace."

Are you more of a Michael Stivik or an Archie Bunker?

"The Affirmative Action Hoax" opened my eyes to important aspects of affirmative action with almost every page. This book is not only extremely informative but also riveting. Once you start, it's difficult to put down. Mr. Farron takes apart famous books that try to defend affirmative action and systematically exposes them as hypocritical propaganda. Thanks to this monumental work, the only excuse for supporting institutional racial discrimination is willful ignorance.

Professor Farron's book is packed with real-life examples and official policies of how 'Affirmative Action'- or as it is called, cloaked in it's new moniker, 'Diversity'- has had discriminatory effects on people like me who happen not to be 'a person of color'. His clear descriptive quote on Diversity and its subsequent effect is so full of self evident truth that the quote alone is worth buying AND reading the whole book:

"Diversity is the most insidious and pernicious of all defenses of discrimination. The other justifications assume that discrimination is a necessary evil, a temporary expedient that is needed to produce a society in which race and ethnicity are irrelevant. Diversity assumes that discrimination is an unqualified good and that it should be perpetual."

I recommend this book to all, even 'people of color'- whatever that may mean!

A book of this quality and undoubted importance to society should be on the front page of the New York Times Book Review. Its author should be appearing on Meet the Press. Yet, I only heard of it through internet resources. The mainstream media's censorship of truth that doesn't portray women and minorities as victim is monolithic and to society's great detriment. Read this book.

Somewhere in Prof. Farina's book is a line running something like, "Most Americans know what affirmative action is, and most are against it. But very few understand how serious and deep-seated this problem is."

I am privileged to have read his monographs on institutionalized prejudice throughout the world, and on 20th century holocausts. I therefore expected the best from this book, but it turned out to far exceed my expectations.

As I do, Farron considers interracial animosity the world's greatest problem.

I have read quite a bit about the negative aspects of affirmative action policy, but this book goes into far more detail, and is far more convincing about the conspiracy of deceit, false innuendo, and misinformation put out by legislators, the media, and the universities.

I disagree with Prof. Farron as to the innate nature of the inferior IQs of nonwhite populations, and will send a 79-page word processor text file of my own theoretical and empirical reasons for doing so. I blame the schools, especially the first three years,and will send my unpublished manuscript as a free email attachment to anyone requestion one from me by email.

Farron is right that the only real way to achieve racial balance in schools and the work force would be with an outright quota system, even though this is impossible politically and constitutionally.

However, affirmative action is a horrible blight on a country, like ours, that is trying to sell "truth, justice, and the American" way to a world that is decreasingly impressed by our technological and manufacturing prowess.

This book is a must for anyone, of any race or political persuasion, who truly believes our grandchildren should be judged by the content of their characters rather than by the color of their skin.

The Affirmative Action Hoax: Diversity, The Importance Of Character And Other Lies by academician Steven Farron is an unapologetic, no-holds barred indictment of affirmative action especially in university admission, and also the less widely publicized practices of affirmative grading and graduation. Vehement in its denouncements, The Affirmative Action Hoax is unafraid to label defenses of affirmative action as "shameless frauds" and "blatant lies"; it declares, in unambiguous terms, that affirmative action is a blatant form of discrimination against white people and Asian people, and that if racial discrimination must be enacted then by far the most efficient and fair means is through quotas. Debunking the non-academic admissions criteria of "diversity", "importance of character", etc. often used to defend anti-white affirmative action by revealing that the same concepts were first introduced to discriminate in favor of white students who could not compete with the children of Jewish immigrants, The Affirmative Action Hoax is sharp-tongued yet serious minded in its call to reexamine a facet of university admissions policies all too easily taken for granted.

When I first read Dispatches some years ago, I was astounded at how a 'parachuted journalist' from the Washington Post could manage to be so empathetic to his new surroundings. Harden displays a questioning and understanding of all the places he reported on in Africa that many who've lived for decades in Africa do not have.

In his travels, it's clear that Harden tries to stick his nose in and experience Africa. He is often more than an observer - he participates first-person - and is therefore able to tell a complete story without having resorting to hollow theorizing and trite conclusions as filler. His trip on the Kisangani-Kinshasa riverboat is a good example where the story and experience tells all - Harden doesn't need to tell the reader what to conclude. Same with his experiences with then President Moi of Kenya. He had the chance to talk to Moi, not just for an interview, but to discuss his deportation! Harden was always personally involved in his stories.

Coincidentally, a few years after Harden's Africa tenure, another Washington Post Africa correspondent based in Nairobi, Keith Richburg, wrote his memoirs on Africa - Out of America: A Black Man Confronts Africa. Though Out of America is a very good book, Dispatches is in another class entirely. It's a must read.

Harden, a first rate writer, researcher and observer, does an excellent job demystifying the African political diaspora with insightful anecdote and personal experience. For anyone that has lived or loved Africa this is a must read - it will remind you of everything that is wrong with Africa and everything that is unforgetable about Africa.

It's a pity that the book was written in the early nineties, since the only drawback I can point out of this work is the lack of information about the last fifteen years in the different countries (Sudan, Nigeria, Zambia, etc.) the author describes (this is not his fault, obviously!). Deeply educational, this is phenomenal journalism. If I had to pont out a chapter, the most interesting one is the one that deals with the Turkana tribe in Kenya.

From page one, I was hooked, and I'm looking forward to learning more about Africa, the forgotten continent. This was the perfect starting point.

Blaine Harden's Africa: Dispatches from a Fragile Continent is by far the most interesting book out there about Africa. It is a series of vignette-like true life examples of how the continent is imploding, thanks to "big daddies" and the west's lack of understanding about the people, cultures, values, and even geography of this underdeveloped continent. Truly a masterpeice. It should be required reading in all universities across the country. One of the BEST books I've ever read.

Harden brings one of the least reported parts of the world to light, but his reporting is now a bit out of date. It is hard to give a book this good less than five stars, but many things have happened in Africa in the last five years. I would purchase an update in a minute.

The writing is straightforward and the story is fast-paced. The book furnished me with a far greater appreciation than I had of the difficulty and complexity of conducting a national campaign and of the demands made upon the candidates and the many workers, mostly volunteers, who surround and assist them. The personality and character of the narrators comes through quite clearly and with considerable honesty and self-knowledge (although I must add that Mrs. Lieberman's insights are often the more interesting ones). The narrative makes clear that these are real human beings with real children and parents and problems. When their lives are stirred into the soup of arguably our most chaotic Presidential campaign, a very interesting tale emerges.

The reviewer below - An.McCracken - is a fake. He reviews countless books each day but he does not read the books, just paraphrases other people's reviews. REPORT THIS TO AMAZON. Click on (Report this) link under the review, next to the voting buttons.

One cannot possibly read this book and not develop a greater appreciation for the sacrifices, courage, determination and faith that the Liebermans made throughout the campaign and throughout their lives.

Not only is this a "biography" but it is also an excellent book on the political process, namely the campaign process. Throughout the book, the reader becomes acutely aware of the amount of work, energy and choregraphing a national campaign requires.

In the last election, I did not know much about Joe Lieberman and that is because I did not give my self the opportunity to do so. When this book first came out, I scoffed at it, because it looked so "light" and yet after reading it I was taken aback, not only on what an interesting look it is into a presidential campaign, but also into the man himself.

Suffice it to say I agree with much of the man's politics, but that non-withstanding, this book was an interesting look at a family who lives their faith while working on the campain trail. It was touching as well as eye-opening.

In addition this book was able to tell its tale without totally stomping on the opposing party. It was obviously written by a man with good character and ethics. Perhaps it was released to coinside with his run for the presidency, but it has made me take a second look at this man and boy am I impressed!

It's a light, quick, fluff read. If you liked Gore/Lieberman in 2000 you'll like the book. Lieberman falls all over himself emphasizing his religion while feigning shock that it could be an issue. He also sidesteps any criticism from fellow Jews that his positions are decidedly unorthodox. He emphasizes that everywhere his wife ever went and everyone she ever spoke to always loved her. If something went wrong in the campaign, it was because he didn't follow through with his instincts. He even quoted an editorial where someone said that Lieberman can make an attack not feel like an attack. Hardball politico, but with a smile.

This book has changed the way I looked at the issues of development, modernisation & morals. An amazing read, beautifully written and with great insights.

I have just returned from a trip to Ladakh and I could really relate to what Ms.Norberg talks about in the book.

Just a couple of side issues. It'd be good to know what exactly went wrong in Ladakh. Here are a people who for 2000 years had lived successfully by the rules of Buddhism. How & why did Buddhism fail these people in the face of global/western economic & cultural imperialism? Does the blame lie with Buddhism- it being too 'compassionate' and allowing a religion? Does the blame lie with the Ladakhis who probably were not as sincere Buddhists as they are made out to be?

After all if they really were such devout Buddhists, how come they fell to the greed that capitalism breeds?

Anyway, these are issues which could have been addressed in the book. Regardless, the book is excellent! A must read.

How does life in a non-industrial society compare to life in our own? In which society are people happier? If life in non-industrial societies compares favorably to life in our own, then why are the barrios of the third world filling up with migrants from remote villages? This book provides surprising insights into these questions. It also provokes reflections on our own society and its influence on the rest of the world. After reading a used copy I picked up for free, I bought seven copies of this book for friends and family!

Rarely have I felt more dispair about the direction of what we know as civilization as I felt halfway through this book. The Ladakh people are described as happy, healthy, and self-reliant. Suddenly, the "real world" happens to them, and they come to see themselves as poor, when before they had no need of money.

The authors do a nice job of weaving a story of hope at the end but I have concern for the future of these people. It helps me understand the decision the government of Bhutan has made to isolate themselves from western-style civilization.

After reading this book, I suddenly realized the root problem of Western Civilization: We have no culture. Where there was once culture, we now have an expanding economic order threatening all life on the planet. Through its mechanism of growth and expansion, the global economy is conquering and converting life's diversity into an ecological and social monoculture of cash crops, Levis, soda pop and movie theatres. Perhaps moonscape would be a better word. Of course, it doesn't have to be this way. Our fast-paced, increasingly technological, capital-intensive, fossil fuel-centered, centralized, highly specialized, travel and commercial-oriented, often stressful society is by no means the end-all-be-all of human history. Murder, child abuse, drug abuse, theft, poverty, hunger, and every other problem that plagues the West are not products of human nature. The pathology of civilization is not natural or inevitable, and the Ladakhi are proof of this. Read this book and rediscover ancient, profound, life-affirmating alternatives to the modern humdrum. Discover another way of living, thinking and feeling. Important, necessary, engaging and masterfully written - this book was a treasure to read. Indeed, it was an awaking.

A MUST READ

The first half of *Ancient Futures* will delight and amaze you; the second half will break your heart.

In the 1970s, the Ladakhis of Little Tibet were a happy people. They had a sustainable traditional economy based on trade and cooperation - not money. One person's gain was not another person's loss. There was plenty of leisure, no hunger or poverty, very little sickness or disease, everyone was valued, there was no pollution and nothing was wasted. They got along fine with their Muslim neighbors and they kept their population stable through marriage customs based on land use. Almost every family had a celibate monk or nun. Buddhist monasteries and people had a mutually beneficial economic, social and spiritual relationship. Ladakhis are a naturally contemplative people with a great deal of spiritual awareness. "Schon chan" (one who angers easily) is about the only insult in the Ladakhi lnaguage. "Lack of pride is a virtue, for pride, born of ego, has nothing to do with self-respect among these Buddhist people." The author says that it took her two years of living among them to realize that the people were genuinely and joyfully HAPPY. Then the world beat a path to their door and all that changed - in fewer than two decades.

It's like a little piece of cultural time-lapse photography. What took western culture more than four centuries to do to the Native-Americans took only twenty years here. Ladakh has become a cautionary tale and a monument to western greed and stupidity.

Now there is poverty and unemployment, stress-related disease, women are devalued, the people are ashamed of their "backward" culture, there is little leisure but a great deal of pollution and waste as well as dispute between Muslims and Buddhists and the population had increased markedly. ("Interestingly, a number of Ladakhis have linked the rise of birth rates to the advent of modern democracy. "Power is a question of votes" is a current slogan, meaning that, in the modern sector, the larger your group, the greater your access to power. Competition for jobs and political representation within the new centralized structures is increasingly dividing Ladakhis.")

Chiildren are trained to become specialists in a technological rather than an ecological society. They no longer have time to learn the superb survival techniques of their families. Western culture is creating artificial scarsity and inducing competition.

Now I understand the mechanism better. A culture that has a heavily subsidized infrastructure invades a traditional self-sustaining culture and creates artificial "needs." So they go to the city to earn money which they never needed before, leaving their farms and women, who are immediately devalued because they're not wage earners. The people are no longer planting, irrigating, spinning wool, gathering seeds, harvesting, playing music and singing and telling stories, having seasonal parties, marriage parties or funeral watches - together.

Time has become a commodity. It has become uneconomical to grow one's own food, make one's own clothes and build one's own house. You have to pay your neighbors for the work that the whole community used to do for free.

The men are in the cities earning money and the women are producing tourist commodities with the wool they used to spin for their own use and the food they used to grow for their own families. Now they grow cash crops for strangers so they can make enough money to buy polyester clothes and walkmans and jeans for their kids and food grown hundreds of miles away and fuel trucked in from afar.

The Yak and the Dzo, uniquely suited for high altitudes of Ladakh gave rich milk but not as much as western cattle. So what did the conquering culture do? They imported cattle that can't make it at such altitudes, so more land has to be relegated to planting crops to feed the cattle, thereby upsetting the balance. And they call this progress.

Why can't we just leave people alone - especially when they're doing FINE without us?

"When one-third of the world's population consumes two-thirds of the world's resources," says Norberg-Hodge, "and then in effect turns around and tells the others to do as they do, it is little short of a hoax. Development is all too often a euphemism for exploitation, a new colonialism."

All this would be a dismal tragedy comparable to Columbus's complete genocide of the Tainos if not for a "counter development" movement generated in part by this author. Since the Ladakhis can't go back, they can at least go forward. Instead of importing expensive fossil fuels (previously they had used yak dung and kept warm) they can have solar houses and greenhouses, which have worked very well and given them one benefit that they have previously not had. That's something. Information is another plus. The people are being made aware that westerners pay more for whole grains, organic vegetables, pure water, natural fibers, and natural building materials - things these people have had for a thousand years without money. This is something so-called third-world people are generally not told about.

Once in a while a book comes along that changes one's perspective forever. *Ancient Futures* is such a book. I haven't been the same since.

One of the reviewers on this site said he ended up buy copies for his friends. So have I. This book is a must-read for every person who is concerned about the preservation of our planet and our species.

pamhan99@aol.com

A very clear and practical view of the Balanced Scorecard tool. The text has the right amount of theoretical background and gives very enlightening exemples and advice to those interested in this field. However most of the exemples comes from private sector and non-profit organizations. Little from government and armed-forces.
But in general terms this is an excelent book. I recommend it.

This book is informative and keeps your interest. Lots of case studies and examples. The author keeps the focus on why scorecards should be used and places emphasis on how to keep them useful.

Balanced Scorecards make lots of sense for the For-Profit world for which they were originally developed. What makes this book so good is that they have concentrated on what makes Non-Profits different and how to conceptualize how the BC works in that arena. The book is well written and easy to understand. It is a must for all non-profit execs.

Very helpful approach in developing a measuring tool for monitoring ministry growth and tracking to Vision.

Managers face competing interests in running a company. Their compensation programs are set to try and focus their performance, but if it is only set on revenue the company might end up losing money while paying the top executives big performance bonuses. If it is on net income, they can manipulate the accounting by cutting the heart out of future business, again, damaging the company while getting a big paycheck. If you put them on straight salary, you won't be able to hire most of the best talent. So, what do you do?

The Balanced Scorecard was originally created in the private sector to create management goals that, yes, balance a variety of factors. You use historical and industry data as well as current performance metrics. The interests of shareholders and stakeholders are also balanced in some way, as are any other combination of factors that can help managers get a better picture of what matters to the success of the company and the benefit of its owners, its employees, and its stakeholders.

This book takes this tool and shows you how to adapt it to public sector entities and nonprofit agencies. Paul Niven draws on his years of experience and shows you how to tweak the model and use it to increase your organization's effectiveness. He also takes us through the success story of Charlotte, North Carolina.

If you are interested in this model and are a governmental agency or a nonprofit organization, this is a fine resource.

Reviewed by Craig Matteson, Ann Arbor, MI

If 10 stars were available, that's what I would rate this book. The history of how we got into our current mess and what Progressives can do NOW to turn it around is communicated clearly, rationally, and passionately while remaining a highly interesting read. Having read dozens and dozens of related books over the past 3 or 4 years, this one may well be the most effective call to action of all. I was so motivated and inspired by it that I bought 12 more copies to send to friends and relatives. Don't even consider skipping this one...it's a Must Read treasure!

Ever wonder how Republicans manage to capture middle and working class votes while serving the interests of the wealthy? How they've managed to win the presidency and both houses of Congress despite disastrous economic, environmental and international policies? What it is about their communication style that makes it so convincing and effective?

Wonder no more. Paul Waldman has studied the masters and returned with a brilliant and entertaining analysis of their technique, along with a strategic plan for beating them at their own game.

This book is genius--great fun to read and filled with aha! moments. If you'd like a manual in the martial arts of political communication so that you can help progressives become winners, then this is a must-read.

I bought this book together with "The Good Fight" by Peter Beinart. While both books have their utility, neither is as good as Joe Klein in "Politics Lost." Waldman gets five stars to Beinart's four mostly because he is much more readable, has many useful tables including an analysis of the states where extremist Republicans as well as extremist Democrats are weak, and his book is generally focused on the left of center middle and the caring citizen as opposed to policy wonks that Beinart addresses in his book.

Page 111 is a very fine diagram of the issue columns that the Democratic Party simply does not address responsibly nor--a theme throughout the book--courageously. Over-all the book does a very fine job of defining the distinctions between conservatives and progressives, as well as the distinctions between what conservatives stand for and what they say, and what progressives stand for and do not say.

The author spends most of his time comparing conservatives to progressives (code for left of center liberals) which is something of a pity because he appears to have a very well developed sense of the issues and what the center and left-center can and should stand for.

There are two bottom lines in this book, and both of them make eminent sense to me:

1) Don't bring a knife to a gun-fight. The author points out in detail how inept and weak and unfocused the Democrats are at every stage of the political game beginning with high school and collage political clubs.

2) Stand for the public, for the individual taxpayer, for the blue-collar worker, the working poor, the lower middle class. The author stresses that this is a fight between those who respresent special interests and believe the government role is to liberate the marketplace (code for allow the looting of the Commonwealth) and those who should be representing the masses of individual workers and taxpayers.

The author takes a long view and believes that it will take a great deal of time to recover from the total abdication to the extremist Republicans. While this nice in principle, the book does not focus as well on what it will take to win over-whelmingly; for that we recommend Joe Klein's "Politics Lost." On the issues, Matthew Miller's "The Two-Percent Solution."

On a personal note, I would add that the author's focus on "Being Right is Not Enough" is perfectly consistent with my own view that "Vote Democratic Is Not Enough." Rove and Cheney have demonstrated, twice, that they can steal Presidential elections that are close--through Florida in 2000, through Ohio is 2004. Even if every liberal-progressive adopted the ideas in this book, they would not be enough. We need a multi-party focus on electoral reform and crushing the extremist Republican thieves (I am a moderate Republican), crushing the special interests, and restoring the Republic to the public---a Republic of, by, and for the People, not Corporations.

With wit and intelligence, Paul Waldman makes a compelling case for a progressive vision. While he examines and learns from conservative successes, what he is most interested in is what will energize a progressive movement. He admirably stresses the importance of a progressive agenda, as well as a narrative for progressives. He looks at the importance of both the short and the long term, and why progressives must have both. He is also very skilled at performing a kind of ideological ju-jitsu, in which he turns apparent Republican strengths into weakenesses that can be effectively utilized by progressives who that are both wiley and principled. On a couple of instances of this I am not wholly convinced, but I would nevertheless highly recommend this book to all progressives.

In 2004 a President who lied to justify an unpopular war and had the worst jobs record since the Depression still managed to win. The Republicans control all three branches of government and a majority of governorships and state legislatures. The national debate has shifted from real problems to distractions like gay marriage, partial-birth abortion, and flag-burning. Waldman believes this all adds up to a need for progressives to change.

Waldman believes progressives should create a single movement (not remain a collection of interest groups) devoted to fighting conservatism and advancing a progressive view. Ask an ordinary person what conservatives stand for and he'll likely respond with four powerful, easily understood ideas - low taxes, small government, strong defense, and traditional values. Ask him what liberals stand for and chances are he'll give you the obverse. Conservatives focus on emotions and the character of the speaker; liberals on logic and facts. (A good point - look at most advertising in the U.S.!)

A majority of Americans favor legal abortion, gun control universal healthcare, strong environmental protections, generous Social Security and Medicare benefits. Yet, they are stymied. Part of conservatives' secret is their institutions (eg. American Enterprise Institute, Heritage Foundation, Hoover Institute) are multi-issue and make political use of their products easy (eg. recording studios are available for interviews). Liberals, on the other hand, have single-issue organizations, poorly marketed publications, and poorly paid core staff.

Waldman points out that the South (heavy evangelical concentration) is a major problem for progressives; the problem is acerbated by Republicans use of racism (Reagan - welfare queens, Bush I - Willie Horton, Bush II - going to Bob Jones University with its ban on inter-racial dating, and avoiding a position on the Confederate Flag). Suggests progressives point out Dobson et al don't follow their own teaching regarding the poor, the GOP is guardian of widely unpopular status quo on healthcare (would help business as well), refocusing the abortion debate to "How can we reduce it?" and pointing out it went down under Clinton and up under Bush, support doing away with the Electoral College in the interest of fairness, and attack the notion of "liberal elite" via the GOP's tax cuts for the rich and its healthcare positions. Also suggests not letting Republican attacks go unanswered - eg. Kerry vs. Swift boat ads.

Defining Progressives: "We're all in this together," vs. Conservatives' "We're all on our own and out for ourselves."

Good material.