Bush Books

Having just been fired by a sociopath and her manager - also a sociopath - this book hit me squarely between the eyes. Ouch!

I skimmed this book quickly. The first part of the book on conscience was rather lengthy, in my opinion, although I'm sure some will find it very enlightening. The conscience discussion at the end of the book was more practical...for me.

One of the best parts of the book - for me - is the Thirteen Rules for Dealing with Sociopaths in Everyday Life. As with Borderline Personality Disordered people, the best thing we can do for ourselves is to refuse to allow these people to have any influence in our lives whatsoever. Set boundaries that exclude them...without them knowing that we are purposefully doing so...read the book to see why. My supervisor was cunning, baffling, and very, very powerful...after all, she fired me.

Her superiors who should have known better...Human Resources, her Manager, the CFO and CEO...allowed her to slide right on through to a homerun because she is such a master manipulator. The way I see it is: CEO's and HR Departments have an obligation to guarantee a safe work environment for their employees. My work environment wasn't safe, for many reasons. The CEO failed, the HR Department failed. No surprise, they have failed many to date.

I especially benefitted from the more concrete Rules portion because it was like Sociopathy 101 and how to deal with them. The last rule: Living Well is the Best Revenge really hits home for me. The only way to get this slimey stuff out of your system is to give all that negative slime over to a Higher Power. Then, let go and let God...and be determined to live a wonderful life, and be humbly thankful that this person is no longer in your life.

I admit that, several years earlier, I had some reservations about her and her husband, and the way that I saw them shame their little boy in my presence. He has Attention Deficit Disorder, and at the time, it was an ongoing problem for him at school. The dad shamed him arrogantly and mercilessly, over and over. I was mortified by his lack of sensitivity. The little boy looked so downtrodden and ashamed. There was no need for this...except, possibly his dad is also a sociopath? Of course, both of them would be oblivious to any feelings that their son might have. The book validates my experience on this one.

I see that their little boy seems to fit into the chapter on the (painful) boredom experienced by sociopaths when they are unable to keep stirring the pot to create the extra stimulation they crave. Imagine how "valuable" a 'problem' child can be for the sociopathically challenged! If you have a 'problem child' you can continue to berate him daily, and savor the sad look on his face while you do it. Add a little dash of physical violence. It provides the stimulating domination that sociopaths crave. According to the book, a situation like this creates a sort of high...like an addiction. And, if a sociopath isn't able to create a crisis or chaos on an ongoing basis, she has a sort of meltdown, which is very painful for them. Like an anxious vampire always on the lookout for the next victim.

I could sense this in my supervisor over the past 6 months. She was getting very restless and began testing the waters to see what she could get away with, doing it a little more agressively each time. Sure enough, the book validates this.

The book claims that sociopaths do not have a conscience. It discusses 'conscience' as a component of love. Without love, all we humans are capable of is to 'possess' or dominate, rather than to love. It explains how we need to strive to always be raising our conscience to the next level.

It gives the example of a diverse group of people who have purposefully developed their conscience, how this has contributed to the level of increased satisfaction in their lives. These people are more focused on the welfare of their fellow human beings. (Mother Theresa comes to mind for me) This is so beautiful! This portion of the book made me think about the quality of my own life...in a positive, enlightening way. This feels right on target to me. Thanks, Martha.

This book helped me sort through the circumstances. My perceptions had been accurate with what I had observed and felt intuitively about these people and their very bad behavior.

Overall, the book provided some very interesting (& helpful) info regarding sociopathy. I thought the writing was a bit convoluted and unncessarily obscure at times, and there were some sections that were too "psychological" for the lay person. Other than that, it certainly provided additional education on this very dangerous, and often insidious, disorder.

In the world of today, especially in the so-called "first world" societies, conscience ranks as one of the most important, yet undervalued qualities of humanity. The idea that all people possess some natural quality of inner morality that restrains their behaviour towards others is taken as a de facto understanding by most. This naturalistic world view suffices for most relationships but can cause serious problems when dealing with those whose personalities formed with either inherited or acquired pathology. Sociopaths (the subject of Martha Stout's excellent book), exist within the spectrum of psychopathology that includes many other types of disorders (narcissism, BPD, psychopathy etc), and thus the book will interest anyone who has questions about relationships with egotistical, manipulative and vindictive people.

Ex-Harvard psychologist Martha Stout writes in a style pleasing and accessible to the layperson. One may feel a sense of her years of hard-won experience and understanding having structured the book in a way that anticipates unformed questions and provides answers in an easily-readable flow. Never dry, overly academic or condescending, Stout examines the philosophical and societal implications of the conscienceless with a sense of gentle yet serious gravity, and invites the reader to do the same.

The composite case studies convey effectively a range of traits and characteristics that a pathological personality can express. The reader may recognise many of these traits in others (and also oneself) - some might even appear as an "exact match" for a friend or partner! Most importantly, the composite cases provide a good example of how subtly sinister a sociopath can act. Much sociopathic and antisocial behaviour takes place "under the radar" of general social and legal conventions, with the consequences chiefly felt as some undefined sense of emotional or psychological violation by the victim.

As well as providing some warning signs and techniques for use in dealing with sociopaths, Stout devotes a good part of the book to an examination of conscience, morality and reasoning, concluding that following one's conscience shows the path to human happiness - a way that many religions and spiritual cultures have in common. Her synthesis and depth of thought in this area makes for refreshing reading.

In short - VERY highly recommended.

Those interested in further reading on the subject should also check out Without Conscience: The Disturbing World of the Psychopaths Among Us, Political Ponerology (A Science on the Nature of Evil Adjusted for Political Purposes) and Snakes in Suits: When Psychopaths Go to Work. These books provide excellent further reading on a subject that people really need to know more about - for their own protection.

great book-married one i got out alive but not unscathed. I would advise many people to read however I worry that those that are will read and continue to use our goodness against us .Remember to believe a person's actions not their words if they are inconsistent more than 3 times get out-read this book

The book 'The Sociopath next Door' by Marths stout is a must read for everyone. I only wish I had had this book 30 years ago. She describes the Sociopath and the means to avoid them.
dblaine@sbcglobal.net

I've read most of John Dean's books and enjoy them. This was a good book, very interesting and informative about the evil tenure of Bush/Cheney. I'm sure it's dead on with what went on behind the scenes and how we got into the sorry mess of a country that we are today largely due to these 2 idiots.

While the book is old (written prior to the 2004 election) and politics tends to change very rapidly, there is still quite a lot of relevant information. Dean dissects the Bush regime and compares it to Nixon's. He points out what Nixon did wrong and how Bush is following the same path. He does so in an intellectual manner and doesn't resort to Bush bashing or name calling like some books I have read. All of Deans points are well thought out and backed with evidence from sources from across the political spectrum. Overall, even though this is an old book, it is still a very good and worthwhile read.

This book is a bit dated as it was originally written before the 2004 elections but it has been updated a bit past that point so it still has relevancy today. Any impeachment proceedings against Bush and Cheney and their minions should use this book for talking points. Mr. Dean points out all the horrific and illegal things this White House has done that are far and above what President Nixon ever did. It also makes the "impeachment" of Bill Clinton look even sillier than the total farce it was. These two (and others in the administration) should be in jail.

Worse Than Watergate by John Dean is worth reading just because of the title and who he is. John Dean, counsel to the Nixon White House, says that the Bush/Cheney White House is "worse than Watergate" -- that is like Jesse Ventura calling someone an obnoxious loudmouth! The book was published in 2004, ahead of the presidential election, so by the time I found it on the bargain table, it was somewhat dated. However, Bush/Cheney are STILL in power, and while the country has largely turned against them because of the war in Iraq and the slumping economy, Dean's real case against them describes the more subtle ways that the Bush II administration has weakened our democracy.

The main beef that Dean has with Bush and Cheney is their secrecy. True, this is definitely a politically motivated treatise written by neither a scholar nor journalist, but it is also true that Dean has researched his topic well and that he has some first-hand experience in the matter of damage caused by a secretive executive branch. Worse Than Watergate is not going to sway Bush supporters -- if they haven't lost their confidence in his leadership by now, they are never going to budge. But, Dean has an interesting perspective, and if you are capable of separating the facts from the commentary, this short book is definitely worth the read.

This book is a well researched and documented examination of the excesses of the Bush/Cheney presidency and how this came to be. In the book, Dean looks at the issues of secrecy within the White House, lying and dirty tricks. And, if there is anyone, anywhere who knows more about this subject I would love to see who they are.

Dean does a wonderful job of comparing and contrasting the current regime with the Nixon presidency and writes in a clear, concise and easy to read manner. I look forward to reading his other 2 books, as to learn more about what has gone wrong with the current Republican Party.

This is a must read for any American who wants to see this country remain free!

I got interested in this book when I saw Scott McClellan on "Meet the Press" one morning. It was either Tim Russert's last or next-to-last show before he died suddenly.

I didn't know what to expect from Mr. McClellan, so I watched. I was amazed to see a guy that seemed to be expressing genuine regret to the American people for letting them down. It wasn't exactly his fault, but he does seem to blame himself to some degree. Anyway, I was intrigued by his sincerity--and not only that, but his apparent forthrightness and honesty.

So when I saw the book at the library, I picked it up, and got very interested after just a few pages--you know, the way you do when you read a thriller-type novel. I enjoyed the book for the following reasons:

-It's well written. Good writing is always enjoyable (to me, at least).

-It had "insider information." It was like having a window into the inner workings of the Bush administration.

-It was even-handed. It was not a Bush-bash, just an honest reckoning of what happened (thus the title). When Bush failed, he points that out. When Bush did something right, he points that out, too. That gave the book a sense of genuineness that I thought was one of the book's major strengths.

As for the subject matter, it seemed the main points of the book were these (among others):

-That Bush is not an intellectual leader (i.e. someone who thinks things through to the end) but someone who leads by conviction and gut instinct. McClellan says that Bush is plenty smart, but that's not the way he operates. He leads on a decision-making level, leaving his cabinet and advisers to actualize those conviction-based decisions--to make them work in the real world. One of McClellan's major criticisms of the Bush's top people (e.g. Rice and Powell) is that they didn't challenge Bush enough on some policy decisions. McClellan describes Bush's top echelon for the most part as a group of yes men (and yes women? yes people?).

-Bush was not forthright about the motives for starting the Iraq War. Bush was interested in Iraq long before 9/11. He holds a deep belief that everyone should be allowed to live in freedom, free from repressive regimes. McClellan quotes Bush talking about his desire to spread democracy in the world. But when the time came to invade Iraq, Bush connected it to WMDs, not his desire to spread democracy. On the surface, it looked like Bush wanted to invade Iraq because of WMDs, but deep down he really just wanted to spread democracy. McClellan faults Bush for this, because when Bush was running for office he said he would restore honor and dignity to the office, and change the way Washington worked. In McClellan's view, this lack of forthrightness on Bush's part went against what Bush had promised to do earlier, and so Bush failed to keep his word.

-McClellan, in his role as press secretary, was used by those above him to deceive the press. Bush had promised to fire whomever was involved, but did not. Again, McClellan faults Bush for not keeping his word to do so...but this is somewhat of a complicated, convoluted issue, so you are on you own on this one.

There are other points, but these seemed to me to be the main ones.

One thing occasionally bothered me: McClellan seems to psychoanalyze Bush to excess sometimes. It's good to try to provide a portrait of Bush's thinking and leadership style, but sometimes the psychoanalysis went a little far (seems to me, at least). However, I got the feeling that McClellan was doing this not only to explain it to the reader, but to try to figure it out for himself, and make sense of it all, so he could sleep at night.

I think Scott does a brilliant job of adequately covering his time in the Bush White house, and creating a good timeline of events to illustrate his opinion of life "inside the bubble." From the constant campaign to the collection of agreement, McClellan seeks to clarify the secretive world that existed while he was press secretary. I think the author goes to great lengths to specifically NOT bash or degrade anyone in this book. I found it an honest view that if anything, restated its point perhaps a bit too much. Overall, it was refreshing to have an honest look at the culture inside, something we as the public had wanted since day one. Well worth the read and quite interesting. You may not agree with Scott's opinions, but they are genuine and not malicious.

In my personal opinion, VP Dick Cheney gave the orders and decieved everyone for his own political gain. President Bush was just a prop giving Cheney all the power.

This book should have been titled "What Happened?" A question mark in the title would have been much more apropos. Scott McClellan, in his haste to publish a book, seems to have spent little or no time contemplating what did happen during his time in the White House.

Like his idol, George W. Bush, McClellan is a product of the "unexamined life" that Socrates warned about centuries ago. After reading the book, which is not recommended here, one can easily draw the conclusion that no amount of time would have been sufficient for McClellan to understand the extent of the failure and the damage caused by the administration for which he was press secretary from mid-2003 until his firing in 2006.

Every author needs a theme and I guess his publisher gave him the idea of reading a book called the "Permanent Campaign." He uses that book and the book "Shadow: The Legacy of Watergate" by Bob Woodward (though he does not indicate that he read it) to come up with his facile thesis. The conduct of the presidency was too politicized by the Bush administration as part of a permanent campaign. It is also harder to get away with a lie since Watergate. Incompetence is never posited as a possibility.

To McClellan, President Bush was not unqualified for the presidency. He merely let it veer off under the evil influence of Karl Rove and the installation of a permanent campaign in the White House. He accuses the Clinton administration of inventing the approach. He presents Karl Rove as the evil architect who took it to a new level. Bush's only weakness according to McClellan is a penchant for self-deception. His later revelations show that Bush also has quite a penchant for the deception of others.

The most disturbing part of McClellan's book is the more correct, though unconscious, theme that he repeats throughout the book. Politics to McClellan and others in the Bush administration is about selling political policies rather than persuading the public and Congress of their merits. There is one conscious admission that McClellan makes that rings true. Bush, Cheney and many others in the administration believe that the ends justify the means.

McClellan still does not seem to understand that such a view of life almost inevitably leads to lying and misrepresentation. How could he understand? Permanent campaign? The Legacy of Watergate? Hooey. The only redeeming value for McClellan in this book is that one does get a sense that he was naïve enough to believe anything he was told without question; not so redeeming, that he still is naive today because he did not learn a thing from his experience.

McClellan claims that he was stunned and shocked that Rove and Scooter Libby lied to him about their involvement of the outing of CIA officer Valerie Plame. By that point in the book a reader is justified in exclaiming "Why?" He also seems more put out that their lies ruined his image with the press and the public rather than that the Plame leak was unethical and potentially life-threatening for a covert CIA operative.

It is clear from this book that President Bush declassified a selected portion of the National Intelligence Estimate (NIE) in October 2002 (before McClellan became press secretary) so that Vice President Cheney, Rove and Libby could leak about Plame without being subject to prosecution for revealing classified secrets. Yet it does not seem to dawn on McClellan that Bush was a co-conspirator in the Plame leak through the declassification of the NIE. Bush lied to McClellan and saved the truth for special prosecutor Patrick Fitzgerald. That is not self-deceit, Scott. That is just plain deceit. And McClellan thinks this was the result of a "permanent campaign?"

McClellan also seems more interested in paying back Rove and Libby for making him look like a fool than he does about the number of American soldiers who have died for the sake of a poorly "sold" war. All one can say is that Rove, Libby, and Bush knew a fool when they saw one. That he still claims to admire George W. Bush even today is Exhibit No. 1 that he has no idea of what really happened in the Plame affair or the nature of the real George Bush that everyone else does.

If McClellan really wants to know what happened, and the frightful consequences of "selling" an unnecessary war, I have a book he should read; not for profit but for self-examination. "The Last True Story I'll Ever Tell" by John Crawford is a harrowing autobiographical account of an Army National Guardsman yanked off his honeymoon and sent to Iraq for over two years. There he experienced the Kafkaesque experience of serving on the ground in Iraq at the height of the insurgency. Catch-22-like Crawford continued to have his tours extended indefinitely.

The juxtaposition of McClellan's self-pity about his treatment while basking in the luxuries of political office and his new marriage, and Crawford's straight-forward account of his experience in Iraq that cost him his new marriage is almost enough to make one want to bring back the draft. And to make sure that guys like McClellan serve. His dedication of the book "To those who serve" is galling, self-serving and unseemly in the greatest sense.

His prescriptions for changing "the culture of deception" at the end of the book are as banal as all of the other lessons he supposedly learned in the White House. McClellan is a professional follower, not a political philosopher. So much for getting out of the White House "bubble" in order to get a proper perspective on "what happened" as McClellan claims he did.

McClellan has no idea what happened. He lacks the intellectual capacity, the introspective nature, and the inner moral compass necessary to ever know or understand what happened. Take a pass on this one.

I just finished Scott's book today and am shocked that Rove and others I have seen on the news have said that he turned on them. Instead of the expected bash on Bush, Scott was fair, polite, even respectful of Bush and the entire White House staff. What Scott did bash was the culture of deception, politics-as-war, permanent campaign, and care-more-about-party-than-America culture in Washington, D.C. This is a story of a guy who loves America and loves the political process, who went to Washington with a President who sincerely wanted to end the corruption there, but ended up getting caught up in it and perpetuating this secretive and partisan culture that sickens so many of us younger Americans. This book is very interesting, rational and fair. It is a call to all Americans to demand more of their leadership whatever the party, and more of their media whatever the network.

Having done business with two of the ,most infamous religious Tycoons in
the business I can vouch for the authenticity of this book. Straight to
the point with no punches pulled.

Author Kevin Phillips examines U.S. political and economic trends in this searing look at religion, energy, and government spending. Readers see that U.S. foreign policy is strongly, perhaps dangerously influenced by conservative Christians. We also see how the USA is spending itself into danger, and is doing far too little to end its risky dependence on foreign oil. Phillips offers several parallels between between the USA and Britain; for example comparing the questionable U.S. invasion of Iraq to British colonialism in the middle east after World War I. Readers also see how losing control of an energy source can cost a nation dearly - as Britain's power declined in the 20th Century when oil began replacing coal. Phillips writes with an alarmist tone, one that readers (and non-readers) should listen to.

Phillips proved his eye for future trends with EMERGING REPUBLICAN MAJORITY, his 1969 book correctly forecasting GOP dominance of the South and White House via rising conservatism and racial backlash. Phillips recently left the GOP in disgust at its right-wing Christian politics. Some find this book a bit stiff and alarmist, but it's an important, thought-provoking effort.

In the Republican years before Nixon resigned, I perused the editorials each Sunday in our Joplin Globe. Among the syndicated columnists, Jack Anderson & John Roche passed for liberal; Kevin Phillips & Max Rafferty (former superintendent of California Public Schools) were the conservatives. Between the latter, Phillips seemed the more reasoned.

Of late, Phillips, who worked like the dickens to get Nixon elected & who like so many of the old Goldwater guard deserted the Republican orthodoxy, has got a good deal of mileage out of shredding the bedding of the Family Bush. In "American Theocracy," Phillips summons up fearsome documentation for his thesis that the US of A is headed down a path previously trod by Spain, the Netherlands, & Great Britain: their governments paralyzed by indebtedness & mesmerized by evangelical zeal failed to replace their fading sources of energy & so collapsed under the weight their own inertia.

Because Phillips is not out to preach to the choir, he doesn't dawdle over pop topics like "renewable" energy sources or the isolationist-directed reducing dependence on foreign oil: it's too late for all that. Instead, he cites the instances of how we allowed our blind love of the "freedom of the road" to lead us to the brink of energy catastrophe: the 1956 "Hubbert peak," the prediction by Shell Oil geologist Marion Hubbert that oil extraction in CONUS would peak betw. 1965 & 1970; the rise of nationalized petroleum industries in Iraq, Libya, & Iran (& of late, Venezuela); & the especially scary notion that petroleum geology is an unpopular major among American college graduates, whereas it's an extremely desirable one in Africa, Latin America, etc.

His Goldwater-like disdain for the current influence of the evangelical Christian ideologists is painfully evident, but Phillips points out that war & politics in the U.S. have traditionally "borne a heavy imprint of church leadership & denominationalism." Like the despised liberals of 40+ years ago, the evangelically correct right wing of today has "taken the lead in promoting unworkable social-planning [the "panacea of abstinence" in sexual matters] abstractions."

Moreover, the US of A is not the first instance of a govt. in the throes of apocalyptic fibrillation: Phillips reminds us that 17th-cent. Netherlands & WWI-era Great Britain firmly believed that Biblical prophecy would stand them in good stead, even while their empires crumbled. Each time, they were sadly disappointed that God did not come to their rescue.

With regard to the "borrower-industrial" complex--the "financialization" of the union--, Phillips dabbles in some prophecy of his own when he writes, albeit pleonastically, that the "maintenance of the upward revaluation of homes may be the next frontier of risk socialization." We have reached that frontier today.

That a former republican strategist--a guy that wrote 40 years ago of the formerly Democratic South becoming a bastion of Republican values--has so little respect for the Republican Party of today is cause for some serious consideration; however, Democrats have done little but concede to Republican whims at every turn. False optimism about an endless supply of crude oil, gross mismanagement of our holy war in Iraq, & the withering of our manufacturing base should give one pause about how much longer the US of A can hang the "superpower" shingle on its swinging doors.

This is an important look at three staples of current Republican policy that Phillips finds threatening to the US's well-being: its dependence on foreign oil, the Religious Right, and soaring US debt. Phillips' main thesis, though hard to find, seems persuasive enough: ill-founded fundamentalist politics enables two key hazardous trends: 1) oil-driven foreign policy and 2) irresponsible financial policy, resulting in unprecedented private & national debt.

Phillips' strengths are his focus on realpolitik consequences of policy & his preponderance of disturbing facts, although to keep up, you will need some familiarity with history or other social sciences. His weaknesses are his repetition & length, questionable read of history, and lack of integration between the three main subjects, although each section is informative in its own right. Also, a handful of his points seem to rest on loose analogies, circumstantial evidence, or evidence without footnotes, making evaluation difficult, but overall, his analyses are plausible enough to warrant closer attention.

Then the remaining one-third is shot through with doubtful connections. The author commendably states clearly his three big topics right off the bat: 1. Oil is "done"; 2. Religion in America is poisoning us; 3. The US is drowning in debt. Topics #1 and #3 as stated in "American Theocracy" have been shown to be largely untrue by many, many sources, and #2 seems to conclude that Americans are bad because we let religion (fundamental kinds, anyway) drive us to all sorts of homicidal and larcenous behaviors. Southern Americans, anyway. Actually southern white Americans of English/Dutch/ sometimes Celtic/sometimes German/sometimes other ethnic origins. These awful prejudices unfortunately weave through the whole book.

The book in one sense is well-written, though. The line of arguments are clearly stated, and the facts and stories Kevin Phillips chooses to write about can sometimes be interesting and informative. As many reviewers noted, there are pounds of research cited and statistics listed. The problem is that he is extremely selective about which he presents. In the "oil" segment, for example, you will find almost no mention of experts who estimate the relatively long period of oil reserves worldwide (one actually makes a cameo appearance, and the reader is hereby challenged to find it!). Nor does he cite the fact that estimated reserves have always, always edged upwards. In the "religion" segment he makes a quite-wrong statement about Newt Gingrich's historical fiction series on the Civil War, meaning he could not have actually read the books. With this kind of selective reporting, one cannot sift the truth of his arguments. Then there is the ending: there isn't one. No summary, no conclusions, no points for action. After all that.

For the sake of backing up the title of this review, the badly-misleading part of the "debt" section in this book concerns the author's own - perhaps unwitting - argument against himself. He actually stated that the amount of total personal savings was greater than the total personal debt. Gracious, mendacious! If the statistics sound overwhelming in this section of the book, the reader is invited to skim over them, because they are hard to trust anyway.

In spite of these rather harsh judgments (and overly long review!), "American Theocracy" really is interesting. The prudent reader will discount the alternating condescension and panic, and just enjoy the discussion. If you are inclined to think as the author does, you will certainly like the debating points you could use. If you are inclined to dismiss the author's point of views, then don't - just read it. If you are wary of what a leftist-in-charge might do, then note the line of argument and hone your own.

Reading this, it's very apparent that Vonnegut had pretty much given up on humanity. You already get that feel from most of his novels, but in this book of essays, Vonnegut leaves no doubt. The Bush years are the straw that broke the camel's back. And I have to say, my thinking was pretty much in line with Vonnegut's. But then came November 4th, 2008. Reading these essays, I was struck with a deep sadness that Vonnegut was not around to witness the magnificent manner in which the Bush era will end. I don't think Obama's election would have turned Vonnegut into a starry-eyed optimist, but I do think it might have tempered his pessimism, as it did mine.

Vonnegut breezes through turn-of-the-century American life in aphoristic, often curmudgeonly free-association. While the inkwell of cantankerous wit hasn't run dry, this book is a bit of an exercise in redundancy; the contained thoughts and criticisms are better developed in his later works, particularly Hocus Pocus and the admittedly self-indulgent Timequake.

It is admittedly a treat that Vonnegut gave us one last opportunity to enjoy his pithy prose and withering assessments of modern life in such a loose, intimate collection of essays. Unfortunately, he also ran through these observations and bon mots rather too faithfully in his last lecture tour, which was a disappointment (particularly given how off-the-cuff his prose feels here). While the warmth of his sarcasm is always enduring, it's likewise depressing that Kurt couldn't finish his career with a work less firmly entrenched in the inflexible Vonnegut idiom of smirking punchlines.

"A Man Without A Country" is a must read for anyone who loves Mr. Vonnegut. It is a collection of short essays and writings published 2 years before his death. Written in true Vonnegut fashion, I believe he is on point with his satire and knowledge of the world more then ever. He is as sharp as knife with his commentary, and convincing as hell, using stories from history to back up his words. It may come off as the rantings of a crotchety old man, but I think that Vonnegut has earned his right and anyone who is not wearing blinders can truly see. This is a man who lived through the great depression, and fought in WWII. It is obvious that any true American can relate. One subject that truly struck me was how he talked about his generation, and how they dreamed of better tomorrow for their children and grandchildren. He then compares our generation to addicts trying to work through AA, just living day to day, with no hope of a better tomorrow. Another aspect of this book I enjoyed was a chapter in which he answered some fans who wrote him letters. It was a very easy read, too, I read it in one sitting. I kept on noticing my mind wondering when I was reading, "Man. I wish I could've had shared a smoke with this guy."

Imagine yourself trying to become someone important in life or contributing something back to the world that children would read about in their books. Imagine if someone said your name in passing they would say, "Yes, I heard that name before, he/she is a famous writer/actor/business owner. Imagine starting out on the streets with little or nothing to your name. Imagine struggling through confusion and loneliness, through tears and pain and even some times full of ironic laughter. Well big shots like Bob Dylan and Kurt Vonnegut had periods in their lives exactly like what I just described.
Many people know Bob Dylan as a famous folk singer. What they may or may not realize is how he became the man he is to us today. He wasn't always a famous singer; he started at the bottom just like millions of other writers, singers or poets. In the dark cafes in New York City, he played his guitar and harmonica and told his story. He has been an influence through his music for more than forty years. He has made many albums, and that's want he wanted to do, to tell his stories through his songs.
Kurt Vonnegut is best known for his use of humor and satire in his writing. A Man without a Country is a book of essays he wrote with different opinions on many subjects to different people. Kurt Vonnegut wrote without having to offend people like most comedians do. Blacks, Whites, Jews, Catholics, politicians, all have in someway been mentioned in his stories and opinions. Kurt Vonnegut talked about how things that he has learned over his lifetime. He is not afraid to put those beliefs on paper even if his words could be insulting to his readers. These essays would become his final book that would share his opinions and thoughts of the world he lived in. That book answers the question on what does it mean to be human.

I just finished re-reading this book. It is sad and funny , plump with joy and fear. Funny how all these feelings feed on one another. I think this book is a bit like the Last Lecture---final thoughts from a life: people can be nutty(he really goes after pols) but don't let this harsh truth make you fold up your tent; understand the value of humor, not the Bob Hope superficial gruel but the Mark Twain, we are all in a pickle together wisdom ; try to be kind and, failing that, try to do no harm. My favorite section---how to plot out a book, replete with charts. He was a great writer because he made it look so simple. And that's hard. At 145 pages, a night or weekend's reading.

This is a somewhat amusing outdated book that mainly quotes various statements to spew from the mouth of one G.W Bush during the first year of his presidency.

It goes without saying for me that Bush has absolutely no input as to what decisions are made but the real question in my mind is if he has brain damage from the years of drug and alcohol abuse, is he drunk or high on acid while giving interviews and speeches, is he just that dumb or is he a great actor that is intentionally playing the role of inept moron in order to create a scapegoat to divert attention away from the real controllers?

To understand and appreciate this work, you must be an American first and a party member second. It is then, and only then, that one can fully understand how George W. Bush, with a golden opportunity to become one of our most revered Presidents, will go down in history as one of the worst, and the second most hated man to live in the last hundred years. Freedom is not the right to do as you please, but the liberty to do as you should. I've read several articles that said this President was his father's puppet. Nothing could be farther from the truth. He's no one's puppet, he's uncontrollable. I've always referred to George W. as Caligula. Actions, good or bad, soon fall prey to habit. As a registered Republican, I offer my condolence and beg to be forgiven for the 2,250 Americans and the countless Arabs who have been needlessly murdered. My party is out of control. We are like a pack of wild dogs that kill not from hunger, but for pleasure.

Wonderful. A close, intimate reading of the complex tapestry that is George Bush. Recommended for evangelical Christians, Oil Company executives, and NASCAR mommies and daddies who STILL believe.

When you actually listen to the things George W. Bush says, you might just wince at the barbarisms, mispronunciations of words and the poor grammar. "Misunderestimate" is one of Bush's most infamous to date. My personal favorite "Bushism" was one he made in or about 2000 in re imports. Bush actually said that "more and more of our imports are coming in from overseas." Where did he think imports were coming from, Boston? Good grief!

If nothing else, Bushisms do provide some comic relief during these times of strife and war. While I am no fan of this president and will be among the many who will call the emperor naked and his administration of the emperor's new clothing genre, I do get a kick out of some of his more outlandish comments. As for calling him an anti-intellectual, I beg to differ. I would have to say that instead of opposing intellectualism, Bush is out of the ballgame as he is certainly a far cry from an intellectual by anyone's reckoning. Gently put, he is not the brightest bulb in the lamp or the sharpest tool in the shed.

Was Bush a child who got left behind? This book includes quite a list of Bush's verbal gaffes and poorly contructed sentences. It makes you wonder why on earth the media panders to him - the emperor is naked, for Pete's sake!

This author claims Bush's verbal challenges are caused by dyslexia. His term "West Texas ebonics" actually made me laugh. Bush's barbarisms, while grimace-worthy is not necessarily a regional problem. Bush's handlers try to prep him for television and instead of focusing on issues, many times the media will throw in red herrings such as Al Gore's lack of spontaneity in his delivery and Perot's distinctive ears. For Pete's sake! What do those trivial matters have to do with pressing issues? Absolutely nothing!

It is very sad that Bush (called Dumbya by the local democrat organizations in this state) is not able to name world leaders; thinks Mexico is South America (and yes, he did say that early in the game) and expressed surprise that imports to America came in from overseas. How in the blue hell did he get to be the apple of the media's eye? He is lobbed some soft ball questions; he does not appear to be able to catch hard ball issues or grasp complex issues and questions. As for "the soft bigotry of low expectations," Dumbya is the poster child for that claim and is also the poster child of who got left behind.

In April of 2007, Senator Harry Reid of Nevada called Dumbya a naked emperor, which seems very spot on. This was in re Dumbya's kvetching about Nancy Pelosi taking time off from her job just as he was about to take some time off from "presidentin'," as his humorous alter-ego who plays him on "Saturday Night Live" says.

Miller hits the bull in the eye when he chafes against the Right's concerted efforts to make Dumbya appear to be an ordinary man for everybody. Comparing him to previous presidents is an insult; Dumbya does not appear to be anywhere near their league of intellectual depth and comprehension of issues. Representative Watts' claim that one need not be smart to be president is a sad fact in today's world; one would think that intelligence would be a job requirement.

Bush, unlike Carter, Clinton, LBJ, Lincoln, Senator John Edwards, Gerald Ford and others did not work his way up from humble beginnings. He had Affirmative Action for the Rich - in this case called "being a legacy." Having a dad who's well connected will certainly open many a door. It has been well documented that Bush was no scholar and was quite a regular attendee at campus parties. As another reviewer on the US boards notes, Dumbya wasted good opportunities at schools like Andover and Yale who most likely would never have accepted him without some string-pulling. He was spoonfed a sense of entitlement to a lavish lifestyle; constant protection and gaining admission to schools who otherwise would not have accepted him. Dumbya's comment about Buckley's having written a book and Dumbya having read one - sad comment given that during his administration, Dumbya said he didn't read and that included the news. How in the blue hell can a president dodge the news? That is a large part of the president's business!

Miller's book is crisp, well written and his trenchant comments will stay with readers long after finishing the last page. This is not just a book for those who don't care for Bush and I admit that I am one - this is a book for everybody. It is a look behind the Presidential Curtain.

The beginning and end of this book is pretty good, when he is not explaining Bush's quotes. It gets boring in the middle.

In this day and age of sanitized/filtered news and monopolized corporate media, it is refreshing to read a 'timeline' book that delineates all the mistakes, bad schemes, and outright lies of 'Bush 2' and company, written by an astute and honest researcher and chronicler. The book presents disturbing fact after fact that should trouble every American, and is not partisan in any way. Republicans, as well as Democrats, should be at least concerned, and at most outraged at all the inept mismanagement and lies that led to the Iraqi invasion, as well as the many other incompetencies of the Bush administration. From his ignoring the message that the second tower was attacked while reading to children to 'Yellowcake' to wrongly outing Valerie Plame to the Iraq war buildup based on lies/false information to the Iraqi war mismanagement to Bush staging 'Mission Accomplished' to Abu Ghraib to not providing proper armor/combat vehicles to our soldiers to the intransigence of Katrina to the 'swiftboating' of a war hero, John Kerry (while Bush saw no combat duty) to the fast rising oil/gas prices to the brainwashing of the largely gullible and malleable American public, etc. etc. etc. This excellent book essentially 'covers all the bases' when it comes to why George Bush will be considered one of the worst, if not THE worst Presidents we've ever had. Frankly, if 'Shrub' was a corporate CEO, his rear-end would have been fired a LONG TIME AGO! How this way below average buffoon ever made it to be POTUS in the first place is the shock of the century.

The timeline at the end of the book ties up the case: for some unknown reason (perhaps just to get re-elected) the party in power deliberately takes the country to war. Every documented lie is exposed. Sometimes the anguish I felt reading this book caused me to put it aside and I felt despair about our miss-directed lives as citizens.

what a truth-teller!!! if you want a refreshingly honest and accurate critique of the horrors of w's presidency, be sure to have this in your library...frankie's essays are delightfully biting...

the spin, and Fox news propaganda always made up a quick response to any BUSH lies, and Incompetence. In this excellent book on CD's you can hear the actual truth, sans lying propaganda, and see how we were systematically deceived, manipulated, and just constantly lied to. As to IRAQ, and the whole run up to war, 'the whole damn thing was a LIE !'

My experience with this book: in short, ennui and déjà vu, not to borrow too much from the French. As to be expected by now, we get breathless reporting on how the Administration tries to spin the press and put its actions in the most favorable light possible. Imagine that. And, as to be expected, we also get the yawn-inducing laundry list of supposed sins, along with generally poor editing and overall intellectual sloppiness. Briefly:

* Blame for Bush for not being alcoholic *enough* to swear off the booze: "He was never a clinical alcoholic, never drank during the day (or every day), never needed to seek out A.A. or any other treatment" (pp 12-13).

* "already extant" stem-cell lines (p 20). Suggestion: if you're going to use words like "extant," you should make sure you know what they mean. It's a redundancy to say "already extant," since the word means "already existing."

* Blaming America for the terrorist attacks. Regarding the pre- 9-11 culture: "A decade of dreaming was coming to an end. The dream had been simple--that Americans could have it all without having to pay any price" (p 22).

ASIDE. It's funny and ironic that so many neo-Puritans are on the left, from Al Gore to Mike Bloomberg to the theater critic. People who think that a necessary adjunct to life is suffering for our sins, whether those sins be religious or secular, real or imagined, individual or institutional.

* Blaming Bush for not going back to the capital fast enough after the terrorist attack: "September 11 was the first time since the British set fire to the White House in 1814 that a president abandoned the capital for security reasons" (p 24). First, to point out the obvious, Bush was in Florida when the Mohammedans attacked. He wasn't in the White House, so couldn't have "abandoned" it. Second, if Flight 93 hadn't crashed in Pennsylvania, Bush might have been killed in Flight 93's attack.

* "The farther away Americans were from 9/11, both in time and geography, the faster it faded" (p 38). Wrong. New York was the epicenter of the attacks yet also one of quickest to become anti-Bush and anti-war.

ASIDE. It's factually-challenged statements like the one above that make me think the theater critic really needs to get out of his bubble and see the rest of the U.S. The Upper West Side is an awfully small part of America. If you're an Upper West Side liberal who thinks people west of the Hudson River are rubes and hicks, fine. Just don't pretend to speak for them.

* Enron was "the greatest single financial patron of Bush's political career" (pp 42-43). This is just a really mentally challenged factual assertion. Companies cannot donate to politicians. 2 U.S.C. §441b(a).

* "Bush had never run a successful business" (p 51). The Texas Rangers baseball franchise wasn't a successful business?

* "Well before the missed Qaeda signals of the summer of 2001..." (p 51). Like the missed "Al" (or "al" -- the book can't make up its mind) in front of "Qaeda" in that sentence?

* The 9/11 Commission supposedly concluded that Mohammed Atta's meeting in Prague with Ahmad al-Ani, the Iraqi intelligence officer, "never took place" (pp 65, 128). Wrong. The CIA director told the 9/11 Commission: "`Atta may also have traveled outside of the U.S. in early April 2001 to meet an Iraqi intelligence officer, although we are still working to corroborate this'" (9/11 Report p 386). This statement has never been retracted or modified.

* The book is smart enough not to directly claim Bush's "sixteen words" about Iraq seeking uranium from Africa were false. The book *implies* that by concentrating on the forged uranium purchase offer documents (pp 71-72, 97-100, 143), but in point of fact, as the theater critic probably knows, chances are good that Iraq *did* seek uranium from Niger. See the Senate Intelligence Committee Report of July 7, 2004 p. 42.

* "No American weapons inspectors...would ever find any weapons" of mass destruction (p 102). Wrong. In fact, about 500 chemical weapons had been found in Iraq as of early 2006, according to the National Ground Intelligence Center, the successor to the Iraq Survey Group. (U.S. House of Representatives - Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence, June 21, 2006). It's true that these weapons were mostly left over form the Iran-Iraq war, and were not new weapons or weapons produced by mobile laboratories -- but it's flat-out false to say that no WMDs were found in Iraq.

* The book seems shocked that pre- 9/11 the Bush Administration was planning for a possible showdown with Saddam Hussein (pp 113, 218), but fails to mention that the overthrow of Saddam had been an explicit U.S. policy since the Iraq Liberation Act of 1998. Of *course* there would be pre-9/11 and pre-Iraq War discussions about overthrowing Saddam. That and the fact that he was ordering constant attacks on U.S. planes in the no-fly zones. If a country tries to shoot down your planes thousands of times, isn't that country at war with you?

* The Swift Boat Veterans for Truth were supposedly "Rove minions" (p 137). Oh? Prove it. The theater critic provides some six degrees of separation stuff to back up this claim, like the fact that the Swifties' communications director once worked for a group that was bankrolled by a Bush donor (pp 139-140). That's riveting evidence all right. George Tenant would call it a slam dunk. Face it, the theater critic has squat because if Rove really had been controlling the Swifties, that would be explosive, because it is illegal for a political campaign to coordinate with an outside, 527 group. 2 U.S.C. §441a(a)(7). Which is likelier: the left has overlooked a chance to nail Rove for a crime -- or the theater critic is talking out of his hat?

* In 2004 the Rovian attack machine set out to have Kerry "literally stripped of his medals" (p 137). No, the only person who "literally stripped" John Kerry of his medals was John Kerry. He did that all by himself when he took his medals off and threw them over the White House fence.

ASIDE. "literally stripped." Wow. Literally? So Rove is just going to walk up to Kerry and strip those medals off of him?

* Supposedly Kerry was opposed to same-sex marriage (p 151). That's both true and false. It's true that by Election Day 2004 Kerry said he opposed same-sex marriage. But it's false because Kerry at one point did support it ("Kerry Signed Letter Backing Gay Marriage," USA Today, Feb 11, 2004) but later flip-flopped on the issue.

* Bush's flight suit he wore to the aircraft carrier Lincoln was a "costume" (p 156). Because the theater critic seems to be factually deficient regarding military matters, let me point out that a flight suit is required gear for flying a plane. It's a "costume" in the same sense a fire fighter's clothing and helmet is a "costume."

* The book describes the Jayson Blair plagiarism and fabrication scandal, and the Memogate scandal, then goes on to say: "These scandals played perfectly into the Administration's insidious efforts to blur the boundary between its reality and actual reality" (p 163). So let me get this straight: story fabrication and libel are "actual reality" and anyone trying to say otherwise has an alternative reality? Unbelievable.

* Rove supposedly was the source of the Valerie Plame leak (pp 179-180). Wrong. Actually, it was Richard Armitage. See "Hubris" by Isikoff and Corn.

* The book spends a lot of time blasting Bush for the feds' Katrina response (pp 198-205), but makes no mention of the incompetent New Orleans and Louisiana response, as well as the Posse Comitatus problem. I'm not saying that what the theater critic has to say about Bush and Katrina is factually incorrect, it's just distorted because it omits the other pieces of the picture.

* I thought the book would be too smart to fall into the Iraq / "imminent threat" trap but apparently the theater critic couldn't help himself. He implies the Administration said or believed that Saddam was an imminent threat (p 211). Wrong. Bush never said Saddam posed an "imminent threat" or imminent anything. In fact, in his 2003 State of the Union Speech, Bush said just the opposite, that we should attack Saddam *before* he became an imminent threat: "Some have said we must not act until the threat is imminent. Since when have terrorists and tyrants announced their intentions, politely putting us on notice before they strike? If this threat is permitted to fully and suddenly emerge, all actions, all words, and all recriminations would come too late."

Overall, I have to admit that while the book breaks no new ground in any way, it *is* clever enough not to fall for some of the standard anti-Bush lies -- for example that Iraq never sought uranium from Africa or that Bush declared the war to be over in the May 1, 2003 "Mission Accomplished" speech. The theater critic does seem to be aware that there are facts other than those in his alternative universe. That's a bit of a relief at this stage, and bumps this book up to two stars.

This provides a good insight into George W. Bush's character as governor of Texas, a character that keeps "shining". Even though this book also has a political agenda, it also spells out why voters need to do their own research prior to voting.

There is no other writer that has such a witty presentation on such a difficult subject. She saw George W. Bush and his impact on Texas and with her wonderful sense of humor told the American citizens what to expect with regard to education, guns, laws and leadership. As I read I was amazed at the warnings we had, but we "elected" him anyway. Molly said what so many think, but are afraid to say outloud. This book is not heavy or difficult, but explains what GWB did and would do while injecting lots of humor to keep us from crying.

Oh, that the subtitle of this wonderful little book had proved true. The world would be a much happier place. Texas writers Ivins and Dubose sat at ringside for Dubya's pre-presidential career, and herein offer a fascinating and humorous report card. George W. Bush had done very little to qualify himself as a presidential candidate beyond being born, which, one could argue, was not exactly his choice. (Karmic destiny, et. al, aside.) And he has done very little governing, because Texas has a "weak governor" system, in which the governor is actually the fifth most powerful elected official, with limited appointment responsibility. It is largely a bully pulpit position. Their report appears to be accurate and carefully documented - often by court documents. The record suggests that a Bush presidency would be very good for business and a disaster for the rest of us, most particularly a disaster for the environment. Bush had a clear environmental agenda: eliminate regulation, reporting, testing, oversight, fines, lawsuits or anything else which might prevent an industry from doing as it damn well pleases. His preceeding business career was almost entirely underwritten by Dad's friends and supporters, who might possibly have seen some advantage in being Junior's benefactor. His one big financial win, a capital gain when he sold his share of the Texas Rangers baseball team, came as the result of the use of eminent domain action to force below market sale of property to the team for a new stadium. Publicly, of course, Bush lobbies hard against government "taking," but he apparently didn't mind making $15 million on it himself. (This is somewhat reminiscent of that other Texan, Ross Perot, who railed against big government after making his millions via Medicare contracts.) As for his new mantra of "compassionate conservatism," George magazine reported that Dubya was the co-creator (with Lee Atwater) of the infamous Willie Horton TV ad which virtually labelled Michael Dukakis as a murderer. Atwater apologized to Dukakis from his death bed, but there is nothing in SHRUB to suggest that Dubya has ever expressed similar remorse. In the most repulsive quote in this book, Bush mocked Karla Faye Tucker's appeal for clemency in a September 1999 interview with a Talk magazine reporter. "'Please,' Bush whimpers, his lips pursed in mock desperation, 'don't kill me.'" The reporter noted that he must have looked shocked, as the Governor immedicately dropped his customary smirk. A good read. Scarier than Stephen King because it is real. Full of fun asides, coincidences and local color. Oh, if only the Washington press corps had read this in 2000, and paid attention, instead of offering voters their opinion that Bush would be a fun beer-drinking companion.

No matter your political beliefs, it is interesting to read about the background of our elected leaders; even though it is freightening and sad at times.

If I was an American voter and I wished to for information about the Republican candidate prior to the 2000 election I would have bought the first edition of Ms Ivins' book. A read would have been enough to ensure that I would not have voted for Mr Bush even though Ms Ivins paints quite an attractive picture of him. She emphasises his campaigning abilities and the undoubted fact that unlike the present crop of Republican candidates he was able in his gubernatorial elections to unite the two quite separate parts of the American right, the fundamental Christians and the old time Republicans. However she also hands out low marks for ability and honesty. Bush does emerge as a Daddy's boy with Bush Senior's friends only too willing to hand out loans to shaky business enterprises and later to election expenses. I amazed that this book did not attract that much attention when the first edition was published.

I bought this book for a read on a long flight and found it very engaging. If you've ever been curious to get a better sense of what was happening behind the veil of government secrecy during the time after 9/11, this will go pretty far in satisfying that curiousity.

Ron Suskind is excellent and The Price of Loyalty was a great book. I found that The One Percent Doctrine was a bit late to the party in that I had read most of this in previous texts on the same topic.
Maybe I'm oversaturated with material in this area and this would serve as a good primer for those that haven't already explored the War on Terror, post 9/11 books.
Some of the anecdotes were presented in a cartoonish way and the moral of the story is redundant at this point, i.e. Bush administration is secretive and flawed in a big way.

I know this book has been out there for a couple of years, but I just read it a week or so ago.

I especially was intrigued by the author's argument the decision to invade Iraq was made in late 2001, if not before.

I suspect the invasion of Iraq would have occurred even if 9/11 had not happened.

The administration seized upon 9/11, disingenuously conflating it with Iraq.

Such was the obsession within this administration, especially its neocons, on having the United States in a unipolar world assume a far more aggressive role in remaking Muslim societies to more nearly comport with our notions of what is proper.

Iraq was to be merely the first installment on this process.

Arrogance?

I'll say.

Interesting look at the "cheney doctrine". If interetsed in the 9/11 story give this a listen.

This is a disappointing book on many levels. I read the book during research for my Ph.D. dissertation but concluded it lacks the academic rigor to be a credible source. The author's documentation of sources consisted of a short paragraph in the back, stating his book was based on substantial interviews and documents, but fails to reveal them. Hence, readers cannot scrutinize his evidence or the basis for his conclusions. One might conclude that the book is based on one percent research.

I was surprised to learn from the book that the United States supplies Israel with tanks, tanks which kill women and children. Had the author bothered to check, he would have discovered that the Merkava tank is Israeli-manufactured. The emotive reference to inadvertent deaths of noncombatants is callow at best. The error may be minor, but if the author is wrong on basic knowledge, how dependable is the rest of the book? One might conclude that the book is based on one percent facts.

The book purports one assertion after another using weak evidence and weaker logic. The author claims that the failure of al Qaeda to launch subsequent attacks on the United States is not due to American vigilance or counter-actions, but because al Qaeda chose not to. The author suggests that Vice President Cheney is running the war effort, not President Bush, and that all national security decisions are based on the slight possibility of a threat materializing, hence the One Percent Doctrine. One might conclude the book is based on one percent logic.

Many of the author's accounts regarding the run up to the Iraq War are simply a regurgitation of Seymour Hersh's Chain of Command, but not as detailed. Perhaps Mr. Hersh was one of the author's sources. One might conclude the book is one percent personal effort.

The reader must endure numerous platitudes of the President not being a reader or the Director of the CIA being a back-slapper, and other attempts by the author to appear clever. Rather than attempt to analyze why certain national security decisions were made or the constraints placed on the Administration regarding the prosecution of the War on Terror, the author chose to sensationalize events using one percent hindsight.

In short, this book was one hundred percent a waste of my valuable research time.

Lieutenant Colonel Raymond Millen (Ret).

For those who do not know the story, the American Presidential election in 2000 was very close. Democrat Al Gore received more popular votes than Republican George W Bush, but such elections are decided state by state, and the winner in Florida was to determine who would be President. In Florida, more voters intended to vote for Gore than for Bush, but due to several irregularities, the vote was very close. Close enough to require a mandatory recount. Close enough so that either candidate could ask for a hand count of disputed ballots.

As it turned out, a complete recount of all ballots would have confirmed that Gore had won. According to Florida law, such a recount should have been performed. When a recount got under way, it grew increasingly clear that Gore might well win. However, the Republican strategy (in a state where Bush's brother was the governor) was to refuse a recount or to delay any recount until the Presidential winner had to be announced. If the Democrats protested, they would take the case to court. To the Supreme Court. And if they lost that case, they would simply have