Customer Reviews

Rebel in Chief: Inside the Bold and Controversial Presidency of George W. Bush

5 star:		(65)
4 star:		(15)
3 star:		(3)
2 star:		(5)
1 star:		(69)

 

 

Fred Barnes is a Fox television news analyst. He interviewed President George W. Bush and his top officials to report on the ways the Bush administration is using what he calls radical conservatism to effect change in the United States. This book is well written and covers foreign policy and faith-based initiatives. I will let you make up your own mind, but I will say that this book is an interesting read.

including one that I wrote just a couple of days ago. My review was negative and rather sarcastic about TV personality Fred Barnes' contention that Bush is a courageous political outsider -- which you have to agree would be an eccentric way to describe the politican son of any former President. But my review was not offensive unless, perhaps, you are Fred Barnes and your mission in life is the production of neoconservative political hagiography. Something like two thirds of viewers had found the review useful. All the same, I am not surprised it is gone, there have been hissy fits from the Right about these and other comments. Oh how they piously decry the uncivility of these unhinged moonbats!

So, when I noticed this, I checked a recent book by Michael Moore sold by Amazon. There are many equally partisan and rather less articulate reviews from the Right that are still there and that have been there for some time.

In other words, Amazon does not subject the Right to the same censorship.

Why? Does the publisher get to decide what reviews Amazon will publish? Does selective censorship add to the credibility of the process? Did you get a call from Karl?

Similar to the old Certs commercials, the main point of disagreement over Fred's book will be - is it a deadly boring love letter or is it sleep inducing sycophancy? Hint: it's two mints in one. Bush destroys the best of conservatism while Barnes shines his shoes.

And true to the spirit of the gift, I gagged throughout.

Fred Barnes feels Bush is the innovative unconventional renegade firebrand revolutionizing republicans, conservatives, politics and government. Fred casts Shrub in the profile of Brando's Wild One. Now we all have a sense that Gee Dubya is reckless enough, but in the sense that he lacks adult maturity. But this is hardly what Fred intends. Fred wants us to believe Bush is the vision of steadiness amidst chaotic jungle of politics. Fred sees Bush as the later day Horatio Hornblower. Or even as Che Guevara.

Fred also sees Bush as a genius and a font of wisdom.

If I was Bush, Fred would give me the creeps.

This book is utterly ridiculous.

It is beyond absurd.

It is demented.

[...]

Anyway, I read through the early part of this "book" at Borders, and immediately regretted it. Barnes is as thoroughly prostituted in the service of the Bush wing as the rest of the Media, and this little corner of Bush propaganda is as unreal, disgusting, and fictitious as the rest of the sodden mess.

This book is about Bush the "REBEL"?

I'd have an easier time thinking of the Wall Street Journal as the Mother Jones free press.

Bush is no rebel, he's the front man for one of the slickest, most politically focussed pack of liars in history. I was laughing reading Barnes' claim, and the review above that claimed bush was "not about Polls".

This to the Bush White House, a group that lives and dies with focus groups and talking points and has had Matthew Dowd on staff for years as the official White House pollster and political officer.

This to a White House that has Karl ROve, a Political guru in the West Wing, a White House that says nothing without consulting both Dowd and Rove and issues DAILY talking points to its prostitutes in the media who then begin the long, hard day of smashing the talking points from every talk show, every newspaper, every FOX report, every columnist in their pay.

And Barnes is one of them.

I was considering giving this piece of warm tripe two stars for humor, but decided it would be dishonest.

This book is rife with spelling errors. As far as subject matter, simply do a search on Google for "I hate liberals" and copy/paste the results and bind it. Then you'll have this book. Nothing intelligent is in it. There are plenty of books about Bush that are far better than this book. I recommend "A Matter of Character" and "Misunderstood", and possibly "A Man of Faith."

I'm not a fan of those who simply come here to bash Bush without having read the book. I don't like people who criticize by merely calling Bush evil or a facist or some such thing. Especially with the term facist, it doesn't mean anything any more and calling Bush evil stiffles any real possibility for meaningful debate. However, I did read this book and I can't stand the opposite side of the equation either. This book amounts to nothing more than romantic idealization. There is no sense of complication or dealing with the challenges of his presidency. The book has an enormously clean cut sense of perspective that doesn't reflect reality. Bush may not be pure evil, but he certainly isn't the towering figure of righteousness and courage that Barnes portrays. Even my incredibly right wing hardcore Christian parents don't view him Bush with this much positive enthusiasm anymore and they were once his biggest supporters.

I don't hate this book simply because I have left-wing views. I have left wing views and hate this book because it gives its readers nothing that couldn't be read elsewhere. There is no original insight, no analysis that hasn't been done a thousand times before by fans of the Bush administration. Once more is that its overly simplistic and reductionistic style is patronizing and makes conservatives look stupid. I liked Bill Clinton but I most certainly would not glorify him nearly to the degree that Barnes glorifies Bush. I know Clinton made mistakes, and conservative readers don't deserve such an overly glossy puff piece that pretends to reflect their political beliefs. Frankly, people with conservative political beliefs should be insulted because they deserve someone to speak their views with intelligence. There are many Republicans who have informed, reasonable and insightful views on important political issues. This book simply embraces and reinforces the stereotype that Republicans are idiots and love to produce propoganda that makes everything look rosy. It's been a long time since I have seen a book this obtuse and that consistently insults the reader's intelligence.

This book merely supported everything I already didn't like about president Bush. Namely, it attempts to efface and ignore the diffiuclties, challenges and problems that plague domestic economy, foreign policy, education and domestic security by presenting the shallow appearance of everything being okay. These issues deserve actual debate, actual intelligent, open conversation, not inane naive analysis. Everything is not okay, and no, for the love of God we are not being lead by some brave maverick who stood up for all that is right in the face of adversity. Dear God, we don't look at any historical figure with such rosy spectacles, why do we need a book that attempts to give us such a portrait of president Bush. No one, save the thirty-three percent that still approves of his job performance, looks at Bush with this much naivitee. Even though I am not conservative, I still firmly believe that concervatives deserve someone willing to own up to mistakes and deliver sound reasonable arguments, not some propoganda-esque portrait of how Barnes wishes things were.

Citing numerous "facts" to back up his Bush-as-a-Maverick thesis (each of these facts being well-researched and disproved by many independent authoriies), I found Barnes' sycophancy to have reached a new low. Of course, what's funny is that this mostly could have been written two years ago, being published during the campaign, when it might have helped his hero's electoral ambitions. It is blatant, unapologetic, partisan tripe which flies in the face of critical thinking and independent cognizance. Barnes does very little to prove how Bush is a "Maverick", but very much to underscore how he believes it is right and proper for someone he admires to jeopardize his own Constitutional rights. Disappointing, but not surprising.

I thought I'd throw in a perspective from Ireland here. Since when did a "President" who stole the 2000 election, is incredibly dumb and leads innocents to kill innocents based on a lie become a leader?

The general point of view here in Ireland is that the 4th Reich is alive and well in Washington. We were invaded by the British and it was us the people who got them out. Gandhi helped the people of India defeat the British Empire. Through non-violent conflict. The """"""Terrorists"""""" in Iraq, for those of you who don't know are the PEOPLE who live there. Do you think they're gonna let CORPORATIONS and fake America run their beautiful country. Think again. Good will always triumph over evil in the end...although it may take some time. It's just a shame that good men and women from Britain and America have to die so Bush and his friends can move into the Middle East and start a franchise of fakeness by plundering their resources, their oil, their rivers for transport...

Don't wars usually involve two or more army's fighting each other?

THIS WAR IS NOT ABOUT TERROR YOU FOOLS. ALL WARS ARE FOUGHT OVER TERRITORY AND RESOURCES.

THEY (THE PEOPLE OF IRAQ NOT THE TERRORISTS) WILL WIN BECAUSE IT'S THEIR COUNTRY.

Ask yourself this question please: what's the difference between Islamic Fundamentalist terrorism and Christian Fundamentalist terrorism? One group wears suits and the other wears tea-towels around their heads.

A leader? Yeah, and I'm Michael Collins. Wake up.