Buy new:
$12.79$12.79
Arrives:
Feb 3 - 14
Ships from: Amazon Sold by: White Diamond fish
Buy used: $3.25
Download the free Kindle app and start reading Kindle books instantly on your smartphone, tablet, or computer - no Kindle device required. Learn more
Read instantly on your browser with Kindle for Web.
Using your mobile phone camera - scan the code below and download the Kindle app.
The Plan: Big Ideas for America Hardcover – August 15, 2006
| Price | New from | Used from |
Enhance your purchase
- Print length224 pages
- LanguageEnglish
- PublisherPublicAffairs
- Publication dateAugust 15, 2006
- Dimensions5.1 x 0.6 x 8.5 inches
- ISBN-101586484125
- ISBN-13978-1586484125
Editorial Reviews
About the Author
Bruce Reed writes a daily political column for Slate and is the editor-in-chief of Blueprint, the leading magazine of new Democratic ideas. In 1992, Reed helped write Putting People First, the bestselling book on Clinton's agenda. He is President of the Democratic Leadership Council.
Both Rahm Emanuel and Bruce Reed served as top aides in Bill Clinton's 1992 and 1996 campaigns and held top policy jobs in the White House.
Product details
- Publisher : PublicAffairs; 1st edition (August 15, 2006)
- Language : English
- Hardcover : 224 pages
- ISBN-10 : 1586484125
- ISBN-13 : 978-1586484125
- Item Weight : 13.6 ounces
- Dimensions : 5.1 x 0.6 x 8.5 inches
- Best Sellers Rank: #1,880,592 in Books (See Top 100 in Books)
- #582 in Political Reference
- #8,700 in U.S. Political Science
- #13,236 in Public Affairs & Policy Politics Books
- Customer Reviews:
About the author

Discover more of the author’s books, see similar authors, read author blogs and more
Customer reviews
Customer Reviews, including Product Star Ratings help customers to learn more about the product and decide whether it is the right product for them.
To calculate the overall star rating and percentage breakdown by star, we don’t use a simple average. Instead, our system considers things like how recent a review is and if the reviewer bought the item on Amazon. It also analyzed reviews to verify trustworthiness.
Learn more how customers reviews work on Amazon-
Top reviews
Top reviews from the United States
There was a problem filtering reviews right now. Please try again later.
Emanuel and Reed are among the "blame America first" crowd. The wimpy attitudes of many of our so-called allies and their visceral anti-Americanism is supposedly our fault. It gets worse. Read the following:
"Five years have now passed since America was attacked on 9/11. We've now been fighting the war on terror for longer than it took America to win World War II. Apart from American troops, whose heroism has spanned the generations, our time does not stack up well by comparison."
Wow, where do I even begin? Our enemies during W.W.II wore uniforms and fought on behalf of their respective governments. Today's life and death struggle against the Islamic nihilists is an existential one. They are terrorists and not soldiers. Our current foes do not represent a per se country, but a world wide Jihadist movement dedicated to destroying the West. These thugs are in it for the long haul---and not a mere half a decade engagement. The kindest thing one can say concerning the authors is that they are naive. I encourage everyone to focus on Chapter 11, entitled "Who Sunk My Battleship? A New Strategy to win the War on Terror." This should convince you that the Democrats cannot be taken seriously. The Republicans may not be perfect. Nonetheless, they are the only game in town. The Democrats are simply going to get us killed.
David Thomson
Flares into Darkness
So how does Emanuel view issues of war, peace and foreign policy? Emanuel has just supplied the answer in the form of a book co-authored with Bruce Reed, modestly entitled: The Plan: Big Ideas for America. The authors obligingly boil each of the eight parts of "The Plan" down to a single paragraph. The section which embraces all of foreign policy is entitled "A New Strategy to End the War on Terror," a heading revealing in itself since "war on terror" is the way the neocons and the Israeli Lobby currently like to frame the discussion of foreign policy. Here is the book's summary paragraph with my comments in parentheses:
"A New Strategy to Win the War on Terror"
("War on Terror," as George Soros points out, is a false metaphor used by those who would drag us into military adventures not in our interest or that of humanity.)
"We need to use all the roots of American power to make our country safe. (He begins by playing on fear.) America must lead the world's fight against the spread of evil and totalitarianism, but we must stop trying to win that battle on our own. (Messianic imperialism.) We should reform and strengthen multilateral institutions for the twenty-first century, not walk away from them. We need to fortify the military's "thin green line" around the world by adding to the U.S. Special Forces and the Marines, and by expanding the U.S. army by 100,000 more troops. (An even bigger military for the world's most powerful armed forces, a very militaristic view of the way to handle the conflicts among nations. What uses does Emanuel have in mind for those troops?) We should give our troops a new GI Bill to come home to. (More material incentives to induce the financially strapped to sign up as cannon fodder.) Finally we must protect our homeland and civil liberties by creating a new domestic counterterrorism force like Britain's MI5. (A new spy domestic spying operation is an obvious threat to our civil liberties; MI5 holds secret files on one in 160 adults in Britain along with files on 53,000 organizations.)"
There it is, straight from the horse's mouth.
How does Emanuel, the man who has screened and chosen the 2006 Democratic candidates for Congress, feel specifically about the war on Iraq, the number one issue on voters' minds. Emanuel and Reed do not so much as mention Iraq in their book except in terms of the "war on terror." Nor does Emanuel mention Iraq on his web site as among the important issues facing us, quite amazing omission and one shared by Chuck Schumer who is his equivalent of the Senate side, chairing the DSCC (Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee). However a very recent profile in Fortune (9/25/2006), "Rahm Emanuel, Pitbull Politician," by Washington Bureau chief Nina Easton notes: "On Iraq, Emanuel has steered clear of the withdraw-now crowd, preferring to criticize Bush for military failures since the 2003 invasion. `The war never had to turn out this way,' he told me at one of his campaign stops. In January 2005, when asked by Meet the Press's Tim Russert whether he would have voted to authorize the war-`knowing that there are no weapons of mass destruction'-Emanuel answered yes. (He didn't take office until after the vote.) 'I still believe that getting rid of Saddam Hussein was the right thing to do, okay?' he added."(3)
When Jack Murtha made his proposal for withdrawal from Iraq, Emanuel quickly declared that "Jack Murtha went out and spoke for Jack Murtha." As for Iraq policy, Emanuel added: "At the right time, we will have a position." That was November, 2005. In June, 2006, it was obviously time, and Emanuel finally revealed his policy in a statement on the floor of the House during debate over Iraq, thus: "The debate today is about whether the American people want to stay the course with an administration and a Congress that has walked away from its obligations or pursue a real strategy for success in the war on terror. ...We cannot achieve the end of victory and continue to sit and watch, stand pat, stay put, status quo and that is the Republican policy. ...Democrats are determined to take the fight to the enemy." The refrain is familiar; more troops are the means and victory in Iraq is the goal.
The booklet is mercifully short although quite repetitious and very poorly written, a real MEGO experience. In addition to the section on "the war on terror," there are seven other parts of the book which are full of old Democratic nostrums - universal health care, but only for kids, not for all; no extension of social security but adding 401k plans; etc. But the militarism and even statism are what stand out most. The book is a clear indication why the Democratic party is not a genuine opposition party. Why not? That is another story.
The reviewer can be contacted at john.endwar@gmail.com
unique about Emanuel and Reed's "Plan" is that it
contained a laundry list of concrete suggestions. The
national political landscape has seemed especially
reactionary for the past five or six years
(understandably so) but the authors have set forth
pragmatic initiatives that just may make America a
better place. Like the other reviewers, I agree that
Emanuel and Reed strike a decidedly NON-partisan tone.
The "Plan" reminded me that, despite what the media
and many elected officials want us to believe,
Democrats and Republicans disagree on very little.
Finally, a reason to be optimistic.