Yeah whatever. You're taking him saying that it doesn't compare to one other memoir (not "works") as him saying it's mediocre. Point out something else he says in there that would lead you to conclude that. He doesn't. It's a pretty neutral review. I read it as him saying "I wish he would have talked more about his personal life." But again, as if him writing 4 paragraphs about how God talks to him would change your opinion on him or the decisions he made.

 

Just admit your bias towards him led you to conclude it was just a mediocre book, despite the fact that the review you base that opinion on doesn't say anything like that. That's what I'm getting at. "Hate" might be a strong word, but that's basically what it is.

 

When you compare Thing 1 that's considered really good to another, similar Thing 2 and point out that it's lacking both important parts Thing 1 has, it's not a favorable review. Perhaps you missed the last 1/4 of the review, as well, where he claims Bush's presidency was a turning point and that history will judge him much more harshly than he judges himself. Which, again, is one of the two crucial points that Grant had but Bush lacked--honest self-assessment and reflection.

 

I'll admit that a review that describes the book as falling far short of what's considered good in the genre and ends with condemnation of the author led me to describe it as mediocre.

 

Also at mediocre is basically hate

When you compare Thing 1 that's considered really good to another, similar Thing 2 and point out that it's lacking both important parts Thing 1 has, it's not a favorable review. Perhaps you missed the last 1/4 of the review, as well, where he claims Bush's presidency was a turning point and that history will judge him much more harshly than he judges himself. Which, again, is one of the two crucial points that Grant had but Bush lacked--honest self-assessment and reflection.

 

I'll admit that a review that describes the book as falling far short of what's considered good in the genre and ends with condemnation of the author led me to describe it as mediocre.

 

Also at mediocre is basically hate

 

"Falling far short of what's considered good in the genre" - you mean not being equal with the "finest" memoir of a President? Pretty tall order there don't you think?

 

And I said your immediate dismissal of the book was basically a reflection of your hatred for Bush. Given your prior posts about Bush or anything he's done, I'll stand by that.

"Falling far short of what's considered good in the genre" - you mean not being equal with the "finest" memoir of a President? Pretty tall order there don't you think?

 

Sure. And the review, in general, wasn't exactly kind in pointing out the differences and didn't exalt it's achievements. Which leads me to believe that the reviewer found the book to be mediocre.

 

And I said your immediate dismissal of the book was basically a reflection of your hatred for Bush. Given your prior posts about Bush or anything he's done, I'll stand by that.

 

And, as I pointed out, you failed to read what I actually wrote. I did not pass judgement of the book myself, as you incorrectly tried to criticize me for, but instead relayed what I had heard in a review. You haven't made any case for considering that review to be positive.

Just seems like you are overreacting here. I don't see hate x10, I see people hitting Bush for writing a lame book, by all accounts.

 

I'm still going to read it, though.

Thats odd, all I see is hate in those initial posts.

I'm not going to read it, but then again, I don't think I have ever paid for the right to read about a politician slobbering all over their own knob.

Thats odd, all I see is hate in those initial posts.

Then quite honestly, I think you are seeing what you want to see, or expected to see. I've never been as huge a Bush hater as some here, I think he was doing what he thought was best. He was just not a good executive, and he made a bunch of mistakes including one gigantic and tragic war. And for me, all I see is people poking fun at his lack of depth.

 

On what planet is that hate?

 

Now, Sqwert's post, borders on it. I'll give you that one, and so will he.

 

Then quite honestly, I think you are seeing what you want to see, or expected to see. I've never been as huge a Bush hater as some here, I think he was doing what he thought was best. He was just not a good executive, and he made a bunch of mistakes including one gigantic and tragic war. And for me, all I see is people poking fun at his lack of depth.

 

On what planet is that hate?

 

Now, Sqwert's post, borders on it. I'll give you that one, and so will he.

I wasn't commenting on your post, rather the first few posts, which are clearly intended to do one thing and one thing only, call Bush an idiot and hate on him. They might say its not hate, its fact, but whatever.

Jesus Christ you guys are sensitive. I'm willing to bend a certain amount, and expect others to do the same for the sake of balance and just overall tolerability, but some of your expectations are frankly pretty hilarious, to be honest with you.

 

Once again all the anti-Texas hate on this board. If he some east coast liberal, y'all would be fawning all over him. But he's a damn honest to goodness Texan, and the hate always come rolling out. It's just hate, hate, hate, hate, hate, hate, hate, hate, hate, hate, hate, hate, hate, hate, hate, hate,

 

I'm going to read it, which is probably more than President Bush will do. If the book was great, we'd wonder who wrote it for him. IMNSHO Bush was brighter than we give him credit for, but not exactly our most intelligent President.

 

I thought And Hippos Were Boiled in Their Tanks sucked. That doesn't mean I think any less of Kerouac or Burroughs. I can still like them and dislike what they wrote, and they are authors.

I wasn't commenting on your post, rather the first few posts, which are clearly intended to do one thing and one thing only, call Bush an idiot and hate on him. They might say its not hate, its fact, but whatever.

 

mediocre book = idiot and hate now. Fantastic.

 

It seems like you guys are being hyper-sensitive.

I'm not going to read it, but then again, I don't think I have ever paid for the right to read about a politician slobbering all over their own knob.

 

Which is, at least from my reading, the point the reviewer was making. There's nothing noteworthy about the book.

 

But apparently that means I'm trying to paint Bush as an idiot because I hate him so much.

I think instead of hate, a more accurate description would have been "predictable". The same people who spent the entire Bush Presidency embracing the worst of him and his administration immediately sought out the worst reviews and opinions of his book. There was seemingly zero intellectual curiosity about someone who was different than them. Instead reinforcing opinions were only looked for, embraced, and bragged about. It's not really hate, per se, but more like same old filibuster, different day.

I think instead of hate, a more accurate description would have been "predictable". The same people who spent the entire Bush Presidency embracing the worst of him and his administration immediately sought out the worst reviews and opinions of his book. There was seemingly zero intellectual curiosity about someone who was different than them. Instead reinforcing opinions were only looked for, embraced, and bragged about. It's not really hate, per se, but more like same old filibuster, different day.

And you guys rise up to the defense instantly as well.

And you guys rise up to the defense instantly as well.

 

Really, there hasn't been any defending Bush in here at all.

Really, there hasn't been any defending Bush in here at all.

And now we play the game of debating whether "Criticism of Criticism" = defense or not.

And now we play the game of debating whether "Criticism of Criticism" = defense or not.

 

In that case your "you guys"= one person for this thread.

Let's reverse the liberal/conservative ratio in here and then bring up one of Obama's books and see how unpredictable that is?

Let's reverse the liberal/conservative ratio in here and then bring up one of Obama's books and see how unpredictable that is?

The one ghost written by a terrorist?

Let's reverse the liberal/conservative ratio in here and then bring up one of Obama's books and see how unpredictable that is?

 

It would be extremely predictable. The big difference between the two threads would be the complete handjob given to Obama over anything he writes. There was none of that here.

The one ghost written by a terrorist?

lol see. Someone completely made the Ayers thing up on the internet, and...

It would be extremely predictable. The big difference between the two threads would be the complete handjob given to Obama over anything he writes. There was none of that here.

eh... if you haven't noticed, the left isn't exactly enamored with Obama, even here. BigSqwert said something like "f*** Obama, I'm done with this asshole."

 

When he gets praised it's because he did/does something they wanted him to do which is the whole reason they even care about politics to begin with, then other stuff peripherally follows. Bush did virtually none of that and vice versa for Obama and the right. Why would it be any different? We can go back to Clinton and Reagan as well.

It would be extremely predictable. The big difference between the two threads would be the complete handjob given to Obama over anything he writes. There was none of that here.

 

Obama's been pretty mediocre so far.

 

I didn't go searching for any reviews of the book. I relayed the only review I happened to hear while in the car, and one news article I saw on another site. Other than that, I really couldn't care less about Bush's, or Clinton's, or Obama's memoirs. The backlash to saying his book is just sort of "meh" from the review I heard has been 1) predictable and 2) sad.

Obama's been pretty mediocre so far.

 

I didn't go searching for any reviews of the book. I relayed the only review I happened to hear while in the car, and one news article I saw on another site. Other than that, I really couldn't care less about Bush's, or Clinton's, or Obama's memoirs. The backlash to saying his book is just sort of "meh" from the review I heard has been 1) predictable and 2) sad.

 

Obama even having a memoir prior to being president is a joke, if you think about it.

Obama even having a memoir prior to being president is a joke, if you think about it.

Doesn't every candidate have that, at this point?

Doesn't every candidate have that, at this point?

 

 

Yea... Sarah Palin's another example (God forbid she makes it). I just don't really like it.

 

Rick Perry just released a book too. Basically, I think anyone who has a book out in the past is a candidate now.