What do you think?
Rate this book
Invasion of the Party Snatchers: How the Holy-Rollers and Neo-Cons Destroyed the GOP
Victor Gold wants his party back.
Gold is the former press aide to Barry Goldwater and the former speechwriter and senior advisor for George H. W. Bush. He is incensed that the Neo-Cons and the Evangelical Right have betrayed the ideals of the conservative cause. Now he's fighting back.
A Republican insider for 40 years, Gold is ready to tell all about the war being waged for the GOP's soul, the elder Bush's opinion of his son's presidency, the significance of the Democratic resurgence, and how Goldwater would have reacted to it all.
Among Gold's explosive disclosures is the truth about Cheney's manipulation of George W., and the chilling, puppet-like role of the President amongst Neo- and Theo-Conservatives.
"Entertaining, provocative . . . Mr. Gold is on to something."
-The Washington Times
"For those disillusioned with the state of the GOP, this quick, uncompromising polemic provides substantial support, along with a large dose of cold comfort."
-Publishers Weekly
"Like his political mentor Barry Goldwater, Gold pulls no verbal punches in telling the story of how the Bush?Cheney White House has made a mockery of the conservative values it claims to uphold."
-Frank Mankiewicz, former press secretary to Robert Kennedy and George McGovern's campaign manager
"Victor Gold unleashes a bitter yet comic blend of ferocity and ridicule at the neo-conservatives and theocrats who have taken over his party."
-Jules Witcover
Gold is the former press aide to Barry Goldwater and the former speechwriter and senior advisor for George H. W. Bush. He is incensed that the Neo-Cons and the Evangelical Right have betrayed the ideals of the conservative cause. Now he's fighting back.
A Republican insider for 40 years, Gold is ready to tell all about the war being waged for the GOP's soul, the elder Bush's opinion of his son's presidency, the significance of the Democratic resurgence, and how Goldwater would have reacted to it all.
Among Gold's explosive disclosures is the truth about Cheney's manipulation of George W., and the chilling, puppet-like role of the President amongst Neo- and Theo-Conservatives.
"Entertaining, provocative . . . Mr. Gold is on to something."
-The Washington Times
"For those disillusioned with the state of the GOP, this quick, uncompromising polemic provides substantial support, along with a large dose of cold comfort."
-Publishers Weekly
"Like his political mentor Barry Goldwater, Gold pulls no verbal punches in telling the story of how the Bush?Cheney White House has made a mockery of the conservative values it claims to uphold."
-Frank Mankiewicz, former press secretary to Robert Kennedy and George McGovern's campaign manager
"Victor Gold unleashes a bitter yet comic blend of ferocity and ridicule at the neo-conservatives and theocrats who have taken over his party."
-Jules Witcover
- GenresPoliticsNonfiction
246 pages, Hardcover
First published April 19, 2007
1 person is currently reading
40 people want to read
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 15 of 15 reviews
December 30, 2023
An old man sitting in his chair complaining about the-Republican whippersnappers
Back in 2008 an early reviewer of Victor Gold’s Invasion of the Party Snatchers: How the Holy-Rollers and Neo-Cons Destroyed the GOP got this book right in one. Thank you, Skylar Burris. Given the author’s presence in the beginning this could have been at least a useful history. It is little better than a series of deaf to himself rants. Mr. Gold was inside of the PR efforts for Goldwater, Agnew and H.W. Bush. He was in leading insider roles including speech writer and therefor part of the messaging for all of these politicians.
Goldwater is his touch stone. One can imagine him selling republican-red wrist bands with only the initials WWGD (What Would Goldwater Do), or exactly WWGS, What would Goldwater Say? Thing is, he never exactly tells us. It is good because, well Goldwater. At some point, several points Goldwater is described as a right leaning Libertarian, but, there is no accepted definition of what a Libertarian is, and Gold makes no effort so define his or ‘Uncle” Goldwater’s version. It may even be that Goldwater never knew the term.
Gold was there when people, including his were making up to the religious right, and never producing for them. He was or should have been aware of the problem of campaigns that insisted government was broken and then demanded the election of people on the grounds that they
a. hated government and
b. had no idea how to operate a government.
This does a good job of motivating the ‘burn it all down crowd’; but results in the enaction of things that cannot work; thereby confirming that government does not work. Rather like the way financially conservative legislators under fund customer service activities, like licensing, then complain that the offices provide poor service.
Consider, are the Party Snatchers an invasion. How long were they the invited guests of a party that played to these same people? The ‘invaders’ were deliberately stirred them up, fed on red meat, motivated to vote and to run for office and now are common inside the party tent? Is it more honest to suggest, based on Gold’s information, that the party was handed to them?
For all of his finger pointing and grouchy sniping he has no analysis. He rarely details specific issues that might illustrate his point and when he does, he adds little to the existing record. He is correct in what he says about the Terri Schiavo case, but nothing he says is insider or not well known to anyone who, like me lived through it. He could have just admitted that he was speech writer to Spiro Agnew, and was sickened to learn he was and had been for years a criminal, but instead he makes a pitiful excuse for him. We all know finger pointing at someone else is always as good as your guy being cleansed in the blood of, I guess it would have to be Goldwater.
Before you ask about the Democrats, fear not he has nothing good to say about them. They are not why the book was written and seem to be beneath Gold. A strength of Goldwater is that he could talk and work across the aisle, but that is about all any of us need to know about Democrats.
The real failure of Victor Gold was a personal one. It was his job to get his candidate’s message across. It was his job to ensure voters had the right information and the right mood. Gold and his team routinely failed to win hearts and minds. He has nothing but the usual excuses and none of them involve Victor Gold and his job. His audience, is what we might have called the main stream Republicans. The ones who have become hapless and helpless in the face of Republican extremist. People who hate government, have no plans and a delight in shutting down, fellow Republicans. That means he never has to explain why. Why did the messages he wrote, fail to convince? Why his candidates failed to be acknowledged as any better, more reasonable or the better to be trusted? He feels no need to define the values he would have us believe are his core values or why those values should be the ones that are worth American votes.
There is a message that Gold promotes and one that is critical to America. We have to regain the ability to disagree without being ugly. Compromise is not the same as sin. Compromise is not “my way or I shut it down”. Respect has to go both ways and has to be understood as being how disagreements will be addresses. This rule applies across the spectrum. ‘You started it!” has to be replace with “It stops with me”; or even better: “Lets figure this out”.
Back in 2008 an early reviewer of Victor Gold’s Invasion of the Party Snatchers: How the Holy-Rollers and Neo-Cons Destroyed the GOP got this book right in one. Thank you, Skylar Burris. Given the author’s presence in the beginning this could have been at least a useful history. It is little better than a series of deaf to himself rants. Mr. Gold was inside of the PR efforts for Goldwater, Agnew and H.W. Bush. He was in leading insider roles including speech writer and therefor part of the messaging for all of these politicians.
Goldwater is his touch stone. One can imagine him selling republican-red wrist bands with only the initials WWGD (What Would Goldwater Do), or exactly WWGS, What would Goldwater Say? Thing is, he never exactly tells us. It is good because, well Goldwater. At some point, several points Goldwater is described as a right leaning Libertarian, but, there is no accepted definition of what a Libertarian is, and Gold makes no effort so define his or ‘Uncle” Goldwater’s version. It may even be that Goldwater never knew the term.
Gold was there when people, including his were making up to the religious right, and never producing for them. He was or should have been aware of the problem of campaigns that insisted government was broken and then demanded the election of people on the grounds that they
a. hated government and
b. had no idea how to operate a government.
This does a good job of motivating the ‘burn it all down crowd’; but results in the enaction of things that cannot work; thereby confirming that government does not work. Rather like the way financially conservative legislators under fund customer service activities, like licensing, then complain that the offices provide poor service.
Consider, are the Party Snatchers an invasion. How long were they the invited guests of a party that played to these same people? The ‘invaders’ were deliberately stirred them up, fed on red meat, motivated to vote and to run for office and now are common inside the party tent? Is it more honest to suggest, based on Gold’s information, that the party was handed to them?
For all of his finger pointing and grouchy sniping he has no analysis. He rarely details specific issues that might illustrate his point and when he does, he adds little to the existing record. He is correct in what he says about the Terri Schiavo case, but nothing he says is insider or not well known to anyone who, like me lived through it. He could have just admitted that he was speech writer to Spiro Agnew, and was sickened to learn he was and had been for years a criminal, but instead he makes a pitiful excuse for him. We all know finger pointing at someone else is always as good as your guy being cleansed in the blood of, I guess it would have to be Goldwater.
Before you ask about the Democrats, fear not he has nothing good to say about them. They are not why the book was written and seem to be beneath Gold. A strength of Goldwater is that he could talk and work across the aisle, but that is about all any of us need to know about Democrats.
The real failure of Victor Gold was a personal one. It was his job to get his candidate’s message across. It was his job to ensure voters had the right information and the right mood. Gold and his team routinely failed to win hearts and minds. He has nothing but the usual excuses and none of them involve Victor Gold and his job. His audience, is what we might have called the main stream Republicans. The ones who have become hapless and helpless in the face of Republican extremist. People who hate government, have no plans and a delight in shutting down, fellow Republicans. That means he never has to explain why. Why did the messages he wrote, fail to convince? Why his candidates failed to be acknowledged as any better, more reasonable or the better to be trusted? He feels no need to define the values he would have us believe are his core values or why those values should be the ones that are worth American votes.
There is a message that Gold promotes and one that is critical to America. We have to regain the ability to disagree without being ugly. Compromise is not the same as sin. Compromise is not “my way or I shut it down”. Respect has to go both ways and has to be understood as being how disagreements will be addresses. This rule applies across the spectrum. ‘You started it!” has to be replace with “It stops with me”; or even better: “Lets figure this out”.
November 23, 2008
Reading this book is something like listening to an old man sitting in a rocking chair on the porch spinning yarns about what life used to be like, back in the day, before the whippersnappers screwed it all up. It's only entertaining because the old man knew some pretty famous people, because he's cantankerous enough to say whatever he thinks without a filter, and because he knows a few great anecdotes. The author has a biting wit, but he's not nearly as funny as he seems to think he is. (I had an occasional chuckle.) He levels his barbs at politicians such as George W. Bush, Newt Gingrich, Dick Cheney, and Donald Rumsfield.
Victor Gold is angry at what he considers to be the destruction of the GOP by "theocrats" (religious/moral conservatives) and "neocons" (foreign policy hawks). He's clear about what he thinks the GOP shouldn't be, but he's not nearly as expansive about what he thinks the GOP should be (this he defines only in a short, bulleted list toward the end of the book, and I tend to agree that what he outlines is the Republican party I would like to see; I just don't know that it's a party that could ever win a national election).
At times, Gold's criticisms sounded more like those of a liberal than a conservative; there is, of course, plenty for a conservative to object to in the Bush administration, but conservatives have a different set of reasons for their objections than liberals, and Gold seems almost, on occasion, to be spewing liberal soundbites, even some that are canards (such as the ridiculous idea that a Sunni and Shiite, being of different religious persuasions, therefore couldn't or wouldn't work together against a common enemy).
The book provides a voyuerstic and sometimes entertaining, but decidedly unreassuring, glimpse into the inner workings of the political machine. It may possibly be enjoyed by a certain brand of liberals who simply like to salivate over any attack on George W. Bush, even if that attack suggests he resembles Democrat politicians of the past more than Republican politicians of the past, particularly in his Wilsonian foreign policy approach (a reflection of "neocon" influence, the neocons being those who came over from the Democrat party with Regan). It should also provide some satisfaction to those who loathe the so-called religious right (the "holly rollers" and "theocons" Gold derides). It's a slightly cathartic book for the many conservatives who disagree with the Bush administration on policies such as spending and Iraq and who think they see the GOP turning into just another leviathan, but he levels such a shotgun blast, that Gold ends up hitting more targets than most conservatives would like.
I am at least glad someone finally said this plainly and starkly: "So it is that [in the Bush Administration], what Americans have learned about [the] 'new kind of conservative politics' is that it's merely a recycled model of the old Liberal politics that led to the decline-and-fall of the Democratic party in the 1960s: a fiscally irresponsible, ever-expanding federal government presided over by an imperial executive imbued with a messianic view of America's right to 'democratize' the heathen."
Ever since Bush first ran for the Republican presidential nomination under the slogan of "compassionate conservatism," I suspected he wasn't really a conservative. People who believe in the principles of conservatism don't have to qualify it with the word compassionate, because they already believe conservatism is the best (political) way to expand prosperity for all, to raise up the poor, and to supply greater opportunity. His choice of a qualifier clued me in that he would not offer small-government conservatism, but increased federal spending on failing social programs and an expansion of the role of the federal government. What I did not foresee is that he would do this to a greater extent even than previous Democrat presidents.
I am frustrated by the utter lack of an option of a viable small-government party in the U.S., and so I walked into this book sympathetically. And although Victor Gold offered interesting insight into the history and evolution of the GOP, I don't ultimately buy the idea that the GOP has been hijacked. The truth is, the GOP has NEVER been a predominantly small-government party. Other than cutting taxes, what have the Republicans done to reduce the overall size of government or stop its growth? The conservative Congress under Clinton did engage in some real cost cutting and political reform; they reduced the federal welfare system and created a budget surplus, but Gold has nothing but contempt for Gingrich, and in the expanse of Republican history, that sort of government reduction was a mere flash-in-the-pan (or, as Gold himself says, a "blip"). Every Republican president—yes, even Reagan—has presided over a growth in the federal government and a growth in spending, and it can't all be blamed on the Democrats in Congress. Who does Gold point to as a representative of true conservatism? Barry Goldwater. But Goldwater couldn't win. The libertarian-republican contingent in the United States simply isn't big enough to form a viable party on its own.
The truth is that while the Democrat party is somewhat more of a political monolithic, the Republican party is a diverse amalgam of political groups with competing priorities that have come together in hope of accomplishing their own agendas; none of the groups is large enough to win elections on its own. The party combines small-government, free-market, fiscal conservatives (Gold's "real GOP"?), moral conservatives (Gold's "theocons"), and foreign policy hawks (the "neocons."). The last two groups must perforce strain against the goals of the first, because implementing those goals often requires spending and/or increased government interference. And thus we are left with an inevitable reality: overall, government will continue to grow, one way or another, no matter what party is in power.
One virtue of this book is that it makes me want to run out and read Barry Goldwater's "The Conscience of a Conservative," or his biography. Most people who read this book, including myself, will be too young to know much about Barry Goldwater. Such readers may only be familiar with a false caricature of Goldwater as a far right-winger warmonger, and so they may be surprised to find what his brand of conservatism really entailed as well as what it didn't. As Goldwater himself said, "If all I knew about that fella Goldwater was what I read in the papers, I wouldn't have voted for the sonofa- myself."
The book is, by and large, a tirade with many exaggerations, and too much spite. So why give it three stars? Because it is occasionally amusing, always interesting, breezily short, sometimes insightful, and, most of all, because I do think people need to know that the Bush administration and the previous Republican Congress did not, in fact, represent the goals and principles of the GOP as many conservatives understand them to be, but instead embodied many of the vices Republicans have previously ascribed to Democrats.
Victor Gold is angry at what he considers to be the destruction of the GOP by "theocrats" (religious/moral conservatives) and "neocons" (foreign policy hawks). He's clear about what he thinks the GOP shouldn't be, but he's not nearly as expansive about what he thinks the GOP should be (this he defines only in a short, bulleted list toward the end of the book, and I tend to agree that what he outlines is the Republican party I would like to see; I just don't know that it's a party that could ever win a national election).
At times, Gold's criticisms sounded more like those of a liberal than a conservative; there is, of course, plenty for a conservative to object to in the Bush administration, but conservatives have a different set of reasons for their objections than liberals, and Gold seems almost, on occasion, to be spewing liberal soundbites, even some that are canards (such as the ridiculous idea that a Sunni and Shiite, being of different religious persuasions, therefore couldn't or wouldn't work together against a common enemy).
The book provides a voyuerstic and sometimes entertaining, but decidedly unreassuring, glimpse into the inner workings of the political machine. It may possibly be enjoyed by a certain brand of liberals who simply like to salivate over any attack on George W. Bush, even if that attack suggests he resembles Democrat politicians of the past more than Republican politicians of the past, particularly in his Wilsonian foreign policy approach (a reflection of "neocon" influence, the neocons being those who came over from the Democrat party with Regan). It should also provide some satisfaction to those who loathe the so-called religious right (the "holly rollers" and "theocons" Gold derides). It's a slightly cathartic book for the many conservatives who disagree with the Bush administration on policies such as spending and Iraq and who think they see the GOP turning into just another leviathan, but he levels such a shotgun blast, that Gold ends up hitting more targets than most conservatives would like.
I am at least glad someone finally said this plainly and starkly: "So it is that [in the Bush Administration], what Americans have learned about [the] 'new kind of conservative politics' is that it's merely a recycled model of the old Liberal politics that led to the decline-and-fall of the Democratic party in the 1960s: a fiscally irresponsible, ever-expanding federal government presided over by an imperial executive imbued with a messianic view of America's right to 'democratize' the heathen."
Ever since Bush first ran for the Republican presidential nomination under the slogan of "compassionate conservatism," I suspected he wasn't really a conservative. People who believe in the principles of conservatism don't have to qualify it with the word compassionate, because they already believe conservatism is the best (political) way to expand prosperity for all, to raise up the poor, and to supply greater opportunity. His choice of a qualifier clued me in that he would not offer small-government conservatism, but increased federal spending on failing social programs and an expansion of the role of the federal government. What I did not foresee is that he would do this to a greater extent even than previous Democrat presidents.
I am frustrated by the utter lack of an option of a viable small-government party in the U.S., and so I walked into this book sympathetically. And although Victor Gold offered interesting insight into the history and evolution of the GOP, I don't ultimately buy the idea that the GOP has been hijacked. The truth is, the GOP has NEVER been a predominantly small-government party. Other than cutting taxes, what have the Republicans done to reduce the overall size of government or stop its growth? The conservative Congress under Clinton did engage in some real cost cutting and political reform; they reduced the federal welfare system and created a budget surplus, but Gold has nothing but contempt for Gingrich, and in the expanse of Republican history, that sort of government reduction was a mere flash-in-the-pan (or, as Gold himself says, a "blip"). Every Republican president—yes, even Reagan—has presided over a growth in the federal government and a growth in spending, and it can't all be blamed on the Democrats in Congress. Who does Gold point to as a representative of true conservatism? Barry Goldwater. But Goldwater couldn't win. The libertarian-republican contingent in the United States simply isn't big enough to form a viable party on its own.
The truth is that while the Democrat party is somewhat more of a political monolithic, the Republican party is a diverse amalgam of political groups with competing priorities that have come together in hope of accomplishing their own agendas; none of the groups is large enough to win elections on its own. The party combines small-government, free-market, fiscal conservatives (Gold's "real GOP"?), moral conservatives (Gold's "theocons"), and foreign policy hawks (the "neocons."). The last two groups must perforce strain against the goals of the first, because implementing those goals often requires spending and/or increased government interference. And thus we are left with an inevitable reality: overall, government will continue to grow, one way or another, no matter what party is in power.
One virtue of this book is that it makes me want to run out and read Barry Goldwater's "The Conscience of a Conservative," or his biography. Most people who read this book, including myself, will be too young to know much about Barry Goldwater. Such readers may only be familiar with a false caricature of Goldwater as a far right-winger warmonger, and so they may be surprised to find what his brand of conservatism really entailed as well as what it didn't. As Goldwater himself said, "If all I knew about that fella Goldwater was what I read in the papers, I wouldn't have voted for the sonofa- myself."
The book is, by and large, a tirade with many exaggerations, and too much spite. So why give it three stars? Because it is occasionally amusing, always interesting, breezily short, sometimes insightful, and, most of all, because I do think people need to know that the Bush administration and the previous Republican Congress did not, in fact, represent the goals and principles of the GOP as many conservatives understand them to be, but instead embodied many of the vices Republicans have previously ascribed to Democrats.
August 24, 2012
I'm avoiding political books right now with the election coming up. Even muting the TV whenever political ads com on, I'm so sick of it all.
but, this book was on my 'to read' shelf, has been for a while. I glanced at it, wasn't too long, so I decided to 'get it over with'.
Hmm, actually it was an excellent book. Victor Gold, the author, is a dyed-in-the-wool Goldwater Republican and he had a lot to say about the direction the GOP is currently heading, none of it good. He's unimpressed with the Holy-Rollers and the Neo-Cons frequently pointing out how Regan and Goldwater would be horrified by their stance and their policies. My own political thoughts aside, this was a fascinating insight into the whole evolving situation. It's been on my shelf for a while, so OBama wasn't even elected when this was published, but it doesn't detract from the read.
Fascinating, a little frightening and at times downright chilling. Depending upon the total accuracy of this book (which I admit I always doubt when written by anyone, whether left or right when 'exposing' something) -- well then..... uh oh....
but, this book was on my 'to read' shelf, has been for a while. I glanced at it, wasn't too long, so I decided to 'get it over with'.
Hmm, actually it was an excellent book. Victor Gold, the author, is a dyed-in-the-wool Goldwater Republican and he had a lot to say about the direction the GOP is currently heading, none of it good. He's unimpressed with the Holy-Rollers and the Neo-Cons frequently pointing out how Regan and Goldwater would be horrified by their stance and their policies. My own political thoughts aside, this was a fascinating insight into the whole evolving situation. It's been on my shelf for a while, so OBama wasn't even elected when this was published, but it doesn't detract from the read.
Fascinating, a little frightening and at times downright chilling. Depending upon the total accuracy of this book (which I admit I always doubt when written by anyone, whether left or right when 'exposing' something) -- well then..... uh oh....
May 31, 2012
I was very interested to read this book since I'm also a libertarian leaning Republican, and was interested to hear about Goldwater who seems to fit that mold. The book ended up being a lot more about political "gossip" (for lack of a better word) than policy stuff. I never did get a solid grasp of what Goldwater, or this author, stood for exactly. For the vast middle of the book he was just bashing on GW Bush in a manner indistinguishable from the way liberals did for 6-8 years straight. It's marginally interesting to hear about how Cheney or Rumsfeld backstabbed people to get where they got, or whatever, but I was really interested in how Republican ideas/policy changed since Goldwater and I didn't get that.
Want to read
June 30, 2007This may be the one and only book written by a GOP'er that I'll actually enjoy in a non-ironic way. The subtitle is "How the Holy Rolers and Neo-Cons Destroyed the GOP".
I watched an interview with Gold on Bill Moyers last night (wow. I'm so my grandpa.) and he was talking about how the GOP totally fucked up when they basically sold themselves to the religious right for votes. Now we have a theocracy, and Gold is pissed (me too!). I'm interested to read this because I feel like there's a lot of parallels between what has happened to the GOP of yore and the modern 'liberal' democratic party.
I watched an interview with Gold on Bill Moyers last night (wow. I'm so my grandpa.) and he was talking about how the GOP totally fucked up when they basically sold themselves to the religious right for votes. Now we have a theocracy, and Gold is pissed (me too!). I'm interested to read this because I feel like there's a lot of parallels between what has happened to the GOP of yore and the modern 'liberal' democratic party.
April 18, 2021
Explains how the religious right and extreme conservatives have taken over the Republican party. He begins in the 1960's and brings it up to 2007. It is interesting as he shows the maneuverings behind the scenes of how these groups gain a hold on the GOP and how they only care about their agenda and not society as a whole. They don't care the damage that is done as long as they get their way. He is very open in his opinions of the party leaders and party nominees (losers and winners) during this time. I found it eye-opening at times but I was not surprised by his opinions. I just did not realize how bad it was. I did laugh over some of his observations. This is as timely today as it was when written. I wish he were still alive so we could hear his opinion of what has happened since 2007 to now.
April 15, 2008
Not much surprising here. Is it a mystery that the Bushies don't believe that the rights of the individual should take precedent over the rights of the state? Or that human rights are not rights for all humans, only for those that meet some US loyalty test? Or that they don't believe in limited government, but that government should be used to further enrich the rich? Or that Barry Goldwater would have been their greatest critic? Or that John McCain is no Barry Goldwater? Nope. But it was still fun to see it all in writing, coming from a former staunch Republican.
If you're tempted, get it from the library.
If you're tempted, get it from the library.
November 24, 2014
Some of my friends don't grasp that I have supported the Republicans in the past: 1980, 1984, and 1988. I'm a more sophisticated voter now. I do my homework. It's unlikely I'll support the Republicans again. But the reason I did not vote for George H. W. Bush in 1992 was not due to electoral sophistication. It was that I observed, and was repulsed by exactly what Victor Gold writes about in this book: neoconservatives and theocrats basically controlling the Republican party; and government when they win. Victor Gold is a conservative. He is a Republican. And he is correct.
The author of this book is worth listening to. I recommend this book.
The author of this book is worth listening to. I recommend this book.
January 21, 2008
I am about half way and I find this a terrific read. Written by an old fashioned Goldwater conservative, he is as disgusted with the current admin, Dick Cheney and the Neo-Cons and Theo-Cons as I am.
Well worth reading, it is also a quick read. I find it interesting that Rummy appears to be an even bigger jerk than I gave him credit for.
Jim
Well worth reading, it is also a quick read. I find it interesting that Rummy appears to be an even bigger jerk than I gave him credit for.
Jim
September 2, 2007
Great book for young politically interested people (republican and democrat) who think only of the republican party as religious nation builders.
January 5, 2008
A "useful idiot". Man, that describes Dubya to a "T", no?
December 21, 2009
subtitled: How the Holy-Rollers and the Neo-Cons destroyed the GOP.
Funny, but also appalling.
Excellent, learned a lit.
Recommended.
Funny, but also appalling.
Excellent, learned a lit.
Recommended.
August 5, 2011
WOW! OH WOW! I always knew Dick Cheney was a DICK, (along with Newt Gingrich), but this book tells just how much of a tyrant he is. Truly scary!
August 26, 2017
It's a highly informative book but a little dry so 4 out of 5 stars. I'll definitely read it again just to absorb the knowledge for conversation.
October 13, 2015
So good. Tony Compolo was right back in 1986 in Discipleship Journal. What a prediction!
Displaying 1 - 15 of 15 reviews