Rating: 
Summary: A case of check your facts before maligning people
Review: This is a story where the author was so bent on acceptance that he wrote what he thought would please his so-called group of people and make him noticed big time. He was used by this group. They fed him facts and he believed them and wrote the stories that made millions of people believe these lies without checking the facts. His conscience got the better of him and he wrote this book to try and rectify his mistakes. It helps, but there are still people that believe the lies and our country is still feeling the results. It is an interesting book. It gives us a better look at how deceitful politics is. You can't believe everthing that you see on the news. You have to figure who is telling the story and then read between the lines. Its sad that so many people believe everything they hear on the news as fact, but with a little emphasis or lack of emphasis on facts and omissions and half-truths a story is easily distorted. So people use the brains God gave you and when you hear something, think where it comes from, who it comes from and how it benefits or doesn't benefit that person and read between the lines (this pertains to all parties and people).
I think it is very brave to admit you have been wrong and try to right the wrongs made. David Brock has a conscience and he felt bad about the hurt he caused Anita Hill. A lot of the people he has worked with don't seem to have a conscience, which is a scary thing in this country. I want our country back to where it was when honesty and goodness and looking out for your fellow man was a virtue. I want a leadership that looks out for the majority of our countrymen not the 1-2% with money. This book has shown how our country is being manipulated by certain rich people. Richard Mellon Scaife spent 2-3 million dollars to try and ruin the Clintons. Money was paid to troopers to tell stories, and in the White Water affair. There had been nothing to it. It had been looked into and dismissed, but they sent Starr in and when he couldn't find anything he went smutt hunting. They wasted so much of our taxpayers money on this, to drag up tabloid stuff. This is what our money went to. Basically, having an affair is not illegal in most states. It is something that is between the husband and wife. It is morally wrong, but unless it was something that endangered our country it was not worth 70 million of our tax dollars. The way Starr went at it was a form of entrapment. Unless I am mistaken, taping someone without their knowledge is illegal and yet they used Tripp's tapes with Lewinsky?
I am glad he wrote the book. It is one more validation of the right-wing conspiracy, but for those of us, and there are a lot of us, we already knew that. Shame on the news people for reporting such tripe. Give us facts that affect the country, not tabloid gossip.
Read the book. It is interesting, informative and eye-opening. Worth every penny!
Rating:
Summary: Brock writes a great book exposing my beliefs about the GOP
Review: I found this book very interesting, coming from an extremely right winged conservative family. I agreed with many of the points that Brock makes, especially after seeing my parents opinions mirror those of Rush Limbaugh and Jerry Falwell with no real thought on their own. I really found the relating of the GOP to the Christian Right interesting. Overall a great book.
Rating:
Summary: Shocking and disturbing
Review: This is a fascinating book about how the far right neoconservative wing of the Republican Party has used the media and the judiciary to promote their radical agenda. The fact that many neocons, such as Rumsfeld, Wolfowitz, Perle, Cheney, etc. are currently running the country makes this an important read for anyone who cares about America. Republicans, as well as Democrats, should be concerned about what Brock has to say. Many people watch the neocon Fox News channel or read the neocon editorial pages of the Wall Street Journal without realizing that they exist to indoctrinate and promote a certain agenda rather than inform. The fact that we were all deceived about the imminent threat Iraq posed, by the right wing media is alarming.Neoconservatives were originally liberals who abandoned the left largely because of their hatred of communism and their belief that Democrats minimized the communist threat. Republicans normally were isolationist and promoted small government. Neoconservatism is an ideology that supports using American power (military and otherwise) and wealth to mould the rest of the world into what they feel protects American interests. Their agenda requires larger government, increased military spending, unilateralism (i.e. no UN) and nation building. As recent events in Iraq have shown the neocons live in something of a fantasy world. It is not easy to overthrow bad governments and install something better. Brock was a member of the third generation of neocons. He started out a liberal at Berkeley but felt that the left was too radicalized, which was largely true in the 1970s. However, he became swallowed up in a completely radicalized right wing movement. As he became more successful in his writing career he tried to justify his behavior. He wrote a character assassination of Anita Hill even though he believed she was telling the truth, simply to assure the nomination of Clarence Thomas (whose policies he disagreed with). He was part of a conspiracy to destroy the Clinton presidency and actually started the ball rolling on Clinton's impeachment with his article on Troopergate even though he doubted the credibility of the troopers involved. He ignored homophobia among his friends and colleagues. He ignored unethical behavior from a trusted advisor, a D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals judge. Some question if Brock is actually telling the truth in this book because he lied in the past or because he did not use footnotes. The fact that no one mentioned in this book has filed a libel or slander suit against Brock is evidence enough that he is telling the truth. Many neocons have attacked Brock's character but have not challenged anything his book has to say. Regardless of your political beliefs you should want to know about the sleazy, dishonest world of right wing movements. You should want to know that some in the Christian right want to implement Biblical law such as the death penalty for adultery. You should want to know about the misogyny, hypocrisy, character assassinations and lies. Thank you David for exposing the truth.
Rating: 
Summary: Another load of hogwash from a proven dissembler
Review: Brock is right...his behavior in the past was sleazy...and continues to be. This man clearly has no spine, a jellyfish in the tide of life who will change his entire persona on a whim. He has absolutely NOTHING interesting to say in this text (that is, anything that he most likely did not invent).
Rating: 
Summary: Redemption?
Review: Brock's novel is pretty interesting if you are into your political ideology. It shows how someone who was once conservative decided to change sides an ideology. It could happen to anyone. By reading the book it makes you think about your political lining and if it is really what you believe in. My one problem ( one that has been seen before) is the lack of a bibliography. Brock makes quotes without citing them. A good political read, but nothing special.
Rating:
Summary: you always have to watch out for those drawing attention to
Review: their own conscience! How exactly did David Brock pay for his own misdeeds? By apologizing (how does that make up for anything?), trashing all of conservatism as muckraking (as if this ONLY applies to the right). Is it any wonder that the liberal presses love this book?
Rating:
Summary: A great read, a sad story...
Review: This is a well written book that should make many Republicans very angry. Some will be in denial about it, because they want to believe the awful things said about the left (especially the Clintons), but this is from one of their own. If Republicans cannot honestly look at their party and deal with what is wrong with it, then they are as much to blame as those who did these horrible things. David should be credited with waking up and smelling the rotten roses, and then confessing what he had been a part of.
Rating:
Summary: Interesting about an unlikeable character
Review: I would say "An Interesting Read" - with all the cynical criticism of slight praise captured in that. "Interesting" because it put quite a lot of flesh on the old shibboleth of the "right-wing conspiracy" that Hillary Clinton asserted and Oliver Stone created so memorably via Larry Hagman and others in "Nixon". But not so much an enjoyable read for several reasons...
First, Brock himself comes across (to me) as unlikable - a confessed liar and self-propagandist now espousing a cause that is reverse to his previous crusade. He is a deliberate mis-user of fact, and peddler of un-proven (and at times unlikely) facts - a writer who finds adequate justification is crucifying an opponent to forgive any length of journalistic excess, a gay man with very few substantial friends or relationships... All this he asserts expecting I suppose, some sympathy and credibility for his honesty and openness. But likeable characters need more than an honest disclosure of their unlikeablity.
The book is totally without footnotes or sources - yet names literally hundreds of persons (most still living). The epithet applied to his previous best-seller ""the Real Anita Hill" as "sleaze with footnotes" hardly provides an enduring polemic for investigative journalism to be forever excused of the burden of justifying its accusations. And the accusations are often hints of prejudice and association that are presumed to carry a moral finality - written with what one reviewer well described as "tabloid gusto". Given that the main point of Brock's writing this book is to disavow the use of unsubstantiated gossip and accusation, the incessant recurrence of precisely this practice is unnerving when we are being asked to see the writer as reformed and morally renewed.
The bewildering list of people that we encounter demand a super effort of memory to tie them into the unfolding narrative - but also a prescient capacity to spot significant and insignificant characters from their point of introduction. This bewilderment leaves one reading the litany of name/events for its overall point - trying to un-tangle the progressing development of the book from the morass of characters within it. And every character has a thumbnail description, every home a one-line architectural rating - every restaurant where a discussion took place gets its foodguide-esque status note. The overall impression is of a froth of irrelevant detail and energy and no sense of considered emphasis or finely judged theatrical timing and weighting. "Tabloid gusto" is a great expression - misplaced vigor in the writing...
Although it is a rather long bow, Heather Graham's autobiography is an excellent example of what this book lacks. While they both share a cathartic experience within the world of Washington DC's investigations of Presidents and the constant pressure for truth and responsibility - as well as some enduring and morally endorsable political agenda - within the world of investigative political journalism and the need to make money, Heather Graham's book builds a picture of a flawed but immensely likeable character - struggling with the vicissitudes of the moment, but guided by enduring principles. Ethics are all around - if tested.
But if this is what stand out as short-comings, what positives make it "interesting"...
It is a fascinating story - if only half true - that so much wealth in America is devoted to creating - (not a biassed press but) a totally one-sided, "do and say anything-to- destroy-the-opposition" industry of publications, polemics, think-tanks and talk-back radio bozos!!! And it is not a small clique of influence, it is an industry that deliberately and effectively twines into both Houses of the American parliament, and its judiciary - as well as an army of government appointed staffers.
It was for me a shocking, and essentially credible account of a madness that must be purged from American politics but of which there is little promise of that outcome. The main cause for optimism is NOT Brock himself - it is clear that his role will be readily filled by others who pursue his now-disavowed practices - but by the simple lack of voter support for "destruction" politics when there is an absence of any positive policies beside them.
It is an interesting (but far-fetched) question to ponder that the Reformation and the Enlightenment both imply a sort of inevitable victory for a more liberalist way for Western man. Perhaps Brock asks us to hope/believe that more tolerance to individuals of varying sexuality and race, more compassion for the dispossessed and disadvantaged are generally inevitable developments within America - developments only impeded by the Conservative publicity machine, and still alive within the American psyche...But within his book this is really no more than a blind but unexplained optimism,
So, a truly fascinating story - not told well, but very disturbing and with only slight promise of reversal..
Rating:
Summary: How David Brock was Deceived, and How he Recovered
Review: David Brock started out as a liberal, but at Berkeley, he became disgusted (quite rightly) by the "liberal" students who attended a scheduled speech by Jeane Kirkpatric, and prevented her from speaking, because they disagreed with what they assumed she would say. So he gravitated toward the victims of thos misguided hecklers, the conservatives. What Mr. Brock failed to realize was that those students were not liberals, but authoritarian progressives. No true liberal would behave as they did. The misunderstanding arises because we tend to mentally collapse at least three dimensions of political and philosophical difference into a single spectrum, calling those on the left "liberal" and those on the right "conservative" But the true oppositions are:
Progressive vs, Conservative
Liberal vs. Dogmatic
Libertarian vs. Authoritarian
Now progressives are often liberal and libertarian, and conservatives are often dogmatic and authoritarian, but these common tendencies are only that. Some conservatives are liberal and/or libertarian, and some progressives are dogmatic and/or authoritarian. Mr. Brock's disgust with the rude and despicable behavior of those authoritarian progressive students (who probably called themselves "liberal," and thus by their misdeeds gave liberalism a bad name) led him to forsake liberalism in favor of the political philosophy of the victims of those misguided students. Unfortunately, the conservative movement turned out to be even more infested with authoritarian misbehavior. He found himself living a lie just as much as if he had joined forces with those who silenced Jeane Kirkpatric. This book is about his dawning realization that what he was doing was at least as bad as what those students had been doing that had so disgusted him, and his decision to follow his reasserted conscience. This book is his confession and his apology. Like some other reviewers, I believe that he should apologize in person to Anita Hill, and I hope and trust that he has by now done so, or if not, that he will find the courage to do so. But I prefer to commend him on seeing the light, and on the excellent and valuable book he has written. Every voter and every future voter should read "Blinded by the Right." It is well enough written to be easy reading, yet interesting and informative enough to be very worthwhile. Thank you, David Brock.
Rating:
Summary: I can't praise this book enough
Review: I have only read 50 pages of this book, but I haven't been able to put it down from the moment I began reading it. I won't even try to praise it - just buy it. How any thinking person can support the radical Right (who have taken over the Republican Party and now control the Whitehouse and Congress) after reading this book is beyond me. It's as bad as you suspected, and more, and all documented by someone who was there. When you're finished reading it loan it to friends. It's the best book on the political scene that I've read in a long time.
|
