jump to last post 1-21 of 21 discussions (79 posts)

W's book has sold far better than Clinton's did. Why?

  1. habee profile image89
    habeeposted 6 years ago

    Bush's memoir has sold almost as many copies in one month as Clinton's memoir has sold in 6 years. WHY?

    A. people think the W book will be funny

    B. people are amazed that W could actually write a book

    C. people hope to discover if the bad decisions were made by W or Cheney

    1. qwark profile image61
      qwarkposted 6 years ago in reply to this

      Habee:
      I think the answer is simple: The majority of Americans believe in a "god thing."
      Dumb-as-a-rock dubya proclaimed, as did his controlling father, that this "god thing' guides their lives and decisions.
      Dubya screwed up terribly, led by his father, but didn't get his "willy" puffed on in the oval office (golly, wasn't Kennedy banging Marilyn in the whitehouse?).
      Dubya appeals to the dumb-as-a-rock believers in mythical "god things." Soooooo...they buy his book.
      Qwark

      1. Doug Hughes profile image61
        Doug Hughesposted 6 years ago in reply to this

        A lot of people I know asked over and over..

        'What Was he THINKING???!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!'

        So there was a lot more curiosity than with Bill Clinton whose positions were known and predictable.

    2. IzzyM profile image87
      IzzyMposted 6 years ago in reply to this

      It sold more because I promoted it. Obviously.

      Even former US presidents look to see what IzzyM is publishing next!

      LOL

      1. Aya Katz profile image90
        Aya Katzposted 6 years ago in reply to this

        Izzy, good to know that you are this influential. Can I recruit you to sell my books, too?

  2. Uninvited Writer profile image83
    Uninvited Writerposted 6 years ago

    Who knows. Especially since there were lots of charges of plagiarism and other wholesale copying.

  3. Shadesbreath profile image89
    Shadesbreathposted 6 years ago

    Probably because Bush supporters can read. 

    big_smile

    1. habee profile image89
      habeeposted 6 years ago in reply to this

      LOL!! Clinton was super intelligent, but I do believe W is a lot smarter than most folks think. I wonder if Laura helped with the book...

      1. Shadesbreath profile image89
        Shadesbreathposted 6 years ago in reply to this

        I bet Laura turns out to be one of those great "woman behind the man" stories when history is done sifting through.

        1. tony0724 profile image61
          tony0724posted 6 years ago in reply to this

          I am no fan of Dubya either , but Laura Bush is a classy lady.

          1. Ron Montgomery profile image60
            Ron Montgomeryposted 6 years ago in reply to this

            Yup

          2. habee profile image89
            habeeposted 6 years ago in reply to this

            I always liked Laura.

  4. yenajeon profile image82
    yenajeonposted 6 years ago

    I actually read the book and it was SO poorly written, flow-wise and stylistically, I really appreciated that he wrote it himself. There are tons of famous people who hand their book options off to ghost writers or editors, and he clearly didn't do it. Plus it was semi-funny.

    1. Doug Hughes profile image61
      Doug Hughesposted 6 years ago in reply to this

      I guess Sarah Palin's ghost writer wasn't available.

      1. yenajeon profile image82
        yenajeonposted 6 years ago in reply to this

        Aw, I can't hate on Sarah Palin. Not, saying she is a genious, but she's a pretty awesome-looking mom!

  5. Ron Montgomery profile image60
    Ron Montgomeryposted 6 years ago

    Thanks to the impeachment, Clinton's years were already an open book.

  6. Ron Montgomery profile image60
    Ron Montgomeryposted 6 years ago

    Plus there is something very fascinating about a book written in crayon.

    1. habee profile image89
      habeeposted 6 years ago in reply to this

      LOL!!

  7. qwark profile image61
    qwarkposted 6 years ago

    If Laura is a "classy" lady, why did she marry "Classless" dubya?
    Money? Or did she think she might be able to perform a miracle and educate an obviously boorish member of the Bush clan of oil barons?
    QWark

    1. habee profile image89
      habeeposted 6 years ago in reply to this

      Maybe she was on a mission from God??

      1. qwark profile image61
        qwarkposted 6 years ago in reply to this

        Hahahaha...I wonder why she couldn't teach him how to pronounce: noo-klee-er?
        My gransdon, 8 yrs old, used to say noo-cue-ler. He learned to say nuclear...first try.
        Dubya couldn't learn to pronounce it correctly in 8 yrs.
        Is it no wonder we're damn near bankrupt after 8 yrs of dubya lunacy?
        arghhh!
        Qwark

        1. BillyDRitchie profile image60
          BillyDRitchieposted 6 years ago in reply to this

          Well, Al Gore had trouble saying the word "loser", sooooo....

    2. profile image69
      logic,commonsenseposted 6 years ago in reply to this

      Perhaps the concept of love is foreign to you?

  8. rebekahELLE profile image91
    rebekahELLEposted 6 years ago

    timing, I'm sure many found the book under their christmas tree. I think Clinton's book sold more the first week of release than Bush's first week, but his book wasn't published during holiday shopping season.

    probably a number of people want to 'understand' the mind of this man. I'm not a fan of Bush W, but will probably read the book at some point. I thought Clinton's My Life was an excellent read, also a considerably more substantial read being almost twice the length.

    I also like Laura.

  9. Mighty Mom profile image91
    Mighty Momposted 6 years ago

    Whatever happened to the trend of First Pets writing memoirs?
    I'd like to hear from those cute little westies.
    Didn't Barbara Bush's dog write a book?

    1. Uninvited Writer profile image83
      Uninvited Writerposted 6 years ago in reply to this

      I'd buy Bo's book.

  10. habee profile image89
    habeeposted 6 years ago

    And Obama can't pronounce "corpsman" or "Massachusetts," and he's supposed to be really smart.

    Hukd on fonnics wurkd fer mi!

    1. Uninvited Writer profile image83
      Uninvited Writerposted 6 years ago in reply to this

      I bet he will never say those wrong again though.

      1. BillyDRitchie profile image60
        BillyDRitchieposted 6 years ago in reply to this

        Um, he should never have gotten them wrong in the first place....

        1. Uninvited Writer profile image83
          Uninvited Writerposted 6 years ago in reply to this

          Have you never mispronounced a word? You must be unique.

          1. BillyDRitchie profile image60
            BillyDRitchieposted 6 years ago in reply to this

            I'm not President.  If I were, and knowing full well that even the slightest gaffes will not go unnoticed, then I think I would at least try to make sure I didn't goof my words.

            And I'm sorry, for someone supposedly as intelligent and educated as The Chosen One, mispronouncing "corpsman" or the name of a state is simply inexcusable.

            I will say that I certainly never made the claim that there were "57 states"

      2. habee profile image89
        habeeposted 6 years ago in reply to this

        I bet you're right.

        In W's defense, many people have trouble pronouncing "nuclear," as they do with the pronunciation of "realtor." I've heard well educated folks say "relator." My husband can't say "statistics." He knows the word and can spell it, but he always stumbles on it, wanting to add an extra "s." I think sometimes such examples are more of a problem with the tongue than with the brain. lol

        1. Uninvited Writer profile image83
          Uninvited Writerposted 6 years ago in reply to this

          Personally, I don't care if Bush had pronounced nuclear as fish smile

          1. habee profile image89
            habeeposted 6 years ago in reply to this

            Lol - nucular feesh. Can those be fried?

  11. donotfear profile image90
    donotfearposted 6 years ago

    lol

    lol

    roll

  12. Uninvited Writer profile image83
    Uninvited Writerposted 6 years ago

    That is the problem with CNN and YouTube. You can't say anything and make a mistake without it being played over and over and over. Past presidents probably made as many or more gaffes but since it wasn't played all over the place ad nauseum no one knew or cared.

    Obama was in the middle of campaigning and was probably tired, do you really think he believed there are 57 states? And that was almost 3 years ago...the fat lady has sung on that, the one trick pony has died.

    But, of course, it's Obama, people want to believe everything he does is wrong and awful and that no one else has ever misspoken and that therefore he is not fit to be president.

    1. BillyDRitchie profile image60
      BillyDRitchieposted 6 years ago in reply to this

      "But, of course, it's Obama, people want to believe everything he does is wrong and awful and that no one else has ever misspoken and that therefore he is not fit to be president."

      Substitute "Obama" with "Bush" and the paragraph accurately describes the left's treatment of Bush for eight years. 

      Oh, and you can bet that if Bush had said "57 states" it would still be the subject of ridicule three years later....

      1. Uninvited Writer profile image83
        Uninvited Writerposted 6 years ago in reply to this

        I wouldn't and I don't. Two wrongs do not make a right.

      2. lovemychris profile image81
        lovemychrisposted 6 years ago in reply to this

        Only then, it was traitorous to ridicule the president. Now it's patriotic.

  13. profile image0
    Sophia Angeliqueposted 6 years ago

    They can't read... and the cover picture was nicer?

  14. I am DB Cooper profile image68
    I am DB Cooperposted 6 years ago

    Everyone already knew the dirt on Clinton, and we also knew he wasn't going to be sharing any more details in his book. Without the dirt, there isn't very entertaining stuff from the Clinton years. Was he supposed to write about how great the economy was and how competent his staffers were? People don't want to read 100 pages on the proper way to balance the budget.

    With W, people were looking for some dirt. What was going on in his head during 9/11? How did he really feel about Dick Cheney? What role did he play in some of the dirty tricks that went on during his tenure (the Plame scandal, Swiftboaters attacking John Kerry, etc). Also, what was his excuse for supporting the deregulation in the banking industry that put our economy on the brink in 2008? People bought his book looking for dirt, excuses, and perhaps even apologies.

    1. habee profile image89
      habeeposted 6 years ago in reply to this

      This is kinda what I meant with my "C" choice. lol

  15. Ron Montgomery profile image60
    Ron Montgomeryposted 6 years ago

    A story about a train wreck is much more interesting than one about a kid who fell off his bike.

    1. BillyDRitchie profile image60
      BillyDRitchieposted 6 years ago in reply to this

      There's a slight difference between a kid falling off his bike and Bill Clinton perjuring himself in order to deny Paula Jones her day in court....

      1. Ron Montgomery profile image60
        Ron Montgomeryposted 6 years ago in reply to this

        There's a much greater difference between Clinton's lies and W's.  How many innocent civilians and soldiers died as a result of each?

        1. profile image61
          C.J. Wrightposted 6 years ago in reply to this

          Bosnia.

          1. Ron Montgomery profile image60
            Ron Montgomeryposted 6 years ago in reply to this

            What Clinton lie got us into Bosnia?

            1. profile image61
              C.J. Wrightposted 6 years ago in reply to this

              It was about an oil/gas pipeline. NOT freeing oppressed people. In the case of Iraq and Bosnia failed foreign policy led to the death of soldiers and many innocents.
              Bush 1 has NAFTA Drafted. Clinton signs it. Clinton has an illegal war in Bosnia. Bush has an illegal war in Iraq. Obama runs against all of Bush 2's policies, yet he continues every single one. The wars, the tax policy, the patriot act, etc, etc. My point is this. We are being missled by both sides. People are voting for what they view as the lessor of two evils. Not a best case scenario.

              1. profile image66
                paarsurreyposted 6 years ago in reply to this

                Should one interpret it as success of the democracy or its failure?

                1. profile image61
                  C.J. Wrightposted 6 years ago in reply to this

                  It means there is a problem. That candidates run on issues that divide us into two neat groups for voting reliability. Once elected their politics make for good theater while they serve the interest of lobbyist.

                  I'm not falling for a simple minded "this or that" game.

              2. lovemychris profile image81
                lovemychrisposted 6 years ago in reply to this

                I don't feel missled by Obama. He is fighting an iron wall of money...long-held generational money. Robber baron money. Big business/corporate money.
                And the right-wing religious Fundies who think they own America.

                We would never have Lily Ledbetter, Black farmers settlement, Native American settlement, repeal of DADT, Elizabeth Warren, extended Unemployment, or 9/11 victims aid with the Republicans.

                Not to mention, the knowledge we got about the Federal reserve and their dirty dealings. These things would never have happened under a Republican.
                Nor do Republicans mention the middle class and working poor. It's all about the upper classes with them.

                World of difference.

                1. profile image61
                  C.J. Wrightposted 6 years ago in reply to this

                  It was a Democrat that created DADT. It wasn't the boogy man the Left is making it out to be. It was a stroke of genius. It allowed time for the "winning of hearts and minds" while allowing homosexuals to serve. I believe the repeal was shamelessly timed and only meant to serve as a distraction to an angry left who is waiting for all their campaign promises to come to fruition. 9/11 victims recieved MILLIONS under Bush.

                  The Department of Ag settlements? That's what your touting? Look this guy claimed he was going to end the wars! He has not. He said he would close GTMO...still open. All the D's were railing against the Patriot Act. It still stands. All the things he ran on, he's now running from. There is no hope for change. At least not with this guy.

                  1. lovemychris profile image81
                    lovemychrisposted 6 years ago in reply to this

                    "9/11 victims recieved MILLIONS under Bush.'

                    That was blood money, so they wouldn't go after the airlines.
                    They had to agree to leave the airlines alone when taking that million dollars per family. That is why one woman didn't take it. She called it blood money, not me.

                    DADT was the bill ALLOWING gays to serve, if you remember. Before that, it was against the law.

                    The wars, I'm with you...Obama said he would end them, not increase them. I don't know why or what or who we are there for.

                    But Obama voted for that Patriot Act just like all but 2 members did...he gave Bush that power, now you want him to give it back?
                    That's WHY people were railing against it in the first place! Once it's there, it's not leaving.

                    And finally, Gibbs said that closing Gitmo would entail the Republicans in Congress working with the Obama administration.
                    Call me stupid, but I don't see the Republicans willing to work with Obama any time soon.

                    I see it as very funny that some would have Obama just do things without the procedures we have set up in this country.
                    Wouldn't that make him a dictator?
                    Unitary Executive was Cheney's idea, not Bidens'.

        2. BillyDRitchie profile image60
          BillyDRitchieposted 6 years ago in reply to this

          Perhaps if someone could come up with a lie that George W. Bush told that cost soldiers lives, I'd be willing to talk about it....

          1. Ron Montgomery profile image60
            Ron Montgomeryposted 6 years ago in reply to this

            Has been discussed ad nauseum.  Your denial does not negate the truth.

            You're backin a loser.

            1. BillyDRitchie profile image60
              BillyDRitchieposted 6 years ago in reply to this

              Yeah, I didn't think you could either.  Thanks for playing along....

              1. Evan G Rogers profile image81
                Evan G Rogersposted 6 years ago in reply to this

                Bush lied to get us into Iraq - he might not have said it specifically, but it was definitely implied.

                Then he attempted to murder the wife of a political dissenter by outing the fact that Plame was a spy.

                The man was a sleaze bag.

                Here is a list of lies that were presented to us.

                http://www.alternet.org/story/16274

                1. BillyDRitchie profile image60
                  BillyDRitchieposted 6 years ago in reply to this

                  Faulty intel is not  a lie....it's only a lie if you know it is false when you say it.....nice try.

                  As for the second, it has a nice black helicopter ring to it, but very little in the way of substance.

                  Guess I was hoping somebody might being something new to the table....silly me....

                  1. Misha profile image74
                    Mishaposted 6 years ago in reply to this

                    Thank you for the giggles big_smile

                  2. Evan G Rogers profile image81
                    Evan G Rogersposted 6 years ago in reply to this

                    They lied, people died.

                    But the worst part is that we BOUGHT IT and then we RE ELECTED HIM.

                    If a private entity made the same mistake, it would have been bankrupted immediately.

                  3. Ron Montgomery profile image60
                    Ron Montgomeryposted 6 years ago in reply to this

                    This is what I referred to earlier.  The truth is presented to you; you do as FoxNews commands and deny it.

                    Birds of a feather....

  16. Barbara Kay profile image86
    Barbara Kayposted 6 years ago

    Everybody loves to hate George?

    1. Evan G Rogers profile image81
      Evan G Rogersposted 6 years ago in reply to this

      cuz he was evil incarnate

  17. Lisa HW profile image84
    Lisa HWposted 6 years ago

    Approve of it or not, the war probably made Bush's book of more interest.  911 was probably something else that added to interest.  Clinton's presidency ended in a "blaze of foolishness" that involved unprofessional behavior, a stained dress, and the whole lying-to-Congress thing.  (A lot of people don't have much interest in what someone so "all about"  foolishness has to say.)  When all is said and done (and whether they like the person or not), maybe it's still true more people care about the bigger issues than the foolish ones.

  18. pisean282311 profile image58
    pisean282311posted 6 years ago

    he was funny...i would like to read his book too...m sure he would make me laugh...secondly bush gave hope to world that it doesnot require anything special than self belief (no matter how wrong it might be) to become president...he is surely motivation for all ....

  19. Richieb799 profile image61
    Richieb799posted 6 years ago

    Yes a lot of people probably think it will be funny, funny to hear the excuses he comes up with to justify things he did.

  20. BillyDRitchie profile image60
    BillyDRitchieposted 6 years ago

    Memo to PrettyPanther....is this the same George Tenet that told President Bush that the evidence that Iraq had WMDs amounted to a "slam dunk case."

    So which is it?

    1. Evan G Rogers profile image81
      Evan G Rogersposted 6 years ago in reply to this

      Bush lied.

      Saddam welcomed the inspectors

      The UN inspectors found nothing.

      They pointed out that the info that the US gave them was nonsense.

      They called it garbage.

      Bush Lied.

      Our government lied.

      1. BillyDRitchie profile image60
        BillyDRitchieposted 6 years ago in reply to this

        Saddam welcomed inspectors only after holding them off and delaying them countless times.

        So the inspectors found nothing.  Big deal.  If you re read the UN resolutions, the burden of proof was on Saddam to demonstrate that he had disarmed, providing documentation of the destruction of his WMD arsenal.  He refused.

  21. Kushal101 profile image61
    Kushal101posted 6 years ago

    Though Bush was funny, he was not dumb as people think. As an Indian we can say that his decision to attack afghanistan was one of the best decision ever. Certainly people would be willing to buy his book.

    1. pisean282311 profile image58
      pisean282311posted 6 years ago in reply to this

      he was left with no choice..he had to attack afghanistan...any person in his post might have done that....but attacking Iraq was mistake...secondly bush made mess out of economy...mess which might take years to bring to normal and by that time china would have become too powerful and would call the shots...

 
working