Nobody would ever say that Bill Sammon is writing this book as an unbiased observer. He is a Washington Times reporter, and shares the paper's conservative viewpoint. But given that (and this should be obvious from the book's title), this is a good summary of the happenings of Election 2000 (from the Bush partisans' point of view).
The liberals took the position that people's preferences ought to count, whether they took the trouble to learn the rules of the game or not, and consequently see the final decision of the US Supreme Court as unjust. The conservatives set great store in "playing by the rules," and they thus condemn the Florida Supreme Court and applaud the US Supreme Court. I personally agree with the conservatives' position here, and so I admit that I am no more impartial in reviewing this book than Sammon was in writing it.
Reading this book, it becomes totally clear that the Gore side was willing to try to use the rules when they helped the Gore cause, but to ride roughshod over the rules when the literal meaning of those rules would interfere with their goal. The point that nobody on the Gore side seems to make is that the campaigns were predicated on the rules being what they were (e. g., Bush didn't bother to campaign in Texas; if this were an election by straight national popular vote, he certainly would have done so) so the fact that Gore won more popular votes is really irrelevant. And by any fair investigation of the election of 2000, Bush won on the criteria in place in 2000. So Gore's attempts to reverse the election's outcome really constituted conduct unbecoming a leader. And this book documents these attempts, one by one.
Yes, the report ignores any questionable behavior on the other side. But the facts show that there wasn't much, while there was a lot on the Gore side. So the book covers most of what is really important to know about Election 2000.