2 comments about Turmoil and Triumph: Diplomacy, Power, and the Victory of the American Ideal.

1. This is one of those rare memoirs that combine ease of reading, common sense, and substantive greatness. Much much easier to absorb that Henry's Kissinger's turgid prose.
   
   Although no longer in print, there are a number of copies floating around, and as long as I was using the book for a new article on strategic intelligence, I thought I would offer up my notes from the flyleaf for the Amazon community. My page numbers are from the 1993 hard cover edition.
   
   Secretary Shultz is a former Marine and says early on in the book that his wife is part of a "package deal."
   
   Some extremely thoughtful views on competition in the information age, and very strong explicit angry statements against the "cult of secrecy." Clearly understands the revolution in communications and information technology. p 18
   
   Has some real issues with flaws in raw open source information loaded with unfiltered bias. p. 26
   
   First director of OMB, p. 29, does not evince concerns over the disappearance of the Management function over the years.
   
   Crisis management still not making proper use of open sources of information including commercial imagery, p. 44
   
   CIA under Bill Casey too independent and unreliable. p. 50
   
   Diplomatic "gardening" consists of SecState visiting counterparts on their home turf. p. 128
   
   Vatican intelligence, p. 150
   
   Emphasis throughout on values, integrating cultural policy, cultural strategy, cultural warfare
   
   Firehose of information, nothing offered by intelligence or by information technology managers helped deal with it. p. 272
   
   CIA "wild plan" for Surinam, p. 297
   
   CIA "out of control" in mining Nicaraguan harbors, p. 307
   
   Faulty intelligence to the President, p. 312
   
   Intelligence pattern over time: first alarming and then vague, -. 425
   
   On Strategic Defense Initiative, going to a briefing only to be asked, "Is the Secretary cleared?" Dumbfounded by this. p. 492
   
   "So much for our intelligence" faulty biography on Soviet Premier Tikhonov, p. 493
   
   State/Schultz versus Defense/Weinberger "poison" sapped government cohesion, p. 498
   
   Security reviews, ridiculous impositions, p. 544
   
   CIA botches Yurchenko, p. 595
   
   Intelligence cooking the books, p. 619
   
   Bottom line: Intelligence let this Secretary of State down, and does not appear to have gotten any more competent since then despite a doubling of its budget from $25M to $50M or more (some estimates suggest $70B total).
   
   If you are interested in grand strategy, unified national security (using ALL of the instruments of national power wisely), and the vagaries of a really rotten Presidential inter-agency management process, this book is well worth buying used.



2. This book is certainly a landmark in political autobiography: not only for its sheer size (1138 pages excluding the bibliography ) but also for its depth of knowledge and information on foreign policy during the Reagan era. The prose can be tedious and the detail at times is exhaustive, but the book is priceless and could serve as an excellent source for anyone interested in politics in general. Highly recommended.

5 comments about Farewell, Jackie: A Portrait of Her Final Days.

1. Edward Klein needs to find a new family to write recycled books about. After peddling such ghastly books as "The Kennedy Curse" and "Just Jackie," Klein engages in literary graverobbing with the putrid "Farewell Jackie: A Portrait of Her Final Days."

   His primary focus is the final illness and death of Jacqueline Bouvier Kennedy Onassis, of non-lymphoma cancer that seemed easily treatable. By this time, Ms. Onassis had transcended her tabloid-speckled former lives and had a good job, a man she loved, and grandchildren she adored. But when her cancer spread, Onassis tried to die with the illusion of dignity she had maintained in her life.

   Reading "Farewell Jackie" is a bit like watching someone break open a grave to frisk the bones of the dead. Padding the story of Jackie's illness and death are stories of her earlier life -- primarily her second marriage, and various love affairs she had (one of which has been denied by the man involved). Dirt-dishing, anyone?

   Jackie Kennedy Onassis is portrayed as downright saintly in this book; Klein glosses over the hypocrises and flaws in her personality, such as being "religious" yet ignoring tenets of that religion. Even the volatile nature of her relationship with her second husband. Oddly enough, this adoration doesn't extend far enough, especially at the end. Any semblance of dignity is shredded when Klein goes into grotesque detail about Onassis's final mental and physical deterioration.

   What's more, Klein's writing is deplorable. He transcribes private conversations and moments when Onassis was alone -- all obviously faked. Not to mention that Klein is in desperate need of an editor for this book's many errors. On one page, Klein informs us, "Jackie a wreck." Verbs? We don't need no stinkin' verbs.

   Farewell, Jackie. Too bad Klein had to write this book and peddle it as a memorial volume for you. "Farewell Jackie," thankfully, is clearly destined to sink into the mire of obsequious, poorly-written Kennedy books.




2. I think that this book was a well writen portrail of Jackie's final days, with a moderate vocabulary it well conveys the beliefs of the author



3. I enjoy reading books about the Kennedys and Jackie Onassis, but this book, which was supposed to give a chronicle of sorts of the last 10-11 years of Jackie's life, did not do a very good job of that. It was a cut-and-paste biography from previous books and interviews. I didn't learn anything new from this book, and that's the biggest disappointment. It will be a nice addition to my extensive library, but it won't be the first one I pull off the shelf for anyone who wants a good narrative of her life and on who Jackie really was. This is an "okay to read if you're lonely" kind of book.



4. The author was once a friend of Jackie's, until he had the audacity to break one of her cardinal rules...writing an article on her for Vanity Fair in 1989. Like many people, he has cashed in quite nicely on noteriety of the Kennedy's, and Jackie in particular. Hence, Jackie banished Klien from her circle as she did with many people that she felt breached her privacy. You can hardly consider Klien a true insider, he is more like a vulture picking at scraps already chewed over by many, many other gossip columnists, writers, and fans like myself.
   This book is really just a re-hashing of many things that have already been published and little of it is new. I must add that most of the details in this book on her illness and treatment h were widely published in tabloids like "Enquirer" and "Star" when she died 10 years ago. The chapters on Jackie's private moments during the last months of her life-when she is in church, in the doctor's office, with her children, and even on her deathbed are hard to believe, if only because we know Jackie would not have allowed Klien within a block of her presence. Most of his sources for these are a "secret" and I really have to wonder if anyone that Mrs Onassis truly considered a friend would speak with Mr. Klien.
   
   This book, I hate to admit, is a guilty pleasure but one that I regret indulging in, knowing disgusted the subject would have been with it.



5. My husband claims that I've never met a book I didn't like. But two Edward Klein books that I've recently read have to be the exceptions. The Kennedy Curse was bad enough, but Farewell, Jackie: A Portrait of Her Final Days is a true dog.
   
   Klein gives us the details of the diagnosis of Jackie's fatal illness and follows through to her death. In between, he regales us with short stories about her childhood, her lovers, her husbands, her children, her friends and her job. Jackie was fiercely protective of her privacy, and one thing that she demanded of her friends was complete loyalty. Edward Klein used to be a friend, until he wrote an article about her. After that, she cut him off completely. As a result, we're not really getting his "inside" story, but the story of dozens and dozens of Jackie's "anonymous" friends. I question how many would willingly provide him with intimate details of Jackie's deathbed scene (one that he called "her masterpiece").
   
   Farewell, Jackie isn't much of a book. Weighing in about just a little over 200 pages, the chapters are short, the pages are small, and there are often two or three blank pages between each chapter. I read Farewell in a little over two hours, and I'm not a speed reader. At least with The Kennedy Curse, Klein provided us with some interesting information about the little-known Kennedy-Fitzgerald patriarchs. Unfortunately, Farewell, Jackie has little to redeem it. I think Klein has milked this cash cow (the Kennedy's) to the extent that the cow has run dry. It's time for him to find some new material.

5 comments about The Senator: My Ten Years with Ted Kennedy.

1. I found this book at a "free read" and am glad I picked it up.
   I feel that Mr. Burke gives what appears to be honest insight into his observation working first from afar then eventually beyond close at hand to Senator Kennedy. I believe the positives of this book far outweigh any negatives one might find in the disclosure of personal family happenings. This book actually has caused me to see Senator Kennedy in a more human, approachable image that as formerly, simply focusing on his family heritage regarding money, fame, etc. My heart goes out to the whole Kennedy family who has suffered tragedy after tragedy in spite of all their wealth which only brings home the truth that money cannot buy happiness. I strongly urge one to read this book. I am glad I did.



2. The first 100 pages is interesting but then it begins to get repetitive and aimless. It's worth what I paid for it -- got it at the dollar store. Confirms that TK is worse than I thought, but I wonder if he's even worse than Rick knows. Hmmm.



3. The author worked closely with Ted Kennedy through most of the '70s and the very early '80s as a member of his Senate staff and personal go-to guy, and had very personal access to both the Senator and his family. The book is mainly about the Senator's vices and his family's troubles during that period (which the author was deeply involved in).
   
   I was hoping for more politics and policy. The author vaguely alludes to legislative accomplishments, but doesn't really discuss any. From reading the book, I would gather that the time between saving democracy during the Watergate crisis and the 1980 presidential election was one big party, with some family drama thrown in. The section on the 1980 presidential election was good.
   
   It's clear that Kennedy made bad choices in that period, which was, literally for me, a lifetime ago; some were personal, some were political. What struck me was how many of the unattractive features described by the author reminded me of our current president: the sense of entitlement, a lack of accountability, intense competitiveness, demands for loyalty, and a strange snobbishness (Kennedy thought the Carters were unsophisticated but, according to the author, also thought that the hostage crisis couldn't be helped by President Carter's efforts to understand the situation by *gasp* reading books about Iran). On the plus side, both men have a strong devotion to family.
   
   I didn't really like the book; I finished it only because I'd started it, and I didn't have much else handy at the time. If you are interested in Kennedy dirt, though, this book has it in spades. It's not for everyone, but maybe it's for you.



4. I am a die hard Kennedy fan and this is one of my favorite Kennedy books to date; however, you will appreciate it more if you have a background in "Kennedy history" which helps put some of the Senator's personal problems in perspective. For this purpose, I highly recommend Laurence Leamer's books The Kennedy Men and the Kennedy Women both of which I have also read.
   
   This is a very human story where no details are spared. If you want to hear the good, the bad, and the ugly you will definitely enjoy it, but don't pick it up if you can't handle reading about drugs, sex, and extramarital affairs.
   
   Burke is brutally honest about the highs and lows of being the right hand man to arguably the most powerful person in Washington at the time, and the personal sacrifices he had to make in order to perform his job. As Kennedy's Administrative Assistant (Chief of Staff), Burke tucked him into bed at night and woke him up in the morning. He was intimately involved in major family decisions and knew the Senator and his family better than almost anyone else. His book serves as a wise word of caution to anyone who aspires to work on Capitol Hill. Being "in" and having access to the rich and powerful doesn't guarantee happiness and in Burke's case led to self destruction.
   
   After reading Burke's book, I now understand why when I interned in Kennedy's DC office we (the interns) were not allowed to speak to the Senator unless he addressed us first. And because Kennedy would never recognize the vast majority of the 100+ interns working in his offices at any given time, he never said hi to us either. We were told that the Senator's high profile was the reason for this restriction, but after reading Burke's book I'm willing to bet anything that the real reason was that his staff was trying to protect him from his own impulses (i.e. not get near too many attractive women).
   
   I noticed several readers commented that the book didn't focus enough on the Senator's legislative accomplishments and rated it lower because of this. How ridiculous! Burke clearly states that his purpose is not to give a comprehensive chronology of Kennedy's record, but rather to shed light on those aspects of the Senator's life which he was most intimately involved in.
   
   I respect Burke for having the courage to come out with this story. His readiness to own up to his own faults is admirable and as he says at the end of his book, it's important for voters to know just who they are electing. This book has not changed my favorable opinion of the Senator, but it has helped me understand him better.



5. Having been a die hard Kennedy fan all of my life, I've read a lot of books. I know that none of them are perfect and I enjoyed this book. Ted Kennedy certainly lived life to the excess, but I guess that was the times. This book is full of examples of a very human man who works to do great things for the American people.

No comments about His Story: Mustafa Kemal and Turkish Revolution.

5 comments about Arafat: From Defender to Dictator.

1. While I agree with some of the things he says, such as his views on Saddam, I do not think he truely understands the situation that Arafat is in. If Arafat is as corrupt as the author claims, maybe he is, that still does not explain the actions of Sharon. If the jewish state truely wanted peace, the peace plan offered by Barak years ago would have never been taken off the table, it is obvious that isreal wants peace on its terms,which means the land. It wants peace but, also wants the land. Even if Arafat was the most honest leader that still would not have given the palastinian people a truely viable, seperate state, free of constant incurtions from isreali toops. The peace plan of Barak did not address the settlements, which would have given Isreal the excuse to keep its toops in the Palastinian state. Consider this, would americans have liked the fact that after their revolution, the British were able to keep their toops in their cities, I think not



2. Even though an interview with Arafat in which he could have offered some justifications to counter Aburish's accusations, the book still managed to safely sail to the shore of objectivity.
   With or without Arafat, the amount of information acquired from his aides and from news reports makes the book fairly credible.
   The book revolved around two main themes: First, Arafat has always put his leadership concerns over all other matters including vital Palestinian interests. Second, the Israelis never intended to recognize the Palestinian leadership as the representative of the Arabs residing in the occupied territories. Instead, it opted for trying to deal with the Jordanian leadership as the representative of these Palestinians and using a policy of an iron fist with them.
   An articulate Aburish argues that the peace process was born dead for three main reasons. Arafat's tribal behavior and corruption made him impose his leadership on the Palestinians living in the territories whereas the real leadership was offered by the residents themselves such as Al-Shafi, Ashrawi and Husseini. Second, the Israeli never stopped creating new realities by constantly expanding their settlements in Palestinian territories and errecting new ones, a situation which made the Palestinians always doubtful of the Israeli true intentions toward a durable peace.
   While Arafat believed that some Israeli concessions would beef up his leadership after he was ejected from Beirut in 1982 and lived since then in Tunisian exile, Israel thought that with minimum concessions it could force Arafat to police and supress the Palestinians living under occupation.
   The end result (not in the book), was the collapse of the peace process and an increase in violence, which creates a bleak picture of the future of peace and makes both the Palestinians and the Israelis head into oblivion.



3. Said Aburish downplays much of the evil of Yasir Arafat.
   
   At his core, Arafat is a terrorists and a murderer. Arafat hates not only Israel, but the west.
   
   Even if you are not pro-Israel, what people don't realize is that Yasir Arafat was killing American's way back in the 1960's and 1970's.
   
   He was responsible for the killing if US Ambassador Cleo Noel Jr. in 1973.



4. Being a palestnian, I thought that I whitnessed, heard and read enough about Arafat. I never thought that I need to read his biography. This book proved me wrong.
   
   The author has well researched this book, and have tackled all the stories and myths that surrounded Arafat.
   
   I enjoyed the first chapters of the book, about Arafat early life, which was very informative.
   
   However I expected more from the author specially in discussing the episodes of Jordan and Lebanon, because it has affected Arafat's and PLO's policies towards Arabs, Israel, peace and armed struggle.
   
   The book lost a point because of the chapters discussing Oslo. While in these chapters the writer cites many examples about Arafat turning to a dictator, nothing really changed in Arafat. He was a defender and dictator at the same time from his early days. The only difference is that Arafat adopted unpopular policies which made him more open to criticism.
   
   This book stops at 1997. I would be interested to see the author writing about the remaining period of Arafat's life between 1997 and 2004 in a future edition of this book.
   
   Great effort, and recommended read.



5. A political biography of a man who became the most recognizable figure of the 20th century. Anything pertaining to his private life is only mentioned so long as it has direct bearing on his behavior as a politician.
   
   A harsh yet compassionate portrayal of Arafat, a man who came to embody the essence of Palestinianness, as much for the rest of the world as for the Palestinians themselves. A restless man, with an inherent need to be involved in politics, to become a leader rather, a need that found expression in the search for a Palestinian identity, and a need that found justification for its existence in the quiet plea of the Palestinian people for a father figure, a guiding light, someone to drag them out of oblivion, lift their spirits and give them a sense of purpose.
   
   Convincing, fearless, charming, uncompromising, intense, delicate, full of ideas and energy, elusive, manipulative, impulsive, stubborn, totally unorganized, are only some of the adjectives and expressions Abu Rish uses to describe Arafat, who felt more at home commanding and subordinating than leading in anything that required any sort of direction.
   
   The symbol of Palestinian resistance, of a country and its people, he has to be credited with single-handedly succeeding in drawing attention to the plight of the Palestinian people. On the downside, his talents were not sufficient to adapt to opportunities, whenever these presented themselves, he had no understanding of modern economics and instead adhered to a tribal system of giving and receiving, he was essentially uneducated and unable to grasp the essence of International politics, in other words make calculated decisions and formulate strategies based on accurate evaluations of and within a contemporary political environment. Matters were further aggravated by his insecurity and obstinate insistence on being the center of attention, which meant he excluded from his entourage people who were of any real worth and could offer valuable and informed advice.
   
   A detailed and revealing biography of a tribal chief. An outstanding tribal chief maybe, but one who, as such, stood no chance of surviving in the current political arena.

5 comments about Nixon: Ruin and Recovery, 1973-1990.

1. it was the best book ever my bum is on the swedish! my bum is on the book hehe



2. Stephen Ambroses third Nixon Volume : "Ruin And
   Recovery" takes on into the heart and soul
   of democracy.
   Cynics accustomed to political scandal might
   be bemused by Watergate. What was all the
   hullabaloo really all about?

   Ambrose puts it something like this in the book:
   To the british, with their official Secrets Act, nothing
   that Nixon had done seemed that out of the ordinary,
   much less illegal. The Italians simply threw up their hands
   at the crazy Americans. To the French. Watergate
   confirmed their suspicions about the naive Americans.
   In west Germany, the frequent comparison of Nixon
   to Hitler by his enemies in America showed either
   how little the Americans understood Hitler,
   or how little they understood Nixon, or both.
   Nixons friends in China, could not understand
   why he just didn't shoot his critics.

   But in a democracy you must play by the law,
   and you must trust and have faith in the wisdom
   of the election process.
   Watergate was all about how these things were
   violated and how american democracy proved strong
   enough to recover.
   Ruin and Recovery reads like a detective story,
   absolutely undeniable brilliant stuff.
   
   

3. This third volume of the Nixon series is dominated by the Watergate scandal, with Ambrose skilfully detailing how the great election victory in 1972 slowly unravelled, as the full weight of the media and Democrat-controlled Congress worked to expose the whole tawdry episode. During this era, there was also the bombing of Hanoi followed by the Vietnam ceasefire, and summits with the Soviet leadership, but Watergate overshadowed all. Ambrose makes it clear that Nixon reinvented the story over and over, and bears a large burden of blame for the predicament he found himself in. He also makes clear that this was the opportunity for Nixon's arch enemies in the media and Congress to go for blood. The descent into the nightmare of possible impeachment and eventual resignation reads like an inevitablity, that Nixon lasted till August 1974 said a lot about his tenacity and stubborness in the face of relentless adversity.

   The recovery of Nixon was never fully realized, although he was an authoritative elder statesman in later years, and Ambrose shows that Nixon had regained a fair amount of respect in his later years. Since his death the left has continued to disparage and villify his legacy, but as hard as it is to defend Nixon at times, he was still a statesman to be reckoned with, and his foreign policy record, especially with his China trip, is one of distinction. The eastern establishment despised Nixon, but he did not cater to them, it was the silent majority that was his constituency. One finishes this book wondering where America would have gone had the Watergate scandal not occurred.




4. To fully understand Nixon, I highly recommend first reading volumes 1 and 2 of Ambrose's work. If, however, you are more interested in the Watergate affair, this volume certainly stands on its own.
   
   This is the final part of Ambrose's definitive three-volume biography of Nixon. The destructive tendencies wonderfully described by Ambrose in the first two volumes come to a head in Ruin & Recovery. Ambrose takes the reader through the unfolding of the mess that was Watergate.
   
   Even though we all know the ultimate outcome will be resignation, the author manages to maintain enough tension and suspense to keep the reader engrossed. In the wake of resignation, Ambrose follows Nixon's remarkable comeback as an elder statesman.
   
   If an affordable copy is not currently available, be patient. Because this book is out of print, it will be more expensive than you might expect, but you can find it for $20 to $30 if you look around.



5. For a guy that didn't grow up during Watergate, I found the third volume in this series to be a real page turner. Ambrose does a good job of telling you what happened, why it happened, how the public saw it and all the ways Nixon tried to keep the public from seeing it all.
   
   Ruin and Recovery is a great subtitle for this volume because Nixon truly did recover. There were a few things he never lost... his ability to guage the American people and how they felt about candidates and the ability to breakdown foreign affairs. It was good to see that in the final years of his life he was called on as an expert on both.
   
   I'm going to say it..."I ADMIRE RICHARD NIXON." Obviously I don't admire his Presidency or his decision-making during Watergate... but... for the most part I feel he was an idealistic, patriotic person that took a bad path and ruined his place in history at least when it comes to his Presidency. He did many things that Americans should respect though and it's high time we did.
   
   I am glad he has made a recovery in the minds of many Americans and as I read this final volume I think I saw Ambrose almost making a case for Nixon being a kinder, gentler person who should be slightly more respected in American history.
   
   Everybody makes mistakes and true Nixon made a big one, but I think in this final volume Ambrose almost makes a personal peace with Nixon and in a way advises Americans who resented Nixon to do the same.
   
   Really an enjoyable series of books that I would recommend to anyone willing to spend 1900 words delving into what made Nixon both good and bad as a person and politican.

5 comments about Now It's My Turn: A Daughter's Chronicle of Political Life.

1. I was raised in Republican country and currently live in the Democrat-heavy Midwest. I've struggled with every vote I've ever cast because certain issues are so party-specific. I picked up this book in hopes I'd get to see a lesbian's in-the-know perspective of the Republican Party. All I got was a lesbian's retelling of historical events during two Presidential election campaigns. The book would be good for a political history class, but I was very disappointed in Cheney's missed opportunity to give the American public a real perspective of how her sexuality impacted her father's campaign.
   
   She spends time telling about things like how the Secret Service agents saw them in their pajamas, about how her mother carried a wooden box with her to use when she spoke at a podium, and how they had to change carpet in one of her father's hotel rooms because the air conditioner leaked. She spends very little time discussing her struggle with Republican stances, how Bush dealt with her orientation, and how her partner actually supported her. She missed the mark on telling how she reconciled the proposed marriage amendment with her personal life.
   
   Bottom line... I wasn't expecting a retelling of the campaign and a personal description of Dick Cheney and George Bush. I heard enough of that on the news. I was hoping for a personal story about Mary Cheney. She didn't take a turn, she passed it on to the politicians.



2. A good read. Mary is real. Her energetic, insightful support of her Dad's political efforts and her description of that trail is entertaining. Her homosexuality is but a sad, sterile part of the person she is.



3. It seems that if one were to grow up in a family of wealth and power that they would have a positive outlook on life. Not so with Ms. Cheney. She spends almost the entire book telling about how mean people were to her on the campaign trail and whines constantly about the toils of politics.
   
   In addition, she missed a great opportunity to tell about the issues that confront an individual growing up gay in a conservative family. This along with the fact that the book must have been written by an 8th grader points to a poor read.
   
   I would give it zero stars if possible.



4. Anyone who rated this book above 2 stars has no idea what a good book is. Instead of taking the opportunity to write a compelling book all she seemed to do was churn out a boring, self-important piece of literature. It seemed more like she rushed it out just for the pay check more than to tell her story and her hardships of being a lesbian and a daughter of one of the most powerful conservative figures in the US. This book was just awful and I wouldn't recommend it to anyone.



5. I'm the mother of a lesbian daughter, and an activist who works for equal rights. During the last presidential election, I wondered how Mary Cheney was able to reconcile her sexual orientation and her loving commitment to her partner with a leading role in the reelection campaign of a political party that would write second class status into the U.S. Constitution for Mary, her partner Heather, and all other lesbian and gay citizens.
   
   The title, Now It's My Turn, implies some self-revelation of thoughts and emotions held back during the campaign for fear of jeopardizing her father's re-election. Instead (as other reader reviewers noted) the book's content is reflected accurately only by the subtitle: "a daughter's chronicle of political life." This day-by-day account of the vicissitudes of life on the campaign trail is competently, occasionally humorously, written, but not what I expected.
   
   For me, in fact, the book raises more questions than it answers. It's obvious that Mary Cheney is devoted to her father -- her depiction of him comes across as near idolatry. But were there NEVER any strains in their household? According to her, she came out to her parents while a junior in high school. Her father immediately told her he loved her and just wanted her to be happy. Her mother worried about the difficulties she would face in her life ahead, but came to understand that as a "secondary issue," once Mary "explained that my life would actually be much harder if I had to lie about who I was."
   
   From that point on, she describes both parents as totally supportive. Yet, from news sources other than Mary's memoir, it seems obvious that this support was at times strained in the Cheney family. Take Lynne Cheney's angry response, during the 2000 campaign, to an interview question about her daughter's lesbianism by ABC's Cokie Roberts. "She has declared no such thing," Lynne Cheney snapped. That hardly spells total support to me.
   
   From volunteering for a number of years in a support group run by Parents, Families and Friends of Lesbians and Gays (PFLAG), I know that few parents indeed take an announcement by their child that they are gay or lesbian with complete equanimity. Even mothers and fathers like myself, who identify as "liberals," take one step forward and one step back toward complete acceptance. Doubtless, the Cheneys' journey to "total support" was not instantaneous. Describing more of their struggle would have been helpful to parents undergoing own "journey."
   
   But Mary Cheney herself seems to take a step forward, a step back. Again from other news sources, I know that before taking a paid position with the Republican campaign, she worked in public relations for the Coors Brewing Company, doing outreach as a "liaison" to the gay and lesbian community. This is hardly a closeted position, and, indeed, she writes in Now It's My Turn that her sexual orientation was never a secret.
   
   Yet, she declines to identify herself as a lesbian, preferring the more "politically neutral term," gay. And she seems angrier at Edward's and Kerry's mention of her orientation during the debates than by President Bush's support for the Federal Marriage Amendment, even though the amendment would not only bar same-sex marriage, but would also prevent both Federal and state governments from enacting any sort of domestic partnership or civil union law that would give unmarried couples any of the rights or responsibilities of marriage.
   
   It's not till page 173 that she even mentions the Federal Marriage Amendment, and then addresses the problems it caused her in the most cursory terms. She decided (after seeing an advance copy of the speech) not to attend the 2004 State of the Union address where Bush voiced his support for the amendment, but made up her mind to stay on as director of vice-presidential operations for Bush-Cheney '04 because she had made a commitment. And, more importantly, because of her strong belief in her father.
   
   Another reader reviewer, who describes herself as a lesbian from Colorado, commented that despite her (the reviewer's) support for equal rights, she was a Republican supporter because she believed that crushing terrorists was the most important issue, and that she saw this as Mary Cheney's position as well as her own. But though that may help explain Cheney's decision to stay part of the Republican campaign, it doesn't tell me why she was so upset by being called a lesbian during the political debates.
   
   In fact, upset is a mild word. Mary Cheney describes herself as infuriated by both John Edward's and John Kerry's mention of her orientation during the vice-presidential and presidential debates, respectively. I didn't remember Edward's words that well, but Cheney's report of him saying, "I think the vice president and his wife love their daughter....very much," hardly seems a grievous insult, nor does his praise of them for embracing her. I do remember Cheney immediately thanking Edwards for his "kind words" about his family. But I never would have guessed, till reading it in his daughter's book, that Dick Cheney meant this as a kind of double-talk. That is, the Cheney family saw Edward's praise as a political ploy "that would remind everyone in the known universe, particularly those who might object, that I was gay." Cheney's thanks were intended solely to shut off any further discussion of this topic.
   
   I do remember Kerry's statement in the presidential debate very well. In response to the question, "Do you believe homosexuality is a choice?" Kerry said, "I think if you were to talk to Dick Cheney's daughter, who is a lesbian, she would tell you that she's being who she was, she's being who she was born as."
   
   I remember this so well because, as the mother of a lesbian daughter, I felt Kerry's answer was both good and sensitive. Perhaps he was "targeting" Mary Cheney -- as she claims -- and looking for any excuse to mention her orientation. It didn't come across that way to me. To me, Kerry was saying that lesbians and gays are ordinary people who are members of families, including families who are prominent members of the administration. By singling her out for mention, he was making the point that she had grown up in a loving, stable family, with mainstream values, and that nothing in her parents' way of life or child-rearing practices caused one of their two children to grow up gay.
   
   It seemed to me, further, that he was making the point that gay and lesbian people are not some strange species, but our children, or our siblings or our aunts and uncles. They are born with the inclination to find a loving relationship with someone of their own sex, just as some children are born with the inclination to use their left rather than right hands. It hardly seemed "a cheap and tawdry political trick," as Mary Cheney quotes her mother's response.
   
   I once read an article on writing that said many writers write to find out what they think, rather than to express their already formed thoughts. So it is with this review. I had expected to simply reiterate my opening thoughts that the book revealed little about the private Mary Cheney. But I find myself reaching a different conclusion. I think she does reveal herself. Despite being out in her previous employment and her spousal relationship, Mary Cheney's views in Now It's My Turn seem to bear a close resemblance to don't-ask-don't-tell. It's all right to be out as long as no one mentions it too loudly, or broadcasts that information. Her inner mindset seems driven more by political expediency than by self-acceptance or pride.
   
   It makes me sad.

4 comments about Outsider in the House.

1. OUTSIDER IN THE HOUSE is an interesting and intriguing book by the only Independent in the Hosue of Representatives, and the only Independent *ever* elected to four consecutive terms! How did formerly conservative Vermont elect a democratic socialist as its Representative in the House? This book will tell you. How did Bernie Sanders first get elected Mayor of Vermont's largest city? What did he tell Bill Clinton when they met? What does it feel like to see your Congressional colleagues gutting welfare? What is the 52-member Progressive Ccaucus, and why did Bernie Sanders help found it? This book answers all these questions in a fast-paced narrative which weaves together Sanders'most recent re-election campaign (targeted by the Republican leadership, the NRA, and corporate America, he managed to win by 23 points!), his fights on Capitol Hill, and a brief history of the most successful progressive political movement in modern America. And if that is not enough, the book concludes with a clear-eyed look at America's major problems -- and presents reasonable ways of addressing each of them. Highly recommended. [Of course, you might consider that this review was written by the book's co-author, Huck Gutman....] Still, I think you will like it, and be energized by reading it. Our purpose in writing it, after all, was to give people hope: it is really possible to take on the corporate powers and big money interests, and beat them at the electoral game.



2. Sanders does a few wonderful things in this book - first off, he shows what socialists truly believe - I now realize that, while I don't agree with them, I got a false impression of their views from the mass media. The book also gives a detailed account of how hard it is to make it as a third party candidate in America, and does so without becoming dull at any points. Finally, Sanders covers a wide range in issues in this book. Overall, very interesting for anyone even remotely interested in American politics.



3. I am not a big fan of Bernie Sanders at all. I can not support him in any way because he is too radical for my taste as a Moderate Democrat. But this book was very well written. The writing clearly reflects something that he went through as a member of the US House. But I did notice that Bernie accuses everyone for America's problems. It's always someone else's fault. He never mentions his failures which are important to understand as a public official, and what he has really done. I found Bernie to complain almost all the time, but on the other hand, it was very well written, interesting and informative in vermont politics. I enjoyed it, but the more I read it, the more I liked the Republican caniddate that was running against him in 1996.



4. As a former congressional candidate, I have read numerous books on the subject of congressional campaigns, and this is by far the best. Mr. Sanders chronicles his ascent from pitiful protest candidacies with the socialist Liberty Union Party of Vermont, where he often got just 1 percent of the vote, all the way to his eventual victory as mayor of Burlington and election to the U.S. House of Representatives. This quick, fun, and informative read has it all - the actual campaign strategy and logistics, what it's like to raise money, the human and family costs of running for office, and of course, what it's like to actually legislate in D.C. The fact that Mr. Sanders is an independent makes the book particularly interesting. The one thing I was disappointed with, however, was the fact that the self-ascribed socialist did not spend even one word describing what he thinks "socialism" is. Other than that, this is a perfect book, even for the non-socialist lover of politics (and third-party/independent politics in particular) such as myself.

No comments about Need to Testify, A.

1 comments about The Borgias (Classic Biography).

1. In this beautifully illustrated work, Johnson plots the dramatic rise of the Borgias from their roots in Spain to their occupation of the highest position in Renaissance society in Italy at a time when that country occupied centerstage in Europe, both politically and culturally. She explains why history has depicted the Borgias as fallen angels in a corrupt era, but considers the condemnation to have been too absolute and maintains that behind the gaudy horrors existed people of real talent and achievement, some of whom even possessed moderate virtues.
   All of the Borgias were strong and colorful characters who caught the world's attention whatever they did. The crimes and sins of Rodrigo Borgia (Pope Alexander VI), his children Cesare and Lucrezia, and the legends of poisoning and incest that surrounded them, are here compellingly re-examined by Johnson.
   There are maps and genealogical tables, a select bibliography and a detailed index, and the text is enhanced by beautiful black & white and full-colour illustrations. This is a thoroughly researched and well-written book, and I highly recommend it.