5 comments about Dark Horse: The Surprise Election and Political Murder of President James A. Garfield.

1. This is a fascinating look at a little known president in American history. It covers the convention that nominated Garfield where he was not even a contender. Garfield was a representative for General Sherman who was against General Grant and James Blaine. This convention was one of the most interesting in our history and shows how the freedom of delegates can result in a compromise that gives a candidate acceptable to many. While none would wholeheartedly jump behind Garfield he was able to take a nomination. The New York crowd who backed Grant was particularly bitter. Roscoe Conkling who is made out to be the great villain in this story provides an interesting foil. Chester Arthur is shown to be a man even more unlikely than Garfield for the presidency and it is telling that after his term is up he is hardly even considered for another. The election process also proves to be interesting showing a time before TV and radio when stump speeches reigned supreme. Garfield's assassin turns out to be one of his campaigners who want a political appointment. He feels that by killing Garfield he will be rewarded with a patronage position. Garfield's election seems to bring about a divide in the country that is already distrustful after the election of Rutherford B. Hays. Ironically it is the death of Garfield and the unlikely ascension of Arthur that will heal the nation. This dark horse unified the country in his death and paved the way for civil service reform. For those who have an interest in the Gilded Age this is a must read. For those who are fascinated by political history they will find this a riveting tale that cannot be put down.



2. I enjoyed this book so much, I sent this letter to the author:
   "Dear Mr. Ackerman, I recently read and thoroughly enjoyed your fantastic book, Dark Horse: The Surprise Election and Political Murder of President James A. Garfield. I feel it is worthy of a Pulitzer Prize for History. I found your writing style to be engrossing as, even though I knew much of the history you recounted, I read each page of the book most eagerly. I had just finished Roy Morris' Fraud of the Century and, as much as I enjoyed it, I found your book to be a more compelling tale. Your character development is superb and I love how you tied the thread of the Conkling/Blaine feud of 1866 to events throughout the book. The final weaving together of the tale in Chapter 15 is a beautiful closure to a moving story that, as you accurately captured, impacted and captivated large numbers of Americans. Your research and documentation were extremely thorough and quite logically incorporated into the chronological flow of events. Your footnotes are pure joy for a politics and history buff (like me). I didn't really feel I had finished the book until I read the endnotes, as they added to my deeper understanding and appreciation of the events. Having lived through the Kennedy assassination, the comparisons with Garfield's demise are most intriguing and the distinctions also profound. Both were younger presidents who had won narrow victories to gain the White House. Both were succeeded by vice presidents who were clearly 'ticket balancers.' But Kennedy's assassination has forever been plagued with conspiracy theories, while Garfield's had no doubt as to the assassin. Alas, to pursue this line of thought would invite rambling on my part, but these ideas do cross my mind. I think your book would make a great movie, except for the sad reality that Hollywood would inevitably destroy a great story. Also, most likely, it isn't the kind of story that would capture much interest among our populace, at least in my judgment (keeping in mind the kinds of movies that seem to proliferate theater complexes these days). If only I were wrong about this! Your recapitulations of future developments of each of the prime players in the book (Chapter 15) are tailor made for the closing of a great film. I found particularly touching the telling of Mollie Garfield having married Joe Stanley Brown. Some minor observations, suggestions, and thoughts I have are as follows: - A table of the results of the 1880 Presidential Election and a national map of the results (as I have attached) might have been a good addition to the book. I did thoroughly enjoy your tables of the key convention ballots. (Obviously, my bias as a mathematician and cartographer is showing.) - I am working on a book (well, it is really more of a tutorial) of the History of Partisan Representation in the United States Congress. As you are well aware, the story of the evenly divided 47th Senate, in and of itself, is a fascinating one and your accounting of the battle for control of the Senate is most illuminating. Your description of the tie-breaking (precedent setting) votes of Chester Arthur is great drama. -- In this vein, while you point out that one of Arthur's first actions as President was to call the Senate into special session to choose a President Pro Tempore, you never related who they selected for this position. My research indicates that Thomas F. Bayard (D-DE) served from October 10 to 13, 1881, David Davis (Independent-IL) from October 13, 1881 to March 3, 1883, and George F. Edmunds (R-VT) from March 3 to December 2, 1883. Perhaps with the Senate evenly split, this particular tale was too complex and off the focus of your storyline to include. - Not to nit-pick, but in case your book is ever reprinted, some minor points: -- on page 205, last line of paragraph two, the spelling of 'ungentlemanly' missed the editors gaze, -- on page 234, end of line 15 should probably read 'In fact' instead of 'If fact.' -- the last endnote 'I am a poor hater' should be attributed to page 453. - If space had provided for it, including the White House family portrait on the cover of the book would have been wonderful. Just viewing this photo (in the context of the murder of Garfield and all you shared about his wife and children) truly conveys the personal tragedy that occurred, separate from the great loss to our country. - Indeed, as you note, we do need a solid, contemporary biography of James G. Blaine. Equally, I would welcome one of Chester A. Arthur. While a product of machine politics, as you described him, he showed character, spirit, decency, and integrity that made him attractive. I would enjoy reading more about him. Again, please accept my thanks for your superb work and for sharing this wonderful tale. Sincerely, R. Bruce Telfeyan"
   --By the way, he did write me back a substantial note of thanks. As did other reviewers, I subsequently visited the Garfield NHS in Mentor, OH, and his burial site (really a beautiful shrine) in the eastern part or Cleveland, OH.



3. Can't praise Ackerman enough for a detailed study of late 19th century political machinations - if you've ever wondered how local politicos could control the nation's power base, this superb effort makes it perfectly clear and understandable. How few people truly understand the power of a relatively unknown figure such as Roscoe Conkling (even if you already knew of Boss Tweed's legacy.....and yet Ackerman's magnificent research and analysis opens this character for the reader's astonishment. Outstanding reportage of the dealings involved in the 1880 Republican convention power-brokering, the desperate struggle between the Stalwarts of Conkling and Arthur versus the Half-Breeds of James Blaine and Garfield, the defining battle for the NY Customs House appointment. Garfield's early bio and in fact his assassination history are not the focus of this book, but who cares? The incisive political intrigue of a mere 8 or 9 months of our presidential history makes for both a terrific read and a wonderful expose of a truly watershed milestone in the evolution of the American governmental system. My highest recommendation for anyone who thinks he knows the Gilded Age, but wants an eye-opener with the readability of an indulgent summer novel.



4. On the morning of July 2, 1881, Garfield was preparing for a trip to New England. While waiting for his train in Washington's Baltimore and Potomac Railroad station, the president was felled and gravely wounded by the shots of an assassin. Garfield was carried to the presidential mansion, the White House. For weeks he was nursed there. Later he was moved to Elberon, New Jersey, to be with his family. Garfield never left his sickbed, and on September 19, 11 weeks after the shooting, he died.
   
   Garfield's assassin was Charles J. Guiteau, a religious fanatic and a Stalwart, who was apparently angered because he had been refused a government job. He stated that he shot Garfield in order "to unite the Republican Party and save the Republic." Guiteau readily gave himself up after the shooting, certain that the people would understand the high-mindedness of his purpose. He was found guilty of murder, however, and was executed in 1882.
   
   Vice President Chester A. Arthur succeeded Garfield as president. A member of the Stalwart faction, he had sided with Conkling in the dispute over Garfield's appointments. He gradually replaced all of Garfield's Cabinet with Stalwarts, but picked them for ability rather than loyalty to Conkling. The shocking nature of Garfield's death fueled a movement in Congress for civil service reform, which had been started but stalled under the Hayes administration. As a result Congress passed the Pendleton Act, which President Arthur signed into law in 1883. It established the Civil Service Commission to ensure that federal jobs would be awarded according to qualifications rather than connections
   
   Several hundred pages of text on Garfield and the politics of his day may seem a stretch, given the gray, hyper-partisan, issueless politics of the Gilded Age. But in Ackerman's hands, the story of Garfield's presidency and murder comes brilliantly alive. Ackerman (an attorney who has worked on Capitol Hill and in the White House and written about Gilded Age scandals) relates with gusto and fizz the story of Garfield's unanticipated nomination as Republican presidential candidate in 1880, his election by a whisker, the travails of his few months in office, and his assassination. It's a story mostly of the struggle for spoils and patronage between two wings of the post-Civil War party of Lincoln. In fact, the lonely, unstable assassin, Charles Guiteau, was a resentful partisan of the wing that Garfield didn't fully reward. Soon after the president's death, and largely as a result, Congress enacted civil service reform. Ackerman brings to life all this and the colorful political figures, mostly senators, who strode the nation's public stage. The trouble is that, like so many works of history these days, it's long on narrative and short, very short, on analysis. You wouldn't know that the political deadlocks of the 1880s deeply, and disastrously, affected the lives of freed slaves, nor do readers learn of agricultural and labor crises, industrial growth or financial shenanigans-the very matters that factional fighting and political murder kept under the rug. It's a pity that Ackerman doesn't apply his skills to such central matters of context and significance.



5. It has often been remarked that the only thing new under the sun is the history one has not read yet and this book is proof of that old adage. Kenneth Ackerman has provided the novice reader with a primer on the dynamics of Gilded Age national politics.
   
   It is highly unlikely, with the exception of Grant, that any of the participants in this book will ever be the subject of an uncritical adoring biography. Garfield and Arthur do come off as ultimately honorable men, but the real protagonists of the book are James G. Blaine and Roscoe Conkling, two titans behaving badly. Ackerman places the nomination of Garfield in the context of battle between these two national figures who played an important role in politics in the years following Reconstruction.
   
   While the behavior of some of the founding fathers is often so honorable as to defy imagination, this manner of operating does not have appeared to have occurred to Conkling and Blaine. Both are bare-knuckled operators who are frequently petulant as children arguing over a soccer ball. No marble men on Mt Rushmore were the politicians of the Gilded Age.
   
   In a way, because Conkling and Blaine are such scoundrels, the book is rather fascinating, almost like a sequel to "Democracy" by Henry Adams (Conkling is supposedly the inspiration for one of the characters). However in this version, circumstances elevate both Blaine and Conkling to the status of Greek Tragedy.
   
   The book opens with the origins of their feud which began on floor of the US House of Representatives. Because the wise old men of congress decided not to intervene, the two men grew to hate with a fervor that lasted until death. The hatred between the two men reached its crescendo at the Republican National Convention of 1880. Blaine was making his first serious run for the presidency and Conkling was sponsoring the third run of General Grant who represented a return to government free of the meddling of reformers.
   
   A deadlocked convention lead to the selection of Garfield who was present to back his own candidate, Secretary of the Treasury, John Sherman. Of all the candidates Garfield seemed the most reasonable choice since he had yet to have made any serious enemies. This would change once Garfield was elected president. The selection of Conkling's crony, Chester Arthur sealed the deal. It appeared that Conkling's Stalwarts and Blaine's reform minded "Half Breeds" had unified around a single candidate.
   
   Garfield was sworn in as president in March 1881 and died less than six months later. The focus of his brief presidency was an argument over the appointment of a Conkling foe to the plum position of plum positions, collector of the New York customs house. This obscure position today was the most lucrative in the Gilded Age. For the senior senator of New York, this was an impossible blow to Conkling's honor. He resigned his seat in a fit of pique and never was significant in politics again.
   
   This argument at the center of US political life so unnerved a Stalwart supporter, Charles J. Guiteau, that he shot Garfield in order to ensure that Chester Arthur would be president. Ackerman's ability to move between the world of the White House, Congress, political smoke filled rooms, and the shabby world of Guiteau is a credit to his skills as a writer and an historian.
   
   Along with bringing back this lost world of Gilded Age politics, Ackerman's story serves to illustrate that while civil service reform (or "snivel service reform" as Conkling dismissed it as) and other changes have taken place, the dynamics that sustained US politics then, with its larger than life personalities seeking advantage over rivals continues on now much as it did then.

5 comments about George Bush: The Unauthorized Biography.

1. The Bush family is undoubtedly a crime family, right up there with the famous Mafia crime families. Prescott Bush's crimes in particular have long been on the public record (newspaper and magazine articles are cited in this book), but more recently, documents released under FOIA (Freedom of Information Act) show the government documents backing the much earlier journalistic reports of criminal activity. Prescott Bush's son, George H. W. Bush, has continued in that tradition, perhaps more behind the scenes than on the public stage.
   
   This book was published in 1992, and I read this book in 2007. One thing that struck me in particular were the frightening similarities between Bush 41 and Bush 43. You will find more recent books, such as Robert Parry's _Secrecy & Privilege: Rise of the Bush Dynasty from Watergate to Iraq_, portraying post-1992 Bush family history, but I believe that _George Bush: The Unauthorized Biography_ remains an important source of information and insights, particularly psychological insights, that are not readily found elsewhere.
   
   This book is a polemic -- readers are left with no doubts about the point of view taken. It is however, a polemic with documented facts and footnotes, otherwise the authors would likely have been sued over this book. Readers, be ye not deterred by ad hominem attacks on the authors, Mr. Tarpley in particular! He was indeed associated with Lyndon LaRouche for a long time, apparently including the time when this book was written, but is no longer. We may forget that serious, investigative Bush Bashing by mainstream authors was rare indeed during Bush 41's heyday. It took someone outside the mainstream corporate press to blow the whistle on the Bushes back in the early 90s.
   
   There is a free on-line version of this book that you can find easily enough, but its sheer size will discourage you from trying to read it this way. I have found the on-line version useful for searching on particular words that were not included in the index.
   
   Bush 41's legacy is still under-rated and under-appreciated, perhaps partly due to the "wimp factor". I highly recommend this book for readers wanting a better understanding of the important role that GHWB has played in American and world history.



2. Amazingly accurate and well researched, this book will provide the reader with a fascinating view of "41", and the depths of the Bush influence in American politics. This is revelatory reading. Remember, Poppy is merely prologue for Dubya. These are dangerous people.



3. Great book for reference. Bibliography checks out nice. Book is good at seperating the facts from the fiction concerning the Bush Family, as well as others. Definately a must have for all those concerned with current affairs and America's future. Don't let "unauthorized" in the title discourage you, this is the REAL biography, not the propaganda puke which is regurgitated by mainstream media and press...



4. For me this is the fourth book I have completed on the Bush dynasty. Unlike the others, this one is not gossipy or filled with innuendoes and salacious half-truths strung together to entice the reader: This is a full-bodied history, well researched and documented, and backed up with "real facts." Since the authors are loosely affiliated with, or at least sympathetic to the Lyndon La Rouche cause, I made a conscious agreement with myself to keep my "crap detection system" in "wide open alert mode," and to "declare foul" at the first sign of "manufactured anti-Bush" unsubstantiated facts.
   
   I have now reached the end of the book and cannot say that I have found anything beyond a slight disagreement with the guilt by association arising in the case of the Union Banking Corporation's Hitler Project. It seems to me that Bush's father was more or less operating under the rules of the Versailles Treaty then in force: as a kind of silent "overseer" of a Harriman caretaking operation. The Bush connection to Nazism was thus more a product of these arrangements than due to some sinister ideological and Fascist motive, which is often erroneously left hanging in the air. U.S. and British partnerships with Germans were more the rule than the exception due to these WW-I Treaty restrictions. And this was true well into Hitler's administration. In fact, many of the actions the government took against these "shared corporations" under the Enemy's Act of 1942, specifically indicated that seizures were only of the "Nazi interests," often leaving the U.S. partners free to carry on business as usual. Except for this, and the fact that the rules of business morality generally seemed to have been more relaxed with wider opportunities for graft in the milieu of the last generation of "wheeling-and-dealing," there is little to question here.
   
   The book pretty much confirms the facts found in other books, but here the authors have done so at a much cleaner, more professional, and in my personal view, on a much higher level. Needless to say, I am impressed with the scholarship of the author's work. The book is all the more devastating because these authors have gone well beyond the cover stories; have provided context as appropriate, have not relied on the normal and very much available anti-Bush claptrap; and have additionally done their own independent research and investigations, often from scratch.
   
   The authors story about Bush I, goes as follows:
   
   George W. Bush (Bush I), like the other Bush brothers and sons, is a wholly-owned subsidiary of the Bush oligarchy, started by his maternal grandfather and uncle, George Herbert Walker, and George Herbert Walker, Jr., and Senator from Connecticut, Prescott Bush (George's father). The epicenter of the oligarchy has always been, and remains the banking business, in particular the Wall Street international investment bank of Brown Brothers Harriman. According to these authors (as well as all the others I have read), this bank remains the "Bush family firm" in the deepest sense of that phrase.
   
   The power of this bank and its ubiquitous network reaches both across the globe and across time. In particular, its connections to the British oligarchy, to Henry Kissinger Enterprises, to Israeli and Zionists circles, to Texas oilmen, and to the Saudi and Kuwaiti Royal families are well known. What is not so well known, is how these connections conspire to control, and in many cases to undermine U.S. economic and national security interests. In this regard the author points out that: "It will be noted that Bush has succeeded in proportion as the country has failed, and that Bush's advancement has proceeded pari passu (in tandem with) with the degradation of the national stage upon which he has operated and which he has come to dominate."
   
   The key to the story, according to these authors is Bush's amoral and compliant personality and willingness to bend the rules to serve those higher up the economic food chain, and family interests over U.S. national and economic interests. As he notes: "The reader will search in vain for strong, principled commitments in George Bush's personality; the most that will be found is a series of obsessions, of which the most durable are race, vanity, personal ambition, and settling scores with adversaries."
   
   Anyone doubting the seriousness of this book will be quickly disavowed of that notion from reading the prediction on its first page in which as early as 1991, when it went to press, predicted that GW Jr. would win the presidency and that his reign would be another unmitigated disaster for the U.S. That alone is worth five stars.



5. One of the scarriest books I've ever read. Almost hard to believe that people can be so calculating.

5 comments about Hitler: 1936-1945: Nemesis.

1. To be sure, military historians may be upset because Kershaw doesn't cover every little thing when it comes to the war, but this is the place to start and finish when it comes to Hitler from 1936-1945. The book is very well written and highly readable. If you want more info on the war, there are certainly other places to go, but if you want to know about Hitler, start with Kershaw's 1st volume and move on to this.



2. I have read many books about the Nazism, but until I read this one I didn't really feel I understood how a little snake like Adolf Hitler could get intelligent people to follow him. "Working toward the Fuhrer", as Kershaw puts it, became the goal, regardless of the consequences. Being "one of us", rather than "one of them", was the only goal. Facinating stuff, and scary, considering the relevance to our own time.



3. How could a racial crank with no education rule Germany so effectively for years? If he was an evil genius, Why did he then fail, stupidly leading it into a second war and eventual defeat? Kershaw's answer is the Nazi phrase, "working towards the Fuhrer". When Hitler stated his desires or plans, he didn't have to issue actual detailed commands: he could count on his lieutenants to implement his will in practice.
   
   Thus making Germany's foreign policy (in particular) a copy of his own paranoid, ruthless personality, Hitler won some early victories against opponents used to dealing with "gentlemen" leaders and countries. Also, "working towards the Fuhrer" obscured his personality--that of a crank--behind competent experts. But once he desired the impossible (conquering the USSR) or once his will became increasingly vague and contradictory (during the war), the result was total catastrophic, with Germany willingly starting a war it couldn't possibly win just because the Fuhrer wanted it, with the "bonus" of complete government chaos as numerous competing organizations interpreted Hitler's latest vague speech in a self-serving manner.
   
   Kershaw's history shows in meticulous detail just how "working towards the Fuhrer" worked in practice: how it allowed Hitler to make his personal paranoia and racial hatered Germany's officlal policy, with all that that implies--the holocaust included--which is the main point of writing a new biography of him in the first place. This thesis, while surely it can never be conclusively tested, is a far superior explanation of all that had occured in 1933-1945 than simplistic "Hitler was evil" explanations. Evil he certainly was, but, as Kershaw notes, that explains nothing: numerous evil cranks exist. Why did so many cultured and supposedly humane and sane Germans support him is the interesting question, which Kershaw answers very well.
   
   Highly recommended.



4. I finally got around to reading both volumes of Kershaw's biography after plowing through the Fest bio. Fest's is better, in my opinion, although the first Volume of Kershaw's isn't bad. The problem with Volume 2 is that it's redundant, with endless anecdotes about Hitler's tantrums and paranoia---way too much padding. It's more of an historical account of WW2, instead of a biography, unfortunately. As well, Kershaw's contempt for Hitler gets in the way of acknowledging any successes on Hitler's part; he's unable to give the devil his due. Volume 1 is probably worth it; Volume 2 doesn't add much. Some people like Alan Bullock's bio of Hitler, while others prefer John Toland's. I haven't read either one.



5. The second volume of Kershaw's outstanding biography of Hitler covers the period from 1936 to his death. Kershaw does a superb job of integrating the biographical material per se with relevant narrative and analysis of German history over this period. Kershaw picks up and expands themes that emerged in volume one. Two in particular stand out. One is the overriding importance of Hitler's crude but powerful ideology. The point of Hitler's actions was the violent attainment of his social Darwinist goals; the elimination of European Jewry, the dominance of "inferior races" like the Slavic peoples of Eastern Europe, and German domination of western Eurasia. War was not just necessary to achieve these goals but an indispensable part of the process of establishing German supremacy. The necessity of violence was not merely an ideological preoccupation but something with deep emotional resonance for Hitler. This was a man who found his service on the Western Front a personally transforming and uplifting experience. Kershaw shows well how a large number of Hitler's zealous supporters shared these horrifying views and how an even larger number of Germans, including virtually all of the traditional elites of the German state, were either supportive of Hitler's goals or willing to look the other way as long as he was successful. By the time it became clear that Hitler was leading Germany to disaster, Hitler's power was so well established that any kind of organized resistance became almost impossible.
   
   Kershaw shows well how Hitler's bold repudiation of the Versailles restrictions and the rearmarment policies that expanded the German economy led to enormous personal popularity. Under the umbrella of Hitler's success and great prestige, the Nazis were able to subordinate all the major institutions of German life, perhaps save the churches, which did offer some limited resistance. At the same time, the Party erected a powerful alternative governing structure and some of Hitler's most able and ruthless subordinates developed the powerful security services that policed Germany. Hitler personally established complete dominance over the Wehrmacht, the only institution that could have resisted him successfully. Hitler's daring and ability to capitalize on weaknesses of his opponents, coupled with a good dose of luck led to unprecedented success.
   
   Another major theme articulated by Kershaw is the nature of the Nazi state. The essentially indolent and politically shrewd Hitler ruled primarily by setting himself above day to day government and setting the broader ideological goals for Germany. Hitler's unwillingness to participate in the mechanics of government and his willingness to countenance competing sectors of authority led to an anarchic state (termed polyocracy by some historians) that enhanced Hitler's power because only he had the ultimate authority to adjudicate among the competing authorities. For much of his rule, it also insulated him from public disfavor as unpopular policies were associated with lower ranking Party or government officials. This system, which Kershaw describes as "working towards the Fuhrer" led to competition among different subordinates and power centers for who could gain Hitler's favor by pursuing the ideological goals of the regime. The result was essentially a race to see who could be the more effective murderer of those unfortunate enough to be enemies, real or imagined, of the regime.

5 comments about Churchill: A Study in Greatness.

1. A compact biography (384 pages) by Oxford Historian Geoffrey Best is far and away the best I have read on Churchill. The many facets of Churchill's life are covered in a series of essays from the author. Best summarizes Churchill's life with clarity and high degree of accuracy.
   
   If you're looking for a comprehensive study on Churchill, this isn't it. You won't find page after page of stilted verbiage here, but you will find a well written presentation of this fascinating man, perhaps the savior of England. If it is possible to write a detailed account of such a varied figure within the brevity of such a small volume, the author has done so admirably.
   
   Though the author clearly admires the subject, this isn't just another "I love Churchill" book. Best gives a fair and balanced account of many areas where Churchill may have erred, such as Gallipolli. The book is fair, and it is no-nonsense, to the point, without a lot of ambivalent inflection.
   
   I have a number of volumes on the life and times of Churchill. I may go to other volumes for research purposes, but this is probably the most enjoyable read I have encountered on the man.
   
   Monty Rainey
   www.juntosociety.com



2. Not a true biography but more than just a compilation of essays concerning Churchill's life and times, the author provides us with a 300+ page synopsis/chronology with a sprinkling of his thoughts, insights and conclusions. I found nothing new or "earth-shattering" here. On the other hand it makes a nice supplement, (i.e. much like Meachem's book on FDR and Churchill), to biographys/books I have read. If you are looking for a full-fledged bio start elsewhere, (Manchester or Gilbert), and if your interest is piqued as mine was, come back to this one.



3. A very readable book that provides balanced and insightful coverage of the whole of Churchill's life. I would highly recommend this book either to those who have not previously read much about Churchill or equally to those who have read other Churchill biographies or war histories and wish to take a fresh look. Of particular value is the way that the author take the occasional opportunity to dispel certain myths and revisionist ideas about Churchill.



4. Best nos presenta una panorámica de la vida de Churchill. Algunos capítulos están mas inspiradoa que otros. Trata de mostrar una perspectiva imparcial del personaje aunque claramente se comprueba que le admira grandemente, pero no tanto como a su esposa Clementine. La extensión de la parte que corresponde a la segunda guerra mundial es mucho mas amplia (quizás la mitad del libro). Casi no responde las preguntas o dudas sobre asuntos controversiales que existen sobre la vida de este personaje.
   
   Como se comprende, al escribir sobre Churchill es necesario mostrar una parte de la hisoria de GB y del mundo pero esta se queda corta a veces para ayudar a comprender a cabalidad la circunstancias que rodearon a los hechos.
   
   En general el texto es bueno, muy bien redactado, fácilmente comprensible. Algunos artículos mas inspirados que otros pero todos interesantes.



5. this book by geoffrey best will rank as one of the greatest book ever written about churchill full of wise summations and not too long thi work is recommended by the churchill society . for sure one of the very best one volume work

5 comments about Lion in the White House: A Life of Theodore Roosevelt.

1. For the many people who admire Theodore Rossevelt for his belief that corporations have a civic responsiblity to American citizens, new books on this icon of progressivism are always welcome. It is important, however, to temper one's affection for TR with expectations of scholarship, and when one does so, Donald's book fails to satisfy. Compared to the Morris two-volume biography, Donald's book lacks sufficient detail to be classified as a legitimate biography; instead, it seems to be a simple encomium. Serious readers will not learn anything that they did not already know about TR, and they may be offended by the book's shallow treatment. This book might be suitable for a junior high student as an introduction to TR, but it has little merit for a more adult audience.



2. When one writes a book or an article, one must first decide the audience for that work. The serious student of Theodore Roosevelt will be disappointed with this book as it contains nothing new. It is merely a precis of TR's life, from beginning to end. While reading this book the question "Why?" entered my mind many times. Why was it written? Why were certain parts highlighted and others ignored?
   
   For example, when Roosevelt returned from Cuba after the Spanish-American War, he flirted with the idea of running for governor of New York. His wife did not relish the idea. She eventually changed her mind, but the reader is not told why: "Besides his trial with [Thomas C.]Platt as an obstacle to his progress [in gaining the nomination], there was Edith's reluctance to reenter public life. She soon became enthusiastic and even went to the state convention..." (107). Were bargains made with Edith? Why did she change her mind? If that fact is important enough to mention, a better explanation as to her turnaround should have been forthcoming. There was also a lack of credit for some quotes in the book. Mark Hanna, the Ohio senator who was against TR becoming vice-president, was mentioned in several places. Yet, his most famous quote, "Now that damned cowboy is in the White House!" (after McKinley's assassination) is merely credited to "...an anti-Roosevelt Republican" (130).
   
   In a book filled with excerpts from Roosevelt letters and speeches, some of his best speeches and quotes are left out. His 1915 speech to the NYC Knights of Columbus where he dismisses "hyphenated Americans," is not mentioned. For a book published in 2007, one could argue for inclusion of the entire text of that speech. Also, while discussing the assassination attempt on TR during the 1912 presidential campaign, his famous line, "It takes more than that to kill a Bull Moose," is omitted.
   
   Clearly this is an abbreviated history of a long, event-filled life. This work does not do that life justice. Considering the lifetime of work by the author, one has to wonder if she penned the book only to add to the list of her accomplishments. Moreover, the lack of a serious bibliography and the absence of notes calls into question the academic validity of this work. It would have been better had it not been written in the first place.
   
   It was awarded three stars because it would be fitting as an introduction to the twenty-sixth president. Its prose flows well and is easy to read. Since the curious reader will want to find out more about Roosevelt, it would be recommended to a middle school student as a way to become familiar with one of America's great icons. Those who are beyond that stage should look to other sources for an in-depth education about Theodore Roosevelt.



3. This is not my period so I cannot attest to any of the specific details. I was simply looking at background on Roosevelt as a writer of American History. Besides Winston Churchill I can think of no easier subject for a short biography and the book does capture many of Roosevelt's accomplishments. However, this book is stunningly badly written and edited. And this is not simply the gratuitous digs at today's Republicans as noted by other reviewers. I cannot figure out how it received so many endorsements from renowned History professors. I understand that a short book on such a rich subject may lead to gaps - but there are so many gaps, jumps, incomplete thoughts and non sequiturs that it makes reading the book a jarring experience. In addition, Donald has a quirky and idiosyncratic way with the language.
   Such criticisms clearly require supportive examples.
   In terms of key issues being broached but never explored, Donald describes Roosevelt's run for Governor as follows: "Besides the trial with Platt as an obstacle to his progress, there was Edith's reluctance to re-enter public life. She soon became enthusiastic and even went to the State convention, held in Saratoga, New York, on September 27." P107 The phrasing of the first sentence is decidedly odd. Then we find that Edith's reluctance miraculously disappears though previously it was an obstacle on a level with the opposition of apparently the most powerful political boss in the New York Republican Party.
   Other examples of Donald's odd phrasing include: "The new president did not throw caution to the winds, but boldly tacked in domestic and foreign afairs." P134
   Then there is repetition: On pages 131 and 155, where Dr. Donald uses exactly the same quotes about lynching.
   Then there is the sheer lack of clarity when Donald describes the complexities of New York politics and Roosevelt's need for support for his re-election as President:
   "He(Roosevelt) also watched as two rival Republicans, Boss Platt and Benjamin Barker Odell, a rising politician, fought for control of the Republican Party. Odell found that Platt had lied to him and would not be his ally.
   "During the struggle, Platt told Roosevelt that he would favor him continuing on as president, but Roosevelt did not put much stock in this because he thought Platt, who was not well, would be more likely to follow him than would Roosevelt." Page 141
   Clearly there is something wrong here. An editor would have helped clear it up!!
   Another disappointment was cursory examination of how and why Roosevelt ran again for President. But perhaps by then I was too jarred to follow Dr. Donald's line of reasoning.
   Fortunately for Dr. Donald, her book is saved by the brilliance of Roosevelt.



4. It would be pointless for me to criticize this book for being too short, because it was obviously intended to be a quick read that provided an overview of Teddy Roosevelt's life. And it did that. Yes I would have liked to hear more about Roosevelt's insatiable oldest daughter, among other topics, but for the most part, I got what I wanted out of the book.
   
   I had never read a TR book before, and I want to read McCullough's "Mornings on Horseback" at some point soon. I felt that to prepare for that book, which does not cover TR's entire life, I needed some background on the man. And "Lion in The White House" provided that.
   
   This is the kind of book that you can read in a week and get an understanding of what Roosevelt's goals were as a politician, and what drove him to be as progressive as he was. It did whet my appetite for a more detailed study of the man. But this time, I wasn't looking for a 700-page or multi-volume monstrosity, so I'm glad Donald's book was on the shelf. As long as your expectations are for a short overview of TR, you will be pleased with this book. If you're looking for great depth and detail, you should look elsewhere.



5. I recently finished "Lion in the White House", referring to President Theodore Roosevelt.
   While I have read many other books about this fascinating man, "Lion in the White House" is a compilation of other books and extensive research. It is an excellent and concise documentary of events and personalities of the time. A very easy read.

5 comments about Daughter of Destiny: An Autobiography.

1. Exciting book, really interesting story. Just read this book as three different ways (always linked)to target to the power: Ms Bhutto riformist way, the mother's bureaucratic way, the brother's revolutionary. And read Rushdie's Shame before or immediately after.



2. Benazir Bhutto is a striking personality-she is both hated and loved in Pakistan, very much Indira Gandhi on a somewhat smaller scale. Her autobiography begins with her reaction to her father's death-Zulfikar Ali Bhutto was hanged by General Zia ul-Haq after a military coup and the pleadings of the world community. Throughout the book, Benazir paints Zia as the ultimate devil, the evil that consumed Pakistan and sent her family into prison or death. The book is extremely melodramatic in tone, but to me it was quite appealing-not as a portrayal of Mrs. Bhutto's personality but rather as another testament in the mixed reviews of her reign. The book ends with the votes about to be cast in her favor-and they did. Benazir was elected to two terms, but was dismissed by Pakistan's President and replaced by political rival Nawaz Sharif. She has been accused of financial laundering and at one time had an arrest warrant placed on her in Pakistan. Though her character is now under question, Benazir Bhutto still remains a well-spoken, articulate voice, and there is no better reflection of these qualities than in DAUGHTER OF DESTINY. She speaks without much bitterness-there is only moderate waxing of effluvium about the cruel fates her early destiny went through. Though, not having experienced life in Pakistan under her rule as Prime Minister, I cannot form any political or personal view towards Mrs. Bhutto, one thing is clear to me-she has the ability to make her voice heard. Whether or not she is 'defending' American airstrikes against the Taliban in Afghanistan or speaking of how she believes her brother's shooting death was related to a conspiracy to remove the 'Bhutto factor from Pakistani politics', Benazir has an articulate and clear voice. Now if only her morals and character were so lucid.



3. Benazir Bhutto has acquired an eminent place in history of Muslim world. She is the first Muslim elected prime minister of any Muslim country in 1400-year history. This book, no doubt, is part of Pakistan's history now. She talks very eloquently about the atrocities that her family endured during long dictator ship of Asia's model dictator ZIA-UL-HAQUE, who overturned Zulfiquar Ali Bhutto's elected government in a military coup. Z.A. Bhutto had the courage to challenge the WHITE ELEPHANT, and subsequently loose his power and face assassination at hands of undemocratic and tyrant army supported by PNA (Pakistan National Alliance), a group of islamists backed by a foreign agency. Same religious group has gathered some political strength in Pakistan's political scenario, but has now been shunned by the same opportunist foreign agency. Benazir Bhutto talks a lot about the sufferings at hands of military but does not have same heart as ZA Bhutto to challenge her real enemies. This book is however a "must read" for those who are interested in the politics and history of this region. She has art to impress the reader and make her point clear.



4. Benazir Bhutto, on the brink of a political comeback against the odds in several ways, was assassinated after a political rally on December 27, 2007. Bhutto is an impressive figure from a prominent political family, whose history includes several untimely deaths -- her own father, a Prime Minister of Pakistan, was killed in a coup in the 1970s; her brothers were killed in suspicious circumstances. Now Bhutto herself has been lost, and likely the aftermath will continue in different ways for some time to come, both internally to Pakistan as well as internationally.
   
   Bhutto's strongest claim to fame in history will be that she was the first female Prime Minister of a Muslim nation, an accomplishment unlikely to be achieved in any other Muslim nation any time soon (even nations such as Turkey, which are officially secular). Her rise in some ways paralleled that of Indira Gandhi, who also gained political power in large part from the family reputation bestowed upon her initially. Bhutto, however, was no mere figurehead for her family or her party. Educated at Oxford and Harvard, she had a good intellect and a keen understanding of the world.
   
   This book details Bhutto's feelings and memories of her family, her growing years, and the struggle to the point of her first election as Prime Minister (she would go on to be re-elected after being deposed, and then spend many years in exile in the West). This is not dissimilar to the kinds of books that every American presidential candidate feels obliged to publish - part policy, part history, part wish-list. Still, it is one of the rare books we have on Bhutto, and (at least partially) by Bhutto. As such, it is worthy to be read. How it will compare to the upcoming autobiography (due to be released in April 2008) will be interesting.



5. Benazir Bhutto, mother, first Woman and two-time Prime Minister, and life-long Pakistani patriot, sets forth her version of Pakistani history here - at least the history during her and her father's reign. Her version is a private chronicling of her public life; her educational years; and her years incarcerated, under house arrest, and in exile.
   
   It is often laced with bitter memories and understandable bitterness expressed towards the murderer of her father, ex-President Zia-ul-Haq; towards those who were responsible for her incarceration, which lasted for a total of about seven years. She also has many equally unkind things to say about the viciousness of Pakistani internal politics, although the role her family played in making it so is carefully omitted.
   
   On balance, her outlook and the book are generally upbeat. She never completely loses faith in, or gives up on the hope and the dream that Pakistan can turn itself around and become the kind of open democracy she envisioned it to be, and which, almost with an obsession, that ended in her death, she seemed bent on leading it to become. Agreeing to an arranged marriage to a Pakistani playboy, she admits to being not much of either a mother, or a wife: politics remaining her primary preoccupation throughout her adult life.
   
   In the wake of her assassination, her autobiography seems to have served as part of the national mourning process, at least for her followers and admirers. And while this book, her autobiography, naturally portrays her as the national hero that she surely is, we all know that her reign as leader of Pakistan was not without its own problems and was itself beset with many intrigues. None of this is mentioned in the book. One hopes, that in due course, a more definitive and a more balanced account of Pakistani history covering the period of her and her family's reign, soon will be forthcoming. Four Stars

5 comments about James Buchanan (The American Presidents).

1. Over the years the occupier of the cellar of American presidents has changed. When I was growing up, Warren G. Harding held the title as "Worst President Ever", then Ulysses S. Grant seemed to vie for a tie. In more recent years and given a more thorough look, James Buchanan now resides there and Jean H. Baker's excellent short biography of President Buchanan goes into some reasons why that has happened.
   
   Far from being the domestic American Neville Chamberlain of his day, Baker argues that vacillation wasn't Buchanan's worst trait (although it was a pretty bad one) but his pro-Southern views were. As a seasoned politician and diplomat, our fifteenth president was arguably one of the best prepared to take over the presidency in 1857. But, as suggested, things began to heat up fast and Buchanan's support of the Dred Scott Decision, perhaps the worst Supreme Court decision in U.S. history, got the ball rolling. Buchanan seemed to be feckless at every turn, managing to alienate his own party politicians with decisions that pleased no one in the end. But her chapter on the lame-duck months of Buchanan's presidency is the best of the book, as it should be. This four-month transition is one of the most important in presidential turnovers and has been heavily scrutinized for decades with the author coming down hard on Buchanan. What might have been done to save the country had Buchanan actually moved swiftly and successfully to reinforce Fort Sumter, for instance? We'll never know, but Baker gives the reader some things about which to think.
   
   On the personal side, the author delves lightly into Buchanan's possible homosexuality and concludes, like everyone else, we'll never know. But she does make an interesting point toward the end of the book when she contemplates the reasons for Buchanan's pro-Southern tilt by suggesting that the president preferred the more genteel southern ways to the edginess of his northern counterparts.
   
   The American Presidents series is terrific and I've read several of the presidential mini-biographies. This is one of the best and I highly recommend it.



2. So Jean Baker judges James Buchanan. (5 points if you can name the other two members of the triumvirate.) For her, his presidency was a miserable failure. This was surprising because, at least on paper, no man was more qualified to be chief executive. Buchanan had personal contact with every president since James Madison. He'd served as a congressman, senator, cabinet officer, leader of his party (Democrats), and minister to England. Moreover, in a post-Jacksoninan period when the presidency was viewed as a primarily administrative (rather than executive) office (perhaps this goes some way toward accounting for the "feckless triumvirate"), Buchanan saw himself as a wielder of power and an initiator of policy.
   
   But Baker argues that Buchanan, for all his apparent qualifications, was too dogmatically pro-Southern in his views, and too unpragmatic in dealing with sectional crises, to be an effective president. He stacked his cabinet with pro-slavery yes men (a cabinet, by the way, which was notoriously corrupt). He pulled strings behind the scenes to persuade a fellow-Pennsylvanian on the Supreme Court to vote with Taney on Dred Scott. He totally fumbled the Kansas crisis, doggedly defending the Lecomptian slave constitution even when it became clear that the vast majority in Kansas were free-staters. And in the long lame duck period before Lincoln took office, when the states in the lower South pulled out of the Union, Buchanan completely lost his head and became paralyzed with indecision and panic, sometimes unable to get out of bed.
   
   Baker, unlike other more sympathetic biographers, doesn't see Buchanan as a peacemaker caught in a tide of unstoppable sectional conflict so much as a man largely unqualified by temperament (gloomy, pessimistic, fatalistic) and dogmatic partisanship to handle the crisis. Perhaps. I don't claim to know enough about Buchanan to evaluate her conclusion. But I do know two things. First, she's presented a convincing case for Buchanan's incompetence and downright shadiness when it comes to the Kansas crisis, and there's good reason to think that this example is representative of his entire presidency. Second, I'd have liked to have learned more about Buchanan the man in order to be satisfied that Baker's characterization of his temperament was accurate. I know that her volume is in a series that focuses on presidential administrations, and so a full-fledged biography would've been inappropriate. But nonetheless, I didn't actually get a feel for Buchanan the person in reading her book.



3. There are 72 reviews of this brief and simply-written biography of a President who came to office with superb qualifications and who bungled the job that perhaps no one could have done. I found the book quite adequate as an introduction to the decade of the 1850s. Causes have to precede effects; anyone interested in the causes of the Civil War ought to have a good look at the events that led to Buchanan's election, and the dismal decision Buchanan made in reaction to those events. Honestly, however, you needn't buy the book. Just read the 72 reviews herewith. It will take some patience, and some tolerance for bad syntax, but it will reveal just exactly how polarizing the Civil War was, and still is.
   
   This "American Presidents" series is surprisingly top notch. I also recommend the biography of US Grant, the most underrated and slandered chief exec of American history.



4. James Buchanan came to the presidency with a wonderful resume. And he failed dismally. This brief biography, part of the well done "The American Presidents" series, tries to explain that disconnect. In the recurring introduction to each volume in the series that he edited, Arthur Schlesinger, Jr. remarked that (Page xvii) "To succeed, presidents must not only have a port to seek but they must convince Congress and the electorate that it is a port worth seeking." And "there's the rub" for Buchanan.
   
   His background was impeccable: Pennsylvania state legislature, U. S. House of Representatives and Senate, Secretary of State, Ambassador to Russia and England. As Jean Baker, the author of this slim volume says (Page 7): "Critical times often summon forth our best presidents, and it is worth taking the measure of those presidents who, given the opportunity, failed to rise to greatness. James Buchanan was one of those."
   
   The Democratic nomination for president culminated at the Convention. Franklin Pierce (incumbent president), Stephen Douglas, Lewis Cass, and Buchanan. After some maneuvering, Buchanan's supporters helped get him the nomination.
   
   After his election, though, he ran into a buzz saw: a panic (depression), violence in Kansas, and the horrific "Dred Scott" Supreme Court decision. Buchanan selected a Cabinet that was very much pro-Southern, some of his closest allies were from the South, and he alienated Democrats such as Stephen Douglas. He did not recognize the danger of the slavery issue and watched as his pro-Southern stance split the Democratic Party, enabling the one thing anathema to him to occur--the election of a Republican in 1860, Abraham Lincoln.
   
   Why did he fail so miserably? Unreflective prosouthernism is one part of the explanation, according to Baker. Other factors--his arrogant and uncompromising use of power.
   
   So, an interesting essay on a failed president. I think that personality quirks might be overemphasized in this book. Overall, though, a useful volume for those who want a quick introduction to the presidents.



5. James Buchanan possibly was one of the best qualified men to assume the office of President. Qualifications don't mean anything if you don't have backbone and belief in principles. Buchanan bent over backward to try to please his Southern friends and it didn't get him anywhere. He tried to be rigid on forcing the North to bend to the South's ways. This didn't help him in the North. He defied the will of the people of Kansas and made more enemies. Finally everybody was fed up with this man. The South suceeded and the North elected the Republicans. The Democrats became a wilderness party for the next twenty eight odd years. James Buchanan played an instrumental role in the downfall of the Democratic Party and the United States.
   
   This is a short quick read. However Baker makes it plain that leadership does not develop from experience. A better leader may have found a way to change and compromise so that the United States didn't not go through a horrible war. Poor leadership by James Buchanan.

5 comments about The Preacher and the Presidents: Billy Graham in the White House.

1. This book is a must read for people who want to learn about ultimate influence



2. Given the enormous financial and investigative resources available to Time magazine reporters Nancy Gibbs and Michael Duffy, it shouldn't be too much to expect historical accuracy in this biography. Then again, Time has been an uncritical cheerleader for Graham's ministry since the day in 1950 when publisher Henry Luce visited the young minister, then a houseguest at South Carolina Governor Strom Thurmond's mansion, and decided to join William Randolph Hearst's efforts to "puff Graham." Time has a substantial investment in Graham's ministry, having run more than 600 stories about his career. Unfortunately, historical accuracy isn't one of the strong points of a book that is otherwise a pleasant enough read. People make mistakes, of course, but when they tend to fall in the same direction, one begins to suspect a hidden agenda. On the other hand, simple sloppiness can't be ruled out, as when they place Graham at Bob Jones College in Greenville, S.C., for his first year of higher education. When Graham dropped out during his freshman year that school was located in Cleveland, Tenn. The subtitle tells you all you need to know about the story between the covers. The book begins with Graham's rocky relationship with Harry S. Truman and ends with his fatherly embrace of George W. Bush. Those attracted to the preacher will find nothing to dislike, but also little that is new. This is the same generous tale told by Graham's publicity team in countless books, articles, movies, advertisements, TV appearances and, of course, crusades. According to this account, from Eisenhower forward, all of the presidents have sought Graham's counsel in varying degrees, and discovered a deep well of comfort and spiritual wisdom. The authors make mild forays into Graham's political mistakes and spend a long while on his purported close friendship with and later betrayal by Nixon, but the poking is gentle and Graham emerges as an older but wiser hero. The mistakes and omissions are telling, however. Careful to paint Nixon as the agent of darkness, they write: "The beloved Ike, Nixon charged, was `a far more complex and devious man than most people realized.'" Thus they imply that Nixon was even nasty to sweet old Dwight Eisenhower. But this can only be a deliberate misquote. In his book SIX CRISES Nixon actually concluded the sentence "and in the best sense of those words." His intention was to PRAISE Eisenhower. It is important for Nixon to be the sinner because the preacher the authors have chosen to present was supposedly suckered into long-term support for Tricky Dick, and was devastated when he learned that Nixon had deceived him. Much to Graham's enduring dismay, his back-room politicking had been tape-recorded and would come back to embarrass him over and over again through ensuing years. Nor have all of Nixon's notorious tapes yet been released. Graham's support for civil rights is painted as enthusiastic and heartfelt, but his actual record is far from clear. The authors repeat Graham's assertion that Martin Luther King, Jr., endorsed his arms-length approach to integration, without corroborating evidence, and neglect Graham's reaction to "I Have a Dream" in 1963. Graham conducted a press conference the next morning and said, "Only when Christ comes again will the little white children of Alabama walk hand in hand with little black children." Concerning King the authors also claim that he delivered volumes by Gandhi disguised in Billy Graham book jackets to imprisoned Freedom Riders in Mississippi. This is another example of either the authors' incautious research or eagerness to hitch Graham's wagon to King's star. According to Taylor Branch, writing in PILLAR OF FIRE (which the authors cite as their reference), the transporter of disguised books was Rev. Edwin King, a white preacher of no known relation to MLK. Lest it be overlooked elsewhere as it is in THE PREACHER AND THE PRESIDENTS, Graham's nonprofit enterprises have profited nicely from the high profile that presidential palavering has, in no small part, afforded him. While his annual personal income from the Billy Graham Evangelistic Association only totalled a bit over $500,000 in recent years, he enjoyed a well-appointed "log cabin" estate in Montreat, N.C., with high tech communications gear and an indoor swimming pool, a vacation home in the posh country club community of Pauma Valley, California, and controlled tax-exempt properties worth hundreds of millions of dollars in North Carolina alone. Nor do these figures include income from books, recordings and television appearances, and may not include the receipts of the individual LLCs created for each of his crusades. To top it off, he bragged that he "never paid for a suit or a hotel room," though he seems to have preferred lodging in various mansions, both public and private, to the common discomforts of life in commercial rooms. THE PREACHER AND THE PRESIDENTS offers comforting fiction disguised as history. It is, without doubt, a book written for believers.



3. This biographical piece is considerably different from other works written about Billy Graham's life. Just As I Am (autobiography) and other histories of the Billy Graham Crusades evolve into hagiographies where Graham has faults but these are downplayed. This book tries to be as balanced as possible portraying some glaring weaknesses such as Graham's heavily favoring various presidents and presidential candidates, even in public, while not legalistically endorsing them.
   
   The insights into various presidencies is also very informative and shows them in ways that are probably consistent with what can be publically known but with nuances that may have been previously unknown. Certainly other Graham biographies have not entered into this level of detail.
   
   On balance, this is a genuine attempt to present Graham as he really is, particularly in relation to the presidents of the past 60 years. Those who are looking for a spiritually uplifting journey may be disappointed. That does not appear to be the point of this book.
   
   But for those who are not fans of Graham, and would like to know him better, this limited biography is very valuable



4. A fascinating read and deservedly praised, I found this book hard to put down until Chapter 31 on Billy's acquaintance with the Clintons. That chapter had a false ring - a different tone from the rest, that smacked me in the face. With so few comments there in Billy's words, as were heavily used in the chapters about other presidents, the writers droned on and on in their attempt to paint the Clintons as good as the rest. After their fairly even-handed (and exhaustive) work on both the humanity and duplicity of Nixon earlier in the book, I was unpleasantly amazed. Of course, most of the others are dead and gone, while Mrs. Clinton is running for a third term as co-president, and this makes it worse. The chapter sticks out as an effort to rub some of Billy's good character onto the Clintons by association. It didn't work.
   
   Several times during that chapter, I did put it down in disgust, wondering what happened here? I know spin when I see it. For what purpose did the writers, after relating so much that sounded genuine about all the presidents up to that point, think they needed to con readers into accepting that; while we were subjected to an amoral sex offender and his socialist wife for eight years, they were really just as normal, good Christians as all the others. Pandering to them in such a book included the writers' insinuations that Billy Graham supported the Clintons and approved, for example, of abortion and homosexuality along with them, which he emphatically did not. The way the writers gloss over the criminal conduct of the Clintons, a pass they certainly didn't give Nixon, defending and excusing them on and on ad nauseum, speaks volumes. The comparatively few words of Billy himself on that period, when it was he being interviewed for the book, is noticeable, too, in a look at the chapter. Note that Hillary bragged on several occasions what a personal help Billy had been to her, with no corroboration from him other than a meeting in 2005 in which he mentioned "private time". Yet by this point, we know his own self-imposed rules about that. Hillary's stories of "huddling with" Billy are as blatant lies as so many of her other stories, judging by what Billy himself says. But her stories are presented as accurate with no input from him, in contrast to the rest of the book.
   
   In giving the writers license, Billy was too trusting - as he often was because of his basic love for and trust in people. But I was so put off by this whitewash, I had to put the book down for a few days. Later I glanced back through the chapters, because I had also been struck by the short space given to President Reagan's term in the White House after he and Billy had been friends for 30 years. Yes, I was right - amazing how little space was given to those more recent years, compared to presidents before him.
   
   I learned a lot that was new; Carter's dislike for Billy despite professing the same religious beliefs, LBJ's real fondness for him. I was entranced by the new look at Eisenhower, saddened at the way Nixon took advantage of a genuine friendship, pleased to learn things I hadn't known about Bush 41 and the whole family. For the writers to push their personal bias in my face near the end came close to spoiling a great read for me. It is a wonderful book except for Chapter 31.



5. Although I've always known that Billy Graham was a charismatic evangelist, I didn't realize just how spiritual, humble, forgiving, and influential he was until reading this book. Not only was he allowed into the "inner sanctums" of powerful United States politicians and other movers and shakers, but he was also admitted entry into places in the world where others would not have been allowed. At the same time, he cared about "the least of these" and always felt his #1 mission in life was to spread the good news of the gospel of Jesus Christ.
   
   Although he could easily hobnob with the presidents and their wives, he never lost his humility and the sure knowledge that God is in control of our lives. Whether golfing with a Bush, swimming with Johnson, or praying with Nixon, he did so in a spiritual role, not a political one. As the authors bring out, Graham didn't need fortune or fame. He saw himself as their pastor, their advocate with the Father. Presidents aren't as free as the rest of us to go to the Baptist church around the corner or the Catholic one downtown, so Billy Graham felt it was his responsibility to go to them...and go he did. Plus, I learned that no matter who the president was, Graham believed that he was God's divine choice and was thus supportive, even after Clinton's misdeeds and Nixon's Watergate situation.
   
   The most recurrent theme that I picked up is that regardless of what he was exposed to, Dr. Graham remained the evangelist sure of his purpose. Interestingly, however, the pundits and press and other religious leaders all had their criticisms...even when he was clearly doing what the scriptures admonish us to do. They even criticized him for being too forgiving, too conciliatory, not judgmental enough. HUH???
   
   Sure of his mission, I've got a feeling that Dr. Graham doesn't worry about such criticisms. His message is that everyone wants to be loved and that God loves us each and everyone, even the ones who disappoint, hurt, or criticize us.

5 comments about When Character Was King: A Story of Ronald Reagan.

1. Miss Noonan writes in a clear style about a subject that is clearly personal to her. This book goes into the mans core of what he believed & why. That is no small feat since President Reagan was an intensely private man. His character grew out of his own experiences & observations.
   
   The book starts with his humble origins, the problems his family faced moving from town to town because, his dad was an alcoholic. From there she takes the reader through his College years where he developed the habit of staying in shape, & then into his radio & acting days. Not surprisingly, after a time doing films for the military during WW2 he found his promising acting career had gone adrift.
   
   However, it was during this uncertain time that his interest in politics began. While President of the Screen Actors Guild, he learned how to negotiate with the tough studio heads, & saw some of his peers lured to Communism. Their secretive & subversive methods gave Mr.Reagan plenty of reason to pause. He spoke out, making numerous enemies in the process. Soon we go into his moving from films to television, which would lead him into Politics. This was when his core beliefs of less government, lower taxes, & his crusade against the spread of "world communism' came together. Once during a speech for Barry Goldwater he spoke of a "rendezvous with destiny" for those who would fight for our freedom: he asserted that the most important words in the Constitution are the ones that begin it: "WE THE PEOPLE..." It is soon clear that he felt strongly about states rights. He stated: "The Constitution they{the founding fathers} wrote established sovereign states, not mere administrative districts for the federal government. They believed in keeping government as close as possible to the people..."
   
   Miss Noonan then goes somewhat into his time in office, first as governor of California & then President. But, he was more than a politician. She delves into his self-deprecating humor{the "I forgot to duck, honey." reply he gave wife Nancy after he was shot by Hinckley} & the affection & high regard he had for the Secret Service agents who guarded him. All in all a very pleasant & informative read.



2. Peggy Noonan is incredible and this book provides one of the most personal, honest and insightful biographical studies written to date about one of America's greatest leaders.



3. Peggy Noonan clearly idolizes Ronald Reagan. She was, after all, his speech-writer, and it seems that she contunues to write his speeches even after his demise. So I didn't expect a "balanced" biography in this book. I looked at it only to get a grasp on the image of Reagan that seems likely to play a role in the upcoming presidential election. If you are interested in a balanced, judicious assessment, I strongly recommend the brief biography of Reagan by Jules Tygiel.
   
   Meanwhile, with the election in mind, I've also been reading "Hard Call" by Senator John McCain, the longest chapter of which eulogizes Reagan for his "foresight." It's no secret that Sen. McCain hopes to identify himself in people's eyes as a leader in the mold of Reagan; his whole book is an obvious imitation of JFK's "Profiles in Courage", a book that helped the young Kennedy reach the White House. Curiously, though McCain attributes every wisdom short of the Deity to Pres. Reagan, it's really Gorbachev whom he identifies as the visionary, the man who had the courage and craft to change the course of his country's future. Reagan, according to McCain, had nuclear disarmament in his grasp, in Iceland, yet threw the chance away by clinging to a naive and totally unforesightful notion of a science fiction shield against missiles, SDI, which McCain grudgingly acknowledges to have been "unrealistic." Reagan meant to be an agent of change - what Prof. Tygiel calls the Triumph of American Conservatism - while McCain clearly intends to be an agent of nostalgia for the days of the Great Communicator. Reagan made clear what he hoped for. Can anyone say the same of John McCain?
   
   The one major blotch on Reagan's Presidency was the Iran-Contra scandal. (Again the term comes from McCain.) And forthright discussion of that situation is the major weakness of Ms Noonan's portrayal of Pres. Reagan's character. She was an insider; perhaps it's too much to expect for an insider to tell the whole candid truth, but isn't that what most people would like to hear?



4. Product arrived on time , the book is a very good look at what shaped President Reagen. Recommended reading, great addition. Given that it's from an insider, admirer of the President, still very insightful.



5. I thought I knew and understood Reagan. After reading this incredibly moving biography, I know now I did not but do now.
   
   Despite the bizarre comments of one recent reviewer, this is not a starry-eyed biography. This is a "warts and all" biography, with a frank assessment of "Iran Contra" and how Reagan was to blame and why. The comments to the contrary by the aforementioned reviewer are proof that he did not read that chapter or worse yet did not comprehend it.
   
   This is the only book I have ever read that repeatedly had me laughing out loud and then, in the next paragraph, weeping. This is a deeply moving book, whether you liked Reagan or not.
   
   Finally, I challenge anyone to read this book and not conclude that it is one of the five best biographies of anyone you have ever read. It is that good. Reagan was an American original. Peggy Noonan is possibly the most gifted writer of our era.
   
   Jack Thompson, Attorney, Miami, Florida

5 comments about Land of Lincoln: Adventures in Abe's America.

1. While Tony Horwitz turns his attention to other subjects, this will serve as a classic followup to Confederates in the Attic: Dispatches from the Unfinished Civil War.
   
   This short history of our images of Lincoln is written with humor and casual style, and merits its "classic" rating by Ferguson's brief concluding remarks that frame Lincoln's role perfectly. I won't spoil it.



2. This is a really enjoyable and insightul look at how Lincoln has become a commercial product and how the greatest American president has morphed over time in the American psyche. While the tone of the book is mostly light and playful, the final chapter on the commemoration of the Lincoln monument left a tear in my eye, and, because of the preceding chapters, I didn't see it coming! Ultimately, the author reminds us of the true meaing of Lincoln's contributions to our history, and why he matters so much. I can not think of anything I did not like about this book, and I'm almost inclined to give it five stars, but it does not quite have that heft. In any case, I recommend it highly.



3. Where's Lincoln to be found these days? What shape is he in? What difference does it make? Andrew Ferguson's dormant interest and affection for the great man was shaken awake when the Richmond Sons of Confederate Soldiers went into public opposition of a new Lincoln statue to be unveiled. Sure, Richmond had been the Confederate capital, but how could anybody be against that in 2007? He set off to find out, and the resulting travelogue makes for one of the most interesting, enlightening and hilarious Lincoln reads in years.
   
   There must be 100 portraits in here of all species of Lincoln people. Lincoln lovers, Lincoln haters, Lincoln cynics, Lincoln imitators, collectors, docents, committee people, statue people, and so on. The variety is no surprise. Lincoln was the quintessential American, and, love him or hate him, his story is forever bound up in the meaning of America. If the story of America is human nature set free, one can hardly wonder 140+ years after his death that many in this commercial republic would come to see Lincoln as brand name, as franchise, as business guru, as kitsch-slinger, and as reflection of ordinary screwballs who fancy that Lincoln was as common as they. Ferguson's character vignettes of these various Lincoln (and Mary) people are sometimes as short as a single sentence, but they're often laugh out loud funny. It seems the more attenuated a particular Lincoln purveyor's connection was to the real thing, the funnier--and more rapier-like was Ferguson's description. Ferguson was more than an honest Seeker here.:)
   
   So, is there any real Lincoln left? Is he more than an eBay heading or a Disneyfied wax figure or another good reason for a sale? Ferguson had to search hard, but I think he found that the tablets are being handed down. Maybe in bits and pieces, and probably to fewer than before. And to whom, that can be surprising... two of the most endearing subjects in the book, the two who seemed to "get" Lincoln the most, were foreign born. One was a Thai couple who discerned that Lincoln was America's great man (and Jewish, to boot), and who honored him by setting out a fresh porkless meal daily in their restaurant in an Arab neighborhood in Chicago. And the other was a very old Czechoslovakian man on death's doorstep who travelled all the way to Springfield to honor Lincoln at his burial shrine. One supposes, though, that even the Lincoln jugglers and the clowns are somehow a little better off for the association. And isn't that something? That despite being chopped, sliced, diced, scrambled and pressed into a thousand understandings and uses, Lincoln still makes the world a better place?
   
   Underneath the humor, this is a serious Lincoln book and a trenchant commentary on America's understanding of itself. I'll read it again, and I hope it gets a prize.



4. This is a fun to book to read. Beyond that, it's hard to describe just what it is - part history, part travelogue, part research essay, part meditation. But it is this breezy back and forth that gives the book its strength. Ferguson's writing style is loose, anecdotal, engaging,and graceful. (His chapters on travelling with his teenage children will ring especially true to any history buff who has bribed their children to too many historical sights.) Think along the lines of Bill Bryson.
   
   An easy recommend.



5. I consider myself a Lincoln Buff that's still learning. I've lived in Illinois all my life and I've been down to Springfield several times in my 24 years. So when I was looking for a book that would solve my yearning for a book about Abraham Lincoln, I chose this one. Andrew Ferguson wrote a funny book about Lincoln in today's world and where he stands. But Lincoln means so many things to so many different people it's impossible to pin him down. Reading this book, I found out things that I didn't know, like that there is a statue of Abraham Lincoln and singer Perry Como in Gettysburg. Or that there was a Lincoln Heritage Trail.
   
   Andrew Ferguson traveled all around the States viewing different ways the Lincoln name and legacy is being used today. He visited the woman who holds a lot of the Lincoln items, Louise Taper. Quite a few of her items are on loan to the Abraham Lincoln Presidential Library & Musuem and being there twice I can recall seeing her name there. He also visits the musuem before it opened, a meeting of Lincoln presenters, Lincoln haters, and a business workshop that uses Lincoln as its model. He also takes his family to Springfield, Indiana, and Kentucky to visit places that Lincoln lived before he was President. My absolute favorite part of the book came in the Postscript. It's a story of a man who works in the Springfield Hilton and someone who came to visit there. I won't give away the story but I thought it was beautiful and a great way to finish the book.
   
   Overall, I thought the book was great. I did feel, though, that Mr. Ferguson had a slight negative view wherever he visited. It came across as jaded, maybe. He seemed to have a problem with at least one thing at each sight that he visited. Not every Lincoln sight is going to please everyone. He seems to take offense on what the musuem is. I personally think that the musuem is fantastic. I can see that maybe it's not to everyone's taste but I think it's still serving a great purpose. And with the Lincoln home in Springfield, I've never seen what it was like before it was owned by the Park Service so I can't comment on which is better. But I still think that the book was pretty good and it shouldn't be a book that a Lincoln buff or anyone interested in Abraham Lincoln should pass up.