5 comments about President Reagan: The Triumph of Imagination.

1. I'm not sure what book some of the reviewers here are reading, but it cannot be the same tome. Some claim this book is contemptuous towards Reagan, but I cannot detect a hint of that so-called "contempt" in this book, and this is coming from someone who believes that Reagan was the best President of the past fifty years, though obviously that is not saying much. Rather, what I see is a revealing, fair account of Reagan and his legacy. Certainly, many sections of the book do not give Reagan as much credit as I feel he deserves, but that is the great beauty of an unbiased biography, rather than an overly sycophantic or critical one - you get to see Reagan not as a God, but as the wrinkled, tired and yet majestic lion in winter that he really was. In all honesty, the book is so scrupulously fair to Reagan that though there were times when I believed the author was a closet conservative and still other times when I thought he must be a flaming liberal, those moments were so fleeting as to be mere flashes of consciousness - now here, now gone. In the capacity of being balanced, Mr. Reeves' biography is an enviable achievement. My one complaint is that the biography only covers Reagan's presidency, without his earlier years as context, but perhaps that is to desire too much of a good thing. Ultimately, whether you like Reagan or not, you will find something to enjoy in this book, though you may also find yourself occasionally shifting uncomfortably in your seat as the reality of his Presidency gently intrudes on your mind.



2. Richard Reeves frequently lets his personal liberal bias get in the way of recognizing Reagan's greatness as a leader. He makes many insinuations that Reagan is lazy. Reeves has difficulty recognizing that Reagan had a plan to rebuild the United States from the Carter negatives to the Reagan positives. Still, in all, the biography of his presidency allows the Regan personality and magnetism to shine through Reeves' negativism.



3. I have to admit that I was not a fan of President Reagan's during his presidency. In my own words, I thought that "the Iran-Contra affair was the biggest threat to our democracy since Nixon trying to hold on to the presidency after Watergate". I have since changed my mind, at least on President Reagan, and even on Oliver North, who I have had the pleasure of meeting at a book signing.
   
   I have to admit that I find Reeves' rehashing of the Reagan years enlightening in that I had forgotten so much of what had gone on, and it was interesting to read some of the behind the scenes details, although I had to wonder where some of the information came from. There were times when Reeves just could not avoid the backhanded remark, which was irritating at times. I also felt that he was struggling when he had to say something that might be construed as positive about Reagan. Be that as it may, it wasn't a bad read if you take into account the writer's view.
   
   Ronald Reagan certainly had his flaws. Everyone does. Great people are not always great people behind closed doors. This does not diminish the fact that they rose to the occasion when it presented itself, and one way or the other made the right decision. After reading Reeves' book, I came to the conclusion that the United States would be a much lesser county without Ronald Reagan.
   
   Reeves' book also convinced me that we need a great leader, much like Ronald Reagan, again. We need a leader who not only has the courage to make the tough, unpopular, decisions, but who can also communicate their beliefs in such a way that inspires the Nation, and the world, to do great things.
   
   If you can filter the author's bias, then I would recommend the book. The advantage of the author's bias is that what may have been glossed over, ignored, or buried under the apologetics of a completely pro-Reagan author, comes out in the raw with maybe some opinionated remarks. The reader can then weed out the remarks and come to their own conclusion.



4. Historian Richard Reeves, who has made a literary career exploring the White House years of many of the more recent occupants of the Oval Office wrote last year's best selling non-fiction book `President Reagan: The Triumph of Imagination,' a biographical examination of America's 40th president.
   
   This work on Reagan's time in Washington is Reeves' eleventh book and his third biography of a chief executive's tenure solely in the White House. He previously wrote about the presidential reign of Richard Nixon and John Kennedy. He is currently the Senior Lecturer at the Annenberg School for Communication at the University of Southern California and a syndicated columnist whose column has appeared in more than 100 newspapers since 1979.
   
   Reeves published his first book, `A Ford, not a Lincoln' in 1975. His tome `President Kennedy: Profile of Power' is considered the authoritative work on the 35th president and won several national awards including being named the Best Non-Fiction Book of 1993 by Time Magazine and Book of the Year by the Washington Monthly.
   
   Twenty-six years after Ronald Reagan became president and changed the course of America, Reeves has written a surprising and revealing portrait of one of the most important leaders of the twentieth century. As he did in his bestselling books `President Kennedy: Profile of Power' and `President Nixon: Alone in the White House,' Reeves used newly declassified documents and hundreds of interviews to show a president at work day by day, sometimes minute by minute over the 40th president's two terms by selecting certain highlights in his eight years in office.
   
   'President Reagan: The Triumph of Imagination' is the story
   of an accomplished politician, a bold, sometimes reckless leader, a gambler of what he believed to be right, a man who imagined an American past and an American future and made them real.
   
   Reagan is revealed to be a man of ideas who changed the world for better or worse with his own vision of good and right, a leader who understood that words are often more important than deeds in dealing with others, whether they be aides, the public, politicians with opposing viewpoints or world leaders. Reeves shows a man who understood how to be the president, who realized that the job is not to manage the government but to lead the nation. Reeves writes that in many ways, especially in the conservative movement of today a quarter of a century later, Reagan is still leading the charge.
   
   As his vice president, George H. W. Bush, said after Reagan was shot in an assassination attempt and hospitalized in March, 1981, "We will act as if he were here."
   
   Reeves shows Reagan to be a heroic figure if not always a hero. He did not destroy communism, as his champions claim, but knew it would self-destruct and hastened the collapse by the build-up of America's military might in the 1980's. He believed the Soviet Union was evil and had contempt for the established American policies of containment and détente that was advocated by his many contemporaries and prior presidential officeholders. Asked about his own Cold War strategy, he answered, "We win. They lose!"
   
   Like one of his own personal heroes, Franklin D. Roosevelt, Reagan became larger than life. But as Roosevelt became an icon central to American liberalism, Reagan was the nucleus holding together American conservatism. He is the only president whose name became a political creed, a noun not an adjective: `Reaganism.'
   
   Reeves claims through his liberal bias that Reagan's ideas were so old they seemed new. He preached individualism that many found to be inspiring yet also cruel. He dumbed-down America, brilliantly blending fact and fiction, transforming political debate into emotion-driven entertainment. He recklessly mortgaged America with uncontrolled military spending, less taxation, and more debt.
   
   In focusing on the key moments of the Reagan presidency, Reeves recounts the amazing resiliency of Reagan as the real `comeback kid,' long before the term was used on Bill Clinton. Here is a seventy-year-old man coming back from a near-fatal gunshot wound, from cancer, from the worst recession in American history. Then, in personal despair as his administration was shredded by the lying and secrets of hidden wars and double-dealing, he was able to forge one of history's amazing relationships with the leader of `the Evil Empire.' That story is told for the first time using the transcripts of the Reagan-Gorbachev meetings, the climax of an epic story, as if he were here to tell us in how own unique style.
   
   After Dwight Eisenhower's two full terms, we had five presidents in a row who didn't complete eight years in office until Reagan did so twenty-eight years later. Now we're going to have two chief executives in a row who will have served two terms. Is this now considered to be a new trend started again by Reagan or a continuance of what once was the norm of presidential politics that was maintained by George Washington, Thomas Jefferson and others in the course of American history?



5. The purpose of any book review is to give the reader enough information to decide if they want to invest the time and money in reading the book in its entirety. Richard Reeves, a distinguished former reporter for "The New York Times," has tackled a difficult subject in writing a biography of a politician who still engenders strong emotions in people of a positive and negative nature. You need not share Ronald Reagan's politics (Reeves does not), to find this an interesting and enjoyable read.
   
   From the subtitle, Reeves makes his interpretation clear. Reagan was not "a tired old man we elected king," but rather a bold, dynamic politician who left behind a strong and powerful legacy. This book is revisionist in that it challenges the idea that Reagan was often "absent without leave" while in office. Reeves has done a good job of developing Reagan's voice, using notes, letters, and other records that the President left behind. Much of what he uses is new.
   
   Reagan was, according to Reeves, a big idea man. He thought up new ideas and left the details to others. In comparison, British Prime Minister Winston Churchill thought up big, creative ideas and had a good sense of strategy, but also liked to interject himself into the implementation of these ideas. Jimmy Carter, who was at the White House just before Reagan, had little vision and tended to interject himself into the implementation of policy even when he had a limited understanding of the topic. Reagan was often faulted in office for being detached from his job--like when no one on his staff woke him up to inform him of a dog fight between U.S. and Libyan fighter planes--but given the number of issues that one address in the Oval Office, his interest in the big picture looks pretty sound to Reeves.
   
   This book has its limits, though. This is not a full-fledged biography. Reeves looks just at the presidential years. Readers wanting to know about Reagan's background will be disappointed. Reflecting his training as a political reporter, Reeves shows a preference for the political process rather than policy. He skips some of the weightier issue that Presidents address like international finance, commerce, and trade policy. These topics get at best only superficial coverage. Reeves does focuses on tax and budget issues, which were of great interest to Reagan. Like many Presidents, Reagan often had enormous influence on areas that were of little personal interest to him and by ignoring these topics, Reeves does not do full justice to his subject.
   
   Still, as a first draft of history, this ain't too bad.

5 comments about Reagan's War: The Epic Story of His Forty-Year Struggle and Final Triumph Over Communism.

1. I just finished this excellent book by Peter Schweizer about Ronald Reagan's battle with communists from his Hollywood days until the fall of the Berlin Wall. It was an excellent read, and I HIGHLY recommend it to general readers.
   
   When your leftist professors tell you that he was a dunce, or that the Soviets were not a real threat, this book will provide you with the intellectual ammo to take them on.



2. I owned this book for 2 years before finally deciding to read it. Why? Because I thought it would be a bit boring. Boy was I wrong.
   
   Using our adversaries' own words through recently-released Soviet archives, etc., Schweizer's work is so thorough that the book reads almost like a spy novel. If you're a red-blooded American you'll smile and cheer as you read the account of one of America's great patriots and his life-long stand against the tyranny of communism.
   
   From Hollywood to Moscow, President Reagan's stand for freedom is inspiring. Highly entertaining and historically educational, I recommend this book to all.



3. Well documented and supported. A great aide for any serious student or lover of history who wants to know not just what but why. Made me realize that Americans were fortunate to have this man at that time much as they could never have what they have without George Washington. Two great patriots 200 years apart.



4. This is typical Reaganaut triumphalism, but at least it's one of the better attempts. Its central thesis, that Reagan had an agenda to "tear down that wall," is essentially correct. But missing here is a sense of what "Communism" meant in Ronald Reagan's world: not just the USSR or Marxism-Leninism, but anything to the left of the white good-old-boy cocktail and country-club crowd, from unions to feminism to affirmative action, with real Communism as the handy lever to pry at them all. "Constructive engagement" with South Africa and Nicaragua's Somoza as "friends of the Free World" says much about the limitations of his agenda, and that of his worshippers.
   
   Also in question is the author's thesis that Reagan the warrior slew the Red dragon with his own lone sword. Communism did "work," in its sphere - despite the author's sweeping statement to the contrary - but globalization increasingly left its model in the dust. No doubt Reagan's specific policies - economic embargoes and guerrilla proxy wars - helped, but could not have without the larger systemic isolation of the USSR already underway throughout the global market.
   
   There are interesting tidbits of info culled from Soviet files. But the contention that the USSR funded the Peace Movement is overhyped as was Reagan's original accusation, while the greater dependency of Solidarity, Charter 77 and other East European dissidents on Reagan's largesse is of course seen as totally praiseworthy. The betrayal of Solidarity's working class roots after 1989, in favor of free-market neoliberalism, doubtless comes from the NED funding of the Reagan years.
   
   All in all, a good attempt at lauding Reagan as the victorious cold warrior, but in the end he still comes across as a blinkered ideologue in perfect counterpoint to nemeses like Fidel Castro or Ayatollah Khomeini.



5. Reagan's War is an EXCELLENT non-fiction book. The background info is filled with fascinating facts - many of which I did not know. It arrived faster than anticipated.

2 comments about For Love of Politics: Inside the Clinton White House.

1. Sally Bedell Smith's For the Love of Politics makes for insightful and prescient reading for those seeking to understand Hillary Clinton's 2007-2008 presidential campaign and to anticipate the possibility of a Hillary Clinton-led White House.
   
   Bedell Smith ably chronicles the eight years of Bill Clinton's presidency, making a compelling case that Hillary Clinton played a strong and ongoing role in her husband's policymaking. While Hillary Clinton's involvement in West Wing events appears to have ranged from overt (during the first two years of Bill Clinton's presidency) to covert (particularly during the 1995-96 re-election bid), Hillary Clinton appears to have been a prominent influence in her husband's presidential decision-making process. Bedell Smith's account also suggests that Hillary Clinton, as First Lady, was frequently more tough-minded and partisan than her husband, who was more likely to take a conciliatory stance toward his opponents. At the same time, Bedell Smith's reporting indicates that the Clintons' relationship is centered on the political process and on policymaking and concludes that a Hillary Clinton presidency would be shaped by both Clintons, much as Bill Clinton's presidency was.
   
   Especially interesting in Bedell Smith's account are foreshadowings of some of the events of Senator Clinton's Senate career and 2007-2008 campaign:
   --Hillary Clinton's 2000 New York Senate campaign highlights Clinton's expertise on policy issues, a decision driven by polling results suggesting that the "personality negatives" perceived by voters can be overcome only by emphasizing her experience. The 2008 presidential campaign has been run on the same premise.
   --Bill Clinton's attempts as president to dislodge Saddam Hussein from power foreshadow Hillary Clinton's 2002 support for the invasion of Iraq, and her reluctance to embrace an antiwar stance.
   --A successful call for a gasoline tax during Bill Clinton's presidency foreshadows Hillary Clinton's embrace of this approach in the spring of 2008.
   --The Clintons' single-minded commitment to Hillary's 2000 race for the Senate to the detriment of Al Gore's presidential candidacy has a similar flavor to the Clintons' pursuit of the 2008 presidential nomination at the possible expense of Democratic Party unity and victory in November 2008.
   
   In sum, Bedell Smith describes a talented, flawed and hard-driving political couple whose personal and political ambitions are pursued at all costs. The sense of shared legacy looms large. Bedell Smith's narrative suggests shared disappointment at the lost opportunities of a Bill Clinton presidency undermined by a bitterly partisan political environment, GOP dominance in Congress, and the Lewinsky affair. The Clintons' mutual disappointment at the defeats suffered during Bill Clinton's White House years, the mutual desire for a second chance at the presidency, and the shared need to strengthen a fragile legacy appear to shape Hillary Clinton's tenacious 2008 run for the White House.
   
   All told, Bedell Smith has created a fair, balanced and compelling look at the Clintons. For the Love of Politics should be required reading for those seeking to understand the Clintons' marital and political partnership.



2. . . . read this book first! My interest was piqued when I saw a book review by the author on TV. Her research was extensive and carefully documented. She spoke to both Hillary's supporters and retractors and quoted both personal interviews and published reports. The book was both a page turner and a head shaker. If you want to find the epitome of the "snake oil salesman" look no further than Hillary and Bill! Sleazy backroom deals and downright dishonesty are all part of their political game.

5 comments about When Trumpets Call: Theodore Roosevelt After the White House.

1. I really cannot understand why I bought this book. I wrongly thought it was a book written by Theodore Roosevelt. It was not. The title is taken from a quote by Roosevelt and sort of wrongly suggests to the unsuspecting buyer that he wrote it. That was my first mistake.
   
   The second mistake was to continue reading when the author clearly demonstrated early and consistently throughout the book that she has some sort of problem with Roosevelt, leadership in general, and power in particular. I suspect the author has very little experience in public life or any sort of life and death situations or work where one has to put their life on the line. To treat the assassination attempt on Roosevelt's life as a an opportunity for egoism, self aggrandizement and shameless opportunism is itself shameful and a disgrace.
   
   I think it very shortsighted and weak to read back into history values and norms that we hold today, but that were not yet appreciated or embraced by previous generations such as Roosevelt's hunting or his initial stand on suffrage (his hunting was consistent with the understanding of the times, yet he was the first president that made significant strides toward conservation and the development of national parks, and his view toward suffrage, first considering women's work not in the realm of politics, but then understanding the issue from a deeper vantage point, that women as well as blacks, deserve a full measure of the law, changed his position, embraced and supported the suffrage movement).
   
   Finally, I guess what irks me the most about this book is all the little comments about Roosevelt's motives and character. Its really bad when a little person tries to explain away the character and motives of a much bigger person, they simply do not have an accurate frame of reference to make a proper study;
   
   Little people should not write about great people.



2. Ms. O'Toole has written a very readable biography of TR's last ten years. I was not ready for her highly critical look at TR. It took some getting used to. Her criticisms, at times, seem to be a bit of a reach. Her pacing and spacing of what she chooses to spend time on seems suspect. She devotes 5 pages to his trip down the River of Doubt and she devotes 5 pages to the libel trial. The book is well written but I eagerly await Morris' third volume.



3. This highly readable book focuses exclusively on Teddy's post-presidential decade, a decade that the author postulates that TR never really settled into the ex-presidency. It's great writing material - it's difficult to make a flavorless biography of any of TR's decades of life. In the flavor of recent biographies of US presidents long past, TR here is portrayed as a brilliant person with firm convictions, yet also a deeply flawed man, who craves being the ultimate man of action and his actions having impact. As his life draws to a close, his actions matter on the US and world stage less and less, but he craved the personal power more and more (he was STILL thinking about running for president in 1920 when he died!)
   
   In regards to O'Toole's approach to the subject, I believe it to be even-handed, factual, and a fairly smooth flow. I had a little difficulty getting myself absorbed into this book, being a tad choppy in the beginning, but once I did I was hooked. Occasionally the concentration of events is a bit strange -for instance, the discussion of TR's initial Africa safari is covered more than extensively, but TR's trip to Brazil (that almost kills him!) gets a mere few pages. However, in a more positive light, the trajectory of TR's relationship with the Taft presidency is covered nicely, which really shows what makes TR tick - he ultimately could not stand and just watch his chosen successor make decisions differently than he would have.
   
   In conclusion I recommend this book for those interested in this period of US history, as it throws a different perspective on a much-respected president than that is seen from Mount Rushmore - I ended up still admiring TR, but became more knowledgeable about his deficiencies.



4. I have been in a recent reading funk lately. Starting books and not finishing them so one thing can be said of Patricia O'Toole's book is that it held my interest till the end. In fact it was the last section entitled Precipice that was the most poignant. Unlike the all time great book RIVER OF DOUBT by Candice Millard, which is a five star page turner of a read about Roosevelt life threatening river journey in Brazil, O'Toole's book focuses more on the political than personal or adventurous side of Teddy. For example the River of Doubt expedition takes up only 10 pages in O'Toole's book. So the big picture narrative of O'Toole makes for great companion book for RIVER OF DOUBT readers where she paints a portrait of a political man dealing with his inability to accept his loss of power. I came a way with the clear impression that Teddy Roosevelt was one of the founding members of the modern progressive movement that is now the bases of the modern Democratic Party. The issues and values ring as true today as they did 90 years ago. Roosevelt must have been an outsized personality who filled a room with his presence and ambition. Unique, strong, with the understanding to see what ruin corporate capitalism can lead to if unregulated. And all the while he was an unapologetic imperialist. The book is a fascinating charmer as I imagine the real life Teddy was. I think you will respond favorably WHEN TRUMPETS CALL.



5. For TR lovers any TR book is a treasure. Here the author focuses on the post White House years: 1909-1920 when TR, out of power, tried mightly to regain it. It sad and tragic tale of a great man driven to retrieve the glory days. At times, it reads like a history book, proper, on target but overly detailed. The author constantly uses words most of us have never seen, don't understand would not use even if we knew what they meant. What's missing is the unique personality of the man; you turn each page hoping to find him but alas... For TR buffs, it's probably a must read but for those of us who have read Edmund Morris' two volumes of TR's life, it's a waiting game for the long-promised Morris Vol. III. TR as cartoon is not always a pretty picture.

5 comments about Zachary Taylor : Soldier, Planter, Statesman of the Old Southwest.

1. This was a terrible attempt at scholarship. The book is poorly written and gives an overview with no specifics except for military encounters. This author should have focused his efforts on a military account of Taylor's life because after reading I feel I know nothing about the man. Admittedly there are severe source deficiencies when dealing with this subject but a much wider study could have been undertaken. Sadly there is not much written on Taylor and this does a poor job of adding to the scholarship.



2. I am currently reading a biography of every President in order and Bauer's book seemed like the obvious choice for Zachary Taylor.
   
   This book is a bit difficult to rate fairly as I doubt any full biography of Zachary Taylor could be made into a great read. Indeed, Bauer's biography is excellently researched and organized. The writing, although a bit uninspired, is easy to read and well presented. At times, however, this book is very dull and in my opinion Bauer tends to error on the side of going into too much detail. Taylor's military career had few standout moments and most of the first part of the book focuses more on Taylor's transfer from fort to fort along the western frontier.
   
   If there is a President for which a short biography would suffice Taylor is it, and while at slightly over 300 pages of text Bauer's tome is by no means exceedingly long, at the end of the book I felt that it could certainly have been cut down by about 100 pages while still providing a comprehensive biography. Undoubtedly, however, this is the best one volume biography of Taylor available (why anyone would need to read Holman Hamilton's two volume work is beyond me) and certainly more than adequate for its task.



3. This book is a tough one to get through, not through any fault of the Author but due to the dryness of the material. I am currently in the process of reading a book on every US President and this book seemed to be the best one out there on Zachary Taylor.
   
   I would recommend if you are trying to find out more about the subject, but if you are looking for a great historical page turner, you need to look elsewhere.



4. Sadly, after one slogs through an exhautive accounting of Zachary Taylor's military career presented here, you are neither greatly informed nor satisfactorily influemced about the man himself. Beyond gauging that Taylor was a relatively witless minion bouyed by circumstance into the presidency, one is left empty of opinion as to the depth of his character and definition of his nature. One can know just as little about Taylor without reading this dry and bland text, and enjoy life just a bit more in the not reading.



5. Very Enjoyable. An easy read. President Taylor is a cousin of mine, and it was fun to learn a little bit about him.
   Fred Clark
   www.reverbnation.com/fredclark
   www.myspace.com/fredclarkmusic

3 comments about John Quincy Adams (American Profiles (Madison House Paperback)).

1. Lynn H. Parsons has written a biography that is blessedly free from 'academic speak' or the sense that he is only writing for other historians. This is definitely a biography for even the most casual lover of history. Parsons' familiarity with JQA allows him to introduce us to that prickly character as one would introduce an eccentric friend--always aware of the eccentricities but never apologizing for them. Adams (and his father) are two of the greatest of America's early statesmen and two of it's worst politicians. Parsons presents the genius and the folly and allows us to weigh our opinions--tho' its clear where Parsons' affections lie. It is hard to imagine that anyone will (or could) write a better one volume popular biography of JQA. Parsons clearly could tell us much more, but he chooses not to bog his narrative down in the kind of historical detail that glazes the eye of the casual reader. For serious historians this is a valuable book because it doesn't get lost in its own importance--the writing is direct, succinct and keeps the reader aware of the difference of the attitudes of Adams and his contemporaries to our current sensibilities. Parsons ends with a note that JQA's only monument in Washington is a small plaque in statuary hall in the Capitol. I would argue that Adams' best monument in DC is the one he would be proudest of--the Smithsonian Institution he fought so hard to help establish. I highly recommend this book.



2. After reading this well written biography, I experienced the sorrows, joys, and accomplishments in the life of one of our country's greatest statesmen.



3. John Quincy Adams, son of John Adams, the second President, was one of America's greatest diplomats. He made a name for himself as the country was being formed, especially with his defense of "the rules of law" against the will of the majority. He was one of the last of the old Federalists. He was a foreign minister to Holland, Portugal, and Prussia, and was Secretary of State under Monroe (where he was the main force in establishing the Monroe Doctrine). He became the sixth President in a controversial election that was decided in the House of Representatives.
   
   Parson's short (272 pages) but thorough and well-written biography of Adams is a job well done. She details the accomplishments of his life, but focuses primarily on the man himself. Adams was a stern man (his portrait reminds me of some evil Dickens character, Marley perhaps), and not well-liked by the public. He believed that one should not "run" for a political office, but should just accept it if offered (imagine that today!). He hated Andrew Jackson and slavery, and fought hard against both. This is an excellent book on an interesting man.

5 comments about Coolidge.

1. How interesting that as we look at the last century, President Coolidge has become a polarizing figure. After smears from William Allan White, Arthur Schlesinger and others, Coolidge has finally merited re-evaluation. While not an activist President in the vein of, say, Franklin Roosevelt, Coolidge was far from indolent or passive. He gave more press conferences than any other, inaugurated the use of radio, and sponsored airplanes in the military. However, it was indeed his belief that government should exist for the people, not the other way 'round. Interestingly, he was the last President to refuse to have a telephone in the Oval Office--he considered it undignified. He supported women's suffrage and his wife, Grace, was the first First Lady to smoke in the White House. I have undertaken to read many accounts of Coolidge; he does remain a mystery to us in so many ways. Regardless of the slant of the source, though, his deep sense of decency and honor in performing public service always shines through. I'd recommend purchasing a copy of 'Grace Coolidge and Her Era' from 1962 to give a more human side to both the President and his wife. Another characteristic of this man is that despite his reserve, his overriding love for his wife and sons remains there. The heartbreak that he and Mrs. Coolidge endured with the needless death of their youngest son in the White House cannot be overstated. Especially since we know now that the Staph. infection from which young Calvin died would nowadays have certainly not been fatal. I think part of the reason the Coolidge times have become fascinating for those of us interested in history is the obscurity to which these years have been consigned. The terms of FDR with his extensive radio and movie coverage has overshown the previous three Republican administrations, not by accident. I have concluded that no one book can cover all the aspects of President Coolidge, and he deserves further reading.



2. I purchased the late Robert Sobel's "Coolidge: An American Enigma" by happenstance. I had no particular opinion of Calvin Coolidge, beyond the general impression that he was one of the very few "caretaker" presidents of the 20th century. After completing this biography, that impression remains unchanged. Despite Sobel's infectious enthusiasm for his subject, Coolidge remains a cipher: likable, decent, honest, but very deliberately lacking in color or discernable personality.
   
   Sobel knows how to write an entertaining biography, especially in light of how dry his subject is. He skillfully follows Coolidge from his childhood in Vermont, his education at Amherst, his governance of Massachusetts, and finally his rise to the office of first vice-president, then president. Through this, Sobel paints interesting portraits of the man and his times. Indeed, some of the most exciting parts of the book occur when Sobel shifts his focus away from Coolidge and focuses on the events that affect the outcome of Coolidge's life. While some of the examination of the Massachusetts political machine seem a little tangential, the passages recounting the Boston police strike and the 1920 Republican convention are particularly gripping. His overview of the scandals of the Harding administration are paticularly instructive.
   
   Still, Sobel never loses sight of the fact he's writing a book about Coolidge. His examination of Coolidge as president is intriguing, if a little sparse. Sparse, because Coolidge himself is difficult to pin down. He was very much from the laissez-faire school of government, taking great pains to limit federal intervention in state and local matters, as well as business. The downside of this was, as Sobel does note, Coolidge did very little beyond pay lip-service to social issues of the country, e.g., the plight of African-Americans and Native Americans. He was also not terribly interested in international matters, although as Sobel points out, Coolidge was able to handle tensions with Mexico. He is also very explicit that the tendency to lay the Depression at Coolidge's feet is totally unfair, as Coolidge was only in the vaguest awareness of what could happen to the booming economy, and was far less equipped to do anything about it.
   
   The most substantial problem I had with this book is Sobel's tendency to allow too much of his own bias show. Sobel, from what I can tell, was very much a Reagan Republican. This was obviously a reason for his decision to attempt to rehabilitate Coolidge. However, that often leads to awkward editorializing. The most overt example is a lengthy dissection of previous Coolidge historiography, including an an attempt to reutt the works of Arthur M. Schlesinger on the failure of the Harding-Coolidge-Hoover era. While I realize that Sobel's intent was to take on the popular view of Coolidge as some sort of failure, I felt that Sobel's decision to place this argument in the beginning of Chapter 9 inappropriate. This would have made perfect sense in the introduction or the epilogue materials. Including it in the body was distracting, and caused me to set it down for a little while.
   
   Another concern was Sobel's copious use of block excerpts, particularly in the opening of the book. It felt like Sobel was padding a little. As the work progresses, the quotes seem more useful, and less intrusive.
   
   On the whole, I surprised by "Coolidge: An American Enigma". I found Coolidge the man appealing. While he would have been horribly out of step with this day and age (indeed, just years later he would have been quaint), Coolidge was a man of his time, lending further credence to the idea that times make men as much as men make times. Had Sobel distanced himself a little more from his subject, it would have been about perfect. As it stands, it's an excellent single volume about a caretaker president.



3. Author Sobel creates an interesting read, bringing to life an obscure President, obscure from the fact historians and the general media have tended to ignore him. Cooledge exhibited an unusual degree of statesmanship, while cognizant of the politics that got him to the highest elected office in the land.
   Much of Sobel's writing is in a matter of fact vain. While helpful, I found the constant insertions of Cooledge quotes to be distracting at times.



4. I read this book based on recommendations that this is the bio to read regarding Coolidge. Those reviews are right on point. This is an outstanding book, well researched, moves quickly and keeps the reader engaged throughout.
   
   It is obvious that the writer liked Coolidge and thinks he is an underrated President. That said, he did acknowledge Coolidge's shortcomings, almost all surrounded his dry demeanor.
   
   The book was well researched and gave me a really good taste of the times that Coolidge grow up in. It talked about the issues that led to his Presidency (The Teapot Dome Scandal) and gave enough detail to explain the entire situation to better understand why Coolidge could've been implicated in the events that led to Harding's downfall...but ultimately the author explained why he wasn't implicated.
   
   I've read a lot of Presidential bios and I would rate this against any I've read so far. It is a difficult task for an author such as Sobel to write a bio about a little-known President who didn't serve during the "sexiest" events in American history. However, the author wrote in an interesting way about the issues Coolidge had to face and by the stats and details provided it appears Coolidge did overcome and manage the events that needed his expertise during his Presidency. And, it appears he gets blamed incorrecly for laying the foundation that led to the depression. As a side note, I think Hoover is wrongly blamed for the depression as way. The economy has an ebb and flow to it and Coolidge served during a downturn, while Hoover rode the worst economic times in our history that I feel he is wrongly blamed for.
   
   Great book and really an underrated President that I am glad I know a lot more about.



5. If you want to learn about Calvin Coolidge the man, the father, the husband, the politician and the President this is the book to read. Sobel does a excellent job at presenting Coolidge in a blanced way showing his strengths, accomplishments and achievments as well as his shortcomings, weaknesses and failures. Unlike some historians who like to just say Coolidge did nothing or slept through is Presidency silently, Sobel shows he had achievements, was active in reducing government, its taxation and spending while bringing in surpluses that he successfully pushed to have refunded to the taxpayer. Sobel also shows that while the rich benefitted from the tax breaks given under Coolidge's Presidency that in the end the vast majority of people did not have to pay taxes under his tax plans. Unemployment was down to almost 3%. Was there problems? There are always problems no matter how good times are and Sobel explores these as well. Farmers struggled under Coolidge's administration and Sobel does a good job of showing why. Sobel's book shows all of these things in a balanced light bringing forth Coolidge, his life, his Presidency as they were with the roaring 20's in full swing and being potrayed in this book as a backdrop to what Coolidge was doing at the time. The book is well written, I was never bored and never found it tedious to read and enjoyed every page. Excellent job by Sobel in presenting us with one fantastic biography of Calvin Coolidge! 5 Stars!
   [...]

5 comments about Hugo!: The Hugo Chavez Story from Mud Hut to Perpetual Revolution.

1. Journalist Bart Jones's detail-laden HUGO! tells the story of Venezuela president Hugo Chavez, the complete story that America's corporate "news" media ignores. And reading the HUGO! passage regarding the Venezuelan people's demand for Chavez's release after moneyed interests overthrow his administration in 2002, you realize this book also tells the story of that South American country's citizens. World history is nothing more than the wealthy few attempting to steal from and dominate the poor masses. In Venezuela, the rise of Hugo Chavez personifies the people establishing democracy, the most radical notion in humanity's chronicles.
   
   Read HUGO!



2. Since retirement a couple of years ago, I have read over a hundred books on Latin America, and political science...subjects I never studied in college. This is one book I place near the top of the list. It is accurate, unbias, and reads like a great novel. If only people could/would take time to become better informed, we could have a better world. By the way, another good book on Hugo Chavez is by Nikolas Kozloff.



3. We have been receiving a one-dimensional, Bush Administration-driven perspective on Hugo Chavez. Bart Jones paints a complete picture of this Venezuelan Abe Lincoln. It helps us ordinary readers to remember that we certainly have no reason to dislike a man just because he is unpopular with the rich and influential. Jones's experience as a Maryknoll missioner and an AP reporter in Venezuela give him the depth of knowledge and discernment necessary to dissect a complex figure such as Hugo Chavez.



4. Bart Jones, in my opinion, wrote one of the best biographies about a man who might lead South America in a revolution that will upset or at least seriously impress all of us. As he makes very clear, Hugo Chavez is brillent, sleeps little, moves around a lot with restless energy, has a definate goal, an admirable goal, and is on his way to reaching it.
   
   But there is another side to Mr. Chavez.
   
   I recommend that Mr. Jones read the life of Huey Long, who came from an immodest background in Lousiana, surrounded by the poor an oppressed, worked his way through enough college to meet his needs and was on his way to making a serious run for the U.S. presidency, all for the successful work he did for the poor. And he did a lot. But his passion was for power, not just helping the poor.
   
   The depression produced a lot of these guys, the ones in Itly and Germany come to mind.
   
   Being dedicated to the poor can be dangerous.



5. Bart Jones lived and worked in Venezuela for eight years and had unprecedented access to its president, Hugo Chavez.
   
   Latin America's income per head grew by 82% between 1960 and 1980, before the IMF policies, but only by 10% between 1980 and 2005 under IMF policies. In 1989, the previous president, Carlos Perez, ordered the army into Caracas, killing more than a thousand people, in food riots triggered by price rises ordered by the IMF.
   
   Chavez won the presidency in 1998 with 56% of the votes. Jones writes, "He was elected in free and fair elections, and won three more referenda to write and approve a new constitution. The jails held no political prisoners. No opposition parties were outlawed. No newspapers, television networks, or radio stations were censored, even though the majority were virulently opposed to Chavez. ... No media outlets were closed or reporters jailed." Even US Ambassador John Maisto said of Chavez's rule, "no one can question its democratic legitimacy."
   
   However, the US state has been ruthlessly hostile to Chavez, which only shows that the US state's primary commitment is to capitalism, not to democracy. The US government knew in advance and approved the April 2002 coup against his government. The US Agency for International Development had given opposition groups, including the coup plotters, $26 million.
   
   Metropolitan Police and snipers fired on both pro- and anti-Chavez marchers. The coup plotters taped, in advance, a statement that marchers had been killed, accusing Chavez. Coup leader Pedro Carmona shut down the Congress and the Supreme Court, tore up the constitution and sacked every elected official from the attorney-general to state governors to local mayors. Carmona's first visitor was US ambassador Charles Shapiro.
   
   Chavez won the 2004 recall referendum with 59% of the votes and in 2006 he won a new six-year term with 63% of the votes. He is popular because his policies genuinely benefit the majority of the people. His government has cut poverty from 43% to 33%. The Mision Milagro flies patients to Cuba for free eye surgery. Venezuela's health spending per head rose by 74% between 1999 and 2005. Before land reform, 2% of the population owned 60% of the land and Venezuela imported 70% of its food. By 2007 the government had distributed nine million acres of idle land to 130,000 families.
   
   Chavez's government continues to work for the people of Venezuela, ensuring their right to control their country's resources. On 1 May 2007, the government took majority control over oil projects from ExxonMobil, Chevron, Conoco and Total.

5 comments about The Raising of a President: The Mothers and Fathers of Our Nation's Leaders.

1. I like Mr. Wead's books because they offer accurate history from a different perspective. While they don't belabor psychological phenomenon when they encounter it, neither do they ignore it when it slaps you in the face. There is so much new in these books, taken from the diaries of these children or parents of the presidents. And there is so much that one can learn about parenting. I can't wait for the book on siblings.



2. I was waiting for this one to come out in paperback but I guess the sales keep humming along so I finally went out and bought one. Wow! it was worth it. This is a classic that will have a long shelf life in our family. I will never see the presidents the same again. They are like the rest of us - little children inside grown up bodies. The treatment on FDR and his mother is riveting. Much new here from the diaries and interviews. I knew that mothers were prominet in the lives of their sons but the massive evidence - the reoccuring events that these men have in common is remarkable. It makes sense that the "absent father" is no coincidence either.



3. As an extremely amatuer historian with ADD and with a fascination for Abraham Lincoln, I really liked this. The research that I have done on my own, albeit not extensive, on Lincoln seems to jive with the author's conclusion. I have no reason to doubt the truthfulness of his writings on the other presidents.
   
   Books rarely hold my interest, and this one did.



4. This is an excellent book with a slant on history no one has ever delved into in any depth. It was fascinating to read about the one group of people who had the most vested interest in raising our future leaders.



5. Doug Wead first hit the betseller lists with his book on the children of the Presidents of the United States. In this sequel
   he explores the lives of the parents of America's Chief Executives. It is a fascinating journey into the past in an area of presidential history that is little explored,
   Wead gives brief biographies of all the presidential parents from George Washington through George W. Bush. Extended chapters focus on six presidential families:
   1. George Washington-His father died when he was young; he did not get along with overdominating mother Mary Ball Washington.
   2. The Adams family featuring a well drawn portrait of John and Abigail Adams; their influential parents and their brilliant son John Quincy who served as the 6th President of the US.
   3. The little known story of Abraham Lincoln's hardscrabble poverty ridden youth on the Kentucky and Indiana frontier. His
   father Thomas was an ignorant brute who often beat Abe; His mother Nancy Hanks and his stepmother Sarah Bush Johnston gave
   Lincoln the gift of learning, love and set our greatest chief executive on the road to glory. Lincoln had a sad, difficult and
   tragic life.
   4. The family life of Franklin Delano Roosevelt the son of the wealthy James Roosevelt and his wife the indomitable Sarah
   Roosevelt. James died while FDR was a boy; Sarah was one of the
   strongest mothers in our history. She was the third party in FDR's marriage to Eleanor. Sarah made FDR a mother's boy but was also the greatest influence in his development.
   5. The family of John F. Kennedy was dominated by Joe Kennedy to made millons; was often allied to the mob and was a womanizer of Olympian proportions. His mother Rose was often away on shopping trips to Europe and did not give Kennedy the love he craved.
   6. The quiet dynasty of the Bush family is explored in succinct
   but savvy chapters. We met US Senator Prescott Bush; his son
   George Herbert Walker Bush our 41st President and our current
   occupant of the Oval Office: George W. Bush. The Bush family is notable for the strong women it has produced. Dorothy Bush the
   tough, tennis champion spouse of Prescott; the strong Barbara
   Bush who modeled herself after Dorothy and Laura Bush.
   Wead has done a good job of sorting myth from the facts. This
   book can be used as an excellent reference book as well as a
   great read.
   I recommend this book with high marks!

5 comments about John F. Kennedy: A Biography.

1. Michael O'Brien is to be commended for writing a lengthy, well-written tome at this late juncture on the late, great JFK, especially post-Robert Dallek's masterful "An Unfinished Life", a VERY hard act to follow, indeed. O'Brien's book is a worthy companionn to Dallek's and, while it treads a lot of familiar ground, it is worthwhile for all Kennedy fans. Get this!



2. I read this book after reading the Caro series on Lyndon Johnson and this book fell short of my expectations. I felt that too many facts and stories where thrown together without a supporting theme or purpose. Also, I thought a disproportionate amount of time was spent on Kennedy's private life.



3. This great biography was written by an academic historian who gathers and compares several sources, yet the publisher to cut costs cuts the footnotes, which are of essential and greatest interest. In our era of intellectual property and knowledge as commodity, the publisher did not wish to provide the reader with specific indications for further study through the footnotes. With the collapse of the Internet we may never know what amplifications and insights the author may have included in these footnotes, which were no doubt as exhaustive as the work itself. How could the once great St. Martin's have been so academically irresponsible for commercial purposes? It is as inexplicable as our once great nation's journey from the intelligent JFK to the solipsistic W.



4. The 1960 election was one of the closest. John Kennedy was Catholic, and many voters were against him for that reason. Kennedy's critics still question whether the Vietnam War would have been fought had Nixon won. It may not have been. On the other hand, there may have been a nuclear war. We will never know. It is part of the controversy of those years. Kennedy is remembered for his moon speech to Congress in 1961: "I believe this nation should commit itself to achieving the goal, before this decade is out, of landing a man on the moon and returning him safely to the Earth." In 1962, Kennedy confronted Khrushchev over Cuba. The U.S. could not allow Soviet missiles 100 miles off the Florida coast. John Kennedy and First Lady Jackie brought an elegance to the White House emulated by successors Ronald and Nancy Reagan. Kennedy's assassination in Dallas in 1963 is something America is still dealing with, like Pearl Harbor before it and 9/11 after it. Lee Harvey Oswald acted alone when he assassinated Kennedy. Conspiracy theories are false. The grassy knoll is a figment of the imagination. Oswald was a loner and a misfit. He was a marksman. He shot Kennedy from the 6th floor of the Texas School Book Depository as his motorcade passed below. He fled and hid in a theater but was quickly apprehended. Jack Ruby shot and killed Oswald. He said he did it out of sympathy for Jackie. There was no reason not to believe him.



5. My fascination with John F Kennedy comes from when I first saw him riding down Lehigh Avenue in Philadelphia in 1959 when I was 9 years old. He was running for president back then. After he became president I used to like watching him on TV verbally sparring with news reporters. What a difference in how the "powder-puffs" we have today on TV avoid, hide and pretend we have no problems. I'm definitely no Democrat but JFK had a lot more courage, intellegence and insight than most of who you see on the scene today in political arenas. He had a specail way of moving people to action that just doesn't seem to exist anymore. Hopefully someone else will eventually come along again like him who actually becomes an excellent president. Maybe someone like Sarah Polin?
   
   I'm also a big fan of well-written biographies and found this book to be amazing. What I liked about this book is how different aspects of JFK's life were catagorized and separated so that you could gain a real insite to how John Kennedy must have looked at the world. I liked that the author did not spend very much time on his assassination since there are already too many theories, stories and legends about that unfortunate incident.
   
   JFK appears to have been the consumate listener which to me is probably why he was so smart about common sense aspects. He listened and did not want to block that part of life out since it does make a positive difference. And yes he liked the ladies (he was so charasmatically attractive does that surprise anyone?) and he seems to have taken his job as president seriously. He often went to the people whenever he needed to really get an important point across. Had he remained president that wind-bag who took over, president Johnson, would have went back to his ranch in Texas instead of helping to kill so many young people during Viet Nam.
   
   I recommend this book to anyone who wants to get a more realistic idea of who JFK was, what he was really about and what his principles really were.