5 comments about Eyewitness to Power: The Essence of Leadership Nixon to Clinton.

1. Politics is such a contact sport, with the opposing party trying to bring down the President. A house divided cannot stand, yet here in America we no longer rally around the President after the election. The losing party tries to destroy him.
   
   I have always like Gergen and I appreciate his wisdom in this book. Even the most liberal Democrat will find much to admire about Richard Nixon, Gerald Ford and Ronald Reagan if he reads this book with an open mind. Likewise, the most conservative Republican will find many positive traits about Bill Clinton, faults and all.
   
   These men were not perfect and they all had their weaknesses, which their enemies ultimately used against them. But these men all had what it takes to make great Presidents. Sadly, Nixon was forced to resign, Clinton was impeached, and Reagan survived the Iran/Contra scandal.
   
   Today in 2006, we hear that if the Democrats gain control in Congress, they might try to impeach the current President for his failings. Will we ever learn? Can a President ever serve an 8 year term without the threat of impeachment by the other side?
   
   All men have faults and we will never have a President that is perfect. In "Eyewitness to Power" we learn that anyone who becomes President must have leadership skills to be able to rise to this high office. Maybe future leaders can learn from the mistakes of past Presidents. They better because in today's political climate, the other side will be waiting for any misstep.



2. This book has been an eye opener to the strengths of even the most despised Presidents. I learned a lot about the importance of bipartisanship in getting a President's initiatives passed. It also made me realize that the press will not give me the real image of the "Big Guy." Going into an election year we need to realize that all of the slander politics are not as important as learning about the candidates' thoughts and hopes for their and our future. Reading the candidates' autobiography or biography may be a great way to really get an understanding about a person who thinks they have what it takes to run the most powerful country in the world. Look forward to seeing reviews on a few books from our upcoming candidates.



3. David Gergen provides important insights into leadership. He was worked for several Presidents and has observed what creates successful leaders. He lists his observations by President and concludes the following: Leadership is something one finds internally, it is driven by a compelling goal, it is successful when it persuades others, it requires understanding how the involved process works and how goals may be attained, it often uses an atmosphere of assurance from the beginning, it involving choosing and considering advice form good advisors, and it is able to inspire followers to work toward the goals. These are only a foundation of principles which do not assure success yet should be a guide to expand upon.
   
   The manner in which leadership is used does influence outcomes. A good knowledge of past experiences is valuable yet this knowledge must be used appropriately. The early periods of Presidencies often provide opportunities for achievement yet, simultaneously are also when some of the worst mistakes are made. David Gergen argues the Presidency requires someone who has an excellent knowledge of public affairs as well the proper temperament. He rates Franklin Roosevelt and Ronald Reagan as two of the best Presidential leaders.
   
   The book provides many direct insights from someone who worked for Presidents Nixon, Ford, Reagan, and Clinton. He tells how Nixon was inspired by DeGaulle to rely upon both intellect and instinct, how Ford was a strong believer in the truth, how Reagan upped the ante in the arms race so the Soviet Union could no longer compete, and how Clinton understood history and established policy victories. This is a good book that uses first hand information and uses it to explain what leadership principles worked and which ones did not.



4. Quick turn around and received the book, just as it was listed. Thanks. I'll look for your books again.



5. I was fortunate enough to hear David Gergan speak at my daughter's commencement last month. After hearing him in person, I couldn't wait to purchase his book. I am not normally interested in political history due to the dull reading of most, but David Gergan really makes the information come alive. His elaboration of the former presidents really gives you a tremendous sense of his deep interest & admiration of each of these men. While being truthful with the information, he finds the good to present to us in an honest way. I purchased this book for an upcoming young leader in our family, who I hope will gain insight & wisdom from reading this book. I only wish that he too will feel the same way & have the opportunity to hear David Gergan live. It is certainly rare for me to be just as interested in listening to a speaker at the end of their presentation as I am at the beginning of it. David is as good an author as he is a speaker. An excellent read for present & future leaders!

5 comments about Write it When I'm Gone.

1. There are descriptions galore on this book already, I just wanted to add that this was a "can't put it down" book for me also. I was in my early teens when Watergate was coming down. I had no idea just that Ford was such a principled man but also had the ability to get to the heart of a matter in few words and in most cases with no malice. As I was reading the last couple of chapters I felt like I'd really missed out by having neven known this man. He may not have been a Lincoln but he was certainly one Ford that never needed to be recalled. What a great read!!



2. This audio book far exceeded my expectations. The reader is very talented and the story is so honest. You come to realize that Gerald Ford was quite the public servant, leader and consumate gentleman. I highly recommend as it brought so much history to my own experiences.



3. A wonderful read about a good and great man. If only this country had more such men, then maybe there would not be the huge political schism in Washington today. Ford was a healer, who could be bipartisan and establish a rapport with his political enemies. Maybe, that was because he had no real enemies, and many on both side respected him for what he was: a smart, honest politician who did not have a huge ego.
   
   In this short book, DeFrank shows that Ford was really who he said he was. He loved the Republican Party and would not tear it apart for his personal ambition. He loved his country and tried to find common cause with some polical opponents like Carter and Clinton. He loved his home city of Grand Rapids, Michigan. He was like most people: an average man thrust into the leadership of the free world.
   
   This is a nice read about a true American Gerald R. Ford. His presidential service was short and his life long, but he made a difference in American political life. DeFrank captures the true spirit of Jerry Ford.



4. Who ever knew that Gerald Ford could be so interesting? I read over 70 pages in just the first day I got it and did not want to put it down. This is not a straightforward biography for a change-there are plenty of those out there. This is personal insight into a man that rarely let us see that side of him. He was a man of good morals, was extremely intelligent, and if you can get past the whole Nixon pardon, he really did deserve a second term in office. Even though his presidency was short, those were some very interesting times and Gerald Ford was a big part of bringing the country back together after Watergate and Vietnam. It is great to have the authors perspective of traveling with him for so many years and interviewing him, and even building a friendship with President Ford. You feel like you are along for the ride. I am glad I purchased this as it is a totally different kind of political book than anything else I have ever read. It is an easy and quick read, and I HIGHLY recommend it to anyone interested in US history and/or the Office of The President. My only wish was that it was longer- did not want to get through it so quick !!!!



5. I dove in to this book expecting new and exciting revelations only to find.. not so much. Yes, it was interesting to learn what Jerry Ford really thought about his fellow Presidents (especially Reagan), but where are the bombshells?
   
   It was obvious that Mr. DeFrank admired Mr. Ford greatly. I too remember the healing effect Ford had on the country after Watergate and admire him. However, this author did not have enough material for an entire book. Redundancies abound. The same sentence often appears in different chapters. His description of the pivotal meeting with (then) Vice President Ford appears verbatim several times throughout the book.
   
   If this had been an article in a magazine, I could have rated it higher. Even without any real revelations.

5 comments about His Excellency: George Washington.

1. The thing that stands out as being most erroneous in this book was the beleif that Mr. Ellis has that Washington was not involved in the practice of slavery in any way on his own volition. According to Mr. Ellis, the slaves on Mount Vernon were his father's, his brother's and his wife's, but not his, and he had no authority to free these slaves, even though he privately opposed slavery. Mr. Ellis supposes that Washington opposed slavery, even though he shows not evidence to support this other than the fact that he did not work his slaves. In his book, Mr. Ellis has submitted that Mount Vernon ceased to be a working plantation not due to Washington's advanced age and possible exhaustion, but due to Washington's opposition of the practice of forced labour.
   
   I also found it very interesting that Mr. Ellis took pains to make Washington at times a deist, agnostic and even an atheist. Once again he submitted no hard evidence for this, but it is inferred from from the fact that Washington was not the most proliferative writer of theology of the Revolutionary era. Since Washington never wrote a major work of religious philosophy on the subject of Christ he must had not believed in Christ seems to be the opinion of the writer. But if Washington did have religious views outside the norm for those days, why didn't any of the numerous rivals that Ellis mentioned bring those beliefs to light? It was well known the Jefferson used the press to attack Washington, and Adams when he viewed them as political rivals and not as friends, but he never mentioned their faith.
   
   I also take issue with the idea that this book depicts Washington as a bloody-minded general in the mode of Grant, and not as a man who learned his limitations as a military leader. Washington seems to have come to the realization that he was no field commander, but was far more effective in the role of the face of the resistance, and Commander-In-Chief. Furthermore, due to the ineffectiveness, and questionable loyalty of his officers, as well as the loss of his men, he felt the need to commit to a very limited number of engagements in the war until the French military arrived, but Ellis feels as though Washington jealously held on to his commission at the expense of his men with the aim of enhancing his own glory. Washington's firm belief that the war would be won by the French military, and the French economy was missed by Mr. Ellis, but most other scholars have accepted this as a fact.
   
   Mr. Ellis seemed to miss the idea that Washington was a product of his time. Generals kept their command until death in those days, there was no transfers, and no reassignments at those times. Southern plantation owners owned slaves in those days, and that was how it was. And lastly, all members of polite society were fundamentalist Christians, even though Mr. Ellis prefer the founder of the United States not be. Maybe I should amend my review to recommend this book to anyone who wants to see Washington as a Liberal Northeastern Politician from the early 21st century , and not as a Christian/planter/general from 18th century.



2. "His Excellency: George Washington" by Joseph Ellis is a brief but illuminating view of founding father and first president, George Washington. It briefly tells about what little is known of his boyhood, and then quickly moves on to his first public adventures in The French and Indian War. Mr. Ellis follows Washington from his first retirement after that war to Mount Vernon, Washington's pride and joy. From there his frustration with British authority (specifically in commerce) is followed to it's conclusion by his part in the American Revolution. Washington then tries to retire again, but is called back into service (very grudgingly) as the new republic's first president.
   
   If there was anyway to categorize this biography, it is as a myth buster. Many of the ideas we have about George Washington are, while not lies or wrong, are not exactly completely accurate. He is also presented as not so much forging the new nation as lending his credibility to the other men who's ideas were more sound (like Alexander Hamilton's bank and treasury policies or George Mason's protests against the English monarch). He is also shown as much less effective in dealing with pet projects like emancipation of slaves and a more respectful treatment of Native Americans. On a personal front Washington is miserly and land hungry, and benefited by very aggressive land schemes and ventures that may seem unscrupulous by today's standards.
   
   But he is also proud and unbending in what he thought was right. When he chose a course he stuck to it usually no matter what the outcome may be (though usually worked in favor of Mr. Washington. He was a devoted husband and father to Martha and her two children. And he treated his slaves better than most; he refused to split up families despite the economic problem this produced.
   
   I have seen many complaints of this book, saying that Ellis is trying to destroy the reputation of this great man. I do not think so. I have not done the research that Mr. Ellis has done, but I trust that the evidence bears him out. The book was entertaining and thought provoking, and I am glad I read it. Most recommended to anyone with an interest in the early American history and it's founding fathers.



3. My only real gripe about this book is that it was too short. Because Ellis has such an ability to produce readable history books, I believe a 700-page book on Washington would have been more valuable and not been too bogged down in detail. In fact, there is so much about the American Revolution that is not discussed in this book. That was a bit disappointing.
   
   On the positive side, it's a very quick read and informative. I learned a great deal about Washington's temperament and his relative sensitivity to criticism, which surprised me. The book was naturally pro-Washington, not that anyone could really justify an anti-Washington stance. Ellis gives Washington perhaps too much credit for liberating his slaves in his will; Washington could have made a greater impact by freeing them while he was alive. Regardless, this is a great book for someone with minimal history background because it's short and easy to follow.



4. I was very disappointed with the disrespect shown toward George Washington. If you remove the negative comments made by Ellis about Washington, the book would be shortened by one half. Throughout the book he makes accusations about Washington's motives. According to Ellis, almost every decision that Washington made was based on some sort of arrogance, pride or self-esteem issue. And all of this coming from a man who lied about his own past and was severely reprimanded by his employer. Washington was beloved in his own time and now. I certainly understand that people have their flaws...and Washington was no exception. In the final analysis, this was a slander of Washington's character - I would definitely not recommend this book.



5. There are many review about this book so I will not go into a lot of detail.
   First I will talk about the narration. One reviewer was very critical. He said the pace was very slow. I liked the pace and the reader has a very clear voice. The other review also mention he could hear the readers stomach or something. There are places like on the third disk where the reader takes long pauses after a paragraph and you can hear distracting noises. I think it is the reader trying to swallow or bring moisture to his mouth. I don't think it is his stomach.
   I do think Ellis had an agenda and stuck to it, sometimes in spite of the facts. Ellis tries hard to bring Washington down from the God like status he believes many hold of Washington.
   Ellis tries claims that Washington was in love with a married woman, Mary Fairfax, just before marrying Martha. He states the evidence for this is just in three letters that aren't very clear. Yet he claims anyone disagreeing with his conclusion most have had their minds alreay made up.
   Ellis criticizes the plans British leaders made in the Braddock incident. He justifies this because they made these plans without knowledge of the Ohio region. Yet when Washington does the samething later on it is evidence of a personality flaw. "Washington felt he was superior to his superiors." Washington had first hand experience, that almost took his life and did take the life of many close to him. I think he should be given a little more credit than Ellis does.
   Overall, however, I think Ellis did a good job. Ellis is human and I disagree with some of his conclusions. Readers need to realize historical writers are not divinely inspired and therefore are not free from error. Ellis did a good job in presenting the details and I just did not always agree with his conclusions.
   Ellis also had an objective. He wanted to demonstrate how Washington became the man that others would choose over what seemed like more qualified men like Jefferson, Franklin, Adams, and other to be our first president. He also wants to keep his work at a reasonable lenght.

5 comments about Stalin: The Court of the Red Tsar.

1. this was a very interesting, in-depth look at the way Stalin ruled through fear and intimidation. The cult of personality was never stronger than at this time. It was an excellent read, made more so by it's companion book "Young Stalin"



2. There is nothing here about policies or ideology, but the unbelievable monstrosity of Stalin and his magnates is described as never before. A terrifying and gripping story.



3. Josef Stalin was an artist. While some artists work in clay, oils or water color, Stalin worked in mass murder. It was his medium and he was a virtuoso. And just as Picasso's style shifted from his pink to his blue period, Stalin's abattoir art developed through his Trotskyite period, his old guard Bolshevik period, his military officer period, his Jewish period, his doctor's period, his Mingrelian period and so on, across several decades of obscene, senseless blood-letting.
   
   Simon Sebag Monteriore tells the story of this deranged madman in a way few if any have before. The suicide of Stalin's wife, Nadya, in the Kremlin in 1932 is the pivot upon which the whole narrative turns. Monteriore notes that prior to that traumatic event Stalin was primus inter pares in the Soviet leadership hierarchy and not the omnipotent, dreaded dictator of his later years when the Politburo "studied [him] like zoologists to read his moods, win his favor and survive." In the early thirties old colleagues like Sergo Ordzhonikidze and Alexei Rykov were casual with Stalin, addressing him as "Koba" and were quite comfortable challenging his proposals within senior leadership circles. Within a couple years of Nadya's death these and other patriarchs were dead and so too was any thought of informality with Stalin or speaking freely on any topic no matter how trivial.
   
   The author provides a rare and stunning glimpse inside Stalin's personal and political circle over a quarter century of his rule. The picture that emerges is somewhat analogous to HBO's Sopranos family - only without the mafia code of honor. In Stalinist Russia nobody was off-limits: the elderly, women, children, pregnant wives, extended family, casual friends and neighbors, others completely and undeniably innocent. All were subject to heinous beatings, prolonged torture, hard labor and execution - often in that order. Proximity to the "Vozd" himself was no guarantee of safety; indeed, it was one of the more parlous positions in the Soviet Union. For instance, five of Stalin's eight in-laws from his marriages to Ekaterina Svanidze and Nadya Alliluyeva were liquidated during his rule. Meanwhile, the passionately Marxist-Leninist wives of long-standing and blindly devoted acolytes, such as Moltov, Poskrebyshev, and Kalinin, were arrested and in some cases shot. His secret police chiefs - Yagoda, Yezhov, Beria, Abakumov - each outdid their predecessor in zealotry to the cause of uprooting "enemies" and in the cruelty of their methods before being arrested and shot themselves on the falsified charges of being one the very "enemies" they were supposedly hunting (Beria, of course, being the exception, having survived Stalin's rule only to be shot by Khrushchev). The whole story is so twisted and nonsensical that it is difficult to fully comprehend.
   
   What was most surprising about Monteriore's narrative, in my opinion, was how human, talented, and common Stalin could be. Here you find Stalin locking himself in a Kremlin bathroom as his angry wife pounds furiously on the door in a fit of spousal rage; slapping his beloved daughter Svetlana for her romantic relationship with a middle-aged married poet during the Second World War; reprimanding his hard-drinking debauchee son, Vasily, for irresponsibility and sullying the family name; serving as a Simon Cowell-like judge in a bizarre version of "Soviet Idol" put on to create a new national anthem in 1943; unleashing a deadly inquiry into corruption and incompetence after being served under ripe bananas in 1951; and throwing tomatoes at dinner guests during a summer holiday on the Black Sea and forcing his inner circle to drink until they vomited at the table.
   
   Not only was Stalin often a doting parent, smothering his daughter and grandchildren with affectionate kisses and hugs, but he also possessed a first-rate intellect, at least according to the author, who writes "it would be no exaggeration to say that Stalin was the best-read ruler of Russia from Catherine the Great to Vladimir Putin, even including Lenin..." That's high praise given the unusually highbrow literary consumption of the Russian people.
   
   This is one of the most enjoyable and eye-opening (not to mention unsettling) books that I have read in quite some time. No matter what opinion you hold of Stalin (and hopefully it's not a positive one), this book will likely forever alter that perception.



4. This is a great book if you want to understand the horrors and paranoia among the elites in totalitarian regimes. The book discusses how Stalin manipulated his court and why his associates went along with his schemes. There are some fascinating tidbits, but one of the most unnerving is the fact that Stalin was actually a very well-read and intelligent man who read Western history and Russian literature (books he banned incidentally), but still believed in the Communist system and perpetuated mass murder. He also skillfully involved his associates in crimes, so none of them could take the moral high ground and they all had some stains on their character which could be used against them when Stalin decided to get rid of them.
   
   I thought there was enough of an overview on Stalin for reasonably educated people to delve right into this book, but you may want to review a brief online biography (or even Wikipedia) before tackling this book.



5. In the pantheon of the 20th century's most heinous individuals, Joseph Stalin would be prominently placed along with Hitler, Mao and Pol Pot. Stalin was a truly repulsive individual who brought death and misery to millions. To think that he should deserve some accolades for industrialising the Soviet Union is historical blindness of the greatest degree. He was simply a repugnant monster.
   
   Simon Sebag Montefiore has told the tale of Stalin as a riveting piece of history. You may ask if there is anything new about Stalin to be told. Well, the short answer is that much has been learned in recent years. Montefiore was given unparalleled access to Russian records and has a keen eye for detail. Indeed, it is remarkable that such records even exist. Yet it seems that the Soviets were, if nothing else, diligent keeps of files. Montefiore has unearthed a veritable treasure trove.
   
   Stalin was a man of immense paranoia. In his life, he trusted no one except, ironically, Adolph Hitler. Right up to the last moment, he was convinced that Hitler would keep his word and leave the Soviet Union in peace. When Hitler's word was broken, Stalin nearly collapsed. Yet, everyone else was a danger, real or perceived. The bloodletting that this unleashed in the 1930s has few parallels in history. But for all this carnage, Stalin was able to live a life cut short only by natural death. He created fear in his people and his immediate colleagues. He used this fear as a weapon. He was utterly remorseless.
   
   Simon Sebag Montefiori's book is a master piece. It is a superlative piece of historical writing and biography. Not with standing the repugnance of the subject, this book is great reading. I thoroughly recommend it to all interested in understanding one of the great figures of the twentieth century.

5 comments about Lincoln Unmasked: What You're Not Supposed to Know About Dishonest Abe.

1. Overall, this book is exciting and fast paced. I received my masters in American History at Georgetown and I thought his account of Abe was spot on. This book repeats at time but Thomas Dilorenzo makes up for it in posterity and style. This book should be required at every school! I enjoyed it so much I read the rest of his books the same week. 5 Stars



2. This is a historical polemic in that it attacks other historians and the official Lincon standards. There is no other way to present an alternative to accepted scholarship than to try to debunk it. I work in DC and pass the Lincoln Memorial frequently. It is a temple. It is the stone deification of a man, not unlike the Roman deification of Augustus. They did the same to Jefferson. It is a human tendency. No one will say it - but they are temples seeking public worship. Very odd, not just today, but when built. The US has no state religion. That is the first amendment - but we do. One is the Lincoln religion. Lincoln's actual feelings about slavery, racial equality and the nature of total war have been glossed over in favor of the temple. All historians know it. Some of the contents of this book are rather shocking. Extensive footnotes. Your kids will probably get in trouble if they take this to public schools where the temple is strong. I recommend the book as one of many about Lincoln, but mostly because it will cause you to rethink Lincoln, read more about Lincoln and come to a decision on your own - which may disagree with the author. You may end up accepting the temple theory, but Lincoln should be reconsidered rather than just worshipped. This is one of those think-for-yourself books that gives you some concepts to reconsider. Personally, I don't think it goes far enough as I have studied Lincoln for years and am amazed at the amount of material the general public does not know. Why the civil rightds movement associates with the Lincoln temple and not with Harper's Ferry is beyond me. Also read up on John Brown, Harper's Ferry and Lincoln's plans for life after the presidency. But I give this book five stars for its daring, brevity, footnotes and polemical style that makes for lively reading. As for the temple, I would rather see a copy of the magna carta, the constitution and a large, running mirror where people saw themselves and their personal responsibility. Lincoln's statute reminds me of the descriptions of Jupiter Optimus in his temple in anceint Rome. One day, people will claim miracles...



3. Lincoln Unmasked: What You're Not Supposed to Know About Dishonest Abe
   
   Good readying if you like history and want to know when and where the downfall of our country began.



4. DiLorenzo offers nothing new: no new facts; no new argument. Rather he regurates poorly reasoned attacks on Lincoln that have been advanced by the Lost Causers for years and that have be soundly discredited by every serious scholar.



5. Very good reading. It reiterates much of what I had learned in school many years ago, before society, as a whole, changed history books in order to become more "politically correct."

5 comments about Ike: An American Hero.

1. I've always thought Ike was one of our two greatest generals, the other being Geo. Washington who kept our country together. If one can imagine the egos that Ike had to work with, i.e Churchill, Roosevelt, Stalin, Patton, Montgomery, and even MacCarthur, it would seem that this would be an almost impossible task in itself. But then to be asked to construct and conduct what was perhaps the greatest military endeavor of all time, and to get all of these "egos" to work in harmony, would see to be beyond comprehension. This is probably not a biography in the true sense of the word as Korda treats some things a little superficially, but does cover the war years in great detail. I have no doubt that as history continues Eisenhower will be considered one of the greatest military genius of them all. He not only had to perform militarily, but politically also. He did that. I would certainly recommend this book to any student of history, particulary of World War II.



2. Excellent Presidential Biography that was both appropriately critical and complementary. This book is a must for anyone interested in both the military history as well as the Presidential biography.



3. Once Korda reached 1945 in IKE, it feels like he filed all his research away and said, "Let's wrap this up!" Unfortunately, Ike still had 25 years left in him. Consequently, Korda's biography feels incomplete. Furthermore, for all the space Korda accords to Ike's WWII years, he pays scant attention to the Holocaust. What did Ike know about the Holocaust, about the Final Solution? What was his reaction to the liberation of the concentration camps (Korda mentions Ike's presence at just one, a sub-camp). In light of the preeminence of Holocaust studies in the past 15 years, Korda really could have shed new light with a discussion of Ike and the plight of the Jewish people. Similarly, the creation of Israel receives no mention in this book, even though Ike, as Supreme Commander of the AEF and, later, commander of NATO, would have seen, heard, and possibly opined on "The Palestine Question." In short, if well done, a 900-page offering from Korda would have been more edifying than a 700-page tome.



4. The first 1/3 of the book is spent on the first 45 years or so of Ike's life, which is remarkable for its dullness. He really did nothing of note or of interest until WW2. Then, most of the rest of the book is dedicated to war-years (which is already well-trodden ground). Relatively little space is dedicated to his two terms as President, which I find appalling. Four years at war get almost 500 pages but 8 years as leader of the most powerful country in the history of the world get maybe 50? A very imbalanced treatment, IMO, and very disappointing.
   
   On a lesser note: the habit of the author to drop (un-translated) French and German phrases is pretentious and annoying. The author also makes a few attempts to dabble in psycho-history, which I've never been able to take seriously. Aside from these minor points, the writing is o.k.
   
   I'm sure one wouldn't have to work very hard to find a better treatment of Eisenhower and his work.
   
   Not terrible but not recommended.



5. Michael Korda's beefy biography of Dwight Eisenhower is a must read for anyone who thought of Ike as just the avuncular President of the quiet 1950's. Korda's portrait of Eisenhower paints Ike as an intelligent and thoughtful leader in both World War II as Supreme Allied Commander and in his many Post War roles. When Eisenhower took over the presidency in January 1953 the post war peace had all but unraveled with Korea raging, the French losing their grip in Vietnam, and the Middle East a boiling cauldron of activity. Ike's stalwart character appears to have been a great force in keeping this potential incendiary period in check.
   
   Korda paints Eisenhower as a simple but forthright and principled individual. I was particular impressed with the resolute character of Eisenhower and his strong sense of duty in whatever assignment or job he undertook during his career. As Korda says, "while Eisenhower was the last president born in the 19th century, he was a 20th century thinker." As supreme commander of European theatre during World War II and as President of the United States, Eisenhower never seemed to get raddled no matter how difficult or bleak the situation appeared. It is not hard to see how Eisenhower commanded such world respect during the War and the Post War period. One wonders what the situation would have been in Iraq if Eisenhower had been the chief executive today?

5 comments about The Greatest Presidential Stories Never Told: 100 Tales from History to Astonish, Bewilder, and Stupefy.

1. This is a neat little book; things we never learned in our history classes! Well presented.



2. If you are looking for light hearted historical reading then this is a must. Throughly engrossing little book that you won't be able to put it down once you start reading it. I plan to follow up by reading the author's other two books as well as some of the sources that he utilized in producing this book. Great stuff!



3. I bought 5 of these books for freinds and family. This book is very entertaining and easy to read. If you enjoy short stories and are interested in presidential facts, then this book is for you. A must read!
   
   Carl Mark



4. I bought this for my husband who loves books on historical trivia (Bathroom Readers, Almanacs, Malcolm Forbes' "They Went That-a-way"). We own all the books in this "Strories Never Told" series--three so far--and we are anxiously waiting for more!



5. I bought this book for my husband, and he loves it. He is not the kind to sit and read for very long. This book is just right. Each story is two pages long. Very interesting!!

2 comments about Zachary Taylor: The 12th President, 1849-1850 (The American Presidents).

1. Another home run in the superb American President's series. John Eisenhower paints a picture of Zachary Taylor that leaves us wishing he was among today's candidates for President. Had he lived, he may have been able to head off the Civil War, we will never know. In short, a great biography of a great man.



2. Eisenhower handles Taylor's military career and his exploits in the Mexican War very neatly and offers selections from other Taylor biographers like Hamilton and Bauer to aid his case and offer the casual reader alternate windows into the life. A very neat summary of a very brief administration, Eisenhower's account never seems rushed or unduly cursory. The books in the American Presidents series vary wildly in quality. This particular volume is not a breath-taking small gem like Hans Trefousse on Hayes or a specialist treasure like Ira Rutkow's book on Garfield, but Eisenhower nevertheless provides a splendid small book on an unfortunately overlooked president.

5 comments about Presidential Courage: Brave Leaders and How They Changed America 1789-1989.

1. Rely on the professional reviewers, ignore the customer reviews (except this one, of course) and do not waste your time with this sad effort. Not an ounce of original thought here, just a collection of quoted "sound bites" gathered from books by others who have done their research, and strung together in paragraphs that rarely exceed 6 lines. The readers who praised this one must be regular readers of USA Today and used to an intellectual life that happens in sound bites! The presidents reviewed here include Washington, John Adams, Andrew Jackson, both Roosevelts, Truman, Kennedy, etc. Did none of the lesser known Presidents do anything courageous? Surely they did. But as less has been written about those presidents, there are fewer of those "sound bites" available about them. I am willing to bet that Beschloss did little for this book except edit the work of the research assistants who found the quotes and strung them together. I would have quit reading this less than twenty pages in had it not been a selection for my book discussion group. As I am going to pan the book big time at book club, I was forced to read the whole awful thing. Unless you have such a reason, skip this and read something worth your time.



2. I agree with all the negative reviews of this book, which I found profoundly disappointing. Indeed, as I have indicated in the title of this review, the book actually depressed me as a sign of just how ill-educated the general American reading public has become. The entire book read like the academic equivalent of cotton candy. You don't have to be a trained academician to be disappointed with Bescholoss's mamby-pamby history-for-the-masses style. Other popular historians such as Doris Kearns Goodwin (Team of Rivals), Joseph Ellis (His Excellency George Washington, Founding Brothers), David McCullough (John Adams, Truman) and Walter Isaacson (Benjamin Franklin) all run rings around Bescholoss in terms of the depth and weight they bring to their books, without sacrificing readability and enjoyability in the slightest.
   To me, the most damning aspect of Beschloss' pathetic entry in the popular history market is his tendency to give such short shrift to knotty historical details as to render his statements misleading or even false. One of the most egregious examples occurs in a chapter on Lincoln's decision to issue the Emancipation Proclamation, where Bescholoss writes: "[That] July, he [Lincoln] summoned his Cabinet and read them his draft of a preliminary Emancipation Proclamation. On New Year's 1863, 'all persons held as slaves within any state' would become 'forever' free." (page 109) This is the closest Bescholoss ever comes in the book to telling the reader what the Emancipation Proclamation actually said. Actually, the full text was as follows: "all persons held as slaves within any State or designated part of a State, the people whereof shall then be in rebellion against the United States, shall be then, thenceforward, and forever free." Beschloss simply omits any discussion of the fact Lincoln's proclamation only freed the slaves in the Confederacy, over which he had no actual power, and failed to free the slaves in the Union slave states over which he did have power (specifically, Kentucky, Maryland, Delaware, Missouri, and West Virginia).
   One is left with the unmistakeable impression that Bescholoss either doesn't have the patience to go into the political and strategic reasons Lincoln had for making this distinction; or else Beschloss doesn't think his readers are clever or patient enough to understand such a historical analysis. Either way, the complete absence of any discussion of more subtle issues like this demands a poor review for this overly pretentious book.



3. I had high expectations for this book. It let me down a little. It just wasn't that engaging. Some of it is very well known like JFK's battle with civil rights. I was looking for a good analysis on the different presidents and their actions. I didn't find that. I found that Mr. Beschloss just told about the different incident but didn't offer any new insight to it. I was hoping that he would even use them to give perspective on what is happening now but he didn't. I rated this book 3 stars because he does include several presidents and topics that I was unaware of. For that it was worth my time reading it. This is a very basic book so I would recommend it to people that are wanting to learn about the presidents and their thought processes concerning major events in their presidencies.



4. Like the rest of us, our Presidents have been flawed people -- each with his own limitations, prejudices, and conflicts. And yet, through our history, at times these men have risen above their limitations to exert extraordinary leadership: grasping a moral imperative with uncommon clarity, and finding the strength and passion to use the powers of the office to follow that moral imperative despite great risk to their own political fortunes -- and, in some cases, to their very lives.
   
   "Presidential Courage" tells the stories behind nine such moments of courageous leadership. In none of them is the protagonist portrayed as an all-knowing superhero. In each, we see the President wrestle with a challenge in a profoundly human way -- beset by the uncertainties, self-doubts, pride and fear that are familiar to all who struggle with a moral dilemma. In each case, the President ultimately comes to the painful decision that the right course of action is contrary to what his advisors recommend or public opinion demands. And yet he chooses to throw himself into the breach.
   
   The author's research is impressive, drawing upon unpublished papers and (for President Reagan) interviews with people who witnessed personal dimensions behind publicly reported events. As a result, the stories contain many human details that do not make it into our school curriculum or popular awareness. These details are not always flattering. Kennedy, for example, is portrayed as being dragged only reluctantly to the "right" side of racial equality. And for Truman, his own anti-semitic bias was a key obstacle that he had to overcome. But to a large degree it is precisely the humanity of the way these men struggled with -- and triumphed over -- their personal limitations that gives these stories such inspirational impact.
   
   One aspect of the book that I particularly enjoyed was the transitions between chapters. The author searches out connections between these men, suggesting almost spiritual ways in which the legacies of past Presidents have in effect enabled them to reach forward through time to inspire their successors. It gives hope that the best moments in our presidential history will yet empower future leaders, at least from time to time, to rise above their limitations to achieve great things as well.



5. How did Michael Beschloss get to be "America's Leading Presidential Historian?" I can only assume it is because he has a talent for getting himself on TV again & again...because it certainly isn't because of dreadful efforts such as this.
   
   Setting content aside for a moment --- how can any literate person regard this as well written? It reads like a Power Point presentation, or more specifically, like research notes which were never revised into a coherent narrative. It's hard to have narrative at all when your chapters are only 5 pages long! Suffice it to say, I found the writing to be such an irritant that I ultimately never finished the book. Life is too short to read crappy writing.
   
   As for the content itself, this is all ground which has been well-covered many times before and Beschloss' conclusions are generally quite unremarkable. When he isn't stating the obvious, Beschloss is dumbing down the subject matter to make it appear more simple than it really was.
   
   Just as an example, I would point to Andrew Jackson & the Bank War. Exactly how is this courageous? Jackson was enjoying tremendous popular support when he went in for the kill against the 2nd BUS, and he was as convinced of his own rectitude as any man ever has. Also, it is grossly inaccurate to characterize the 2nd BUS as corrupt. Nicholas may have been a ruthless autocrat, but nobody could accuse him of corruption. That label would be more accurately applied to Jackson's "pet banks" into which Jackson put government deposits, and which were largely responsible for the catastrophic Panic of 1837. Does Beschloss provide anything more than the most shallow of analysis? Of course not.
   
   I never would have purchased this in the first place, but it was part of a book club shipment which I opened by mistake, thinking that it was another (better-written) book. It was only the first of many regrets.

5 comments about The Real Lincoln: A New Look at Abraham Lincoln, His Agenda, and an Unnecessary War.

1. Lincoln had been my "favorite president" throughout my life based on the history taught in high school and college, but no more.
   
   This book opened my eyes to the other side of this American icon, the side responsible for the centralization of our once democratic government.
   
   Very easy to read - see for yourself.



2. The great counter-balance to the Cult of Lincoln. Throw out all of your orgasmic adoration for old Abe, this work will replace them all.



3. To all those who think that George Bush is a dictator, consider reading a book that details the beginning of the centralization of power in this country.



4. At the height of his influence, many deemed him to be one of the worst tyrants the world had ever seen. He incarcerated 15,000 of his fellow citizens because they disagreed with his war policy. He had his army shut down newspapers and destroy the presses for any papers that wrote against him. He declared martial law and arrested political opponents without a warrant or trial and kept them locked up for years. His Secretary of State bragged that he could have any citizen jailed "at the snap of a finger." He had one Congressman who disagreed with him deported to another country. Then oversaw a war that led to 620,000 deaths...all within his own country. When half of the country sought to escape, they were forced to remain in the Nation.....or be slaughtered in mass for seeking liberty. In essence they were forced to remain citizens at the point of a bayonet. He ordered cities to be burned. Farms to be destroyed. Civilians, including women and children, to be bombed and executed. He was one of the most hated men in history.....and one of the most beloved. His name? Abraham Lincoln.
   If the above paragraph shocked you, then you might consider reading a book entitled The Real Lincoln: A New Look at Abraham Lincoln, His Agenda, and an Unnecessary War, By Thomas Dilorenzo.
   While Lincoln is perhaps not as evil as this book presents, one can't escape the reality that Lincoln took some very harsh and unnecessary measures during the Am Civil War. Ironically, the majority of Americans in both the North and South were in favor of a peaceful secession in 1860. The North wanted separated from the South just as bad as the South did from the North. Yet Lincoln would hear nothing of it. Dilorenzo makes a rather compelling case for the economic motivations behind the war, given the fact that the South was paying roughly 80% of the Nation's expenses through tariffs, while the North was reaping the majority of the benefits in terms of bridge and railroad construction.
   Furthermore, in Lincoln's first inaugural address, he stated clearly that he had no interest in freeing the slaves in the South and had no constitutional right to do so. When he reversed course and issued the Emancipation Proclamation in 1863, he confided to his cabinet that it was simply a "war measure" meant to spark a slave insurrection in the South. Though most people don't realize it, the Emancipation Proclamation only granted freedom to slaves in the South. Slaves in the North were not granted freedom because their Masters had been loyal to the Union. William Seward, Lincoln's Secretary of State bemoaned at the time that the act was worthless having "freed slaves that we no longer have jurisdiction over...while keeping in bondage those slaves that we do." Delaware, Maryland, Kentucky, and even parts of Louisiana were under Federal control by 1863, and were thus allowed to keep their slaves. That seems to be one of those quirks of history that has been forgotten. Or as Dilorenzo contends....glossed over by the victors.
   Dilorenzo, who is an Economics Professor at Loyola College (Maryland), writes in a very readable style as he makes his case that slavery should have been abolished by compensated emancipation as done in Britain, Brazil, and many other countries during the 1800s. The forward to the book was written by Dr. Walter Williams, Economics Professor at George Mason University, and frequent fill in host for Rush Limbaugh (and incidentally, an African-American). Furthermore, he contends that the South should have been allowed to secede peacefully....as our colonial fathers did when faced with an overbearing British taxation system. Had this happened, Dilorenzo contends that the North would have been forced to change their overbearing tax structure, and eventually North and South would have reunited with a much more solid and efficient government. But what in fact did happen was the centralization of federal government power to the extent that the Constitution was repeatedly ignored leading to the Federal albatross that exists today.
   The argument between a massive Federal government vs. individual state sovereignty goes back to our founders. Thomas Jefferson was famous for saying that the government that "governs best is the one that governs least." In other words, the Federal government's job is to protect the citizens and insure they're given the freedom to purse life, liberty, and happiness. Jefferson's primary opponent was Alexander Hamilton, who sought to have a strong Federal government that dictated things to the individual states and the citizens thereof. Jefferson's followers fought against this (rightfully so), given the fact that they had just escaped tyrannical government control from Britain during the American Revolution.
   As the course of our Nation progressed, the Hamiltonians, led by Lincoln, eventually gained control and vastly expanded the Federal government during the Civil War. By 1865 and the end of the Civil War, states right's had virtually ceased to exist, and the Federal government, which was CREATED BY the states, had become the ruling King of American government. Ironically, the states had created a monster and now that monster would rule over them for the next 143 years (and counting).
   The great irony in all of this is that the two predominant political parties have swapped sides in the area of government control. Today, it is the Democrat party that seeks higher taxes and more Federal control over the lives of its citizens. While the Republicans seek a smaller government with more individual liberty.
   In conclusion, I would heartily recommend the reading of this book. Its insights into our Nation's history are illuminating to say the least. You may not agree with every position taken, but the book does promise to make you think long and hard about governmental and constitutional issues. And it gives a pretty clear road map for the bureaucratic mess that we find our federal government mired in today. History kind of has a way, sometimes, of making people seem better (or worse) than they really were. I suspect this is true of Lincoln as well. While he had some admirable qualities, he was certainly not above political posturing or deceit, as is documented in this work. So check out a copy of The Real Lincoln...and prepare to be challenged.



5. For my entire life I was a hard-core Republican. I loved Sean Hannity, Ann Coulter and Rush Limbaugh. I read DiLorenzos terrific book How Capitalism Saved America but I still remained a neo-conservative. I hesitated to get this book, but boy am I glad I did. Since then I realized that I have been lied to my entire life. I started reading DiLorenzos and Thomas Woods archives at LewRockwell (dot) com and became a Libertarian. I have bought this book for all of my friends and relatives. I converted my Republican brother and friend who are Civil War re-enactors. As my friend said, "I have only read two chapters and am convinced!"
   
   By the way, one historian reviewed the book and said that a quote is out of context in the book where Lincoln supposedly said blacks can't be equal, only Siamese twins can ever be equal. DiLorenzo has said that he went back and found that the quote is out of context because he got it from a secondary source, and the secondary source got it wrong, so he will remove the quote if there is a future edition of the book. That should tell you that DiLorenzo is honest, and that all of his other quotes are in context.