5 comments about Just Jackie: Her Private Years.

1. New information awaits those who read this best selling book. I read this book within three days. Highly recommended!!!!! FOR QUESTIONS AND DISCUSSIONS ON JACKIE ONASSIS, PLEASE E-MAIL ME AT MellissaLD@aol.com. HOPE TO HEAR FROM YOU!!!!!!!!!!!!



2. I don't mind it when people shatter a facade. Only as long as it's true. This book holds no credibility. When Klein claims he was an acquaintence with Jackie, I think that means he picked up something she dropped once. Another thing that seems suspicious is that Klein keeps writing books about the Kennedys. How many times can you write about the same subject? Get a life, Klein.



3. Edward Klein spoke to Ham Brown, executive director of the Association of Former Secret Service Agents, and former U.S.S.S. agents Larry Newman, Paul Landis, Bill Livingood,and Frank Yeager, as have I. That said, much of Klein's work, in this book and others, has a tabloid journalism feel. Still, there are nuggets of value...just read with a skeptical eye, here and there.
   
   vince palamara



4. As a avid devotee to the Jackie O myth, I have read a few untruths in my time. While Barbara Leaming's "Mrs. Kennedy" is the most factual portrait of Jackie in the White House, I believe that this book is the best that comes close to the truth about her life after. She is written about as a woman, not as a myth...and also as a good person. She is finally shown as as she truly is. A mythmaker, a style mavin....a person. I love this book. I don't think anyone should miss this book, for it not only tells the story of a legendary woman, but of us all. She was amazing. And she was real. That is what this story tells us. Thank goodness someone cared enough to get behind the mask.



5. Far too many obvious howlers: did "the author of this book," as he frequently quaintly refers to himself do any background research at all during the "long months [sic] of researching and writing" he mentions, before launching into reporting his unsourced gossip? No wonder he doesn't provide footnotes, only a general section of vague allusions to where this or that detail allegedly came from. "Lady Pamela Churchill" was a guest on the Christina indeed. And a few pages later, a reference to Mrs Churchill's first husband Randolph Churchill -- no "sir," he, and even if he had been she'd have been Lady Randolph. That's only one of the howlers, because it happens to be the one that springs immediately to mind. Utter trash; it belongs on the remainder bin but only till it goes into the garbage bin.

5 comments about Remembering Jack: Intimate and Unseen Photographs of the Kennedys.

1. A real treasure of intimate photographs of the entire kennedy clan by the photographers who was granted access to them before jfk became president. this book is a treasure.



2. 
   What a surprise when I found this book.To think that after 40 years a refreshing new book on President Kennedy could still be published.All the photos were taken by Jacques Lowe,who was essentially the Kennedy family photographer.His photos show the personal and human side of Kennedy and the Kennedy family as well as the people who were close to the family.
   Once JFK became President, things changed drastically,and we no longer saw the same kind of photos Lowe gave us.It is a shame that Lowe did not continue on as the family photographer and hence continue with the personal glimpses he gave us.This book also has many photos which were not previously published,which show the real emotions of the people involved.Also surprising is how good the text is that accompanies the photos.
   Of the many Kennedy books I own or have seen,none is better or more personal and character revealing ,than this one.
   One can only imagine what a treasure trove went up in smoke when all of Lowe's negatives were lost in the World Trade Towers destruction on 9/11.
   This is a large,heavy,well printed and bound book using top quality paper;a little expensive,but worth every penny.



3. The terrorist attack on September 11, 2001 may have destroyed Jacques Lowe's negatives of the Kennedy family, but not the photographs or the brilliance evident in the camera capturing this shining light that once was Camelot. On the fortieth anniversary of the assassination, which is astutely, not for the first time, linked with September 11, 2001 as a turning point and a loss of innocence in our country's history, the magic of the Kennedys portrayed through Jacques Lowe's wise, perceptive lens makes us mourn for all we've lost.
   
   Modern pundits and social critics might decry our fascination with the Kennedys, but their influence is felt strongly, especially now in Maria Shriver and hubby Ah-nold, a fierce Republican but a believer in the service to God and country that JFK practiced. You can't ignore Jack and Jackie keeping company with Premier Nikita Khrushchev, or Kennedy shaking hands with coal miners. Lowe's close-ups of the miners illuminate the dignity and strength of these men.
   
   The Kennedys romp through a time of change in social, personal and political home movies. Particularly striking are the unguarded JFK moments, such as the photo of JFK thinking with a cigar (no Clinton jokes, please), or the sequence and closeup illustrating Kennedy's distress over hearing of Prime minister of Congo Patrice Lumumba's murder. We see the Kennedys, and they are us, with the added weight of John-John's salute. The intimacy lends more depth of history to this important, moving book.



4. very interesting photos that I had never seen before. too many books on this family are filled with all the same photos. Nice to see some new ones.



5. WOW!!! What a group of luscious photographs from a man who obviously loved photography and the Kennedys, a great combination! As a portrait photographer I was impressed by the rich quality of the prints as well as the overall stories told with these photographs and I can only imagine what a 1st generation print would have looked like. Thanks to all who helped put this book together, but especially to his daughter Thomasina.

5 comments about Bill and Hillary: The Marriage.

1. Bill and Hillary is an admixture of news stories and biographical bits assembled from other, long-published sources. The title tempts us because it suggests some insights into what must be a very interesting marriage indeed! If you have not read anything on the Clintons' personal lives, this would be a fair place to start. But if you have already surveyed the territory, you will find nothing new. Amazon sells another title, Hillary Clinton, The Inside Story, which is better at shining light on the motives of the parties in this strange marriage.

   All of the juicy, gossipy, behind the scenes stories are told without much of an offering of analysis. Even though analysis of someone's marriage from afar would be guess work at best, it would be interesting nevertheless.

   Another word of caution, if you are a certified Clinton hater, this will proably not feed your appetite. The writing is pretty level. There is more of a flavor of sadness and even sympathy than persecution.




2. Christopher Anderson's "Bill and Hillary: The Marriage" provides the reader with an in-depth look at Clinton's and Rodham's pasts, how they came to know each other and how they have schemed together in their rise to power. Indeed, power has always been their ultimate aim. Rather than providing the reader with a psychological analysis of the complex partnership, Anderson aptly describes that power acquisition is the root of all that Clinton and Rodham do. It's what makes their partnership work.

   While Clinton's quest for power is reflected by his boyhood meeting with JFK, Rodham's is underscored by her post-law school ambitions. On page 100, Anderson explains Rodham's desire to effect social change at a loftier level, rather than by working at the grassroots levels where one is closest to those in need. "[O]rganizing the poor for community actions to improve their own lives may have short-term benefits for the poor but would never solve their major problems. You need much more than that. You need leadership programs, constitutional doctrines." Rodham also stated that "[t]he only way to make a real difference is to acquire power." Anyone who reads this tyrannical rant and thinks that Rodham will not be running for president in 2004 is grossly mistaken.

   Throughout the book, Anderson gives acute attention to Clinton's reckless and violent behavior with women. At times, I felt like I was reading some sort of hardcore porno novel. Strangely, Anderson writes that Rodham was shocked to learn that Clinton had been lying to her throughout 1998 about his affair with Lewinsky. While Anderson shows that Rodham knew much about Clinton's sexual recklessness, he insults the reader's intelligence by suggesting that she was truly shocked about Lewinsky. (I guess that tells us much about the level of intelligence of Clinton's cabinet, which publicly avowed a belief that he did not have "sexual relations" with Lewinsky). Nevertheless, the book reads well and gives a good foundation for why Clinton and Rodham are the way they are.




3. There has never been a marriage more controversial in the American public eye than this dynamic duo. Both Bill and Hillary Clinton have been rumored to have questionable personal lives since Bill was the Arkansas governor. While this has certainly been proven true, "Bill and Hillary" acts in the same fashion as "Year of the Rat" by Triplett and Timperlake in that it pulls all the punches and makes connections and assumptions that are iffy at best. While there is no doubt both Bill and Hillary Clinton have been proven to be not- so- faithful to their wedding vows, the idea that Bill engaged in cocaine use and street- side sex with a prostitute could not be based on anything more than hearsay. The accusations are certainly interesting, but much of them seem to be no more than sleazy yellow journalism.



4. Basically a "tell more book" because everything in the book just reinforces the scandals we all heard about. There is lot of detail covering the escapades of Clinton, but most of everything had already surfaced.

   The marriage is a business partnership. Hillary needed Bill to get to the top (in the political world only) as she was her own smart person without him. He needed her, knew she was smarter and could help his career. They were a poor match for each other, so it was understandable that they have a "partnership marriage."

   Bill's family life is best described as "twisted family history" filled with violence, promiscuity, adultery, divorce, bigamy, poverty, illegitimacy, and plenty of addiction. Hillary's father is said to have run his family "like a drill sergeant mentality that extended to corporal punishment." Easy to see why Hillary was "devoted" to him and understandable as to how she could be so "cold blooded" and dispassionate about love and true marriage.

   Yes, Bill is and always has been a WHORNEY, pathetic soul who is addicted to sex! And Hillary has spent her life covering up or battling the press for him. I think Bill Clinton played with his own mind "trying to keep things from Hillary" but deep inside HE knew he could do whatever he wanted and she wasn't going to do a thing about it!

   I can't get over his "jogging" shenanigans: He pretends to go out for his jog, has the taxpayers' troopers drive and follow for a block or two, gets a quickie on the road or someone's house, then drives back to the mansion, huffs and puffs into the office/home as if he did a jog! He gives Joggers a bad name!

   Hillary and Bill - Quite a goonball pair! .......MzRizz




5. Contrary to what some have said here, this book is very well written. Perhaps, as some say, there is not alot that is new, but having it all compiled into one volume will be an eye-opener for most readers who may not have read some of these stories before. I found the information regarding the Hillary and Vince Foster love affair to be very well researched.

5 comments about Lafayette.

1. This book is apparently not well researched and has at least three errors so far and I am not a fifth finished with it.
   
   For one on page 71: "After signing the treaty, (The Treaty of Alliance between the United States and France) Franklin, Deane, and Adams were officially presented to the king..."
   
   Unger means Arthur Lee, not Adams. The treaty was signed on February 6, 1778, the presentation ceremony was March 22. John Adams didn't arrive in Paris until April 8.
   
   This is pitiful and I could list the other errors and I certainly will if it is requested. But I resent the time involved to do it, they are not my errors! Why the Library Journal claims this is a "well-researched" biography one can only speculate. The (few?) errors make the whole suspect. A sad event for publishing. Perhaps we should wait another 20 years for an accurate book.



2. This is an extremely disappointing book of "history"? As one earlier reviewer indicated, the book contains some appalling historical mistakes. Here are two that blew me away because they are so completely inaccurate and so obvious - on page 60 "Saratoga had been America's only military victory since the beginning of the war" - well I guess Concord, Trenton and Princeton must not have been victories!!! On page 120 regarding Benedict Arnold, "...Arnold suffered a crippling wound in the disastrous American assault on Quebec...and his injuries left him reluctant to assume anymore battlefield commands". Of course this is completely inaccurate since Arnold was certainly never "reluctant" to take on any military command and in fact his most successful military actions, (as you can find in any basic book on the Revolution) Valcour Island and Saratoga, occurred long after Quebec.
   
   I simply can't believe these inaccuracies (along with many other questionable statements) were allowed to be included in a history book, where were the editors! I was really looking forward to reading the chapters on the Lafayette's involvement in the French Revolution (since I am not too familiar with that period) but since the ARW content is dubious at best I decided not to waste my time and possibly be led to believe inaccurate facts that I do not have the knowledge to recognize.
   
   Finally, the book seems to white wash Lafayette to the extreme and makes him appear to be the most important and sometimes only player in a number of the most dramatic events of the war, other than possibly Washington. For instance there is little about Franklin's involvement in winning French support for independence. The best portions of this book are the letters the author has included. Lafayette was certainly one of the most important and noble people in the history of our country - but I'll have to find another book to satisfy my interest in him.



3. This was the second book I'd read on Lafayette, the first being General and Madame de Lafayette. Get that one, not this.
   Not that this book was horrible, but it was, like another reviewer said, written very simply. Rather than having perhaps a poetic effect, at times it feels condescending -it might make a good book for a middle school student, but certainly not for one in high school. My biggest point against this book is that it seems to be attempting to overly flatter him in the reader's mind by omitting some of what we might consider character flaws, such as his extramarital affairs. If you want a more complete picture read General and Madame de Lafayette. I have since read numerous books on Lafayette and not found a better one. If you must read this book, get it from the library -you will not feel the need to read it more than once.



4. Fascinating book about a man I knew only by name and whose name and dedication to the fight for independence is not as well known as it should be. There should be a national holiday for this man. I had not known about his passion for manumission. I did know about his failure to bring human rights to France and failed during the Great Terror and his wife's role in aiding the poor at great risk.
   
   An exellent beginning book because I would like to know more.



5. This is one of those "fast-paced" narratives that is long on drama, but short on quality research. Should not be used as a reference at all for Lafayette's experiences during the American Revolution, especially for the 1781 Virginia campaign. Very inaccurate.

5 comments about Breach of Trust: How the Warren Commission Failed the Nation and Why.

1. Everything you read in this book has been published or aired before. However, the writer has a certain flair and is a tremendous story-teller. It is ten times the book that Joan Mellen wrote about Jim Garrison -- which was an embarrassment to thinking people.



2. McKnight's book contains little that is "news" those familiar with this case. This is not a book of new disclosures, or examinations of trails gone cold, but perhaps something that will be valued more for it's refusal to move outside it's narrow focus: the conduct of the Warren Commission, and it's relationship with the various investigatory agencies and the handling (and mis-handling) of those who testified and their information. This is a "safe" book, in that there is no speculation (or even examination) of the motives of the WC or possible explanations for the many gaffs pointed out in the committee operations. This is a well documented examination of the flaws in the structure and function of the WC , and ultimately an interesting book for those students of history or government who may be less interested in the results than in the process. This is Meagher or Weisberg without the passion, but very well documented, and of use to those seeking a more recent view of WC activities and participants based on current information.



3. Groupthink is defined as `a mode of thinking that people engage in when they are deeply involved in a cohesive in-group, when the members' striving for unanimity overrides their motivation to realistically appraise alternative courses of action.' If one reads McKnight's exhaustive book about the Warren Commission, this definition would fit precisely to this group of men. In a recent survey, it was revealed that over a third believe that 9/11 was the efforts of a government conspiracy. Be that as it may, it is not a stretch then to assume that more Americans believe that the Kennedy assassination was a result of a conspiracy. However, the harm that that belief can cause now is minimal at best, because it is more then 40 years after the event, and our citizenry has become predisposed to ignore history. McKnight's large book presents very persuasive arguments that the Commission itself was flawed at the outset, by bureaucratic infighting and persistent groupthink. Early on in the investigation, McKnight argues, the FBI and the White House knew that the answer to the murder must be Oswald acted alone. This is justifiably the way that the new administration should have acted, since we must remember that November 1963 was very near the mid-point of the Cold War, and any thought of a Soviet plot would have stirred a massive amount of unrest.
   
   When the Warren Commission was formed, the Commission at the very least should not have assumed anything when it came to ballistics, suspects, witnesses or foreign connections. Instead, it became merely a rubber stamp for the Hoover-Johnson `official' story that began taking shape even before Kennedy was buried. The very disturbing aspect of the whole investigation is that early on, the FBI and other agencies knew that there were more then 3 shots. How this was swept aside immediately has led some people to believe that a government conspiracy was in effect to hide a previous conspiracy. McKnight contends that dissatisfied elements of the CIA who were incensed with Kennedy's Cuba policy executed the killings as sort of a bureaucratic grudge match. The point, McKnight contends, is that the CIA was trying to force the new administration's hand in dealing with Cuba from a more hard-line perspective. McKnight writes that they were disappointed, because Johnson merely continued the Kennedy policy of politely ignoring Cuba. Not the most well thought out plan! While I find this theory interesting, it does not account for the fact that Central Intelligence, throughout several administrations, has had long standing grudge matches with the executive branch. Yes, the CIA operated with impunity in Iraq, Nicaragua and the Congo, but it should not be assumed that just because the CIA executed these missions that they would have showed the same kind of impunity against an American president on American soil. When McKnight sticks to the leads and the information that the Warren Commission choose to ignore, the book can be very good, but the careless postulating later on becomes a drag on the books' central topic.



4. This is a well written and welcome addition to the seemingly Himalayan pile of works on the world's biggest unsolved murder case and a subject that still haunts America to this day. It is fair to say that the FBI never closed the case and it is no surprise then that works such as this continue to appear. So many however are poorly written, cover the same old ground and present largely unsubstantiated theories of conspiracy. Whilst I disagree personally with the authors stance that Oswald could not have been the lone assassin on the assumption that the single bullet theory must be incorrect, I found much of the text on the on the Commission's work generally to be of high value. Of the many recent ie, post 2000 publications on the subject, I would recommend this book as a good example of a well written pro conspiracy text. It is frustrating though to find yet another author who fails to analyze the magic bullet theory in an open minded fashion - ignoring the ground breaking work of the Discovery Channels documentary "Unsolved History: JFK - Beyond the Magic Bullet DVD" including the work undertaken by a team of Australian medics and wound ballistics experts who reconstructed the shot meticulously to show that it was indeed possible and highly probable that all the non fatal wounds of Kennedy and Governor Connally were caused by the same bullet.
   An interesting exercise would be to compare this to Earl Warren's chapter on the JFK assassination in his 1977 memoirs. One would find a resolute assurance that the Commission acted honorably in all aspects from Warren himself, this book however contests that whilst the Commission acted benignly in its path to the conclusion that there was no conspiracy, it failed to investigate properly some key aspects of the case and that had they done so we would have been left with a much less murky past and a rather less suspecting general public.



5. What makes this book so great is its limited focus on the Warren Commission itself, and not alternative theories of the JFK Assassination.
   
   The political origins of the Commission are described incredibly well. Virtually no objective reader can have any doubt whatsoever that the Warren Commission went into the investigation already armed with an assigned and foregone conclusion.
   
   This is the book that non-academic namecalling authors, such as Vincent Bugliosi, are afraid to tackle in an open forum.

No comments about 274 Things You Should Know About Churchill.

5 comments about Impostor: How George W. Bush Bankrupted America and Betrayed the Reagan Legacy.

1. I hate Dubya as much has the next good liberal, but I found this book to be a bit tough to get through due to its focus on economic issues. Cleary, he can be similarly criticized for straying from conservative positions on a whole host of other issues, but the author never strays from economics (but to be fair, that is his area of expertise). At the end, he even veers off on some VAT tax tangent that has nothing to do with Bush.
   
   It's not a bad book, but buyer beware.



2. This book by a Reagan insider reveals in stark detail Bush's hipocracy in using the conservative title. Bartlett shows him as an grandiose opportunist who believes he is guided by God, and making all the errors of judgement that stem from such absurd overconfidence.



3. Well written entertaining hard hitting book on the various failures of the Bush presidency.
   
   This book is packed with facts and logic supporting the author's thesis that George W. Bush is not a conservative president and has done a bad job from a conservative perspective. Rather GWB has been a highly partisan Republican president in the genre of Richard Nixon in that he has pushed liberal policies like expansion of medicare benefits, pouring billions into educations, committing the troops to nation-building of a democracy (which no doubt will end up like Vietnam) in a place where US troops don't belong.
   
   If you are a die-hard Bush fan or a liberal Bush-hater don't bother buying this book as it probably won't provide any enjoyment. But if you are an intelligent open-minded individual who appreciates a frank discussion of policy from the conservative viewpoint you should not be disappointed.



4. Sure, it's easy for those on the left to bash Bush. But when other *conservatives* start taking exception to his policies...
   
   Author Bruce Bartlett considers himself a "Reagan Conservative", favoring small government, free markets, free trade. Bush, on the other hand, favors big government solutions such as Medicare drug program, agricultural subsidies, and tariffs on imported steel. Bush's tax cuts, unlike Reagan's, were not well thought out at all. In short, Bush and the Republican Congress has turned into a money-spending machine similar to the Democratic Congresses of years before....without real revenue to back it up.
   
   Bush, unlike the more affable Reagan, is characterized as a secretive, Nixonian type. He knows what he wants to do, he knows what he wants to hear, and woe betide anyone who tries to present bad news of information to the contrary.
   
   The author, while expressing concerns about the Iraq war, mostly sticks to economic issues. He definitely takes the philosophy that less government regulation is better, spending several pages on Sarbanes-Oxley (corporate governance regulations). He admits that Bill Clinton was better at managing the US budget, while Bush was more like Nixon in the way he spent money.
   
   There will be a tax increase, one way or another, after all is said and done. Bartlett favors a Value Added Tax (VAT), such as used in Canada and Europe.
   
   The book is informative and easy to read, even if you do not have an degree in economics. Bartlett (according to the back cover) lost his job in the Treasury department over the ideas in this book, so that alone should indicate that there is more than "smoke" there....



5. Unhappy is an understatement. He's steamed. As if there weren't enough Bush 43 haters already! Here's Bruce Bartlett, major heavyweight economist, a guy with a resume so solid you could blast it with phasers and they'd just bounce off, speaking out in no uncertain terms.
   
   The only fault I had with this book is that the author sees things narrowly. When you're holding a hammer, everything looks like a nail. When you're an economist, everything looks like money. Not totally, but there's a perceptible bias.
   
   Considering it only as a critique of how our 43rd president has done on the economy, I've no complaint.

1 comments about Tiberius (Blackwell Ancient Lives).

1. When I first discovered Robin Seager, it was through his book, "Pompey the Great". This was a book I just couldn't read finding it utterly long-winded and excruciatingly detailed (read: boring!). I did eventually read it, when I was ready, and discovered Seager to be an impressive historian whose fondness for detail I greatly enjoyed. Thus, I picked up Tiberius hoping for more of the same. And I wasn't disappointed. Tiberius was the second Principate of Rome having been adopted by Augustus to take over after his death. He was certainly not the first choice but in the end, Tiberius outlived all the other potential heirs Augustus had chosen. Tiberius was an honoured and respected general who had Republican sensibilities. As Principate, he clashed numerous times with the Senate over its inabilities to make decisions for itself and deferring many issues back to him (after he initially passed onto them). Seager takes us through Tiberius' life from his childhood roots (and the eventual familial-bond that he and Augustus would share) to his selection as Principate. He looks at the different occurrences in Tiberius' early life that set him down his eventual path (but not without some resistance first) and his role as Principate (from determining attacks to his relationship with the people). Seager provides a very comprehensive view of the second Principate's reign and his accomplishments and failures. Many have criticized Tiberius and claimed him a tyrant due to his misuse of maiestas (a sort of treason law), allowing Piso (Tiberius' friend) to bring down Germanicus (the much loved successor to-be of Tiberius if he had survived), his war and subsequent unfair treatment of Agrippina (mother of Gauis, wife of Germanicus) and his allowing of Sejanus to manipulate him for his own ambitions (which were obviously detrimental to Rome and many persons within). Although not excusing his behaviour, especially the later half as his mental reason began to crumble; Seager portrays a man who never had the ambitions to be Principate. Unlike many others, Tiberius wanted to end his days in peace and be left alone. What he got instead was the greatest responsibility, which with his virtues, he couldn't easily let go of. Although a very capable leader, Tiberius' greatest weaknesses were his poor attitude to the Principate position and his arrogance and stubbornness towards others. This is what caused the conflicts with the Senate and allowed people such as Sejanus to rise in power and cause so many problems. Tiberius showed himself initially as a fair and reasonable leader but as time went on, he detached himself from his position and its responsibilities and allowed others to take advantage of it. Seager shows that Tiberius was not a tyrant but rather a man who became too disillusioned and too stubborn to let go.

5 comments about Hand of Providence: The Strong and Quiet Faith of Ronald Reagan.

1. Hand of Providence is an awesome book, and when I opened and read the Forward by Michael Reagan, I couldn't put the book down.
   
   I was an admirer of President Reagan before, but this book shows how he was used by God throughout his life. Now I understand how extraordinary a man he really was. I learned thing I never knew about him before.
   
   The book is not about policy, and it isn't about government, it is about how one man faces the diffuculties of life and overcomes them with the power of prayer and reliance on his Savior, Jesus Christ.
   
   I could see this book upsetting many secular humanists that also admire President Reagan.
   
   In the final analysis, this book strengthened my own faith, as I learned how President Reagan overcame many trials. Read it and be inspired on nearly every page.



2. The "Hand of Providence" is a pretty good read, just know that Mary Beth Brown brings little new research or insight to Ronald Reagan. This collection is largely the work of other Reagan biographers. If you are looking for a biography that deals with the political side of Reagan go to Lou Cannon and Peggy Noonan for character & faith. Mary Beth Brown does add some new info with her discussions with Michael Reagan. I understood a little bit more about President Reagan and Jane Wyman's divorce.
   
   In terms of Reagan himself there is no doubt that faith deeply influenced his presidency and strategy during the Cold War, he says as much in his autobiography. Look, Reagan was the greatest president of the 20th century. He destroyed communism in the Soviet Union and Eastern Europe. Reagan is really a throw back in terms of his values, he symbolizes Americana, westward expansion, eternal optimism, faith in God and values.
   
   Brown's contribution with her book is that she recognizes the importance of Reagan's appeal in terms of faith with the "Reagan Democrats," her premise is that they were more attracted to his spiritual and faith politics than his economic ideas. This is no doubt very true, but they still work together for the kind of vast coalitions Reagan built. Another contribution by Brown, although not completely new was that Reagan knew how to win the votes of evangelical protestants and Roman Catholics at the same time. She was good to point that note out. She has some new information on Nelle Reagan as well. Overall this is a little simplified but largely accurate account of President Reagan and his faith. It's an interesting and very quick read, you could read it an afternoon. I wish she would have expanded her thoughts and had notes. I am glad Reagan's faith is getting more play in terms of publishing. It was so obvious with the language he used during the Cold War that there were obvious and overt spiritual overtones at work within the entire administration and their rhetoric.
   
   Overall if you are just getting started in this area, this is a good place to start. After that check out the original sources.



3. We had a copy of Mary Beth Brown's book sitting on the coffee table when a cousin - who holds a master's degree in history - came for a visit. He took the book down to the guest room and spent all night reading it. I think this earns Hand of Providence the accolade of being a "page turner." It is also a spiritual experience and a most revelatory glimpse into the soul of a man who changed the world forever. Even the jaded will be moved. The cousin began to pray for the first time in decades.



4. In my humble opinion, Mary Beth Brown has written a very readable account of the role of faith in Jesus Christ in President Ronald Reagan's long life. I have heard some things of President Reagan's faith but had never read anything intensive on the subject until this book.
   
   The title is not a political treatise of conservatism but rather the faith of a truly humble president. Politics are covered mainly in the context of Reagan's faith and why he believed and acted as he did.
   
   The book covers the following periods of Reagan's life:
   
   1. Early childhood and great love for his mother and respect for his father despite his father's struggle with the bottle and making a living.
   2. College years at Eureka College and early broadcasting days.
   3. Years in Hollywood and his role as president of the Screen Actor's Guild and how he became acquainted with the influence of communism.
   4. Failed marriage to Jane Wyman.
   5. Second and extremely successful marriage to Nancy Davis.
   6. Raising his children.
   7. His various ranches and he thoroughly enjoyed being there.
   8. Role faith played in combatting communism and how he worked closely with Pope John Paul in the 1980s to bring about communism's demise in Europe.
   9. His years as governor of California.
   10. Years as president of the United States.
   11. Post-president years.
   
   Apparently the book was written just before his death and perhaps would have included more information on his faith.
   
   If you are not a Reagan fan or are a political junkie, then this book is not for you. If you like to read on the role of faith in famous people, then this book is for you.
   
   Highly recommended. Read and enjoy!



5. A hagiographic biography of the spiritual life of Ronald Reagan written by a close friend of Reagan's son, Michael. While this book is from time to time excessively sectarian (evangelical, conservative Christian) and borders on preachy, it does provide helpful insight into the spiritual beliefs and hopes of President Reagan and their foundational (fundamental) role in shaping his private and public lives.

2 comments about The Lincoln Family Album.

1. Mark Neely has compiled a fascinating collection of the Lincoln family's pictures from their family album. What's interesting is what is NOT included in the album: not many photographs of Abraham Lincoln, perhaps the most photographed president of the 19th century. But the pictures of his children and grandchildren are especially interesting and poignant, especially those of a grandson named Abraham (Robert's son) who died at 16 but who bore an uncanny likeness to his famous grandfather. An important addition to any serious Lincoln student's library.



2. Being a Lincoln fan, I pride myself on keeping up on the latest books that come out, and usually, one way or another, end up purchasing them. So, imagine my surprise when I visited a local bookstore, and was browsing in its impressive Lincoln section to find this jew, "The Lincoln Family Album". What, a book that I hadn't heard of?
   
   At first, I thought it was just a simple recounting of the many familiar books with Lincoln photos in it. But upon glancing inside, I realized how wrong assumptions are. The pictures in this book are from the actual Lincoln photograph album, kept through the family generation after generation, until the last surviving member of the clan died in 1985. Up until then, the book lived in secrecy, but now, in this stunning paperback, the photographs have been reproduced. Each page contains a picture, and a small vignette that describes the person in the picture, and why it would be found in the Lincoln family album.
   
   I found myself engrossed, not only in the pictures, but the information contained in each page. For some reason, the pictures came more alive to me with this information than any other picture book of Lincoln. Especially touching are the pictures of Lincoln's kids, Tad, Willie, and Robert. As proud parents would, they are well-documented in this book.
   
   If you are a devotee of Lincoln, I highly recommend this book. With an engrossing first chapter that talks about how photography was catching on just as Lincoln became President, and a wealth of knowledge of the Lincoln family, this book is sure to please you!!