5 comments about Barbara Jordan: American Hero.

1. I'm glad that Jordan is not hear to see how the gov't of the people, for the people, by the people has been so completely perverted by special interests and neo patriots, such as George W. Bush and John Ashcroft. I was only a boy, when like many, I was captivated by this incredible person. She gave me hope that govt could actually serve the people. This book does a great job to capture her spirit and remind us that govt was once a tool and not force for opression.



2. This was a very inspirational book. Barbara Jordan's life was really incredible and the reason she accomplished as much as she did had to do with her innate abilities as well as her willingness to deal with the enemy. She kept her overriding goal utmost - the welfare of the people of East Texas.

   Lots of what she experienced and spoke out against we see today. We could really use her moral voice of authority. She is missed.




3. This is a well written and effective biography of one of America's most amazing personalities. Mary Beth Rodgers tells Jordan's story with the advantage of being an insider; her access to those who knew Jordan well shows in her insightful and complete telling of Jordan's life.

   Jordan is widely remembered by her public persona, the booming orator from Texas - the intellectual constitutional scholar who presided over Nixon's impeachment. But element that makes this biography compelling is Rodgers' depiction of the wheeling and dealing that allowed Jordan to cross barriers and operate effectively in the good-old-boy white male backrooms of the Texas Senate. We get to see Jordan the idealist armed with the constitution in our nation's capital, but we also get to see Jordan the pragmatist cutting deals over a scotch in Austin Texas.

   An effective biography of an amazing American figure.




4. Too often the reviews of biographies and history books end up reviewing the actual person or subject rather than the book. Barbara Jordan was a great, great woman. There's no doubt about that. Of all history's politicans, religious leaders, civil rights advocates, political figures and intellectuals, she is the one person who truly shows us all how we should handle the issue of race in this country.

   This book honored her. It was truly a great read. Descriptive, informative and thought provoking. Whenever I ask someone about Barbara Jordan, they always respond with something like, "Wow, have you ever heard her speak?" I was born too late to hear her more popular speeches. But, the author's effective use of excerpts from Jordan's speeches makes me feel like I was right there watching her. This well researched book gave me a deeper understanding of the events of the Nixon impeachment process, the Carter Administration, politics in itself and the plight of both African Americans and women in government. I really enjoyed this book and I highly recommend it.




5. IT IS THE BEST BOOK EVER!

5 comments about The Politics of Hope: Reviving the Dream of Democracy.

1. In isolation, for those that do not read widely, this book is a four-star book, a classic comics version of much more substantive works by Tom Atlee, James McGregor Burns, Robert Buckman, Allison Fine, Robert Fuller, William Greider, Richard Moore, Bill Moyer, Steven Pinker, James Rough, and many others.
   
   Here is the book, expanded into 214 under-sized, double-spaced pages:
   
   Four Stages of Political Evolution
   1) Anarchy
   2) Fear & Polarization
   3) Silence & Resignation
   4) Politics of Hope
   
   Seven Practices for Beocming a Concious Political Leader
   1) Finding Your Spiritual Center
   2) Serving with Higher Motives
   3) Sharing Your Unique Gifts
   4) Cultivating Your Political Habitat
   5) Communicating with Integrity & Trust
   6) Trusting the Mystery
   7) Answering the Call
   
   Got all that? That's all there is. This is largely consultant pap. It fails to satisfy, unless this is the only book you plan to read over the course of the year, in which case it marginally communicates some of the larger ideas many others have spent decades nurturing.
   
   The bibliography, which includes the Da Vinci Code (now, that is a real page turner, but is it really relevant here?), looks suspiciously like a thrown-together blend of what happened to be on the author's shelves and a quick survey of leadership books.
   
   I am not impressed. This book, which has a patina of bland and somewhat pretentious points to make, is one notch above the garbage that Rudy "Scoop & Dump" Gulliani publishes. He is the pimp of voyeur leadership, this author is the mistress of platitudinal leadership consulting.
   
   Yuck. Well-intentioned but tired. You'd be better off reading my reviews of the works listed below, and see also my lists, including the one on moral leadership.
   
   The Tao of Democracy: Using Co-Intelligence to Create a World That Works for All
   Transforming Leadership
   Building a Knowledge-Driven Organization
   Momentum: Igniting Social Change in the Connected Age
   All Rise: Somebodies, Nobodies, and the Politics of Dignity (Bk Currents)
   Who Will Tell The People? : The Betrayal Of American Democracy
   Doing Democracy
   Escaping the Matrix: How We the People can change the world
   The Blank Slate: The Modern Denial of Human Nature
   Society's Breakthrough!: Releasing Essential Wisdom and Virtue in All the People



2. Zajonc's book is applicable not only to American politics, but to Canadian as well. She speaks of four stages of political evolution, from anarchy and traditionalism, through resignation to the politics of hope.
   
   In the spring of 2005, I was in the resignation stage. Never one to be involved in politics beyond voting on election day, I was fed up with the state of affairs in Ottawa. Government seemed to be more about destroying the other parties than about the good of the country.
   
   There has to be a better way, I said to myself. I was soon surprising myself by entering the race for federal office. Over and over I heard myself saying, "We have to learn to work together." I am still saying this, and am so pleased to have found Zajonc's book as a concise and articulate voice toward that end.



3. The Politics of Hope lays out an insightful premise that I realize now is absolutely true:what distinguishes those political leaders who leave a positive and lasting impact on their world from those who don't is not political affiliation or fund raising skills or even organizational savvy. Its their stage of conscious development, an argument the author establishes with clarity, examples and compelling reason. I immediately understood why some leaders are attractive to me while others leave me hungry for something more. This could just as easily be a book about the evolution of conscious leadership, not just conscious political leadership.
   
   A must read for anyone committed to social change on a local, state or national level. I was actually left with a greater sense of hope that it's not crazy but genuinely possible to cultivate greater consciousness in one's own leadership and that this act alone evokes greater contributions from those around us. The Politics of Hope shows there is something greater than fear to bring us forward as a nation and as a planet.



4. Donna Zajonc's book makes one long for the Politics of Hope to become active in our lives and the lives of our political leaders. A learning experience. Imagine, a new way of listening!! One could almost wish the book carried the word "Politics" as a subtitle, as Zajonc truly brings "life wisdom" to the ordinary folks who are fortunate enough to read it. Thoughtful, intelligent, READABLE.



5. Donna Zajonc sees hope within the breakdowns of our current political system. She believes that these breakdowns will lead to positive breakthroughs and a collaborative, interconnected, genuine democracy will result. If that doesn't give you hope I'm not sure what will! Zajonc appreciates the all-evolving process of the democratic sytem, inspiring creation, participation and hope, rather than feelings of defeat, resignment and distrust.
   Zajonc's "Seven Practices for Becoming a Conscious Public Leader" will completely shift your view on political leaders, challenging the generalizations and stereotypes associated with what seems like a hopeless, paralyzing system. She proposes several powerful concepts for our upcoming leaders, pushing politicians to view things differently--beyond current party structures--while challenging leaders to serve with only their highest motives and fulfill their greatest potential of integrity and genuine public service. This book may shift your view of "politics as a dirty word" to "politics of hope"; Nonetheless, it is like no political book I've read. You'll never see politics the same again! Pass it on!

5 comments about Rumsfeld's War: The Untold Story of America's Anti-Terrorist Commander.

1. Ótimo livro. Merece ser lido. É um livro abrangente, pois aborda fatos históricos acontecidos com o protagonista, deixando de somente preocupar-se com os fatos atuais. Mostra claramente o emaranhado do poder existente no Capitol e também na Casa Branca. Desconsidera qualquer tipo de importância latente, atual ou mesmo futura, da América Latina. Resume a abordar tendências estratégicas dos EUA e potenciais interesses nas áreas críticas do mundo atual. Recomendo a leitura.



2. I have not finished it yet as it is a lot to digest



3. The author finds a lot to praise in R's performance. That alone disqualifies this as a serious book. Rumsfeld is the man who had no plan for an occupation of Iraq. He expected the population to be grateful to an alien army in their midst.
   
   he fired the Army Chief of Staff who tried to tell Rummy that occupation would be challenging and troop-intensive.
   
   sent in troops without adequate body armor or armored humvees.
   
   a guy who is so abrasive that most generals who work with him find him impossible.
   
   He is so incompetent that Bush refuses to fire him. Like speaks to like.



4. Rumsfeld is not only a disgrace to the American Nation, rather he is a disgrace to humanity and all that it stands for. Apparently the author fails to confront any actual news sources, instead taking tiny tidbits that the idiot Rumsfeld had accomplished (believe it or not, he was able to "assassinate a terrorist"), and blows them to epic proportions, portraying Rumsfeld as some sort of mythical god. This book is a digrace to the American Nation. If the crap this author wrote is considered "factual", than apparently the War in Iraq is going just as planned, and believe it or not, the Iraqi insurgents love us! This book is absolutely disgusting. Resign Rumsfeld, resign now.



5. Though Rowan Scarborough wrote this book a good two years before a half dozen retired generals decided to publicly reveal their lack of the necessary intestinal fortitude to bandy sharp words with a septuagenarian, his book makes the reason for their incessant whining crystal clear: as a boss, Donald Rumsfeld is a real hard-ass.
   
   He doesn't suffer fools, he won't tolerate public disloyalty, he figures that anyone younger than he is can work his hours, and if he doesn't think you know what you are talking about, he will call you on it. Now one doesn't have to universally endorse this style of management (I doubt that I'd enjoy working for him, and he'd clearly be a disaster managing a bunch of sensitivity trainers) to realize that if it can work anywhere, it ought to work at the Pentagon. Rummy's direct reports are people whose job description involves sending people out to fight and kill and die; if they're too intimidated to defend their positions in a meeting, why should we believe them capable of defending their country on a battlefield?
   
   To his credit if you think Rumsfeld is wrong and are willing to stick to your guns and show him where he is wrong, he'll not only back off, but he'll respect you for it. As Scarborough quotes Newt Gingrich saying, "I think that one thing that made Tommy Franks so successful was that Franks figured out in the second or third meeting that we just got to go toe-to-toe and disagree or I'll never get anywhere with this guy. And as a result they developed a very good relationship."
   
   All in all a fascinating read. Defects? If you take away the Acknowledgements, the Index, the blank pages, and the 65 pages of blatant padding labeled Appendix, you have a total of 164 pages of fairly large type laid out in such a way that there are about 10 less lines per page than in books of comparable size. I don't remember if there were any prepublication excerpts printed in newspapers like Scarborough's Washington Times, but if they weren't careful, they could have accidentally printed the entire book in less than a week! Frankly there is more biographical material about Rumsfeld in James Mann's Rise of the Vulcans: The History of Bush's War Cabinet despite the fact that it covers five more people than this slim volume! Maybe sometime in the future, Mr. Scarborough will get around to expanding this glorified feature article into a full biography of arguably the most influential SECDEF in US history.

5 comments about The JFK Assassination Debates: Lone Gunman Versus Conspiracy.

1. The idea behind 2006's "JFK: The Assassination Debates" seems valuable and overdue: A comparison of viewpoints regarding the murder of President Kennedy, between those who believe Lee Harvey Oswald acted alone and those who don't. A shame it winds up being a repetitive, simplistic explanation of the author's point of view, with some worthwhile points lost amid the clutter.
   
   Author Michael L. Kurtz explains his view at the beginning that there was a conspiracy, but that his own view has shifted. He isn't trying to make up anyone's mind, he says, but offer "a solid basis of information upon which...they can make up their own minds."
   
   There are two chapters that seem to take this approach, one presenting the established lone-gunman view and the other being a sort of generic conspiracy viewpoint, about which Kurtz notes there are many tangents. Kurtz doesn't push his particular view here, and does a fair job establishing both positions.
   
   The rest of his book is less successful. Abandoning the "two-sides" approach which would seem to be the basis for the book's title, he offers his reasoning for disputing the official story.
   
   At times, he does a good job, too, especially when noting the conflicting stories regarding the condition of the President's head when his body reached Parkland Hospital. It's true he doesn't prove anything, but he raises questions regarding why the shattered skull seen on the Zapruder film didn't turn out so shattered when it lay on an operating table some minutes later.
   
   Kurtz makes his best points with the Zapruder film, finding fault in this respect with both lone-gunman supporters and the harder-core conspiracy believers. Why does Kennedy's head fly backward if he was shot from behind, while footage of other such headshots shows the victim falling in the direction from which the bullet was shot? If the Zapruder film was actually tampered with, as some conspiracists now claim, why wouldn't it have been done in a way to make a shot from the rear seem more probable?
   
   As a person who believes Oswald acted alone, I found Kurtz's viewpoint occasionally challenging and worthwhile. But he kept returning to make the same points chapter after chapter, sometimes within the same chapter. He doesn't mention key points like Kennedy's back brace, and diminishes others like the fact the doctors at Parkland Hospital in the first minutes after the shooting were less interested in establishing a clear evidentiary path than in saving the life of a president.
   
   He never adequately explains Oswald in the larger context of things. He's willing to allow Oswald probably shot Officer J.D. Tippit less than an hour after the president was hit, and may have shot at Kennedy as well, just that he wasn't alone or responsible for the killing hit. But who was he, and why is he at the center of every theory, often conflicting, that Kurtz expounds upon? Was he really a traitor, helping the Soviets shoot down a U-2 spy plane? Was he played as a patsy by right-wing conspirists, as New Orleans District Attorney Jim Garrison claimed?
   
   Kurtz calls Garrison's investigation flawed but wants to chew over the notion that he was following a worthy trail, of midnight meetings and a mysterious office at 544 Camp Street, an address he frequently repeats as "the infamous 544 Camp Street address" or "the notorious 544 Camp Street" in case you don't get the point that something pretty bad went down there. Kurtz offers a lot of eyewitness testimony in this regard, including his own, but what he presents boils down to Garrison's original case. If Garrison was a bad investigator, doesn't this all constitute fruit from the poisoned tree?
   
   Reviewing a book for what it isn't is bad sport, but it feels like "The JFK Assassination Debates", by not living up to its title as a sort of side-by-side comparison of viewpoints regarding key elements of the assassination, misses the mark as a noteworthy contribution to a crowded field.



2. A unbiased book that offers both sides of the JFK debate and the supporting evidence for each, sounds great right? And things are rolling along pretty smoothly until Kurtz can't resist wedging in his nonsensical viewpoint in a chapter hilariously "consensus", which is filled with misleading statements("There's no proof whatsoever the rifle was fired that day". No such test exists), ridiculous standards of proof("Nobody photographed the bullet on the governor's stretcher"), supposed scientific findings with no no citations, and outright omissions of fact(Kennedy's head snapping forward). Kurtz'z allegations are seemingly devoid of the recognition that basic extension of logic entailing them leads invariably to oblivion. Hilariously, although Kurtz is disturbed by the lack of proof of CE 399 actually being found on Governor Connally's stretcher, he seems untroubled by his own assertion that it is "unknown" what happened to the bullets that were "undoubtedly" fired at President Kennedy from the front.
   
   Do not swallow the disingenuous "detached and unbiased" hook. This book is simply another in a large stack of conspiracy nonsense.



3. Professor Kurtz complied a book of essays in which he compared and contrasted conspiracy theories and the official mythology. What was missing was the scholarship that one would expect from a professor of his standing.
   
   I was expecting an analytical critique of conspiracy theories' and the offical mythology's critical themes. It was not there. The assassination debate was the equivalent dialogue between bar patrons. Both sides remained basically unchallenged because neither could cite the documntary basis for their positions, the documentary basis being the foundation for academic scholarship. What a pity that I was duped into buying a book based on the author's credentials that were not in evidence.



4. The chapter on the intelligence community does not go into the CIA but Castro. This is a trick lawyers use. Everyone did it but my client. The CIA is out there looking for the real killers along with O.J.



5. Michael Kurtz is to be commended for delivering a fantastic overview of the JFK assassination case at this late juncture (2006). Of most value are Kurtz's personal interviews with sundry medical personnel and even three former Secret Service agents: Roy Kellerman (deceased 1984; I spoke/ corresponded with his widow June), William Greer (deceased 1985; I spoke to his son Richard), and Robert Bouck (deceased 2004; I spoke to Bouck 9/27/92). I am on 3 pages of this book. Get it!!!

5 comments about Bridging the Divide: My Life.

1. I was honored to be a witness to some of the early discussions between Ed Brooke and his former colleagues and staff as this book was being written. As you read this special book you will also feel like you have been granted a front row seat to the making of history. At a time when political fundamentalism was starting to again flex its ugly muscles in our government, Senator Edward Brooke was a voice of moderation and wisdom for both Democrats and Republicans. This book, by one of the great politicians of our time, reminds us what political leadership can (and should) be like. More Ed Brooks are needed in our government today. I have known Ed and his family as both his priest and friend since 1982, and I can honestly say that Ed Brooke is, at the core of his being, a caring, compassionate, and courageous man of faith with a wonderful sense of humor. He doesn't talk about "family values;" he lives them! I strongly recommend BRIDGING THE DIVIDE to all who appreciate the history of our wonderful nation and who value the dedication and skill of men and women like Senator Brooke. They have truly made our country a better place.
   
   The Rev. Dr. Prentice Kinser III, Author of Limitless Living, A Guide to Unconventional Spiritual Exploration and Growth



2. "Bridging the Divide" is a fantastic read, a portrait of the nation's first African-American Senator and the only black person in that position - thus far - to be re-elected. The book profiles Senator Edward Brooke's life and emphasizes his incredible ability to connect with people despite racial or political barriers. An African-American, Episcopalian, and Republican, he was sent to the Senate and maintained strong support from the people of Massachusetts, a state with a large white, Roman Catholic, and Democrat population.
   
   Senator Brooke's writing is full of great references to how far our country has come in the battle against racism and destructive politics. Whether the Senator is describing his controversial decision to jump into the Senate race, or the day he jumped into the Senate swimming pool with Strom Thurmond, his words are poignant, intellectual, and awe-inspiring. You are sure to laugh, ponder, smile - maybe even cry.
   
   One need not be a history buff or political powerhouse to enjoy this book. It is a fantastic read for those who love their country and enjoy learning about the type of people that make our nation so strong. I enjoyed it thoroughly, and recommend it to all of my friends. If you're looking for a good read this summer (or for any time of year), "Bridging the Divide" is it.



3. I had the good fortune to serve in the Massachusetts state senate as a Republican during Senator Ed Brooke's second term. Though I was more conservative than he, he always unstintingly leant me his support, help and advice. His defeat in 1978, aided by right-wing Republicans, was a great loss to the Commonwealth, the country and, not least to the Republican party. Increasingly the crazies in each party are dragging the process toward the fringes. But elections are won nationally by center-right coalitions or center-left coalitions. The collapse of the center in the Republican party portends renewed Democratic dominance of American politics. A Republican party without room for the talent and convictions of an Ed Brooke will increasingly marginalize itself.
   
   There are some great political stories in Bridging the Divide, not least about Hillary Clinton, and you will get your money's worth from reading them. But this book should be read by everyone who cares about the future of the Republican party--and the nation. The increasing mean-spiritedness of both parties, and the increasing focus on narrow wedge issues, creates a great danger for the Republic. Just as the Democrats need more centrists, the Republican party needs more men and women like Ed Brooke. Where are they to come from?
   
   Robert A. Hall
   Author of "The Good Bits."



4. Leave it to Massachusetts to send the first Black Senator elected by popular vote to Congress. The heavily, 98% white Democrat State overwhelming supported him for the state's highest National Office even though he was the "Republican" candidate. Senator Brooke was elected in a landslide by the voters of his liberal state because he had already proven he was an honest, hardworking, devoted, corruption-fighting Attorney General for the Commonwealth. Once in the U.S. Senate he continued to prove he was a wise man with strong core beliefs including his devotion to the Political Party of Abe Lincoln. He was responsible for many important civil rights laws. One of his bills gave women their own credit. They no longer had to have their husbands okay to borrow money and get their own credit cards. Senator Brooke had gone from being a U.S. Army officer leading the Italian Partisans behind German lines during WW II to become a strong, outspoken Statesman Senator. Congress very much needs more peacemakers like Senator Edward Brooke. This book is a fascinating read. Readers can't help but finish the book and still be utterly amazed that Republican Brooke was ever elected to any office in Massachusetts. Unfortunately, he has proven to be one of a kind so far. But there is always hope for the future.



5. As I was reading a newspaper article about this book recently it occurred to me that I hadn't heard Edward Brooke's name in a long time. After finishing his book, I'm glad I remember him. Though not from Massachusetts myself, I did follow his career when he was in the Senate.
   
   Senator Brooke writes forcefully on a number of issues....the racism he faced growing up in Washington D.C. and which followed him into the U.S. Army in the Second World War, his political losses before he finally won a race and especially about his family. With particular care he tells us of his difficult first marriage and his loving second one, complete with an estrangement for many years from his two daughters.
   
   While getting into "Bridging the Divide" it became clear that Edward Brooke was a man of discipline and high principle. I was just about to ask myself why he never made it onto the U.S. Supreme Court when Brooke says that President Nixon actually considered him for a seat on the high court. Brooke turned it down to stay in the Senate, feeling he was too young to take on a judicial role. It's too bad because I think he would have made an excellent Supreme Court justice.
   
   Edward Brooke is reminiscent of the days when the Senate was a kinder place. There are very few people in his category these days....moderate to liberal Republican. His was part of the Republican party I remember growing up...one that has changed drastically. Senator Brooke's contributions to our country have been many and I'm glad he's still around to write about it. "Bridging the Divide" is a book I highly recommend.

No comments about Franklin D. Roosevelt: A Biography (Greenwood Biographies).

4 comments about The Presidency of Richard Nixon (American Presidency Series).

1. Nixon had a dark side. His Checkers speech in 1952, in which he used a dog as a prop, should have alerted Americans to his character. His loss to Kennedy in 1960 left him with an inferiority complex. Nixon hated the Kennedys and would never have been president if JFK had not been assassinated. He was not all bad. He stood up to Khrushchev. He opened up China and ended the Vietnam War even if it took four years. He was loyal to a fault. He denied any knowledge of the burglary at Democratic Headquarters inside the Watergate Hotel in Washington, D.C. It brought him down. Nixon and Watergate became synonymous. Nixon became the only president to resign as impeachment proceedings were underway. It is ironic that his signature is on the plaque left on the moon by Apollo 11 astronauts. Nixon and Johnson were the worst presidents of the 20th century.



2. I read this book for a graduate class in American history. Few U.S. presidents have had as many books written about them and their administrations as Richard Milhous Nixon. Nixon's presidency was defined by the historian Stephen E. Ambrose as a Shakespearean tragedy. Nixon is credited by many historians with great success in foreign and domestic policy. These achievements by themselves would normally rank him near the top of the list of America's great presidents. However, his psychological deficiencies were responsible for dragging the country through its worst constitutional crisis in its history--Watergate. Nixon's involvement in the Watergate cover up culminated in his being the only president to resign from office. This saved him from the humiliation of surely becoming the only president who would have been impeached and thrown out of office. It is against this historical backdrop, that Melvin Small wrote The Presidency of Richard Nixon. Small succeeded in writing an objectively fair history of America's thirty-seventh president. At the end of his book, Small astutely noted why a history of Nixon is so important. "The period from the end of World War II to the end of the cold war was in good measure an age of Nixon" (311).
   
   No historian writing about Nixon can avoid trying to understand and explain his psychological profile. One would think with all the biographies from historians and memoirs from close aides, the voluminous presidential papers, and thousands of hours of tape recordings, one could get a clear understanding of Nixon's psyche. Most historians and close friends and aides of Nixon still admit that they never fully understood him. Both Nixon historians Theodore H. White and Nixon speechwriter William Safire, wrote that they were still perplexed by Nixon's multi-faceted psyche. Small recognized this conundrum while writing his biography, and like most biographers, searched Nixon's early life and upbringing to try to understand his psychological character traits. Nixon was born on January 9, 1913 in Yorba Linda, California. He was the second of five brothers. Two of his brothers died from respiratory diseases. Nixon remarked that these traumatic events in his life caused him to champion the government's involvement in health care. Nixon's family was lower middle class Quaker. During the Depression they struggled like millions of other families. Richard was an intelligent child who learned to read before entering grade school. He had a photographic memory that allowed him to excel in both his academic and political careers. He was famous for remembering the names of thousands of politicians from across the country and could memorize speeches; thus making it seem he was talking extemporaneously. Although he had the grades to attend a more prestigious college, due to financial considerations, Nixon settled on attending Whittier, a local college. He graduated second in his class in 1934, and received a partial scholarship to attend Duke University Law School. He was a very serious student in law school and never dated during his three years in attendance. "Many of his peers at Duke thought that Nixon was destined for the scholarly life, considering his powerful intellect and remote personality" (5). He was appalled by the segregated south and racism displayed by classmates. He graduated third in his class from law school in 1937 and traveled to New York to seek employment with prestigious law firms. Since it was the height of the Depression and because Nixon did not posses a law degree from an elite Northeastern law school, he found that doors would remain shut to him. Nixon was turned down by the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) as well. Feeling disappointed from his rejections, he went back to Whittier, California and joined a small law firm where he became a partner within two years. In 1938, Nixon met his future wife Pat, while both were performing in a community theater. For Nixon, it was love at first sight and they married in 1940. During World War II, he was an airfield operations officer in the Navy. More importantly, he proved to be a very accomplished poker player, which he claimed prepared him to become a skilled negotiator. After the war, he accepted an invitation from a group of Republican businessmen to run for Congress in his home district against the incumbent Democrat, Horace (Jerry) Voorhis. Nixon's campaign against Voorhis and his later campaign for the Senate seat against Helen Gahagan Douglass were bare-knuckled affairs which relied on character assassinations painting both opponents as Communist sympathizers.
   
   Nixon soon gained national notoriety as a member of the House Un-American Activities Committee (HUAC). During committee hearings, Nixon doggedly pursued Alger Hiss, a well-heeled former State Department employee in the Roosevelt administration who was accused of being an American Communist Party member and Soviet spy. Nixon's work on HUAC garnered him a reputation as a tough anti-Communist which brought him to great prominence in the Republican Party. At the 1952 convention the party leaders prevailed on Dwight Eisenhower to take Nixon as his vice presidential running mate. "Eisenhower was astonished to discover that his running mate was only thirty-nine, which soon made him the second youngest vice president in history" (14). The relationship between the two men was not warm. Nixon wanted to please Eisenhower. However, Eisenhower saw Nixon as a political lightweight and even asked him to consider not running as vice president for the second term, but instead take a cabinet position to gain "executive experience." Despite Eisenhower's treatment of Nixon, he became his party's standard-bearer for president in the 1960 election against John F. Kennedy (JFK). He lost the election in one of the closest races in history; JFK defeated Nixon in the popular vote by a 49.7 to 49.5 percent margin. Just two years later leaders of the Republican Party talked Nixon into running for governor of California, against the Democratic incumbent Edmund "Pat" Brown. Nixon was politically humiliated in another close election. In what he called his last press conference after his stinging defeat, Nixon lashed out at the press, who in days after ran stories predicting the end of Nixon's political career. However, Nixon used his years out of the limelight to build a lucrative law practice in New York City, and traveled around the country making hundreds of speeches, as well as campaigning on behalf of Republican congressional candidates. In addition, he studied and wrote articles on foreign policy issues. All this work in addition to the problems of the Vietnam War made him an attractive candidate and he once again became the Republican candidate for president in1968. The "new Nixon" burst forth on the political scene.
   
   Nixon won the election against the incumbent Vice President Hubert Humphrey, because the Vietnam War became unpopular with the American public, and Nixon promised to restore law and order to a riot torn country. Nixon soon busied himself with building his cabinet before his inauguration. President Johnson was very amicable to Nixon and invited him to the White House for several transition meetings. It would be the first time that Nixon ever saw the living quarters. When Nixon observed Johnson's taping machine in the Oval Office, he ordered a staffer to get it out. He would not use a taping machine until 1971. Small's chapter entitled A Private President's Public Relations, expertly points out Nixon's unusual character traits while he was president, which many historians and politicians have written about in countless books. Two of Nixon's closest aides, Bob Halderman and John Ehrlichman where known as the "Berlin Wall" because it was their duty to reduce strictly access to the president. Nixon was a shy man who hated to meet new people. "Nixon also preferred talking on the phone to seeing people in person" (215). He had an aversion to firing and hiring people, and he would get others to perform these odious functions for him. Nixon was much more at ease working alone in the Executive Office Building than in the Oval Office.
   
   The presidential duty that Nixon was most passionate about was foreign policy; a duty that was so important to him that he virtually became his own Secretary of State for several years, and he never trusted the State Department bureaucrats. What became Nixon's most important staff hiring would be that of Dr. Henry Kissinger as his National Security Advisor and later his Secretary of State. Little did Nixon realize that Kissinger would become "not only the president's chief planner, coordinator, and operator of U.S. foreign policy but also the most popular, respected and internationally famous of all the president's advisers" (50). Together both men would add a new word to the American vocabulary--détente. Small noted that Nixon embarked on a monumental foreign policy shift for America. The consummate Cold War warrior, Nixon was most proud of his two great foreign policy achievements, "the establishment of détente with the Soviet Union and the opening of relations with China" (97). Kissinger, in his book Diplomacy, is very flattering of Nixon's foreign policy acumen. "No American president possessed a greater knowledge of international affairs. None except Theodore Roosevelt had traveled as much abroad, or attempted with such genuine interest to understand the views of other leaders." In Small's chapter titled "Running for Ex-President," he related that in an attempt at rehabilitating his legacy Nixon wrote eight books dealing with foreign policy issues between 1980 and 1992, "almost all of which became best-sellers" (305). Nixon's 1985 book No More Vietnams had an ominously prophetic warning for America. "The most violent and dangerous forces in the Mideast are not Communist revolutionaries taking orders from Moscow but Moslem fundamentalist revolutionaries egged on by Khomeini." Although Nixon as well as most historians focused on his diplomatic successes, Small wrote glowingly about Nixon's domestic policy triumphs in his biography.
   
   Since Nixon spent most of his time dealing with foreign policy, he allowed cabinet heads and White House aides on domestic affairs to propose new legislation. Daniel Patrick Moynihan a former Harvard professor and Johnson aide, started to doubt "big government's approaches to social problems" (45). He accepted a position as advisor on domestic affairs and enjoyed a very friendly relationship with Nixon. Moynihan once quipped that Nixon's administration may have been one of the most progressive ever on domestic issues. Small believed that Moynihan's remark was a bit of a stretch, though for a Republican administration, it was not too far a stretch. Small noted that conservative Republicans "were horrified when Nixon proposed a guaranteed annual wage for poor people disguised as welfare reform and a variety of other social and environmental policies" (185). Nixon doubled the budgets for the National Endowment for the Humanities as well as the Arts. Nixon's administration created the Occupational Health and Safety Administration, and established the Environmental Protection Agency. In a special message delivered to Congress on the environment in February of 1970, Nixon proposed twenty-two pieces of legislation including, regulating automobile emissions, water pollution, pesticides, strip-mining, and ocean dumping. During his first term in office, Nixon approved a 51 percent increase in Social Security benefits and in 1972 signed into law an automatic cost-of-living increase to keep up with inflation. Just in Nixon's first term, "outlays for the elderly increased by 71 percent" (190). Thus, Small contended that by looking at Nixon's domestic policies, "one can understand why observers in the year 2000 might label him the last liberal president" (214).
   Despite all of Nixon's achievements in foreign and domestic policy, his legacy will forever be blackened by the stain of the break in at the Democratic National Committee headquarters in the Watergate building and his direct attempt to cover it up. Small and other historians in explaining the Watergate debacle have opined that Nixon desperately wanted to win re-election in 1972 in a landslide victory. By doing so, Nixon thought that he could remake the Republican Party, and "bring about the New American Revolution" (273). Politically, he wanted to remake the Republican Party by uniting conservative southern Democrats with the working class Americans of the Silent Majority, and traditional Republicans around social issues. In addition, Nixon announced in his second inaugural speech that the federal government needed to be smaller and less paternalistic in its scope with the American people. Unfortunately for Nixon, he and his aides were willing to bring the re-election victory about at any cost, including egregious violations of rights and laws. Small summed up the Watergate debacle in Lincolnesque terms when he wrote about the crimes and misdemeanors that had been committed. "Whereas some presidents participated in some of those illegal activities much of the time, and others did almost all of them on occasion, none of them committed all the illegal acts that constituted Watergate all the time" (273).
   
   In conclusion, Melvin Small did an excellent job using a plethora of primary and secondary sources, and presidential papers from the National Archives to write an engaging and balanced biography of Richard Nixon. In his book, he provided informative notes, one of the best bibliographical essays found in a history book, and a thorough index; all of which will aid readers who want to further research aspects of Nixon's presidency. Small decided to write a topical biography instead of a chronological biography. Since Small told Nixon's story in a little over 300 pages, his topical narrative device worked quite well. Small's biography of Nixon is an excellent introductory work for anyone wishing to gain a better understanding of Richard Nixon, his political career, and the history of the Cold War era.
   
   As a graduate student, I recommend this book for anyone interested in Nixon, American History, and Cold War History.



3. The only reason to give this a bad review would be due to its lack of getting down to the juicy Nixon facts. Other than that, it is a marvelous journey into the Nixon administration. For the most part, it is unbiased and I enjoyed it. If you want to get a look at the Nixon administration from a more or less politcal standpoint, then go for it. If you would like an Enquirer/novel type "tell all" book, then look again. 4/5



4. The author has written a refreshing account about Richard Nixon's years in office. He traces Nixon's rise as a politician, his failures, presidency, and ultimate demise. The reader gains insight about Nixon's successes with China, the Soviet Union, along with failures in Chile and the Third World. In contrast, the writer argues that Nixon made significant achievements in domestic affairs--welfare reform, environmental improvements, and conservation--that have not received adequate recognition. Next, we learn that Nixon reluctantly approved wage and price controls for political reasons. Nonetheless, the most interesting chapter about Watergate reveals the rampant corruption in Nixon's administration. Also, the author criticizes Nixon for his Vietnam strategy.

   This book does a good job of summarizing Nixon's accomplishments, failures, and foibles. The excessive quoting makes it sometimes tedious to read. In addition, it seems as though the book only scratches the surface on a much disparaged president.

No comments about Ferraro: My Story.

5 comments about The Bureau and the Mole: The Unmasking of Robert Philip Hanssen, the Most Dangerous Double Agent in FBI History.

1. This book doesn't compare with David Wise's book "Spy, The Inside Story of How the FBI's Robert Hanssen Betrayed America." There seems to be a lot of assumptions and conjecture's in the Vise book. Wise has much better sources.



2. The book provided background on not only Robert Hanssen, but also the individuals associated with the job. I enjoyed the book very much.



3. A frightening look into the mind and works of a socially inadequate FBI Agent who betrayed the American people, trading their safety over cash and diamond. The most disturbing fact was his fantasy of retiring from the FBI and move to Moscow and train future spies. The author did an excellent job in telling the lives of a deceitful Hanssen and of a dedicated Director Freeh.
   
   Undoubtedly written by a Pulitzer Prize-winning investigative journalist.
   
   Check also: They Spy who Stayed out in the Cold.
   Cold Eyes



4. I felt the book was very interesting. It has a good narative form.
   I do feel, however, it could have been less graphic on some of Robert's home life. I did read it after seeing the movie "Breach". The book's characterizations of the two main personalities added interest. The author has done a good job with a difficult subject



5. This book was a page turner. The author built a psychological profile of Robert Hansesn as well as reported historical facts, to try to give us some insight into his motivation, as well as placed him in a historical context. How could someone who loved this country and was devoted to law enforcement become such a terrible traitor and cause the death of so many people? It gives an amazing account.

5 comments about Flawed Giant: Lyndon Johnson and His Times, 1961-1973.

1. Fine, scholarly biography of the Ph.D.-thesis type. Dallek relies mainly on documentary sources (which he reviewed copiously). The result is somewhat detached.
   
   You get little feel for the lengendary "Johnson treatment" that LBJ used to such great effect. There is, though, much quasi-psychological stuff. Johnson was poorly educated but intellectually brilliant. He was absolutely driven. He was Lincoln-like in his humor, his yarns, his frontier similes. But these gifts were often misdirected. He just had to be first, the best, at everything. He was frighteningly insecure, almost to the point of true paranoia. There are many stories of his abuse of subordinates.
   
   Dallek is a New Deal/Great Society liberal, and this viewpoint pervades. He is mostly enthusiastic about the Great Society and civil rights achievements, but scathing about Johnson's handling of Vietnam. The most revealing part is the recital of how Johnson felt forced to back into the war, and to try to do it almost surreptitiously. Reassuringly, Dallek presents Johnson as simply misguided and ill-advised. There is none of that Oliver Stone crap about being a tool of the military-industrial complex.
   
   Robert Caro's latest volume in his multi-volume opus, "The Master of The Senate", takes Johnson only up to 1960. Dallek's two volumes cover Johnson's whole life. Caro puts in ten years of research for every one that Dallek has put in, and Caro's doggedness is beyond herioc. Dallek is a solid, straightforward writer (unusual for an academic), but he has little of Caro's inspired literary style. Flesh, blood, and sinew pervade Caro's books. Dallek's sounds like a political science seminar.
   
   Read it by all means, if you are interested in Johnson. But wait for Caro's next volume is you want the definitive treatment.



2. I sped through last year reading all three mammoth books in Robert A. Caro's Pulitzer Prize-winning LBJ biography series, and found them an incredibly readable, detailed portrayal of a man who was half megalomaniac, half incredibly gifted politician, a complex American Shakespearean character whose presidency crumbled into self-induced tragedy. Caro hasn't written the final book in his series yet concentrating on LBJ's presidency, so I decided to check out a competing LBJ biography by Dallek focusing on those years. And it's solid history, with great insight into LBJ's character and the disastrous decisions he made in Vietnam that undermined all the powerful social changes he achieved in civil rights and Medicare. Yet "Flawed Giant" is also kind of a slog, which Caro's books weren't. I can't quite put my finger on it, but Dallek lacks the fluid prose, deft research into place and era, and storytelling talent that Caro brought to LBJ - I was able to read hundreds of pages about dry as toast subjects like congressional redistricting and vote tallies and found them compelling reading under Caro. Yet here, I ended up getting bored silly by Dallek's bland recitation of the ups and downs of Vietnam, which you think would be interesting stuff. Dallek is a bit more even-handed in his appreciation of LBJ than Caro, but it just all felt a little too much like work. Guess it goes to show that it's as much in the storyteller as it is in the story. I'll be eagerly awaiting Caro's take on this same era, whenever it comes out.



3. Robert Dallek completes his two volume biography of Lyndon B. Johnson with "Flawed Giant". Its a well written book that tells the story of a brilliant politician who is overwhelmed and outmatched by events he failed to anticipate.
   
   The book begins with Johnson in the unhappy position of serving as Vice President under John F. Kennedy. A most difficult place for a man of Johnson's ego and stature to find himself. Nevertheless, Johnson struggles and does the best he can with this job obtaining recognition in his efforts to further U.S. diplomacy abroad and advance the space program.
   
   On November 22, 1963, President Kennedy is assassinated and Johnson becomes President. No one could ever accuse Johnson of not seizing the moment and this he does masterfully. Within a year, he obtains passage of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and a number of domestic initiatives aimed at reducing poverty and improving quality of life for Americans that become known as the "Great Society". Johnson's accomplishments as President all took place during the first two years of his presidency. Some of those accomplishments include the Head Start Program for disadvantaged children, a federal student loan program for college students, the Job Corps program for kids who dropped out of school, the Voting Rights Act of 1965 which enfranchised millions of blacks, the National Endowment for the Arts, and Medicare.
   
   Johnson proves his skill as a politician by defeating opponent Barry Goldwater with almost 62% of the vote in the 1964 election. Unfortunately, these same skills waned as time went on. By the end of 1965, the positive accomplishments of the Johnson Presidency had come to an end. Johnson inherited the Vietnam War from his predecessor, John F. Kennedy. However, he made a series of mistakes after doing so. First, he concluded that America had to hold onto South Vietnam and prevent a "take over" by the North. He never grasped that the conflict was not an attack by the communist world upon the free world, but simply a regional civil war that had gone for decades. Second, he failed to grasp early on that the conflict was not winnable by conventional means, so he committed 500,000 American soldiers. Third, he failed to understand that the American people wouldn't stand idly by for years supporting such a war with no measurable progress being made. Fourth, he failed to consider steps such as simply withdrawing when it did become apparent that the war was unwinnable.
   
   As the Johnson Presidency unfolds, the accomplishments of the Great Society are overwhelmed by the Vietnam War. Johnson finally realizes his mistake at the end of his presidency. He announces he won't run again and initiates peace talks with North Vietnam.
   
   One must look at Johnson carefully and not jump to conclusions. He was a complicated man who did much good during his presidency. Sadly, though, he will most likely be remembered for the Vietnam War which cost America 58,000 lives.



4. Over the last several years I've read more than 30 presidential biographies, usually letting Amazon reader's guide me to the best choice. While I would place Dallek's LBJ Volume 1 in the top five presidential biographies, Volume two is not quite in the same class. Dallek continues to write well, and I think he presents a complex man and a very difficult time in a balanced way. But over half of this biography details the morass of Viet Nam, and it is truly depressing to read as Johnson and his advisers relentlessly lead the country over the cliff.
   
   During the first two years of LBJ's presidency he led the US Congress to pass some of the most significant legislation in our history - Medicare, greatly increased low income housing, legal aid, increased funding for education and student loans, the most important civil rights legislation of the 20th Century, and the Great Society legislation, a muddled effort to end poverty.
   
   Then, slowly and inexorably LBJ took the US deeper and deeper into Viet Nam. Dallek argues that whatever other geo-political factors were involved, LBJ's drive to be a great president and his fear of failing made the Viet Nam catastrophe inevitable. Johnson simply could not admit to being the first president to lose a war, he couldn't cope with the reality of the corruption of Viet Nam's leadership, and he couldn't stand to be honest in telling the American people just how poorly the war was going. Dallek presents a president who was increasingly paranoid of a nonexistent communist menace influencing the anti-war movement and of Bobby Kennedy leading JFK's ghost to steal LBJ's legacy.
   
   Today, there are numerous editorials comparing the war in Iraq to Vietnam (or denying any comparison). I've yet to see an article comparing President Bush to LBJ, and in most ways they are polar opposites. Still, this biography is very timely. There are unmistakable similarities between America's descent into the two wars, Iraq and South Viet Nam's lack of resources to provide leadership to their own people, our leaders' reluctance to level with the US, the isolation each president sought to avoid criticism, and a society that was so polarized by other issues that it is somehow ok to not take an objective look at the facts of the war.



5. Capt. Lance Sijan, USAF Medal of Honor winner, was tortured to death while a captive in a North Vietnam prison. Gerry Coyle, Army PFC, died in Tay Ninh . Bill Fahey, Marine PFC, died in Quang Tri . Leo Matylewicz, an Army Spec 4, had his body literally blown to pieces in Kontum. Dave Rozelle was killed in Quang Tri while a Marine Lance Corporal. Tom Malloy, Army Spec 4, died in Bien Hoa. Mike Turose's body was never recovered for a return home or even a burial when his F-4 was shot down over North Vietnam. Dick Christy was killed over Cambodia when his forward air control aircraft was shot down. Mike Bosiljevac's remains were not recovered until Vietnam opened up to allow forensic search teams years after the war was over - 20 years after he was shot down over North Vietnam. Mike Blassie's remains were placed in the Tomb of the Unknown Soldier. in 1998 DNA testing identified the remains as Mike. He had been shot down over An Loc.
   Why do I list these men killed in Vietnam as the introduction to this review of Robert Dallek's biography of Lyndon Johnson - "Flawed Giant"? Because Lyndon Johnson as President of the United States from Jack Kennedy's assassination until 1968 might as well have pulled the trigger or pressed the button that sent them to their deaths. Jane Fonda may have posed on the North Vietnamese anti-aircraft weapons but Lyndon Johnson placed those men in harm's way - for no reason other than his fantastic ego. Let me quote Dallek's afterword:
   "Vietnam was a larger mistake. It was the worst foreign policy disaster in the country's history. Aside from the sacrifice of the many brave men and women who lost their lives or suffered because of the conflict, there seems nothing heroic about the struggle. ... Vietnam was a morass. The battlefield clashes and constant discussions in Washington and Saigon about the war were a confusion leading nowhere. ... the planning for Vietnam led to unproductive commitments in what came to seem like an open-ended conflict.
   ...
   "The principal products of administration discussions about the fighting were false hopes, self-generated illusions, and paranoid fears of domestic opponents, who were not the Communist dupes Johnson believed them to be but men and women devoted to the national security and well-being as anyone in the government and military."
   "Johnson knew from the first that he might be pursuing a losing case in Vietnam."
   "Even less flattering to LBJ is the reality that he also pursued the war for selfish motives. To admit failure on so big an issue as Vietnam would have been too jarring to Johnson's self-image as a can-do leader."
   During the 1964 presidential campaign when Johnson ran against Goldwater, one of the Democrat slogans was "If you vote for Goldwater your sons will be in Vietnam." Well, my parents voted for Goldwater and I ended up in Vietnam.
   This book covers the years from 1961 to Johnson's death in 1973. Of course there is more than Vietnam. Johnspn's outstanding record on civil rights is well covered. But, for me, I cannot help but think about being in the Boy Scouts with Mike Turose and wondering what our futures would be after we got out of engineering school. Fortunately for me. I ended up with a future. Thanks to Lyndon Johnson, Mike didn't.