5 comments about Boss Tweed: The Rise and Fall of the Corrupt Pol Who Conceived the Soul of Modern New York.

1. This book is an excellent biography of Boss Tweed. It makes history come alive.
   
   I remember learning about Boss Tweed in high school, but not in this level of detail. If school children had this type of biographical history in their hands, they would see how interesting and fun reading history can be. I especially found interesting - and I did not know - how Boss Tweed tried to escape justice and how he made his way down to Florida, then to Cuba, and then on to Spain. Only to be picked up by a US frigate dispatched to pick him up.
   
   This book makes for very interesting reading. You will learn some history of New York, about boss-type politics, the operation of political machines, and as someone trained in accounting and as a seecurities attorney I found the description of the financial fraud Boss Tweed and his associates committed very interesting, including the pictures of the actual ledgers, etc.
   
   Excellent biography. I highly recommend it.



2. William M. Tweed didn't exactly invent voter fraud, patronage jobs, and grafting, but he made those shameful New York mainstays yield greater gains than ever before. In "Boss Tweed: The Rise and Fall of the Corrupt Pol Who Conceived the Soul of Modern New York", Kenneth Ackerman revisits the dark side of the Gilded Age, a time when robber barons and shady financiers like Jim Fisk and Jay Gould hatched plots that nearly demolished the U.S. economy, such as Black Friday 1869.
   
   `Boss' Tweed's own underhanded bill-padding nearly bankrupted the city of New York, but unlike Fisk or Gould, he served the public while stealing from it. Recognizing that the influx of Irish and other European immigrants represented a tidal wave of voters, Tweed championed the working class and the poor, and turned Tammany into a semi-official welfare organization. He succeeded in accomplishing home rule for the City of New York and backed the development of Central Park and other beautification projects. But this appealing veneer was a smokescreen for his abuse of public funds, vendettas against political rivals, and gratuitous awarding of expensive `no show' jobs to friends. One especially flagrant abuse was the construction of the `Tweed Courthouse', which was budgeted in 1858 at $250,000 and ended up costing $12 million, with the surplus being pocketed by Tweed and other agents of the Tammany machine. It took the combined effort of New York Times owner George Jones, iconic cartoonist Thomas Nast, and future governor Samuel Tilden to expose him and put him behind bars.
   
   Ackerman has handled Tweed's story well. He resists the temptation to portray his subject as "Santa Claus with a diamond pin" as one contemporary dubbed the cagey politician, but doesn't dismiss him as a total villain either. "Boss Tweed" is a balanced look at an era when New York's political arena was a circus, and the corpulent Tweed was its ringmaster.



3. Riveting, powerful biography of the life and times of Boss Tweed. Somehow this relentless recitation of the rise and fall of a politician both modernly generous and corrupt captures the spirit of the man and his contemporaries with humor and compassion. Couldn't put it down.



4. The story of Boss Tweed, one of the greatest political swindlers of all time, and how the New York Times and a cartoonist named Thomas Nast brought him down makes for a real page-turner of a book.
   
   This book is illustrated with many of Nast's cartoons and excepts from the Times (including the table showing the routing of money through various bank accounts--discovered through painstaking researxch and tracing of money and vouchers across many accounts and ledgers--which was the astounding smoking gun that finally did Tweed in) giving the reader a real feel for the story.
   
   Fascinating to see the man in all his complexity, he may have swindled millions from the New York coffers (at a time when you could live in comfortable affluence on around $5,000 a year) but he was also responsible for a great many public works, including the Brooklyn Bridge, and for helping the poor of his city.
   
   Those in power over his arrest and confinement don't acquit themselves with honours either making Tweed's tale even more morally complex, especially as none of his co-conspiritors were ever jailed. An interesting man living in interesting times.



5. Great book for those who love New York History. Or US history for that matter. From Sheriff of NYC to the White House! This book is an eye opener on how corrupt politics were and currently are.
   
   Question: Can this or does this still happen?

5 comments about Condi: The Life of a Steel Magnolia.

1. This book is both enjoyable to read and very informative.
   It is interesting to read how Condi's childhood, college, and time at Stanford all contributed to shaping her for her current career at the White House.



2. Whether Republican or Democrat, (or other), white or black (or other), male or female, I think every reader will find this a most interesting book about a very unique person. There were a few surprises in the book, which I had never heard from any other source. The author did a great job of tracing Condoleeza's rise from her segregated upbringing in the deep south of the 60's to her becoming Secretary of State. Great book!



3. As soon as I finished this informative biography, I instructed my both of my daughters to read it. Dr Rice is exactly the kind of role model I want for them.
   
   This is an interesting bio not only for the light it sheds on the winning of the cold war, but more so in the instruction to the pathway to success and greatness. Before I read this bio I was a fan of Dr. Rice but now she is my hero.



4. Hooray for Mary Beth Brown. It is wonderful to read a book about a person who has achieved so much without a powerful family dynasty or government entitlements behind them. The subtitle of the book is perfect. After getting to know Condi through these pages she epitomizes a steel magnolia. I was wanting to know the person Condi and I have now met her. It is amazing that a young girl from segregated Alabama became our Secretary of State, but after reading about her ancestry and the value of education in her family it is the perfect place for her to be. I appreciate the humility of Condi. She never strove for a position of power at either Stanford or in our government, yet she was chosen for these positions through her own merit. If you are looking for a rehashing of all her political achievements during her service to our country you are reading the wrong book. This is a wonderful telling of who she is as a person.



5. I was recently given the opportunity to read and review the book Condi: The Life of a Steel Magnolia by Mary Beth Brown. There are a number of things that will factor into whether you end up liking this book or not. All things considered, I ended up thinking this was around an "average" book...
   
   Contents:
   Transforming America; Entering a New World; A Strong Family Heritage; Childhood Matters; Becoming a Steel Magnolia; Not Your Average Teenager; Education Is the Way to Success; Professor Rice; Dealing with the Soviet Union; Tackling a Monstrous Deficit; Condi the Campaigner; Advising a President; The Most Powerful Woman in the World; Epilogue; Bibliography; Notes; Index; Acknowledgments; About the Author
   
   On the positive side... This book goes into a fair amount of detail about how she grew up in the segregated South, an only child who was taught that nothing should stand in her way to achieve whatever she could dream. Her ancestors placed great importance on education, and that emphasis carried down to her. As a result, she was way ahead of the curve when it came to academic achievement, regardless of color and gender. She was also well-versed in the arts, and is an accomplished pianist who still plays regularly for herself and the occasional public performance. Her Christian faith is also integral to her attitude and philosophy in life, and that's something that can't be sectioned off and dealt with as a compartment. Based on the way the author presents the material, you realize that Rice places critical importance on her relationship with God. When you're done with the book, you know that she has accomplished more in her life than any number of people combined. She truly is an example of overcoming obstacles and hurdles in life to become a success.
   
   On the negative side... You'd think that Rice has never made a mistake in her life based on the author's often gushing portrayal of her. Little if any time is spent analyzing her decisions made as "the most powerful woman in the world" in terms of foreign policy, terrorism, and other issues facing the American people both here and abroad. I almost got the impression that Rice may not necessarily be setting policy as she would have it, but rather serving the president and promoting the Administration views as a good soldier. This lack of impartial or even critical analysis taints what otherwise could be a decent biography of Rice. Without that analysis, it's hard not to view this as a rather one-sided pro-Condi book put out by people who would like to see her run for President or something.
   
   From my perspective, I learned much about Rice, and she's someone who I admire. I *do* have a hard time reconciling that view of her with the current administration she works for. If you approach the book from a purely political viewpoint, there's not much here that would satisfy you. If you're more interested in a human interest portrayal of someone who has succeeded in life, then you'll get more out of it. I would have preferred a portrayal that was more realistic, complete with flaws and mistakes. Instead, it's more of a rah-rah read that may leave you still wondering who the real Condi is...

2 comments about Machiavelli's Shadow: The Rise and Fall of Karl Rove.

1. At times journalist Paul Alexander's book MACHIAVELLI'S SHADOW: THE RISE AND FALL OF KARL ROVE reminds me of psychoanalyst Justin A. Frank's BUSH ON THE COUCH, a study of the emotional troubles that make George W. Bush what he is. As MACHIAVELLI'S SHADOW recounts, Rove, the infamous political adviser of Bush, learned the man he thought was his biological father was a stepfather when the stepdad, announcing he was homosexual, dumped the family. Rove's mother then committed suicide.
   
   Karl Rove lost two fathers to rejection and a mother to suicide. The homosexual father went on to pose in body piercing magazines. MACHIAVELLI'S SHADOW does not suggest what psychological effects all that had on Rove, who toiled in the direct mail business while repeatedly failing to make a name for himself as a political adviser. But with all the rejection he experienced in his family and career, it's as if Karl Rove attempted to deny reality, trying to make winners out of fellow losers such as George W. Bush, as no one with any credibility wanted him around. Rove often proved them right, falling on his face more than he would admit. According to this book:
   
   - the late political hatchet man Lee Atwater, whom Rove claimed to be his mentor, hated him.
   
   - Rove did not have the close relationship with George W. Bush he purports started when they met in the mid-1970s. They spent little time together until Bush hired Rove for his 1994 Texas gubernatorial campaign.
   
   - George Iran-Contra Bush fired Rove from this 1988 presidential campaign for spreading lies about a political opponent.
   
   - Rove was one of the gang that couldn't shoot straight at the Florida elementary school September 11, 2001, as George W. Bush, Andy Card and he froze up after learning the second plane hit the World Trade Center, confirming America was in crisis. No political adviser worth his salt allows a client - a U.S. president, no less - to look as stupid as Bush did those long six-plus minutes after Card whispered the news, yet Rove could not think on his feet.
   
   Karl Rove, the man they deem "Bush's Brain," is in reality Bush's lame brain.
   
   In 2000 George W. Bush seized the White House not on account of Rove's savvy but because of Ronald Reagan's and George Iran-Contra Bush's partisan Supreme Court appointments. Without the five "justices" who stopped the 2000 Florida recount that would have awarded the Sunshine State and the presidency to Al Gore, Karl Rove would have gone back to licking postage stamps for a living, one more failed campaign under his belt.
   
   Naming every egregious Rove/Bush move would be like detailing each home run Hank Aaron hit; there were just too many to elaborate on all. Some that MACHIAVELLI'S SHADOW neglects include:
   
   - regarding Hurricane Katrina, George W. Bush knew the storm was to devastate New Orleans, as a meeting videotape proves. But after the warning Bush did nothing and, as MACHIAVELLI'S SHADOW reminds us, the Bush White House's inept response was too little too late as flooding killed hundreds and stranded thousands.
   
   - Rove accidentally sent voter caging lists to the wrong e-mail address, inadvertently breaking the story for the journalist Greg Palast, whom the e-mail recipient contacted after getting Rove's unintended missive.
   
   - While MACHIAVELLI'S SHADOW says the George W. Bush administration decided to attack Iraq after 9/11, it's well-documented they actually started planning the invasion in January 2001 while the White House staff was still washing egg and tomato from Bush's inaugural limousine.
   
   Karl Rove is not a comic book villain, one who commits crimes alone. While MACHIAVELLI'S SHADOW names accomplices as it recounts the offenses Rove orchestrated, the corporate media deserve much blame for not pressing Rove and George W. Bush harder on their scandals. The best example of that does not even involve Bush. Working for a Republican gubernatorial nominee in 1986, a few days before a televised debate Rove calls a press conference to claim he found a listening device in the candidate's campaign headquarters, implying the Democratic opponent was eavesdropping. The reporters promptly laugh in Rove's face, dismissing the stunt for what it was but several nonetheless write about the accusation. The corporate media act as nothing more than "He said, she said" stenographers instead of doing their job by investigating the matter. Rove's candidate wins the election. Too often journalists, like Karl Rove, don't let the facts get in the way of a good story.
   
   It all reminds me of Michael Moore's 2003 Academy Awards speech, when he said, "We live in fictitious times." Read MACHIAVELLI'S SHADOW.



2. This book is an engaging, lightning fast read that most political junkies will love. The author clearly has no love for Karl Rove and cherry picks facts and quotes to fit his narrative which basically is, "Karl Rove is a bad guy who did unspeakable things."
   
   The book essentially summarizes Rove's political philosophy as "win at any cost" and "the end justifies the means," then it goes on to offer a survey of Rove's political tactics (the author would call them dirty tricks). The author cherry picks quotes from obscure government functionaries to support his theses which are-- at times-- a little preposterous.
   
   For example, in the chapter about Hurrican Katrina where he posits the theory that the Bush Administration deliberately avoided doing anything to help save lives and render aid in New Orleans so it could embarrass Louisiana's governor (pass the salt, please!) the author begins the chapter by presenting FEMA head Mike Brown as a buffoon, using a quote from an aide to the governer that stated that Brown was "bullsh*&er" and that he had no credibility. At the end of the same chapter, in order to prove his theory about the Administration the author quotes... Mike Brown! (Miraculously, Brown had gone from having no credibility to being a wiseman in just 20 pages or so!)
   
   On the whole it reads like a long New Yorker serial more than a book and, while I had hope for more scholarship than simply "The New York Times wrote...," the author is terrfic writer and the tale he tells will grab your attention--even if it is a little dubious at times.

5 comments about Until Death Do Us Part: My Struggle to Reclaim Colombia.

1. The Crying Game of Democracy
   Review of Ingrid Betancourt's memoir Until Death Do Us Part, My Struggle to Reclaim Colombia
   Author and politician Ingrid Betancourt's return to Colombia and involvement in politics was a selfless act of love. Unfortunately, her love and the magnitude of her offerings were not understood by her fellow countrymen. In her book Until Death Do Us Part, My Struggle to Reclaim Colombia (Harper Collins Publishers, Inc., 2002, 228pgs.) Betancourt's crusade, marked by being a woman in a male society, sets the tone for many of the difficulties she encountered along the way. Facing long separations from her children, barring by other politicians, frequent hostility of the press and threats against her and her family, she endured and overcame the obstacles one by one. Ingrid understood the price for her convictions. She embraced them and never let up the fight. This book is an amazing story of courage and her fight against corruption at the highest political levels.
   The childhood of Betancourt was not that of a typical Colombian. Born in Bogotá on December 25 1961. Betancourt's mom, Yolanda Pulecio is a former Miss Colombia, turned congress woman and social activist. Her father, Gabriel Betancourt, is a career diplomat who started as minister for the General Rojas Pinilla's dictatorship. The year she was born, her father was appointed to posts in Washington D.C. Later he was sent to Paris, and Bogotá (Rank). Although Ingrid spent a large part of her childhood in Paris, she collected a vast cultural background from the places she lived and her social interaction with the literary and political elite. According to her memoirs, their house was frequently visited by leading Colombian personalities such as Carlos Lleras, Misael Pastrana,Virgilio Barco. All former Presidents of Colombia, and intellectuals like writer Gabriel Garcia Marquez, poet Pablo Neruda and painter / sculptor Fernando Botero. All of the people who came in contact with her inspired her to love the arts and politics. Betancourt attended the Institut d'Etudes Politiques in Paris (known as Sciences Po), an elite higher education institute. After graduating, she married a fellow student, Fabrice and they had two children, Melanie and Lorenzo. Since her husband was in the French diplomatic service, they continued to live in various places.
   Until Death Do Us Part explains how Ingrid's passion for politics was born from listening to conversations her parents had with many of their prominent Colombian guests while in Paris. The discussions revolved around the troublesome situation of the country and the grim future they anticipated. Since Ingrid was too young to participate in these discussions, she frequently hid under their grand piano to listen. In her memoirs, Betancourt makes reference to the birth of her political vocation under the grand piano. "I often returned to my hiding place, under the piano, and sometimes emerge with my temples burning, my stomach in knots, ready to burst into tears-so awful truly terrifying, do I find my country's fate" (Betancourt). She recalls a desire ''to affect the destiny of Colombia." From this point on, her love for her countries people increased, even though she never shared in their suffering. Finally, Betancourt could stand it no longer; her heart ached to help Colombia. Betancourt makes a decision to leave her husband and children behind and "descend into the brutish world of Colombian politics" (Golden). She was determined to fight against corruption. During an interview, Betancourt told the Los Angeles Times, "Between the drug traffickers and the guerrillas, we have been made almost ashamed to be Colombian, and a country that is ashamed of itself is a country without a future. We have to reconstruct our hopes and dreams." Colombia mattered to Ingrid more than anything else and she wanted to restore the country's pride and the faith of the Colombian people.
   According to her memoir, Betancourt begins her political combat against corruption, aware of the political turmoil in Colombia. She has a strong desire to fight for what is right. Her weapons are honesty, truth and the strong desire to help Colombia to succeed. The murder of Luis Carlos Galán in August of 1989, a candidate for the Colombian Presidency running on an anti-drug-trafficking platform, was the straw that broke the camel's back. Ingrid returnes to Colombia and starts her political career with her first appointment at the Ministry of Finance. In her post, Betancourt determines how much "politicians lack in ideals and integrity and realizes that they are only interested in power and money" (Golden). Feeling like an outsider, but knowing "something has to be done", Betancourt decides to run for a seat in the senate. During her first campaign Ingrid and her staff distributed condoms, with the motto "I'll be like a condom against corruption." Betancourt has been elected as a representative confirming that the attention of enough Colombians had been captivated by this political novice.
   The road to a Congresswoman was not an easy one, according to the author. Like many countries, in spite of the rich natural resources and vast cultural offerings, Colombia finds itself prisoner of political and economic greed. The price paid in the currency of, what the politicians, drug lords, and the militia considers disposable lives. Committed to the political struggle, Betancourt shares her many adventures as she sets up her headquarters in a fixer upper mansion. This time to run for a seat in the legislature. Betancourt's message is heard by people in need of hope. The same message is quoted by Juan Forero of The New York Times ''Corruption is not abstract; it has a face, and it has a name and we have to say it,'' said Ms. Betancourt, who wears well-tailored business suits and appears a decade younger than her age. ''Corruption must be consciously confronted, and has to be on the conscience of all Colombians so that we cannot be manipulated.'' A powerful message, shared during the same interview, reassuring the Colombian people that she is on their side. She is willing to fight their biggest oppressor.
   After only after a week in office, Ingrid is invited by one of the most corrupt politicians to write a code of ethics. The code is successfully passed as the code for the liberal party. The same party under which Betancourt ran her campaign for congress. Ingrid confronted politicians in a very unique `in your face manner.' At a speech given to the legislature, she wore a T-Shirt that read `Only the Truth!' During her time as a congress woman, she initiated a hunger strike in the name of honesty. For the majority of the population, the idea of a crusader coming form another country and from a privileged background is distant and unreal. However, no one can question Ingrid's determination, courage or the commitment to her ideals.
   The book outlines Betancourt's many political struggles to fight corruption wherever she found it. As a representative, "she was not afraid to ruffle the feathers of her fellow congress members." Demonstrated during "the campaign against a government arms contract to purchase outdated weapons" (Rank). Ingrid's honesty shines during this scandal (named the Galil scandal after the manufacturer of the guns). Shortly after, a second controversy emerges linking then President, Ernesto Samper, to drug money. The investigation of the President was launched after evidence became known that he had taken campaign donations from the heads of the Cali cocaine cartel. Betancourt was one of the few politicians who challenged him. Betancourt wanted to give the Colombian people a chance to breathe clean politics. Struggling to break the mold, Betancourt launched a new political party, the Liberal Oxygen Party, in 1997. "It was an effort to offer a choice outside of the traditional Liberal and Conservative parties" (Rank). Throughout the book she gives detailed accounts of the times when she found herself nearly alone in unmasking the enemies of the Colombian democracy.
   In the book, Until Death Do Us Part, the thirst for power inducts almost every politician into corruption. But Betancourt steers away from corruption, while navigating through temptations and threats. She never gives up on her ideals of honesty and truth. A clear example of gross ambition as mentioned by Betancourt in her book is the prosecutor that led the investigation of Samper's misconduct she describes him as ''moved by his own presidential ambitions.'' In her memoir Ingrid writes ''Is it ridiculous to play the democracy game all by myself?" Her story seems unbelievable at times. However it is sad and accurate. Betancourt has been one of the closest chances Colombia has had to feel true democratic freedom. This book is an insight into the corrupt government machine that runs Colombia. Betancourt relays the tragedies of the Colombian civil war through her own perspective. She, herself became a victim of the civil war she was trying to end. The guerrillas kidnapped Betancourt on Feb. 23, as she traveled into their former stronghold to show support for a local leader of her independent political party.
   By the time Betancourt was kidnapped by the FARC guerrillas (Revolutionary Armed Forces of Colombia), she had become a prominent figure of Colombian politics. Although the approach of truth and honesty made many of her fellow politicians uncomfortable, Betancourt was elected to the Senate in 1994. Her campaign was and example of her courage to fight corruption. Betancourt went on to attain a seat in the congress two years later. She received more votes than any other candidate. When Ingrid was kidnapped, she was running as a presidential contender. Again, her campaign denounced the corruption of the political elite and prioritized the defense of the country she loves with all her heart. Until Death Do Us Part is a fascinating and enlightening. The book brings to light the many hardships a political leader faces, more so if it is a woman. The book provides a detail account of Betancourt's life of dedication, honesty and courage.
   [...]



2. Que puedo decir, (What can I say)? We need more international pressure on this issue. Ingrid along with Luis Carlos Galan, who was assasinated in front of a large crowd of supporters in the late 80's in cold blood have been the only ones willing to step up to the plate. They grew some balls and went against the world on this issue. Yes, it's all about the $600 million dollar industry which ruins everything that is beautiful in Colombia. The main importer the United States, who has also turned a blind eye to their own U.S. citizens captured ( Howes, Stansell, and Gonsalves) in the Colombian jungle since 2003. Do I recommend this book? Heck yeah! Ingrid is one of those few people in life and the world that make the changes or at least start to make the changes that we want to see in the world. I must also mention she uncovered alot of high ranking politicians who were being paid under the table from the Narcs, so why wouldn't you want to read this book it's intriguing. May I also mention that there is a documentary on this women called, "The Disappearance of Ingrid Betancourt", & I believe the producers are Karin Hayes and Victoria Bruce. The producers have also won several international prizes for this just one simple lady you see on the cover of this book. Te admiro Ingrid Betancourt. Viva Colombia. Liberen a los Rehenes.



3. Ingrid Betancourt is a rare person -- who puts her courage, brains, and energy to work in an effort to improve her country.
   
   This is not a boring political bio. It's an exciting story of a great person who moves from one adventure to the next, eventually putting her life in great danger.
   
   And it happened. After this book was published, Betancourt ran for president of Colombia. She was kidnapped by gorillas and at this writing, is still being held hostage somewhere in the mountains of her beautiful country.
   
   Here's wishing Betancourt the best. You are an inspiration to me and to all who will read this book. I am eager to read your next book.



4. This book was awesome. I loved it. I could not put it down. The story was told in terms that everyone could understand. The book follows wonderfully.
   If you are looking for a book that deals with women's rights and the struggles that they must endure, this is a good one to pick. I had to read this book for a history of Latin American class. It really helped us as atudents understand the situation that Ms. Betancourt was facing in Columbia. As well as, understand some of the choices she made.
   As a female reader it stirred my emotions. I highly suggest ths book as an educational read, or just a for the fun of it read.



5. This book reads not only as an autobiography, but also as a political testament from a truly courageous woman. No matter what your political leanings or philosophy may be, you have to be impressed with Betancourt's integrity and character. Reading this book has given me an interest into why Colombia is in the dire straits that it's in today.

   Ingrid Betancourt's quest for a peaceful, reformed Colombia may seem quixotic. But it is reassuring to know that there are politicians like her in the world. Let us hope that she will be freed unharmed so that she can again stand up for what Colombia needs today: peace, stability, progress, and social justice.

3 comments about His Finest Hour (Penton Audio).

1. This is a fantastic find for any history buffs who want to hear Mr. Churchill's words in the original format.



2. The editor's introductions to the speeches are sometimes inaccurate, but Churchill is a wonder to listen to. Highly recommended by anyone with an appreciation for history or literature.



3. Those 16 of his finest speaches made during the darkest days of WWII demonstrated courage and inner strength of a great leader in modern world. I and my 11 year old have enjoyed it very much.

4 comments about Integrity: Good People, Bad Choices, and Life Lessons from the White House.

1. Egil "Bud" Krogh gives a detailed and fascinating look into the Nixon White House and how basically honest, but naive staffers (and one in particular) were misled or failed to question their orders and proceeded to break the law to stop perceived security leaks. Mr. Krogh writes a very compelling explanation of his reasoning for breaking the law, then describes events and his own logic that led him to admit his guilt and start the long road to redemption beyond a prison sentence and disbarment. It made me realize that it could happen to me or anyone who doesn't look carefully into the long term consequences of their decisions, and thus made it easy to identify with his predicament. For people like me who followed the Watergate proceedings with great interest, it is a book that you can't put down.



2. He was a Navy officer serving on the USS Yorktown by the age of 22, in law school at 26, a staff assistant to the counsel to the president at 29, and Undersecretary of Transportation at 33. At 34, he was in jail. How could this happen to a man raised in a highly moral family, with an excellent education, with Christian Middle American values and a strong sense of patriotism? Yet here was Egil "Bud" Krogh at 33, starting a prison sentence for violating the civil rights of Dr. Lewis Fielding, a California psychiatrist. Bud says the principal cause was the collapse of integrity of those members of the White House's Special Investigative Unit (SIU) who conspired, ordered and carried the break-in of the doctor who had been consulted by Dr. Daniel Ellsburg, the "leaker" of the Pentagon Papers" to the New York Times in early 1971.
   
   In this short book on integrity and decision-making, Bud Krogh tells his story as an advisor in the White House during the Nixon administration and his role as co-director of the SIU. The reason for the book is quite clearly stated in the Dedication: "To those who deserve better, this book is offered as an apology, an explanation, and a way to keep integrity in the forefront of decision-making".
   
   After leaving the Navy in June of 1965, Bud was assisted in his career by John Ehrlichman, a close family friend and father figure to whom he admits he owed complete personal loyalty. Bud was working for Ehrlichman's law firm in Washington State when Ehrlichman was named counsel to the president upon Richard Nixon's election in 1968, and jumped at the chance to move to Washington to assist in the transition, eventually acting as assistant counsel and deputy counsel to the president.
   
   In June of 1971, the "Pentagon Papers", revealing that the United States government was deliberately expanding its role in the war while President Johnson was promising not to do so, were leaked to the New York Times by Dr. Daniel Ellsberg. Subsequent attempts by the Nixon Administration to prevent disclosure failed, including a ruling by the Supreme Court halting Administration attempts to prevent publication. Together with a article in the Times revealing the fall- back position of the U.S. in the first SALT talks, these disclosures created a "crisis of major proportions" in the Nixon White House. Bud was selected to co-direct the White House's Special Investigations Unit (better known as the "Plumbers"), and tasked with stopping leaks of top secret information related to the Vietnamese War, the Strategic Arms Limitation Talks and other foreign policy operations. The SIU included such now famous names as G. Gordon Liddy, David Young and E. Howard Hunt, and according to Bud the group felt that it "had been given a critical responsibility by the president, and we were embarking on a quest that held great import for the security of the nation."
   
   Bud's SIU decided to go forward with its own investigation. During deliberations, no one in the SIU questioned the necessity, legitimacy, legality, or morality of the proposed covert action. Relying on the president's declaration of a national security crisis, the unit never asked whether their actions were "right". Instead, the unit focused on questions such as who had the skills, who could be trusted, and who would pay for it? They assumed it was "right" because the president was pressing for action and because they believed that information from Dr. Fielding's office would help prevent further leaks from undermining Nixon's plan for ending the Vietnam war. Their loyalties were to their principals and to the president personally.Staff members had been hired on the basis of loyalty to the president and to the senior presidential aide who had recruited him or her. To suggest that national security was being improperly invoked would have been to invite a confrontation with both patriotism and loyalty, well beyond what he was capable of at that time. (In the Foreword, Daniel Ellsberg relates although he had taken an oath of office a number of times, he first noticed the Code of Ethics for Government Service hanging on a wall while he was a visitor at a New Mexico correction facility. He was particularly struck by the first principle: "Put loyalty to the highest moral principles and to country above loyalty to persons, party, or Government department." Ellsberg admits that he didn't recall that it ever occurred to him that he was taking on obligations to the Constitution that might contradict the demands of a cabinet secretary or the president.)
   
   And so the members of the SIU conspired to break into the psychiatrist's office because national security mandated an assessment of Ellsberg's mental state to determine if he was likely to release other classified information. It was seven weeks from the "crisis" declaration to the break-in. Bud sums it up: "In those seven weeks, the SIU had undergone a journey from suspicion to certainty to covert action to frustration to zealotry: hardened by their first action, the Plumbers knew that the rules of engagement had been changed and the conventional respect for laws set aside. A botched break-in, evidence by a few Polaroids, didn't seem to represent much. In practice, however, it was the first irreversible step by which a presidency ran out of control."
   
   The efforts of the SIU didn't end with the break-in of Dr. Fielding's office. Failing to garner any information on Dr. Ellsberg, it was suggested that a break-in be conducted at Dr. Fielding's home. After Bud rejected this idea, his involvement with covert action ended, but his troubles had just begun.
   
   In February of 1973 Bud was confirmed as undersecretary of Transportation. In May he reisgend his position. In August, he was indicted for making a false declaration to the DOJ regarding the travel to California by the Plumbers. Then, in November of 1973, while on a vacation in Williamsburg, VA with his family, he admitted to himself that he felt uncomfortable with the soundness of using national security as a defense: "The more I tried to align my thought with a higher sense of right, the more problematic it became." He recognized that here he was under federal and state indictment, but still free to travel wherever he wanted, speak to the press, worship freely, etc. , but had nonetheless violated another man's civil rights in order to protect the country. If he continued to justify violating rights he continued to enjoy, he felt he would not only be a hypocrite, but a traitor to the fundamental American idea of the right of an individual to be free from unwarranted government intrusion in his life. He decided to plead guilty: "While there may have been some damaging impacts upon national security from Ellsberg's release of the Pentagon Papers, those impacts simply could not justify the invasion of Fielding's rights that this operation involved."
   
   Four days after making his decision, Bud walked into the office of Leon Jaworski, the special prosecutor for Watergate and related crimes and offered to plead guilty to the more serious charge of the deprivation of civil rights in exchange for a dismissal of lesser federal and state charges. His one other stipulation - to avoid any suggestion that he was seeking leniency through testifying, and in the belief that it would be wrong to benefit directly from sharing a truth that would damage others, Bud made it clear that his guilty plea was conditional on the prosecutor's agreement that he would not talk with them or the grand jury until after he'd been sentenced: "It was critically important to me that Judge Gerhard Gesell sentence me solely on the basis of what I did, not for what I might say that would implicate others." Bud pled guilty on November 30th and was eventually sentenced to a term of two to six years of which he was to serve six months, with two years of unsupervised probation.
   
   Bud spices up the book with a few tales that have only a tertiary relationship to the issue of integrity. He tells one story of working in the Nixon transition office as one of those screening the backgrounds of the president's nominees. He also discusses his experiences in Vietnam in December of 1967 studying land reform as a method of defeating the Viet Cong insurgency; the famous May, describes the 1970 Nixon "wee hours" of the morning meeting with war protestors at the Lincoln memorial; and challenges the decisions of the current Bush Administration regarding interrogation techniques and wiretapping.
   
   Reflecting back upon his actions, Bud concludes that his absolute loyalty to President Nixon personally and to his view of the national security threat had skewed his perspective. This kind of absolute loyalty lacked integrity, he came to understand, because it was unbalanced and too exclusive. Loyalty to the president was obviously important up to a point. However, loyalty to the Constitution, to the rule of law, and to moral and ethical requirements should have been key factors in his decisions as well: "The key point I had not internalized was that the integrity in which the president was reposing special trust was my own. Not his integrity, not the integrity of someone else on the staff, but my own. In short, no one can check their personal integrity at the door when they walk into work at the West Wing or anywhere else".
   
   This is an excellent book addressing the competing pressures of individual integrity and personal loyalty and is recommended reading for all, both private and public sector.
   
   
   
   



3. I would primarily like to "second" the previous review (A Needed History Lesson for Our Times). The reviewer says what I would have said, and says it well, particularly in regard to how this valuable book relates to current issues. I would add that I thought I knew the history of the Vietnam era, but I learned so much from this book, and not only concerning the Nixon White House. A very interesting thing to me was the concept of "land reform" and how that issue related to Vietnam, and still is of importance in the world today, when considering how to raise people out of poverty. Bud writes about his time spent in Vietnam, when he was a law student, doing research on land reform issues. He speaks about traveling in the country with reporters who were seeking out members of the Viet Cong to interview. This is just an example of the firsthand and unexpected material that draws a reader in and is so much more involving than one might expect from a book on ethics and integrity. I highly recommend this book, as history, as an explanation of an ethical journey, and, as the previous reviewer said, as a lesson for our time.



4. At a time when we are governed by an administration that whole-heartedly believes "the ends justify the means", it is crucial to step back and look at history; to see where that motto has failed again and again. Bud Krogh writes an insightful and extremely timely account of his time in the White House under Nixon and his direction of the "Plumbers"--created to seal up real (or perceived) leaks that were threatening our national security.
   
   After the 2000 elections, Krogh wrote an open memo, published in the Christian Science Monitor, to Bush's new staff--VP Cheney, Secretary of Treasury Paul O'Neill and Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld--all of whom Krogh had worked with under Nixon in the 1970s. He said as he watched them raise their right hands and swear to uphold the Constitution, it brought back a flood of memories for him when he stood before Nixon and swore to the same oath.
   
   "As I pondered what the new Bush staff would encounter, I realized that I might be able to help by writing a memo to them about one of the central ideas that I had not understood as well as I should have when I was on the White House staff...the absolute imperative to maintain one's sense of integrity in the face of enormous pressures to get results at any cost."
   
   Krogh explains how a good person, raised in the right way, given all the advantages of a young American male, could end up pleading guilty to depriving another of his civil rights and going to prison. Loyalty to his superiors, including Nixon, overshadowed his oath to uphold the Constitution and that lead him to orchestrate the illegal break-in of Dr. Louis Fielding's Psychiatric office in California for the express purpose of stealing Daniel Ellsberg's personal file to try to discredit him. Ellsberg had leaked the "Pentagon Papers" to the press and Nixon believed this to be a serious national security threat.
   
   History has remembered Watergate as the downfall of Nixon's administration, but through Krogh's easy-to-read narrative of the events leading up to Watergate, we find that the break-in and burglary of Dr. Fielding's office was the "seminal event in the chain of events that led to Nixon's resignation".
   
   Obviously, Krogh's letter to the Bush staff has gone largely unheeded as we learn almost daily about unwarranted wiretapping; holding prisoners without cause; torture at Abu Graib and Guantanamo Bay; Rove; Libby; the list goes on and on.
   
   Who was it that said "those who fail to learn from the past are doomed to repeat it."?
   
   At the end of his book, Krogh has created a model called the "integrity zone"; steps that each individual in public or private life can take to ascertain whether the path they have chosen is one of integrity or convenience. With three questions: Is it whole and complete? Is it Right? Is it good? one can quickly figure out if they're standing on solid ground or standing at the edge of a slippery slope. After the events of 9/11, if the Bush administration had stopped to ask those questions, we may well be living in a vastly different world than the one we live in today.
   
   For anyone who is concerned about today's political environment and interested in where we've come from and how we got here, this is a must read. I think Krogh is an appropriate person to get this message across. It speaks volumes about who Bud Krogh is as a man of integrity that Daniel Ellsberg wrote the forward and calls him a friend today.

5 comments about John Kenneth Galbraith: His Life, His Politics, His Economics.

1. This is an excellent portrayal of the life of Galbraith, set in the surrounding economic and political history of his lifetime. I highly recommend it for these reasons.
   
   In addition, a theme of Galbraith's understanding of the combination of economic and social and political currents is made clear. Impressively the lack of appreciation by the political and military figures in the US government during different presidencies, as well as the political bias affecting Galbraiths peers in the academic world comes through.
   
   In a world full of people nursing their own ends in the Air Force, government party line, and econometric biases, Galbraith's genious went often neglected or countered. But he remained able to speak to the public at large in his writings, providing a guidance of uncommon sense in his lifetime. This book presents his case admirably.



2. Whenever Galbraith wrote or spoke he did consider not only pure economics but also the large issues at hand. Poverty next to Affluence. Government spending for Military purposes instead of education, health care, i.e. social progress. Our ever focus on larger GNP, the increasing gap between the poor and the better off. He urged to protect the environment when no one talked about it and he supported equal opportunities for women long before any one else of such high stand did. Ken Galbraith was a true Giant among Economists! Great read! I can highly recommend it!



3. While economist Parker's writing style is not as wryly entertaining as Galbraith's, he presents a lucid and engrossing overview of Galbraith's life experiences as they influenced the evolution of his economic philosophy, as well as his political and social philosophies. Galbraith's biography is skillfully presented against the background of more traditional economic thought with which he was regularly in contention. I judge it every bit as readable and understandable for a noneconomist like myself as for someone in the field. For anyone interested in Galbraith, in Keynesianism, or the history of progressive politics and economics, this work is an absolute must. I refer to mine regularly. This, in fact, is my second copy, having worn out the first.



4. Richard Parker gives us a thorough review of the life, politics, and economics of one of the most well known economists of the twentieth century. Along the way, Parker takes the reader on a tour of the battles that roiled post-war American economic thought and of John Kenneth Galbraith's eager participation in those debates.
   
   Although the subtitle of Parker's book on this legendary 20th century economist advertises itself as covering Galbraith's "life . . . politics . . . and economics," Parker is far more interested in the second and third elements. Readers who are expecting a more traditional biography that focuses in equal measure on the subject's personal and professional life will therefore be disappointed, for Parker relegates personal details to a decidedly secondary place in his book. Instead of a traditional biography, "JKB" seeks to explain the rise and fall of the post-war Keynesian economic consensus -- that government must act to spur aggregate demand to prevent the long periods of underconsumption which economices are prone to endure -- and the legacy it has left behind in the 21st century. "JKB" accomplishes this by recounting the career of its most public proponent: Galbraith. With this in mind, the book operates on two levels; on the one hand it narrates Galbraith's career in public service and in academia, while on the other hand it is also a history of the American economy in the post-war world (and the politics shaping it) as seen through Galbraith's Keynesian eyes.
   
   We thus tag along as Galbraith enters the profession while it struggles to explain the origins of (and discover remedies to) the Great Depression; as Galbraith struggles with the implications of Keynes' revolutionary theory about modern economies; as Galbraith, along with a new generation of economists, tries to implement Keynes' teachings to ensure the nation's prosperity after World War II; as Galbraith and Keynes reach the height of their influence in the 1960s, followed by decline amidst the economic shocks of the 1970s; and as the century ends with both Galbraith and the post-war economic consensus seen as relics of an earlier era, replaced by a new form of laissez-faire reminiscent of the 1920s.
   
   Accepting this as the book's premise, Parker works hard to reach the general reader who does not have a background in economics. For instance, I found his treatment of the end of the Bretton Woods system to be the first comprehensible explanation of why it occurred and of its enormous effects on the world economy that I have come across. Still, parts of the book are a bit technical and dry. Parker tends to digress too much at times, with page after page discussing trends in economics in the 1950s, causing one to momentarily forget that this is a book ostensibly about Galbraith. Nevertheless, Parker has constructed an engaging account of Galbraith's foresight and influence in national (and international) affairs. Parker reminds us that many of Galbraith's ideas were years ahead of his time, such as the insight that corporations now play a decisive role in generating demand through advertising, and that he was dead right about Vietnam very early on. Parker allows Galbraith's wit and humanity to shine through. Finally, his analysis of the ups and downs of the American economy over the last sixty years -- from the post-war boom through the chaos of the 1970s and the nation's economic resurgence in the 1980s and 90s -- is outstanding. This book is a must for anyone interested in the American economy since the war.



5. This is really an excellent biography of a fine man and economist. His friend, the noted patrician conservative, Bill Buckley, gives it high praise on his front cover blurb for the book. Hopefully, Gailbraith got Buckley's praise before he died. If he did, I hope he withdrew his earlier comment quoted in the book that, "...Buckley...was invariably wrong." Plus, if he were still alive, I'm sure he would be most pleased with Bill Buckley's criticism of Bush and the Iraq war.
   
   Richard Parker has written an excellent book documenting John Kenneth Gailbraith's very long (98 years) and productive life. I happen to agree with Paul Samuelson that Gailbraith will be remembered long after the neo-classical mathematizers have passed away. Economics is a Social Science that belongs in the Liberal Arts tradition. It should not be treated as a cultish pseudo-science with the "high priests" continuously muttering incantations of statistical and mathematical hocus-pocus. All the time, enjoying well financed academic chairs funded by conservative business interests or working for conservative foundations. Writing apologetics for the corporate business community is certainly going to be far more finanically rewarding than speaking truth to power.
   
   When I hear many of today's conservative economists speak on conservative foundation panels on C-SPAN, I am sometimes reminded of the old radical American economist of Norwegian-American descent, Thorstein Veblen. One of his more direct comments about the education of business oriented neo-classical economists was that they possessed "trained incapacity" by the end of their extensive schooling. Some things haven't changed too much since the early 20th century when he coined the phrase.
   
   Gailbraith's adherence to the less popular and older view of economics as "political economy" will, I believe, win out in the end. Economic behavior is social behavior and cannot be fully extracted from psychological, sociological, anthropological, and most of all, political, concerns. To deny this very basic fact is to live in a fantasy world. Political decisions are enormously important in the workings of national and international economies. Market forces are also of great importance, but there are no "free market" forces that act in isolated purity. Market forces are always contextual--influenced by family, community, custom, mass psychology, politics especially, etc., etc.
   
   Parker convinced me that the U.S. would be a much better place if presidents after FDR had followed Gailbraith's advice. The world would also be a much safer place without the extraordinary levels of US militarism after WWII--with accompanying conservative belligerance. Military spending is necessary up to a responsible, defensive level. After that level is achieved, however, it is incredibly wasteful and injurious to world peace. We would be far better served to invest in our people, their health, environment, and infrastructure than to keep flushing the money down the toilet for more "killer" weapons systems.
   
   John Kenneth Gailbraith was a voice of sanity in an increasingly insane world. He will be greatly missed by those of us outside of the neo-conservative asylum.

5 comments about For Love of Politics: Bill and Hillary Clinton: The White House Years.

1. I wanted a book in which the central focus was the relationship between Bill and Hillary Clinton. I got a book in which the central focus was scandal. No question: Scandals were a crucial and indelible part of the Clinton administration, and a necessary element of any half-way honest account. I have no doubt that Smith gets the details right, and after reading this book I was properly furious with Bill. He lost a lot of his idealism, became far too poll driven, disgraced the presidency and the White House in particular and gave us eight years of George W. Bush. Heck, the way this book puts it he was almost single handedly responsible for 9/11. It just defies credibility that the book doesn't aknowledge in any detail that the Clintons accomplished a single thing in eight years, that there was anything going on other than the scandels and the failures. I don't know that Smith is necessarily a Republican, but I do know that she pads her meager anecdotes about the Clinton family with the lard of the Lewisnky and White Water scandels, and she comes across less as a historian than as a gossipy tabloid writer.



2. Was it all so seedy, all so sordid? That's how the Clinton years feel reading this book. Of course, most depictions of the inner workings of any White House administration make for a depressing read. But perhaps a little more effort could have been made to explain how they did not seem to mess things up so much in the Clinton years. The best part of this book, is how it shows the Clinton working together so intimately. People who think they should have gotten divorced don't really understand the complex dynamics of their relationship.



3. I watched Ms Smith on book tv talking about this book. She was giving her lecture in front of a biased group of think tank people. Hint #1
   She is totally biased. She is a very good assassin and deserves whatever they paid her to write this attack piece. When a right wing think tank with board members from the health care industry invite an author to give a speech about her book....then buyer beware...DONT BUYT THIS BOOK.



4. In the past few months, I have been reading a lot about the Clintons. I wanted to know more about Hillary. After reading Carl Bernstein's "A Woman in Charge", I had a favorable impression of her, even though his account was not slanted in either direction.
   
   This book focuses more on the Hillary and Bill Clinton's dynamic. After reading this book, it is clear that you cannot study one without the other. They are truly each other's "other half".
   
   After reading this book, it is clear that they did run a co-presidency during Bill Clinton's 2 terms in office; and it is understandable to see why she refers to this time as the needed experience for her own presidency plans.
   
   In fact, the impression I got from this book is that even without the Monica Lewinsky and Whitewater incidents, Bill Clinton would still not have been an effective president without Hillary at his side. She brought the discipline that he needed to put into practice his political dreams.
   
   He on the other hand provides the political vision and spontaneity in thought, that she lacks.
   
   The book is successful in showing that Hillary is certainly capable of being our next president, but it also makes you wonder if you really want her to be. I felt that the book was not as objective as it could have been. I have always liked Bill Clinton, but I finished this book disgusted with his sexual behavior, and with the distinct feeling that they are both so political ambitious and self-centered, they will step on anyone, say and do anything to get elected. This book did not present the facts in an objective way as Bernstein's did, but in a more negatively-slanted manner. She mentions The Drudge Report without illuminating us on its creator, she talks about Mellon Scaife without clarifying how much money he gave to feed the right-wing conspiracy that was definitely working against the Clintons; and she mentions David Brock as a source against the Clintons, without mentioning that he later wrote a book describing in detail all the lies and manipulations that were exercised in the conspiracy that Brock himself confirmed to exist.
   
   Perhaps one of the more interesting "side effects" of this book for me, is the light it sheds on Al Gore. I had already gotten a whiff of his brilliance in Bill Clinton's autobiography, but in this book he is also shown to be a highly honorable, decent man. It once again, saddened me to reflect on how different the world would be today if he had been president these last 8 years.
   
   I have often wondered why Al Gore has not endorsed either Hillary Clinton or Barack Obama. In view of what I read in this book, I don't think he would endorse Hillary; but he would probably feel he was betraying the Clintons if he endorsed Obama, and so will refrain from doing so. In the end if he does endorse Obama, it will be because he truly believes in his candidacy and not for payback to the Clintons, even though he would be quite justified in doing so.
   
   In conclusion, reading this book has changed the way in which I view the Clintons. Although it is true that they were the victims of a right-wing conspiracy, they made many personal and political mistakes, that gravely affected the presidency. In the book someone is quoted as saying that Bill Clinton was a great president but not his presidency, and I think this is not only very accurate, but could also describe Hillary Clinton's presidency, if there's ever one.



5. What a surprise For Love of Politics was. I bought it as an alternative to the recent works Her Way and the one penned by Carl Bernstein. I hoped that it would be more objective than those two publications and I was not disappointed. This is an excellent history and happens to be one of the few books in my life that I could not put down.
   
   As for the author, before purchasing my copy I knew nothing about her. Indeed, I had never heard of Mrs. Bedell Smith before. All her bio online tells us is that she is a biographer who works at Vanity Fair. The endorsements listed on the back cover come from mainstream media sources like the Los Angeles Times, Newsweek, and The Washington Post so, upon receiving it in the mail, I was a little worried that the analysis would be slanted. I am pleased to report that my fears were unwarranted as For Love of Politics gives off no odor of bias whatsoever. Indeed, these chapters are bathed in neutrality. Clinton supporters might not like this but if justice offends then one must examine oneself.
   
   As a conservative who has read five or six rightist accounts of the Clintons, I can quickly grasp from what side of the political spectrum commentary comes; although, here I had no idea. Even after devouring all 450 of these pages, I am as befuddled in regards to what Mrs. Bedell Smith thinks as I was when I first opened it. I can think of no higher compliment to bestow upon a historian than saying that they are above political manipulation which Mrs. Bedell Smith definitely seems to be. Her evaluation of these primary source materials (original sources) was compulsively fair which is also true of the narrative on aggregate.
   
   The real art here is that she allows the Clintons to tell their own story...but what a story! The tale remains timely as Hillary may well be our next president. For Love of Politics was entertaining but incredibly educational as well. Old time students of the Clintons will learn new things and neophytes will have a chance to get beyond the soundbytes that saturated the two terms of our 42nd President. In my humble opinion, this is a must read.

5 comments about The Brothers Bulger: How They Terrorized and Corrupted Boston for a Quarter Century.

1. Absolutely jaw dropping. Reading this book made my hair stand up. Couldn't put the book down!



2. Great take on one of the great true crime stories in America. A must read if you are interested in the story of Whitey Bulger, and how can you not be?



3. I love this book it has details of my fathers death and my uncle joe as well finally a real book on the true crime and the sick bastards that took so many life's fathers humans and friends form south Boston and Medford Mass.



4. The Publisher's Weekly review and the audio file review are very good descriptions of this narrative. Two brothers in Boston, one a politician and the other a mobster, shaping politics and crime in Boston for decades. Whitey Bulger, who is still an international fugitive, makes an excellent precursor, if not template, for Jack Nicholson's role in the film "The Departed". The author is an award winning newspaper columnist who clearly knows Boston intimately, along with who is connected to whom on both sides of the law, however, it can be a little confusing for the reader to keep up without a table of organization or flow chart. Frequently, Carr states facts or describes events that it is assumed he acquired from court transcripts, police reports and street sources but the reader is often left to take it simply on faith because the hard evidence or source isn't referenced or cited. Still, it's an interesting saga of the backrooms and chicanery in Boston over the past five decades.



5. Howie well knows,but chooses to ignore,the truism that a grand jury can always be persuaded to indict a ham sandwich. But try as they might All the Kings Men be they federal, state or local could not get a rubberstamped indictment of Billy Bulger and this fact gives Howie an ulcer. And all the kings men also includes congressional committees who basked in their public investigation of Sen Bulger and came up with scratch. Poor Howie: all full of righteous thunder and a sack full of yellow journalism.
   Jim Whalen

5 comments about The Family: The Real Story of the Bush Dynasty.

1. This is a Wicked and delicious (mostly true in my opinion) biography of the Bush "Dynasty". Kitty gets it right on the mark on many things. The Audio edition which I had the pleasure of reviewing was most especially captivating.



2. I read this book through 2 times. It is astounding how many people have lied and cheated to protect our present top man in government and the former family members. I remember seeing Kitty on CNN one time to promote her book and then the Bush people must have gotten through to all other venues of promotion. She was not on any more that I saw. The "people" saw to that!! In fact, she was fired from her job as a result of the book. But no one sued her for libel, because she is so thorough in researching her facts. Prior to this book, I never realized how much bad things happen in politics and coverups. This gal tells it as it is.



3. This should be required reading for Americans of voting age. Well researched and clearly written, the book relies on reliable sources that, for the most part, maintain Kelley's objectivity. Although a reasonably well informed individuaI, I now realize that I have been quite naive regarding political ruthlessness.



4. My expectations were low. I never read a Kitty Kelley book before, so it's clear that her critics had done their work on me. While some sour grapes relatives had their say, the book had far more meat than I expected. There was plenty of written record, and the all so telling sealed and missing records.
   
   Kelley's presentation about the Bush intra-Family, Bush-Yale, Bush-Reagan Bush-Republican Party, relationships etc. provided the glue for putting the missing pieces of the family story together. Now I know why Bush 41 had the succession of unrelated gov. positions before he ran with Reagan. Every family has black sheep and secrets, but within this family, the stories of these relatives and their excommunication from the family are extreme. There is a lot of food for thought on how family dynamics over 3 generations have spurred political ambition.
   
   New to me, was that upon election Bush 41 was worth only $2 million. I thought they were far richer than this. They may be now, Bush 43 made $15 million alone capitalizing on the family name/contacts to get taxpayers to fund his baseball team. Kelley says almost nothing on the family relations with the Saudis.
   
   Kelley tackled 3 generations and did a competent job. There is plenty of unexplored turf for the next biographers.



5. 
   Beneath tons of minutia and irrelevant details that often border on mere salacious family gossip, a clear picture of the Bush family, its code of honor, code of ethics and family dynamics, does eventually emerge. The Bush formula for success consisted mostly of parlaying meager individual talents, an ability to maneuver on the outer edges of morality, a penchant for winning at all costs, and punching the right social tickets, into a coveted entry into the most envied of inner social and economic circles.
   
   According to the author, sucking up to those higher up the social ladder, and giving expression to this sycophancy by exhibiting whenever necessary, a willingness to make deep moral turns in the road, (a theme also repeated in Russell S. Bowen's "Immaculate Deception") became the family's number one business practice and eventually its clearest ethical signature. Sycophancy and questionable business practices not only proved to be the most reliable hook for ascending the proverbial social ladder (well beyond a rung that their talents and family code of ethics alone would have otherwise entitled them to), but also served as a way of consolidating their power and position once they arrived. Kelly argues that this weak moral template continues to work for the Bush family even into the present generation.
   
   Once gaining a foothold somewhere nearer the top of the food chain and having done so literally by hook or crook, the Bushes then perfected the art of holding on to their illicitly gained status: Display all of the outward signs of moral rectitude, while just behind the scenes, engage in the most ruthless of bare-knuckled business and ethical practices. In short, at every turn, demonstrate that you are willing to use up all of the family's moral capital in order to sustain the family's social status.
   
   Tempered by the uncertainty of the depression, and the precariousness inherent in living above ones own intellectual and moral station, the Bushes understandably were always terrified of being discovered as the social and economic frauds they saw themselves as. This palpable inner fear helped shape their worldview, animated family dynamics and contributed to most of the family's deviant behavior, which from time-to-time included alcoholism and latter on some sporadic drug use.
   
   The author implies that the Bushes might still be suffering from a kind of "survivor's guilt" of knowing full well that talent-wise they have never quite measured up to others in their lofty inner circles. Thus most of their lives have been dedicated to self-justification -- proving to themselves that they are deserving of the many unearned and often unethical entitlements they have received.
   
   However, it must be said in passing that compared to the stories of others of this ilk, who like the Bushes, have also clawed and scratched their way to the top of the food chain (the Kennedy's would be another good case in point), there is nothing strikingly out of the ordinary about the Bush family.
   
   Plus, I can think of nothing negative to say about a family that can turn an utter un-redeeming family black sheep into the President of the USA. They must have been doing something right. Amen.
   
   A good read; another classic American story told well: five stars.