5 comments about Mitt Romney: The Man, His Values and His Vision.

1. I thought this book was well researched and interesting. However, I didn't feel compelled to support Romney afterwards. So, it suceeded in it's goal of providing basic information, but it did not inspire me.



2. This book is well written and is a quick read into Mitt Romney: Who he is, his family, his life, his business career and his views on how and where to take the USA as President.
   
   For any American with the right to vote and not much time on their hands to research candidates this is a must read.I also liked the fact it was written by a Mormon & an Evangelist and this gave a very 'realistic' view of how Mitt Romney would be like as US President.
   
   These days the press are hounding down on Mitt mainly beacuse of his religion. Do yourself a favour and buy this book and read about the 'real' facts. If you truly want the US economy to improve and for you and your family to have more opportunities & money in your pocket Mitt Romney is the man that can create a prosperous field for you to play in. Do your due diligence, switch the TV off and read this book, then decide for yourself!



3. It's too bad that the person most able to challenge the Dhimmicratic Party in the next election is being judged solely on his religion. Ability should count a little in a presidential candidate you would think. They tried to do the same thing to John Kennedy. They said he'd take his orders from the Pope. (Yes, they really said that!)
   
   Political or policy issues are so multifaceted that if a candidate discusses the complexities, the products of today's education (?) system think that he is flip-flopping. With this type of thinking, the person who gets elected will be the person who says least or who mouths only platitudes. Or someone too dumb to know the complexities. This may be how we got our present incumbent. And it will probably give us our next incumbent.
   
   Too bad, because America desperately needs a capable person of integrity. Romney may be that person. Forget religion. Think politics. Think survival. We need an intelligent person in the White House.



4. With a title like "Mitt Romney: The Man, His Values and His Vision", I expected that, like Mitt's values, I would be able to pick and choose them (or at least they would adapt to their audience).
   
   Instead this book is another lightweight "cheerleaders" book that may as well have been written by Mitt's enormous spin team.
   
   Want a serious look at Mitt - look elsewhere. Want to reinforce your beliefs that Mitt is the most amazing guy on the planet (well post 2002 after he changed all his views) then grab this book now!!!



5. Mitt Romney could well be our next president, and this book explains all the ins and outs of this fascinating man. The authors answer the tough questions about religion and flip-flopping and paint a realistic picture of the man who might be president. They aren't simply cheerleaders, nor are they rabid Republicans or cheerleaders. Not only did this book help me decide who to vote for, it was fast and fun to read.

4 comments about Kingfish: The Reign of Huey P. Long.

1. There is something strangely flat about this biography of Huey Long. I agree with the other (at this point, three) reviewers in the author's focus on a relatively short period of Long's life, the lack of insight into Long's psychology, the uninspired prose, and a certain shallowness. White was, all in all, unsatisfying.
   
   I came to the subject of Long from Robert Penn Warren's All the King's Men, a magificent fictional treatment of Long and his minions. It inspired me to learn more about him, but, I fear, that Kingfish was not the best choice. I think that I might attempt William's biography, but it is more likely that I would re-read All the King's Men.



2. Huey P. Long is my favorite political figure of all time. Since I read T. Harry Williams' masterful bio of Long, I've tried to read any and everything about Huey that I can get my hands on. When I saw "Kingfish," I scooped it right up. Admittedly, I may be biased because I think Williams' book is the best political biography ever written and may hold Long bios to a very high standard. In the end, after reading through this book pretty fast - it is less than 300 pages - I liked "Kingfish", and would recommend it to anyone interested in learning about Huey but without the time to read Williams' large text. Further, whereas Williams' book is fairly pro-Long, this book is mostly anti-Huey. Nevertheless, it doesn't hold a candle to "Huey Long" by Williams. It isn't even close.
   
   The book doesn't spend much attention on Huey's early years (he was born in 1893), and focuses on the period from his successful gubernatorial run in 1928, to his Senate election two years late, to his ascension as a national figure, to his assassination in 1935. In between, it provides delicious detailed stories and tidbits of many of Huey's often unbelievable exploits as he ruthlessly conquered every inch of Louisiana and came close to running for President and perhaps endangering FDR's re-election chances in 1936. Beyond that, the book perfectly captures the political and social mood in the Pelican State in Long's day: the sweltering heat, the unrest and bitter hatred Huey engendered in the elite and ruling classes and the equal love and hope he inspired in the long-ignored rural masses, and of course Long's larger than life persona and even bigger ambitions. I also loved the author's use of all of the classic insults Huey and his enemies hurled at each other that seem to appear on every page ("demagogic screech owl from the swamps of Louisiana").
   
   "Kingfish" is a very good book and a quick and fun read for anyone interested in learning about Huey's life and exploits. However, if you want to read a great book, do yourself a favor and buy "Huey Long" by T. Harry Williams. Still, the two books could work well together - as "Kingfish" covers a few areas Williams' book does not - so it might be a good idea to check out "Kingfish" as an appetizer, and move on to "Huey Long" as the main course. You won't be disappointed.



3. This book concentrates on the breathtaking few years that Huey Long was in office. He was an amazing politician and this book makes for fast reading. I agree with the previous reviewer, however. There is little depth here and we never get to know the man. Find the Pulitzer prize winning bio written in 1969 for a thorough look at this complex man.



4. A biography of Huey Long is going to be dominated by one thing: his megalomaniacal desire for power. It makes for interesting reading in political tactics, but that's really all there was to his life. White is even-handed in his handling with his treatment of Long's excesses, but his prose is a little clunky and repetitive. The problem with a biography on Long (or perhaps just this biography on Long) is that there is little to texture the overally picture of a power-hungry man. There is no underlying complex character to understand. A recommended read for those seeking to understand the dangers of power to excess or people with a romantic attachment to the state of Louisiana or the 1930s.

5 comments about Character Counts: Leadership Qualities in Washington, Wilberforce, Lincoln, and Solzhenitsyn.

1. Guinness chooses four outstanding men, from the past 250 years, to demonstrate the moral leadership qualities that are sorely lacking in our world today. These individuals, George Washington, William Wilberforce, Abraham Lincoln, and Alexander Solzhenitsyn all have left unmistakable footprints of integrity across the pages of time. By virtually any standard these are truly great men, and they are great because of their excellence of character. In an age that honors image and bows at the feet of spin-doctors, it is refreshing to be reminded that it has not always been so. And one can wish, if the Lord tarries, that we might once again live in a world in which integrity is back in style.
   
   That is not to say that all four of our heroes were true Christians. Wilberforce seems the best candidate, followed by Solzhenitsyn, Lincoln and Washington. This book however does not give any concrete evidence for the conversion of any of these men, save Wilberforce. Of course we are all rooting for them, but the sad truth is that while each possessed great virtues, most likely they lacked saving faith in Jesus Christ. This is almost certainly the case of Washington, who remained a Deist until the end of his life. And while honest Abe spoke much of God and often quoted Scripture, Christ and His saving grace is missing from his speeches and writings. Many have reported that Solzhenitsyn is a believer, but this volume provides no proof.



2. Following a rather politically charged introduction (the Lewinsky scandal is mentioned in the first sentence), the book has eight chapters, with two each apportioned to George Washington, William Wilberforce, Abraham Lincoln, and Alexandr Solzhenitsyn. The inclusion of Washington is baffling: if did anything that required character, it is certainly not described in his chapters, which include a short biography and a summary of his views on religious liberty. The chapters on Wilberforce and Lincoln are good. Those on Solzhenitsyn are so brief (and heavily edited) as to be unmoving.



3. I'm dismayed to see the severely outdated political agenda of the Allens of North Carolina overshadow their opinions and reviews of Dr. Guinness' excellent book. I really doubt that the Oxford-educated Dr. Guinness should be "ashamed" of himself for his "lack of scholarship" in any area he chooses to write. Nor do I believe he is simply parroting the "Yankee propaganda," (referred to in another Allen "review") which is an entirely laughable concept.

   As for the book:
   A person's actions stem from their beliefs, which form their character. We have all seen examples -- at the corporate, political, and personal levels -- of those in leadership exhibiting less-than-ideal character, which corrupted their actions. This wonderful book provides a pleasant contrast to some of our contemporary leaders by examining the lives, actions, and beliefs of some truly amazing people; especially and including Abraham Lincoln, a wartime president who took extraordinary strides and went through unbelievable hardships to preserve our country.

   I'm currently reading my 4th book by Dr. Guinness, and have come to admire the author as a very strong Christian thinker and writer. As others have noted, he writes in the tradition of C.S. Lewis, and it is not hard to imagine him speaking to you personally as he guides you through his observations and reasoning.

   I also recommend "Fit Bodies, Fat Minds" and "Prophetic Untimeliness," as well as "The Call."




4. In a time when our nation (United States) no longer produces true statesmen with character such as Washington, Mason, Henry, Robert E. Lee, Jefferson Davis, I'm saddened that Abraham Lincoln is seen by the editor as a man of character. It would seem, if one is to be a thinking evangelical, that the horrors that Lincoln permitted in the South would un-nerve the most honest of scholars. Here, Os Guines has done a serious disservice to the orthodox Christian community. Abraham Lincoln rejected the Virginia Peace (which included former president John Tyler) accord and Sen. Critendem's compromise for peace. Surely had Lincoln accepted these plans for peace, thousands of lives could have been saved. But most of all, the total war theory Lincoln allowed is the most offensive and repugnate to any thinking Christian. Women and children were implemented in Lincoln's so called war to save the Union. He jailed opponents of his position, threatened the Supreme Court justice Roger Taney with arrest for writing against his war plan. Lincoln usurped the Constitution of the United States by declaring War against seceded states in violation of Article I sec. 8 (this is solely congress's domain). A nation birthed in secession hardly has the right to chastise those who operated from the same principle i.e. the right to govern themselves and self-determination. Os, you should be ashamed of yourself for lack of scholarship in this arena. Particularly over such a sensitive subject as the American War Between the States (Civil War). A man (Lincoln) who waged an offensive war against those who defended their rights and family against an unjust invasion has no place in a book where character matters. Maybe Robert E. Lee or Joshua Chamberlain could have saved you the embarassment. And no, Lincoln's war was not over slavery. Men do not take bullets so 10 % can own slaves. Character counts, so does scholarship.



5. In a time when our nation (United States) no longer produces true statesmen with character such as Washington, Mason, Henry, Robert E. Lee, Jefferson Davis, I'm saddened that Abraham Lincoln is seen by the editor as a man of character. It would seem, if one is to be a thinking evangelical, that the horrors that Lincoln permitted in the South would un-nerve the most honest of scholars. Here, Os Guines has done a serious disservice to the orthodox Christian community. Abraham Lincoln rejected the Virginia Peace (which included former president John Tyler) accord and Sen. Critendem's compromise for peace. Surely had Lincoln accepted these plans for peace, thousands of lives could have been saved. But most of all, the total war theory Lincoln allowed is the most offensive and repugnate to any thinking Christian. Women and children were implemented in Lincoln's so called war to save the Union. He jailed opponents of his position, threatened the Supreme Court justice Roger Taney with arrest for writing against his war plan. Lincoln usurped the Constitution of the United States by declaring War against seceded states in violation of Article I sec. 8 (this is solely congress's domain). A nation birthed in secession hardly has the right to chastise those who operated from the same principle i.e. the right to govern themselves and self-determination. Os, you should be ashamed of yourself for lack of scholarship in this arena. Particularly over such a sensitive subject as the American War Between the States (Civil War). A man (Lincoln) who waged an offensive war against those who defended their rights and family against an unjust invasion has no place in a book where character matters. Maybe Robert E. Lee or Joshua Chamberlain could have saved you the embarassment. And no, Lincoln's war was not over slavery. Men do not take bullets so 10 % can own slaves. Character counts, so does scholarship.

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.

2 comments about American Heroine: The Life and Legend of Jane Addams.

1. This truly outstanding and detailed biography of Jane Addams surveys the founder of Hull House, a social reformer who was one of the most admired women in American history. American Heroine recounts her life, work and ideas, providing chapters which go into far more depth and detail than most reviews of her life, probing the philosophy behind her works and the atmosphere of her times.



2. Jane Addams was a remarkable woman. This book is the best biography written of her life. She was a winner of the Nobel Peace Prize in her later life. Her liberal views of American society are covered thoroughly by this author in his chapters of her early work at Hull House, and her later work for world peace. A must read book for every woman, because Jane Addams was truly an American woman.

5 comments about The Wit & Wisdom of Abraham Lincoln.

1. As a US History teacher, this small and inexpensive book brings personality and life to one of our most beloved Presidents. An excellent value and one that is more likely to be read and enjoyed than larger, more in depth works. Middle School kids get a kick out of the quotes.



2. Reading this book gives insight as to the person Lincoln was. His wit and humor, his suffering and astute personality. You will get to know this great person simply by reading his own thoughts put forth in his own words.



3. The book is divided nicely into categories and is a good book that doesn't need long periods of time for reading. You will enjoy many of the stories and quotations from Mr. Lincoln. A nice compilation.



4. This was a Xmas gift to a Abe Lincoln fan. She was absolutely thrilled. Highly Recommend.



5. Fans of Lincoln are likely to delight in this mixed bag of gems from the life of Honest Abe. The book moves from topical quotes, to more focused collections of anecdotes from Lincoln's life, to a collection of his best known speeches. In comparison to his quotes, the famous speeches may seem somewhat dry. After all, many Americans have read some of the speeches several times since grade school.
   
   The book helps to put the Lincoln character in perspective. As a man, he started some place and the stories of his life did not always exist. These things actually happened. Few people realize what a witty man Abraham Lincoln was. This book is a testament to that fact.

1 comments about Cesar Chavez: Autobiography of La Causa.

1. I have read this book over twenty times. One major reason is that each time I get new insights into the life and genius of one of this centuries greatest and most brilliant American leaders.

   The other reason is because I was priviledged to have worked beside Mr. Chavez during the time of this books writing. Every time I read it I can still hear the author, Jaques Levy, reading it in draft form to Cesar by flashlight as we traveled California and Arizona's highways and biways.

   This is truly the closest Mr.Chavez ever came to writing his own book. Jaques Levy had a rare inside look at Cesar, his movement and his family. The combination of trust and journalistic integrity between Mr. Chavez and Jacques Levy made for a great book that covers and captures his actions, thoughts, ideas, trials, ambitions, hopes and dreams. Mr. Levy, together with Cesar Chavez, captures the essence of his formative years, those leading up to his becoming the first Mexican and American hero of this century.

   Unlike any other author on Chavez, Mr. Levy captures several examples of Chavez's self taught brilliance and tenacity. He also clearly shows Chavez' ability to grasp any subject and his views on American and poor people's economics. I have read many of the others and having been on the spot while they were written can add that while most err somewhat to a great deal in covering basic facts, Jacques Levy's book is on the money.

   If it is possible to get this book reprinted, it should be and I bet a Spanish version would sell a million copies.

   Mr. Levy spent nine years researching, writing and editing this work that over time will come to be known as the basic foundation of Mr. Chavez's life

5 comments about Khomeini: Life of the Ayatolla.

1. This is one of the only, and one of the best biographies about Khomeini written in the English language. it is obvious that the people who gave this book 1 star did so because of how they feel about khomeini, not because of what they think of the book. Moin's book is well researched and referenced. It is not a propoganda tool, seriously! how ridiculous! It is a great book that serves a great function- to actually give a thoroughly researched, well investigated, heavily footnoted, comprehensive discription regarding the life of, whether you like it or not, one of the most influential and powerful figures in modern history. So, you can now do one of several things: be a baby and not read the book and rate it one star anyways since it is about khomeini, and you have linked him to evil and death, or you can read the book, and say it was terrible because you dont believe what Moin is saying because it flies in the face of all you thought you ever knew, even though you are not head of bbc persian, OR you can read the book with an open mind. If you choose the latter, you will come out of the experience with actually factual knowledge regarding the life of Khomeini. I read the book, and i thought it was very objective. I actually wondered what Moin's personal view on Khomeini was. I still do not know. That is how objective the book is. If you are an Iranian ex-pat, i dare you to read it. But only if you are ready to take a look at the facts, and not all the propoganda they have been feeding YOU.



2. There are two main problems in this book. First, this is one of those books where a single sentance really damages the credibility of the writer. The author talked about the people getting tired from all the slogans, from the economic situation and from the blood the revolution has spilled. All this is fine (you can agree or not agree, thats not the point here) until the writer says that six million people attended the funeral which was one of the largest in history. Here the only explanation the author could come up with was that in the end, what was done was done and people forgived Khoemini. I think the reader deserves a better explanation than this. The second problem is that you cant be sure if its a biography, or a book about the political events in 20th century Iran. Other than that it was quite interesting to read. There are many facts in the book and the author has done quite alot of research.



3. A very well-written biography on a rather unknown man in the West (which is odd, considering the effect he has had on the latter part of the 20th Century).
   
   As other reviewers have noted, this book is more than just a biography of Khomeini. It is also the story of an evolving Iran in the 20th Century, and can be read for that reason alone. But, from the humble roots of Khomeini's ancestors, to the man who became known as the "Imam," the book tells the often fantastic tale of Khomeini's remarkable, yet ultimately destructive, life.
   
   Now, I must say first that I despise the man Khomeini for the things he has done to this once rich and beautiful country, full of intelligent people and beautiful history. But, after reading this objectively written book, I have grown to respect the man - not for his horrible ideas, and not for his brutal nature, but because of the things he was able to accomplish, however horrible and misguided they were.
   
   As the jacket notes, Khomeini helped overthrow the rule of man and replace it with the rule of God (according to him, of course). This seems backwards when considering the modern revolutions, where dynastic kings and divine monarchs were tossed out (with their arbitrary rule) in favor of the rule of man, law and justice. What's remarkable is that Khomeini was able to do this while wearing the robe of a cleric. Unlike other dictators like Saddam, Mao, Stalin, or even Castro, Khomeini did not strut around as a tough-guy in military fatigues. he did not openly carry a weapon nor did he openly rule as a "thug." Rather, he appeared holy and worked hard at keeping that image. In fact, there is no doubt that Khomeini was probably a very deeply religious person who truly believed he was instituting the rule of Allah on Earth. It is this aspect of Khomeini that sets him apart from other dictators (although the bloody aftermath and the arbitrary and brutal rule he imposed keep him firmly in the dictator category). The author does a great job of explaining, throughout Khomeini's life, with examples and contemporaneous reports, how he was able to use propaganda, the spiritual nature of Persian society, unhappiness with the Shah, perceived influence by the Brits and Americans, and the power he attained as a religious leader, to overthrow the regime and put in place his "rule by God."
   
   Of course, he had the help of the Revolutionary Guard and Hezbollah once he got the ball rolling, but the story of the man and his Religious Revolution is quite fascinating. The author includes excerpts of Khomeini's writings (some of which are no more than spiritual poems, others give hints to his eventual rule and treatment of women). The author also includes anecdotal evidence of Khomeini's hatred for the Western world while he was in exile in Turkey and France.
   
   The book also does a good job of detailing the moves of Khomeini's rivals and enemies, showing you just how close his Revolution was to failing, etc. A few times you wonder why the Shah did what he did...
   
   And, like all good biographies (if you ask me), this book starts from the beginning and works to the end completely chronologically, from his grandparents, to his birth and boyhood, to his young ministry, to his aging, and finally his death. The book does not skip around between decades and so it reads smoothly. The author does not overwhelm the reader with names and places, either.
   
   Very well done.



4. The Ayatallah Ruhallah Musavi Khomeini was the central actor of the 1979 Islamic revolution in Iran, and one of the truly transformational men of history. Without understanding Khomeini, one cannot understand the revolution, nor the state he left behind (with which we are still dealing to this day). This is probably the best treatment of him available in English, despite its limitations, and so I consider it an essential part of the reading of anyone who wants to understand modern Iran. I also found it entertaining to read.
   
   Yet I have to say that this book would have been better subtitled "The PUBLIC Life of the Ayatollah." Baqer Moin has not written a true biography of Khomeini, for few details of his life are included which are not directly relevant to his public role. We read virtually nothing of his family life, for example, and only learn of the names of two of his sons (he had several children) when they become part of his public life. Maybe he had no hobbies or acquaintances outside of theology and politics; nevertheless, the book is fairly narrowly drawn.
   
   Moin does well to bring out Khomeini's mystical side. The ayatallah was not simply a radical Islamist, he was a mystic and a theologian of rare intellectual creativity. He is best known for his doctrine of velayat-e-faqih (the principle is a general one, but his conceptualization of it is radically different from most Shia clerics, including those considered authorities worthy of emulation by all believers, the marja-e-taqlid). Yet his ideas on Islamic spirituality, while not original - they were controversial because they derived from Muslim mystics long condemned by clerics - were combined with his concept of Islamic political philosophy in a revolutionary way.
   
   Khomeini was also a philosopher, and he enjoyed writing poetry, some of which (in translation) is pretty good. There is also some discussion of the more traditional elements of his thinking, although not enough to really constitute an intellectual biography. A fuller biography would flesh out his intellectual development much more.
   
   Readers should beware that Moin assumes a fair amount of knowledge of 20th century Iranian history. For example, with regard to the November 1979 hostage-taking at the U.S. embassy in Tehran, Moin doesn't mention it at all when he covers 1979, but later - assuming the reader is aware of the ongoing hostage crisis - begins talking about how Khomeini used it to his advantage in internal struggles. He does the same thing with regard to Iraq's invasion of Iran in the fall of 1980; he doesn't mention the war starting or discuss it on its own terms to provide background, but at one point just jumps into how Khomeini reacted to it. (The reviewer who described this book as a history of 20th century Iran clearly hasn't studied Iranian history.)
   
   Moin's picture of Khomeini includes the elements familiar to Westerners; his intense dogmatism, his radical commitment to Muslim power, his ruthlessness and his blindness to the immense suffering caused by his decisions. Yet demonization does not bring understanding, and it is important for Westerners to understand the charisma and power of mind and person possessed by this man. Khomeini was not representative of most Shia Muslims, and certainly not most Muslims, but the phenomenon he and his movement represented is an integral part of the Muslim world, and of our world today.



5. Baqer Moin has the information to take you through all the twists and turns the Ayatolla took on the way to establishing his vision of an Islamic State in Iran. The author spends a lot of good words on Khomein's mysticism. From other books about Muslims I had gotten the impression that followers of Islamic mystics tended to be mellower and generally wished to get along with the outside world. But this is a false impression with regard to the Ayatolla, if you believe the author's analyis of His mysticism. --- "For Khomeini the mystic, when Man reaches a sense of unity with God, his anger becomes that of God." (page 296).

No comments about Barack Obama for Beginners: An Essential Guide.

5 comments about A Political Odyssey.

1. Mike Gravel spoke truth to power in the Senate and he spoke truth to power during the early presidential debates in 2008. He speaks the truth as he sees it in this book with Joe Lauria. That is no doubt why Howard Dean, Hillary Clinton, John Edwards and General Electric, which owns NBC all conspired to ban him from those debates. People who say the Emperor has no clothes are uncomfortable to be around, especial when you are aspiring to be Emperor or are a company that supplies the Emperor's weapons.
   
   What was it Gravel said that got him bounced from most of the debates in 2008? Read this book and you'll find out.
   
   Here is a little preview. The Democrats and Republicans running for office are fond of telling their audiences and voters America is #1 and they intend to keep it that way. Gravel said, sure America is # 1. It is #1 in defense spending, #1 in prison population, #1 in consumer spending and #1 in debt. Gravel also honestly pointed out that we aren't #1 in literacy, infant health, math or savings. Gravel didn't paint the typical pretty picture.
   
   Gravel also offered real if unorthodox solutions such as: End the drug war, abolish the income tax, implement the FAIR tax, bring the troops home now and let the people decide political policy by enacting the National Initiative. Say what you will about the fixes, but you must admit Gravel advocates real change. For Mike Gravel "Change" isn't just a slick slogan.
   
   This book by Gravel and Joe Lauria will evoke the political odyssey any of us of a certain age in the U.S. lived in the 40+ years since Gravel first won a seat in the United States Senate. Mike Gravel was called a "maverick" then and he still is after all these years.
   
   The folks in power in DC don't want to hear the truth. What this country really needs is more mavericks like Mike Gravel and Ron Paul who are willing to tell the truth.
   
   It is said that knowing the truth will set you free. If you want to know the truth, "A Political Odyssey" is a good place to start.



2. Reading this well-paced exploration of Gravel's life and beliefs saddened me because I now wish I'd voted for him. Not that he's perfect: Gravel is far too colorful. But I already regret the vote I did cast, and a vote for Gravel would have meant something.
   Having lived through the furor of the Pentagon Papers, I was astonished to learn so much more about those events. Gravel's account of how the big newspapers snatched glory from a confrontation they subsequently ducked comes as a sharp corrective to History as the media recite it.
   I really enjoyed reading about a genuine maverick whose achievements in the Senate remain shockingly commendable and yes, entertaining. Things were very bad in the early 1970s. How could they have gotten so much worse?
   This country needs leaders who rate beliefs above polls (watch the excellent documentary, CENTURY OF THE SELF), politicians who yearn to be more than ciphers in a pathetic, self-erasing code. The only standing senator who reminds me at all of Gravel is Russell Feingold, abandoned on FISA by colleagues who rush to say they care about personal freedom until called upon to prove it. They 'reluctantly' play along while our hollowed-out economy becomes ever more militarized.
   Gravel wanted to provoke a referendum on this process. Dazzled by hype, we ignored him. It's not too late to read this book, then start demanding that these slugs account for themselves.
   Enjoy.



3. If you watched the Democratic primary debates you probably saw two Mike Gravels.
   
   One was the candidate who most directly spoke truth to power: he challenged Hillary on her preparedness to nuke Iran, challenged Obama for voting to fund the Iraq war, challenged the "mealy mouthed" Democratic Congressional leadership, condemned the `war on drugs,' condemned Bush for creating "a nation ruled by fear" and denounced America for allowing itself to become Number One in production of weapons, consumer spending, debt, people in prison, energy consumption, and environmental pollution.
   
   The other Gravel came over as the crazy uncle who should have stayed locked in his attic.
   
   This book helps us to understand why. Lauria manages to get Gravel to confess to all his human flaws: his vanity, his ambition, his opportunism, his naiveté. Would that all our politicians were so honest. But he also reminds us of his lonely fight to end the draft in Vietnam, his determination to stand up to Nixon over the Pentagon Papers and his vehement opposition to American militarism. For all his foibles, the man is a genuine hero.
   
   The book is written with a light touch. It captures Gravel's voice and his no b-s attitude perfectly and it reads in places almost like a novel - who knew that Gravel was once a New York cabbie, a railroad brakeman in Alaska, much less an American spy in Europe? Yet Lauria also manages to interlace it with some heavy-duty historical research into the birth of the military-industrial complex and the way in which so many of our presidents have chosen to exploit fear and twist our Constitution in order to justify huge arms expenditures and bloody foreign adventures that have generated huge profits for the weapons merchants back home.
   
   Gravel's solution to the way in which our democratic republic is periodically hijacked by what is in effect a fear-mongering elected monarch and a Congress in thrall to its corporate backers and their imperial ambitions, is government by national initiative - legislation initiated by The People and voted on in national referenda.
   
   At first blush it is hard to see how such an idea could ever gain traction. And when one thinks of initiatives like California's Proposition 13 which decimated the best public education system in the country, it's hard not wonder if direct democracy might not be worse than the (un)representative version we have now. But it does make one think. America's revolutionary experiment was supposed to be a permanent revolution... ever more perfectible. And, given the way the Internet is tying us all ever closer together in a network of instant communication and given the galvanizing effect of online organizing evident in Obama's campaign, it makes one wonder if Gravel will simply prove to be a prophet before his time.
   
   If we could all vote directly, would we really spend close to 50% of our national budget on the Pentagon, national security and war, as we do today? It is that monumental folly that seems to unite Gravel and Lauria in their passion and that makes this book such a good read.



4. A revealing book... The fact is, representative government is broken, and there are only two venues for change: One is the government, where the problem exists, and two is the people. Correction can only take place with the people of America to buy and read this GREAT book.



5. If all you remember is what Dwight D. Eisenhower said about the military-industrial complex almost half a century ago, A Political Odyssey by Sen. Mike Gravel is a Must Read. Investigative journalist Joe Lauria wrote this book, and the Senator said so at a Meet the Author event at Barnes & Noble's Upper West Side store in Manhattan in early July. Lauria shows, through Mr. Gravel's eyes, how difficult, and indeed impossible it is for a junior senator to fight the cozy relationship between the government and the defense industry. Nothing has changed really since Eisenhower's days. That isn't new, of course. But Mr. Lauria manages, in very readable prose, to bring back to life the Pentagon Papers and point out the relevance of this episode today. Sen. Gravel's conclusion at the Meet the Author event: Representative democracy doesn't work.
   Walter Pfaeffle
   Journalist, New York