5 comments about General Washington's Christmas Farewell: A Mount Vernon Homecoming, 1783.

1. George Washington's public career was long and one of the most important in history. However, his decision to resign his commission and return to private live in 1783 (although it proved to be a temporary return) is one of the most important events in both the founder's life and in that of America. Comparisons with the Roman Cincinnatus in this matter are appropriate. But must a reader be reminded endlessly of the similarities?
   
   Weintraub documents in this work Washington's last journey home as the leader of the American army and what he hoped would be the last in his public life. It was a hard and grinding trip for as most of us know, roads and weather were not easy to get through in December in the northeast. In voluntarily giving up his commission, Washington guaranteed his premiere place in our history. But by making such a public display of his resignation, he also proved how conscious he was of that place and how later generations would view his career and character.
   
   Weintraub gives the reader none of those contradictions. He takes one of the greatest events and turns it into one of the dullest stories ever told. And in the end, he gives us none of what went on once Washington reached home. What was that Christmas like? What happened at Mount Vernon in the days following his return? In this telling, there is only a timeline of events, quotes from speeches, and a very dull listing of dates, facts, and names. (In keeping with the major complaints of how American history is taught in schools.)
   
   One can only wish that this book was interesting and search for other accounts that document feelings, struggles, and sacrifices that make this story human and important.



2. The year 1776 tends to be lodged in the minds of those who have studied American history. But does anyone remember what happened in 1783? With relation to the revolutionary war, GENERAL WASHINGTON'S CHRISTMAS FAREWELL chronicles George Washington's concluding tenure as one of the most distinguishable military leader, which covers the last few months of 1783. Historian Stanley Weintraub paints a picture of America's first president as a compassionate and unselfish man who wholeheartedly was concerned about preserving life and liberty for his country and the people he led; he bridges the gap between Washington as the larger than life founding father to the Virginia farmer who longed to return home.
   
   The book begins with Weintraub's story about his visit to his grandsons' first grade class at Thomas Jefferson School where he was surprised to hear how much these young and inquisitive minds knew about the American Revolution and its key figures. But the most fascinating aspect about this story is that the Washington family's Christmas was not documented, but with the culmination of sources that derived from Washington's letters and addresses and a series of publications, Weintraub weaves a unique narrative that reflects upon the hardships of 1776, but the success thereafter with the ratification of the Peace Treaty of Paris. The last two chapters are quite moving because Washington's farewell address, which was written by Thomas Jefferson, is included within the passages, and provides accounts from Thomas Mifflin and James McHenry who had attended the ceremony; the scene was emotional, and depicted a man approaching the twilight of his life.
   
   GENERAL WASHINGTON'S CHRISTMAS FAREWELL does not revel with new material about George Washington. However, Weintraub acknowledges a moment in history that commemorates the end of a monumental career of one of history's unforgettable leaders, and shows how he was influential and instrumental with regard to the founding and birth of the United States of America. Indeed, this is another piece of history worth reading.



3. The author makes a few sidetrips to explore a little background and history that bring the times alive. He explores how Washington was the heart and soul of the American cause as his farewell tour home from the war - from West Point in New York to Mt. Vernon - provided a foundation for unity, dignity and sense of common purpose for a new nation to be.
   
   It's a slice of history that tells much more than the title implies, and it shows a very human side of a man who continues to surprise us with how worthy a model he is to follow. It's poignant without being maudlin, and is a history that appeals to both mind and heart. Highly recommended.



4. This is a wonderful retelling of George Washington's return to Mount Vernon at the end of the Revolution. It humanizes Washington like few books ever have. Mr. Wintraub even manages to build up suspense as you wonder whether ex-General Washington makes it home in time for Christmas.
   
   This is the second Christmas-themed history by Mr. Weintraub, the other being SILENT NIGHT, about the informal truce in 1914. Each time, Mr. Weintraub brings out the significance of seemingly minor events. It is truly masterful.



5. The author does a good job of detailing why George Washington was a great man. Rather than become a King or dictator after the War of Independence, he returned his commission to the Congress and returned to Mount Vernon. This was after eight years of separation from his home. His only desire was to depart from the public stage and resume his private life. This was unlike most people who would have clung to power. Washington wanted to become a private citizen again. This book details his change from a military general to a private citizen.
   Washington takes control of New York from the departing British,
   says farewell to his soldiers and other officers, returns the commission to the Congress in Annapolis, and gets home in time for a Mount Vernon Christmas Eve. This brief period says alot what Washington was and why people wanted him to be their leader.
   Weintraub does a good summary job of describing this two week episode in the life of the first American President. By his example, the military would always be controlled by the civilian government. The importance of Washington is shown in this short story and good read.

5 comments about Presidential Temperament: The Unfolding of Character in the Forty Presidents of the United States/With Supplement.

1. I've only read portions of the book so far, and I'm sure to enjoy the rest with my interest in both temperament and American history. But I wanted to note that when I recently ordered this, Amazon neglected to ship the supplement with newer presidents. The book itself goes only up to George Bush, Sr.



2. I love this book, and while it many have numerous mistakes as stated by other reviewers (wrong dates, pictures swapped...) overall the work is insightful and an interesting read. All papers have mistakes, and finding them in a specific work is a favorite assignment that is given in graduate level courses.



3. David Keirsey's work in refining MBTI is phenomenal and should be much, much more extensively used in the education system, as it already is and has been in the business world (where efficiency and practicality actually matter, unlike education) for decades now.
   Of this book, which again was mostly fascinating intellectual meat, I must beg to differ about Keirsey regarding Ronald Reagan's type. I also find it amusing that even geniuses like Keirsey can occasionally "blow one"--even when they are alive to witness the direct observation. Now, concerning Reagan, and concerning Keirsey's assertion that no idealists have ever been president, Keirsey has indeed finally made a gaff.
   You see, folks; you see, Mr. Keirsey, it's like this:
   RONALD REAGAN WAS AN ENFP!!!
   YOU DON'T ALLUDE TO UFO'S a total of 18 TIMES DURING YOUR PRESIDENCY, as REAGAN did, AND YOU DON'T FOCUS ON FUTURE-ORIENTED, BIG-PICTURE DEFENSE SYSTEMS LIKE 'STAR WARS,' as REAGAN did, UNLESS YOU ARE AN INTUITIVE!

   Keirsey's got Reagan as an ESFP--what he's probably seeing is an ENFP that was raised by Sensor parents (this would account for a higher percentage of Sensor-like everyday quotes from Reagan, which is mainly what Keirsey is basing his mistaken identification on). The more I look at Type, the more I see that parents play a huge role in how we later act, often altering our basic Type to something like a "sub-Type", but they don't determine or change our overall Type/Temperament, to be sure.

   David--Mr. Keirsey--it's okay to admit you made a mistake. You are such an intellectual giant, and have done so much incredible work, and I am such a HUGE fan of yours. It's okay. Hell, even Einstein made mistakes, right?




4. Loved the combination of psychology and history. If you find both interesting, you should definitely get this book. And you can contact the publisher to get an update that includes Bill Clinton. Other errors not mentioned by the previous reviewers include that the pictures for W.H. Harrison and J. Buchanan are actually swapped, that it has W.H. Harrison born in 1793 and married in 1775 and that John Quincy Adams's middle name is once spelled "Qunicy". Another curious thing: it appears that the book was written as if the presidents were to be discussed in chronological order, then later changed to group them by types. I think the latter was a better idea, but some references were left which seem to indicate the prior ordering. Then there is the question of the typing of the presidents. Both Lyndon Johnson and Jimmy Carter seem different enough from others in their groups that it's interesting to wonder whether they are really correctly typed. Do we really understand Johnson well enough? After all, he is the man who everyone is suprised to learn once uttered: "Two things are necessary to keep one's wife happy. First, let her think she is having her way. And second, let her have it." Then there is Martin Van Buren, who many on the web consider an Idealist INFJ. Even based on just the evidence presented in this book, it seems like it might be the case. His admiration of Jefferson, the fact that diplomacy was his best talent, his lack of charisma (compare to Jackson) and his tendency to work behind-the-scenes all seem to point this way. In addition, I don't think it's necessary to see Van Buren's efforts to avoid dividing the Union over slavery so cynically. Perhaps because he is married to one, Author Keirsey seems to idealize the Idealists out of proportion. They are 12% of the population, but to read him it seems that every single one has goals as earth-shattering as Gandhi's. Does this tally with your experience? Perhaps it's the lack of information about this president that leads to this misinterpretation. But don't Idealists have the tendency to be very private people? I hope it's not just the case that saying "No Idealist has ever been president." sounds more dramatic and marketable on the book cover.



5. As someone who loves US history, politics, and psychology, I've always been fascinated by books which try to "psychoanalyze" Presidents and historical figures. Two books which have done this are Dr. James David Barber's "Presidential Character" and William Strauss and Neil Howe's "Generations", which looks at US history throught the prism of four generational types, which repeat themselves in cycles (they argue that the Baby Boomers are the descendants of the Puritans!). And this book, "Presidential Temperament", uses a system which should be familiar to many readers. The book's authors use the well-known Myers-Briggs Type Indicator to "type" each of our Presidents. Many businesses and schools use the Myers-Briggs test, but for those who are not familiar with the system, it tests people on four different sets of preferences (Extrovert-Introvert, Sensing-Intuition, Thinking-Feeling, and Judging-Perceiving). Thus, there is an "ISTJ" type (quiet, reserved, methodical, thorough, practical, etc.); an "ESFP" type (outgoing, "touchy-feely", compassionate, idealistic, spontaneous, etc.), and so on. The test is not supposed to be used to judge or rate other people, as every type is useful and necessary to make our society function. In "Presidential Temperament" the Myers-Briggs test is applied to all of our Presidents since Washington. The authors use biography and history books to examine the childhoods, personalities, leadership styles, successes and failures of the Presidents to place them into one of three Myers-Briggs types: Artisans, Guardians, and Rationals (a fourth type, the Idealists, have never had a US President, according to the authors. Instead, leaders such as Gandhi and Eleanor Roosevelt fall into this category). The Artisans are the "SP" types - fun-loving, optimistic, tough-minded, and above all, action-oriented. They love the "action" part of politics - they live in the "here-and-now" and are great at dealing with crises. Among the Presidents in this category are both Roosevelts, John F. Kennedy, Ronald Reagan, and Bill Clinton. The "Guardian" types are the "SJ"s - they are tradition-oriented, generally honest and reliable, addicted to duty and "law-and-order". They are the good managers and administrators who keep things running smoothly, but they dislike change. According to the authors, George Washington, Woodrow Wilson, Harry Truman, and the first George Bush all fall into this category. The final category are the "Rationals" - they are "NT"s on the Myers-Briggs scale. They are the visionaries and strategists - they can marshall great forces to accomplish great things, but can be undermined by their distaste for showing emotion and "people skills" in public. They are extremely intelligent, but can come across as arrogant or aloof. Thomas Jefferson, both Adamses, Abraham Lincoln, and Dwight Eisenhower are all Rationals, according to the book. After "typing" each President, the authors then show how their temperament type affected their Presidency - Jefferson the Rationalist designing the University of Virginia and envisioning a continent-size United States, hence the Lousiana Purchase; Franklin Roosevelt the Artisan "Performer" dealing with the twin crises of the Great Depression and World War Two, etc. This is all truly fascinating, even if you don't always agree with the author's claims. However, the book is severely hampered by the numerous factual errors that I found. For example, in the chapter on Bill Clinton they listed his birthday as August 19, 1947 (it is actually August 19, 1946), and then later in the same chapter gave his birthdate as August 14, 1946. John Quincy Adams' birthday is given as July 11, 1967 (he was born in 1767), and Eisenhower's birthday is listed as October 14, 1880 (he was born in 1890). Woodrow Wilson is listed as having lived in Atlanta during the Civil War, but he actually lived in Augusta, not Atlanta. The chapter on William Henry Harrison even has an incorrect photograph - it has a large photo of James Buchanan labeled as Harrison! While these errors may seem insignificant by themselves, taken together (and there are numerous other inaccuracies, from presidential birthdays to biographical information) they cast some real doubt on the author's credibility and research. In short, while "Presidential Temperament" is a fascinating "psychological" look at our Chief Executives, the many historical errors left me wondering just how much "research" and editing the authors put into their arguments - and that overall makes the book something of a disappointment.

No comments about Grant In Peace: From Appomattox To Mount McGregor A Personal Memoir.

4 comments about Eleanor And Harry: The Correspondence of Eleanor Roosevelt and Harry S.: The Correspondence of Eleanor Roosevelt and Harry S. Truman.

1. He was a farm boy, the descendant of Missouri pioneers. She was a debutante of the New York aristocracy. On April 12th, 1945, her husband and his boss, President Franklin Delano Roosevelt, died in office. Mrs. Roosevelt summoned Vice-president Truman to the White House and said, "Harry, the president is dead." "Is there anything I can do for you?" he asked, and Mrs. Roosevelt replied, "Is there anything we can do you? For you are the one in trouble now."
   
   Thus begins a correspondence that will last until their deaths, here collected by editor Steve Neal to give the reader a top-of-the-heap, behind-the-headlines look at the end of World War II, the Marshall Plan, the creation of the state of Israel, public versus private schooling, Eleanor's opinion of the British (not high, wait till you see how she tells Harry to handle Churchill), Harry's opinion of American hate crimes against Japanese Americans (he's damn lucky this letter wasn't released to the public back then), and much more. Eleanor is at first a little patronizing, a little arrogant, and more than a little disingenuous in many protestations of "oh you don't have listen to little old me, but as long as you are..." Harry is at first a little defensive, a little impatient, and more than a little dismissive of Eleanor's opinions, particular of people she wants in office and he doesn't. By his second term, Harry has grown into his new job, Eleanor has grown into hers, and they both grow into what eventually reads like a friendship of sincere mutual respect and even affection.



2. This book is a compilation of letters exchanged between Harry Truman and Eleanor Roosevelt during Truman's presidency. The book has an easy-to-read style largely because the author adds dialog to explain the situations, events, and results of what the letters mention. By using this dialog-letter combination, a great deal of history is presented in an entertaining manner.

   I would highly recommend this book as a followup immediately after reading the biography Truman, by David McCullough. With a little bit of Truman history, not only will you find this book a great source of behind the scenes information, you'll also discover that the letters written by Eleanor Roosevelt are a joy to read. She was truly a gifted writer with the ability to put emotions and thoughts into the written word in a manner that could be described as artistic.




3. I read this book in no time. In the good old days of great letter writing, these two protagonists enjoyed a rich and historic friendship. Although sometimes on the opposite sides of issues, the friendship betwen former First Lady Eleanor Roosevelt and President Harry Truman was a rich and ultimately fascinating exercise in camaraderie and mutual aid.
   From reading these fascinating letters, it is obvious that these two old friends actually enjoyed talking and exchanging ideas and opinions.

   This book, as edited, weaves a moving and extremely interesting story, reading very much like a good biography.
   I highly recommend this book, a good example of history making exciting reading.




4. Steve Neal has compiled some 250 letters between Eleanor Roosevelt and Harry Truman when he took office after the death of Franklin Roosevelt. In this small but thoughtful book, Neal combines commentary pertinent to the times or to the letter itself. While they disagreed on many things, he repeatedly asked her to write to him with her thoughts on events of the day, which she did and with great candor. President Truman was the first to call Mrs. Roosevelt "First Lady of the World." I heartily recomment this book to those who wish to know these two great people a bit better.

5 comments about Marathon: Pursuit of the Presidency (A Signet book).

1. What bothered me most about "Marathon" was that through 700 pages author Jules Witcover never gets underneath the major candidates' skin (Carter and Ford). This book is much more a long newspaper article than a biography of the powers of 1976. There is little depth, but it is heavy on names and numbers. Witcover seems happy to point out seeming inconsistencies in Jimmy Carter's public statements, but as a scholar he never gets to the nuance. I'm still not sure what Gerald Ford ran on in 1976, how could the author leave this out? As a review of 1976, Marathon is barely adequate--and it is a very far cry from quality leisure reading.



2. Journalist Jules Whitcover gives readers a comprehensive look at the 1976 Presidential campaign. Whitcover aptly describes the events, issues, candidates, and the state of the U.S.A. in 1976. President Gerald Ford was an unelected incumbent whose popularity dipped due to a sluggish economy and his pardon of Richard Nixon. Readers see how this made Ford ripe for a strong primary challenge by Ronald Reagan, and then the underdog in the fall campaign. The author shows how former Governor Jimmy Carter of Georgia swept to the nomination over several contenders via adroit primary strategy, luck, and a message of decency and trust. Then the author describes a fall campaign punctuated by mud-slinging, political manipulation, and quite a bit of foolishness. Finally, Carter won narrowly (after losing his big lead in the polls) due largely to his Southern roots and Ford's modest appeal. Readers get a strong feel for politics circa 1976, as well as a look at also-rans like Sargeant Shriver, Nelson Rockefeller, Birch Bayh, Frank Church, Jerry Brown, Henry Jackson, Morris Udall, etc.
   
   Whitcover has written a thorough and very readable political narrative. He doesn't quite match the four MAKING OF THE PRESIDENT (1960-1972) editions by journalist Theodore H. White, but this is a vivid narrative.



3. For those who think Jimmy Carter was a pious Christian and never said a bad thing about anyone, read this book.

   For those who think Gerald Ford was right - or wrong - in his pardon of Nixon, read this book.

   For those who remember the far left policies of Muskie, McGovern, and Humphrey, read this book.

   For those who barely remember Frank Church, Morris Udall, and Fred Harris, read this book.

   For those who want to understand how Reagan learned from his 1976 mistakes - particularly in his selection of a running mate - and won four years later, read this book.

   In short, if you like politics, read this book.




4. Though it is often overshadowed by the author's own later collaborations with Jack Germond (as well as the then-contemporary efforts of Hunter Thompson), Jules Witcover's Marathon is one of the unheralded classic works of the political nonfiction genre. Covering the twists and turns of the rather bizarre 1976 Presidential election, Witcover follows the campaign from the very first stirrings of Jimmy Carter's longshot candidacy at the '72 Democratic Convention all the way to the photo finish that finds the nation faced with a choice worthy of Samuel Beckett -- Gerald Ford, Jimmy Carter, Lester Maddox, or Eugene McCarthy? In between, Witcover provides excellent, insightful coverage of the now-forgotten efforts of such diverse men as the tragically witty Mo Udall, the endearingly spacey Jerry Brown, the bizarrely sympathetic George Wallace, and the deliberately enigmatic Ronald Reagan to take their respective nominations away from these men and change the course of American history. If you ever wondered how America eventually produced a political system that could see everyone from Pennsylvania's hapless Gov. Milton Shapp to Oklahoma's radical former Sen. Fred Harris transformed, however briefly, into a legitimate presidential contender, this is the book for you. Years after it was written and, unfairly, neglected, Marathon stands as one of the best books ever written on the subject of how we occasionally stumble into selecting our nation's leader.



5. Jules Witcover has written several excellent books on American politics over the last 35 years. Among them are a moving account of Bobby Kennedy's doomed 1968 presidential bid and a critical look at Reagan's election to the Presidency in 1980. In "Marathon" Witcover attempts to pull a Teddy White and write the definitive account of the 1976 presidential campaign. White became famous in 1961 with the publication of "The Making of the President 1960", his bestselling account of the legendary Kennedy-Nixon presidential campaign. White had the advantage of being the first journalist to write an entire book about how we elect (or elected) Presidents in this country so soon after the election he covered. White then wrote an entire series of "Making of the President" books, covering the campaigns of 1964, 1968, and 1972. By 1976 White was tired of writing about campaigns that he felt made less and less sense and which seemed to be dominated more by primaries and photo ops than by the old-fashioned back-room dealing and campaign barnstorming that he loved to write about. So in 1976 White took a break from covering presidential politics to write his memoirs. That left the field open to other journalists, and Witcover took up the challenge. And while "Marathon" never equals White's eloquence or gift for grasping the overall theme, or meaning, of a campaign, Witcover does provide an entertaining account of a close, hard-fought race. And 1976 truly provided a wealth of stories - Jimmy Carter's rise from almost total obscurity to defeat a host of better-known Democrats and claim the Democratic nomination, thus proving the power that the primaries now had over the nominating process; George Wallace's last presidential campaign, his former racism and Archie Bunker-type qualities now hobbled or changed by his paralyzing gunshot wound suffered four years earlier; the thrilling fight between President Ford and Ronald Reagan for the Republican nomination, a race which was so close it wasn't decided until the actual balloting at the Republican Convention; and Ford's spectacular comeback from a 33-point deficit in the polls in August 1976 to a dead-even race by Election Day in November. Witcover does a marvelous job of explaining the "little moments" that can mean victory or defeat for a campaign - the consistent bad luck of Morris Udall, an Arizona Congressman and Carter's main rival for the Democratic nomination; Ford's complacency after beating Reagan in the first 4 Republican primaries, allowing himself to ease up on Reagan in the North Carolina primary - which allowed Reagan to pull off a stunning upset, save his campaign, and make a comeback to nearly defeat Ford at the Republican Convention; and Carter's verbal gaffes in the fall campaign - including the famous "lust in my heart" remark he made to "Playboy" magazine which led to weeks of ridicule in the national press. My chief problem with this book is its' length - at 700 pages in the paperback edition it is far longer than any of White's books, and includes a great amount of tedious detail that could easily have been left out (does anyone really need to know that George Wallace liked to dump ketchup over everything he ate?). Basically, this book could have used a better editor. However, even given its' length and overattention to detail, "Marathon" is still the best book you'll find on how television and the primaries allowed Jimmy Carter to become President - something that would never have happened just a few years earlier.

No comments about Transformed by Crisis: The Presidency of George W. Bush and American Politics.

5 comments about The Bushes: Portrait of a Dynasty.

1. Very well-done and ambitiously-scoped biography of the Bush family, as well as the Walkers they intermarried with a few generations back to form what we know as the Bush `dynasty' today (although the Bushes themselves hate that word). Not biased for or against the family either way, it manages to be very thorough and completely devoid of political judgment, yet full of valuable personal and political detail from an historical point of view.
   
   It's always difficult for biographers to decide exactly where to begin, but to best tell the story of the Bushes they began four generations back, with Samuel Prescott Bush, who was George Sr's grandfather and the son of a clergyman. There are many, many branches of the Bush family tree, but the Schweizers concentrate, naturally, on the direct line of Bushes who ended up in American politics. I value the personal details most of all, since I always find those the most interesting. For instance, the Bush men don't inherit the bulk of their wealth (and their wealth is not as extensive as most probably think). Rather, each is expected to make his own way, which is why they all ended up in different industries: manufacturing, railroads, steel, oil, etc. They do, of course, have the advantage of name and connections and make full use of that; they just don't inherit a big pot of money when they turn a certain age.
   
   I really enjoyed the in-depth look of the very different personalities of the Bushes, particularly the reserved George Sr., the aggressive, focused W., and the ambitious, conflicted Jeb, as well as some of the Bush women - Dottie (George Sr's mother), Barbara, and Laura. One of the most poignant details, to me, was the story of how Barbara Bush ended up with the snowy white hair everyone lambasted her for because she looked more like George's mother than his wife. Apparently they had a daughter, Robin, who was born a few years after W. While still a toddler she was diagnosed with advanced leukemia, and from diagnosis to death she lived about eight months - never improving at all, just dying a slow and painful death. It was over those eight months of watching her daughter die that Barbara's hair turned from dark auburn to completely white. When George began his first forays into politics she did heed the advice of PR people and tried to color it, but the dye wouldn't take and ended up running down her face and neck, at which point she stopped trying. It must have felt to her like a badge and constant reminder of the terrible pain she endured during that time as a young mother. Very sad.
   
   The husband-and-wife team of Peter and Rochelle Schweizer do an excellent job of bringing this very large and tightly-knit family to life, not an easy to thing to do given the size of the family and their reticence at talking very much about themselves. As biographies go it's one of the better ones I've read.



2. I generally read more on business and technology but picked up a copy of this book just to get an idea of Bush's background.
   
   I agree with one of the reviewers that it's hard to write an unbiased book on such a political topic. The book is certainly pro-Bush but gives a glimpse into the generations of the political dynasty.
   
   Two key takeaways from the book:
   * Oil is certainly in the family, perhaps the reason why the President focuses on energy as a means of National Security.
   * The power of the Yale Cosa Nostra, and the Skull and Bones Society...repeated in several chapters



3. Schweizer continues to flog his breathless admiration of everyone wealthy, Republican and corrupt.
   
   Schweizer utterly fails to address the Bushes' multifarious connections to both Organized Crime and to the Nazi Party. After all, when Schweizer refers to a "company headed by Prescott Bush", he neglects to address the fact that that company was the Union Banking Corporation which invested in Nazi industrialization and profited from slave labor at Auschwitz. (See John Loftus's books, if you doubt this.)
   
   And, when he says that Prescott Bush was defeated because of smears of being "for" birth control, Schweizer fails to note that the Senator was a charter member of the International Eugenics League - a group that does NOT promote "birth control" but one that, rather, promotes the sterilization of the illegal, the immoral, the disadvantaged, the poor, the needy and the retarded, and practically every other social group that was deemed unfit for inclusion in the Bushes' "polite society".



4. Peter and Rochelle Schweizer, the authors of The Bushes: Portrait of a Dynasty, claim to have relied mainly on interviews with friends and family members of George W. and George H. W. Bush for their information. The authors' politics apparently leans to the right, judging from the recent release of a new book by Schweizer about the hypocrisy of liberals. And yet, The Bushes: Portrait of a Dynasty, while hardly a brutal attack on the family, does not leave the reader with a very positive view of the Bushes.
   
   George H. W. comes across as an ambitious man who schmoozed his way into jobs, and who worked hard, but who had no big goals he wanted to accomplish. He famously acknowledged that he lacked "the vision thing." He seemed to be absent as a father, but that wasn't unusual in those days. Still, for a man who claimed to prize loyalty and family above all, it was unforgivable for him to miss George W.'s graduation from Yale. His father's absence at the ceremony was a big disappointment to George W., according to this book, so it seems even stranger that he too would miss his own daughters' graduations.
   
   George W., in this book, comes across as a rude, foul-mouthed, ruthless politician who learned the family business while acting the heavy during his father's administration. He also learned that the press was the enemy and that his father wasn't tough enough. His behavior while he was drinking was irresponsible, but after he stopped drinking and found religion, he didn't seem to be any more pleasant to be around. He still mocked friends as well as perceived enemies and was strident about his religious beliefs.
   
   I'll admit that I skipped most of the parts about the generations before George H. W., but the sections on the two presidents, plus Jeb and the other brothers, make up for the boring spots. The women are glossed over, not because of the authors' bias, but because women are only for support in this family. Barbara burst out of that role and upstaged her husband, but it is unlikely that Laura will do anything like that. And the lone sister, Doro, makes no mark at all.
   
   Portrait of a Dynasty is an enjoyable read, and I have only one quibble. There is too much repitition. In one paragraph, Laura is described first as "shy," then as "reluctant,", and finally as "shy and reluctant." Maureen Dowd's on-again, off-again e-mail correspondence with George H. W. is mentioned several times. This sort of thing happens throughout the book. Other than that, I recommend the book to Bush fans and non-fans alike.



5. Biographies of prominent individuals or families are generally researched studies that give us a deeper look into the subjects. But this tale of the Bush family is a flawed skimming of all the questions that ought to be explored. We get little in the way of serious personal portrait of family individuals and especially the two President Bushes. Instead a sugarcoated story that excuses all their bad behavior and poor decisions almost without exception is served up in a manner designed, but failing, to evoke admiration. It reminds one of those complimentary biographies that CEOs pay to have written. It further always assumes that the reader will agree with the Bushes political actions leading you to conclude that no serious scholarship was intended by this work. The only accurate description would be that it is shallow, like the Bushes.

1 comments about Franklin Delano Roosevelt (American Presidents Reference Series).

1. ".....Ideal for research or general reading, THIS BOOK PRESENTS AN INFORMATIVE PERSPECTIVE ON ONE OF THE NATION'S MOST INFLUENTIAL PRESIDENTS....."
   [from the book of the back cover]

3 comments about Patriot Sage: George Washington and the American Political Tradition.

1. This is an excellent book! It is a compilation of essays examining various facets of Washington's career and personality ranging from an evaluation of his military acumen to his self awareness in view of classical models to his role in the Constitutional convention to the use of his portrayal in our culture. Each essay is informative and well written, and they come from experts in their field. This is a helpful response to the `debunking' which has become so popular. I don't agree with all aspects of the analyses, but this volume sets Washington in his own context and understands him accordingly. This book is a good way to gain a sound perspective and renewed appreciation of this central figure in our history.



2. I feel the need to respond to the above review. It is an aburdity to fault George Washington for not abolishing slavery.
   
   At that point in human history, the institution of slavery was thousands of years old and practiced on every continent of the world and by every race including Africans, Asians, Middle Easterners and American Indians.
   
   George Washington was elected as the president of a republic. He had no authority to abolish slavery. Had he chosen to take the position of dictator, he could possibly have accomplished that end, but I sincerely doubt it. You seek to end one wrong by committing another.
   
   This kind of historical perspective does not serve to enlighten but obscure the facts.
   
   Someday self-righteous men may want to hold all Americans of our era responsible for allowing the abortion of 30+ million babies. There are times when we as individuals cannot "abolish" a great wrong until the traditions of a culture such as slavery and abortion are seen for what they are.
   
   Imagine my saying George W. Bush should write an executive order abolishing abortion.



3. This book has been informative in that I have learned a great deal about the political and militaristic problems Washington endured during America's push for independence. I have a feeling that, without Washington's sacrifice, America as we know it probably wouldn't occur. However, I also think of the famous quote attributed to Napoleon that "History is the myth men choose to believe." While Thomas Paine wrote about independence for the colonies, he also tore into the concept of slavery as immoral, so it wasn't as if no one was talking about this issue. If Washington would have "stepped up" and abolished slavery then and there, so that all men (and women) were truly created equal, as I said before, America might not be here. It was a politically divided and bankrupt country. I don't consider those reasons justification for sacrificing another person's human rights. The racial problems we face today stem from a lack of identity stolen from a stolen people

   who did much of the work to build this country in its early days and, while the opprtunity was there, given nothing in return. "Patriot Sage" is an excellent insight into many aspects of Washington's life of which I was ignorant (like his influence on the Constitutional Convention) Sadly, some of its essays are too right-wing, to the point of Clinton bashing. What modern era president could really live up to the accomplishments of the one who defined the job's parameters ? One essay focuses on the moral symbolism of Washington now devoid in today's presidents, while another openly admits he gambled and sought prostitutes. To be read overall with some perspective.

2 comments about The Inner Jefferson: Portrait of a Grieving Optimist.

1. I'm about two-thirds of the way through this book. The content is highly interesting, but it's kind of a difficult read. Definitely not the lighter, "speedy" read of an Ambrose or Vidal book. Burstein is very analytical, with somewhat of a sociologial and/or psychological perspective to this analysis of Jefferson. There is a early section on Love/Emotion (?) which is a bit laborious. However, I will continue to work my way to the end, and do feel that I've gained much insight into Jefferson's background, family life, political affiliations, intellectual interests, his love of the Parisian salon-type intercourse, and so forth.
   This book is definitely NOT for the reader of lighter history.
   Dry and laborious at times.



2. yet another broad look at jefferson, from political career, near-romantic encounters, family life, friends & correspondences. the writing is crystal clear & fast-paced. you get a snippet of tj's sharp epistolary hand. no huge controversies being discussed here altho i think there were some defenses made for the slavery issue. pick up this book. it's one of the better ones for introducing yourself to tj. good b&w photos of his favorite haunts & some skeletons in the closet.