3 comments about George H. W. Bush: The American Presidents Series: The 41st President, 1989-1993 (The American Presidents).

1. This book, authored by Timothy Naftali, ends with the following comment (Page 176): "George W. Bush's controversial presidency led to a positive reassessment of his father's time in the White House. . . .[M]any missed the elder Bush's realism, his diplomacy, his political modesty, and, yes, even his prudence."
   
   George H. W. Bush was a one term president who presided over the end of the Cold War. This slender biography, another entry in The American Presidents series, provides a useful biography of the 41st president of the United States. The book begins with his childhood and youth, culminating in his estimable service in the Navy's air wing, including being shot down in the Pacific. Upon his return to the United States, Bush entered Yale and, upon graduation, became a businessman who did well, after moving from New England to Texas.
   
   In Texas, Bush became interested in politics, and public service consumed him until the end of his presidency. He was ambitious from the start of his career. He had successes (election to the House of Representatives) and failures (defeat in a Senate race). He became a person respected by his Republican Party leaders, and served in a number of important roles, from Director of the CIA, Ambassador to the U. N., Chair of the Republican National Committee, and head of the U. S. diplomatic post in the People's Republic of China.
   
   After his China tour, he began thinking about the presidency. It didn't work out in 1980 (Ronald Reagan simply did a better job as candidate); however, he got quite a consolation prize--Vice President. Then, the tale of his campaign to become President in 1988.
   
   Once elected, he displayed prudence. He ran into trouble when he backed off his "Read my lips; no new taxes" promise from the 1988 campaign. Many Republicans were angered. His presidency did feature both domestic successes and foreign policy successes (end of the Cold War and the stunning cobbling together of a coalition to boot Iraq out of Kuwait--and his refusal to advance on Baghdad). There were also problems, such as seeming sometimes to be out of touch. Then , his dismaying defeat by Bill Clinton in 1992.
   
   All in all, a good depiction of the man and his presidency. Another worthy addition to the series.



2. This was not a strict biography of the entire life of George H. W. Bush. The author. Timothy Naftali, gave brief information about President Bush's family background, military service and early career and of course how he came into public life. Most of the book centered on the challenges that President Bush faced during his years of presidential service and how his early experiences influenced the decisions that he made at a very difficult time in the history of the world.
   
   President Bush was at the helm during the period when the Cold War ended and the people of the Eastern European countries were throwing off the shackles of years of enforced communist rule. The author states that "Poland was the scene of the first dramatic change. In February 1989 Solidarity was legalized and Lech Walesa entered into talks with the Communist government to prepare for a new electoral system."
   
   President Bush's diplomatic relationship with Mikhail Gorbachev was good which was helpful in negotiating peaceful resolutions to some of the many problems which surfaced as the Cold War was ending. The nonviolent reunification of East and West Germany was also accredited to the President's intervention. A few years later in 1991, his diplomacy helped to garner a coalition of united forces that joined together to defeat Saddam Hussein's take over of Kuwait.
   
   On the home front, the President was not particularly popular. The American people found him difficult to understand. In some ways his aristocratic coolness turned many people off and within the Republican Party, he did not have the strong backing that President Reagan had experienced. The election promise that President Bush made when he ran for office was, "Read my lips--no new taxes." When he was forced to break that promise he lost a great deal of support and his bid for reelection.
   
   Timothy Naftali's assessment of President Bush was that he was probably the right man for the job at that time and that "George Bush answered the call for greatness when his country required it." I thought this book was well done and it helped me to understand more about world politics and President Bush. Time and history seems to be the best judge of how well a president performed while in office.
   
   
   
   



3. George Herbert Walker Bush - 1989-93
   "Read my lips!" the elder Bush said when he promised no raise in taxes. When taxes were raised, David Duke said he meant, "Kiss my hips!" The door opened for a stampede on the Oval Office from Pat Buchanan to Ross Perot. Perot was an eccentric billionaire. "You want jobs? Here's the deal!" He got scared he was going to win and dropped out. He re-entered and got 19% of the vote as his Reform Party's candidate. The legacy of Bush 41 is his confrontation with Saddam Hussein and Iraq. Saddam invaded oil-rich Kuwait in 1990. Bush put together a coalition and drove him out. Bush said it was not about oil. If it was not about oil, then it was not about anything. Americans do not care about Kuwaitis or Iraqis. They care about driving to and from sporting events, getting home to their wives and kids and putting food on the table. Bush made enemies across the Muslim world. Americans who wanted regime change in 1991 would get their chance. Bush kept looking at his watch when he debated Clinton. He underestimated Baby Boomers.

5 comments about Woodrow Wilson.

1. H.W. Brands has written ambitious biographies of American historical figures, including a major work on the life of Andrew Jackson. Here, in keeping within the format of the American Presidents Series, Brands has writtten a shorter, but nontheless, insightful work. Wilson might have been a great president but, he was flawed. He was stubborn and uncompromising. Although he suffered a major stroke in his second term, he evidentally had suffered other, less serious strokes over the years. It is difficult to say whether his physical condition led to his unwillingness to yield but, much that could have been accomplished through compromise never came to fruition.
   
   An early sign of Wilson's concreteness appeared during his presidency of Princeton University. There was a dispute as to whether the graduate school should be located on the main campus or at another site. Wilson, a proponent of locating it on campus refused to negotiate a compromise and the project was stalled.
   
   Wilson was a Virginian and his racial attitudes were that of the Jim Crow South. However, being president of Princeton established his credentials as a New Jersey resident and Democratic party leaders put him up for governor of that state. He was elected and he showed remarkable independence as he proposed reforms that disappointed the party leaders and led them to consider him to be an ingrate. Later, when he was elected President of the United States, he continued his reform path in domestic matters.
   
   What defined his presidency was World War I and its aftermath. After the war, Wilson traveled to Europe to negotiate the peace treaty. On a tour of Europe, he was cheered wildly whereever he went. He was a genuine hero. However, in the negotiations England and France sought to impose harsh terms on Germany whereas Wilson sought more leniency. The heart of Wilson's Fourteen points proposal was a League of Nations. This League was included in the treaty and Wilson's next major battle was to get the Senate to ratify it. Here is where Wilson's stubborness did him in. Rather than negotiate with Republicans in the Senate, led by Henry Cabot Lodge, Wilson bypassed them and took his case to the people in a speaking tour. This was not the way to win favor in the Senate.
   
   Wilson's most egregious error, probably compounded by his stroke, was his total unwillingness to yield on one point regarding the League of Nations; i.e. a clause that required members to come to the aid of other members militarily. Republicans in the Senate were concerned that this clause might weaken US sovereignty. They noted that under the Constitution, it was the Senate, not the President who decalred war. Paul Johnson, in his "History of the American People" noted that if one of Great Britain's colonial possessions, such as India, had been attacked, the treaty might require the United states to get involved militarily. Anyway, Wilson refused to allow a reservation which would clarify the United States' understanding of the clause to the satisfaction of Lodge and other concerned Senators. Accordingly, the treaty didn't pass the Senate.
   
   The tragedy of the Wilson presidency is that so much more could have been accomplished. He was a great reformer on domestic issues and was a popular war president. However, his one major flaw kept him from achieving true greatness. Brand does a good job in capturing the essence of Wilson and I recommend this book.



2. You must guard your expectations on a biography (especially of a two term president) that only reads 138 pages. However, I thought that H.W. Brands could add his typical free flowing style and story-telling ability to make a completely satisfying short-read. Unfortuantely, Brands delivers his least inspired performance in telling the story of Wilson. Obviously, the context of the project (a short "taste" on the life of Wilson) curtailed Brands style, which I found to be my biggest disappointment.
   
   As a whole - the life of Wilson is fascinating - a great turning point in the life of "liberals" (While Wilson would certainly not be considered a "liberal" by today's standards). Wilson implemented the 8 hour work day, the FTC, and stiffened anti-trust laws.... not to mention a monstrous epidemnic of the flu... and oh yeah.... World War I. Unfortunately - most of these issues are just briefly touched on (The flu epidemic was not even mentioned).
   
   As a whole - I found this to be a fair brief glimpse into the life of Wilson. However, I would have love to read one of Brand's standard 400 pagers on the life of Wilson.



3. No one can truly understand the issues of the modern era without knowledge of of the man who mid-wifed it into existence, Woodrow Wilson. In his biography of Wilson's presidency, Professor H.W. Brands brings his insightful style and keen sense of relationships between critical events. One learns enough from this rather short book to ask the next set of more interesting questions.

   Absent Wilson, would there have been a central bank, the Federal Reserve, in the U.S.? How did the Wilson presidency effect the direction of the national income tax? What did Wilson do to foster the growth of centralized federal power in the U.S.?

   Absent Wilson's inept diplomacy, would the U.S. have become so involved in World War I, first by funding Britain and France, and then by participating in the combat? Would the Great War have lasted so long and caused so much damage to the fabric of European civilization and colonial influence? Would the world ever have heard of Herr Hitler and Signor Mussolini, veterans both of front line combat?

   Absent U.S. participation in the European War, would a pedestrian lawyer, and middling state-level politician named Franklin Delano Roosevelt have found his first federal job as Assistant Secretary of the Navy? Would the U.S. ever have bred such soldiers as Douglas MacArthur and Harry Truman, and most of the rest of the list of future political-military leaders of mid-century?

   Absent events put into motion by Wilson, would Russia have broken up and descended into a Bolshevik Revolution? Would the Ottoman Empire have dissolved, to spawn the modern politics of the Middle East? Would the concept of League of Nations/world governance ever have gained the traction it did?

   Had Wilson never been president, would the U.S. and the world have had a far different 20th Century? Or was Wilson just one man in a particular time of great change? Germany and Italy had been building centralized, debt-financed governance for 40 years by the time Wilson walked into the White House. So did Wilson make history, guide history , or was he merely governed by historical forces whose time had come?

   Like it or not, we lived the 20th Century in Wilson's Century, and in the 21st Century we still follow the path he blazed. Wilson's ghost hovers over the plains of the Republic, walks the halls of power in every government building, and touches the lives of every person who draws a breath.




4. H.W. Brands' output over the last five years has been enormous. From huge biographies on Theodore Roosevelt and Benjamin Franklin to fair-sized books on the California Gold Rush and several major U.S. business figures to a slim volume on Americans' relationship with their federal government, the Texas A&M historian has published at least six books over the last five years that I'm aware of. The four which I've read have had the same qualities: solid scholarship and writing, but nothing flashy or standout about them.

   Brands' biography of Woodrow Wilson fits in this pattern. The book is an easy and enjoyable read. The scholarship is solid (I enjoyed reading the short but striking comments for each of the books mentioned in the "selected bibliography"). Occasionally, Brands is even eloquent as when he describes the effect on Wilson of the death of his first wife.

   Nevertheless, as with every other book of Brands I've read, "Woodrow Wilson" never soars to become a great work. The reason eludes me. Brands seems to have all the gifts to write a memorable history or biography, but his work remains a little too flat and it fades too quickly from the reader's mind. He does not break out of this mold with "Woodrow Wilson".




5. The American Presidents series, condensed biographies of individual presidents by eminent historians, makes the lives of our nation's readers accessible for general readers. That said, the books work better when resurrecting the memory of nearly forgotten minor presidents such as Rutheford B. Hayes than they do documenting the accomplishments of major historical figures like Woodrow Wilson. Simply put, Wilson's life was just too full to be given real justice by a 40,000 or so word manuscript.

   Limited by the format, Texas A&M Professor of History H.W. Brands gamely gives it his best shot. The author of such first rate works as "TR - The Last Romantic" and "The Age of Gold" recounts Wilson's life, devoting most of the mere 139 pages of narrative to his presidency. It's a good overview, and one that will likely whet the appetite of many readers to know more. Wilson was a strong, controversial and enigmatic leader. A progressive and idealist on the international front, for example, he was still very much a son of the South who strongly supported segregation at home. Brands deals with such events as World War One, the failed battle for ratification of the Versailles peace treaty and Wilson's debilitating 1919 stroke, but doesn't delve much into the details.

   Overall, a good if all-too-brief overview of Woodrow Wilson's life.

5 comments about John Quincy Adams: (The American Presidents Series).

1. One can't help but view this biography as if Remini were defending the honor of an individual he clearly found wanting. John Quincy is so much the prideful product of his famous forebears (must read McCullough's John Adams first), that he can't help but fall short in his own right. Particularly insightful is Quincy's stubborn wrong-headedness in his managing of his cabinet appointments, which contributed greatly to a sour legacy. Remini does serve JQ well in praising his foreign policy successes as ambassador and Sec. of State, and provides enlightened review of his post-presidency legislative terms.....but clearly the tone is condemning of a most ascetic and belligerent man reaching beyond his natural skills as a diplomat to underachieve as an executive.



2. I am familiar with the concept of the American Presidents Series, whereby each chief executive is given a relatively short and concise treatment. Perfect for the history buff that might not want to invest several weeks in reading a two volume discourse on the life and times of James K. Polk.
   
   John Quincy Adams was an important American statesman during a turbulent period of American history. His heritage as a son of Founding Father John Adams, coupled with a virtual lifetime of public service is certainly deserving of study (granted, for a serious history buff, probably more than that provided in this work). I was therefore somewhat disappointed when upon receipt of the book, it was no larger than a mere pamphlet.
   
   The Amazon synopsis lists it as being composed of 196 pages. I can't imagine how this number was arrived at. The text of the book comes in at 155 pages. Even including the "Editor's Note", endnotes, milestones, bibliography and index, only 173 are consumed. If you add the title page, all the blank pages at the beginning and end of the book AND the front and back cover, you still can't come up with 196 pages. Therefore, what you have is a very short biography that is actually over 20% shorter than advertised. Certainly understandable in the case of some of the "sketchier" Presidents, but John Quincy Adams?
   
   Adams, born into the illustrious family of John and Abigail Adams, was raised to lead a life in politics. It is an unusual set of circumstances that resulted in Adams's presidency actually being viewed as the least successful period of his life, rather than its pinnacle. Adams was an accomplished diplomat from an early age, spending productive time in all the European capitals throughout the early American administrations. He finally served as Secretary of State under James Monroe, a recognized stepping stone to the presidency.
   
   His election in 1824, by a bitterly divided House of Representatives, ushered in a period of political bitterness and infighting astonishing in its ferocity. His personal feuds with Andrew Jackson and his supporters are possibly the most vicious in political history. Adams's presidency is generally viewed as quite ineffective. His refusal to take advantage of political patronage and his naivety in matters of political strategy doomed him to serve a single term.
   
   Following his presidency, Adams was elected to represent the state of Massachusetts in the House of Representatives, where he continued to be a thorn in the side of his opponents, from all aspects of the political spectrum. The single personality trait of Adams highlighted throughout this work is independence. His refusal to abide by party lines and forge long lasting alliances resulted in his failure to govern firm majorities throuhgout his career.
   
   He was a henpecked son and, according to the author, a failure as a father and husband. He comes across many times as a sanctimonious Puritan and devolved later in life into an unpleasant, irascible, back bencher. Nevertheless, he was a seminal figure in early 19th century American history and deserving of more than 155 pages of treatment.
   
   Finally, a note on the author's style. Given the brevity of the work and the scope of Adams's life, it is not surprising that the writing sometimes feels clipped and brusque, moving quickly from topic to topic. On several ocassions, the author begins paragraphs with short, declarative statements such as, "What a disaster!", "What an opening!", "That did it!" (twice), "Superior management!", "What idiocy!", that lent a jarring almost inappropriately informal tone to the writing.
   
   All in all a relatively unsatisfactory work. Had the author in fact taken 196 pages to present the subject, perhaps it would have been better received. Nevertheless, if you want an ultra quick and dirty synopsis on the life and political career of John Quincy Adams and only have 5-6 hours to invest, this may be the best you could do.



3. The author is best known as the biographer of Jackson, so understandably he shows some favoritism for Jackson.
   
   He covers the essentials of JQA's life but very briefly as intended. The book serves its purpose as a concise biography of a president whose life was intimately connected with the history of the first six decades of the United States.



4. First off, I am a real fan of this American Presidents Series of books. Each runs about 150 pages in length and can be easily finished in a few days by even the most time-constrained reader. This series is a godsend for those of us who buy 600-page biographical tomes with the best of intentions, then abandon them 100 pages in (albeit with extensive knowledge of the subject's family tree and childhood.) Robert Remini's biography "John Quincy Adams" strikes a great balance between illumination and brevity.
   
   I became interested in John Quincy Adams after reading the chapter JFK devoted to him in "Profiles in Courage" and being struck by such an accomplished man continuing to harbor so many self-doubts. Remini's biography offers ample explanation for this. Driven hard by his family to excel (his father becoming, of course, the second President of the United States), the bar for perceived success was very high. As well, depression seemed to be a family trait, with many members touched by alcoholism or suicide, including two of JQA's own sons.
   
   Remini does an excellent job describing the grueling regimen of study the young JQA followed and the high expectations the family placed on him. By his early teens, JQA was proficient in several languages and, amazingly, his fluency in French at age 14 was such that he was asked to serve as a translator for US diplomats in the Russian courts.
   
   It can be shocking to read comments made by our leaders of the time, particularly statements regarding American Indians. The reader is reminded just how different was that era and how much things have changed in the intervening 200 years. One thing which has not changed is dirty political campaigning. In fact, the fallout from JQA's election in 1824 and the campaign of 1828 seem to mark a transition from the civil presidential elections of the nation's early years to the adversarial style still with us today.
   
   As a politician, Adams was horrible. He had zero interest in playing the game, even to the point of refusing to campaign. "War meetings or committee meetings of both parties [occurred] every day of the week. It is so in every part of the Union. A stranger would think that the people of the United States have no other occupation than electioneering." That sounds like he spent an evening watching modern day cable news networks.
   
   Heavy-duty readers of American history may find this book (and the others in the series) too concise, but then they are not the primary target audience. As for me, I learned a great deal about John Quincy Adams and his era without a burdensome commitment of time -- precisely what I sought.



5. There are many historic books on presidents. The American President Series is a great text for those who are interested in reading a brief summary of the presidents' lives. Many texts are too in depth for casual reading, but this series is excellent for those of us who are not die-hard historians or history experts. The author of this text has written a brilliant book on John Q. His writing style is wonderful and made it hard for me to put the book down. I was so impressed by his writing style that I have been searching for more books by him. This text and author is great and a must read.

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

1. 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.



2. 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.



3. 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.



4. 
   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.



5. I'll admit that I did not know what to expect when I encountered this book by Kitty Kelley. I only knew her works by reputation, and her previous subject matter - the Royals, Jackie Onassis, Elizabeth Taylor and Frank Sinatra - struck me as lightweight and gossipy. But I found myself unexpectedly with a few hours to kill and few titles from which to choose. So, I picked up "The Family: The Real Story of the Bush Family," which tells the history of three generations of Bush politicians, Senator Prescott Bush and Bush 41 and Bush 43.
   
   First, let me say that the book is very readable. The only thing that might be a bit difficult is keeping track of the different names, as there are, for example, so many Georges and Prescotts. Kelley does what she can to assist by employing the nicknames used by Bush family itself. Some of them are actually endearing, such as "Poppy." Her prose carries the reader along easily.
   
   Second, let me say that the book was far more substantial than I expected. There was plenty, yes plenty, of politics in it. Kelley brings information together to show coherent patterns, exposing contradictions and lies.
   
   Third, I want to say that the book is, for the most part, fair. Kelley sometimes steps back to admire or acknowledge a deed or two. Prescott is admired for voting to censure Joe McCarthy (an act of political courage, as his constituents may have been pro-Joe). Bush 41 is admired for enlisting on his 18th birthday to fight in World War II (even though his parents were against his fighting in "Rockefeller's War"). Kelley also acknowledges that Bush 41's increase of taxes - and this hurt him badly in the re-election - put the economy in better shape for when Clinton entered office. Bush 43 is acknowledged to believe that he is a sincere Christian (although he rarely attends church). Kelley describes a charming incident, too, when Bush returns some money to a poor woman who contributed to his campaign.
   
   (A parenthetical note: how often do you hear the right-wing media positively acknowledge any deed of those whom they deem liberal? It's very, very rare, and very frustrating.)
   
   Despite these gleams of good, most of the book is negative with respect to the three men. Their talents can be described as mediocre at best, and pitiful at worst. They rarely have empathy for anyone but the Bushes. The lies that they tell - "Pernicious foolery" - expand from one generation to the next. They lie glibly about themselves; they lie viciously about their opponents. They pander to those who will vote for them or contribute to their campaigns. Many of the events have popped up in the media before; it's clear they are not invention. (I admit I was too young for the Prescott incidents.)
   
   A big question is: Why have the Bushes done what they have done? They seem to have mistaken a plaque on the wall for the satisfaction of genuine accomplishment. But they are desperate, almost slavering, to get that plaque on the wall. They lie and pander (to the NRA, for example) in order to get that plaque.
   
   And what's all this about poodles? The poodles are the media (see Kelley's Afterword) admitted to the White House - the poodles who have not done their work and informed the nation. The poodles who, hoping for another doggy biscuit or a chance to sit on the inner sofa, have let so many items go unchallenged. The poodles have hurt the Americans, who, thinking they were being informed appropriately, voted in the Bush-men
   
   Thanks Kelley - for not being a poodle!

5 comments about American Presidents: Martin Van Buren.

1. This is one of the books in "The American Presidents" series, focusing on Martin Van Buren. The overall series editor, Arthur Schlesinger, Jr., speaks of what is at stake with the presidency, in his series introduction (Page xv): "But a system based on the tripartite separation of powers [executive, legislative, and judiciary] has an inherent tendency toward inertia and stalemate. One of the three branches must take the initiative if the system is to move. The executive branch alone is structurally capable of taking that initiative."
   
   In this book, we learn of the presidency of Martin Van Buren, sometimes called the Red Fox of Kinderhook, after his home town. He began in extremely modest circumstances to work his way up to the top position in American politics.
   
   In the process, he masterminded some major political inventions, such as the party caucus, the national presidential nominating convention, the patronage system, a publicity network, and the Democratic Party itself. Obviously, he did not do these things alone, but he was a key figure in the development of a new political structure and framework, far different from that of the early years of the republic. Indeed, as the book points out, he helped p[popularize the term "OK."
   
   The book describes his rise in politics and his clever political machinations. He hitched his wagon to the political star of Andrew Jackson, and that helped propel his rise. He was also a successful elected politicians, from his years in the New York state political scene. There, he helped form the "Albany Regency," one of the earliest stable political organizations.
   
   He was a Democrat, and also favored a more democratic process. Between 1826 and 1828, according to the author, Van Buren began the process of developing a modern political party. It is ironic that as he ascended the political ladder to attain the presidency, he ran into an economic disaster that doomed his presidency. The book discusses that, although there is not the detail one might wish. He did have some successes, but he ended up a one term president (although he tried another run later on--and failed). Then, the later years in his life are discussed.
   
   For a person who wants a quick literate introduction to Martin Van Buren (derided by some as "Van Van the Washed Up Man" after his defeat in the re-election campaign), this ought to do the trick. A good read. . . .
   



2. Widmer does a fine job of presenting a tidy picture of an obscure one-term president, his faults and strengths. By covering his Dutch-American ancestry and character, the reader gains a firm grasp of the individual - and understands what shapes his political wisdom, the motivations behind his party politicking, and the vitriol that his enemies bring to bear. I found the text informative, the style engaging and the theme purposeful.



3. Martin Van Buren, the 8th President, was the first President hailing from New York and the first President of non-English descent. This book briefly covers his life; early years, his rise to political fame, his Presidency and his retirement.
   
   Widmer, does a great job in just 200 pages of giving the reader a sense of who Martin Van Buren was. He also does a great job of making you realize why Martin Van Buren should be remembered and pointing out all the great things he accomplished in the name of democracy, without overselling him and making the reader believe he should go down in history as one of the most important Presidents.
   
   This book is a good read for the regular reader, one who does not normally read non-fiction or biographies. I did not find it too dense and it flowed nicely.



4. Van Buren had a lengthy and complex career, from his rise in New York politics in the early 19th Century to becoming the first ex-President to be seriously considered for a new term in 1844, until his unpopular opposition to annexing Texas led to the upset nomination and victory of James Polk. In a short book of under 200 pages, Widmer can't discuss all of this in detail. He makes a good decision to focus on Van Buren's work as a political organizer and in large part the founder of the Democratic Party, when he brought together the Northern and Southern factions which had supported Andrew Jackson in 1824 to back his successful return in 1828. He obviously covers, but doesn't really emphasize, Van Buren's single term as President, made a failure by an economic collapse that he had nothing to do with.
   
   It is as the founder of the Democratic Party and as Jackson's right hand that Van Buren made his most important contributions to history. Democrats generally prefer to assign this role to the more revered Jefferson, but the parties of his era were such loose and unorganized groupings that they were more factions than real political parties. True national parties, with national conventions and permanent structures date to the era of Jackson, and probably nobody had more to do with creating them than Van Buren.
   
   Also included here are other major events of Jackson's presidency, such as the "war of the Petticoats" and the nullification crisis. It was these controversies that led Jackson to break with John Calhoun, naming Van Buren as his Vice President and natural successor.
   
   Widmer has worked in the White House as a speechwriter for Clinton, and refers to that experience and the Clinton presidency several times. Some reviewers thought that a distraction from the proper subject of the book; I thought it added contemporary interest and showed a continuity of politics across very different eras.
   
   On the whole this book is interesting, readable and informative. It recounts a substantial amount of history in a concise package.



5. If you want a book about the highlights (and only the highlights) of Martin Van Buren's public service career then buy this book.
   
   This book had alot of gaps in it. It kept saying that he was an up and coming star and that he was a political mastermind, but it never once said why he was a star and what manuevers he made to make him a mastermind.
   
   I agree with the other reviewer about Bill Clinton. This was supposed to be a book about the 8th president not the 42nd. I found the constant refrences to Bill Clinton to be out of place. I guess that the author was drawing on his own experience with a president.
   
   The only reason that I bought this book is that it is a short and concise biography of Van Buren. I am trying to read a biography of each of the presidents and did not want to spend alot of time reading a 500-600+ page book on one of the lesser known presidents. I think that the book could have been longer (say about 300 to 350 pages)in order to further detail the career of Van Buren.

5 comments about Franklin Delano Roosevelt: Champion of Freedom.

1. Franklin Delano Roosevelt: Champion of Freedom
   
   What can you say? It's a thoroughly researched, skillfully wound tale of a man who has no statesman-like comparison in modern American history. I'm an 'Eisenhower Republican' - though, I fear we're a dying breed - however, remark at the leadership and undying dedication to country this magnificently flawed giant of a president consistently demonstrated throughout the course of his illustrious political career.
   
   It's exhaustively researched and fact packed, to be sure - but will nary leave you wanting to leave this bulky work on the nightstand before dozing off. Whether you agree or disagree with FDR's policies or tactics, this book is never tendentious and should appeal to readers across political spectrum and ideologies....the way a masterful biography should, in this humble history junkies mind.
   
   Fans of Mrs. Eleanor Roosevelt may want to pick up a separate bio for her life story, as Black certainly does not treat her with kid gloves. However, this book accurately hones in on the key subject - FDR - and Lord Black sticks to his prime subject matter with uncompromising rigdity, a keen focus and honesty.
   
   Bravo. I promise to read more of Mr. Black as a result of this admirable and impressive work.
   
   - Johnny Concannon



2. It took a month to receive my book; I was happy with it once it arrived, but the slowness was a problem.



3. We would be remiss to not credit Washington with defining the parameters of the powers of the Presidency, but for all intent and purposes, as far as impact is concerned, Franklin Delano Roosevelt was the greatest President in the nation, including Lincoln. We must remember that history tends to overestimate martyrdom. As good as Lincoln was, he was never tested in a peace time setting.
   Conrad Black has written the definitive and best book on the great FDR, hands down. Far from being a fawning soft sell, "Champion Of Freedom" is very fair, and Black does not hesitate to discuss Roosevelt's shortcomings, as well as his triumphs. It is an incredibly thoughtful read, and the research is amazing.
   Roosevelt could, at times, be calculating, devious and even mean, especially toward political enemies. This was fair game, however, and in a world where deceit and hidden agendas permeate every action, Roosevelt simply was a mile ahead of everybody else and played the politics game better than anybody ever had before, or will again.
   His concern for the working man, the New Deal and landmark programs like the WMA put America to work when there was none to be had. Some lunk headed conservatives claim he stole the work from industry, but that is pure bull. We have Social Security, the Labor Relations Act, and a great park system because of Roosevelt's domestic programs. As far as a wartime president, his foresight and action was almost divinely inspired, and may well have been.
   While critics blame him for Pearl Harbor, Black points out that Roosevelt, who loved the Navy and was Assistant Secretary to the Navy in WWI, would never have deliberately put the men of Pearl Harbor in harm's way as it happened. Rather, he had expected the admirals to be fully prepared for possible attack, and was aghast (albeit privately) at the incompetence shown at Pearl Harbor, which should have been more than able to put up a very good fight against the Japanese attackers. True, he expected war, and knew that the sooner, the better once our armed forces were ready, and that was well underway.
   This is just one revelation of a very complex man who was regarded in Messianic proportions by the populace and by the world at large. Black is a master writer, and truly has created a masterpiece worthy of its subject. For serious history and Roosevelt fans, it's a must have.



4. We gave two copies of this book for Christmas this year. The recipients have had nothing but great things to say.



5. This one was a tough read - 1134 pages and a couple of laps around the world later I finished - but it was definitely worth the time. While not as readable as David McCullough, Conrad Black not only tells the amazing story of FDR, but also puts you right in the middle of this pivotal time in American History. Sometimes vindictive, often underestimated, FDR's ability to lead and leverage public opinion is unmatched by any modern day president. The complicated relationship between Stalin, Roosevelt and Churchill was navigated with great expertise. The personalities surrounding him - Eleanor, Teddy Roosevelt's side of the family, Stimson, Smith, MacArthur, Patton, Eisenhower, etc. are cause to hit the Barnes and Noble shop again soon for a few more biographies. If you like American history and biographies, this book comes with my recommendation.

No comments about Running Alone: Presidential Leadership from JFK to Bush II.

5 comments about An Unfinished Life: John F. Kennedy, 1917-1963.

1. An extremely informative book. I came away from the book having only a little respect for Kennedy as a man or politician.
   
   1) He accepted a Pulitzer Prize for a book that was almost entirely ghostwritten for him.
   
   2) His daddy helped him cheat to win in elections and primaries.
   
   3) His primary accomplishment as a Senator was keeping the seat warm for the next guy.
   
   4) He, like at least one other President, lied about or withheld the truth about significant medical/physical problems.
   
   5) He appointed his brother to post of Attorney General even though RFK was completely unqualified.
   
   6) He treated his wife with blankfaced disrespect (openly philandering) in public and private.
   
   7) He was primarily responsible for the Bay of Pigs fiasco which made him look weak and emboldened Cuba and the USSR, thus leading to the Cuban Missle Crisis which he handled surprisingly well.
   
   8) He dragged his feet on Civil Rights because he was afraid of losing the support of Southern Democrats. (MLK Jr. said JFK's assassination was the best thing to happen to the Civil Rights movement)
   
   9) He freely admitted his first year as President was a miserable failure.
   
   10) He stepped up involvement in Vietnam without actually dealing with the problem. This forced Johnson and Nixon to make strategically terrible, morally insupportable and after-the-fact decisions.
   
   He was good looking and well spoken. Even his fiercest detractors admit he gave a great speech. He had a beautiful and cultured wife and adorable kids (Camelot). He was intelligent and erudite. He did his duty in WW2. As the President, he meant well but was inexperienced, naive & hopelessly out of his depth in high level cut-throat politics and completely lacking in moral courage. He did at least listen to the Civil Rights leaders and proposed bare minimum legistation. He got the space program off the ground (so to speak). He started the Peace Corp. He stared down the bombastic Khrushchev and the belligerent Castro. He encouraged Americans toward volunteerism and thinking of America 1st and themselves 2nd. All in all, a failed half-presidency with a few points of light redeemed by his martyrdom and subsequent mythology.



2. Robert Dallek is a gifted historian. He is also a complete historian, because he writes extremely well. I wonder if he has ever won the Parkman Prize, because his apparent meticulous research is consumed by the reader with such ease. Of course, because it is Dr. Dallek, I have but one complaint. In the young, Kennedy years, prior to the presidency, the biography feels intimate -- as if we were talking to someone who was right in the house growing up with him -- almost if we were like Lem Billings. But when we get to the presidency there is a bit of opinionating that oftimes goes from historian to editorializing. For example, when speaking of the Berlin Crisis, Dr. Dallek opines that it is best that JFK was running the show because RFK, being a hothead, might have gotten us involved in a nuclear exchange. Other than that minor, minor complaint, (because he is probably right on his opinionating), I think Dallek is great. So is his new title about Nixon, (and Kissinger,too.)
   
   Joe Nichols



3. Thought that the book was an adequate one volume account of the life of JFK. The author talked alot about JFK's medical problems, more than I would have liked. He could have written a chapter about the medical problems JFK had with his stomach and back and about how the Kennedy's covered up those ailments during the run for the presidency and during the presidency.
   
   But overall I thought that it was a very good book and would recommend to anyone who is reading their first Biography of Kennedy.



4. I very much enjoyed this biography of JFK. It is very well written and exactly what you want in a biography. It has a very detailed account of his entire life, from birth, through school and his travels, and on to his time as President.
   
   My only criticism is that for those of you who were not alive at the time of JFK (like me), you can get lost in many of the pages surrounding his Presidency. The author's accounts are so detailed, that I often found myself turning back in the book to refresh my memory about the many names and places that are referenced.
   
   Other than that, I highly recommend this book. The accounts of his young life (the privilege, the travels, the women) are fantastically interesting. The accounts of his many illnesses were also well done, and news to me.
   
   If you are like me and a big fan of biographies that start from the beginning and tell the whole story chronologically without leaving out a single detail, then this book is for you.



5. Well packed and arrived in a timely fashion. Everything as expected. A pleasure to do business with.

No comments about Clinton in Exile: A President Out of the White House.

5 comments about Chronicle of the Roman Emperors: The Reign-By-Reign Record of the Rulers of Imperial Rome (Chronicle).

1. 
   For anyone with even a passing interest in Roman history this book is an invaluable source of knowledge about the Roman Emperor's. Personally it helps to set the scene for me even if the book is a work of fiction if I can pin point the period of Roman history that is being written about and knowing what emperor was reigning in Rome and in what years is a sure fire way of pin-pointing the period in which the book is written.
   
   Of course the book is so much more than a time scale of Roman history, there is also information regarding what wars if any were fought during a particular emperor's reign and what Roman building were attributable to any given emperor. The book covers the succession of 80 emperors, with biographical portraits of the 56 most notable ones. Names that leap out from the pages of the history books, Julius Caesar, Hadrian, Nero, all names to conjure with.
   
   There are contemporary judgements made by writers of the time including Suetonius and Tacitus and these are balanced by character assessments made in the light of modern research. This is a book that is well worth having, not only for its reference capabilities but also it is a good read in its own right.



2. Replete with timelines, maps, sidebars, and photographs, this is a wonderful resource. Whether you're watching a DVD of "I, Claudius" or reading Gibbon, it's a highly useful reference book where you can get a quick read on any emperor. Often, I'll pull it down from the shelf to research a particular emperor, then find myself still reading it an hour later.
   
   What I like best about it are the photographed busts of the emperors which along with the lively writing really bring the Roman rulers to life. They also allow one to trace the change in Roman art from the idealized classicism of Augustus to the grim realism of the mid 3rd century's portrait of Philip the Arab when the Empire was falling apart to the stolid and blank cartoonlike portrait of Constantine the Great in the 4th century when the Empire had been restored, but had become Christian and more medieval.
   
   A real gem, this book is highly recommended for fans of Roman history.



3. Excellent book, very few errors. Good source of information, very nice colorfull pictures and sketches. Worth the cost.



4. I bought a second one for a friend a week after the first copy arrived. Great, concise book.



5. This is a useful reference that places the lives of the Roman Emperors in chronological order. The detail is useful but not onerous and it is quite an easy read.