5 comments about Lion in the White House: A Life of Theodore Roosevelt.

1. If I have to choose between Righteousness and this book, I choose Righteousness. Another distorted Liberal view of a great man. I try to read everything on this man, and this is by far the worst.



2. I recently finished "Lion in the White House", referring to President Theodore Roosevelt.
   While I have read many other books about this fascinating man, "Lion in the White House" is a compilation of other books and extensive research. It is an excellent and concise documentary of events and personalities of the time. A very easy read.



3. It would be pointless for me to criticize this book for being too short, because it was obviously intended to be a quick read that provided an overview of Teddy Roosevelt's life. And it did that. Yes I would have liked to hear more about Roosevelt's insatiable oldest daughter, among other topics, but for the most part, I got what I wanted out of the book.
   
   I had never read a TR book before, and I want to read McCullough's "Mornings on Horseback" at some point soon. I felt that to prepare for that book, which does not cover TR's entire life, I needed some background on the man. And "Lion in The White House" provided that.
   
   This is the kind of book that you can read in a week and get an understanding of what Roosevelt's goals were as a politician, and what drove him to be as progressive as he was. It did whet my appetite for a more detailed study of the man. But this time, I wasn't looking for a 700-page or multi-volume monstrosity, so I'm glad Donald's book was on the shelf. As long as your expectations are for a short overview of TR, you will be pleased with this book. If you're looking for great depth and detail, you should look elsewhere.



4. This is not my period so I cannot attest to any of the specific details. I was simply looking at background on Roosevelt as a writer of American History. Besides Winston Churchill I can think of no easier subject for a short biography and the book does capture many of Roosevelt's accomplishments. However, this book is stunningly badly written and edited. And this is not simply the gratuitous digs at today's Republicans as noted by other reviewers. I cannot figure out how it received so many endorsements from renowned History professors. I understand that a short book on such a rich subject may lead to gaps - but there are so many gaps, jumps, incomplete thoughts and non sequiturs that it makes reading the book a jarring experience. In addition, Donald has a quirky and idiosyncratic way with the language.
   Such criticisms clearly require supportive examples.
   In terms of key issues being broached but never explored, Donald describes Roosevelt's run for Governor as follows: "Besides the trial with Platt as an obstacle to his progress, there was Edith's reluctance to re-enter public life. She soon became enthusiastic and even went to the State convention, held in Saratoga, New York, on September 27." P107 The phrasing of the first sentence is decidedly odd. Then we find that Edith's reluctance miraculously disappears though previously it was an obstacle on a level with the opposition of apparently the most powerful political boss in the New York Republican Party.
   Other examples of Donald's odd phrasing include: "The new president did not throw caution to the winds, but boldly tacked in domestic and foreign afairs." P134
   Then there is repetition: On pages 131 and 155, where Dr. Donald uses exactly the same quotes about lynching.
   Then there is the sheer lack of clarity when Donald describes the complexities of New York politics and Roosevelt's need for support for his re-election as President:
   "He(Roosevelt) also watched as two rival Republicans, Boss Platt and Benjamin Barker Odell, a rising politician, fought for control of the Republican Party. Odell found that Platt had lied to him and would not be his ally.
   "During the struggle, Platt told Roosevelt that he would favor him continuing on as president, but Roosevelt did not put much stock in this because he thought Platt, who was not well, would be more likely to follow him than would Roosevelt." Page 141
   Clearly there is something wrong here. An editor would have helped clear it up!!
   Another disappointment was cursory examination of how and why Roosevelt ran again for President. But perhaps by then I was too jarred to follow Dr. Donald's line of reasoning.
   Fortunately for Dr. Donald, her book is saved by the brilliance of Roosevelt.



5. When one writes a book or an article, one must first decide the audience for that work. The serious student of Theodore Roosevelt will be disappointed with this book as it contains nothing new. It is merely a precis of TR's life, from beginning to end. While reading this book the question "Why?" entered my mind many times. Why was it written? Why were certain parts highlighted and others ignored?
   
   For example, when Roosevelt returned from Cuba after the Spanish-American War, he flirted with the idea of running for governor of New York. His wife did not relish the idea. She eventually changed her mind, but the reader is not told why: "Besides his trial with [Thomas C.]Platt as an obstacle to his progress [in gaining the nomination], there was Edith's reluctance to reenter public life. She soon became enthusiastic and even went to the state convention..." (107). Were bargains made with Edith? Why did she change her mind? If that fact is important enough to mention, a better explanation as to her turnaround should have been forthcoming. There was also a lack of credit for some quotes in the book. Mark Hanna, the Ohio senator who was against TR becoming vice-president, was mentioned in several places. Yet, his most famous quote, "Now that damned cowboy is in the White House!" (after McKinley's assassination) is merely credited to "...an anti-Roosevelt Republican" (130).
   
   In a book filled with excerpts from Roosevelt letters and speeches, some of his best speeches and quotes are left out. His 1915 speech to the NYC Knights of Columbus where he dismisses "hyphenated Americans," is not mentioned. For a book published in 2007, one could argue for inclusion of the entire text of that speech. Also, while discussing the assassination attempt on TR during the 1912 presidential campaign, his famous line, "It takes more than that to kill a Bull Moose," is omitted.
   
   Clearly this is an abbreviated history of a long, event-filled life. This work does not do that life justice. Considering the lifetime of work by the author, one has to wonder if she penned the book only to add to the list of her accomplishments. Moreover, the lack of a serious bibliography and the absence of notes calls into question the academic validity of this work. It would have been better had it not been written in the first place.
   
   It was awarded three stars because it would be fitting as an introduction to the twenty-sixth president. Its prose flows well and is easy to read. Since the curious reader will want to find out more about Roosevelt, it would be recommended to a middle school student as a way to become familiar with one of America's great icons. Those who are beyond that stage should look to other sources for an in-depth education about Theodore Roosevelt.

5 comments about Hugo!: The Hugo Chavez Story from Mud Hut to Perpetual Revolution.

1. Bart Jones lived and worked in Venezuela for eight years and had unprecedented access to its president, Hugo Chavez.
   
   Latin America's income per head grew by 82% between 1960 and 1980, before the IMF policies, but only by 10% between 1980 and 2005 under IMF policies. In 1989, the previous president, Carlos Perez, ordered the army into Caracas, killing more than a thousand people, in food riots triggered by price rises ordered by the IMF.
   
   Chavez won the presidency in 1998 with 56% of the votes. Jones writes, "He was elected in free and fair elections, and won three more referenda to write and approve a new constitution. The jails held no political prisoners. No opposition parties were outlawed. No newspapers, television networks, or radio stations were censored, even though the majority were virulently opposed to Chavez. ... No media outlets were closed or reporters jailed." Even US Ambassador John Maisto said of Chavez's rule, "no one can question its democratic legitimacy."
   
   However, the US state has been ruthlessly hostile to Chavez, which only shows that the US state's primary commitment is to capitalism, not to democracy. The US government knew in advance and approved the April 2002 coup against his government. The US Agency for International Development had given opposition groups, including the coup plotters, $26 million.
   
   Metropolitan Police and snipers fired on both pro- and anti-Chavez marchers. The coup plotters taped, in advance, a statement that marchers had been killed, accusing Chavez. Coup leader Pedro Carmona shut down the Congress and the Supreme Court, tore up the constitution and sacked every elected official from the attorney-general to state governors to local mayors. Carmona's first visitor was US ambassador Charles Shapiro.
   
   Chavez won the 2004 recall referendum with 59% of the votes and in 2006 he won a new six-year term with 63% of the votes. He is popular because his policies genuinely benefit the majority of the people. His government has cut poverty from 43% to 33%. The Mision Milagro flies patients to Cuba for free eye surgery. Venezuela's health spending per head rose by 74% between 1999 and 2005. Before land reform, 2% of the population owned 60% of the land and Venezuela imported 70% of its food. By 2007 the government had distributed nine million acres of idle land to 130,000 families.
   
   Chavez's government continues to work for the people of Venezuela, ensuring their right to control their country's resources. On 1 May 2007, the government took majority control over oil projects from ExxonMobil, Chevron, Conoco and Total.



2. Bart Jones, in my opinion, wrote one of the best biographies about a man who might lead South America in a revolution that will upset or at least seriously impress all of us. As he makes very clear, Hugo Chavez is brillent, sleeps little, moves around a lot with restless energy, has a definate goal, an admirable goal, and is on his way to reaching it.
   
   But there is another side to Mr. Chavez.
   
   I recommend that Mr. Jones read the life of Huey Long, who came from an immodest background in Lousiana, surrounded by the poor an oppressed, worked his way through enough college to meet his needs and was on his way to making a serious run for the U.S. presidency, all for the successful work he did for the poor. And he did a lot. But his passion was for power, not just helping the poor.
   
   The depression produced a lot of these guys, the ones in Itly and Germany come to mind.
   
   Being dedicated to the poor can be dangerous.



3. We have been receiving a one-dimensional, Bush Administration-driven perspective on Hugo Chavez. Bart Jones paints a complete picture of this Venezuelan Abe Lincoln. It helps us ordinary readers to remember that we certainly have no reason to dislike a man just because he is unpopular with the rich and influential. Jones's experience as a Maryknoll missioner and an AP reporter in Venezuela give him the depth of knowledge and discernment necessary to dissect a complex figure such as Hugo Chavez.



4. Since retirement a couple of years ago, I have read over a hundred books on Latin America, and political science...subjects I never studied in college. This is one book I place near the top of the list. It is accurate, unbias, and reads like a great novel. If only people could/would take time to become better informed, we could have a better world. By the way, another good book on Hugo Chavez is by Nikolas Kozloff.



5. Journalist Bart Jones's detail-laden HUGO! tells the story of Venezuela president Hugo Chavez, the complete story that America's corporate "news" media ignores. And reading the HUGO! passage regarding the Venezuelan people's demand for Chavez's release after moneyed interests overthrow his administration in 2002, you realize this book also tells the story of that South American country's citizens. World history is nothing more than the wealthy few attempting to steal from and dominate the poor masses. In Venezuela, the rise of Hugo Chavez personifies the people establishing democracy, the most radical notion in humanity's chronicles.
   
   Read HUGO!

5 comments about JIMMY CARTER: A Comprehensive Biography from Plains to Post-Presidency.

1. The preface starts off indicating the original idea for this book: as a campaign book and biography. So put on those rose-colored glasses and read about Jimmy in third-person. I don't like the posturing, this book reads like it was written to impress rather than give the reader a glimpse of who Jimmy is. Seems to me the author was too close to the president to offer an objective viewpoint. His early life is glossed over and it's just the 'character building' traits which are revealed. I thought Colin Powell's "My American Journey" and Anderson's "Che" did a much better job of revealing the person, and telling the story.
   
   An odd part of this book was the long family history in the beginning. Maybe this was one facet Jimmy inserted, but it just went off on a long tangent.



2. Bourne shows how the the Carter family values and the values of the South shaped Jimmy and the impact that these values had on his presidency. His father's frugality and work ethic are manifest throughout Carter's life, while his mother's racial tolerance and kindness are as well. But his blind devotion to principle and weak managerial skills hindered relations with Washington power brokers and ultimately damaged his presidency.
   
   Some of the most interesting reading is how Carter won the White House, coming from a complete unknown and total outsider to become the most powerful man in the world. And Bourne does an excellent job describing the election campaign. A surprising subtheme of the book is how some of the elements of the Reagan revolution were foreshadowed in Carter's policies, such as the emphasis on a strong defense and confronting the Soviets.
   
   One weakness of the book is the author's hatred of the Reagan administration. He can hardly mention Reagan's name without calling him racist, a charge that is baseless as far as I know. He also assumes that the charges that Reagan interfered in the Iran hostage release in order to win the election are true without discussing the evidence. As far as I know, the evidence for this is controversial at best. Finally, the discussion of his administration could have been better organized--I could not determine if it was chronological or thematic.
   
   The book reveals the complexity of Carter. Although he participated in Southern Baptist Home Mission Board outreach programs, he was either pro-choice or pro-abortion. Although he did more for blacks as governor of Georgia than any previous governor, he was also a supporter of the arch-segregationist George Wallace. Although he was willing to sacrifice almost anything for principle, he ran some awfully dirty campaigns for office in Georgia. Bourne is to be commended for not shying away from describing these complexities.
   
   Bourne was the health advisor for part of the Carter administration, so this is definitely an insider view of his presidency. But Bourne does a good job describing all of Carter's life, from childhood to Navy service to Georgia politics to the presidency to post-presidency, ending with Carter's 70th birthday in 1994.
   
   Overall, a good biography, although it inevitably suffers from being written by an insider and by the lack of historical distance from the main actor. But you will come to know Carter in his glories and his failings.



3. I'm a Republican who nevertheless admired Jimmy Carter greatly, and I am saddened by his recent petulant rants agains President George W. Bush. He has every right to diagree with him but succumbing to the conspiracy theories of the wacko left is unseemly for a former President. Bourne needs to write a sequel.



4. Over the last several years I've read more than 35 presidential biographies, usually taking the advice of Amazon readers who have steered me toward the best available choices. While not among the very best of biographies, Bourne's effort is near or in the top ten presidential biographies.
   
   Jimmy Carter is probably the most intelligent president of my lifetime, an extremely hard worker, ambitious, very religious and thoughtful about his religion but also willing to compromise his principles to get ahead. He is also stubborn and not willing to be shown up. He has usually viewed himself as an outsider, and while this helped convince Americans to elect him president, it did not prepare him to work well with Washington politicians and insiders to achieve many of his goals.
   
   Along with describing Carter's life prior to the presidency, the first half is fascinating for its description of race and politics in the South during the 60's and 70's, laying out an outline of how to win the presidency through a grass roots campaign, the suspicion that Carters religious beliefs caused, and as a reminder of issues that campaigns focused on in the 70's (election ethics, environmental issues, education reform, national health insurance, and other populist sorts of themes) - the four year campaign for president is told in detail (150 pages), and in ways it seems overly long, but this is perhaps the most remarkable aspect of Carter's life. The strategy and effort to elect an unknown governor to be president is pretty fascinating stuff.
   
   I started to fear Bourne would run out of energy and pages to provide much detail about Carter's presidency. I was wrong. He captures the problems Carter and America faced, the often ineffective policy implementation of the Carter White House, and Carter's unwillingness to compromise or "play the game" with Congress. Carter's post-presidential years are cevered well.
   
   Bourne has been a Carter advisor for nearly 30 years, but his book is balanced and thoughtful. He is not shy about criticizing Carter. Bourne writes well, and kept my interest throughout the narrative. In some ways the book appears to be published on the cheap. Double spacing between sections doesn't happen. There is no table of contents or chapter names. Despite these few limitations this is a highly recommended presidential biography.



5. I walked through the isles of my public library looking for something to read. There was a large book with the words ' JIMMY CARTER' written on it that was sticking out of a shelf. I picked it up and decided to read it. This has been one of the best choices for reading I have ever made. Jimmy Carter is an extrodinary man, who's life is a lot more detailed and complex than I would have thought. This biography traces his life from birth, through the Navy, State Senatorial duties, Governorship and his Presidency. Jimmy Carter is shown as the admirable and honest man that he is. A real role model for all, Jimmy Carter is amazing, and so is this book.

3 comments about There I Grew Up: Remembering Abraham Lincoln's Indiana Youth.

1. It takes a village to raise a child. "Here I Grew Up: Remembering Abraham Lincoln's Indiana Youth" is a look at the Indiana of our sixteenth president's childhood. In his own biography, Lincoln barely spoke of his childhood, but Bartelt hopes to inform and educate readers of Lincoln's youth and the place he was raised. Drawn from first person interviews among other sources, "Here I Grew Up" is a thorough and complete look at a man through his environment.



2. I live less than ten miles from where this story is centered and the way this book is written it was like walking with the Lincoln Family 200 years ago. Over the last couple of years I have read some really good books about Lincoln, but to me this book is outstanding.



3. A surprisingly significant part of the life of Abraham Lincoln was spent in Indiana prior to his big move to Illinois. This book gives the full run down on what is known about young Mr. Lincoln's years in the Little Pigeon Creek Community.
   
   Those with a serious interest in Lincoln's early life story; those interested in the individuals--including Herndon--who searched in Indiana for the living history of Abraham Lincoln after his assassination; and those good citizens of present day Indiana will all enjoy this book.
   
   Mr. Bartlet, a former park ranger at the Lincoln Boyhood National Memorial, is a just-the-facts type of author who, I think, has done a good job at the important but limited task he undertook.

5 comments about Dwight D. Eisenhower.

1. "I like Ike." A statement that defined the political world of the 1950s. The popular leader of Allied forces in the European Theater during World War II received high approval ratings from the public throughout his presidency. This brief book, a part of The American Presidents series, provides a brief and readable glimpse of Ike's life and his presidency. The author is Tom Wicker, who originally achieved considerable visibility as a columnist with The New York Times.
   
   If you're like me, you might rather read D'Este's "Eisenhower," which takes almost 700 pages to text to bring his biography to the end of World War II. However, most people will not be interested in such a massive work, and the 140 page volume by Wicker is apt to prove more attractive to people.
   
   As with other volumes in the series, this one begins with the family background and Dwight Eisenhower's early years. Some readers might be surprised to know that, when he went to West Point, he was a star football player (and see the incredible confrontation between Ike and his mates and Jim Thorpe and his in books such as 'Carlisle vs. Army"). Later, he began to work his way up the military hierarchy, by providing excellent staff support to leaders such as Generals Pershing, MacArthur and Marshall. When World War II broke out, he was not an especially visible figure. Soon, though, he rose to Allied command in North Africa and then in Europe. Other books describe this period in much more detail--and illustrate both his strengths and his weaknesses. After the War, he served in a number of capacities. In 1952, he began his quest for the presidency.
   
   The book does a nice job of showing how he won the nomination. Then, his major challenges: the War in Korea, Quemoy and Matsu, the U-2 shoot down, Dienbienphu and Vietnam, Senator McCarthy, economic slowdowns, physical ailments (heart attack and stroke), the space race, relations with the Soviet Union, and so on and so on. Once thought of as a rather amiable cipher as president, historians and political scientists more recently have reappraised his presidency. I am not sure that that reappraisal always manifests itself in Wicker's book.
   
   Then, the transition as of the election of 1960. The relationship between Eisenhower and Nixon is played out reasonably well in this book. Then, after the e3lection, Eisenhower's retirement from public service and his later years.
   
   As a brief biography, this works pretty well. For those wanting to get a sense of Dwight Eisenhower in a compact book, this is pretty good.



2. As I write, our country is in the midst of a highly contentious presidential campaign, including, today, the sharply-fought Pennsylvania primary. In light of the furor of the ongoing campaign, I have been trying to revisit the American presidents in the short series of biographies edited by Arthur Schlesinger, Jr. I thought a consideration of our 34th President, Dwight D. Eisenhower would be especially appropriate for these tumultous events. I was alive during the Truman presidency but Eisenhower was the first president I can remember. I have always had the sense that he was, somehow, undervalued as a leader. Thus I was eager to read Tom Wicker's brief biography.
   
   Wicker admits at the outset that he was never a political supporter of Eisenhower. With that in mind, his admiration for Eisenhower as a person and for some of his accomplishments as President comes through in this book. I didn't find this book as harsh or unfair towards Eisenhower as did some of my fellow reviewers. Yet I agree that Eisenhower warrants a more detailed look than Wicker's and, indeed, deserves more.
   
   Eisenhower (1890 -- 1969) was born in Texas but grew up in Kansas. He served two terms as the 34th president (1953 -- 1961). Wicker's book, probably for reasons of space, quickly passes over Eisenhower's early life, including his extraordinary military career, to focus on the eight years of his presidency.
   
   The 1950s were a difficult time in which the United States and the U.S.S.R came perilously close to war on several occasions. Wicker offers Eisenhower qualified praise for his foreign policy and for his role as a "man of peace." Eisenhower ended the war in Korea and worked for disarmament even though, in Wicker's terms he "fumbled" on opportunity to secure a nuclear test-ban treaty late in his administration as a result of his decision to authorize a final U-2 flight over Russia. Wicker gives Eisenhower high praise for his handling of the Suez Crisis in 1956, which he describes as the President's finest hour, and for his calming influence after the U.S.S.R launched Sputnik in 1957, leading to panic among many Americans over our educational system and scientific and military readiness. Wicker faults Eisenhower for his engagin in covert warfare in Guatamala and Iran and he is vaguely critical of Eisenhower's role in precipitating what would become America's involvement in Vietnam.
   
   In domestic affairs, Wicker focuses almost entirely of Eisenhower's role in discrediting Senator Joseph McCarthy and in his actions regarding Civil Rights. Many writers besides Wicker are critical of Eisenhower for not being more agressive against McCarthy. But as Wicker shows, Eisenhower worked effectively to bring about McCarthy's demise, not the least of which work was in allowing him to self-destruct. Eisenhower's approach may well have been more effective and less divisive to the country than a more confrontational approach.
   
   Wicker also is highly critical of Eisenhower for his less than full support of the Supreme Court's decision in Brown v. Board of Education and for his failure to exercise the moral suasion both he and his office possessed to implement civil rights. Many admirers of Eisenhower have come to the same conclusion. Yet, Eisenhower used force to protect the rights of African American students in Little Rock, Arkansas in 1957. And Eisenhower's two immediate successors in the presidency were themselves slow to commit to the civil rights movement. A recent book by David Nichols, "A Matter of Justice: Eisenhower and the Civil Rights Revolution" (2007) reassess in part Eisenhower's contributions behind the scenes to the cause of civil rights.
   
   The 1950s are sometimes regarded as a time of somnolescence and conformity in the United States and sometimes as a subject of sentimentalized nostalgia. Eisenhower had proven his ability as a leader during WW II and he served the nation well, even Wicker admits, as President during a difficult era. According to one of his advisers quoted by Wicker, Eisenhower's greatest strength was "in getting people to compromise divergent views without anyone's surrender of principle." (p. 138) In view of the never-ending tumult our country has undergone since the 1960s, one can do worse than the balance, sanity, and quietly effective leadership that characterized the presidency of Dwight D. Eisenhower.
   
   Robin Friedman



3. Wicker shows the complexities of our 34th President. Eisenhower was a great wartime commander. He led men into battle and exercised diplomacy in his wartime alliance. He was a so-so president who did some memorable things. Ike started the intrastate highway system, warned against the military-industrial complex, toppled two legitimate governments (Iran, Guatemala) and came close to a nuclear test ban treaty. He was a man many Americans treated as a father figure. He won two terms as President. Many people would have voted him a third term if the law allowed it. He was against the Brown vs. Board of Education decision but used the military to back up the judiciary.
   
   Wicker spent a week with Eisenhower in 1962. Even though his admiration of President and General Eisenhower in there, his book is a fair accessment of this great American. Eisenhower may not have been a great President, but he was far better than most of our chief executives.



4. FIRST OF ALL, I TEACH HISTORY FOR A LIVING, SO I KNEW QUITE A BIT ABOUT THE SUBJECT MATTER BEFORE READING WICKER AND AMBROSE'S BOOKS. AFTER READING BOTH PIECES OF WORK, I CAN STILL DECLARE "I LIKE IKE." NO QUALITY, RELIABLE PIECE OF HISTORICAL WORK SHOULD HAVE A PERSONAL SLANT BY THE WRITER HIMSELF. IS THIS BOOK PERFECTLY WRITTEN? CERTAINLY NOT. IS IT WORTHY OF BEING READ; CERTAINLY. I HAVE TO ADMIT THOUGH, IT DOES HAVE A VERY NEGATIVE SLANT TOWARD IKE, ALMOST A PERSONALLY NEGATIVE SLANT.
   
   HOWEVER AFTER READING AMBROSE'S WORK ON IKE, YOU ALMOST FEEL AS IF IKE WAS THE SECOND COMING OF CHRIST. AMBROSE WHITEWASHED IKE'S FLAWS COMPLETELY. I THINK AMBROSE WAS ENAMORED WITH IKE. HELL, WHO WOULDN'T BE? THE MAN LED THE BIGGEST BUNCH OF HEADCASES (PATTON, MONTY, CLARK, MACARTHUR, AND DE GAULLE) IN WWII (OUTSIDE OF THE AXIS POWERS) TO VICTORY! IKE WAS A TREMENDOUSLY FLAWED INDIVIDUAL, BUT WHO ON EARTH ISN'T? I AGREE WITH THE OLD SAYING, "A MAN IS NEITHER GOOD NOR BAD FOR ONE ACTION." OR SEVERAL ACTIONS WITH IKE!
   
   I BELIEVE THAT MAYBE READING BOTH OF THESE GIVES YOU A BETTER PERSPECTIVE ON IKE RATHER THAN JUST PICKING ONE OVER THE OTHER. ONE PRESENTS IKE AS THE ANTI-CHRIST, AND THE OTHER PRESENTS IKE AS CHRIST REBORN. I'LL LET YOU DECIDE WHICH IS WHICH. IT WON'T TAKE YOU LONG.
   
   FOR THOSE OF YOU WHO THINK THAT THIS BOOK IS "TOO CRITICAL OF EISENHOWER", THE FACTS ARE WHAT THEY ARE! HE DID NOT INTEGRATE THE ARMED FORCES, TRUMAN DID. EISENHOWER DID HAVE AN AFFAIR WITH HIS BRITISH SECRETARY AND WAS TRYING TO LEAVE MAMIE, NO MATTER HOW AMBROSE TRIES TO DOWNPLAY IT. EISENHOWER WAS TREMENDOUSLY WEAK IN URGING CIVIL RIGHTS REFORM WHEN HE SPOKE TO SEVERAL KEY SOUTHERN SENATORS AND TOLD THEM THAT HE WAS ONLY SENDING IN FEDERAL TROOPS TO LITTLE ROCK BECAUSE HIS "OFFICE DEMANDED IT, BUT IT WAS GOING TO BE THE MILDEST OF CIVIL RIGHTS REFORM POSSIBLE." IF ANY PRESIDENT HAD THE PUBLIC SUPPORT TO BRING ABOUT RADICAL CIVIL RIGHTS REFORM, IT WAS IKE. HE WASTED THAT OPPORTUNITY COMPLETELY. IKE ALSO HUNG MARSHALL (A CLOSE PERSONAL "FRIEND" AND MENTOR) OUT TO DRY WHEN MCCARTHY BEGAN TO ACCUSE G.C. MARSHALL OF BEING A COMMIE IN THE EARLY 50'S. HE SOLD MARSHALL DOWN THE RIVER TO FURTHER HIS OWN POLITICAL CAREER. TRUMAN'S RELATIONSHIP WITH IKE DID NOT GO SOUTH BECAUSE AS AMBROSE CLAIMED, "IKE WAS A REPUBLICAN", IT WENT SOUTH BECAUSE IKE WAS EXTREMELY RUDE TO TRUMAN'S WIFE, BESS, ON SEVERAL OCCASIONS, AND BECAUSE TRUMAN BELIEVED IN LOYALTY TO YOUR FRIENDS (MARSHALL) NO MATTER HOW MUCH IT MIGHT HURT YOUR POLITICAL ASPIRATIONS. IF ONE REMEMBERS CORRECTLY, TRUMAN ACTUALLY APPOINTED A REPUBLICAN TO THE SUPREME COURT DURING HIS PRESIDENCY. SO THE "REPUBLICAN ARGUMENT" DOESN'T HOLD WATER AND IF AMBROSE HAD READ ANYTHING ON TRUMAN, HE WOULD HAVE KNOWN THAT. IKE ONLY DISTANCED HIMSELF FROM MCCARTHY WHEN IKE FELT MCCARTHY MAY ACTUALLY SAY SOMETHING NEGATIVE ABOUT IKE PERSONALLY, SINCE HE WAS THE FORMER HEAD OF THE ARMY THAT MACCARTHY WAS ACCUSING OF BEING LED BY REDS. BOTH BOOKS ARE FLAWED, AS WAS IKE THE MAN.



5. There really could have been so much more said of this man, this General who led our troops during the Second World War, who entered politics in order to preserve the peace. In this short volume (the series is generally short and introductory in nature) the author, Tom Wicker, misses so many chances to engage his reader into discovering Dwight D. Eisenhower.
   
   Something I found especially difficult to ignore was the glaring omission of any mention (I believe there was but one fleating reference) of the Interstate Highway Act...something which arguably did more to change the face of American life and culture than any other measure of the time.
   
   Wicker does manage to capture a bit of character in discussing the 34th President of the United States. We are introduced to a man who served his country as both a military commander and as Commander-in Chief, who, following his first-hand experiences in war beleived that war should always be the option of last resort. Eisenhower's Farewell Address, warning his country against the dangers of an organized military complex, still is remarkable today.
   
   However, what Mr. Wicker does most successfully is present Eisenhower's failures. As president, Eisenhower was unwilling to spend political capital on divisive, politically-charged issues such as the growing tension of the Civil Rights struggle and the anti-communist witch hunts spurned by Senator Joseph McCarthy and HUAC (the House Un-American Activities Commitee). A more compelling figure might have stood up and directed his country through such difficult times; Eisenhower failed to act.
   
   Unfortunately, so does Wicker. The pages here feel as though the author slept through most of the writing. The book skims the surface of any real substantive discovery of what Wicker refers to as "the most popular president of modern times."

3 comments about Rebel Giants: The Revolutionary Lives of Abraham Lincoln & Charles Darwin.

1. I've often amused (or irritated) people with little known trivia and one of my favorites was the fact of Lincoln and Darwin having been born on the same day. It may not be mere trivia from now on.
   
   Darwin and Lincoln have long been favorites of mine so when I saw this book I was immediately drawn to it. I have been nicely rewarded as this book is terrific. It is packed with detailed knowledge of these two great men of the 19th century and told in a delightful and accessible manner. Mr. Contosta is obviously sympathetic to both men, and why wouldn't he be? Their stories are compelling. The intriguing similarities in their lives go beyond their shared birth date, and many are quite astounding.
   
   The author's method of telling the story of Lincoln and Darwin by comparison of the details of their lives is a neat trick and I think it worked well.
   
   Mr. Contosta is an historian who knows a bit of science history as well. His description of Darwin's theory of natural selection and of the state of natural science in the 19th century seem impeccable. Few people outside of the life sciences today are aware of the mountain of evidence that Darwin collected, analyzed and tested before publishing The Origin of Species, nor of the personal conflicts with which he struggled. Those who today disparage Darwinian evolution as "just a theory," as if it were no more than an educated guess, will be disabused of that notion and will come to a better understanding of the scientific method. If you delight in new knowledge and information you will revel in the pages of this book.
   
   The Publishers Weekly description above calls Mr. Contosta's effort "thin" and "sophomoric." I think it is Publishers Weekly that is thin and sophomoric.



2. Charles Darwin and Abraham Lincoln are fascinating historic figures by themselves, but this book takes a unique perspective in comparing the two men. While they came from very dissimilar backgrounds, their lives shared many commonalities and they both have left indelible marks on history. This was a fascinating book and I recommend it to anyone who is interested in history or in these two great men.
   
   edited for typo.



3. Abraham Lincoln and Charles Darwin, although both famous, would not be said by many to have a lot in common. David R. Contosta disagrees, and "Rebel Giants: The Revolutionary Lives of Abraham Lincoln & Charles Darwin" is his reasoning why. The two figures, hugely impactful in history, were born on the same day, disliked their fathers, lost their mothers at a young age, suffered from depression, and other eerie similarities. Hoping to give readers a more comprehensive understanding of both men by examining their similarities and differences, "Rebel Giants: The Revolutionary Lives of Abraham Lincoln & Charles Darwin" is an excellent pick for any community library collection dedicated to history.

5 comments about Mr. Jefferson's Women.

1. Thomas Jefferson is one of the most troubling characters among America's founding fathers. He penned the immortal ideals of freedom and equality in the Declaration of Independence. We, from our modern perspective, also like the fact that he was an intellectual and that he brought refreshing informality to the White House. In recent years, his reputation has been tarnished by re-examination of his disturbing political tendencies. (See for example, John Adams and Negro President: Jefferson and the Slave Power). This book provides additional insights into Jefferson's character by examining his relation to the women in his life, and the insights add more tarnish to Jefferson's reputation that go beyond the understandably archaic attitudes that might belong to a man of his time. As clearly documented here, "all men created equal" applied no more to women than to blacks in Jefferson's mind. Each woman discussed here provides additional perspective. As to the Sally Hemings controversy, Kukla carefully lays out enough circumstantial details to undermine the most strident doubter.
   
   A fine book, worthy of a wider audience.



2. I really enjoyed reading this book. The author wrote it in a way that both educates and compells you to read more. I found it hard to put down. My favorite parts were very personal, real-life events that made Mr. Jefferson even more real to me. My favorite is, during his presidency, an account of his chosen attire while welcoming a Rep. of the British King. He was wearing well worn slippers that he tossed around on his toes (priceless!). I also found the additional quotes and excerpts of letters from people such as Abigail Adams and others a welcome addition. Kudos to the author for such an insighful, wonderful, well thought out book about Jefferson and the various forms of relationships with women during his life.



3. Just when you thought you had read everything...Jon Kukla presents a very readable portrait of Jefferson's "relationships" with women--which leads to new insights about this great man--and, more interestingly, his attitudes towards women in general. The final chapters about his broader view of women as a threat to republican government place Jefferson in the context of his time. There is a remarkable discussion of Jefferson and Abigail Adams' letters. The book is eminently fair about Sally Hemings and gives a new meaning to the notion that "all men are created equal". Thank you, Jon Kukla, for beginning a lively conversation that is well worth your engagement.



4. Why does even the prospect that Jefferson was with Sally Hemings bother you so much ?



5. There is not a scintilla of evidence linking Thomas Jefferson with Sally Hemings and her brood.Nature magazine TIMIDLY "corrected" itself for its faux pas in 1999, however, the media has continued to ignore the fact that there is NO EVIDENCE.Kukla just capitalizes on the public's juvenille tendency to support these ficto-spectacles,P.T.Barnum was correct about "suckers."

1 comments about The Portable Thomas Jefferson (Viking Portable Library).

1. "The Portable Jefferson" consists of a vast collection of Jefferson's works. It provides us with valuable insights into his mind and his world.

   The longest entry is "Notes on the State of Virginia". It provides a multifaceted assessment of the Virginia known by Jefferson. Politics, the economy, topography, populations, flora and fauna are all included in this report. I read with particular interest the reports on areas of French settlement in what is now Illinois, areas in which my ancestors were living but to which Jefferson had never traveled and about which he had to have learned from the reports of others. Many insights into the Virginia of his day are very interesting.

   Jefferson's July, 1774 tome on "A Summary View Of The Rights of British America" give a preview of America's grievances on the eve of the Revolution.

   The next segment consists of Jefferson's public papers and addresses. Some are well known, such as the Declaration of Independence, while others are obscure, but often no less interesting.

   The last segment of the book consists of many private letters written to a host of correspondents. Some of these are rather mundane matters of personal interest, while others are occasions for expositions of political views and comments on the news of the day. I found particularly interesting his comments on developments in France during its Revolution.

   I have long had an interest in Jefferson. This book enables the reader to see him in new and deeper lights. His thought, the breath of his interests and his genius shine on the pages of his book. This is a book to read and then keep handy for reference.

5 comments about Gerald R. Ford.

1. Well known historian Douglas Brinkley has written this brief biography, as a part of the American Presidents series of works. In the series editor's Introduction, Arthur Schlesinger, Jr. notes that (Page xv): "The president is the central player in the American political order." Gerald Ford was an accidental president, taking over after Richard Nixon's downfall resulting from Watergate and his subsequent resignation.
   
   Gerald Ford's name at birth was Leslie Lynch King, Jr. His father had a violent temper and the marriage did not last long. His mother later married Gerald Rudolf Ford; after a time, her son was renamed Gerald Rudolph (an Americanized version of the stepfather's middle name) Ford. As a youngster, he excelled at athletics and even had the possibility of a pro football career. However, he chose law school and, shortly after that, electoral politics. He saw action in World War II.
   
   When he was elected to the House of Representatives 1948, he began to formulate the ambition to become Speaker of the House. His chosen career was in the legislature. The book does a nice job profiling his rise in the House, with carefully crafted advancement through the ranks; it also depicts the start of a long-time friendship between Ford and Richard Nixon.
   
   When Ford finally became Minority Leader in the House, he used his conciliatory approach well. As Brinkley says (Page 31), ". . .he played the good coach, giving his squad wide latitude to speak their minds. In exchange, he wanted no bickering. Ford's open forum proved smart strategy." Some tho9ught him rather slow of thought, but his amiability and ability to work with others represented a great strength.
   
   When Nixon was elected President, he tended not to work so well with Congress--including his own Republican mates. Ford did not distinguish himself with his unabating support for Nixon after Watergate became a public matter; after former Attorney General John Mitchell reported that the White House was not involved, Ford clung to that long after so many others had seen through the falsehoods.
   
   Then, the unlikely story of his rise to Vice-President and his subsequent ascension to the presidency after Nixon's downfall. The book does a nice job in a brief space noting the major decisions/actions of the Ford Administration, some working out well and some not so well. Here, we read about Whip Inflation Now, swine flu, the withdrawal from Viet Nam, the Mayaguez incident, the Helsinki Accords, and so on. The internecine Republic nomination politics of 1976 essentially doomed him to lose to Jimmy Carter. Then, the amazing life after the presidency and people's changing reflections on his accomplishments. . . .
   
   Another well turned work in the American Presidents series. These short volumes cannot go into the depth that I would sometimes like, but the tradeoff is accessible books for people who might not have the patience to wade through a 600 page tome.



2. Ford was our longest living president at 93, outliving Reagan by 46 days. He became president without a single vote. Nixon put him in office as someone who would grant him a pardon. Ford became known for his clumsiness, tripping and bumping his head at every opportunity. He put his foot in his mouth in a debate with Jimmy Carter when he declared that Poland was not dominated by the Soviet Union.



3. Writing a short biography on a president who served such a brief time is a difficult proposition. It is to Brinkley's credit that he did not try to do more with his subject than what the subject deserves (such as Kevin Phillips failed work on William McKinley). Fortunately, Ford is not as an obscure, or I should say unimportant, a presidential figure as some others (e.g., Chester Arthur).
   
   The most dramatic issue for Ford was his pardon of Nixon. The author concludes that Ford acted correctly. Perhaps this is true, that is debatable. I lived through the same time (I almost voted for Ford in '76) and I am not sure that the country would not have been better served if a trial did occur. It may have prevented the recent efforts to devise an imperial presidency and the resulting calamity in foreign/domestic policies. Ford thought that a 1913 Supreme Court decision made clear that Nixon accepted the pardon and his guilt. That was not an accurate conclusion. His position would have made more sense if Ford required Nixon to have explicitly agreed with that conclusion. Ford didn't and Nixon spent much of his remaining years still deflecting blame.
   
   Left out of the bio was the significant revelation after Ford's death that he criticized Bush's Iraq War, but he directed that his thoughts not be published until after his death. In strengthening Ford's stature by highlighting his character, the author seems to have conveniently lost the chance to consider if his silence was consistent with the character issue. In fact, Ford was a party man to the death. His silence, therefore, is consistent with that stance, but was that of high character?
   
   Regardless, I too accept Ford as a very decent person and his presidency was at least (but no more) of average significance. His Helsinki agreement is rightly cited in this book as a landmark act. He was, though, a poor national candidate and that prevented an extension of his presidency.



4. This is a good book. It makes you realize that Ford was really a hard working, intelligent, well qualified person at the time that he was selected to be Vice President. It also brings to life, the 70's. As the country gets ready to celebrate another birthday, we can also celebrate the persons who have been willing to get involved in service to their country.



5. My dad enjoyed Gerald Ford as President because of his honesty, integrity, and rare human quality.

1 comments about John Adams Movie Tie-In.

1. Don't get me wrong, this is a terrific book. David McCullough has written another winner. And Edward Herrmann is still my favorite narrator of audio books. But the engineers must have been on strike because all throughout this audio book you can hear Mr. Herrmann breathing through his nose, smacking his lips and exhaling.
   Still, I'm glad I purchased this audio book in spite of the strange recording. It's wonderful.