2 comments about James K. Polk: A Clear and Unquestionable Destiny (Biographies in American Foreign Policy).

1. I am currently reading a bio of every President in order. I generally look for a fairly comprehensive one volume account but unfortunately for Polk there are none available (although the forthcoming 400+ page plus bio by Borneman will hopefully change this). I decided I would save my money to wait for Borneman's book and checked out Leonard's short bio (196 pages of text) from the Library.
   
   Thankfully, this is a great short bio of James K. Polk. His early life is covered in a suprising amount of detail for the short amount of text devoted to it, and his Presidency is covered quite thoroughly. This is accomplished by Leonard's great writing and superb organization and editing. This book was so satisfactory I am not sure I will even decide to read Borneman's forthcoming biography. Also, do not be swayed by Betty Burke's review, she is clearly reviewing the wrong book.



2. Fabrication By Alien., February 28, 2007
   Reviewer: Betty Burks (Knoxville, TN) - See all my reviews
   
   This book was not written by a fan or supporter of this Tennessee president, but released by a Yankee group who hides behind "Oxford" so we might think Mississippi or England. Not so, William Dusinberre must be fuddies with the university professors who tore apart Nathan Bedford Forrest in the same way. Overlooked completely he status and the part these Tennesseans played in the history of this nation. It's best to consider character assassination with the conflicting thins these writers emphasize while leaving out the real story, the facts of the matter. James K. Polk had been Governor of Tehhessee and Speaker of the House of Representatives before becoming U. S. president. It was not a secret that he owned slaves to work on his cotton plantation in Mississippi. We didn't have such in Tennessee, but I have an old post card of the 11th President's bust which stands in the State Capitol in Nashville. We visited Polk's ancestral home in downtown Columbia, Tennessee. It was not out in the country, though a famous one is in that county owned by a female physician. She did not have slaves. Forrest's family were fine, upstanding natives of Chapel Hill, not so far east from Columbia. It infuriates me when I innocently find weird subverted stuff like thos on the public library shelves. I wish the reference librarians who ordered these fiction pretending to be non-fiction before putting them out for just anybody to read. Polk was duly elected and in the White House from 1845 to 1849, before the Civil War. He was not responsible for that war.
   
   This person from Cape Town used the false writings of professor Wayne Cutler when he came to this Republican town, and thought that what he was reading was truth. Polk was a Southern Democrat. What would he write about Huey B. Long, George Wallace, and other governors who stood tall for what the South stands for. The politics of slavery did not have any substance whatsoever in the war which divided this country. It was states' rights -- the Southern states, which Northerners would not understand. I learned more than I had planned that there is a conspiracy going on to deride Southern leaders and presidents. They were statesmen and war heroes and lived to be a part of the history of America. Modern history-writing is all wrong, when the author makes up "facts" as he is inclined, and not factually.

5 comments about Exit With Honor: The Life and Presidency of Ronald Reagan (The Right Wing in America).

1. There aren't too many "fair and balanced" opinions out there on Presidents Reagan, Clinton, and GW Bush. This book on Reagan by Pemberton comes as close as most to some semblance of objectivity. No book comes close to the quality and objectivity of a recent president as does Cannon's "President Reagan: Role of a Lifetime." But Pemberton does a fine job in covering Reagan's entire life in a small number of pages (214 of text).
   
   I used the book in an American government class and I thought it was readable for the students and told the larger story of the 20th century. Reagan's life, whether one agreed with him or not, in many ways represented the story of the 20th century. After WWII, the nation embraced FDR and his policies. In time, with the Great Society and the rise of anti-communism, the nation stepped away from the liberal label. Contrary to what many on the right believe, the nation never embraced conservatism to the same degree it embraced the New Deal, but changes did occurred. And the end of the Cold War was another huge event. The left and right will always argue over the impact Reagan had on the end of the Cold War, but Pemberton did well in presenting the many different theories. He also was quite fair in analyzing Reagan's budget and tax policies, which are also still debated today.



2. If you are searching for an opinionated book on Reagan, than this is not the book to read. If it is general information with a few suprising tid-bits that you seek, than this book is worth your time. Pemberton tries his best to give an objective analysis of Reagan throughout this book. His thesis is that Reagan's up-bringing, job/co-worker influences, and general attitude toward life and the American people shaped his ideas for running the nation. Pemberton covers all the stops, from Reagan's mother's influence, to his radio career, to his acting career, to his governorship, to his presidency. Pemberton gives the facts about the Iran Contra mess and leaves it to the reader to decide Reagan's involvement. If you do not know much about Reagan, and you seek information but not opinions, than this book is an excellent resource that reads well.



3. After reading this book, I was left to wonder: What did RR really do while president? The book is written from the middle, but with an emphasis toward the positive aspects of RR's presidency, with small amounts of negativity thrown in for balance. The book doesn't talk much about any one subject. A good quick primer on this mediocre president who will go down in history as one of the most divisive, deceptive presidents of our country.



4. The author only gives credit to Reagan for restoring America's pride. He also presents the same myth about "mortgaging our future" with the national debt. Hey historians, if we've mortgaged our future, why is the economy so strong today? If you make 50,000 with 5,000 in debt, are you better off making 500,000 with 25,000 in debt?



5. The book is just over 200 pages of text, so detail is obviously lacking. In addition some statements/ideas are repeated verbatim, as if I didn't get the point. If you are somewhat interested in the 80's or Reagan this is a decent starting point. Think of it as the Cliff Notes on Reagan.

2 comments about Richard Nixon: The Shaping of His Character.

1. I just want to point out how ironic it is that you recommended Ambrose intead of Brodie, when Ambrose borrowed very very heavily from Brodie's book (check the footnotes). Apparently Ambrose found her analysis quite compelling...



2. a somewhat critical discussion of nixon's personality and the theories of how he became the man who was eventually impeached. some valid points inthe book that i was unaware of before and then some points which i just sat back and sighed about

5 comments about Lafayette.

1. This is one of those "fast-paced" narratives that is long on drama, but short on quality research. Should not be used as a reference at all for Lafayette's experiences during the American Revolution, especially for the 1781 Virginia campaign. Very inaccurate.



2. Fascinating book about a man I knew only by name and whose name and dedication to the fight for independence is not as well known as it should be. There should be a national holiday for this man. I had not known about his passion for manumission. I did know about his failure to bring human rights to France and failed during the Great Terror and his wife's role in aiding the poor at great risk.
   
   An exellent beginning book because I would like to know more.



3. This was the second book I'd read on Lafayette, the first being General and Madame de Lafayette. Get that one, not this.
   Not that this book was horrible, but it was, like another reviewer said, written very simply. Rather than having perhaps a poetic effect, at times it feels condescending -it might make a good book for a middle school student, but certainly not for one in high school. My biggest point against this book is that it seems to be attempting to overly flatter him in the reader's mind by omitting some of what we might consider character flaws, such as his extramarital affairs. If you want a more complete picture read General and Madame de Lafayette. I have since read numerous books on Lafayette and not found a better one. If you must read this book, get it from the library -you will not feel the need to read it more than once.



4. This is an extremely disappointing book of "history"? As one earlier reviewer indicated, the book contains some appalling historical mistakes. Here are two that blew me away because they are so completely inaccurate and so obvious - on page 60 "Saratoga had been America's only military victory since the beginning of the war" - well I guess Concord, Trenton and Princeton must not have been victories!!! On page 120 regarding Benedict Arnold, "...Arnold suffered a crippling wound in the disastrous American assault on Quebec...and his injuries left him reluctant to assume anymore battlefield commands". Of course this is completely inaccurate since Arnold was certainly never "reluctant" to take on any military command and in fact his most successful military actions, (as you can find in any basic book on the Revolution) Valcour Island and Saratoga, occurred long after Quebec.
   
   I simply can't believe these inaccuracies (along with many other questionable statements) were allowed to be included in a history book, where were the editors! I was really looking forward to reading the chapters on the Lafayette's involvement in the French Revolution (since I am not too familiar with that period) but since the ARW content is dubious at best I decided not to waste my time and possibly be led to believe inaccurate facts that I do not have the knowledge to recognize.
   
   Finally, the book seems to white wash Lafayette to the extreme and makes him appear to be the most important and sometimes only player in a number of the most dramatic events of the war, other than possibly Washington. For instance there is little about Franklin's involvement in winning French support for independence. The best portions of this book are the letters the author has included. Lafayette was certainly one of the most important and noble people in the history of our country - but I'll have to find another book to satisfy my interest in him.



5. This book is apparently not well researched and has at least three errors so far and I am not a fifth finished with it.
   
   For one on page 71: "After signing the treaty, (The Treaty of Alliance between the United States and France) Franklin, Deane, and Adams were officially presented to the king..."
   
   Unger means Arthur Lee, not Adams. The treaty was signed on February 6, 1778, the presentation ceremony was March 22. John Adams didn't arrive in Paris until April 8.
   
   This is pitiful and I could list the other errors and I certainly will if it is requested. But I resent the time involved to do it, they are not my errors! Why the Library Journal claims this is a "well-researched" biography one can only speculate. The (few?) errors make the whole suspect. A sad event for publishing. Perhaps we should wait another 20 years for an accurate book.

2 comments about Abraham Lincoln and His Times: A Legal and Constitutional History.

1. This is a very difficult book to pigeonhole. It isn't really a "biography" in the typical sense, and yet it does indeed tell the story of Lincoln in a unique, fascinating, and clever way, that is, Anastaplo explains Lincoln in terms of his philosophy, mindset, and outlook as these evolved over the course of his life as seen through the lens of his words and actions. To me there is no better way to explain or know somebody than identifying and understanding what philosophical underpinnings guided their words and actions. We are all guided ultimately, whether we admit it or not, by our worldview (i.e. the collective sum of our beliefs, opinions, and perceptions of reality). What a person believes about any number of foundational questions of human existence (existence of God, human value, equality, morality, etc.) defines who they are, and it is these things that guides ones words and actions, and it is consequently these words and actions that Anastaplo brings to the fore to give us an engrossing account of one of the most fascinating and brilliant human beings in history. Anastaplo never says the equivalent of, "Lincoln believed such and such...", but rather lets you glean that for yourself based on Lincoln's evolution of thought and word. Although Anastaplo does help "frame" the discussion of Lincoln in a philosophical context by providing some helpful background info and by culling the pertinent details of Lincoln's life such that the reader has a firm foundation from which to ponder Lincoln's mindset and how that mindset provoked his subsequent words and actions, he (Anastaplo) never attempts to spoon-feed or dogmatize.
   
   Ever wonder: So what's the big deal with Lincoln? Anastaplo gives the answer. You cannot help but come away with an almost reverential regard for Lincoln, not because he was so "good" or because he was so much better than anybody else, but because you see in Lincoln all the flaws, contradictions, and insecurities that plague us all. Lincoln was by no means perfect, as none of us are, but despite his flaws Lincoln shows us a profound picture of greatness in his patience, eloquence, and ability to learn from and reflect upon life and use the gifts we've been given to strive for good. In short, its all the things that make a hero a hero. A hero isn't a hero because he/she is perfect but because they are great despite imperfection. But I digress...
   
   This book is essentially a collection of essays Anastaplo wrote and lectured on over the course of his career. But don't let that dissuade you from reading. There is undeniable continuity and cohesion such that the essays seem to flow naturally into one another without unnecessarily overlapping or regurgitating other portions of the the book. I will warn however, that while this book isn't terribly long it is dense and requires effort. I found myself having to focus with an unusual amount of concentration, not because Anastaplo is cumbersome or because what he says is so difficult to understand, but because the nature of the material prompts and requires a huge amount of thought and reflection...and I LOVED it.
   
   Of all the books I've ever read this one remains in my top ten and I have no doubt that I will dip into it again and again over the course of my life, and in fact already have. If you are a seeker and love American history, do yourself a favor and read this book. You will be challenged and you will learn as much about yourself as about Abraham Lincoln.



2. Despite the fact that this book is in fact a compilation of essays written over a nearly forty year period, it possesses a unity and coherence that would put many other works of "scholarship' to shame. Anastaplo is an amazingly learned, thoughtful,and spiritually sensitive man. He is also that rarity, an INTELLIGENT patriot. One cannot help but think, reading his reflections on Lincoln and the founding, that he would have made a superb addition to the Supreme Court, despite the fact that he The Illinois State Bar , deeming him a 'security risk"(!!), refused to grant him permission to practice law back during the McCarthy era. He certainly understands the constitution better than several of the Justices.

5 comments about John Adams: Party of One.

1. James Grant provides a refreshing new analysis of John Adams that captures his role in the revolution accurately. Adams developed as his own party throughout the years following the revolution. This book can truly stand on its own and covers all the years of Adams life. From his law days in Boston, to the drafting of the Massachusetts constitution to his years as a diplomat in Europe the early years are well covered. The second half looks closer at his time in high political office from vice presidency to presidency to the retirement years. Overall it tracks closely the integral characters of his life. From Abigail to John Quincy to Alexander Hamilton the author develops each well and shows how they impacted John Adams. The one drawback is there are a lot of modern references which are not needed however they are not enough to knock a full star off. If you want a new perspective on John Adams this is a great way to go.



2. First and Foremost, Adams is a fascinating subject, and Grant is a highly qualified historian.
   
   However, it is disappointing that several of the reviews of Mr. Grant's book find it necessary to compare it to D.McCullough's effort. Certainly the latter did create a mania of sorts a few years back, which in turn led to a golden period for historians with a Revolutionary preference.
   
   But having read both, the one thing that seems clear is that Adams is difficult to contain.
   
   Grant's work is a nicely crafted, eminently readable depiction of John Adams, and one that features many interesting and unique observations regarding the revolutionary that Americans have only recently, it seems, elevated to an appropriate level amongst the founding deities.
   
   But too often, Grant's book begins to develop around a certain point about Adams' life or achievements, only to suddenly trail off, leaving the thought unfinished, and the reader wondering if perhaps they'd skipped a page. Yet,this is no brief inquiry. Grant covers the great expanse of Adam's adult life, but fails to acutely identify very many of the key productions of that life.
   
   It is as if there is too much about Adams to be treated adequately in this sort of Comprehensive Biography.
   
   McCullough's work in many ways suffered from the same affliction, but I would measure his prose a little more lyrical, if somewhat less inquiring.
   
   Both authors are absolutely convincing in terms of identifying Adams as a major force in the shaping of the nation, a bold and dynamic personality who left his large fingerprints clearly evident on so many chapters of that formation, and definitely deserving of Franklin's famous assessment of the man's virtue and insanity. Each one of the chapters of Adams' life are so worthy of their own in depth analysis that the soup to nuts biography only serves to (as George Clooney's character says in O Brother Where Art THou) arouse the appetite of the reader without taking him or her to bed.
   
   Grant would have done well to get his fingernails a little dirtier on issues like the Alien & Sedition debacle; the Paris years with Franklin; etc., instead of leaving them too soon. Too many unanswered questions. Too many superficial or unfinished portrayals. Adams deserves more.



3. I found a lot here not available in other recent books about John Adams, and I read one chapter in this book then a chapter in a longer book. Two examples on information covered only here are details of the loans he arranged in Europe after teaching himself the financial trade, and his role in the beginning of the Episcopal Church in the United States.
   
   This is not a shorter version of a more detailed book, but a complete biography by an author with expert knowledge of the financial world of John Adams. I recommend this book to anyone interested in John Adams.



4. Written with clarity and grace, supported by thorough research, and characterized throughout by scholarly care and respect for both primary and secondary sources, this is the large biography of John Adams to read. It is half the length of David McCullough's tome, but far more scrupulous in its treatment of Adams, especially in its engagement with the rich historical scholarship on the subject. Even an expert can learn from this admirable book, and I did.



5. John Adams: Party of One by James Grant is a different look at John Adams than the recent bestseller from historian David McCullough. Grant does often quote from primary sources, but not nearly to the extent that McCullough did. This should make the biography less challenging to readers that found the frequent shifts between McCullough's modern style and primary sources difficult. However, Grant makes the text less accessible by some use of vocabulary unfamiliar to the general audience.
   
   The book is worth reading because it gives a look at Adams using primary sources that have not been available previously just as the next Adams biography will do (the Massachusetts Historical Society has spent years compiling Adams' papers and has yet to complete the task). Grant goes out of his way to give a balanced look at John Adams. In some matters, he is highly supportive of Adams' efforts and methods, such as securing loans in The Netherlands. In others, Grant is highly critical of Adams such as his lack of tact as a diplomat. Granted, that particular opinion will not get much argument. One thing that is unusual for most recent biographies, Grant often discusses Adams' faith and religion, keeping its presense throughout the biography unlike, for example, Walter Stahr's biography of John Jay where his noted strong faith disappears for chapters at a time.
   
   As already mentioned, Grant's style does not lend itself to a general audience, at least one that does not wish to have a dictionary handy. Grant brings a highly analytical style, which makes this biography more than a simple narration of Adams' life. The danger with this is that the objectivity can be lost in favor of only citing sources that support a particular point of view. Grant slips into this commentary several times, which could be a distraction if one does not enjoys this style of biography. The stylistic issues raised in the preceding can be considered positives or negatives depending on the reader's own personal preference.
   
   In this reviewer's opinion, this biography of John Adams will not appeal to everyone. It will be heartily enjoyed by some for its analytical and direct style, but may be a disappointment to others who are looking for a milder approach. However, this reviewer endorses an attempt at reading this biography because of the quantity and perhaps quality of what it has to offer.

4 comments about The Harding Era : Warren G. Harding and His Administration (Signature Series).

1. This is an outstanding read on a President that should not be ranked as low as he is among historians (I would have to rank Buchanan, Pierce and Carter and perhaps Clinton)lower than Harding. Unfortunately most of the rating of Warren G. Harding have to do with the writings of historians who were fans of Wilson and the New Deal under Roosevelt. Harding gets low ratings because of one bad cabinet officer and when you compare it to the things that have happened the last 25 years Harding was not all that bad a President. He took office during a recession and labor riots were going on, Wilson had completely ignored domestic problems and the economy partially because he was an invalid and his wife was the acting the President all of which was hid from the Press. Moreover, when you go back and look at the so-called "Teapot Dome Scandal" and study the facts surrounding it, Albert Fall the Senator who was the Secretary of Interior had good motives for doing what he did. He was trying to hide from the Japanese the drilling and storage of oil for our Navy on the west coast and in Pearl Harbor therefore if one thinks about it, it probably would not have been wise to let public bids out for the development of the oil fields. Everyone knew back then that Japan was going to have to dealt with in the future as they were building a huge Navy. Fall's mistake was accepting a position with Sinclair Oil before he left office the same company he allowed as Secretary of the Interior to have the lease and drilling rights in the oil fields. The other things happening around Harding were of little consequence as compared to politics today. The read was great. Murray did a great job uncovering facts and presenting in my view a very fair balance. I think too much emphasis is put on Woodrow Wilson who in my view was an elitist and not realistic. And then you have Roosevelt. Most of the historians who were taught back then learned under men who were in universities during the Wilson years and who became scholars and teachers under Roosevelt. Therefore their writings in my opinion have to be read carefully and when you see them slant things to the favor of Wilson and Roosevelt, you have to remember that it was the American people who voted for Harding and then Coolidge and Hoover.
   
   I think if you want to know about the Presidents you need to know about Harding and I have read a lot of biographies and this is in the top 10 as far as presentation, scholarly research and historical context.
   
   Don C.



2. Robert Murray's re-creation of the Harding era, his assessment of Warren Harding, remains the towering work in this field to this time - it first was published some decades gone by. Murray's book is well-written, his judgments are balanced, his thrust is to re-create an administration in its times. Murray can no longer be counted the last word on Harding of course - new Harding material has come to light through the passing of years - but Murray's work remains The Authority - John Dean gives credit to Murray in his brief, contemporary Harding biography.
   Murray laid the groundwork which others are building on - it is interesting that Warren Harding's reputation is being recast. Many students of American history are no longer accepting the longstanding, rote judgment that Warren Harding was a presidential failure. Among many things (Murray reviews this, although he did not have the full overview) Harding emerges as the only U.S. president in the 20th Century to led the nation in disarmament, the only president who reduced the military machines. Harding's close, personal involvement in the disarmament effort is documented and acknowledged. Shortly before his death, Harding resolved that if the United States ever again should go to war - if the United States should judge it necessary to draft young men - then - Harding said - there also must be a draft of capital. It is tickling to find John Kennedy's "ask not what your country can do for you..." has an origin with Warren Harding.



3. Robert K. Murray analyzes the presidency of Warren G. Harding. In this balanced work Murray effectively illustrates that Harding was not the bumbling idiot that he has been made out to be, in fact he was rather intelligient and could have been brilliant if not for his lack of discipline. Murray dispels the myths that Harding was chosen as a candidate in a "smoke filled room" and that he, along with Harry Daughtery, was a member of the "ohio gang". Murray goes into great detail recounting how Harding chose his cabinet, the accomplishments of his administration, his handling of Congress, and his effectiveness as President. Murray discusses the scandals and explores the depth of Harding's knowledge of scandal in his administration. Murray also explores the decline of Harding's reputation and the factors that contributed to this. Overall, Murray views Harding as a man that was more abler than he has been given credit for, but he concedes that Harding had his share of limitations and probably shouldn't have been President. But Murray concludes that the accomplishments of his administration was superior to a great number of other administrations.
   
   I agree with the author's conclusions that Harding accomplished a great deal during his short tenure in office. And would have gone on to become a very good President had he lived. Though I also agree that he probably should not have been president, given the fact that he often spoke of his limitations. The author points out that the very qualities that made Harding so attractive was also the qualities that led to his downfall. Harding was a good, kind, sweet and sincere man-but he was loyal to a fault. Harding (like Jimmy Carter who I also feel should have never been president) was too much of a nice guy and his kindness (and naivete') prevented him from seeing the worse in others. Harding gave his trust to individuals that were unworthy of the trust he placed in them. He exercised poor judgement in his choice of friends, or as one author put it, he was not discriminating enough in his choice of friends or collegues. Had Harding exposed Charles Forbes after demanding his resignation, quite possibly Harding would have atleast been credited for having some integrity, but he blundered in his handling of Forbes.
   
   The Harding Memorial Association also blundered by not making the Harding Papers available. In Murray's estimate, had these materials been available, much of the gossipy lies that have been said and written and about Mr. Harding would have been dispelled. But instead, lies and myths continue to be perpetuated and presented as historical fact. Therefore, it is no wonder Harding is held in such low regard. But Harding is not the evil, crook that he has been painted to be.
   
   Harding would have, in due time, overcome the scandals like many other Presidents before and after him have. But due to his untimely death, he had no opportunity and therefore had no voice. But Harding, deserves to be reexamined, and I applaud the author's effort in presenting such a balanced view.



4. The Harding Era brought to the reader, for the first time, an accurate and fair account of the Warren G. Harding Presidency. Harding had been (and in some respects still is) the most maltreated president in our nation's history. His reputation plummeted soon after his untimely death in office, and misconceptions and lies soon became accepted as fact rather than fiction. Murray's work shows some interesting aspects of Harding's two and a half years in office:
   
   · The myth of a smoke filled room does disservice to Harding, who through effective campaigning and a natural congeniality, was able to secure the 1920 nomination, and it does a disservice to the supposed power brokers, some of whom continued to vote against Harding until the end. Uncertain times and two bull-headed front-runners more than party bosses pulling the strings of a puppet Harding made a dark-horse Harding nomination possible.
   · Harding was able to bring governmental spending under control by creating, under the executive branch, the office of the budget. As well, he championed and was able to accomplish the Washington Naval Conference, which set the stage for military size and ability following post World War One. His policies have been shown to be wanting, but in his day were seen as viable to an isolationist nation.
   · The Teapot Dome scandal, which has historically been the Achilles heal of the Harding administration, is seen in the light of historical research: it was only in the papers for a brief time and Harding, by transferring control of governmental oil reserves from one cabinet secretary to another was simply following what was thought to be the good advice of his cabinet. He was not involved in the scandal nor could he really be faulted for what was for him an uncomplicated administrative transfer.
   · The Harding era ended a recession and set the stage for republican dominance throughout the 1920s. It is shown that both Coolidge and Hoover built on this base. And, no matter how the slogan came about, "Normalcy" became the catchword of the era. Few presidents have been able to define an era as the Harding campaign did.
   · Both presidents Coolidge and Hoover have hindered Harding's reputation. Both had served in the Harding cabinet and either could have spoken up for their deceased colleague to counter some of the hearsay that was accepted as fact. Yet Harding was by then a political albatross, and they both stayed silent.
   
   
   Murray also clearly shows the weakness of Harding as a man and president.
   
   · His sexual prowess was less accepted, even to a roaring 1920s, than it might have been later on. Although verified accounts of his exploits are less than the rumors and stories surrounding him, (Murray shows the idea of sex in the oval office closet to be basically another lie turned into fact), Harding was no moral beacon. As the 20th century closed in the United States Harding was remembered as a 1920s Bill Clinton. Harding could have only blamed himself for this.
   · Personally he governed by consensus, weakness, and some executive planning. The speeches during his Western and Alaskan tour seem to show a man growing into the office and wanting to exercise more presidential authority. I personally think that had Harding lived he would have weathered the scandals, won re-election, and been remembered better. Yet, his death and his many hidden papers, for many years presumed destroyed, allowed the various Harding myths to emerge. By being a largely ineffective leader of questionable moral character, Harding is to be blamed for a good portion of this as his weak administration and legacy could not counter-act public perception. Most notably in his mistakes was choosing the notorious Albert Fall to be in his cabinet. Fall more that anyone helped destroy Harding's reputation.
   · It is clear that Harding neither made the times, nor did the times make Harding. Brought to office by a country tired of war and wanting to be left alone without a League of Nations or similar entanglement (and helped by a number of first time voting women who found a handsome Harding elect able), he brought with him an undistinguished political record and the nostalgia of and for a small town America. Thankfully most political contests have brought forth a higher caliber winner than did the 1920 election.
   
   Murray concludes by stating that Harding probably should not have been president. But that he was president. This second part alone merits Murray's excellent book. Years ago, when beginning a rather short-lived career as a high school history teacher, I visited the Harding Home and grave in Marion, Ohio. The tour of the home was a bit comical and somewhat less than professional, as a rather obese guide meandered us around the house, at times blowing his nose and checking his handkerchief for contents. The Harding grave was closed to the public, but I got in and saw his grave covered by garden hoses and a soda bottle. The tour was a metaphor for the Harding years. It was not enough to strive to be America's "Best Loved President". The administration needed more and could not provide it, and has strived since then to gain respect. Some Harding aficionados have suggested that Harding should not be considered America's worst president, but should be elevated to the row of bottom tier presidents (based on whatever scale is used in rating presidents). Overall this is not saying much, but it does say something. Reading Robert K. Murray's The Harding Era might just convince the reader that this bump up to the bottom is justified.

5 comments about Inventing Al Gore.

1. Loved the pictures on cover and in the photo section; it's hard to imagine he was ever that young. As a mother of three boys, I can safely say that he was a cute little boy, and was trained to become president of the United States from the age of four. He was too cautious about being called a liberal that he bent over a bit too far the other way. I was called a 'liberal' recently because of my version of the MARCH OF THE PENGUINS movie. I said, "I am not conservative, either; I am not a Democrat (though I do tend in that direction); I am not a Republican -- I am not political.
   
   In 1989, Al Gore traveled to Antarctica to prove his environmental study of global warming and damage to the ozone layer. To not be an astronomer, he still was very believable. I'm just wondering if he noticed that seventy-mile march those male penguins made to 'mate,' and the seventy-mile march the females made to get food for the young. I hope so. He looked good in that parka, with his hair all wind blown. As the young Nashville reporter, he looked like son, Zach.
   
   The 'flower child' Tipper with her first baby was beautiful in 1971. The family photos were just marvelous. I remember when his dad, Al, Sr. was our Senator from Tennessee. It's hilarious that Clinton had the gall to criticize Al Gore after his loyalty to a corrupt politician (that's why he had the impartial 'stare'!) and erroneously made the statement about his co-pilot & friend's "lack of political instinct." Pauline Gore was the real politician in that family even though it was the dad who was elected. Gore has good political genes and training.
   
   Clinton never was the real president; his wife Hilary was, and held the apron strings. He wasn't very smart anyway, but not appreciating Gore's refusal to say nasty things about him is inhuman. Al Gore would have accummulated more votes and there would have been no question at all about his winning the election if he had just turned his back on Clinton after he lied about Monica ("I did not have sexual relations with that woman!") and campaigned on his own integrity.
   
   He and Tipper became much bigger as they aged; I am getting smaller (lost another 1/2 inch due to osteoporosis), but they are still good looking and dignified people. Al Gore does not need "inventing" as he was a wholesome, mannerly candidate, just not Southern enough to carry his home state. He was well-educated in the East (like our mayor and former mayor) but he did turn his back on us here in Tennessee. If it had been the other way, and he had deserted Clinton's sinking ship, he would have been (maybe still could be) the best President of the United States ever.



2. I'll be brief. I have not read the book, I'm not a big Gore fan. I'm commenting on the mention of Gore "claiming (falsely) to have invented the Internet" in the main review. Check the Daily Howler on that. Search for Gore Internet.
   
   Point: Gore never spoke this famous quote. It was made up. Gore said, "During my service in the United States Congress, I took the initiative in creating the Internet." This caught no one's attention because ... IT WAS TRUE. Even Gingrich gave him credit for that.
   
   After the RNC laundered Gore's statement, and spun it dry, the spun-quote was repeated by pundits for 20 months.
   
   That Turque supports this LIE in his book completely disqualifies him from any suspicion of veracity, or pretense to veracity.
   
   Not that I don't believe Gore has spun things, especially his supposed environmental stance. But it would be bad to point that out, because that would make him out to be LESS liberal, and wouldn't serve the attack machine.
   
   Well, Gore's over, but the pundits lying is not.



3. seems evident in this book. I feel the author made an honest attempt to write an unbiased account of Al Gore. His strengths are demonstrated as well as his faults. The only weak spot in the book is that the 2000 election wasn't covered.



4. Al Gore recently emerged from "mending fences" in Tennessee to launch a media-driven national charm offensive that he hopes will land him in the White House in 2004. Even though the former vice president seems more at ease these days as he exchanges barbs with the likes of David Letterman, Gore still comes across as uncomfortable and at times coached (did handlers teach him to laugh?) largely because he is the enigma Bill Turque describes in Inventing Al Gore: A Biography. For those who love and despise the former vice president, and for the vast majority in whom he inspires absolutely no emotion one way or the other, Turque's biography, written before the 2000 election debacle, remains relevant today. After you finish Turque's fair and balanced account of Gore, you will be pumped full of the substantive and trivial and won't be any closer to knowing who the former vice president is than you were in 2000, 1996, 1992, 1988, or last week on Larry King. This in no way detracts from Turque's biography, and if anything proves the author knew his subject is a mystery. Neither David Maraniss nor anyone else has been able to unravel this complex politician, and unlike Turque they didn't have the insight to know it is impossible.



5. This biography does just give lip service to the politician's childhood. The author explains the world in which Al Gore grew up. It describes pieces of his father's life in a way which shows you where Al picked up many of his mannerisms. You will see where the candidate came from.

   After reading through this, I know that Al Gore is not as Green as his book would lead you to believe. He does listen to businesses and has accepted money. This is no different than any other candidate. This book brings all of this to your attention so that you can make your own informed decision.

   The tone and flow are good. I had no trouble following the narrative or understanding what point the author was trying to make. Too often, an author has his own axe to grind and steps away from informing the reader so that the reader can make his or her own decision. Turque's style makes this a good read.

No comments about Lula of Brazil: The Story So Far.

5 comments about Behind the Oval Office: Getting Reelected Against All Odds.

1. I was expecting a "Bill Clinton is a genius" book and prepared to dislike it. I've never cared for Clinton because the guy is so obviously out for himself - and at the same time decrying people for that very trait. As a President, Clinton confused personal victories with leadership (need I say impeachment?).
   
   But regarding the actual race, I want to say that this book reads better than almost all of those campaign journal books by Teddy White and Jack Germond/Jules Witcover - and especially those of Elizabeth Drew. Morris makes clear his admiration of Clinton while leaving the reader with the conclusion that Clinton had a split personality - Morris calls one the policy wonk and the other the Eagle Scout.
   
   Morris is NOT a conservative. Anyone who gets on his case about that is seriously misguided. Yes, he was (perhaps is) a Republican, but he covered that in detail, too. After all, how many people voted for BOTH George McGovern AND Ronald Reagan?
   
   The book left me captivated as Morris clearly understands the ideological differences between the two parties. I think Morris is on somewhat less stable ground that the GOP would never nominate a Colin Powell, but I agree with virtually all of his other points.
   
   Sadly, Morris hubris sunk him. Readers will remember that during the 1996 campaign, Morris got caught with a hooker and thrown out the door. Given Clinton's peccadilloes, I would think this behavior would get Morris nominated VP. But give Morris credit - he blamed himself and ONLY himself for that one.
   
   The one bad thing out of the book is that Morris did the entire country a disservice by getting Clinton re-elected. While Morris may have felt that it was the right thing to do at the time, history shows Clinton to be just the way Morris saw him in his book - weak and namby-pamby and without a central core of beliefs of what he actually wanted to do as President. This is unfortunate given how history unfolded: if Clinton had had some guidance and actually run on issues of what he was going to do (that was tough since he did almost nothing he promised in 1992), he would have had some political cover when the Lewinsky scandal broke.
   
   The book is must-read for political junkies or for somebody who wants to know Bill Clinton from the inside.



2. Bill Clinton hired Dick Morris as a consultant for his 1996 reelection campaign. His role as an advisor to the president was kept a secret for several months, and eventually ended in a tabloid-driven scandal that cost Dick his job. Behind the Oval Office provides an account of this time from Dick's perspective.

   The account is told in a surprisingly linear and story-like fashion. It makes for a captivating literary experience (which is a real accomplishment considering that this is a political book). It also serves as an outlet for Dick to apologize for, and make peace with, the scandal that cost him his job (and almost his marriage).

   I found the book to be quite fair in describing the principals of the Clinton administration and Republican leadership in Congress (Dick Morris had also consulted for many Republicans over the years and briefly served as an information conduit between Bill Clinton and Trent Lott).

   The bottom line is this: If you're looking for some sort of a hatchet-job on the Clinton administration, look elsewhere. If you're looking for starting revelations and juicy details, try the tabloids. However, if you want to know more about one of the most unique relationships a president has ever shared with an advisor, this is the book for you.




3. Part campaign chronicle, part autobiography, part political strategy primer, Behind the Oval Office is Morris's look at the period from about November 1994 through August 1996 when he worked as a consultant for Bill Clinton. Morris includes some background information, such as his earlier history with the Clintons and his relationship with Trent Lott, but the primary focus is how Clinton won the presidency after the 1994 midterm elections, to many observers, turned him into an apparent lame duck.
   
   Morris takes great pains to point out that he is (or at least was) an equal opportunity consultant, advising both Republicans and Democrats. Indeed, when he got his first call from Clinton in 1994, he was working on a handful of Republican campaigns, including Tom Ridge's race for governor in Pennsylvania. Previously, he had worked for Trent Lott, whom Morris deeply respects, and, surprisingly enough, for Jesse Helms, a job which, not too surprisingly, ended with Morris's being fired. There's something a shade Machiavellian about this, about caring for victory above all else. But Morris also goes to great lengths to explain his "craft." It is not simply spin or slander or attack or government-by-polls; rather, it is about issues and substance. Morris insists that he merely examines a candidates repertoire of positions and, based on polls, picks the ones to emphasize.
   
   It is an interesting book by an obviously brilliant man. Clinton's reversal of fortunes between 1994 and 1996 is nothing short of stunning, and much of it was Dick Morris's doing. That is, until he encountered his own scandal during the 1996 convention. (Of course, Dick Morris's strategies would continue to reap benefits after he left.) If there is a negative of this book, it is Morris's constant apologies for his trysts with the prostitute. It's a refreshing stand--to admit his wrongdoing, apologize for it, and recognize that he hurt others more than he hurt himself. But it was such a constant refrain in the book as to detract from its overall impact. Still, the book is insightful not only into the 1996 campaign but also into campaign strategy in general. It is a fascinating read.



4. Clinton's use of television advertising in his 1996 reelection bid was unprecedented in American history. Political consultant Dick Morris was highly influential in managing this campaign, and retracing his collaboration with the Clintons back to the Arkansas gubernatorial campaigns, he peeks inside Clinton and his White House.
   
   Morris was also the one who gave the American political world 'triangulation'. If (as he insists too many times) triangulation is not really shaping of policy by polling but merely the shaping of presentation by polling, it would still be terribly disingenuous toward the voter. But I think even he realizes that cherry-picking other people's policies in order to win elections is not leadership.
   
   In fact, a lack of leadership is indicative of the Clinton White House itself. According to Morris, Clinton suffers from a chronic inability to fire under- or misperforming members of his staff (inadvertently giving another clue as to who really was responsible for firing the travel office staff). He creates chaos and infighting, then drifts around waiting for someone to move in his direction whom he then supports. Morris describes a permanent near state of war between White House chief of staff Leon Panetta and deputies Harold Ickes and Erskine Bowles. Such is the manner that Clinton exerts control.
   
   But then he isn't much of a team player-- he even keeps Morris out of sight from his staff because he wanted him to himself. Later, paranoia erupts when Clinton accuses Morris of hogging Al Gore, and fearing abandonment by his boss, Gore accuses Clinton of the same.
   
   Clinton spent an astounding $85 million in his reelection campaign. In the previous presidential election, both candidates spent less than half that amount. Obviously this war chest drained an enormous amount of time and energy from Clinton's other job as president. Quoting Clinton: "I can't think. I can't act. I can't do anything but go to fund-raisers and shake hands. You want me to issue executive orders; I can't focus on a thing but the next fund-raiser. Hillary can't, Al can't-- we're all getting sick and crazy because of it."
   
   Interestingly, Clinton doesn't even watch television news-- or read newspapers, with the exception of the New York Times and Washington Post op-ed pages.
   
   Morris describes the reason for not supporting a cut in the capital gains tax. Their own experts had agreed with President Ronald Reagan's rationale that such a cut not only would not cost anything but would even raise revenue, but they still opposed it because it would make them look "too Republican." So they screwed American workers for cosmetics' sake. He describes Clinton's strategy to pass a welfare reform bill to help his election, but then force changes in it after being locked into the White House. Morris has many good words for Trent Lott, but being a good Senator couldn't save him from being lambasted over an off-hand remark at Strom Thurmond's centenary.
   
   Not much is mentioned about foreign affairs, but what is doesn't speak well for Clinton's grasp of it. On the victory of Prime Minister Netanyahu in the 1996 Israeli elections, Clinton flatly concludes that the "Israelis are not ready for peace," forgetting that following countless terror attacks on its citizens after the disastrous Clinton-sponsored Israeli/Palestinian peace agreements, Israelis voted Netanyahu in office precisely because he was the only one who could credibly bring peace.
   
   Sooner or later everyone strays into Hillary's dark side, and Morris commits the sin of recounting how she wanted a swimming pool in their taxpayer-funded Arkansas governor's mansion. It is fairly amusing to read the fawning and sycophantic groveling he had to endure to be restored in her favor.
   
   Behind the White House is a fairly interesting read, though it suffers from sloppy editing. Are "honesty, honor, reliability" really adjectives in the Democratic lexicon? It has its share of political correctness: why does 'Arab terrorists' need quotes? Truman 'lost' China, but Clinton didn't want to lose Russia.
   
   Dick Morris seems a generally honorable professional who is good at what he does, though I'm left to wonder whether this is good for the electorate or the country. In order to raise the astronomical amounts of cash needed for the marketing of what Morris calls the "first fully advertised presidency in US history," Clinton by his own admission was incapacitated from his duties. As we now know, the methods used to raise the cash were illegal, sometimes damaging to our national security, and always reprehensible.



5. The undisputed master of polling, political stratagem, geopolitical sagacity, and, er... prostitutes writes an amazingly candid look into the Clinton White House worth reading years later. Morris chronicles his triangulation strategy that unfortunately led to Clinton's improbable 2nd term. Morris operated largely in secret as "Charlie" over the phone and later in and out of the East Wing while Clinton's staff worked separately in the West Wing.

   Morris tells how Clinton instructs Morris to continue with the subterfuge to avoid the largely ineffective and overly quarrelsome Leon Panetta and Harold Ickes. Without Morris and his insight, Clinton no doubt would not have signed the Republican-sponsored Welfare Reform Act and would have lost in 1996. Morris, who is a foot shorter than Clinton, was tackled by Clinton while in Arkansas, only later to be consoled by Hillary as she told him that Bill only does that to people he loves. With friends like that...