3 comments about George Bush: The Life of a Lone Star Yankee.

1. To me as a non-American it has always been a puzzle why George Bush is generally regarded as mediocre and after reading the thoughtful and very complete biography by mr. Parmet I have not found the answer.

   Bush has been a succesful businessman after a distinguisged service in the Air Force during the war. He has served as a Senator, as head of the CIA, as the Ambassador to China in an extremely interesting period in Sino-American relations and, finally, as a Vice-President to a very succesful President. What more can you ask as preparation for the most powerful job on earth? It is true that he failed to get elected twice, but is it not a credit to any man when he overcomes defeat to embark on such an interesting career?

   The view which I get from this biography is on a balanced man who understood politics very well and also had the gift of personal integrity unmatched by most of his predecessors and certainly not by his successor.

   It is true that he was not the greatest of communicators and PR guys, but there one should not forget that he had a very difficult, if not impossible act to follow. It is to his credit that he did not even try to imitate Reagan, but that he led the country in his own personal style.

   One should forgive for being biased, as a European, to his Foreign Policy, since my understanding for and interest in the domestic scene is limited.

   Bush Presidency can be characterised by formidable leadership in two distinguished events. His conduct of the events of the Gulf War was exemplary. Powell get's a lot of the credit, but I feel that is, partly, undeserved. It was the President's deciding leadership which effectively stopped Saddam's adventure in Kuwait. Of all the wars in which the US got involved after 1945 the handling of the Gulf War was the most succesful. It has been an act of extraordinary diplomacy and brinkmanship to get e.g. Saudi Arabia and Israel on one line. Haven't we all been worried about the Tel Aviv reaction after the first scud missiles hit the country? Personnaly I will not forget the relief I felt when, in the middle of the night in Europe, I saw and listened to Bush anouncing the invasion. This was clearly a leader who believed in what he was doing and who felt to be in full control, aware of the risks of his venture.

   A second event has been the unification of Germany. After all the rhetoric of the Reagan administration, it was under Bush that this extraordinary process was done swiftly and with great succes and, most astonishing, without bloodshed. I am aware that the prime players were Kohl and Gorbachov, but it could never have been done without the full support and the tacit agreement of the US. Indeed, by taking a silent and , overtly, modest role Bush did exactly the right thing. I don't think under Reagan, it would have been as smooth.

   All this is reconted in this book in fine scholarly detail, which distinguishes this author from the many, more sensational, political writings one sees so often these days.

   I think this is a fine book about a succesful Presidency and a man of integrity one could only wish would emerge more on the political scene.




2. George Bush was a paradox. Prep school- and Ivy League-educated son of an aristocratic, rich Connecticut US Senator, he transplanted himself to Texas and (with a resounding lack of success) tried to re-invent himself as an old-school Texan. He lost two consecutive attempts to become a US Senator himself, and would have been a completely forgotten political wannabe had it not been for the charitable help of Presidents Nixon and Ford, who appointed the "wimp" to some key positions, which obviously made Bush think he was competent enough to become president, because he then ran in 1980. After being destroyed by Reagan in the primaries (and denouncing Reaganomics as "voodoo"), he then received some more remarkable charity when Reagan picked him for his running mate. After eight years as Vice President, Bush finally won the presidency (although he never would have won if he hadn't have been Reagan veep) and soon proved as incompetent at that job as Dan Quayle at a spelling bee. In short, Bush was a politically unsuccessful, rich New Englander who happened to have been picked for the right jobs by a couple of America's other worst presidents, and was then able to become President himself. An uninspiring, dull story and an OK book at best.



3. The biographer was a distinguished scholar at the Conference on the Bush Presidency at Hofstra University in April 1997. Although this book was essentially finished by the time of the Conference, there is at least one footnote (Steven Burgess) referring to a paper presented at Hofstra. This reviewer suggested that Parmet look at the critical books by Jack Matlock on Bush's foreign policy and Monica Crowley's book on Nixon's devastating appraisal of Bush, but there is no evidence that this occurred. P More importantly, Parmet is weak when it comes to explaining the Bush stagnation. Despite the Persian Gulf War, there ensued the slowest four-year growth period in the postwar years. Thus, it is more appropriate to refer to the Bush stagnation rather than the Bush recession. P Whereas it is possible to describe Reagan's supply-side economics as a version of "commercial Keynesianism," there would seem to be no Keynesian bones in George Bush. Bush raised taxes in 1990, in collaboration with Tom Foley, as the economy headed downward. Later he refused to sign a reasonable tax cut coming out of Congress in March 1992. Instead he relied primarily on a change in withholding of income taxes which produced a brief upturn in the fourth quarter followed by sluggish growth in early 1993 when the tax rebates were smaller due to the previous tax cuts in 1992. P Readers interested in a critique of Bush's economic policy may want to read the contribution of Timothy Canova after the publication of the proceedings by Greenwood. 92. P

No comments about The Spiritual Journey of George Washington.

1 comments about Prophet from Plains: Jimmy Carter and His Legacy.

1. If you have time for only one Carter book, this is it. It gives a very good overview of this great man and I have to say it reads more dyanamically than "Beyond the years" and other books written by Carter himself, although not to take away from these. History will continue to look favorably upon Carter. Too bad he had such bad presidential years but then we now know it does not correlate to later accomplishments.

No comments about More Kennedy wit ; edited by Bill Adler.

1 comments about Abraham Lincoln, President-Elect: The Four Critical Months from Election to Inauguration.

1. Mr. Mansch's book focused on an area of Lincoln's life that heretofore, to my knowledge, had not been fully explored. Namely, the four month period between Lincoln's election and when he actually took office.
   
   The country was in such turmoil and the outgoing president, James Buchanan, could not wait to leave the White House. He was the very definition of a "lame duck" president. To acquaint as many Americans as possible to himself, Lincoln took a long train trip from Springfield to Washington DC. Mr. Mansch's book covers every word of every speech he gave on the trip plus gives details of the many stops he and his family made. I thought it was a great book and I was sorry when it ended. I highly recommend this book to anyone interested in the Civil War, in Lincoln or is a "presidentphobe".
   
   Bruce Fuglei

1 comments about Jefferson's Garden.

1. Unquestionably the most interesting garden book I have read in a long, long time, Loewer's Jefferson's Garden is a delight. I can't remember the last garden book I have eagerly read cover to cover. Thomas Jefferson was an inveterate collector of plants and when one embarks on Loewer's virtual tour of the framer's grounds there is a surprise around every corner.
   
   Did you know that Columbus carried seeds when he invaded this hemisphere -- or that the Spanish government decreed that all ships bound for the Indies do the same? The first white settlers in Pennsylvania found wild peaches, almost certainly planted by Native Americans who obtained seeds from the Spanish a hundred years earlier. The seed business was in full swing on this continent in 1760 and less than a hundred years later came the first mail-order seedsman. Loewer offers an easy flow from Linnaean and common nomenclature through bits of plant history to cultivation instructions and soil requirements, all interleaved with Jefferson's plant experiments and garden design.

4 comments about Hubert Humphrey.

1. Hubert Humphrey, who served in the US Senate for 24 years and dominated that body as few men ever have, has long been a greatly underrated figure by political biographers and historians. Far more than the Kennedy brothers or Lyndon Johnson, Humphrey was a crusader for liberal causes even when they were unpopular, and his leadership in the cause of civil rights puts virtually every other major politician to shame. Yet today Humphrey is almost forgotten by most Americans, and other, less worthy men have gained the credit for the social and economic change that should have been his. Carl Solberg, in this solidly-researched, if somewhat pedestrian biography, shows why Humphrey came to be a rather tragic figure in the history of American liberalism. Humphrey was born in 1911 in the tiny town of Doland (population, about 700) on the isolated South Dakota prairie. The dominant figure in his early life was his father, the town pharmacist and "token" Democrat, whom he adored. Humphrey's childhood was generally happy, but it came to an abrupt end when the Great Depression struck. All of Doland's banks closed and many other businesses failed as the local farmers and townsfolk couldn't afford to pay their bills. The Humphrey drugstore also suffered, and the family had to sell their handsome house and move into a much smaller one. Eventually, Humphrey's father gave up on the dying town and moved to the larger town of Huron, where the local townspeople at first gave his family the cold shoulder and the already-established pharmacists tried to run him out of business. The Humphreys had to fight to survive and young Hubert, who had dreamed of getting a college degree and leaving South Dakota behind, was forced to get a pharmacy degree and help his father run the drugstore. He hated it and after seven years finally told his father that he couldn't do it anymore. He went to college at the University of Minnesota, earned a master's degree in political science, and quickly moved into Democratic politics in the city of Minneapolis. At the age of 34 he was elected Mayor, where he rooted out crooks and helped the labor unions. In 1948 he first achieved the national spotlight with a dramatic speech to the Democratic National Convention in which he forcefully pushed the cause of civil rights for blacks, earning him friends among liberal Democrats but enraging the Southern segregationists, who vowed revenge. Elected to the US Senate in 1948, Humphrey was at first scorned by the angry Southern segregationists who ran the Senate and regarded Humphrey as a wild-eyed fanatic who wanted to give blacks the right to vote (which he did). Humphrey refused to be intimidated and stood his ground, eventually winning friends among liberal Northern Democrats and the respect and affection of even the Southerners. Yet time and again Humphrey, always a poor man in a rich man's political game, found himself passed over for Senate leadership posts and the Presidency by wealthier or less-liberal candidates. In 1960 Humphrey's underfunded presidential campaign was crushed by the Kennedys, who bought huge numbers of votes in the West Virginia primary to finish him off. In 1964 he was picked as Lyndon Johnson's running mate, but his four years as Vice-President were miserable. Johnson was consistently bullying and even backstabbing to Humphrey, despite his loyal service, and Humphrey's support of the Vietnam War (he felt obliged to support the President no matter what his own private feelings about the war) caused many of his liberal supporters to turn against him. In 1968 Humphrey finally won the Democrats' nomination for President, but the bloody riots outside the Convention between Chicago police and antiwar protestors, combined with a bitter split in the party over the Vietnam War, led to his narrow defeat by Republican Richard Nixon. Humphrey eventually made it back to the US Senate, but he was defeated in 1972 and 1976 by lesser-known (and lesser-qualified) Democrats for the presidential nomination. He died from cancer in 1978. Solberg's great insight in this biography is that Humphrey failed to become President because he was both ahead of, and then behind, his times. In the late 1940's and 1950's his fiery speeches on behalf of civil rights and other liberal causes led Democrats to complain that he was too "radical" and "extreme" to be elected President - he was too "liberal" for the country's mood. Yet by the late sixties his support of the Vietnam War led younger liberals to claim he was too "conservative" and "behind the times" to be President. Given Humphrey's achievements - Medicare, the Voting Rights Act, and the Peace Corps were just a few of his ideas which other Presidents put into place - many older liberals may regret that they didn't support him for President in 1968, and many younger liberals may wish they currently had a crusader like Humphrey to lead them. Although Solberg's writing style is rather pedestrian, overall he does a fine job of describing the life of a man who should be rated among the most creative political leaders of the last fifty years.



2. Solberg offers a well-researched and fair biography of one of America's greatest Senators this century and a former Vice President. From his pharmacy days till his death we get the full view of Humphrey's life. Maybe of more interest to history buffs than the average person, this is still well worth a read if you can track down a copy.



3. We know that Carl Solberg took this subject upon his own knowledge of this subject as a expert Time-Life staffer and Minnesota insider to undertake this project. It is a well written and well researched. There are not too many like this account. It fills in a dearth of Humphrey biographies



4. We know that Carl Solberg took this subject upon his own knowledge of this subject as a expert Time-Life staffer and Minnesota insider to undertake this project. It is a well written and well researched. There are not too many like this account. It fills in a dearth of Humphrey biographies

5 comments about The Contender: Richard Nixon: The Congress Years, 1946 to 1952.

1. In "The Contender, Richard Nixon, The Congress Years" historian Irwin F. Gellman sets for himself a difficult, yet needed correction of mythology posing as history: that Richard Nixon's political career was founded on smears and lies.
   
   Using actual campaign literature, contemporary newspaper accounts, letters, and government documents, Gellman methodically demolishes three Big Lies perpetrated by Nixon's loudest critics.
   
   The first lie is that Nixon used dirty tricks to win his first race for U.S. Congress in 1946. Carefully examining the record, Gellman shows that incumbent New Deal congressman Jerry Voorhis neither took Nixon seriously, nor did he realize the extent to which public opinion was shifting after the war. Gellman writes of Cong. Voorhis campaign manager father observing to his son 11 months before the General election:
   
   "On December 1, Charles informed his son that the Candidate and Fact Finding Committee (Reviewer's note: the GOP committee that recruited Nixon), in contradistinction to the spirit of the primary laws, had endorsed a Quaker named Richard Nixon, Charles optimistically predicted that his son would retain a large Quaker block because of his record. Nixon was `not very well known' and was being discharged from the navy a lieutenant commander: `It is just another campaign that we have to go through but I am quite sanguine as to the outcome. In any event, we have nothing to worry about now.' Jerry's reply was as cavalier as his father's: `I am not worried about the matter and we will just go ahead like we have before.'
   
   "Jerry and his father had badly miscalculated Nixon's success, the extent of his support, and his unifying effect on the Republican Party..."
   
   As the nation was swinging away from New Deal socialism, Voorhis hewed to the old party line in his voting. Yet even Voorhis understood the danger involved in what had become widely known: that some labor unions had been penetrated by Communists. In considering whether to accept the endorsement of the UAW-CIO labor PAC, Voorhis wrote the union leadership that he was, "deeply concerned over the degree to which Communists have succeeded in getting hold of some of the organizations, and I definitely do not want their support..." So, Cong. Voorhis rejected the state UAW-CIO labor PAC's endorsement and they obliged, listing him as not endorsed. Yet Voorhis accepted the local labor PAC's support, an inconsistent decision, given his concern for the impression that would leave. Nixon's campaign started to use the labor endorsement to its advantage - even newspapers took note of it in their endorsements of Nixon. While Cong. Voorhis stayed in Washington, D.C. through most of the campaign, not taking Nixon seriously, Nixon simply out hustled him and out organized him, winning against the incumbent by 56.1 percent to 42.7 percent.
   
   The second lie involves the Alger Hiss, Whittaker Chambers, and Sen. Joseph McCarthy. In 1948, the freshman Congressman from California was on the House Un-American Activities Committee (HUAC). HUAC was investigating Communist penetration in the government and in organizations including espionage activities. Whittaker Chambers, a former Communist, came before the committee and eventually named Alger Hiss, a former well-placed aide in the State Department, as a Communist. Hiss denied it. Eventually, Hiss was proven to have committed perjury and served time in prison. In an attempt to diminish Nixon's role in the Hiss investigation, Nixon's detractors claim Nixon had advance knowledge of Hiss's guilt. This lie was perpetuated for a couple of decades by Father John Cronin, an anti-Communist priest, who was otherwise a Nixon admirer, in an attempt to bolster his own credentials. Cronin eventually recanted his claims. Given that the FBI had its own mole on the HUAC staff and given that there is no record of the FBI, or any other agency knowing of Hiss's Communist involvement, it appears Nixon honestly and methodically broke the case on his own. Interestingly, Hiss was a key aide at the Yalta Conference in 1945, the meeting between Stalin, Roosevelt and Churchill confirmed the Soviet domination of much of Europe. Nixon's careful and fair handling of the HUAC investigations are in stark contrast with the reckless and flamboyant actions of Senator Joseph McCarthy, who cast accusations both Communist and non-Communist alike. That Nixon is linked to McCarthy by critics completely misses the mark on how assiduously Nixon worked to keep distant from McCarthy in both word and deed.
   
   The final big lie deals with Nixon's successful 1950 U.S. Senate race against Congresswoman Helen Gahagan Douglas. Douglas, a former stage actor and, like Cong. Voorhis, an unreconstructed New Dealer, took on an incumbent moderate Democrat senator and beat him in the primary. It was in this primary that the Democrat senator, not Nixon, first called Douglas the "Pink Lady" in reference to her extreme leftwing voting record. In a highly disciplined campaign, in contrast to the sloppy and poorly funded effort by Douglas, Nixon prevailed. Douglas even ill-advisedly tried to run to Nixon's right on Communism - this only served to highlight Nixon's own record while reducing her own credibility with the voters.
   
   Irwin Gellman's "The Contender" is well worth reading for any Presidential historian or admirer of the first President from California.
   
   Reviewer: Chuck DeVore is a California State Assemblyman, he served as a Special Assistant for Foreign Affairs in the Department of Defense from 1986 to 1988, retired from the Army National Guard as a lieutenant colonel, and is the co-author of "China Attacks."



2. When you read this book, you should be prepare to be challenged on what you have heard about Nixon before. This book undoes--or purports to--all of the early Nixon myths. It appears to be exhaustingly researched, and Nixon haters can take comfort in the notion that Nixon became the Nixon they hated after the 1960 Presidential Election.

   Still, Gellman does sugarcoat some things Nixon does, and appears to draw some charitable conclusions without any backup. It is an interesting read, and a portrayal of what by any accounts is a remarkable journey from unknown to Vice President.




3. Though there were shades of the later Nixon in the young man, he was not nearly as visceral, vulgar or mean-spirited as he was to become as President. There were tinges of guilt in his make-up when he stepped over the line of decency, and such signs were utterly absent in President Nixon. Gellman is a fluid writer who is painstaking in being fair to Nixon and presenting him as a fairly likeable, though monstrously aggressive Congressman. He maintains that the young Nixon was a good father and attentive husband, thought he evidence for this is grossly lacking. He was the quintessential absentee father who spent almost no time with his daughters. Gellman conveniently ignores this.

   More troubling is that Gellman almost seeks to exonerate Nixon from two of the most mudslinging and tawdry campaigns of all time: his 1946 run for Congress against the hapless, though decent Jerry Voorhis, and his inhumane hatchet job against Helen Gahagan Douglas in 1950. Nixon's brutal character assassination of Douglas in conveniently skirted, or excuses are made for RN. Because Gellman frequently falls into the habit of glossing over Nixon's destructive impulses, the book never reaches any grandiose literary heights.

   Nixon has been the subject of much nonsense, particularly of the psycho-babble genre. Gellman thankfully doesn't attempt any of this and the book is a better product for it. Ultimately, this is a readable, balanced (overly balanced!) portrait of a young man driven by demons and a lust for power. For anyone wishing to understand Nixon in his 30's, this is an essential study.




4. The book is well-written, it is effective in presenting details of Nixon's early career, and it bends over backward to be fair toward him. It does not bend over backward to be fair to everyone else: Gellman finds it too easy to lump New Deal liberals with Socialists and Communists - making it seem the only difference that he sees between them is shades of pink. That makes it hard to accept his arguments about red-baiting - arguments that are important to Gellman's treatment of Nixon as an honorable, ethical lawmaker ... Still, this is a stimulating work and one that taught me a lot about one of America's most fascinating political characters.



5. I have never been very knowledgable about Richard Nixon. When I picked up this book, I was pleasantly surprised by what I learned. This book is an honest and factual portrayal of a man who served his country, and not the poobah of Watergate scandals.It is so refreshing to learn about the man and not just read criticism after criticism. Nixon's great character and accomplishments are in this book, and I recommend it to any student of political science or just fans of the genre.

2 comments about Presidents of the United States of America.

1. We went to the Smithsonian Art Museum - Washington, DC - Aug 2007. They said that a book was no longer available that contained all the Nation's Presidents' paintings that they had on display. I figured I'd find an old book, but was very happy to find a book that contained most all of the paintings I saw, plus a better description of each of our leaders while they spent a term in office. I was impressed to see them up close at the museum, knowing the artist was just as close. Now I have this book as my souvenier and historical reminder of all our presidents images - done by a reknown artist - and their history. It's just what I'd asked for at the museum. They could sell a lot of these books if they had them on hand. Why wouldn't they stock them?



2. I ordered 2 different books on U.S. Presidents for my daughter's schoolwork, and this was definitely the best one. Very informative and concise, there is a two page spread on each president with one of the pages having a good sized color portrait of that president. Each article gives their name, order, years of presidency, a copy of their signature, and an overview of their life from childhood until death. This book is put out by the White House Historical Association and is a wonderful choice if you are looking for an informative glimpse of our current and past presidents. An entertaining read for children and adults.

1 comments about The Paris Years of Thomas Jefferson.

1. Each of these books were in very good condition as stated in the ordering info. Each was packed so that the book was well protected. The "Apple Pie ;An american story was also in very good condition and the package was protective. many thanks to each dealer. Pat Trusselle