Nixon Books

This is great i mean her dad gets a new job and they have to move Sarah heres a a woman calling for help and she keeps seeing things a little romance in it but this was great and very easy to read but sometimes u get a book and the review always says that you cant put this book down well this is very Very true you cant put it down

This is great i mean her dad gets a new job and they have to move Sarah heres a a woman calling for help and she keeps seeing things a little romance in it but this was great and very easy to read but sometimes u get a book and the review always says that you cant put this book down well this is very Very true you cant put it down

In my english class we had to read a mystery book and make a presentation. I saw that this book was one of the choices that we could choose to read. I had read some of Joans books before and I really liked her writing style. This book was very interesting to read and I could hardly put down the book because of it's suspenseful plot and interesting topics. Joan used very good despriptions and made you feel like you were there with the main character Sarah darnell. I highly reconmend this book as one of the first Joan Lowery nixon books that you would read if you haven't started reading her books and got hooked with her unique writing style.The story gives off a feel of many different feelings and moods that would come natural with the situations that are explained in the writing.This is one of those books that you could be wanting to read later on in the future. I could read this book over and over and not get bored. I hope you decide to read this book if you haven't already and if you have you could probably read it again.

Whispers From the dead is an excellent book. If you like mysteries I'm sure you would like it. Its about a girl named Sara who had a near death expearence. After that she has been feeling that ghosts were watching her. Then her family moves into a new house when she goes into the house she gets an earie feeling. She keeps on seeing werid visions. And hearing a spanish girls cry for help. Can she help the girl? Can she figure out the mystery? Find out for your self by reading the book.

This book is about a girl named Sarah. Her family decides to move to this huge house that was on a beautiful neighbor hood. What Sarah's family didn't know was that someone was murdered in the house before they moved. Sarah found this out first hand when she starts hearing voices and seeing things such as puddles of blood on the floor. When she lived in her old town she almost drowned when she went swimming, Ever since she has been linked to another world. She feels as if a dark shadow was following her and when she moved into the house the Spanish voices whispering to her for help. Sarah finds out that the voice she was hearing in the house was from the girl who was murdered. She from there tries to find out what really happened in the murder.

The things I liked about this book were how the detail of the book helped you see and feel and hear what Sarah did. I liked this because it really gets you into the story and you feel as if it were you, not Sarah. One thing I didn't like about the book was how it was kind of boring. Usually when the beginning is boring the person never wants to read on to find out what happens, but I advice everyone to read on because it is a really good book!

People who would like this book would be someone who likes a little mystery or somewhat scary books, even maybe suspense or thriller novels.

Family Apart follows the lives of Irish children. They move from Ireland during the potato famine to NY to survive. But then their da dies and their ma finds it impossible give her family the basic needs. She decides to send them WEST so they can have the basics, education, and love. I read this book to many children because it is a quartet of books. Afterwards, they want to read the sequels. These tell the individual stories of each child. Being historial fiction, it also leads into to reading real accounts of Orphan Train riders lives. The book is exciting and has many emotions that children can identify with now.

What if you and your family had to leave your mother and go west on one of the orphan trains to be split up into differnt families?

In this book you'll experience the wide array of feelings the kelly children are feeling and the adventure that the kelly chilren have to endure. The kelly's dicover Mike, the oldest boy, is a copper stealer, they are being taken from thier mother, and most comfort Mike because he blames himself for all that has happened.

I recommand this book to anybody who like suspenseful novels or is just looking for a good book to read.

I really enjoyed reading the book Family Apart, because it keeps you guessing , whats going to happen next? Also it helps you learn a lot about orphans and what they go through. A Family Apart has a lot important teachings to offer. I would love to read the next six books in the series.

This wonderful book A Family Apart has a lot of meaningful things that can be learned. One lesson that can be learned is, that you don't know what you've got until its gone. If you have something or know somebody that means a lot to you, once you lose them you don't realize how important it was until its gone. A moral that can help you in life is to believe in yourself. Believing in yourself is good because if you are trying to reach a goal and you believe in yourself you will reach that goal and if you don't you might not. Another lesson that can be learned in this book is to love your family. You should love your family because they do a lot for you and they are your only family. The last great moral is to accept changes. Even though accepting changes is hard we have to, because sometimes we cant change them. As you can tell this great book A Family Apart has a lot of important teachings to offer.

This was a thrilling book about a poor family that live in newyork the family has to deal with many problems first the dad dies, then the 3rd eldest gets in to some trouble because he is a copper thief Mike (the copper thief) is sent to a hearing The judge announces under there mothers wishes that the children ( Petey, Peg, Danny, Mike, Megan, and Frances) are to be sent west on the orphan train. Before the train leaves Frances the eldest child overhears that two kids in the same family are more likely to be adopted if they are boys. So Frances promising her mother that she would take care of her youngest brother cuts her hair and pretends to be a boy named Frankie. That's just the beginning Frances and her brothers and sisters encounter many other things on there quest to the west. Read this fantastic book and your eyes will open up to a whole new world of adventure thieves, slaves, fear, and depression it's sure to make your heart ache.This is a book you will always remember.

I just received this book and find it way too brief. Yes I like succinct, easy reads, but I also like information. I find that no subject is covered in enough detail. I bought it hoping for help with beginning to teach my one year old early lessons, but it has not helped me.

Brenda Nixon's well written parenting book is a real help to parents in quandary. If you are a new parent, rearing a toddler or preschool age child, want practical childcare tips, like short reads, feel inadequate about rearing a youngster today, want answers that help resolve problems, and.....if you are committed to learn to be a good parent then this book is for you.

The delightful chapters are written in short, succinct bits of information. Besides the wealth of parenting guidance in chapters, Brenda offers an age appropriate gift giving guide, charted stages of development and a resource index for specific need-to-know issues such as thumb sucking, tantrums, toilet training, and eating.

After reading it, I recognized being in the presence of a wise and caring woman, who longs to aid parents and children.

You can succeed at parenting with this "winning wealth" of information. Returns will be greater than money in the bank. A great gift for new parents.

Brenda Nixon draws on her experiences as an educator and mom to provide parents with helpful advice on a variety of topics. As a busy mother of a toddler and an eight year-old, I want answers but don't have the time to search everywhere for them. Parenting Power in the Early Years gave me thoughtful advice on many of the situations that concern me, and I appreciated the fact that it was an easy read. It was personal, practical, and powerful.

I wish I'd had this 95 page book when my kids were in the early years. Instead I had several thick books full of clinical studies and terms that boggled my already deteriorating confidence as a parent.

Brenda's friendly "been there done that" tone allows the reader to laugh with her (I Shudda Listened)and at themselves in their desire to be the perfect parent.

She's got all the stuff you need to know in these few easy to read pages. And if you still want more on a specific topic, she includes five pages of Parent Resources.

Nothing is more daunting than to bring home the first baby and have no point of reference for what lies ahead. Nixon's book is a handy little tool with user-friendly pointers for all parents with little ones. What a great gift for the new parent or the one at wit's end with a toddler! Quick and easy to read and a wealth of information.

The characters and their actions are clearly drawn from the imagination of an inexperienced writer sitting back and trying to think of something clever, rather than from life. The consciousness of the main character, who ages from 11 to 13 years old, ranges wildly from brooding adult to childishness, but not in a way that shows awkward adolescence; instead, it seems as if the author has little understanding of who he is writing about. This seems to be the work of someone who would like to be a writer, not of someone who can write, and I assume that the book's fans must really want to believe in it because it is a coming-of-age story of our generation. I only finished reading it as a matter of principle, because I started it -- A Nixon Man isn't unreadable, but it isn't very interesting, either.

Found this book in a used book store. What a wonder. I loved it. The recollection of life in San Francisco in the early '70s reminded me of my own crazy youth and moved me immeasureably. The sensiblity is poignant and hilarious and profound. The wild masturbatory scene in the sand is virtuouso. The exploits of the main character, Jack, have stayed with me for days. This writer has a lot to say about family and love and loss. I hope the he publishes another book soon.

It has been a long time since I have enjoyed a book so much. A wonderful, haunting, read.

Comparable to the peculiar memories of thomas penman, thumbsucker, and the adrian mole diaries. Every adolescent male should read this book.

Its a shame that some authors live can off their celeberity and others (without publicity machines behind them) are far superior to the supposed masters. This book deserves to be a best seller and Cahill's storytelling runs circles around the John Irvings of the world.

Being the same age as the book's central figure added to the enjoyment, as recogntion of events - both public and private pop up on most every page. This great novel can not be recommended highly enough.

I was living in Cambodia when I came across this book, following the recommendation of one of my English friends. I bought the book, opened it... and could no longer put it down! This book came as a complete eye-opener to me, on both how America had conducted its war across Indochina, but also on how Cambodia's history had/has been so intimately intermixed with Sihanouk's.

If you are into learning the backside of what we could all dub "official history", then this book's for you. You will no longer look at Kissinger, Nixon or Westmoreland with the same candid, obedient and servile eyes after reading it. Packed with previously unheard-of accounts, reports, testimonies, following a clean, highly intelligent argumentation methodology, Sideshow acts as a real bulldozer on the reader, repeatedly confronting him/her with loads of devastating illustrations of unsound decisions, hidden political actions, secret wars of influences etc. It is certainly one of the punchiest, journalism-based historical account I have ever read, whatever the subject.

It shed a completely new and intense light onto the poor -though touching- little country I was living in then, and forever changed the way I looked at politics, diplomacy and intelligence.

Shawcross gets into the minds of Kissinger and Nixon so well. His is a book to be read over and over again to see the working of the U.S. Government and how it can destroy a country. He talks about the 25 pound shark at the bottom of a swimming pool full of children -- and we understand how the USA's leaders destroyed a country. It is a lesson to be learned over and over again as we go about destroying other countries. This is one great read - worthy of the time it takes to understand it. A victory for the author over Mr. Kissinger.

This book has managed to live on, which is perhaps unfortunate - historically speaking, it's far more relevant to contemporary geopolitics than it should be.

In any case, SIDESHOW has managed to stand as one of the better books on Cambodia, and America's involvement in Cambodia (Elizabeth Becker's WHEN THE WAR WAS OVER is a must-read as well). One could debate Shawcross' perspectives, but his research is meticulous and has withstood many attacks, and his depiction of the machiavellian darkness that can creep into foreign policy is chilling and ruthless, and - for better of worse - makes for hypnotic reading, all the more frightening as it's drawn straight from history, research, the Freedom of Information act.

Now more than ever, this is essential reading.

-David Alston

On Junior Day, 2006, I would recommend SIDESHOW by William Shawcross. It contains information about the twentieth century that could be applied to situations that America faces in the world in 2006. The global superpower naturally thinks that everything will be resolved by the application of hyperpower, as Japan suffered a humiliating defeat at the end of World War II when it discovered that the United States was not just fighting a war against Japan, it would nuke their cities to bring about whatever result it wanted. When American troops openly invaded parts of Cambodia, Congress responded by imposing limits which were still in place on April 30, 1973:

"The justification for bombing Cambodia had been to protect Americans in Vietnam. Since October 1970 the Congress had included in every military appropriation bill a proviso expressly forbidding bombing in Cambodia except for that purpose. By the end of March 1973 there were no American troops left in Indochina. Still the bombing of Cambodia increased. The administration now based its case on Article 20 of the Paris Agreement. Rogers now claimed that American withdrawal from Vietnam did not affect the situation in Cambodia, and that Article 20 legalized the bombing `until such time as a ceasefire could be brought into effect.' " (p. 277).

One of the strange things about the invasion of Cambodia was that Nixon made an announcement on April 30, 1970 which attempted to keep all previous secret activities secret:

Ignoring Menu, Nixon began with the lie that the United States had "scrupulously respected" Cambodia's neutrality for the last five years and had not "moved against" the sanctuaries. This falsehood was repeated by Kissinger in his background briefings to the press. That same evening he told reporters that the Communists had been using Cambodia for five years but, "As long as Sihanouk was in power in Cambodia we had to weigh the benefits in long-range historical terms of Cambodian neutrality as against any temporary military advantages and we made no efforts during the first fifteen months of this administration to move against the sanctuary." The next day he said of Sihanouk's rule, "We had no incentive to change it. We made no effort to change it. We were surprised by the development. One reason why we showed such great restraint against the base areas was in order not to change this situation." (p. 146).
In his announcement of the invasion, Nixon stated that his action was taken "not for the purpose of expanding the war into Cambodia, but for the purpose of ending the war in Vietnam"; he would give aid to Cambodia, but only to enable it "to defend its neutrality and not for the purpose of making it an active belligerent on one side or the other." (p. 146).

Currently Iran has a militia of five million, and if Iran were to officially enter a war in Iraq as a result of bombings by Israel, as urged by Vice President Cheney, to remove Iran's nuclear capabilities, even if a bomb based on plans provided by the CIA wouldn't work, Iran has other ways it could strike back. Being subatomic is very much like Cambodia was in 1970, but we shall soon see what issues are about to be submitted to the UN security council, and if it helps or hurts. A blockade created by Iran so American supplies might have more trouble reaching Kuwait and Iraq; oil exports from the region could end; American dollars could fall; the interest on bonds could rise so high that the U.S. government couldn't balance a budget; and some of the world's banks might then be alarmed.

SIDESHOW by William Shawcross is the only book I have in which I can look up Lon Nil in the index. Lon Nil might well be Cambodia's forgotten man. His brother, Lon Nol, declared himself Chief of State as well as Prime Minister and Supreme Commander of the Armed Forces when he dissolved the Assembly in October 1971 and assumed emergency rule. (p. 229). In December 1971, an American psychiatrist in the U.S. Army found "his close associates indicate his mental faculties have deteriorated markedly as a result of his February 1971 stroke" (p. 208). On April 1, 1975, at the urging of his brother Lon Non, Lon Nol took half a million dollars and moved to Hawaii. (pp. 357-358). But for me, the best picture of events in Cambodia is the final page of Chapter 8, The Coup, in March 1970, when Lon Nol overthrew Sihanouk, using the hostility of the urban elite and military officers to Sihanouk to justify a power grab by a former Minister of Defense who "had been the principal scourge of the Vietnamese Communists while privately profiting from the thriving covert business that they brought through Sihanoukville." (p. 113). Sihanouk responded by forming a government recognized by Peking on May 5, 1970, shortly after the American invasion announced by Nixon. Sihanouk had flown from Moscow to China on March 18, 1970, but Lon Nil was still in Cambodia:

Rioting broke out in several provinces; opposition was strongest in the market town of Kompong Cham, Cambodia's second city, fifty miles northeast of Phnom Penh. After Sihanouk's radio broadcast, the town filled with peasants, fishermen and rice farmers from the neighborhood. The townspeople refused the government's orders to remove the Prince's portrait, and they burned down the house of the new governor whom Lon Nol had appointed. Demonstrators gathered in buses and trucks to march on Phnom Penh. They were halted by an army roadblock, and after that . . . About ninety people were killed or wounded. (pp. 126-127).

The most vivid display of anger against Lon Nol occurred, again in Kompong Cham, when peasants seized his brother Lon Nil, killed him and tore his liver from his stomach. The trophy was taken into a Chinese restaurant, where the owner was ordered to cook and slice it. Morsels were handed to everyone in the streets around. (p. 127).

Really bad decisions made by the Nixon administration toward Indochina and the Vietnam War are now fairly obvious. However, we must remember how difficult this type of investigation would have been back when Shawcross did his intensive research back in the late 70s. Here Shawcross builds a very hard-to-dismiss case against Nixon and Henry Kissinger, in terms of how their problematic military and diplomatic strategies at least indirectly led to the hideous destruction of Cambodia (in fact, one of Nixon's documented strategies was to make the Communists think he was a madman, assuming they'd get scared and give up).

During the earlier years of the war, Cambodia was a relatively tranquil nation that was trying to remain neutral. But the country was being used as a hideout by North Vietnamese soldiers, leading to bombing by the Americans. Here Shawcross shows how Nixon and Kissinger made use of political trickery and overhyped threats to keep the bombing going to an extent that was far more destructive than necessary. As a bonus, this book also documents the wire-tapping paranoia and unconstitutional shenanigans in the Nixon White House. Shawcross is especially tough on Kissinger, finding that he disregarded the integrity and safety of Cambodia (which he had only ever visited for four hours), in favor of short-term political advantages and unyielding ideology. The relentless bombing destabilized Cambodian society, leading indirectly to the hideous genocide and societal destruction enacted by the Khmer Rouge a few years later. It is difficult to argue with Shawcross' heavily researched conclusions, and the hellish wholesale collapse of Cambodia (of a type never before seen in modern history) becomes all the more poignant as a result.

Be sure to get an edition of this book from 1986 or after, in which Shawcross adds materials from the political firefight that the book ignited. Kissinger was obviously upset and went to great lengths, through articles written by his lackey Peter Rodman, to try and disprove Shawcross' assertions. If your copy of this book contains these articles, you'll be quite bemused by Rodman's evasive, dissembling, and downright condescending rebuttal attempts, which are easily shot down by Shawcross. This war of words in itself proves that Kissinger had, and always will have, a lot to answer for. [~doomsdayer520~]

I couldn't add anything else to the other comments; just buy it - you will not regret.

This book is truely well written. Hard to put down. If you have read: President Nixon, Final Days and Abuse of Power this book puts it all together. It is the AH! HA! you've been looking for. It will also make you curious about the Pentagon Papers. All these books are written from a historical perpective by well know historians. Not journalist looking for a quick buck.

If your goal is to understand the depth of Richard Nixon's involvement in the Watergate scandal, Stanley Kutler's `The Wars of Watergate' is the book for it. It's a great introduction to Watergate without that qualifying caveat, of course, but Kutler perches his narrative squarely on Nixon's shoulder. This book doesn't take extended side trips to the creation of the Plumbers, to that dirty trickster Donald Segretti, or the back desks in the Special Prosecutor's offices. The wars of Watergate, Kutler writes, are "rooted in the lifelong political personality of Richard Nixon," a personality that is marked by political paranoia, a determination to wreak vengeance on his enemies, and an overweening concern with winning his own elections. For those who dismiss Watergate as a third-rate burglary, or a vague `everyone else does it,' Kutler provides a substantial "discussion of the abuses of power that precede the burglary and the obstruction of justice that followed it."

Kutler sets the stage with brief chapters on the LBJ Administration, Vietnam, and a biographical sketch of Richard Nixon prior to the presidential election of 1968. We're taken closer to our subject with Kutler's next few chapters on Nixon's first term as president, where Nixon's relationship with the media (antagonistic,) and congress (disdainful,) as well as his executive style (obsessive micro-management) are surveyed. Providing as they do a context for the crimes of Richard Nixon, these prelude-to-war sections properly prepare us for the battles of Watergate.

An American constitutional historian, Stanley Kutler is well qualified to guide us through the battleground that was the second term of Richard Nixon. The war analogy is apt. For Nixon the Wars of Watergate officially begins with the immediate Administration response to the break-in at the DNC headquarters by the Watergate burglars. The first phase may be called "The War of the Burglars' Silence," a phase that is marked by Nixon's active participation in those acts that would lead to his resignation less that two years later.

One gets the strong impression that `The Wars of Watergate' is Kutler's response to future revisionist historians. The revisionist template was already being hammered out by Nixon, and others, when this book was published in 1990. If Kutler is forestalling an alternate interpretation, he does so with a well-coordinate, thoughtful, balanced, and overwhelmingly convincing presentation of facts. His interpretation - that Nixon was at the center of the Watergate cover-up from the beginning - is, with the evidence he provides to back it up, irrefutable.

Although `The Wars of Watergate' is not a complete history of the scandal, it's a good chunk of it - the heart of it, if you will. It would make a good introduction for the uninitiated. Even for Watergate wonks its expanded chapters on the Rodino chaired House Judiciary Committee, which considered impeachment, will provide fresh insights and a more complete story of an under-reported Watergate subject. This may not be the best single volume on Watergate, but if it isn't I haven't read its rival. Highest recommendation.

At least for those us who cut their political teeth during the 1960's and 1970's, Watergate and Vietnam were the watershed events. There was life before Watergate and Vietnam and life after. Stanley Kutler's work is one of the first to bring an historian's perspective to the Watergate story. As the saying goes, if you read one book about Watergate, this is the one.

Kutler is by no means neutral on Richard Nixon, but one of the unique things about Watergate was that Nixon's own taping system provided the record to hang himself. If nothing else the tapes proved Nixon was a habitual and flagrant liar. Kutler, whose regular job is as a professor at the University of Wisconsin, was drawn into a lifetime of work by his expertise on the sprawling scandal that was Watergate. His work has continued as he battled first Nixon, Nixon's estate, and then the National Archivists for full access to the White House tapes. Nixon kept up his lies and deception to his last days, with far more success than one would have hoped. In the long run, history's judgment of Nixon will be harsh and will start with Kutler's work.

Not just about Watergate, but a comprehensive look at RN's political career. The Watergate break-in came to symbolize the abuses of this imperial presidency. Excellent historical analysis. Comprehensive history not just at RN's presidency, but the evolution of the office during the Cold War. Thank goodness G. Gordon Liddy was such an incompetent stooge that the whole bag of "White House Horrors" came to light.

I read the book "The Island of Dangerous Dreams" by Joan Lowery Nixon, I LOVED this book! This book is a mystery, and you don't know what is going to happen until the very end of the book. I don't necessary read a lot, but now Joan Lowery Nixon is one of my favorite authors. If you like mystery books I recommend this book, you should read it! Ok, now back to what the book is about; The main characters name is Andrea, she lives with her mom, and so her mom tells her that when summer comes, she has to go spend time with her aunt, well, she does go even though she thinks her aunt is extremely weird, then this man named Judge Arlington Hews, who works with her aunt tells her she will be needing to attend this business trip at his other house, which happens to be in the Bahamas, well it just so happens that it is the weekend Andrea was planning on coming up. She asks Andrea if she wants to come along, at first she doesn't really want to, but her aunt finally talks her into it. But wait, her aunt never did ask the Judge, well he doesn't really want Andrea to come, but he finally says it is ok. So they all travel on his private boat with a bunch of other people that Andrea and her aunt don't know. They travel to an island, they are going to look at an ancient artifact from Peru, well it just so turns out that the artifact is stolen from the Peruvian government, after everyone sees it; it turns up missing and no one knows where the artifact is. People start dieing, and no body can figure out who is killing them and how they are getting away with it without anyone knowing so, who will be next? Read this book and you will find out!

This book was excellent. The beginning is kind of boring but after you meet Pete in this book, you don't want to put it down. I definetly recommend this book to all the people who read Joan Lowery Nixon or mystery readers!!

Andrea didn't want to accompany her aunt and a group of privileged people on a boat trip to the Bahamas to look at a valuable artifact. But she's stuck there now, and angry when she realizes that this is a stolen artifact. All the adults want to own it, but Andrea knows it should be returned to the Peruvian government. Then the object disappears... and someone is found murdered. Who will be next?

This book was written very well, and I am really glad I chose to write my book report on it!! It kept me guessing until the very end! A must read for anyone even remotely interested in mysteries!!

Andrea Ryan is the 17-year-old protagonist in "The Island of Dangerous Dreams". She's being sent away to her Aunt Madelyn's in Palm Beach so her parents can save their dwindling marriage. Andrea isn't too thrilled about the arrangement, to say the least, but she's cooperative. She doesn't like her aunt very much, who reminds her of "the wicked queen in Disney's Snow White" with her designer clothes, black hair, and thin frame. Her aunt is also a maniac about collecting valuable art, and one in particular: a Peruvian artifact which belongs to a close friend of hers, Judge Justin Arlington-Hughes.

Not long after Andrea arrives in Palm Beach, she's brought to an island in the Little Bahama Banks with her aunt to see this artifact. Andrea is upset because she knows the gem belongs to the Peruvian government, not smuggled overseas and sold to the highest bidder. However, nobody wants to listen to a self-righteous 17-year-old, and she's quickly snubbed by her aunt and the other three artifact-enthusiasts on the trip.

At the island, everyone gets the chance to see the incredible jewel in an after-dinner exhibition by candlelight. However, within seconds, the show turns fatal when the judge is electrocuted while plugging in a worn lamp that appears to have been tampered with. And to top everything off, the jewel is missing. Yet they have no way of contacting authorities because there is no phone or way off the island. So, they are trapped together with a killer and thief until the return boat arrives to save them. But that's several days away, and in the meantime, another guest is killed.

Because nobody suspects Andrea, she's able to explore the island on her own and try to find an escape. What she finds, though, is a stranger (Pete Michaels) wandering the island. His boat was damaged, so he decided to anchor it in a nearby cove and look for help ashore. Although she is wary of him, Pete's her only hope of escaping the island. But can she trust him?

As a mystery, I would have given this book three stars. There weren't a lot of scares for me, but at least I didn't figure out the culprit until the end. So, even though I wouldn't say it's the best mystery I've ever read, it's certainly a good young adult book, and anyone who likes mysteries, islands, and young female sleuths will probably like it.

Author Joe McGinnis gives an inside view of the highly-controlled, thoroughly-packaged 1968 Presidential campaign of Richard Nixon. Readers see how the Nixon team made its political commercials and stage-managed campaign events in order to manipulate the public. Nixon had lost a close race eight years earlier to John F. Kennedy, in part because he'd looked haggard in his TV debate appearances. This time he and his handlers were determined that Nixon would be scrubbed and scripted while avoiding debates. In short, they peddled Nixon to voters the way corporations promote cars and cosmetics. Nixon had a huge advantage in money and thus television ad buys, and he went on to a narrow victory on Election Day over Democrat Hubert Humphrey. Ironically, Nixon's packaged 1968 effort seems amateurish compared with today's media-specialized, poll-driven campaigns. Consider that in 2004 President Bush used the secret service as his private Gestapo to illegally detain dissenters, and even his supporters had to sign contracts in order to attend his campaign rallies.

Some accused McGinnis of betraying Nixon with this book, a charge later leveled against him when he wrote the true-crime narrative FATAL VISION. Others argue that he did his job and let the public see an un-reported, dark side of politics. Whatever your view, this is a concise, informative, interesting look at political manipulation.

Somewhere in the second chapter of this splendid book, Leonard Hall, national Republican chairman said; "You sell your candidates and your programs the way a business sells its products." This succinct message captures the essence of Joe McGinniss and his book, "The Selling of the President."
The author explains how Richard Nixon is packaged and distributed to the American people by clever television professionals.

The marriage of politicians and advertising men first took place in 1956 when Dwight Eisenhower ran for re-election and selected the agency of Batton, Barto, Durstine and Osborn. McGinniss explains that the basic advertising concepts remained unchanged right up to 1968 but that Richard Nixon made every use of all the sophisticated technical advances of the day. Moreover, the author details how slick New York advertising men seduced voters which elevated them from the smoky parlors to the expensive suites with the political big shots.

Advertising executives allowed Nixon to dominate the airwaves. To this end, the television campaign allowed Nixon to get through the campaign with a dozen or so carefully worded responses that would cover all the problems of America in 1968. After a while it is rather clear that Richard Nixon is basically a boring man. However, with proper packaging Nixon soon represented competence, respect for tradition, serenity, faith that the American people were better than people anywhere else, and that all these problems others shouted about meant nothing in a land blessed with the tallest buildings, strongest armies, biggest factories, cutest children, and rosiest sunsets in the world.

I found the marriage of political and advertising minds fascinating. Of particular interest is how certain keywords such as conscientiousness, vigorous, party unifier, newness, glamour, humor, warmth could create a television facade to hide a candidate's blemishes. This is a great book and should be used in the classroom to show how television altered how politics and campaigns are orchestrated in the United States.

Bert Ruiz

Joe McGinniss joined the Nixon campaign as an observer, and wrote this book of connected stories. Nixon's team had a number of advertising and TV professionals. The book lacks and index and a table of contents. The cover shows Nixon's face on a pack of cigarettes - an apt metaphor. They are heavily advertised, and bad for you in the short and long run. People know this, but they buy them anyway!

Chapter 1 shows Nixon taping commercials for varied markets. "I pledge an all-out war against organized crime in this country." But investigations into organized crime was later halted. Chapter 2 tells us that politics, like advertising, is a con game! Both promise more than they deliver. McGinniss says Nixon lost in 1960 because the camera portrayed him clearly (p.32). I think the TV audience judge he was lying, the radio audience took him at his word. By 1968 Nixon learned how to act sincere. He would appear mellow, not intense; respected, if not loved (p.34). Page 36 explains how this works: saturated TV advertising showing the candidate and giving the desired impression, followed by public appearances where he doesn't say anything. TV would be controlled to transmit the best images (p.38). Chapter 3 tells about Harry Treleaven, who worked on the 1966 campaign for George Bush; he was elected because he was likeable, and none knew his stand on the issues. More people vote for emotional than logical reasons (p.45). Chapter 4 explains the power of TV. "The press doesn't matter anymore: (p.59). Painting Nixon as mellow was their way to overcome the old Nixon. Chapter 5 tells how the TV shows were staged for each region. Page 64 explains the politics for a panel of questioners. The selected audience applauded every answer. Chapter 6 says that if Nixon could not act warmer they would produce commercials that made him so!

Chapter 7 tells how a commercial would "create a Nixon image that was entirely independent of the words" (p.85). "The secret is in the juxtaposition" (p.88). (Was this parodied in that scene in "The Parallax View"?) Once complaint was of a picture of a soldier who had scrawled "LOVE" on his helmet; a new picture was found with a plain helmet. Later they received a letter from that soldier's mother - Mrs William Love (p.92)! Page 99 tells why you never saw a farmer on this show. Or a psychiatrist (p.100)! Chapter 9 gives an insider's view to the commercial images and what they meant. Chapter 10 tells of seeking Wallace voters with a ballad. Another trick was to be seen as a friend of Billy Graham. Chapter 11 tells of Nixon's shrinking lead. How could a slick production lose to a rough-edged show? Chapter 12 rates a Humphrey commercial as "contrived and tasteless" (p.138), but also "most effective" since it showed HHH as a real person in open air, not being kept in a TV studio. Chapter 13 explains how a TV show worked. People would call in with questions; these would be passed to the staff. They would be scrapped, and prepared questions and their answers used (p.149).

The Appendix contains various memos from the campaign; relevant extracts from "Understanding Media" and its analysis. Page 187 notes the good appeal of "reagan". Reagan's personal charisma is noted on plage 189. Pages 218-220 explain the benefits of print advertising over TV. Page 233 mentions the strategy of a challenger: the candidate stands for change (you assume what that means). These memos concern Nixon's run, but are applicable to other candidates today. How much has changed since 1968?

First off, let's get one thing straight: McGinniss infiltrated the Nixon Campaign, pure and simple. Not exactly what you'd call honorable journalism.

That said, "The Selling of the President" remains the definitive case study of the first sophisticated use of television in American Presidential Politics. Having worked in political public relations for three years, the characterizations and quotes ring completely true. While the public was dismayed by the widening morass in Vietnam, there's no denying the fact that Nixon's very astute use of the tube helped catapult him into the office he ultimately disgraced.

Yes, mass media image-building is now the politician's stock in trade: Willy talking boxers versus briefs, the Veep doing the Macarena, and George The Elder fumbling at the checkout counter.

"The Selling of the President 1968" is written in tough, punchy prose, and chillingly accurate. I'm certain The Founding Fathers would flinch.

Highly recommended as a continuing reality check.

Roger Ailes started out as a whiz kid producer in his twenties who was given the responsibility of producing a highly rated, popular, syndicated network television program, "The Mike Douglas Show." From there he moved on to politics, using the same kind of marketing routines that Madison Avenue gurus employ in the cases of super market commodities. Joe McGinniss managed to sneak aboard the Nixon for President campaign without having his main purpose discovered, that of writing up what he observed. Had Ailes or any of his underlings known, McGinniss would assuredly have been instantly dismissed. Had candidate Nixon ever learned the response would, almost assuredly, have been apoplectic, given Nixon's all-consuming hatred for reporters of anything but a fawning bent.

The book is humorous in many respects, while the overall result of the effort reported, selling a candidate who would ultimately become the only U.S. president to resign in disgrace, is anything but funny. "The Selling of the President" gives us an indication of how far we have plummeted in presidential campaigns where spin control dominates over critical substance. For instance, just twenty years after Nixon's 1968 victory over Hubert Humphrey, George Bush was elected by exploiting the American flag and a Massachusetts rapist named Willie Horton. The 1984 campaign of President Ronald Reagan stressed the theme of "Morning in America" despite prolific evidence that the temporary prosperity proudly exploited resulted from a credit card spending effect linked to an irresponsible tax cut which ultimately left America in serious debt.

The ultimate value of McGinniss' book is learning just how cynically Ailes and the spin control brigade seeks to manipulate American voters. To readers of George Orwell the pattern will contain a distinctly familiar ring.

William Hare

If you have a huge collection of unlabeled tapes, this book will help you ID the tape by listing every song played with every song played BEFORE and AFTER it. It's a blast to just leaf through. There isn't another book like it anywhere. You really have to get a copy of this book. It's not like it's an optional purchase. The information in this book is not found anywhere else.

If you are a taper, collector, trader, or just forgot what opened the second set in the last Philly JFK show, then this book is a must. Finally make a setlist for all those unidentified MP3s. Check off what you have to make trading easier. Get goosebumps over one of the transitions you forgot about. Kick yourself for working and not seeing the second night. If you collect you gotta have this or wait for the next one coming soon.

Have you ever looked for that perfect show? Ever wondered how many times "Me & My Uncle" was played? Ever was curious about who all were guests at Dead shows? Do you ever trade Grateful Dead music? If you answered "yes" to any of the questions above, this book is a MUST HAVE! It contains setlist from almost every Dead show played from 1965-1995 including helpful timings, "every time played", and "feedback" columns. If you are a Dead trader & you do not own a copy of Deadbase shame on you. It is the bible of Grateful Dead music. Peace.

Have fun, & if you get confused...LET THE MUSIC PLAY!

This is the Baseball Encyclopedia for Grateful Dead tape collectors. No serious collector should be without this wonderful and informative book.

You HAVE GOT TO HAVE this book if you're into live Dead. It is ESSENTIAL. There is no substitute, only knockoffs. Superlatives fail, this book is the be-all and end-all of Dead volumes. GREAT fun to browse through, and CRUCIAL for identifying live Dead shows on tape!!! BUY IT!!! USE IT UNTIL THE PAGES DISINTEGRATE FROM USE!!! IT'S THE BEST!!!

Mark Feeney's book provides a more intelligent examination of Richard Nixon, the movies and the twentieth century than anyone writing. That he blends them all together in a seamless narrative is just amazing. He is fair minded and, rare for an intellectual, brimming with common sense.

That doesn't mean that I agree with his analysis of Nixon. In particular, there are three substantive events of the Nixon era on which it is easy to disagree with Feeney:
1. Cambodia: Feeney seems to buy the line that Nixon brought about the fall of Cambodia. He should have read less Anthony Summers and more Lewis Sorley. No respectable historian believes Summers, William Shawcross and their ilk anymore. Sorley (no friend of Nixon) shows just how nearly we came to winning. A quick glance at the map should show anyone that once South Vietnam fell, so would Cambodia. Blaming Nixon is just the way the left avoids its responsibility for genocide.
2. Yom Kippur: Feeney treats Nixon's rescue of Israel in a couple of subordinate clauses, but this was one of the great moments of his Presidency and it was Nixon's personal peculiarities that brought it about. The military tried to block him, his advisors were unenthusiastic ("Get off your fat ass and get those planes in the air, Henry," Nixon is quoted as saying) and the left accused Nixon of organizing a coup d'etat. Only Nixon made it happen and saved Israel in the process.
3. Civil Rights: there have only been 5 US Presidents who furthered civil rights (Grant, Harding, Truman, LBJ and Nixon). Interestingly, they all left office at the bottom of the list of Presidential reputations and they all have revisionist cheerleaders, although only Truman has been pulled out of the gutter so far (Grant will be next). Nixon's signal acheivement was to pursue a liberal civil rights program (integrating the schools in the South, affirmative action, etc.) while winning white southerners to the Republicans. This depoliticized civil rights to such an extent that today the most conservative institution in America - the military - is also the least racist.

There is far too much emphasis generally on Nixon's anger and poverty creating the "Nixon Era" of break-ins and wiretaps (Feeney does a better job than most). The "Nixon Era" began in 1931 when Herbert Hoover used Naval Intelligence to break into the office of an unfriendly biographer (see Conflict of Duty by Dorwert). FDR, JFK and LBJ expanded the "Nixon Era" until, about the time Bill Moyers, then LBJ's aide, ordered the FBI to dig up dirt on Republican homosexuals for blackmail purposes, the FBI decided to go freelance, setting up COINTELPRO and assorted other programs without outside knowledge (possibly even without J. Edgar's knowledge). Ironically, it was Nixon's efforts to make the FBI more responsive to elected officials that turned Mark Felt into Deep Throat and brought Nixon down.

Nixon ended the Nixon Era by being so uncharismatic. Just as OJ, Robert Blake and Michael Jackson could get away with their crimes because of their celebrity, FDR and JFK could, too. The growth of government has not been ended but the growth of its shadier bits is firmly under control thanks to Nixon, because when he fell, so did a lot of average people. The rules changed for public servants. "Just following orders" no longer got you a gig on public television the way it did Bill Moyers (just compare the good Charles Colson has done for society with what Moyers, a premature angry old man has failed to do). Bill Clinton's sale of technological secrets to China for private gain was made known by the Director of the FBI, because he knew that if he stonewalled, he would be punished.

And Nixon's contempt for the Ivy League was far healthier than LBJ's awe of them. LBJ had big doubts about Vietnam but yielded to the "Harvards" in his administration who ran the war into the ground. Nixon's contempt for their intellect kept them in line ("Get off your fat ass, Henry"). Nixon may have been angry at Kissinger's attempt to steal credit for his own ideas, but he must have gained a certain satisfaction out of it, too. What better way to prove your superiority than to have a Harvard professor cheat by copying from your exam?

Today, it is obvious that Nixon really won. Richard Ben-Veniste, the golden boy of Watergate, was last seen engineering a crude and sordid coverup of a scandal in which, unlike Watergate, Americans did die, thousands of them. The media now is rated by the public [another irony!] on a par with used car salesmen. Dan Rather, the newsreader who delighted in tormenting Nixon, was forced to resign, proving himself to be both unethical and stupid to boot. And for the first time since 1930, conservatives control all three branches of the government.

It is that last point with which Nixon would not take so much satisfaction. Nixon was the most leftist President we ever had, the "last liberal," Garry Wills called him. "I gave them a sword," Nixon told David Frost. But he didn't give it to the Democrats; he gave it to the right wing of his own party. It was Barry Goldwater and Howard Baker who told Nixon that he had to resign because the rightwing wouldn't stand by him. The right took Nixon's sword and gave us the modern world of Reagan and Bush2 by thrusting it into the belly of liberal Republicanism.

Bill Clinton was a bigger crook than Nixon (beginning with Hillary's shortsales of pharmaceutical stocks as a newly appointed health care czar and ending with a wholesale auction of pardons to any gangster with enough Benjamins). He was also as rightwing as Nixon was leftwing, with his main accomplishment being the shutting down of the SEC, turning Wall Street over to crooks who cost the economy a larger share of the national wealth than was lost in the Great Depression. Clinton gave the leftwing of his party a sword too, but the left, fools that they are, committed hari kiri with it.

Feeney may disagree with the above, but his splendid book shows how we got here nonetheless.

I absolutely loved this book! Every chapter is full of insights into Nixon and the movies. Mark Feeney takes five movies Nixon is known to have enjoyed, and wrings out all kinds of fascinating connections between the story line and Nixon's own personality. Not only politics, but culture and sex and money and ambition and pain -- this book teaches amazing lessons on everything that shaped Nixon. Don't miss the sections on Elvis and Nixon as twin icons of un-cool!

My only complaint is that Feeney never brings Humphrey Bogart into the mix. The amazing and authentic "movie diary" at the end of the book makes it clear that Nixon screened both THE CAINE MUTINY and THE TREASURE OF THE SIERRA MADRE while in the White House. Why didn't Mark Feeney jump on the SCREAMINGLY obvious ties between Nixon and Bogey?

Look at Humphrey Bogart's face -- the mean, kicked around face of Richard Nixon. Look at the unshaved beard, the shifty, beady little eyes. Look at how every man Bogart ever played was a cold, paranoid loner at heart, often with a homicidal streak. It's much easier for me to see Nixon as the vicious small time prospector Fred C. Dobbs (in TREASURE) or as the frightened, incompetent naval officer Philip Queeg (in CAINE) than as the smooth, sexually confident insurance salesman played by Fred MacMurray in DOUBLE INDEMNITY.

Note how Fred C. Dobbs is convinced everyone is after him. Note how he's capable of holding on to sanity -- just barely -- until he finally strikes it rich. The fact of finally having gold is what makes him lose his fragile grip on reality -- just the way Nixon survived years of political exile but cracked up the moment all his dreams were within his grasp. By turning on his buddies in bandit country, Dobbs ensures his own downfall systematically. He commits all the most horrifying acts of betrayal, but in his tortured mind it's always a matter of self-preservation. ("No, not murder, partner, not murder, your mistake! I'm saving my life that you'd be taking from me!")Sound familiar?

And how could Feeney have skipped writing a chapter on Bogart's role as Commander Philip Queeg in THE CAINE MUTINY? Nixon is so obviously Queeg it's like the movie was an eerie prophecy. Queeg is a weak, shifty eyed nervous wreck pathetically masquerading as a heroic military commander. Queeg knows he's not the John Wayne type. And he knows his officers know it. He constantly feels menaced by "disloyal officers" and insists "from the first they were all against me." Queeg routinely lies and cheats in order to avoid taking responsibility for his own ineptness as a commander. ("Take the towline . . . defective equipment . . . nothing more!")Queeg longs to rouse and inspire with his speeches, but his attempts at frank man to man talk are pathetically hollow. ("I kid you not.")THE CAINE MUTINY is the best movie ever made about Watergate.

Humphrey Bogart would have been the most logical choice to play Nixon in a major motion picture. He understood Nixon and acted out his tragedy back when Nixon himself was just a young congressman from California. How did the brilliant Mark Feeney miss the Bogart connection?

This is an incredible book, approaching Nixon's life through the movies he was known to have seen and liked. The result is an overlapping portrait that is both unexpected and insightful--in one chapter he's being likened to Walter Neff from Double Indemnity; in the next he's seen wishing desperately (yet a touch ambivalently) to be John Wayne. I'm entranced--something I never thought I'd say about anything related to Nixon.

There should be equal time for a book about JFK and the movies. JFK appears everywhere in the American cinema, from THE MANCHURIAN CANDIDATE to PT-109 to THE GREEK TYCOON, not to mention his own real life romances with movie stars like Gene Tierney. His father made a pass at becoming a tycoon during his own affair with silent star Gloria Swanson. It might be, however, as Feeney suggests, that Nixon is a more natural film subject, if only because the shadows are darker when it comes to Nixon, and the contrasts between the light of California and the darkness of Watergate and Cambodia is more shocking.

We knew that Nixon watched a lot of movies while he was President, but it's startling indeed to see him attending several movies a week even when he was "in between jobs." Feeney shows how Nixon and American film grew up at the same time, even though he may be stretching a point to cite De Mille's SQUAW MAN (1913) as the first American full length film, that's simply wrong. You might as well call John Waters' SERIAL MOM the last American movie, since bizarrely enough that was the number one movie at the box office the day Nixon died (April 22, 1994).

I liked Feeney's writing throughout, and the parallels he makes between Nixon's character, and the character of several American film heroes (like the part Jack Lemmon plays in THE APARTMENT) is always clever and rings surprisingly true. There is something, perhaps, about identifying oneself as a member of the moviegoing audience, as Nixon did, that makes you a little more --what, passive? -- than other US politicians.

Did Nixon miss his calling? Should he have been a Hollywood film reviewer? Nixon was born near Hollywood, where characters were reshaped and manufactured, in 1913, the same year that Hollywood produced its first film, Cecil B. DeMille's "The Squaw Man." In a time before DVD's and VHS/Betamax (when "R" rating meant Regular, not Restricted (hehe)), he watched 538 films during his 67 months in the Presidency (not counting his Vice Presidency under Eisenhower); he was screening about two 35mm films per week, sitting in a darkened room. But aside telling us that Nixon viewed PATTON three times during the VietNam War and Cambodian incursion (both Patton and Nixon suffered the indignities of serving under Eisenhower), or that he loved the works of John FOrd, and in his last White House years, more classic films were selected for him, the author creates a fascinating portrayal of Nixon and a cultural history of America's hopes and dreams and myths and realities, specifically through the metaphors of some of the following films: THE CONVERSATION (1974, Gene Hackman is filled with guilt and secrets, hidden away); PATTON (1970, war, leadership, and Eisenhower); MISTER ROBERTS (1955, the banality of being an administrator); DARK VICTORY (1939, Reagan plays a playboy as Bette David is dying and George Brent is trying to sure her, contrasting Nixon's ambitions to those of a playboy); and DOUBLE INDEMNITY (1944, growing up in Southern California)