Rating: 
Summary: Quick and dirty
Review: This is a witty review of the so-called secret history of the men who have been President of the United States from Washington to the present holder of that office. Each president is covered and disrespected equally. However, as the author approaches the present, rather than maintaining a high level of vocabulary he resorts in a few places to scatological language that has no place in this kind of book.The author also exposes his biases in discussing various leaders. For example, FDR is portrayed as having solved the problems of the Great Depression, except that later the coming of war is said to have put America to work. Which was it? This is no small problem because books have been written on both sides of this issue. In short, this is not a scholarly book. This book is a quick read. I did it in a few hours. Unfortunately, the word secret in the title might tell some people that they will learn something really hidden about the presidents. Most of these stories are not new and have been discussed before. This is a quick and dirty book that was put together in a hurry from other surveys of the lives of the presidents. The partisanship really breaks forth in discussing the present holder of the office of President. For example, he is called a political lightweight whose opponent in the 2000 election, Al Gore, was "light years ahead of him intellectually". Light years? Really? Are we talking about the same Al Gore who could not identify a bust of Washington or Franklin on a visit to Monticello? This is just one in a long list of events that, despite Al Gore's aura of intelligence, raise serious questions about how smart he really really is. Even President Clinton has been quoted wondering how someone who had been in politics as long as Gore could be so dim about some things. It would have been fairer to say that in the year 2000 the voters were given a choice between two Ivy League-educated dummies which was why the election was so close.
Rating:
Summary: Quick and dirty
Review: This is a witty review of the so-called secret history of the men who have been President of the United States from Washington to the present holder of that office. Each president is covered and disrespected equally. However, as the author approaches the present, rather than maintaining a high level of vocabulary he resorts in a few places to scatological language that has no place in this kind of book. The author also exposes his biases in discussing various leaders. For example, FDR is portrayed as having solved the problems of the Great Depression, except that later the coming of war is said to have put America to work. Which was it? This is no small problem because books have been written on both sides of this issue. In short, this is not a scholarly book. This book is a quick read. I did it in a few hours. Unfortunately, the word secret in the title might tell some people that they will learn something really hidden about the presidents. Most of these stories are not new and have been discussed before. This is a quick and dirty book that was put together in a hurry from other surveys of the lives of the presidents. The partisanship really breaks forth in discussing the present holder of the office of President. For example, he is called a political lightweight whose opponent in the 2000 election, Al Gore, was "light years ahead of him intellectually". Light years? Really? Are we talking about the same Al Gore who could not identify a bust of Washington or Franklin on a visit to Monticello? This is just one in a long list of events that, despite Al Gore's aura of intelligence, raise serious questions about how smart he really really is. Even President Clinton has been quoted wondering how someone who had been in politics as long as Gore could be so dim about some things. It would have been fairer to say that in the year 2000 the voters were given a choice between two Ivy League-educated dummies which was why the election was so close.
Rating: 
Summary: Not well researched and partisan
Review: This may be the worst book I've ever finished. I was expecting a book that would offer small tidbits of funny information, some shots, and some glorious facts about the great men who have led our country over the various centuries. Instead, we are treated to a salacious compendium of president's peeing on secret service men and other president's blaming secret service men for farting. If you are looking for "The Man Show" version of the presidents, then by all means fork over your hard earned dollars. We are informed that every Republican from IKE to Bush were bumbling idiots, and every Democrat from FDR to Clinton were mere victims of circumstance. If you are looking for a Michael Moore or Al Franken version of the historical lives of some of the greatest men who ever lived, then by all means add to cart. Thanks to this author's portrayal of U.S. Presidents, I will forever read an author's portrayal of the two most divisive presidents of our time, Nixon and Clinton, before I make such a purchase again. Nixon and Clinton were both failures in their own right. Nixon and Clinton were both men blessed with an overwhelming amount of potential, but they both flushed it away with their individual incidents. O'Brien ends each portrayal with an accurate summary of the unfortunate end of each of the individual tenure, but it is within the body of these portrayals that O'Brien lends his creative writing skills to the eventual manipulation of the reader. Examples to the point, Newt Gingrich is snide and rapacious, and Kenneth Starr is a ruthless Republican bloodhound. Do we really need these adjectives? We read no such adjectives to describe the behaivor of the Democrats in power during Nixon's term. We see no adjectives or adverbs to describe the activities of a Woodward and Bernstein. I would consider it silly for a compendium of this sort to glorify the presidency of Nixon, for his tenure was not one to emulate. Nixon and Clinton had their otherwise promising presidencies brought down by silly incidents that would've been seen as such were it not for the cover-ups that followed. O'Brien goes onto to proclaim Bob Jones university as preposterously Conservative, he declares The Great Society as a legislative success. It maybe true that The Great Society was a success in accumulating enough votes for passage, but can the Great Society be considered a success in an historical perspective? He portrays the anti-American Carter as the greatest living former president in recent memory. He mentions Carter's farcical Nobel Peace prize as testament to this fact. What is this? Everyone knows that that prize was a joke provided by the Nobel people looking to make an anti-American statement. It should be noted that the great peace activist Yasser Arafat also won this award. O'Brien fails to mention the Johnson administration's propaganda involving the Gulf of Tonkin incident that Johnson used to convince American's that America's role needed to be escalated in Vietnam. It was an incident historians are now claiming never happened, but this isn't used to define Johnson's administration? He maintains that every Republican since Ford gained office with shenanigans and slick marketing. He ends the book with the Moore/Franken style rants against the George W. Bush election, which many nonpartisan publications--including the Democrat Miami Herald and the USA Today--are saying they could've recounted until the end of time and Bush would've won. He comments on Bush's slick maneuvering to enter into the war with Iraq. I will grant you that this book was written before news of the the oil for food UN scandals broke. These scandals involved France, Germany and Russia, and this scandal may have affected the manner in which pre-war activities were conducted. All in all, shouldn't a book of this variety be written to open debate rather than close it with propaganda material? I found some of the portrayals of presidents one rarely hears mentioned, such as Zachary Taylor and Franklin Pierce, but I found myself reevaluating all of these portrayals after reading about those with which I am much more familiar. I am currently an unsuccessful author, but I have written enough, and studied the craft enough, to know a writer's manipulation when I see it. It's a shame too, for this could've been such an interesting idea. As I have mentioned, Cormac O'Brien has taught me a valuable lesson when buying historical perspectives: try and learn the author's agenda before buying his book. I have read a couple of books of this sort that will lambaste and glorify an LBJ or a Clinton as often as they lambaste and glorify a Nixon or a Reagan. While I will agree that it is difficult for an individual to separate himself from his perspective, it should always be the responsibility of said author to keep this to a matter of degrees. It is my hope that the anxious readers who share my love for information, regardless of their individual biases, will search elsewhere.
Rating:
Summary: Not well researched and partisan
Review: This may be the worst book I've ever finished. I was expecting a book that would offer small tidbits of funny information, some shots, and some glorious facts about the great men who have led our country over the various centuries. Instead, we are treated to a salacious compendium of president's peeing on secret service men and other president's blaming secret service men for farting. If you are looking for "The Man Show" version of the presidents, then this is your book. We are informed that every Republican from IKE to Bush were bumbling idiots, and every Democrat from FDR to Clinton were mere victims of circumstance. If you are looking for a Michael Moore or Al Franken version of the historical lives of some of the greatest men who ever lived, then by all means add to cart. Thanks to this book, I will forever read an author's portrayal of the two most divisive presidents of our time, Nixon and Clinton, before I buy a book of this sort. Nixon and Clinton were both idiots. Nixon and Clinton were both men blessed with an overwhelming amount of potential, but they both flushed it away with their individual incidents. O'Brien ends each portrayal with an accurate summary of the unfortunate end of each of the individual tenure, but it is the body of these portrayals that O'Brien lends his writing skills to the eventual manipulation of the reader. Newt Gingrich is snide and rapacious, and Kenneth Starr is a ruthless Republican bloodhound. Do we really need these adjectives? We hear nothing of the Democrats in power during Nixon's term. We see no adjectives or adverbs to describe Woodward and Bernstein. I would consider it silly for a compendium of this sort to glorify the presidency of Nixon, for his tenure was not one to emulate. Nixon and Clinton had their otherwise promising presidencies brought down by silly incidents that would've been seen as such were it not for the cover-ups that followed. O'Brien goes onto to proclaim Bob Jones university as preposterously Conservative, he declares The Great Society as a legislative success maybe in accumulating enough votes, but in an historical perspective? He portrays the anti-American Carter as the greatest living former president in recent memory. He mentions Carter's farcical Nobel Peace prize as a testament to this fact. What is this? Everyone knows that that prize was a joke provided by the Nobel people looking to make an anti-American statement. O'Brien fails to mention the Johnson administration's propaganda involving the Gulf of Tonkin incident that Johnson used to escalate America's role in the Vietnam War. It was an incident historians are now claiming never happened, but this isn't used to define Johnson's administration? He maintains that every Republican since Ford gained office with shenanigans and slick marketing. He ends the book with the Moore/Franken style rants against the George W. Bush election, which many nonpartisan publications are saying they could've recounted until the end of time and Bush would've won. He comments on Bush's slick maneuvering to enter into the war with Iraq. I will grant you that this book was written before the oil for food UN scandals broke that involved France, Germany and Russia, and as of this writing we're just starting to hear about Iraq's Al Qaeda connection, but shouldn't a book of this sort be written to open debate rather than close it with propaganda material? I found some of the portrayals of presidents one rarely hears mentioned, such as Zach Taylor and Franklin Pierce, but I found myself reevaluating all of these portrayals after reading about those with which I was much more familiar. I am currently an unsuccessful author, but I have written enough and studied the craft enough to know an author's manipulation when I see it. It's a shame too, for this could've is such an interesting idea. As I have mentioned, Cormac O'Brien has taught me a valuable lesson when buying historical perspectives: try and learn the author's agenda before buying his book. I have read a couple of books of this sort that will lambaste and glorify an LBJ or a Clinton as often as they lambaste and glorify a Nixon or a Reagan. While I will agree that it is difficult for an individual to separate himself from his perspective, it should always be the responsibility of said author to keep this to a matter of degrees. It is my hope that the anxious readers who share my love for information will search elsewhere for their material, because it is out there you just have to find it.
Rating: 
Summary: Captivating, Fun Facts
Review: Who knew presidential history could be so entertaining? I actually laughed out loud while reading this book. What a great way to learn about the real people behind America's most powerful office. I would recommend this book to anyone interested in U.S. history, political scandal, or just plain fun!
|
