There is a new book on them every year. This work includes Theodore sr., Bamie, the Eliots, Quentin, Kermit, Anna & all the rest. This is not American history. It is family history: one family two clans, Hyde Park & Oyster Bay. Their orgins from the 17th century are discussed briefly including the split. Then it proceeds with Teddy's childhood. He was sickly, almost dying several times, except for his father Theodore sr. He was a great man & loving father. He undoubtedly made Teddy the man he was to become. He was worthy of the veneration TR carried for him all his life. Theodore sr. died early. So did Eliot "the golden boy" TR's brother & Eleanor's father. The impact that Eliot had on his daughter was huge & mostly negative.
Being a son of TR was tough. He & wife Edith were good, attentive, loving parents. They had four sons, all filled with a passion to measure up to TR. It wasn't enough to enlist in World War I but to see action & if possible get wounded. Talk about pressure! TR probably didn't see things in such a harsh light but the sons felt this was the way to please their father. It killed the youngest son, Quentin. Of course they never rose to TR's heights. But a cousin did: Franklin Delano. His life started out differently with an older father he didn't know & a domineering mother. He studiously followed TR's path: state legislator, under Secretary of the Navy & govenor of New York. As good parents that TR & Edith were FDR & Eleanor were terrible & neglectful. The way their children turned out was somewaht predictable, racking up 15 divorces amongst them. The Roosevelts rank up there with the Adams, Kennedys & Bushes(?) as great American political families. This was from the the audio version & throughly enjoyable.

As a U.S. History teacher I often get this question when my classes reach the early twentieth century: "How are Theodore Roosevelt and Franklin D. Roosevelt related - were they brothers, or father-and-son"? When I point out that they were distant cousins, the students are amazed, and I suspect that many Americans with only a minimum knowledge of history would be, too. As this excellent book by Peter Collier and David Horowitz points out, there were two distinct branches of the Roosevelt family. One branch became Republicans and settled into the wealthy neighborhoods of Manhattan and Oyster Bay, on Long Island; while the other branch became Democrats and lived on a huge, English-style estate along the Hudson River in upstate New York. Although the two branches of this Dutch-descended family got along fairly well in the nineteenth century, in the early twentieth century a venomous feud erupted between the children of Theodore Roosevelt and their distant yet ambitious cousin, Franklin, and his revenge-minded wife, Eleanor. The first part of this book focuses on the rise of Theodore Roosevelt to fame and power in politics. In many ways "TR" represented the best of the American past - he was young (at 42 the youngest ever to become President), dynamic, and progressive. His large brood of children were no less energetic and flamboyant (in particular his eldest child Alice, who shocked polite society by smoking in public and making "unladylike" comments - Theodore himself said that he could "be President or control Alice, I cannot possibly do both"). As their beloved father grew older and his political star began to wane after 1909, his children assumed that the mantle of family and national leadership would be passed on to his oldest sons, especially Theodore, Jr. But they soon discovered a "nemesis" - Franklin D. Roosevelt of the Democratic Hudson River Roosevelts, became an assistant to President Woodrow Wilson and began manuevering to oust Theodore's children from the throne. He was assisted by his wife Eleanor, who was the daughter of Theodore's tragic brother Elliot. Unable to keep up with his wildly successful older brother, Elliot simply gave up and fell into a life of drinking, gambling, and womanizing and died at an early age. Young Eleanor always blamed the Oyster Bay Republican Roosevelts for "destroying" her adored father, and she vowed revenge. In the 1920's she derailed Theodore, Jr's attempts to become Governor of New York by smearing him with a political scandal, thus ending his political career and earning Eleanor the embittered ridicule of Alice, who thereafter often enjoyed making fun of Eleanor's buck teeth and nasal accent for her dinner guests. (She also took numerous verbal swipes at her cousin - after hearing that Franklin was having an extramarital affair, Alice snorted "He deserves to - he's married to Eleanor"). The second half of the book describes the rise to power and Presidency of Franklin D. Roosevelt, the career of his wife Eleanor, and the many problems and failures of their children - largely brought on, Collier and Horowitz argue, by the neglect of their famous parents. This family feud doesn't really end until decades after Franklin D. Roosevelt dies in 1945, and both branches of the family have left politics for the quieter pursuits of business. My only disappointment with this book is that it skims over many of the great accomplishments of both Roosevelt Presidents - this book is NOT a comprehensive history of their Presidencies! However, it is an extremely well-written and engrossing account of the rise and fall of two branches of one of America's greatest families.

"The Roosevelts" is the fascinating, 75 year long tale of two branches of an American dynasty during its of era prominence.

The main characters are Theodore Roosevelt, patriarch of the Oyster Bay Branch, Franklin Delano Roosevelt, patriarch of the Hyde Park branch, and Eleanor Roosevelt, who bridged the two branches.

Theodore was the founder of the dynasty who set the pattern for the others to follow. Assistant Secretary of the Navy, hero of San Juan Hill, Governor of New York, Vice President and President, TR blazed the trail which others attempted to follow.

This book follows TR through his career, focusing on the themes which made him the Lion that he was. TR's love of family, love of country, martial ardor and thirst for the limelight are all well explained. The post-presidential years of frustration with Taft and Wilson are shown as hard times for TR. TR's call for entry into World War I made him the leading opposition figure to Wilson's peace policy. U.S. entry merely brought more frustration as TR was refused an Army Commission while his four sons all saw combat. TR was proud of his sons, bled with them when they were wounded and grieved when Quentin was killed.

The story is more than just the stories of the main characters. It is, in essence, the story of a family, the relationships of parents and children, brothers and sisters, cousins and in-laws. The role that family life played in the lives of each individual is skillfully woven throughout the book.

With his passing, TR left an idol to emulate and a trail to follow. All of his sons, in war and peace, tried to carry on TR's ideals through public service.

The two family members who most clearly tried to follow the trail blazed by TR were Theodore Roosevelt, Jr., and his distant cousin, Franklin D. Roosevelt. Like TR, both would serve in the New York legislature, serve as Assistant Secretary of the Navy and run for Governor of New York. Both attempted to run for vice-president and both as aspired to the presidency. It was the rivalry of these two which split the branches of the family into a bitter feud.

Theodore, Jr., Ted, was the first to try to journey down the trail. Nominated for Governor of New York in 1924, he was beaten by Al Smith, due, at least in part, to his unjustified guilt by association in the Teapot Dome scandal. The prevailing wisdom of the day was that there was room for only one Roosevelt in New York politics at a time. A tantalizing "what if" of history is that had Ted not been tarred with Teapot Dome, he could have been elected governor. This probably would have made him the front-runner for the 1928 presidential nomination, leaving FDR frozen out of politics. As fate had it, Ted's gubernatorial service would occur in Puerto Rico and the Philippines whereas FDR would be elected Governor of New York in 1928. Despite vice-presidential speculation in 1924 and 1928, Ted's career as a public official ended with FDR's election as president in 1932.

Although Ted's political career was ended, he continued to play a role as an opposition leader who contested FDR's claim to TR's spiritual legacy and who consistently reminded the public that FDR was not TR's son.

FDR also idolized and emulated TR. After a vice-presidential run in 1920, his political career seemed to have been ended by his contraction of polio. Initially depressed by his illness, FDR, "Feather Duster" to his Oyster Bay cousins, overcame his handicap and was able to return to the arena after a long convalescence. The recuperative days at Warm Springs are given ample attention by the authors. The reader follows FDR's long road back to public life.

Although the fathers of TR and FDR had been friends, the strongest link between the branches was forged when TR, standing in for his deceased brother, Elliott, gave his niece, Eleanor, in marriage to Franklin D. Roosevelt.

Eleanor and Franklin are portrayed as a misfit match. Unable to find satisfaction in Eleanor, Franklin sought it in other women. Eleanor, for her part, found companionship in a series of confidants, both male and female. Their union became more of a business partnership than a true marriage. Eleanor gave Franklin the appearance of a stable marriage, while he provided her with an avenue into public and political life rare, or even unique, among women of her day.

The effect on their children of the Eleanor and Franklin's partnership is portrayed as disastrous. Unable to maintain a normal relationship among themselves, Eleanor and Franklin could not build a nurturting family environment. As a result, their children drifted from one relationship to another, in and out of shady business deals and had, what was for them, small success in politics.

One test of a book is whether it presents facts which leads the reader to a conclusion. "The Roosevelts" passes this test. Although many other Roosevelts play roles in this story, we are basically introduced to two families. Theodore Roosevelt headed a family bound by love and devotion to duty. Although the hand of history weighed heavily on later generations, TR's family is portrayed, for the most part, as remaining loyal to duty, honor and each other. Eleanor and Franklin, by contrast, begot a set of related individuals, for whom their heritage was not a call to service, but merely an asset to be sold. Before reading "The Roosevelts" I had a much greater respect for Theodore than for Franklin. This book has widened the gap immeasurably. Read and see if you come to the same conclusion.

To be honest, I'm not sure exactly why the title for this book was chosen. A more appropriate title would have been "A Collection of Essays by David Horowitz." There are some essays that allude to Clinton's sex, lies, and conspiracies but this seems incidental rather than planned. Nevertheless, the essays are quite enlightening and enjoyable. As an ex-lefty myself, I'm able to appreciate what Horowitz has to say. I'm not quite sure whom this book would suit. I suppose conservatives could use it to gain insight into the mind of a liberal as described by a former lefty. And I suppose there is also hope that a liberal will read it and realize what an intellectually bankrupt and politically dangerous ideology they hold. But I'm under no illusion that many liberals will be open-minded enough to admit to being wrong as Horowitz has so bravely done.

In this collection of columns and essays, 60s radical turned neocon David Horowitz turns his attention to Bill, Hillary, Monica, David Brock, Latrell Sprewell, Sydney Blumenthal, Matt Drudge, AIDS, racial politics, muliticulturalism, feminism, and the rest of the characters and issues that have made headlines over the last several years. Horowitz combines a hard-hitting fiestiness with an ability to see the big picture--always mindful of the long-term implications of day-to-day political ideas and events. This book is lighter and breezier than his recent (superlative) autobiography "Radical Son" and the insightful new "Politics of Bad Faith"--here he seems simply to be enjoying the political fray. The last section, "Conservatism with a Heart," explains how the "compassionate conservatism" so much in vogue today can be not just a slogan but also a political that works, and wins. To sum up: "Radical Son" and "Bad Faith" are better main courses, but "Sex, Lies and Vast Conspiracies" is a tasty appetizer.

... As a Clinical Massage Therapist I am always looking foraccurate information to pass on to my patients (at the Hospital) andclients (in my private practice). I have found all of the AmercanCollege books to be accurate and timely enough to have confidence whengiving them out that I am providing a good resource. If I did not, Icertainly would not recommend them here!

Why not 5 stars? For thesimple reason that the authors STILL are not taking into considerationthe massive amount of Medically proven information availableconcerning Massage Therapy when making recommendations for treatment.It may just be the fact that "when you live your life as ahammer, every problem looks like a nail", but with over 300medical journal articles written since Sep, 1997 touting thebeneficial effects of Massage Therapy for everything from chronic painto migraines to breast pain and the prevention of cancers, it seemsthat there would be SOME kind of mention of it in a book produced byThe American College of Physicians.

Aside from this one complaint, Ihave found this to be an EXCELLENT book and would recommend it foranyone with chronic headaches!

The conflicts between liberals and conservatives, or between Democrats and Republicans, are not the real political battles in America in the 20th Century. The thesis of "Beyond Left and Right" is that the real political battle has been between the Populists from within the Democratic and Republican and many of the Third parties, on the one hand, and the Statists from within the Democratic and Republican parties, on the other hand.

The underlying motivations behind the political issues that are concerns today, and how they are portrayed by politicians, activists and the media, are better understood by seeing them in the context of our history as told by this book. We learn that the current concerns with the transference of missile technology to China, or with sex and violence on TV, or with political support of GATT and NAFTA, or with factions within the major parties, are not new and not inexplicable. These issues are part of a pattern of events that have a purpose that serves segments of the populace that have their own political and commercial objectives.

David A Horowitz describes countless political issues that pitted politicians from factions of one of the two major parties, or from third parties, against the establishment of either or both of the two major parties. The scope of the book is 1880 to 1992, but the focus is on the period from 1914 to 1963. Horowitz reinterprets major events such as The New Deal, WWII, McCarthyism and the Civil Right Movement. The list of politicians who either supported or pandered to populist views includes: Teddy Roosevelt, Joe McCarthy, George Wallace, John Anderson, Richard Nixon, Ronald Reagan, and Ross Perot.

The thesis of the book requires no conspiracy theory to support it, only a cohesive portrayal of the events of this century. Seen in isolation, or observed without an understanding of the Populist point of view, many of positions taken by the two major parties towards the events either defy explanation or appear random. Seen in context, these positions fit a pattern of benefiting those who favor a large and powerful central government, large and monopolistic business enterprises, and central planning ... and major factions within both the Democratic and Republican parties are working towards these ends. Standing opposed are the Populists who favor limited national government, small business, and local control ... and likewise, major factions within both the Democratic and Republican parties are working towards these ends, as are many of the Third parties.

Clearly, factions within the two major parties are inevitable. These are factions among the many issue groups that have an array of views on every issue. What's more, from a reading of "Beyond Left and Right", it is clear that there are more than two major political points of view, and that there is a need for more than two major parties. It is overly simplistic to try to sort every view into either liberal or conservative, or Democratic or Republican. There are at least three major constituencies. Big labor, the working poor, and the underclass all rely on Big Government for laws and programs in order to get a bigger piece of the pie: Democrats. Big business, banking and finance, and the professions all rely on Big Government for laws and programs to secure their positions, incomes and wealth: Republicans. Small business, family farms, insular ethnics, religious evangelicals, and the independent-minded middle class all desire Small Government, to restrict monopolies, price fixing, union shops, and income redistribution, and to protect individual liberty: Populists. Populists have always worked within the two major parties in order to advance their agendas, and have often succeeded in electing a populist to the House or Senate, and from time to time to the Presidency, from either one party or the other.

While this book is one of the most important books in terms of understanding the dissident viewpoint regarding HIV and AIDS,I do wish it had been written better. The narrative point of view is annoying, distracting and unnecessary. Horowitz also appears to get distracted by the discovery of Hillary Rodham Clinton and Janet Reno's effort to revamp the entire human services industry in Florida (prior to the Clinton presidency) without really pulling it all together in terms of how this affects the corruption of the AIDS industry. I'm sure there is an overlap, but I wish he had spelled it out more effectively. At the end, he gets into this annoying political diatribe about Clintonian politics and liberal values and a "back to basics" family values solution that made me wonder if he was born before Clinton was president. Or is he simply too privileged to realize that human services was just as horrendous to parents prior to Clinton? Or perhaps that was before it was fathers that were targeted, when it was okay to target single mothers? All these things are beside the point, and totally get away from the most important things that are said mostly in the first third of the book. For that alone, this book is a crucial aspect of dissident reading. It is just unfortunate that his obvious conservative bias takes away from the truth that all Americans, conservative and liberal, need to know if we are going to survive this outrageous holocaust.

Horowitz and Collier sure know how to bash their old friends from the Sixties. But after reading their account of the Old and New Left, one can hardly blame them. It would seem that most of the Left failed to learn anything from the Vietnam War and gleaned even less from the collapse of socialism. H&C describe how the Left of the Sixties was really about radical change, namely abolishing the American "System" (i.e. capitalism) and replacing it with a socialist utopia. C&H demonstrate that the Left may have changed it's name when it realized that Stalin's socialist utopia murdered millions and when America lost the war in Vietnam, but it's still driven by anti-Americanism and pro-Socialism. And little has changed even after the fall of the Berlin Wall and the collapse of the Soviet Union. C&H would appear to be onto something when they suggest that the Left never re-evaluates their positions and is therefore doomed to repeat history. Over the years, the Left has remained focused on the illusion of a peaceful utopia even while the Right has discredited it in theory and history has now discredited it in practice. Perhaps it is arrogance or a refusal to admit a mistake. Or perhaps it is really true that the Left is so enamored with socialism that it is unable to examine it objectively. A pretty hard-hitting book that is sure to piss off those that failed to re-evaluate their Leftism after the "glory days" of the Sixties.

It's been a long time since I read this book, but I remember finding it an impressive, lucid piece of leftist writing. It's a shame that David has turned into such a right-wing ideologue in recent years, because there was a time when he had some good things to say.

David Horowitz has done an excellent job of detailing the ministry of Pastor Charles Taze Russell ... too often documented as "the founder of the Jehovah's Witnesses", this book shows that Russell is in no way their founder. The work Pastor Russell has done towards the Jewish people, is unfounded today. And the Jehovah's Witnesses who claim him as their founder have turned their backs not only on him, but on God's chosen people, the Jews. This book is recommended to all interested in learning about Charles Taze Russell, and his ministry towards the Jewish people, and how today the association he founded, [Associated Bible Students - biblestudents] continue his work in comforting God's covenanted people.

I ordered a copy of this paperback version and mailed the coupon, but the coupon was returned to me as undeliverable! In order to get the interview CD, you have to get a HARDCOVER copy, where you can find the CD attached inside the front cover.

This book reads a lot like watching a soap opera, or a Lifetime movie. In fact that might be a good way to characterize it: the made for TV movie of Kennedy books. That does not mean, however, that it is not enjoyable. It is an easy and entertaining read, and a great introduction to this famous, or infamous family. The best that it has to offer is the parts about the third generation, which cooperated with the authors and granted them interviews. However, in the rush to seek an explanation for why the young ones turned out bad, the authors blame everything on Senator Ted Kennedy, which is not quite fair to a loving father and uncle, and a legislative giant, who is passed off in this book as a moron who rides his family's coattails. This book is a good read, but not a one-stop place for information.

This book is by far one of the most telling stories about the Kennedy dynasty I have ever read. Having read Thomas Reeves profile of Jack Kennedy in "A Question of Character" I found that "The Kennedy's" gives much more information on the inner workings of the Kennedy family. I especially enjoy the stories of old Joe Kennedy, how he made his fortunes, and his political power. The book is very well done, and I recommend everyone interested in politics, real politics, to read.

An excellent account of the Kennedys from the beginnings up to 1984, when the book was written. This book gives you a blow-by-blow history of the family and the kids. I found it most interesting learning about the little known real story of Camelot. There has been so much written about the Kennedys but the authors did some serious research and told some never before written stories, such as the JFK's back problems and Rosemary's retardation, also stories about the Kennedy kids and their drug problems. Quite informative and thorough, this book is excellent history.