Customer Reviews

1960--LBJ vs. JFK vs. Nixon: The Epic Campaign That Forged Three Presidencies

5 star:		(16)
4 star:		(9)
3 star:		(1)
2 star:		(2)
1 star:		(0)

 

 

Following up on his superb "1920: The Year of the Six Presidents", author David Pietrusza produces another political page-turner, this time dealing with the characters and machinations of a presidential race which marked the beginning of the modern era of campaigning.

Another reviewer complains there is nothing new here (I suppose if you've read 200 books on the Kennedy assassination you might very well feel overly familiar with the material!). Even if true (it's not), the story has never been better or more completely told.

Pietrusza comes into this with no particular hero and no pony in the race, a fact which makes his analyses far more objective than most any review of the topic. He shows his characters warts and all, while at the same time not descending to the level of a hit piece on any of them. They are what they are: Johnson, Kennedy, Nixon, Humphrey, Stevenson, Eleanor Roosevelt and scores of extras.

While interesting and engaging throughout, where Pietrusza really shines is in his analysis of the strategy and tactics of the four debates that nudged the election to Kennedy and changed modern politics forever.

The release of this book is perfect timing, especially for those who think the art of campaigning was invented yesterday. Pietrusza adds to his ever-more-outstanding body of work and has placed himself in the first tier of writers of popular history. Well done.

Pietrusza's "1960" is an engaging and entertaining examination of the big personalities, politics and events of the 1960 presidential election. Like his other volume, "1920: The Year of the Six Presidents," his latest work is extremely well written, bringing to life the people and conflicts of history. His treatment of JFK, LBJ and Richard Nixon -- as well as others such as Nelson Rockefeller, Joe Kennedy, Bobby Kennedy and Barry Goldwater -- are superb and insightful. A must-read for anyone interested in presidential politics. I have used "1920" in my History of Presidential Elections course at the Graduate School of Political Management at George Washington University, much to the delight and enlightenment of my students, and I intend to use "1960" as well.

I have enjoyed David Pietrusza's books on Arnold Rothstein, Judge Kenesaw Mountain Landis, and the one on the election of 1920. His latest effort on the 1960 election was particularly significant for me since I was a senior in high school at the time. Author Pietrusza brings the principal characters back to life warts and all. I found it to be especially helpful to have them all introduced at the beginning of the book. This is a story involving more than Kennedy, Nixon, and Johnson. Joe Kennedy, Harry Truman, Robert Kennedy, Henry Cabot Lodge, Sam Giancana, Judith Campbell Exner, Frank Sinatra, and several others add to the complexity of the story. This was the first year of televised debates, and it was interesting to see how they were viewed by the candidates and to be able to compare them to the Obama and McCain debates of today. Whether you lived through the 1960 election or not this is a story of American history brought to life, and we should be thankful for the author's efforts to educate the reader.

As I was born in 1951, the election of 1960 is only a faint memory. What I remember most of all is the virulent anti-Catholicism concerns of many of my Catholic friends, along with the pride these same Catholics felt about a Catholic president. It reminds me a lot of racist bigotry and racal pride in the 2008 election. My how the times have changed!

Kennedy effectively bought this election on cash and charm, certainly not experience. Nixon lost the election as much on bad make up and strategy. There does not seem to be a huge difference in substance, but personalities could hardly be more different. Throw in LBJ and you have a real carnival of personalities.

This is a well-written and readable book, one that draws the reader into an important story about American politics and the arrival of the "media" president.

This is a great account of one of the more interesting presidential races in US history. This book is really a mix of history and a bit of soap opera. Lots of juicy background information and it really does make you think differently of all three of these presidents. The author simply does not play favorites and quite frankly, doesn't really seemed impressed with any of them. Based on that, this book really does scratch below the surface and uncovers some of the ugly details of the personalities involved. If you are a history buff, you will enjoy this book.

On first blush, buying this book seemed like a colossal waste of money and time. After all, in the nearly 50 years since John Kennedy ran for President, we've read, watched and heard everything. What more, one could ask, could be told that the world doesn't know. Or is this book just another brick in the wall of the Kennedy mystique ... or another attempt to bash Richard Nixon?

It was with some surprise then, that the book was a balanced and comprehensive look at the 1960 election. It was fascinating on many levels, not the least of which was the question of how Candidate Nixon came within an eyelash of defeating the vaunted Kennedy machine. After nearly half a century of Kennedy PR, Camelot and Bobby the Dragon Slayer, one looks back and wonders today, who in their right mind would have ever voted for the evil Richard Nixon.

This book answers that question well and provides an unbelievable look at how, despite all their money, contacts and media, the Kennedys almost blew 1960. And how Nixon, ever the tactician, really was much smarter than anyone ever gave him credit (at least now). This from a Nixon-hater!

The book tracks well the emergence of its central characters from the 1940s through 1959. It does not fall into the trap of getting bogged down in information that, by now, we all know nor does Author Pietrusza fall into another trap of over-emphasizing "new" information that meant little but falls into the category of "gee, look what I found..."

Taken in context, what was interesting about the book was the Kennedy campaign's use of tactics that today are grossly illegal and would have landed the whole bunch of them in a federal prison. For example, Joe Kennedy's arbitraging the weekly collection plate in the Archdiocese of Boston to provide a source of undocumented cash or the well-known use of bag money to secure the West Virginia vote. Not a pretty picture, by any stretch of the imagination, but an essential part of Author Pietrusza's efforts to paint a clear understanding of what exactly happened in 1960.

Sure John Kennedy comes off well. He should -- he won. But surprisingly, the villan in the story was not LBJ or Candidate Nixon. It was, of all people, Bobby Kennedy. An early chapter, beginning on Page 61, sets this up even with its title, "When Bobby Hates You... You Stay Hated." Throughout the book, the picture of Bobby emerges of a man who was grossly partisan, often boorish and who lacked any sense of competitive compassion. The tone of the book often characterized Bobby as a man who didn't just want to win, but who also wanted to vanquish and perhaps even shoot his enemies.

The Nixon that emerged from the book was fascinating. He wasn't the robotron he became in 1968 and he actually made up most of the ground he lost in the first debate. The snippet of information of however, that the author missed, or at least misinterpreted, was Nixon's speaking before union groups just before the first debate. Author Pietrusza was right in that Nixon wasn't going to get union endorsements, but the author probably missed the fact that hundreds, if not thousands, of those rank and file union memebers to whom Nixon spoke were possible Nixon Democrats. Twenty years later we saw what those same Democrats meant to Ronald Reagan. This is a small weakness in an overall well-written book and it falls into the category of not thinking through why somebody did a certain something.

The picture of Lyndon Johnson that emerged from the book was predictable and broke no new ground. Johnson was portrayed as deceptive and, to a large degree, a victim of Bobby's hatred. All of which was documented many times over. Johnson was portrayed as a brooder and as someone the Kennedy's thought should be neither seen nor heard, but should go away! He'd served a purpose.

The one weakness that perhaps Author Pietrusza could have spent time in his conclusions was the one "what if" that was lacking. What if President Eisenhower had made a more convincing and compelling effort for Candidate Nixon. With a few hundred thousand votes separating the candidates, all Eisenhower had to do was changed a small handful of votes per precinct (or change maybe a dozen or so in Illinois and Texas) and not even the theives could have changed the outcome.

One wishes he'd also talked about the 1960 Bobby versus the 1968 Bobby, which was a Bobby who was NOT recognized by anything in the book. Bobby was not the subject of the book per se, but he was so central to the story that some time needed to be spent on Bobby's emergence and his "new" personality in 1968.

David Pietrusza does a fine job of retelling the story of the hard-fought and extremely close 1960 U.S. Presidential Election. With the advantage of nearly 50 years' hindsight, and lacking close ties to the three main characters, Pietrusz provides a much more balanced account than did Theodore White (a Massachusetts native and Harvard classmate of JFK) in his "Making of the President 1960." The juicy tidbits that White either could not tell, or did not know, make this book interesting--such as JFK's reckless womanizing and dependence on prescription drugs, Nixon's tantrums and election day car trip, and early warnings that the election might be stolen in Chicago.

On the downside, this book could have been better edited and seems much tougher on LBJ and Nixon, than on JFK. Perhaps it is simply the nature of such books that the ultimate winner of the big electoral prize comes off pretty well, while the several losers of the contest do not. Or perhaps it has to do with the later sudden and tragic end of JFK's life and presidency, while both LBJ and Nixon were basically driven out of office--as a result of Vietnam and Watergate, respectively--and died of natural causes at significantly older ages. However, Pietrusza does avoid White's fawning treatment of Nelson Rockefeller, whose arrogant sense of entitlement is shown in the unfavorable light that rank-and-file Republicans of that era (outside New York and the Northeast) certainly must have seen it.

I have had a lifelong interest in the politics of the late 50s and 60s, and in particular the careers of the two Kennedy brothers. This book takes the pivotal year of 1960 and presents a detailed account of the presidential election that, as the book proposes, set the stage for the rest of the decade and beyond. The interplay among the three protagonists, JFK/RFK, Lyndon Johnson and Richard Nixon, is well portrayed, replete with anecdotes, some familiar, others not. There are several sketches of some of the "supporting" players of the era, e.g., Humphrey, Symington, Lodge, Haldeman/Erlichman which provide context. I would recommed this book to anyone who has an interest in presidential politics and how the electoral process works.

For the follow-up to his superb "1920," Pietrusza took something of a chance by focusing on the 1960 presidential campaign. Not that it isn't a subject worthy of remembrance -- especially as we edge toward the 50th anniversary of the epic duel between Kennedy and Nixon -- but the ground has been ploughed many times before, starting with Theodore White's groundbreaking "The Making of the President, 1960." Given the fact that the major players and events are far better known to readers than those of 1920, Pietrusza does an excellent job of tying all the threads of this tortuous race together. He is especially effective when discussing the televised debates, especially the pivotal first one, and makes the important point that Nixon may have LOOKED terrible compared to JFK, but his biggest debits may have been verbal/argumentative in nature (notwithstanding the fact that those who listened on radio did feel that Nixon had won). As in "1920," the main asset of Pietrusza's narrative is its objectivity. With JFK, Nixon, and Lyndon Johnson calling forth such strong emotions from Americans even to this day, Pietrusza's ability to avoid playing favorites is even more impressive here than it was when he dissected the likes of Harding, Wilson, and Coolidge. The additional info on The Rat Pack, Jackie Robinson, the Mob, and JFK's dalliances adds the right touch of spice to the goulash of political wheelings and dealings. A few factual mistakes mar the narrative a bit, but "1960" stands up very well indeed, considering the tough act it had to follow.

A wonderful piece of History. I remember some of it but after reading this book I got more of an insite as to the total history. I highly recomend the book to anyone who wants the true history of that time.