I would like to draw the reader's -- or potential reader's -- attention to the fact that Publisher's Weekly uses the word "hagiography" to describe ANY and EVERY book by a conservative about Reagan that treats him kindly at all. Look at other PW reviews on Amazon.com of books on Reagan by conservatives: those by Dinesh D'Souza, Peter Robinson, Peter Schweizer, and Kengor's previous Reagan effort ALL get labeled with "Scarlet H" of hagiography. Its quite possible parts of some of these works are hagiographic -- but one would think a high-end outfit like Publisher's Weekly would have a thesaurus, no? And something tells me that wouldn't use that word to describe, say, Arthur Schlesinger's works on the Kennedy's. Given their position in the publishing world, its a shame Publisher's Weekly can't use a little restraint and balance when assessing works about and by those they disagree with.
ya know, if you go through and replace all of the "Publisher's Weekly" with "Fox News" and then flip the Kennedy-Schlesinger comment around to a Kengor-Reagan POV you can then rewrite the last sentence thusly:
"Given their position in the broadcasting world it's a shame that Fox News can't use a little restraint and balance when assessing works about and by those they disagree with"
Also works with Rush Limbaugh replacing publishers weekly.
Amazing, the left owns all of the mainstream media less Fox news but they are denounced for being unbalanced. Fox is the only counter-weight in the mainstream medias huge left leaning diatribe. As for your slap at Rush, you've obviusly never listen to him and you've bought into the liberal clap-trap about him. In other words the MSM's editorials passed off as reporting. Rush is truely one of the greatest political minds of recent times. Basically, modern liberal ideas cannot stand up to public debate so they fall back to the old strategy of name calling, personal attacks and ignoring anything that conflicts with their veiws of the world and censoring (The Fairness Doctrine for the public radio air waves.). Liberalism, as it is practiced today in combination with multiculturalism, political correctness and an inability to understand there are evil people in the world will cause the evntual destruction of this nation.
Publishers Weekly should have simply said that this book tells an important part of the story and not used the work "hagiography." I loved this book and consider it one of the best-researched and insightful history books I have ever read. With that said, I admit that it is somewhat a hagiography. The book is not intended to look at all the facts of the entire Reagan presidency and let them tell the whole history. The intent of the book is to argue the case that Reagan implemented several brilliant policies to oppose communism, and the book explains why Reagan the person was the way he was in his beliefs and subsequent actions. Other histories of the Cold War perhaps did not have access to the information in this book, such as the previously classified national security directives -- especially as this related to Eastern Europe and USSR's credit. This book also under-emphasized how Gorbachev and Reagan became good friends and it was Reagan's diplomacy and persuasion skills that were most important. Read Reagan's own autobiography to get more of the story. Read "The Cold War a New History" by Gaddis. Read Brown's "the Rise and Fall of Communism" to get other facts of the story. In some way, "the Crusader" fills in the facts that are missing in "the Rise and Fall of Communism."