I was only reading this becuase 3 years ago I decided to read a biography of each pres. I don't know that this was as balanced as it was purported to be . I came in with prejudices against the former president and they remained intact. It was heavy on the psychoanalysis and I loved the comparisons to Prince Hal, but I question its objectivity. ( )

The most accessible assessment of 'what went wrong'. Big hat, no cattle. ( )

The author begins his story well before Bush 43’s presidency, going back to earlier Bush and Walker generations for traits and characteristics. Actually, the author seems to go back much earlier than that, alluding to parallels between George Bush #43 and Shakespeare’s Prince Hal from Henry IV and Henry V. In those plays, Prince Hal starts as a wild, undisciplined Prince, unsuited to kingship, and as he evolves to become a mature man, declares that his riotous time will come to a close, and he will re-assume his rightful high place in affairs by showing himself worthy of his father and others through some noble exploits, ultimately embarking on an attempted conquest of France.

In the story line development, Weisberg looks at historical family characteristics, and how Bush 43 and Bush 41 developed totally different styles. Where Bush 41 was more deliberate and thoughtful, seeking advice and counsel and making deliberate decisions, Bush 41 adopted a more go-with his-gut style, making quick decisions and never looking back. Weisberg also point out how these traits fit well with Dick Cheney’s style making him, behind the scenes, the most powerful V.P. in history.

( )

I bought this on impulse based on the subject matter and the author. There was some good material on the Bush-Walker family relationships. Also an interesting chapter on Dick Cheney. The author uses as a comparison the relationship between Henry IV and Henry V of England with Bush 43 being Henry V, quotes from Shakespeare's play are used to head up each chapter. The comparison seems overused and in my opinion weakens the book. Bush's presidency is clearly a tragedy for himself and may others. This book does provide some insight into how it got that way. ( )

This isn't straight Freudian psycho-history, but the thesis that Bush junior's life has been a constant quest to define himself as anything-but-dad does wear thin.

Weisberg corrects some common misconceptions. Bush is not an evangelical. Has never even tried to convert his children apparently. Sounds more like the relationship AA members have to a higher power. Also, Texans are used to religious references.

Weisberg, of course, is the editor of Slate and co-wrote Robt Rubin's memoir. A Democrat. But he's not a blogger/Huffington Post type. No tiresome splurge of invective and conspiracy theories. Nor is this a Woodward style pile of details with no rhyme or reason. Weisberg tries to be fair, he's studied Bush's background and that of people like Rove and Cheney. *Then* he came to his conclusions. Succinctly.

Best parts:
1) Weisberg's explication of Bush's religious faith. He's not an evangelical. Probably the relationship of AA members to a higher power is the best way to understand it. Then in the way Texans, or Texan politicians, address the citizenry.

Like Mollie Ivins, he doesn't think Bush is stupid.
And, yes, he reads. Real history books too.

2) the analysis of Cheney's motives. How could a realpolitik guy get sucked into Iraq? Or maybe like State and Powell, he was cut totally out of the loop by Wolfowitz & company? Well, maybe that's part of it but Weisberg goes back and looks at Cheney's political philosophy since his graduate student days. More the old story of restoring executive powers.

3) Bush family history, particularly the Walker side. Not so Yankee blueblood. ( )