24-12-2014, 07:50 AM
(This post was last modified: 24-12-2014, 05:57 PM by Jim DiEugenio.)
That is a very interesting and relevant question.
I already have a publisher who saw it online and wants me to write a book about it.
My opinion is that the two books, by Rakove and Muehlenbeck are so well documented that people new to the field will take them and run with them.
The problem is that the Kennedy presidency field has become so politicized that people like Dallek and Reeves will do what they can to blunt the power of these new discoveries. Plus, Sorenson and Schlesinger are dead. This new work by these men, essentially proves out the portrait that Schlesinger and Sorenson drew. Except now its much more detailed and referenced.
But to show you how dishonest Dallek is, in his two books on JFK, which come to over 1,100 pages of mostly pulp, he could not find the space or time to mention Gullion's name! That is about as bad as it gets in a biography. And Reeves, I think, is even worse. But that shows you how censored their work was. THerefore, the NY TImes likes them.
But really, I talked to Rakove and he enjoyed doing his book so much, he said he might do a sequel. The guy has a great pedigree: Stanford Lecturer and Ph. D. But let me add, isn't it interesting that everyone inside the community missed all this important material for so long? And it took people from outside the research field to discover it?
But the reason I have been at this now for so many months is that I do not want it to disappear. To me its just too important. In fact, I think its crucial.
I already have a publisher who saw it online and wants me to write a book about it.
My opinion is that the two books, by Rakove and Muehlenbeck are so well documented that people new to the field will take them and run with them.
The problem is that the Kennedy presidency field has become so politicized that people like Dallek and Reeves will do what they can to blunt the power of these new discoveries. Plus, Sorenson and Schlesinger are dead. This new work by these men, essentially proves out the portrait that Schlesinger and Sorenson drew. Except now its much more detailed and referenced.
But to show you how dishonest Dallek is, in his two books on JFK, which come to over 1,100 pages of mostly pulp, he could not find the space or time to mention Gullion's name! That is about as bad as it gets in a biography. And Reeves, I think, is even worse. But that shows you how censored their work was. THerefore, the NY TImes likes them.
But really, I talked to Rakove and he enjoyed doing his book so much, he said he might do a sequel. The guy has a great pedigree: Stanford Lecturer and Ph. D. But let me add, isn't it interesting that everyone inside the community missed all this important material for so long? And it took people from outside the research field to discover it?
But the reason I have been at this now for so many months is that I do not want it to disappear. To me its just too important. In fact, I think its crucial.