What do you think?
Rate this book
Nixon's Darkest Secrets: The Inside Story of America's Most Troubled President
A veteran White House reporter reveals our 37th president was even more sinister and haunted than we knew.
While Richard Nixon resigned from the White House as our most disgraced president, the American people never knew the full extent of his demons, paranoia, prejudices, hatreds, and chicanery. Calling on his work in covering Nixon in the White House, as well as scores of interviews and invaluable, newly declassified documents and recordings, reporter Don Fulsom sheds new light on "Tricky Dick" by revealing his violent streaks, paranoia, mob ties, and even treasonous activity in exchange for political gain. Nixon's Darkest Secrets reveals that the Watergate scandal was only half the story, and sheds new light on our most devious president.
While Richard Nixon resigned from the White House as our most disgraced president, the American people never knew the full extent of his demons, paranoia, prejudices, hatreds, and chicanery. Calling on his work in covering Nixon in the White House, as well as scores of interviews and invaluable, newly declassified documents and recordings, reporter Don Fulsom sheds new light on "Tricky Dick" by revealing his violent streaks, paranoia, mob ties, and even treasonous activity in exchange for political gain. Nixon's Darkest Secrets reveals that the Watergate scandal was only half the story, and sheds new light on our most devious president.
320 pages, Paperback
First published January 31, 2012
18 people are currently reading
158 people want to read
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 30 of 45 reviews
February 2, 2012
I have been studying Nixon for many years, reading every book about the man that I can find, including Nixon's books his daughters books his assistants books, his doctor's book, his political operatives books, Ehrlichman, Haldeman, Dean, Mitchell, his brother's book, his friends books, his enemies books, Martha Mitchell's book and scores of others. I also peruse the presidential daily diary, and my hobby is listening to the Nixon tapes, hundreds of hours and not just those that pertain to Watergate, or those culled for the amusement of those who loathed the man. You can too, all are available for public perusal at the Nixon Library. Yes, I am a Nixon Nut, and there is no shortage of information out there about the man. Nixon's life could scarcely be less private than a political version of Jim Carrey's character in the movie Truman.
Nixon was so involved in "being president" when he was before the cameras that he seemed oblivious of anything else. In all of my readings regarding Nixon, the only thing that I have concluded about Nixon that has not been explored by the media is that he may have had aspergers syndrome, look it up. But that is only mere speculation on my part.
Nothing that I have read about Nixon or heard on the tapes has led me to believe what is touted in the Don Fulsom book. Nothing. In fact, Nixon's own voice from tapes and interviews show considerable tenderness and love for his wife and his daughters. People close to Nixon, including Haig, have attested in filmed interviews as to just how close the Nixon family was.
Nixon is arguably the most investigated man in America during the last century. He was investigated by scores of political enemies who would have loved to destroy him, including Jack Anderson, if there was anything to EITHER of Fulsom's fevered speculations it would surely have come out. Bear in mind, at that time, homosexuality was regarded as an illness by the APA and a considerable liability for anyone seeking public office. Yet not one of Nixon's enemies who sought his destruction for past grievances made this accusation against Nixon, not one. Plus, Rebozo was investigated both before AND after Watergate, the only red flag was Mafia connections.
Surprising to me is that Don Fulsom touts his experience as "worked closely with Nixon" WHO does he think he's kidding here? Reporters report ON politicians, they don't work WITH them!
See, having read the books outlined by Fulsom as his sources, I know the rest of the story behind the details he leaves OUT. Anthony Summers wrote the last dubious book about Nixon, it is from Summers that Fulsom's book draws heavily. Though even Summers has stated of late that neither he nor his co-author had found any evidence to suggest that the man, Nixon was gay. None. Yet it is Summers book from which Fulsom cherry picks comments, most of which are not attributed to any known source.
Fulsom also seems unable to plumb the facts about Rebozo, he states that Rebozo had only "brief" marriages, when in fact Rebozo was still married to his wife, whom he married during middle age, at the time he died at the age of 85. That doesn't sound like a brief marriage. In fact Rebozo left half his fortune to his wife Jane. But of course Don Fulsom leaves out ANYTHING that doesn't help paint the picture he is trying to sell to the public. And he calls himself a journalist?
As to "hand holding" what does that mean anyway? Google Nixon holding hands and you can find a picture of Nixon absent-mindedly holding Roy Acuff's hand after Roy showed him how to throw a Yoyo. What? Is Roy Acuff yet another Gay lover?
See YOUTUBE "President Nixon Bowling" to see at 1:20 Nixon holding a young female bowlers hand. Are we to think there was anything going on between them? Politicians are adept at taking people by the hand, THOUSANDS of people.
Don Fulsom accuses Nixon of being Homophobic, yet Nixon's statement that a gay man in the 60's was "ill" was actually, at that time in our culture, not only the CONCENSUS of the APA, but it was a fairly non-judgmental statement as well. Nixon takes a far less archaic, "Live and Let Live" view on the topic in Monica Crowley's book, Nixon off the record. Nixon was not a homophobe. But you see, Don Fulsom did NOT investigate Nixon, did not truly look behind his sophomoric innuendo, if he did, how could he write this incredibly homophobic book? Not only did Fulsom imply that Nixon was WRONG to have a bachelor friend, WRONG to be SECURE enough in his own masculinity not to worry about such things, but Wait! Isn't that the epitome of someone who is NOT homophobic? Fulsom himself has shown his cards, his rationale does indeed prove that Fulsom is, himself, a homophobe. How can the reader not infer from Fulsom's underlying message that same-gender friendships are indeed suspect? Is it any wonder that Americans are some of the loneliest people with kooks like Fulsom driving public paranoia?
Now why don't we look at the tapes themselves. They cooked Nixon's goose in Watergate, did they not? Look for conversations available at the Nixon library, or the Miller Center. I will tell you that I have listened to many of Nixon's private conversations with Rebozo (CGR). Not bragging here, you can too. Not only are they brief (2 minutes or so) and unremarkable, with Nixon practically hanging up on his friend at times, but they often reveal a preconception on Nixon's part that his friend Rebozo was quite "the player" with the ladies. So if Rebozo was anything but heterosexual (no evidence to the contrary), it seems Nixon was not aware of it.
Bebe Rebozo often ran errands for Nixon, even political ones, he was himself a Democrat, a friend of JFK and LBJ. On one tape Rebozo revealed that just before LBJ passed away he had received an invitation to LBJ's ranch. I have to wonder, what would Don Fulsom have made of that? In fact Bebe Rebozo was pretty well known in Democratic circles having entertained a good many of them before switching alliance to Nixon's rising star. One has to wonder, who wouldn't want to be friends with the President of the United States? The larger question here is WHY did Fulsom ignore dozens of private conversations between the two? Why? Because they DISAGREE with his innuendo. Fulsom EVEN insanely suggests that Nixon hated HIS OWN DAUGHTERS! What does he use as "evidence" for this absurd allegation? Because Nixon often spent time with people in absolute silence! Yes, that's his evidence! Never mind that Nixon did the very same thing by ALL accounts when he was with Rebozo! ROFL! I guess Don Fulsom can read Minds! Fulsom's personal loathing and ignorance of Nixon is thus flagrantly revealed. Stunning Bias.
Comically ironic is how the book ends, with a picture of Fulsom himself HOLDING HANDS with Richard Nixon. Gee Fulsom, et tu?
Nixon was so involved in "being president" when he was before the cameras that he seemed oblivious of anything else. In all of my readings regarding Nixon, the only thing that I have concluded about Nixon that has not been explored by the media is that he may have had aspergers syndrome, look it up. But that is only mere speculation on my part.
Nothing that I have read about Nixon or heard on the tapes has led me to believe what is touted in the Don Fulsom book. Nothing. In fact, Nixon's own voice from tapes and interviews show considerable tenderness and love for his wife and his daughters. People close to Nixon, including Haig, have attested in filmed interviews as to just how close the Nixon family was.
Nixon is arguably the most investigated man in America during the last century. He was investigated by scores of political enemies who would have loved to destroy him, including Jack Anderson, if there was anything to EITHER of Fulsom's fevered speculations it would surely have come out. Bear in mind, at that time, homosexuality was regarded as an illness by the APA and a considerable liability for anyone seeking public office. Yet not one of Nixon's enemies who sought his destruction for past grievances made this accusation against Nixon, not one. Plus, Rebozo was investigated both before AND after Watergate, the only red flag was Mafia connections.
Surprising to me is that Don Fulsom touts his experience as "worked closely with Nixon" WHO does he think he's kidding here? Reporters report ON politicians, they don't work WITH them!
See, having read the books outlined by Fulsom as his sources, I know the rest of the story behind the details he leaves OUT. Anthony Summers wrote the last dubious book about Nixon, it is from Summers that Fulsom's book draws heavily. Though even Summers has stated of late that neither he nor his co-author had found any evidence to suggest that the man, Nixon was gay. None. Yet it is Summers book from which Fulsom cherry picks comments, most of which are not attributed to any known source.
Fulsom also seems unable to plumb the facts about Rebozo, he states that Rebozo had only "brief" marriages, when in fact Rebozo was still married to his wife, whom he married during middle age, at the time he died at the age of 85. That doesn't sound like a brief marriage. In fact Rebozo left half his fortune to his wife Jane. But of course Don Fulsom leaves out ANYTHING that doesn't help paint the picture he is trying to sell to the public. And he calls himself a journalist?
As to "hand holding" what does that mean anyway? Google Nixon holding hands and you can find a picture of Nixon absent-mindedly holding Roy Acuff's hand after Roy showed him how to throw a Yoyo. What? Is Roy Acuff yet another Gay lover?
See YOUTUBE "President Nixon Bowling" to see at 1:20 Nixon holding a young female bowlers hand. Are we to think there was anything going on between them? Politicians are adept at taking people by the hand, THOUSANDS of people.
Don Fulsom accuses Nixon of being Homophobic, yet Nixon's statement that a gay man in the 60's was "ill" was actually, at that time in our culture, not only the CONCENSUS of the APA, but it was a fairly non-judgmental statement as well. Nixon takes a far less archaic, "Live and Let Live" view on the topic in Monica Crowley's book, Nixon off the record. Nixon was not a homophobe. But you see, Don Fulsom did NOT investigate Nixon, did not truly look behind his sophomoric innuendo, if he did, how could he write this incredibly homophobic book? Not only did Fulsom imply that Nixon was WRONG to have a bachelor friend, WRONG to be SECURE enough in his own masculinity not to worry about such things, but Wait! Isn't that the epitome of someone who is NOT homophobic? Fulsom himself has shown his cards, his rationale does indeed prove that Fulsom is, himself, a homophobe. How can the reader not infer from Fulsom's underlying message that same-gender friendships are indeed suspect? Is it any wonder that Americans are some of the loneliest people with kooks like Fulsom driving public paranoia?
Now why don't we look at the tapes themselves. They cooked Nixon's goose in Watergate, did they not? Look for conversations available at the Nixon library, or the Miller Center. I will tell you that I have listened to many of Nixon's private conversations with Rebozo (CGR). Not bragging here, you can too. Not only are they brief (2 minutes or so) and unremarkable, with Nixon practically hanging up on his friend at times, but they often reveal a preconception on Nixon's part that his friend Rebozo was quite "the player" with the ladies. So if Rebozo was anything but heterosexual (no evidence to the contrary), it seems Nixon was not aware of it.
Bebe Rebozo often ran errands for Nixon, even political ones, he was himself a Democrat, a friend of JFK and LBJ. On one tape Rebozo revealed that just before LBJ passed away he had received an invitation to LBJ's ranch. I have to wonder, what would Don Fulsom have made of that? In fact Bebe Rebozo was pretty well known in Democratic circles having entertained a good many of them before switching alliance to Nixon's rising star. One has to wonder, who wouldn't want to be friends with the President of the United States? The larger question here is WHY did Fulsom ignore dozens of private conversations between the two? Why? Because they DISAGREE with his innuendo. Fulsom EVEN insanely suggests that Nixon hated HIS OWN DAUGHTERS! What does he use as "evidence" for this absurd allegation? Because Nixon often spent time with people in absolute silence! Yes, that's his evidence! Never mind that Nixon did the very same thing by ALL accounts when he was with Rebozo! ROFL! I guess Don Fulsom can read Minds! Fulsom's personal loathing and ignorance of Nixon is thus flagrantly revealed. Stunning Bias.
Comically ironic is how the book ends, with a picture of Fulsom himself HOLDING HANDS with Richard Nixon. Gee Fulsom, et tu?
March 7, 2012
I cannot remember the last time I was so disappointed in a book. One would think that a book with the title, Nixon's Darkest Secrets, and especially with the subtitle, The Inside Story of America's Most Troubled President, would have something new, something substantial, backing up its claims. Sadly, this is not even close to the case this time around.
Instead what Don Fulsom has given his readers is a mish-mash of previously whispered about questions about Nixon--was he tied to the Mob?, what were his sexual tendencies?, did he beat his wife, Pat?--with scarcely anything new to add to any of them. One would expect some form of proof of some of these "secrets" with the title on that cover.
Instead, Fulsom proves his points by leading into his evidentiary statements with such words, or phrases, as "legend has it," "claims," "rumored," "believed," and "speculated." These are just from Chapter Three alone, but it's a consistency the book does maintain throughout. Another fine example of Fulsom's hammering home his points comes in Chapter Five, "Nixon's Sexuality:"
Was Nixon's tough-guy attitude toward gays just a cover for his own homosexuality, bisexuality or asexuality? Was he shrouding some kind of subliminal or "unaddressed" issue? Well, he isn't still called Tricky Dick for nothing.
So, after approximately nine pages of wondering about Nixon's sexual tendencies, his big point, the final nail in the coffin to his argument is that Nixon's been known as Tricky Dick for nearly seventy years? Forgive this reader for not immediately agreeing with such hard hitting logic and evidence.
Beyond this simply abysmal retreading of old bits of information, the book does not seem to have had a thorough editing process either. Or perhaps I just am not a fan of the style the editor/author opted to run with. One person whose ideas are brought into the book over and over again is Anthony Summers, author of The Arrogance of Power (Viking, 2000), a Nixon biography. Within the first sixty pages, he, or his work, is quoted from frequently. That's all well and good, but the way that Fulsom introduces Summers each time simply becomes annoying as he cherry-picks aspects of Summers career to shoehorn him into that particular chapter/secret/rumor. He's introduced into various chapters as "a historian," a "JFK Assassination authority," an "investigative journalist," and a "Sinatra biographer." It just seemed to simply depend on what argument Fulsom was making at the time. Simply refer to Summers the first time around as a historian that also wrote a major Nixon biography and assume that your readers of what is supposed to be a thoroughly researched political non-fiction book just might be able to remember the name as it appears the next dozen times through the book.
The worst case of this is when Fulsom notes on page 59 that Summers is the "author of the best, most comprehensive book about Nixon," and then less than a page later notes him as a "Nixon biographer." I do not believe that my sixth grade son has an attention span so weary that he would have needed that reminder so quickly.
Needless to say this book nearly drove me nuts. I do not believe that I was wrong in expecting much more from the book with the title and especially the "Inside Story" bit of the subtitle. I won't at all be surprised if another journalist does indeed find proof of some of these "secrets," but Fulsom didn't come close, nor did he put together a compelling book.
1 star (I truly think I'm being generous here, but I like the cover of the book)
Instead what Don Fulsom has given his readers is a mish-mash of previously whispered about questions about Nixon--was he tied to the Mob?, what were his sexual tendencies?, did he beat his wife, Pat?--with scarcely anything new to add to any of them. One would expect some form of proof of some of these "secrets" with the title on that cover.
Instead, Fulsom proves his points by leading into his evidentiary statements with such words, or phrases, as "legend has it," "claims," "rumored," "believed," and "speculated." These are just from Chapter Three alone, but it's a consistency the book does maintain throughout. Another fine example of Fulsom's hammering home his points comes in Chapter Five, "Nixon's Sexuality:"
Was Nixon's tough-guy attitude toward gays just a cover for his own homosexuality, bisexuality or asexuality? Was he shrouding some kind of subliminal or "unaddressed" issue? Well, he isn't still called Tricky Dick for nothing.
So, after approximately nine pages of wondering about Nixon's sexual tendencies, his big point, the final nail in the coffin to his argument is that Nixon's been known as Tricky Dick for nearly seventy years? Forgive this reader for not immediately agreeing with such hard hitting logic and evidence.
Beyond this simply abysmal retreading of old bits of information, the book does not seem to have had a thorough editing process either. Or perhaps I just am not a fan of the style the editor/author opted to run with. One person whose ideas are brought into the book over and over again is Anthony Summers, author of The Arrogance of Power (Viking, 2000), a Nixon biography. Within the first sixty pages, he, or his work, is quoted from frequently. That's all well and good, but the way that Fulsom introduces Summers each time simply becomes annoying as he cherry-picks aspects of Summers career to shoehorn him into that particular chapter/secret/rumor. He's introduced into various chapters as "a historian," a "JFK Assassination authority," an "investigative journalist," and a "Sinatra biographer." It just seemed to simply depend on what argument Fulsom was making at the time. Simply refer to Summers the first time around as a historian that also wrote a major Nixon biography and assume that your readers of what is supposed to be a thoroughly researched political non-fiction book just might be able to remember the name as it appears the next dozen times through the book.
The worst case of this is when Fulsom notes on page 59 that Summers is the "author of the best, most comprehensive book about Nixon," and then less than a page later notes him as a "Nixon biographer." I do not believe that my sixth grade son has an attention span so weary that he would have needed that reminder so quickly.
Needless to say this book nearly drove me nuts. I do not believe that I was wrong in expecting much more from the book with the title and especially the "Inside Story" bit of the subtitle. I won't at all be surprised if another journalist does indeed find proof of some of these "secrets," but Fulsom didn't come close, nor did he put together a compelling book.
1 star (I truly think I'm being generous here, but I like the cover of the book)
Want to read
December 28, 2011If Nixon did suffer from alcoholism- he suffered from a disease and should not be demonized- The other main claim is Nixon had a gay affair- which is highly offensive to gay people, and people like myself, who view homosexuality as simply a normal part among many that contribute to a whole person...same with heterosexuals like me..Orientation does not define a person, kindness and caring for others does. Apparently Fulson (Will not use his first name as he does not rank it)considers homosexuality a human defect along with alcoholism ..as he has used both as the major selling points for his book. The fact is that since Joan Crawford's horrific daughter decided to cash in on her dead mother...making sure Joan was not alive to refute her claims...We now live in a culture where cowards and human roaches wait until someone is dead- and then write all kinds of salacious rumors and outright lies about the person (Who -of course- cannot fight back) simply to reap in as much money as possible. People like this, apparently cash hungry has-been hack reporter, are the human equivalent of vultures- they wait until after death to feast on the dead flesh. The simple fact that Kissinger is cited in some of the advance articles - well- the late Chris Hitchens did quite a fine job exposing him WHILE KISSINGER WAS/IS STILL ALIVE. Hitchens had more courage in his toenail than this pathetic excuse for a journalist has in his entire being.
This is not a review of the book as I would not read nor support any book that tries to capitalize on the death of famous people REGARDLESS OF THEIR POLITICAL AFFILIATION - simply to enrich small men who feel that throwing out the most outrageous rumors will sell books. Yes- given the collapse of the mainstream media - the book will certainly get airtime - yet hopefully fairminded folks will vote with their pocketbooks and wallets and not feed into this virus.
This is not a review of the book as I would not read nor support any book that tries to capitalize on the death of famous people REGARDLESS OF THEIR POLITICAL AFFILIATION - simply to enrich small men who feel that throwing out the most outrageous rumors will sell books. Yes- given the collapse of the mainstream media - the book will certainly get airtime - yet hopefully fairminded folks will vote with their pocketbooks and wallets and not feed into this virus.
April 22, 2025
A hodgepodge of conjecture, poorly substantiated rumors, and scant actual, documented facts, delivered in a remarkably poorly constructed and written tome, full of repetitions and internal contradictions. So, these two stars, they're rounded up.
May 26, 2012
I'm glad to see I'm not the only one who found this book a load of incoherent trash, a complete waste of time. The writer appears to have no idea what constitutes an expert or even a fact. The book contains rumor and half-assed suppositions and sweeping conclusions represented as fact, which have all the intellectual maturity, discernment and insight of an eight year old (my apology to eight year olds) "backed up" with footnotes often to other rumor mongers, conspiracy theorists and similar unreliable sources or non-sources. Very shabby.
April 1, 2020
Few readers will have trouble believing the worst about Richard Nixon, a president whose misdeeds have been aired in exhausting detail over the past half-century. Yet Don Fulsom's Nixon's Darkest Secrets manages to make even Tricy Dick seem unfairly attacked. Veteran journalist Fulsom (he covered Nixon's White House as a pool reporter) succumbs to the temptation of the tabloid writer, airing every misdeed with an OMG level of incredulity that grates more than it illuminates. Some of the accusations are well-established fact: who, in 2019, doesn't know that Nixon sabotaged Johnson's peace negotiations with North Vietnam just before the 1968 election? Others, like Nixon's (loose but extant) ties to organized crime and claims that he physically abused his wife, have just come into focus in recent years. Yet the book isn't content in recapitulating these facts, damning as they are. Instead, he delves deeply into wilder speculation: that the CIA manipulated the Watergate affair to undermine Nixon (an old saw that's been discredited time and again by responsible historians); that Nixon ordered the murder of Aristotle Onassis, for reasons unclear even in the text; extended musings about the Kennedy Assassination that, however tempting to a writer of exposes, have little to do with the topic at hand. Then there's the prurient element, such as claiming that Nixon was lovers with his friend Bebe Rebozo, and that his cruelty towards Pat wasn't the result of a disordered personality but repressed homosexuality. Even these claims aren't new, having found vent in muckraking books from Fawn Brodie's Richard Nixon: The Shaping of His Character to Anthony Summers' The Arrogance of Power; they aren't any more convincing in 2020 than they were forty years ago.
February 18, 2012
This is a shabby book. An obviously biased effort by a journalist whose exposure to the president (Nixon) was distant at best. The scurrilous speculations entertained herein are not only baseless, as the author presents no evidence to support either of his sensational claims. (which makes me think he used them to dishonestly gain exposure and to help foster sales) but they are of the same nature as those that many presidents have endured in the past and ARE endurring to this day. Google "11 US presidents who might've been gay" for an eye-opener, and anyone shopping these past years have seen tabloids making similar allegations against our current President Obama. At one time presidents were speculated to have been of mixed racial heritage to disparage them, now the weapon of choice is that they were/are gay.
I've read several books about Nixon and this book appears to be at best a rehash of old information from past books regurgitated in a skewed and biased and fact-redacted way, and at worst a perfect example of yellow journalism replete with nasty exaggeration and gossip among some reporters who didn't like the man they were covering. Really, the level of writing in this book is that what I would expect from junior high school gossip columns. The author makes sweeping Declarations deriding Nixons lack of integrity all the while he himself engages in character assassination and slander. Honesty and integrity are qualities much to be desired, not only in our presidents, but also in writers Journlists and biographers. on this count, this book and author fail miserably. Tellingly in a radio interview Fulom was asked by Ian punnett if he had a personal animus against President Nixon, Fulsom readily admitted to being a "Nixon Hater". Throughout the interview punnett seemed very uncomfortable with his interviewee and the over-reaching fabrications he was trying to defend. If I could, I would give this book negatives stars.
I've read several books about Nixon and this book appears to be at best a rehash of old information from past books regurgitated in a skewed and biased and fact-redacted way, and at worst a perfect example of yellow journalism replete with nasty exaggeration and gossip among some reporters who didn't like the man they were covering. Really, the level of writing in this book is that what I would expect from junior high school gossip columns. The author makes sweeping Declarations deriding Nixons lack of integrity all the while he himself engages in character assassination and slander. Honesty and integrity are qualities much to be desired, not only in our presidents, but also in writers Journlists and biographers. on this count, this book and author fail miserably. Tellingly in a radio interview Fulom was asked by Ian punnett if he had a personal animus against President Nixon, Fulsom readily admitted to being a "Nixon Hater". Throughout the interview punnett seemed very uncomfortable with his interviewee and the over-reaching fabrications he was trying to defend. If I could, I would give this book negatives stars.
June 19, 2012
Absolutely the worst book that I have ever read on the topic of Richard Nixon. And it seems most news outlets and political pundits are in complete agreement on that score. This book has been roundly punished in national reviews and most deservedly so. In total it is shot through with gossipmongering and conspiracy hoaxes. Don't waste your time or money filling your mind with useless far fetched and thoroughly discredited conspiracies and baseless and ludicrous gossip, most of which appears to be a hollow calculated tactic utilized merely to promote sales amongst people who are clueless of the history and person of Richard Nixon. The author of this book uses loaded language to subtly influence the reader to accept the premise of his sensationistic claims a very propagandistic tactic and one that shows how little regard he has for the intellect of the people to whom he aims this heavily biased book.
Read
March 25, 2012This is a recitation of the misdeeds, most of which have been reported before, of the 37 president of the United States. It is a grim picture, indeed, full of Richard Nixon's profane and vindictive personality and his coterie of mobbed up and ruthless friends. I don't know what purpose the book serves beyond providing a means of wallowing in the worst episodes in this sorry period in American history. Even with respect to Richard Nixon -- at least, where serious research and reflection are concerned -- there is a place for balance, and there is no balance in this book. I've always thought that William Shakespeare would have loved Nixon as a subject, but Shakespeare wouldn't have written this book.
September 10, 2012
This book reads like a supermarket tabloid. Author made no attempt to hide obvious bias. This book and others like it are a scourge to serious students studying history and merely represent a new and growing genre of "kick them when they're dead." This book gets it wrong in many areas, especially when one looks at the footnotes and compares the actual events sourced in other books with respect to the manner the event is colored by this author. This book contains backbiting, jeering and unsupported speculation that was fostered in a climate of contempt and distrust against an admittedly dishonored president. The contents of this book merely serve to show the length that some in the press are willing to go to pile on and further demonize a man who made mistakes and disappointed a nation.
September 10, 2012
Very Disappointing book. This author traffics in revisionism and wild speculations that are with only a little effort easily disproved. He probably utilized the more sensational suggestions in this book to help promote his book upon release. Howver the book is heavily footnoted but a simple review of source materials shows that this author is accustomed to relating only portions of events and suppressing conflicting information, all in a very disingenuous attempt to help foster his speculations. However a re-reading of source books from his footnotes shows very well that this author stoops to altering context to help support his theories which are no doubt the product of animus against the man he failingly attempts to biographize. Very unproffessional, and very dishonest.
February 18, 2012
Trashy, shameful, incoherent rag, waste of my time and money.
October 29, 2018
Looking at most of the comments on here, I have to say I have been rather generous in giving the book two stars. As something of a Nixon aficionado I do try to read anything I can possibly find on him, which encompass both good and bad views on him. It is extremely important to try and look at both sides to whatever subject you're reading about.
Unfortunately when reading this book all I saw was basically a smear campaign where Fulsom spends the majority of the book trying to throw mud on Nixon and discredit everything he did (as well as said). Even if I weren't a fan of Nixon, I'd still like to read something that had a mix of viewpoints, rather than complete anti-Nixon propaganda. Apart from the one sentence towards the end where he mentions Nixon's visit to China (no wait, that was in the About the author section) there is SOME acknowledgement of the 37th president's achievements. The only reason why I felt it necessary to add an extra star was because he at least knows how to make a narrative flow well and keep a story going.
But perhaps that is where Fulsom's true calling is: story telling, not non-fiction writing. Because as far as I can tell, most of this book was too exaggerated to actually be factual.
Unfortunately when reading this book all I saw was basically a smear campaign where Fulsom spends the majority of the book trying to throw mud on Nixon and discredit everything he did (as well as said). Even if I weren't a fan of Nixon, I'd still like to read something that had a mix of viewpoints, rather than complete anti-Nixon propaganda. Apart from the one sentence towards the end where he mentions Nixon's visit to China (no wait, that was in the About the author section) there is SOME acknowledgement of the 37th president's achievements. The only reason why I felt it necessary to add an extra star was because he at least knows how to make a narrative flow well and keep a story going.
But perhaps that is where Fulsom's true calling is: story telling, not non-fiction writing. Because as far as I can tell, most of this book was too exaggerated to actually be factual.
June 30, 2020
More exposure of the crimes and misdemeanors of the second-most corrupt US president. Based on tapes and documents released after Nixon's death. A bit repetitive in places, but it builds a disturbing picture of Nixon's behaviour and associates behind the scenes. Worth reading if you already have a good working knowledge of the era and the man, but it assumes you know enough about Watergate and the players to appreciate the new information.
August 3, 2019
Having read a dozen Nixon and Nixon era books I have a fairly good sense of what constitutes a fair evidence based and well researched book (except the personal memoirs of those around him at various points. Those are personal recollections and can sometimes simply be opinions.)
This book often draws conclusions based on sketchy accounts and guilt by association or innuendo. Not a quality read.
This book often draws conclusions based on sketchy accounts and guilt by association or innuendo. Not a quality read.
January 22, 2018
I won't lie I was a bit disappointed in this book. With a title like "Nixon's Darkest Secrets" I would have anticipated some actual dark secrets. The flow of the book also seemed choppy and didn't lend itself to an enjoyable read.
January 25, 2019
Couldn't finish
August 21, 2020
This book does a lot of jumping around
Not a bad book, but some of the pages need an editor to search for incorrect spelling. This book also jumps around in places.
Not a bad book, but some of the pages need an editor to search for incorrect spelling. This book also jumps around in places.
September 5, 2012
We can now know more about the Nixon administration than we could when we were living in it. Previously sealed records have been opened, books by and interviews with participants (and their families) have published and historians and journalists have been diligent in tracing the record. This book, by a White House reporter at the time, contains a lot of the new information.
The book's footnotes show a reliance on secondary sources. Many are reliable reporters such as Seymour Hersh, Robert Woodward and Carl Bernstein and others are biographers such as Walter Isaacson and Fawn Brodie. Of the primary sources, some are government records and a few are reproduced here with redactions showing. Other primary sources are interviews with and books by participants. The photos are limited in content. For instance, of the 13 photos, 5 are of Nixon and Frank Fitzsimmons, 3 of them seem to be from the same photo shoot.
As would any good journalist Don Fulsom connects dots. The best of these dot connections are those related to Bebe Rebozo, Nixon's Mafia ties and Nixon's negotiations for his own pardon. For other areas, such as Nixon's domestic and alcohol abuse, and his wooing of Frank Sinatra (and Sinatra's Mafia connections) dot connections are a matter of interpretation and there is a heavy reliance on isolated incidents secondary sources.
While it often seems that today's press is not very diligent, some of the revelations in this book show this is not a new phenomenon. For instance, how did the fact that E. Howard Hunt and Lee Harvey Oswald both used the New Orleans office address of 544 Camp Street escape headlines? Why is it that Robert Kennedy's record of 683 indictments against mob members and 619 convictions (when it had previously been 0) is not more widely known? Why was the 1985 testimony of CIA operative Marita Lorenz that the night before the Kennedy assassination she saw E. Howard Hunt pay Frank Sturgis in a Dallas motel where afterward, Jack Ruby appeared, not a screaming and memorable headline?
Nixon was one of the last presidents to live in a time where his private life was off-limits to reporters. While Bebe Rebozo appeared with Nixon in many photos and it was somewhat known that they were Key Biscayne neighbors, was it ever reported that Rebozo had White House and San Clemente quarters? Was the constant proximity of Rebozo and Nixon ever reported or was anything ever said at the time of Rebozo's Mafia connections or his $100,000 gift to the home of Julie and David Eisenhower?
There is a lot to consider here. Nixon's crimes far exceed those that he has been publically called to account for. This short book has a lot of material to be followed up on and should be widely read and discussed.
The book's footnotes show a reliance on secondary sources. Many are reliable reporters such as Seymour Hersh, Robert Woodward and Carl Bernstein and others are biographers such as Walter Isaacson and Fawn Brodie. Of the primary sources, some are government records and a few are reproduced here with redactions showing. Other primary sources are interviews with and books by participants. The photos are limited in content. For instance, of the 13 photos, 5 are of Nixon and Frank Fitzsimmons, 3 of them seem to be from the same photo shoot.
As would any good journalist Don Fulsom connects dots. The best of these dot connections are those related to Bebe Rebozo, Nixon's Mafia ties and Nixon's negotiations for his own pardon. For other areas, such as Nixon's domestic and alcohol abuse, and his wooing of Frank Sinatra (and Sinatra's Mafia connections) dot connections are a matter of interpretation and there is a heavy reliance on isolated incidents secondary sources.
While it often seems that today's press is not very diligent, some of the revelations in this book show this is not a new phenomenon. For instance, how did the fact that E. Howard Hunt and Lee Harvey Oswald both used the New Orleans office address of 544 Camp Street escape headlines? Why is it that Robert Kennedy's record of 683 indictments against mob members and 619 convictions (when it had previously been 0) is not more widely known? Why was the 1985 testimony of CIA operative Marita Lorenz that the night before the Kennedy assassination she saw E. Howard Hunt pay Frank Sturgis in a Dallas motel where afterward, Jack Ruby appeared, not a screaming and memorable headline?
Nixon was one of the last presidents to live in a time where his private life was off-limits to reporters. While Bebe Rebozo appeared with Nixon in many photos and it was somewhat known that they were Key Biscayne neighbors, was it ever reported that Rebozo had White House and San Clemente quarters? Was the constant proximity of Rebozo and Nixon ever reported or was anything ever said at the time of Rebozo's Mafia connections or his $100,000 gift to the home of Julie and David Eisenhower?
There is a lot to consider here. Nixon's crimes far exceed those that he has been publically called to account for. This short book has a lot of material to be followed up on and should be widely read and discussed.
March 15, 2021
This president was more of a crook than any of us knew.
March 30, 2012
After reading other reviews I am almost afraid to give my opinion so as not to look naive or gullible. Oh well, since when did I let that stop me? I am enjoying the book and it makes SO much sense in light of who Richard Nixon was. This man who served as our president was a hypocritical unmoral corrupt phony. He was an extreme narcissist who only cared about himself, his stature, and his legacy...which is ruined. I truly suspected as much but Fulsom even provided more information on a man I would compare alongside the likes of J. Edgar Hoover. As a person passionate about history, I actually think these two men I have mentioned are worse than the top mafia figures of the past because of the advantage they took of the American people.
March 30: I had a difficult time putting this book down. I find it alarming that some of the men who have served as President of the United States were so morally bankrupt and corrupt. I suppose that goes along with my idealist nature. I grew up in small-town USA during the 50s and 60s. My greatest disappointment in Richard Nixon was his responsibility for 20,000 more American deaths in Vietnam when the war could have been over in the LBJ administration. With men like Nixon, and his ilk, in the White House it's no wonder the world is in the state that it's in!
March 30: I had a difficult time putting this book down. I find it alarming that some of the men who have served as President of the United States were so morally bankrupt and corrupt. I suppose that goes along with my idealist nature. I grew up in small-town USA during the 50s and 60s. My greatest disappointment in Richard Nixon was his responsibility for 20,000 more American deaths in Vietnam when the war could have been over in the LBJ administration. With men like Nixon, and his ilk, in the White House it's no wonder the world is in the state that it's in!
February 15, 2012
I will admit: I picked up this book after reading several reviews of it with promises of tantalizing new information on President Nixon. While some of the author's contentions are a little far-fetched (the chapter on Nixon's possible homosexuality and and another on beating his wife -- but even then it mainly focused on him suckerpunching his aides) and stretching, some of what he does say seems very plausible (especially his relationship with the Mafia, and based on the tons of research already done on Nixon -- this seems to match up, based on the historical record.
Truthfully, I don't agree with some of the author's points of view, BUT, I think that the author did a good job using as much current information to show a possible side to look atsome of the major events in his political life. My thought is that you know a book is "good" when the author can make you think about what you've read, even after you've closed the cover. The author will make you do just that.
Overall, it's a pretty fast read. It does get slow at times (he does repeat episodes from previous chapters, and that does get somewhat annoying) but overall, it was an interesting read.
Truthfully, I don't agree with some of the author's points of view, BUT, I think that the author did a good job using as much current information to show a possible side to look atsome of the major events in his political life. My thought is that you know a book is "good" when the author can make you think about what you've read, even after you've closed the cover. The author will make you do just that.
Overall, it's a pretty fast read. It does get slow at times (he does repeat episodes from previous chapters, and that does get somewhat annoying) but overall, it was an interesting read.
June 17, 2012
For those who are relatively unfamiliar with the events of the political life of Richard Nixon, this book would be a good introduction.
For those who have read other accounts of Nixon's life and deeds, there will be few revelations... though this book provides a decent summary of Nixon's dealings and personal demons.
Footnotes are abundant, and the reader will feel drawn to study many of the sources, whether they be detailed accounts such as The Final Days or transcripts (and actual recordings) of the many White House tapes.
This book's main flaw: it reads as if the chapters were serially published, as if each chapter appeared originally in subsequent issues of a magazine. The author often repeats portions of text near verbatim from earlier in the book. If reading as a serial, that might be helpful. In book form, not so much. A better editor would have encouraged the author to eliminate such repetition.
For those who have read other accounts of Nixon's life and deeds, there will be few revelations... though this book provides a decent summary of Nixon's dealings and personal demons.
Footnotes are abundant, and the reader will feel drawn to study many of the sources, whether they be detailed accounts such as The Final Days or transcripts (and actual recordings) of the many White House tapes.
This book's main flaw: it reads as if the chapters were serially published, as if each chapter appeared originally in subsequent issues of a magazine. The author often repeats portions of text near verbatim from earlier in the book. If reading as a serial, that might be helpful. In book form, not so much. A better editor would have encouraged the author to eliminate such repetition.
August 22, 2012
This book is not credible, particularly with respect to the irresponsible and unsubstantiated rumors that the author has tried to promulgate to help foster sales. If you care to delve into the facts, and had the author himself taken the time to do so (like any decent investigator would), he/you would find that Nixon's private recorded conversations with Bebe Rebozo reveals that Nixon believed his friend to be a 'ladie's Man" he even kidded him about it on tape. These tapes are available for anyone to review. Their relationship might have been venal, but it was decidedly not sexual. Because the author here abused the propensity for bloggers and web driven media to help sensationalize both these claims and his book (to help foster sales), for this reason alone Don Fulsom has impugned both his ability to investigate and verify, and he has shown himself to be a careless purveyor of tabloid journalism. Pathetic.
December 16, 2013
This is quite literally one of the worst non-fiction books I have ever read. If you can look past the insane bias (which I really couldn't) there were still the 900,000 times that he sited secondary sources, and so many cases of whole phrase/paragraph repetition and just sloppy writing that I was appalled. I cannot imagine how this made it to publication.
Amongst other things, Fulsom claims that Nixon was a gay drunk that beat his wife and hated his daughters. He really has almost no evidence that points to any of this, just third hand antidotes.
I'm positive that Nixon was not a great guy, but from Fulsom's picture, he wasn't even human. Just this blob of evil that walked around and said insane stuff. I love reading presidential biographies to get a picture of who our leaders were as people and I didn't get a single ounce of that here.
Yuck, yuck, yuck.
Amongst other things, Fulsom claims that Nixon was a gay drunk that beat his wife and hated his daughters. He really has almost no evidence that points to any of this, just third hand antidotes.
I'm positive that Nixon was not a great guy, but from Fulsom's picture, he wasn't even human. Just this blob of evil that walked around and said insane stuff. I love reading presidential biographies to get a picture of who our leaders were as people and I didn't get a single ounce of that here.
Yuck, yuck, yuck.
December 2, 2012
One might think there are no more or worse revelations about Nixon after all the books on him. But even though much of this book is a rehash, some indeed is new. Perhaps we will never know completely how flawed this poor man was. After seeing what happened to Kennedy and Johnson in office, maybe he felt he had no choice but to make some very poor personal and political choices. The one that seems nearly unforgivable is his treatment of wife Pat. If only for cover it seems like keeping up appearances would have been a good idea. I suppose that was too much to expect from a paranoid and probably sexually confused puppet.
August 30, 2013
Umm, wow. There's no question from the opening pages of the book on that the author has an axe to grind, and it comes across as personal. Whatever you may think of Richard Nixon and what he did to, for, on behalf of or against our country, this book is little more than speculation, innuendo, and accusations, much of it based on extraordinarily loose, fanciful, and possibly even delusional readings of everything from primary source material to rumors. For someone who lays claim to a career as a top journalist this is little more than puerile hack work.
October 29, 2014
Fulsome covered the White House during the Nixon years, even accompanying the president to China. This book includes some anecdotes from the author's own experiences, but it's mostly based on interviews and recently released documents and tape recordings. Those who've read much about the Nixon presidency (and the Kennedy assassination) will have been exposed to most of the themes addressed, but may be pleased to see what had once been merely alleged to have been subsequently confirmed by the records adduced herein.
September 13, 2012
There is a alot of rehashing between the chapters, but there are many confirmations in this book. Everything is backed with excellent research and analysis.
The Bottom line is that Nixon was indeed a crook. He was also a drunk, a wife-beater, a bully, a racist, both homophobic and mildly homosexual, owned by the mob and Howard Hughes, and while he did not have a role in the JFK Assassination, he knew almost everyone involved.
March 25, 2016
Fulsom offers a rather challenging interpretation of Richard Nixon's life. While some of his sources are highly reliable, others are extremely questionable. His speculation regarding Nixon's possible complicity in, or at least knowledge of a conspiracy to assassinate President Kennedy seems far-fetched, if not impossible to prove.
See select quotations at:
http://generationpositivecanada.blogs...
See select quotations at:
http://generationpositivecanada.blogs...
Displaying 1 - 30 of 45 reviews