I cannot say whether the author's descriptions are true, or not true. I can say that he writes well, tells the story intelligently, and that he backs his assertions with logical reasons, accompanied by quotes and footnotes. The author's fondness for Reagan doesn't prevent him from pointing out Reagan's faults. I disagree with the detractors of this book who would like to make the case that since the author is a conservative and Reagan was a conservative that this book must therefore be biased in favor of Reagan. It seems to me that the negative reviewers fail to evaluate the book on its merits. Instead, they seem to be motivated by their hatred of Ronald Reagan.

Mr. D'Souza has written the most honest assesment of the Reagan era to date. Not only does he recall the wounded national spirit of America during the late 70's through the election of 1980, but he also points the finger at himself as being one of the staffers that was in the forest and could not see the trees. But unlike some of President reagan's other staff members, he never tried to profit by taking easy shots at him, rather he took the time after the Reagan era to reflect, and analyze why so many positive things were accomplished between 1981 and 1991.

As an economic student during the mid to late eighties and having gone back for my MBA in the late 1990's, I can attest to the fact that revisionist (especially the University professors teaching our kids) have tried to blame Reagan for far too many things that he inherited from the Carter administration. The Inflation rate was 12 percent in 1980 and mortgage rates were 21 percent. Is it really a mystery to anyone why we were in a recession for 1981 and 1982?

D'Souza touches on much more than the economy, he gets into our weakend military condition, his vision to leave communism on the ash heep of history, and how the nation understood him even while his most trusted advisors turned their backs on him.

I think people owe it to themselves to read this book. No serious work on Reagan can be completed going forward without referance to this body of work!!!

Three of Dinesh D'Souza's books occupy space on my shelf. I have been fascinated with this conservative's intelligence, his ability to state his hypotheses in clear terms, and organize his supporting facts with ease and facility. His writing style is matter-of-fact, passionate, but not shrill. He never debases himself by name-calling that is so characteristic of other conservative writers.

As for calling Ronald Reagan one of the very best presidents the US has ever seen, I find that a bit over the top. Americans love an aggressive, almost war-like president, and Ronald Reagan fit that bill perfectly after Jimmy Carter appeared to be impotent in protecting Americans abroad. Riding on a recovering economy and renewed sense of pride, Ronald Reagan seemed to be the man to restore that pride. At this juncture, I control my enthusiasm.

I go with most historians who place Harry Truman, Theodore Roosevelt, and Franklin D. Roosevelt, as great or near-great presidents. Hear's why.

Harry Truman integrated the armed services, established the Defense Department, and stood up to communism in dramatic fashion. Instead of calling it the Truman plan, he deferred to the more popular George C. Marshall and called it by that name. This recovery assistance blocked communist advances in several European countries that were ripe for the taking. He stopped communism cold in Korea. Truman's Berlin Airlift handed the Soviet Communists their most spectacular moral and propaganda defeat in the entire cold war. American influence and power was at an all-time zenith that Ronald Reagan could not begin to reproduce.

Theodore Roosevelt embodied what republicans were actually once upon a time--liberal. He broke up robber barron monopolies, allowed unions a foot hold for virtually the first time, and brokered a peace between Russian and Japan for which he received the Nobel Peace Prize. Like Reagan, he too projected American power around the world, and set the stage for American ascendancy.

Franklin D. Roosevelt gave us the social security program that many of us calculate into our pensions today. He took on a republican/isolationist congress in helping Britain stave off the Nazi onslaught. Without Lend-Lease the Brits would have been starved into submission, and he managed to save the draft from disappearing by one vote. He led a nation through war.

Let's not forget some of the things Ronald Reagan was unsuccessful at. We pulled out of Beirut shortly after our marine barracks were bombed. Nobody called Reagan weak as they called Clinton who stayed in Somalia longer after "black hawk down" than Reagan stayed in Beirut after the bombing. The president announced" "The buck stops here." In other countries that usually means the person resigns. Ronald Reagan didn't. He again showed weakness against terrorism by lifting the embargo against Chile that Jimmy Carter had establishend after two of Pinochet's agents gunned down an American citizen in the streets of Washington D. C. -- our capital! That was shameful, pure and simple.

He ran up the biggest budget deficit in history. To his credit even he recognized that he had to tax after that--something Mr. Bush has yet to figure out. Ronald Reagan also broke the law by trading arms for hostages. This was enough to bring charges of impeachment.

D'Souza's toughest argument for me to accept is his thesis that the growing economy under President Clinton was due to the policies of President Reagan--that economic policies take eight years to kick in. H'uh? President Clinton's taxation in 1993 actually fueled the economy to its greatest growth in ways that congressional republicans screamed would cause a recession. Guess what? It didn't.

Ronald Reagan was a strong president, but not a great one.

This New Yorker is from Missouri on that one.