"A Time for Choosing"

Henry Salvatori convinced Ronald Reagan to give the following speech during the 1964 RNC. It was a nomination address on behalf of presidential candidate Barry Goldwater, and it launched Reagan's political career. This is one of the most compelling political speeches of recent history, though it did not win Goldwater the election...

Ike through Nixon

Just before Eisenhower became president, his son John went to Korea to serve in an infantry unit. In the New York Times, the younger Eisenhower recalls a conversation that you probably never had with your dad.

As the time for my deployment approached, I discussed my intentions with my father. We met at the Blackstone Hotel in Chicago, just after the Republican convention, and I explained my position. My father, as a professional officer himself, understood and accepted it. However, he had a firm condition: under no circumstances must I ever be captured. He would accept the risk of my being killed or wounded, but if the Chinese Communists or North Koreans ever took me prisoner, and threatened blackmail, he could be forced to resign the presidency. I agreed to that condition wholeheartedly. I would take my life before being captured.

Ponder that last line. A president needs a pint or two of very cold blood.

In early 1961, Ike gave his Farewell Address, famously warning of the military-industrial complex. Days later, the torch passed to JFK, who took a distinctly militant tone in the Cold War. Kennedy took full advantage of new technology, starting the practice of holding press conferences on live TV. His successor, Lyndon Johnson, had an earthy way of expressing himself.

In future weeks, we shall discuss Nixon in greater detail. But this brief clip gives a glimpse of what he termed a "cold-blooded" view of international politics.

More on the VP debate

There is something to be said for evaluating 2008's vice presidential field as the lesser of two liabilities. Or, if not outright liabilities, perhaps candidates with a great deal of downside in addition to the advantages they bring to the race. Joe Biden was never about energizing the Democratic base. Obama chose him to balance the ticket and attract some of the white, working-class voters that Hillary Clinton courted so strongly. And the campaign knew his propensity for misstatements, which has materialized lately. He has arguably never produced much of a bump in either direction for Obama. If he fails to perform well in the debate, there may be few Biden supporters left in the party.

By contrast, Sarah Palin's popularity may have never been higher than before she spoke a word as McCain's official VP choice. In speeches and forums allowing her to set the agenda, Palin displays the charisma the campaign clearly hoped would help deliver the White House. Yet in unscripted interviews, her capacity to provide meaningful analysis seems desperately short. As Politico writes, prominent GOPers are already worried.

Sarah Palin's media appearances thus far--namely the Charles Gibson and Katie Couric interviews--haven't been particularly encouraging for those who hoped her to be cut from the "free-thinking maverick" mold.



The question, then, is whether the palpable gains she has already brought to the ticket will be overshadowed by her inexperience as the campaign rolls on. It seems she brings a bigger upside and downside, but none of this may ultimately swing voters toward either ticket.

Palin, Quayle and the Vice Presidential Debates

A lot of people, having witnessed the Presidential debates last night, seemed to be asking how much the debates really mattered. Neither candidate landed any decisive blows or dealt adequately with Jim Lehrer's questions about the economic crisis. Unless there are some dramatic missteps in remaining presidential debates, some believe that few minds will be changed; the candidates simply laid out their stump speeches on stage and got agitated with each other. However, there is a debate that could alter the balance of the election: the Vice Presidential debate.

I saw an interesting article comparing Sarah Palin and Dan Quayle yesterday. With the Vice-Presidential debate looming, and Sarah Palin playing a critical role in keeping McCain competitive, this campaign’s VP debates may prove one of the most crucial in US election history.

In many respects, the McCain-Obama campaign bears similarities to the 1988 Bush vs. Dukakis election. Dukakis was less politically experienced than Bush or Bentsen, and attacked for his far-left record in the House and as Governor of Massachusetts. To limit the “experience gap” between himself and sitting vice-president Bush, Dukakis picked Lloyd Bentsen, one of the most experienced politicians in Congress (and Bill Clinton’s first Secretary of the Treasury). George Bush retaliated by selecting Dan Quayle, the relatively unknown Junior Senator from Indiana, to secure electoral votes in the Rust Belt. Although trailing by more than fifteen points going into the RNC, Bush and Quayle received a major boost at the Convention, jumping into the lead against Dukakis.

As the campaign wore on, Dan Quayle became a major detriment to the campaign, misspeaking frequently (most notably in the infamous potatoe incident) and bungling a number of issues. Events in his personal life, such as his military service and a trip he had taken with a female lobbyist, came out to haunt the Bush ticket. He was parodied in the media as an “intellectual midget”. Fortunately for Bush, Dukakis made several mistakes, including a couple of seriously mishandled questions during the Presidential Debates. It was the Vice Presidential debate that seemed to be a major mismatch, however. Below is a clip from the Vice Presidential debate between Lloyd Bentsen and Dan Quayle (the famous part is towards the end):



The analogy does not seem to be particularly apt when one considers their differences. Biden has made almost as many gaffes as Quayle did, while Palin is much more attractive to the average voter because of her down-to-earth style. Palin was selected based on her ability to swing votes nationwide with her conservative record and her gender. With McCain trailing in the polls, Palin needs to be very impressive on October 2nd. If she avoids playing out the Dan Quayle stereotype that has been attached to her, she could prove the decisive factor in this election.

OBAMA & McCAIN : First Presidential Debate - AP

Click on the graphics at the bottom of the video for more relevant information

McCain trys to delay first debate; Obama doesn't bite

Early this afternoon, McCain pledged to pause his campaigning in order to return to Washington and compose a bailout package for the current economic emergency. Included in the statement, McCain sought to postpone the debate that is supposed to take place on Friday regarding foreign policy, although the Obama team did not agree to that and has issued a statement saying that "The debate is on," according to ABC News.

NYT
ABC

What do you think the general reaction will be to this? I think that what Rahm Emanuel said, that "we can handle both," is smart because I would expect a President to handle both an economic and international crisis simultaneously, if the situation ever arose. If Obama had reacted differently and agreed with McCain, would this be a battle won for the McCain camp?

Agenda already set for next president?

This MSNBC article hints that, despite the grand rhetoric of reform and change from both presidential candidates, the current administration's policies (and their subsequent fallout) preclude any large-scale transformations of American society in the near future.

Fineman writes:
"The next president’s foreign policy and defense script has long since been written. To simplify only slightly, it consists of winding down Iraq, declawing Iran and Hugo Chavez, and keeping Russia calm.

And now, after a scary and tumultuous fortnight of economic woes and corporate bailouts, his domestic narrative has also been outlined. And global credit markets, the Bush administration and Congress are holding the pen."

So will there be a "shrinking" of executive authority, since the president's economic power will be limited by the expanded power of the bureaucracies and Congress? Fineman says that this is supposedly the first time in history when the expansion of one president's authority has bound another president's hands to follow the same policies. I don't know if that's true, but he yearns for "another Lincoln or FDR" in the nation's time of need. Maybe expansive presidencies are viewed more positively in hindsight?

Roosevelt & Roosevelt

In response to Matt's question yesterday, I checked out the "midnight forests" proclamation (Milkis & Nelson 220). The legal authority came from an earlier law, not the Antiquities Act.

See here for information on how Clinton and other presidents used the Antiquities Act.

See here for information on how President Bartlet used the Antiquities Act.

I do not mean to pick on Joe Biden, but spot the mistakes in the following comment: "When the stock market crashed, Franklin Roosevelt got on the television and didn't just talk about the princes of greed. He said, 'look, here's what happened."

Assassination Attempt:



FDR inauguration:




Ike Farewell:

Early 20th Century Presidents

Text and short video on Woodrow Wilson's stroke.

Political scientist Wilson reflects on the presidency.

The underrated Calvin Coolidge made the first presidential speech on sound film:

Transition

From the NY Times:

Though they hate to discuss it, Senators John McCain and Barack Obama are quietly planning what to do in the frenetic 77-day period from the presidential election to Inauguration Day, so they will be ready to take up the reins of government.

Click here for the rest of the article.

There is even a transition blog.

Bill Maher and the War on Terror

3 minutes worth of an interesting perspective:

Parties in Congress During the Civil War Era

On Wednesday, Bryant asked about the House party breakdown during the Civil War era. Here are data from the Clerk of the House. Note that secession caused a big drop in the total number of seats and gave the Republicans an advantage. (The D and R figures add up to less than the total because other parties held a small number of seats.)

.............................Total...D...R
35th(1857-1859) 237......132 90
36th(1859-1861) 238........83 116
37th(1861-1863) 183........44 108
38th(1863-1865) 184........72 86
39th(1865-1867) 193........38 136
40th(1867-1869) 226........47 173
41st(1869-1871) 243........67 171
42nd(1871-1873) 243.......104 136
43rd(1873-1875) 292........88 199
44th(1875-1877) 293.......182 103

The Civil War and After

Lincoln takes office -- from the Ken Burns documentary (embedding blocked).

After Reconstruction came a series of minority president. See percentage of popular vote for winning candidates:

1876 Hayes 48.0
1880 Garfield 48.3
1884 Cleveland 48.5
1888 Harrison 47.8
1892 Cleveland 46.1

Toward the end of the 19th century, motion pictures and sound recordings allowed us to see and hear presidents in action.

Negative Campaigning, 1800

Okay, the 1800 election did not have TV ads. But the script for this video comes almost verbatim from a Federalist attack on Jefferson.

John Adams

John Adams

CMCers on the GOP Convention

You can get very different takes on the GOP convention from a couple of CMC alums who were there.

Clifton Yin was a McCain delegate. See his blog.

Adam Kokesh was a McCain heckler. See the account of his removal from the hall. See video:




Earlier, Adam spoke to fellow Ron Paul supporters: