Newspaper Article: Constitution Vague on JFK's Successor

I found this article while researching for my paper. It appeared in the New York Times on November 23, 1963. The article explains what the constitution says about what happens when the president dies or is otherwise removed from office and lays out the chain of succession. It also mentions that Tyler established the precedent of the Vice President taking on the title of President. After Kennedy was assassinated, the process of succession needed to be explained to the common person.

Follow this link: http://proquest.umi.com/pqdweb?did=89977864&sid=1&Fmt=11&clientId=42799&RQT=309&VName=HNP
Click on the article and it will download the PDF version of the succession article

Nixon to Clinton

• President Nixon sought to rally the "silent majority" for his Vietnam policies.
• Ford was a healer.
• Carter wore a sweater.
• Reagan was a stronger communicator.
• Clinton, alas, will go down for an unfortunate phrase.

"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