The Presidential Libraries

We have two Presidential Libraries in Southern California!

The Nixon Library is located in Yorba Linda and the Reagan is in Simi Valley.

May I suggest either an official or unofficial class trip to one or both of these?



As an FYI from the Claremont Republicans:

"This Sunday former Republican Congressman Joe Scarborough who now hosts MSNBC's Morning Joe will be at the Reagan Library to tape Morning Joe."

President's Inspiring Words to America's Students

** I tried to do this as a comment to the previous post but was unsuccessful**

If you are a words person and would like to read the script for the President's Education speech, that was made available online the day before. How often does the President release his remarks ahead of time?


I was particularly fascinated by the other resources and the menu of classroom activities made available in the weeks before the speech, as well.

The President's Education Speech

So today was the back to school address.

Visit msnbc.com for Breaking News, World News, and News about the Economy

I read it yesterday and am a fan. Even GOP leaders like it (Newt Gingrich approves, the Florida GOP chair who last week denounced the speech as an opportunity for the President to advance Socialism said he would show it to his kids...). Yet controversy surrounds the speech.

Going in folks were worried about accompanying lesson plans and political messages. Those concerns were dealt with.

Going out, more conservative outlets mention that in 1991 Democrats ordered the GAO to investigate Bush 41's education speech for ethics violations. I was disappointed to find no accompanying text or video, but digging through C-SPAN I discovered it.



Letting slide the video quality and awkward presentation/speaking style, the speech was extremely similar to Obama's. No policy initiatives were pushed and no political agenda was forwarded. The school Bush 41 praised was even a public school. So my question is why were Democrats so up in arms?

My Congressman, Jim Himes (probably better known as the guy who ousted Republicans from New England rather than on his personal merits) wrote an article in our local paper about the speech and decision by some schools not to show it. He writes

Let's set aside what seems to be a complete absence of respect for the office of the President...

But I'd rather not set that aside. There is some grandeur associated with the office, some implicit respect people should have for the institution if not for the man. Like we said yesterday, the President is unique partly because he is head of State and head of Government. Obviously using one to buttress the other is possible, and giving such a broadly acclaimed and non-partisan speech leading into tomorrow's Health Care speech and the subsequent polling seems cagey. Still, a nation's leader is the face of the nation. There's something grand there.

Moving forward, I wonder how much the President's numbers tic upwards and if giving this speech before the Health Care speech might be problematic - if approval numbers rise, some could argue it was due to the former rather than the latter. One could just look at the Health Care questions, but polling on that issue is so tricky and variable on wording that it doesn't show much.

At the end of the night I'm reading Washington's First Inaugural. Given the events of the day, this part struck me:

I behold the surest pledges that as on one side no local prejudices or attachments, no separate views nor party animosities, will misdirect the comprehensive and equal eye which ought to watch over this great assemblage of communities and interests, so, on another, that the foundation of our national policy will be laid in the pure and immutable principles of private morality, and the preeminence of free government be exemplified by all the attributes which can win the affections of its citizens and command the respect of the world.

And while politics and partisanship will play out during the legislative session, at least in these education speeches I see Washington's Executive vision.

The Presidency: A First Look

Article II of the Constitution

The oath, sort of:

The White House today.

The End

National Security (continued) and Transition

Nelson labels Bush's argument on preemptive war as "The Bush Doctrine." Actually, four different ideas have come under that label.

Nelson also equates "preemptive" and "preventive" war. (p. 298). Many have tried to draw a distinction. According to a RAND report:

"Reduced to its essence, a preemptive attack is one that is launched based on the expectation than the adversary is about to attack, and that striking first will be better than being attacked.
...
"Preventive attacks have much in common with preemptive ones, but they are launched in response to less immediate threats. Both types of attack are alternatives to waiting for an expected enemy blow to fall, but preventive attack is motivated not by the desire to strike first rather than second, but by the desire to fight sooner rather than later."

More Gibson interview, on Iraq (first two minutes):

Timing and the Honeymoon:

"Change" we can believe in?

Barack Obama spent much time on the campaign trail calling for "change." As it turns out, "change" has a lot of familiar faces. Many liberal ideologues are upset.