Dead Presidents
By Anthony Bergen
E-Mail: bergen.anthony@gmail.com
The weekend is almost here, and with it comes two, brand-new, feature-length articles from me in AND Magazine!
Both articles will spend time on AND Magazine’s cover page this weekend, but my loyal followers here on Dead Presidents don’t have to wait. You can check them out now, in their entirety.
¿Viva La Revolucíon? looks at the death of Venezuelan President Hugo Chávez, its impact on his country, and Chávez’s influence on Latin America and the regional leaders who came to power during (and often because of) the Chávez era. ¿Viva La Revolucíon? also examines the life and legacy of Fidel Castro’s Cuban Revolution and Hugo Chávez’s relation to that movement as well as his connection to one of the Revolution’s enduring symbols, Ché Guevara.
In my other new article, Sede Vacante: Historic Happenings at the Vatican, I focus on the Papacy in transition following the surprising and extraordinarily rare resignation of Pope Benedict XVI and write about what we might be able to expect, from a historian’s point-of-view, as the College of Cardinals meets in a Conclave to elect a new Pope under almost unprecedented circumstances — a perfect storm of uncertainty in which a Papal vacancy, scandals in the Church, a shift in worldwide Catholic demographics, and a Conclave held in the wake of a voluntary resignation rather than under the solemnity and sadness of a Pope’s death may result in a far more political process (at least openly) than usual.
Check my articles out now, before they even hit the cover page at AND Magazine! And, if you do read ¿Viva La Revolucíon? or Sede Vacante, please take a moment to click the Facebook “like” button near the top of each page. In fact, even if you don’t read the articles, just go to the page and click that “like” button because it helps me a whole lot. Seriously, you don’t even have to read the articles right now, just go to those links and click the Facebook “like” button and I’ll be your friend in real-life, be the godfather to your children, hide your murder weapon like Robert Kardashian (allegedly) if you pull an O.J. Simpson (allegedly)…whatever you need, I’m there if the Faceboook “likes” on each article gets over 100, okay? Cool.
Lyndon Baines Johnson’s ability to convince others to see things his way, vote for his legislation, serve at his command, and do what he needed them to do is so legendary that there is even a familiar description of his tactics — “the Johnson Treatment”. Read any biography of LBJ and you’ll be sure to find the words “bully” and “cajole” somewhere in the text. The towering Texan often used his imposing physical presence (he was nearly 6’4”) to grab lapels, jab fingers in chests, wrap his arms on his target, and literally lean on others in order to get what he needed, as displayed in the famous series of photographs above of the Johnson Treatment being used on a somwehat terrified-looking Senator Theodore Green of Rhode Island.
But the Johnson Treatment wasn’t always a physical onslaught. Lyndon Johnson had an innate, often stunning ability to read the personalities of others and immediately understand exactly how to ingratiate himself with them. With giants of Capitol Hill like Senator Richard Russell of Georgia and longtime House Speaker Sam Rayburn of Texas, LBJ recognized two lonely, childless men who had nothing in their lives but an intense devotion to politics. With both men, Johnson built relationships bordering on familial. Russell and Rayburn both had something close to paternal affection for Johnson, who was endlessly deferential to them and brought them into his home for dinners with his family because, as he once explained to Senator Russell, who lived alone in a small apartment in Washington, “You’re gonna have to eat somewhere, you know.” The relationships he built were real, but there was a reasoning behind the deference and for the personal bonds forged with such men, too. Johnson recognized their influence and how they could further his goals for himself and for his country. As LBJ often said, “Power is where power goes.”
Johnson would tailor his strategy differently for everybody he approached, and his success rate was astonishing. The Johnson Treatment’s tactics were effective, if not always admirable. The man who would one day become LBJ’s Vice President, Hubert H. Humphrey, once pulled up the leg of his trousers to show bruises where Johnson had kicked him while saying “Get going!” after giving Humphrey marching orders. In the dark days following President John F. Kennedy’s assassination, Johnson decided to appoint a special Presidential commission to uncover all of the facts of the murder and report back to the country. To chair the commission, LBJ wanted Earl Warren, Chief Justice of the United States, but Warren was opposed to Supreme Court Justices serving on extrajudicial commissions. When Warren declined, Johnson called him to the Oval Office and appealed to his patriotism, noting that rumors that the Soviet Union might be involved in Kennedy’s death could cause the Soviets to become nervous of an impending retaliation by the United States and launch a preemptive nuclear strike, which would kill an estimated 39 million Americans in the first hour. “All I want you to do is look at the facts, and bring any other facts that you want in here and determine who killed the President,” Johnson told Warren. “But here I’m asking you to do something and you’re saying no, when you could speaking for 39 million people. Now I’m surprised that you, the Chief Justice of the United States, would turn me down.” The Chief Justice, one of the most formidable and respected men in the country, was left in tears, and immediately said, “Mr. President, if the situation is that serious, my personal views do not count. I will do it.”
Richard Russell didn’t want to serve on the Warren Commission, either. One of the main reasons was that the staunch segregationist hated and distrusted Earl Warren, whose Supreme Court had ordered the desegregation of public schools in the landmark Brown v. Board of Education decision. Throughout their relationship, Johnson had always been deferential to the Senator from Georgia who, in turn, treated LBJ like the son he never had. Now, just seven days into his Presidency, LBJ used another form of the Johnson Treatment on Russell. A couple of hours after Russell had initially turned down Johnson’s request, the President called him back and told him that he wasn’t simply asking Russell to serve on the commission — in fact, he’d already announced it to the press. Russell was stunned and again tried to beg off, but it was no use. The protégé, now President of the United States, said, to his mentor, “You’re my man on that commission. And you are going to do it! And don’t tell me what you can do and what you can’t, because I can’t arrest you. And I’m not going to put the FBI on you. But you’re goddamned going to serve, I’ll tell you that!” There wasn’t anything else the Senator could do. Richard Russell served alongside the Chief Justice on the Warren Commission.
The Johnson Treatment — and LBJ’s unique way of adapting it to each person — even worked with people who knew Lyndon Johnson extraordinarily well, understood his modus operandi, and were somewhat “on-guard” for the Johnson Treatment. James H. Rowe was a cunning, tough politician and lawyer, who had known Lyndon B. Johnson since Johnson was a young, up-and-coming Congressman beginning to float into the circle of President Franklin D. Roosevelt. Rowe had been a clerk for Supreme Court Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes and became an ardent New Dealer. He worked on the Nuremberg Trials prosecuting Nazi war criminals following World War II, and was a Democratic operative who was a trusted political adviser to Presidents Roosevelt and Harry Truman. By 1956, Rowe had known Lyndon Johnson for nearly twenty years and had often seen LBJ get his way via the Johnson Treatment by bullying, flattering, and even sometimes making others feel pity for him.
On July 2, 1955, Johnson, the powerful Senate Majority Leader, suffered a massive heart attack that very nearly killed him. Just 46 years old, unhealthy habits such as his blistering pace at work, his diet, his drinking, his lack of exercise, and the more than three packs of cigarettes that he smoked daily caught up with LBJ, who came from a family of men with a history of heart trouble. As he returned to work at the Capitol, Johnson asked Rowe to join him as an aide in the Senate. Rowe turned Johnson down because of his lucrative law practice in New York City — a job as an aide to the Senate Majority Leader would obviously result in a drastic pay cut for Rowe. LBJ put the Johnson Treatment into full effect, and not just on Rowe.
As Rowe continued to decline Johnson’s pleading, mutual friends were told that LBJ had nearly died and that Rowe wouldn’t help him out. Rowe’s law partner, another New Dealer and famed operative for FDR, Thomas “Tommy the Cork” Corcoran, got on Rowe’s case, saying, “You just can’t do this to Lyndon Johnson!”. Rowe would later remember, “People I knew were coming up to me on the street — on the street! — and saying, ‘Why aren’t you helping Lyndon? Don’t you know how sick he is? How can you let him down when he needs you?’” Even Rowe’s wife was recruited and asked him one night, “Why are you doing this to poor Lyndon?”.
Then LBJ really turned it on. Over the years, Rowe had seen Johnson use whatever means necessary to obtain the support he needed and the people he wanted. But when Lyndon Johnson came to James Rowe’s law office, he was stunned by the display. Johnson’s was sobbing, with his head in his big hands, tears streaming down his face. “I’m going to die,” said Johnson. “You’re an old friend. I thought you were my friend and you don’t care that I’m going to die. It’s just selfish of you, typically selfish.” Pleading with Rowe that he had a big job to do as Senate Majority Leader and not much time left because of his health problems, he literally begged Rowe to come to work for him, even if it meant sacrificing his law practice for a while.
“Oh, goddamn it, all right,” said Rowe.
The Johnson Treatment had worked again, even on an old hand like James H. Rowe, who had seen it in action so many times. And, as soon as Johnson got what he wanted, the tears disappeared. The weakness was gone. He was no longer dying or crying or pleading. Instead, he stood up, looked his new employee, and gave him his first orders.
“Just remember, I make the decisions. You don’t,” LBJ commanded Rowe, and then stomped right back to work.
I’ve been thinking about the last question I got about Speaker John Boehner saying that he isn’t going to negotiate with President Obama anymore and about how generally terrible Congress is and I came to a thought.
The Speaker of the United States House of Representatives is next in line to the Presidency after the Vice President. The Speaker controls the flow of legislation in the House and is easily the most influential member of the Legislative branch — probably the third or fourth most powerful person in the country. The Speaker is an enormously important component to the political process in the United Sates.
It requires a simple majority of the votes of 435 people, many of whom are casting ballots on the first day of their new job in Congress, to elect the Speaker of the House. The voting is almost always done along strict party lines. John Boehner will probably be Speaker until January 3, 2015. It only took 200 people to decide that. Although the Speaker of the House is a tremendously powerful person who influences the lives of every American in many ways, John Boehner is really only accountable to the 8th Congressional District of Ohio. Nancy Pelosi was really only accountable to the 8th Congressional District of California.
Understanding all of this, shouldn’t we choose the Speaker of the United States House of Representatives in a national election? Shouldn’t candidates for the Speaker have to face all of the voters of our country? Shouldn’t all Americans help make that decision?
Anonymous Asks:
deadpresidents Said:
I hate to give the cop-out answer, but it’s truly a bit of both. Michael Kranish of the Boston Globe wrote a fantastic, in-depth story on Saturday about what went wrong with Mitt Romney’s campaign, and what the Obama campaign did right, particularly with the overwhelming number of staffers Obama had on the ground and offices opened up in key battleground states in comparison to what Romney had.
Both campaigns had state-of-the-art voter targeting and tracking software, but the Obama campaign learned from mistakes made in 2008 and ensured that there were no glitches on Election Day — a mistake that the Romney campaign paid dearly for on November 6th.
What really stands out in Kranish’s article, however, is the differences in staffing and on the accountability for individual voters that Obama staffers took on during the campaign. The sheer number of people that Obama had on the ground in certain states (especially Florida and Ohio) is incredible and undoubtedly played a part in his victory. In some battleground states, Obama offices popped up like Starbucks franchises and that presence allowed the campaign to target the voters they needed to get to the polls. I mean, I was offered five different jobs by the Obama campaign in October in five distinctly different parts of North Carolina — and that’s a state that Obama lost! Kranish explains it far better than I can, so I highly suggest checking out his article.
Anonymous Asks:
deadpresidents Said:
I’m sure he has loftier ambitions, but if he’s thinking the Presidency, he’s aiming too high. First of all, he’s only been a Democrat for two weeks, so he would have a lot of work to do in order to build a national identity as a Democrat and to win over surrogates or pull Democratic support away from established, lifelong Democrats who might also seek the nomination in 2016.
Plus, he’s only a one-term Governor (elected from a different party) who misjudged his chances at a Senate seat from Florida and sacrificed a second term as Governor to make that bid. If Charlie Crist wants to realize those loftier ambitions, he’s probably going to have to either seek another term as Governor or win a race for the Senate. The Senate would be the best bet for him, but a far tougher race to run than another bid for Governor.
Anonymous asked: Any thoughts on Bob Dole’s recent Senate appearance to ask for the passing to the UN Disability Treaty?
I wish I could say that I was surprised that the Senate didn’t do the right thing despite the appearance and support of a nearly 90-year-old Bob Dole who not only dedicated his life to public service, but did so with significant disabilities because of the fact that he very nearly gave up his life fighting for this country in World War II.
I wish I could say that I was surprised, but I’m not. Nothing surprises me anymore about the Senate or the House, particularly in this 112th Congress. I’m hoping that enough was done in November to, for a lack of a better term, flush the waste out of the Capitol so that the 113th Congress can get some good things done for our country.
It just makes me angry now. It makes me angry that these are our representatives. It makes me angry that 38 United States Senators voted against ratifying a treaty that was basically an international version of our own American With Disabilities Act. The United Nations modeled the treaty after the ADA in order to urge people around the world to take care of and no discriminate against people with disabilities. And after frail, wheelchair bound Bob Dole made an appearance in support of the treaty’s ratification, he was wheeled out of the Senate chamber and 38 American Senators said no.
Thirty-eight American Senators opposed that treaty while Arizona Senator John McCain, who spent nearly six years being tortured in a North Vietnamese prison and can’t even raise his arm into the air to be recognized by the presiding officer, sat in that chamber. I can’t even imagine how Senator McCain can caucus with those Senators in the future and work together with them. I can’t understand it.
38. Thirty-eight Senators rejected that treaty while Hawaii’s Senator Daniel Inouye was in the chamber. Senator Inouye is 88 years old and disabled. Do you know why Senator Inouye is disabled? BECAUSE HE LEFT HIS ARM ON A HILLSIDE IN ITALY FIGHTING FOR HIS COUNTRY. That was after he had already been shot in the stomach attacking a German bunker. A German grenade blew his right arm off of his body as Inouye prepared to toss his own grenade. Do you know what happened when Daniel Inouye’s arm was blown off of his body? He reached down with the arm he had left, pulled the grenade that he was about to throw out of the closed hand of his severed right arm, and then he finished the job that he had started, tossed the grenade at the Germans, and kept shooting with the arm he had left until he passed out. Thirty-eight of Senator Inouye’s colleagues rejected an international treaty protecting the rights of people like Inouye as he sat there.
It’s shameful. After the vote, John Kerry (another American who served his country and was wounded in combat, by the way) said it was “one of the saddest days I’ve seen in almost 28 years in the Senate and it needs to be a wake-up call about a broken institution that’s letting down the American people.” I couldn’t agree more with Senator Kerry except for one thing: rejecting this treaty lets down the people of the world — 700 million of whom are disabled.
Thirty-eight United States Senators should be ashamed of themselves and their constituents should be disgusted by their representation. Shame on you, Lamar Alexander of Tennessee, Roy Blunt of Missouri, John Boozman of Arkansas, Richard Burr of North Carolina, Saxby Chambliss of Georgia, Dan Coats of Indiana, Tom Coburn of Oklahoma, Thad Cochran of Mississippi, Bob Corker of Tennessee, John Cornyn of Texas, Mike Crapo of Idaho, Jim DeMint of South Carolina, Mike Enzi of Wyoming, Lindsey Graham of South Carolina, Chuck Grassley of Iowa, Orrin Hatch of Utah, Dean Heller of Nevada, John Hoeven of North Dakota, Kay Bailey Hutchison of Texas, Jim Inhofe of Oklahoma, Johnny Isakson of Georgia, Mike Johanns of Nebraska, Ron Johnson of Wisconsin, Jon Kyl of Arizona, Mike Lee of Utah (who took the lead in opposing the treaty’s ratification), Mitch McConnell of Kentucky, Jerry Moran of Kansas, Rand Paul of Kentucky, Rob Portman of Ohio, Jim Risch of Idaho, Pat Roberts of Kansas, Marco Rubio of Florida, Jeff Sessions of Alabama, Richard Shelby of Alabama, John Thune of South Dakota, Pat Toomey of Pennsylvania, David Vitter of Louisiana, and Roger Wicker of Mississippi. If I were running the DSCC, I would target all 38 of you in your next campaigns and lay your vote for the rejection of this treaty’s ratification on your doorstep every night so that you step in it every morning and drag it with you every time that you speak to a veterans organization or a group of people with disabilities or a senior citizen. I’d add “go to hell”, but with the 112th Congress in charge, I’m not positive that we aren’t already there.
Anonymous Asks:
deadpresidents Said:
I wish I could say that I was surprised that the Senate didn’t do the right thing despite the appearance and support of a nearly 90-year-old Bob Dole who not only dedicated his life to public service, but did so with significant disabilities because of the fact that he very nearly gave up his life fighting for this country in World War II.
I wish I could say that I was surprised, but I’m not. Nothing surprises me anymore about the Senate or the House, particularly in this 112th Congress. I’m hoping that enough was done in November to, for a lack of a better term, flush the waste out of the Capitol so that the 113th Congress can get some good things done for our country.
It just makes me angry now. It makes me angry that these are our representatives. It makes me angry that 38 United States Senators voted against ratifying a treaty that was basically an international version of our own American With Disabilities Act. The United Nations modeled the treaty after the ADA in order to urge people around the world to take care of and no discriminate against people with disabilities. And after frail, wheelchair bound Bob Dole made an appearance in support of the treaty’s ratification, he was wheeled out of the Senate chamber and 38 American Senators said no.
Thirty-eight American Senators opposed that treaty while Arizona Senator John McCain, who spent nearly six years being tortured in a North Vietnamese prison and can’t even raise his arm into the air to be recognized by the presiding officer, sat in that chamber. I can’t even imagine how Senator McCain can caucus with those Senators in the future and work together with them. I can’t understand it.
38. Thirty-eight Senators rejected that treaty while Hawaii’s Senator Daniel Inouye was in the chamber. Senator Inouye is 88 years old and disabled. Do you know why Senator Inouye is disabled? BECAUSE HE LEFT HIS ARM ON A HILLSIDE IN ITALY FIGHTING FOR HIS COUNTRY. That was after he had already been shot in the stomach attacking a German bunker. A German grenade blew his right arm off of his body as Inouye prepared to toss his own grenade. Do you know what happened when Daniel Inouye’s arm was blown off of his body? He reached down with the arm he had left, pulled the grenade that he was about to throw out of the closed hand of his severed right arm, and then he finished the job that he had started, tossed the grenade at the Germans, and kept shooting with the arm he had left until he passed out. Thirty-eight of Senator Inouye’s colleagues rejected an international treaty protecting the rights of people like Inouye as he sat there.
It’s shameful. After the vote, John Kerry (another American who served his country and was wounded in combat, by the way) said it was “one of the saddest days I’ve seen in almost 28 years in the Senate and it needs to be a wake-up call about a broken institution that’s letting down the American people.” I couldn’t agree more with Senator Kerry except for one thing: rejecting this treaty lets down the people of the world — 700 million of whom are disabled.
Thirty-eight United States Senators should be ashamed of themselves and their constituents should be disgusted by their representation. Shame on you, Lamar Alexander of Tennessee, Roy Blunt of Missouri, John Boozman of Arkansas, Richard Burr of North Carolina, Saxby Chambliss of Georgia, Dan Coats of Indiana, Tom Coburn of Oklahoma, Thad Cochran of Mississippi, Bob Corker of Tennessee, John Cornyn of Texas, Mike Crapo of Idaho, Jim DeMint of South Carolina, Mike Enzi of Wyoming, Lindsey Graham of South Carolina, Chuck Grassley of Iowa, Orrin Hatch of Utah, Dean Heller of Nevada, John Hoeven of North Dakota, Kay Bailey Hutchison of Texas, Jim Inhofe of Oklahoma, Johnny Isakson of Georgia, Mike Johanns of Nebraska, Ron Johnson of Wisconsin, Jon Kyl of Arizona, Mike Lee of Utah (who took the lead in opposing the treaty’s ratification), Mitch McConnell of Kentucky, Jerry Moran of Kansas, Rand Paul of Kentucky, Rob Portman of Ohio, Jim Risch of Idaho, Pat Roberts of Kansas, Marco Rubio of Florida, Jeff Sessions of Alabama, Richard Shelby of Alabama, John Thune of South Dakota, Pat Toomey of Pennsylvania, David Vitter of Louisiana, and Roger Wicker of Mississippi. If I were running the DSCC, I would target all 38 of you in your next campaigns and lay your vote for the rejection of this treaty’s ratification on your doorstep every night so that you step in it every morning and drag it with you every time that you speak to a veterans organization or a group of people with disabilities or a senior citizen. I’d add “go to hell”, but with the 112th Congress in charge, I’m not positive that we aren’t already there.
Anonymous Asks:
deadpresidents Said:
I do have some memorabilia that I’ve collected but, other than about a dozen autographs of political leaders, there is not as much as I imagine most people would guess considering how extensive my interest is in the Presidents and in history.
It was primarily autographs which I wanted to collect when I was a teenager. Like a lot of kids my age, my friends and I would go to Sacramento Kings games and then wait after the game near the automatic door to the underground garage at ARCO Arena where the players would park. Some players were totally cool about stopping and signing autographs, but others would speed out of that garage as quickly as possible as if they were pissed about the team’s performance (understandable considering the fact that the Kings were embarrassingly bad back in the early 1990s). Once I was able to finally get autographs from my two favorite Kings players — Mitch Richmond and Olden Polynice (don’t judge — teenage Anthony thought O.P. was cool and wanted a #0 jersey back in the day) — I aimed at loftier heights for my autograph targets. While I was just like any other kid when I was waiting outside of ARCO Arena to get the autographs of famous basketball players, not many other kids did as I did and sought autographs from famous politicians. My friends thought (and still think) that I was quite the nerd.
After Richard Nixon died in April 1994, I set out to get the autographs of all of the living former Presidents and wrote letters to their offices with my request. Unfortunately, Ronald Reagan shared that he was suffering from Alzheimer’s disease just a few months later, so I never was able to get his autograph. Reagan’s office, however, did send a really nice letter stamped with a copy of Reagan’s signaturewith a short book on the Presidents and another short book on the White House. Gerald Ford, Jimmy Carter, and George H.W. Bush all sent color photos with personalized autographs and I’ve had those framed.
Since then, of course, we’ve had three more Presidents. I don’t have the autographs of Bill Clinton or George W. Bush, but because of my work on the campaign, I have several autographs from President Obama. One is on a yard sign, another is on the back of my Obama For America business card from 2008, and yet another is in my copy of The Audacity of Hope (BOOK•KINDLE).
One piece of memorabilia that I constantly kick myself for losing is from the first campaign I ever worked on — the Gray Davis for Governor of California campaign in 1998. At a fundraiser, I was able to get autographs on the same access credential from Governor Davis (well, he was Lieutenant Governor at the time) and Sacramento’s legendary Mayor Joe Serna, a civil rights activist who fought the good fight for farm workers in the Central Valley alongside Cesar Chavez. Mayor Serna died in office a year later and I really wish I still had that autographed credential pass. Speaking of civil rights, I also have autographs from two political leaders who were once about as far apart from one another on the issue as possible. One is Julian Bond, the longtime chairman of the NAACP, former Georgia lawmaker, and one of the founders of the Southern Poverty Law Center AND the Student Nonviolent Coordinating Committee. The other? None other than the 1948 Dixiecrat nominee for President, former Governor of South Carolina, one of the longest-serving Members of Congress ever, and the oldest person to ever serve in Congress, Strom Thurmond. Senator Thurmond was 95 years old and his handwriting was obviously shaky when he signed the photo that his office sent me. I also have a signed photo of Missouri Governor Mel Carnahan that I received less than two weeks before he was killed in a plane crash.
Other than the autographs, there’s not much else. I have buttons and bumper stickers from various campaigns — mostly those that I worked on, particularly the 1998 Gray Davis campaign for Governor and Obama’s race for the Democratic nomination and then the Presidency in 2007 and 2008. I do have a really cool little “We Shall Overcome” button showing white and black hands clasped together. Next to my front door is a “LBJ FOR THE USA” campaign poster from 1964.
The most unique political memorabilia I have was kindly sent to me by former Congressman James E. Rogan, now a Superior Court Judge in California. Congressman Rogan was one of the managers from the House of Representatives who prosecuted the impeachment trial of President Clinton in the Senate. That would seem to make us diametrically opposed in our political beliefs — and we are. However, the Congressman wrote a book called Catching Our Flag: Behind the Scenes of a Presidential Impeachment (BOOK•KINDLE) that was not only fascinating but exceptionally fair, as I noted in my review of the book. The Congressman sent me a nice e-mail thanking me for my review and, after I mentioned something about the interesting political memorabilia that I noticed in the background of his office in one of the book’s photos, I received a package a few days later. Congressman Rogan sent me the staff/observe badges from several days of the House Judiciary Committee’s hearings on the Articles of Impeachment, including a rare pass from the actual day that the Judiciary Committee reported out the Articles that led to Clinton’s impeachment. What Congressman Rogan sent me are so cool that I don’t even know how to display them, but I’m eternally grateful for his generosity, even though I still think impeaching President Clinton was wrong!
It probably sounds like I have more stuff than I do, but that’s just because I’m long-winded. I’m probably forgetting something else that is pretty cool to have but, really, the only thing that I collect are books (and I definitely have A LOT of those). I’d certainly be interested in having some more political memorabilia (particularly campaign posters) but, quite frankly, I have nowhere to put it and absolutely no one who comes over to my apartment. If I actually had visitors, it might be fun to display stuff, but I don’t. Ever. I should make some friends, shouldn’t I?
Anonymous Asks:
deadpresidents Said:
Just because I voted for Barack Obama doesn’t mean that I want to see Mitt Romney destroyed, or even hurt. I don’t agree with Governor Romney’s politics, but I don’t wish him ill and I certainly wouldn’t disrespect him.
This is the problem with American politics — Americans like the person who asked this question. They are on both sides of the aisle and they are equally horrible for our country. Last night, I found no glory in the fact that Mitt Romney lost; instead, I was hopeful and happy that Barack Obama won. I didn’t go to the polls to vote against Mitt Romney; I was there to vote for Barack Obama.
Much like John McCain four years ago, Mitt Romney went out with class last night, and he deserves our respect. I have never thought that Mitt Romney was a bad man. I thought Obama would be a better President, but there was never any hatred on my part for Romney. We can disagree with his politics or the way he campaigns, but there is no reason to look at Mitt Romney as a villain.
Yes, Governor Romney is incredibly wealthy and was probably out-of-touch with “average Americans” like you and me. But with all of that money, Romney could live a life of leisure and never have to work at anything again. Instead, what did he do? He devoted himself to public service. There’s no question that he loves his family and has a great relationship with them. He spent a significant amount of time in a leadership role with his church — not just by sitting in a pew every Sunday but by taking a leadership role where he gave up time to help the families and people of his community. Saving the Salt Lake City Olympics, serving as Governor of Massachusetts, running for President in 2008 and 2012 — none of those things were token jobs where Romney was a figurehead that got the credit while others did the work. They were all challenges that Romney tackled with hard work and, in each instant, he “left everything on the field”, as he said in his concession speech last night.
Make no mistake about it — running for President is one of the most difficult, exhausting, and thankless journeys that an American can take. Everyone who runs for President makes tremendous sacrifices, and nobody seeks the Presidency because they are bad people who want to do harm to the United States. Candidates for the Presidency like Mitt Romney — win or lose — are patriots. They have a vision for this country and the passion to put themselves on the frontline. To serve all of us.
Laugh at Mitt Romney? Taunt him? No, I would thank Mitt Romney. I’d tell him that I may not have cast a ballot for him, but that I appreciate the sacrifices he made in order to try to move our country forward. I’d admit that I disagree with his politics, but that I respect his beliefs and admire his passion for going after what he felt was right. I’d tell him that I know last night was probably one of the most difficult experiences of his life, but that he conceded with class, he demonstrated a remarkable work ethic throughout the campaign, and that I hoped that my fellow Democrats would have offered their support of him if Obama had lost as seamlessly and earnestly as he offered his support for the President during his concession.
We cannot and will not bridge the divisions in this country if we continue to be ugly towards each other. Politics alone will not take us where we need to be. There must be some magnanimity, some cooperation, some compromise between all of us — from the President and the Congress to the State Governors and Legislatures, and right on down to you and me and our neighbors. “Politics” and “compromise” are dirty words because we drag them through the mud along with anyone connected to those ideas. That has to stop. It has to stop between the Democrats and Republicans in Congress, it has to stop between the talking heads on cable news networks, and it has to stop with people who anonymously leave messages on blogs encouraging a celebration over the heartbreaking defeat of someone who put everything on the line to serve his country. Celebrate Obama’s victory, not Romney’s defeat. Congratulate Obama and his supporters, but don’t hesitate to appreciate Romney’s work ethic and devotion to service.
We are at our best when all of us — or at least the largest majority of us — are moving forward. We are at our best when we remember the first word in our nation’s name is “United”. The idea of a constant conflict pitting Democrats vs. Republicans where one side must win and one side must lose is not progress. It’s Civil War without violence — but not without casualties. As someone who knew something about Civil War, Ulysses S. Grant, once said, “Let us have peace.” We should follow General Grant’s advice and add, “Let us have progress.” With peace and progress will come prosperity for all of our people.
I’m pretty sure that I don’t remember what it’s like to not live in the midst of an all-encompassing political campaign. Then again, considering how campaigns seem to begin earlier and earlier in 21st Century American politics, I wouldn’t be surprised if the midterm cycle kicks off this afternoon.
(P.S.: I better not see stories about potential 2016 Presidential candidates until AT LEAST Inauguration Day. In a perfect world, we’d be safe from starting that discussion until late-2014.)
Alright, kids, let’s see if this Smart-Ass Commentary works for a debate. It worked well during President Obama’s State of the Union Address and during the Republican and Democratic Conventions, but I can’t promise that this experiment won’t be a total trainwreck.
It’s the second of three Presidential debates between President Obama and former Massachusetts Governor Mitt Romney. This is a town hall format from Hofstra University, alma mater of my favorite publicist in the whole wide world, Joe Villa of the WWE (that’s one WWE reference and I think you should take a shot every time I make one). Candy Crowley of CNN is moderating.
President Obama needs a good showing tonight because Governor Romney kicked the ever-loving shit out of him in the first debate. I thought Joe Biden won the Vice Presidential debate, but it was close and Paul Ryan came across well, in my opinion. This is really, truly, genuinely, seriously, authentically, legitimately, hugely important for Obama.
And here we go…it’s clobberin’ time (take a shot).
•After moderating this debate, Candy Crowley will be heading back to the North Pole so she can get ready to deliver everyone’s toys.
•They switched things up — Mitt with the blue tie tonight and Barack with the red one. How will that affect their performances???
•(It won’t. It’s just a fucking tie.)
•You know, if they really wanted to mix things up, instead of a third debate with one another, the candidates should have to speak at one of their opponent’s political rallies. That would be awesome to watch, especially if they did it randomly so the audience didn’t know ahead of time that they were getting Obama instead of Romney or vice versa.
•I wish we could hear what they say during their introductory handshake.
•Wouldn’t it be smart to talk trash at that time or try to throw the other guy off?
•Seriously, imagine how confused and off his game Obama would be if Romney ended the handshake by saying something like, “How about trying to keep it real this time, my nigga”. Obama would be stunned.
•Oh man, how am I going to keep this from being 40,000 words when I want to mock everyone who asks a question?
•At least that 20-year-old kid in his grandpa’s suit wasn’t nervous or anything. Ninety minutes of awkward people asking boring questions. This will be awesome. And by “awesome” I mean “stab me, please”.
•President Obama looks like he’s getting thinner, doesn’t he? He’s starting to look fragile.
•Romney seems like he’s feeling confident because of the last debate. He’s going to just start putting his arm around Candy Crowley and begin singing Pat Boone songs.
•Another nervous audience member. Dude was shaking like my head when the President begins another boring, uninspiring answer.
•These debates should be like that old pop-up video show on VH1 but with instant fact-checking from reliable sources.
•Obama: “That’s what we’re going to do in the next four years.”
Romney: “But that’s not what you’ve done in the last four years. That’s the problem.” — That is a killer line from Romney and Obama needs to combat that instantly, every single time, by mentioning the do-nothing, record-low-approval-rating, obstructionist Congress. Obama isn’t, so Romney is winning the message war.
•Romney is controlling this debate. He’s controlling the arguments. YOU ARE THE INCUMBENT, MR. PRESIDENT…TRY TO PRETEND YOU ARE IN CHARGE!
•I’m getting very frustrated. It’s like Obama doesn’t even care.
•Obama: “I’m used to being interrupted.” — ASSERT YOURSELF! LBJ wouldn’t have allowed that. Nixon wouldn’t have allowed that. Reagan and Clinton wouldn’t have allowed that. You are the President, assert yourself and take control.
•27 minutes in and Obama finally points out that Congress has hindered him.
•I hate to have to keep saying this, but if I’m going to be an honest observer, Romney is more focused. He explains what he wants to say better and with more confidence. He even seems more passionate and empathetic.
•Obama is a bit more aggressive right now, but he’s not connecting. I never thought I’d see the day where Mitt Romney would be connecting with people better than Barack Obama.
•Oh, well hello, Catherine Benton. I’m Anthony. Feel free to Facebook me if you want to talk about the issues, if you know what I mean…
•It would be hilarious if Romney talked about his respect for women or gender equality by saying, “The President had an influential grandmother in his life, and I looked up to my 57 grandmothers and loved each one equally, just like my grandfather did.”
•Now this is where Obama shines — the arguments about Planned Parenthood and health care choices for women. That’s where you get the passion that Romney has for job creation.
•Holy shit, an audience member with an interesting question! The lady who asked Romney about the differences between he and President Bush deserves a gold star.
•And Romney can’t run away from Bush quickly enough.
•Obama wants to kiss that lady on the mouth for letting him point out that Bush left him a steaming pile of dogshit when he left the White House.
•Smooth move by Obama to contrast Bush and Romney with examples that actually made Bush look MORE reasonable. That was the best thing Obama has done in two debates so far.
•When the black dude in the audience said that he voted for Obama in 2008 and wanted to know why he should vote for him in 2012, do you think it would have been controversial if Obama just blurted out, “BECAUSE I’M BLACK!”? I think Drudge would have had a problem with that.
•It’s taken 90 minutes of the 1st debate and nearly 60 minutes of the 2nd debate, but President Obama seems to have finally realized that he should try to get himself reelected.
•I have to be honest with you guys; it’s difficult for me to be a smart-ass with these debates because they are just too important. I get wrapped up in being focused on what the candidates are actually saying and it’s hard for me to try to write something funny.
•Obama getting pissed off at Romney about the Libyan attack was a strong moment.
•Oh, hey, what’s up, mamacita?
•Goddamn, this is a long 90 minutes, isn’t it?
•If I was in a Presidential debate, I would make a completely ridiculous claim about my opponent just so he’d have to deny it. I’d say things like, “Governor Romney, is it or is it not true that you eat kitten paws for lunch every Thursday?” or “Mr. President, it’s been said that you exercise by open-hand slapping newborn babies in their little faces whenever you can’t get to a basketball court, correct?”
•The President is just rambling. I listened to every word he said and I couldn’t even tell you what he was talking about. No spirit, no passion.
•We’re getting close to the end, thankfully.
•It’s pretty wild to think that Romney would be the third-oldest President to ever be inaugurated if he’s elected. He looks younger than half of the Presidents inaugurated at a younger age than he will be on January 20th.
•Speaking of January 20th — Inauguration Day — that’s my birthday, so you might want to start shopping and getting your gifts for me. I’ll go ahead and wait if you need to write that down real quick……got it? Good.
•Solid final question to lead into a final statement.
•Romney once again showed some passion with his answer.
•In debates, I think Obama’s cadence when he speaks hurts him. It makes it seem as if he is stammering at times when it’s just how he speaks.
•Yay, it’s over.
Final thoughts: I think Romney won this debate, too. It wasn’t a massacre like the first debate and Obama had some strong points, particularly in the middle part of the debate. For me, though, it keeps coming back to passion. Romney seems like he wants it more, seems like he cares more. I know how important it is to Obama, but he’s just not connecting. He’s not connecting with ME. If Barack Obama isn’t connecting with ME, I think he’s in trouble. Mitt Romney is a better debater and, astonishingly, he might actually be a better public speaker. There was more aggression out of Obama tonight, but there were still too many moments where he let Romney run through him or where he looked to the moderator to save him.
One debate to go and 20 days to Election Day and I have no idea who is going to be our next President.
lafraudebelle Asks:
deadpresidents Said:
I think the VP debate is far more important this year than in other years, especially right now because the momentum is in Romney’s favor. If Ryan wins the debate handily, Obama better pack a lunch and be ready to decimate Romney in the second and third Presidential debates because that’s what it will take to reverse the momentum.
In my opinion, the Obama campaign has to let Biden be Biden tonight. In the past year, the media (particularly Drudge) salivates every single time Biden gets in front of a microphone because they think he’s going to say something that derails the campaign. Here’s the thing that Democrats should think about, though: in all of those “gaffes” that Biden has made, when has he said something that we don’t agree with? Health care reform was “a big fucking deal”. His comments on gay marriage weren’t indefensible; instead, he pushed the President to take a definitive stand on the right side of history. People aren’t worried that Biden is dumb or offensive; they’re worried that he’s honest. Biden is what Harry Truman would be like had Truman lived and served in this time.
In 2008, the campaign muzzled Biden at the VP debate because they were worried he would beat Sarah Palin so badly that people would start feeling sorry for her. Everyone knew that she was out of her league during the debate — even SHE knew she was out her league in the debate. All Biden had to do was let her talk and he would win. The campaign was smart in 2008 because, if Biden was unleashed, it would have become uncomfortable. Americans are fine with seeing someone get destroyed, but there is that point where you start worrying when you see the victor standing there covered in blood and laughing while everyone is saying, “Wow, I feel sorry for her.” They did what they had to do in 2008, and Biden knew his role and played it perfectly, even though that’s not Biden’s natural state. That’s why he stepped off the stage at the debate with Palin and told his campaign staff, “You guys owe me. You don’t know how much restraint that took.”
Four years later, the Obama campaign not only owes Joe Biden, but they NEED him. Paul Ryan is not Sarah Palin. Yes, he looks like creepy-ass Gabe from The Office and I don’t agree with his ideas, but he actually HAS ideas. Paul Ryan doesn’t simply memorize talking points and prep for the debate like it’s a junior high school play; he formulated much of the opposition’s policy in Congress, particularly when it comes to the budget. Ryan is one of the Republican Party’s intellectual centers and a guy who is not only smart enough to formulate his party’s policy, but ballsy enough to propose and defend it, will be a formidable opponent. This isn’t a slam dunk (Copyright ©2003 George Tenet), and Biden will have to be on his game. Yet, Ryan cannot underestimate Biden, either. Biden is such a nice, charming, likeable guy that it’s easy to forget that he is a lifelong overachiever. When he was elected to the Senate in 1972, he didn’t reach the Constitutional age minimum for taking his seat (30 years old) until two weeks after his election. He’s one of the longest-serving Senators of all-time. He is tough (widowed just after his Senate election and a single dad during his early years in Washington) and honest (that’s what his “gaffes” are, pure honesty). And he is experienced. It is not a coincidence that the biggest legislative victories of the Obama Administration have been projects where Biden has played a major role as a liaison between the White House and the Capitol. I think President Obama needs Joe Biden more than most people realize, and tonight’s debate is another situation where the loyal VP might have to save his President’s ass.
In order for him to do that, the safety has to come off. Biden has to be able to be Biden because he can and will frustrate and surprise Paul Ryan. Ryan is a numbers guy, Biden is an empathetic, I-feel-your-pain, blue-collar politician. We see the pictures of Paul Ryan in his hunting gear or wearing his Green Bay Packers colors, but I do not believe that Paul Ryan can out-blue-collar (I just made that phrase up, so let’s just accept it) the Scranton-born, Wilmington-raised, Amtrak-riding, Capitol creature that Joe Biden truly is. And this is a debate which focuses on domestic issues and foreign policy. Congressman Ryan is the GOP’s guiding light on economic and budget issues, but he cannot hold a candle to Vice President Biden on foreign policy. Biden became a member of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee when Paul Ryan started kindergarten in 1975. For Biden’s final 10 years in the Senate, he was either the chairman or ranking member of the powerful committee. The Vice President will chew Ryan up on foreign policy, so the GOP’s VP candidate is going to do his best to score his points on domestic policy and the economy.
I’m very much looking forward to this debate tonight. I think it will be much more interesting than Obama and Romney because the VP candidates will be far more likely to take some risks. I’m sure Biden is spoiling for a fight and aiming to prove his worth once again by recapturing the momentum lost by the President last week. Ryan is a brilliant young Congressman who does the one unique thing that makes him stand out amongst the 535 members of the House and Senate — he leads and stands on his ideas, not his party’s ideology.
Biden shouldn’t have to restrain himself tonight and Paul Ryan is not Sarah Palin, so this won’t be like 2008 which felt more like Fisher-Price’s “My First Debate” so that Biden couldn’t make Palin cry. I’m pumped and I’ll be doing a Smart-Ass Commentary™ tonight (I’ll probably post it early tomorrow morning).
ADDENDUM: If Paul Ryan wanted to throw the Vice President off his game tonight, he should come out and pull the Palin bit, wink at the camera, and then turn to Biden and say, “Can I call ya Joe?” That would be awesome.
The other thing that would be awesome — and I don’t know why a candidate doesn’t try this just to be completely condescending — is if Biden just referred to Ryan by like 15 different names, as if he is just a cookie-cutter House Republican (which Ryan actually is not). How annoyed would Ryan get if Biden would refer to him as, “My opponent, Mr. Cantor” or “I’m going to have to disagree with you, Congressman McCarthy”?
That last paragraph is probably a good example of why nobody has ever asked me to help with debate prep.
I have a cover story running today on the AND Magazine website that I’d love for you to check out. In the story, I look at President Obama’s dedication of the Cesar Chavez National Monument in California and speak of Chavez’s importance and his impact on people like me — Mexican-Americans from California’s Central Valley. I am a believer that progress in civil rights makes everybody’s life better, not just the people who receive rights that they shouldn’t have been denied in the first place. Equality improves the lives of everyone and for many people, especially those in California who were migrant farm workers or who were related to people that were migrant farm workers at some point, it was not an exaggeration to place Cesar Chavez alongside Martin Luther King, Jr. or Mahatma Gandhi, and I expand on that in the article.
I also fire back at CNN contribute Ruben Navarrette (like Gandhi and Dr. King, Chavez was a proponent of non-violent protest, so maybe “fire back” is the wrong phrase). In an opinion piece posted on CNN.com, Navarette — who has admittedly had issues with Chavez, Dolores Huerta, and the United Farm Workers — suggests that President Obama’s “used” Chavez and the dedication of the National Monument in order to gain traction with Latino voters. As if that’s not quite enough, Navarrette then argues that Chavez’s importance to Latinos overall was overstated and that it’s really only Mexican-Americans who revere the civil rights leader.
In the article, I counter Navarrette’s claims, especially the theory that the President’s recognition of Chavez had something to do with politics. Obama has long admired Chavez and, as someone who can say this with genuine insight, many aspects of Obama’s grassroots campaign in 2007 and 2008 were regional/local techniques and strategies that Chavez’s United Farm Workers used. Not only did Obama’s campaign follow some of the UFW’s models for community organizing, but the Camp Obama training sessions were planned — and in the Camp Obama session that I attended, led by — one of Chavez’s top lieutenants and activists, Marshall Ganz. Even the slogan, “Yes, we can”, was a rough English translation of the longtime United Farm Workers slogan, “¡Sí, se puede!”
I promise that I didn’t just rehash the article in the previous paragraphs. Please go to the AND Magazine website and check it out and PLEASE click on the Facebook “like’ button or the Facebook “share” button so that I can look good to my editors and someone will give me a $10 million book deal simply because of my mediocre writing and better-than-average-yet-not-terribly-impressive web presence.
