Tag Archives: LBJ

national news

Size may matter at the next inaugural

Size became something of a back-story issue during the 2016 presidential campaign.

Donald J. Trump boasted continually about the size of the crowds at his rallies. He compared them to those of his Republican Party primary rivals and then to those of Democratic Party nominee Hillary Rodham Clinton.

And, oh yeah, size of an entirely different kind became a talking point during one of those endless GOP presidential debate with Trump and his horde of challengers. I won’t go any further with that one.

But, take a peek at the picture attached to this blog post.

It was taken on Jan. 20, 2009, when Barack H. Obama delivered his first inaugural speech in front of the U.S. Capitol Building. The size of that crowd is now generally accepted as the largest assemblage ever for a presidential inaugural. The previous record crowd was thought to be at President Lyndon Johnson’s inaugural on Jan. 20, 1965.

LBJ had just been elected in his own right in a historic landslide and he — like Obama — took office amid a national mood of hope for a better day. Lord knows the country had gone through the tragic nightmare of a presidential assassination in November 1963.

My thought, then, is this: Will Donald Trump be able to boast about the size of the crowd that gathers before him in 14 days as he delivers his inaugural speech?

That ol’ trick knee of mine is telling me the Trump inaugural crowd is going to be, um, substantially smaller than the one pictured with his post.

And it well could speak volumes about the hope — or the lack of hope — much of the country will feel when the new president takes the oath of office.

But, hey. It’s only a crowd and in this context — in the world of Trump — size really doesn’t matter.

Or does it?

International news, national news, political news

‘Tricky Dick’ surely earned his moniker

2 Comments

Political chicanery certainly isn’t a new phenomenon.

Now, though, the world is learning that when it comes to matters of war and peace, not even the prospect of peace that could end years of bloodshed and the loss of thousands of American lives is above the hideous intervention of one prominent politician.

It appears to be confirmed now that President-elect Richard Nixon sought to derail a last-minute peace deal that President Lyndon Johnson sought to broker with North Vietnam near the end of his presidency.

Notes acquired by journalist John Farrell suggest that Nixon’s intervention in those peace talks are far worse than anything the future president would do during the Watergate scandal that forced him to quit his office in August 1974.

According to the New York Times: “In a telephone conversation with H. R. Haldeman, who would go on to become White House chief of staff, Nixon gave instructions that a friendly intermediary should keep ‘working on’ South Vietnamese leaders to persuade them not to agree to a deal before the election, according to the notes, taken by Mr. Haldeman.”

LBJ was seeking to start peace talks that could have brought the fighting to a much earlier end. Nixon, according to Farrell’s upcoming book, didn’t want the Democratic president to succeed and give a boost to Vice President Hubert Humphrey, who was Nixon’s primary opponent in the 1968 presidential race. To block any possible boost to Humphrey’s campaign, Nixon finagled a way to keep the South Vietnamese away from the peace table until after the election.

Can you say “treason”?

http://www.msn.com/en-us/news/politics/nixon-tried-to-spoil-johnson%e2%80%99s-vietnam-peace-talks-in-%e2%80%9968-notes-show/ar-BBxPrcF?li=BBnb7Kz

This is so profoundly offensive to learn of this so many years later, I almost don’t know where to begin.

So, I won’t go into too much detail here. I do, though, want to suggest that the moniker “Tricky Dick” now seems more appropriate than ever.

The idea that a president-elect would interfere directly with a sitting president’s initiative to seek an end to warfare that was killing Americans crosses the line with both feet that defines treason.

Nixon campaigned in 1968 on the promise to deliver a “secret plan” to end the Vietnam War. Of course, he wouldn’t tell us that the plan involved derailing his predecessor’s effort and then drag the war effort on for another five years.

The link I attached to this blog post goes into amazing detail about what Farrell discovered at the Nixon presidential library. Take a look at it.

Warning: It might turn your stomach as much as it did mine.

national news, State news

JFK murder recalls a curious interview

brooks-at-lbj-swearing-in

Take a good look at this picture. You know the moment it has recorded.

Standing behind the grieving Jacqueline Kennedy, just over her right shoulder is a fellow I used to know pretty well. He is U.S. Rep. Jack Brooks, a Democrat from Beaumont, Texas, and arguably the crustiest, most partisan member of the Texas congressional delegation at that time … or perhaps any time.

Brooks died just a few years ago. He was one of the Democrats who lost his re-election bid in that historic Republican “Contract With America” tide that swept over Congress in 1994.

The previous year, I sat down with Brooks to interview him about the events that occurred in Dallas 30 years earlier. I sought to get into the man’s soul, into his heart. I wanted him to share with his constituents — through this interview to be published in the Beaumont Enterprise — what he felt that day.

Jack was riding in the motorcade that beautiful day in Dallas. It was Nov. 22, 1963. He was riding several vehicles behind the presidential limo that was carrying the Kennedys and Texas Gov. John Connally and his wife, Nellie.

Rifle shots exploded from the sixth floor of the Texas School Book Depository Building, hitting the president and Gov. Connally. Their car took off at full speed for Parkland Hospital. The world held its breath when news broke that “shots were fired” at the motorcade.

Then the terrible result flashed around the globe: The president was dead.

I sought to plumb deep into Rep. Brooks’ heart and soul that day.

But I learned something that day about Brooks that I knew intuitively all along. He wasn’t prone to thinking like that. I recall being disappointed at the seeming lack of pathos this man.

Brooks wasn’t the most gracious fellow I’ve ever met. He could be as mean as they come. Perhaps he wasn’t comfortable talking to a media representative about that terrible day.

Surely he knew, I speculated to him out loud, about the immense burden that his mentor and friend — President Lyndon Johnson — was carrying at that moment. Did he sense it? Did he grasp in the moment that the world was watching everyone’s move that day? Brooks didn’t confide much to me during our visit that day.

That interview stands perhaps as the most glaring missed opportunity I experienced during nearly four decades in daily journalism.

Oh, how I sought far more than I got from a veteran Texas politician.

national news

Pols say mean things, then they change their tune

romneyandtrumpmeet

My friends and acquaintances on the right are fond these days of reminding me of something I knew already.

It is that U.S. Sens. Barack Obama and Hillary Rodham Clinton said angry things to and about each other when they ran for the Democratic Party’s presidential nomination in 2008.

Then Sen. Obama was nominated. He went on to be elected president. Then he hired Sen. Clinton to be secretary of state in the first Obama administration.

All was “forgiven,” more or less. The rivals became allies. Then they became friends … or so they said.

The pushback on this issue comes from those on my right and far right who keep yapping at my continuing observation about Donald J. Trump’s former foes/enemies are now lining up for spots in the president-elect’s Cabinet.

Mitt Romney is being considered for secretary of state; Mitt called Trump a “phony” and a “fraud.”

Rick Perry is being considered either for secretary of defense or energy; the former Texas governor called Trump a “cancer on conservatism.”

Chris Christie once led the Trump transition, then he got pushed aside and now he’s back in Trump’s semi-good graces; Christie once said Trump was “unfit” to be president.

The list of “establishment Republicans” who have condemned Trump is long and distinguished. Here they are, though, lining up behind the new president.

Sure thing. Democrats do the very same thing. John F. Kennedy and Lyndon Johnson weren’t exactly BFFs when they ran against each other in 1960; then JFK picked LBJ to run with him on the winning ticket.

I guess one’s reaction to this kind of political mood swing depends on your own point of view.

Therefore, I won’t apologize for overlooking how Democrats have played this very same game … at least not until my Republican friends acknowledge publicly what’s occurring at this moment in history with their guy and his former foes.

national news

A little perspective seems to be in order

jfk

I’m still in a bit of shock over the election results. It’s going to take some time to get over the notion that a first-time candidate for any public office has just been elected president of the United States of America … for crying out loud!

But I’ll tell you this: There is something of a silver lining at the prospect of Donald J. Trump taking the oath of office and assuming the multiple roles of head of state/head of government/leader of the Free World/commander in chief of the world’s greatest military machine.

It lies in what we’ve endured already as a nation. We have survived — in my view — worse crises than what many of us are feeling now.

Fifty-three years ago, TV news networks flashed bulletins on our screens to inform the nation that “shots were fired” at a presidential motorcade in downtown Dallas. The news trickled in at first. Was the president hurt? Did the gunman hit our nation’s leader?

Then we found out. Yes! The president was taken to a hospital. Doctors were treating him for gunshot wounds.

After that, the worst news possible was flashed around the world: President John F. Kennedy was dead.

I was 13 years old at the time. I have vivid memories of how I felt in that moment. I just knew in my gut that the Russians were responsible. They did it! They killed our president and were planning to invade us. The Soviet Union was going to take over the world, just as they threatened they would. Hey, we were locked in a Cold War with those guys, who had as many nukes as we did.

We would learn in short order — later that very day — that a non-Russian pulled the trigger … allegedly. Lee Harvey Oswald was charged with murdering our president. He, too, would be gunned down a couple of days later in the Dallas Police Department garage. All hell broke loose once again.

Crisis begat another crisis.

How did we do? We got through it.

A new president took the oath of office aboard a jetliner dubbed Air Force One. He flew back to the capital with the body of his slain predecessor. President Lyndon Johnson asked for his nation’s help and God’s strength to see him — and the rest of us — through this terrible moment.

Yes, we’ve exhibited tremendous resilience over many years. World wars, economic collapse, constitutional crises and all manner of conflicts large and small haven’t taken us down.

Donald Trump’s election, while still shocking to many of us, was conducted in accordance with the rules and laws prescribed by our founders. He won this contest fair and square. And, no, the results were not “rigged.”

Understand this: I am not equating a presidential election with a presidential assassination. I mention the JFK tragedy only to put matters into what I believe is their proper perspective.

Remember this, too: If the new president messes up — as many folks believe he will — we have a civilized method to embark on a course correction. We call them “elections.”

national news, political news

Comey deserves some blame, however …

hillary-and-comey-500x300

Hillary Rodham Clinton’s shocking loss to Donald J. Trump in the 2016 presidential election can be laid at the feet of many culprits.

Clinton has chosen to single out, though, the director of the FBI. James Comey’s letter to Congress just 11 days before Election Day informing lawmakers that he had more information to examine regarding those “damn e-mails” stole the Clinton campaign’s “momentum,” she said. By the time Comey said nine days later that the information wouldn’t result in any further action, the damage had been done, Clinton told campaign donors.

Let’s hold on a second.

I don’t doubt that Comey’s 11th-hour intervention had some effect on the campaign outcome. However, I believe a bit more introspection is required of the defeated candidate before we start writing the final history of what no doubt will be logged in as the strangest presidential campaign in U.S. history.

Hillary Clinton should have iced this campaign long before the Comey letter became known.

Think about a few factors here … and bear with me.

Clinton is eminently qualified to become president of the United States: former first lady, U.S. senator and secretary of state. Boom! Right there, she has a dossier that commends her for the top job. Trump is not qualified: reality TV celebrity, commercial real estate developer, thrice-married rich guy with zero public service commitment on his lengthy record in private business. The endless litany of insults and hideous proclamations that poured out of Trump’s mouth throughout the campaign are too numerous to mention. You know what he said. It didn’t matter to the Trumpkins who backed him to the hilt.

It is true that Clinton’s enemies made a huge story out of something that had been declared dead and buried — the e-mail controversy — which gave life to the corpse near the end of an insult-driven campaign.

Clinton’s qualifications, her knowledge of world affairs and her contacts around the globe made her an excellent — if not perfect — choice to lead the greatest nation on Earth. Many observers — me included — considered it possible that Clinton would roll up a historic election victory that could have eclipsed, say, the Lyndon Johnson, Richard Nixon or Ronald Reagan landslides of 1964, 1972 and 1984, respectively.

If only, though, she could have demonstrated some innate quality of authenticity that could have fired up her base. She didn’t. Clinton was unable to light the fire that burned brightly when Barack Obama ran twice successfully for the presidency.

She was a flawed candidate who brought much more to the table than she was able — or perhaps willing — to reveal.

Comey did his part, for sure, to run the Clinton campaign over the cliff. The FBI boss wasn’t the sole reason. The candidate herself deserves much –indeed most — of the blame for what transpired on Election Day.

national news, political news

‘Rigged election’ talk creates serious concern

trump

It’s been said many times by historians that the United States is the world’s model for peaceful transition of power from president to president, particularly in times of crisis and tragedy.

* 1963: John F. Kennedy was gunned down and Lyndon Johnson took the oath of office shortly after doctors announced the death of the president. We didn’t skip a beat.

* 1974: Richard Nixon resigned from office in the midst of a profound constitutional crisis and Gerald Ford became president, declaring “Our long national nightmare is over.” The beat went on.

* 2000: George W. Bush won election by the narrowest margin imaginable over Al Gore. The Supreme Court settled it in accordance with constitutional law. The government continued to function.

Three earlier presidents — Abraham Lincoln, James Garfield and William McKinley — were murdered while they were in office; their vice presidents took power, also without incident.

That history of relative tranquility is being threatened in 2016 by an ominous drumbeat from Republican nominee Donald J. Trump, who keeps harping on a “rigged election” determining who will become the next president. He continues to foment anger among his supporters who talk openly about “revolt” against the system if — and/or when — their guy loses to Democratic nominee Hillary Rodham Clinton.

http://www.politico.com/story/2016/10/donald-trump-rigged-elections-republicans-229846

This is nasty stuff, man.

According to Politico: “Donald Trump is laying the groundwork to lose on Nov. 8, refuse to concede the election, and teeter the country into an unprecedented crisis of faith in government. Republicans and Democrats, in Washington and beyond, fear that the aftermath of the 2016 election will create a festering infection in the already deep and lasting wound that the campaign is leaving on America.”

On top of what he’s been saying about “rigging” the election, he asserts that Clinton should be thrown in jail. Due process? Presumption of innocence? Forget about it!

There’s this, also, from Politico: “And, they say, only Republican leaders who speak up will have any chance of stopping it.”

They’re quiet — so far.

There needs to be a dialing back of this crackpot rhetoric. Trump likely will ignore all pleas to restore some semblance of reason. After all, he said recently he’s been “unshackled” by House Speaker Paul Ryan’s declaration that he no longer can “defend” Trump over the accusations that he assaulted women sexually.

Trump’s foes have declared him to be a demagogue who presents a serious “danger” to the United States of America.

Trump is proving them to be absolutely correct.

medical news

Turns out Medicare comes in quite handy

Retirement

This is the latest in an occasional series of blog posts commenting on upcoming retirement.

You’ve heard the story already.

I’m not yet retired fully from the working world. However, I am enjoying many of the benefits of retirement.

My wife and I pay a little less for meals at buffet-style restaurants; we get AARP discounts at hotels; our property taxes, under Texas law, are frozen in perpetuity … and we are on Medicare!

The closest thing we have in this country to “socialized medicine” comes in quite handy, I learned yesterday.

The company where I work part time was handing out flu shots to employees. You had to be covered by company-sponsored insurance to qualify, given that the company was paying for the inoculations.

I work there part time, right? I am not insured by the company plan. I brought up my Veterans Administration coverage to the woman who was administering the shots. I had to get my shot at the VA clinic in Amarillo. Oh, darn.

Hey, what about Medicare? She checked with her office. No problem! Medicare’s insurance pays for it.

So, I got my shot hassle free.

Yes, indeed, this retirement thing — which hasn’t yet arrived fully for my wife and me — is turning out all right.

We’ve already paid into the Medicare program throughout our working lives. We now are getting some of the benefit back from the program that was founded in 1965 when President Lyndon Johnson signed the bill that created the law.

Thank you, Mr. President.

media news, national news, political news

‘Atlantic’ makes history with endorsement

96b/33/fott/4810/10

Hillary Rodham Clinton’s pile of media endorsements has added a significant new voice.

While I have conceded that endorsements from elite media organs don’t pack the wallop they once did, this one has gotten some traction.

“The Atlantic” has issued its third presidential endorsement in its 159-year history. The first one went to the nation’s first Republican presidential candidate, a guy named Abraham Lincoln, in 1860.

Five score and four years later, in 1964, “The Atlantic” weighed in with an endorsement of President Lyndon Baines Johnson.

Now it has backed Hillary Clinton.

http://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2016/11/the-case-for-hillary-clinton-and-against-donald-trump/501161/?utm_source=atlfb

Here’s a snippet from the editorial: “Today, our position is similar to the one in which The Atlantic’s editors found themselves in 1964. We are impressed by many of the qualities of the Democratic Party’s nominee for president, even as we are exasperated by others, but we are mainly concerned with the Republican Party’s nominee, Donald J. Trump, who might be the most ostentatiously unqualified major-party candidate in the 227-year history of the American presidency.”

This is a fascinating development as the campaign heads for its final month. I’m so glad it’s almost over. I am running out of stamina listening to the candidates trashing each other.

“The Atlantic” concludes its editorial endorsement with this: “We believe in American democracy, in which individuals from various parties of different ideological stripes can advance their ideas and compete for the affection of voters. But Trump is not a man of ideas. He is a demagogue, a xenophobe, a sexist, a know-nothing, and a liar. He is spectacularly unfit for office, and voters—the statesmen and thinkers of the ballot box—should act in defense of American democracy and elect his opponent.”

Ouch, man!

To be candid, the endorsement doesn’t convey unbridled confidence in Clinton’s standing. It’s more of a non-endorsement of  Donald J. Trump. I suppose that sums up what has shaped up to be the theme of this campaign: The candidates cannot stand on their own record exclusively, so they pound away at their opponents’ weaknesses.

Trump is the most profoundly unqualified and unfit candidate for the presidency most of us ever have seen.

Will this endorsement matter? Will it be the difference between winning and losing? I doubt it. Still, it’s worth your time to read and to digest what the editors of a distinguished publication have to say about the next election for the presidency of the United States.

Oh, I am so glad it’s about to be over.

national news, political news

Cruz does it … he endorses Trump!

cruz-and-trump

Politics can be a fickle endeavor. Your enemy becomes your friend at times for the most dubious of reasons.

History is full of such examples: John F. Kennedy and Lyndon Johnson battled for the Democratic nomination in 1960; JFK then picked LBJ as his vice president. George H.W. Bush accused Ronald Reagan was espousing “voodoo economics” in 1980; then the Gipper picked Poppy to be his No. 2. Barack Obama told Hillary Clinton she was “likable enough” during a 2008 Democratic primary debate; then Obama tapped Clinton to serve as secretary of state.

Now we have Ted Cruz, the Republican senator from Texas — the guy who called Donald J. Trump a “pathological liar,” a “serial philanderer,” and an “amoral bully” — endorsing the GOP presidential nominee.

The Cruz Missile is going to vote for Trump in November, he said. Why the change of heart? It looks for all the world like an anti-Hillary endorsement.

http://www.politico.com/story/2016/09/trump-rival-cruz-to-throw-support-to-gop-nominee-228584

Frankly, I thought Cruz might withhold his endorsement throughout the campaign, given the hideous things Trump said about the senator, his wife Heidi and his father. It got intensely personal for Cruz and I believed he was right at the GOP convention to urge the delegates to “vote your conscience.”

Well, it didn’t happen.

The fickle nature of politics has shown once again how foes can set aside hurtful comments to achieve a common end.

Will it help or hurt? Many of Cruz’s most ardent conservative supporters believe Trump is an imposter to their principles.

What the heck. Politics in this raw form can be downright ugly.