An Inconvenient Truth

In 1875, commenting on his prospects as a Republican presidential candidate, William Tecumseh Sherman, who had just retired as Commanding General of the United States Army, provided reporters with a quote that would be cited by reluctant candidates for public office for generations: “If nominated, I will not accept; if drafted, I will not run; if elected, I will not serve.”

Sherman’s resolve to avoid running for public office has become a trend among public figures, although you’d never know it from the crowded stages at presidential forums in Iowa and New Hampshire. The difference is that most of the people on the stage are not people you would want to run for president.

There’s usually a handful of people in each generation that people would like to see run for president who want no part of it. Sometimes it’s someone who could be a serious candidate, sometimes it’s just somebody popular in another field. But whatever the circumstance, these real or supposed candidacies are more than just idle wishing. They are reflective of a desire for leadership.

The single greatest example of a public demand for a political candidate was Dwight Eisenhower in 1952. Actually, it began in 1948, when Eisenhower was so popular that President Harry Truman believed that if Ike’s name were placed in nomination at the Democratic Convention, Eisenhower and not Truman would have been nominated. Four years later, Eisenhower was so popular that there was at least speculation that he could receive both the Democratic and Republican nominations for president. Ultimately, this was too much even for Ike, but there is little doubt he could have had his choice between the two. And of course, in November of 1952, Eisenhower was elected in the first of two electoral landslides, personal triumphs that had nothing to do with party affiliation. The people wanted Ike, and they got him.
Unfortunately, that was the last time that there was a groundswell of support for a presidential candidate that resulted in that person’s election. Sure, there have been popular presidents. But the lure of national office has diminished in the age of modern politics. And so the wishful thinking of the average voter usually remains only that.

In the 1960’s, some folks wondered whether Vince Lombardi might make a good president. The Hall of Fame coach of the Green Bay Packers might seem an odd choice for the Oval Office. But it’s understandable when you think about it. If you watched the evening news in 1967, you’d see the war on television, and inevitably become frustrated that America couldn’t defeat this tiny little country. As people grew increasingly disenchanted with LBJ, and unwilling to consider Richard Nixon a suitable alternative, maybe the guy in the sports pages who could lead might seem a reasonable choice.
Of course, this political movement never got off the ground. It’s worth noting, however, that so great was the respect for Lombardi that he was considered for vice president by both Hubert Humphrey and Richard Nixon in 1968. And football fanatic Nixon was very interested and may very well have chosen Lombardi except for one small problem: Vince Lombardi was a dyed in the wool New Deal Democrat.

In the 1980's, the regular guy's ideal candidate for president was Lee Iacocca, the chairman of Chrysler. As previously mentioned in this blog, Iacocca’s popularity was so great that at one point, he was polling ahead of Vice President George Bush in a hypothetical 1988 matchup. Although Iacocca declined to run, the fervor for an Iacocca presidency is illustrative of what’s missing in American politics today.

The public longing for Lee Iacocca was not, as some have written, people confusing fame with popularity. Yes, he was on television in Chrysler commercials, and that’s how the regular person knew him. But it was the content that mattered. It was what he said, and how he said it. If it were just a matter of fame from commercials, then we would have elected President Joe Isuzu in 1988.

No, it was the straight talk. Iacocca bluntly said that Chrysler (and Detroit as a whole) had been making substandard cars and that things would be different. He took responsibility for his company’s failures (produced while he was still at Ford, by the way) and asked for a second chance. He spoke like an actual person, which you do not hear in politics any more.

But Lee Iacocca didn’t run for president. Neither did Mario Cuomo, another person people wanted to see in the Oval Office. Nor did Colin Powell. Why? Did they lack ambition? Certainly not.

Each one of them would have liked to be president.
But they didn’t want to run for president.
Those are two different things.

It’s not 1952 anymore. Nothing is private. If you’re the Vice President of the United States, expect your daughter’s sexual orientation to become a public issue. If you’re a candidate for the Democratic nomination for president, expect the death of your teenage son a decade earlier to be something you’ll have to discuss with a perfect stranger. Right after that person spends ten minutes discussing your wife’s cancer diagnosis.

The media in this country is so completely out of control that before he announced his candidacy for president, it was necessary for Senator Barack Obama to quietly pay parking tickets he received as a law student at Harvard twenty years ago. Because, of course, if he had not done that, it would have actually been raised by the media as an indication of Obama’s flawed character.

And then there's Al Gore.

Okay, I’m biased here, but you could factually make the case that Al Gore is better prepared to be president than any other American. He served eight years in the House of Representatives, eight years in the Senate, and eight years as Vice President. He has done more than any other public figure to enhance public awareness of the climate crisis. He also, by the way, did more than any other public figure to bring the internet into the public domain.

That’s right, dammit, Al Gore invented the internet!

Al Gore first ran for president in 1988. I remember him talking in the debates about spending federal money to open up the information superhighway. And I had no fucking idea what he was talking about. Guess what? He was talking about the internet. In 1988. Did you know about the internet in 1988? Didn’t think so.

And this, my friends, is why he doesn’t want to run for president. Because anything he does is twisted by the pundits and capitalized upon by his political opponents who have to seize on this sort of thing because they cant actually debate the issues.

Now, granted, Gore has an unfortunate tendency to want to claim all the credit for things he was only partially involved in. And in 2000, if he could have resisted the urge to prove that he was the smartest guy in the room and just been content to be the smartest guy in the room, he’d be president today. But the point stands: why get into this race? Why subject yourself to that sort of malicious and false criticism? Why subject your family to it? Al Gore’s son has a substance abuse problem. You think that the media will treat that with subtlety and sensitivity?

General Sherman offered another quote on politics when he was asked repeatedly to run for president. This one isn’t as well known, but it’s fitting nonetheless: “If I had my choice I would kill every reporter in the world, but I am sure we would be getting reports from Hell before breakfast.”

So this is where we are, choosing from the candidates who are willing to subject themselves and their families to abuse and scorn. You end up with the candidate with the thickest skin, not the biggest heart. You end up with a president who doesn’t read the newspaper, instead of one with a gifted mind. That’s the real inconvenient truth of politics.

The Reagan Legacy

The Blog to Be Named Later returns from hiatus to discuss Fred Thompson, the actor turned senator turned actor turned prospective presidential candidate and heir to the legacy of Ronald Reagan.

For those who aren’t familiar with Old Fred, you might remember him from various supporting roles in movies such as The Hunt for Red October, the second Die Hard movie, and Days of Thunder. He also followed up a stint as a real life Republican senator with a role on Law and Order, and you don't hear "Law and Order" and "Republican" used in the same sentence very often.

Thank you, I’ll be here all week. Tip your waitress.

Anyway, GOP faithful, as previously alluded to by yours truly, are not particularly enamored with their field of candidates. Now Fred Thompson, without actually having announced his candidacy, has surged to second place in the polls merely by acknowledging that he’s considering a run. And so Republicans everywhere are stirred by the idea of a second Ronald Reagan, a conservative actor turned politician who won the White House with folksy charm and promises of small government.

But hang on a minute, dear neo-cons. Time for a history lesson.

There’s a myth among historians and politicos that the election of Ronald Reagan in 1980 was a shift toward conservatism in this country. And on the surface, that would seem to be accurate. In that election, Reagan won the first of two electoral landslides, solidified Republican control of the South, and paved the way for two Bush presidencies and a long period of Republican control of Congress.

However, it’s not particularly credible to claim a basic philosophical shift among the American people based on those events. Let’s consider how these things happened, what the real lessons are, what they mean for the presidential race of 2008.

Presidential elections that feature an incumbent president are inevitably a referendum on that particular president’s performance in office. This is always the case. Even the election of 1976 was a referendum on the incumbent, even though the president in question, Gerald Ford, had never been elected to that office in the first place. So 1980, fundamentally, was about Jimmy Carter.

Anyone who was alive at the time or has read about that period in American history knows that the Carter presidency didn’t go well. The economy was in terrible shape, there was a resurgence of the energy crisis, American citizens were held hostage in Iran for over a year. But the larger problem for Carter was the lack of confidence he inspired in the American people. He could get re-elected despite a poor first term (George W. Bush, anyone?) – in fact, no elected president had failed of re-election since 1928. But he could only win a second term if A) people still believed in him or B) they just couldn’t pull the lever for the other guy.

In 1980, people just wanted a president to rely on again. They hadn’t had one since Eisenhower: Kennedy got killed two years into his term, LBJ led us into a disastrous war (George W. Bush, anyone?) Nixon disgraced the office (George W. Bush, anyone?) and Gerry Ford proved to be an ineffectual administrator (George W. B.... ah, never mind. You get the idea.) And Jimmy Carter, for all his decency, for all his hard work, was not the answer. So there was an opportunity for Reagan.

It’s often difficult to see clearly through the haze of time past. Presidents and other public figures leave office, resentments fade, nostalgia develops, and their image changes. It’s true for both Carter and Reagan. The late former president is regarded differently now than he was in 1979. Back then, many people wondered if Ronald Reagan was dangerous. He had made frequently reckless and uninformed comments about foreign policy and the use of nuclear weapons. Many wondered whether he might start World War III if elected.

Granted, Reagan’s image as a potential warmonger was the creation of his political opponents; Barry Goldwater was undone the same way. But the point is that was his image as he began his campaign for the presidency, fair or not. He spent much of the 1980 campaign persuading voters through charm and affability that he was a safe choice. He did that because all he needed to do to win, and win big, was to be a safe choice. Reagan didn’t win in 1980 because of some seismic shift toward conservatism. Ronald Reagan won because he wasn’t Jimmy Carter.

What does all of this have to do with Fred Thompson, you may ask? It’s simple. Thompson can’t fulfill some sort of political Arthurian legend and pull the sword from the stone if Arthur never existed. So if there was no great shift toward conservative philosophy, then the only Reagan legacy that Fred Thompson could lay claim to would be this: He would be, in the minds of many, a suitable alternative for the average voter who just couldn’t bring himself to vote for the other guy. Or girl, in this case.....

The Chrysler Post

In the news today, it has been announced that Daimler Chrysler is moving to “undo the most expensive and one of the least successful mergers in auto industry history” and “dump the money-losing Chrysler unit which it paid $37 billion for nine years ago” as CNN Money puts it.

This sounds like a sensible business move, a major company divesting itself of an unprofitable division. But all is not as it seems here. To tell the story correctly, we have to go back almost thirty years.

In 1978, the Chrysler Corporation was a publicly held company in severe danger of going under. It was led by a couple of accountants who didn’t really understand the auto industry, and although it was one of the “Big Three” American car companies, it lagged badly behind General Motors and Ford in both market share and profitability.

So when Lee Iacocca – generally regarded as the best car man in the business- became available in July of 1978, Chrysler moved aggressively to secure his services. Iacocca had just been fired as president of Ford despite the two previous years being the best in Ford’s history. Unfortunately for Iaccoca, his successes perversely harmed his reputation with Ford CEO Henry Ford II, who feared Iacocca would succeed him as Chairman.

So Iacocca instead became Chairman and CEO at Chrysler, and turned the company around. Iacocca and his top design man Hal Sperlich created the K car, a small front wheel drive family car that was perfect for a recession plagued country. The new CEO modernized Chrysler’s operations, improved relations with dealers, secured loan guarantees from the federal government, appeared in commercials for the company, and above all, built better cars. By 1983, Chrysler posted a $925 million profit, by far the best in the company’s history.

Iacocca’s dramatic turnaround of Chrysler and the fame he gained from being in company advertisements gave rise to speculation that he would run for president in 1988. In fact, a 1987 poll showed Iaccoca defeating Vice President George Bush in a hypothetical matchup. Although Iaccoca declined to run, he remained popular and Chrysler remained profitable. Before retiring in 1992, Iacocca introduced the minivan, which was a huge success and quickly copied by other automakers. He also acquired American motors, whose Jeep line remains Chrysler’s most profitable division, as well as buying Lamborghini and developing the Dodge Viper.

Although Chrysler struggled somewhat after Iaccoca’s retirement, by 1998 they remained an enormously profitable company. Then, in a stunning move, the company announced a merger with DaimlerBenz, the German manufacturer of Mercedes-Benz automobiles.

The deal was presented as a merger of equals, and was entered into by Chrysler officials who claimed the merger would be the best protection against a potential hostile takeover.

Over time, however, it became clear that the “merger” was a sham, and that DaimlerBenz had essentially purchased Chrysler. This came as a tremendous shock to the auto industry, but there was little that could be done. Still, what happened is incredible. Entering into a merger of unequals to avoid a hostile takeover is like approaching a criminal and giving him your car keys in the hope of avoiding a carjacking.

The dubious circumstances of the “merger” would have ultimately been forgotten if DaimlerChrysler succeeded, but in the last nine years Chrysler has struggled, despite the strong sales of the PT Cruiser and Dodge trucks. There have been rumors of a sale for months, and today it finally happened. Daimler will sell Chrysler to a private equity firm. Although the “sale” price is $4.7 billion, Daimler will not see any of that money. They are essentially paying to dump Chrysler and retire the debt they’ve accumulated.

So what happened? How has Chrysler fallen so far? For starters, they have the same problems that all American carmakers have. Labor problems, unfair trade policies with Japan, and legacy costs. The cost of health care for retirees is killing American automakers. Toyota, for instance, pays $200 per car in retiree health care. General Motors pays $1500 per car. That's a pretty significant disadvantage.

But that's not Chrysler's real problem. Their greatest handicap is that they haven’t had a competent management team since Lee Iacocca retired. During the 90’s, faceless bureaucrats ran Chrysler with no practical strategy for competing with Japan. Then the company was sold to foreigners who don’t really understand how to run an American car company.

Many people expected the Daimler success to rub off on Chrysler, but it doesn’t work that way. Manufacturing and selling a Mercedes in Stuttgart is a lot different from doing the same thing with a PT Cruiser in St. Louis. It’s like expecting a world class violinist to be able to effortlessly play jazz piano. It’s still music, but the process is slightly different.

Chrysler succeeded in the 1940’s because it’s founder, Walter P. Chrysler, understood the American market. The company enjoyed a brief renaissance in the late 60’s and early 70’s when they captured the street racing market with the Charger and Challenger. And obviously Iacocca knew his customers. He created the best selling car in the history of the automotive industry, the Ford Mustang, by recognizing the emerging buying power of the baby boomers and building a car that they would buy in droves.
That's how you run an American car company.

But now Chrysler is going to be the property of Cerberus Capital Management. They’re going to operate as a private company wholly owned by an equity investment firm that knows nothing about the car industry.

That’s not the worst part. We’ve seen what happens to car companies when the wrong people run it. Well, guess who runs one of the international divisions of Cerberus?

DAN QUAYLE!

So, Chrysler owners, dealers, suppliers, take note: you might want to bookmark the website bankruptcydata.com for your convenience. You’ll be needing it soon!

The Contrast Post

Two weeks ago, the International Association of Fire Fighters held a forum for presidential candidates in Washington. Most of the major candidates of both parties accepted invitations to speak and did so without incident. Hillary Clinton gave a solid if unspectacular speech. John Edwards and Barack Obama acquitted themselves nicely. Some of the minor Democratic and Republican candidates also appeared, for whatever that’s worth.

The media made a fuss over Rudy Giuliani declining an invitation to this event, noting Rudy’s often tumultuous relationship with firefighters while he was mayor of New York. But I think the media missed the real story, which occurred when Senator John McCain spoke.

One must understand that the IAFF is a conservative bunch. True, they have never endorsed a Republican for president, but that’s largely the work of the union leadership. The rank and file members of the IAFF are bedrock Republicans. This would seem to be a perfect audience for Senator McCain. He was introduced to an enthusiastic round of applause, and as the audience settled in to listen to the senator, one could reasonably expect him to do well with this crowd.

That’s not what happened. McCain launched into an energetic defense of the Iraq war. Here’s an excerpt from Dana Milbank’s account in the Washington Post:

McCain told the crowd the war “is not hopeless.” No response in the audience except for somebody coughing.

Reading his speech and stealing quick glances at his listeners, he continued. "The hour is late, but we must try, we must!" Beefy firemen, arms folded on chests, stared back silently.

This is not, I am sure, what John McCain thought his second try for the White House would be like. The senator from Arizona is already slipping in the polls. Chuck Hagel’s entry into the race could be the nail in the coffin, because Hagel occupies the same ground that McCain does, but with a critical advantage: he opposes the war.

I’ve struggled somewhat to write about Chuck Hagel. He’s an unknown quantity in national politics. He doesn’t have the outsized personality of John McCain. He doesn’t evoke the dramatic echoes of 9/11 like Rudy Giuliani. His candidacy doesn’t have the potential to make history like Barack Obama or Hillary Clinton.

That’s not as much of an obstacle as it used to be, however. In the era of negative campaigning, 30 second attack ads, 527 groups, etc. you don’t have to define yourself, you only have to define your opponent.
While that’s not exactly the sort of optimism one would like a presidential campaign to be about, as Robert DeNiro says, "it is what it is."

Or, in another GoodFella-ism:

"You may know who we are, but we know who you are."

So let’s see how Chuck Hagel compares to others of his Republican brethren:

Let’s start with how this prospective president compares with the incumbent. George W. Bush is the son of a former president, evaded combat in Vietnam, failed as a businessman, and as president has led the United States into an unnecessary and disastrous war.

Hagel is a study in contrast. He grew up in a small town in Nebraska, the son of a lumberman. Charles Hagel died in 1962, when his eldest son Chuck was only fifteen. Five years later, Chuck went to Vietnam and served as an infantry sergeant. After the war, Hagel worked for a Republican congressman on Capitol Hill and later in the Veterans Administration.

After leaving government service, Hagel made millions in mobile phones and investment banking. He then ran for the Senate in 1996 and has made a name for himself by being the sole outspoken Republican critic of the war in Iraq.

In 2000, ironically, Hagel was considered as Bush’s running mate, a job that obviously went to Dick Cheney. It might be fun to compare these two as well. Take a look at this timeline, originally published by Slate magazine and enhanced at length by yours truly:

1959: Dick Cheney turns eighteen and becomes eligible for the draft.

February, 1962: Cheney is classified 1-A, “available immediately for military service.”

June, 1962: Cheney returns to Wyoming after doing poorly at Yale University.
January, 1963: Cheney enrolls at Casper Community College.

March, 1963: Cheney applies for and is given a student deferment, the first of three undergraduate deferments he would apply for and receive.

May 19, 1965: Dick Cheney graduates from college after six years. The Selective Service classifies Dick Cheney 1-A again.

July 28, 1965: President Lyndon Johnson says draft calls will be doubled.

Oct. 26, 1965: The Selective Service declares that married men without children, who were previously exempted from the draft, will now be called up. Married men with children remain exempt.

November 1, 1965 Cheney receives his fourth student deferment as he begins graduate school at the University of Wyoming.

Jan. 19, 1966: The Selective Service reclassifies Dick Cheney 3-A, "deferred from military service because service would cause hardship upon his family," because his wife is pregnant with their first child.

Jan. 30, 1967: Dick Cheney turns 26 and therefore becomes ineligible for the draft.

Summer, 1967: Chuck Hagel and his brother Tom are inducted into the U.S. Army. They are assigned to the same unit and become infantry squad leaders in the U.S. Army’s Ninth Infantry Division.

1968: The Hagel brothers are deployed to Vietnam. Chuck attains the rank of sergeant and wins two Purple Hearts for injuries sustained in combat.

1989: When questioned why he did not serve in the military, Secretary of Defense Cheney tells a Washington Post reporter: “I had other priorities in the '60s than military service."

That about says it all, doesn’t it?

So on a personal level, Hagel differs considerably from Bush and Cheney. He and McCain didn't have "other priorities." They wanted to serve their country, and did so with honor. That reflects well upon them, but the Republican nominee has to answer questions about Iraq, not Vietnam. So how does Hagel fare in that comparison?

President Bush thought this war would be quick and easy. Hagel knew better:

“We should not be seduced by the expectations of "dancing in the streets" after Saddam's regime has fallen, the kites, the candy, and cheering crowds we expect to greet our troops, but instead, focus on the great challenges ahead…We have heard precious little from the President, his team, as well as from this Congress, with a few notable exceptions, about these most difficult and critical questions. We need only look to Afghanistan where the Afghan people joyously welcomed our liberation force but, months later, a fragile transition government grapples with rebuilding a fractured political culture, economy, and country.” - Chuck Hagel, from the Congressional Record, October 9, 2002

Vice President Cheney thought that we were “winning” in Iraq and that the insurgency was “in its last throes.” Hagel knew better:

"Maybe the vice president can explain the increase in casualties we're taking," the Nebraskan told CNN.
"If that's winning, then he's got a different definition of winning than I do." - Chuck Hagel, August 18, 2005.

Now, two years later, McCain argues that we must continue the fight, that the surge is necessary and tactically sound. Hagel’s response?

Senator Chuck Hagel of Nebraska described the move as “the most dangerous foreign policy blunder in this country since Vietnam, if it’s carried out.” – on the Senate floor, January 11, 2007.

For these remarks and others, Chuck Hagel has earned the enmity of many Republicans in Washington. What Hagel perceives as his duty as a senator and as an American, others consider to be party disloyalty. Certainly Ole Dick isn't a fan:

“Let’s say I believe firmly in Ronald Reagan’s 11th Commandment: thou shalt not speak ill of a fellow Republican. But it’s very hard sometimes to adhere to that where Chuck Hagel is involved.” - Vice President Dick Cheney, January 29, 2007.

The differences between Chuck Hagel and the party leaders are clear. They are just as stark as the differences between Hagel, who is not yet a candidate for president, and his potential rivals. There is a vacuum on the Republican right that McCain cannot fill, that Giuliani certainly cannot fill. Mitt Romney is trying to do so, but he’s troubled by the uncomfortable fact that he was a moderate Republican until he decided to run for president. While these three candidates compete for the centrist vote, the conservative base of the party, the folks who actually choose the nominee, are looking for a candidate.

Now, Hagel has challenges to overcome. He has to raise money. He needs to become better known. Perhaps most of all, he needs to develop a positive political persona. So far he’s only been the critic, telling us what we can’t do. He has to do more, he has to tell us what we can do, what’s possible, what to reach for. Despite what I said before about only having to define your opponent, there is still an advantage to be gained for a presidential candidate who can inspire people.

So the last hurdle to be overcome is history, the long standing tendency of Republicans to nominate the front runner. Yes, they go with a guy when it’s his “turn.” But if ever there were an election when a Republican could cut in line, this is it.

The Veteran Post

Let's take a closer look at another contender for the Republican presidential nomination, Senator John McCain of Arizona. I'm going to describe some events here that will be a bit unpleasant to read, but to understand John McCain, you've got to know what he's endured.

First, a little backstory for the politically disengaged. John McCain served in the Navy and is a veteran of the Vietnam War. He was injured in an explosion on the USS Forrestal in 1967 which resulted in shrapnel being lodged in his chest and legs. Despite this injury, he continued to serve as a pilot until his A-4 Skyhawk was shot down on October 26 of that year. The crash broke both his arms and a leg. He crawled from the wreckage of the plane, and was beset upon by a mob of Vietnamese citizens, who spat on him, kicked him, and stripped him of his clothing. He was then taken into custody by Vietnamese soldiers who bayonetted his left foot and groin, and crushed his shoulder with a rifle butt. Barely conscious after this ordeal, McCain was then taken to Hoa La Prison, better known as the Hanoi Hilton, where he would remain a prisoner of war for the next five and one half years.

McCain's father was an Navy Admiral who was the commander of all United States forces in Vietnam at the time of his son's capture. The Vietnamese learned of this, and the younger McCain was offered his release in a prisoner exchange program. McCain refused, saying he could not accept early release when so many of his fellow American prisoners had been incarcerated longer. This refusal extended McCain's incarceration by more than five years, during which time he was repeatedly tortured and beaten. He was finally released in 1973, returned to active duty, and retired from the Navy in 1981. In 1986, McCain was elected to fill the seat of retiring Senator Barry Goldwater, and has been re-elected three times. He sought the Republican nomination in 2000, and scored some early victories, but the nomination eventually went to George W. Bush for reasons that I will touch on later.

There are a lot of people in this country who think you have to have served in the military to be president, that you can’t be the Commander in Chief unless you’ve seen combat yourself. There’s just one problem with this idea, one teeny tiny little detail...

If this standard were applied to past occupants of the Oval Office when they ran for office, it would have disqualified Thomas Jefferson, Abraham Lincoln and Franklin D. Roosevelt! Okay, technically, Lincoln served in the militia during the Black Hawk War, but he never saw combat. Kind of like George W. Bush.

Also, if we’re going to have this sort of requirement, then we have to extend it to other issues. For instance, Hillary Clinton would not be qualified to be president and confront the issue of abortion because she’s (presumably) never had an abortion herself. Barack Obama would not be qualified to be president and deal with race relations because he was never lynched by the Klan. John Edwards couldn’t become president and address gay and lesbian issues because he is not, despite what Ann Coulter says, a homosexual.

I was going to use the example of saying Rudy Giuliani couldn’t be president and deal with women’s issues because he’s not a woman, but…..

However, on balance, I would agree that it’s a plus if not a prerequisite for a presidential candidate to have served in the military. This is especially true for a president succeeding George Bush in office. It would be nice to have a president whose prior public service was in some way involved in foreign policy. John McCain could be that man. He has the political resume, and the physical sacrifice he made in service of his country is awe inspiring. This is a man who campaigns and climbs on stage and waves to a mass of enthusiastic supporters, just like any candidate does. But the difference is that McCain's waving is a bit restrained. Why? Because he can't raise his arms over his head. Let that one sink in for a second. A man who can't wave to a cheering crowd because he was hung by his arms for years.

So McCain has been the darling of the press, if not necessarily the Republican base for years. He has tremendous crossover appeal and could take away millions of votes from a Democratic candidate. Even more impressive, McCain appeals to independents and could even draw people to the polls who traditionally don't bother to vote. It's been a given for years that John McCain would be virtually unbeatable in a general election, if he can only gain his party's nomination.

And why shouldn't Republicans love him too? Whether they will admit it or not, they want a change, someone as different from Bush as possible, and McCain fits the bill. Consider:

- John McCain has developed a reputation for being a straight talker, whereas George W. Bush has developed a reputation for not being able to talk straight.

- During his Senate career, McCain has been deeply involved in foreign affairs, whereas in Bush’s time as governor of Texas he was deeply involved in…er….um….

- McCain, of course, served his country during the Vietnam War, whereas Bush was served many drinks during the Vietnam War.

- McCain is an independent thinker, whereas George W. Bush is dependent on others to do his thinking for him.

So it's obvious, right? Republicans looking for their next presidential nominee have a clear choice. They have the opportunity to nominate a man of integrity, a Vietnam veteran who knows what it's like to be a soldier in a hopeless situation. A man whose long experience in the United States Senate has prepared him to serve this country as president. Yes, ladies and gentlmen, the time has come for the Republican party to turn to....Senator Chuck Hagel!

That's right, Chuck Hagel. Who's he? I'll get to that in a minute. Let me first explain why the Republicans should pass on John McCain. As previously mentioned, in 2000 McCain ran for the Republican nomination against George W. Bush. McCain crushed Bush in New Hampshire, and headed to South Carolina. A win there would have probably given McCain the momentum necessary to capture the nomination. So naturally, the Bush campaign went negative. What else could they do? Tout their guy's credentials?

The Bush campaign in South Carolina (or their unofficial surrogates) ran a play right out of the Nixon playbook. Anonymous phone calls warned conservative Republican voters that John McCain had a black child out of wedlock. This "revelation" horrified racists and people with "traditional values" (In South Carolina, these are usually the same people, but that's another story). Not that it really matters, but the truth is that McCain and his wife adopted a young girl from Bangladesh. A noble thing, which was turned into an accusation. McCain lost the primary, Bush regained his momentum, and with his massive financial advantage, cruised to the nomination. Along the way, McCain criticized Christian conservatives, whom he blamed for his South Carolina defeat.

Now, seven years later, McCain is essentially kissing the very asses he once kicked among the Far Right, convinced that its his ticket to the White House. He once called Jerry Falwell (correctly) an "agent of intolerance." Now they're buddies! McCain even agreed to serve as the commencement speaker at Falwell's Liberty University last spring. This sort of pandering is bad enough, but in my view McCain did something even worse in his lust for the presidency: He pretended to like and admire the man who defeated him in 2000, President Bush. He endorsed him for re-election in 2004, campaigned with him, he even hugged him!

Why would he do such a thing? Because McCain knows Republican party politics. He learned it at the knee of his predecessor, Barry Goldwater. McCain is a student of history, and he knows the Republicans are the party of primogeniture. They nominate a guy when it's his "turn." I've mentioned this before. The Democrats will nominate someone you weren't expecting. They chose the young Catholic senator from Massachusetts in 1960, when no one thought a Catholic could be elected. They nominated an obscure former Georgia governor in 1976, and then a largely unknown Arkansas governor in 1992. But the Republicans are more predictable. They nominate the frontrunner, because its his turn. They haven't abandoned this tendency since 1952, when the Republicans nominated Eisenhower over a man nicknamed "Mr. Republican", Robert Taft, a Senator from Ohio and the son of a former president. They only did it then because they had lost five straight elections to Roosevelt and Truman, and they would have nominated Joseph Stalin if it meant victory in November. But other than that one year, the Republicans wait their turn. It was Nixon's turn, then it was Reagan's turn, then it was Bush Senior's turn, then it was Dole's turn, etc. Now it's John McCain's turn. And now that's he's made nice with President Bush, now that he's snuggled up to the Religious Right, he thinks he's in great shape. But there's one little problem.

There's a war going on in Iraq, one that as of today, based on congressional appropriations, has cost the American people $408 billion. There have been over 3100 American soldiers killed, more than 23,000 wounded. At least 58,000 Iraqis have been killed in the war. America has become perhaps the most hated country in the world because of this war, and John McCain wants to continue it. In fact, he wants to escalate it. McCain has gone from the "Straight Talk Express" bus tour of 2000 to being one of the people who say "Hey, if we leave Iraq, the terrorists will follow us home!" Even so, he still has integrity, at least on the war. He's willing to take an unpopular position. But will his party stand with him?

The Republicans should abandon McCain because he's turned into another double talking hypocrite, a man who pretends to like people he actually can't stand for the sake of getting elected. But chances are they will abandon him over the issue of Iraq. Yeah, Republicans generally favor the war, but they know it's a loser. They remember last November, when they got their asses handed to them. They have to put up with Nancy Pelosi holding the speaker's gavel in the House of Representatives, and they'll be damned if they want to see Hillary Clinton put her hand on the Bible and take the oath in January of 2009. So if they throw McCain over the side, they'll do it over the war. Ever since he came out in favor of the surge plan, he's gone from being in a virtual dead heat with Rudy Giuliani to being twenty points behind. And we already know what's gonna happen to Rudy, don't we? So the Republicans need a horse.

Which brings me to Chuck Hagel. He'll be the subject of the next post, but a quick word on the senator from Nebraska. This is a guy who genuinely is what McCain claims to be. This is a Republican senator who once said about the Bush Administration, "To question your government is not unpatriotic - to not question your government is unpatriotic." Echoes of Thomas Jefferson there. Not a bad comparison for a presidential aspirant to earn. Senator Hagel has come out full square against the war, and resisted pressure from members of his party to pipe down about it. Can it be? A politician who says what he thinks? Fire up the Straight Talk Express, there may be a new driver behind the wheel!

The Commander in Chief Post

2008 is shaping up to be a year in which foreign policy remains at the forefront of voter's minds. This is a rarity in American politics. Usually the economy and the personalities of the candidates are the focus of attention. But in post- 9/11 America, foreign policy has become a staple of presidential politics. So in honor of this new trend, before we examine any other presidential contenders, let's take a look back at the current occupant of the Oval Office when he was a candidate for president in 2000.

Of course, we know all about the sterling record of President George W. Bush, who has presided over the war on civil liberties - I mean, terror, excuse me - since taking office in 2001. We all know his exemplary conduct as Commander in Chief, particularly when he attacked the wrong country - I mean, America's enemies - and committed American forces to protecting freedom around the world. And we've all heard the stories of young George W. Bush, the heroic fighter pilot, who spent the Vietnam War flying jets in the perilous skies above...um, Alabama.

Wait, that's not exactly correct. Bush didn't report for duty most of the time.

Anyway, as a candidate for president in 2000, the soon to be CINC didn't really talk much about foreign policy. Maybe this was because the extent of his foreign policy experience was signing Dominicans to play for the Texas Rangers. Regardless, foreign policy was not a major issue in the 2000 election. The country was at peace. The horror of 9/11 was still a year away. Iraq was a non-factor. The budget was not only balanced, there was a surplus, and George W. Bush barely mentioned foreign policy in his stump speech in 2000, and avoided the subject whenever possible during the presidential debates.


For anyone considering voting for John McCain next year, consider this interesting exchange between moderator Jim Lehrer and Governor Bush in the second presidential debate, held on October 11, 2000:


MODERATOR: The use of the military -- some people are now suggesting that if you don't want to use the military to maintain the peace, to do the civil thing, is it time to consider a civil force of some kind that comes in after the military that builds nations or all of that? Is that on your radar screen?

BUSH: I don't think so. I think what we need to do is convince people who live in the lands they live in to build the nations. Maybe I'm missing something here. I mean, we're going to have kind of a nation building core from America? Absolutely not. Our military is meant to fight and win war. That's what it's meant to do. And when it gets overextended, morale drops. I strongly believe we need to have a military presence in the peninsula, not only to keep the peace in the peninsula, but to keep regional stability. And I strongly believe we need to keep a presence in NATO, but I'm going to be judicious as to how to use the military. It needs to be in our vital interest, the mission needs to be clear, and the exit strategy obvious."

Well! Isn't that interesting?!?

What does this have to do with John McCain, you ask? I'll get into the full biography of McCain soon, but for the moment, consider this: Presidential candidates rarely tell you what they're actually going to do if they become president. FDR and Reagan promised to balance the federal budget. Instead they dramatically increased it. LBJ promised to stay out of Vietnam. Two years after the election, there were half a million American soldiers deployed there. The first President Bush famously promised "No new taxes", a pledge he broke in his second year in office.

And now, in the early days of a presidential campaign, a majority of the American people want to see a withdrawal of U.S. forces from Iraq. The sooner the better. And yet Senator McCain, who is a candidate for president, is not for a withdrawal. As previously mentioned in this blog, he is for an increase in troop levels in Iraq. The point is this: When it comes to foreign policy, whether you agree with him or not (and I don't), John McCain will tell you what he really thinks.

When times are good, presidential campaigns are about fluff. When the economy is in good shape, when the country is at peace, we have time to worry about things like how silly Mike Dukakis looks riding on a tank, or whether Bob Dole is too mean, or whether you'd rather have Al Gore or George W. Bush over to the family barbecue(An actual polling question). And so, in 2000, times were good, and having decided that they would prefer to have a beer with Bush (even though he's a recovering alcoholic) the American people elected George W. Bush in a landslide, giving him a strong electoral mandate to enact his conservative agenda.

Wait, that's not right....I mean, after careful consideration of the issues, people decided that Bush was closer to their own beliefs, and narrowly elected him over Al Gore, who just lacked the resume necessary to be president.

Hang on, I don't think that's right either.....Hmm.

Wait, I've got it. And so, after eight years of record prosperity under Bill Clinton, the American people chose Al Gore to succeed him, with Gore's 24 years of experience in elective office, his comprehensive plans to extend American prosperity into the 21st century, his commitment to reducing the effects of global warming, and his basic competence on the issues of the day making the difference between himself and a candidate who was an irrelevant governor, a lackluster owner of a bad baseball team and a failed businessman.

But Bush became president anyway.

Now, finally, after eight years of George W. Bush, we're going to pick a new president. And the Republican Party will choose a nominee, hopefully someone who is qualified to be the Commander in Chief in fact, not just in name, if that person should be elected. We've already discussed the temporary frontrunner, Mr. Giuliani. Now it's time to take a closer look at Senator McCain.



A short biography of the senator and an assessment of his prospects will appear in the next post on this blog. Thanks for reading.

The Giuliani Post

So now we come to the contenders for the Republican nomination for president. Let's look at this in terms of strategy, or if you're George W. Bush, strategery. Today, we'll start with the man who according to the most recent polls is the frontrunner for the nomination, the former mayor of New York, Rudy Giuliani.

At first, I didn't understand why Rudy Giuliani would run for president. He's a smart guy, he's old enough to remember what happened to Nelson Rockefeller, what happens to New York Republicans with different ideas on social issues who run for their party's nomination. They're demonized, mocked, booed at the convention, and most importantly, not nominated. And that was the pre-Reagan Republican Party, when someone like Giuliani would only be tarred and feathered figuratively. Now, they might actually do it.

So why is Rudy running? Because he thinks he can take that political currency he built up as "America's Mayor" and buy a ticket to the White House. Maybe he's right, but not for the reason that many people think. More on that later.

When you look at the race for the Republican nomination, for Rudolph Giuliani to become his party's candidate for president, he will have to overcome two long standing axioms among Republicans: that the party faithful will not accept a social liberal as their nominee, and that Republicans are a party of primogeniture; they nominate a guy when it's his "turn", and it's John McCain's turn this time.

Let's look at the ideological question first. At the risk of overusing Kennedy analogies, Giuliani's current lead in the polls reminds me of JFK in 1960. Senator Kennedy held an early lead over Hubert Humphrey in heavily Protestant West Virginia. This was surprising because of Kennedy's Catholicism. So what happened? The voters of West Virginia learned more about Kennedy as Election Day approached, found out he was Catholic, and collectively said "Never mind!"

This is what's going to happen when Republican voters start paying closer attention. They're going to get a closer look at Rudy's position on abortion, on gay rights, they're going to see a picture of Rudy in drag, they're going to learn that he's on his third marriage after cheating on his second wife, and suddenly "America's Mayor" is not going to be twenty five points ahead of John McCain for the Republican nomination for President of the United States.

But here's the thing: JFK won the West Virginia primary in 1960, and maybe Giuliani can win the Republican nomination the same way: by reframing the debate. Kennedy turned the Catholic question around by telling patriotic tough minded West Virginians that nobody asked his religion when he commanded a PT Boat in the Navy during World War II, and nobody asked his brother's religion when he volunteered for a dangerous bomber mission that he never came back from. Kennedy spoke to the things that resonated with the particular voters he was courting, and diverted attention away from the aspects of his own personality and record that were less favorable to run on. Giuliani, if he walks a very delicate line, might be able to do the same thing. Here's how:

First of all, and this is purely a political calculation, Giuliani needs the war to continue, because while Giuliani is for it, McCain is REALLY for it. If McCain were a company, he'd be the corporate sponsor of the surge plan. This hurts McCain among independents and Democrats, generates negative stories about him in the press, and dampens speculation that McCain would be unbeatable in a general election, which was always presumed to be his strongest selling point. The continuation of the war also helps Giuliani by providing a nice contrast with the current occupant of the Oval Office, Dick Ch- I mean, George W. Bush.

This is the key point. It's not merely Giuliani running because he's a "hero." That doesn't get you elected. Do you remember President John Glenn? Didn't think so. No, Rudy's great opportunity here is not to run in the first open contest for the Republican nomination since 9/11, it's to run in the first open contest for the Republican nomination since 9/11 and eight years of the Bush Administration. It's not public desire for a hero that Rudy can capitalize on, it's the hunger for executive ability. It's not just 9/11, it's the cleanup of New York City, the ability to succeed as the Republican mayor of one of America's most heavily Democratic cities. It's the promise of managerial excellence at a time when mere competence would be a relief. Do you think if a major natural disaster struck the United States, President Giuliani would be playing the guitar?

http://hughesforamerica.typepad.com/hughes_for_america/2005/08/august_2930_200.html

A couple of final points: First, this commentary is not an endorsement of Giuliani's candidacy. If it were up to me, based on his record, I would vote for him - to be Chancellor of Germany, circa 1933. Second, in considering Giuliani's prospects, I'm pointing out HOW it can be done, not predicting that it will happen. It may be possible within the realm of physics to demonstrate how a snowball might prosper in a Hades-like environment. Whether it actually will? Don't put any money on it.

So, if not Rudy, then who? McCain? Romney? Brownback? The corpse of Ronald Reagan? (Hmm....)

In the near future I'll be examining the prospects for other contenders. And if it looks like I'm spending more time analyzing the Republicans than the Democrats, you're right. And the reason is simple: it's much harder to figure out why people vote Republican!



Postscript Wednesday March 7: See?

http://www.cnn.com/2007/POLITICS/03/07/giuliani.baptists.ap/index.html

The Democratic Post

Let's take a brief look at current and prospective candidates for the Democratic nomination in 2008:


Hillary Clinton

Pluses: Clear frontrunner in name recognition, can probably raise more money than anyone else, has the benefit of being married to the brightest political mind of our time.

Minuses: Higher negative ratings than anyone ever elected president, probably needs every penny of that bankroll to gain enough momentum to make anti-war Democrats forget that she voted "Aye" on the big issue, has the drawback of being married to the brightest political mind of her generation and she pales in comparison.

Outlook: Hillary HAS to win early and often, or she will be toppled. Has a tough choice to make whether to contest Iowa or move on to New Hampshire. Despite her tough talk on being able to beat the Republicans who she says "fear" her and Bill, Hillary is, in my view, too polarizing a figure to make history and become the first woman president.

Barack Obama

Pluses: Excitement at the mere mention of his name. Charisma, eloquence. Can raise tons of money.

Minuses: Three years ago, Barack Obama was a state senator. Now he's running for president. Is that too far, too fast?

Outlook: I have this sense when I look at Senator Obama that I'm looking at a future president of the United States. I'm just not sure he's taking the oath in 2009. He's a first term senator, he doesn't have much of a record, and he will have to avoid giving people an excuse to say, "Yeah, but...." if he is to make history of his own.

Then again, they said this about John F. Kennedy in 1960, you're too young, you have the Catholic hurdle to overcome, etc....

John Edwards

Pluses: Like Obama, charming and eloquent But Edwards has the advantage of having been through the fire of a national campaign before. Like Hillary, has high name recognition, but without the high negative ratings. Strong so far in Iowa, and a win there would give him tremendous momentum going into New Hampshire. Has a clear sense of where he wants to take the country.

Minuses: Has he tacked too far to the left in the effort to outflank Hillary? Also, Edwards only had one term in the Senate and thus can't present himself as the credentials candidate. Hillary has the resume, Obama has the excitement. What does Edwards have?

Outlook: Everyone is so obsessed with the possibility of the first female president, the first black president. Guess what? In all likelihood, it's probably going to be another white male. That's unfortunate, but I lived in a "red" state for 25 years. Maybe here in Massachusetts we don't see color or gender as much, but come on. It's still there. And as tacky as this sounds, this is good for Edwards. He said last week on Bill Maher's show that he's perfectly comfortable with the idea of being people's second choice as long as he ends up with the nomination. And he just might.

The Rest

Biden, Dodd, Vilsack, Kucinich, etc.

Well, Vilsack dropped out today in a concession to
A. Reality
and
B. The fact that he was the governor of Iowa until last month and yesterday he was polling fifth in Iowa behind Hillary, Obama, Edwards and Mayor George Shinn of River City.

Anyway, none of these guys are going to be the nominee. Every four years somebody runs for president even though they're running behind the "Also Receiving Votes" asterisk in the polls. They do it because they remember Jimmy Carter in 1976, criscrossing Iowa for a year and a half and catching fire just at the right time. Well, lightning strikes are remarkable because they are rare. Oh, and stop saying Bill Clinton came out of nowhere in 1992. If you didn't know about him in 1991, you weren't paying attention.

So there you have it. In all likelihood, it's Hillary, Obama, or Edwards. My guess and my preference is John Edwards, provided that one remaining possible candidate declines to make the race. Yeah, I know, I spoiled the surprise by posting his picture. C'mon Al. Run for president. Save the planet.

The Calvin and Hobbes Post

The Sorkin Post

Last night NBC aired what may very well be the last episode of Studio 60 on the Sunset Strip. I have mixed feelings about this.

On the one hand, this show clearly suffered in the shadow of it's spiritual predecessor, The West Wing. People expected this tremendous show that captured the imagination the way Wing did when it premiered in 1999. NBC certainly expected a hit, something that would drive ratings and haul in advertising dollars, particularly among the key 18 to 49 year old demographic.

There was just one problem with this scenario: Studio 60 isn't (wasn't?) as good as The West Wing. It was good, but not good enough given the inevitable comparisons. The cast of the new show didn't measure up to that of the old show, but the larger problem is this: when you go from the White House to a late night comedy show, inevitably you lower the stakes. What's the worst thing that can happen to the characters on Studio 60? Their show gets canceled, which ironically is the worst case scenario for its real life creator. That scenario is about to play out, and the reasons why are clear.

Having said that, the seemingly inevitable cancellation of Studio 60 says something about our taste, does it not? Don't judge Studio 60 against the West Wing, judge it against what's on television now. Intelligent shows like Studio 60 don't belong on television anymore, not opposite shows where contestants eat live cockroaches. Maybe the American viewing public is happier watching the formulaic sitcom where the mom is hot, the dad is a slovenly idiot, and the kids are snarky observers of the family chaos. Why don't we just combine all those sitcoms into one and call it The King of Everyone Who Loves Two Guys Til Death and make room for ONE show that entertains and makes people think at the same time? Because it would just make room for yet another night of American Idol, that's why.

The Sorensen Post

This afternoon, I attended a forum at the John F. Kennedy Presidential Library & Museum in Boston. The topic was presidential speechwriters, and the main attraction was Theodore Sorensen. While Mr. Sorensen is not a household name, he's without question the best known presidential speechwriter in American history. My friends who only casually follow politics will not know Mr. Sorensen's name. They will likely, however, recognize this little phrase that Mr. Sorensen wrote: "Ask not what your country can do for you, ask what you can do for your country."

Actually, many historians think that Kennedy himself wrote that quote, but there is no denying that Ted Sorensen wrote most if not all of JFK's speeches. It was even alleged that Sorensen was the ghostwriter who penned Profiles in Courage, a Pulitzer Prize winning book authored by Senator John F. Kennedy. Sorensen was the star attraction at this forum. Also on the dais was Ray Price, the man who wrote Nixon's resignation speech, and speechwriters for George H.W. Bush and Bill Clinton. But at this venue, in this city, the other three guests might as well have been shadows for the relative attention that they received. I have to admit, given the opportunity to ask a question (okay, fine, I showed up early to be able to sit closest to the Q&A microphone) I directed my question to none other than Ted Sorensen. (He said it was a thoughtful question, by the way.)

It was an interesting afternoon. All of the panelists were informed and engaging. The forum was very well attended, with the large auditorium filled to capacity and then some. But the lingering image for me doesn't spring from the forum at all. It's from something that happened before I even walked in the door.

As I said, I arrived early. On the way in, I passed a limousine on Columbia Road headed toward the library. Sure enough, Ted Sorensen was the passenger. So I arrived and parked, and I walked in just behind him. I was struck by how delicately he moved. He was assisted into the library by a young woman who grasped his arm to steady him and he proceeded very slowly inside. Later, when he ascended the dais in the auditorium, he again moved quite gingerly while taking his place.

Now this is unavoidable. The man was born in 1928. Of course he's not going to rocket up the stairs like a seventeen year old. Still, I was struck by the irony. Here we were in a library dedicated to the memory of a president frozen in our memories as a young man, and his much younger adviser needs assistance getting in the door. That's how much time has passed since John F. Kennedy was president. Does it seem that long to Mr. Sorensen? Does it sometimes seem like it was yesterday? That's the question I would have liked to ask him. I didn't, because I wanted to pose a scholarly question, and I also didn't want to inject a melancholy note into the proceedings. But that's what lingers in the mind. That, and how different JFK was from the president we have now.

The Wikipedia Post

This evening, I read an article on ESPN.com about the imminent retirement of Frank Broyles, who has been either football coach or athletic director at the University of Arkansas since 1958. This led me to look up something on Wikipedia related to this event, where I read the following sentence: "Houston Nutt is married to his wife, Diana."

Really? He's married to his wife? That's amazing! How did he manage that?!?

And here, folks, is why Wikipedia is a bad thing. ANYONE CAN EDIT IT. This is not good. If we're going to have a widely accessed online reference tool available for anyone to edit, then we're only helping the sort of people who want Charlton Heston in The Ten Commandments shown after An Inconvenient Truth because we need to hear both sides of the argument on global warming.

The Nixon Post

Continuing with the apparently unavoidable theme of each post having nothing to do with the previous one, let us now discuss Richard Milhous Nixon.

I am not a fan of history learned by television. My cousin will bring up something about a president and I'll ask where he got that information and invariably he will reply, "Oh, I saw it on the History Channel." Now, don't get me wrong, I would much prefer that people take enough of an interest in history to at least watch it on television. But to my mind, there is no substitute for a good thick book on the subject. Serious history is far too shaded with subtlety and imbued with meaning to be told in 44 minutes with 16 set aside for Cialis ads.

So it may come as a surprise that last night I watched a portion of the History Channel's examination of the Nixon Presidency. They called it "Nixon: A Presidency Revealed" and then proceeded to "reveal" Watergate for two hours.

Now, I'm no fan of Richard Nixon. I wasn't even alive in 1960 and I have a Kennedy campaign poster from that year hanging from my office wall. But I am a fan of the idea that history shouldn't reduce important figures to one line epitaphs. For instance, the word "Iraq" will undoubtedly appear in George W. Bush's obituary someday. Which is fine, but hey, let's not forget about all the other things he's fucked up in the last six years!

You might think I'm making the same point as Nixon, but I'm not. What gets lost in the History Channelization of Richard Nixon is why he matters beyond Watergate, and the sum of that relevance is enormous. His story is told badly by contemporary historians, in a way that not only doesn't account for his accomplishments, it's also just bad storytelling. In his farewell speech, Nixon said, "Only when you have been in the deepest valley can you ever know how magnificent it is to be on the highest mountain." The problem is, the people who learn about Nixon from the History Channel only hear about his journey in the deep valley of Watergate. You never hear about Nixon on the highest mountain.

I'm not just talking about Nixon going to China, although that was a stunning diplomatic triumph. Nixon brilliantly played China and the Soviet Union off of each other to get a good arms treaty for the United States, paving the way for the end of the Cold War. Nixon was the one who carried out the desegregation policies that were largely theoretical before he became president. He planned an ambitious and surprisingly progressive domestic agenda that really would have been "compassionate conservatism." He contributed to the quality of American life in many relatively unnoticed ways - the creation of the Product Safety Commission comes to mind.

So, in the end, yes, Nixon was a bastard. He was intensely paranoid and maintained a fierce hatred for his enemies, both real and perceived. The excesses of his conduct and the abuse of his presidential power are documented fact. The Watergate scandal, for which he rightfully bears responsibility, produced a constitutional crisis in this country unrivaled since the Civil War. Perhaps most importantly, Watergate eroded the public's confidence in the presidency and government as a whole, and I'm not sure that trust has ever been fully regained. All of these things are true, and deserve to be the lead item and focus of any biography of Richard Nixon. But what makes Nixon a great story is that while he routinely ranks among the worst presidents, he could have been one of the very best if not for his flaws. Maybe they could mention that before they cut to the commercial break.

The Katrina Post

I'm typing this from my comfortable residence in Medford, Massachusetts. But before Hurricane Katrina, I called New Orleans home. Here are a couple of pictures from my 1st trip back, in September of 2006.

What you see below are two photos of the first game back in the Louisiana Superdome after Katrina. The New Orleans Saints, who spent the entire 2005 season on the road, occasionally practicing in parking lots for lack of space, took on the Atlanta Falcons in a nationally televised game on Monday Night Football. U2 and Green Day performed before the game, and former president George H.W. Bush did the coin toss. A multitude of celebrities descended upon New Orleans for this game. The top photo was taken immediately after the emotional win by the Saints. Immediately below is an odd but interesting shot of Saints rookie Reggie Bush arriving at the Superdome in his brand new Hummer.

Still further down you see evidence of not only destruction but neglect. These pictures were taken more than a year after Katrina, and clearly nothing had been done. I drove through the streets of the Ninth Ward in my goofy rental car, and it was like driving through a ghost town. This was an area I knew well. I used to drive through this neighborhood every day to get to work. I would pass through the Ninth Ward before dawn and even then there was activity. Now, on a Monday afternoon, it was deathly still, and that's the correct phrase.

It may seem incongruous to post pictures from a football game next to those from a natural disaster. Many people have been critical that the Superdome was fixed before neighborhoods were rebuilt. There are a couple of points about that I want to make:

-First of all, I had to flee that storm with my wife, our two dogs and four cats. We stayed in a motel for as long as we could. Then we had to burden her aunt and uncle, spent weeks wondering when we could go home, wondering if everything we owned was destroyed. I spent hours online trying to find out if the kids I taught for three years survived the 20 foot storm surge that destroyed St. Bernard Parish. Then we had to burden MY aunt and uncle for five months until I found a job to replace the one Katrina took from me. And this is the Cliff's Notes version of the experience! The point is, I don't want to hear criticism about how things are done in New Orleans from people who don't know what Pat O'Brien's is, who can't pronounce Tchoupitoulas because they never drove on that street, who don't know what it means when you find the baby in the king cake.

- Second, look at the people reaching out to Reggie Bush in those pictures. Look at the people in the crowd cheering after the game. You can see what this meant to them. They NEEDED this. I grant you that these are mostly white faces, and you wouldn't have seen those faces in the Ninth Ward even before Katrina. But I talked to rich white people who arrived at the Superdome in a Lexus, and I talked to the black fellow who drove me there in his taxi, and they held the same opinion that this was a good thing. Hell, it meant more to the guy driving the cab because he finally had another Saints game to generate business.

- Finally, I don't really expect many people to see these pictures, because I don't expect many people to see this blog. It's mostly for my own amusement. I'll get my friends to check it out, and that will be about it. But I feel about this post kind of the way I felt about teaching. Whenever I would get frustrated trying to help a kid who wouldn't or couldn't help himself, I would remind myself that if just one student benefitted from what I taught, then that in itself was a victory. And so if just one person - someone in my family, a colleague from work - ANYBODY - remembers what happened in New Orleans from seeing this post, then mission accomplished.