Gore Is the New Nixon

March 31, 2008 by John H. Taylor | Filed Under Democratic Party, Election 2008, Richard Nixon | Leave a Comment 

David Shribman:

Now that [Al Gore] realizes that the great gold ring is beyond his powers, he finds himself with the power to determine who might grasp that ring, or at least the 2008 Democratic presidential nomination. Because it may be true that the only person in the United States who can bring the 2008 primary campaign to a halt is Al Gore — and he knows it….No other American of modern times has made a comeback quite as dramatic as Gore’s, with the possible exception of Richard Nixon, who was denied the presidency in 1960 and awarded it in 1968 and again in 1972. No other American of modern times has proved the point so clearly as Gore that policy is more important than politics.

A Governor Of New York With Some Style

March 31, 2008 by John H. Taylor | Filed Under American Politics, Democratic Party | Leave a Comment 

Mario Cuomo calls for the (inevitable) unity ticket. The New Nixon is pleased to have the governor join a movement that began at Mimi’s in Yorba Linda, California on March 6.

The Big Four-Os

March 31, 2008 by John H. Taylor | Filed Under American Politics, Culture, Democratic Party, Vietnam | Leave a Comment 

We’re going to have an historic series of momentous 40th anniversaries during 2008-09, and Robert Schlesinger notes one today: LBJ’s speech announcing he wouldn’t be a candidate for re-election.

He Was Actually Playing Chess

March 31, 2008 by John H. Taylor | Filed Under American Politics, Richard Nixon | Leave a Comment 

Kudos to Bill Katz for his reflections on RN’s “Checker’s” speech, which was despised by more or less the same percentage of people who wished it hadn’t saved his 1952 VP candidacy.

Get Me The Copy Desk

March 31, 2008 by John H. Taylor | Filed Under News media, Richard Nixon | Leave a Comment 

On March 23 a New York Times op-ed contributor called RN “satanic.” Today’s edition contains an article by Eduardo Porter with this sentence:

Politicians, from Richard Nixon to Tom Tancredo, have long exploited racial tensions.

Guess which one was responsible for the Philadelphia Plan, affirmation action, the Office of Minority Business Enterprise, and the peaceful desegregation of schools in the deep south. Wouldn’t George Wallace have fit in that sentence better? Oh, never mind.

Obama: “Glib and Aloof”

March 31, 2008 by John H. Taylor | Filed Under American Politics, Democratic Party | Leave a Comment 

Thanks to “New York” magazine, as noted today by Andrew Sullivan, a behind-the-scenes glimpse of the chosen one:

In the days after John Edwards’s withdrawal from the Democratic race, the political world expected his endorsement of Barack Obama would be forthcoming tout de suite. The neo-populist and the hopemonger had spent months tag-teaming Hillary Clinton, pillorying her as a creature of the status quo, not a champion of the kind of “big change” they both deem essential. So appalled was Edwards at Clinton’s gaudy corporatism—her defense of the role of lobbyists, her suckling at the teats of the pharmaceutical and defense industries—that he’d essentially called her corrupt. And then, not least, there were the sentiments of his wife. “Elizabeth hasn’t always been crazy about Mrs. Clinton” is how an Edwards insider puts it; a less delicate member of HRC’s circle says, “Elizabeth hates her guts.” But now two months have passed since Edwards dropped out—tempus fugit!—and still no endorsement. Why? According to a Democratic strategist unaligned with any campaign but with knowledge of the situation gleaned from all three camps, the answer is simple: Obama blew it. Speaking to Edwards on the day he exited the race, Obama came across as glib and aloof. His response to Edwards’s imprecations that he make poverty a central part of his agenda was shallow, perfunctory, pat. Clinton, by contrast, engaged Edwards in a lengthy policy discussion. Her affect was solicitous and respectful. When Clinton met Edwards face-to-face in North Carolina ten days later, her approach continued to impress; she even made headway with Elizabeth. Whereas in his Edwards sit-down, Obama dug himself in deeper, getting into a fight with Elizabeth about health care, insisting that his plan is universal (a position she considers a crock), high-handedly criticizing Clinton’s plan (and by extension Edwards’s) for its insurance mandate.

Imagining RN

March 31, 2008 by John H. Taylor | Filed Under American Politics, International Affairs, Richard Nixon | Leave a Comment 

Nixonites know what the Old Man would be saying: Foreign policy, foreign policy, foreign policy. For example:

 ”The economy will take care of itself — the business cycle, hire smart advisors, keep an eye on the Fed, and the rest. Not my bag. The President’s principal responsibility is to look after America’s position and interests in the world. On the one hand, we have McCain — a hero, no question. One of the finest men I’ve ever known. Courage, principle, clean as a whistle and what have you. Hanging tough on the war. A little too hard on Don Rumsfeld, but I suppose he’s got no choice. Of course you will note that even Fred Kaplan over at “Slate,” who is certainly no friend of Bush, is smart enough to note that none of the candidates, once elected, can risk pulling out too quickly.

“But what was that out in LA about throwing Russia out of the G-8? I’ll bet Henry got a kick out of it, but a hard-nosed balance of power guy like Kissinger ultimately would have to recognize that it’s a bad idea. In our day our policy on the Soviets was getting them into the international club in spite of being communists. Give ‘em an incentive for behaving themselves, for God’s sake. We can’t very well boot them for being non-communists. Our friend Dimitri may have a point — the neocons may have gotten to John to a little bit of a degree, don’t you agree?

“As for Obama, are you kidding me? Did you read what his advisors say – including the smart one from Harvard, the Powers woman– about spending our way into national security, ending terrorism by bringing billions of poor people into the middle class with the wave of a magic wand? That’s all well and good, but leaving aside the question of where you get the money, what precisely are we supposed to do in the intervening 175 years?

“In my view, that leaves….Well, to be frank, there’s– Let me just say this: For a moment I wasn’t sure what had gotten into Bob Ellsworth down in Del Mar, endorsing Hillary. Now, let me be clear. While I have tremendous respect for Bob, I could never go quite that far.

“But if it’s going to be John and the young man in the fall — well, let me put it this way. I remember Jonathan Aitken writing from London, after reading one of my books, saying that I couldn’t very well call for ‘pragmatic idealism’ in foreign policy — said it was an oxymoron, as I recall. Typical Jonathan. And yet did you note that Al Gore used the same expression for a while back in ‘99? John called himself a ‘realistic idealist’ just last week, and I’ll bet Obama would love everybody to think he’s one, too. But you can’t very well be a realist kicking the crap out of the Russians or the Chinese, and a foreign policy aimed at bribing three billion people not to be terrorists isn’t idealism — it’s just plain nuts.”

Mrs. Big Rubber Clown Doll

March 31, 2008 by Frank Gannon | Filed Under Election 2008 | 1 Comment 

“Who’ll Stop the Pain?” John Heilemann asks in New York Magazine — who will convince Hillary Clinton to start behaving sensibly by closing down her campaign before she tears the party apart and ends up greasing the skids for a McCain administration? Warning: the following sentence contains a spoiler. No one. That’s who will convince Mrs. Clinton to give up on her every hope and dream and call it quits. That’s where Mr. Heliemann ends up, but just because you now know how his article concludes doesn’t mean you shouldn’t invest a couple of minutes reading it.

Mr. Heilemann is far more colorful and entertaining that most of the thumbsuckers on this subject. He opens his article with some non-directly Hillary-related details about Senator Obama:

In the days after John Edwards’s withdrawal from the Democratic race, the political world expected his endorsement of Barack Obama would be forthcoming tout de suite. The neo-populist and the hopemonger had spent months tag-teaming Hillary Clinton, pillorying her as a creature of the status quo, not a champion of the kind of “big change” they both deem essential. So appalled was Edwards at Clinton’s gaudy corporatism—her defense of the role of lobbyists, her suckling at the teats of the pharmaceutical and defense industries—that he’d essentially called her corrupt. And then, not least, there were the sentiments of his wife. “Elizabeth hasn’t always been crazy about Mrs. Clinton” is how an Edwards insider puts it; a less delicate member of HRC’s circle says, “Elizabeth hates her guts.”

But now two months have passed since Edwards dropped out—tempus fugit!—and still no endorsement. Why? According to a Democratic strategist unaligned with any campaign but with knowledge of the situation gleaned from all three camps, the answer is simple: Obama blew it. Speaking to Edwards on the day he exited the race, Obama came across as glib and aloof. His response to Edwards’s imprecations that he make poverty a central part of his agenda was shallow, perfunctory, pat. Clinton, by contrast, engaged Edwards in a lengthy policy discussion. Her affect was solicitous and respectful. When Clinton met Edwards face-to-face in North Carolina ten days later, her approach continued to impress; she even made headway with Elizabeth. Whereas in his Edwards sit-down, Obama dug himself in deeper, getting into a fight with Elizabeth about health care, insisting that his plan is universal (a position she considers a crock), high-handedly criticizing Clinton’s plan (and by extension Edwards’s) for its insurance mandate.

Anyone who really wants to understand why Senator Clinton will fold up her campaign only on or about the day pigs first fly need look no further than John Podhoretz’s perceptive post this morning on his Commentary magazine’s “contentions” blog. Mr. Podhoretz quotes a telling WJC moment (via John Harris’s Clinton bio The Survivor, via Michiko Kakutani in The New York Times…are you still with me?):

Do you know who I am?” Bill Clinton asked his adversary Newt Gingrich during the government shutdown of 1995-96. He answered the question himself: “I’m the big rubber clown doll you had as a kid, and every time you hit it, it bounces back.” The harder you hit me, he added, “the faster I come back up.”

And while you’re checking out “contentions”, take a look at Jennifer Rubin’s post about the oh-you’re-so-wonderful cocoon (or the Barbara Walters oh-you’re-so-sexy subset thereof) in which Senator Obama has been living. Ms. Rubin is right on that such uncritical adulation is the worst possible prep (worse even than no prep at all because at least that could produce a healthy anxiety) for the rigors of a full blown presidential campaign —- even one in which the media thinks you’re as wonderful as you are sexy and really really really wants you to win.

You Guys Gonna Take That?

March 31, 2008 by John H. Taylor | Filed Under China, Nixon Foundation | Leave a Comment 

Preparing for The Rematch, our June 2008 exhibition ping pong match here in Yorba Linda between veterans of 1971-72’s ping pong diplomacy, we’re finding Margaret Macmillan’s Nixon and Mao: The Week That Changed the World an invaluable resource. Even before Henry Kissinger’s dramatic secret visit to Beijing in the summer of 1971, a U.S. table tennis team was permitted to visit Beijing (thanks to a courageous State Department official who correctly read RN and HAK’s pro-China signals). Macmillan writes,

In China all the matches were broadcast live on television and radio. [Prime Minister] Chou ordered the Chinese players to let the Americans win some of them.

Obama’s Henry

March 31, 2008 by John H. Taylor | Filed Under American Politics, Democratic Party, International Affairs | Leave a Comment 

Sen. Obama may well think that in the general election his entire foreign policy platform can be that he gave a speech against Iraq. Whether or not he’s right about the politics of the war, Americans are entitled to know what his comprehensive views are on America’s role in a dangerous, complex international environment. With Samantha Powers edging back toward Obama’s inner sanctum, her views give pause. Overall his nascent neo-neocon view, as enunciated by Powers and others, makes McCain look like Metternich.

Reflections on Tibet

March 31, 2008 by Drew Thompson | Filed Under International Affairs | Leave a Comment 

A portion of a taped interview I conducted aired on the CBS Early Show Thursday morning explaining my view of the Chinese government’s priorities in dealing with the unrest in Tibet –

“Obviously, the main concern of the government is maintaining internal stability and control, even if that means, perhaps, what we might call ‘tarnishing’ the Olympics.”

In a recent piece on The National Interest Online, I reflect on an opportunity lost to address concerns of the Tibetan community when the demonstrations were still peaceful and concerns about how the Chinese government’s hard line approach restricts their own ability to re-open negotiations with the Dalai Lama and seek a lasting solution to the Tibet situation.

Stoned

March 31, 2008 by John H. Taylor | Filed Under Culture, Presidents, Richard Nixon | Leave a Comment 

Oliver Stone, whose “Nixon” didn’t contain a single purely honest thing about the 37th President, is planning a movie about 43, with Josh Brolin portraying the President.

Just a Hillary of Beans?

March 31, 2008 by Frank Gannon | Filed Under Election 2008 | 1 Comment 

The inimitable Hitch, in the invaluable Slate, weighs in on what Tuzlagate really amounts to.

Stay-at-Home Neo-Realists

March 31, 2008 by John H. Taylor | Filed Under American Politics, Election 2008, International Affairs, Nixon Center | Leave a Comment 

The Nixon Center’s Dimitri Simes throws some Nixonian realism on the idea, explored in a New York Sun, article, that elite crossovers from the GOP to Sen. Obama presage a mass defection in November. His worry continues to be the possibility of neocon elements in Sen. McCain’s foreign policy agenda:

[Simes said] he does not foresee many Republicans or conservatives voting for Mr. Obama. “The real issue is not whether they will vote for Obama, it is whether many conservatives will vote for McCain or stay home,” he said. Mr. Simes added that Mr. McCain’s foreign policy, which he said commits America to democracy promotion and “confrontation with a number of foreign powers,” would likely end up forcing him to raise taxes, despite his pledge not to.

Featured Articles — March 31, 2008

March 31, 2008 by Jonathan Movroydis | Filed Under Featured Articles | Leave a Comment 

Interesting Takes from Home and Abroad:

The Longest War By Richard Holbrooke
This former Taliban stronghold, where Osama bin Laden spent time planning the Sept. 11 attacks, has become an American success story. The Taliban is being pushed out, and a government presence is extending into previously hostile territory.

Rhodes to Ruin by John Fund
Will Zimbabwe’s Mugabe steal another election?

Steps that can safeguard America’s economy By Lawrence Summers
Neither US financial institutions nor the economy are likely to suffer from a lack of central bank liquidity provision. New lending facilities are coming along almost weekly, the safety net has been expanded to include non-bank primary dealers, the Fed has demonstrated a willingness to take on directly the most problematic parts of Bear Stearns’ balance sheet, and the Fed funds rate has been reduced by 200 basis points within 7 weeks.

Biography Isn’t Enough By William Kristol
The McCain campaign’s first general election ad, released Friday, includes moving footage of him as a prisoner of war. What was Democratic Chairman Howard Dean’s reaction? “While we honor McCain’s military service, the fact is Americans want a real leader who offers real solutions, not a blatant opportunist who doesn’t understand the economy and is promising to keep our troops in Iraq for 100 years.”

Obama Meets Match in Mayor Running on `Hope’ by Albert R. Hunt
The parallels between Barack Obama and Michael Nutter are striking: bright, Ivy League educated, politically successful, relatively young African-Americans with a pragmatically progressive policy bent.

Criticism and Islam By Afshin Ellian
Christians have long tolerated scrutiny of their religion.

The Cry of Tibet By Wang Lixiong
It is unrealistic for China to demand renunciation of the Dalai Lama.

Superdelegates are Another Dysfunctional Liberal Fix By J.R. Dunn
The most striking thing about the Democrat’s superdelegate fiasco is how typical it is of liberalism.

Samantha Power: A Comeback after ‘Monstergate’? By Peggy Shapiro
Samantha Power just can’t help herself when she starts talking. An odd malady for one who seeks a high position among the nation’s diplomats.

The Baton Passes to Asia By Roger Cohen
Asia’s rise is about confidence, a fierce culture of education and achievement and a burning desire to succeed.

TWTW2/5

March 30, 2008 by Frank Gannon | Filed Under TWTW | Leave a Comment 

TWTW2/5

23-29 MARCH 2008

The week began with a UPI story (picked up by very few papers — go figure) about a study by two Harvard economists indicating that “publicly voiced doubts about the U.S. occupation of Iraq have a measurable ‘emboldenment effect’ on insurgents there.” In fact, they found that a 5 – 10% increase in insurgent battlefield attacks following spikes in home front anti-war rhetoric.

The study noted that increased attacks were more pronounced in areas —such as Anbar province— with more or better access to international news. They tracked what they termed “anti-resolve statements” by American politicians and news reports covering declining US domestic support for the war, and found that “in periods immediately after a spike in anti-resolve statements, the level of insurgent attacks increases.”

As a reporter for the Harvard Crimson noted:

The most important result of the study, according to the authors, is that the insurgent groups are rational actors responding to a perceived decrease in American resolve “rather than groups driven by ideological concerns with little sensitivity to costs.”

This news will fall into the “and what exactly is your point?” department for those who remember how the North Vietnamese war machine played the US domestic opposition like a cheap fiddle.

The study, completed last month by Radha Iyengar and Jonathan Monten, is published by the National Bureau of Economic Research. It is titled: “Is There An ‘Emboldenment’ Effect? Evidence from the Insurgency in Iraq”. The authors were concerned that their research might be appropriated by supporters of the Iraq war as a way of silencing the war’s opponents. In clearly conflicted academese, the increased attacks and casualties are described as “a small but measurable cost to open public debate in the form of higher attacks in the short term.”

Abe Greenwald wrote about the study’s findings it in his Commentary magazine “contentions” blog:

But maybe the media executives who’ve been so eager to run photos of flag-draped coffins and the journalists who start each day thinking of a fresh way to cover America’s demise could keep this in mind.

Particularly now. We are in the midst of a “five years on” media riot. The number 4000 is suddenly everywhere. Yes, a free press is a cornerstone of our democracy. But it shouldn’t be exploited for the sole purpose of lamenting out military efforts. The success of the troop surge was barely acknowledged for half a year, and yet the 4000th U.S. casualty in Iraq made it into the headlines at the speed of light. And here’s something worth considering: If random criticism of the war causes spikes of insurgent violence, imagine the effect of a U.S. president whose guiding principle is the wrongness of this war.

AT THE TIME, SOME SKEPTICS SUGGESTED THAT NEW JERSEY GOVERNOR JAMES MCGREEVEY’S DISCOVERY OF HIS TRUTH AS A GAY AMERICAN ALLOWED HIM TO GET OUT OF TRENTON ONE STEP AHEAD OF THE SHERIFF. Investigators and journalists were about to bring Mr. McGreevey’s non-stop jamboree of financial corruption to a grinding halt. When confronted with the choice of being hanged for a sheep or hanged for a lamb, lamb was decidedly the plat du jour on Mr. McGreevey’s menu.

Similar questions may occur regarding Governor Spitzer’s sudden spectacular flameout. Now retreated into the fortress of solitude of his immense personal wealth —and undoubtedly finding solace in the sexual addiction treatment that an insider claims he is undergoing— the suddenly former Empire State supremo will apparently no longer be liable for a lot of the punishment that might have otherwise have befallen him.

The New York Times reported that the pesky Troopergate scandal has risen phoenix like —or for Mr. Spitzer, albatross like— from the grave too hastily dug for it by Mr Spitzer’s erstwhile ally, New York Attorney General David Soares. The Governor had claimed under oath that he had no knowledge of the attempts to slime and slander the State Senate’s Republican leader Joe Bruno. Now some of his former aides (and particularly his long time communications director Darren Dopp) are more than ready to deal, and are supplying some colorful details in the process:

Friday’s report said that at first, in May 2007, Spitzer just wanted to ”monitor the situation” after Dopp said a reporter asked for Bruno’s flight records. But in June, when Bruno was blocking Spitzer’s initiatives in the Legislature, top Spitzer aides discussed providing the flight records to ”the feds” after they read in the newspaper that Bruno was being investigated by the FBI for business dealings.

Dopp said that on June 25 or June 26, governor’s Secretary Rich Baum told him, ”Eliot wants you to release the records.”

Dopp said he went into Spitzer’s office to make sure. ”According to Dopp, the governor replied, `Yeah, do it,”’ the Soares report said.

”Dopp asked Spitzer: `Are you sure?”’ noting Bruno would be angry.

Dopp said Spitzer then used vulgarities to describe Bruno and ordered Dopp to ‘’shove it up his (expletive) with a red-hot poker.”

”He was drinking a cup of coffee,” Dopp told investigators, ”as he was saying it, he was like spitting a little bit. He was spitting mad.”

The New York Post, which broke the Spitzer story, is understandably proprietarial and is following up on why many people involved in Troopergate still have their jobs, and on the unconventional investigatory techniques of DA Soares. The paper even supplied a colorful chart of some of the material that is about to hit the fan. But with Mr. Spitzer now ensconced on Fifth Avenue in Manhattan rather than on Eagle Street in Albany, the fan has been pretty effectively unplugged.

THE OTHER BIG STORY THIS WEEK WAS THE IMPLOSION (OK, THE LATEST IMPLOSION) OF HILLARY CLINTON’S PRESIDENTIAL CAMPAIGN. The Bosnia booboos should have been manageable; containable; sustainable. But partly because they were handled so badly, and partly because even the media finally has a breaking point where egregiously insulting treatment from Democrats is concerned, they have ended up unleashing a tsunami of anti-Clinton feeling that runs both wide and deep.

Jonathan Alter vented; Frank Rich piled on. And Mark Steyn skewered:

Where did the magic go? Well, the show got miscast. I wrote a decade ago that Hillary was like Margaret Dumont to Bill’s Groucho Marx. He goes around leering at cocktail waitresses, waggling his eyebrows and his famously unlit cigar. And Hillary would stand there seemingly oblivious to the subpoenaed dress and DNA analysis and all the rest: In double-acts, the best straight men (or women) are the ones who appear never to get the joke, and that was Hillary in the late Nineties, standing on stage alongside Bill night after night with her rictus grin and droning in the robotic cadences of that computerized voice in your car that tells you to fasten your seatbelt that “I. Am. So. Proud. Of. My. Husband. And. Our. President. Bill. Clinton.”

But you can’t recast: You can’t put Margaret Dumont in the Groucho role. In their heyday, the Clintons ran a thuggish operation fronted by an ingratiating charmer. Now the charming facade’s gone, and the backroom thuggery is ineffective. The Clinton campaign’s letter to Nancy Pelosi suggesting that she might like to “reflect” (if you know what we mean) on her call for the super-delegates to support the winner of the popular vote (i.e., Obama) was notable not for its menace but for its clumsiness: Few sights are more forlorn than an enforcer who can no longer enforce. The Clinton letter reminded me of Elena Ceausescu still trying to pull the don’t-you-know-who-I-am routine even as the firing squad were taking aim.

But on she staggers. Even if she can’t win, she can deny victory to Obama, and to her party. As they say in showbusiness, it’s not important for me to succeed, only for my friends to fail.

Perhaps the most important analysis came from The Wall Street Journal’s excellent columnist Kimberley A. Strassel. Her “Potomac Watch” column on Thursday —“The Whitewater Proxy”— explains all you need to know about Mrs. Clinton’s current troubles and future prospects. It’s the week’s must-read.

AND SPEAKING OF MUST-READS, IT IS WITH MIXED EMOTIONS (BUT CONSIDERABLE RELIEF) THAT I ANNOUNCE THAT TWTW2/5 WILL BE TWTW2/LAST. Thanks to my colleague Jonathan Movroydis’s eagle eye, and to the lively and wide-ranging posts of my fellow TNN bloggers, most of the columns to which I link in these weekly potpourris have already appeared in the daily “Featured Articles” or been dealt with in far greater depth than I am capable of supplying. Besides, many of my readers read the same things I do each day —NYT, WAPO, WSJ, LAT, Drudge, Politico, Wonkette— so with the exception of some occasionally titillating charts from the New York Post or some deliciously unsourceable rumors from one of the louche gossip blogs I frequent, I’m plowing already well tilled fields. Plus it’s not as easy as (a) it looks or (b) as I thought it would be when I blithely announced that it would be a weekly feature.

So, TWTW2 —- we hardly knew ye —- and it looks like we aren’t going to get to know ye any better. Ave atque vale.

The Tears of August

March 30, 2008 by Frank Gannon | Filed Under News media | Leave a Comment 

C-SPAN has just broadcast the first half of a two hour interview with former CBS newsman Roger Mudd. The occasion is the publication of his memoir The Place To Be: Washington, CBS, and the Glory Days of Television News.

C-SPAN grand poobah Brian Lamb does his usual artfully artless job as interviewer. Despite Mr. Mudd’s avuncular manner even then, he was, apparently, something of a cranky colleague and far from being anybody’s idea of a team player. Most of the first hour was devoted to explaining his tiffs and rifts with Dan Rather (who aced him out for the anchor gig) and Walter Cronkite (who was not amused by anything or anyone undermining his already legendary status). Names like Paley and Salant and Small fly by, recalling the days when CBS was truly considered to be the gold standard (before it was demoted to being merely the Tiffany Network).

Near the hour’s end, Mr. Lamb outlined some of the subjects to be covered next week (including the famous “why do you want to be President” question that sunk Ted Kennedy’s 1980 candidacy before he even rose from the rocking chair on his Hyannisport porch). And there was, he said, one piece of news in Mr. Mudd’s book that he wanted to ask about even though they had not reached it chronologically.

So Mr. Mudd and Mr. Lamb proceeded to tell the story of Lillian Brown. Ms. Brown, who worked for CBS for thirty years, was the makeup person of choice for six presidents —from JFK through WJC. Late on 8 August 1974, she received a call from the White House saying that she was needed to make up President Nixon for a TV broadcast that night.

When she arrived at the White House, according to Mr. Mudd’s reporting of Ms. Brown’s story, a Secret Service agent told her that RN was currently meeting with members of congress, and after that he would join her in the small room off the Oval Office where makeup and hair were done before TV appearances. The USSS agent warned her that the President was not “in good shape” so that she would be prepared for what she found.

A few minutes later, RN entered. As he sat in her chair he collapsed weeping —”blubbering” in Mr. Mudd’s word— uncontrollably. Ms. Brown, aware that the live TV speech was scheduled to begin in just a few minutes, started to panic. Then she remembered an event at a 1973 White House Christmas gathering when King Timahoe, RN’s irish setter, had crashed the party and needed to be removed to a nearby bathroom. Ms. Brown said, “I’ll do it,” but RN had the same idea. The upshot was that they both found themselves in the bathroom, each holding a side of King’s collar. Presumably they also both heard the door click —and lock— behind them. And they had to wait to be rescued from the sulking canine by the amused partygoers.

Ms. Brown related this story to the disconsolate RN —- and before long they were both laughing at the absurdity of their situation. She was able to finish her job and he was able to go on the air on the dot at 9 pm. Mr. Lamb asked why Ms. Brown had waited so many years before revealing this story; Mr. Mudd referred to her strong sense of discretion.

I know —- some anecdotes raise as many questions as they answer. For starters, exactly why, where, and how do bathroom doors lock from the outside? But I’m buying this story — or at least its essentials.

In RN, RN himself referred to the extremely emotional nature of that humid, crowded Cabinet Room meeting with about fifty of his congressional supporters. Observing that he couldn’t stand to see other people cry, he said that it was the sight of his old friend Les Arends weeping that made him push back his chair and leave the room in tears. And Al Haig expressed doubts about whether the President would be able sufficiently to recover and compose himself to be able to deliver his resignation speech.

Mr. Lamb then went on to show the oh so familiar tape of the few minutes before the speech began — the “pickin’ my nose” moment — when RN attempted to break the almost unbearable tension by bantering with the hapless TV crew, and has suffered for it ever since.

The degree to which RN let his hair down in front of Ms. Brown is probably debatable. He had already been crying in the Cabinet Room. In such emotional and historical circumstances, I’m sure that even a few tears might have seemed a veritable Niagara. And if in fact he blubbered, surely that was nothing less than the circumstances called for, and I’m glad he found someone as familiar and comforting as Ms. Brown in front of whom he felt free to do it. And I’m grateful to her for having had the presence of mind to remember King Timahoe; and the decency not to have leaked the story before the speech was even concluded.

Dith Pran RIP

March 30, 2008 by Frank Gannon | Filed Under International Affairs | Leave a Comment 

Dith Pran, the translator who survived the killing fields of Cambodia, died earlier today of pancreatic cancer; he was 65. He worked as a photojournalist for The New York Times. He was made internationally famous when the actor who portrayed him (Dr. Haing S. Ngor) in the 1984 film The Killing Fields won the Oscar for Best Supporting Actor.

Born in the shadow of Angkor Wat at Siem Reap in 1942, Dith Pran learned French in school and taught himself English. He worked as a translator for the US Military Assistance Command and then took other multi-lingual jobs before signing on to work with New York Times Vietnam correspondent Sydney Schanberg. It was his colleague and friend Mr. Schanberg who taught him how to take photographs.

In 1975, the U.S. Congress in a mindless mixture of misplaced ideology and partisan pique, cut off funding for the South Vietnamese government. Before long Indochina was in complete turmoil, with Vietnam forcibly united under Ho Chi Minh and Cambodia taken over by the Khmer Rouge under Pol Pot. Mr. Dith managed to survive for over four years by feigning ignorance of any western knowledge much less contacts.

Three years later the Vietnamese invaded, and Mr. Dith was able to flee to Thailand. He was finally reunited with his family (which had been able to reach the United States before the fall of Phnom Penh in 1975) and became an American citizen in 1984.

Mr. Dith himself participated in a dignified and moving video eulogy —”The Last Word”— which can be accessed (“Video Feature”) on his paper’s obituary page.

Poetry In Motion

March 30, 2008 by Frank Gannon | Filed Under Culture | Leave a Comment 

A couple of weeks ago our colleague Robert Nedelkoff wrote movingly about Harry Patch, at 109 years of age Britain’s last surviving World War One soldier.

It turns out that Andrew Motion, the British Poet Laureate, was commissioned by the BBC to commemorate the event in his own particular way. Mr. Motion was pragmatic (and not overly modest) about the gig: “If I were a carpenter, I tell myself, and someone ordered me to make a table, I should be able to knock one up; why should the trade of writing be different? Shakespeare would probably have agreed.”

Some may find Mr. Motion’s account of his meeting with his subject more poignant and convincing (not to say comprehensible) than the long poem it inspired — “The Five Acts of Harry Patch”. Connoisseurs of certain kinds of absurdity (British variety) will be rewarded for their persistence if they watch the video of Laureate Motion premiering his poem in the presence of Trooper Patch.

Turns out that we have a Poet Laureate of our own — Charles Simic — who hangs his hat (or beret) at the Library of Congress. Here’s a poem he wrote about a library. Since 1937 the Librarian of Congress had appointed a “poetry consultant” but it took an act of Congress in 1985 to add the title of Poet Laureate. The position, apparently, is privately funded.

Back in the benighted days before we actually had an officially designated Poet Laureate of our very own, essayist Lance Morrow had an interesting idea:

Why not have a candidate for poet laureate run on every presidential ticket? The poet would be granted a guarantee of immunity, like Lear’s Fool, to criticize Government policy as he wishes. The plan might open up an interesting game: select the poet who goes with the President. Thus James Dickey probably would belong more with Lyndon Johnson than with Carter; Rod McKuen might be Carter’s bard (although the President’s favorite poet, officially, is Dylan Thomas). Ronald Reagan’s lyricist might have been the late Oscar Hammerstein II; he would have to pick another. Eisenhower’s? Edgar Guest. J.F.K.’s? Another lyricist, perhaps: Alan Jay Lerner. Harry Truman’s? Edgar Lee Masters. Richard Nixon’s? Imamu Baraka (formerly Leroi Jones). Eugene McCarthy’s? Eugene McCarthy.

RN, of course, gets short —ironic— shrift here. But Mr. Morrow’s game is engaging. Who would have been RN’s preferred poet? John Greenleaf Whittier is probably too obvious. Ditto James Whitcomb Riley, the bard of the Wabash, who had some Quaker connections on his mother’s side. Maybe Eugene Field — whose simple rhymes would have been read to him as a child. Call me crazy, but I’m going to go with —the envelope please— Stephen Vincent Benet.

Sadr Relenting

March 30, 2008 by Jonathan Movroydis | Filed Under Iraq War, War on Terror | Leave a Comment 

Shiite cleric and terrorist MUqtada Al-Sadr is apparently relenting under the pressure of U.S. forces. Al-Sadr has been a pest and has had considerable leverage in Iraqi politics ever since the initial 2003 invasion, leading a series of uprisals responsible for massive casualities and regional destabilization. Now that Sadr is striking a more concilliatory tone, its very tempting to consider a diplomatic solution. But in the case that he resurfaces with greater political capital, I think Powerline’s John Hinderaker has it right when he says to take advantage of the landscape and dismantle him now:

Muqtada al-Sadr apparently has had enough; he’s offered a “truce” if the Iraqi government will stop attacking his men. I’m not close enough to the situation to know whether it would be better to accept the truce or continue disabling Sadr’s militia, but the proposal seems like a clear indication that things haven’t gone as Sadr intended.

This episode might prove to be, as President Bush suggested, a defining moment in Iraq’s post-war history. The main knock on Maliki’s government has been that it is a Shia instrument that has sometimes been infiltrated by radical Shia elements. Sunnis have often been suspicious of the government on this ground. The fact that Iraqi soldiers took the lead in rooting out Sadr’s militia may demonstrate to Iraqis that Maliki’s government represents all Iraqis, not just the Shia.

Next Page »