Setting The Record Straight

November 30, 2009 by Frank Gannon | Filed Under Cold War, History, International Affairs, News media, Nixon Administration, Presidents, Richard Nixon, U.S. History, Vietnam | 2 Comments 

Last month the International Republican Institute honored Henry Kissinger with its 2009 Freedom award in recognition of his contribution to the security and progress of the United States.  HAK was introduced by his old friend Senator John McCain, and his former associate and fellow Secretary of State Lawrence Eagleburger.

HAK was interviewed by historian Niall Ferguson, a Senior Research Fellow at Jesus College, Oxford, and currently the holder of professorial chairs at Harvard University and the Harvard Business School.

After the presentation of the Award, HAK sat down for a conversation with writer and historian Niall Ferguson.  As an opener, Professor Ferguson asked if there is any historical parallel between our experiences in Afghanistan today and Vietnam back in the day.  HAK’s reply was concise and memorable:

First of all, I have a perception of Vietnam which is not the majority media perception of Vietnam.

I think in essence we defeated ourselves.  Vietnam was a problem of the American soul and not of the American performance.

And until we accept this we are not going to learn the lessons of the period.

We entered a war with decent motives and attempted to pursue it by judgments that turned out to be not applicable to the situation because they were drawn from a European experience.

And when I say “we” I mean the Kennedy and Johnson administration.

President Nixon attempted to disengage us from that war. And, while he is accused today of having prolonged the war, the only decision he made that prolonged the war was his refusal of the communist demand that, at the beginning of the peacemaking process, we had to replace the Government of Vietnam with a communist-dominated government, and after which we would have to withdraw our troops under fire.

Those two conditions he refused, and if that is prolonging the war, we would do it again.

The whole program, as broadcast by C-SPAN, concluding with the Kissinger-Ferguson conversation, can be seen here.

HAK at the IRI dinner, chatting with Gen. Brent Scowcroft, his erstwhile assistant and subsequent successor as National Security Adviser.

Yesterday’s Facebook

November 30, 2009 by Jonathan Movroydis | Filed Under Nixon Administration figures, Richard Nixon | Leave a Comment 

Just before the Thanksgiving holiday, The Wall Street Journal’s Katherine Rosman penned a profile that might come as an oddity to the fervid tweeters, youtubers, and Facebook faithful. In 1957, the late RN speechwriter William Safire formed the Wednesday 10 club, a group of influential professional men — from all walks of life – that would regularly meet over monthly breakfasts and dinners to share life experiences, exchange ideas, and help build each others’ careers.

Rosman likens it today’s juvenescence, only a bit old-fashioned and considerably more intimate and durable:

In a day when “social network” is a buzz term from colleges to board rooms, the members of Wednesday 10 show the benefits of old-fashioned networking. “We were all young kids starting out, and it is easy when you are so involved in building your career to lose touch with other people who are outside your field,” says Mr. Menschel, who has been at Goldman Sachs for 55 years. “It helped me to understand why other people do what they do—which is important in life and in business. You don’t learn anything from talking to sameness.”

The Wednesday 10 comprised, at various points, more than 20 men; the goal was a number small enough to maintain intimacy yet large enough to ensure that at least 10 members would show up for each of the monthly Wednesday-night meetings. No more than two representatives of any one industry were permitted. The idea was to combat insularity, to keep the men connected to people and events outside their own professions.

Rosman goes on to explain the advantages of the group, a list that includes the attainment of lucrative contracts, book deals, and a pertinent education on the intricacies of business-life in New York City and the powerful men who shaped it:

To begin the meetings, each man gave an update on his life. Impending marriages and expected babies were nodded to, but the thrust of the discussion centered on career development. “It was a professional support system,” says Mr. Meyer, 82. By the end of each meeting, he had a snapshot of what was going on in the realms of law, media, art, finance, real estate, public service and cancer research. “It was like reading a newspaper cover to cover,” he says.

RN, helped form something akin to a social network for newly seated members of the House of Representatives in 1949. An “informal caucus” for Republican veterans of World War II, the Chowder and Marching Society proved to be equally as intimate and durable. CMS served as then Michigan Freshman Gerald Ford’s “first stepping stone to leadership.” And the late journalist Hugh Sidey, writing after RN’s funeral, said the group “welded exuberant friendships” and set the stage for the rise of three American Presidents:

So much history, thought Ford as he listened to the eulogies on that clouded and chilly California afternoon last week when Nixon was buried beside his wife Pat at the Nixon library and birthplace in Yorba Linda. Ford was Nixon’s closest political colleague. “I treasured his friendship,” Ford said later. “When I took the oath of office in the well of the House in 1949, the very first person who came up to shake my hand was Dick Nixon.”

Ford looked stricken. In fact, all five Presidents gathered below Nixon’s casket were dramatically reminded that even the toughest actors are ultimately swept from the great stage. And with them such rich memories of the old campaigns. “I asked him to come to Grand Rapids to make a Lincoln Day speech, and he stayed at my parents’ home,” said Ford. “He slept in a four-poster bed with sideboards. Later, when he became President, my mother hung up a sign on the bed, THE PRESIDENT SLEPT HERE.”

The covey of Presidents who shivered through the Nixon rites owed their days of glory in varying degrees to Richard Nixon, either for his help or his failure. Ronald Reagan, a Democrat until the early 1960s, recalls how his growing disenchantment with the party inspired him to go talk with Nixon. “I’d grown up a Democrat, but I told Nixon I’ve got to be a Republican,” Reagan said. “But Nixon asked me to campaign for him as a Democrat, and I did until right at the end. Then I switched.”

By this time Reagan had got the political bug, and he watched Nixon and listened to him. After Nixon’s Watergate humiliation, it was Reagan who made certain Nixon was on the delegation, which also included Ford and Carter, sent to the funeral of Egypt’s Anwar Sadat in 1981.

Only 10 months ago, Reagan sat beside Nixon at the funeral for Pat. “I know how he felt about his family,” said Reagan. “I always admired him for that, and I saw at Pat’s funeral the terrible grief he felt. I thought so very much of him.”

George Bush, a decade younger, nevertheless was caught up in the Chowder and Marching retinue during his days as a member of Congress. “Nixon was on this swing through the country back in 1966 when he went out and raised money for a lot of newly running candidates,” Bush recalled. “I was one of them. Nixon came down to Houston and helped. I was kind of awestruck. He had done so many things, and he was getting ready to run for President again. I was the new boy on the political block, and I was very appreciative for what he did.”

The Mission Inn At Christmas

November 28, 2009 by Robert Nedelkoff | Filed Under Nixon family, Pat Nixon, Presidents, Richard Nixon | 1 Comment 

From the Los Angeles Times comes this article about the historic Mission Inn in Riverside, California which has just set up its much-cherished “Festival of Lights” for another holiday season. Nixon scholars know it as the place where the future President married Pat Ryan, but it has hosted many, many other weddings – including Bette Davis’s union with her third husband, William Grant Sherry, in 1945. The inn has also counted among its visitors the likes of Albert Einstein, Booker T. Washington, Harry Houdini, Amelia Earhart, Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger – and not just two-legged ones:

One of the more unusual guests was a circus elephant named Schneider, who escaped from a train and invaded the premises in 1909.

Apparently mistaking his reflection in the window of the hotel barber shop for another bull elephant, Schneider charged, bursting through the glass.

[Mission Inn founder Frank] Miller took the incident in stride. “He said that was the only guest that was ever allowed to carry his own trunk,” Gutierrez said.

More Turbulence In Washington Media

November 28, 2009 by Robert Nedelkoff | Filed Under New Media, News media | 1 Comment 

This month has seen a number of shakeups in the world of Washington newspapers, which in recent years have been feeling the pinch caused by falling circulation, dwindling advertising revenues, and repeated staff cutbacks.

On November 16, the weekly Washington Blade, America’s oldest newspaper aimed at a gay audience, went out of business a month after celebrating its fortieth anniversary, when its parent company, Window Media of Atlanta, abruptly went into Chapter 7 bankruptcy. No warning was given to the staff of 21, which learned of the paper’s demise when a Window Media employee phoned them to say the parent company’s offices had had its locks changed.

But, undaunted, the Blade staff got to work on putting out a new paper as soon as they’d moved their belongings out of their old offices, and the following Friday saw the first issue of DC Agenda. But the new paper faces the same questions its predecessor did about losing advertisers to the internet, and wooing readers from the generation accustomed to getting its news through a keyboard and screen.

This week, the Washington Post took another step toward ceding its status as a national newspaper to the New York Times. The paper announced that it was shutting down its remaining out-of-town bureaus in Los Angeles, New York, and Chicago, and bringing the reporters posted there to DC. The plan is to send reporters outside Washington only when major news stories occur. But one has to wonder if anyone pointed out some simple facts to Marcus Brauchli, the Post’s executive editor. Suppose “the big one” really hits Los Angeles. Just how long would it take to get reporters into a city devastated by an earthquake? Would it not make more sense to keep one or two reporters in the city, so that they could begin reporting within the regular news cycle? 9/11 also comes to mind; in the days after the tragedy, it was extremely difficult for anyone to enter Manhattan.

Finally, there’s the turmoil at the Washington Times, the daily founded by the Reverend Sun Myung Moon and operated (reportedly at losses exceeding $50 million a year) since 1982. Since Sunday, the paper has not published its usual comic strips and crossword. But that’s the least of its problems. Early this month, the paper’s president, Tom McDevitt, was fired; its executive editor, John F. Solomon (formerly of the Washington Post) quit; and in mid-November Richard Miniter, the Times’s editorial page editor, told Howard Kurtz of the Post that he had been fired from the paper (though it still lists him in its staff box) and that he was suing his former employer for discrimination, saying that he was coerced into attending one of Rev. Moon’s famous mass wedding ceremonies as a spectator.

A week ago, Joseph Farah’s World News Daily site (which has a number of contributors formerly associated with the Times) reported that more staff cuts are imminent and that the print version of the newspaper could vanish within sixty days, to be replaced (a la the Seattle Post-Intelligencer) by an online-only entity. It would be an unhappy fate for a newspaper which, though rarely reaching a circulation of 100,000 in a metropolitan area with several million potential readers, still managed to score with solid national-security reporting, mostly thanks to Bill Gertz, who might have received a Pulitzer had he worked for any other newspaper on that beat. (Not to mention its often-outstanding sports coverage and its excellent book reviews, especially in the days when its literary section was run by the late Colin Walters.)

It’s hard to know what’s going to happen next in the print world, but I’m hoping that there’s still some time to go before the days when my fingers are smudged with newsprint will be as bygone as the times they were smeared with the ink of a typewriter ribbon.

Obama/Edwards: The Ticket That Never Was

November 28, 2009 by Robert Nedelkoff | Filed Under American Politics, Barack Obama, Election 2008, Election 2012, Hillary Clinton | Leave a Comment 

In recent months little has been heard about the scandal that forced former Senator (and 2004 Democratic vice-presidential candidate) John Edwards from political life. A grand jury in North Carolina is now hearing testimony regarding the question of whether funds earmarked for his 2008 presidential campaign were diverted to pay the living expenses of Rielle Hunter, who in February 2008 gave birth to a daughter who, it is widely reported, was fathered by Edwards. I wrote about “the Edwards Zone” a number of times in 2008 at TNN, but developments since I last discussed the case have been as bizarre and murky as ever, so I’m waiting to see what comes out of the grand jury’s deliberations.

But a passage in the new book The Audacity To Win by David Plouffe is worth mentioning. Plouffe, the campaign manager who handled President Obama’s race for the White House last year, says in it that just after then-Senator Hillary Clinton narrowly defeated Obama in the New Hampshire primary in January 2008, “a senior Edwards advisor” telephoned him with a remarkable offer.

The advisor pointed out that Edwards’s failure to win in Iowa (where he finished second, just ahead of Clinton but well behind Obama) or in New Hampshire made it unlikely that he would be the nominee. The advisor also observed that Clinton’s win in the Granite State had put Obama in a difficult position going into the next primary in South Carolina. He proposed a solution: that Edwards drop out of the race, endorse Obama, and be anointed by the Illinois senator as his running-mate should he receive the nomination. The two senators would then campaign jointly. The Edwards advisor argued that this would give Obama the edge in South Carolina, Edwards’s native state, and in the other Southern states on Super Tuesday, and thus guarantee him the nomination.

Plouffe took this offer to Obama, who rejected the idea. The advisor then informed Plouffe that he would approach Clinton instead, but if the notion was even presented to Hillary, no evidence has turned up so far.

Leaving aside the question of why Edwards thought he might help lead a Democratic ticket to victory in the fall when his onetime mistress was due to give birth in a few weeks after this idea was floated, the proposal had one obvious flaw. In 2004, when Edwards ran with John Kerry, it was widely trumpeted by his supporters that as a Southerner he would help win North Carolina, and perhaps Florida, Tennessee, Virginia and West Virginia, for the Democrats. As things turned out, the whole South (and mid-South) went Republican. In 2008, Obama won Florida, Virginia and North Carolina on his own; having Joe Biden, a Pennsylvanian serving from Delaware, was no particular plus.

Obama was also probably aware of an earlier case where a presidential hopeful committed himself to a running-mate before actually being nominated (or having the nomination locked up). In 1976, just before the GOP convention got underway, former California Gov. Ronald Reagan, in the hope of gaining the support of enough delegates to overtake President Gerald Ford’s lead, announced that he would select Pennsylvania Sen. Richard Schweiker, regarded as a moderate-to-liberal figure, as his running-mate.

This choice generated little enthusiasm among the delegates Reagan sought, but it did upset his conservative base, with Sen. Jesse Helms urging the drafting of Sen. James Buckley to be Reagan’s running-mate instead. As a result, Reagan lost the nomination – though so narrowly that, though few liberal pundits believed it at the time, his ultimate journey to the White House was a sure bet.

For Obama to do something similar would have been a grave misstep; even if Edwards didn’t have the baggage he carried, had the Obama/Edwards ticket gone down to defeat in November 2008, it’s all but impossible that the Illinois senator would have been a viable candidate in 2012 or any time after. So, as the President looks back on 2008, he can rest assured that he made a wise choice.

Will Mr. Obama Seize His Big Mac Moment?

November 27, 2009 by David R. Stokes | Filed Under Afghanistan, American Politics, Barack Obama, Cold War, George W. Bush, History, Military, National Security, Obama administration, Presidents, Republican Party, Terrorism, U.S. History, War on Terror | 3 Comments 

This Tuesday, Barack Obama will travel to the United States Military Academy at West Point to deliver the most important address of his young presidency. He has obviously chosen the site for the speech with great care and in the hope that the backdrop – a storied scene on the Hudson – will engender an image of him as a strong and effective commander in chief.

It is probably a smart move, but one not without a measure of risk.

The President of the United States will be treated with respect and be received enthusiastically – all very appropriate and quintessentially American. But when the fanfare fades and the applause lines become fewer, he will have the tough job of articulating a compelling vision for the future of a war that has lost its name, if not its way.

Though Mr. Obama’s White House predecessor spoke at West Point twice – once in each term – not all presidents make this trip. Eisenhower, one of the two graduates of the academy who went on to become Commander in Chief (the other being fellow Republican, Ulysses S. Grant), never made a major speech there during his two terms as president. And his predecessor, the man from Missouri, avoided the place like the plague. President Truman saw West Point as a breeding ground for “stuffed shirts” – and at any rate, his firing of the academy’s former commandant – Douglas MacArthur – probably kept the presidential welcome mat in storage in the basement of the Thayer Hotel.

As Mr. Obama’s team prepares for this important speech, I wonder if the wordsmiths are taking time to consult the history of what has been said there by other presidents and prominent Americans?

Franklin Roosevelt gave the commencement address in 1939 to graduates who would soon be in harm’s way in Europe and the Pacific. He told that class:

During recent months international political considerations have required still greater emphasis upon the vitalization of our defense, for we have had dramatic illustrations of the fate of undefended nations. I hardly need to be more specific than that. Recent conflicts in Europe, the Far East and Africa bear witness to the fact that the individual soldier remains still the controlling factor.

However, when John F. Kennedy spoke to another graduating class on June 6, 1962 (inexplicably, for a president who prided himself on his sense of history, never mentioning that date as the 18th anniversary of D-Day), he shared a vision about changes in warfare, telling his honorable audience:

Your responsibilities may involve the command of more traditional forces, but in less traditional roles. Men risking their lives, not as combatants, but as instructors or advisers, or as symbols of our Nation’s commitments.

He, though, never lived to see how quickly “instructors or advisors” would become “combatants.”

The most recent president to make a major speech at West Point was George W. Bush, a man who usually does not fare well in the eloquence department, especially when compared to President Obama. Yet, what he had to say back in 2002 should be reviewed, not only by White House speechwriters, but also by all Americans – because the words still ring true:

Because the war on terror will require resolve and patience, it will also require firm moral purpose. In this way our struggle is similar to the Cold War. Now, as then, our enemies are totalitarians, holding a creed of power with no place for human dignity. Now, as then, they seek to impose a joyless conformity, to control every life and all of life.

America confronted imperial communism in many different ways – diplomatic, economic, and military. Yet moral clarity was essential to our victory in the Cold War. When leaders like John F. Kennedy and Ronald Reagan refused to gloss over the brutality of tyrants, they gave hope to prisoners and dissidents and exiles, and rallied free nations to a great cause.

Some worry that it is somehow undiplomatic or impolite to speak the language of right and wrong. I disagree. Different circumstances require different methods, but not different moralities. Moral truth is the same in every culture, in every time, and in every place. Targeting innocent civilians for murder is always and everywhere wrong. Brutality against women is always and everywhere wrong. There can be no neutrality between justice and cruelty, between the innocent and the guilty. We are in a conflict between good and evil, and America will call evil by its name. By confronting evil and lawless regimes, we do not create a problem – we reveal a problem. And we will lead the world in opposing it.

However, if I were on Mr. Obama’s speech writing team (corpulent opportunity), I would spend some time going over another famous speech made at West Point. It just may be the most relevant to current realities, not to mention one that we all need to hear again.

The date was May 12, 1962 and the speaker was retired General Douglas MacArthur. The Old Man was 82 years of age and his frail movements reflected it. But there was a spark of eloquence left in him; one that he fanned that day into a brilliant rhetorical flame.

When I watch Mr. Obama’s speech this Tuesday, it will be Big Mac’s speech that I use as the gold standard reference point. Here are some excerpts. The words speak for themselves:

Duty, Honor, Country: Those three hallowed words reverently dictate what you ought to be, what you can be, what you will be. They are your rallying points: to build courage when courage seems to fail; to regain faith when there seems to be little cause for faith; to create hope when hope becomes forlorn. Unhappily, I possess neither that eloquence of diction, that poetry of imagination, nor that brilliance of metaphor to tell you all that they mean.

The unbelievers will say they are but words, but a slogan, but a flamboyant phrase. Every pedant, every demagogue, every cynic, every hypocrite, every troublemaker, and, I am sorry to say, some others of an entirely different character, will try to downgrade them even to the extent of mockery and ridicule.

And through all this welter of change and development your mission remains fixed, determined, inviolable. It is to win our wars. Everything else in your professional career is but corollary to this vital dedication. All other public purpose, all other public projects, all other public needs, great or small, will find others for their accomplishments; but you are the ones who are trained to fight.

Yours is the profession of arms, the will to win, the sure knowledge that in war there is no substitute for victory, that if you lose, the Nation will be destroyed, that the very obsession of your public service must be Duty, Honor, Country.

The long gray line has never failed us. Were you to do so, a million ghosts in olive drab, in brown khaki, in blue and gray, would rise from their white crosses, thundering those magic words: Duty, Honor, Country.

Featured Articles — November 27, 2009

November 27, 2009 by Jonathan Movroydis | Filed Under Featured Articles | Leave a Comment 

Interesting takes from home and abroad:

Will Climate Scandal Be a Tipping Point? By Kimberley Strassel, The Wall Street Journal
So declares Oklahoma Sen. Jim Inhofe, taking a few minutes away from a Thanksgiving retreat with his family. “Ninety-five percent of the nails were in the coffin prior to this week. Now they are all in.”

Voter Anger Is Building Over Deficits By Karl Rove, The Wall Street Journal
The generic poll shows a 16-point swing to the GOP over last year.

Obama’s Secret Climate Pact By Richard Wolffe, The Daily Beast
It’s no coincidence that one day after the White House announced new emissions targets, China followed suit with its own target. The Daily Beast’s Richard Wolffe on the behind-the-scenes negotiations during Obama’s Asia trip that could help break the climate stalemate in Copenhagen.

In Afghanistan, real leverage starts with more troops By Frederick W. Kagan and Kimberly Kagan, The Washington Post
The president will soon announce the deployment of additional U.S. forces to Afghanistan, in a speech likely to emphasize the importance of political progress there.

The Turkey Has Landed

November 26, 2009 by Anne Walker | Filed Under Nixon Foundation, Pat Nixon, Richard Nixon | 2 Comments 

On his first Thanksgiving in the White House, November 27, 1969, President Nixon told a group of senior citizens, “In our family we always had Thanksgiving as a family day. We have in the past, and we do now. Our parents cannot be here now, but we wanted people who have been with this Nation for so many years, who have lived good lives, to be here as our guests today. We feel that you are part of our family and we invite you here as part of our family, The White House family, the American family.”

“You have seen the menu. It is the usual, of course. Turkey and all the things that go with it, and pumpkin pie for dessert. Seeing turkey on the menu reminds me that when this country began, Benjamin Franklin argued that the National Bird should be a turkey rather than an eagle. Now, I think he was a very wise man, but the final decision to have the eagle was a better one. When Neil Armstrong landed on the moon, it would have sounded rather funny to say, ‘The turkey has landed.’ And today I think you will all agree you would not want to eat eagle.”

Would you like to have an authentic Nixon Family Thanksgiving Dinner? The Republican Cookbook, with Recipes for Political Success,” The Brownstone Press, Inc., 1969 lists the following:

Here are some of Mrs. Nixon’s recipes for you to try:

Today, we are just like those senior citizens in 1969, invited to share Thanksgiving traditions with the Nixon Legacy, represented here at the Richard Nixon Presidential Foundation. All of us here, and especially the Walker family, wish each of you a Happy Thanksgiving.

We plan to spend the holiday counting our many blessings and enjoying a delicious turkey dinner. Our blessings include the many friendships and opportunities we enjoy because of the Nixon family, and the many doors they opened for us. May God continue to Bless America and give our leaders wisdom. . . . and may God Bless all of you.

The Pardon In The Rose Garden

November 26, 2009 by Frank Gannon | Filed Under Holidays, Presidents, Richard Nixon, U.S. History | Leave a Comment 

President Obama’s pardon yesterday of a turkey named Courage was the latest exercise of a clemency that may (or may not) have first been extended by President Truman in 1947.  Because it’s Thanksgiving and children may be reading —and because the l-tryptophan is already kicking in—  we will illustrate rather than examine what is really going on.

President Obama attributed his pardon to the pleas of his daughters Sasha and Malia.  He said, “I was planning to eat this sucker.”

There is doubt and controversy about whether HST was pardoning the turkey or receiving it from the National Turkey Foundation for the next day’s dinner.

On 19 November 1969, Wally McNamee photographed RN pardoning that year’s bird.

November 1969 — Giving Thanks

November 26, 2009 by Frank Gannon | Filed Under Holidays, Nixon family, Pat Nixon, Richard Nixon, U.S. History, White House | Leave a Comment 

A Nixon Family portrait from 1969 — their first year in the White House.

On Thanksgiving Day 1969 —their first year in the White House— the Nixons invited more than two hundred residents without any families from nineteen DC area old age homes to join them at the White House for a traditional meal including fruit salad, turkey and all the trimmings, and pumpkin pie.  The guests, ranging in age from 58 to 93, arrived in busses and were greeted in a presidential receiving line.

The Nixon family —RN, PN and Tricia, Julie and David, and Mamie Eisenhower and David’s sister, her 17-year old granddaughter Susan— welcomed the guests, who were divided between the East Room and the State Dining Room.  Everyone was seated at round tables of ten decorated with centerpieces of  fall flowers and fruit.  Music was supplied by the Army’s Old Guard Fife and Drum Band and the Marine Corps Band Orchestra; entertainment was provided by the Beers Family folk singers and a balladeer from Colonial Williamsburg.

Several guests responded when RN asked for anyone over 90 to raise their hands.   One of them was 93-year-old John W. Graves of Neosho, MO who lived in the National Lutheren Home for the Aged in DC.  The irrepressible nonagenarian rose three times — first to tell RN that he was born in Missouri (RN replied: “I know President Truman will be glad we had a Missourian here today.”); then to inform POTUS that “I’ve never had a sick day in my life.” (RN: “I’m going to have the Secretary of Health, Education and Welfare come and talk to you and get your formula so we can pass it around the country.”); and, finally, to observe that “My father lived to 93; my sister lived to 94; and there were 10 children, five of us still alive.” (RN: “I want to get your formula too.”)

The New York Times‘ headline for the story of the event:  ”Nixon Is Outtalked by Holiday Dinner Guest, 93.”

Julie Nixon Eisenhower told the guests that the grace she would say was one that had been used in the Nixon family since she and Tricia were little: “Thank you for the earth so sweet; thank you for the food we eat….”

Forty Years Ago: Thanksgiving Proclaimed

November 26, 2009 by Frank Gannon | Filed Under Holidays, Richard Nixon, U.S. History | Leave a Comment 

Proclamation 3944 – Thanksgiving Day, 1969

BY THE PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
A PROCLAMATION

On October 3, 1863, President Abraham Lincoln invited his fellow citizens to “set apart and observe the last Thursday of November next as a day of Thanksgiving..” This was the year of the battle of Gettysburg and of other major battles between Americans on American soil. To many, this call for a national day of Thanksgiving must have seemed strange, coming as it did at a time of war and bitterness.

Yet Lincoln knew that the act of thanksgiving should not be limited to time of peace and serenity. He knew that it is precisely at those times of hardship when men most need to recognize that the Source of all good constantly bestows His blessings on mankind.

Today, despite our material wealth and well-being, Americans face complex problems unknown before in our nation’s history. In giving thanks today, we express gratitude for past bounty and we also confidently face the challenges confronting our own nation and the world because we know we can rely on a strength greater than ourselves.

This year, let us especially seek to rekindle in our respective hearts and minds the spirit of our first settlers who valued freedom above all else, and who found much for which to be thankful when material comforts were meager. We are, indeed, a most fortunate people.

NOW, THEREFORE, I, RICHARD NIXON, President of the United States of America, in consonance with Section 6103 of Title 5 of the United States Code designating the fourth Thursday of November in each year as Thanksgiving Day, do hereby proclaim Thursday, November 27, 1969, as a day of national thanksgiving.

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand this twelfth day of November, in the year of our Lord nineteen hundred sixty-nine, and of the Independence of the United States of America the one hundred ninety-fourth.

RICHARD NIXON.

And, because America was at war, the President issued a separate message to the Armed Forces:

Thanksgiving Day Message to the Armed Forces.

THE PILGRIMS at Plymouth had good reason to express their gratitude to God on that first Thanksgiving Day nearly three and a half centuries ago. Those who enjoyed the abundance of that first harvest had survived in a wilderness where suffering and want were their constant companions. Their faith in God’s mercy was strengthened and sustained in spite of hardship.

Throughout our history, Americans have celebrated this day in both a spiritual and festive fashion, rejoicing in the blessings bestowed upon them by our Creator. Among these, for which we are indeed grateful, is our precious heritage of freedom which you today protect and defend wherever you may serve. Your admirable contribution to our national security insures that this heritage will be preserved.

This Thanksgiving Day provides an ideal occasion for all Americans to acknowledge and give thanks for the courage, devotion to duty, and the loyalty you have demonstrated in service to our nation.

RICHARD NIXON

11.26.1789

November 26, 2009 by Frank Gannon | Filed Under Holidays, Presidents, U.S. History | Leave a Comment 

George Washington Issued the First Presidential Thanksgiving Proclamation

The Proclamation, signed on 3 October, named 26 November as a day “to be devoted by the People of these States to the service of that great and glorious Being, who is the beneficent Author of all the good that was, that is, or that will be– That we may then all unite in rendering unto him our sincere and humble thanks…”

By the President of the United States of America, a Proclamation.

Whereas it is the duty of all Nations to acknowledge the providence of Almighty God, to obey his will, to be grateful for his benefits, and humbly to implore his protection and favor– and whereas both Houses of Congress have by their joint Committee requested me to recommend to the People of the United States a day of public thanksgiving and prayer to be observed by acknowledging with grateful hearts the many signal favors of Almighty God especially by affording them an opportunity peaceably to establish a form of government for their safety and happiness.

Now therefore I do recommend and assign Thursday the 26th day of November next to be devoted by the People of these States to the service of that great and glorious Being, who is the beneficent Author of all the good that was, that is, or that will be– That we may then all unite in rendering unto him our sincere and humble thanks–for his kind care and protection of the People of this Country previous to their becoming a Nation–for the signal and manifold mercies, and the favorable interpositions of his Providence which we experienced in the course and conclusion of the late war–for the great degree of tranquility, union, and plenty, which we have since enjoyed–for the peaceable and rational manner, in which we have been enabled to establish constitutions of government for our safety and happiness, and particularly the national One now lately instituted–for the civil and religious liberty with which we are blessed; and the means we have of acquiring and diffusing useful knowledge; and in general for all the great and various favors which he hath been pleased to confer upon us.

and also that we may then unite in most humbly offering our prayers and supplications to the great Lord and Ruler of Nations and beseech him to pardon our national and other transgressions– to enable us all, whether in public or private stations, to perform our several and relative duties properly and punctually–to render our national government a blessing to all the people, by constantly being a Government of wise, just, and constitutional laws, discreetly and faithfully executed and obeyed–to protect and guide all Sovereigns and Nations (especially such as have shewn kindness unto us) and to bless them with good government, peace, and concord–To promote the knowledge and practice of true religion and virtue, and the encrease of science among them and us–and generally to grant unto all Mankind such a degree of temporal prosperity as he alone knows to be best.

Given under my hand at the City of New York the third day of October in the year of our Lord 1789.

Go: Washington

Featured Articles — November 26, 2009

November 26, 2009 by Jonathan Movroydis | Filed Under Featured Articles | Leave a Comment 

Interesting takes from home and abroad:

The Secret Details of Obama’s Afghan Plan By Leslie H. Gelb, The Daily Beast
Obama will give the military most of the troops it wanted, add more in a year if needed, push the Afghans to step up—and change the mission against al Qaeda. Leslie H. Gelb has the exclusive details.

Climategate: how they all squirmed By James Delingpole, Daily Telegraph
Among the many great amusements of the Climategate scandal are the myriad imaginative excuses being offered by the implicated scientists and their friends in the MSM as to why this isn’t a significant story. Here are some of the best.

The Right Speech Barack Obama Won’t Give on Afghanistan By Steve Clemons, The Washington Note
A New Way Forward: The President’s Address to the American People on Afghan Strategy.

Lowered Expectations By Daniel Stone, Newsweek
Now that the Copenhagen talks look likely to fail, it is safe for President Obama to go

This Thanksgiving, Please Pass The Brisket

November 25, 2009 by David R. Stokes | Filed Under Culture, Faith, History, Religion, U.S. History | Leave a Comment 

(This article was written for The New Nixon last Thanksgiving. Recently, the editor of The Jewish Press, “America’s Largest Independent Jewish Weekly,” asked permission to use it in the print and on line editions of that paper in the days before Thanksgiving this year. – DRS)

Ever hear of Gershom Mendes Seixas? Well, he might just be the forgotten hero of Thanksgiving.

Our national Thanksgiving narrative is rich with stories about proclamations, gatherings, meals, traditions, football, and of course, the obligatory pardoning of a turkey by the president of these United States. School children rehearse that day long ago when the Plymouth pilgrims broke bread. We note things Lincoln said. And doubtless you have heard about what our first president, George Washington, declared while proclaiming the first “official” national day of Thanksgiving in 1789:

I do recommend and assign Thursday, the 26th day of November next, to be devoted by the people of these States to the service of that great and glorious Being who is the beneficent author of all the good that was, that is, or that will be; that we may then all unite in rendering unto Him our sincere and humble thanks for His kind care and protection of the people of this country previous to their becoming a nation; for the signal and manifold mercies and the favorable interpositions of His providence in the course and conclusion of the late war; for the great degree of tranquility, union, and plenty which we have since enjoyed; for the peaceable and rational manner in which we have been enable to establish constitutions of government for our safety and happiness, and particularly the national one now lately instituted for the civil and religious liberty with which we are blessed, and the means we have of acquiring and diffusing useful knowledge; and, in general, for all the great and various favors which He has been pleased to confer upon us.

We hear much these days about our “Judeo-Christian” heritage and its early and enduring influence on our culture. A look back at the founding era of our nation reminds us, however, that only about 2,500 Jews actually lived in the colonies in 1776. Usually those of us who speak of that early dual influence are referring to the Christian Bible with its Jewish roots.

But pointing this out is not to say that Jews were not active and represented during the colonial and founding periods, quite the contrary – there are some fascinating and often overlooked stories.

Gershom Mendes Seixas is a case in point. He was “American Judaism’s first public figure.” In 1768, he was appointed hazzan of Congregation Shearith Israel in New York – the only synagogue serving the city’s approximately 300 Jewish residents. He was only 23 years old at the time and largely self-taught in the Talmud with much help from his devout father, though never actually an “official” rabbi. In fact, it would be several decades before a rabbi was ordained in America.

Seixas was the first Jewish preacher to use the English language in his homilies. He was a gifted teacher and tireless worker. And when it came to the American Revolution, he was a patriot – as demonstrated by his actions while the colonies were struggling to actually realize the independence that had been recently proclaimed.

His synagogue, like the much of the greater public, was somewhat divided on the issue of independence. But Seixas used all of his persuasive skills to convince his congregation that they should cease operations in advance of the approaching British occupation of the city, during the early days of the conflict.

He fled to his wife’s family home in Connecticut, carrying various books and scrolls precious to the synagogue for safekeeping. In 1780, he accepted the leadership role at a synagogue in Philadelphia, where he became an outspoken cultural voice regularly calling on God to watch over General Washington and the great cause.

When the war ended, he was invited back to resume his work with Congregation Shearith Israel in New York. He returned with the books and scrolls to serve from 1784 until his death 32 years later.

When George Washington was inaugurated as the first president of the United States on April 30, 1789, Seixas was asked to participate as one of the presiding clergyman. This was certainly an act of gratitude by Washington for the preacher’s stalwart support during the war. It was also, though, an expression of Washington’s thinking about the importance of religious freedom and diversity in the new nation.

Later that year, as the nation set aside Thursday, the 26th of November, the date so designated by the president for Thanksgiving, Seixas preached a sermon to his New York congregation.

His Thanksgiving Day message was based on a text from the Psalms where it talked about how King David had “made a joyful noise unto the Lord.” Seixas told his listeners that they had much to rejoice about – “the new nation, its president, and above all, the new constitution.”

Warming to his theme, he reminded them that they were “equal partakers of every benefit that results from this good government,” and therefore should be good citizens in full support of the government. Beyond that, they were encouraged to conduct themselves as “living evidences of his divine power and unity.” He further admonished them “to live as Jews ought to do in brotherhood and amity, to seek peace and pursue it.”

In my opinion, Gershom Mendes Seixas’ sermon is every bit as relevant to all of us 220 years later.

Palin and Nixon

November 25, 2009 by Jack Pitney | Filed Under Richard Nixon, Sarah Palin | 1 Comment 

At Air America and The Huffington Post, Mark Green compares Sarah Palin and Richard Nixon.  He notes an obvious difference: RN “was vastly more experienced and sophisticated.”  He has a point, but one could make the same point about most other political figures, including the incumbent president.  Barack Obama is the first White House occupant since Harding with neither military nor executive experience, and even liberal observers are starting to notice the consequences. Leslie Gelb unfavorably contrasts Nixon-Kissinger diplomacy with President Obama’s recent Asia trip, which he says “suggests a disturbing amateurishness in managing America’s power.”

Green notes RN’s ideological pragmatism and asks rhetorically: “When has Palin ever shown such a moderating inclination?”   One may find the answer in an Associated Press report from May of 2008:

During her first year in office, Palin distanced herself from the old guard, powerful members of the state GOP. She asked Alaska’s congressional delegation to be more selective in seeking earmarks after the state’s “Bridge to Nowhere” became a national symbol of piggish pork-barrel spending.  She stood up to the oil interests that hold great power in Alaska, and with bipartisan support in the statehouse, she won a tax increase on oil companies’ profits.

The biggest similarity, Green says, is that Palin practices the “politics of resentment” by attacking elites.  It is true that RN considered himself an outsider, as does Palin.  But as James Ceaser and Andrew Busch explain in their book on the 1992 election, Upside Down and Inside Out, “outsiderism” is a very old tradition in American politics.  The next time Green goes to one of his party’s Jefferson-Jackson Day dinners, he will find himself honoring two practitioners of that tradition.

George Will Opines

November 25, 2009 by Jonathan Movroydis | Filed Under Barack Obama, Presidents, Richard Nixon | Leave a Comment 

On the debate of “Pacific presidents:”

Yes, Obama lived for 14 years in Hawaii, which is in the Pacific. But two presidents (Ronald Reagan, and before him Richard Nixon, who in 1972 ended the freeze in U.S.-China relations that began in 1949) came from California, which is on the Pacific. So, is the world-historic difference in the preposition?

Continue reading.

(Hat tip: Tom Van Oosterom)

Everybody Knows The Bird Is The Word

November 25, 2009 by Frank Gannon | Filed Under Holidays, Nixon family, Pat Nixon, TV, U.S. History, White House | Leave a Comment 

A couple of months ago the First Lady made a guest appearance on the opening episode of the 40th anniversary season of Sesame Street.   (And last month I saluted the charming PSA that resulted.)

Sesame Street premiered in November 1969, and a year later — on 12 December 1970 — PN invited the cast to a children’s Christmas party at the White House.

PN was Big Bird’s friend through fair times and fowl, and on 28 January 1981, she introduced her fine feathered friend to another generation of Nixon family fans.  As The New York Times reported:

The great-granddaughter of one President and her cousin, the grandson of another President, had their chance Wednesday to look in awe upon Big Bird and his friends in person.

A visit to the ”Sesame Street” TV studio, at Broadway and 81st Street, was arranged ”just like any other grandmother would,” said a studio spokesman, by Pat Nixon, wife of the former President, for Jennie Eisenhower and Christopher Cox.

Jennie, who is almost 2 1/2 years old, is the daughter of the former Julie Nixon and David Eisenhower, grandson of former President Dwight D. Eisenhower. Christopher’s parents are the former Tricia Nixon and Edward M. Cox, a New York lawyer.

The children were accompanied to the TV studio by their grandmother and Mrs. Cox. When Big Bird stepped forward to greet them, Jennie Eisenhower gurgled gleefully and said to Mrs. Nixon, ”Look, grandma, he’s just like Big Bird in the picture over my bed.”

Featured Articles — November 25, 2009

November 25, 2009 by Jonathan Movroydis | Filed Under Featured Articles | Leave a Comment 

Interesting takes from home and abroad:

Finding the Right Fix for ‘Too Big to Fail’ By Mortimer Zuckerman, The Wall Street Journal
Despite its fumbles, the Federal Reserve is crucial to a better regulatory regime.

Chavez on the warpath By Luiza Savage, MacLeans
Venezuela seems to be girding for battle with Colombia.

Afghan Strategy Will Contain Messages to Several Audiences By David Sanger, The New York Times
In declaring Tuesday that he would “finish the job” in Afghanistan, President Obama used a phrase clearly meant to imply that even as he deploys an additional 30,000 or so troops, he has finally figured out how to bring the eight-year-long conflict to an end.

The Gathering Geithner Storm By Thomas F. Cooley, Forbes
The Treasury secretary and his friends take a beating

RN Also Engaged India

November 24, 2009 by Jonathan Movroydis | Filed Under Barack Obama, Richard Nixon | 2 Comments 

President Obama welcomed Indian Prime Minister Manmohan Singh to the White House today. Singh will join President Obama for his first State Dinner since taking the reigns of the Oval Office.

President Obama welcomed Indian Prime Minister Manmohan Singh to the White House today. Singh will also dine at the White House tonight, marking the President’s first state dinner since taking office in January.

According to the Wall Street Journal, the two spoke for over two hours in the Oval Office about reinforcing cooperation on counter-terrorism and intelligence efforts, and strengthening economic ties between the United States and India.

Obama called the diplomatic bonds between the two nations as “one of the defining relationships” of the 21st Century.

The importance of this strategic relationship is currently demonstrating itself in our efforts in Afghanistan:

In addition to their military efforts to secure Afghanistan, the United States and NATO have struggled to ramp up economic assistance–the “build” part of counterinsurgency. Unfamiliar cultures and languages and harsh conditions have constrained Western capacity on the ground. As a practical matter, American NGOs have not been able to function outside major population centers in Afghanistan for two decades. Outsourcing to Beltway contractors is not cost-effective, and NATO has been unwilling or unable to help fill the gap.

But India has demonstrated unique and effective capabilities that will make a big difference in Afghanistan. With its historic ties and cultural affinity to the country, India has already provided impressive civilian assistance. It is the fifth-largest bilateral donor to Afghanistan. India’s $1.2 billion contribution to date has supported projects in power, medicine, agriculture and education. Afghanistan’s new parliament meets in a building constructed by India. Indian engineers built a port-access road in violent southern Afghanistan, and India has trained Afghan civil servants, demonstrating an Indian comparative advantage on the ground.

At The Daily Beast today, the Hoover Institute’s Turku Varadarajan couldn’t agree more:

It doesn’t take a genius to recognize the political, strategic, and moral worth to America, the world’s most powerful democracy, of a strong alliance with India, the world’s largest. Mr. Obama, by no stretch a man of tepid intelligence, has calibrated things artfully: Not only is Mr. Singh the first state visitor to Washington since the president took office in January, his trip is the first time that India has headed an American president’s list for a state visit—ever. (Richard Nixon must be turning in his grave.)

Would RN really be turning in his grave? On November 4, 1971 he welcomed then Indian Prime Minister Indira Gandhi to the White House and invited her — to of all things — a State Dinner.

RN’s approach to Gandhi was neither contemptuous or motivated by anti-Indian attitudes. Just like President Obama, he saw India as a critical player and a partner in peace.

RN recalled that his meeting with Gandhi couldn’t have come at a more critical time as nearly 10 million refugees were fleeing from Pakistan to India. Stability on the Indo-Pakistan border was threatened after a separatist movement in East Pakistan had fomented rebellion against the Yahya Khan government.

Tasking himself with the burden of reducing regional tensions and abating Soviet maneuvering , RN urged Prime Minister Khan not to intensify the conflict. During the White House meeting he asked Gandhi not to intervene in Pakistan. She responded by telling RN that her goal was stability at all costs, not to cripple or destroy Pakistan.

Gandhi went back on her word.

With Soviet aid, the Indian Army invaded East Pakistan, and later had designs to invade West Pakistan.

In December, East Pakistan declared its independence, establishing The People’s Republic of Bangladesh. Through hard headed negotiations with the Soviet Union, RN prevented the fall of West Pakistan.

RN pictured with then Indian Prime Minister Indira Gandhi during her visit to Washington in November 1971. RN also hosted her at a  State Dinner.

Professionals Hour At The White House

November 24, 2009 by Jonathan Movroydis | Filed Under China, Richard Nixon | Leave a Comment 

RN and HAK: “partners in reliability, precision, and finesse.”

In yesterday’s edition of The Daily Beast, Leslie Gelb undresses the Obama White House, exposing the President’s recent Asian trip as “clumsy,” “displaying amateurishness,” and failing “to carve out America’s new leadership role” in “one of the world’s most dynamic regions.”

For Gelb,  such amateurishness can be attributed to the failure to  gauge the pulse of the region and prepare suitably for potential breakthroughs:

Presidents take trips like this one only when they need breakthroughs and accomplishments on certain issues that can’t be agreed on without the pressure of an impending presidential visit. In fact, most presidents wouldn’t even commit to trips abroad without knowing that key deals would be finally agreed on and announced during the visit itself. The prospective visit is the power jackhammer to nail down the deals. Just take a gander at trips planned for Richard Nixon by Henry Kissinger or for George H. W. Bush by James Baker.

RN was adept in understanding America’s moment of truth. In an October 1967 Foreign Affairs article titled “Asia After Vietnam,” he signaled a future — and substantive — shift in U.S. policy in the region, especially towards China:

For the short run, then this means a policy of firm restraint, of no reward, of a creative counterpressure designed to persuade Peking that its interests can be serbed only by accepting the basic rules of international civility. For the long run, it means pulling China back into the world community — but as a great and progressing nation, not as the epicenter of world revolution.

In his memoirs, Dr. Kissinger described the process of engaging China as an “intricate minuet (Horne 68),” RN said he and his foreign policy team proceeded “carefully and cautiously” to establish “a sufficiently strong foundation.” RN in his own words:

Messages and signals had been going back and forth for more than two years. We had proceeded carefully and cautiously through the Yahya and Romanian channels. Now Kissinger and I agreed that we had reached a point at which we had to take the chance of making a proposal, or risk slipping back into another long round of tentative probing. I decided that the time had come to take the big step and propose a presidential visit.

On May 10, therefore, Kissinger called in Ambassador Hilaly and gave him a message for Chou En-lai via President Yahya. It stated that because of the importance I attached to the normalizing of relations between the two countries, I was prepared to accept Chou’s invitation to visit Peking. I proposed Kissinger undertake a secret visit in advance of my trip in order to arrange an agenda and begin a preliminary exchange of views.

The die was cast. There was nothing left to do but wait for Chou’s reply. If we had acted too soon, if we had not established a sufficiently strong foundation, or if we had overestimated the ability of Mao and Chou to deal with their internal opposition to such a visit, then all our long careful efforts would be wasted. I might even have to be prepared for serious international embarrassment if the Chinese decided to reject my proposal and then publicize it. (page 550-551)

Extensive preparation assuaged the wost of fears. On June 2, 1971, a message arrived from the White House through the Pakistani Embassy from the PRC: Chairman Mao had accepted RN to Peking for direct talks.

Less than a year later, RN and Mao were ready “to turn a page in history,” said Dr. Kissinger.

But he warned not to rest easy as our  dealings would “require reliability, precision, and finesse.”

Next Page »