In March of 1964, Bobby Kennedy appeared on the Jack Paar show to offer his first public comments on the death of his brother, which took place just four months prior. It’s a short but very poignant clip.
Showing posts with label John F. Kennedy. Show all posts
Showing posts with label John F. Kennedy. Show all posts
Wednesday, October 15, 2008
Wednesday, May 21, 2008
The Liberal Lion
Tim Rutten in the LA Times:
Change is in the air this political season -- in the ever-increasing likelihood that an African American will stand as the Democratic nominee for the presidency, and in the near-certainty that Edward M. Kennedy of Massachusetts, the Senate's liberal lion, soon will exit the institution he has bestrode like a colossus for nearly 50 years.
Just as Barack Obama's primary victories remind us that change often goes hand in hand with progress, so the sudden news of Kennedy's illness is a somber reminder that change also is inevitably loss. Call it tragic wisdom.
Watching the outpouring of emotion from both sides of the aisle Tuesday at the news of Kennedy's condition, it was clear that his senatorial colleagues already are stricken by his impending departure. Partly, of course, that's because Kennedy's tenure in that chamber spans one of the most tumultuous eras in this nation's history. He will exit the Senate as its third-longest-serving member ever. When he first took his seat in 1962, Jim Crow and its de facto shadow were a fact of American life, and women's rights barely extended beyond the franchise. This year, Kennedy enthusiastically endorsed and campaigned for Obama in his contest against Hillary Rodham Clinton.
A new world, surely, and one he helped usher in. But also one that seems to be unfolding without three qualities that distinguished Kennedy's long service. The first is empathy. It's shocking just how tenuous belief in the possibility of empathy as a public emotion has become. Kennedy's brother, Bobby, was fond of quoting the ancient Greeks. One of them, Thucydides, once was asked, "When will there be justice in Athens?" He replied, "There will be justice in Athens when those who are not injured are as outraged as those who are."
If Ted Kennedy's 46 years in the Senate have stood for anything, it is for the enduring power of that antique insight. He is a rich, wonderfully connected Boston Irishman, and yet his life's labors have been on behalf of blacks and women and Latinos, for people who sweated for a minimum wage and couldn't pay their sick child's doctor's bill and asked for nothing more than a public school good enough to give their child a fair foothold on the ladder's next rung. Their slights and injuries were his own.
Today, increasing numbers of Americans and their politicians are lost to narcissism and its communal expression -- identity politics. We believe that no one can feel our pain but us, and we care for none outside our tribe. Kennedy's career has been a half-century reproach to that crabbed notion of the American condition. He believed unshakably in solidarity and the common good, and if that now seems quaint, the fault -- and the loss -- is ours and not his.
Child of privilege that he undoubtedly was, Kennedy also stood for a second quality that is fading: the belief that after the accumulation of wealth came an ambition -- indeed, an obligation -- for public service. It's a notion this new Gilded Age finds slightly ridiculous, but not long ago we expected our national leaders to amass their fortunes before taking office and not during or immediately after. There is a meanness of spirit to an age that commoditizes elective office into an economic opportunity.
Finally, one of the reasons Kennedy's Senate comrades will feel his departure so acutely is that he always stood for a civil partisanship. There was no more committed liberal Democrat in that chamber. A struggle with Kennedy was a bare-knuckle fight to the finish, but always according to traditional politics' version of the Marquess of Queensberry Rules. It was never personal, and differences never precluded friendship, which is why the senior Massachusetts senator could work with George Bush or John McCain or Orrin Hatch, and will leave office with a record as one of the most effective lawmakers of all time. Nothing deforms our contemporary politics in quite the way the loss of Kennedy's old-fashioned civility does.
In his recently published memoir, Ted Sorensen, John Kennedy's special counselor, recalled how the president secretly dispatched him, along with Bobby, to assist his youngest sibling in his first run for the Senate. Teddy's opponent was the favorite nephew of Democratic House Speaker John McCormack, whose help JFK desperately needed, so it was necessary to maintain fictional neutrality.
Sorensen thought Teddy a callow candidate. But his brothers' murders and personal tragedy changed that. For a time, it seemed he might become an American Parnell, a leader of vision and skill undone by personal appetites. That too was surmounted. Today, Sorensen judges him thus: "More respected and effective today than some presidents have been, Ted long ago came to terms with the fact that he need not be president to fulfill his portion of the Kennedy legacy. ... I think he will ultimately die in the Senate. More active and at home in that body than either of his brothers, Ted was -- and still is -- the most relaxed campaigner of the three, with an easier style on the public platform, the best politician, better able to work with other senators in both parties."Always the liberal lion, he has proven to be a courageous battler on the cutting edge of issues both domestic and foreign, maintaining the liberal tradition of his brothers, even when others in the Democratic Party showed less courage. ... Jack and Bobby would have been proud."
Friday, May 16, 2008
Bush-McCain Politics as Usual
The President’s sudden interest in the Middle East peace process last year was clearly nothing more than a desperate political ploy to allow him to say, like many Presidents before him, that he tried. It was naïve, it was contrary to his previous seven years of indifference to the issue, and it was obviously far too little, far too late. But before the Knesset on the 60th anniversary of the state of Israel, surely the President would use the opportunity to speak of healing old wounds and bringing opposing sides together in the name of peace. Far from it.
Instead, he chose to engage in fear-mongering, to create divisions back home, and to discredit an American presidential candidate in the eyes of a foreign government. In doing so, he inexcusably took a political shot at Barack Obama by not only insinuating that he was naïve and weak but by also calling him as an appeaser, not unlike those who allowed the rise of Hitler and Nazi Germany. That's right, he engaged in partisan domestic politics while addressing a foreign government, and, in criticizing his political opponent, made a Hitler analogy in the heart of Israel. So much for “politics stops at the water’s edge!”
On this issue, Obama's approach and mindset are reflective of Presidential foreign policy luminaries such as Kennedy (“We should never negotiate out of fear, but we should never fear to negotiate”), Nixon (see China), and Regan (see Soviet Union), and are supported by most foreign policy experts and many in the President’s own administration, including the Secretary of State and the Secretary of Defense. The President's rhetoric highlights the past flaws and current missteps of Bush-McCain Republicans and highlights the vastly different way they approach the issues of our time. Americans are ready to move on.
President Bush: "Some seem to believe we should negotiate with the terrorists and radicals, as if some ingenious argument will persuade them they have been wrong all along. We have heard this foolish delusion before. As Nazi tanks crossed into Poland in 1939, an American senator declared: 'Lord, if only I could have talked to Hitler, all of this might have been avoided.' We have an obligation to call this what it is - the false comfort of appeasement, which has been repeatedly discredited by history."
Barack Obama: "It is sad that President Bush would use a speech to the Knesset on the 6Oth anniversary of Israel's independence to launch a false political attack. It is time to turn the page on eight years of policies that have strengthened Iran and failed to secure America or our ally Israel. Instead of tough talk and no action, we need to do what Kennedy, Nixon and Reagan did and use all elements of American power - including tough, principled, and direct diplomacy - to pressure countries like Iran and Syria. George Bush knows that I have never supported engagement with terrorists, and the President's extraordinary politicization of foreign policy and the politics of fear do nothing to secure the American people or our stalwart ally Israel."
Senator Joe Biden’s informal statement: “This is bullshit. This is malarkey. This is outrageous. Outrageous for the president of the United States to go to a foreign country, sit in the Knesset…and make this kind of ridiculous statement. He’s the guy who’s weakened us. He’s the guy that’s increased the number of terrorists in the world. His policies have produced this vulnerability the United States has. His intelligence community pointed that out not me. The NIE has pointed that out and what are you talking about, is he going to fire Condi Rice? Condi Rice has talked about the need to sit down. So his first two appeasers are Rice and Gates. I hope he comes home and does something.”
Senator Joe Biden’s formal statement: “There is an emerging, ugly pattern in this campaign that is deeply disturbing and also terribly damaging to our national security. Three weeks ago, the presumptive Republican nominee for President said: “I think it's very clear who Hamas wants to be the next president of the United States. So apparently has Danny Ortega and several others… If Senator Obama is favored by Hamas, I think people can make judgments accordingly.”
In recent days, his surrogates have repeated that outrageous statement. And now, today, the President of the United States, speaking in the Israeli Knesset, had this to say: “Some seem to believe we should negotiate with terrorists and radicals, as if some ingenious argument will persuade them they have been wrong all along… We have heard this foolish delusion before. As Nazi tanks crossed into Poland in 1939, an American Senator declared: 'Lord, if only I could have talked to Hitler, all of this might have been avoided.' We have an obligation to call this what it is — the false comfort of appeasement, which has been repeatedly discredited by history.”
White House aides told reporters on background that the President’s remarks are a reference to calls by Senator Obama and other Democrats for the U.S. president to engage countries like Iran. This kind of political attack rhetoric masquerading as policy is exactly why we’re in such trouble around the world, why we’re less secure and our adversaries are stronger. Instead of trying to fool the American people and demonize Democrats, the President should be spending his time trying to get us out of the hole he’s dug.
I try to refrain from criticizing a President when he’s traveling. But for the President to leave the country and unleash a political attack on Barack Obama and Democrats cannot go unanswered. We are not going to tolerate long distance swift boating. The President said that a willingness to talk to adversaries like Iran is a ‘foolish delusion’ and alleged that those who advocate engagement offer ‘the false comfort of appeasement.’ If the President really believes that, I assume that the first thing he will do when he gets home is to fire his cabinet. His own Secretary of Defense and Secretary of State favor negotiations with Iran.
For example, Secretary Gates said just yesterday: “We need to figure out a way to develop some leverage… and then sit down and talk with them. If there is going to be a discussion, then they need something, too. We can’t go to a discussion and be completely the demander, with them not feeling they need anything from us.”
Secretary Rice last year repeatedly called for negotiations on Iran’s nuclear program:
February 25, 2007: “We’re leaving open the track of negotiations because the best way to resolve this would be for Iran to come to the table.”
October 12, 2007: “The whole purpose… is to convince Iran that the best way to achieve its stated goal of civil nuclear power is to engage in negotiations… the United States has made it clear that [if Iran suspends enrichment] we would reverse 28 years of American policy and engage fully in discussions with Iran… about anything Iran wants to put on the table. I would close by saying I think the question is not, as I’ve been asked sometimes, ‘why will the United States not talk to Iran?’ The question really is: ‘why will Iran not talk to the United States?”
And of course, this is a President who made a deal with Libya’s leader Qadafi and writes polite letters to Kim Jong Il in North Korea. Under George Bush’s watch, it’s Iran, not freedom that has been on the march: Iran is much closer to the bomb now than it was seven years ago; Iran’s influence in Iraq has gone from zero to sixty because this President’s misguided war gave Shi’ite religious parties inspired and nurtured by Iran a path to power and opened the door to Tehran. When Iran’s President goes to Iraq, our ally there, Prime Minister Maliki, embraces him on both cheeks. Whose policy produced that?; Iran’s terrorist proxy Hezbollah is ascendant.
And beyond Iran, the world has become a much more dangerous place for America because of the failures of this administration’s foreign policy. According to our own intelligence services, Al Qaeda in Afghanistan and Pakistan – the people who actually attacked us on 09-11 – is stronger now than at any time since 9-11 and planning new attacks. Around the world, terrorist recruitment is on the rise and there were more attacks in 2007 than in 2006, and more attacks in 2006 than in 2005.Hamas – which came to power in elections the administration insisted take place -- controls Gaza and launches rockets at Israel every day. Lebanon is on the verge of civil war.
And of course, 140,000 American troops remain stuck in Iraq with no end in sight. In short, under George Bush, the entire Middle East has become more dangerous and the United States and our allies, including Israel, less secure. His policy has been an abject failure. So for him to call those who rightly see the need for change ‘appeasers’ is truly delusional. For him to do it abroad is disgraceful. I believe that as we rally our allies and Russia and China to increase pressure on Iran to end its dangerous nuclear program, we also have to do much more to reach out to Iran – including through direct talks. That’s the best way to exploit cracks within the ruling elite and between Iran’s rulers and its people, who are struggling economically and stifled politically.
The Iranian people need to know that their government, not the United States, is choosing confrontation over cooperation. The President’s saber rattling is the most self-defeating policy imaginable. It forces Iranians who despise the regime to rally behind their leaders and spurs instability in the Middle East, which adds to the price of oil, with the proceeds going right into Tehran’s pockets. The worst nightmare for a regime that thrives on isolation and tension is an America ready, willing and able to engage. And by the way, since when has talking removed the word “no” from our vocabulary? It’s amazing how little faith this administration has in the power of America’s ideas and ideals.”
House Speaker Nancy Pelosi: "We have a protocol . . . around here that we don't criticize the president when he is on foreign soil. One would think that that would apply to the president, that he would not criticize Americans when he is on foreign soil. I think what the president did in that regard is beneath the dignity of the office of president and unworthy of our representation at that observance in Israel."
Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid: “Not surprisingly, the engineer of the worst foreign policy in our nation’s history has fired yet another reckless and reprehensible round. More than seven years into his Presidency and in the sixth year of the directionless Iraq war, President Bush has yet to learn that his brand of divisive partisan rhetoric is precisely what has made America and our allies less secure. And for the President to make this statement before the government of our closest ally as it celebrates a remarkable milestone demeans this historic moment with partisan politics.
“President Bush’s own actions demonstrate that he believes negotiations – at the right moment, under the right conditions and with the right leaders – can both show strength and produce results. He has relied on negotiations with North Korea and Libya, two state sponsors of terror. And by conducting discussions with Russia, China, Libya, North Korea and Iran in recent years, President Bush has demonstrated his belief that negotiations can be a tool to advance America and Israel’s national security interests. I call on the President to explain the inconsistency between his Administration’s actions and his words today.”
"The belief that somehow communications and positions and willingness to sit down and have serious negotiations need to be done in a face to face fashion as Senator Obama wants to do, which then enhances the prestige of a nation that's a sponsor of terrorists and is directly responsible for the deaths of brave young Americans, I think is an unacceptable position, and shows that Senator Obama does not have the knowledge, the experience, the background to make the kind of judgments that are necessary to preserve this nation's security."
John McCain in 2008: "Yes, there have been appeasers in the past. The president is absolutely right." Asked whether he thought Obama was one of them, he said he didn't know. He didn't know!
John McCain in 2006: When asked "Do you think that American diplomats should be operating the way they have in the past, working with the Palestinian government if Hamas is now in charge?" McCain answered: "They're the government; sooner or later we are going to have to deal with them, one way or another, and I understand why this administration and previous administrations had such antipathy towards Hamas because of their dedication to violence and the things that they not only espouse but practice, so . . . but it's a new reality in the Middle East. I think the lesson is people want security and a decent life and decent future, that they want democracy. Fatah was not giving them that."
Rep. Tom Davis (R-VA): "The president swallows the microphone every time he opens his mouth."
As the Times reports:
Instead, he chose to engage in fear-mongering, to create divisions back home, and to discredit an American presidential candidate in the eyes of a foreign government. In doing so, he inexcusably took a political shot at Barack Obama by not only insinuating that he was naïve and weak but by also calling him as an appeaser, not unlike those who allowed the rise of Hitler and Nazi Germany. That's right, he engaged in partisan domestic politics while addressing a foreign government, and, in criticizing his political opponent, made a Hitler analogy in the heart of Israel. So much for “politics stops at the water’s edge!”
Washington Post: It is bad enough that Republicans use the politics of personal destruction here at home, but to deploy that kind of political weapon at an occasion as solemn as an American president addressing the parliament of a friendly government marks a new low.Despite the absurdity and inappropriateness of the President’s comments, it may actually benefit Barack Obama. After all, the Democrats should take every opportunity they can to talk about the failed Bush-McCain foreign policy of the last 7 years because it’s an important distinction in this election. It’s the Bush policy that has emboldened Iran and it is the Bush approach to foreign policy and other issues that has polarized the country. McCain offers more of the same while Obama, agree or disagree with his policy, offers a new approach that is sorely needed.
On this issue, Obama's approach and mindset are reflective of Presidential foreign policy luminaries such as Kennedy (“We should never negotiate out of fear, but we should never fear to negotiate”), Nixon (see China), and Regan (see Soviet Union), and are supported by most foreign policy experts and many in the President’s own administration, including the Secretary of State and the Secretary of Defense. The President's rhetoric highlights the past flaws and current missteps of Bush-McCain Republicans and highlights the vastly different way they approach the issues of our time. Americans are ready to move on.
President Bush: "Some seem to believe we should negotiate with the terrorists and radicals, as if some ingenious argument will persuade them they have been wrong all along. We have heard this foolish delusion before. As Nazi tanks crossed into Poland in 1939, an American senator declared: 'Lord, if only I could have talked to Hitler, all of this might have been avoided.' We have an obligation to call this what it is - the false comfort of appeasement, which has been repeatedly discredited by history."
Barack Obama: "It is sad that President Bush would use a speech to the Knesset on the 6Oth anniversary of Israel's independence to launch a false political attack. It is time to turn the page on eight years of policies that have strengthened Iran and failed to secure America or our ally Israel. Instead of tough talk and no action, we need to do what Kennedy, Nixon and Reagan did and use all elements of American power - including tough, principled, and direct diplomacy - to pressure countries like Iran and Syria. George Bush knows that I have never supported engagement with terrorists, and the President's extraordinary politicization of foreign policy and the politics of fear do nothing to secure the American people or our stalwart ally Israel."
Senator Joe Biden’s informal statement: “This is bullshit. This is malarkey. This is outrageous. Outrageous for the president of the United States to go to a foreign country, sit in the Knesset…and make this kind of ridiculous statement. He’s the guy who’s weakened us. He’s the guy that’s increased the number of terrorists in the world. His policies have produced this vulnerability the United States has. His intelligence community pointed that out not me. The NIE has pointed that out and what are you talking about, is he going to fire Condi Rice? Condi Rice has talked about the need to sit down. So his first two appeasers are Rice and Gates. I hope he comes home and does something.”
Senator Joe Biden’s formal statement: “There is an emerging, ugly pattern in this campaign that is deeply disturbing and also terribly damaging to our national security. Three weeks ago, the presumptive Republican nominee for President said: “I think it's very clear who Hamas wants to be the next president of the United States. So apparently has Danny Ortega and several others… If Senator Obama is favored by Hamas, I think people can make judgments accordingly.”
In recent days, his surrogates have repeated that outrageous statement. And now, today, the President of the United States, speaking in the Israeli Knesset, had this to say: “Some seem to believe we should negotiate with terrorists and radicals, as if some ingenious argument will persuade them they have been wrong all along… We have heard this foolish delusion before. As Nazi tanks crossed into Poland in 1939, an American Senator declared: 'Lord, if only I could have talked to Hitler, all of this might have been avoided.' We have an obligation to call this what it is — the false comfort of appeasement, which has been repeatedly discredited by history.”
White House aides told reporters on background that the President’s remarks are a reference to calls by Senator Obama and other Democrats for the U.S. president to engage countries like Iran. This kind of political attack rhetoric masquerading as policy is exactly why we’re in such trouble around the world, why we’re less secure and our adversaries are stronger. Instead of trying to fool the American people and demonize Democrats, the President should be spending his time trying to get us out of the hole he’s dug.
I try to refrain from criticizing a President when he’s traveling. But for the President to leave the country and unleash a political attack on Barack Obama and Democrats cannot go unanswered. We are not going to tolerate long distance swift boating. The President said that a willingness to talk to adversaries like Iran is a ‘foolish delusion’ and alleged that those who advocate engagement offer ‘the false comfort of appeasement.’ If the President really believes that, I assume that the first thing he will do when he gets home is to fire his cabinet. His own Secretary of Defense and Secretary of State favor negotiations with Iran.
For example, Secretary Gates said just yesterday: “We need to figure out a way to develop some leverage… and then sit down and talk with them. If there is going to be a discussion, then they need something, too. We can’t go to a discussion and be completely the demander, with them not feeling they need anything from us.”
Secretary Rice last year repeatedly called for negotiations on Iran’s nuclear program:
February 25, 2007: “We’re leaving open the track of negotiations because the best way to resolve this would be for Iran to come to the table.”
October 12, 2007: “The whole purpose… is to convince Iran that the best way to achieve its stated goal of civil nuclear power is to engage in negotiations… the United States has made it clear that [if Iran suspends enrichment] we would reverse 28 years of American policy and engage fully in discussions with Iran… about anything Iran wants to put on the table. I would close by saying I think the question is not, as I’ve been asked sometimes, ‘why will the United States not talk to Iran?’ The question really is: ‘why will Iran not talk to the United States?”
And of course, this is a President who made a deal with Libya’s leader Qadafi and writes polite letters to Kim Jong Il in North Korea. Under George Bush’s watch, it’s Iran, not freedom that has been on the march: Iran is much closer to the bomb now than it was seven years ago; Iran’s influence in Iraq has gone from zero to sixty because this President’s misguided war gave Shi’ite religious parties inspired and nurtured by Iran a path to power and opened the door to Tehran. When Iran’s President goes to Iraq, our ally there, Prime Minister Maliki, embraces him on both cheeks. Whose policy produced that?; Iran’s terrorist proxy Hezbollah is ascendant.
And beyond Iran, the world has become a much more dangerous place for America because of the failures of this administration’s foreign policy. According to our own intelligence services, Al Qaeda in Afghanistan and Pakistan – the people who actually attacked us on 09-11 – is stronger now than at any time since 9-11 and planning new attacks. Around the world, terrorist recruitment is on the rise and there were more attacks in 2007 than in 2006, and more attacks in 2006 than in 2005.Hamas – which came to power in elections the administration insisted take place -- controls Gaza and launches rockets at Israel every day. Lebanon is on the verge of civil war.
And of course, 140,000 American troops remain stuck in Iraq with no end in sight. In short, under George Bush, the entire Middle East has become more dangerous and the United States and our allies, including Israel, less secure. His policy has been an abject failure. So for him to call those who rightly see the need for change ‘appeasers’ is truly delusional. For him to do it abroad is disgraceful. I believe that as we rally our allies and Russia and China to increase pressure on Iran to end its dangerous nuclear program, we also have to do much more to reach out to Iran – including through direct talks. That’s the best way to exploit cracks within the ruling elite and between Iran’s rulers and its people, who are struggling economically and stifled politically.
The Iranian people need to know that their government, not the United States, is choosing confrontation over cooperation. The President’s saber rattling is the most self-defeating policy imaginable. It forces Iranians who despise the regime to rally behind their leaders and spurs instability in the Middle East, which adds to the price of oil, with the proceeds going right into Tehran’s pockets. The worst nightmare for a regime that thrives on isolation and tension is an America ready, willing and able to engage. And by the way, since when has talking removed the word “no” from our vocabulary? It’s amazing how little faith this administration has in the power of America’s ideas and ideals.”
House Speaker Nancy Pelosi: "We have a protocol . . . around here that we don't criticize the president when he is on foreign soil. One would think that that would apply to the president, that he would not criticize Americans when he is on foreign soil. I think what the president did in that regard is beneath the dignity of the office of president and unworthy of our representation at that observance in Israel."
Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid: “Not surprisingly, the engineer of the worst foreign policy in our nation’s history has fired yet another reckless and reprehensible round. More than seven years into his Presidency and in the sixth year of the directionless Iraq war, President Bush has yet to learn that his brand of divisive partisan rhetoric is precisely what has made America and our allies less secure. And for the President to make this statement before the government of our closest ally as it celebrates a remarkable milestone demeans this historic moment with partisan politics.
“President Bush’s own actions demonstrate that he believes negotiations – at the right moment, under the right conditions and with the right leaders – can both show strength and produce results. He has relied on negotiations with North Korea and Libya, two state sponsors of terror. And by conducting discussions with Russia, China, Libya, North Korea and Iran in recent years, President Bush has demonstrated his belief that negotiations can be a tool to advance America and Israel’s national security interests. I call on the President to explain the inconsistency between his Administration’s actions and his words today.”
"The belief that somehow communications and positions and willingness to sit down and have serious negotiations need to be done in a face to face fashion as Senator Obama wants to do, which then enhances the prestige of a nation that's a sponsor of terrorists and is directly responsible for the deaths of brave young Americans, I think is an unacceptable position, and shows that Senator Obama does not have the knowledge, the experience, the background to make the kind of judgments that are necessary to preserve this nation's security."
John McCain in 2008: "Yes, there have been appeasers in the past. The president is absolutely right." Asked whether he thought Obama was one of them, he said he didn't know. He didn't know!
John McCain in 2006: When asked "Do you think that American diplomats should be operating the way they have in the past, working with the Palestinian government if Hamas is now in charge?" McCain answered: "They're the government; sooner or later we are going to have to deal with them, one way or another, and I understand why this administration and previous administrations had such antipathy towards Hamas because of their dedication to violence and the things that they not only espouse but practice, so . . . but it's a new reality in the Middle East. I think the lesson is people want security and a decent life and decent future, that they want democracy. Fatah was not giving them that."
Given that exchange, the new John McCain might say that Hamas should be rooting for the old John McCain to win the presidential election. The old John McCain, it appears, was ready to do business with a Hamas-led government, while both Clinton and Obama have said that Hamas must change its policies toward Israel and terrorism before it can have diplomatic relations with the United States. Even if McCain had not favored doing business with Hamas two years ago, he had no business smearing Barack Obama. But given his stated position then, it is either the height of hypocrisy or a case of political amnesia for McCain to inject Hamas into the American election.
Rep. Tom Davis (R-VA): "The president swallows the microphone every time he opens his mouth."
As the Times reports:
Thursday was not the first time the term “appeasement” has cropped up in the Bush administration lexicon. In 2006, in advance of the midterm elections, Vice President Dick Cheney and then-Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld invoked the analogy as a line of attack against critics of the war in Iraq. Then, as now, it was controversial.
Sunday, May 11, 2008
A Life at the Edge of History
The Wall Street Journal reviews “Counselor: A Life at the Edge of History”, the long-awaited memoir from Kennedy speechwriter and confidant, Ted Sorensen.
In "Counselor," Mr. Sorensen describes his childhood in Nebraska (his father was a protégé of Sen. George Norris, a Republican Progressive) and his early commitment to liberal ideals, including civil rights. When he arrived in Washington in 1951, at the age of 23, Mr. Sorensen notes: "I had never drunk a cup of coffee, set foot in a bar, written a check, or owned a car." Fewer than 10 years later, he was the third most powerful man in the American government.
Though Mr. Sorensen, in "Counselor," is often trying to set the record straight about his own role in historical events, the book's overall tone is more candid than prideful. He is unsparing on the subject of his mother's mental illness (painfully evident when he was young), his brief and unhappy second marriage in the mid-1960s (he remarried again a few years later), his difficult early relationship with Robert Kennedy (they were rivals for JFK's attention, particularly during 1960 and 1961), and his own "arrogant abruptness" as a 32-year-old White House assistant. He had dramatic ups and downs with Jackie Kennedy, who lavished private praise on him but, both privately and publicly, also belittled and attacked him. Mr. Sorensen spares his readers none of the private hell he endured when Kennedy was murdered or the near-despair he felt when he suffered a stroke in 2001 and lost most of his eyesight.
The heroic effort it required to complete this volume in the wake of his stroke, and to do so in a style that remains masterly, is itself an inspiration. Even when he is describing 40 years of post-White House law practice, there is hardly a page that does not confirm our sense of Mr. Sorensen as a writer of the first rank. If his active service to Kennedy is now concluded, we are still left with the inescapable sense that the words that the two men crafted together -- however one divides the credit -- will live on.
Friday, January 11, 2008
A False Choice
As pundits try to simplify the complexities between presidential candidates, the Democratic primary has been defined as a choice between experience and change. While boiling it down to this level does some disservice to Clinton and Obama (who claim they can provide both), it does generally capture the themes of their campaigns and the underlying appeal of their candidacies.
In looking at presidential candidates, supporters are ultimately drawn to the combination of traits that are the most reassuring and the most inspiring. The candidates who are considered most experienced often provide the former, while those who are considered agents of change (and often less experienced by traditional standards) often provide the latter.
Over the years, we've seen candidates use different criteria to justify their claim of being the choice of "experience". It's definitely more ambiguous than they let on. Due to rapidly changing times, unforeseen events, and the unique job responsibilities of a president, is there honestly any definitive job or experience that could adequately prepare a presidential candidate?
The candidacy of Barack Obama raises the question of what the American people qualify as appropriate experience and how they equate Washington experience with life experience? Is it more important that a particular candidate has viewed the pressing issues of the day from a Washington perspective and an eye toward formulating policy? Or is it more important that a particular candidate has viewed the pressing issues of the day from the perspective of most Americans and with a better first-hand understanding of the impact government policies have on our lives? Is it some combination of both?
Hillary Clinton claims that she's ready. Because of the role she played in her husband's administration (one that remains unclear) and because of her years in Washington, she is the one candidate who doesn't need "on the job training". Therefore, we should turn over the keys to the White House because, from day one, she is capable of being a competent custodian of the nation's best interests?
Candidates of "experience" have long cluttered the list of presidential aspirants. But what good is past experience if a candidate has bad judgement or an inability to adapt - someone who fails to effectively apply the lessons of the past to respond appropriately to the challenges of today? Sometimes the presidential candidate with the most impressive resume becomes a historic failure, and sometimes the small town lawyer with virtually none of the traditional qualifications becomes "one for the ages". It's a hit or miss process - a roll of the dice.
Less frequent are the presidential candidates who truly inspire - those with a gift for articulating the contents of our hearts and minds, and those with the unique ability to reassure us during hard times, and to elevate us to new heights during good times. During a presidential election, these candidates are much more distinguishable. In a time when campaign speeches are overly mechanical and predictable, their rhetoric transcends the moment.
If you ask any bipartisan group of Americans to name the best presidents of the past 75 or 100 years, you will likely hear the names of Franklin Delano Roosevelt, John F. Kennedy and Ronald Reagan most frequently. What do these presidents have in common? They served in vastly different times, their domestic and foreign policy achievements range from indistinguishable to historic, and each followed a vastly different path to the White House.
But, ultimately, each provided inspiration to Americans at a crucial time in history - Roosevelt instilled hope in those devastated by the Depression and kept America united throughout the second World War, Kennedy reminded Americans of what we could ultimately achieve if we reached for the stars and inspired a new generation of Americans to service, and Reagan renewed our sense of American optimism and strength that remained dormant for too long. And, it just so happens that each became president after beating a candidate with more traditional Washington experience.
Given his life experience and his unique ability to inspire, only Barack Obama has the potential to reach these levels of greatness. During times of historic divisiveness, we can't settle for anything less. Hillary claims that experience is what enables her to be the only candidate capable of enacting real change. The irony of that claim is that her experience is the one thing preventing her from being an agent of substantive change.
Without doubt, she is a particulary competent and capable candidate. Alongside Democratic majorities in Congress, she would undoubtedly roll back many of the wayward policies of the past eight years and restore a good deal of American credibility around the world. But as we've seen throughout history, very little can be accomplished when America is divided. And as unfair as it may be, Hillary is one of the most polarizing figures in American politics. So while she could be a an agent of change, she lacks the ability to enact the substantive change - the transformational change - that we desperately need.
As Hillary pointed out after her victory in New Hampshire, finding your voice is important. But she didn't mention that that voice does not always have to be your own. Sometimes you find a voice that speaks to your hopes, that inspires, that challenges, and that reminds you you're a part of something bigger than yourself. As history has shown, that voice is seldom the voice of experience. Indeed, a growing number of Americans have found their voice, and it's Barack Obama.
In looking at presidential candidates, supporters are ultimately drawn to the combination of traits that are the most reassuring and the most inspiring. The candidates who are considered most experienced often provide the former, while those who are considered agents of change (and often less experienced by traditional standards) often provide the latter.
Over the years, we've seen candidates use different criteria to justify their claim of being the choice of "experience". It's definitely more ambiguous than they let on. Due to rapidly changing times, unforeseen events, and the unique job responsibilities of a president, is there honestly any definitive job or experience that could adequately prepare a presidential candidate?
The candidacy of Barack Obama raises the question of what the American people qualify as appropriate experience and how they equate Washington experience with life experience? Is it more important that a particular candidate has viewed the pressing issues of the day from a Washington perspective and an eye toward formulating policy? Or is it more important that a particular candidate has viewed the pressing issues of the day from the perspective of most Americans and with a better first-hand understanding of the impact government policies have on our lives? Is it some combination of both?
Hillary Clinton claims that she's ready. Because of the role she played in her husband's administration (one that remains unclear) and because of her years in Washington, she is the one candidate who doesn't need "on the job training". Therefore, we should turn over the keys to the White House because, from day one, she is capable of being a competent custodian of the nation's best interests?
Candidates of "experience" have long cluttered the list of presidential aspirants. But what good is past experience if a candidate has bad judgement or an inability to adapt - someone who fails to effectively apply the lessons of the past to respond appropriately to the challenges of today? Sometimes the presidential candidate with the most impressive resume becomes a historic failure, and sometimes the small town lawyer with virtually none of the traditional qualifications becomes "one for the ages". It's a hit or miss process - a roll of the dice.
Less frequent are the presidential candidates who truly inspire - those with a gift for articulating the contents of our hearts and minds, and those with the unique ability to reassure us during hard times, and to elevate us to new heights during good times. During a presidential election, these candidates are much more distinguishable. In a time when campaign speeches are overly mechanical and predictable, their rhetoric transcends the moment.
If you ask any bipartisan group of Americans to name the best presidents of the past 75 or 100 years, you will likely hear the names of Franklin Delano Roosevelt, John F. Kennedy and Ronald Reagan most frequently. What do these presidents have in common? They served in vastly different times, their domestic and foreign policy achievements range from indistinguishable to historic, and each followed a vastly different path to the White House.
But, ultimately, each provided inspiration to Americans at a crucial time in history - Roosevelt instilled hope in those devastated by the Depression and kept America united throughout the second World War, Kennedy reminded Americans of what we could ultimately achieve if we reached for the stars and inspired a new generation of Americans to service, and Reagan renewed our sense of American optimism and strength that remained dormant for too long. And, it just so happens that each became president after beating a candidate with more traditional Washington experience.
Given his life experience and his unique ability to inspire, only Barack Obama has the potential to reach these levels of greatness. During times of historic divisiveness, we can't settle for anything less. Hillary claims that experience is what enables her to be the only candidate capable of enacting real change. The irony of that claim is that her experience is the one thing preventing her from being an agent of substantive change.
Without doubt, she is a particulary competent and capable candidate. Alongside Democratic majorities in Congress, she would undoubtedly roll back many of the wayward policies of the past eight years and restore a good deal of American credibility around the world. But as we've seen throughout history, very little can be accomplished when America is divided. And as unfair as it may be, Hillary is one of the most polarizing figures in American politics. So while she could be a an agent of change, she lacks the ability to enact the substantive change - the transformational change - that we desperately need.
As Hillary pointed out after her victory in New Hampshire, finding your voice is important. But she didn't mention that that voice does not always have to be your own. Sometimes you find a voice that speaks to your hopes, that inspires, that challenges, and that reminds you you're a part of something bigger than yourself. As history has shown, that voice is seldom the voice of experience. Indeed, a growing number of Americans have found their voice, and it's Barack Obama.
Sunday, December 16, 2007
Interesting Stories from the Campaign Trail
This week in South Carolina, John McCain was approached by a Navy veteran during a campaign stop and offered a pack of Marlboros. As it turns out, the veteran, Bobby Putnam, had also shared cigarettes with McCain when the two were on board the USS Forrestal in the Gulf of Tonkin in 1967. That summer, a fire broke out on the carrier, killing 134 and injuring dozens more. Needless to say, the survivors of the Forrestal share a unique bond forged by one of the worst disasters in American naval history.
“That’s kind of cool,” was the reaction from a national reporter traveling with the campaign. McCain’s response - "I have not had (a cigarette) in 28 years, so I'm going to get rid of this pack immediately.”
Meanwhile, former JFK confidant and legendary speechwriter Ted Sorenson recently campaigned in New Hampshire for Barack Obama. Referring to this election as the most important presidential election we’ve faced since the Civil War, Sorenson stumped that Obama was the one candidate who could make a change; "We need the change that he represents." Sorenson also drew upon the traits and challenges shared by Kennedy and Obama, and said he believes Obama is the best candidate to restore America’s credibility around the world.
“That’s kind of cool,” was the reaction from a national reporter traveling with the campaign. McCain’s response - "I have not had (a cigarette) in 28 years, so I'm going to get rid of this pack immediately.”
Meanwhile, former JFK confidant and legendary speechwriter Ted Sorenson recently campaigned in New Hampshire for Barack Obama. Referring to this election as the most important presidential election we’ve faced since the Civil War, Sorenson stumped that Obama was the one candidate who could make a change; "We need the change that he represents." Sorenson also drew upon the traits and challenges shared by Kennedy and Obama, and said he believes Obama is the best candidate to restore America’s credibility around the world.
Thursday, December 13, 2007
Secular Europe
There was an interesting column by Roger Cohen in the Times today that provided "secular Europe's" response to the Romney speech on faith.
“The Continent has paid a heavy price in blood for religious fervor and decided some time ago, as a French king put it, that “Paris is well worth a Mass.” Romney, a Republican presidential candidate, was dismissive of European societies “too busy or too ‘enlightened’ to venture inside and kneel in prayer.” He thereby pointed to what has become the principal transatlantic cultural divide.
Europeans still take the Enlightenment seriously enough not to put it inside quote marks. They have long found an inspiring reflection of it in the first 16 words of the American Bill of Rights of 1791: “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof.”
Thomas Jefferson saw those words as “building a wall of separation between church and state.” So, much later, did John F. Kennedy, who in a speech predating Romney’s by 47 years, declared: “I believe in an America where the separation of church and state is absolute.”
The absolute has proved porous.
…Religion informed America’s birth. But its distancing from politics was decisive to the republic’s success. Indeed, the devastating European experience of religious war influenced the founders’ thinking. That is why I find Romney’s speech and the society it reflects far more troubling than Europe’s vacant cathedrals.
…Romney rejects the “religion of secularism,” of which Europe tends to be proud. But he should consider that Washington is well worth a Mass. The fires of the reformation that reduced St. Andrews Cathedral to ruin are fires of faith that endure in different, but no less explosive, forms. Jefferson’s “wall of separation” must be restored if those who would destroy the West’s Enlightenment values are to be defeated.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
