I'm thinking this as I'm reading Robert A. Caro's "The Passage of Power: The Years of Lyndon Johnson, Vol. IV." Read this:
One of Jack Kennedy’s most impressive characteristics was an ability to observe— and to generalize from his observations, to understand the implications of what he was seeing— no matter how hectic his pace might be: to “learn on the run,” as one of his aides would put it. And as he raced back and forth across the United States in 1957, and continued to do so at the beginning of 1958, he had drawn one definite conclusion: that, as he told a friendly reporter at the end of 1957, “The Senate is not the place to run from”— that not only was being a United States senator not much of an advantage when it came to running for the presidency, it might even on balance be a disadvantage, and quite a considerable one at that. While newspaper and magazine coverage of the Senate, of necessity consisting of hard-to-follow explanations of arcane legislative technicalities, didn’t translate into public interest in that body, and the benefit to a presidential candidate in being an active senator was therefore very limited, the liability inherent in such a role wasn’t limited at all. A senator was constantly being forced to take stands on controversial issues, and such stands antagonized one side or the other — which meant antagonizing individuals or groups whose support a senator needed if he wanted to be President. One reason that Kennedy had lost the vice presidential nomination to Kefauver [in 1956] was the refusal of Midwest states to support him because of a vote he had cast against an Eisenhower Administration bill to prop up farm prices. And then there had been the Joe McCarthy issue: McCarthy was a friend of Joseph Kennedy Sr., a friend of the whole Kennedy family; in fact, Kennedy had been the only Democratic senator not to vote for McCarthy’s censure. Kennedy had hoped that the fact that he had been in the hospital for much of the censure debate might insulate him from criticism for not voting; it hadn’t. In the history of the United States, only one senator — Warren Gamaliel Harding in 1921— had ascended to the White House directly from the Senate, and Kennedy understood why: “No matter how you vote, somebody is made happy and somebody unhappy,” he explained. “If you vote against enough people, you are dead politically.”See how well that tracks what Obama did? Cruz and Paul are doing the same thing. It's what works. Compare John McCain and Bob Dole and [insert names of lots of Senators that I've forgotten].
Jack Kennedy had the ability not only to “learn on the run” but also to act on what he learned, to act rationally, dispassionately, coldly. Spending time in the Senate was a drawback, so he would spend as little time as possible there: that meant not doing the job to which he had been elected. He would be criticized —for absenteeism, for shirking his duties. But he had calculated that, in terms of his presidential run, such criticism would be far outweighed by the benefits from campaigning across the country; it was a criticism that would have to be accepted — and he accepted it.
41 comments:
Where did JFK learn the bit about lying about national security weakness? We already know where he learned about vote fraud.
The problem with much of our political class is that to know them is to dislike them. That's why the Democrats have had their greatest success with little-known outsiders and the Republicans have usually failed when they've gone with the "it's my turn now" candidate.
Being a Senator isn't a disqualifier...
If and only if the Senator has serious organizational and management experience elsewhere.
No more On The Job Training for the WH.
Its easy to lead from behind in the Senate.
You need to strike a balance between name recognition and political anonymity.
Dislikability of your opponent matters. It can be genuine or manufactured.
"The Drill SGT said...
No more On The Job Training for the WH."
That was affirmative action.
Experience in the machinery of the status quo is absurdly over-valued. I would vote for Althouse for President before any Senator who has voted for non-recessionary deficit spending.
You need to learn the word "Present".
"A senator was constantly being forced to take stands on controversial issues, and such stands antagonized one side or the other "
Obama solved that problem by voting "present."
Kennedy learned to lie about national security with the phony "missile gap" that Eisenhower tried to teach him was wrong. Kennedy evaded the briefings that Eisenhower set up for him.
Obama is an outlier. Obama has no experience that translates to Presidential abilities.
Obama was a choice of the media. The media covered up all of his flaws, shortcomings, errors, and lies, explained away his extreme ideology. Refused to force in-depth discussion of his positions, or lack (vote present 180 times) of positions.
The media picks the winners. Thats why the entire country is mostly conservative. Not my opinion, but the results of actual elections, and yet the media obsesses about a dog on top of a station wagon, but admits they have no idea of what Obama's core beliefs are.
But we have the first Black President, and the worst race relations in decades. Optics are more important than performance. The excuse making and cover-ups will continue and shift into high gear to elect the first female President. With similar lack of experience and visible ineptitude explained away, while obsessing over Walkers lack of college degree, while ignoring proven performance.
A very interesting post and quote. Thank you Althouse.
I note that the body of the quote is Caro's view and not primary sources; and that the book came out in 2012. We don't know when this passage was actually written. So how much of this is a true precursor to Obama versus projecting the example of Obama back onto Kenedy?
Rand Paul and Marco Rubio end their first senate term in 2016. If they run for President, they won't be able to run for re-election to the Senate. Cruz can still run and go back to the Senate when he loses and run for re-election to the Senate in 2018.
Cruz will be the only one of the three who runs.
The press is a major contributor to this. They prefer to write about politics, and the Senate is a 365 day a year political show, with a limited number of characters. Thus Senators get visibility, while others doing interesting work are ignored or (if they find a way to get publicized and are Republican) vilified.
Senators are great at talk. Action not so much.
This is part of the reason why Hilary became Secretary of State. She approached the job like a Senator, her only experience in actual public office. Just what did she accomplish?
I think Caro's point is a good one.
I also think that Senators, spending most of their time in washington's most exclusive club, quickly lose contact with the general population. That reveals itself on the campaign trail.
"Passage of Power" is very much worth reading.
I don't see how a Republican can get elected. The liberal media came to realize their true power when they were able to destroy Bush's reputation. They control the narrative and we now have more young impressible people while older more conservative people have died.
"Rand Paul and Marco Rubio end their first senate term in 2016. If they run for President, they won't be able to run for re-election to the Senate. Cruz can still run and go back to the Senate when he loses and run for re-election to the Senate in 2018."
Joe Lieberman ran for reelection to his Senate seat in 2000 when he was also his party's VP candidate. It can be done.
"This is part of the reason why Hilary became Secretary of State. She approached the job like a Senator, her only experience in actual public office. Just what did she accomplish?"
Switching to SOS got here OUT of the Senate, which would have weighed her down.
But she's been around too long. America wants fresh meat.
Do not elect these jokers. Talk is cheap. Run something first. No more Senators for President.
JFK also ran as a party outsider, someone who would not follow the party elders.
In fact, Truman came out at the very beginning of the Democratic convention and made a very public address asking JFK to withdraw his name from the race. Truman believed that JFK was simply not ready to be president. In fact, Truman actually resigned as a delegate in protest over the actions by the JFK campaign in their attempts to silence the opposition votes.
Imagine today a former president coming out against a candidate in that manner?
Here's Truman's press conference:https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=y49FJYbjA4I
And JFK had to give an address in response: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2B5WmdWGJco
"Truman believed that JFK was simply not ready to be president. "
Another example of Truman's wisdom. He had been a Senator but his experience on the "Truman Committee" was a great introduction to governing.
Obama's election had almost nothing to do with any votes he'd cast as a state or U.S. senator from Illinois. The "voting present" more accurately describes his state senate career than his U.S. senate career, in which he did in fact vote consistently with his party's leadership as one of the Senate's most liberal members. But in neither job did he ever actually do anything, gain any respect, earn any favors, make any long-term allies, or learn a single damned thing useful to actually legislating, much less governing.
Obama was a spectacularly light-weight legislator. That much, he did have in common with John Kennedy.
What Kennedy had that Obama lacked, upon leaving the U.S. Senate to become POTUS, was a reasonably good education that included American and world history — Obama is catastrophically ignorant of history, instead knowing only a handful of thin and ridiculous liberal fictions — and an appreciation for the art of politics as practiced by artisans like Lyndon Johnson. By the end of the Vienna summit, JFK had at least figured out how hard the job was, and how inadequate he, personally, was to it in comparison with, for example, his superbly qualified and extraordinarily skillful (made it look easy) immediate past predecessor as POTUS. JFK didn't become much more effective as a national leader on the domestic front — none of his important legislation, except for bipartisan tax breaks, got passed until JFK was sainted by the events in Dallas and LBJ wrapped himself and the liberal program in martyr's clothes — but he at least managed to get the world back from the nuclear abyss whose brink Kennedy's callow recklessness and inexperience had lured the Soviets to.
Obama's so monumentally unprepared for the job, still, that he'll leave it without understanding how bad a president he's been.
How are you liking the Caro books?
I knew I would never read them, so I spent the last two months of last year playing them as audiobooks at 1.5X speed from my phone while commuting or running errands. At 100+ hours, they took over my life for about eight weeks.
I preferred the first two because the era they describe seems like it could almost be another planet.
I can't imagine that anyone who has the intelligence and interest to make it through Caro's multi-volume (and still incomplete) biography of LBJ could have the slightest respect or regard for Barack Obama. The actors in Caro's history were people of substance; Caro's detailed and gritty focus isn't always flattering to them, but it leaves one in no doubt of their substance.
Obama's just an ad campaign.
I read the first one about his early years in the hill country of Texas though I've never been a fan of Johnson. I like Robert Caro he seems like a really likable person, in an interview, he clearly enjoyed telling about how the old women of the hill country teased him about being a city boy.
Basically, Kennedy's objection boils down to Senators actually having to take positions on issues people care about. If your political strategy is to play it safe and preserve strategic ambiguity re: your actual policy positions vis-Ã -vis the voters, then being in the senate is obviously bad -- it will force you to reveal your decisions.
This, however, is not a strategy that will work for Cruz or Paul, because their philosophical and ideological positions are pretty much their entire political persona -- neither of them is floating by on folksy charm, managerial competence, Balkanised cultural affinity with key voting segments, or an updraft of hot white guilt. I don't think they lose anything by being in the Senate -- if anything, it gives them an unignorable prominence that they need in order to build up a national reputation.
"Because Romney ran a bad compaign. He did not focus on key things - the way the health care law was implemented,"
It wasn't implemented by then. That was a point of the delay. Romney made a mistake not to talk more about how his bill was altered by the Democrat legislature in Mass when overrode his vetoes and how Deval patrick has made further changes.
Obama managed to lie with the aid of ex-CNN correspondent Crowley. Romney did seem non-plussed by the collusion between Obama and Crowley but he is a gentleman and that is rare in politics.
Most of what Romney predicted has come to pass in spite of Obama's attempt at ridicule and misinformation. If Romney were to run again, and I think he probably won't, he could point out all the statements he made that have proven to be true and significant.
The country missed an inflection point there that might have avoided all the pain that is in our future.
That was affirmative action
And W was because of White Privilage
The only problem with using Kennedy as an example was that his Presidency was not a particularly succcessful one, and except for his unexpected talent for serving as a sandbag in Dallas, JFK might well be regarded as a mediocre President like Millard Fillmore and Rutherford Hayes, and not our first Secular Saint in Chief.
Ted Cruz was not born in this country so he can't be President. It's amazing how everyone ignores this - yes, I know why but I think people want the Constitution back and the people who want it back most are on the right and like Cruz the most.
All this talk of Republican Senators and no mention of Democrat Senator E Warren. I believe she is a serious threat to Ms Clinton.
Regards — Cliff
@wildswan
Both of Cruz's parents were American citizens when he was born, making him a citizen at birth. I don't think being in the territory is the key, but being born a citizen. He was.
Ann said:
Joe Lieberman ran for reelection to his Senate seat in 2000 when he was also his party's VP candidate. It can be done.
Johnson ran for both Senate and VP in 1960. Lloyd Bentson ran for VP in 1988. Both from Texas. Texas law permits a sitting senator (Sitting politician?) to run for 2 offices at the same time.
Ditto CT law with Lieberman.
Kentucky law permits a sitting senator to run for only one office. Under KY law, Rand must choose the Senate race or the Presidential race.
However, there is a loophole, that I do not understand, that might let him continue running for his Senate seat until he receives the presidential nomination. At that time he would have to pick one or the other.
I know nothing about Florida.
The main point is that it is state, not federal, law that governs Paul's, Rubio's, Lieberman's, Bentson's and LBJs ability to run or not run for 2 seats.
John Henry
Now that I think of it, I am pretty sure that LBJ won both his Senate and VP race.
What law forced him to give up one of those seats? Not separation of powers since VP is in the legislative, not the executive, branch. (According to the Constitution if not custom)
Could he have legally held 2 simultaneous Senate seats as TX senator and Senate President (The VPs primary job)?
Ann, as a Constitutional scholar, what do you think?
And now I am going to have to go back and reread Caro's Master of the Senate again.
John Henry
Ann,
I know there are a lot of knowledgeable people who agree with you about "Citizen at birth" being the same as "natural born citizen". There are also a lot of other knowledgeable folks who disagree and think natural born means being born in the United States.
I think it would be a horrible distraction to elect or even run a candidate not born in the US.
And what happens if someone sues that a law is illegal because President Cruz is unqualified? More distraction.
And if the Supremes find President Cruz unqualified? Chaos. I assume he would have to resign. Would all laws signed by him have to be repassed and resigned?
We've had a couple hundred years and 44 presidents all born in the US. We have never, until McCain, had a president or even a major party candidate who was born outside of the US. (Arizona was a territory not a state when Goldwater was born but part of the US. George Romney was never a nominee)
The sole exception has been McCain and that alone should have been sufficient reason to oppose his candidacy.
I really like Cruz. He shares my liberal views and I think he would make a fine president for a lot of reasons.
Still, I feel strongly that he should not be nominated because he was not born in the US.
I suppose we could have a discussion about how Cruz and McCain are citizens by law but not by Constitution if anyone is up for that.
John Henry
See how well that tracks what Obama did? Cruz and Paul are doing the same thing. It's what works.
I don't think it tracks very well at all. Certainly they are both campaigning, but they are also both fighting tooth and nail for causes *in* the Senate. Neither Kennedy nor Obama did that.
Personally, I would very much like for Rand Paul to be the next President. I suspect, however, that what he's really hoping for is a VP spot.
I don't see how a Republican can get elected. The liberal media came to realize their true power when they were able to destroy Bush's reputation.
With the sole exception of war-hero Eisenhower, every Republican President since Herbert Hoover has faced the same problem. The significance of the media is overblown.
As for Bush's reputation, disastrous war + recession = unpopularity. He's hardly the first President to encounter that particular phenomenon.
It's really annoying to see people argue that Cruz isn't a natural born citizen.
We have two ways to become natural born citizens in this country. They are, Jus Soli and Jus Sanguinis.
There is nothing that indicates Jus Soli is somehow more important, or better, than Jus Sanguinis.
Those insisting that Cruz is not eligible for US Citizenship need to provide a rationale for why Jus Soli provides the natural born status while Jus Sanguinis does not.
I would argue the complete opposite is true.
If a citizen and national of Mexico crosses our border in the dead of night, has her baby in San Diego (While unlawfully present in the United States) that baby is a natural born US Citizen.
If two US Citizen have a child that doesn't happen to be on US soil, that baby is also born a natural born US Citizen.
And yet, you'd give more preference to the child of the illegal Mexican just because of her location?
And you seriously think the Supreme Court would?
Based on what?
Here is my argument.
The only reason we have Jus Soli is due to a misunderstanding and misinterpretation of the 14th Amendment.
Further, the US Constitution only recognizes Jus Sanguinis. Technically making Ted Cruz more of a natural born US Citizen that President Obama, even though President Obama was born on US Soil and Ted Cruz was not, because President Obama had only 1 US Citizen Parent while Ted Cruz has 2.
1) John, there is no way the exact issue you are talking about will ever make it to the Supreme Court: the issue of standing will never permit it. There will never be anyone with standing to bring it.
2) Additionally, no court will step into the issue because no jurist will ever want to be in that position. It will never happen in a case where both parents are American citizens no matter where in the world the birth takes place.There will also never be enough of a public groundswell to push it forward..
Never gonna happen. Absolute waste of time.
3) Loved Passage of Power. Brilliant
Post a Comment