Å·±¦ÓéÀÖ

Ann I am with you on that one and I believe now that I would be wary of that as well based upon my re-evaluation of how that worked out. It is a real uphill battle for anyone not familiar with the "system".

Ann wrote: "Justin,
You mentioned that you wondered why LBJ was chosen as JFK's running mate.(Note - Kennedy was also known by his initials. Perhaps Johnson wasn't so egotistical in choosing LBJ as his moniker..."

Martin wrote: ""that statement that Johnson made to his wife is very telling. He was caught in a no-win situation."

Yes, Jill. As is frequently the case, statements husbands make to their wives are very telling,..."

Thank you for the reply Ann. After being involved in this discussion for the last week, I'm really interested in reading Caro's book here soon.

by Robert A. Caro

Bentley wrote: "Justin wrote: "To elaborate on Chapter 1 some more, and I know this has been briefly touched on, I found it amazing the lack of a smooth transition that occurred during that fateful day in November..."

Good insights and I agree.

David wrote: "Finally getting to chime in here. I really enjoyed the prologue and first chapter of this book. I was born a little after the Kennedy assassination and my first memories of a President are Nixon...."

David, I agree. I found myself thinking how odd that would have been during a very quick transition period. I mean, with Nixon, everyone had kind of clue what was coming and some preparation. Plus, Nixon wasn't even close to being as tragic and sudden as JFK.

The part about Evelyn Lincoln was almost uncomfortable to even read. I'm sure it was terribly shocking for her and the rest of the staff yet had to be uncomfortable for LBJ also. But what choice was there??? World affairs didn't stop with the shooting of JFK. Someone needed to be in charge and from the hour after it needed to be done. LBJ got it done.

Justin wrote: "Ann wrote: "Justin,
You mentioned that you wondered why LBJ was chosen as JFK's running mate.(Note - Kennedy was also known by his initials. Perhaps Johnson wasn't so egotistical in choosing LBJ as..."

We require citations of other books or authors mentioned.

Robert A. Caro

Good response Justin to David

Justin wrote: "David wrote: "Finally getting to chime in here. I really enjoyed the prologue and first chapter of this book. I was born a little after the Kennedy assassination and my first memories of a Presid..."

ooops....sorry. I'll go read how to do that so I can cite from now on.

That is great Justin - you do not have to cite anybody mentioned in the book we are discussing - just outside authors or books.

I was not sure about accepting this discussion when it first came to my attention, but I'm glad I did. I am enjoying how the author has set up the dichotomy of LBJ and Reagan. I was born in 1969, so much of what I know from this era is second hand.
I was quite surprised with the way LBJ was treated by JFK's staff and, especially, by RFK.

Earlier we spoke of the role/experience of the vice-president, In the not too distant past, the vice president has mostly been a non-entity, at least in the eyes of the public and many of us would be hard pressed to go back several years and name vice-presidents. I think that the approach of the president to his office, his managerial style,and his agenda, determine what a vice president does. And if the president doesn't want the vice president to be powerful or influential, the vice president won't be powerful or influential.

How much influence the vice president has in the room is a function of how much the president is willing to listen to him or her and how skillful the vice president is in offering advice. JFK and LBJ were an odd pair but LBJs experience and "knowing the ropes" paid off after he was thrust into office. Try to imagine John McCain (if he had been elected) dying in office....it boggles the mind.

Between Sarah and Vlady we likely wouldn't be here now and the solar system would be less one planet. Nonetheless, there'd be one hell of an asteroid belt in our solar system for alien interlopers to contemplate.

Jill wrote: "Earlier we spoke of the role/experience of the vice-president, In the not too distant past, the vice president has mostly been a non-entity, at least in the eyes of the public and many of us would ..."


This is not just a condition of hte "not to distant past." It is a historical anomoly that the first 8 Presidents served 13 consecutive 4-year terms from election to departure from office without any of them dying or resigning or otherwise turning the job over to the VP. Every President won the election to get there. (The current string of 6 Presidents serving 9 consecutive 4-year terms from Carter until now is the second longest in US history -- not to jinx us!) This, I think, set the American mindset that the VP didn't actually matter.

By 1840, the VP Office was seen such a joke that when WIlliam Henry Harrison asked Henry Clay to be his #2, Clay -- who had been Speaker of the House and was then serving in the Senate -- wouldn't take the demotion. Instead Harrison picked John Tyler, a guy who was equally anti-Jacksonian as Harrison, but from the other extreme! (Imagine John Kerry choosing Pat Buchanan as his running mate, because they were equally anti-Bush!) Of course, Harrison only lasted in the office a month, and the Whig party spent the next four years with a devil of their own choosing -- a nominal "Whig" (until they threw him out of the party) who disagreed with their entire platform.

I think JFK probably saw LBJ as a Clay-like figure: so powerful in the Senate that he wouldn't take the demotion. And while I think he was, LBJ accepting the job goes the other way to show what a Clay Presidency could have been like. In my view, Clay could have become one of America's most important Presidents -- at least on the level of LBJ -- if he had thrown the dice and run on the Harrison ticket. LBJ's career shows what "could have been."

LBJ certainly thought that he would have a lot more influence as Vice-president or he would never have accepted the job. He was repeatedly humiliated by RFK and the "best and the brightest" who surrounded JFK. Johnson was ignored and given virtually nothing to do.

President Kennedy's men made the mistake of thinking that a second class education meant a second class mind. Johnson was actually very intelligent and had a wealth of legislative experience. Think what could have happened to the stalled Kennedy legislative program if the Kennedy administration had actually used it.

Of course, during LBJ's glory days as Senate leader, he also enjoyed humiliating many people - particularly Bobby Kennedy. Power doesn't make most people nice human beings.

Justin wrote: "World affairs didn't stop with the shooting of JFK. Someone needed to be in charge and from the hour after it needed to be done. LBJ got it done."

It is important for someone during these times of unexpected transition to be thinking about the what ifs that are involved. What if a foreign power was behind the assassination attempt and this was actually a plan to behead the US government? What if it wasn't part of a plan but someone decided that it made the US a target of opportunity? What if it was just used as a chance for someone to go after one of our allies? What if some domestic group decided to use a time such as this to attack the government? What if...

After Pear Harbor they had to deal with any number of what ifs...
After 9/11 what if... maybe there were other attack coming in...I remember a memo we received at our fire hall during 9/11 asking us to insure all of our equipment was accounted for because they were afraid of follow up attacks by people posing as emergency services personnel. What if...

Unexpected government transition equals opportunity for our enemies foreign and domestic.

Brian wrote: "I was not sure about accepting this discussion when it first came to my attention, but I'm glad I did. I am enjoying how the author has set up the dichotomy of LBJ and Reagan. I was born in 1969, s..."

We are glad you did too. Please post more as you get into the book. It is tough for many to have first hand knowledge of JFK and LBJ without I imagine being in your 60's so most folks here do not have that primary experience. But some do and that makes it even more interesting for the rest of us.

Jill wrote: "Earlier we spoke of the role/experience of the vice-president, In the not too distant past, the vice president has mostly been a non-entity, at least in the eyes of the public and many of us would ..."

A scary proposition and probably one of the reasons he did not fare as well. At the bottom is another interesting article about the reason for the change - Jefferson and Burr tied in electoral college votes. It used to be the second place finisher became VP. I kind of like that. (Two strong finishers)

At one point in time the vice president was voted for and maybe as this person states we should go back to that premise. In fact, the president usually came from one party and the vice president came from the other - what a novel concept. I think actually it is a better system than selecting someone as a place holder or as a yes man. Maybe we need to rethink this and go back to the what the founding fathers had in mind.

Here is an excerpt and the full article's link is below:

Before adoption of the 12th Amendment in 1804, we did elect Vice Presidents separately. With the rise of the party system came the problem that the elected President and the elected Vice President might not be members of the same party. So we changed the rules. While we do not ignore our Vice Presidents' qualifications, we tend to think of them as balancing the ticket, not as being called upon to assume the Presidency.

The time may have arrived when we should seriously think about repealing the 12th Amendment or developing some better and more democratic system of choosing Vice Presidents. Repealing the 12th is not such a bad idea even though it could result in the election of a President and Vice President from different political parties; it would force us to appraise our Vice-Presidential candidates more seriously - and with more of an eye to their qualifications as President. HAYDEN W. SMITH Larchmont, N.Y., Sept. 12, 1988

Full archive article:


Second article:

Martin wrote: "Between Sarah and Vlady we likely wouldn't be here now and the solar system would be less one planet. Nonetheless, there'd be one hell of an asteroid belt in our solar system for alien interlopers ..."

Smile

Matthew wrote: "Jill wrote: "Earlier we spoke of the role/experience of the vice-president, In the not too distant past, the vice president has mostly been a non-entity, at least in the eyes of the public and many..."

I have posted below what used to happen and how it was done before the Jefferson/Burr tie.

Ann wrote: "LBJ certainly thought that he would have a lot more influence as Vice-president or he would never have accepted the job. He was repeatedly humiliated by RFK and the "best and the brightest" who sur..."

Very true Ann - good post

Michael wrote: "Justin wrote: "World affairs didn't stop with the shooting of JFK. Someone needed to be in charge and from the hour after it needed to be done. LBJ got it done."

It is important for someone during..."

True Michael - folks not initially involved can see the horror of the situation as a unique opportunity and you have to plan for that too.

I love the analysis of the two myths, ie government aid programs vs. free market. It's the heart of the debate every American is living through right now. History made topical. I'm really liking it so far.

Kressel - we have missed you. What other aspects of the Prologue and Chapter One were you interested in?

I agree with what Martin stated, in that LBJ had a long term effect on US policy but Reagan, through defensive spending and political pressure literally forced the Soviet Union to the brink of disaster, and that is a much bigger impact on the world as we know it since it was up front in the news.

After speaking at length recently with Ed Bearss and his getting called to LBJ's ranch for a month to go over the Presidential library I've heard many behind the scene stories of LBJ's world views and involvement that he wanted expressed in his Presidential legacy.

Even though Johnson's results seem more domestic, he came close Reagan's results, just not as dramatic or press related. LBJ came in at a difficult time after the assassination and just his attitude on getting into the oval office was enlightening and gives credibility to the stories spoken from the ranch.

HI Martin I am moving this post to one of our spoiler threads. Your too Jerome. You can also continue the sidebar there as well (Book as a Whole thread).

Chef wrote: "I agree with what Martin stated, in that LBJ had a long term effect on US policy but Reagan, through defensive spending and political pressure literally forced the Soviet Union to the brink of disa..."

I am sure of that and I think he got more done than Reagan - tougher things for the benefit of real people - an entire America not a small subset benefited. Reagan went for the flash - LBJ just slogged through and broke down barriers whether they were popular or not and in the end they were what needed to be done. I am not discounting what Reagan or even Kennedy in his short time in office was able to accomplish but LBJ was different in that regard - he made it happen.

In general, I find the style much easier to read than Rubicon: The Last Years of the Roman Republic , mainly because I know something about both men, yet there's new stuff for me, too. Tomorrow I'll post the books that have prepared me for this read. And of course there was being a teenager during the homeless crisis in NYC in the 1980's.

Kressel you need to do a full blown citation - (please edit 276)
by Tom Holland

If you are posting books please post them in the bibliography thread not on the this one.

Interesting about being a teenager in the 1980s in NYC

So you're not a native New Yorker yourself, Bentley?

New Englander Kressel - one of those Yankees from the North (smile) although some of my family was born in the South - have considered myself a native New Yorker for some time now though - I think many folks have started in one spot and ended up in another.

Bentley wrote: "New Englander Kressel - one of those Yankees from the North (smile) although some of my family was born in the South - have considered myself a native New Yorker for some time now though - I think ..."

This is off topic but there is interesting stuff about how long you have to live in a place before you can some you are "from here" vs. "come here".

New York City? If you've lived here for 20 years, you're from here. Even if you weren't born here.

But, in some book of Russell Baker's, he said that in the mountains of West Virginia, it's more like if your grandparents were born there.

Russell Baker

Very true, Peter. When my folks retired to the Northern Neck of the great Commonwealth of Virginia, they were immediately recognized as "come heres," subclassification "retards," as in not working anymore, sponging off those who are.

Peter wrote: "Bentley wrote: "New Englander Kressel - one of those Yankees from the North (smile) although some of my family was born in the South - have considered myself a native New Yorker for some time now t..."

Same with Maine.

So far so good with this read. I knew LBJ was shut out by the Kennedy administration since all my readings of Kennedy's involvement in the windup to Vietnam had no mention of the Vice-President. I did not know that LBJ was excluded completely. I like how the story starts with Kennedy's demise and how LBJ assumed the presidential position. I look forward to more.

Yes very true Jack - LBJ had been shut out.

I've been meaning to get in on one of these discussions for over a year. I'm excited to finally jump in.

Introduction: I'm Jason, I live in Lexington, KY by way of Newport Beach, CA, Washington, D.C. and Seattle. I work on political campaigns and really enjoy reading political biographies, particularly when an author has an interesting angle rather than the traditional chronological life narrative.

Loving the book so far. I've read a fair amount on LBJ, and just a little on Reagan. I love the angle the author takes in examining the 1,000 days and how much the country shifted.

Michael wrote: "Bentley wrote: "I think that Reagan's maiden speech is very much like Obama's. And to be honest with you I see some similarities between the two. Lack of experience yet great popularity. But it ..."

I have not read all comments very very carefully but want to take issue with some remarks in this message.
Mr. Clinton had a budget surplus I beleive for his last three years in office. I cannot understand one despising him but he had lots of accomplishments - and like all some failures.
Both Bush and Reagan were financial catastrophes - Reagan at least have the view to destroy the military threat of the Soviet Union - Bush cut taxes and then went to war and did not provide a revenue stream.
Bush may have been burdened by 9/11 but that did not justify the cost in blood and dollars in Iraq. Nor the immorality of the continuing suffering & insecurity of the Iraqi people. Bush may not have claimed a strong international platform but that is part of the job.
Obama's cabinet and other posts have suffered a bit from his lack of experience and time, and therefore contacts, in politics. Obama also lacked the management experience one gets with being a governor.
Bush had the aid and posture of his Dad to help him - and his Dad's ex-folks.
Reagan was just around a lot longer than Obama in the party and had less difficult times too I think. But he sure spent us into a hole.
Just some thoughts on Michael's comments.

Jason wrote: "I've been meaning to get in on one of these discussions for over a year. I'm excited to finally jump in.

Introduction: I'm Jason, I live in Lexington, KY by way of Newport Beach, CA, Washington, ..."

Welcome Jason - we are glad that you have joined the discussion. I am glad that you like the book as much as we are liking it. It is initiating tons of discussion which is great.

Vince wrote: "Michael wrote: "Bentley wrote: "I think that Reagan's maiden speech is very much like Obama's. And to be honest with you I see some similarities between the two. Lack of experience yet great popu..."

Vince you raise some good points about the differences in pomp versus stats. I think the latter speaks for itself as you pointed out.

But some like to have the pageantry and the mystique of the presidency with all of the flags, the displays of grandeur and proper protocols and no sordidness.

Clinton was one of the most talented Presidents we have had but we also had the Lewinsky scandal and that damaged his presidency though I still do not think that such an uproar should have ensued. He did a great job in many respects - and I think that is what folks at the time liked about JFK - he had a beautiful family, wife and children and he was an idol for some with this good looks and pedigree. He gave the American people the royal family they never had without having a king (smile).

Reagan in his own way and Nancy had a polished actor's aura about them and were at many times - pure Hollywood in terms of speeches, dinners, presentations, - a lot of glamour. LBJ was much more staid but I have to say that Lady Bird did try to do everything according to a certain Southern protocol and succeeded admirably - and many of her programs in terms of beautifying DC and the nation and their effects are still felt today.

All, the author Jonathan Darman is on the threads live as we speak.

/topic/show/...

He is answering questions right now - please keep posting your questions as you read Landslide on the thread above for Jonathan.

The author is in the house.

Bentley wrote: "Michael wrote: "Bentley wrote: "OK I agree that experience was lacking but if he had the necessary credentials and skill set at the time - he certainly had the ability to connect with people and re..."
Just a late comment - Obama had no "management" experience at all to my mind when he became president. He had not even finished his first term as a national office holder.

I think he was terribly under-prepared and I think we have all paid - and will continue to pay - He was, I do believe better than his Republican opponents and I prefer that he was the winner but i could have been easily happier with a better choice.

Reagan may have been an actor but he had "run" California before he came to the White House. That qualification weakens after we know about Sarah Palin.

But I digress - this is a book about Reagan and Johnson =- when Obama was very young.

I'm finding this book fascinating. I have a poli sci degree and a minor in US history so this is exactly the kind of thing I am interested in.

The thing that absolutely irks me, that was mentioned in the prologue, is how Reagan was such a hands off President. I knew this from research and papers written in college, but everytime I come across it, it drives me insane. Now, obviously presidents rely on their advisors and staffers to draft policy, but the impression I have gotten over the years is that Reagan was almost cavalier about it--trusting others to read and write policy for him. Whereas, LBJ may have been a control freak, as mentioned in the prologue, but you get the feeling that he genuinely cared deeply about what he was doing. Whether he was motivated by ego or love for his country or both, there is an intensity there that Reagan lacked.

Vince - I think a lot of us agree with you and that is a point that others made as well - the presidency was on the job training for (President Obama) - but I do not feel he has gotten enough credit for the things he has done well and part of the reason for that is oddly enough he doesn't explain things in a way that toots his own horn and explains things in depth for the American people. In fact, it was Clinton who had to make the case for him in terms of the healthcare initiative and many other things. Clinton can explain things and for whatever reason Obama can give great speeches but in terms of explaining and selling his programs he just falls short. While at the JFK library I listened to press conferences and interactions with the media that JFK had and he could explain a topic so well and knew the subject matter inside and out, LBJ could actually do a pretty good job himself and Reagan could connect with the people in a folksy way but to get up there and sell his programs to the American people - I think President Obama just doesn't get into the weeds enough and deliver the details. And that is what we want to hear - the details.

You are right about Reagan - he did cut his teeth on the governorship of a pretty big state.

Megan wrote: "I'm finding this book fascinating. I have a poli sci degree and a minor in US history so this is exactly the kind of thing I am interested in.

The thing that absolutely irks me, that was mentio..."

Megan welcome and I am glad you are liking the book - so are we. I think Reagan was a tremendous delegator and enjoyed doing it. A job transferred is a job completed as far as he was concerned. LBJ was like a dog on a bone for sure. Reagan not so much.

I am not sure that delegation equals hands off. My graduate work is in leadership and management. If I am to delegate well then I have to care enough about a project to know the project and if I do not I cannot select the proper team leader or team mix. What I remember of Reagan is the fireside chats and I agree with Bentley he was able to connect, explain and resonate.

Yes I agree to a certain extent - but I think that Reagan overdid the delegation. But I also agree with you that he was able to connect, explain and resonate. He brought it down to layman terms but also explained the details.

The discussion is reminding me of a line from Mark Russell (the political comedian songwriter):

"The country sleeps better when Reagan's asleep"

Delegation does not mean hands off, when done right. It means the delegator is granting a degree of authority and latitude to someone who takes the lead in executing a strategy (who are we, what are we doing, how are we doing it, what resources are we commiting).

If the delegator hands off land then walks away, then he's dumping, not delegating.

I wonder how much of what Reagan did was delegating.

Peter wrote: "The discussion is reminding me of a line from Mark Russell (the political comedian songwriter):

"The country sleeps better when Reagan's asleep""

That is so funny Peter/

Martin wrote: "Delegation does not mean hands off, when done right. It means the delegator is granting a degree of authority and latitude to someone who takes the lead in executing a strategy (who are we, what ar..."

Like I said - a job transferred is a job completed - check.

Martin and Michael, good points on management. We forget that the White House and Executive Office is huge. Reagan wasn't about the details compared to a LBJ, Carter, and Clinton. However, I think Reagan gave larger goals to be set and helped direct the larger message and policy. Using his philosophy of management in a large bureaucracy can be good and bad.

Reagan's chief of staff and U.S. Senator, Howard Baker, says, "it is also true-and this is the most important characteristic of the man in my view-that he had what I call a central core of convictions. he knew who he was, what he believed, and where he wanted to go." (p. 7 in book below)

(no image) Leadership in the Reagan Presidency Part II: Eleven Intimate Perspectives by Kenneth W. Thompson (no photo)