1948! Years and years ago, is it possible they went by quickly or has it been a very long time? What were these future presidents doing in the year 1948; what had their childhood prepared them for - were they ambitious young men? Did they have a glimmer of what might be in store for them?

These giants of history, these presidents and their scandals, their achievements, their lies, their loves, their administrations are all discussed in Morrow's fascinating book.

Have we learned anything from those years or was there anything to learn? Can we learn from the past?

Come take a walk with Morrow down memory lane; we can take a week on each president and then the last week we can, perhaps, compare our present leaders with those of the past, e.g., does President Bush's youth and experience or lack thereof compare with JFK? Does Johnson's problems with Vietnam compare to our present problems with Iraq? Morrow touches lightly on these issues but we can explore them fully.

Join me February lst.

Published in 2005, the book can be found at libraries or can be purchased here in hardcover or paperback: The Best Year of Their Life

Ella, I might not take part in this discussion. Still, after reading about this book on Barnes and Noble it does seem very, very interesting.

I'll Participate!

Come on now Hats, We need your Participation full time.

Harold and Ella, I will participate. These were exciting years. I have been thinking a lot about Nixon since the death of Ex President Harold Ford. There is so much I don't know about this man. Kennedy, I remember so much about him: his work for the Civil Rights Movement, The Bay of Pigs situation, and of course, the assassination. Johnson, I mainly remember how he was introduced in to the White House after the death of Kennedy. Yes, I have huge gaps in my memory about these men. I am anxious to be here.

I'll try to be here - lurking, if nothing else.

It sounds interesting, and by February, I may have finished the two books I am reading now. I remember those times.

WELL, THIS IS JUST GREAT!

THANK YOU ALL FOR YOUR POSTS AND IT'S POSSIBLE, WE HAVE A QUORUM????

I GUARANTEE YOU WILL ENJOY READING THIS BOOK - IT'S LIGHT, IT'S ORIGINAL - A UNIQUE LOOK BACKWARD AT THREE MEMORABLE FELLOWS WE ALL REMEMBER SO WELL.

Ella, I have been a huge camelot fan and have read numerous books on the Kennedy family. I have very little knowledge where Nixon is concerned and less for Johnson so YES, I would love to participate in February's discussion. I am looking forward to it.

Ella, Yep you have a quorum.

WELCOME HATS, HAROLD, MARY, MERIJO, BELLAMARAIE!

Yes, Ginger, we have a quorum and this is going to be fun. The book presents some intriguing questions and we will attempt to answer them in our own way. We have the advantage of years of hindsight, indeed we do!!

Morrow attempts to stay with the year 1948; that is his premise, but at times cannot steer clear of the enormous impact of these three presidents upon the future of the country. And he links the three together in interesting ways:

"The three future presidents, so different from one another in almost all ways (physically, intellectually, culturally, socially-in their geographical origins, in their accents), shared a tendency toward elaborately deliberated amorality; all three behaved as if rules were for others, not for them. All chose a course of advancement that demanded, among other things, forms of deceit. It was in 1948 that the three committed themselves to a mature and focused political ruthlessness."

I'm looking forward to February!

How interesting that Gerald Ford was elected to Congress for the first time in 1948. What a contrast in manner and of course, to the House not the Senate. And the Senate is supposedly our upper house and has the "Statesmen"!!!. Just a thought for the day.

Hi CubFan. Thanks for that note, I would not have known that fact about President Ford, one of the good guys in the oval office. Power does not always corrupt!

Why don't you join us in our discussion!

I was busy with three babies all under the age of four in 1948 - I think I will revisit a time that I associated mostly with laundry and pull-toys.

i'll be here....jean

Oh, good, MABEL, WELCOME! (Is it Jean?)

Good grief, Merijo, 3 of them under four years of age, heavens! How did you cope?

It was a wonderful year for me, 20 years old, in love, dancing, enjoying life, fabulous year! The babies came much later.

A postwar year, prosperity around the corner, young men back from the war pushing their way into the corridors where older men reigned, displacing them, bringing new ideas, the end of an era and the beginning of a new one.

We'll discuss Morrow's vision in February. Don't read ahead, let's read each chapter together, more fun that way.

Ella:

I think I didn't know what was going on in the outside world. They are all in their early sixties now and still a delight to me.

I got my book yesterday, and am ready to go.

that was taken as a post name, so i used mabel, figuring their aren't a lot of those....teehee......it's also my first name that my family never used, it honored an aunt.....jean

JEAN! I have an 82 year old sister by that name and I love her dearly; she can't see too well (macular degeneration) but she emails every day. I won't forget your name!

Am very much interested in the book and will participate!

WELCOME BUCKEYE!

Buckeye is a good friend of mine and also a new member of Seniornet (applause!).

What a great group we have gathering for our February book discussion. Thank you all for your interest!

A Biography of Lance Morrow

An Interesting Article by LM regarding journalism today

Thanks for the links Ella, very interesting......are we starting the discussion on FEb 1?......jean

Ella, the article on Journalism is very interesting. It made me look inward. Why do we need to know the private lives of these people? When these celebrities, whether in Hollywood or Washington, sue or speak out because of emotional pain, do we really believe they have been harmed by worldwide publicity about personal affairs? Do we not care? Is it a form of jealousy? Are we angry because we lack three homes, a chauffeur and dogs wearing designer clothing?

Now, sadly, journalists are going after Prince Williams' Kate just like the papparazzi went after Lady Diana. I hope we have learned a lesson from the past.

Not to mention Obama Baraka being likened to a rock star. Years ago reporters would never have looked at a politician as a rock star. At least, I don't remember it.

Hi HATS and JEAN. Yes, if we like we can start posting anytime but the book discussion will not start until February.

LM can lament the fact that journalists/reporters have become too gossipy since the days of FDR; however, did you notice how many times he mentioned Princess Diane in that article? What was he attempting in doing so? To ignite public interest?

Recently I went to see Helen Mirren in THE QUEEN as it has had good reviews. Now I had, I suppose, unwarranted preconceived ideas but I was astonished that the whole movie was about Princess Diane. This 80-year old Queen of England has lived through tumultuous times, particularly WWII and the end of the British Empire and yet the whole movie was about her reaction to Princess Di's death. Imagine!

HATS, I haven't heard the comment about Barack Obama, an interestisng young man isn't he? A president in the making? What charisma!

Ella, what a surprise you must've gotten about The Queen. All the publicity has been that the movie is only about the time immediately around the time of Diana's death, and the queen's reaction to it.

I think that is very sad. Queen Elizabeth has done so much for England, lived through so many important points of History, why isn't her story told in the movie? Ella, I agree.

MARY, I'm not very observant about movies, am I???

I wanted to see one or two movies before the Oscars and I ended up seeing three that may get a nod. The Queen, Little Miss Sunshine and DreamGirls.

Would what we are doing be called "blogging?" I hear so much about it in the news and the fact that the Internet is going to play such a big part in coming elections and I feel ignorant of the subject.

Can anyone enlighten me about blogging and its impact on the news? Will the Internet replace print media or TV? Is Morrow out of a job?

Ella -- there is a discussion of blogs or weblogs here at SN.

Marcie Schwarz, "Blogs (Web Logs)" #, 29 Sep 2002 2:17 pm.

Some are quite interesting, some fancy, some boring or out of date.

The blogs (about politics) I read the most, are the ones noted in the Washington Post emails I get.

When is the discussion starting? tomorrow?......jean

AND GOOD MORNING EVERYONE!

I’M WRITING THIS IN THE EVENING OF THE DAY BEFORE AS MY MIND IS STILL WARM AT THIS TIME OF DAY AND IN OHIO I CAN’T SAY THE SAME FOR THE MORNINGS!

Hopefully, certainly, you all have had a chance to read the Introduction and Chapter One of our book. Let’s take a little time to discuss the author, Lance Morrow, and his style of writing. First of all is he, in your opinion, a historian? If not, what is he? One reviewer calls him a journalist which is a loose term. An essayist?

And secondly, what do you think of the way in which LM has organized this book? If you were to write it using his title how would you have done it? Is it clear and concise? Is his writing? Should it be?

Lastly, why did LM devote 30 pages to Nixon, and only 10 each to Kennedy and Johnson? Is this warranted in your opinion?

---

As in any book discussion on Seniornet there is no wrong or right opinion; as a matter of fact I personally agree with Ghandi (who is quoted by LM extensively) - "Honest disagreement is often a good sign of progress.”

This is going to be a great discussion, chock full of your opinions and ideas and I am looking forward to them very much! My apologies, in advance, if I get too long-winded!

I didn't want to get the book from the library until just before we started and I forgot! But it's now ordered, so I should have my copy in a couple of days.

I hope he doesn't continue w/ so many thru the whole book, they are distracting to me. Just tell me the story! He appears to be telling us how well read HE is instead of talking about his subjects. Every once in a while that sort of thing can add to an explanation, but every page is a bit much. Is it bothering anyone else?.....jean

I have tried to post twice and lost both so I am a bit frustrated to say the least. I would like to begin with thanking Ella for being our Leader. Ella asked:is Lance Morrow, in your opinion, a historian? If not, what is he? One reviewer calls him a journalist which is a loose term. An essayist? After reading his Introduction and Chapter one 1. I have mixed feelings about who he is. He is an author, wrote essays and writes of history so I suppose he is all the above. If Ella asked what I thought of his style of writing for this book I would say its a bit salacious, fictitious and comes close to tabloid fodder. He holds high regard for his friend Princess Diana and feels the media crossed lines with her. I too feel the same, yet I also feel Morrow has used the sexual, private and intimate parts of each of these three Presidents lives to captivate the reader. It would be nothing more than a book of history, time and events but he has included the juicy gossip to make for an entertaining read. So is he the pot calling the kettle black? Does he fall short in respecting the privacy of the lives of JKF, Nixon and Johnson?

I have read many books on JFK, Jackie Onasis, JFK Jr., and Caroline. Nothing Morrow has said so far is any different than what I have already read. He is repetitive, in his attempt to reveal the infidelities of JFK. Lyndon Johnson is a less interesting person and was not thought of much as President. Nixon on the other hand was a sad, corrupt individual and I feel was the beginning of the downfall of the respect Americans held for the Presidency. I am in a Bible study and Morrow reminds me of the writers of the books who had little personal contact with the source he writes about and had to rely on what others can supply him with. His words loose credit when he says so and so said this.

Ella asks: If you were to write it using his title how would you have done it?......I have to say at this point I am still questioning if his title fits the book. I am not so sure I agree with these being the BEST years of their lives in 1948. I almost think I would have titled it the WORST years of their lives. The deceit, lies, manipulations, illegal acts, and fall from grace for Nixon and Johnson surely leaves America with nothing to be proud of. Being a baby boomer I have to say I was fascinated with the "Camelot" years. The Kennedys as dysfunctional as they were brought glamor and grace to the White House. We were at a time where we wanted a Love Story book Presidency. Jackie with her flair for fashion, John with his charism and good looks, and the whole clan playing football at Hyanisport was the ideal family. No family is perfect and no politician got to where he is at being completely honest. John falling into Jackie's arms after being shot is an image all of America will never forget. John John saluting at such a young age at the horse drawn casket will remain in our hearts forever. I think I would have titled this book if I were writing it, "Pride, Power & Presidents".

Now it would behoove me if I failed to admonish the media, journalists, reporters and television programs for their insensitivity and lack of respect for the privacy of celebrities, public figures and politicians. Yet, I must say we can not deny our own accountability since we run out and purchase the books, newspapers, and tabloids who continue to report and ruin the lives of these people, on the basis of a source to so and so said. I will continue reading and participating in this book club, although I must say I am hoping I can overcome my disgust with the invasion and intrusion into the personal lives of each of these Presidents.

I am anxious to hear what others think.

I'm going to continue in a negative tone, sorry, but his writing is driving me nuts.....i am hoping that he gets to the title of his book at some point - "K,J,N in 1948: learning the secrets of power." It's an intriguing subject, i hope he gets to it....On page 13 of my book he describes Nixon's eyes as "sanpaku." I don't know that term and can't find it in my on-line encarta, can anybody help me? ......And i was thoroughly confused by the paragraph that starts on the bottom of pg 22 and continues to 23 that started out talking about Walden and then Adam and Eve and ending w/ ....."a thin strain of lamentation, barely audible, like a memory of bleached bones beside the trail." .....i just said "WHAT?" when i finished that.....maybe he's just way too intellectual for me......but where was his editor? .....and on the next page we get Lana Turner!......i'm going to stay w/ it, but his first 30 pages are surely confounding me.....Help! Somebody? Let me know what you think.......jean

I admit some of the vocabulary used by Morrow is above my head. I do not know whether he is trying to prove his own self worth by writing the book. At other times, his writing style fits a common American like me. I don't know what name to give Mr. Morrow. I suppose this is because his writing is leaving me rattled. His writing style seems jumpy or uneven. Aahh, maybe Mr. Morrow is a muckraker. Is a muckraker considered a journalist?

I do like his "what if" scenario about the three men. What if we, the American public, had known about Kennedy's health problems? What if Nixon had not been involved in the Hiss case? and another what if scenario about Johnson?

Thank you, thank you for your honesty! It may not be flattering to Lance Morrow, but I appreciate it. However, I don’t believe we can dismiss this author so blatantly. Let me just list 3 web sites out of hundreds that Google brought up for me:

Lance Morrow, Professor of Journalism at Boston University; Adjunct Professor of English at Harvard

A list of current essays in TIME

Morrow discusses his latest book "Evil"

I believe him to be an historian; one that I would recommend to a college student studying history. BellaMarie doesn’t agree and thinks he uses the "sexual, private and intimate parts of each of these three Presidents lives to captivate the reader."

Perhaps! However anytime a person puts himself in the public limelight, particularly a president, he must learn to endure the humiliation, the loss of privacy, that often comes with the job in my opinion.

Let’s take one chapter at a time and discuss some of the questions that arise in the book and see if we can justify an interest in it. I think it has promise, so bear with me for a little while.

I think we can all agree that FDR and Truman were, if not revered, respected. Morrow states however that ”the end of an inherent American reverence, or at least respect for the office of the presidency, began with Kennedy, Johnson and Nixon in the sixties.”

Is it true do you think? Does it matter?

Ideas such as these are well worth discussing particularly in this current situation of 20 possible candidates for the presidency in 2008. You agree?

Another statement in the Introduction is interesting. “In the years to come, nuclear weapons……would become so familiar as to be almost domesticated in a political sense and half-forgotten, a kind of low-level background anxiety except in moments of crisis.”

Aren’t we the least bit concerned with nuclear weapons today? Are we in a "moment of crisis?"

One more thought before I quit tonight. I had forgotten to put our Schedule of Discussion in the heading; it is there now and it makes for a better discussion in a group if we stick to a reading schedule.

Goodness, I am still in the Introduction but will move on to Chapter One. I hope you will come along for the journey.

sanpaku

Chronic fatigue, loss of sleep, yeah! I have sanpaku!

Me too Ella - thanks for finding out what it was.....interesting, they mention Kennedy, but not Nixon......

I think people born in the 40's or later think that the irreverance for the presidency began w/ Nixon and Watergate (or as Morrow states, w/ Kennedy). I think that is because we have lived thru those presidents and heard the discussions and the berating. However, students of presidential history know that presidents have been reviled thruout history starting w/ Adams. Geo Washington was largely admired, but even he had his detractors.

Certainly FDR was not admired by many of the powers that be at the time. They called him a socialist, a wannabe dictator, even a communist and we won't even mention what they said about Eleanor! So those of us whose parents admired FDR may have a skewed memory of the Roosevelt yrs and perhaps Morrow has a skewed memory of the K, J, Nixon years relative to previous presidents because he's lived thru those administrations - and apparently lived many of those yrs in Washington.

I recognize that he has very esteemed credentials and i have read his columns in Time Mag......but so far in this book, i think he is scattered, not presenting a clear premise and might have been looking to make some easy money. Much of what i have read so far is not new or even presented in a new slant. As i said before i hope he gets to the topic that's in the title......it could be interesting......jean

Jean, I agree LM's premise is not clear and I believe he is often repetitive; however, as HATS stated, I like "what if" writers rather than the organized pedantic tomes we often get from established historians. I like the theories, the ideas that LM and others like him present for the layman; food for thought, food for discussion.

We will find, or we must read carefully to find, his premise of "secrets of power." I have spotted one and will put it in the heading as I come to it; I hope you all will help in discovering others to list. They are there, we just can't skip along too rapidly I think.

I was in high school when FDR was in office. I am prejudiced, I was impressionable, he could do no wrong, he piloted us through a horrific world war. Of course, he had detractors, he had affairs - we learned later - as we learned about Thomas Jefferson and his affair with a black slave. They became human in our eyes, they were not Gods but that was years later.

The media has expanded greatly since their day (print, TV, Internet) and are hungry to fill in the hours, the space. Nothing is going to stop it and no man in politics is safe from the public. Good or bad, it's a fact, it happens.

And it might be a very good thing; perhaps they will no longer lie, cheat, grab power and fame at any cost, as KJN did and learned bitter lessons.

Sorry, I am being so late in starting to read "The Best Year etc." but I am here.

There may be hope for me and this book .....about pg 30 he started talking about Nixon's first election and it was interesting, clear and understandable to me. Much better than the previous pages......

imagine if LBJ's early civil rts votes had been dug up and all over the present 24/7 news shows in 1960! He may never have gotten the opportunity to lead the fight for the 1960's civil rts legislation. The talking heads and his opposition would have never let up.....i fear for the quality of people we will get in politics in the future - who wants to go thru that, and will we ever get anyone who will be candid and not totally scripted in everything they say. How do you get to know people who are playing the handlers' role?.....jean

I have just finished reading the "Introduction."

Here Lance Morrow sets his premise for his book, and does so, I think, with good use of language and quick, clear understanding.

I like his way of writing here, and I find it to be more in the mode of an analyst than anything else. There is the role of the historian and also the type of narrative a journalist would use. It'll be interesting to see how he develops his premise.

Great, MERIJO, I like that. An analyst. And, also, am happy you enjoy his style of writing.

And, happy to hear that you are enjoying the book a bit better, JEAN.. Your question - who wants to go thru that, and will we ever get anyone who will be candid and not totally scripted in everything they say is one we all asking ourselves, but there seems to be no end to folks who are forming exploratory committees and starting to raise funds.

Did we know Kennedy, Johnson, Nixon before they were elected as presidents? Is it all by chance that we get a good president once inawhile. Somewhere LM talks about the fact that presidents do not truly know themselves until they are faced with the reality of the office. I can't put my finger on the page at the moment.

Nixon had plenty of exposure in all he had done before his administration; Kennedy very little; Johnson more in the Senate.

This morning in the shower, I decided to give myself a little quiz and say one good thing about each of these three presidents – the first thing that came to my mind. They were Nixon-China; Johnson-Civil Rights; Kennedy-his Inaugural speech. Try it.

---------------------------------------------------------------------

I’m going to summarize what I think Morrow is saying about the year 1948. Add to it if you see more.

1948 – "a year when three future American presidents…..passed through formative ordeals and emerged……..reborn, launched toward their destinies."

1948 – The Big Chill set in – communism threatened; the space age/race was born.

1948 –"American set its course for material paradise."

1948 – Ghandi died – one of the great peacemakers of all time; emblematic of the shifting nations of the world; new independence for many countries; some falling under communisn, others partitioned by the victors of the war.

1948 – "America … had just begun to become enmeshed in the moral dilemmas of the Overdog.

Morrow asks: Can the overdog – especially an overdog armed with a bomb that can blow up the world – be virtuous? Of course, today there are what? Five countries that have the atomic bomb. Is it still a threat?

Are we an Overdog still? A better question might be does our current President and the Pentagon believe us to be? An interesting thought in light of our present day dilemma, don’t you think?

Thanks so much for your posts and your interest in joining this discussion. It's a pleasure to read your comments and do know that they are appreciated very much.

I'm getting windy, sorry! I'll do better!

Ella #43..."The media has expanded greatly since their day (print, TV, Internet) and are hungry to fill in the hours, the space. Nothing is going to stop it and no man in politics is safe from the public. Good or bad, it's a fact, it happens.

And it might be a very good thing; perhaps they will no longer lie, cheat, grab power and fame at any cost, as KJN did and learned bitter lessons."

Ella may I respectfully disagree with this? I don't feel it will have any impact on the future politicians. They have and will continue to lie, cheat, and grab power and fame at any cost. Just look at the corruption in the past few years that has hit the media. I can't begin to keep up with how many have resigned or been replaced due to their immoral behavior or wrong judgments in this present administration. Our current President at this very time has the lowest poll ratings of all Presidents in history for his lies, deceit and power for fame. He is at this very time being marched against for his Iraq blunder. Almost one million people as of yesterday, have signed a petition to impeach him for abuse of power. No amount of media will stop the thirst and hunger of a power monger, and sadly to say I think most of our Presidents can be considered just that. If you take the time to read about each and every President you will see many had affairs, lied, cheated and broke the rules to get in the White House. Its like its a men's club or fraternity and they want to be the one all the guys look up to. That in and of itself is why its taboo to even think a woman could hold the office of Presidency.

Morrow's book is a little too late for any new information. I do not intend any disrespect to him and I am finding information that is interesting to me, such as the attitude of Americans about the "Good Communism" in the 1930's. I find Morrow to be a bit trite and because I have read so many books on the Kennedy's I feel he did not give much credit to JKF for his performance as President. He seems to want to continue to remind us of his personal failings and affairs which is common knowledge.

I too like to think of the What If? I was having a conversation with my future daughter in law today and she said in her psychology class they were discussing these three presidents and how the world could be very different if they had not been President. I still credit Nixon for the beginning of the fall of respect for the office in the baby boomer's era. Kennedy's affairs does not take away from him being a great President. He did not misuse his power as President, he loved his country and he could relate to the people unlike Richard Nixon.

In response to your question, Are we an Overdog still? I would have to say I think our President thinks we are, but I think if you asked the American people the majority would say NO. We have lost respect around the world. We have lost confidence in our leader. We are NOT being heard anymore. We have a Leader who has decided what he wants goes no matter if his congress, senate, military advisor and the American people disagree. We may be seen as the "New Communism"... we have a dictator who refuses to admit he is wrong and refuses to hear his country, he continues to sacrifice lives every day because he is too prideful to admit what the reports have proven...This Iraq war has turned into a civil war and we do not belong there, there was NO good reason to invade this country in the first place, he lied and placed fear in the American people after 911 to do what he had wanted to do all along. You speak of at least five other countries having nuclear bombs.. and yet this President does not want the aide of the United Nations, he wants to go it alone. Overdog?....hmmm let me see....that would be a NO.

This book probably is only going to frustrate the readers because it opens old wounds and pours salt into present wounds. You ask if the bomb is still a threat today? Any bomb is and always will remain a threat no matter where, or who has it. Let's just all pray the leaders of these countries have calm and clear thinking and diplomatic minds prevail as did JFK in the Cuban Missile Crisis.

GREAT POST BELLEMARIE! Thank you for addressing some of the issues raised in the book. It's too early in the morning for me to post coherently; I'll be back later but I thought it might be fun to get to know each other.

What were you doing in 1948? All of you?

Merijo was raising three babies, I was single and dancing (we did that back then) - let's hear it from the rest of you.

HATS? MARY? JEAN? HAROLD (who will be here when he finds a copy of the book) BUCKEYE? ANY OTHERS?

Ella, I've been following the discussion, but the book hasn't come in to the library yet. I hope today or Monday.

I was 12 in 1948 (a mere child ). I do remember that my father (a doctor) was one of the few Democrats at the medical school where he taught. And I remember his exultation when Harry Truman won the presidential election that year. He took a garbage can and a sheet to work the next day to "wipe away the Republican tears".

Ella, I have to tell you I was probably not even a mere thought in my Mother and Father's mind. lol I was born in 1952.

I was a teen when JFK was shot and that was my first real interest in politics. As a child I seemed to be secure within my family nothing like this was imaginable. We were very poor and politics were never discussed in our home. Both my mother and step father were born in Tennessee and dropped out of school by the age of 14. They had little education and only knew blue collar jobs. We lived in Michigan a farming, and auto making state. I sensed they felt politics was left to the wealthy, I would be shocked to know they ever voted.

My interest peaked when Bobby Kennedy and Martin Luther King were killed, because now as a teen fear crept into my home. I remember thinking, JFK's assassination was just random. Now it seemed to me that there was a force out there in the world wanting to stop the movement taking place. To me the movement I speak of was...Peace and equality for ALL not just the white man.

When Richard Nixon was elected I was certain in my private thoughts he had some form of connection to the deaths of John and Robert Kennedy and Martin Luther King, because they were such strong equal rights people that he felt threatened he would never have a chance of ever being President as long as the three of them were alive.

Food for thought.....everyone have a great day!

HI MARY AND BELLEMARIE! (and your generation didn't dance, hahaha, well, maybe the chicken?)

You are babies - my daughter's age - but isn't it grand we can come together in such a manner - too bad we can't be sitting around a nice fire talking. I would love it!

I have just a few minutes but I wanted to share this with you, particularly Bellemarie as she is such an admirer of Kennedy and Camelot.

The one left - Caroline - is writing a series in TIME on ordinary, extraordinary people who are making a difference and she starts her first essay with this:

"All my life people have told me that my father changed their lives. They got involved in public service, in the Peace Corps and in their communities because he asked them. To me, the generation he inspired is perhaps his greatest legacy. And they in turn have inspired generations that followed."

What do you think? We must get on with Chapter One ......I know LM had some wonderful descriptions of the "sixties" - the generation Caroline is talking about. I'll look them up.......later........

I try to follow Caroline and the work she has been doing. I purchased her book of Poetry and love it. I am an aspiring writer and have been published twice in the International Library of Poetry and I am hoping to have my Children's book published and on the shelves by next Christmas. Jackie's poetry was a great inspiration to me. I admire the strength, and grace Caroline shows after so much loss in her life. I admire how she has been able to keep her children out of the media. Yes, her father was a huge inspiration to many, faults and all. Thank you Ella I will love reading her essays. Have a great week end.

We haven't heard from Merijo, Jean or Hats lately. Where are you?

Waiting for Harold and Buckeye!

THREE YOUNG MEN:

It is hard to believe in some ways that KENNEDY would be 90 this year. He’ll always be young in the nation’s eyes don’t you think?

We all know the story of JFK, we don’t need to repeat it. If you are interested, you might want to read a few of our comments in the archived discussion of Ben Bradlee’s book - A Good Life

Bradlee (the famous editor of the Washington Post and a socialite in Washington society) and his wife were very good friends with the Kennedys, particularly when they were in the White House – it’s a lonely place and you need your friends there I would think.

A couple of comments from that discussion:

"I've finished the little book CONVERSATIONS WITH KENNEDY by Bradlee and at times their conversations are amazingly simple when you consider where they are sitting (often the White House ), and particularly poignant during the year 1963 when Bradlee saw quite a bit of Kennedy and they often talked about the coming election in '64"

"One of our greatest Presidents? Who has suggested that? He was only in office 100 days and really, what were his accomplishments during that time? He will go down as the charming, polished young president, much loved and admired...who was assassinated. I'm not even sure that the first part will be remembered, maybe just the assassination! Many still believe the link between Cuba and the assassination is very strong and that someday, when Castro is out of Office and relations have been restored we just may learn about that. One of the greatest? I don't think so. Do any of you?"

LM's comments: - "He had grown up on what amounted to a different planet, the planet Kennedy. He came to American politics as an immigrant from that other world"

"His sexual behavior ……signaled, not a passionate involvement with others, but, instead, a paradoxical kind of isolation, even a poignant cluelessness."

Your Comments?

.

I'm here, Ella. Have been reading. I do think that Kennedy grew up in a very different world. He never worked at all. He served in the Navy well. I think that had he lived he may have acquired a better sense of the world of which he was not a part, but which he governed. I remember his coming here as President to California at the time the San Luis Rey Dam opened - He officiated at its opening. He had asked for a drink of water, and after he had sipped some of it, he commented that it was great - I don't remember his words exactly, but he did savor the great water there.

I'm here Ella too. I'm trying to catch up on my reading. I was born in 1950. I have no idea what happened in 1948 unless my parents spoke about it. I do remember the very day Kennedy was shot, the night in Los Angeles when Robert Kennedy died. I also remember hearing on the tv that Martin Luther King had been shot on a balcony in Memphis. I remember the Watergate hearings on tv. I didn't understand totally what was going on with the Watergate situation. I do remember being ashamed and feeling very sad for Pat Nixson and the girls. I could literally see the pain in Pat Nixson's eyes. I do believe what happened in the White House involving her husband changed her whole life. At that time I read a book about Margaret Mitchell. I felt very sorry for her too. I think she became an alcoholic. For some people, she talked too much on the phone, giving away political secrets. I feel the women suffered more than the men during the Watergate situation.

I remember Lyndon Johnson being sworn in as president. We were living history so fast in the sixties it seemed. I connect Viet Nam with Lyndon Johnson more than the Civil Rights movement. My father always felt Lyndon Johnson in some way was behind the assassination of John F. Kennedy. When I think of Kennedy I think of the Civil Rights Movement. Am I giving more credit to one man than he deserves?

1954.... May 17 The Supreme Court rules on the landmark case Brown v. Board of Education of Topeka, Kans., unanimously agreeing that segregation in public schools is unconstitutional. The ruling paves the way for large-scale desegregation. The decision overturns the 1896 Plessy v. Ferguson ruling that sanctioned "separate but equal" segregation of the races, ruling that "separate educational facilities are inherently unequal." It is a victory for NAACP attorney Thurgood Marshall, who will later return to the Supreme Court as the nation's first black justice.

1955... Aug. Fourteen-year-old Chicagoan Emmett Till is visiting family in Mississippi when he is kidnapped, brutally beaten, shot, and dumped in the Tallahatchie River for allegedly whistling at a white woman. Two white men, J. W. Milam and Roy Bryant, are arrested for the murder and acquitted by an all-white jury. They later boast about committing the murder in a Look magazine interview. The case becomes a cause célèbre of the civil rights movement Dec. 1 (Montgomery, Ala.) NAACP member Rosa Parks refuses to give up her seat at the front of the "colored section" of a bus to a white passenger, defying a southern custom of the time. In response to her arrest the Montgomery black community launches a bus boycott, which will last for more than a year, until the buses are desegregated Dec. 21,

1956. As newly elected president of the Montgomery Improvement Association (MIA), Reverend Martin Luther King, Jr., is instrumental in leading the boycott.

1957... Jan.–Feb. Martin Luther King, Charles K. Steele, and Fred L. Shuttlesworth establish the Southern Christian Leadership Conference, of which King is made the first president. The SCLC becomes a major force in organizing the civil rights movement and bases its principles on nonviolence and civil disobedience. According to King, it is essential that the civil rights movement not sink to the level of the racists and hatemongers who oppose them: "We must forever conduct our struggle on the high plane of dignity and discipline," he urges.

1960... Feb. 1 (Greensboro, N.C.) Four black students from North Carolina Agricultural and Technical College begin a sit-in at a segregated Woolworth's lunch counter. Although they are refused service, they are allowed to stay at the counter. The event triggers many similar nonviolent protests throughout the South. Six months later the original four protesters are served lunch at the same Woolworth's counter. Student sit-ins would be effective throughout the Deep South in integrating parks, swimming pools, theaters, libraries, and other public facilities. April (Raleigh, N.C.) The Student Nonviolent Coordinating Committee (SNCC) is founded at Shaw University, providing young blacks with a place in the civil rights movement. The SNCC later grows into a more radical organization, especially under the leadership of Stokely Carmichael (1966–1967).

1961... May 4 Over the spring and summer, student volunteers begin taking bus trips through the South to test out new laws that prohibit segregation in interstate travel facilities, which includes bus and railway stations. Several of the groups of "freedom riders," as they are called, are attacked by angry mobs along the way. The program, sponsored by The Congress of Racial Equality (CORE) and the Student Nonviolent Coordinating Committee (SNCC), involves more than 1,000 volunteers, black and white.

1962... Oct. 1 James Meredith becomes the first black student to enroll at the University of Mississippi. Violence and riots surrounding the incident cause President Kennedy to send 5,000 federal troops.

1963... April 16 Martin Luther King is arrested and jailed during anti-segregation protests in Birmingham, Ala.; he writes his seminal "Letter from Birmingham Jail," arguing that individuals have the moral duty to disobey unjust laws.

May During civil rights protests in Birmingham, Ala., Commissioner of Public Safety Eugene "Bull" Connor uses fire hoses and police dogs on black demonstrators. These images of brutality, which are televised and published widely, are instrumental in gaining sympathy for the civil rights movement around the world.

June 12 (Jackson, Miss.) Mississippi's NAACP field secretary, 37-year-old Medgar Evers, is murdered outside his home. Byron De La Beckwith is tried twice in 1964, both trials resulting in hung juries. Thirty years later he is convicted for murdering Evers. Aug. 28 (Washington, D.C.) About 200,000 people join the March on Washington. Congregating at the Lincoln Memorial, participants listen as Martin Luther King delivers his famous "I Have a Dream" speech.

Sept. 15 (Birmingham, Ala.) Four young girls (Denise McNair, Cynthia Wesley, Carole Robertson, and Addie Mae Collins) attending Sunday school are killed when a bomb explodes at the Sixteenth Street Baptist Church, a popular location for civil rights meetings. Riots erupt in Birmingham, leading to the deaths of two more black youths

1964... Jan. 23 The 24th Amendment abolishes the poll tax, which originally had been instituted in 11 southern states after Reconstruction to make it difficult for poor blacks to vote. Summer The Council of Federated Organizations (COFO), a network of civil rights groups that includes CORE and SNCC, launches a massive effort to register black voters during what becomes known as the Freedom Summer. It also sends delegates to the Democratic National Convention to protest—and attempt to unseat—the official all-white Mississippi contingent.

July 2 President Johnson signs the Civil Rights Act of 1964. The most sweeping civil rights legislation since Reconstruction, the Civil Rights Act prohibits discrimination of all kinds based on race, color, religion, or national origin. The law also provides the federal government with the powers to enforce desegregation. Aug. 4 (Neshoba Country, Miss.) The bodies of three civil-rights workers—two white, one black—are found in an earthen dam, six weeks into a federal investigation backed by President Johnson. James E. Chaney, 21; Andrew Goodman, 21; and Michael Schwerner, 24, had been working to register black voters in Mississippi, and, on June 21, had gone to investigate the burning of a black church. They were arrested by the police on speeding charges, incarcerated for several hours, and then released after dark into the hands of the Ku Klux Klan, who murdered them.

1965... Feb. 21 (Harlem, N.Y.) Malcolm X, black nationalist and founder of the Organization of Afro-American Unity, is shot to death. It is believed the assailants are members of the Black Muslim faith, which Malcolm had recently abandoned in favor of orthodox Islam. March 7 (Selma, Ala.) Blacks begin a march to Montgomery in support of voting rights but are stopped at the Pettus Bridge by a police blockade. Fifty marchers are hospitalized after police use tear gas, whips, and clubs against them. The incident is dubbed "Bloody Sunday" by the media. The march is considered the catalyst for pushing through the voting rights act five months later. Aug. 10 Congress passes the Voting Rights Act of 1965, making it easier for Southern blacks to register to vote. Literacy tests, poll taxes, and other such requirements that were used to restrict black voting are made illegal. Aug. 11–17, 1965 (Watts, Calif.) Race riots erupt in a black section of Los Angeles. Sept. 24, 1965 Asserting that civil rights laws alone are not enough to remedy discrimination, President Johnson issues Executive Order 11246, which enforces affirmative action for the first time. It requires government contractors to "take affirmative action" toward prospective minority employees in all aspects of hiring and employment.

1966... Oct. (Oakland, Calif.) The militant Black Panthers are founded by Huey Newton and Bobby Seale.

1967... April 19 Stokely Carmichael, a leader of the Student Nonviolent Coordinating Committee (SNCC), coins the phrase "black power" in a speech in Seattle. He defines it as an assertion of black pride and "the coming together of black people to fight for their liberation by any means necessary." The term's radicalism alarms many who believe the civil rights movement's effectiveness and moral authority crucially depend on nonviolent civil disobedience. June 12 In Loving v. Virginia, the Supreme Court rules that prohibiting interracial marriage is unconstitutional. Sixteen states that still banned interracial marriage at the time are forced to revise their laws. July Major race riots take place in Newark (July 12–16) and Detroit (July 23–30).

1968... April 4 (Memphis, Tenn.) Martin Luther King, at age 39, is shot as he stands on the balcony outside his hotel room. Escaped convict and committed racist James Earl Ray is convicted of the crime.

April 11 President Johnson signs the Civil Rights Act of 1968, prohibiting discrimination in the sale, rental, and financing of housing.

1971... April 20 The Supreme Court, in Swann v. Charlotte-Mecklenburg Board of Education, upholds busing as a legitimate means for achieving integration of public schools. Although largely unwelcome (and sometimes violently opposed) in local school districts, court-ordered busing plans in cities such as Charlotte, Boston, and Denver continue until the late 1990s.

1988... March 22 Overriding President Reagan's veto, Congress passes the Civil Rights Restoration Act, which expands the reach of non-discrimination laws within private institutions receiving federal funds.

1991... Nov. 22 After two years of debates, vetoes, and threatened vetoes, President Bush reverses himself and signs the Civil Rights Act of 1991, strengthening existing civil rights laws and providing for damages in cases of intentional employment discrimination.

1992... Nov. 22 After two years of debates, vetoes, and threatened vetoes, President Bush reverses himself and signs the Civil Rights Act of 1991, strengthening existing civil rights laws and providing for damages in cases of intentional employment discrimination.

2003... June 23 In the most important affirmative action decision since the 1978 Bakke case, the Supreme Court (5–4) upholds the University of Michigan Law School's policy, ruling that race can be one of many factors considered by colleges when selecting their students because it furthers "a compelling interest in obtaining the educational benefits that flow from a diverse student body."

2005... June 21 The ringleader of the Mississippi civil rights murders (see Aug. 4, 1964), Edgar Ray Killen, is convicted of manslaughter on the 41st anniversary of the crimes.

President John F. Kennedy developed the Civil Rights Act of 1964.

During Kennedy’s Presidential Inaugural address in 1961, he promised to end racial discrimination. During Kennedy’s time in office, he appointed black people to many federal positions. No other president had done that in the past. President Kennedy appointed about forty Blacks to administrative posts such as Administrator of the Housing and Home Finance Agency, Associate White House Press Secretary, and Deputy Assistant Secretary of State for Public Affairs. He also selected five black federal judges, giving hope to Black Americans that more important jobs will go to Blacks.

James Meredith, a black man, wanted to go to an all-white school called the University of Mississippi. It was not surprising that the school objected. With the backing of the NAACP, Meredith sued the University of Mississippi and won. President John F. Kennedy told the department of defense to protect James Meredith when he went to the school. The day before he started college, riots were breaking out. Several hundred federal marshals fought back with tear gas and nightsticks. The following day he started school. Justice Department Officers accompanied him to class. Meredith graduated with a degree in Political Science

Kennedy tried to make white people aware of the unfair way black Americans were being treated. He pointed out that unequal treatment was against American religious and Constitutional morals. He asked for a quicker end to discrimination and also promised new civil rights laws. President Kennedy told Congress that the new civil rights laws he proposed involve every American’s right to vote, to go to school, to get a job, and to be served in a public place without arbitrary discrimination--rights which most Americans take for granted. In short, enactment of The Civil Rights Act of 1963 at this session of Congress is very important. The Civil Rights Act of 1963 had eight sections and included laws to guarantee all people would have equal access to hotels, restaurants, and other public places. The act also helped black voting rights and school desegregation.

Sadly, President Kennedy didn’t see his Civil Rights Act of 1963 become law. He was assassinated November 1963. The act became the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and after one year it was finally passed.

During Kennedy’s Inaugural address on January 20, 1961, he said, "All this will not be finished in the first hundred days. Nor will it be finished in the first thousand days, nor in the lifetime of this Administration, nor even perhaps in our lifetime on this planet. But let us begin." The Civil Rights Act of 1964 was a start to helping blacks and whites to be treated as equals.

I hope my posts were not too lengthy, but I did want to share with all of you the timeline and the President who should have the credit for the Civil Rights Act of 1964. I don't think you are giving President Kennedy undeserved credit as you will see.

Its an interesting theory you have about Lyndon Johnson having something to do with Kennedy's assination. I have always felt it was more Nixon and Fidel Castro. I supose we will never really find out who was behind it, but we have to wonder who gained the most from his assination. Seems both Johnson and Nixon benefited greatly.

I can only imagine how certain people had to fear and hate Kennedy for bringing about the changes for the blacks. I just know the movement was bringing the changes and Martin Luther King and Bobby Kennedy would have continued them had they lived.

So, in the end Johnson signs what Kennedy developed only due to the fact Kennedy was assinated. The Civil Rights Act was a done deal!

BellaMarie, exactly. Your statement is always what I felt as true. Your posts are not too long just very, very interesting and reminders of dates I have forgotten or gotten confused.

"So, in the end Johnson signs what Kennedy developed only due to the fact Kennedy was assinated. The Civil Rights Act was a done deal!" BellaMarie.

The Peace Corps founded by John F. Kennedy became very memorable when Jimmy Carter's mother joined at age sixty-seven or sixty-eight.

Peace Corps

Excuse me, I have misspelled Mr. Nixon's name more than once. Will do better in future.

MERIJO - "I think that had he lived he may have acquired a better sense of the world of which he was not a part, but which he governed" We can all agree with that, but your thought “had he lived” carries with it another. How long could he have lived with his disease and his Doctor Feelgood injections? Has the extent of his health problems been exaggerated or were they true?



HATS – “"We were living history so fast in the sixties it seemed." Indeed! And you were so young in those years – what? 13 when Kennedy was elected president? You were growing in those awful, but at the same time wonderful, years of the sixties and the early seventies. What a period in our history!

Yes, the wives of these presidents suffered I would imagine, but think of their children! All three of these men had two children and all of these children lived in the White House surrounded by secret service men. That would be so difficult to accept, or do you agree?

BELLAMARIE – "I supose we will never really find out who was behind it, but we have to wonder who gained the most from his assassination" I think most Americans agree with you. And thank you for that timeline on the Civil Rights – how vividly it comes to mind when you read it; I remember it all. Your post was not too long at all, we need to be reminded from time to time.

LM says that what followed JFK’s death was a “journey through the underworld” and asks if the sixties might be considered the “forest fire clearing off old growth and nourishing the soil for the coming of new life.”

I have put some questions in the heading (sorry I didn’t get them in sooner) for our consideration and I think they may help facilitate the discussion.

Let’s take Nixon and Question No. 7. Nixon would be 94 this year. Did you notice the amount of space LM devotes to discussing Nixon. Why is he so fascinated with the man and his life?

I definitely think it is and was harder for children who go to live in the White House. My empathy is first, of course, for the children in any situation including such a high profile life as the president and the first lady's child or children.

I think LM spent so much time writing about Nixon's life because of the unknown factor. Did anyone in his group know Nixon? His life seemed full of contradictions and mysteries. I find it interesting to see "lonesome and popularity" used in the same sentence. "A classmate at Duke Law School noted: '"{Nixon} was popular in our class....but I would describe it as a sort of lonesome kind of popularity."'

It was surprising, for me, to read LM's comparison of Nixon with Lana Turner.

Thank you Ella for the questions they certainly give us a lot to think and ponder on. If I may I need to ask for anyone's help in being able to use bold font and different color such as the green I see every now and then. When I go to the bottom and change my font my page only refreshes and nothing happens.

Okay now for #7.Why do you think Morrow finds Nixon to be the most interesting of the three or, at least, he devotes many more pages to his life and career?

I'm not so sure I see Morrow finding Nixon as the most interesting of the three. I see Morrow as a bit obsessed with Nixon's character. Nixon was a very complex man and I think Morrow spent far too much time repeating himself in describing the characteristics, flaws and insecurities of Nixon. He could have successfully gotten his point across in 10 pages instead of 20. There was not much in the 20 pages for me to find non-repetitive. I'm wondering if possibly Morrow liked Nixon a bit more,possibly was fascinated in his complexity and possibly felt more closer to him. He seems to write as if he personally knew him more so than counting on other people's view's as he seemed to have done with Kennedy and Johnson. Maybe its just me but that is what I was picking up on.

As a writer myself I do know that you tend to writer "more" about what you personally know and experience. Not knowing Morrow I ask myself is it possible he was more in tune with Nixon?

It is very interesting how Morrow says, Nixon went from being a good Quaker boy to a gutterfighter, political smear artist. I'm not so sure I saw anywhere in the pages of his early childhood he was a "Good Quacker boy." From Morrow's description I sense this man had these flaws in his character and getting into politics allowed him to release his ambition and gutterfighting. I did not get the sense he went from boy to man. He almost gives me the creeps imagining a person with so lack of sense of morals and desire to make up for all he felt he deserved and was deprived of. Nixon's profile seems so close to who I see as Hitlers and Castros. Their psychological makeup denies them the capability to see beyond their own self.

Johnson as Morrow shows him in my opinion, comes over as a sad man looking and needing a father image and approval. He seems to be an indecisive figure and I am not so sure if I understand what he personally believed and stood for. His showmanship and celebrity antics gives me a sense of a person trying to use the WOW factor because they have nothing else to give the voters. I am a bit surprised he won against Stevenson. I thought it was interesting that Johnson signed the Civil Rights Act of 1964 although from my research he had opposed it prior to becoming Vice President. Johnson being from the south it would not be uncommon to oppose it. Johnson was a man who seemed to go with popularity vote.

Kennedy showed a spoiled, reckless carefree side but what I like the most is he as in his favorite film, Red River becomes the man he wants to be. He could relate to the human side of people. Morrow seems to try to take away from Kennedy his strengths by accentuating on his desire for women. If I were a betting person I would place my odds on the fact Morrow is a Republican who did not much care for the strong character and the spoiled wealth Kennedy came from.

These three men have so little in common except they all became President and had flaws in their character, which all politicians do.

I feel Morrow spent way too much time analogizing with the movies. Nixon and Lana Turner?? I felt he was stretching a novel into a book and this is what I call, "filler." While its entertaining, it's just out of place and unnecessary in a historical book. At this point I am seeing this book as, Lots of Fluff and Little Facts. Yet, I will forge on. lolol

Ella I hope to get to more of your questions.

Ella:

With regard to Kennedy's health, in particular, his Addison's Disease, if he had lived, I can only speculate. In the sixties, there were some treatments apparently or he wouldn't have lived beyond the year the one doctor predicted. Given that he was managing apparently well, it is likely he would have completed his term.

http://www.mayoclinic.com/health/addisons-disease/DS00361

Merijo, thank you for the link.

I'm back - I find Johnson and Nixon two very intersting complex personalities. Kennedy is so popular, IMO, becuase he was handsome, charming and wealthy - sort of a fantasy for all of us, men and women - what all men would like to be and what all women would like to have - excluding the philandering, of course. We also tend to think that Kennedy did a lot more than he did in his administration because he had such good p.r. His father was a film maker and had access and money for photographing everything that made JFK and all the family look good, both before and after his assassination. Jackie created the legacy that she wanted him to have. Throughout history we have had the story as told by the people who have been able to write/photograph/have access to media. I remember in my studies about Columbus that his nephew wrote the story of Columbus' voyages and adventures so he got good "press" and so of the "negative" aspects didn't appear until the 500th anniversary.

Thanks Bellemarie for the Civ Rts timeline.....if you'd like to see that story, Eyes on the Prize was one of the best series that PBS ever did and it tells the Civil Rts story. IT's available in libraries and from PBS.......

Kennedy was in office when the Civ Rts legislation was introduced, but his administration did not do much to push it, they were afraid it would lose him the southern Democrats in the '64 election. So altho they became sympathetic to the cause, they were not giving it much support by the time JFK was killed. They were even resistant to the '63 Civ Rts March in Washington were MLK gave his "I have a dream" speech. The civil rts leaders had to have a mtg w/ JFK and lobby for getting permission to have the march.

The Civ Rts legislation would never have passed w/out LBJ's influence and strong-arming of Sen.Richard Russel and others in the senate. He know how to get legislation passed and he bro't out all the guns he had to get the C.R legislation passed. It was also helped by television. As the country began to see Bull Connor turn dogs and cattle prods on people and children, many in the country became outraged and put some pressure on the Congress.

I found the Brumidi story interesting, but haven't a clue how it effects the story that he's telling.

Enough for now, will be back later to answer some of your questions, Ella.......jean

One reason Morrow seems to discuss Nixon more is that of the three men he had the longest tenure in office, and thereby affected the Presidency the most.

As for the amorality of these presidents, it would follow that such a mind-set would affect his performance as president and in that way affect the country.

However, in the years that these men served the amorality was not particularly obvious. News of their private lives and biographies were limited.

I recall that Kennedy immediately captured the affection of the younger people. His connection to Hollywood through his father and family made him become the darling of the entertainment world and his interest in the theater led him to become a friend of that society. They, in turn, incorporated aspects of his activities in their publicity. Ergo, Camelot.

Johnson and Nixon were evaluated by many by whatever news had seeped from their previous political activities. Personally, each had made some unpleasant impressions, more so than Kennedy who had not been in politics very long and had been inclined to leave his senatorial responsibilities to others.

I recall reading about the three in the news. Also, the news at that time was beginning to insert the reporter's personal analysis along with the report of the news item. At that time, this was a mild characteristic in the news.

Mabel, I am glad you brought up Kennedy's good looks. I have been thinking of Nixon in that regard. My thoughts might seem silly. However, Seniornet DL's always say there is no stupid remark. Anyway, LM brings up Nixon's features. "Dark hair, dark eyes, dark voice, dark shadow. Nixon emitted little light." When I was growing up, the bad guys wore the black hats and good guys wore the white hats. As far as whom we elect, I think looks do matter: are you tall, short, etc. Isn't it odd that Al Gore lost the election to George Bush? From my way of looking at it, I have a feeling it's not in the cards for Al Gore to be president. I might have to eat those words if he ever runs again. My point is that Al Gore has very dark hair. Is it something in our mind, without aforethought, that gets skittish about dark hair? Do we think this guy might have some dark sins in his back pocket? Some flaw like thievery, womanizing, lying, etc which might end up bringing major shame to the American public again?

Bellemarie, I only know how to do bold. I can't get the instructions to show up here. Sorry.

I remember a course called Villains and Heroines. It was a very popular course. Perhaps, Morrow spent more time on Nixon because of his impeachment. People are attracted to scandal. Nixon's administration had plenty of strange stories to give the American public.

#1. Morrow discusses three crises in the lives of Kennedy, Johnson and Nixon. What were they and how did they affect these men in their future administrations?

I was not clear what the "three" crisis were, this was my conclusion: Addison's disease, Vietnam and Watergate. Addison's was John Kennedy's secret and dilemma to deal with and keep a secret, had it come out he may not have been chosen for the Democratic ticket or become President. Vietnam was Johnson's debacle, he refused to stand by Kennedy's intention of withdrawing and ended up in a war that could not be won, leaving it impossible for him to leave a legacy let alone be re-elected. Watergate for Nixon was personal and political suicide. According to Morrow had he not stone walled and confessed it he may have been able to save his Presidency. I can not in my wildest dreams believe the American people or process would have allowed his Presidency to be saved.

#3. Does a morality in the character of a president affect his leadership and/or the country?

I think a morality plays a part in the performance of a President but I believe all politicians have this character flaw to a degree and need it to help make the tough decisions when faced with issues such as nuclear warfare, Communism, overtaking rulers and demonstrating power. I think countries actually give a certain amount of respect to the President who shows he has a certain amount of this character flaw, proving he will not be a push over. As far as a President's personal sexual life I think its off limits and who it affects is his family and himself. Kennedy and Clinton seems to be the two Presidents the Republicans felt necessary to exploit, yet there were so many others. I think its sad when it comes to the sexual infidelities of a President to be reason to impeach him when his performance as President has been outstanding. In Kennedy's 1,000 days as President look at his accomplishments and ask if his affairs hindered his performance as Commander in Chief. A morality affects the American people when it allows you to make decisions that bring about unnecessary war, illegal actions, disregard for the Constitution and blatant abuse of power and refusal to hear the voices of your advisors, senate, congress, military leaders, the United Nations and the American people.

#4. Does a president sacrifice anything when he campaigns for and spends years in the White House and, if so, is it a worthwhile sacrifice?

Yes, there is always a sacrifice, time away from family, privacy, character assination, and often your morals are compromised to name a few. I have to believe they feel its a worthwhile sacrifice because they make the decision to do it. They have seen over the years what it entails and what they will be sacrificing and yet we still have politicians willing and ready to throw their hats in the ring and begin the long journey of campaigning.

#5. The problem of controlling the acquisition and use of atomic weapons has been with us since 1945. Have we learned anything?

We have learned from Hiroshima, it is devastating and we must never chose to use in again. We have learned to use diplomacy around the world and to respect the fact that we are not the only ones with it and must keep clear and calm thinking when faced with threats.

#6. Morrow discusses the "material paradise" of the years following WWII. We have since become aware of the consequences of our prosperity. Have you joined any anti-pollution groups or have you any suggestions as to the prevention of the "warming" of the earth?

I have not joined any groups but I am becoming more informed of what I can do as an individual. I can conserve energy,recycle, I can use less polluting devices and I can write letters to my congressmen to support Al Gore's resolutions to global warming. I can also join in calling for the car industries to be more responsible and make less polluting vehicles. I can refuse to buy the SUV's and other gas gussers. I can vote for a President willing to make this a top priority instead of the one who is stuffing the pockets of the oil countries, states, and corporations who profit from destroying our environment.

#12. Was the story of "Brumidi" and his frescoes in the Capital interesting to you? What was Morrow's point in telling it?

A waste of time for me. He could have covered that in two paragraphs. His point in telling it in my opinion was "filler." The closet reason beyond filler is possible Free Enterprise.

The other questions require a lot more of my time to think about. I am anxious to hear what the rest of you think. Come on....jump in the water's fine. lolol

Bellamarie, Ella asked us to concentrate on question # 7. Have we moved on? You're too speedy for me. I am still in chapter one.

Ella, aren't you going to give us a heads up when to move on to the rest of the questions???? We aren't in a race.

Wow! You are all wonderful, and I don't have time to respond to anything at the moment; I'm on my way to my book club at our Senior Center and it is 8 degrees here in Ohio. OH!

Just time to say take your time on these questions, we are in no hurry, we can combine a couple of them - more later on that.

I thought I would tell BelleMarie how to make her text colorful. I can try?????

(font color=green)I admire President Kennedy(/font)

Type that in exactly as I have it only substitute the parenthesis with <> those marks. That will do it, try it! That is called HTML - hypertext markup language - computer language. You can change the color to red or blue or brown. Hope it works for you!

Back later..............

Jean Post#70......"Kennedy was in office when the Civ Rts legislation was introduced, but his administration did not do much to push it, they were afraid it would lose him the southern Democrats in the '64 election. So altho they became sympathetic to the cause, they were not giving it much support by the time JFK was killed. They were even resistant to the '63 Civ Rts March in Washington were MLK gave his "I have a dream" speech. The civil rts leaders had to have a mtg w/ JFK and lobby for getting permission to have the march.

The Civ Rts legislation would never have passed w/out LBJ's influence and strong-arming of Sen.Richard Russel and others in the senate. He know how to get legislation passed and he bro't out all the guns he had to get the C.R legislation passed. It was also helped by television. As the country began to see Bull Connor turn dogs and cattle prods on people and children, many in the country became outraged and put some pressure on the Congress."



I was researching the Civil Rights Act of 1964 yesterday and found this. http://usinfo.state.gov/usa/infousa/facts/democrac/39.htm which supported my post. BACKGROUNDER ON THE CIVIL RIGHTS ACT The assassination of John Kennedy in November 1963 left most civil rights leaders grief-stricken. Kennedy had been the first president since Harry Truman to champion equal rights for black Americans, and they knew little about his successor, Lyndon Baines Johnson. Although Johnson had helped engineer the Civil Rights Act of 1957, that had been a mild measure, and no one knew if the Texan would continue Kennedy's call for civil rights or move to placate his fellow southerners.

But on November 27, 1963, addressing the Congress and the nation for the first time as president, Johnson called for passage of the civil rights bill as a monument to the fallen Kennedy. "Let us continue," he declared, promising that "the ideas and the ideals which [Kennedy] so nobly represented must and will be translated into effective action." Moreover, where Kennedy had been sound on principle, Lyndon Johnson was the master of parliamentary procedure, and he used his considerable talents as well as the prestige of the presidency in support of the bill.

On February 10, 1964, the House of Representatives passed the measure by a lopsided 290-130 vote, but everyone knew that the real battle would be in the Senate, whose rules had allowed southerners in the past to mount filibusters that had effectively killed nearly all civil rights legislation. But Johnson pulled every string he knew, and had the civil rights leaders mount a massive lobbying campaign, including inundating the Capitol with religious leaders of all faiths and colors. The strategy paid off, and in June the Senate voted to close debate; a few weeks later, it passed the most important piece of civil rights legislation in the nation's history, and on July 2, 1964, President Johnson signed it into law.

This site supports your post... http://www.historylearningsite.co.uk/john_kennedy_and_civil_rights.htm

And then this site http://www.spartacus.schoolnet.co.uk/USAcivil64.htm again shows Johnson not known for supporting it earlier.

Kennedy's Civil Rights bill was still being debated by Congress when he was assassinated in November, 1963. The new president, Lyndon Baines Johnson, who had a poor record on civil rights issues, took up the cause. His main opponent was his long-time friend and mentor, Richard B. Russell, who told the Senate: "We will resist to the bitter end any measure or any movement which would have a tendency to bring about social equality and intermingling and amalgamation of the races in our (Southern) states." Russell organized 18 Southern Democratic senators in filibustering this bill.

However, on the 15th June, 1964, Richard B. Russell privately told Mike Mansfield and Hubert Humphrey, the two leading supporters of the Civil Rights Act, that he would bring an end to the filibuster that was blocking the vote on the bill. This resulted in a vote being taken and it was passed by 73 votes to 27.

I am certain we can find many different articles that will debate each President's part. I googled Civil Rights Act 1964 and randomly chose different sites. I did another search today to find something to support your post. Thank you. I am learning as I go along. lolol

Hats...Don't panic, I had some time and wanted to post my thoughts as they were fresh in my mind. When I saw Ella's questions I got a bit excited. There is plenty of time and questions to keep us busy for months. lolol

Thank you Bella for the sites and the information. I always love reading more on a subject even when it conflicts w/ my present assumtions.

In 1948, i was 6 & 7 yrs old, so i don't recall a lot about the year. My parents were working class Democrats, so they supported Truman and i grew up w/ a favorable opinion of FDR and HST. Even tho my mother was a Democratic committeewoman, i think she may have voted for Nixon in 1960 because she had grown up in a Calvinist Presbyterian home and the only strong prejudice that i heard in my house was against Catholics. She was very concerned about "the Pope's influence on JFK."

#2 what was the differences/similarities of the three - I think there has to be some hubris in people who run for president, even tho we also recognize the insecurities of LBJ and RMN. JFK just had the hubris of the rich, particularly the handsome/rich......not carrying money, expecting others to take care of him, not avoiding the women who were available to him, thinking even w/ very little experience, he could be president. I think his crises, however, was not his sister dying and the diagnosis of his illnes, but the Cuban missle crises.....that i do remember.....i was in college and everyone gathered in the lounge - where there was a tv, one of few on campus - for his speech to the country.....we tho't the men may all be leaving for war the next day, so there was some relieve after the speech even tho he said there was a blockade of Cuba and we would take on the Soviets if they attacked the ships.

Johnson and Nixon are much more alike in many ways.....pooor upbringings, insecurities of personalities, having come thru the Congress, and eventually jealousy of the Kennedys and the impact that had on them. Of couse, JFK and LBJ both had the philandering problem, I've never heard any rumor of that for RMN, my sense is that he would not have the chuzpah to approach a women for fear of rejection and i just can't see him "flirting." He's just to serious to banter, which much of flirting is.

More later......jean

One can feel a bit of sympathy for Nixon particularly after Morrow's treatment of the man - prudish, shy, intense - certainly not a "city man" - not one of the boys, couldn't tell an off-color joke! As HATS said he was dark in appearance and dark in personality. All stuff that the media, of which Morrow is a member, loves to write about. Throw in Watergate, criminal acts, secrecy, a hit list, a real bonanza. Well, we know the rest.

As JEAN said history has been told by those who have been able to write and photograph the news. None of us will ever know the real Nixon, the insider.

HEY BELLEMARIE! Good for you! You can show off now, hahahahaa The rest of you can learn it too.

Morrow spends a lot of time on the Whittaker-Chambers period of Nixon's life and if you have never read the book WITNESS by Chambers you must! I read it somewhere in the '50's when it was first published and immediately was intrigued by the whole scenario, as is Morrow.

You can read about it here: WITNESS

Some books you remember for the rest of your life and you remember for all sorts of reasons. WITNESS is one of those, I was young, not particularly involved with politics or reading books of nonfiction. I got hooked.

I'm very tired tonight so will bid you all Good Night - see you tomorow.

HATS, we are still on Chapter One and will be until Friday or when the group is ready to move on to Chapter Two. Many questions to consider and BELLEMARIE I took all the questions from Morrow's writing. I think he writes wonderfully well, but I'm in the minority here I believe.

Jean post #79..."In 1948, i was 6 & 7 yrs old, so i don't recall a lot about the year. My parents were working class Democrats, so they supported Truman and i grew up w/ a favorable opinion of FDR and HST. Even tho my mother was a Democratic committeewoman, i think she may have voted for Nixon in 1960 because she had grown up in a Calvinist Presbyterian home and the only strong prejudice that i heard in my house was against Catholics. She was very concerned about "the Pope's influence on JFK."

I am Irish/Italian, and Catholic and I am almost certain because the Kennedy's were Catholic there were people who shared the unfounded fears and prejudice you speak of. Prejudice led many voters to think they were getting someone better as long as it was not who they felt the prejudice against. I was born in 1952, I came from a low income home and I am certain my blue collar parents were democrats although it was never talked about in my home.

#2 what was the differences/similarities of the three - I think there has to be some hubris in people who run for president, even tho we also recognize the insecurities of LBJ and RMN. JFK just had the hubris of the rich, particularly the handsome/rich......not carrying money, expecting others to take care of him, not avoiding the women who were available to him, thinking even w/ very little experience, he could be president. I think his crises, however, was not his sister dying and the diagnosis of his illnes, but the Cuban missle crises.....that i do remember.....i was in college and everyone gathered in the lounge - where there was a tv, one of few on campus - for his speech to the country.....we tho't the men may all be leaving for war the next day, so there was some relieve after the speech even tho he said there was a blockade of Cuba and we would take on the Soviets if they attacked the ships.

I don't think the Cuban Missle Crisis was mentioned in the Introductory or Chapter One. So I am still uncertain of what the third crisis is that Morrow is speaking of here. I thought possibly the Alger Hiss case. Maybe someone can help us out here. Just a bit of info...I read that LBJ had a private entrance he had his lady friends visit him and Lady Bird was aware of it. No, I can't imagine Nixon approaching other women but then nothing would surprise me, a man capable of his corruption and secrecy anything is possible. Many a man held the Presidency with little experience our most recent one is a perfect example.

Ella, Thanks for the recommendation and link for the book. I would like to read it since this book has truly peaked my interest.

Ella:

I have been enjoying Morrow's writing. It is readable - moves along rather quickly, but... there is sometimes a "but"... I think he makes comparisons often that may be missed by some of his readers as the comparisons assume that the reader has prior knowledge of the subject in the comparative tale. Also, he goes from one comparison to the next without returning to the original thought for a goodly length before he ties the thought altogether and moves on.

For example, the Brumidi reference: I found myself thinking of anti-immigrant and particularly anti-Catholic opposition by the Know-Nothing Party of the mid-nineteenth century. The Know-Nothings were particularly against Catholics and southern Europeans. However as Morrow continues one sees that events moved slowly, Brumidi continued his frescos and the Know-Nothings were subsumed into other political parties.

Morrow says on pages 69 and 70 that Brumidi approached the paintings of the Capitol to honor, with his native gifts of artistic skill the new and developing America which he, as an Italian immigrant proudly signed as "C. Brumidi, American citizen." The surface of the Capitol walls, Morrow says, symbolized the area where "Politics and government by the same process offered the wet fresh surface to which Kennedy, Johnson and Nixon brought versions of America that originated in different places, had different colorations, different stories to tell, different ideals and heroes."

Of this there is no doubt. Each man had his own imprint on this country.

(I have the paperback version of the book, and am using the page numbers found there.)

I had an errand to run yesterday afternoon. I am still here. I am enjoying this book. Now I have to read yesterday afternoon's posts from everybody. Just need time to catch up.

Ella, you are right. I am glad Bellamarie started answering the questions. All of the answers in all of the posts are helping my thoughts to jell. I am enjoying the discussion very much.

I have been thinking, while reading this book, about how, through time, what is thought of as shameful in one century, may not seem embarrassing in another time period. Then again, some thoughts remain the same. For example, the crisis faced by Kennedy was his illness, Addison's disease. "From the time of the first attack in 1947, Kennedy and his family concealed the truth of his Addison's disease; if voters had known...Kennedy suffered from a dangerous and....his subsequent political career, and his election as president, would have been impossible." For some reason, I stillremember Eagleton, Thomas Eagleton. I remember the uproar on the news about his mental illness. I don't remember the details well. I will try to find a good link. Anyway, I know his mental illness kept him out of the White House. If he ran again, say now, would we feel the same way about having a mentally ill man in the White House as president? Also, do we, as society, look at a physical illness and a mental illness in the same way? Is one type of illness thought to be more dangerous to whether a man or woman can hold office and make decisions? If Eagleton ran for election, could he boldly talk about his mental illness on the campaign trail today? Thomas Eagleton

Ex-President Johnson's family suffered with heart problems. While John Kennedy chose to keep his health problems secret, Johnson chose to go the opposite way. LM writes "John Kennedy kept up the facade of vigor even while he concealed menacing illnesses, but Johnson liked to parade his forebodings; his self-pity had an aspect of Shakespearean woe: 'I'm not gonna live to be sixty,' he would tell his friends."

Whether we talk about health issues obviously involves a lot of different factors: where we are on the social ladder, what part of the USA we grow up in, how much or how little our families describe their ailments and whether we are involved in a public role for the good of society.

Hats post....Also, do we, as society, look at a physical illness and a mental illness in the same way? Is one type of illness thought to be more dangerous to whether a man or woman can hold office and make decisions? If Eagleton ran for election, could he boldly talk about his mental illness on the campaign trail today?

Hats I can say without a doubt society does look at a physical illness as something that can be overcome and treated and would be more acceptable for a candidate running for any office.

Mental illness back then was a taboo, you were hospitalized and sedated and left there with very little visits from family. Today mental illness is still an unacceptable illness for any politician to successfully gain office. If he/she wants to be elected they surely will not mention it on the campaign trail. With media and invasion of medical records and leaks NO person with a diagnosed mental illness would have a chance to keep it private. Another question I might add to your list is ....Should a politician especially one running for President have to reveal his physical or mental illness? I personally feel, YES because it is bound to affect their performance in some way. I think back in the 40', 50's and possibly the 60's so many diseases were just scary to hear the word "disease" not to mention there was so little research to inform the public on the debilitating or non-debilitating effects. Having relatives with mental illnesses back in those decades and in today's age I can tell you from my personal experience society has come a long way, but it is still something unacceptable and seen as an illness that will hinder work performance in any job. With a daughter with BiPolar, a mental illness, I have witnessed the prejudice of the unknown from relatives, friends and coworkers. People still have this misconception that if a person has any form of "Mental Illness" they should be isolated. I have seen reactions as though people fear it could actually be contagious. Imagine that. Hats, those were excellent questions, they sure got my wheels turning so early this morning. Just the words, mental illness and disease have such a negative conatation to them. People want to know the person they elect is going to be able to perform their duties and health is a major issue for determining how well they could perform. While I am not saying it is fair and right to keep anyone from holding an office due to certain mental illnesses or diseases I am saying there is a possibility some can and will prevent a person to perform their expected duties of office. Now....food for thought...how many in office have a mental illness disorder or disease that has not yet been revealed?

Bellamarie, not to make this a lovefest, I just want to say your posts are always very, very good. I remember your posts from, I think, Teacher Man. I am honoured to be here with all of you. I agree with your whole post #87.

OHMIGOSH!

I've just noticed that tomorrow will be the 7th and a week has gone by since we have started our discussion - and, and, and - I have been slow in getting out of the gate. Am hurrying to round the bend and approach the finish line to the first week......

Shall we say that Thursday, the 8th, will be the start of Chapter Two?

Meanwhile, I do want to tell you how impressed I am with all your posts, your insights and your interest in our book!

Is any of the material in this book, or any material on past presidents, relevant today? Can we learn anything when reading about past presidents that might help us make a decision when we vote next year for a president?

The decisions that all of the potential candidates have to make in the coming year, or for that matter, this year would be a huge burden I would think! How careful they have to be in interviews, with friends! Do any of you know any elected officials and can tell us what the strain must be like?

Question No. 9 is pertinent. Johnson and Nixon both fought nasty battles to win elections and I can't help but wonder what it must have done to their characters. Kennedy, of course, never had to fight for office; he just seemed to walk right in, set himself down and enjoyed himself. However, the crises came all too soon for him as president.

And I think Morrow explains that both Johnson and Nixon were envious of Kennedy.

Let's talk about Questions 10 through 13. MERIJO has already discussed to some extent the immigration issues that LM has raised in giving us the example of Brumidi and the frescoes.

The relevance of this is striking to me. Has Bush started building that wall yet? Is the immigration problem one that the administration has promoted to sidetrack the public from the war? Have other presidents done this, most notably the three we have under consideration.

Well, I could go on in this manner for sometime but the day beckons......

And I will be wanting to stop back in here to see what you are all talking about when I return from a few errands today. I love the give and take of this discussion.

You might have wondered, as did I, about LM's reference to the pursuit of LIME through the streets of Vienna. So I looked it up:

Harry Lime

LM does great illustrations - "beneath the streets of the everyday ran secret, invisible, systematic, shadowy rivers of filth, fugitives, evil designs."

The secrets - Kennedy, Nixon, Johnson - the secrets toppled them and cost them their honorable place in history.

I have so much to talk about in the chapter on Ellis Island and the two frontiers. Think Bush and Texas, think Hillary Clinton, Gore, the East Coast. Who else comes to mind with these two frontiers and how did this affect the country?

i'm reading, the book and your posts, but we've been going a round w/ colds/sore throats, etc. and my grandson has strep, so i've been the substitute "day care." I'll be back in to post - probably this evening...jean

Merijo, I enjoyed your post about Mr. Brumidi. I visited the White House and Capitol while in high school. I have a very, very unclear memory of the beautiful artwork in the Capitol. I would love to go back to Washington now and spend as much time as I wished admiring Mr. Brumidi's masterful work. I think Mr. Morrow has done a fine job in giving great credit to Mr. Brumidi. The US Capitol would become the major American building decorated in true fresco." Merijo, I like the ending words of your post.

"Of this there is no doubt. Each man had his own imprint on this country." (Merijo)

Brumidi, Architect of Capitol

Mabel, my grandson was sick last week with a bad cold. He had to spend a couple days out of school. I hope your family gets well soon.

Hmmmm. Some people still might find the murals in the Capitol by Brumidi offensive. These words, written by Morrow, gave me pause. "His version of the American drama told the story of virtuous, enlightened (white) civilization discovering a savage wilderness, settling it, cultivating the land, and bestowing upon it....."

So, the murals are just applauding the magnificence of the white man. What about the Native Americans who helped lead the white men through the "savage wilderness?" What about all the buildings built by American slaves? The architect could not see his workmanship without the many hands of hard laborers. Also, what about the Founding Mothers? Without the Founding Mothers would there have been Founding Fathers? Mr. Morrow tells why Mr Brumidi painted such a one sided picture on the walls of the Capitol.

"Immigrants tend to be such good American mythmakers because their minds, like fresco mortar, are fresh and receptive, their grateful immaginations not yet inhibited......" In other words, Mr. Brumidi was grateful to be on free American soil away from imprisonment by the pope."He came as a refugee from political turmoil in Italy....Brumidi was imprisoned. The pope commuted his eighteen-year sentence on condition that the artist emigrate to America."

So often I want to see the truth and beauty offered by Lady Liberty, The Statue of Liberty, too often the beauty and truth becomes tarnished with untruths and untold stories.

I am glad Brumidi did honor Crispus Attucks.

Brumidi painted a lunette of the Boston Massacre in which he made the central figure the escaped slave Crispus Attucks...the first martyr for American freedom was a black man whom America had enslaved.

9. Morrow gives several examples of the policy: "If you think you are right - if you know you are right - then you do what is necessary to win." What are the risks in that behavior?

I see the risks of this behavior being, YOU could be the ONLY one thinking you are right and if you have an overblown ego and a personality that refuses to see anyone else's side it means you only have one perceptive, YOUR'S. Winning is an interesting word...winning an election is a clear victory if at the end of the day the electoral votes is enough to put you in the office. (at least in most elections.) Winning...can be an illusion when fighting a war or blocking a bill or legislation and can in all actuality be a loss in so many more ways then a win. In the mind of the person he may have too much self pride to acknowledge the loss is inevitable and proceed at all cost just to gain what he perceives as a win.

The two frontiers that Morrow describes (pg.76) had an influence in the past on presidents and the country. Do they today and, if so, how?

pg. 77 Ellis Island mentality is that of the communitarian sentimentalist. If the geography of the frontier involves big skies, untrammeled space and freedom, the Ellis Island story enacts itself in cities, its emphasis is human and sympathetic. Ellis Island is ethnic, crowded, urban, multilingual,gregarious and noisy, alive with distinctive cooking smells of Old Country customs. The frontier is spacious, physically demanding, silent. It values freedom and autonomy and personal responsibility.

I think the two frontiers Morrow is describing in my opinion are the two parties, Democrat and Republican. So, Yes I think they do have an influence on the presidents and country today. We still have so much conflict in the senate and congress because these two parties block each others bills and legislation because they feel the need to continue along the partisan lines. Politicians campaign using their frontier as their base. People are one or the other frontier and vote accordingly.

I'm not sure if I agree with all he states as Ellis Island and Frontier, but then is this his opinion?

pg. 76. Of course neither Ellis Island nor Frontier exists any more in a physical sense, and yet the two persist as states of mind, as presences in the American imagination, as value systems.

According to Morrow Johnson played the "switch and bait" and it worked for him. How many other politicians used the switch and bait just to get elected? The poles are so far apart because as we know Democrats and Republicans have strong beliefs and values for what they stand for such as gun control, right to life, capital punishment, environment, underdog vs. corporations etc etc. It would be easy to see someone today speaking out of both sides of their mouths to appease the state they are in to get the support of those people. Americans are more pro active, more intelligent, more accessible to the internet to find out what the politician really stands for by his voting records. If Johnson tried those tactics today I'm not so sure it would work for him.

Hats, Yes I did participate in Teacher Man and wasn't that a lively discussion and interesting book? I too remember you and enjoyed your posts. A LOVE FEST....lololol I am certain we have many differences of opinions but it is nice when we find others that share our opinions or feelings with you every now and then. Thank you for your sentiments.

Ella, I too live in Ohio and have been in my hibernation phase with these below zero temps. Our schools have been shut down for the past two days due to -22 degrees wind chill factor. I commend you for getting out in this weather. I await your ideas and thoughts once you find the time to settle in long enough to share them with us. I look forward to proceeding on to Ch 2.

Ella, I have just placed The Third Man on my queue for Netflix. I have never seen the movie.

Bellamarie, it is impossible not to disagree. A little disagreement makes the discussion more interesting.

Bella Marie:

I have been enjoying and appreciating your posts and meant to tell you before now. During the years of the Civil Rights Movement and forward, I was busy with family and work and read only of the things you described. Here in the Central Valley of California the Civil Rights movement was not so much with regard to the black population which at the time was small, but more so with the Farm Workers group led by Cesar Chavez. You may recall that event - especially in connection with the Grape Boycott.

Much of the Civil Rights activity with regard to the black population was in the urban areas of Los Angeles, San Francisco and Oakland.

hats: ( I like your user name, "hats.")

Thank you for your nice comments about my posts.

I think our discussion here is quite lively and our respective experiences seem to bring various perspectives to Morrow's book. He is writing a very fast-reading story here, I think. I have had to go to the Internet for some of his words as they don't appear in my Webster's. I think his writing is quite vivid and clear, though. I can picture much of his description.

Merijo, I agree. I find the book hard to put down. I have read many unfamiliar words. One is apotheosis. He has used that one more than one time. Plus, the word mentioned by Mabel and defined by Ella.

10. All three men had been affected by WWII. Explain why and how?

Nixon seems to have had the most personally happiest experience of the three during WWII. He was well-liked by his men and they had given him the nickname of "Nick Nixon."He proved to be an outstanding officer, efficient, effective, unpretentious, a hands-on leader." He learned to play poker, and had developed a talent for acquiring good housing for his men, foodstuffs and "Australian beer". Being with such a cross-section of young men he had acquired an understanding of many different kinds of people from so many different parts of the U. S. He also learned to curse in the Navy way and later could be heard to use the language in the company of men. He had developed a tendency toward furtiveness and secrecy during this time.

Up to this point Morrow has not delineated much of either Kennedy's or Johnson's WWII experience that I could find. Kennedy encountered a Japanese ship in the dark one night which sliced his PT boat in half. Johnson had been in the war, but his experience is not mentioned in these pages.

Kennedy's older brother Joe, Jr. Had volunteered to deliver by air a very volatile shipment, but was killed when the plane exploded. This made John Kennedy the likely successor to fulfill father Joe's ambitions to have one of his sons become president.

"Nixon, Kennedy and Johnson had been formed by WWII, by the precedent of Munich (never appease aggressors) and by the later logic of Munich's Child, the Domino Theory..."

Merijo, not only did the Civil Rights movement involve large urban areas, the story and life of the immigrants begins at Ellis Island and continues into the heart of big urban areas. Morrow writes it in this way.

"If the geography of the frontier involves big skies, untrammeled space and freedom, the Ellis Island story enacts itself in cities; its emphasis is human and sympathetic. Ellis Island is ethnic, crowded, urban, multilingual, gregarious, and noisy, alive with distinctive cooking smells and Old Country customs." I know what Morrow is talking about. I grew up in a big city with different ethnic groups as my neighbors and playmates.

Ella...I'm not sure I totally agree with the Ellis Island/Frontier theory since Bill and Hilary Clinton are from Arkansas and Gore is from Tennessee. Carter came from a peanut plantation in Georgia. So while I understand the comparisons and it would work for Kennedy, Nixon and Johnson I'm not so sure beyond them.

I see the assimilation but did Morrow use this much like his movies and characters? He has an interesting way of helping his readers to see what he wants them to see.

Merijo, Thank you for your kind words, I am happy to know you are enjoying and appreciating my posts, as I am with yours.

We have some fascinating thoughts, and discussions, Morrow has successfully intrigued us, entertained us and informed us but most of all he has gotten us to want to keep reading to find out where he is taking us next. These three men are truly the blueprint for the modern day politics. Media, celebrity, the arts, secrecy, dark personalities, charm and good looks and all veterans who served their country and then decided when they came home to run for offices to continue to serve the country they defended with their lives. Kudos to them and to Morrow. Can't wait to get into Ch 2 the families.

Lively discussion! Indeed, yes. I wish Lance Morrow could sit in on it - I should have written to his publisher to see if he could visit. We've had a few authors in the past and always hope for more. I think he would be pleased with our comments.

I think of so many things to say when I go about my chores during the day and YES, BELLEMARIE it is COLD IN OHIO. Our schools are closed, also, but luckily I had my car checked for all fluids and brakes before this winter.

LM writes about movies a lot doesn't he? Lana Turner (good grief), Blazing Saddles, The Best Years of our Lives, The Third Man, etc. But apparently JFK loved movies also; the movie Red River inspired him according to Morrow. Hollywood has, on many occasions, attempted to reflect society and its problems.

The movie THE GANGS OF NEW YORK portrays the violence between the Nativists and the poor Irish immigrants. Have any of you seen it? It was very good.

Ghandi was a great hero to LM - to many people. If you are interested we discussed Ghandi's Autobiography and it is archived here: Were any of you in that discussion?

Ghandi

We'll meet other people that LM admired in later chapters and I've been trying today to think of what one person I have most admired in an elected office or in life. Certainly there are several???? I'll keep thinking, how about you?

Two frontiers. I'm a bit older than some of you and I've heard of the two frontiers, the coastal mentalities for most of my life and have been so disheartened that I was brought up in the midwest and considered to be from cow country, bland, uninteresting, boring.

The East was cultured, educated, fashionable. They talk formally, are urbanites, legislative, slow to action.

The West was open range, rugged, individualistic, rough and tough, uncomplicated. They make decisions quickly and without much fuss.

Times are changing. The Democrats are forming a posse and will hold their convention in Colorado next year - when has either party gone west?

HATS, do you still live in the city and enjoy it? I want to see Washington again, also - shall we travel together? I keep hoping I have a few more travel trips in this body???? I loved your remarks on Brumidi and his frescoes; you are so astute! What did you think of LM's impression of the Kennedy Center?

MERIJO lives on the West Coast in California and LM writes extensively about the immigration problems which, no doubt, are a huge topic where you live. Tell us about them.

JEAN, what part of the country do you live in?

LM's sentence "George W. Bush, to an unusual degree, thinks of himself as part of the frontier story, the cowboy story that sees itself as self-reliant, competent, individualist, freedom-loving, morally automonmous and responsible."

That attitude can get us in a whole lot of trouble. The "if you think you are right, then you do what is necessary to win." He thought, he did. He landed on an aircraft carrier and announced "MISSION ACCOMPLISHED."

And who did he listen to? Who did Kennedy listen to when he decided to invade Cuba? Who did Johnson listen to when he escalated the Vietnam war? Aren't there advisors to presidents? Are they all pentagon people? Do they love to invade, make war, is that American?

Time for bed. Thanks for giving me so much to think about tonight! Thanks for your interest and your comments! I'm so happy you are enjoying the book.

Ella:

Yes, immigration is a huge topic of discussion here, more so than a few years ago. However, the latest news is that illegal immigration has slowed down considerably because of the knowledge that the laws for illegal immigration are being enforced if the people are caught on the way into the country.

You asked earlier if the wall had gone up. There are sections of wall up along the border from California eastward. However, there is terrain upon which it is too sandy to set a wall hurriedly. It would need to be engineered. In these places the cameras and other detecting devices and border patrol are effective. There was a spot along the fence(wall) where a full-time repairman appeared every morning to repair the hole through which illegal folks managed to get through during the night. Since the enforcement, this breach may not be such a regular event. I have not heard about that particular place recently.

Another thing not too generally known is that at the San Diego County border with Mexico there is a regular stairway used by American business people going into Mexico to work and by which they return at the end of the day. Likewise, students from Mexico cross into the U. S. to go to school here and business people come to work here. At the end of the day they climb the staircase - a huge concrete structure - quite attractive - to return home.

There is an easy crossing there by car and bus - tourists and visitors - who may have some sort of identification for a day trip. Also, as long as Mexicans do not come into the State any farther than twenty-five miles they may come in to shop. This has prompted the construction of malls in the State within the allowed distance. These Mexicans increase the State's local economy. There is a growing middle class in Mexico, and business is thriving in the border malls.

hats:

I think the Ellis Island and Frontier comparison is not too strong a comparison, but I think that for this narrative, it can be used to identify - the many poor and inquiring people from Europe who came to the States in waves of immigration into Ellis Island. In those days each immigrant needed to show proof of good health according to the limited knowledge of the customs agents and to show proof of sponsorship by a family member already here in the States. Usually, the manual workers, skilled and apprentice workers, that came into Ellis Island remained in the urban settings of the East Coast, but some did travel through to the West Coast to San Francisco and Los Angeles mostly.

Thousands of people entered Ellis Island for decades, but the entry through there ended around 1920. However, the Frontier people were usually precursors of the later immigrants - mostly from England and Scotland and that section of northern Ireland from where the Scotch-Irish came. This is another story stemming from the upheaval in Scotland and migration to Ireland, intermarriage and the appearance of the Scotch-Irish who settled mainly on the East Coast in the Carolinas.

(Germans, Swedes and Dutch came, too, but in smaller numbers and went into the northern states).

The Frontier people could easily represent in 1948 the established and landed families of the West. They had been settlers through all the Indian uprisings, bad weather and early struggles of developing a homestead. They had a certain sense of belonging and noblesse.

Your information about the immigration situation in California is very informative and easy reading. I would like to see the staircase. I didn't think about businessmen and students travelling back and forth from California to Mexico. I only hear about the illegal situation on tv.

Ella, I would love to travel with you to Washington. Our enthusiasm put together would make the trip more than memorable. I live in Chattanooga, Tennessee now. I don't live in the middle of the big city. It is still the outskirts of Chattanooga. I love the area. We live near the mall. Still, we drive a short distance. HamiltonPlace This is very convenient. Also, of most importance the Barnes and Noble is nearby along with Books A Million. We don't have a Borders.

The library is quite a ride away. I wish there were a library near us instead of a mall. Of course, no matter how far I will find my way to the library. Really, I'm just complaining. It's not too far. We just can't make a trip there every single week.

My sister with her family lived in North Carolina. Believe it or not, she lived across the street from the library. What a dream!! When I would visit her, I would trek across the street everyday.

Ella, I stopped reading at the part about the Kennedy Center. I am very anxious to read this part of the chapter. By the way, thank you for being a great discussion leader. I am thoroughly enjoying the book discussion.

I still don't have the book and am up to my neck in multiple concurrent do Now! projects. This afternoon and from time to time I will make "Comments particulary on LBJ from my local politic's experience and my reading of the "Master Of The Senate" bioography.

Merijo, Thank you for the info on the stairway for the business people and students. Living in Ohio I had no idea such an access existed. It's also interesting how you mention they have built a mall within that 25 mile range for shopping. It makes me wonder what it feels like to live in a region or even near one that you see a wall being built to keep out the illegal immigrants. I assume the people in East and West Berlin had to go through the feelings of isolation and deprived of the "Good Life" as everyone saw outside of that wall. I can still remember the day seeing on the news the first chunks of the Berlin wall being torn down. We've come a long way, and yet we are still building walls.

My Grandparents came to America from Italy and landed on Ellis Island. I try to picture what it must have been like for them to come to a country that was foreign to them, no housing, no jobs, no other relatives to help them. We take so much for granted today and when others tell of their struggles living in Russia, Germany, Poland etc. I get a sense of spoiledness and sadness to think I can complain of discomfort such as cold temps for two weeks in a row. A group of friends and myself recently went to watch the movie, "Freedom Writers". Merijo, I am sure you can comment first hand on this since you live in California. Thank God the Civil Rights Act was formed and realized. Where would we all be since so many of us had generations come to America. I found this and thought it also interesting: Kennedy is also sometimes credited with giving American Catholics the full recognition they deserved as American citizens. He is also seen as responsible for giving Catholics full opportunities in politics outside of the Northeast.

He did so much in so little time, I can only imagine what more he could have accomplished had he lived out his presidency and been re-elected. I suppose the people responsible for assassinating him could see those visions and felt threatened by them.

Hats, I visited Washington D. C. before 911 and was fortunate to tour the inside of the White House. I remember sitting in the blue room on a little settee by the window and looking out of the window and realizing how great an experience to walk in the same room as Presidents, dignitaries and First Ladies. They told how Jackie Kennedy had this huge Christmas tree decorated in this room and I remembered thinking how grand it must have been. I walked the steps to the Supreme Court and stood and thought how many Supreme Court justices walked these same steps. I sat in the Library of Congress and used their computer and looked up to the ceilings and stood on the stairways inside just in awe of the paintings. Brumidi's work we speak of now in this book! And to think now after 911 there are no more tours for civilians to experience in the White House. We were not fortunate to get inside the Capitol Building, the lines were too long and our day was at a close. We intend to return soon and visit the Smithsonians which my husband was sad we did not allow time for. But then how can you cover so much in just a day's visit. We had a fantastic tour guide and he took us to many places others stood in line for and we were able to get in. The Ford Theater and the room where Lincoln was taken to after being shot was so moving.

This book is beginning to move me in ways I never imagined. Thank you all for your posts.

Harold, Welcome, feel free to add your comments we welcome all who can join us. I have to share with you and Hats, I buy most of my books online at Amazon.com. I actually purchased this book brand new for $1.50 and $3.00 shipping and handling. What a bargain! I love owning my own books so I can highlight and write in them. It took maybe a week to recieve it in the mail.

Wow! you people are just sailing along, what wonderful comments from everybody.....i'm still babysitting, but i'm reading.....will be back.....jean

The immigration problem has many ramifications which can only be touched upon here.

I can imagine the culture shock for many immigrants in coming through Ellis Island into this country. Ellis Island is like a museum these days showing aspects of an immigrant's introduction to America.

11. "Washington was a "city for men" - "a city of conversation" - has it changed?

I had no idea that Washington was so sparse and seemingly "unimproved" in 1948. I would say that it has indeed changed. . . in several ways.

Access for one is now limited to the White House, Capitol and other government buildings. There certainly are additional buildings in that government complex and I believe that there are far more women in both Houses of Congress. I know of only one woman in Congress at that time, Margaret Chase Smith of Maine. She was elected to the Senate in 1948. The following link is a biographical sketch about her.

http://www.umaine.edu/mcsc/AboutUs/Bio.htm

How did the city and these three presidents react to each other?

There were apparently few places to meet socially. Kennedy would leave for New York and the theater and the life there whenever he could. Morrow says that for Nixon and Johnson, "politics" was entertainment enough."

"Washington was a city for men, for drinking and politics and power." This could cover quite a territory. I think the three men did become affected by the atmosphere. One in which they could size each other up without interference from the fair sex. "Humor focused on power, pomposity, corruption, hypocrisy__" says Morrow.

"Everyone knew everyone. The politicians and journalists. . . knew one another__in that sense. . . it could be called "the city of conversation."

Just one small comment (since my book hasn't come in yet) about immigration...My husband's family came from Germany in the mid19th Century. They entered through the port of New Orleans. John's grandfather told him that if he ever wanted to check records, he should start there. There was regular boat traffic taking cotton from the US to Hamburg, Germany, and Germans from Hamburg to the US. Many of them then went up the Mississippi River, looking for farmland. That's why nearly every city of any size along the Mississippi (New Orleans, Vicksburg, Memphis, and on up) has a section called Germantown, and why there is such a large German-ancestor population in that area.

I, too, live in Chattanooga - a very nice small city. Hats lives near the biggest mall (LOL) - I live within a mile of a branch library. Amazingly, we've never met. One of these days maybe we will meet in person.

11. "Washington was a "city for men" - "a city of conversation" - has it changed? How did the city and these three presidents react to each other?

City for men indeed.....Yes and no, to has it changed. Yes there are now women in Washington, but how many of them are being accepted and heard? Nancy Polosi's voice is surely going to be heard and if we are lucky we just may see the First Woman President...but not if the men have a say in it. I do not get the impression the men's club has opened the doors and welcomed any of these women with open arms. But women are gaining power and position and we can only hope it continues.

A city of conversation...that has stayed the same. I think everything and anything important is the talk of that town. It is such a place of so much history is being made there, yet when I was there I could sense the dullness and complacency outside of work hours and can understand why John Kennedy would need to go to New York for more stimulation and entertainment.

How did the city and these three presidents react to each other?

I see these three men sizing each other up and since they already knew the backgrounds of each other they probably sat with attitude and distaste. I'm imagining a football team going to a bar and seeing their opponents and for machoism's sake flexing their muscles just to intimidate each other. Nixon being a bit dark and insecure probably sat with thoughts of hatred for Kennedy and ways to measure up and beat him. Johnson wanting so badly to be noticed probably strutted with large frame that stood out like a cattleman. Kennedy feeling so much more astute and physically good looking and athletic build just existed with confidence neither man was a challenge for him. I think this city had sensed they had new blood, and hungry politicians and like a teacher sitting back watching the students shove around for the best seat, and the best grades and the teacher's attention I can see the old timers taking bets on who will come out on top.



They call Chicago the Windy city....well I would call Washington back then with these three men, the Stormy city...dark characters like clouds above and fresh ideas, like lightning jumping out.

Bella Marie:

With regard to the movie,"The Freedom Writers" I can only respond from what I read and remembered in the entertainment section of the LATimes which is going to be limited.

As for getting high school students to write and cooperate in such exercises, I would say that the teacher sought a good means to bring out her students. Techniques such as these can be used very successfully.

I understand that the Long Beach high school upon which the story was based was somewhat unhappy from the portrayal. Long Beach has a very high number of African-Americans and Hispanics and in recent years the school district has introduced all sorts of innovative ideas to help the children of minority groups, educationally and socially. Many high schools have asked their students to wear uniforms. They are quite smart-looking outfits and I think they have been successful in giving the students a sense of the importance of education. The kids seem not to mind them.

Long Beach is a primarily working class city, given the presence of the international port, the harbor life, fishing and many oil refineries in the area. It is a bustling place and has the vitality of such an urban area. It has its upper-class and its homeless. It has Cal State University, Long Beach. I used to like to visit Long Beach when I was a little girl. They had a great amusement section on the waterfront.

Such interesting posts! I wish I had more time to comment but it was a very busy day and I was out this evening, which is rare for me!

But I did put new questions on Chapter Two in the heading for your consideration. We are not limited to those questions, of course, and our discussion so far has been one of far-ranging comments that make for a great group of people getting to know each other. Just take one question at a time - everyone will have an opinion I hope!.

YOU ARE ALL FANTASTIC - I AM ENJOYING BEING A PART OF SUCH A GREAT GROUP OF FRIENDLY PEOPLE. I MARVEL AT THE INVENTION OF THE COMPUTER THAT BRINGS US TOGETHER IN SUCH A UNIQUE MANNER. PERHAPS IF I KNEW ONE PERSON WHO INVENTED THE WHOLE MACHINE I COULD INCLUDE THAT PERSON IN MY LIST OF HEROS. I HAVE YET TO START THAT LIST, BUT HE WOULD BE ON IT.

MERIJO: You speak of enforcement along the border and comment that it has improved the illegal immigration into the country. Besides portions of a wall (is that being breached?), what other means are being used? I can’t imagine a wall on our borders; I would never have dreamed of such a thing. WALLS BETWEEN BORDERS! REAGAN ASKING FOR ONE TO BE TORN DOWN, BUSH BUILDING ANOTHER.

My daughter (a baby boomer as some of you are) is talking of retiring to Mexico in a few years and says, somewhat jokingly, that Americans are fleeing to Mexico where the living is cheaper and the climate better and the Mexicans are fleeing into America for jobs and opportunities.

HAROLD: Just jump into our conversation anytime, glad to have you aboard. He is planning a book discussion in the spring so watch for it.

Later…………eg (off to the dentist, OH!)

1. "He would never read books." Part of Johnson's rebellion against his parents. What does this statement say about Johnson? Should we ask what books candidates are reading? Does it really matter??

When I came to this sentence in the book I honestly thought I had misread it and went back to reread it. How does rebelling against your parents constitute you refusing to ever read books? I can understand Johnson using the media, telephone, talking to other people and studying them for information, but isn't there some point where the intellect of your mind begs for book knowledge and entertainment?

As a writer, who has wanted books of all interest my whole life, I can't imagine anyone not having books in their life. My first impression of someone refusing to read books is they appear unintelligent and uninformed. Relying on media, telephone and other people seems lazy and an easy way to gain misinformation. Not that everything you read in books is accurate but at least it lists its sources and references. I did not see anywhere so far where Morrow has told us of Johnson's education or schools he attended. Obviously it was not Harvard since he refers to books as, " the coffins of embalmed ideas, the insubstantial fesckless realm of "Harvards," or the fairyland of his beloved ineffectual mother."

As far as should we ask about the books and does it matter..Yes, I think it can tell us something about the person knowing what books they found interesting enough to take the time to read. I would want to know if any of them read books on cults, satanism, murderers etc. I think knowing Kennedy had such a large realm of reading it showed me he was an all around knowledge person. It shows me he had a broad mind and interest. I see anyone who is willing to search for book knowledge to be much more interesting then someone who refuses to expand their knowledge.

Now fifteen, he graduated from Johnson City High School on May 24. He decided to forego higher education and instead made his way to California with a few friends. There he performed odd jobs, including one as an elevator operator. A year later he returned home where he worked on a road construction gang.

1927 Borrowing $75, he enrolled in Southwest Texas State Teachers College at San Marcos, Texas (Texas State University-San Marcos). He earned money as a janitor and as an office helper. He dropped out of school for a year to serve as principal and teach fifth, sixth, and seventh grades at Welhausen School, a Mexican-American school in the south Texas town of Cotulla. He still had time to be a leader in many extracurricular activities, editing the school paper and starring on the debate team.

1930 August 19, graduated with a B.S. degree. He taught for a few weeks at Pearsall High School, in Pearsall, Texas, then took a job teaching public speaking at Sam Houston High School in Houston, Texas. In the spring of 1931, his debate team won the district championship.

1931 Following his election to the House of Representatives in November 1931, Congressman Richard Kleberg asked Johnson to come to Washington to work as his secretary. Johnson held the job for over three years and learned how the Congress worked. In 1933, he was elected speaker of the "Little Congress," an organization of congressional workers.

1934 In the fall, he briefly attended Georgetown University Law School in Washington, D. C.

On a trip home to Texas, Johnson met Claudia Alta Taylor. He decided almost instantly that she should be his wife. Two months later, Lady Bird, as she was known to her friends, agreed, and on November 17, 1934, they were married in San Antonio. They honeymooned in Mexico.

1935 Resigned as Secretary to Representative Kleberg to accept President Roosevelt's appointment on July 25 as the Texas Director of the National Youth Administration (NYA), a Roosevelt program designed to provide vocational training for unemployed youth and part-time employment for needy students. At 26, he was the youngest state director.

I found this info at http://www.lbjlib.utexas.edu/johnson/archives.hom/biographys.hom/lbj_bio.asp

JEAN, hope you and the children are well. Do come back into the discussion as soon as possible or do you babysit all the time? Put them to bed for naps!!! Maybe you need to take one yourself?

BELLAMARIE, you learned HTML very fast – very well! Now we must show you how to do bold, underline and italics. It’s the same principle. Where in Ohio do you live? Several of us in Ohio used to meet annually (well, we did it for about three years) south of Toledo at a Holiday Express. We planned it here: – Ohio We should do that again. I loved your description of Washington in the 50’s and 60’s as a stormy city peopled with dark characters like clouds above and fresh ideas like lightning jumping out.

MARY! Good to see you here and I know you can comment on these three presidents with or without the book. Feel free to do so! But I hope your book comes soon.

And I certainly think you and HATS should plan to get together at the Mall – is it a big one? I don’t like the big ones. They would have been paradise when I was young and dancing! Oh, yes, but I hate to go shopping any more and rarely do it unless my clothes look too “fiftish” – hahaha

Later, eg

Hey, hey, BELLAMARIE! I just saw your posts on LBJ, isn't he a fascinating fellow. I'll be back later (I just can't catch up). Thanks for starting us on the questions and on LBJ. We must spend time discussing this giant.

In cleaning out some notes I have stuffed in my book I see this one and want to type it here before I lose it:

ON TV: NIXON: A Presidency revealed on the HISTORY CHANNEL. He forged historic peaceful alliances, yet was also the only President forced to resign. Who was Nixon really? Find out on FEBRUARY 18. With previously unseen footage and recordings, this docmentary promises to challenge preconceptions!

My "charge" is on the road to recovery and back at day care, so i'll try to get in here more often.

re: LBJ not reading....i wonder if it was as stark as LM puts it. He did go to college and he was a teacher and did attend law school for a short time, so i think he must have had some sense of the importance of reading.....how ever, i do see him as an action person, one who prefers doing physical things rather than intellectual things - i recognize that since i have a son who matches the description........he also seems to have been very much an extravert - one who likes to "learn" by talking to people, not mulling things over, writing down ideas, etc as Nixon loved to do.......Richard REeves wrote a very detailed book about Nixon and how he loved being solitary and writing his tho'ts on yellow legal pads.......interesting that LBJ kept "verbal" tapes of his conversations, not diaries or journals as Nixon did - of course, Nixon fortunately/unfortunately inherited LBJ's tape system

Parents: Bonnie Angelo wrote a very interesting book titled "First Mothers." Many of the presidents mothers were very strong and had strong influence on their sons. I also found it intersting in reading that book that many of those same mothers had fathers who encouraged and supported their dgts....... i think that book assures us that parents do have a major negative/positive impact on children and perhaps have had a very important impact of these "unusual" - in the ambitious/striving context - children. It also was interesting to t hink about the impact of the opposite-gender parent. Apparently fathers have a great impact on dgts and mothers on sons......what fun stuff!!!

Be back later......jean

Richard Reeves book on Nixon is titled "Alone in the White House" - interesting, uh?

Ella:

Many Americans of retirement age are moving to Mexico - also Costa Rica and Panama because it is cheaper.

http://www.mexperience.com/retirement/

There are more cameras along the California border. Also there are other devices-such as infra-red cameras for noticing incoming illegals at night. There are others not described because these are in place through Homeland Security. Border patrols are more frequent, and the National Guard is there building the wall. The National Guard is not armed. Its purpose is to construct roads and the wall.

California's border is more populated than Arizona's. The ranchers there in Arizona have suffered badly from the flow of illegal immmigration. Ranchers have found injured, famished and dead illegals on their land. Those who have made it through have left trash and other debris strewn across the desert and some Arizona residents have been robbed. Smugglers known as "coyotes" have cruelly abandoned people out in the desert.

Word has reached the general population along the Mexican border that any illegals caught will either be immediately deported or arrested if found farther inland. This has caused the flow into the country to dwindle although it is still going on.

I think that this situation must be addressed humanely and legally so that there is no need for walls - so high that they look like prison walls - my opinion.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Mexico_barrier

The guest worker program is especially needed. We had a severe frost here in the Central Valley last month where the temperature was in the teens for nineteen days in a row. It literally devastated the citrus and avocado crops. There were too few workers to pick the fruit ahead of the frost and the loss of fruit resulted in the loss of at least 12,000 jobs and almost a billion in crops. Now, communities up and down the valley have had food drives, because people have no money to buy food. Some towns are a one industry (citrus) town. If there is a freeze or a drought, the community suffers.

Farm workers' wages are governed by a special procedure required by the State through labor contractors. They do not come under the rule for a minimum wage. Growers do not pay the workers directly. The labor contractor does. The process is complicated by transportation needs to the remote fields, certain hygienic needs which must be provided for the workers, and mandated rest periods with shade provided. Generally, the pay is good. Many farm workers can save enough for a down payment on a house, for example.

Fruit and vegetable farming is a labor-intensive industry - part-time, often - and truly needs a sensible resolution.

Jean, I have read many psychology books, been to many workshops and Dr. Phil repeats it more times then I can count that says studies show the SAME sex parent has the most influence on a child then any other person in their life and then the opposite sex parent is next.

These three men reflect that in their characters, fears, and choices in life.

It goes without saying that parents form the foundation of a child's life. I think negative or positive the child learns from what he sees and hears in his home. Parents sometimes do not have a clue what children hear and then mimics. Parents words and actions leave life long impressions on the child. I was a Computer teacher for 15 years in a K -8 Catholic school and for 9 yrs now have my own in Home Day Care. The things that come out of children's mouths that the parents would not expect amazes me. I continuously tell parents to be careful of what the child may overhear because how they perceive it can be so different from the context it was said in.

Ella, With all due respect I am not sure I share your thoughts on LBJ, "the giant." I see him of the three the one with little education, lack of respect for his parents and just someone I would not find interesting to sit and talk with. I read he was the most wealthy President to take office, yet it came from much corruption. LBJ not reading and keeping verbal tapes is another example to me of lack of motivation. How easy is it to sit back and let others do the talking and you tape it and use it as your source of learning? I personally don't see Morrow painting LBJ with a colorful brush. I would love to hear your thoughts Ella.

Somehow I deferred too long in buying the book and at this late date because of other pending responsibilities I don’t feel I have time to read it. I thought, however, that I might from time to time comment on the impact that the three principals in the book have had on me and my recollection of their lives. .

Regarding 1948, I had just turned 21 in Oct 1947 so I voted for the first time in the elections of 1948. In Texas LBJ was making his second attempt to gain election to the senate. His earlier bid had been unsuccessful. In 1948, in the Democrat Party Primary LBJ ran against a popular Governor, Coke Stevenson. At the time this Primary race was the real race, since winning in the Demo Primary was tantamount to election. Most people simply ignored the General Election that followed unless it was the year of a Presidential race. In any case the Demo candidate always won by a large majority.

I remember I voted for Stevenson. For the Senate the race was a real cliffhanger. In the end Johnson was declared the winner by less than 100 votes, a decision that stood after a weird official investigation with evidence that tens of thousands of votes had been stolen on Johnson’s behalf. The official investigation was halted through the skillful legal manipulations of Johnson’s brilliant New York lawyer, Abe Fortas who was later awarded with his appointment by Johnson as an Associate Justice on the Supreme Court.

Details of Johnson’s election to the Senate in 1948, his rapid rise to power and Senate leadership, and his own particular drive for political power are detailed in Robert A. Caro’s multi-volume biography, particularly the “Master of the Senate” volume. During his Senate years he successfully reversed his initial anti Federal Civil Rights position to being a strong advocate. Though his own campaign for the 1960 Demo Presidential nomination fell short, it gained him the Vice Presidential nomination. Johnson’s presences on the ticked delivered many of the Southern states for the Demo ticket assuring their victory in a close race. After the tragic assassination of JFK. LBJ became President, a position confirmed in 1964 by the American people who gave him a landslide term of his own.

After 1948 I voted for LBJ when he ran for reelection in 1954 and 1960. By the latter date Texas election law had been changed for his benefit to permit his name on the ballot for both the Senate and Vice President; so in that year, I also voted for him for Vice President also. And again in 1964 he got my vote for President.

And by the way; In 1961 after LBJ resigned from the Senate to become Vice President, in a special election a Republican was elected in his place, That seat has been Republican since that date, and today both Texas Senate seats as well as the Texas Governor and both legislative houses are Republican.

Click Here for a web Biography of LBJ from the Handbook of Texas.

5. LM speaks of JFK as being a "hedonist" - one who thinks pleasure is the chief good in life. Is the public "exhilarated" to read about scandals of public figures? Clinton was not impeached for his pleasures in the White House; would JFK have been impeached for his sexual behaviors had they been reported by the media?

I'm not sure if I agree with Morrow's description of JFK as a "hedonist", I know many a author has portrayed him as such.

I definitely think the public is exhilarated to read about the scandals of public figures and celebrities. Just look at how much time they have spent on the death of Anna Nicole Smith in the past 24 hours. I think better put the MEDIA is obsessed with shoving it down our throats.

I have to say I think Kennedy would not have been impeached for his infidelities in or outside of the White House. Its ridiculous to even think Clinton or Kennedy would be impeached for the same behaviors so many other Presidents were guilty of. A man's sex life is his own personal business. Their performance as a President has nothing to do with who they are sleeping with. Their wives and children are the ones who would be effected the most by the infidelity and the scandal. Other countries laughed and thought we were a bit high moral grounded to even consider Clinton being impeached for his Lewinsky scandal.

Men will be men and boys will be boys is the attitude of many and other countries and leaders for centuries and centuries have had multiple affairs. I do not find this behavior commendable by any means but it did not deter from their job performance, it lessened the image we had of them and showed their character flaws.

Consider the fact Nixon was allowed to resign for all his corruption and was even given a pardon.

When I think of the abuse of power, disregard for the Constitution and deceit our present President has displayed costing over 3,000 American lives and still counting, I think of reasons for impeachment.

BELLEMARIE, neither can I imagine anyone not having books as a part of their life, but I know a number of folks who, like LBJ, never read books. It has just been my observation that the world is divided into people who read and people who have to be around people. Readers (and I am probably very wrong about this) tend to be solitary folk; content to be alone at times, nose-in-the-book type of people. People (Barbara Streisand’s song notwithstanding!) who like people are the opposite; they group; they act; they interact.

I’m not sure that readers are any more intelligent or knowledgeable than people persons. What do you think?

I think JEAN agrees as she stated "i do see him as an action person, one who prefers doing physical things rather than intellectual things - i recognize that since i have a son who matches the description........he also seems to have been very much an extravert - one who likes to "learn" by talking to people, not mulling things over, writing down ideas, etc as Nixon loved to do......"

I’m not so sure MERIJO that I am going to tell my daughter about that Mexexperience site. She has already read two books authored by people who have moved there and she doesn’t need any more encouragement!!! Hahahaa

Thanks for the information about the border – that’s a sorry situation, and particularly for those citrus communities that need those immigrant workers to pick crops.

There was an article in our paper this morning about walls – countries everywhere building walls. India-Pakistan, Israel-West Bank. Here is one paragraph:

"Pakistan is building a 1,500-mile fence with Afghanistan. Uzbekistan has built a fence along its border with Tajikistan. The United Arab Emirates is erecting a barrier along its frontier with Oman. Kuwait is upgrading its 125-mile wall along the Iraqi frontier. But the most impressive barriers are around Saudi Arabia. The Saudis quietly have been pursuing an $8.5 billion project to fence off its porous border with Yemen for some years, but the highest priority now is to build a hightech barrier along the 550-mile border with Iraq."

And it goes on and on! NATIONALISM! A very bad situation that leads to wars. In defense of their borders countries will go to war.

HAROLD, thanks for your comments on LBJ. Have you read Caro’s biography of Johnson? Morrow paints a very poor picture of this president, remarking extensively on that 1948 election. However, LM believed Johnson was a tormented man; he struggled with his greed and his sympathy for the poor and was often generous. Greed won out obviously, but the story of his father’s failure was sad. I never knew this and I do believe that the "the sight of his father humiliated" must have been a permanent mark on the man. I can’t help feeling sorry for him! And his destiny with the Vietnam War.

It’s hard for me to believe that presidents make such terrible mistakes; actually it’s frightening!

Later, eg

BELLEMARIE, thanks for your post on Question No. 5. I have to agree with you about a president's sex life, it is really none of our business; but I think others feel differently. It is something we could debate endlessly.

How about JFK's remark on "No class." Cruel?

Here is how you do "bold, italics and underline."

(b)I admire President Kennedy(/b) - for bold

(u)I admire President Kennedy(/u) - for underline

(i)I admire President Kennedy(/i) - for italics

Of course, substitute <> for the parenthesis.

And that is the extent of my knowledge - hahahaaa

Ella, I agree that I find it hard to understand people who don't like to read, but I don't make that a contrast to "people" people.

I equate wanting to read with wanting to learn, with curiosity. But then some people learn by hearing or by experience. I love being with other people, but I always have a book nearby - I never go anywhere without something to read.

My first presidential vote was cast for JFK. I always felt that LBJ's antipathy to the Kennedys was more of a "class" thing (to use a word I dislike). LBJ was certainly from a working-class background, and had to work hard for everything he got. As opposed to the Kennedys, who were definitely upper class, with lots of money and status, seemingly having everything given to them. And, I'm sure the Kennedys felt that LBJ was crude and crass, without the polish that wealth supposedly gives.

But as devastated as we all were with JFK's assassination, I remember feeling relief that the country was in the hands of someone as capable and competent as LBJ. This, of course, was in a time of much naivite - something that could never happen now - with the press ready to report on every rude belch or scratch by someone of prominence.

Ella:

So many people do like the idea of going to Mexico. There have been articles about the number of retired couples doing just that.

Bella Marie and Harold:

Thanks for posting the links to Johnson's biography.

After reading the section on "Families" I have concluded that that era saw marked changes in American philosophy and mores as a result of these three men being our presidents. The families' auras most definitely defined these men. Although other events not pertaining to them occurred simultaneously, the distinct event, for example, of the Vietnam War, carried a huge impact on the American population which carried over into people's daily lives. The family environments in which these men were reared affected these presidents' formative years markedly.

There is no doubt that the patholgical disorder of Joe Kennedy so dogged in pursuing the behavior of a sexual aggressor, in establishing a Kennedy "Dynasty" in American society and government, and, equally disturbing, his arrogant involvement in the lives of his children had a strong, if not a traumatic, effect upon his family. This influence clearly affected the formation of John Kennedy's character.

For Johnson, the shock of poverty coming down upon him because of his father's mismanagement of the family's funds, most definitely affected his sensibilities. Morrow shows that Johnson found himself leading a tormented life. He fought and finagled hard to make money, yet he had compassion for the poor.

Nixon seems to have been influenced by his mother mostly. It must have been tortuous to listen to one of Hannah Nixon's quiet "talks". When one is subjected to such treatment, it is possible to develop a need for secrecy, a need to do anything to avoid such an exhausting quiet needling.

No wonder Morrow says "that it was in the era of the three presidents, Kennedy, Johnson and Nixon, ... that Americans repudiated its supposedly heroic and glorious golden past."

My dictionary defines progress as "moving toward a goal." But it is also moving from the past to the future.

LM states that there are two ways of looking at progress. One is the Greek conception of the past as being "golden" - wonderful and nothing can ever replace it. The other is the western idea of the past being a place of ignorance and constantly moving toward a better future. (read technology, materialism)

That's something to think about it. Has anyone taken a Greek history course and can explaim LM's statement?

I did a quick search of the Internet and found this interesting:

Faith in the future

The whole article is very interesting - it starts with these paragraphs:

"Devout Christians in the Middle Ages imagined a heaven somewhere off beyond the outermost sphere of the sky, where angels and blessed souls sang in perfect harmony in the presence of God, far from the discords of life in the lowly world of matter. Centuries before, the ancient Greeks sang of a Golden Age somewhere in the distant past when fields sprouted crops without human labor and the world was at peace under the rule of the old wise god Kronos.

We have our heaven and our Golden Age, too, but unlike most other cultures we put ours in the future, and tell ourselves that we’re moving closer to Paradise with every day that passes. Other cultures put their faith in gods or stars or cosmic cycles; we put ours in progress.

It’s not going too far, I think, to call belief in progress the dominant religion of the modern world. For most people nowadays, what matters about our past is that it’s a story of progress, a vast upward sweep from the brutal squalor of a primitive past to the Promethean splendor of a science-fiction future out among the stars. In the modern imagination, the present is by definition bigger and better than the past, just as the future will by definition be bigger and better than the present. For believers in progress, to call something “new” is to define it as “better,” while what’s old is by definition inadequate"

I know I'm too far afield.

I remember feeling relief that the country was in the hands of someone as capable and competent as LBJ

MARY, that's intriguing! Tell us more about why you felt this way.

MERIJO: There is no doubt that the patholgical disorder of Joe Kennedy so dogged in pursuing the behavior of a sexual aggressor, in establishing a Kennedy "Dynasty" in American society and government, and, equally disturbing, his arrogant involvement in the lives of his children had a strong, if not a traumatic, effect upon his family.

I wonder if Joe Kennedy ever realized what he had done? If he had any regrets about his treatment of his family, his wife, his children?

Thanks again for your comments.

Class distinctions. Discrimination by whom? And to whom?

Ella, I guess it was because LBJ was so strong and in control when he was in the Senate, and I assumed that he would be as president, too - particularly when things were in such chaos. Of course, I was only 27 at the time, and still pretty idealistic.

After I posted before, I realized that I should have said that I think Nixon probably resented JFK for many of the same reasons that LBJ did. JFK was all the things RMN was not - handsome, wealthy, comfortable before crowds, naturally well-spoken, etc. RMN and LBJ both had to work hard for everything they got - nothing came easy.

Ella:

Whether or not Joe Kennedy knew that he was imposing his own goals upon his family may have escaped him. Outwardly, he was doing what so many men - heads of families - did in those years after WWI. These were the Roaring Twenties. Money was to be made. Some men wanted to provide extravagantly for their families.

Joe's father had been a successful saloon-keeper and a ward boss, so he went into the liquor business making money there until Prohibition. He became a "movie mogul" in Hollywood, investing in the incipient movie industry that appeared to be filled with much promise. He knew how to wheel and deal and apparently knew when to get out of the market before the 1929 Crash because he seems to have not suffered a financial setback then. He truly made most of his money in real estate during WWII acquiring 100 million dollars.

In the Kennedy's circle of wealthy friends and neighbors most were acquiring wealth and the womenfolks were spending it. It may have been normal. Morrow tells us that John Kennedy had no idea of poverty in the country until a campaign trip to West Virginia revealed the hovels which many people there used as homes.

This is puzzling to me, because surely, in traveling around Boston, he ought to have seen and heard of the poor there. It seems as though he was insulated from unpleasant things and duties.

But father, Joe Kennedy, had devoted his life to making money - a lot of it - so he could fulfill his ambition of becoming wealthy, and if not accepted into high society, he would create his own. His children would be free to become important in government especially and gain entry into the elite of American society.

The success of his business endeavors may have seemed to be ideal, the American way. His successes proved to him, possibly, he was on the right track.

Ella post # Readers (and I am probably very wrong about this) tend to be solitary folk; content to be alone at times, nose-in-the-book type of people. People (Barbara Streisand’s song notwithstanding!) who like people are the opposite; they group; they act; they interact.

Ouch! Us extraverts who love reading would have to disagree with your idea of people who read. I am a "people" person who needs and wants contact with others as I am sure so many other who are in Barnes and Noble, Borders and Books a Million are. My world expands when I can read and learn about other countries, cultures and political ideas. I was raised in a home with few books and I have always found books to connect me with knowledge and others creativity. I am also very curious, imaginative, and crave book knowledge. I have been writing poetry and children's books for years now and I can't imagine people buying books to be in solitaire. I too have to have a book sitting on my desk or coffee table at all times. I look forward to our summer vacations on the beach so much because I know its a time I will have to indulge myself in reading without interruption. I have six children in my day care Mon-Fri, so its almost impossible to relax and read, and yet I do find the time during their naps to participate in Senior Net book discussions because again it's a way to interact with people.

Ella I live in Toledo Ohio near the Michigan line, I would love to one day get together with you and others for a book lunch. What fun that would be. Okay.. I gotta run to go to my grand daughter's basketball game so I hope to check back in later.

--- in Message 128 asked, if I had read the Caro Biography of LBJ. I have only the one volume of the series, "Master of the Senate." I have never read its 1300 plus pages from beginning to end. It is simply much too detailed and academic. I have read parts of it for research on specific events in which LBJ was involved. I have used material from it in several Senior's Net discussion.

John's cousin gave John a copy of Master of the Senate. Both have read it. John says it was fascinating - but he said he learned much more about the workings of the Senate than he did about LBJ. We haven't had the first volume, and I don't think Caro has finished the third.

Whoops! I was describing myself and attributing my personality or my character to others and that was a mistake. I am a solitary person, I love solitude and quiet. I do have friends, not too many, and I do participate in some activities, not too many. I love to read. Due to recent cataract surgery reading is more of a strain on my eyes than it used to be; still I read, slowly.

JEAN stated that LBJ was an "action person, one who prefers doing physical things rather than intellectual."

Are we all agreed on that?

Would you like to have a long lunch with LBJ? Or would you prefer JFK. Betcha I know the answer. Would we learn more if we had a long lunch with Nixon, that is if we could get him to talk to us?

Nixon has written six books (maybe more?) beginning with a 1967 book entitled SIX CRISES and his last book VICTORY WITHOUT WAR, written in 1999.

JFK wrote PROFILES IN COURAGE which won a Pulitizer. Did he write it alone does anyone know? Also did he write his inaugural address alone? Just curiousity.

LBJ, as far as I know, wrote nothing. This, of course, does not mean he was not capable, but............ I have an idea his memoirs would be absolutely fascinating

Where did HATS go? I wanted to tell her to look in the Index for the page number of the Kennedy Center description. BELLMARIE, did you go there when you were in Washington, D.C.? I've watched the honor ceremonies on TV when I catch them, but I wonder if it is truly a cultural addition to the capitol city.

And I was hoping someone would comment on the "ignorance of the past" and the "progress of today and tomorrow." All questionable.

Morrow takes us on a journey into the past, so let's learn a little. Perhaps you already have studied British history and know more about this than I do, but I looked up Lord Byron and Lord Melbourne, men whom JFK admired.

LM seems to enjoy writing about men who have double faces or double personalities; first he gives us LBJ - a man of generosity and greed - and then JFK who he states is a double-faced man alternating Tom Sawyer with Lord Byron.

Lord Byron

Lord Melbourne

The two had a few sexual escapades in their lives:

"The life of Byron has been the source of endless anecdotes, from his own time to ours. His character, wit, and charm were impressed upon virtually everyone who met him. Beyond the opinions of others, however, one can know Byron on a personal level - through the letters and journals which chronicle every aspect of his life in his own words."

See any similarity?

Our Puritan heritage, I think, is still lingering and we do not like to hear of such sexual scandals in our elected officials.

Lord Byron had a club foot that some biographers have taken to be a wound associated in Kennedy's mind with his own physical ailments. However it didn't stop either Kennedy or Byron from their pleasurable pursuits:

"Byron, partly by his own openly dissolute life and partly by the influence of licentious verse, earned a worldwide reputation for immorality among English-speaking people. A man who outraged the laws of our Divine Lord, and whose treatment of women violated the Christian principles of purity and honor, should not be commemorated in Westminster Abbey."

I think he was later entombed there. We did better with JFK in death.

Ella post #138...JFK wrote PROFILES IN COURAGE which won a Pulitizer. Did he write it alone does anyone know? Also did he write his inaugural address alone? Just curiousity.

Here area few different opinions on who wrote or helped write Pofiles In Courage:

While recuperating in 1955 from an operation to repair a spinal problem, one of the many serious and often extremely painful illnesses that plagued him from childhood until his death, he wrote Profiles in Courage (1956). The book dealt with American political leaders who defied public opinion to vote according to their consciences; for this work (later revealed to have been written in part by Theodore Sorensen and others) he received the Pulitzer Prize.

Profiles in Courage. Kennedy's testimonial on behalf of eight political leaders' tests of conscience earns the Pulitzer Prize as well as attention for the budding politician and future president. Later reports indicates that Kennedy's friend and adviser Theodore Sorensen is the book's actual author.

During his convalescence he wrote Profiles in Courage (1956), a series of essays on courageous stands taken by U.S. senators throughout U.S. history. It won the 1957 Pulitzer Prize for biography.

http://www.answers.com/topic/john-f-kennedy

I have not found the site as yet on where I read one article stated there was some belief that Bobby Kennedy was the author of his Inaugural speech.

I have to say personally that if John Kennedy was not the actual author and there was indeed someone else, we will never know unless that person came forward and acknowledged their part. There are just too many references that are conflicting to take away the credibility of the author not being JFK. Its easy to write what someone believes is true but without absolute proof its irresponsible journalism, reporting and writing. Journalism 101 Be certain you can back it up with reliable sources to prove the credibility and truth in your work.

Ella, re the Kennedy Center...John's cousins live in the DC area, and I know they go to events - plays and concerts - at the Kennedy Center. So I'd guess it is pretty well used.

The following seems to reflect the accuracy of Kennedy's authorship of his inaugural address.

Kennedy's Inaugural Address:

He wanted his address to be short and clear—devoid of any partisan rhetoric and focused on foreign policy. He began constructing the speech in late November, working with friends and advisers. While his colleagues submitted ideas, the speech was distinctly the work of Kennedy himself. Aides recount that every sentence was worked, reworked, and reduced. It was a meticulously crafted piece of oratory that dramatically announced a generational change in the White House and called on the nation to combat “tyranny, poverty, disease, and war itself.”

http://www.usnews.com/usnews/documents/docpages/document_page91.htm

Ella:

11. The example of "miracles" given by LM in describing DDT is just one of many in recent years that have been proven false. Can you name any others? Is science a dangerous pursuit? Should the government be promoting it by giving grants?

and

And I was hoping someone would comment on the "ignorance of the past" and the "progress of today and tomorrow." All questionable.

With regard to DDT which was banned in 1973 by Nixon, Rachel Carson warned the world of possible bad effects coming out of scientific research. Malathion was substituted to use in sprays against disease-bearing mosquitoes. Malaria is a devastating disease, has been so for many years - where swamps and high humidity provide a fertile ground for mosquitoes. It is indeed fortunate that a vaccine against this illness is being developed. Mosquitoes are also known to carry encephalitis and yellow fever and other ailments.

A new discussion about DDT is going on now regarding its use as a spray upon the interiors of walls in the houses in hot tropical areas in order to keep out malaria-laden mosquitoes.

Other instances of limitations in newly-developed substances have occurred in the use of silicone breast implants, ( recently re-instated), and Vioxx, for pain which may have caused heart failure in susceptible individuals.

Science is not a dangerous pursuit. Thinking of "Science" as primarily incorporating the studies of all the physical, biological, technological and sociological disciplines it is a necessary pursuit. Protocols for procedures have and are being developed and there are controlled studies being conducted in all fields. The results have encouraged and described advances in knowledge in general, improved the quality of life for people, and permitted this knowledge to be distributed and learned by people.

The government should be promoting scientific discovery by way of grants wherever and whenever possible.

There are always caveats, but in the space of this forum it is not possible to separate points in a detailed way.



I could not find in Chapter Two the place mentioning "ignorance of the past" nor "the progress of today and tomorrow". I may be looking in the wrong pages.

In the context of Morrow's writing, I think he develops the idea that during the tenure of these three presidents there occurred somewhat different and exciting - alarming to some people - revelations of certain facts regarding human and animal behavior. I think, as I remember the times, that there was a burst of psychological references and explanations appearing in public discourse. Suddenly, there could be heard phrases stating that people did not know these things before, but now with the completion of these studies and their conclusions, progress can continue to occur in these fields.

In my opinion, this planet of ours holds mysteries yet to be learned. In this sense, there is no other way but to move forward. We may revisit the past, but knowing what is known now there can only be improvements and growth upon what is already known. I think it is instinctive for people to be curious, to wonder and to discover.

Merijo post#142 Thank you for that article on Kennedy's speech.

I personally feel there have been people who hated Kennedy so much that they used their writing of articles and books to take away his accomplishments in life and to concentrate heavily on his mistakes and sexual activities. It does not surprise me we will find many articles that will state that he did not write his book or speech.

Yes, I am a huge admirer of JFK and the Camelot years, for me personally as a young person back then it made the White House, President and his family more touchable. Seeing all the beautiful pictures of their wedding, their children, JFK smiling, my very favorite of John John crawling under the desk in the oval office while John was working, and him standing at salute of the horse drawn casket will always stay vivid in my mind. I am a bit of a romantic and I loved seeing the human side to this President. I don't fault him for his fortunate family wealth however it was gained. I have read many books on JFK and Jackie, I am aware of all his infidelities and I do know she was aware of them also. Jackie came from a family who had formed her to marry someone of political status. She was not naive, but of course it does not excuse his behavior. She held a certain amount of power in her knowledge from working at a Publishing company, she held grace and beauty that captivated the dignitaries at the dinner table. They seemed like a perfect couple for each other to attain what they wanted in life....Success, spouse, family, fashion, and a bit of stardom.

I feel JFK accomplished more in his short period of about 1,000 days then many Presidents have in two terms, yet Morrow finds talking about his private life more entertaining. Morrow has spent more pages on the comparisons of John's personality to people in the movies and books that he could find to contrast his behaviors, which is more than I feel is necessary. He repeats so much of all three of these men's personality and character traits to the point of boredom for me. He gives us so little details of their accomplishments. I suppose he feels we could easily go to the history books to read them. This book does not have a balance for any of these three men.

While I find this book interesting and it has raised many fantastic discussion pieces I am nearing the end and still I would describe it as a lot of fluff and little facts.

BELLEMARIE, yes, I agree that a good title for this book would be IN MY OPINION. All good books of history have the author's opinion in them I think. How else could they write for the layman to read? Would we read books that list facts and dates? No, and that is all that the historian can usually find in his research unless it is letters and tapes and eye witnesses, which, of course, Morrow has stated occasionally. See the author's NOTE ON SOURCES in the back of the book and the Bibliography. Plus the author had personal experiences with all three of these men; that also is listed in the Note of Sources. But, truly, this is a book of his opinion after reading innumerable sources and drawing upon his own associations.

"knowing what is known now there can only be improvements and growth upon what is already known.

We do think that don't we, MERIJO. I would hope so, but what we have done to the environment by our "improvements and growth" leave me questioning progress.

IT IS TIME TO MOVE ON TO the THE NIXONS OF CALIFORNIA in Chapter Two.

Perhaps we spent too much time on Kennedy, there is much to discuss with the other two and their families.

Nixon and his Mother; Nixon and God. You have probably read, as I have, accounts of very religious parents who impose their beliefs on their children who when grown, rebel against them, but retain their fear of God. LM suggests this was true of Nixon and the fact that he mentioned his mother in his farewell adress, calling her a saint, implies that his early life was still ingrained in his mind and spirit.

This is very sad, no, tragic is a better word:

President Nixon's farewell speech to his staff

What do you think about the speech after reading it again?

Did you notice that he mentioned his poor economic status and I remember his Checkers speech when he did the same thing. An attempt to get sympathy or, at least, to be remembered as a common man on equal footing with most Americans.

What do you think of that speech? And his comment about his father whom LM states was "God the thunderer."

Interview with Barack Obama on 60 Minutes tonight

And the smear campaign begins - so soon. But, as we are talking about the bad (with good) points of three presidents, I like what Obama has to say:

"I think one of the things about national politics is this attempt to airbrush your life, it's exhausting, right, you know. I think it's just a lot easier to say, "This is who I am. This is where I've come from." You know, if we have problems in this campaign, I suspect it's not going to be because of mistakes I've made in the past. I think it's going to be mistakes that I make in the future."

It will be his whole life past and present.

Ella:

Thanks for the links to the speeches.

The comment I made regarding building upon the knowledge we know, I particularly am aware of it, as less formidable medicines, recently developed for cancer treatment, are offered in place of far more traumatic ones. Patients can respond with less difficulty and doctors are seeing more progress.

I am hopeful about the environment as I live in a country town and see all that can be done to restore lands that have been devastated by the lengthy freeze of January 2007. It was nineteen days long and temperatures fell to the teens. Land is being cleared, and the oranges have been held for reexamination to see which ones may be saved. The lemons are lost because their sugar content is too low to sustain the health of the fruit during a freeze.

In my own garden, the flowering quince is blooming beautifully and tulips are poking up through the leaf mulch.

All sorts of measures have been implemented here in California to preserve the environment. For example: The brand new University of California at Merced (north of me) relocated its huge campus buildings in order to preserve the environment of the tiny, transparent fairy shrimp growing in freshwater pools on campus.

I am truly liking this book by Morrow. It reads very fast, and as I lived through that era I am reminded of my own impressions of the three men. I think I wasn't too off the mark on Johnson and Nixon, but of Kennedy I had not paid much attention because I had three kids in high school about that time, and at the beginning of his term we as a family were also hosting a fourth student, a foreign exchange high school student from Ecuador for a year.

Ella:

You have asked some wonderful questions. Here are some of my answers which may be out of numerical order

About "class": I think "class" as used here refers to a certain manner of behavior - "elan" "savoir faire" easy good manners, possibly without self-consciousness, appropriate speech.

About sexual behaviors: Kennedy would never have been reprimanded or censured for his sexual behavior unless he broke an explicit law in a very public manner. Sexual peccadilloes seemed to have been part of the environment - probably still is.

About parents: An early environment whether one likes the idea or not does provide a conditioning to certain behavior. I don't know whether voters should attempt to interpret the effects of one's early upbringing. Each person is different and has different experiences. If that were done there would exist too much exclusivity. One should be concerned with a candidate's response in his/her current office or prior ones dealing with the public, I think.

About George Marshall: He was a very fine man, very exemplary, cool-headed and certainly a talented and intelligent statesman. He developed the blueprint for saving and restoring Europe. He may have been a good president. That will forever be an unknown.

I want to give more thought to your other points. I may go on too long here, and it would be good to know what our colleagues here think.

Ella, thank you for the link to the speech.

I have to say after reading it I dislike this man more then I thought possible. That speech is rather pitiful. There is no mention of his disappointment to the American people. He addresses the staff, and the people who worked with and for him but no where do I see him say to the American people who voted him into office he is sorry to have let them down.

"Always give your best, never get discouraged, never be petty; always remember, others may hate you, but those who hate you don't win unless you hate them, and then you destroy yourself."

What is he rambling on about in this? He has committed illegal acts and is resigning to avoid impeachment and yet talks as if he is trying to give advice as though he is someone people would look up to. HE would know about destroying himself, he did just that. Could it be the very hatred he had for others that ultimately motivated him to commit such corruption?

He let his staff, and workers down, he let the American people down, he let the country down and NO where does he mention or acknowledge this and have remorse and express sorrow. What a sad day it was and what a sad man. He was truly in my opinion the beginning of the downfall of the American people losing faith and respect for the Presidency.

Were his parents still living when he shamed the nation and their family name?

Why would anyone write a book about his Mother?

I think every child sees something in their Mother as sainthood, I certainly did in mine and my three children have told me many times, "Mom you are a saint for going through what all you have." (Which I won't go into>)

I have a problem with even discussing his mother and where she may have done wrong in how she would stare at him and give him the talks of shame as a child. How does anyone interpret that into the implications of a woman who put such fear into her son that it may have caused him to grow up with this dark, secretive, corruptive character and personality? To me its a far stretch of the imagination. Its so Freudian to look back and blame the mother if the child grows up to be corruptive or a failure, or blame the wealthy, or the spoiled, or the father who was never there, or was there but lost the family fortune or didn't make a family fortune. It can go on and on endlessly.

I never spanked my sons who are now successful, happy, and moral grown men, I gave stern talks to them and we were and are a very religious family. Is this not a better form of discipline then spanking?

As Dr. Phil would say and I have to agree, "Where is his ownership?"

He was a grown man, he knew what he was doing was wrong and illegal. He should have been grateful he was not being sent to prison instead of being able to resign and be given a pardon later. No remorse, and no acknowledgment leads me to believe the only thing he was sorry for is he got caught. His speech in my opinion is full of wanting sympathy, did he deserve it? A tragedy indeed.

Ah yes I remember it well. I had a night economics Course at the Trinity downtown Campus. I parked my car along Broadway just north of the main San Antonio downtown business district and was walking along Broadway making my way toward the office building where the downtown classes were held. When passing a Western Auto store I noticed that a display TV was set-up in the Window with Nixon just beginning his speech. I stopped to listen.

In particularly I remember the bit about Pat’s respectable Republican Cloth coat in contrast to the mink coats gifts of Washington pressure groups worn by the wives of prominent Democrats. And of course the end, the clincher ending,the gift of Checkers the black and white cocker spaniel pup that come what may the Nixon’s would not give-up. Actually when I first heard the words “Republican cloth coat,” perhaps it was the poor audio quality through the window, but I heard it as “Republican croft coat.” Initially I was puzzled as to exactly what kind of coat it was, but after a moment I came to the obvious conclusion that it was a cloth coat.

I was still a Democrat then, and definitely voted for Adlai Stevenson. Reflecting back I really doubt that the world today would have been much different had Stevenson instead of Ike serve as president those two terms.

Ella:

Last night, I remembered that you had directed my attention to the idea of progress Morrow described as being toward the end of the "Johnsons of Texas." I did not address this correctly going off on a completely different tack.

I recall that at the time I read it I felt a twinge of something being wrong about Morrow's notion so I have gone back and read it again:

Two basic and contrary patterns are at work in the way people look at the idea of progress. One is the Ancient Greek conception of a golden age past. The other is the West's idea. since the Enlightenment, that the past is a kind of ignorant darkness and the present represents the ever-advancing progress of human knowledge and understanding as they approach some future perfection.

I find that I differ from Morrow here in his analysis. Historically, Ancient Greece initiated the thought of a democracy and the rights of the individual. These are concepts that with many starts and stops continued through the days of Rome into medieval times to 1215 when King John of England was forced to sign the Magna Carta, the first written document citing western civilization's concept of individual freedoms and the notion of democratic rule - even if a monarch was present.

Historically, Eastern Orthodoxy and Islamic rule supported the concept of absolute rule by an individual. No individual rights or a notion of democracy could be found in the countries east of Greece.

In recent years some Middle Eastern countries have had to struggle with the concept of democracy and individual freedoms although publicly declaring themselves as granting individual rights. For example, Egypt and Pakistan have struggled. Afghanistan is coping with the rise, again, of the Taliban suppressing education and destroying schools.

With regard to the Enlightenment - this was a phenomenon of the eighteenth century, but I cannot see Morrow's justification in stating that the West's idea of progress began with that movement. It was, indeed, a strong movement preceded by discoveries in physics and prompting the belief that reason was uppermost in understanding the universe. But, there had been many years of events and discoveries leading up to it. It has had a pronounced influence, but only in the sequence of history.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Age_of_Enlightenment

THANK YOU ALL FOR YOUR POSTS, THEY ARE SO INSIGHTFUL AND GIVE ME MUCH TO THINK ABOUT.

Nixon gives us all so much to think about.

"Its so Freudian to look back and blame the mother if the child grows up to be corruptive or a failure, or blame the wealthy, or the spoiled, or the father who was never there, or was there but lost the family fortune or didn't make a family fortune. It can go on and on endlessly."

Yes, Yes, BELLEMARIE, I agree - too easy. One has to take responsibility for one's own choices in life.

Nixon’s life was in many ways pathetic, wasn't it, but from all we read about the man he was very intelligent, an excellent lawyer - such a strange man though. I think LM describes him well: “an intensely private and disciplined and self-conscious man. He held himself back physically from other people. He had a fastidiousness, a bodily reticence………”

You sensed that in him when you saw him speak on TV.

Would he have considered his life a “comedy” or a “tragedy.” Which one do you think best fits him?

Hi HAROLD; Thanks for continuing with our group in spite of not having the book. Much of it is history – our history! And I remember watching the Checkers speech on TV also, I don’t remember my reaction to it except I was surprised at his reference to a “cloth coat.” My coats have always been spring or winter coats, light or heavy, black, white or brown coats, new or old, and I never thought of them as “cloth coats.” But, of course, they were, I’ve never had or wanted a fur coat. I would look like a bear in one and where would I wear it???? To the grocery? Hahahaaaa

Thanks so much, MERIJO, for answering some of my questions. Your description of "class" is right on - ""savoir faire" easy good manners, possibly without self-consciousness, appropriate speech."

Who had it? Not Nixon, although he wanted it.

Not LBJ, who didn’t care, he was from Texas, who needed it?

But JFK, yes, definitely. And he defined it. Did it matter to him? It must have, he grew up with a father who worked hard for it, succeeded, got it with his fortune and treasured it. That desire must have rubbed off on JFK, but he had a natural talent for it also.

We will all be watching the presidential candidates and will we pick out those with “class” as winners or can we look beyond it? I don't know. From what I see of Barack Obama, he has it.

------------------------------------

I can’t wait to get your comments on the chapter – FROM SOCIETY OF NECESSITY TO SOCIETY OF CHOICE.

It was one of the best chapters in the book in my opinion. This paragraph in particular gives one pause:

”Choice, to be sure, is freedom-freedom of choice-but there does come a moment in advanced material societies when what had seemed to be a wonderful freedom of choice would begin to look like no choice at all: a globalized coercion toward standard and not very interesting products franchised and distributed worldwide.”

sorry to have been such a poor participant in this discussion. When i signed up i tho't " oh good, nothing much is happening in Feb, this will be perfect!" Famous last words! I've had company for 4 days and then my book group met here yesterday...........i'll try to catch up....you all are writing such interesting posts.......jean

Oh my! so much to comment on

Class! I agree w/ Merijo's definition - i would have said someone who is comfortable anywhere and knows how to behave in different environments and makes others comfortable also. Nixon always looked uncomfortable and i'll bet anyone around him was generally uncomfortable. I wish i knew what Pat Nixon saw in him.....it did take him awhile to convince her to get married. I always saw her as so sad.....but he said that about her eyes also.....i think after being married to him, she must have been even more sad.

Ella, i don't remember where you live, but having a fur or a down coat in our northern, cold climates can be very smart. Those animals know how to keep warm. Walking on the streets of a city, or being out in the cold can make one very appreciative of the hides or feathers of animals. I know wearing fur is not politically correct any more, but i have a fox jacket that my husband bo't for me decades ago and i still wear it everywhere in cold and windy weather. I always felt i wouldn't "have anywhere to wear" a full length mink, but this jacket goes everywhere - to football games, grocery shopping, out for an evening in the city.....now my dgt wears it as often as she can get it...LOL

I must agree w/ LM about the beginning of material choice in the late 40's, i don't know if i would pin-point it to 1948, but certainly the late 40's brought a major social change in the country. I characterize the 50's for my students w/ the four C's: cold war, consumerism, children and conformity - the seeds to the 60's. And they all had their seeds in the later 40's. And i loved that he talked about the Levittowns - an amazing unique and timely idea. I also liked the use of the Capehart/Wurlizer juke box as an example of the consumer choices that exploded after WWII. Now, whether that has anything to do w/ the three presidents - ??? I'm not sure i see any connection.Of course, Joe Kennedy did convince the Amer'n population that were many things that they "needed." Alcohol, film, all those things in the Chicago Merchandise Mart. Did you see anything related to that in JFK? He could certainly sell himself, and the family has sold his image since his death........

more later......jean

While reading Nixon's Checkers Speech and Barac Obama's recent interview I could not help but find some similarities I thought interesting, both had some lead in about The Smear Tactics Begin.

Checkers Speech 1952

I am sure that you have read the charges, and you have heard it, that I, Senator Nixon, took $18,000 from a group of my supporters.

And let me say that I am proud of the fact that not one of them has ever asked me for a special favor. I am proud of the fact that not one of them has ever asked me to vote on a bill other than my own conscience would dictate. And I am proud of the fact that the taxpayers by subterfuge or otherwise have never paid one dime for expenses which I thought were political and should not be charged to the taxpayers.

Barac Obama Interview: 2007

KROFT: You wrote an op-ed page piece to The Washington Post last month saying we must stop any and all practices that would lead a reasonable person to believe that a public servant has become indebted to a lobbyist.

OBAMA: Right.

KROFT: Yet, you know, it's been reported that you bought a piece of undeveloped property, a lot next to your house, on very favorable terms, from a political fundraiser named Tony Rezko, who is now currently under indictment for influence peddling.

OBAMA: Right.

KROFT: What's your relationship with him?

OBAMA: First of all, I didn't purchase the land on very favorable terms. I paid the market price, and I think everybody's acknowledged that. This was somebody who I had known since I came back from law school. He was a developer in the area, had been a supporter, had never asked me for anything, and we had never done any government business together of any sort. He purchased a lot next to the house that my wife and I bought. I offered to him to buy a small strip of his land to expand my side yard, and, you know, had it assessed and paid the market price. This was prior to his indictment. But, you know, what is absolutely true is that he was already under a cloud of suspicion on something entirely unrelated to me -- some work that he had done with the state, and it was a bone-headed decision on my part, for the reasons that I say in my op-ed, that appearances matter.

KROFT: It looked like he was trying to help you out.

OBAMA: In retrospect, there's no doubt that he thought that buying a lot next to me would be an expression of friendship. Now, as I said, I have never done any favors for him; he had never asked me for anything. I was never in a position to do anything for him, but I think it is entirely legitimate to say that I should have known better.

Nixon:

And a war in Korea in which we have lost 117,000 American casualties, and I say that those in the State Department that made the mistakes which caused that war and which resulted in those losses should be kicked out of the State Department just as fast as we can get them out of there.

Obama:

KROFT: If you were President today and given the present situation in Iraq, what would you do?

KROFT: You've introduced a bill to get the U.S. troops out of Iraq by the end of March 2008.

OBAMA: Right.

KROFT: So essentially you're acknowledging defeat?

OBAMA: Not at all, because what the bill says is that if conditions allow for success and the military can assist in creating a stable Iraqi government, then we should do so. It is acknowledging that the President's policies in Iraq have failed, that we have spent over $400 billion, over 3,000 lives, and made us less safe, and that unless we fundamentally change course in Iraq, that we're going be having this same debate two years from now, four years from now, six years from now with who knows how many more incredibly brave American soldiers dying on the battlefield.

Dear Senator Nixon,

Since I am only 19 years of age, I can't vote in this presidential election, but believe me if I could, you and General Eisenhower would certainly get my vote. My husband is in the Fleet Marines in Korea. He is in the front lines. And we have a two month old son he has never seen. And I feel confident that with great Americans like you and General Eisenhower in the White House, lonely Americans like myself will be united with their loved ones now in Korea. I only pray to God that you won't be too late. Enclosed is a small check to help you with your campaign. Living on $85 a month it is all I can do.

Folks, it is a check for $10, and it is one that I shall never cash. And let me just say this: We hear a lot about prosperity these days, but I say why can't we have prosperity built on peace, rather than prosperity built on war? Why can't we have prosperity and an honest government in Washington D.C. at the same time?

Believe me, we can. And Eisenhower is the man that can lead the crusade to bring us that kind of prosperity.

But let me just say this last word. Regardless of what happens, I am going to continue this fight. I am going to campaign up and down America until we drive the crooks and the Communists and those that defend them out of Washington, and remember folks, Eisenhower is a great man. Folks, he is a great man, and a vote for Eisenhower is a vote for what is good for America.

Richard M. Nixon - September 23, 1952

There were more similarities but I won't take up more time and energy to post. But I think my point is that although we have come so far has there really been much change in politics or Presidential campaigning? The letter Nixon read from a parent, brought to mind so many parents writing the same type of letter to President Bush today begging him to bring their loved ones home from the war in Iraq.

This process is no different today then back centuries ago, same issues, challenges and corruption. The one thing that has changed that excites me is that we now have a woman and a black man campaigning for the Presidency. It will be interesting to see in the end if this advanced country can accept either of them or will the Democratic party select the more safe choice or as someone put it a more elect able choice in the end....A White Male?

When LM speaks of progress, I can only hope our nation can and has progressed to electing outside of the "class" they have been so comfortable with in the past. We can put a man on the moon, yet can we elect a Woman or Black Man to the office of President?

Ella, thank you for the link to the Sixty Minutes interview with Barack Obama. What is class? I don't know the way "class" is defined in dictionary. When I think of "class," I think of etiquette, the ability to control our emotions. I remember a song called Sophisticated Lady played by Duke Ellington. I am not sure. Is the definition of sophisticated and class interchangeable?

I feel that whether a president has class is dependent also on his ability to control his sexual behavior. So, I wouldn't say Kennedy or Clinton had class. Perhaps, "class" is an entity we can possess and then, lose. The ownership of class is temporary, dependent on behavior. I think Reagan had class. Did Hollywood teach him "class?"

The brainchild of developer William J. Levitt, Levittown, Pennsylvania was the largest planned community constructed by a single builder in the United States. By the time it was completed in 1958, the development occupied over 5500 acres in lower Bucks County and included churches, schools, swimming pools, shopping centers and 17,311 single-family homes.

To its 70,000-plus residents, Levittown represented the American Dream of homeownership. To many others, Levittown epitomized postwar suburbia—a place often criticized but widely copied.

Bellamarie, I remember hearing about Levittown. A friend of my family worked in construction. I heard him talk about the area quite a bit. I hope my memories aren't getting tangled up. I am a native of Philadelphia. If Levittown was built in 1948, I don't know the reason my ears picked up so much about it in the family. My memory can get pretty screwy.

Hats, Welcome back we have missed you. Your question of what is class brought me to the dictionary and here is the definition of it:

Class...noun, a distinct type or category: social rank: quality, especially of manners or dress vt. to grade or rank

So for me I think when we say one person may or may not have it I would ask myself if that is a judgment or prejudice we are expressing? I think there can be many different types of "class" Lower class, Middle class and High class or Upper class. I certainly don't feel anyone's sex life would qualify them as having it or not. With all due respect, if that were the measuring stick of deciding who does or who does not have class then there would be a small group found to have class in Washington.

The Kinsey report published in 1948 pg. 142 - 143, would certainly prove there would be very few people at all considered to have class by the measure of controlling their sexual thoughts or behavior. This report was to say the least shocking to me.

Ronald Reagan had an affair and ended up divorced. Just because he was not a President at the time should not exclude him according to your idea. Elizabeth Taylor has been called a woman of class, yet look at her life. I would consider Princess Diana as being a woman with high class, yet she was not without the sin of adultery.

"Class" to me is a word used of society and prejudice. Let us not confuse class with morals. Or better yet let me ask this question:

Can a person lack in morals yet still have class? And why or why not? Does anyone else see class as a prejudice used in society?

Bellamarie, one day back and you have my mind sizzling with excitement. Thank you for the dictionary definition. I had forgotten about Reagan's affair, I think he was still married to Jane Wyman. I see your point. It is important not to mix morals with class. I do find the dictionary definition a bit unclear or vague.

In Communist countries like Cuba, people aren't separated by class, are they? Is it the Communist belief that all must share with one another, have an equal amount of goods???? Of course, if this is so, this is why the Communist countries can not come to grips with Capitalism.

I need Ella's guidance. Am I totally off subject??

Communism "A system of government in which the state plans and controls the economy and a single, often authoritarian party holds power, claiming to make progress toward a higher social order in which all goods are equally shared by the people."(answers.com)

This is a follow up to my #156 post after pondering it even more..

I thought it was very interesting to see that Nixon and Obama had the same youth, idealistic views, and naivete as they began their careers in politics. Each of them had already found themselves in questionable behaviors of dealing with individuals looking for special favors from them once in the position to make it possible. A deal was not asked for or promised but I think the silence in accepting the favor speaks volume. Like Obama said, he would be more inclined to answer their phone call if they had donated to his campaign.

Does politics corrupt the man or is the man already corrupt?

Each of them voiced letting the voters decide if they are seasoned enough and deserving of being on the ticket.

They each had a war going on that they wanted to see come to an end.

I read on CNN last night Obama has already had to apologize for as he put it "A slip of the tongue" for saying our 3,000+ troops who have died in Iraq were wasted lives. He has already said it was not good judgment to purchase the land from Rezo who is under investigation. Does his hindsight and apologies make it excusable? He is showing his youth and inexperience already and he has just begun.

He is using the slogan, "New Generation" for his campaign, meaning he is NOT a baby boomer and it's time to pass the torch.

Are we ready to pass the torch to the next generation who are not in the baby boomer generation? Is the next generation ready for the torch to passed on to them?

I am a late baby boomer and now I can appreciate what the older Americans were thinking when JFK used the New Generation in his plight.

My husband was born in 1948 and is contemplating retirement, I look at Obama's "New Generation" signs and I feel a sense of sadness to think our Generation is about to become the Old Generation. It brings me to think the baby boomers are actually going to have to trust in the New Generation to be ready to take on the huge tasks of protecting our Constitution and Country. The congress and senate are full of baby boomers and should a young man such as Obama be elected to the office could he successfully work with the Older Generation?

Are the large majority of the American population Baby Boomers and are they ready to vote in a New Generation? hmmm let me think ...that would be a NO vote from this baby boomer.

What are all your thoughts?

OH, GOLLY, FOLKS! IT'S BAD HERE IN OHIO and this is the first year I have lived alone and wouldn't you know all this terrible weather has to show up. I've called the builder of my condo to find out what I do if the electricity goes off, what do I know???? But he was so kind and I feel more confident I can handle that aspect of widowhod, I don't want frozen pipes.

HAPPY VALENTINE'S DAY

Oh, what a day. Our road into our rather isolated condos has not been plowed for two days and we have mountains of snow and ice out there. Maybe today? And I threw away my old boots intending to get a new pair!!! I'm chuckling about that!!!

THANK YOU, BELLEMARIE, for telling everyone about our weather.

TEA AND SILENCE! You are just precious!

ALL OF YOU ARE FOR CONTINUING THE CONVERSATION - IT'S SO INTERESTING AND I'LL BE BACK LATER FOR COMMENTS. KEEP IT UP!

Don't any of you miss the little Mom 'n Pop stores we used to have, the ones that sometimes stuck in a few stools and had sandwiches? Aren't you tired of what LM describes as a "die-off of the local, the disstinctive, the tasty." "The proliferating lifelessnes of the standard."

Is your hometown doing anything about it?

I'll be back later today; meanwhile again THANK YOU for your interest and your remarks!

Now where did I put the tea bags?

I'm starting to read your comments and I see that you have addressed the issue of "conformity" so disregard my last post. I think it "smacked" me in the face when I read LM's chapter because I have been thinking this way for the past decades and it just gets worse, more franchises, more stores merging into one. We soon will have little freedom of choice as LM states.

"To say that the world faces conflicts of civilization is true; but the essence of the conflict lies deeper, in the profligate energies of societies of choice confronting the radical indignation of societies of necessity.

That is worth repeating. Back later............

On Sunday my book group was in a discussion of Hillary v Obama when the issue of "new generation" arose. One woman tho't that the Baby Boomers would be more trusting of the new generation than our parents were of the younger generation. She stated that baby boomers don't think they are the "older generation" they think they are young also and relate more to the next generation then baby boomers parents did to them. I tended to agree. The parents of the 60's kids saw them as rebels - now i have to throw in here what i say to my college students......that only a small percentage of the 60's generation were doing all the radical things we see in the videos of the 60's - but we all think of those as symbolic of the atmosphere of the times. I think that baby boomer parents and their children may be more in sync then i was w/ my parents........what do you think?

Hats - the Levittown in Bucks County - the first one - was in 1948, but Levitt continued to build other Levittowns, including the one in South Jersey that is now called Willingboro. That may be the one you remember - or the one on Long Island that got a lot of publicity for being a segregated community - excluding Blacks and Jews. After all the publicity about segregation in the Pa one, Levittown in Burlington County changed it's name back to the small town it had been - ironically - Willingboro, almost implying that they were willing to integrate. The most fascinating thing for me about L-towns was the way they were built. It was an assembly line of houses on the street. All parts were pre-fab, the framers came and moved from lot to lot putting up the structure, the glazers went from house to house putting in the windows, the painters came, the linoleum got laid, the cabinets were installed, each group of skilled workers moving from one house to the next. I believe i heard in a documentary that eight houses were built each day..........jean

I characterize the 50's for my students w/ the four C's: cold war, consumerism, children and conformity”

That’s good, that’s excellent, Jean, what grade do you teach? It all started about the same decade as our three presidents were gathering steam in their careers. Of course, there was no way to stop any of it and except for the cold war (although Putin is getting a very bad press lately) it's continuing. But what do you mean by the reference to "children?

Bellemarie, that is so insightful to make the comparisons between Nixon and Obama. But, golly, I can’t believe that this young man, this idealistic young man, can ever make the same mistakes that Nixon did – EVER! His personality, for one thing, is so very different, he’s open, he’s gracious, he’s truthful about his past mistakes. If Nixon or Clinton had ever admitted their mistakes it would have made the difference in the way history treats them. I know we can look at the two of them in hindsight; whereas, Obama is just beginning.

Let's hope he learns from the past. I saw Hillary speaking in MA and (it's just a personal opinion) I would compare her to Nixon, strictly on performance. LM's description of Nixon - private, disciplined, reticent, uptight, shrewd, intelligent, calculating (some of those I stuck in there) would apply to her as well.

None of those qualities would prevent me from voting for her, however.

Where can we find a George Marshall?

As Bellemarie said - "The one thing that has changed that excites me is that we now have a woman and a black man campaigning for the Presidency. It will be interesting to see in the end if this advanced country can accept either of them or will the Democratic party select the more safe choice or as someone put it a more elect able choice in the end....A White Male?"

HEY HATS! Stay with us - we have much to discuss yet. Communism, Marxism, words that were with us during 50 years of the cold war and the World War before then. We don't talk about those systems of government much anymore. It seems capitalism has gained on the world in some parts - and others? Let's not go there.....

Yes, it is time to go on to Chapter Three and I will post the questions for it ASAP.

Hello Jean, I just read your post. You and Bellemarie both have brought up the question of the baby boomers and how they feel about being the "older" generation as opposed to the "new" generation.

Let's talk about it. My daughter is a baby boomer, I'll ask her tonight how she feels. If her generation is the "older" one, then my generation is what? The "oldest?"

Well, of course, it's a matter of pride, who wants to be the older generation, but Bellemarie mentioned her husband was thinking of retiring, my daughter is thinking of it. Remarks such as these lead one to believe that it is true; the baby boomers do not have the prestige that title brought to them. However, certainly some candidate will come up with a better slogan than the "New Generation." That's boring.

During the years that Kennedy, Johnson and Nixon were presidents, I was having a very busy time. I have been especially pleased to read about those years here in Morrow's book. I feel as though I touched base with Washington's antics just sporadically during those years.

I did recognize the changes that occurred in our country that Morrow speaks about even though I lived in a mostly rural area of California. I noticed the changes in the attitudes of the public toward authority, toward earlier concepts of patriotism and loyalty and toward history. It was disturbing and sad. It could be seen as a somewhat permanent condition beginning.

It was affecting children at a very young age. They seemed to be more agitated and restless or very tired much of the time. I was teaching first grade at the time, and my colleagues and I would discuss the changes we were noticing.

As Morrow states,It is interesting that it was in the era of the three presidents, Kennedy, Johnson, and Nixon, that amid the crises of the Vietnam War, the civil rights movement, and women's liberation many Americans repudiated its supposedly heroic and glorious past. The myth of the West was bunk. The real heroes were those Comanches, not the genocidal whites who had come to steal the Native Americans' lands and kill off their buffalo. John Wayne (who played the Johnson brothers and other men like them in the movie versions of the myths) was the sort of monster of machismo whose sham heroics in The Sands of Iwo Jima had been playing in the minds of naive American boys when they went off to Vietnam to murder peasants.

It was in the presidencies of the three that the American myth pivoted on its axis until the side that had been bathed in sunlight became dark.

Oh, dear, I don't mean to be here all day, hahahaaaa

I came to Seniornet for another reason but had to peek in here. MERIJO, what an idea:

"It was affecting children at a very young age. They seemed to be more agitated and restless or very tired much of the time. I was teaching first grade at the time, and my colleagues and I would discuss the changes we were noticing."

What do you attribute that to today? Today the increase in children taking Ritalin is disturbing to me. Is this a permanent condition also? Can we reverse the trend you speak of?

We don't need for me to post questions - they are here.

My book is at the library - I'll pick it up tomorrow.

Re Jean's "4 Cs of the 50s", and about children: I was having children during the 1950's (56, 57, 59, and 61). So our kids are younger boomers. That's an interesting thought about the boomers resenting the "next generation" who are wanting to take over. I'm quite sure the boomers don't feel that they are even remotely old enough to be considered "old" and to be pushed out.

When I posted Obama using the slogan "New Generation" and him stating that meant he was NOT a baby boomer. In no way in my post did I mean to imply the baby boomers would or do resent the younger generation or feel they are being pushed out. The baby boomers are truly more in touch and relate so much more openly and informatively with their children and even their grandchildren then our parents ever did with us. When I was a child and I am certain all you 50 and over will remember the saying was, "Children are to be seen and not heard." The baby boomers are just the opposite, we want our children to be heard, we want our children to share their thoughts and feelings with us and you will see the country has more confident, informed and outspoken candidates because of it.

I have admiration and respect for the younger generation and welcome their participation in politics, after all its their children, grandchildren and their senior citizen parents who will benefit in the future years to come.

Also, When I showed the similarities of the Checkers speech and Obama's interview PLEASE do NOT even consider I was implying Obama could be another Nixon. My only point of interest was to show how when a politician begins his career and campaign they have such youth, idealism and naivete. I was thinking of how when they begin they have so much promise and how politics can and do corrupt the best of them. I personally like Obama and am excited to see if he can successfully win the democratic ticket. That being said, I also like Hilary Clinton and I do not see any of the qualities that were posted about her. I find her warm, exciting, a hard worker, experienced and a people person. Nothing dark about her, She has been on Oprah, and The View and is very warm and friendly. Nothing whatsoever like the Nixon that LM describes in this book.

HAPPY VALENTINES' DAY TO ALL!!

Ella:

Morrow points out the cultural changes that were taking place. Ritalin was starting to be given to little children in the early seventies as I recall. Parents would tell us as their little ones were considered to be hyperactive.

The general consensus among us teachers was speculative. It was a new experience for us, but we had noticed that some of the parents had been recently divorced or recently remarried, some had been on drugs and some parents were both working. Some worked at two jobs, and some were going to school. One parent was working nights or a later shift so the other could go to school or stay home. The children were staying with sitters, grandparents, aunts, or in nursery school or a kind of day care. Day care was an incipient industry in the sixties.

If one analyzes the above all those family settings are pretty disruptive, disorderly, unsettling and would affect children, some more than others.

I had the experience of a cute little boy with freckles all over his face and a nice smile and demeanor coming back to school after Christmas with the startling announcement that his mother had married a man wih eight children and now there were a lot of people in the house. His behavior changed and the following year I learned that he had become a discipline problem.

Ella: With regard to your question about whether we will be able to reverse the trend, I think that it will gradually reverse itself although not in the sense of going back to the fifties. I think there has been an increased awareness of social needs, and many parents are most interested in managing their time so as to spend much of it with their families - more so than in the past.

We have already had two baby boomers as president - Clinton and G. W. Bush.

(I had two war babies and one baby boomer - my youngest was born in the same year as Clinton and Bush, 1946 - the first year of the boom babies. There were so many babies in the hospital that I was on the medical floor instead of the maternity floor!!) He is very vocal about the government and the times!

BELLEMARIE states that The baby boomers are just the opposite, we want our children to be heard, we want our children to share their thoughts and feelings with us and you will see the country has more confident, informed and outspoken candidates because of it.

We have heard from two of them. Both presidents. Both confident, informed and outspoken.

Baby boomers. They started the trend, as MERIJO reminds us, of easy divorces, both parents working, day care centers (have you noticed they are franchised now and beautiful?), drugs and disturbed children.

My generation of parents struggled in their marriages to stay together (right or wrong), the mothers took care to be at home when the children were and sent them out to play away from TV and computers, never heard of drugs to keep children quiet, and watched the baby boom generation in amazement and oftimes envy!

NEW QUESTIONS IN HEADING.

WE ARE AU COURANT!

THE HISTORY CHANNEL, ACCORDING TO MY PAPER, IS HAVING A DOCUMENTARY ON PRESIDENT NIXON TONIGHT AT 8 p.m. EST. There is a review of the program, sad!

I teach history at a community college, so my students range in age from 18 to 75. The "children" in my 4 C's of the 50's alludes to a fact that some of you obviously experienced - there were a lot of them being born in the 50's and the society began to focus on them, attention was given to children in a way that had not been true previously in history. I also talk about the 50's as the seeds to the 60's. Many political and cultural events of the 60's/70's came about because of the large number of young people and the attention they were given: rock and roll being a great example; the Civil Rts movement was motivated by the young - sit-in participants were almost entirely college students and were the first major civ rts demonstrations. Of course, the drug culture, the anti-war movement, the environmental movement all largely made up of those "children" from the 50's. The emphasis on conformity that their parents had foisted on them got turned on it's head in the 60's/70's. The consumerism - "keeping up w/ the Jones," making money, Dad working long hours - Remember the book "The ORganiztion Man," the movie "Man in the Gray Flannel Suit," both discussing the new corporation man - and it was "man." The stereotypical 60's young adults rebelled against that image, a la communes, etc.

Interestingly, our three presidents were of the previous generation and LBJ and RMN responded as the "parents," trying to keep control. Remember "law and order?" Spiro AGnew attacking the press and the young people? Many of those reporters were baby boomers, especially those in Viet Nam.

Ella asks: "Many of our past presidents have had "hardscrabble" lives growing up. How does this affect a man/woman and does it make for better character." - I don't know if that fact alone makes for better character, but it was rather appalling to have GHW Bush not know how to shop for socks - i think that has more importance than just the act itself, it speaks to being waaaayyy out of touch w/ most of the country. JUst as JFK was protected from the poverty of the country..........

interesting comments.....more later.......jean

JEAN, what a challenge to teach a class with such disparate ages. I'm bursting with questions, but I'd like you to tell us how they differ in a history class.

IMHO society's attention is still focused on the young or I should the teenagers. am I right do you think?

"Trying to control" - a phrase that was used in last night's program in describing Nixon; a program I think would be of benefit to every presidential candidate. I learned a few new things about the man and some of the comments were enlightening.

To understand Nixon you have to look at where he grew up, his childhood.

Nixon promised an honorable end to Vietnam.

Halderman often made his own decisions about the erratic proposals of Nixon.

Nixon believed in the imperial presidency.

Nixon was flown to Camp David after the Kent State riots for his own protection. He was "on the edge" - had gone two days without sleep.

The encounter at the Lincoln memorial with a group of students.

There were 3700 hours of tape recordings from the oval office.

Kissinger was portrayed as a "dark confidant."

The trip to China was a "triangular" game with the Soviet Union and thereafter he made the trip there.

--------------------------------------

WHERE ARE YOU BELLEMARIE? I imagine the children are back again and you are busy? I hope you can take time to comment on the new questions.

HATS, are you around? MERIJO?

WHAT DID YOU THINK OF THE TITLE OF THE CHAPTER - "LYNDON FOR SALE?" My first thought was is every candidate? They must raise all this money for their campaigns, MILLIONS, and what do the donors expect in return? Or do they?

Later..................

Ella asks: "WHAT DID YOU THINK OF THE TITLE OF THE CHAPTER - "LYNDON FOR SALE?" My first thought was is every candidate? They must raise all this money for their campaigns, MILLIONS, and what do the donors expect in return? Or do they?

As far as what I thought about the title, I would have to say it seems to be accurate. How does a man like Lyndon Johnson go from having little money to having lots? As Morrow stated, Johnson was the most wealthy President to take office. Where did all that money come from?

I do believe every candidate comes with a price. Look at Bush, Cheney and Haliburton. The Iraq war has funneled endless amounts of money into the pockets of Haliburton the major company to supply machinery etc for the war. Its not a secret Cheney is connected to stock in the company. Not to mention the OIL deals and their connections. The Michael Moore movie was a true wake up call to me.

I think when a candidate has to begin a campaign years ahead of the election there is only one way to keep money flowing in and that is to make silent deals with whom ever is willing to front you the money. The system needs to be changed and politicians have asked for a reform yet nothing has been done and I think in part due to the benefactors who want, expect and are delivered the favors once the person is in office. Unless the candidates have extremely wealthy families who can back them financially there is NO other way. Even simple contributions come with a price tag or expectation. Just the statement Obama made about he would be more apt to take the phone call of a contributor says volume of the pressure and expectancy that is attached to the contribution.

Everyone expects Something!

1. Would you be pleased when after some years of public service your son announced his intention to run for the presidency? What advice would you give him?

If after some years in public service my son/daughter announced his/her intention to run for the Presidency I would be very proud of him/her. The advice I would give to him/her is to not sell his/her soul. I would remind him/her that it is his/her faith in God that has gotten him/her to this point and to always remember a position in the Presidency is at the most 8 years of his/her life, so don't embarrass or shame thy self, thy family or this country, because that will remain with him/her a lifetime.

I have to say that I think most parents of politicians hope the good seeds sown will have taken strong roots in their son or daughter by the time they enter politics. That being said, I also believe good people enter politics such as Obama with youthful, idealistic and true will to do good. I only question if at one point the naivete is unrealistic and the small Ooops begin and before you know it they have engaged in the bigger Oooops and the acknowledgments are no longer forth right and the apologies are no longer forthcoming.

I truly believe politics do corrupt the best of man/woman in their quest for the Presidency.

2.How diligent should the press be about the private lives of presidents? Had they been more diligent, would the mistakes of Kennedy, Nixon and Johnson been avoided?

In the cases of these three presidents, the times prompted the kind of stories that were written about them. The general media at the time would not have dwelt on their private lives, but the Kennedys had a public relations person in their employ whose job it was to publicize as much good as possible about the Kennedys and quash any negative news.

LBJ was a crook, pure and simple. In Texas, rumors began that were not squelched by anyone. Indeed, LBJ was pretty coarse and unscrupulous. He twisted the truth to get elected and Coke Stevenson defeated.

Nixon did approximately the same thing in his campaign against Voorhis in California.

This is the amorality of the men, as opposed to being unmoral or immoral. They were just plain without morals.

At that time no one in the press would have glommed on to these facts and insinuated or stated what was going on. The press would have reported facts and events and left any analyses up to muckrakers or journalists.

People did not let anything that they might have heard get in the way of their voting. At that time, nominations for the presidency occurred in a real convention - complete with smoke-filled backrooms where chosen ones came up with sufficient delegates' votes and created their "king". The last two or three conventions were not in the model of the earlier conventions. What took place then was the result of primary elections. The candidates were pre-ordained then at the primaries and caucuses.

For the 2008 election some large States are positioning themselves to have a primary election before or just after the New Hampshire election and the Iowa caucus. This coming election will be the first of its kind. A nominal convention to present a platform and some dramatics in announcing a previously-determined candidate.

Ella, Thank you for the Larry King interview with Rudy. I have to say after reading 3/4 of it I had to stop. That man speaks out of both sides of his mouth. He said make a decision how many times and yet he can't make one and stand by it. What was all that flip flopping about?

Who goes on Larry King Live to announce they are in the race for Presidency the way he did? Its almost like he fumbled it out of his mouth. Talk about Monday morning quarterbacking..... he needs to go back and read this interview. He never once committed to one thing and backed it up with conviction. He did not sound intelligent or informed to me. He's pro choice but hates abortion?? He is for gay rights but against them being able to be married?? Gun control again flip flopping. He just can't make up his mind. And not being able to say anyone is to blame for this Iraq war, but learn from the mistakes is a cop out.

This interview rang of someone who refused to commit for fear of losing favor with this administration and his party.

Ella, Thank you for the kind words of voting for someone from my family. I understand how many parents like yourself would tell their child to run as fast as they can away from the office. Its almost like a double edge sword, but someone's gotta do it.

"In the cases of these three presidents, the times prompted the kind of stories that were written about them."

I can understand that, MERIJO, the media today are more insistent, more probing. Is it because of the expansion of the media into fragmented TV news stations and the Internet news? Many more employed and hungry for any small news items?

If so, why do we not hear more about President Bush, his friends and acquaintances, his daughters, his health, etc.?

In skimming over our present chapters Nixon's only friend, Bebe Rebozo, was a "sauna and massage, a visit to the club."

Kennedy's friends were "factotums - "the kind that the Kennedys liked to employ as part of their court."

How do we pick our friends anyway and what do they show about our characters?

LM states that all three presidents exhibited, at one time or another, behaviour that was "sick." Where were the reporters then?

I wouldn't identify these presidents with their wartime activities would you? Is that a "man" thing? There is Kennedy's PT-109 fiasco, Nixon's war record and LBJ's Silver Star. Those incidents would not have come to mind in remembering these three men. LM writes quite a bit about them and are they important in judging their character?

At one time, perhaps, war record, war achievement, looked good on a candidate's resume for the office of the presidency. At present, none of the candidates have suscribed to this idea. Of course, Hillary would be out in the cold if it was all that important.

LM, obviously, considers sexual infidelities, or the lack thereof in Nixon's case, to be of great import.

Do you? If you were writing a book, hoping to sell it to the public, would you? Has he spent too much time on this subject.

BELLEMARIE, my sentiments exactly! When are we going to hear possible solutions to the country's problems?

But, BELLEMARIE, in thinking over your question of who goes on Larry King's program to announce his candidacy, I am reminded that Barack Obama announced on 60 Minutes. Has Hillary announced anything yet and where?

These programs are free to the candidates and I think one of the ways in which they can reach the American public with their ideas (or lack thereof). So I would encourage all such programs to invite the candidates on frequently; although I think it is way too early for any of them to be speaking out on anything. A year and a half away - much can happen before the next election, don't you think?

Ella, Hillary announced a couple of weeks ago - on the internet, on her web page.

SHE DID???

AND ON THE INTERNET?

IS THIS WISE OF HER? There are many people who may not have access to the Internet. Class distinction showing?

I don't watch much TV, actually none at all. I get summaries of the news on the radio but the TV holds little interest for me for some reason. I'll try to be more alert in the future??? But I doubt it. I read, I read, I read................

MARY, I'm bouncing around the house doing this and that, not much of anything! Thinking...........

I'm out of touch! I must keep up better. But I do read the newspapers and magazines and I missed Hillary's announcement. Oh, well, I'll hear/read plenty in the next year.

Was it BELLEMARIE that mentioned Hillary was on a show - THE VIEW - isn't that primarily a women's program? Would men watch it? What else has she been on?

I think the recent posts here are using the word “Class” to mean some sort of innate "cool" personality possessed by some individuals particularly some recent political personalities. Obviously JFK is the definitive politician of this types and Obama seems the one in current favor. Bill Clinton seems to have enjoyed this “Class” through much of his career, but he got caught in an un-cool situation and lost it.

Of the Republicans, Ronald Regan seems to haave enjoyed this benefit through \most of his political life

And Bellamarie is right in pointing out that "Class" does not guarantee the inclusion of high moral principals

I liked Ella’s comment in #153

Who had it? Not Nixon, although he wanted it.

Not LBJ, who didn’t care, he was from Texas, who needed it?

Ella:

The reason we didn't hear anymore at that time is because such stories were not considered appropriate for the mainstream media about anyone not just the presidents. There was more reserve among the general public, I think. The country had not entered the pyschobabble era ushered in by the Kinsey Report.

I have found that I get ample news about Bush on the national evening news. Last night's, for example, pointed out that he had had some lesions removed from his face, pre-cancerous and otherwise.

I read the LATimes, the Economist, U. S. News and World Report, and the Atlantic Monthly. These come to the house, and they each have different philosophies re government. I read the NYTimes on the Internet.

Most presidents and their wives try to protect their children from the glare of publicity. Bill Clinton and Hillary did for Chelsea. The twins are adults now, and busy with their own lives. One has been helping AIDS victims in Africa and the other has been teaching. Both went to Argentina, and Barbara had her purse stolen there much to the consternation of the Argentinian authorities.

I do not think the public has been deprived of information. Some of it has been wrong and it has been declared wrong publicly when found out. I think there is much artificial animosity around now. I think that there are many writers talking pro and con about the president. TV and Radio are full of both pro and con information. It is up to the listener to determine how sensible the news they are watching or hearing appears to be.

So much has been said about the country going in the wrong direction that I have studied the comments to see where the problem may be. For example, I agree that the private Health Insurance situation needs a remedy, and that Social Security needs to be overhauled. The immigration problem, also, needs to be resolved. These are mostly within the purview of Congress. Bush has proposed and asked and formed committees to discuss all these things, but we have members of Congress balking - just because they don't like Republicans or Bush, perhaps. In my opinion, the American people don't care one way or another for political victories; they want these things remedied.

During the administrations of these three men so much was done and kept away from the public that if it had been going on now there would have been a genuine public brouhaha. The Internet has turned the world into a peoples requiring instant gratification and responses to their needs.

Regarding the three presidents' war experiences only Nixon's was lengthy and under fire. He was appreciated by his men and his superiors. Kennedy misjudged terribly, and Johnson's was a farce and a real manipulation of an event. His one "combat mission" was as a passenger.

Regarding Hillary Clinton's declaration that she was running for president, I saw and heard her on ABC Nightly News. She was speaking to a rather large audience, but I don't remember where. I think in New Hampshire.

Ella post 188...But, BELLAMARIE, in thinking over your question of who goes on Larry King's program to announce his candidacy, I am reminded that Barack Obama announced on 60 Minutes. Has Hilary announced anything yet and where?

Obama announced on Feb 10th in Springfield Ill.

Hilary Clinton announced on Jan. 20th on her web site, then appeared publicly in New York and on to Iowa the following week. http://www.hillaryclinton.com/news/release/view/?id=1234

Edwards announced in New Orleans.

Ella...These programs are free to the candidates and I think one of the ways in which they can reach the American public with their ideas (or lack thereof). So I would encourage all such programs to invite the candidates on frequently; although I think it is way too early for any of them to be speaking out on anything. A year and a half away - much can happen before the next election, don't you think?

My point in saying Rudy announced on Larry King was that if you read the transcript it was like a fumbled announcement. It was almost as though he did not intend to announce it there and then. Larry asked, are you in and he says, "I'm in". That's not exactly how I see a candidate announcing his bid for Presidency or at least not a formal bid.

I have nothing against Larry King and he certainly has great guests, not that I am a regular viewer. Hilary has been on his show many times and I am sure she will be many more.

Ella, as for Hilary being on the View and Oprah, a "woman's show" I have to say, the View has millions of viewers and I am certain there are men watching also.

HAHAHAAA, HAROLD!

Of course, you would like me to say in reference to presidents having "class."

NOT GEORGE W. BUSH, who doesn't care, he's from Texas and doesn't need it.

(Harold is from Texas also and doesn't need it)

later, eg

Thanks, BELLEMARIE, for Hillary's web site. Has any of you posted a blog yet? What are some other ones, do you know? Other candidates?

8. LM never mentions the tensions of the Cold War in this book (unless I missed the reference) and yet that period of history was a frightening one in many ways and must have had some impact on the lives of these three presidents. What else is missing in LM's history of this period?

I seemed to remember that Morrow wrote of the Cold War. It is in the Introduction on pages 32 and 33 in Roman numerals. ANNUS MIRABILIS (1948) It was a cold winter__a little postwar Ice Age, a literal-minded siege of weather to mark the start of the Cold War. Twenty-five inches of snow fell on New York just after Christmas, 1947.

And at the bottom of the page 33 after mentioning the death of Ghandi, Morrow says,So much of the world had been torn loose____by world war, of course, but also by science.

Continuing on page 34, Now, in early 1948, Oppenheimer was the director of the Advanced Study at Princeton (home, as well, to Albert Einstein, another genius in whose mind science and mysticism circled round to meet one another in an unexpected, apocalyptic rendezvous.) In Technology Review, Oppenheimer published an article reflecting his bad conscience. He wrote:

The experience of the war... has left us with a legacy of concern...Nowhere is this troubled legacy more acute...than among those who participated in the development of atomic energy for military purposes....The atomic bomb came straight out of our laboratories and our journals....In some sort of crude sense which no vulgarity, no humor, no overstatement can quite extinguish, the physicists have known sin. And this is the knowledge which they cannot lose.

This introduction is well worth re-reading. Morrow continues with the narration of the profound sadness that accompanied the dropping of the atomic bomb.

Morrow quotes Ghandi:...It is a question now whether the victors are really the victors or the victims. The world is not at peace. It is still more dreadful.

THANK YOU MERIJO!

I will reread the Introduction, doesn't he write well? I so enjoyed reading this book if for no other reason than that.

Do you remember first hearing the phrase "illegal aliens?" Did you wonder who came up with that and how they determined who they are? How do they find them? Exactly what do they do to those that they find? There is an underlayer in society that I know very little about it.

Do we feel rather smug about being a "real" American as opposed t an "un-American" and therefore putting more distance between us

Is this an issue that will go away in a few years?

#2. How diligent should the press be about the private lives of presidents? Had they been more diligent, would the mistakes of Kennedy, Nixon and Johnson been avoided?

The first part of this question is no longer debatable as I see it. The media has shown there is NO place they will stop at and there is NO way they can be stopped. The proverbial Pandora's box has been opened and can never be closed again. Princess Diana paid the price of the media not allowing anyone's private life alone. The press no longer has any morals or good judgment on where to pull back and say its just not right to invade a person's private life.

Would the same mistakes have been made? Yes, of course...look at the politicians and celebrities today. Do they alter their life choices due to the fact the media is publishing every little or huge step they take? No, people are essentially living their lives regardless of how much or how little press is there to cover it. In today's world I have to think the more press the more sin. Paris Hilton, Britney Spears, Lindsey Lohan, the President and his fallen administration today are examples, they do NOT alter their lives knowing the media is going to find out and report it. A person's character and personality is what it is and they will live it as such. When caught and confronted the socially acceptable thing to do today is admit the wrong, say I can learn from my mistakes or go into therapy or rehab. That makes it all right. If you read the Larry King transcripts with Rudy he did just that, he admitted he is human, has made mistakes and hopes he can learn from them. Obama has already admitted to two big mistakes and has apologized and says he hopes to learn from them. The media is hounding Hilary Clinton to admit to her mistake for voting to give authority to President Bush to go to war in Iraq. Americans are begging President Bush to admit to his mistake for invading a country under false pretenses.

Are people learning from their mistakes, admitting to them or not and doing better? History shows NO! The same mistakes are being made over and over again regardless of the consequences. Soldiers are still dying senselessly and celebrities are still over dosing and dying from drugs, anorexia, and senseless life styles.

Each day a soldier dies and his number is added to the count and the world goes on with NO accountability or apology forthcoming.

Each day a celebrity is reported anorexia, drug overdose, or showing blatant remarks of bigotry and prejudice.

Each day the media, photographers and magazines make millions of dollars reporting and it has not and will not change people's decision making. They are who they are regardless.

Johnson, Kennedy and Nixon are just a few fish in the sea of sinners.

#10. In such a book as LM has written, does he concentrate too much on the bad qualities of these three presidents? Would we have discussed it if he did otherwise?

Yes and Yes, I feel LM would not have had a book had he not concentrated heavily on the bad qualities of these three presidents. I can not even begin to tell you how bored and frustrated I was each time I read and reread his repetitive accounts of their bad qualities. Almost every chapter he repeats it.

I would have still read the book because I was ready to join this book discussion and wanted to learn more about Johnson and Nixon. I love sharing with all of you and that alone kept me interested in this book. I was disappointed the book was not more positive or at least balanced. This book helped me research on the internet even more facts and knowledge so I am glad I did read it.

As the candidates announce their intentions of running for president my interests have heightened and this book has shown many similarities of the candidates who have declared their bid. I have found Morrow to be a writer I may stay away from in the future basically because of his repetitive writing. You can tell me something once and then maybe twice and after that I am bored with hearing it again and again. It becomes redundant.

Ella:

I did notice how well Morrow writes, especially last night as I was reading through the introduction.

About the illegal aliens: There is really no way of telling who is illegal or not. In my area of Central California there are many nationalities represented, not just Hispanics.

My daughter teaches English as a Second Language to adults, and in addition to Mexicans, her students have included, Chinese, Yemeni, Ecuadoreans, Guatemalans, Ethiopians, Laotians and Russians. Lately she has had an influx of Chinese. Eventually, many of her students go on to get their naturalization papers.

The only time that an illegal alien is discovered is if one breaks the law and is arrested. He/she may get deported right back to their country.

Many Americans do not know that there is a provision for aliens to pay income taxes. Special ID numbers from the IRS can be obtained for this purpose. Others just pay and never expect a benefit.

Illegals Pay Income Taxes

6. Should the presidency be a trophy; something to win in a competition? Does this detract from the image we should have of our president?

The presidency should not be a trophy, but in a sense, I believe it is, and has been for each president except George Washington. He did not want to be in charge, but because there was no one around in those days that his fellow founding fathers could vote for enthusiastically, he agreed to be president. It is a good thing that he was as he set the correct protocol for being a president of the U. S.

Political ambitions seem to obscure the fact that it is a "trophy". Yet we read that there is intense disappointment when the "prize" is lost.

As for detracting for our image of a president, I think that may come down to the thoughts of the individual citizen in regard to the matter.

C-SPAN has had some wonderful authors on this afternoon - writers of history and if I didn't have other things to do, I would listen all the time!

JEAN, are you listening? Or do you want to get away from history during the week? And you didn't answer my question about how the age groups in your history class vary. Who talks more? Who asks more questions? Why are they there, etc?

One author (who is a fellow of this and that in Britain) was asked what leaders he most admired in American history (since 1900) and British history and who he least admired. America, Most Admired - Teddy Rosevelt, Franklin D. Roosevelt and Ronald Reagan - Least admired Jimmy Carter; Britain, Most Admired - Churchill, Margaret Thatcher - Least admired John Major.

The author is Andrew Roberts and his book is A HISTORY OF THE ENGLISH SPEAKING PEOPLE SINCE 1900. He also wrote a book about Leadership: Hitler and Churchill.

A HISTORY OF ENGLISH SPEAKING PEOPLE

"This book helped me research on the internet even more facts and knowledge so I am glad I did read it"

The discussions do don't they? You learn more than what is in the book because of our own experiences that we bring and the digressions we make, even though the book may be limited in scope or disappointing.

MERIJO, thank you for those observations about illegal aliens. No, I didn't know "there is a provision for aliens to pay income taxes. Special ID numbers from the IRS can be obtained for this purpose."

What would make aliens do that? If no one knows they are here and they can make money and then escape back into Mexico, what would motivate them to pay taxes?

"When caught and confronted the socially acceptable thing to do today is admit the wrong, say I can learn from my mistakes or go into therapy or rehab. That makes it all right." - Bellemarie

"The only time that an illegal alien is discovered is if one breaks the law and is arrested. He/she may get deported right back to their country." - Merijo

I know they are entirely different, but I couldn't help but notice the similarity. They are both people who have done wrong, one deported, one admits to the wrong (admittedly it may not be illegal) and goes into therapy. Hahahaaa True.

Thank you both for those remarks.

To return to our three presidents I was thinking today about the religions of each, or lack thereof, and wondered if their presidency would have been different had they adhered to early principles in their childhood. Nixon, a Quaker; Kennedy, a Catholic, Johnson, ????

Religion has been thrust into politics in current years - we hear of the Religious Right and President Bush has often been mentioned in connection with his faith. I am not sure of the influence it plays in politics; actually I am uninformed on the subject.

Can any of you enlighten me?

MERIJO, I see you are using font color now and also bold. Did you just learn or have you known before this? I noticed, I noticed!!!!!

Ella:

About the ID number, there are people here who are resident aliens. They work and live here, but have no immediate intention of becoming a citizen. They are here legally. However, illegal aliens may get these numbers because it is not compulsory for them to identify themselves as legal or illegal aliens. They are not asked. Resident aliens may be people who are living here, going to citizenship classes in order to become a citizen, also. It is necessary to live here five years before becoming a citizen.

On edit: Movie people, sports figures, couture designers, writers, etc. are often here temporarily. If, on an extended stay, they may choose to remain resident aliens. Some people live in foreign countries and in the U. S. For example: My younger son was a journalist in Tokyo, Japan, for many years. He paid Japanese Income Taxes, and did receive the benefit of the health insurance as long as he lived in Japan. (Also paid U. S. income taxes.)

About my font: I learned how to do some HTML things some time ago. I find, I can identify some quotations easier if I change the font. The one I use most often is choosing one of the blues and sizing the bold font to 2. It is bright enough without hitting the reader in the face. I like to use italics, too.

Ella:

The great attention paid to the religion of others, especially candidates, is a product of the early education of those who do place an importance on religion. Often this is a sterotype and not wholly correct. It is another aspect of a candidate he/she must explain to those who do not understand.

I had always read that Quakers were a gentle and quiet-mannered people. However, Morrow explains a side of Nixon's mother who used a quiet-manner of lecturing that just maddened her children. This had to have an effect on Nixon. It could make one feel terribly insecure, I think.

Kennedy was a Catholic in name only, in my opinion. Obviously his early Catholic education was limited to what his mother may have taught him, because Joe, his father sent him to private non-denominational schools in general. He attended private elementary schools, none of them parochial. He later spent a year at Canterbury School in New Milford, Conn., where he was taught by Roman Catholic laymen, and four years at Choate School in Wallingford, Conn.(Encyclopedia Americana) His public/ personal adult behavior was not that of a practicing Catholic. He did have charm and a sense of what was fitting publicly, but I believe it was not well-informed by Catholicism.

Lyndon Johnson was a Disciple of Christ. He was a member of the Stone-Campbell (Restoration Movement) denomination known as the "Christian Church (Disciples of Christ).("Religious Affiliations of U. S. Presidents")

Johnson's application of his religion was in the separation of church and state, and his family emphasized an education. He doesn't seem to have emphasized education much himself, but, I can imagine his being respectful of his faith. From what we have read here, however, Johnson seems to have paid little attention to religious principles in his own life.

Merijo, "Kennedy was a Catholic in name only, in my opinion.

His public/ personal adult behavior was not that of a practicing Catholic. He did have charm and a sense of what was fitting publicly, but I believe it was not well-informed by Catholicism."

As a Catholic since birth I have to comment on this. If in your opinion each Catholic is judged by the measuring stick of Morrow or anyone else, then I would expect many of the people sitting in my parish are as you put it "Catholic in name only."

As Catholics we are taught a faith of forgiveness. We are taught that we are born with the natural instinct of humanness which means we are going to sin. We are taught to remember that God is a forgiving God and let he without sin cast the first stone. The Catholic church would never look to a fallen human sinner and say, you are not considered a Catholic or that your public or private life disqualifies you of your Catholicism. I know many nun-practicing Catholics who have committed the sins of JFK and as a Christian Catholic I would never sit in judgment of whether they should be rejected by our church. No one has the least idea of what any other person holds dear to their heart when it comes to their personal relationship with their religion and God.

We know what all the books, friends, colleagues and fellow roommates have written and told us about JFK's life. We know that the worst sin they can cast on him is his affairs with women when he was single and married. Only JFK and God knew what was in his heart and if he is not considered a Catholic for his sins then I suppose a whole lot more Catholics would not be either.

Obviously his early Catholic education was limited to what his mother may have taught him, because Joe, his father sent him to private non-denominational schools in general.

I was raised by the faith of my mother who was Catholic and never attended a church on a regular basis due to financial circumstances and no car. The faith my mother taught me about our Catholicism was so strong and to this very day as a 54 year old woman I can say a Mother's love for her faith can show a child more love then you can imagine. My brother has been married three times and had multiple affairs. I, along with my five sisters have discussed how did he turn out as he did. We thought maybe our Mom spoiled him and because he was raised in a home without a father figure to guide him he lacked something. So Joe Kennedy was a father figure that lacked direction of morals to his son. Nixon's mother gave the quiet-mannered lectures to cause him to be the person he was. And Johnson, lets see, was a corrupt man who obviously had NO religious direction.

I personally think that Morrow has been obsessed with writing about these three men's flaws, imperfections and failures. The world is so ready to judge and condemn rather then to praise and forgive today. Rudy Guiliani has been married three times and is Catholic, he had his affairs and I am sure as he continues his journey down his campaign trail there will be many Morrows ready to write and uncover all his sins. Will he also not be considered a Catholic, held to this standard...His public/ personal adult behavior was not that of a practicing Catholic.

As a practicing Catholic who has taught CCD for 12 yrs., taught in a Catholic grade school for 15 yrs., Facilitated pre-cana classes for engaged couples, attended many religious workshops, and have been a parishioner in my community for 30 yrs and presently attending Bible study classes weekly, I have to say this is NOT what our Catholic church is teaching. This is NOT the attitude of our CATHOLIC religion. We see every member practicing or not, sinner as we all are a Catholic. Jesus did not come for the nun-sinner, he came to save the sinners, US all of us no matter how little or grave the sin.

I truly believe we all have to be more responsible in passing judgments on any person's faith and religion. Morrow wrote this book for what purposes? To make money and to entertain and give a little bit of facts of history. We as the reader must keep in mind that this is Morrow's opinions and conjectures of these men.

I apologize if I went on lengthy, I just feel as a Catholic I could not let this go unanswered and misrepresent the Catholic church. Our Catholic church has taken a lot of hits and yet the attitude is and will remain to not be quick to judge, to forgive and await for the Prodigal son's return.

Bella Marie:

In my opinion, Kennedy did not behave as a practicing Catholic, and the public behavior he displayed re his Catholicism did not jibe with what is taught by that faith. His public acts were what gave examples of Catholic or non-Catholic behavior. That is what others saw and from which they learned how a Catholic could behave.

I admire your profession of your faith here, and it is true that Catholicism teaches forgiveness. No one knows what Kennedy said in confession, but many saw and heard him publicly.

I believe that Morrow showed that each of these presidents were very human. They failed in the ways that the frailty of being a human being can cause, but he also identified for the reader certain innate characteristics of goodness in each man.

Kennedy displayed personal courage, Johnson was humanely generous, helping the poor, and Nixon extended a certain compassion towards the afflicted, the paralytic young man whom he carried up the stairs of a building at college and his urgng his parents not to pursue the poor woman who had not paid her grocery bill - that she would pay it in time.

Ella - sorry i haven't answered your questions, i've had a house full of people for two weeks, so i haven't been here much - but i loved having them.

A few semesters ago i had a Friday night course of U.S. History 102 - reconstruction to the present. I said to my husband that i would never have a class as diverse as that one again. I had ages 18-76, and sev'l 40 and 50 year olds, many ethnic groups and creeds and more men than usual. That's what i love about teaching in community college. There were 35 of them and my first question was "you do know it's Friday night, right?" Most of them were employed full-time and some traveled, so Fri fit their schedule.

One women, the 76 yr old, was dyslectic, but didn't know that when she was in school, so she quit before graduating. Her grandchild had been diagnosed recently and so she got tested and got help. She had gotten her GED, was working on her associate's degree in my class, intended to get her B.S. and continuing to her PhD, if she lived that long - her words.......isn't that a great story?

It's wonderful having that age range, particularly in the 102 class becuase they have stories to tell about their parents, or their own immigration, WWII, the 60's, WAtergate, etc. The older students are always prepared - have read the assignments - do well on the essay exams that i give, etc. and they usually participate in class discussions better than the average trad'l age student.

I always teach in the evenings, so i get that age-range.

Bellemarie - I also like joining in these discussions because it forces me to read books i might not otherwise and to find other resources on line.

Re: son/dgt running for office......i don't know, it's such a pain to be in any spotlight these days. I have a friend who is a producer for a local tv program. I have expertise in sev'l areas that they talk about and she has asked me sev'l times to be on the show. I've always turned her down, because i don't feel comfortable putting myself in the public eye. I will call in, but i no longer wish to be on the show.....there are too many nuts out there and some of the topics can be controversial.........

You all are providing very interesting comments and sites.....thanks.....jean

Religious Right

A web site declaring that the religious right is attempting to take over the Republican party to establish a theocracy (a word derived from the Greek meaning God will rule). I've seen that church in Columbus, Ohio that is mentioned. Huge!

Have any of you noticed the number of "new" churches being built and they are not the established churches that we knew in our youth. Interesting.

Religious Right

There is also a site on Wikipedia on the Christian Right. Whew, information overload.

Christian Coalition of America

You click to join.....

And these web sites go on and on. Who would read all this?

"Johnson seems to have paid little attention to religious principles in his own life" - Merijo

I think this is true of all three of these presidents but, as Merijo has pointed they often displayed their humanity. In several places in the book Morrow has pointed out these inconsistencies in their character. As Bellemarie stated:

"natural instinct of humanness which means we are going to sin"

Bellemarie, you have 5 sisters and so do I; two still living. Aren't they wonderful!! I never had a brother although we longed for one.

I do believe we must continue to read history which includes the biographies of the world's leaders. Examining the lives of past leaders can illuminate qualities that we should look for when we elect our officials. We cannot depend on TV speeches or lovely web sites alone.

They lead, we follow and we must attempt to choose the best leaders available for that very reason. Leaders have great power; witness President Bush taking our country to war and causing friction in the whole world.

Perhaps this is a good place and time to discuss the Vietnam war – it is appropriate in discussing these three presidents. Kennedy started it; Johnson escalated it and Nixon finished it. I think these statements of Morrow deserve mention:

All wars leave both an idealizing battlefield nostalgia and, in the other direction, a certain bitterness in the young who did the dying at the orders of the old men who made the decisions. Johnson, Kennedy, and Nixon were the young men of the Good War…………..the three men would also become the presidents who made the decisions that took America into its Bad War, Vietnam. America got into the Bad War because of the Good War. It was precisely the apparent moral and strategic lessons of the Good War - such lessons as Munich—that guided Kennedy, Johnson, and Nixon in their response to what they perceived to be the Communist threat in Southeast Asia.

I know Bellemarie is a baby boomer and must have been affected in some way by that war.

How about the rest of you? How were you affected?

It was such a traumatic time in our history and no matter your age today, you will have memories of it always.

HELLO JEAN - AND WELCOME BACK!

Thanks for answering my questions. What fun that class must be, and an education in itself. All those people of all ages and culturally diverse. I'd love to be sitting in on it!!! Even on a Friday night; at my age all nights are the same.

I have taken a few college courses since retirement and I thought I knew the answers to some of my questions. The older ones do come prepared, do participate more. I took one class, a World HIstory class, in a very small college near my home and I became very self conscious because I was the only student in the class who was prepared and who did the talking! It was embarassing! Hahahaa

But I realized that the young ones are taking 4-5 other courses at the same time and are just plowing through history because they have to take a liberal arts class. One student argued with me that there was never a Communist threat of nuclear war - it was government propaganda! I told him I knew of several well-educated people who had built bomb shelters in their back yards from blueprints received from the government and that school children had to practice what to do in case of a bomb explosion. For a time the threat was real.

Ella:

I agree with you about the older people having more time to give to a class or a discussion. That is where I am now, as you recall I posted that in 1948 I was raising three little ones.

The Vietnam War was a disaster, in my opinion, from the very beginning when Eisenhower first sent advisors to the country. The French had pulled out, but somehow because we were signatories of the South East Asian Treaty Organization (SEATO) someone in Washington believed that we had the responsibility of picking up where the French left off. There was a notion that if the Communist Chinese would be allowed to win then one by one each of the south east Asian countries would become communistic, the domino effect. In fact, this did happen, even though we lost over 55,000 military in that long war.

Indeed, Kennedy did send additional advisors and with the Gulf of Tonkin attack the war did escalate. It was under Johnson that the Selective Service Act of 1967 that allowed some student deferments for college was repealed. There was an increase in troops sent to Vietnam. Nixon ordered going into Cambodia where the North Vietnamese were hiding from the South Vietnamese and the Americans. They were also storing their weapons in Cambodia right along the Vienamese border. Who knows if that expansion would have won the war, at last, for us. Congress refused to fund the war and Ford in desperation ordered the Americans home in April, 1975.

The thinking behind the Vietnamese War was guided, Morrow explains, "...by the lessons of the Good War (WWII) to their response in what they perceived to be the Communist threat in Southeast Asia." The appeasement negotiated by Neville Chamberlain at Munich with Hitler was one of that Good War's lessons that informed these three presidents.

Kennedy, in his 1961 inaugural address, Morrow comments,"made a dangerous open-ended promise:""Let every nation know, whether it wishes us well or ill, that we shall pay any price, bear any burden, meet any hardship, support any friend, oppose any foe, in order to assure the survival and the success of liberty."

And here, I would like to submit another quotation of Kennedy's from the speech he did not live to deliver in Dallas, November 22, 1963: We in this country...are___by destiny rather than by choice___the watchmen on the walls of world freedom.

Vietnam..... i have seen many results of VN that aren't the kind of things we read in the papers, or heard on the news - and probably will relate to soldiers coming home from Iraq......I was teaching in Harrisburg PA in the latter 60's. I was in a high school that that was about 30% minorities -most first generation Blacks up from the South - about 15% Jewish and the rest white ethnics. It was a good place to teach, the Black parents knew education was the way out of the ghetto for their children and were very supportive of the teachers. The Jewish students had a tradition of valuing education and those two groups brought the attitude of others to that same goal. I had sev'l students, particularly some young Black men who had goals and would have probably lead very productive lives - but they were headed immediately for Nam after graduation........two, w/ good potential ended up on drugs while in Nam and robbed or attempted to rob businesses after they returned home. One of them never became productive, the other did come out of prison and has owned his own business since the 1980's. They were emblematic of others who didn't have bullet wounds, but other wounds when they came home.

I worked for 13 years for Dept of Army in the 80's and 90's and met many men who were permanently traumatized by being in VN. As late as that time, wives did not shake husbands to wake them up - they might come up swinging. Some had severe drinking and drug problems. Others had terrible dreams two decades after returning from Nam. On the other hand, i heard from some non-commissioned officers that they had been given the choice by a judge to "go to the army, or go to jail" and they had chosen the army and had been very successful, more so then they had ever imagined that they could be. Many had earned college degrees - they had to take college courses to get promoted, so they continued and got degrees......... that experience convinced me that it might not be a bad idea to have all young people devote a year or two at 18 - 30 in some sort of national service. Young men in paraticular seem to need a few years to mature after high school.

This takes me back to the conversation about presidents needing to understand the lives of the common people.......altho' i'm not sure if that "took" w/ LBJ and RMN even tho that's where they came from. Our leaders have some how got to understand how their decisions effect many diverse people in our society. They get so isolated and insulated but i don't know how that can be fixed.......jean

#11. These three presidents all served in wartime and made use of that service in their campaigns and speeches believing it enhanced their image. Does it still today?

I personally don't feel the same respect is given to the politician that is campaigning who has served in the military. This administration has deduced even that to a minor insignificance. Look at how Kerry was attacked and accused of not deserving and earning his medals while in service. Some veterans spoke out against him and all I could see was a split in ranks. It saddened me to see there were veterans willing to lie and deny Kerry his rightful medals. We've witnessed news reports of soldiers mistreating detanees and prisoners. We seen one of the most respected... Colin Powell sit and testify there were weapons of mass destruction to gain approval of invading Iraq. You have seen the military refusing to exchange information with the CIA causing breaks in security giving terrorist the opportunity to invade us. You've seen a woman's undercover identity be revealed due to her husband's lack of cooperation with this administration. If the Commander in Chief, his Vice President and veterans do not honor and protect the image of the military and what it stands for, how can Americans see a politician's image be enhanced for serving?

President Bush had no problem getting elected even though he was said to have gone AWOL from his assigned position or rather never even showed up, yet Kerry's image got bashed for his serving his country and earning medals.

I support our troops but I can't say they are going to find their service time an enhancement of their image should they run for any politics in their future. The controversy of this war alone will leave them with a mark of this administration. Talk about a Bad war, this one will go down in history overshadowing Vietnam.

There are many results in having experienced war.

My husband was an army medic during WWII and served from February 27, 1941 when he was drafted in Washington D.C. the second number drawn, to November 7, 1945, when I met him at Fort MacArthur in San Pedro, CA. He had served in Italy.

My two sons served three and a half years in the Navy during the Vietnam War. One of my sons went to sea, and the other did not. Both were Russian linguists.

This book is about the three presidents, and what their life was like in 1948, and that from that fairly hopefully prospective beginning as young congressmen, their paths ended in the Presidency - for better or for worse.

Their behavior during the Vietnam War was a direct result of their notion of what Vietnam meant. Their interpretation was to prevent communism from taking over a whole section of Asia and giving China a foothold in the area.

There is a fog to war and it is an undertaking no president should initiate without complete analysis and consultation.

I think that these recent wars in which the U. S. has participated were/are against ideologies threatening our freedoms, Naziism, Communism and now, Radical Islam. I think this last is by far the most difficult.

This particular ideology has no notion of individual rights and personal freedom. The Iraq war would better have been thought through longer before initiating it.

Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it.

George Santayana, The Life of Reason, Volume 1, 1905

My husband was in the Air Force from 1966 - 1970.(I met him after he was out.) He had orders to go to Viet Nam but because his discharge time was within a few weeks he was not sent. He never saw any combat his years in the military although he had friends who did. I still remember my brother's best friend coming to our house and talking about how his older brother had come home from Viet Nam and slept with a rifle. He would jump up and scream as though he were still in the fox holes. My brother in law spent two years in combat on the front lines and earned the Purple Heart for bravery. He sent home all his money he was paid since he had no reason for it where he was. He came home addicted to drugs, and his mother had spent all his savings he sent home intending to use to begin a new life. He was addicted to drugs and alcohol for many years to come and would not talk about any of his time in Nam I had so much compassion and pride for him. He finally went into a drug rehab center and got the help he needed after years of therapy.

The stories are endless of the friends and family who fought in Viet Nam. I was just a teenager so I really did not understand the depth of what was going on. I only remember my mother saying because my brother was the only son and F4 so he would not be drafted. I heard my sisters talk about the fear they had thinking the draft would take their husbands. As a teen I only saw what my mother would allow to be watched on the nightly news which was not much. I didn't understand the controversy over the war. I did not understand why when the troops came home they felt shame and people blamed them. I have not had much interest in History and possibly because all I knew was it was something that wars took place and we needed to remember the dates, times, places and names of them. I wanted to gain more knowledge by reading this book and participating in the group discussions. I have to admit I didn't expect to be so enlightened.

Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it.

Thank you Merijo for this, I read this in Washington D.C. when I visited there six years ago. My husband and I walked the wall, I could not phantom the number of names on that wall. I saw family members with a piece of paper laying it on the name of the loved one and using a lead pencil to stencil the name on their paper. I could not hold back the tears. I visited Arlinton cemetery and Kennedy's eternal flame. We watched the changing of the guards at the Tomb of the Unknown soldier and felt nothing but pride for our country and the brave soldiers who have gone to battle to serve and protect our homeland.

Today I feel like all hope has been washed from me watching the mistakes being made. Has this administration forgotten and condemned us to repeating it? 911 was a frightening day, but with hindsight there was information early on that shows it may have been prevented. Was the revenge for his father and the arrogance of this administration too great to resist them from this war we are in now? How will the soldiers who come home feel and be effected? Will their be shame and blame brought upon them? I think NOT because, I think the American people still have the pride and support for these troops regardless of how they feel towards this administration.

Merijo, "The Iraq war would better have been thought through longer before initiating it."

Millions of people can agree with you here.

C-SPAN 3 has been broadcasting programs the last few days about our subjects. Last night i saw a program w/ Lynda Johnson Robb, Jack Valenti, LBJ's social secretary - sorry i've forgotten her name and Edward Norton Smith. At the moment, (11:00am)they are presenting a program on Kennedy and the Civil Rights Movement w/ Ted Sorenson, Robt Moses, Taylor Branch and Harris Wofford......it's wonderful......jean

THANKS, MARIJO, for that well-organized summation of the Vietnam War; my memory is not functioning well. I had thought it was on Nixon’s watch that the last soldiers, those in that pitable helicopter rush from Saigon, came home. I was in error.

JEAN, what a sad reflection on the Vietnam War.. Do you believe that the same situation is developing today – "I had sev'l students, particularly some young Black men who had goals and would have probably lead very productive lives - but they were headed immediately for Nam after graduation......." (substituting Iraq for Nam)

I agree, Bellemarie, - neither do I "feel the same respect is given to the politician that is campaigning who has served in the military. This administration has deduced even that to a minor insignificance." And remember what Clinton went through to deflect his absence from the Vietnam War.

LM believes it is still "necessary to get one’s ticket punched through wartime service. Is that out of date? Certainly it is with a female candidate (who, incidentally, to all appearances is running ahead of the pack monetarily). And we have a Mormon running do we not? Are they pacifists? I’m not sure of my facts.

You will be interested in the Timeline for the Vietnam War:

Timeline of the Vietnam War

I remember most of it, but time has eroded some memories. Note how many times Congress failed to act. March l973 is considered the date when the War officially ended; however it was on President Ford's watch - April l975 when that pitiful helicopter left Saigon. Also note that after the war had progressed to the stage of the public getting incensed, Congress started to act to "end the war."

What are your comments on reading this timeline?

I have many more comments on the war, but enough for today. Time for a rest – I have been busy all day!

MERIJO, I am happy to note that there is one other of my age in this discussion. WWII was the “Good War” of history. I can understand historians calling it that because we had a clear enemy, objectives, we had been attacked, we had to save Europe, the country was definitely behind it, all those and many more factors. But at the time, seeing our young men go off to various branches of the service, it did not carry that message home to us.

I want to do some research on the lessons of Munich. JEAN, what are your comments on this and what do you teach your students?

More later………………………..

Note, also, the POWER OF THE PRESIDENCY in this timeline. The power that resides in one man. LM discusses this power, the secrets to gaining power and the secrets of power. We have yet to define them, if we are ever able to do so!

Ella, I had many appointments last week, this week and will have more appts. again next week. I have tried to keep up with the posts. Unfortunately, I fell further behind. I will need to pull out of this discussion early. I am very sorry. I have really enjoyed the thoughts of the whole group. I will continue to read the posts. Thank you for picking a really interesting book.

Bella Marie:

You're welcome. I remembered that quotation, but couldn't remember the exact words Santayana had written. Glad I found the reference. It is something that should be repeated often these days.

Ella:

Thanks for the timeline of Vietnam. Found out there that I had SEATO wrongly defined - although it did allow for U. S. participation in defending the area.

It is a valuable reference, I think. Eisenhower knew that Vietnam was a losing situation at the time the French were there. However, the domino theory seems to have been correctly identified as a possibility which did happen.

Presidental Powers:

http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/data/constitution/article02/

Yes, Ella, I'm an octogenarian!

The power of the president to take the country to war seems to me to be a grey are; perhaps I'm just not reading it well???

War Powers Act

What do the rest of you think?

A letter from Peggy Willliams of Mineral Ridge, Ohio in TIME this week is interesting:

"Eventually, we will have to explain 9/11 to a new generation, just as the greatest generation had to explain Pearl Harbor to my baby boomer generation. What will we offer as an excuse for the mess we have created? That we envied the greatest generation's World War II glory and felt cheated that Vietnam was all we got? As it has turned out, the Iraq war isn't our World War II, nor is it another Vietnam. It is our World War I: a frivolous, costly, arrogant war that has set off an economic disaster, bred not just one maniac bent on genocide but a million and ended in a standstill that has merely set the stage for the next world war."

And have we successfully explained Pearl Harbor?

I have much to say about America and wars. We are comparatively a young nation but we have been engaged in so many and I have lived through 4 of them and that is far too many for one lifetime.

Often it seems that when we talk of the past we bookmark the years by the wars and our history is taught by the periods of the wars.

It is wrong! But I am just one small cry in the wilderness.

Let's answer Question No. 7 in the heading.

Back later.................

#7. "We had to destroy the village in order to save it." - Vietnam logic. LM states that American history is full of a ruthlessness not taught in civics books and gives examples. Should it be emphasized more in schools and universities? Is our present war in Iraq an example of ruthlessness?

Yes, I do believe this Iraq war is an example of ruthlessness. Sadam Huissen was a ruthless dictator, and President Bush has proven to be as ruthless in the sense his determination to destroy Sadam led him to the point of sending our troops to invade this country under false pretenses, and now we have over 3,100 American soldiers dead. Bush is ruthless to the point of refusing to admit the wrong, and the fact there is NO way to win this war especially since it has turned into a civil war. He is arrogant, ignorant,pig headed and in my opinion a war monger. His Texan attitude "Dead or Alive" shows the mentality of someone who sees life as black and white. He is not intelligent enough to diplomatically sit and negotiate or accept the advice of the United Nations, Generals, and advisors of years of experience. His actions and decisions are the true definition of ruthless:lacking pity or compassion, merciless, cruel

I think he had the Munich Logic view, "Get the terrorists on their home soil before they get us." Iraq was NOT responsible for 911 the reports have proven it. They did not have WMD the reports have proven it. He used fear tactics from the leftover effects of 911 to convince the Senate, Congress and American people there was justification to invade Iraq. When I explain this war to my grandchildren I will tell them our President used his power to gain revenge and wealth and lied to everyone. I will tell them this is a war that never should have happened.

I believe the Munich lesson that was learned is that appeasement was not the answer. That is what happened in Munich.

http://www.spartacus.schoolnet.co.uk/2WWmunich.htm

Because Adolf Hitler soon violated the terms of the agreement, it has often been cited in support of the principle that tyrants should never be appeased.

11.These three presidents all served in wartime and made use of that service in their campaigns and speeches believing it enhanced their image. Does it still today?

Unfortunately, it still does.

BELLEMARIE, I think you are echoing the country’s sentiments when you talk of President’s Bush ruthlessness in invading Iraq; there are so many ways of looking at it and only history – some 30-50 years down the road – only an journalist, three or four of them or more – will be able to sort it all out, if ever.

Thank you, MERIJO, for the URL to that site explaining appeasement. History has taught us well – perhaps too well – that appeasement of a tyrant does not work; however, as LM has pointed out, we have leaned too far in that direction in our modern times. Don’t you agree? As LM pointed out all three of these presidents were guided by the principles of Munich “in their response to the threat of Communism.”

Was Bush (or his military advisors) also guided by those principles after we were attacked on 9/11 – another date that will “live in infamy” as FDR put it.

And as one young student argued with me, the history books are teaching the young that the Communism of the Cold War was propaganda fed to us by our government as an excuse to build up the military machine that had been neglected since WWII.

Is it any wonder that our young people are cynical about the government?

An essay in TIME disagrees with our author:

”Is a propensity to rely on military force a vice to which we Americans are prone? And doesn’t the Bush Administration need to learn a lesson about the danger of using military force in pursuit of foreign policy goals?

NO.

The problem of U.S. foreign policy for the past century hasn’t been too great a willingness to use military force – or too great a confidence about its efficacy. If anything, it’s been the opposite. An earlier American intervention in WWI could have averted countless deaths and various political calamities. American intervention against Nazi Germany in the 1930s, or American support for intervention by our allies, could have averted WWII. Are we proud that it took the Japanese attack on Pearl Harbor, and a German declaration of war against the U.S. for us finally to enter the war against Hitler? Then, even with the lessons of Munich fresh in mind, we were slower than we might have been to react to Stalin’s aggression in Central and Eastern Europe. We foolishly….suggested early in 1950 that we might not take action to protect South Korea, inviting aggression from the North. WE pursued a policy of gradual escalation in Vietnam.

Isn’t history absolutely fascinating? Historians giving us several viewpoints of our wars, - as one historian said history is never dead - it thrives, it throbs.

Where is our history teacher and what does she teach her students about our responses to threats from potential enemies?

JEAN, we need your opinion. We need each other’s opinions! We are all historians.

I’ll be awaiting your opinions about the above essay.

Later, eg

Ella, could you please help me. I am not sure where we are in the book now. Did we conclude Questions of Character?

Sadly, we are nearing the end of this book and it seems time has flown by. I look forward to your next set of questions. Yes, I do believe history is very fascinating and could never be dead.

I am surprising myself since when I was in High School I hated History so much so that my History teacher told me he would give me a passing grade only because he wanted to be certain he never got me the following year. I did anything and everything to disrupt our class because I was so bored. (Going as far as actually putting a tack on his chair, HE knew instantly which student did it without a doubt .)

GOOD MORNING, BELLEMARIE!

Are we alone in the room? Hahahaaaa I think so, but it's okay because we are just about through with the book, aren't we? I'll put up the remaining few questions today.

Morrow's obsession with the Hiss-Chambers case is quite beyond my understanding in this book. Although it is very interesting if you have never been exposed to that trial, still he has bored his readers by insisting they learn the details over and over.

What a shame, Bellemarie, that you were so bored with history in school and that is the fault of your teacher, I think. Little do they realize what an influence they have on the lives of their students.

I had a remarkable teacher for history in high school and I've never forgotten her. I can close my eyes and see her still today. She would divide the class into two sections and we would have to debate issues; i.e., American independence vs. England and the King, or the North vs. the South, etc. I was on the debate team in high school and loved controversy; still do because I think it is the best way to learn and remember anything.

Be back in a little while. That sunshine outside is a welcome sight isn't it?

Questions are up for discussion.

Have you read other books about these three presidents? Which of the three do you think you would most like to read more about?

later, eg

Good morning Ella, Yes, the sunshine is a warm welcome to our state. I think we did lose a few of our members, not sure if their lives got too busy or the book got to repetitive and boring.

You are so right about the obsession of the Hiss trial. The Late Summer chapter bored me to tears. Without seeming too critical I have to say Morrow seemed obsessed with the Hiss trial and Kennedy's sex life and that seemed to be the bulk of this book. But I won't go into that since we still have your questions to discuss.

1. Walt Whitman wrote that it does not matter what disease you have, for when you die, the disease is gone, and the body, the life, is purified. Not so, it seems, with presidents, or public figures. Their lives are examined over and over by historians, probed or praised. What is the purpose of reading and/or writing about these men

I think as for Walt Whitman writing, the body and the life are purified, he may have meant that in a spiritual sense. Physically, a president will be alive in discussions, books, memorials,etc. til the end of time. For history's sake we need this information to be passed down through the generations. The Presidency is the most highest position a politician can hold. It is the most important position held in our country so of course it rightfully should be examined, written about and used for future reference. I think the purpose of reading or writing about these men is for information, enjoyment and curiosity. I think when you read a book about one of the presidents you can identify with him on a more personal level whether it be praise or prudence.

Ella, I have to tell you that yesterday on the View the ladies were discussing Obama and Hilary and Joy Bahar came to the conclusion I had said early on in one of my posts, that she is afraid they will in the end cancel each other out due to the fact the country will be nervous choosing a black man or a woman for the democratic ticket and so for the safety and sureness bet they would go with someone like John Edwards or even Al Gore stepping in at the last minute. In other words as I said, "A white male. Isn't it interesting how as much as we all say this country is ready and should be ready for a woman or black man in the end it may never happen in our lifetime. Let's keep our finger, toes and eyes crossed and prayers strong our country can and will give these two a fair chance because of their policies and positions rather then exclude them because of their skin color or sex.

I have read more books I can count on JFK and really am not interested in reading anymore on him. As far as wanting to read any more books on Nixon or Johnson I have no desire to learn anything else about them. I rely heavily on GOOGLE for facts and information so I would be more apt to go there and just read from a site rather a book on them in particular.

Enjoy the Sunshine today!

I'm here:

My eyes were dilated yesterday after going to the opthamologist. Couldn't see a thing!

I appreciated the chapter on the Hiss case. It identified the beginning of Nixon's rise in Congress that sent him on the way to the presidency. Also, I was pretty busy in those days, and didn't follow politics that closely.

The problem of U.S. foreign policy for the past century hasn’t been too great a willingness to use military force – or too great a confidence about its efficacy. If anything, it’s been the opposite. An earlier American intervention in WWI could have averted countless deaths and various political calamities. American intervention against Nazi Germany in the 1930s, or American support for intervention by our allies, could have averted WWII. Are we proud that it took the Japanese attack on Pearl Harbor, and a German declaration of war against the U.S. for us finally to enter the war against Hitler? Then, even with the lessons of Munich fresh in mind, we were slower than we might have been to react to Stalin’s aggression in Central and Eastern Europe. We foolishly….suggested early in 1950 that we might not take action to protect South Korea, inviting aggression from the North. WE pursued a policy of gradual escalation in Vietnam.

I agree with the essayist. Although he covers a lot of time, it is true Americans have been reluctant to go to the aid of other allies. There is a lot left unsaid in this essay regarding each war he cites. The time setting of each war presented different demographics and different conditions of progress. Situations were not as singular as he intimates.

I have found the book very interesting. And I have recommended it to another who also finds it interesting and informative.

I do think, as Morrow says, that the times of these three presidents did see a great change among the people in the country and not for the good. We have become a highly populist country that for the most part is uninformed in critical thinking and actual facts.

I think we shall have a stormy future no matter who is elected in 2008.

I have never visited a presidential library, but I think it is a worthy endeavor. It is not only of interest to the general public as a matter of learning about a portion of their history, but is a good resource for researchers, writers, historians.

Poor people already have all kinds of help - at least, they do here in California, and children's initiatives have made possible healthy families programs, pre-pre-school activities and programs all the way up to the college level. I worked as a volunteer after I was widowed in several charitable programs and am impressed with the work that has been and is being done. I worked with the adult developmentally-handicapped at a creative center, high school education abroad students, both going from here and coming from abroad here, and in an affordable housing project for low-income families.

Also, I worked part time for twelve years (until I was eighty) at a local business college as an independent test administrator of an ability-to-benefit test for young adults who had not graduated from high school. If they passed this test required by the Federal government they would receive financial aid to study for a career there at the college. This was indeed rewarding. One of my students became a member of the staff after completing her course.

4.What will you take away from reading this book? Did you learn anything new or was it just interesting reading? Good writing?

I have probably mentioned this before in different words, but I did learn a lot about the lives of these men - knew quite a bit about Kennedy as he has been written about a lot, but much of Johnson's life and Nixon's life was informative to me here.

This book may serve different people in different ways. It is so well annotated that it is a starting point for additional study and research if one wants to develop the information for different disciplines. Morrow's style of writing did take some getting used to and required research, but I liked it.

I read "John Adams" by David McCullough and it is, indeed, well-written as is his smaller book "1776". But the one biography I read recently and liked the best that is revealing of our early history is "Alexander Hamilton" by Ron Chernow. That is, indeed, a beautifully written book and thoroughly detailed and annotated. It is a vivid tale.

I've just finished reading the section on George C. Marshall. What a fascinating man he is. I know he's not the focus of the book, but Morrow seems to be trying to explain why Marshall isn't as well known.

#5. Have you known someone who you would consider a "great man?" Have you read of someone who you believe was a "great man."

Pope John Paul II is one of the most "great men" I would consider to walk the earth. We was a true example of all the virtues a person could and should hold. He is said to be the most recognized person in the world. His compassion, his strengths and his devotion to his church and people throughout the world was a testament to the greatness of who he was. He was willing to meet with Presidents and leaders to help them come to peaceful outcomes. He cared for all races, creeds, and income levels, of life form. If only these three presidents and all future presidents could hold him as their bar to achieve greatness. The world mourned at the loss of this great man.

This site is just one of many to learn more about this fantastic Pope http://www.zpub.com/un/pope/

OH, WOW! MANY POSTS TO READ, I LOVE THAT. I LOVE CONVERSATION, PARTICULARLY WHEN IT PERTAINS TO BOOKS!

THANK YOU ALL SO VERY MUCH!

"the body and the life are purified, he may have meant that in a spiritual sense"

I disagree, Bellemarie. When Whitman mentions both the body and the life I believe he meant the “life” is purified which we all know is baloney, to be frank. Countless lives are examined after death; ours will be by our children and grandchildren and over and over lives are discussed and not purified. For awhile after death I think folks speak kindly; then it evaporates and the truth will be uncovered, whether it be a president or simply a mother, a person.

I also hope that our country can give Hillary and Barack a square deal whatever that means. I’m reading Barack’s first book – DREAMS FROM MY FATHER – and then I will read his second one; gosh, he writes well for one so young.

HAS ANYONE READ HILLARY’S BOOK?

MERIJO! I’m so pleased you have enjoyed the book. Do read the book – WITNESS – by Whittaker Chambers. It’s an old one but a very good one and it will give you more of the story about the Hiss-Chambers trial.

I enjoyed this book, even though I didn’t learn anything very new but I appreciate good writing and new ideas and this book was full of that I thought.

I applaud your volunteer activites. I had always thought I would do the same but poor health and age (just try to stop that! Haha) has intervened since my husband’s death two years ago.

Thanks for the suggestion of the book - "Alexander Hamilton" by Ron Chernow. I’m going to get it after finishing a few that are sitting by my bed. I splurged at Barnes & Nobles the other day and purchased three books; the Obama one, and one entitled MY NAME IS IRAN by Davar Ardalan. The author spent her childhood there and then came to America with her family, returning there later. Looks very good.

And from the Library, several books. You may know that Art Buchwald recently died. I’ve read all his books and if you need something on the lighter side and something to make you smile (although he has a darker side also) you may want to read one of his books. The last one – TOO SOON TO SAY GOODBYE – he wrote from a hospice awaiting death. It is not sad, it is – well, what can I say, it’s Art Buchwald and he’s funny and I would have liked to have known him.

ENOUGH POSTING FOR NOW – I’LL BE BACK LATER……………………….. ella

Bella Marie:

I agree with you that Pope John Paul II was a great man. In one of the two TV movies made about him after his death I recall the scene where he walks in the woods with Lech Walesa telling him what to do to resist Communism and he stresses the point, " No killing". (I think it was the one with Jon Voigt as the older Pope.) It is true, Poland striving for solidarity did ward of war and communism.

Ella:

I did enjoy the whole book. There was an undercurrent of sadness and melancholy throughout Morrow's book. I was not able to put my finger on the feeling I was experiencing as I read it. Toward the end as Morrow summarizes here and there in the later chapters, I did recognize the fact that all three men truly had experienced extreme sorrow in many different ways - personally, in childhood and in adulthood, frustration with the status quo with which they had to cope, and not truly grasping the correct ways to rectify things in and for the country. The poignancy apparent to me in each of these men's lives loomed as gray clouds over their lives at the end.

When I became ill in 2004, I found after quite a few weeks of wanting to merely rest after getting four small stents in my heart I was attracted to a great new book, "An Empire of Wealth, The Epic History of American Economic Power." The review I read of the book made it seem like a "must-read" book. After that, I began to read the larger volumes of current best-selling historical biographies. After I had hip surgery, within less than a year after the stents procedure, I began to read Mark Kurlansky's marvelous books - history from the point of view of a food stuff such as "Salt" and "Cod," a truly intriguing perspective and so well-written. Another good, but different kind of history is, "How The Scots Invented the Modern World, The True Story of How Western Europe's Poorest Nation Created Our World and Everything in It." by Arthur Herman. His book is well annotated and quite clearly written.

After years of teaching, "Run, Spot! Run!", the new books and current authors are refreshing and made the days of recuperation enjoyable. We have some wonderful new authors around.

Thank you for the recommendation of "Witness" and Art Buchwald's books. I enjoyed his humor so much.

Ella, I respect your beliefs on Walt Whitman's intention of the "body and life is purified" although, I have to say, because I have a steadfast belief that once we die the life and body are spiritually purified in the sanctity of Christ I saw Whitman's quote in a spiritual sense. And through memories, books, discussions etc. I see the person continuing to be alive in our hearts. Yes,there is a certain amount of personification and respect given when an individual dies. With passing time the reality of the person's flaws and faults come back into play and are mentioned more and more without the feel of desecrating the person at the time of their death.

Yes, I have read Hilary's book and I have to say I admire her very much. She is a strong willed and strong minded person and I think she showed her sensitive side when she was faced with the adultery publicly. She did not allow the media or public opinion deter her from going through her grief and healing and coming to her own decisions to forgive her husband and stay in their marriage. I love how in her book she expressed how she was told and the pain she experienced. She felt like she had lost her best friend through this because they had been friends, and partners. I like how Bill got therapy and guidance through their religious leader and he acknowledged the pain he caused Hilary and Chelsea. If Hilary were to be elected as our next President I have faith she would be a great force to be reckoned with should any country try to invade us or terrorize us. I love the strength women of today are not afraid to show for fear of being labeled a B--ch.

I am planning on buying Obama's book tomorrow when I get out to do my Sunday book browsing. Thank you for the heads up.

Ella, I saw the picture on the Home page of Senior net with all the book leaders are you in the picture? I recognized Ginny, who I participated in the discussions of Teacher Man this past summer.

I admire the time and effort all of you leaders give to make this possible. I love to debate also so I find we have something in common. I am sorry to hear of your health issues and the loss of your husband. My sister lost her husband three years ago and having interaction through the internet since her health does not allow her to get out and about as often has been a great help to her.

I applaud Senior Net and all the people who have made this site possible. Thank you!

MARY, have you been with us throughout the book? That chapter on Marshall was one of his best I think, his admiration for the man is something isn't it?

And thanks, Bellemarie, for telling us about another great man. I am not sure of the definition of a "great" man; I have known quite a few "good" men, would they qualify? They did not do great things but led ordinary lives, working daily to support their families and community.

I got curious about presidential libraries and was surprised by a few facts; particularly, the fact that the Nixon presidential library is not one of those in the system being cared for by our government. I wonder why?

Read the facts: Presidential Libraries

Have you joined the group for the ISLAND AT THE CENTER OF THE WORLD scheduled for March 15th? It promises to be a fascinating historical conversation.

Bellemarie, I came to Seniornet in 1997 when I got my first computer and we just discussed one book at that time; that was it! Amazing to see what all we have done with the site since then. All wonderful stuff; all pertaining to books!

Thanks, MERIJO, for the recommendations. What are you reading, Bellemarie?

"She is a strong willed and strong minded person and I think she showed her sensitive side when she was faced with the adultery publicly."

I'll read the book now, Bellemarie, thanks for your review.

In clicking on other sites regarding Nixon's presidential Libary it seems that it will soon join others in the federally funded system:

Richard Nixon Presidential Libary

"In March 2005, the Archivist of the United States and the Executive Director of the privately run Richard Nixon Library and Birthplace Foundation exchanged letters on the requirements that will allow the Nixon Library and Birthplace to become the twelfth federally funded Presidential Library operated and staffed by the NARA as early as February 2006."

How would we ever know such facts if it were not for the Internet and Google?

I read somewhere that Wikipedia (the online encyclopedia) was started by a few volunteers and is still staffed by volunteers. What a feat!

Anger, lust and greed - three sins that LM ascribes to the three presidents in this book.

Dilgence, courage and generosity

Nixon, Kennedy and Johnson

Having lived through the years of these three presidents, LM has chosen the right qualities for the three men. If someone had mixed them up and asked me to choose the men whose personality best fit I would have had no problem.

For the fun of it let's name one quality that comes to mind (whether it be good or bad) when you think of the presidents since Johnson.

They are Gerald Ford, Jimmy Carter, Ronald Reagan, George H. Bush, Bill Clinton, and George W. Bush.

Games people play. Let's play.

I've been reading the discussion all along, Ella. But I didn't get the book until about 10 days ago. So I'm not really in the "weekly" format with the group. It is an interesting book about these three men who were "in control" for two turbulent decades of our history. I am enjoying seeing his take on their contrasting personalities, and comparing that to what I remember from the time.

For the fun of it let's name one quality that comes to mind (whether it be good or bad) when you think of the presidents since Johnson.

They are Gerald Ford, Jimmy Carter, Ronald Reagan, George H. Bush, Bill Clinton, and George W. Bush.

• Gerald Ford...................Honesty
• Ronald Reagan.................Likeable
• George H. Bush................Stoic
• Bill Clinton..................Charismatic
• George W Bush.................Incompetent

Gerald Ford came at a time the world needed faith restored and his honest, stable presence was welcomed and appreciated. He gained the American's trust and respect.

Jimmy Carter has a peaceful presence that says all is going to be okay, yet you couldn't help but wonder if it would be. He lacked in a strength of leadership yet is able to accomplish many things.

Ronald Reagan coming from people knowing him from the big screen and liking him I think brought celebrity/politician to the forefront literally. Americans liked him but I am not sure they saw him as a strong leader. Oliver North seemed more in the driver's seat.

George H. Bush was a man who could not relate to the average American person. The world saw him stand offish and untouchable. Like a thousand beams of light he seemed out into space and not on planet earth.

Bill Clinton the baby boomer playing the music by Fleetwood Mac, Don't Stop Thinking About Tomorrow, Don't stop it'll soon be here, cause yesterday's gone yesterdays gone.........immediately brought back the fun carefree attitude of the American people. He took us by storm with his good looks and charisma that lit up the television screen. He promised action and leadership.

George W. Bush came into the Presidency under controversy, without his brother's state of un counted ballots and hanging chads, he would never have been president and thanks to Ohio's crooks he was placed back in for four more years. There were immediate feelings of dishonesty and unfairness back in the American people's minds. His incompetence has cost us American lives, allies, and integrity and a deficit that will take years and years to get out from under. Incompetence is the first word that will always come to my mind when I hear his name in the years to come.

Ella:

As we come to the end of this book of Morrow's, I want to thank you for your guidance. I only participated in one previous book discussion, the one about "Galileo's Daughter". It is very interesting to be led throughout the reading of a book within a group. I learned that those of different ages, mixed backgrounds and varied education give altogether different impressions of a subject in contributing to the general composition of American thought. This could be fractious, but you steered us on a good and true course. You have a gift. Thank you, again.

Regarding the presidents we have had since, I hesitate in giving my opinion because none of them have affected me personally since Vietnam. I definitely watched FDR with my husband and so many of my family fighting in WWII, and was very concerned with the three we have discussed because my two sons served in the Vietnam Era.

Our current president has done the best he could without proper advise from his Congress and from his foreign policy advisors and foreign intelligence agencies. I admire his fortitude and long-suffering. In all my life I have never seen such vitriol toward another human being. It would have been better if he had been given proper information, and now I am appalled to have learned that Congress is working to change the wording of the permission they granted him to go into Iraq in the first place.

I admire the fact that our presidents give of themselves and their lives to guide this nation. They need to be served best no matter what their party may be.

Gerald Ford was a kind man, did bring the troops back from Vietnam because Congress withheld the money to properly service the needs of the troops.

Carter did win a Nobel Peace Prize, but his concepts of what was needed to govern the country were limited and subjective.

Reagan did end the Cold War and caused the Berlin Wall to be eliminated. I saw that wall and it was heart-breaking to see the crosses where those who had tried to escape were killed. There was a sense of relief when that came down.

George H. W. Bush was a gentle and kind man, brought much federal government experience to the office, and acted prudently.

Clinton was a presidential personality. He had much intelligence,and was perceived to have accomplished much.

One word descriptions:

Gerald Ford - honorable
Jimmy Carter - not up to the job, unfortunately
Ronald Reagan - phoney
George H. Bush - out of touch
Bill Clinton - charismatic
George W Bush - frightening

Merijo...."Our current president has done the best he could without proper advise from his Congress and from his foreign policy advisors and foreign intelligence agencies.

I respectfully beg to differ, President Bush had a mind set to avenge his father when he took office. He refused to meet with the United Nations and try diplomacy, he rushed to war. He even now refuses to listen to his military advisors who tell him he CAN NOT win this war. He refuses to see Iraq is engaged in a civil war and our troops need to come home. Great Britian has finally decided to pull out and recognize this is a civil war. His position as President is to serve the American people and he even refuses to hear their voices. If this is the best he could do then it truly shows his incompetence and no else is to blame. Congress was given false information, Colon Powell sat at the hearings and provided false information of WMD. They had NO proof Sadam was linked to the 911 terrorist attacks, yet they used the fear to gain acceptance. This congress and senate has been dominated with his own party constituents along with democrats and they have backed him and are now seeing how arrogant and wreckless he is with our American troops. They are sorry for the day they gave him their vote because he has shown complete incompetence since. I am happy to see there will no longer be a blank check for him to carelessly spend to continue to bankroll Haliburton.

Presidents campaign and seek the office of Presidency, the day they are sworn in they vow to uphold the Constitution and protect the American people and our land. The life they choose and the time they spend serving as president is something they have accepted. The respect they will or will not get during this time will be determined on how well they serve this country, uphold the Constitution and serve the American people. President Bush has failed in all these areas and his poll showing he is the least liked president in all of history is his making.

Merijo "I admire his fortitude and long-suffering."

HIS fortitude and long suffering? What about the fortitude of our American soldiers and the families of the ones who will never return? How has this President suffered? He has gotten all that he has asked for and wanted. The soldiers are the ones who have suffered, this country is suffering and will for years to come.

With all due respect I can not find an ounce of sympathy, respect or admiration for this President. His legacy will be one worse then any other president who has served this country so far.

On further thought, I'd like to slightly alter my commenet about Clinton to "charisma wasted".

Bella Marie:

You certainly have a right to your opinion. I think, however, for an individual to become a president of the most powerful country in the world to "avenge his father" is incongruous. It doesn't follow. The rationale of the American people is not that simplistic. The U. S. is not a banana republic.

Bush talked to the U. N. about this, and he consulted with Congress. Kofi Annan and four of the five voting countries of the U. N. Security Council - China, Russia, Germany and France - the U. S. is the fifth - voted against our going into Iraq.

Our Congress voted to give Bush permission to do so. The rationale was that Hussein was lying about having dirty bombs and biological weapons. Our country had been attacked for years by these radicals. Remember the first time the World Trade building was bombed in 1993? The perpetrators of that including the blind mullah are in the Florence penitentiary - maximum security, in solitary - in Colorado. Remember the seventeen Navy personnel who were killed on the S.S.Cole, the bombing of the American embassies in Nairobi, the hospital in Aden staffed by American Seventh Day Adventists doctors and nurses - a doctor was killed among others, the hospital ruined, the bombing of the Marine barracks in Lebanon killing over 200 Marines, and night club bombing in Bali killing mostly Australian tourists and the restaurant bombing in Germany killing American soldiers. And more! For 25 years our country has been taking it and taking it without much of a response. (Reagan responded in Grenada until our medical students were rescued. Bush I responded when Hussein marched into Kuwait. Clinton responded in Somalia, but it was a disaster.)

Bush got misleading intelligence from the CIA and NSA, but it was not completely erroneous. Because of Hussein's antipathy to the U. S. it was believed that it would easily bcome a safe haven for Al Qaeda. And most curious of all, fourteen resolutions by the U. N. advising Iraq to open all their weapons facilities to inspectors were ignored. Iraq did not comply and when it did, credibility had weakened.

There is a fog to war. Things are not always apparent. Few people in the U. S. can speak Arabic and even fewer can speak Farsi, the language of Iran. Fewer people understand the history of radical Islamism. It wasn't taught in school until one got into college and then it would be an elective or a separate course of study toward a degree.

Al Qaeda is invisible. It is just about everywhere in the world. Radical Islamists persuade young Arabs or sympathizers - Americans, even, to join a group and then proceed to brainwash them into killing themselves as suicide bombers. Death means nothing to them after such an indoctrination. They believe their death is for a higher cause. Trains in Madrid and in London can attest to that suicide goal.

We're dealing with barbarians in Iraq. Recently there have been two attacks by insurgents with chlorine gas. This gas was outlawed after WWI.

In my opinion the U. S. is being ill-served by people with little brain who are in government, in the entertainment industry (few of them have had disciplined advanced education) journalists and writers of blogs who have a penchant for debauching the truth and mocking those who are working to bring an understanding of just how in danger the world finds itself. It isn't from global warming which is several hundred years away.

There are checks and balances in our Constitution. There are few things that the president may do by executive order, and even they can be overruled or modified.

The U. S. broke Iraq and when one breaks something they own it. This is a situation that must be peaceful when our soldiers leave or if not the slaughter at that point will be overwhelming.

Merijo,

While I would not attempt to debate with a History teacher, I would like to rebutt and say I am an informed, active American and have followed from beginning to now as to the process in which this war developed. All the rhetoric will never convince the millions of Americans Bush did not rush to war and has handled this in an arrogant, wreckless manner. He is the Commander in Chief you don't get to make these decisions and create this quagmire and then pass the buck onto Congress and everyone else. As the saying goes, "The buck stops here."(at the desk of the President)

Your defense of his actions can't help but remind me of my day care children....One begins the fight, and then wants to blame all the others for his actions and believe me a child can make a great argument as you did, to convince someone he had NO other choice from the information and actions leading up to his violent response. In the end acknowledging he should have done differently, talking it out, serve his time out and apologize is the only way any child will become a responsible nonviolent adult. Too bad we can't put Mr. Bush in a time out. In 2008 he is going in a longgggg time out.

Each individual has a personal attachment to this and so you can rationalize it in which ever ways best gives you credence. You sound like you would make the perfect defense argument for President Bush, although all the reports are in and refute your arguments.

Banana Republic? Don't know how to respond to that.

It does not take an advanced educated person to see this was a senseless war and someone with the mentality of this president shows me his avengance for his father, his war monger attitude and his greed to stuff the pockets of Haliburton are not incongruous.

Merijo, "In my opinion the U. S. is being ill-served by people with little brain who are in government, Starting with our Commander in Chief Mr. Bush, and all his fallen cronies and crooks.

in the entertainment industry (few of them have had disciplined advanced education) This sounds very superior and condescending and I beg to differ, it does not take advanced education or a rocket scientist to know this has been handled poorly.

journalists and writers of blogs who have a penchant for debauching the truth

Who's truth would that be? Are we now at the level of liar, liar, pants on fire. Or he said, she said.

If they do not agree with the President they are consideredand mocking those who are working to bring an understanding of just how in danger the world finds itself. It isn't from global warming which is several hundred years away."

So shall we just sit and wait and leave this global warming for future generations to deal with since obviously you nor I will be here in several hundred years? I for one feel it is as Al Gore stated last night, "This is NOT a political issue, its not a red or blue issue, this is a moral issue."

I see you watched the Academy Awards last night.

The U. S. broke Iraq and when one breaks something they own it.

The U.S. did NOT break Iraq, we invaded a country under false pretenses and assumed they wanted the same democracy we have. For centuries before and for centuries to come Iraq will continue to have civil uprisings. It is NOT our responsibility to go into any country with a tyrant leader and invade them and impose our Constitution on them. Where does it end if that is the attitude?

This is a situation that must be peaceful when our soldiers leave or if not the slaughter at that point will be overwhelming.

The slaughter is already overwhelming, have you NOT been watching the news? There will be NO peaceful time for pulling out, Iraq chooses to fight amongst themselves and will continue whether we are there or not.

Merijo....Al Queda was responsible for the attacks NOT Sadam. Bush wanted to take the attention off of Osama because he was in bed with the oil companies, Haliburton and Osama Bin Laden, so instead he shifted the blame to Iraq. We will never see eye to eye on this because YOU are for his actions and I am against them. America holds Mr. Bush accountable for this war because ultimately he chose to ignore the vote NOT TO INVADE IRAQ! You can blame Congress because they gave him their votes, but as you stated there was misinformation and had they known he planned on using their vote as approval of NO HOLDS BARRED and NO EXPENSE too large life or money, I am certain they would NOT have given their vote.

He like all the other presidents who have gone to war during their time in office is going to have the legacy of their wars. You can't have it both ways...it is what it is.

This is a very sad situation that needs to be remedied and the Americans have spoken in these last elections and will speak again in 2008. He can ignore them NOW but their voices will not fall on deaf ears in this next election.

Bella Marie:

I am not a history teacher although I did teach Humanities for three years to gifted and talented middle school children.

Remember this, the Senate is in Democratic hands by virtue of one vote. The House of Representatives by about six members. This means that approximately half the voting population of this country voted for Bush and his people because they believed that he was the best choice for keeping the U. S. safe. It is true we have had no more attacks on our soil since 9/11.

I said in an earlier post that we should not have gone into Iraq in the first place, but now that we are there, we need to stabilize the country. Iraq has a government, has had free elections, but its ethic is Muslim. One must hope and pray that Muslims who want to stop the killing will lead the way.

I became part of this discussion because I hoped to have a pleasant and informative time, but in too many posts here, the subject became personal and moved ahead into the present accompanied by negative and pejorative remarks about the current administration. I tried in my posts to return the discussion back to the subject, but still the discussion moved into the present.

I do not wish to discuss current politics here. If I wanted to debate I would have gone to the political issues discussion.

IT'S GOODBYE TIME, FOLKS! IT WAS JUST GREAT GETTING TO KNOW YOU AND DISCUSSING MORROW'S BOOK AND I HOPE WE MEET AGAIN IN ANOTHER DISCUSSION!

I tried to compile your descriptions of our recent presidents and I had them all lined up in a post and then.......................I hit the wrong button and they all disappeared!

As Bugs Bunny used to say (or was it a pig?) in the cartoons.........that's all, folks!!!

It was great fun and thanks again for your interest, your cooperation in Seniornet book discussions and your insightful comments.

Merijo,

My apologies, I got you confused with our History teacher. Your post sounded as though you were. As far as personal remarks, I too could see possible posts as such, but I would rather see it as others with different opinions and expressing them with respect to all.

This means that approximately half the voting population of this country voted for Bush and his people because they believed that he was the best choice for keeping the U. S. safe.

This president was NOT elected by the people, he gained his office by uncounted votes and corrupt politicians as in past history. And because he gained the office does not in any way indicate the American people believed him to be the best choice for keeping the U.S. safe. And, if this were remotely true, he has failed to do so.

I tried in my posts to return the discussion back to the subject, but still the discussion moved into the present.

It is almost impossible to discuss this book about three past presidents, their wars and their faults and not look at the present president and his faults and war. I would expect this to be debatable without offense taken.

I do not wish to discuss current politics here. If I wanted to debate I would have gone to the political issues discussion.

<Because of your posts I only assumed you did in fact have an opinion and wanted to share it in this forum. As I have said, I apologize if you have taken this in a personal way. Sometimes it is hard to accept others do not feel the same as we do. It is a hard reality this President has the lowest poll rating ever in history. ALL Americans are and should be sad he has performed poorly. You, should not take any of these personally since YOU are not responsible for any of his actions.

This book is about politics, how could we NOT discuss them?

Ella,

Thank you for being our leader. Your questions and this book brought about much thought and controversy which makes for good discussions.

Merijo,

You have my most sincere apology, I along with Ella expressed we loved to debate. By everyone else's post it appeared they did too. You had a lot of interesting and great posts and I truly respect your's and everyone's ability to express them. Thank you.

And as our leader so graciously put it...yab da dab dab dab...That's all folks!

I've been reading along with this Discussion and found it interesting as I've also been rereading the Archived Discussion of Bush At War. It was fascinating to see the hopes,doubts and fears that were put forward in 2003 on the eve of the War.

I do think Presidents(and PM's in our case), would benefit a lot if there was a return to the old system of training Diplomats in the field. In those days they understood the mindset and ethnic peculiarities of foreign countries, and why Saddam mightn't want to publicly admit to not having his Weapons even if it meant War. My country seems to reward retiring Politicians with Diplomatic postings, and they go in cold turkey.

It's been interesting.

Ella, Thanks for the discussion. I haven't participated a lot, but I am glad that you provided the impetus for me to read the book - and maybe check out more presidential biographies.

Ella, I also would like to thank you. I am sorry not to have been here to finish the discussion. I did have some doctor appts. I have two to go to on Wednesday and Friday. This is no excuse for not participating. I will admit to paying more attention to Snow. I will try to do better in the future.

Bella Marie:

Glad to know your comments were not meant to be personal. They certainly sounded like they were. Thank you for your apology. I appreciate it.

Merijo,

I know what you mean, I too thought some posts were meant personally. That is the thing about the internet, one can voice a passionate opinion and someone can read it to be something it is not. I try to always use the word respectfully or with all due respect to indicate its a rebuttal but no personal or disrespect is intended. It is difficult to discuss religion or politics without passion and personal feelings. Thank you for acknowledging my post and I look forward to future discussions with you possibly on lighter material.

Have a great day!

This discussion is now READ ONLY and will be archived.

1948! Years and years ago, is it possible they went by quickly or has it been a very long time? What were these future presidents doing in the year 1948; what had their childhood prepared them for - were they ambitious young men? Did they have a glimmer of what might be in store for them?

These giants of history, these presidents and their scandals, their achievements, their lies, their loves, their administrations are all discussed in Morrow's fascinating book.

Have we learned anything from those years or was there anything to learn? Can we learn from the past?

Come take a walk with Morrow down memory lane; we can take a week on each president and then the last week we can, perhaps, compare our present leaders with those of the past, e.g., does President Bush's youth and experience or lack thereof compare with JFK? Does Johnson's problems with Vietnam compare to our present problems with Iraq? Morrow touches lightly on these issues but we can explore them fully.

Join me February lst.

Published in 2005, the book can be found at libraries or can be purchased here in hardcover or paperback: The Best Year of Their Life

Ella, I might not take part in this discussion. Still, after reading about this book on Barnes and Noble it does seem very, very interesting.

I'll Participate!

Come on now Hats, We need your Participation full time.

Harold and Ella, I will participate. These were exciting years. I have been thinking a lot about Nixon since the death of Ex President Harold Ford. There is so much I don't know about this man. Kennedy, I remember so much about him: his work for the Civil Rights Movement, The Bay of Pigs situation, and of course, the assassination. Johnson, I mainly remember how he was introduced in to the White House after the death of Kennedy. Yes, I have huge gaps in my memory about these men. I am anxious to be here.

I'll try to be here - lurking, if nothing else.

It sounds interesting, and by February, I may have finished the two books I am reading now. I remember those times.

WELL, THIS IS JUST GREAT!

THANK YOU ALL FOR YOUR POSTS AND IT'S POSSIBLE, WE HAVE A QUORUM????

I GUARANTEE YOU WILL ENJOY READING THIS BOOK - IT'S LIGHT, IT'S ORIGINAL - A UNIQUE LOOK BACKWARD AT THREE MEMORABLE FELLOWS WE ALL REMEMBER SO WELL.

Ella, I have been a huge camelot fan and have read numerous books on the Kennedy family. I have very little knowledge where Nixon is concerned and less for Johnson so YES, I would love to participate in February's discussion. I am looking forward to it.

Ella, Yep you have a quorum.

WELCOME HATS, HAROLD, MARY, MERIJO, BELLAMARAIE!

Yes, Ginger, we have a quorum and this is going to be fun. The book presents some intriguing questions and we will attempt to answer them in our own way. We have the advantage of years of hindsight, indeed we do!!

Morrow attempts to stay with the year 1948; that is his premise, but at times cannot steer clear of the enormous impact of these three presidents upon the future of the country. And he links the three together in interesting ways:

"The three future presidents, so different from one another in almost all ways (physically, intellectually, culturally, socially-in their geographical origins, in their accents), shared a tendency toward elaborately deliberated amorality; all three behaved as if rules were for others, not for them. All chose a course of advancement that demanded, among other things, forms of deceit. It was in 1948 that the three committed themselves to a mature and focused political ruthlessness."

I'm looking forward to February!

How interesting that Gerald Ford was elected to Congress for the first time in 1948. What a contrast in manner and of course, to the House not the Senate. And the Senate is supposedly our upper house and has the "Statesmen"!!!. Just a thought for the day.

Hi CubFan. Thanks for that note, I would not have known that fact about President Ford, one of the good guys in the oval office. Power does not always corrupt!

Why don't you join us in our discussion!

I was busy with three babies all under the age of four in 1948 - I think I will revisit a time that I associated mostly with laundry and pull-toys.

i'll be here....jean

Oh, good, MABEL, WELCOME! (Is it Jean?)

Good grief, Merijo, 3 of them under four years of age, heavens! How did you cope?

It was a wonderful year for me, 20 years old, in love, dancing, enjoying life, fabulous year! The babies came much later.

A postwar year, prosperity around the corner, young men back from the war pushing their way into the corridors where older men reigned, displacing them, bringing new ideas, the end of an era and the beginning of a new one.

We'll discuss Morrow's vision in February. Don't read ahead, let's read each chapter together, more fun that way.

Ella:

I think I didn't know what was going on in the outside world. They are all in their early sixties now and still a delight to me.

I got my book yesterday, and am ready to go.

that was taken as a post name, so i used mabel, figuring their aren't a lot of those....teehee......it's also my first name that my family never used, it honored an aunt.....jean

JEAN! I have an 82 year old sister by that name and I love her dearly; she can't see too well (macular degeneration) but she emails every day. I won't forget your name!

Am very much interested in the book and will participate!

WELCOME BUCKEYE!

Buckeye is a good friend of mine and also a new member of Seniornet (applause!).

What a great group we have gathering for our February book discussion. Thank you all for your interest!

A Biography of Lance Morrow

An Interesting Article by LM regarding journalism today

Thanks for the links Ella, very interesting......are we starting the discussion on FEb 1?......jean

Ella, the article on Journalism is very interesting. It made me look inward. Why do we need to know the private lives of these people? When these celebrities, whether in Hollywood or Washington, sue or speak out because of emotional pain, do we really believe they have been harmed by worldwide publicity about personal affairs? Do we not care? Is it a form of jealousy? Are we angry because we lack three homes, a chauffeur and dogs wearing designer clothing?

Now, sadly, journalists are going after Prince Williams' Kate just like the papparazzi went after Lady Diana. I hope we have learned a lesson from the past.

Not to mention Obama Baraka being likened to a rock star. Years ago reporters would never have looked at a politician as a rock star. At least, I don't remember it.

Hi HATS and JEAN. Yes, if we like we can start posting anytime but the book discussion will not start until February.

LM can lament the fact that journalists/reporters have become too gossipy since the days of FDR; however, did you notice how many times he mentioned Princess Diane in that article? What was he attempting in doing so? To ignite public interest?

Recently I went to see Helen Mirren in THE QUEEN as it has had good reviews. Now I had, I suppose, unwarranted preconceived ideas but I was astonished that the whole movie was about Princess Diane. This 80-year old Queen of England has lived through tumultuous times, particularly WWII and the end of the British Empire and yet the whole movie was about her reaction to Princess Di's death. Imagine!

HATS, I haven't heard the comment about Barack Obama, an interestisng young man isn't he? A president in the making? What charisma!

Ella, what a surprise you must've gotten about The Queen. All the publicity has been that the movie is only about the time immediately around the time of Diana's death, and the queen's reaction to it.

I think that is very sad. Queen Elizabeth has done so much for England, lived through so many important points of History, why isn't her story told in the movie? Ella, I agree.

MARY, I'm not very observant about movies, am I???

I wanted to see one or two movies before the Oscars and I ended up seeing three that may get a nod. The Queen, Little Miss Sunshine and DreamGirls.

Would what we are doing be called "blogging?" I hear so much about it in the news and the fact that the Internet is going to play such a big part in coming elections and I feel ignorant of the subject.

Can anyone enlighten me about blogging and its impact on the news? Will the Internet replace print media or TV? Is Morrow out of a job?

Ella -- there is a discussion of blogs or weblogs here at SN.

Marcie Schwarz, "Blogs (Web Logs)" #, 29 Sep 2002 2:17 pm.

Some are quite interesting, some fancy, some boring or out of date.

The blogs (about politics) I read the most, are the ones noted in the Washington Post emails I get.

When is the discussion starting? tomorrow?......jean

AND GOOD MORNING EVERYONE!

I’M WRITING THIS IN THE EVENING OF THE DAY BEFORE AS MY MIND IS STILL WARM AT THIS TIME OF DAY AND IN OHIO I CAN’T SAY THE SAME FOR THE MORNINGS!

Hopefully, certainly, you all have had a chance to read the Introduction and Chapter One of our book. Let’s take a little time to discuss the author, Lance Morrow, and his style of writing. First of all is he, in your opinion, a historian? If not, what is he? One reviewer calls him a journalist which is a loose term. An essayist?

And secondly, what do you think of the way in which LM has organized this book? If you were to write it using his title how would you have done it? Is it clear and concise? Is his writing? Should it be?

Lastly, why did LM devote 30 pages to Nixon, and only 10 each to Kennedy and Johnson? Is this warranted in your opinion?

---

As in any book discussion on Seniornet there is no wrong or right opinion; as a matter of fact I personally agree with Ghandi (who is quoted by LM extensively) - "Honest disagreement is often a good sign of progress.”

This is going to be a great discussion, chock full of your opinions and ideas and I am looking forward to them very much! My apologies, in advance, if I get too long-winded!

I didn't want to get the book from the library until just before we started and I forgot! But it's now ordered, so I should have my copy in a couple of days.

I hope he doesn't continue w/ so many thru the whole book, they are distracting to me. Just tell me the story! He appears to be telling us how well read HE is instead of talking about his subjects. Every once in a while that sort of thing can add to an explanation, but every page is a bit much. Is it bothering anyone else?.....jean

I have tried to post twice and lost both so I am a bit frustrated to say the least. I would like to begin with thanking Ella for being our Leader. Ella asked:is Lance Morrow, in your opinion, a historian? If not, what is he? One reviewer calls him a journalist which is a loose term. An essayist? After reading his Introduction and Chapter one 1. I have mixed feelings about who he is. He is an author, wrote essays and writes of history so I suppose he is all the above. If Ella asked what I thought of his style of writing for this book I would say its a bit salacious, fictitious and comes close to tabloid fodder. He holds high regard for his friend Princess Diana and feels the media crossed lines with her. I too feel the same, yet I also feel Morrow has used the sexual, private and intimate parts of each of these three Presidents lives to captivate the reader. It would be nothing more than a book of history, time and events but he has included the juicy gossip to make for an entertaining read. So is he the pot calling the kettle black? Does he fall short in respecting the privacy of the lives of JKF, Nixon and Johnson?

I have read many books on JFK, Jackie Onasis, JFK Jr., and Caroline. Nothing Morrow has said so far is any different than what I have already read. He is repetitive, in his attempt to reveal the infidelities of JFK. Lyndon Johnson is a less interesting person and was not thought of much as President. Nixon on the other hand was a sad, corrupt individual and I feel was the beginning of the downfall of the respect Americans held for the Presidency. I am in a Bible study and Morrow reminds me of the writers of the books who had little personal contact with the source he writes about and had to rely on what others can supply him with. His words loose credit when he says so and so said this.

Ella asks: If you were to write it using his title how would you have done it?......I have to say at this point I am still questioning if his title fits the book. I am not so sure I agree with these being the BEST years of their lives in 1948. I almost think I would have titled it the WORST years of their lives. The deceit, lies, manipulations, illegal acts, and fall from grace for Nixon and Johnson surely leaves America with nothing to be proud of. Being a baby boomer I have to say I was fascinated with the "Camelot" years. The Kennedys as dysfunctional as they were brought glamor and grace to the White House. We were at a time where we wanted a Love Story book Presidency. Jackie with her flair for fashion, John with his charism and good looks, and the whole clan playing football at Hyanisport was the ideal family. No family is perfect and no politician got to where he is at being completely honest. John falling into Jackie's arms after being shot is an image all of America will never forget. John John saluting at such a young age at the horse drawn casket will remain in our hearts forever. I think I would have titled this book if I were writing it, "Pride, Power & Presidents".

Now it would behoove me if I failed to admonish the media, journalists, reporters and television programs for their insensitivity and lack of respect for the privacy of celebrities, public figures and politicians. Yet, I must say we can not deny our own accountability since we run out and purchase the books, newspapers, and tabloids who continue to report and ruin the lives of these people, on the basis of a source to so and so said. I will continue reading and participating in this book club, although I must say I am hoping I can overcome my disgust with the invasion and intrusion into the personal lives of each of these Presidents.

I am anxious to hear what others think.

I'm going to continue in a negative tone, sorry, but his writing is driving me nuts.....i am hoping that he gets to the title of his book at some point - "K,J,N in 1948: learning the secrets of power." It's an intriguing subject, i hope he gets to it....On page 13 of my book he describes Nixon's eyes as "sanpaku." I don't know that term and can't find it in my on-line encarta, can anybody help me? ......And i was thoroughly confused by the paragraph that starts on the bottom of pg 22 and continues to 23 that started out talking about Walden and then Adam and Eve and ending w/ ....."a thin strain of lamentation, barely audible, like a memory of bleached bones beside the trail." .....i just said "WHAT?" when i finished that.....maybe he's just way too intellectual for me......but where was his editor? .....and on the next page we get Lana Turner!......i'm going to stay w/ it, but his first 30 pages are surely confounding me.....Help! Somebody? Let me know what you think.......jean

I admit some of the vocabulary used by Morrow is above my head. I do not know whether he is trying to prove his own self worth by writing the book. At other times, his writing style fits a common American like me. I don't know what name to give Mr. Morrow. I suppose this is because his writing is leaving me rattled. His writing style seems jumpy or uneven. Aahh, maybe Mr. Morrow is a muckraker. Is a muckraker considered a journalist?

I do like his "what if" scenario about the three men. What if we, the American public, had known about Kennedy's health problems? What if Nixon had not been involved in the Hiss case? and another what if scenario about Johnson?

Thank you, thank you for your honesty! It may not be flattering to Lance Morrow, but I appreciate it. However, I don’t believe we can dismiss this author so blatantly. Let me just list 3 web sites out of hundreds that Google brought up for me:

Lance Morrow, Professor of Journalism at Boston University; Adjunct Professor of English at Harvard

A list of current essays in TIME

Morrow discusses his latest book "Evil"

I believe him to be an historian; one that I would recommend to a college student studying history. BellaMarie doesn’t agree and thinks he uses the "sexual, private and intimate parts of each of these three Presidents lives to captivate the reader."

Perhaps! However anytime a person puts himself in the public limelight, particularly a president, he must learn to endure the humiliation, the loss of privacy, that often comes with the job in my opinion.

Let’s take one chapter at a time and discuss some of the questions that arise in the book and see if we can justify an interest in it. I think it has promise, so bear with me for a little while.

I think we can all agree that FDR and Truman were, if not revered, respected. Morrow states however that ”the end of an inherent American reverence, or at least respect for the office of the presidency, began with Kennedy, Johnson and Nixon in the sixties.”

Is it true do you think? Does it matter?

Ideas such as these are well worth discussing particularly in this current situation of 20 possible candidates for the presidency in 2008. You agree?

Another statement in the Introduction is interesting. “In the years to come, nuclear weapons……would become so familiar as to be almost domesticated in a political sense and half-forgotten, a kind of low-level background anxiety except in moments of crisis.”

Aren’t we the least bit concerned with nuclear weapons today? Are we in a "moment of crisis?"

One more thought before I quit tonight. I had forgotten to put our Schedule of Discussion in the heading; it is there now and it makes for a better discussion in a group if we stick to a reading schedule.

Goodness, I am still in the Introduction but will move on to Chapter One. I hope you will come along for the journey.

sanpaku

Chronic fatigue, loss of sleep, yeah! I have sanpaku!

Me too Ella - thanks for finding out what it was.....interesting, they mention Kennedy, but not Nixon......

I think people born in the 40's or later think that the irreverance for the presidency began w/ Nixon and Watergate (or as Morrow states, w/ Kennedy). I think that is because we have lived thru those presidents and heard the discussions and the berating. However, students of presidential history know that presidents have been reviled thruout history starting w/ Adams. Geo Washington was largely admired, but even he had his detractors.

Certainly FDR was not admired by many of the powers that be at the time. They called him a socialist, a wannabe dictator, even a communist and we won't even mention what they said about Eleanor! So those of us whose parents admired FDR may have a skewed memory of the Roosevelt yrs and perhaps Morrow has a skewed memory of the K, J, Nixon years relative to previous presidents because he's lived thru those administrations - and apparently lived many of those yrs in Washington.

I recognize that he has very esteemed credentials and i have read his columns in Time Mag......but so far in this book, i think he is scattered, not presenting a clear premise and might have been looking to make some easy money. Much of what i have read so far is not new or even presented in a new slant. As i said before i hope he gets to the topic that's in the title......it could be interesting......jean

Jean, I agree LM's premise is not clear and I believe he is often repetitive; however, as HATS stated, I like "what if" writers rather than the organized pedantic tomes we often get from established historians. I like the theories, the ideas that LM and others like him present for the layman; food for thought, food for discussion.

We will find, or we must read carefully to find, his premise of "secrets of power." I have spotted one and will put it in the heading as I come to it; I hope you all will help in discovering others to list. They are there, we just can't skip along too rapidly I think.

I was in high school when FDR was in office. I am prejudiced, I was impressionable, he could do no wrong, he piloted us through a horrific world war. Of course, he had detractors, he had affairs - we learned later - as we learned about Thomas Jefferson and his affair with a black slave. They became human in our eyes, they were not Gods but that was years later.

The media has expanded greatly since their day (print, TV, Internet) and are hungry to fill in the hours, the space. Nothing is going to stop it and no man in politics is safe from the public. Good or bad, it's a fact, it happens.

And it might be a very good thing; perhaps they will no longer lie, cheat, grab power and fame at any cost, as KJN did and learned bitter lessons.

Sorry, I am being so late in starting to read "The Best Year etc." but I am here.

There may be hope for me and this book .....about pg 30 he started talking about Nixon's first election and it was interesting, clear and understandable to me. Much better than the previous pages......

imagine if LBJ's early civil rts votes had been dug up and all over the present 24/7 news shows in 1960! He may never have gotten the opportunity to lead the fight for the 1960's civil rts legislation. The talking heads and his opposition would have never let up.....i fear for the quality of people we will get in politics in the future - who wants to go thru that, and will we ever get anyone who will be candid and not totally scripted in everything they say. How do you get to know people who are playing the handlers' role?.....jean

I have just finished reading the "Introduction."

Here Lance Morrow sets his premise for his book, and does so, I think, with good use of language and quick, clear understanding.

I like his way of writing here, and I find it to be more in the mode of an analyst than anything else. There is the role of the historian and also the type of narrative a journalist would use. It'll be interesting to see how he develops his premise.

Great, MERIJO, I like that. An analyst. And, also, am happy you enjoy his style of writing.

And, happy to hear that you are enjoying the book a bit better, JEAN.. Your question - who wants to go thru that, and will we ever get anyone who will be candid and not totally scripted in everything they say is one we all asking ourselves, but there seems to be no end to folks who are forming exploratory committees and starting to raise funds.

Did we know Kennedy, Johnson, Nixon before they were elected as presidents? Is it all by chance that we get a good president once inawhile. Somewhere LM talks about the fact that presidents do not truly know themselves until they are faced with the reality of the office. I can't put my finger on the page at the moment.

Nixon had plenty of exposure in all he had done before his administration; Kennedy very little; Johnson more in the Senate.

This morning in the shower, I decided to give myself a little quiz and say one good thing about each of these three presidents – the first thing that came to my mind. They were Nixon-China; Johnson-Civil Rights; Kennedy-his Inaugural speech. Try it.

---------------------------------------------------------------------

I’m going to summarize what I think Morrow is saying about the year 1948. Add to it if you see more.

1948 – "a year when three future American presidents…..passed through formative ordeals and emerged……..reborn, launched toward their destinies."

1948 – The Big Chill set in – communism threatened; the space age/race was born.

1948 –"American set its course for material paradise."

1948 – Ghandi died – one of the great peacemakers of all time; emblematic of the shifting nations of the world; new independence for many countries; some falling under communisn, others partitioned by the victors of the war.

1948 – "America … had just begun to become enmeshed in the moral dilemmas of the Overdog.

Morrow asks: Can the overdog – especially an overdog armed with a bomb that can blow up the world – be virtuous? Of course, today there are what? Five countries that have the atomic bomb. Is it still a threat?

Are we an Overdog still? A better question might be does our current President and the Pentagon believe us to be? An interesting thought in light of our present day dilemma, don’t you think?

Thanks so much for your posts and your interest in joining this discussion. It's a pleasure to read your comments and do know that they are appreciated very much.

I'm getting windy, sorry! I'll do better!

Ella #43..."The media has expanded greatly since their day (print, TV, Internet) and are hungry to fill in the hours, the space. Nothing is going to stop it and no man in politics is safe from the public. Good or bad, it's a fact, it happens.

And it might be a very good thing; perhaps they will no longer lie, cheat, grab power and fame at any cost, as KJN did and learned bitter lessons."

Ella may I respectfully disagree with this? I don't feel it will have any impact on the future politicians. They have and will continue to lie, cheat, and grab power and fame at any cost. Just look at the corruption in the past few years that has hit the media. I can't begin to keep up with how many have resigned or been replaced due to their immoral behavior or wrong judgments in this present administration. Our current President at this very time has the lowest poll ratings of all Presidents in history for his lies, deceit and power for fame. He is at this very time being marched against for his Iraq blunder. Almost one million people as of yesterday, have signed a petition to impeach him for abuse of power. No amount of media will stop the thirst and hunger of a power monger, and sadly to say I think most of our Presidents can be considered just that. If you take the time to read about each and every President you will see many had affairs, lied, cheated and broke the rules to get in the White House. Its like its a men's club or fraternity and they want to be the one all the guys look up to. That in and of itself is why its taboo to even think a woman could hold the office of Presidency.

Morrow's book is a little too late for any new information. I do not intend any disrespect to him and I am finding information that is interesting to me, such as the attitude of Americans about the "Good Communism" in the 1930's. I find Morrow to be a bit trite and because I have read so many books on the Kennedy's I feel he did not give much credit to JKF for his performance as President. He seems to want to continue to remind us of his personal failings and affairs which is common knowledge.

I too like to think of the What If? I was having a conversation with my future daughter in law today and she said in her psychology class they were discussing these three presidents and how the world could be very different if they had not been President. I still credit Nixon for the beginning of the fall of respect for the office in the baby boomer's era. Kennedy's affairs does not take away from him being a great President. He did not misuse his power as President, he loved his country and he could relate to the people unlike Richard Nixon.

In response to your question, Are we an Overdog still? I would have to say I think our President thinks we are, but I think if you asked the American people the majority would say NO. We have lost respect around the world. We have lost confidence in our leader. We are NOT being heard anymore. We have a Leader who has decided what he wants goes no matter if his congress, senate, military advisor and the American people disagree. We may be seen as the "New Communism"... we have a dictator who refuses to admit he is wrong and refuses to hear his country, he continues to sacrifice lives every day because he is too prideful to admit what the reports have proven...This Iraq war has turned into a civil war and we do not belong there, there was NO good reason to invade this country in the first place, he lied and placed fear in the American people after 911 to do what he had wanted to do all along. You speak of at least five other countries having nuclear bombs.. and yet this President does not want the aide of the United Nations, he wants to go it alone. Overdog?....hmmm let me see....that would be a NO.

This book probably is only going to frustrate the readers because it opens old wounds and pours salt into present wounds. You ask if the bomb is still a threat today? Any bomb is and always will remain a threat no matter where, or who has it. Let's just all pray the leaders of these countries have calm and clear thinking and diplomatic minds prevail as did JFK in the Cuban Missile Crisis.

GREAT POST BELLEMARIE! Thank you for addressing some of the issues raised in the book. It's too early in the morning for me to post coherently; I'll be back later but I thought it might be fun to get to know each other.

What were you doing in 1948? All of you?

Merijo was raising three babies, I was single and dancing (we did that back then) - let's hear it from the rest of you.

HATS? MARY? JEAN? HAROLD (who will be here when he finds a copy of the book) BUCKEYE? ANY OTHERS?

Ella, I've been following the discussion, but the book hasn't come in to the library yet. I hope today or Monday.

I was 12 in 1948 (a mere child ). I do remember that my father (a doctor) was one of the few Democrats at the medical school where he taught. And I remember his exultation when Harry Truman won the presidential election that year. He took a garbage can and a sheet to work the next day to "wipe away the Republican tears".

Ella, I have to tell you I was probably not even a mere thought in my Mother and Father's mind. lol I was born in 1952.

I was a teen when JFK was shot and that was my first real interest in politics. As a child I seemed to be secure within my family nothing like this was imaginable. We were very poor and politics were never discussed in our home. Both my mother and step father were born in Tennessee and dropped out of school by the age of 14. They had little education and only knew blue collar jobs. We lived in Michigan a farming, and auto making state. I sensed they felt politics was left to the wealthy, I would be shocked to know they ever voted.

My interest peaked when Bobby Kennedy and Martin Luther King were killed, because now as a teen fear crept into my home. I remember thinking, JFK's assassination was just random. Now it seemed to me that there was a force out there in the world wanting to stop the movement taking place. To me the movement I speak of was...Peace and equality for ALL not just the white man.

When Richard Nixon was elected I was certain in my private thoughts he had some form of connection to the deaths of John and Robert Kennedy and Martin Luther King, because they were such strong equal rights people that he felt threatened he would never have a chance of ever being President as long as the three of them were alive.

Food for thought.....everyone have a great day!

HI MARY AND BELLEMARIE! (and your generation didn't dance, hahaha, well, maybe the chicken?)

You are babies - my daughter's age - but isn't it grand we can come together in such a manner - too bad we can't be sitting around a nice fire talking. I would love it!

I have just a few minutes but I wanted to share this with you, particularly Bellemarie as she is such an admirer of Kennedy and Camelot.

The one left - Caroline - is writing a series in TIME on ordinary, extraordinary people who are making a difference and she starts her first essay with this:

"All my life people have told me that my father changed their lives. They got involved in public service, in the Peace Corps and in their communities because he asked them. To me, the generation he inspired is perhaps his greatest legacy. And they in turn have inspired generations that followed."

What do you think? We must get on with Chapter One ......I know LM had some wonderful descriptions of the "sixties" - the generation Caroline is talking about. I'll look them up.......later........

I try to follow Caroline and the work she has been doing. I purchased her book of Poetry and love it. I am an aspiring writer and have been published twice in the International Library of Poetry and I am hoping to have my Children's book published and on the shelves by next Christmas. Jackie's poetry was a great inspiration to me. I admire the strength, and grace Caroline shows after so much loss in her life. I admire how she has been able to keep her children out of the media. Yes, her father was a huge inspiration to many, faults and all. Thank you Ella I will love reading her essays. Have a great week end.

We haven't heard from Merijo, Jean or Hats lately. Where are you?

Waiting for Harold and Buckeye!

THREE YOUNG MEN:

It is hard to believe in some ways that KENNEDY would be 90 this year. He’ll always be young in the nation’s eyes don’t you think?

We all know the story of JFK, we don’t need to repeat it. If you are interested, you might want to read a few of our comments in the archived discussion of Ben Bradlee’s book - A Good Life

Bradlee (the famous editor of the Washington Post and a socialite in Washington society) and his wife were very good friends with the Kennedys, particularly when they were in the White House – it’s a lonely place and you need your friends there I would think.

A couple of comments from that discussion:

"I've finished the little book CONVERSATIONS WITH KENNEDY by Bradlee and at times their conversations are amazingly simple when you consider where they are sitting (often the White House ), and particularly poignant during the year 1963 when Bradlee saw quite a bit of Kennedy and they often talked about the coming election in '64"

"One of our greatest Presidents? Who has suggested that? He was only in office 100 days and really, what were his accomplishments during that time? He will go down as the charming, polished young president, much loved and admired...who was assassinated. I'm not even sure that the first part will be remembered, maybe just the assassination! Many still believe the link between Cuba and the assassination is very strong and that someday, when Castro is out of Office and relations have been restored we just may learn about that. One of the greatest? I don't think so. Do any of you?"

LM's comments: - "He had grown up on what amounted to a different planet, the planet Kennedy. He came to American politics as an immigrant from that other world"

"His sexual behavior ……signaled, not a passionate involvement with others, but, instead, a paradoxical kind of isolation, even a poignant cluelessness."

Your Comments?

.

I'm here, Ella. Have been reading. I do think that Kennedy grew up in a very different world. He never worked at all. He served in the Navy well. I think that had he lived he may have acquired a better sense of the world of which he was not a part, but which he governed. I remember his coming here as President to California at the time the San Luis Rey Dam opened - He officiated at its opening. He had asked for a drink of water, and after he had sipped some of it, he commented that it was great - I don't remember his words exactly, but he did savor the great water there.

I'm here Ella too. I'm trying to catch up on my reading. I was born in 1950. I have no idea what happened in 1948 unless my parents spoke about it. I do remember the very day Kennedy was shot, the night in Los Angeles when Robert Kennedy died. I also remember hearing on the tv that Martin Luther King had been shot on a balcony in Memphis. I remember the Watergate hearings on tv. I didn't understand totally what was going on with the Watergate situation. I do remember being ashamed and feeling very sad for Pat Nixson and the girls. I could literally see the pain in Pat Nixson's eyes. I do believe what happened in the White House involving her husband changed her whole life. At that time I read a book about Margaret Mitchell. I felt very sorry for her too. I think she became an alcoholic. For some people, she talked too much on the phone, giving away political secrets. I feel the women suffered more than the men during the Watergate situation.

I remember Lyndon Johnson being sworn in as president. We were living history so fast in the sixties it seemed. I connect Viet Nam with Lyndon Johnson more than the Civil Rights movement. My father always felt Lyndon Johnson in some way was behind the assassination of John F. Kennedy. When I think of Kennedy I think of the Civil Rights Movement. Am I giving more credit to one man than he deserves?

1954.... May 17 The Supreme Court rules on the landmark case Brown v. Board of Education of Topeka, Kans., unanimously agreeing that segregation in public schools is unconstitutional. The ruling paves the way for large-scale desegregation. The decision overturns the 1896 Plessy v. Ferguson ruling that sanctioned "separate but equal" segregation of the races, ruling that "separate educational facilities are inherently unequal." It is a victory for NAACP attorney Thurgood Marshall, who will later return to the Supreme Court as the nation's first black justice.

1955... Aug. Fourteen-year-old Chicagoan Emmett Till is visiting family in Mississippi when he is kidnapped, brutally beaten, shot, and dumped in the Tallahatchie River for allegedly whistling at a white woman. Two white men, J. W. Milam and Roy Bryant, are arrested for the murder and acquitted by an all-white jury. They later boast about committing the murder in a Look magazine interview. The case becomes a cause célèbre of the civil rights movement Dec. 1 (Montgomery, Ala.) NAACP member Rosa Parks refuses to give up her seat at the front of the "colored section" of a bus to a white passenger, defying a southern custom of the time. In response to her arrest the Montgomery black community launches a bus boycott, which will last for more than a year, until the buses are desegregated Dec. 21,

1956. As newly elected president of the Montgomery Improvement Association (MIA), Reverend Martin Luther King, Jr., is instrumental in leading the boycott.

1957... Jan.–Feb. Martin Luther King, Charles K. Steele, and Fred L. Shuttlesworth establish the Southern Christian Leadership Conference, of which King is made the first president. The SCLC becomes a major force in organizing the civil rights movement and bases its principles on nonviolence and civil disobedience. According to King, it is essential that the civil rights movement not sink to the level of the racists and hatemongers who oppose them: "We must forever conduct our struggle on the high plane of dignity and discipline," he urges.

1960... Feb. 1 (Greensboro, N.C.) Four black students from North Carolina Agricultural and Technical College begin a sit-in at a segregated Woolworth's lunch counter. Although they are refused service, they are allowed to stay at the counter. The event triggers many similar nonviolent protests throughout the South. Six months later the original four protesters are served lunch at the same Woolworth's counter. Student sit-ins would be effective throughout the Deep South in integrating parks, swimming pools, theaters, libraries, and other public facilities. April (Raleigh, N.C.) The Student Nonviolent Coordinating Committee (SNCC) is founded at Shaw University, providing young blacks with a place in the civil rights movement. The SNCC later grows into a more radical organization, especially under the leadership of Stokely Carmichael (1966–1967).

1961... May 4 Over the spring and summer, student volunteers begin taking bus trips through the South to test out new laws that prohibit segregation in interstate travel facilities, which includes bus and railway stations. Several of the groups of "freedom riders," as they are called, are attacked by angry mobs along the way. The program, sponsored by The Congress of Racial Equality (CORE) and the Student Nonviolent Coordinating Committee (SNCC), involves more than 1,000 volunteers, black and white.

1962... Oct. 1 James Meredith becomes the first black student to enroll at the University of Mississippi. Violence and riots surrounding the incident cause President Kennedy to send 5,000 federal troops.

1963... April 16 Martin Luther King is arrested and jailed during anti-segregation protests in Birmingham, Ala.; he writes his seminal "Letter from Birmingham Jail," arguing that individuals have the moral duty to disobey unjust laws.

May During civil rights protests in Birmingham, Ala., Commissioner of Public Safety Eugene "Bull" Connor uses fire hoses and police dogs on black demonstrators. These images of brutality, which are televised and published widely, are instrumental in gaining sympathy for the civil rights movement around the world.

June 12 (Jackson, Miss.) Mississippi's NAACP field secretary, 37-year-old Medgar Evers, is murdered outside his home. Byron De La Beckwith is tried twice in 1964, both trials resulting in hung juries. Thirty years later he is convicted for murdering Evers. Aug. 28 (Washington, D.C.) About 200,000 people join the March on Washington. Congregating at the Lincoln Memorial, participants listen as Martin Luther King delivers his famous "I Have a Dream" speech.

Sept. 15 (Birmingham, Ala.) Four young girls (Denise McNair, Cynthia Wesley, Carole Robertson, and Addie Mae Collins) attending Sunday school are killed when a bomb explodes at the Sixteenth Street Baptist Church, a popular location for civil rights meetings. Riots erupt in Birmingham, leading to the deaths of two more black youths

1964... Jan. 23 The 24th Amendment abolishes the poll tax, which originally had been instituted in 11 southern states after Reconstruction to make it difficult for poor blacks to vote. Summer The Council of Federated Organizations (COFO), a network of civil rights groups that includes CORE and SNCC, launches a massive effort to register black voters during what becomes known as the Freedom Summer. It also sends delegates to the Democratic National Convention to protest—and attempt to unseat—the official all-white Mississippi contingent.

July 2 President Johnson signs the Civil Rights Act of 1964. The most sweeping civil rights legislation since Reconstruction, the Civil Rights Act prohibits discrimination of all kinds based on race, color, religion, or national origin. The law also provides the federal government with the powers to enforce desegregation. Aug. 4 (Neshoba Country, Miss.) The bodies of three civil-rights workers—two white, one black—are found in an earthen dam, six weeks into a federal investigation backed by President Johnson. James E. Chaney, 21; Andrew Goodman, 21; and Michael Schwerner, 24, had been working to register black voters in Mississippi, and, on June 21, had gone to investigate the burning of a black church. They were arrested by the police on speeding charges, incarcerated for several hours, and then released after dark into the hands of the Ku Klux Klan, who murdered them.

1965... Feb. 21 (Harlem, N.Y.) Malcolm X, black nationalist and founder of the Organization of Afro-American Unity, is shot to death. It is believed the assailants are members of the Black Muslim faith, which Malcolm had recently abandoned in favor of orthodox Islam. March 7 (Selma, Ala.) Blacks begin a march to Montgomery in support of voting rights but are stopped at the Pettus Bridge by a police blockade. Fifty marchers are hospitalized after police use tear gas, whips, and clubs against them. The incident is dubbed "Bloody Sunday" by the media. The march is considered the catalyst for pushing through the voting rights act five months later. Aug. 10 Congress passes the Voting Rights Act of 1965, making it easier for Southern blacks to register to vote. Literacy tests, poll taxes, and other such requirements that were used to restrict black voting are made illegal. Aug. 11–17, 1965 (Watts, Calif.) Race riots erupt in a black section of Los Angeles. Sept. 24, 1965 Asserting that civil rights laws alone are not enough to remedy discrimination, President Johnson issues Executive Order 11246, which enforces affirmative action for the first time. It requires government contractors to "take affirmative action" toward prospective minority employees in all aspects of hiring and employment.

1966... Oct. (Oakland, Calif.) The militant Black Panthers are founded by Huey Newton and Bobby Seale.

1967... April 19 Stokely Carmichael, a leader of the Student Nonviolent Coordinating Committee (SNCC), coins the phrase "black power" in a speech in Seattle. He defines it as an assertion of black pride and "the coming together of black people to fight for their liberation by any means necessary." The term's radicalism alarms many who believe the civil rights movement's effectiveness and moral authority crucially depend on nonviolent civil disobedience. June 12 In Loving v. Virginia, the Supreme Court rules that prohibiting interracial marriage is unconstitutional. Sixteen states that still banned interracial marriage at the time are forced to revise their laws. July Major race riots take place in Newark (July 12–16) and Detroit (July 23–30).

1968... April 4 (Memphis, Tenn.) Martin Luther King, at age 39, is shot as he stands on the balcony outside his hotel room. Escaped convict and committed racist James Earl Ray is convicted of the crime.

April 11 President Johnson signs the Civil Rights Act of 1968, prohibiting discrimination in the sale, rental, and financing of housing.

1971... April 20 The Supreme Court, in Swann v. Charlotte-Mecklenburg Board of Education, upholds busing as a legitimate means for achieving integration of public schools. Although largely unwelcome (and sometimes violently opposed) in local school districts, court-ordered busing plans in cities such as Charlotte, Boston, and Denver continue until the late 1990s.

1988... March 22 Overriding President Reagan's veto, Congress passes the Civil Rights Restoration Act, which expands the reach of non-discrimination laws within private institutions receiving federal funds.

1991... Nov. 22 After two years of debates, vetoes, and threatened vetoes, President Bush reverses himself and signs the Civil Rights Act of 1991, strengthening existing civil rights laws and providing for damages in cases of intentional employment discrimination.

1992... Nov. 22 After two years of debates, vetoes, and threatened vetoes, President Bush reverses himself and signs the Civil Rights Act of 1991, strengthening existing civil rights laws and providing for damages in cases of intentional employment discrimination.

2003... June 23 In the most important affirmative action decision since the 1978 Bakke case, the Supreme Court (5–4) upholds the University of Michigan Law School's policy, ruling that race can be one of many factors considered by colleges when selecting their students because it furthers "a compelling interest in obtaining the educational benefits that flow from a diverse student body."

2005... June 21 The ringleader of the Mississippi civil rights murders (see Aug. 4, 1964), Edgar Ray Killen, is convicted of manslaughter on the 41st anniversary of the crimes.

President John F. Kennedy developed the Civil Rights Act of 1964.

During Kennedy’s Presidential Inaugural address in 1961, he promised to end racial discrimination. During Kennedy’s time in office, he appointed black people to many federal positions. No other president had done that in the past. President Kennedy appointed about forty Blacks to administrative posts such as Administrator of the Housing and Home Finance Agency, Associate White House Press Secretary, and Deputy Assistant Secretary of State for Public Affairs. He also selected five black federal judges, giving hope to Black Americans that more important jobs will go to Blacks.

James Meredith, a black man, wanted to go to an all-white school called the University of Mississippi. It was not surprising that the school objected. With the backing of the NAACP, Meredith sued the University of Mississippi and won. President John F. Kennedy told the department of defense to protect James Meredith when he went to the school. The day before he started college, riots were breaking out. Several hundred federal marshals fought back with tear gas and nightsticks. The following day he started school. Justice Department Officers accompanied him to class. Meredith graduated with a degree in Political Science

Kennedy tried to make white people aware of the unfair way black Americans were being treated. He pointed out that unequal treatment was against American religious and Constitutional morals. He asked for a quicker end to discrimination and also promised new civil rights laws. President Kennedy told Congress that the new civil rights laws he proposed involve every American’s right to vote, to go to school, to get a job, and to be served in a public place without arbitrary discrimination--rights which most Americans take for granted. In short, enactment of The Civil Rights Act of 1963 at this session of Congress is very important. The Civil Rights Act of 1963 had eight sections and included laws to guarantee all people would have equal access to hotels, restaurants, and other public places. The act also helped black voting rights and school desegregation.

Sadly, President Kennedy didn’t see his Civil Rights Act of 1963 become law. He was assassinated November 1963. The act became the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and after one year it was finally passed.

During Kennedy’s Inaugural address on January 20, 1961, he said, "All this will not be finished in the first hundred days. Nor will it be finished in the first thousand days, nor in the lifetime of this Administration, nor even perhaps in our lifetime on this planet. But let us begin." The Civil Rights Act of 1964 was a start to helping blacks and whites to be treated as equals.

I hope my posts were not too lengthy, but I did want to share with all of you the timeline and the President who should have the credit for the Civil Rights Act of 1964. I don't think you are giving President Kennedy undeserved credit as you will see.

Its an interesting theory you have about Lyndon Johnson having something to do with Kennedy's assination. I have always felt it was more Nixon and Fidel Castro. I supose we will never really find out who was behind it, but we have to wonder who gained the most from his assination. Seems both Johnson and Nixon benefited greatly.

I can only imagine how certain people had to fear and hate Kennedy for bringing about the changes for the blacks. I just know the movement was bringing the changes and Martin Luther King and Bobby Kennedy would have continued them had they lived.

So, in the end Johnson signs what Kennedy developed only due to the fact Kennedy was assinated. The Civil Rights Act was a done deal!

BellaMarie, exactly. Your statement is always what I felt as true. Your posts are not too long just very, very interesting and reminders of dates I have forgotten or gotten confused.

"So, in the end Johnson signs what Kennedy developed only due to the fact Kennedy was assinated. The Civil Rights Act was a done deal!" BellaMarie.

The Peace Corps founded by John F. Kennedy became very memorable when Jimmy Carter's mother joined at age sixty-seven or sixty-eight.

Peace Corps

Excuse me, I have misspelled Mr. Nixon's name more than once. Will do better in future.

MERIJO - "I think that had he lived he may have acquired a better sense of the world of which he was not a part, but which he governed" We can all agree with that, but your thought “had he lived” carries with it another. How long could he have lived with his disease and his Doctor Feelgood injections? Has the extent of his health problems been exaggerated or were they true?



HATS – “"We were living history so fast in the sixties it seemed." Indeed! And you were so young in those years – what? 13 when Kennedy was elected president? You were growing in those awful, but at the same time wonderful, years of the sixties and the early seventies. What a period in our history!

Yes, the wives of these presidents suffered I would imagine, but think of their children! All three of these men had two children and all of these children lived in the White House surrounded by secret service men. That would be so difficult to accept, or do you agree?

BELLAMARIE – "I supose we will never really find out who was behind it, but we have to wonder who gained the most from his assassination" I think most Americans agree with you. And thank you for that timeline on the Civil Rights – how vividly it comes to mind when you read it; I remember it all. Your post was not too long at all, we need to be reminded from time to time.

LM says that what followed JFK’s death was a “journey through the underworld” and asks if the sixties might be considered the “forest fire clearing off old growth and nourishing the soil for the coming of new life.”

I have put some questions in the heading (sorry I didn’t get them in sooner) for our consideration and I think they may help facilitate the discussion.

Let’s take Nixon and Question No. 7. Nixon would be 94 this year. Did you notice the amount of space LM devotes to discussing Nixon. Why is he so fascinated with the man and his life?

I definitely think it is and was harder for children who go to live in the White House. My empathy is first, of course, for the children in any situation including such a high profile life as the president and the first lady's child or children.

I think LM spent so much time writing about Nixon's life because of the unknown factor. Did anyone in his group know Nixon? His life seemed full of contradictions and mysteries. I find it interesting to see "lonesome and popularity" used in the same sentence. "A classmate at Duke Law School noted: '"{Nixon} was popular in our class....but I would describe it as a sort of lonesome kind of popularity."'

It was surprising, for me, to read LM's comparison of Nixon with Lana Turner.

Thank you Ella for the questions they certainly give us a lot to think and ponder on. If I may I need to ask for anyone's help in being able to use bold font and different color such as the green I see every now and then. When I go to the bottom and change my font my page only refreshes and nothing happens.

Okay now for #7.Why do you think Morrow finds Nixon to be the most interesting of the three or, at least, he devotes many more pages to his life and career?

I'm not so sure I see Morrow finding Nixon as the most interesting of the three. I see Morrow as a bit obsessed with Nixon's character. Nixon was a very complex man and I think Morrow spent far too much time repeating himself in describing the characteristics, flaws and insecurities of Nixon. He could have successfully gotten his point across in 10 pages instead of 20. There was not much in the 20 pages for me to find non-repetitive. I'm wondering if possibly Morrow liked Nixon a bit more,possibly was fascinated in his complexity and possibly felt more closer to him. He seems to write as if he personally knew him more so than counting on other people's view's as he seemed to have done with Kennedy and Johnson. Maybe its just me but that is what I was picking up on.

As a writer myself I do know that you tend to writer "more" about what you personally know and experience. Not knowing Morrow I ask myself is it possible he was more in tune with Nixon?

It is very interesting how Morrow says, Nixon went from being a good Quaker boy to a gutterfighter, political smear artist. I'm not so sure I saw anywhere in the pages of his early childhood he was a "Good Quacker boy." From Morrow's description I sense this man had these flaws in his character and getting into politics allowed him to release his ambition and gutterfighting. I did not get the sense he went from boy to man. He almost gives me the creeps imagining a person with so lack of sense of morals and desire to make up for all he felt he deserved and was deprived of. Nixon's profile seems so close to who I see as Hitlers and Castros. Their psychological makeup denies them the capability to see beyond their own self.

Johnson as Morrow shows him in my opinion, comes over as a sad man looking and needing a father image and approval. He seems to be an indecisive figure and I am not so sure if I understand what he personally believed and stood for. His showmanship and celebrity antics gives me a sense of a person trying to use the WOW factor because they have nothing else to give the voters. I am a bit surprised he won against Stevenson. I thought it was interesting that Johnson signed the Civil Rights Act of 1964 although from my research he had opposed it prior to becoming Vice President. Johnson being from the south it would not be uncommon to oppose it. Johnson was a man who seemed to go with popularity vote.

Kennedy showed a spoiled, reckless carefree side but what I like the most is he as in his favorite film, Red River becomes the man he wants to be. He could relate to the human side of people. Morrow seems to try to take away from Kennedy his strengths by accentuating on his desire for women. If I were a betting person I would place my odds on the fact Morrow is a Republican who did not much care for the strong character and the spoiled wealth Kennedy came from.

These three men have so little in common except they all became President and had flaws in their character, which all politicians do.

I feel Morrow spent way too much time analogizing with the movies. Nixon and Lana Turner?? I felt he was stretching a novel into a book and this is what I call, "filler." While its entertaining, it's just out of place and unnecessary in a historical book. At this point I am seeing this book as, Lots of Fluff and Little Facts. Yet, I will forge on. lolol

Ella I hope to get to more of your questions.

Ella:

With regard to Kennedy's health, in particular, his Addison's Disease, if he had lived, I can only speculate. In the sixties, there were some treatments apparently or he wouldn't have lived beyond the year the one doctor predicted. Given that he was managing apparently well, it is likely he would have completed his term.

http://www.mayoclinic.com/health/addisons-disease/DS00361

Merijo, thank you for the link.

I'm back - I find Johnson and Nixon two very intersting complex personalities. Kennedy is so popular, IMO, becuase he was handsome, charming and wealthy - sort of a fantasy for all of us, men and women - what all men would like to be and what all women would like to have - excluding the philandering, of course. We also tend to think that Kennedy did a lot more than he did in his administration because he had such good p.r. His father was a film maker and had access and money for photographing everything that made JFK and all the family look good, both before and after his assassination. Jackie created the legacy that she wanted him to have. Throughout history we have had the story as told by the people who have been able to write/photograph/have access to media. I remember in my studies about Columbus that his nephew wrote the story of Columbus' voyages and adventures so he got good "press" and so of the "negative" aspects didn't appear until the 500th anniversary.

Thanks Bellemarie for the Civ Rts timeline.....if you'd like to see that story, Eyes on the Prize was one of the best series that PBS ever did and it tells the Civil Rts story. IT's available in libraries and from PBS.......

Kennedy was in office when the Civ Rts legislation was introduced, but his administration did not do much to push it, they were afraid it would lose him the southern Democrats in the '64 election. So altho they became sympathetic to the cause, they were not giving it much support by the time JFK was killed. They were even resistant to the '63 Civ Rts March in Washington were MLK gave his "I have a dream" speech. The civil rts leaders had to have a mtg w/ JFK and lobby for getting permission to have the march.

The Civ Rts legislation would never have passed w/out LBJ's influence and strong-arming of Sen.Richard Russel and others in the senate. He know how to get legislation passed and he bro't out all the guns he had to get the C.R legislation passed. It was also helped by television. As the country began to see Bull Connor turn dogs and cattle prods on people and children, many in the country became outraged and put some pressure on the Congress.

I found the Brumidi story interesting, but haven't a clue how it effects the story that he's telling.

Enough for now, will be back later to answer some of your questions, Ella.......jean

One reason Morrow seems to discuss Nixon more is that of the three men he had the longest tenure in office, and thereby affected the Presidency the most.

As for the amorality of these presidents, it would follow that such a mind-set would affect his performance as president and in that way affect the country.

However, in the years that these men served the amorality was not particularly obvious. News of their private lives and biographies were limited.

I recall that Kennedy immediately captured the affection of the younger people. His connection to Hollywood through his father and family made him become the darling of the entertainment world and his interest in the theater led him to become a friend of that society. They, in turn, incorporated aspects of his activities in their publicity. Ergo, Camelot.

Johnson and Nixon were evaluated by many by whatever news had seeped from their previous political activities. Personally, each had made some unpleasant impressions, more so than Kennedy who had not been in politics very long and had been inclined to leave his senatorial responsibilities to others.

I recall reading about the three in the news. Also, the news at that time was beginning to insert the reporter's personal analysis along with the report of the news item. At that time, this was a mild characteristic in the news.

Mabel, I am glad you brought up Kennedy's good looks. I have been thinking of Nixon in that regard. My thoughts might seem silly. However, Seniornet DL's always say there is no stupid remark. Anyway, LM brings up Nixon's features. "Dark hair, dark eyes, dark voice, dark shadow. Nixon emitted little light." When I was growing up, the bad guys wore the black hats and good guys wore the white hats. As far as whom we elect, I think looks do matter: are you tall, short, etc. Isn't it odd that Al Gore lost the election to George Bush? From my way of looking at it, I have a feeling it's not in the cards for Al Gore to be president. I might have to eat those words if he ever runs again. My point is that Al Gore has very dark hair. Is it something in our mind, without aforethought, that gets skittish about dark hair? Do we think this guy might have some dark sins in his back pocket? Some flaw like thievery, womanizing, lying, etc which might end up bringing major shame to the American public again?

Bellemarie, I only know how to do bold. I can't get the instructions to show up here. Sorry.

I remember a course called Villains and Heroines. It was a very popular course. Perhaps, Morrow spent more time on Nixon because of his impeachment. People are attracted to scandal. Nixon's administration had plenty of strange stories to give the American public.

#1. Morrow discusses three crises in the lives of Kennedy, Johnson and Nixon. What were they and how did they affect these men in their future administrations?

I was not clear what the "three" crisis were, this was my conclusion: Addison's disease, Vietnam and Watergate. Addison's was John Kennedy's secret and dilemma to deal with and keep a secret, had it come out he may not have been chosen for the Democratic ticket or become President. Vietnam was Johnson's debacle, he refused to stand by Kennedy's intention of withdrawing and ended up in a war that could not be won, leaving it impossible for him to leave a legacy let alone be re-elected. Watergate for Nixon was personal and political suicide. According to Morrow had he not stone walled and confessed it he may have been able to save his Presidency. I can not in my wildest dreams believe the American people or process would have allowed his Presidency to be saved.

#3. Does a morality in the character of a president affect his leadership and/or the country?

I think a morality plays a part in the performance of a President but I believe all politicians have this character flaw to a degree and need it to help make the tough decisions when faced with issues such as nuclear warfare, Communism, overtaking rulers and demonstrating power. I think countries actually give a certain amount of respect to the President who shows he has a certain amount of this character flaw, proving he will not be a push over. As far as a President's personal sexual life I think its off limits and who it affects is his family and himself. Kennedy and Clinton seems to be the two Presidents the Republicans felt necessary to exploit, yet there were so many others. I think its sad when it comes to the sexual infidelities of a President to be reason to impeach him when his performance as President has been outstanding. In Kennedy's 1,000 days as President look at his accomplishments and ask if his affairs hindered his performance as Commander in Chief. A morality affects the American people when it allows you to make decisions that bring about unnecessary war, illegal actions, disregard for the Constitution and blatant abuse of power and refusal to hear the voices of your advisors, senate, congress, military leaders, the United Nations and the American people.

#4. Does a president sacrifice anything when he campaigns for and spends years in the White House and, if so, is it a worthwhile sacrifice?

Yes, there is always a sacrifice, time away from family, privacy, character assination, and often your morals are compromised to name a few. I have to believe they feel its a worthwhile sacrifice because they make the decision to do it. They have seen over the years what it entails and what they will be sacrificing and yet we still have politicians willing and ready to throw their hats in the ring and begin the long journey of campaigning.

#5. The problem of controlling the acquisition and use of atomic weapons has been with us since 1945. Have we learned anything?

We have learned from Hiroshima, it is devastating and we must never chose to use in again. We have learned to use diplomacy around the world and to respect the fact that we are not the only ones with it and must keep clear and calm thinking when faced with threats.

#6. Morrow discusses the "material paradise" of the years following WWII. We have since become aware of the consequences of our prosperity. Have you joined any anti-pollution groups or have you any suggestions as to the prevention of the "warming" of the earth?

I have not joined any groups but I am becoming more informed of what I can do as an individual. I can conserve energy,recycle, I can use less polluting devices and I can write letters to my congressmen to support Al Gore's resolutions to global warming. I can also join in calling for the car industries to be more responsible and make less polluting vehicles. I can refuse to buy the SUV's and other gas gussers. I can vote for a President willing to make this a top priority instead of the one who is stuffing the pockets of the oil countries, states, and corporations who profit from destroying our environment.

#12. Was the story of "Brumidi" and his frescoes in the Capital interesting to you? What was Morrow's point in telling it?

A waste of time for me. He could have covered that in two paragraphs. His point in telling it in my opinion was "filler." The closet reason beyond filler is possible Free Enterprise.

The other questions require a lot more of my time to think about. I am anxious to hear what the rest of you think. Come on....jump in the water's fine. lolol

Bellamarie, Ella asked us to concentrate on question # 7. Have we moved on? You're too speedy for me. I am still in chapter one.

Ella, aren't you going to give us a heads up when to move on to the rest of the questions???? We aren't in a race.

Wow! You are all wonderful, and I don't have time to respond to anything at the moment; I'm on my way to my book club at our Senior Center and it is 8 degrees here in Ohio. OH!

Just time to say take your time on these questions, we are in no hurry, we can combine a couple of them - more later on that.

I thought I would tell BelleMarie how to make her text colorful. I can try?????

(font color=green)I admire President Kennedy(/font)

Type that in exactly as I have it only substitute the parenthesis with <> those marks. That will do it, try it! That is called HTML - hypertext markup language - computer language. You can change the color to red or blue or brown. Hope it works for you!

Back later..............

Jean Post#70......"Kennedy was in office when the Civ Rts legislation was introduced, but his administration did not do much to push it, they were afraid it would lose him the southern Democrats in the '64 election. So altho they became sympathetic to the cause, they were not giving it much support by the time JFK was killed. They were even resistant to the '63 Civ Rts March in Washington were MLK gave his "I have a dream" speech. The civil rts leaders had to have a mtg w/ JFK and lobby for getting permission to have the march.

The Civ Rts legislation would never have passed w/out LBJ's influence and strong-arming of Sen.Richard Russel and others in the senate. He know how to get legislation passed and he bro't out all the guns he had to get the C.R legislation passed. It was also helped by television. As the country began to see Bull Connor turn dogs and cattle prods on people and children, many in the country became outraged and put some pressure on the Congress."



I was researching the Civil Rights Act of 1964 yesterday and found this. http://usinfo.state.gov/usa/infousa/facts/democrac/39.htm which supported my post. BACKGROUNDER ON THE CIVIL RIGHTS ACT The assassination of John Kennedy in November 1963 left most civil rights leaders grief-stricken. Kennedy had been the first president since Harry Truman to champion equal rights for black Americans, and they knew little about his successor, Lyndon Baines Johnson. Although Johnson had helped engineer the Civil Rights Act of 1957, that had been a mild measure, and no one knew if the Texan would continue Kennedy's call for civil rights or move to placate his fellow southerners.

But on November 27, 1963, addressing the Congress and the nation for the first time as president, Johnson called for passage of the civil rights bill as a monument to the fallen Kennedy. "Let us continue," he declared, promising that "the ideas and the ideals which [Kennedy] so nobly represented must and will be translated into effective action." Moreover, where Kennedy had been sound on principle, Lyndon Johnson was the master of parliamentary procedure, and he used his considerable talents as well as the prestige of the presidency in support of the bill.

On February 10, 1964, the House of Representatives passed the measure by a lopsided 290-130 vote, but everyone knew that the real battle would be in the Senate, whose rules had allowed southerners in the past to mount filibusters that had effectively killed nearly all civil rights legislation. But Johnson pulled every string he knew, and had the civil rights leaders mount a massive lobbying campaign, including inundating the Capitol with religious leaders of all faiths and colors. The strategy paid off, and in June the Senate voted to close debate; a few weeks later, it passed the most important piece of civil rights legislation in the nation's history, and on July 2, 1964, President Johnson signed it into law.

This site supports your post... http://www.historylearningsite.co.uk/john_kennedy_and_civil_rights.htm

And then this site http://www.spartacus.schoolnet.co.uk/USAcivil64.htm again shows Johnson not known for supporting it earlier.

Kennedy's Civil Rights bill was still being debated by Congress when he was assassinated in November, 1963. The new president, Lyndon Baines Johnson, who had a poor record on civil rights issues, took up the cause. His main opponent was his long-time friend and mentor, Richard B. Russell, who told the Senate: "We will resist to the bitter end any measure or any movement which would have a tendency to bring about social equality and intermingling and amalgamation of the races in our (Southern) states." Russell organized 18 Southern Democratic senators in filibustering this bill.

However, on the 15th June, 1964, Richard B. Russell privately told Mike Mansfield and Hubert Humphrey, the two leading supporters of the Civil Rights Act, that he would bring an end to the filibuster that was blocking the vote on the bill. This resulted in a vote being taken and it was passed by 73 votes to 27.

I am certain we can find many different articles that will debate each President's part. I googled Civil Rights Act 1964 and randomly chose different sites. I did another search today to find something to support your post. Thank you. I am learning as I go along. lolol

Hats...Don't panic, I had some time and wanted to post my thoughts as they were fresh in my mind. When I saw Ella's questions I got a bit excited. There is plenty of time and questions to keep us busy for months. lolol

Thank you Bella for the sites and the information. I always love reading more on a subject even when it conflicts w/ my present assumtions.

In 1948, i was 6 & 7 yrs old, so i don't recall a lot about the year. My parents were working class Democrats, so they supported Truman and i grew up w/ a favorable opinion of FDR and HST. Even tho my mother was a Democratic committeewoman, i think she may have voted for Nixon in 1960 because she had grown up in a Calvinist Presbyterian home and the only strong prejudice that i heard in my house was against Catholics. She was very concerned about "the Pope's influence on JFK."

#2 what was the differences/similarities of the three - I think there has to be some hubris in people who run for president, even tho we also recognize the insecurities of LBJ and RMN. JFK just had the hubris of the rich, particularly the handsome/rich......not carrying money, expecting others to take care of him, not avoiding the women who were available to him, thinking even w/ very little experience, he could be president. I think his crises, however, was not his sister dying and the diagnosis of his illnes, but the Cuban missle crises.....that i do remember.....i was in college and everyone gathered in the lounge - where there was a tv, one of few on campus - for his speech to the country.....we tho't the men may all be leaving for war the next day, so there was some relieve after the speech even tho he said there was a blockade of Cuba and we would take on the Soviets if they attacked the ships.

Johnson and Nixon are much more alike in many ways.....pooor upbringings, insecurities of personalities, having come thru the Congress, and eventually jealousy of the Kennedys and the impact that had on them. Of couse, JFK and LBJ both had the philandering problem, I've never heard any rumor of that for RMN, my sense is that he would not have the chuzpah to approach a women for fear of rejection and i just can't see him "flirting." He's just to serious to banter, which much of flirting is.

More later......jean

One can feel a bit of sympathy for Nixon particularly after Morrow's treatment of the man - prudish, shy, intense - certainly not a "city man" - not one of the boys, couldn't tell an off-color joke! As HATS said he was dark in appearance and dark in personality. All stuff that the media, of which Morrow is a member, loves to write about. Throw in Watergate, criminal acts, secrecy, a hit list, a real bonanza. Well, we know the rest.

As JEAN said history has been told by those who have been able to write and photograph the news. None of us will ever know the real Nixon, the insider.

HEY BELLEMARIE! Good for you! You can show off now, hahahahaa The rest of you can learn it too.

Morrow spends a lot of time on the Whittaker-Chambers period of Nixon's life and if you have never read the book WITNESS by Chambers you must! I read it somewhere in the '50's when it was first published and immediately was intrigued by the whole scenario, as is Morrow.

You can read about it here: WITNESS

Some books you remember for the rest of your life and you remember for all sorts of reasons. WITNESS is one of those, I was young, not particularly involved with politics or reading books of nonfiction. I got hooked.

I'm very tired tonight so will bid you all Good Night - see you tomorow.

HATS, we are still on Chapter One and will be until Friday or when the group is ready to move on to Chapter Two. Many questions to consider and BELLEMARIE I took all the questions from Morrow's writing. I think he writes wonderfully well, but I'm in the minority here I believe.

Jean post #79..."In 1948, i was 6 & 7 yrs old, so i don't recall a lot about the year. My parents were working class Democrats, so they supported Truman and i grew up w/ a favorable opinion of FDR and HST. Even tho my mother was a Democratic committeewoman, i think she may have voted for Nixon in 1960 because she had grown up in a Calvinist Presbyterian home and the only strong prejudice that i heard in my house was against Catholics. She was very concerned about "the Pope's influence on JFK."

I am Irish/Italian, and Catholic and I am almost certain because the Kennedy's were Catholic there were people who shared the unfounded fears and prejudice you speak of. Prejudice led many voters to think they were getting someone better as long as it was not who they felt the prejudice against. I was born in 1952, I came from a low income home and I am certain my blue collar parents were democrats although it was never talked about in my home.

#2 what was the differences/similarities of the three - I think there has to be some hubris in people who run for president, even tho we also recognize the insecurities of LBJ and RMN. JFK just had the hubris of the rich, particularly the handsome/rich......not carrying money, expecting others to take care of him, not avoiding the women who were available to him, thinking even w/ very little experience, he could be president. I think his crises, however, was not his sister dying and the diagnosis of his illnes, but the Cuban missle crises.....that i do remember.....i was in college and everyone gathered in the lounge - where there was a tv, one of few on campus - for his speech to the country.....we tho't the men may all be leaving for war the next day, so there was some relieve after the speech even tho he said there was a blockade of Cuba and we would take on the Soviets if they attacked the ships.

I don't think the Cuban Missle Crisis was mentioned in the Introductory or Chapter One. So I am still uncertain of what the third crisis is that Morrow is speaking of here. I thought possibly the Alger Hiss case. Maybe someone can help us out here. Just a bit of info...I read that LBJ had a private entrance he had his lady friends visit him and Lady Bird was aware of it. No, I can't imagine Nixon approaching other women but then nothing would surprise me, a man capable of his corruption and secrecy anything is possible. Many a man held the Presidency with little experience our most recent one is a perfect example.

Ella, Thanks for the recommendation and link for the book. I would like to read it since this book has truly peaked my interest.

Ella:

I have been enjoying Morrow's writing. It is readable - moves along rather quickly, but... there is sometimes a "but"... I think he makes comparisons often that may be missed by some of his readers as the comparisons assume that the reader has prior knowledge of the subject in the comparative tale. Also, he goes from one comparison to the next without returning to the original thought for a goodly length before he ties the thought altogether and moves on.

For example, the Brumidi reference: I found myself thinking of anti-immigrant and particularly anti-Catholic opposition by the Know-Nothing Party of the mid-nineteenth century. The Know-Nothings were particularly against Catholics and southern Europeans. However as Morrow continues one sees that events moved slowly, Brumidi continued his frescos and the Know-Nothings were subsumed into other political parties.

Morrow says on pages 69 and 70 that Brumidi approached the paintings of the Capitol to honor, with his native gifts of artistic skill the new and developing America which he, as an Italian immigrant proudly signed as "C. Brumidi, American citizen." The surface of the Capitol walls, Morrow says, symbolized the area where "Politics and government by the same process offered the wet fresh surface to which Kennedy, Johnson and Nixon brought versions of America that originated in different places, had different colorations, different stories to tell, different ideals and heroes."

Of this there is no doubt. Each man had his own imprint on this country.

(I have the paperback version of the book, and am using the page numbers found there.)

I had an errand to run yesterday afternoon. I am still here. I am enjoying this book. Now I have to read yesterday afternoon's posts from everybody. Just need time to catch up.

Ella, you are right. I am glad Bellamarie started answering the questions. All of the answers in all of the posts are helping my thoughts to jell. I am enjoying the discussion very much.

I have been thinking, while reading this book, about how, through time, what is thought of as shameful in one century, may not seem embarrassing in another time period. Then again, some thoughts remain the same. For example, the crisis faced by Kennedy was his illness, Addison's disease. "From the time of the first attack in 1947, Kennedy and his family concealed the truth of his Addison's disease; if voters had known...Kennedy suffered from a dangerous and....his subsequent political career, and his election as president, would have been impossible." For some reason, I stillremember Eagleton, Thomas Eagleton. I remember the uproar on the news about his mental illness. I don't remember the details well. I will try to find a good link. Anyway, I know his mental illness kept him out of the White House. If he ran again, say now, would we feel the same way about having a mentally ill man in the White House as president? Also, do we, as society, look at a physical illness and a mental illness in the same way? Is one type of illness thought to be more dangerous to whether a man or woman can hold office and make decisions? If Eagleton ran for election, could he boldly talk about his mental illness on the campaign trail today? Thomas Eagleton

Ex-President Johnson's family suffered with heart problems. While John Kennedy chose to keep his health problems secret, Johnson chose to go the opposite way. LM writes "John Kennedy kept up the facade of vigor even while he concealed menacing illnesses, but Johnson liked to parade his forebodings; his self-pity had an aspect of Shakespearean woe: 'I'm not gonna live to be sixty,' he would tell his friends."

Whether we talk about health issues obviously involves a lot of different factors: where we are on the social ladder, what part of the USA we grow up in, how much or how little our families describe their ailments and whether we are involved in a public role for the good of society.

Hats post....Also, do we, as society, look at a physical illness and a mental illness in the same way? Is one type of illness thought to be more dangerous to whether a man or woman can hold office and make decisions? If Eagleton ran for election, could he boldly talk about his mental illness on the campaign trail today?

Hats I can say without a doubt society does look at a physical illness as something that can be overcome and treated and would be more acceptable for a candidate running for any office.

Mental illness back then was a taboo, you were hospitalized and sedated and left there with very little visits from family. Today mental illness is still an unacceptable illness for any politician to successfully gain office. If he/she wants to be elected they surely will not mention it on the campaign trail. With media and invasion of medical records and leaks NO person with a diagnosed mental illness would have a chance to keep it private. Another question I might add to your list is ....Should a politician especially one running for President have to reveal his physical or mental illness? I personally feel, YES because it is bound to affect their performance in some way. I think back in the 40', 50's and possibly the 60's so many diseases were just scary to hear the word "disease" not to mention there was so little research to inform the public on the debilitating or non-debilitating effects. Having relatives with mental illnesses back in those decades and in today's age I can tell you from my personal experience society has come a long way, but it is still something unacceptable and seen as an illness that will hinder work performance in any job. With a daughter with BiPolar, a mental illness, I have witnessed the prejudice of the unknown from relatives, friends and coworkers. People still have this misconception that if a person has any form of "Mental Illness" they should be isolated. I have seen reactions as though people fear it could actually be contagious. Imagine that. Hats, those were excellent questions, they sure got my wheels turning so early this morning. Just the words, mental illness and disease have such a negative conatation to them. People want to know the person they elect is going to be able to perform their duties and health is a major issue for determining how well they could perform. While I am not saying it is fair and right to keep anyone from holding an office due to certain mental illnesses or diseases I am saying there is a possibility some can and will prevent a person to perform their expected duties of office. Now....food for thought...how many in office have a mental illness disorder or disease that has not yet been revealed?

Bellamarie, not to make this a lovefest, I just want to say your posts are always very, very good. I remember your posts from, I think, Teacher Man. I am honoured to be here with all of you. I agree with your whole post #87.

OHMIGOSH!

I've just noticed that tomorrow will be the 7th and a week has gone by since we have started our discussion - and, and, and - I have been slow in getting out of the gate. Am hurrying to round the bend and approach the finish line to the first week......

Shall we say that Thursday, the 8th, will be the start of Chapter Two?

Meanwhile, I do want to tell you how impressed I am with all your posts, your insights and your interest in our book!

Is any of the material in this book, or any material on past presidents, relevant today? Can we learn anything when reading about past presidents that might help us make a decision when we vote next year for a president?

The decisions that all of the potential candidates have to make in the coming year, or for that matter, this year would be a huge burden I would think! How careful they have to be in interviews, with friends! Do any of you know any elected officials and can tell us what the strain must be like?

Question No. 9 is pertinent. Johnson and Nixon both fought nasty battles to win elections and I can't help but wonder what it must have done to their characters. Kennedy, of course, never had to fight for office; he just seemed to walk right in, set himself down and enjoyed himself. However, the crises came all too soon for him as president.

And I think Morrow explains that both Johnson and Nixon were envious of Kennedy.

Let's talk about Questions 10 through 13. MERIJO has already discussed to some extent the immigration issues that LM has raised in giving us the example of Brumidi and the frescoes.

The relevance of this is striking to me. Has Bush started building that wall yet? Is the immigration problem one that the administration has promoted to sidetrack the public from the war? Have other presidents done this, most notably the three we have under consideration.

Well, I could go on in this manner for sometime but the day beckons......

And I will be wanting to stop back in here to see what you are all talking about when I return from a few errands today. I love the give and take of this discussion.

You might have wondered, as did I, about LM's reference to the pursuit of LIME through the streets of Vienna. So I looked it up:

Harry Lime

LM does great illustrations - "beneath the streets of the everyday ran secret, invisible, systematic, shadowy rivers of filth, fugitives, evil designs."

The secrets - Kennedy, Nixon, Johnson - the secrets toppled them and cost them their honorable place in history.

I have so much to talk about in the chapter on Ellis Island and the two frontiers. Think Bush and Texas, think Hillary Clinton, Gore, the East Coast. Who else comes to mind with these two frontiers and how did this affect the country?

i'm reading, the book and your posts, but we've been going a round w/ colds/sore throats, etc. and my grandson has strep, so i've been the substitute "day care." I'll be back in to post - probably this evening...jean

Merijo, I enjoyed your post about Mr. Brumidi. I visited the White House and Capitol while in high school. I have a very, very unclear memory of the beautiful artwork in the Capitol. I would love to go back to Washington now and spend as much time as I wished admiring Mr. Brumidi's masterful work. I think Mr. Morrow has done a fine job in giving great credit to Mr. Brumidi. The US Capitol would become the major American building decorated in true fresco." Merijo, I like the ending words of your post.

"Of this there is no doubt. Each man had his own imprint on this country." (Merijo)

Brumidi, Architect of Capitol

Mabel, my grandson was sick last week with a bad cold. He had to spend a couple days out of school. I hope your family gets well soon.

Hmmmm. Some people still might find the murals in the Capitol by Brumidi offensive. These words, written by Morrow, gave me pause. "His version of the American drama told the story of virtuous, enlightened (white) civilization discovering a savage wilderness, settling it, cultivating the land, and bestowing upon it....."

So, the murals are just applauding the magnificence of the white man. What about the Native Americans who helped lead the white men through the "savage wilderness?" What about all the buildings built by American slaves? The architect could not see his workmanship without the many hands of hard laborers. Also, what about the Founding Mothers? Without the Founding Mothers would there have been Founding Fathers? Mr. Morrow tells why Mr Brumidi painted such a one sided picture on the walls of the Capitol.

"Immigrants tend to be such good American mythmakers because their minds, like fresco mortar, are fresh and receptive, their grateful immaginations not yet inhibited......" In other words, Mr. Brumidi was grateful to be on free American soil away from imprisonment by the pope."He came as a refugee from political turmoil in Italy....Brumidi was imprisoned. The pope commuted his eighteen-year sentence on condition that the artist emigrate to America."

So often I want to see the truth and beauty offered by Lady Liberty, The Statue of Liberty, too often the beauty and truth becomes tarnished with untruths and untold stories.

I am glad Brumidi did honor Crispus Attucks.

Brumidi painted a lunette of the Boston Massacre in which he made the central figure the escaped slave Crispus Attucks...the first martyr for American freedom was a black man whom America had enslaved.

9. Morrow gives several examples of the policy: "If you think you are right - if you know you are right - then you do what is necessary to win." What are the risks in that behavior?

I see the risks of this behavior being, YOU could be the ONLY one thinking you are right and if you have an overblown ego and a personality that refuses to see anyone else's side it means you only have one perceptive, YOUR'S. Winning is an interesting word...winning an election is a clear victory if at the end of the day the electoral votes is enough to put you in the office. (at least in most elections.) Winning...can be an illusion when fighting a war or blocking a bill or legislation and can in all actuality be a loss in so many more ways then a win. In the mind of the person he may have too much self pride to acknowledge the loss is inevitable and proceed at all cost just to gain what he perceives as a win.

The two frontiers that Morrow describes (pg.76) had an influence in the past on presidents and the country. Do they today and, if so, how?

pg. 77 Ellis Island mentality is that of the communitarian sentimentalist. If the geography of the frontier involves big skies, untrammeled space and freedom, the Ellis Island story enacts itself in cities, its emphasis is human and sympathetic. Ellis Island is ethnic, crowded, urban, multilingual,gregarious and noisy, alive with distinctive cooking smells of Old Country customs. The frontier is spacious, physically demanding, silent. It values freedom and autonomy and personal responsibility.

I think the two frontiers Morrow is describing in my opinion are the two parties, Democrat and Republican. So, Yes I think they do have an influence on the presidents and country today. We still have so much conflict in the senate and congress because these two parties block each others bills and legislation because they feel the need to continue along the partisan lines. Politicians campaign using their frontier as their base. People are one or the other frontier and vote accordingly.

I'm not sure if I agree with all he states as Ellis Island and Frontier, but then is this his opinion?

pg. 76. Of course neither Ellis Island nor Frontier exists any more in a physical sense, and yet the two persist as states of mind, as presences in the American imagination, as value systems.

According to Morrow Johnson played the "switch and bait" and it worked for him. How many other politicians used the switch and bait just to get elected? The poles are so far apart because as we know Democrats and Republicans have strong beliefs and values for what they stand for such as gun control, right to life, capital punishment, environment, underdog vs. corporations etc etc. It would be easy to see someone today speaking out of both sides of their mouths to appease the state they are in to get the support of those people. Americans are more pro active, more intelligent, more accessible to the internet to find out what the politician really stands for by his voting records. If Johnson tried those tactics today I'm not so sure it would work for him.

Hats, Yes I did participate in Teacher Man and wasn't that a lively discussion and interesting book? I too remember you and enjoyed your posts. A LOVE FEST....lololol I am certain we have many differences of opinions but it is nice when we find others that share our opinions or feelings with you every now and then. Thank you for your sentiments.

Ella, I too live in Ohio and have been in my hibernation phase with these below zero temps. Our schools have been shut down for the past two days due to -22 degrees wind chill factor. I commend you for getting out in this weather. I await your ideas and thoughts once you find the time to settle in long enough to share them with us. I look forward to proceeding on to Ch 2.

Ella, I have just placed The Third Man on my queue for Netflix. I have never seen the movie.

Bellamarie, it is impossible not to disagree. A little disagreement makes the discussion more interesting.

Bella Marie:

I have been enjoying and appreciating your posts and meant to tell you before now. During the years of the Civil Rights Movement and forward, I was busy with family and work and read only of the things you described. Here in the Central Valley of California the Civil Rights movement was not so much with regard to the black population which at the time was small, but more so with the Farm Workers group led by Cesar Chavez. You may recall that event - especially in connection with the Grape Boycott.

Much of the Civil Rights activity with regard to the black population was in the urban areas of Los Angeles, San Francisco and Oakland.

hats: ( I like your user name, "hats.")

Thank you for your nice comments about my posts.

I think our discussion here is quite lively and our respective experiences seem to bring various perspectives to Morrow's book. He is writing a very fast-reading story here, I think. I have had to go to the Internet for some of his words as they don't appear in my Webster's. I think his writing is quite vivid and clear, though. I can picture much of his description.

Merijo, I agree. I find the book hard to put down. I have read many unfamiliar words. One is apotheosis. He has used that one more than one time. Plus, the word mentioned by Mabel and defined by Ella.

10. All three men had been affected by WWII. Explain why and how?

Nixon seems to have had the most personally happiest experience of the three during WWII. He was well-liked by his men and they had given him the nickname of "Nick Nixon."He proved to be an outstanding officer, efficient, effective, unpretentious, a hands-on leader." He learned to play poker, and had developed a talent for acquiring good housing for his men, foodstuffs and "Australian beer". Being with such a cross-section of young men he had acquired an understanding of many different kinds of people from so many different parts of the U. S. He also learned to curse in the Navy way and later could be heard to use the language in the company of men. He had developed a tendency toward furtiveness and secrecy during this time.

Up to this point Morrow has not delineated much of either Kennedy's or Johnson's WWII experience that I could find. Kennedy encountered a Japanese ship in the dark one night which sliced his PT boat in half. Johnson had been in the war, but his experience is not mentioned in these pages.

Kennedy's older brother Joe, Jr. Had volunteered to deliver by air a very volatile shipment, but was killed when the plane exploded. This made John Kennedy the likely successor to fulfill father Joe's ambitions to have one of his sons become president.

"Nixon, Kennedy and Johnson had been formed by WWII, by the precedent of Munich (never appease aggressors) and by the later logic of Munich's Child, the Domino Theory..."

Merijo, not only did the Civil Rights movement involve large urban areas, the story and life of the immigrants begins at Ellis Island and continues into the heart of big urban areas. Morrow writes it in this way.

"If the geography of the frontier involves big skies, untrammeled space and freedom, the Ellis Island story enacts itself in cities; its emphasis is human and sympathetic. Ellis Island is ethnic, crowded, urban, multilingual, gregarious, and noisy, alive with distinctive cooking smells and Old Country customs." I know what Morrow is talking about. I grew up in a big city with different ethnic groups as my neighbors and playmates.

Ella...I'm not sure I totally agree with the Ellis Island/Frontier theory since Bill and Hilary Clinton are from Arkansas and Gore is from Tennessee. Carter came from a peanut plantation in Georgia. So while I understand the comparisons and it would work for Kennedy, Nixon and Johnson I'm not so sure beyond them.

I see the assimilation but did Morrow use this much like his movies and characters? He has an interesting way of helping his readers to see what he wants them to see.

Merijo, Thank you for your kind words, I am happy to know you are enjoying and appreciating my posts, as I am with yours.

We have some fascinating thoughts, and discussions, Morrow has successfully intrigued us, entertained us and informed us but most of all he has gotten us to want to keep reading to find out where he is taking us next. These three men are truly the blueprint for the modern day politics. Media, celebrity, the arts, secrecy, dark personalities, charm and good looks and all veterans who served their country and then decided when they came home to run for offices to continue to serve the country they defended with their lives. Kudos to them and to Morrow. Can't wait to get into Ch 2 the families.

Lively discussion! Indeed, yes. I wish Lance Morrow could sit in on it - I should have written to his publisher to see if he could visit. We've had a few authors in the past and always hope for more. I think he would be pleased with our comments.

I think of so many things to say when I go about my chores during the day and YES, BELLEMARIE it is COLD IN OHIO. Our schools are closed, also, but luckily I had my car checked for all fluids and brakes before this winter.

LM writes about movies a lot doesn't he? Lana Turner (good grief), Blazing Saddles, The Best Years of our Lives, The Third Man, etc. But apparently JFK loved movies also; the movie Red River inspired him according to Morrow. Hollywood has, on many occasions, attempted to reflect society and its problems.

The movie THE GANGS OF NEW YORK portrays the violence between the Nativists and the poor Irish immigrants. Have any of you seen it? It was very good.

Ghandi was a great hero to LM - to many people. If you are interested we discussed Ghandi's Autobiography and it is archived here: Were any of you in that discussion?

Ghandi

We'll meet other people that LM admired in later chapters and I've been trying today to think of what one person I have most admired in an elected office or in life. Certainly there are several???? I'll keep thinking, how about you?

Two frontiers. I'm a bit older than some of you and I've heard of the two frontiers, the coastal mentalities for most of my life and have been so disheartened that I was brought up in the midwest and considered to be from cow country, bland, uninteresting, boring.

The East was cultured, educated, fashionable. They talk formally, are urbanites, legislative, slow to action.

The West was open range, rugged, individualistic, rough and tough, uncomplicated. They make decisions quickly and without much fuss.

Times are changing. The Democrats are forming a posse and will hold their convention in Colorado next year - when has either party gone west?

HATS, do you still live in the city and enjoy it? I want to see Washington again, also - shall we travel together? I keep hoping I have a few more travel trips in this body???? I loved your remarks on Brumidi and his frescoes; you are so astute! What did you think of LM's impression of the Kennedy Center?

MERIJO lives on the West Coast in California and LM writes extensively about the immigration problems which, no doubt, are a huge topic where you live. Tell us about them.

JEAN, what part of the country do you live in?

LM's sentence "George W. Bush, to an unusual degree, thinks of himself as part of the frontier story, the cowboy story that sees itself as self-reliant, competent, individualist, freedom-loving, morally automonmous and responsible."

That attitude can get us in a whole lot of trouble. The "if you think you are right, then you do what is necessary to win." He thought, he did. He landed on an aircraft carrier and announced "MISSION ACCOMPLISHED."

And who did he listen to? Who did Kennedy listen to when he decided to invade Cuba? Who did Johnson listen to when he escalated the Vietnam war? Aren't there advisors to presidents? Are they all pentagon people? Do they love to invade, make war, is that American?

Time for bed. Thanks for giving me so much to think about tonight! Thanks for your interest and your comments! I'm so happy you are enjoying the book.

Ella:

Yes, immigration is a huge topic of discussion here, more so than a few years ago. However, the latest news is that illegal immigration has slowed down considerably because of the knowledge that the laws for illegal immigration are being enforced if the people are caught on the way into the country.

You asked earlier if the wall had gone up. There are sections of wall up along the border from California eastward. However, there is terrain upon which it is too sandy to set a wall hurriedly. It would need to be engineered. In these places the cameras and other detecting devices and border patrol are effective. There was a spot along the fence(wall) where a full-time repairman appeared every morning to repair the hole through which illegal folks managed to get through during the night. Since the enforcement, this breach may not be such a regular event. I have not heard about that particular place recently.

Another thing not too generally known is that at the San Diego County border with Mexico there is a regular stairway used by American business people going into Mexico to work and by which they return at the end of the day. Likewise, students from Mexico cross into the U. S. to go to school here and business people come to work here. At the end of the day they climb the staircase - a huge concrete structure - quite attractive - to return home.

There is an easy crossing there by car and bus - tourists and visitors - who may have some sort of identification for a day trip. Also, as long as Mexicans do not come into the State any farther than twenty-five miles they may come in to shop. This has prompted the construction of malls in the State within the allowed distance. These Mexicans increase the State's local economy. There is a growing middle class in Mexico, and business is thriving in the border malls.

hats:

I think the Ellis Island and Frontier comparison is not too strong a comparison, but I think that for this narrative, it can be used to identify - the many poor and inquiring people from Europe who came to the States in waves of immigration into Ellis Island. In those days each immigrant needed to show proof of good health according to the limited knowledge of the customs agents and to show proof of sponsorship by a family member already here in the States. Usually, the manual workers, skilled and apprentice workers, that came into Ellis Island remained in the urban settings of the East Coast, but some did travel through to the West Coast to San Francisco and Los Angeles mostly.

Thousands of people entered Ellis Island for decades, but the entry through there ended around 1920. However, the Frontier people were usually precursors of the later immigrants - mostly from England and Scotland and that section of northern Ireland from where the Scotch-Irish came. This is another story stemming from the upheaval in Scotland and migration to Ireland, intermarriage and the appearance of the Scotch-Irish who settled mainly on the East Coast in the Carolinas.

(Germans, Swedes and Dutch came, too, but in smaller numbers and went into the northern states).

The Frontier people could easily represent in 1948 the established and landed families of the West. They had been settlers through all the Indian uprisings, bad weather and early struggles of developing a homestead. They had a certain sense of belonging and noblesse.

Your information about the immigration situation in California is very informative and easy reading. I would like to see the staircase. I didn't think about businessmen and students travelling back and forth from California to Mexico. I only hear about the illegal situation on tv.

Ella, I would love to travel with you to Washington. Our enthusiasm put together would make the trip more than memorable. I live in Chattanooga, Tennessee now. I don't live in the middle of the big city. It is still the outskirts of Chattanooga. I love the area. We live near the mall. Still, we drive a short distance. HamiltonPlace This is very convenient. Also, of most importance the Barnes and Noble is nearby along with Books A Million. We don't have a Borders.

The library is quite a ride away. I wish there were a library near us instead of a mall. Of course, no matter how far I will find my way to the library. Really, I'm just complaining. It's not too far. We just can't make a trip there every single week.

My sister with her family lived in North Carolina. Believe it or not, she lived across the street from the library. What a dream!! When I would visit her, I would trek across the street everyday.

Ella, I stopped reading at the part about the Kennedy Center. I am very anxious to read this part of the chapter. By the way, thank you for being a great discussion leader. I am thoroughly enjoying the book discussion.

I still don't have the book and am up to my neck in multiple concurrent do Now! projects. This afternoon and from time to time I will make "Comments particulary on LBJ from my local politic's experience and my reading of the "Master Of The Senate" bioography.

Merijo, Thank you for the info on the stairway for the business people and students. Living in Ohio I had no idea such an access existed. It's also interesting how you mention they have built a mall within that 25 mile range for shopping. It makes me wonder what it feels like to live in a region or even near one that you see a wall being built to keep out the illegal immigrants. I assume the people in East and West Berlin had to go through the feelings of isolation and deprived of the "Good Life" as everyone saw outside of that wall. I can still remember the day seeing on the news the first chunks of the Berlin wall being torn down. We've come a long way, and yet we are still building walls.

My Grandparents came to America from Italy and landed on Ellis Island. I try to picture what it must have been like for them to come to a country that was foreign to them, no housing, no jobs, no other relatives to help them. We take so much for granted today and when others tell of their struggles living in Russia, Germany, Poland etc. I get a sense of spoiledness and sadness to think I can complain of discomfort such as cold temps for two weeks in a row. A group of friends and myself recently went to watch the movie, "Freedom Writers". Merijo, I am sure you can comment first hand on this since you live in California. Thank God the Civil Rights Act was formed and realized. Where would we all be since so many of us had generations come to America. I found this and thought it also interesting: Kennedy is also sometimes credited with giving American Catholics the full recognition they deserved as American citizens. He is also seen as responsible for giving Catholics full opportunities in politics outside of the Northeast.

He did so much in so little time, I can only imagine what more he could have accomplished had he lived out his presidency and been re-elected. I suppose the people responsible for assassinating him could see those visions and felt threatened by them.

Hats, I visited Washington D. C. before 911 and was fortunate to tour the inside of the White House. I remember sitting in the blue room on a little settee by the window and looking out of the window and realizing how great an experience to walk in the same room as Presidents, dignitaries and First Ladies. They told how Jackie Kennedy had this huge Christmas tree decorated in this room and I remembered thinking how grand it must have been. I walked the steps to the Supreme Court and stood and thought how many Supreme Court justices walked these same steps. I sat in the Library of Congress and used their computer and looked up to the ceilings and stood on the stairways inside just in awe of the paintings. Brumidi's work we speak of now in this book! And to think now after 911 there are no more tours for civilians to experience in the White House. We were not fortunate to get inside the Capitol Building, the lines were too long and our day was at a close. We intend to return soon and visit the Smithsonians which my husband was sad we did not allow time for. But then how can you cover so much in just a day's visit. We had a fantastic tour guide and he took us to many places others stood in line for and we were able to get in. The Ford Theater and the room where Lincoln was taken to after being shot was so moving.

This book is beginning to move me in ways I never imagined. Thank you all for your posts.

Harold, Welcome, feel free to add your comments we welcome all who can join us. I have to share with you and Hats, I buy most of my books online at Amazon.com. I actually purchased this book brand new for $1.50 and $3.00 shipping and handling. What a bargain! I love owning my own books so I can highlight and write in them. It took maybe a week to recieve it in the mail.

Wow! you people are just sailing along, what wonderful comments from everybody.....i'm still babysitting, but i'm reading.....will be back.....jean

The immigration problem has many ramifications which can only be touched upon here.

I can imagine the culture shock for many immigrants in coming through Ellis Island into this country. Ellis Island is like a museum these days showing aspects of an immigrant's introduction to America.

11. "Washington was a "city for men" - "a city of conversation" - has it changed?

I had no idea that Washington was so sparse and seemingly "unimproved" in 1948. I would say that it has indeed changed. . . in several ways.

Access for one is now limited to the White House, Capitol and other government buildings. There certainly are additional buildings in that government complex and I believe that there are far more women in both Houses of Congress. I know of only one woman in Congress at that time, Margaret Chase Smith of Maine. She was elected to the Senate in 1948. The following link is a biographical sketch about her.

http://www.umaine.edu/mcsc/AboutUs/Bio.htm

How did the city and these three presidents react to each other?

There were apparently few places to meet socially. Kennedy would leave for New York and the theater and the life there whenever he could. Morrow says that for Nixon and Johnson, "politics" was entertainment enough."

"Washington was a city for men, for drinking and politics and power." This could cover quite a territory. I think the three men did become affected by the atmosphere. One in which they could size each other up without interference from the fair sex. "Humor focused on power, pomposity, corruption, hypocrisy__" says Morrow.

"Everyone knew everyone. The politicians and journalists. . . knew one another__in that sense. . . it could be called "the city of conversation."

Just one small comment (since my book hasn't come in yet) about immigration...My husband's family came from Germany in the mid19th Century. They entered through the port of New Orleans. John's grandfather told him that if he ever wanted to check records, he should start there. There was regular boat traffic taking cotton from the US to Hamburg, Germany, and Germans from Hamburg to the US. Many of them then went up the Mississippi River, looking for farmland. That's why nearly every city of any size along the Mississippi (New Orleans, Vicksburg, Memphis, and on up) has a section called Germantown, and why there is such a large German-ancestor population in that area.

I, too, live in Chattanooga - a very nice small city. Hats lives near the biggest mall (LOL) - I live within a mile of a branch library. Amazingly, we've never met. One of these days maybe we will meet in person.

11. "Washington was a "city for men" - "a city of conversation" - has it changed? How did the city and these three presidents react to each other?

City for men indeed.....Yes and no, to has it changed. Yes there are now women in Washington, but how many of them are being accepted and heard? Nancy Polosi's voice is surely going to be heard and if we are lucky we just may see the First Woman President...but not if the men have a say in it. I do not get the impression the men's club has opened the doors and welcomed any of these women with open arms. But women are gaining power and position and we can only hope it continues.

A city of conversation...that has stayed the same. I think everything and anything important is the talk of that town. It is such a place of so much history is being made there, yet when I was there I could sense the dullness and complacency outside of work hours and can understand why John Kennedy would need to go to New York for more stimulation and entertainment.

How did the city and these three presidents react to each other?

I see these three men sizing each other up and since they already knew the backgrounds of each other they probably sat with attitude and distaste. I'm imagining a football team going to a bar and seeing their opponents and for machoism's sake flexing their muscles just to intimidate each other. Nixon being a bit dark and insecure probably sat with thoughts of hatred for Kennedy and ways to measure up and beat him. Johnson wanting so badly to be noticed probably strutted with large frame that stood out like a cattleman. Kennedy feeling so much more astute and physically good looking and athletic build just existed with confidence neither man was a challenge for him. I think this city had sensed they had new blood, and hungry politicians and like a teacher sitting back watching the students shove around for the best seat, and the best grades and the teacher's attention I can see the old timers taking bets on who will come out on top.



They call Chicago the Windy city....well I would call Washington back then with these three men, the Stormy city...dark characters like clouds above and fresh ideas, like lightning jumping out.

Bella Marie:

With regard to the movie,"The Freedom Writers" I can only respond from what I read and remembered in the entertainment section of the LATimes which is going to be limited.

As for getting high school students to write and cooperate in such exercises, I would say that the teacher sought a good means to bring out her students. Techniques such as these can be used very successfully.

I understand that the Long Beach high school upon which the story was based was somewhat unhappy from the portrayal. Long Beach has a very high number of African-Americans and Hispanics and in recent years the school district has introduced all sorts of innovative ideas to help the children of minority groups, educationally and socially. Many high schools have asked their students to wear uniforms. They are quite smart-looking outfits and I think they have been successful in giving the students a sense of the importance of education. The kids seem not to mind them.

Long Beach is a primarily working class city, given the presence of the international port, the harbor life, fishing and many oil refineries in the area. It is a bustling place and has the vitality of such an urban area. It has its upper-class and its homeless. It has Cal State University, Long Beach. I used to like to visit Long Beach when I was a little girl. They had a great amusement section on the waterfront.

Such interesting posts! I wish I had more time to comment but it was a very busy day and I was out this evening, which is rare for me!

But I did put new questions on Chapter Two in the heading for your consideration. We are not limited to those questions, of course, and our discussion so far has been one of far-ranging comments that make for a great group of people getting to know each other. Just take one question at a time - everyone will have an opinion I hope!.

YOU ARE ALL FANTASTIC - I AM ENJOYING BEING A PART OF SUCH A GREAT GROUP OF FRIENDLY PEOPLE. I MARVEL AT THE INVENTION OF THE COMPUTER THAT BRINGS US TOGETHER IN SUCH A UNIQUE MANNER. PERHAPS IF I KNEW ONE PERSON WHO INVENTED THE WHOLE MACHINE I COULD INCLUDE THAT PERSON IN MY LIST OF HEROS. I HAVE YET TO START THAT LIST, BUT HE WOULD BE ON IT.

MERIJO: You speak of enforcement along the border and comment that it has improved the illegal immigration into the country. Besides portions of a wall (is that being breached?), what other means are being used? I can’t imagine a wall on our borders; I would never have dreamed of such a thing. WALLS BETWEEN BORDERS! REAGAN ASKING FOR ONE TO BE TORN DOWN, BUSH BUILDING ANOTHER.

My daughter (a baby boomer as some of you are) is talking of retiring to Mexico in a few years and says, somewhat jokingly, that Americans are fleeing to Mexico where the living is cheaper and the climate better and the Mexicans are fleeing into America for jobs and opportunities.

HAROLD: Just jump into our conversation anytime, glad to have you aboard. He is planning a book discussion in the spring so watch for it.

Later…………eg (off to the dentist, OH!)

1. "He would never read books." Part of Johnson's rebellion against his parents. What does this statement say about Johnson? Should we ask what books candidates are reading? Does it really matter??

When I came to this sentence in the book I honestly thought I had misread it and went back to reread it. How does rebelling against your parents constitute you refusing to ever read books? I can understand Johnson using the media, telephone, talking to other people and studying them for information, but isn't there some point where the intellect of your mind begs for book knowledge and entertainment?

As a writer, who has wanted books of all interest my whole life, I can't imagine anyone not having books in their life. My first impression of someone refusing to read books is they appear unintelligent and uninformed. Relying on media, telephone and other people seems lazy and an easy way to gain misinformation. Not that everything you read in books is accurate but at least it lists its sources and references. I did not see anywhere so far where Morrow has told us of Johnson's education or schools he attended. Obviously it was not Harvard since he refers to books as, " the coffins of embalmed ideas, the insubstantial fesckless realm of "Harvards," or the fairyland of his beloved ineffectual mother."

As far as should we ask about the books and does it matter..Yes, I think it can tell us something about the person knowing what books they found interesting enough to take the time to read. I would want to know if any of them read books on cults, satanism, murderers etc. I think knowing Kennedy had such a large realm of reading it showed me he was an all around knowledge person. It shows me he had a broad mind and interest. I see anyone who is willing to search for book knowledge to be much more interesting then someone who refuses to expand their knowledge.

Now fifteen, he graduated from Johnson City High School on May 24. He decided to forego higher education and instead made his way to California with a few friends. There he performed odd jobs, including one as an elevator operator. A year later he returned home where he worked on a road construction gang.

1927 Borrowing $75, he enrolled in Southwest Texas State Teachers College at San Marcos, Texas (Texas State University-San Marcos). He earned money as a janitor and as an office helper. He dropped out of school for a year to serve as principal and teach fifth, sixth, and seventh grades at Welhausen School, a Mexican-American school in the south Texas town of Cotulla. He still had time to be a leader in many extracurricular activities, editing the school paper and starring on the debate team.

1930 August 19, graduated with a B.S. degree. He taught for a few weeks at Pearsall High School, in Pearsall, Texas, then took a job teaching public speaking at Sam Houston High School in Houston, Texas. In the spring of 1931, his debate team won the district championship.

1931 Following his election to the House of Representatives in November 1931, Congressman Richard Kleberg asked Johnson to come to Washington to work as his secretary. Johnson held the job for over three years and learned how the Congress worked. In 1933, he was elected speaker of the "Little Congress," an organization of congressional workers.

1934 In the fall, he briefly attended Georgetown University Law School in Washington, D. C.

On a trip home to Texas, Johnson met Claudia Alta Taylor. He decided almost instantly that she should be his wife. Two months later, Lady Bird, as she was known to her friends, agreed, and on November 17, 1934, they were married in San Antonio. They honeymooned in Mexico.

1935 Resigned as Secretary to Representative Kleberg to accept President Roosevelt's appointment on July 25 as the Texas Director of the National Youth Administration (NYA), a Roosevelt program designed to provide vocational training for unemployed youth and part-time employment for needy students. At 26, he was the youngest state director.

I found this info at http://www.lbjlib.utexas.edu/johnson/archives.hom/biographys.hom/lbj_bio.asp

JEAN, hope you and the children are well. Do come back into the discussion as soon as possible or do you babysit all the time? Put them to bed for naps!!! Maybe you need to take one yourself?

BELLAMARIE, you learned HTML very fast – very well! Now we must show you how to do bold, underline and italics. It’s the same principle. Where in Ohio do you live? Several of us in Ohio used to meet annually (well, we did it for about three years) south of Toledo at a Holiday Express. We planned it here: – Ohio We should do that again. I loved your description of Washington in the 50’s and 60’s as a stormy city peopled with dark characters like clouds above and fresh ideas like lightning jumping out.

MARY! Good to see you here and I know you can comment on these three presidents with or without the book. Feel free to do so! But I hope your book comes soon.

And I certainly think you and HATS should plan to get together at the Mall – is it a big one? I don’t like the big ones. They would have been paradise when I was young and dancing! Oh, yes, but I hate to go shopping any more and rarely do it unless my clothes look too “fiftish” – hahaha

Later, eg

Hey, hey, BELLAMARIE! I just saw your posts on LBJ, isn't he a fascinating fellow. I'll be back later (I just can't catch up). Thanks for starting us on the questions and on LBJ. We must spend time discussing this giant.

In cleaning out some notes I have stuffed in my book I see this one and want to type it here before I lose it:

ON TV: NIXON: A Presidency revealed on the HISTORY CHANNEL. He forged historic peaceful alliances, yet was also the only President forced to resign. Who was Nixon really? Find out on FEBRUARY 18. With previously unseen footage and recordings, this docmentary promises to challenge preconceptions!

My "charge" is on the road to recovery and back at day care, so i'll try to get in here more often.

re: LBJ not reading....i wonder if it was as stark as LM puts it. He did go to college and he was a teacher and did attend law school for a short time, so i think he must have had some sense of the importance of reading.....how ever, i do see him as an action person, one who prefers doing physical things rather than intellectual things - i recognize that since i have a son who matches the description........he also seems to have been very much an extravert - one who likes to "learn" by talking to people, not mulling things over, writing down ideas, etc as Nixon loved to do.......Richard REeves wrote a very detailed book about Nixon and how he loved being solitary and writing his tho'ts on yellow legal pads.......interesting that LBJ kept "verbal" tapes of his conversations, not diaries or journals as Nixon did - of course, Nixon fortunately/unfortunately inherited LBJ's tape system

Parents: Bonnie Angelo wrote a very interesting book titled "First Mothers." Many of the presidents mothers were very strong and had strong influence on their sons. I also found it intersting in reading that book that many of those same mothers had fathers who encouraged and supported their dgts....... i think that book assures us that parents do have a major negative/positive impact on children and perhaps have had a very important impact of these "unusual" - in the ambitious/striving context - children. It also was interesting to t hink about the impact of the opposite-gender parent. Apparently fathers have a great impact on dgts and mothers on sons......what fun stuff!!!

Be back later......jean

Richard Reeves book on Nixon is titled "Alone in the White House" - interesting, uh?

Ella:

Many Americans of retirement age are moving to Mexico - also Costa Rica and Panama because it is cheaper.

http://www.mexperience.com/retirement/

There are more cameras along the California border. Also there are other devices-such as infra-red cameras for noticing incoming illegals at night. There are others not described because these are in place through Homeland Security. Border patrols are more frequent, and the National Guard is there building the wall. The National Guard is not armed. Its purpose is to construct roads and the wall.

California's border is more populated than Arizona's. The ranchers there in Arizona have suffered badly from the flow of illegal immmigration. Ranchers have found injured, famished and dead illegals on their land. Those who have made it through have left trash and other debris strewn across the desert and some Arizona residents have been robbed. Smugglers known as "coyotes" have cruelly abandoned people out in the desert.

Word has reached the general population along the Mexican border that any illegals caught will either be immediately deported or arrested if found farther inland. This has caused the flow into the country to dwindle although it is still going on.

I think that this situation must be addressed humanely and legally so that there is no need for walls - so high that they look like prison walls - my opinion.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Mexico_barrier

The guest worker program is especially needed. We had a severe frost here in the Central Valley last month where the temperature was in the teens for nineteen days in a row. It literally devastated the citrus and avocado crops. There were too few workers to pick the fruit ahead of the frost and the loss of fruit resulted in the loss of at least 12,000 jobs and almost a billion in crops. Now, communities up and down the valley have had food drives, because people have no money to buy food. Some towns are a one industry (citrus) town. If there is a freeze or a drought, the community suffers.

Farm workers' wages are governed by a special procedure required by the State through labor contractors. They do not come under the rule for a minimum wage. Growers do not pay the workers directly. The labor contractor does. The process is complicated by transportation needs to the remote fields, certain hygienic needs which must be provided for the workers, and mandated rest periods with shade provided. Generally, the pay is good. Many farm workers can save enough for a down payment on a house, for example.

Fruit and vegetable farming is a labor-intensive industry - part-time, often - and truly needs a sensible resolution.

Jean, I have read many psychology books, been to many workshops and Dr. Phil repeats it more times then I can count that says studies show the SAME sex parent has the most influence on a child then any other person in their life and then the opposite sex parent is next.

These three men reflect that in their characters, fears, and choices in life.

It goes without saying that parents form the foundation of a child's life. I think negative or positive the child learns from what he sees and hears in his home. Parents sometimes do not have a clue what children hear and then mimics. Parents words and actions leave life long impressions on the child. I was a Computer teacher for 15 years in a K -8 Catholic school and for 9 yrs now have my own in Home Day Care. The things that come out of children's mouths that the parents would not expect amazes me. I continuously tell parents to be careful of what the child may overhear because how they perceive it can be so different from the context it was said in.

Ella, With all due respect I am not sure I share your thoughts on LBJ, "the giant." I see him of the three the one with little education, lack of respect for his parents and just someone I would not find interesting to sit and talk with. I read he was the most wealthy President to take office, yet it came from much corruption. LBJ not reading and keeping verbal tapes is another example to me of lack of motivation. How easy is it to sit back and let others do the talking and you tape it and use it as your source of learning? I personally don't see Morrow painting LBJ with a colorful brush. I would love to hear your thoughts Ella.

Somehow I deferred too long in buying the book and at this late date because of other pending responsibilities I don’t feel I have time to read it. I thought, however, that I might from time to time comment on the impact that the three principals in the book have had on me and my recollection of their lives. .

Regarding 1948, I had just turned 21 in Oct 1947 so I voted for the first time in the elections of 1948. In Texas LBJ was making his second attempt to gain election to the senate. His earlier bid had been unsuccessful. In 1948, in the Democrat Party Primary LBJ ran against a popular Governor, Coke Stevenson. At the time this Primary race was the real race, since winning in the Demo Primary was tantamount to election. Most people simply ignored the General Election that followed unless it was the year of a Presidential race. In any case the Demo candidate always won by a large majority.

I remember I voted for Stevenson. For the Senate the race was a real cliffhanger. In the end Johnson was declared the winner by less than 100 votes, a decision that stood after a weird official investigation with evidence that tens of thousands of votes had been stolen on Johnson’s behalf. The official investigation was halted through the skillful legal manipulations of Johnson’s brilliant New York lawyer, Abe Fortas who was later awarded with his appointment by Johnson as an Associate Justice on the Supreme Court.

Details of Johnson’s election to the Senate in 1948, his rapid rise to power and Senate leadership, and his own particular drive for political power are detailed in Robert A. Caro’s multi-volume biography, particularly the “Master of the Senate” volume. During his Senate years he successfully reversed his initial anti Federal Civil Rights position to being a strong advocate. Though his own campaign for the 1960 Demo Presidential nomination fell short, it gained him the Vice Presidential nomination. Johnson’s presences on the ticked delivered many of the Southern states for the Demo ticket assuring their victory in a close race. After the tragic assassination of JFK. LBJ became President, a position confirmed in 1964 by the American people who gave him a landslide term of his own.

After 1948 I voted for LBJ when he ran for reelection in 1954 and 1960. By the latter date Texas election law had been changed for his benefit to permit his name on the ballot for both the Senate and Vice President; so in that year, I also voted for him for Vice President also. And again in 1964 he got my vote for President.

And by the way; In 1961 after LBJ resigned from the Senate to become Vice President, in a special election a Republican was elected in his place, That seat has been Republican since that date, and today both Texas Senate seats as well as the Texas Governor and both legislative houses are Republican.

Click Here for a web Biography of LBJ from the Handbook of Texas.

5. LM speaks of JFK as being a "hedonist" - one who thinks pleasure is the chief good in life. Is the public "exhilarated" to read about scandals of public figures? Clinton was not impeached for his pleasures in the White House; would JFK have been impeached for his sexual behaviors had they been reported by the media?

I'm not sure if I agree with Morrow's description of JFK as a "hedonist", I know many a author has portrayed him as such.

I definitely think the public is exhilarated to read about the scandals of public figures and celebrities. Just look at how much time they have spent on the death of Anna Nicole Smith in the past 24 hours. I think better put the MEDIA is obsessed with shoving it down our throats.

I have to say I think Kennedy would not have been impeached for his infidelities in or outside of the White House. Its ridiculous to even think Clinton or Kennedy would be impeached for the same behaviors so many other Presidents were guilty of. A man's sex life is his own personal business. Their performance as a President has nothing to do with who they are sleeping with. Their wives and children are the ones who would be effected the most by the infidelity and the scandal. Other countries laughed and thought we were a bit high moral grounded to even consider Clinton being impeached for his Lewinsky scandal.

Men will be men and boys will be boys is the attitude of many and other countries and leaders for centuries and centuries have had multiple affairs. I do not find this behavior commendable by any means but it did not deter from their job performance, it lessened the image we had of them and showed their character flaws.

Consider the fact Nixon was allowed to resign for all his corruption and was even given a pardon.

When I think of the abuse of power, disregard for the Constitution and deceit our present President has displayed costing over 3,000 American lives and still counting, I think of reasons for impeachment.

BELLEMARIE, neither can I imagine anyone not having books as a part of their life, but I know a number of folks who, like LBJ, never read books. It has just been my observation that the world is divided into people who read and people who have to be around people. Readers (and I am probably very wrong about this) tend to be solitary folk; content to be alone at times, nose-in-the-book type of people. People (Barbara Streisand’s song notwithstanding!) who like people are the opposite; they group; they act; they interact.

I’m not sure that readers are any more intelligent or knowledgeable than people persons. What do you think?

I think JEAN agrees as she stated "i do see him as an action person, one who prefers doing physical things rather than intellectual things - i recognize that since i have a son who matches the description........he also seems to have been very much an extravert - one who likes to "learn" by talking to people, not mulling things over, writing down ideas, etc as Nixon loved to do......"

I’m not so sure MERIJO that I am going to tell my daughter about that Mexexperience site. She has already read two books authored by people who have moved there and she doesn’t need any more encouragement!!! Hahahaa

Thanks for the information about the border – that’s a sorry situation, and particularly for those citrus communities that need those immigrant workers to pick crops.

There was an article in our paper this morning about walls – countries everywhere building walls. India-Pakistan, Israel-West Bank. Here is one paragraph:

"Pakistan is building a 1,500-mile fence with Afghanistan. Uzbekistan has built a fence along its border with Tajikistan. The United Arab Emirates is erecting a barrier along its frontier with Oman. Kuwait is upgrading its 125-mile wall along the Iraqi frontier. But the most impressive barriers are around Saudi Arabia. The Saudis quietly have been pursuing an $8.5 billion project to fence off its porous border with Yemen for some years, but the highest priority now is to build a hightech barrier along the 550-mile border with Iraq."

And it goes on and on! NATIONALISM! A very bad situation that leads to wars. In defense of their borders countries will go to war.

HAROLD, thanks for your comments on LBJ. Have you read Caro’s biography of Johnson? Morrow paints a very poor picture of this president, remarking extensively on that 1948 election. However, LM believed Johnson was a tormented man; he struggled with his greed and his sympathy for the poor and was often generous. Greed won out obviously, but the story of his father’s failure was sad. I never knew this and I do believe that the "the sight of his father humiliated" must have been a permanent mark on the man. I can’t help feeling sorry for him! And his destiny with the Vietnam War.

It’s hard for me to believe that presidents make such terrible mistakes; actually it’s frightening!

Later, eg

BELLEMARIE, thanks for your post on Question No. 5. I have to agree with you about a president's sex life, it is really none of our business; but I think others feel differently. It is something we could debate endlessly.

How about JFK's remark on "No class." Cruel?

Here is how you do "bold, italics and underline."

(b)I admire President Kennedy(/b) - for bold

(u)I admire President Kennedy(/u) - for underline

(i)I admire President Kennedy(/i) - for italics

Of course, substitute <> for the parenthesis.

And that is the extent of my knowledge - hahahaaa

Ella, I agree that I find it hard to understand people who don't like to read, but I don't make that a contrast to "people" people.

I equate wanting to read with wanting to learn, with curiosity. But then some people learn by hearing or by experience. I love being with other people, but I always have a book nearby - I never go anywhere without something to read.

My first presidential vote was cast for JFK. I always felt that LBJ's antipathy to the Kennedys was more of a "class" thing (to use a word I dislike). LBJ was certainly from a working-class background, and had to work hard for everything he got. As opposed to the Kennedys, who were definitely upper class, with lots of money and status, seemingly having everything given to them. And, I'm sure the Kennedys felt that LBJ was crude and crass, without the polish that wealth supposedly gives.

But as devastated as we all were with JFK's assassination, I remember feeling relief that the country was in the hands of someone as capable and competent as LBJ. This, of course, was in a time of much naivite - something that could never happen now - with the press ready to report on every rude belch or scratch by someone of prominence.

Ella:

So many people do like the idea of going to Mexico. There have been articles about the number of retired couples doing just that.

Bella Marie and Harold:

Thanks for posting the links to Johnson's biography.

After reading the section on "Families" I have concluded that that era saw marked changes in American philosophy and mores as a result of these three men being our presidents. The families' auras most definitely defined these men. Although other events not pertaining to them occurred simultaneously, the distinct event, for example, of the Vietnam War, carried a huge impact on the American population which carried over into people's daily lives. The family environments in which these men were reared affected these presidents' formative years markedly.

There is no doubt that the patholgical disorder of Joe Kennedy so dogged in pursuing the behavior of a sexual aggressor, in establishing a Kennedy "Dynasty" in American society and government, and, equally disturbing, his arrogant involvement in the lives of his children had a strong, if not a traumatic, effect upon his family. This influence clearly affected the formation of John Kennedy's character.

For Johnson, the shock of poverty coming down upon him because of his father's mismanagement of the family's funds, most definitely affected his sensibilities. Morrow shows that Johnson found himself leading a tormented life. He fought and finagled hard to make money, yet he had compassion for the poor.

Nixon seems to have been influenced by his mother mostly. It must have been tortuous to listen to one of Hannah Nixon's quiet "talks". When one is subjected to such treatment, it is possible to develop a need for secrecy, a need to do anything to avoid such an exhausting quiet needling.

No wonder Morrow says "that it was in the era of the three presidents, Kennedy, Johnson and Nixon, ... that Americans repudiated its supposedly heroic and glorious golden past."

My dictionary defines progress as "moving toward a goal." But it is also moving from the past to the future.

LM states that there are two ways of looking at progress. One is the Greek conception of the past as being "golden" - wonderful and nothing can ever replace it. The other is the western idea of the past being a place of ignorance and constantly moving toward a better future. (read technology, materialism)

That's something to think about it. Has anyone taken a Greek history course and can explaim LM's statement?

I did a quick search of the Internet and found this interesting:

Faith in the future

The whole article is very interesting - it starts with these paragraphs:

"Devout Christians in the Middle Ages imagined a heaven somewhere off beyond the outermost sphere of the sky, where angels and blessed souls sang in perfect harmony in the presence of God, far from the discords of life in the lowly world of matter. Centuries before, the ancient Greeks sang of a Golden Age somewhere in the distant past when fields sprouted crops without human labor and the world was at peace under the rule of the old wise god Kronos.

We have our heaven and our Golden Age, too, but unlike most other cultures we put ours in the future, and tell ourselves that we’re moving closer to Paradise with every day that passes. Other cultures put their faith in gods or stars or cosmic cycles; we put ours in progress.

It’s not going too far, I think, to call belief in progress the dominant religion of the modern world. For most people nowadays, what matters about our past is that it’s a story of progress, a vast upward sweep from the brutal squalor of a primitive past to the Promethean splendor of a science-fiction future out among the stars. In the modern imagination, the present is by definition bigger and better than the past, just as the future will by definition be bigger and better than the present. For believers in progress, to call something “new” is to define it as “better,” while what’s old is by definition inadequate"

I know I'm too far afield.

I remember feeling relief that the country was in the hands of someone as capable and competent as LBJ

MARY, that's intriguing! Tell us more about why you felt this way.

MERIJO: There is no doubt that the patholgical disorder of Joe Kennedy so dogged in pursuing the behavior of a sexual aggressor, in establishing a Kennedy "Dynasty" in American society and government, and, equally disturbing, his arrogant involvement in the lives of his children had a strong, if not a traumatic, effect upon his family.

I wonder if Joe Kennedy ever realized what he had done? If he had any regrets about his treatment of his family, his wife, his children?

Thanks again for your comments.

Class distinctions. Discrimination by whom? And to whom?

Ella, I guess it was because LBJ was so strong and in control when he was in the Senate, and I assumed that he would be as president, too - particularly when things were in such chaos. Of course, I was only 27 at the time, and still pretty idealistic.

After I posted before, I realized that I should have said that I think Nixon probably resented JFK for many of the same reasons that LBJ did. JFK was all the things RMN was not - handsome, wealthy, comfortable before crowds, naturally well-spoken, etc. RMN and LBJ both had to work hard for everything they got - nothing came easy.

Ella:

Whether or not Joe Kennedy knew that he was imposing his own goals upon his family may have escaped him. Outwardly, he was doing what so many men - heads of families - did in those years after WWI. These were the Roaring Twenties. Money was to be made. Some men wanted to provide extravagantly for their families.

Joe's father had been a successful saloon-keeper and a ward boss, so he went into the liquor business making money there until Prohibition. He became a "movie mogul" in Hollywood, investing in the incipient movie industry that appeared to be filled with much promise. He knew how to wheel and deal and apparently knew when to get out of the market before the 1929 Crash because he seems to have not suffered a financial setback then. He truly made most of his money in real estate during WWII acquiring 100 million dollars.

In the Kennedy's circle of wealthy friends and neighbors most were acquiring wealth and the womenfolks were spending it. It may have been normal. Morrow tells us that John Kennedy had no idea of poverty in the country until a campaign trip to West Virginia revealed the hovels which many people there used as homes.

This is puzzling to me, because surely, in traveling around Boston, he ought to have seen and heard of the poor there. It seems as though he was insulated from unpleasant things and duties.

But father, Joe Kennedy, had devoted his life to making money - a lot of it - so he could fulfill his ambition of becoming wealthy, and if not accepted into high society, he would create his own. His children would be free to become important in government especially and gain entry into the elite of American society.

The success of his business endeavors may have seemed to be ideal, the American way. His successes proved to him, possibly, he was on the right track.

Ella post # Readers (and I am probably very wrong about this) tend to be solitary folk; content to be alone at times, nose-in-the-book type of people. People (Barbara Streisand’s song notwithstanding!) who like people are the opposite; they group; they act; they interact.

Ouch! Us extraverts who love reading would have to disagree with your idea of people who read. I am a "people" person who needs and wants contact with others as I am sure so many other who are in Barnes and Noble, Borders and Books a Million are. My world expands when I can read and learn about other countries, cultures and political ideas. I was raised in a home with few books and I have always found books to connect me with knowledge and others creativity. I am also very curious, imaginative, and crave book knowledge. I have been writing poetry and children's books for years now and I can't imagine people buying books to be in solitaire. I too have to have a book sitting on my desk or coffee table at all times. I look forward to our summer vacations on the beach so much because I know its a time I will have to indulge myself in reading without interruption. I have six children in my day care Mon-Fri, so its almost impossible to relax and read, and yet I do find the time during their naps to participate in Senior Net book discussions because again it's a way to interact with people.

Ella I live in Toledo Ohio near the Michigan line, I would love to one day get together with you and others for a book lunch. What fun that would be. Okay.. I gotta run to go to my grand daughter's basketball game so I hope to check back in later.

--- in Message 128 asked, if I had read the Caro Biography of LBJ. I have only the one volume of the series, "Master of the Senate." I have never read its 1300 plus pages from beginning to end. It is simply much too detailed and academic. I have read parts of it for research on specific events in which LBJ was involved. I have used material from it in several Senior's Net discussion.

John's cousin gave John a copy of Master of the Senate. Both have read it. John says it was fascinating - but he said he learned much more about the workings of the Senate than he did about LBJ. We haven't had the first volume, and I don't think Caro has finished the third.

Whoops! I was describing myself and attributing my personality or my character to others and that was a mistake. I am a solitary person, I love solitude and quiet. I do have friends, not too many, and I do participate in some activities, not too many. I love to read. Due to recent cataract surgery reading is more of a strain on my eyes than it used to be; still I read, slowly.

JEAN stated that LBJ was an "action person, one who prefers doing physical things rather than intellectual."

Are we all agreed on that?

Would you like to have a long lunch with LBJ? Or would you prefer JFK. Betcha I know the answer. Would we learn more if we had a long lunch with Nixon, that is if we could get him to talk to us?

Nixon has written six books (maybe more?) beginning with a 1967 book entitled SIX CRISES and his last book VICTORY WITHOUT WAR, written in 1999.

JFK wrote PROFILES IN COURAGE which won a Pulitizer. Did he write it alone does anyone know? Also did he write his inaugural address alone? Just curiousity.

LBJ, as far as I know, wrote nothing. This, of course, does not mean he was not capable, but............ I have an idea his memoirs would be absolutely fascinating

Where did HATS go? I wanted to tell her to look in the Index for the page number of the Kennedy Center description. BELLMARIE, did you go there when you were in Washington, D.C.? I've watched the honor ceremonies on TV when I catch them, but I wonder if it is truly a cultural addition to the capitol city.

And I was hoping someone would comment on the "ignorance of the past" and the "progress of today and tomorrow." All questionable.

Morrow takes us on a journey into the past, so let's learn a little. Perhaps you already have studied British history and know more about this than I do, but I looked up Lord Byron and Lord Melbourne, men whom JFK admired.

LM seems to enjoy writing about men who have double faces or double personalities; first he gives us LBJ - a man of generosity and greed - and then JFK who he states is a double-faced man alternating Tom Sawyer with Lord Byron.

Lord Byron

Lord Melbourne

The two had a few sexual escapades in their lives:

"The life of Byron has been the source of endless anecdotes, from his own time to ours. His character, wit, and charm were impressed upon virtually everyone who met him. Beyond the opinions of others, however, one can know Byron on a personal level - through the letters and journals which chronicle every aspect of his life in his own words."

See any similarity?

Our Puritan heritage, I think, is still lingering and we do not like to hear of such sexual scandals in our elected officials.

Lord Byron had a club foot that some biographers have taken to be a wound associated in Kennedy's mind with his own physical ailments. However it didn't stop either Kennedy or Byron from their pleasurable pursuits:

"Byron, partly by his own openly dissolute life and partly by the influence of licentious verse, earned a worldwide reputation for immorality among English-speaking people. A man who outraged the laws of our Divine Lord, and whose treatment of women violated the Christian principles of purity and honor, should not be commemorated in Westminster Abbey."

I think he was later entombed there. We did better with JFK in death.

Ella post #138...JFK wrote PROFILES IN COURAGE which won a Pulitizer. Did he write it alone does anyone know? Also did he write his inaugural address alone? Just curiousity.

Here area few different opinions on who wrote or helped write Pofiles In Courage:

While recuperating in 1955 from an operation to repair a spinal problem, one of the many serious and often extremely painful illnesses that plagued him from childhood until his death, he wrote Profiles in Courage (1956). The book dealt with American political leaders who defied public opinion to vote according to their consciences; for this work (later revealed to have been written in part by Theodore Sorensen and others) he received the Pulitzer Prize.

Profiles in Courage. Kennedy's testimonial on behalf of eight political leaders' tests of conscience earns the Pulitzer Prize as well as attention for the budding politician and future president. Later reports indicates that Kennedy's friend and adviser Theodore Sorensen is the book's actual author.

During his convalescence he wrote Profiles in Courage (1956), a series of essays on courageous stands taken by U.S. senators throughout U.S. history. It won the 1957 Pulitzer Prize for biography.

http://www.answers.com/topic/john-f-kennedy

I have not found the site as yet on where I read one article stated there was some belief that Bobby Kennedy was the author of his Inaugural speech.

I have to say personally that if John Kennedy was not the actual author and there was indeed someone else, we will never know unless that person came forward and acknowledged their part. There are just too many references that are conflicting to take away the credibility of the author not being JFK. Its easy to write what someone believes is true but without absolute proof its irresponsible journalism, reporting and writing. Journalism 101 Be certain you can back it up with reliable sources to prove the credibility and truth in your work.

Ella, re the Kennedy Center...John's cousins live in the DC area, and I know they go to events - plays and concerts - at the Kennedy Center. So I'd guess it is pretty well used.

The following seems to reflect the accuracy of Kennedy's authorship of his inaugural address.

Kennedy's Inaugural Address:

He wanted his address to be short and clear—devoid of any partisan rhetoric and focused on foreign policy. He began constructing the speech in late November, working with friends and advisers. While his colleagues submitted ideas, the speech was distinctly the work of Kennedy himself. Aides recount that every sentence was worked, reworked, and reduced. It was a meticulously crafted piece of oratory that dramatically announced a generational change in the White House and called on the nation to combat “tyranny, poverty, disease, and war itself.”

http://www.usnews.com/usnews/documents/docpages/document_page91.htm

Ella:

11. The example of "miracles" given by LM in describing DDT is just one of many in recent years that have been proven false. Can you name any others? Is science a dangerous pursuit? Should the government be promoting it by giving grants?

and

And I was hoping someone would comment on the "ignorance of the past" and the "progress of today and tomorrow." All questionable.

With regard to DDT which was banned in 1973 by Nixon, Rachel Carson warned the world of possible bad effects coming out of scientific research. Malathion was substituted to use in sprays against disease-bearing mosquitoes. Malaria is a devastating disease, has been so for many years - where swamps and high humidity provide a fertile ground for mosquitoes. It is indeed fortunate that a vaccine against this illness is being developed. Mosquitoes are also known to carry encephalitis and yellow fever and other ailments.

A new discussion about DDT is going on now regarding its use as a spray upon the interiors of walls in the houses in hot tropical areas in order to keep out malaria-laden mosquitoes.

Other instances of limitations in newly-developed substances have occurred in the use of silicone breast implants, ( recently re-instated), and Vioxx, for pain which may have caused heart failure in susceptible individuals.

Science is not a dangerous pursuit. Thinking of "Science" as primarily incorporating the studies of all the physical, biological, technological and sociological disciplines it is a necessary pursuit. Protocols for procedures have and are being developed and there are controlled studies being conducted in all fields. The results have encouraged and described advances in knowledge in general, improved the quality of life for people, and permitted this knowledge to be distributed and learned by people.

The government should be promoting scientific discovery by way of grants wherever and whenever possible.

There are always caveats, but in the space of this forum it is not possible to separate points in a detailed way.



I could not find in Chapter Two the place mentioning "ignorance of the past" nor "the progress of today and tomorrow". I may be looking in the wrong pages.

In the context of Morrow's writing, I think he develops the idea that during the tenure of these three presidents there occurred somewhat different and exciting - alarming to some people - revelations of certain facts regarding human and animal behavior. I think, as I remember the times, that there was a burst of psychological references and explanations appearing in public discourse. Suddenly, there could be heard phrases stating that people did not know these things before, but now with the completion of these studies and their conclusions, progress can continue to occur in these fields.

In my opinion, this planet of ours holds mysteries yet to be learned. In this sense, there is no other way but to move forward. We may revisit the past, but knowing what is known now there can only be improvements and growth upon what is already known. I think it is instinctive for people to be curious, to wonder and to discover.

Merijo post#142 Thank you for that article on Kennedy's speech.

I personally feel there have been people who hated Kennedy so much that they used their writing of articles and books to take away his accomplishments in life and to concentrate heavily on his mistakes and sexual activities. It does not surprise me we will find many articles that will state that he did not write his book or speech.

Yes, I am a huge admirer of JFK and the Camelot years, for me personally as a young person back then it made the White House, President and his family more touchable. Seeing all the beautiful pictures of their wedding, their children, JFK smiling, my very favorite of John John crawling under the desk in the oval office while John was working, and him standing at salute of the horse drawn casket will always stay vivid in my mind. I am a bit of a romantic and I loved seeing the human side to this President. I don't fault him for his fortunate family wealth however it was gained. I have read many books on JFK and Jackie, I am aware of all his infidelities and I do know she was aware of them also. Jackie came from a family who had formed her to marry someone of political status. She was not naive, but of course it does not excuse his behavior. She held a certain amount of power in her knowledge from working at a Publishing company, she held grace and beauty that captivated the dignitaries at the dinner table. They seemed like a perfect couple for each other to attain what they wanted in life....Success, spouse, family, fashion, and a bit of stardom.

I feel JFK accomplished more in his short period of about 1,000 days then many Presidents have in two terms, yet Morrow finds talking about his private life more entertaining. Morrow has spent more pages on the comparisons of John's personality to people in the movies and books that he could find to contrast his behaviors, which is more than I feel is necessary. He repeats so much of all three of these men's personality and character traits to the point of boredom for me. He gives us so little details of their accomplishments. I suppose he feels we could easily go to the history books to read them. This book does not have a balance for any of these three men.

While I find this book interesting and it has raised many fantastic discussion pieces I am nearing the end and still I would describe it as a lot of fluff and little facts.

BELLEMARIE, yes, I agree that a good title for this book would be IN MY OPINION. All good books of history have the author's opinion in them I think. How else could they write for the layman to read? Would we read books that list facts and dates? No, and that is all that the historian can usually find in his research unless it is letters and tapes and eye witnesses, which, of course, Morrow has stated occasionally. See the author's NOTE ON SOURCES in the back of the book and the Bibliography. Plus the author had personal experiences with all three of these men; that also is listed in the Note of Sources. But, truly, this is a book of his opinion after reading innumerable sources and drawing upon his own associations.

"knowing what is known now there can only be improvements and growth upon what is already known.

We do think that don't we, MERIJO. I would hope so, but what we have done to the environment by our "improvements and growth" leave me questioning progress.

IT IS TIME TO MOVE ON TO the THE NIXONS OF CALIFORNIA in Chapter Two.

Perhaps we spent too much time on Kennedy, there is much to discuss with the other two and their families.

Nixon and his Mother; Nixon and God. You have probably read, as I have, accounts of very religious parents who impose their beliefs on their children who when grown, rebel against them, but retain their fear of God. LM suggests this was true of Nixon and the fact that he mentioned his mother in his farewell adress, calling her a saint, implies that his early life was still ingrained in his mind and spirit.

This is very sad, no, tragic is a better word:

President Nixon's farewell speech to his staff

What do you think about the speech after reading it again?

Did you notice that he mentioned his poor economic status and I remember his Checkers speech when he did the same thing. An attempt to get sympathy or, at least, to be remembered as a common man on equal footing with most Americans.

What do you think of that speech? And his comment about his father whom LM states was "God the thunderer."

Interview with Barack Obama on 60 Minutes tonight

And the smear campaign begins - so soon. But, as we are talking about the bad (with good) points of three presidents, I like what Obama has to say:

"I think one of the things about national politics is this attempt to airbrush your life, it's exhausting, right, you know. I think it's just a lot easier to say, "This is who I am. This is where I've come from." You know, if we have problems in this campaign, I suspect it's not going to be because of mistakes I've made in the past. I think it's going to be mistakes that I make in the future."

It will be his whole life past and present.

Ella:

Thanks for the links to the speeches.

The comment I made regarding building upon the knowledge we know, I particularly am aware of it, as less formidable medicines, recently developed for cancer treatment, are offered in place of far more traumatic ones. Patients can respond with less difficulty and doctors are seeing more progress.

I am hopeful about the environment as I live in a country town and see all that can be done to restore lands that have been devastated by the lengthy freeze of January 2007. It was nineteen days long and temperatures fell to the teens. Land is being cleared, and the oranges have been held for reexamination to see which ones may be saved. The lemons are lost because their sugar content is too low to sustain the health of the fruit during a freeze.

In my own garden, the flowering quince is blooming beautifully and tulips are poking up through the leaf mulch.

All sorts of measures have been implemented here in California to preserve the environment. For example: The brand new University of California at Merced (north of me) relocated its huge campus buildings in order to preserve the environment of the tiny, transparent fairy shrimp growing in freshwater pools on campus.

I am truly liking this book by Morrow. It reads very fast, and as I lived through that era I am reminded of my own impressions of the three men. I think I wasn't too off the mark on Johnson and Nixon, but of Kennedy I had not paid much attention because I had three kids in high school about that time, and at the beginning of his term we as a family were also hosting a fourth student, a foreign exchange high school student from Ecuador for a year.

Ella:

You have asked some wonderful questions. Here are some of my answers which may be out of numerical order

About "class": I think "class" as used here refers to a certain manner of behavior - "elan" "savoir faire" easy good manners, possibly without self-consciousness, appropriate speech.

About sexual behaviors: Kennedy would never have been reprimanded or censured for his sexual behavior unless he broke an explicit law in a very public manner. Sexual peccadilloes seemed to have been part of the environment - probably still is.

About parents: An early environment whether one likes the idea or not does provide a conditioning to certain behavior. I don't know whether voters should attempt to interpret the effects of one's early upbringing. Each person is different and has different experiences. If that were done there would exist too much exclusivity. One should be concerned with a candidate's response in his/her current office or prior ones dealing with the public, I think.

About George Marshall: He was a very fine man, very exemplary, cool-headed and certainly a talented and intelligent statesman. He developed the blueprint for saving and restoring Europe. He may have been a good president. That will forever be an unknown.

I want to give more thought to your other points. I may go on too long here, and it would be good to know what our colleagues here think.

Ella, thank you for the link to the speech.

I have to say after reading it I dislike this man more then I thought possible. That speech is rather pitiful. There is no mention of his disappointment to the American people. He addresses the staff, and the people who worked with and for him but no where do I see him say to the American people who voted him into office he is sorry to have let them down.

"Always give your best, never get discouraged, never be petty; always remember, others may hate you, but those who hate you don't win unless you hate them, and then you destroy yourself."

What is he rambling on about in this? He has committed illegal acts and is resigning to avoid impeachment and yet talks as if he is trying to give advice as though he is someone people would look up to. HE would know about destroying himself, he did just that. Could it be the very hatred he had for others that ultimately motivated him to commit such corruption?

He let his staff, and workers down, he let the American people down, he let the country down and NO where does he mention or acknowledge this and have remorse and express sorrow. What a sad day it was and what a sad man. He was truly in my opinion the beginning of the downfall of the American people losing faith and respect for the Presidency.

Were his parents still living when he shamed the nation and their family name?

Why would anyone write a book about his Mother?

I think every child sees something in their Mother as sainthood, I certainly did in mine and my three children have told me many times, "Mom you are a saint for going through what all you have." (Which I won't go into>)

I have a problem with even discussing his mother and where she may have done wrong in how she would stare at him and give him the talks of shame as a child. How does anyone interpret that into the implications of a woman who put such fear into her son that it may have caused him to grow up with this dark, secretive, corruptive character and personality? To me its a far stretch of the imagination. Its so Freudian to look back and blame the mother if the child grows up to be corruptive or a failure, or blame the wealthy, or the spoiled, or the father who was never there, or was there but lost the family fortune or didn't make a family fortune. It can go on and on endlessly.

I never spanked my sons who are now successful, happy, and moral grown men, I gave stern talks to them and we were and are a very religious family. Is this not a better form of discipline then spanking?

As Dr. Phil would say and I have to agree, "Where is his ownership?"

He was a grown man, he knew what he was doing was wrong and illegal. He should have been grateful he was not being sent to prison instead of being able to resign and be given a pardon later. No remorse, and no acknowledgment leads me to believe the only thing he was sorry for is he got caught. His speech in my opinion is full of wanting sympathy, did he deserve it? A tragedy indeed.

Ah yes I remember it well. I had a night economics Course at the Trinity downtown Campus. I parked my car along Broadway just north of the main San Antonio downtown business district and was walking along Broadway making my way toward the office building where the downtown classes were held. When passing a Western Auto store I noticed that a display TV was set-up in the Window with Nixon just beginning his speech. I stopped to listen.

In particularly I remember the bit about Pat’s respectable Republican Cloth coat in contrast to the mink coats gifts of Washington pressure groups worn by the wives of prominent Democrats. And of course the end, the clincher ending,the gift of Checkers the black and white cocker spaniel pup that come what may the Nixon’s would not give-up. Actually when I first heard the words “Republican cloth coat,” perhaps it was the poor audio quality through the window, but I heard it as “Republican croft coat.” Initially I was puzzled as to exactly what kind of coat it was, but after a moment I came to the obvious conclusion that it was a cloth coat.

I was still a Democrat then, and definitely voted for Adlai Stevenson. Reflecting back I really doubt that the world today would have been much different had Stevenson instead of Ike serve as president those two terms.

Ella:

Last night, I remembered that you had directed my attention to the idea of progress Morrow described as being toward the end of the "Johnsons of Texas." I did not address this correctly going off on a completely different tack.

I recall that at the time I read it I felt a twinge of something being wrong about Morrow's notion so I have gone back and read it again:

Two basic and contrary patterns are at work in the way people look at the idea of progress. One is the Ancient Greek conception of a golden age past. The other is the West's idea. since the Enlightenment, that the past is a kind of ignorant darkness and the present represents the ever-advancing progress of human knowledge and understanding as they approach some future perfection.

I find that I differ from Morrow here in his analysis. Historically, Ancient Greece initiated the thought of a democracy and the rights of the individual. These are concepts that with many starts and stops continued through the days of Rome into medieval times to 1215 when King John of England was forced to sign the Magna Carta, the first written document citing western civilization's concept of individual freedoms and the notion of democratic rule - even if a monarch was present.

Historically, Eastern Orthodoxy and Islamic rule supported the concept of absolute rule by an individual. No individual rights or a notion of democracy could be found in the countries east of Greece.

In recent years some Middle Eastern countries have had to struggle with the concept of democracy and individual freedoms although publicly declaring themselves as granting individual rights. For example, Egypt and Pakistan have struggled. Afghanistan is coping with the rise, again, of the Taliban suppressing education and destroying schools.

With regard to the Enlightenment - this was a phenomenon of the eighteenth century, but I cannot see Morrow's justification in stating that the West's idea of progress began with that movement. It was, indeed, a strong movement preceded by discoveries in physics and prompting the belief that reason was uppermost in understanding the universe. But, there had been many years of events and discoveries leading up to it. It has had a pronounced influence, but only in the sequence of history.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Age_of_Enlightenment

THANK YOU ALL FOR YOUR POSTS, THEY ARE SO INSIGHTFUL AND GIVE ME MUCH TO THINK ABOUT.

Nixon gives us all so much to think about.

"Its so Freudian to look back and blame the mother if the child grows up to be corruptive or a failure, or blame the wealthy, or the spoiled, or the father who was never there, or was there but lost the family fortune or didn't make a family fortune. It can go on and on endlessly."

Yes, Yes, BELLEMARIE, I agree - too easy. One has to take responsibility for one's own choices in life.

Nixon’s life was in many ways pathetic, wasn't it, but from all we read about the man he was very intelligent, an excellent lawyer - such a strange man though. I think LM describes him well: “an intensely private and disciplined and self-conscious man. He held himself back physically from other people. He had a fastidiousness, a bodily reticence………”

You sensed that in him when you saw him speak on TV.

Would he have considered his life a “comedy” or a “tragedy.” Which one do you think best fits him?

Hi HAROLD; Thanks for continuing with our group in spite of not having the book. Much of it is history – our history! And I remember watching the Checkers speech on TV also, I don’t remember my reaction to it except I was surprised at his reference to a “cloth coat.” My coats have always been spring or winter coats, light or heavy, black, white or brown coats, new or old, and I never thought of them as “cloth coats.” But, of course, they were, I’ve never had or wanted a fur coat. I would look like a bear in one and where would I wear it???? To the grocery? Hahahaaaa

Thanks so much, MERIJO, for answering some of my questions. Your description of "class" is right on - ""savoir faire" easy good manners, possibly without self-consciousness, appropriate speech."

Who had it? Not Nixon, although he wanted it.

Not LBJ, who didn’t care, he was from Texas, who needed it?

But JFK, yes, definitely. And he defined it. Did it matter to him? It must have, he grew up with a father who worked hard for it, succeeded, got it with his fortune and treasured it. That desire must have rubbed off on JFK, but he had a natural talent for it also.

We will all be watching the presidential candidates and will we pick out those with “class” as winners or can we look beyond it? I don't know. From what I see of Barack Obama, he has it.

------------------------------------

I can’t wait to get your comments on the chapter – FROM SOCIETY OF NECESSITY TO SOCIETY OF CHOICE.

It was one of the best chapters in the book in my opinion. This paragraph in particular gives one pause:

”Choice, to be sure, is freedom-freedom of choice-but there does come a moment in advanced material societies when what had seemed to be a wonderful freedom of choice would begin to look like no choice at all: a globalized coercion toward standard and not very interesting products franchised and distributed worldwide.”

sorry to have been such a poor participant in this discussion. When i signed up i tho't " oh good, nothing much is happening in Feb, this will be perfect!" Famous last words! I've had company for 4 days and then my book group met here yesterday...........i'll try to catch up....you all are writing such interesting posts.......jean

Oh my! so much to comment on

Class! I agree w/ Merijo's definition - i would have said someone who is comfortable anywhere and knows how to behave in different environments and makes others comfortable also. Nixon always looked uncomfortable and i'll bet anyone around him was generally uncomfortable. I wish i knew what Pat Nixon saw in him.....it did take him awhile to convince her to get married. I always saw her as so sad.....but he said that about her eyes also.....i think after being married to him, she must have been even more sad.

Ella, i don't remember where you live, but having a fur or a down coat in our northern, cold climates can be very smart. Those animals know how to keep warm. Walking on the streets of a city, or being out in the cold can make one very appreciative of the hides or feathers of animals. I know wearing fur is not politically correct any more, but i have a fox jacket that my husband bo't for me decades ago and i still wear it everywhere in cold and windy weather. I always felt i wouldn't "have anywhere to wear" a full length mink, but this jacket goes everywhere - to football games, grocery shopping, out for an evening in the city.....now my dgt wears it as often as she can get it...LOL

I must agree w/ LM about the beginning of material choice in the late 40's, i don't know if i would pin-point it to 1948, but certainly the late 40's brought a major social change in the country. I characterize the 50's for my students w/ the four C's: cold war, consumerism, children and conformity - the seeds to the 60's. And they all had their seeds in the later 40's. And i loved that he talked about the Levittowns - an amazing unique and timely idea. I also liked the use of the Capehart/Wurlizer juke box as an example of the consumer choices that exploded after WWII. Now, whether that has anything to do w/ the three presidents - ??? I'm not sure i see any connection.Of course, Joe Kennedy did convince the Amer'n population that were many things that they "needed." Alcohol, film, all those things in the Chicago Merchandise Mart. Did you see anything related to that in JFK? He could certainly sell himself, and the family has sold his image since his death........

more later......jean

While reading Nixon's Checkers Speech and Barac Obama's recent interview I could not help but find some similarities I thought interesting, both had some lead in about The Smear Tactics Begin.

Checkers Speech 1952

I am sure that you have read the charges, and you have heard it, that I, Senator Nixon, took $18,000 from a group of my supporters.

And let me say that I am proud of the fact that not one of them has ever asked me for a special favor. I am proud of the fact that not one of them has ever asked me to vote on a bill other than my own conscience would dictate. And I am proud of the fact that the taxpayers by subterfuge or otherwise have never paid one dime for expenses which I thought were political and should not be charged to the taxpayers.

Barac Obama Interview: 2007

KROFT: You wrote an op-ed page piece to The Washington Post last month saying we must stop any and all practices that would lead a reasonable person to believe that a public servant has become indebted to a lobbyist.

OBAMA: Right.

KROFT: Yet, you know, it's been reported that you bought a piece of undeveloped property, a lot next to your house, on very favorable terms, from a political fundraiser named Tony Rezko, who is now currently under indictment for influence peddling.

OBAMA: Right.

KROFT: What's your relationship with him?

OBAMA: First of all, I didn't purchase the land on very favorable terms. I paid the market price, and I think everybody's acknowledged that. This was somebody who I had known since I came back from law school. He was a developer in the area, had been a supporter, had never asked me for anything, and we had never done any government business together of any sort. He purchased a lot next to the house that my wife and I bought. I offered to him to buy a small strip of his land to expand my side yard, and, you know, had it assessed and paid the market price. This was prior to his indictment. But, you know, what is absolutely true is that he was already under a cloud of suspicion on something entirely unrelated to me -- some work that he had done with the state, and it was a bone-headed decision on my part, for the reasons that I say in my op-ed, that appearances matter.

KROFT: It looked like he was trying to help you out.

OBAMA: In retrospect, there's no doubt that he thought that buying a lot next to me would be an expression of friendship. Now, as I said, I have never done any favors for him; he had never asked me for anything. I was never in a position to do anything for him, but I think it is entirely legitimate to say that I should have known better.

Nixon:

And a war in Korea in which we have lost 117,000 American casualties, and I say that those in the State Department that made the mistakes which caused that war and which resulted in those losses should be kicked out of the State Department just as fast as we can get them out of there.

Obama:

KROFT: If you were President today and given the present situation in Iraq, what would you do?

KROFT: You've introduced a bill to get the U.S. troops out of Iraq by the end of March 2008.

OBAMA: Right.

KROFT: So essentially you're acknowledging defeat?

OBAMA: Not at all, because what the bill says is that if conditions allow for success and the military can assist in creating a stable Iraqi government, then we should do so. It is acknowledging that the President's policies in Iraq have failed, that we have spent over $400 billion, over 3,000 lives, and made us less safe, and that unless we fundamentally change course in Iraq, that we're going be having this same debate two years from now, four years from now, six years from now with who knows how many more incredibly brave American soldiers dying on the battlefield.

Dear Senator Nixon,

Since I am only 19 years of age, I can't vote in this presidential election, but believe me if I could, you and General Eisenhower would certainly get my vote. My husband is in the Fleet Marines in Korea. He is in the front lines. And we have a two month old son he has never seen. And I feel confident that with great Americans like you and General Eisenhower in the White House, lonely Americans like myself will be united with their loved ones now in Korea. I only pray to God that you won't be too late. Enclosed is a small check to help you with your campaign. Living on $85 a month it is all I can do.

Folks, it is a check for $10, and it is one that I shall never cash. And let me just say this: We hear a lot about prosperity these days, but I say why can't we have prosperity built on peace, rather than prosperity built on war? Why can't we have prosperity and an honest government in Washington D.C. at the same time?

Believe me, we can. And Eisenhower is the man that can lead the crusade to bring us that kind of prosperity.

But let me just say this last word. Regardless of what happens, I am going to continue this fight. I am going to campaign up and down America until we drive the crooks and the Communists and those that defend them out of Washington, and remember folks, Eisenhower is a great man. Folks, he is a great man, and a vote for Eisenhower is a vote for what is good for America.

Richard M. Nixon - September 23, 1952

There were more similarities but I won't take up more time and energy to post. But I think my point is that although we have come so far has there really been much change in politics or Presidential campaigning? The letter Nixon read from a parent, brought to mind so many parents writing the same type of letter to President Bush today begging him to bring their loved ones home from the war in Iraq.

This process is no different today then back centuries ago, same issues, challenges and corruption. The one thing that has changed that excites me is that we now have a woman and a black man campaigning for the Presidency. It will be interesting to see in the end if this advanced country can accept either of them or will the Democratic party select the more safe choice or as someone put it a more elect able choice in the end....A White Male?

When LM speaks of progress, I can only hope our nation can and has progressed to electing outside of the "class" they have been so comfortable with in the past. We can put a man on the moon, yet can we elect a Woman or Black Man to the office of President?

Ella, thank you for the link to the Sixty Minutes interview with Barack Obama. What is class? I don't know the way "class" is defined in dictionary. When I think of "class," I think of etiquette, the ability to control our emotions. I remember a song called Sophisticated Lady played by Duke Ellington. I am not sure. Is the definition of sophisticated and class interchangeable?

I feel that whether a president has class is dependent also on his ability to control his sexual behavior. So, I wouldn't say Kennedy or Clinton had class. Perhaps, "class" is an entity we can possess and then, lose. The ownership of class is temporary, dependent on behavior. I think Reagan had class. Did Hollywood teach him "class?"

The brainchild of developer William J. Levitt, Levittown, Pennsylvania was the largest planned community constructed by a single builder in the United States. By the time it was completed in 1958, the development occupied over 5500 acres in lower Bucks County and included churches, schools, swimming pools, shopping centers and 17,311 single-family homes.

To its 70,000-plus residents, Levittown represented the American Dream of homeownership. To many others, Levittown epitomized postwar suburbia—a place often criticized but widely copied.

Bellamarie, I remember hearing about Levittown. A friend of my family worked in construction. I heard him talk about the area quite a bit. I hope my memories aren't getting tangled up. I am a native of Philadelphia. If Levittown was built in 1948, I don't know the reason my ears picked up so much about it in the family. My memory can get pretty screwy.

Hats, Welcome back we have missed you. Your question of what is class brought me to the dictionary and here is the definition of it:

Class...noun, a distinct type or category: social rank: quality, especially of manners or dress vt. to grade or rank

So for me I think when we say one person may or may not have it I would ask myself if that is a judgment or prejudice we are expressing? I think there can be many different types of "class" Lower class, Middle class and High class or Upper class. I certainly don't feel anyone's sex life would qualify them as having it or not. With all due respect, if that were the measuring stick of deciding who does or who does not have class then there would be a small group found to have class in Washington.

The Kinsey report published in 1948 pg. 142 - 143, would certainly prove there would be very few people at all considered to have class by the measure of controlling their sexual thoughts or behavior. This report was to say the least shocking to me.

Ronald Reagan had an affair and ended up divorced. Just because he was not a President at the time should not exclude him according to your idea. Elizabeth Taylor has been called a woman of class, yet look at her life. I would consider Princess Diana as being a woman with high class, yet she was not without the sin of adultery.

"Class" to me is a word used of society and prejudice. Let us not confuse class with morals. Or better yet let me ask this question:

Can a person lack in morals yet still have class? And why or why not? Does anyone else see class as a prejudice used in society?

Bellamarie, one day back and you have my mind sizzling with excitement. Thank you for the dictionary definition. I had forgotten about Reagan's affair, I think he was still married to Jane Wyman. I see your point. It is important not to mix morals with class. I do find the dictionary definition a bit unclear or vague.

In Communist countries like Cuba, people aren't separated by class, are they? Is it the Communist belief that all must share with one another, have an equal amount of goods???? Of course, if this is so, this is why the Communist countries can not come to grips with Capitalism.

I need Ella's guidance. Am I totally off subject??

Communism "A system of government in which the state plans and controls the economy and a single, often authoritarian party holds power, claiming to make progress toward a higher social order in which all goods are equally shared by the people."(answers.com)

This is a follow up to my #156 post after pondering it even more..

I thought it was very interesting to see that Nixon and Obama had the same youth, idealistic views, and naivete as they began their careers in politics. Each of them had already found themselves in questionable behaviors of dealing with individuals looking for special favors from them once in the position to make it possible. A deal was not asked for or promised but I think the silence in accepting the favor speaks volume. Like Obama said, he would be more inclined to answer their phone call if they had donated to his campaign.

Does politics corrupt the man or is the man already corrupt?

Each of them voiced letting the voters decide if they are seasoned enough and deserving of being on the ticket.

They each had a war going on that they wanted to see come to an end.

I read on CNN last night Obama has already had to apologize for as he put it "A slip of the tongue" for saying our 3,000+ troops who have died in Iraq were wasted lives. He has already said it was not good judgment to purchase the land from Rezo who is under investigation. Does his hindsight and apologies make it excusable? He is showing his youth and inexperience already and he has just begun.

He is using the slogan, "New Generation" for his campaign, meaning he is NOT a baby boomer and it's time to pass the torch.

Are we ready to pass the torch to the next generation who are not in the baby boomer generation? Is the next generation ready for the torch to passed on to them?

I am a late baby boomer and now I can appreciate what the older Americans were thinking when JFK used the New Generation in his plight.

My husband was born in 1948 and is contemplating retirement, I look at Obama's "New Generation" signs and I feel a sense of sadness to think our Generation is about to become the Old Generation. It brings me to think the baby boomers are actually going to have to trust in the New Generation to be ready to take on the huge tasks of protecting our Constitution and Country. The congress and senate are full of baby boomers and should a young man such as Obama be elected to the office could he successfully work with the Older Generation?

Are the large majority of the American population Baby Boomers and are they ready to vote in a New Generation? hmmm let me think ...that would be a NO vote from this baby boomer.

What are all your thoughts?

OH, GOLLY, FOLKS! IT'S BAD HERE IN OHIO and this is the first year I have lived alone and wouldn't you know all this terrible weather has to show up. I've called the builder of my condo to find out what I do if the electricity goes off, what do I know???? But he was so kind and I feel more confident I can handle that aspect of widowhod, I don't want frozen pipes.

HAPPY VALENTINE'S DAY

Oh, what a day. Our road into our rather isolated condos has not been plowed for two days and we have mountains of snow and ice out there. Maybe today? And I threw away my old boots intending to get a new pair!!! I'm chuckling about that!!!

THANK YOU, BELLEMARIE, for telling everyone about our weather.

TEA AND SILENCE! You are just precious!

ALL OF YOU ARE FOR CONTINUING THE CONVERSATION - IT'S SO INTERESTING AND I'LL BE BACK LATER FOR COMMENTS. KEEP IT UP!

Don't any of you miss the little Mom 'n Pop stores we used to have, the ones that sometimes stuck in a few stools and had sandwiches? Aren't you tired of what LM describes as a "die-off of the local, the disstinctive, the tasty." "The proliferating lifelessnes of the standard."

Is your hometown doing anything about it?

I'll be back later today; meanwhile again THANK YOU for your interest and your remarks!

Now where did I put the tea bags?

I'm starting to read your comments and I see that you have addressed the issue of "conformity" so disregard my last post. I think it "smacked" me in the face when I read LM's chapter because I have been thinking this way for the past decades and it just gets worse, more franchises, more stores merging into one. We soon will have little freedom of choice as LM states.

"To say that the world faces conflicts of civilization is true; but the essence of the conflict lies deeper, in the profligate energies of societies of choice confronting the radical indignation of societies of necessity.

That is worth repeating. Back later............

On Sunday my book group was in a discussion of Hillary v Obama when the issue of "new generation" arose. One woman tho't that the Baby Boomers would be more trusting of the new generation than our parents were of the younger generation. She stated that baby boomers don't think they are the "older generation" they think they are young also and relate more to the next generation then baby boomers parents did to them. I tended to agree. The parents of the 60's kids saw them as rebels - now i have to throw in here what i say to my college students......that only a small percentage of the 60's generation were doing all the radical things we see in the videos of the 60's - but we all think of those as symbolic of the atmosphere of the times. I think that baby boomer parents and their children may be more in sync then i was w/ my parents........what do you think?

Hats - the Levittown in Bucks County - the first one - was in 1948, but Levitt continued to build other Levittowns, including the one in South Jersey that is now called Willingboro. That may be the one you remember - or the one on Long Island that got a lot of publicity for being a segregated community - excluding Blacks and Jews. After all the publicity about segregation in the Pa one, Levittown in Burlington County changed it's name back to the small town it had been - ironically - Willingboro, almost implying that they were willing to integrate. The most fascinating thing for me about L-towns was the way they were built. It was an assembly line of houses on the street. All parts were pre-fab, the framers came and moved from lot to lot putting up the structure, the glazers went from house to house putting in the windows, the painters came, the linoleum got laid, the cabinets were installed, each group of skilled workers moving from one house to the next. I believe i heard in a documentary that eight houses were built each day..........jean

I characterize the 50's for my students w/ the four C's: cold war, consumerism, children and conformity”

That’s good, that’s excellent, Jean, what grade do you teach? It all started about the same decade as our three presidents were gathering steam in their careers. Of course, there was no way to stop any of it and except for the cold war (although Putin is getting a very bad press lately) it's continuing. But what do you mean by the reference to "children?

Bellemarie, that is so insightful to make the comparisons between Nixon and Obama. But, golly, I can’t believe that this young man, this idealistic young man, can ever make the same mistakes that Nixon did – EVER! His personality, for one thing, is so very different, he’s open, he’s gracious, he’s truthful about his past mistakes. If Nixon or Clinton had ever admitted their mistakes it would have made the difference in the way history treats them. I know we can look at the two of them in hindsight; whereas, Obama is just beginning.

Let's hope he learns from the past. I saw Hillary speaking in MA and (it's just a personal opinion) I would compare her to Nixon, strictly on performance. LM's description of Nixon - private, disciplined, reticent, uptight, shrewd, intelligent, calculating (some of those I stuck in there) would apply to her as well.

None of those qualities would prevent me from voting for her, however.

Where can we find a George Marshall?

As Bellemarie said - "The one thing that has changed that excites me is that we now have a woman and a black man campaigning for the Presidency. It will be interesting to see in the end if this advanced country can accept either of them or will the Democratic party select the more safe choice or as someone put it a more elect able choice in the end....A White Male?"

HEY HATS! Stay with us - we have much to discuss yet. Communism, Marxism, words that were with us during 50 years of the cold war and the World War before then. We don't talk about those systems of government much anymore. It seems capitalism has gained on the world in some parts - and others? Let's not go there.....

Yes, it is time to go on to Chapter Three and I will post the questions for it ASAP.

Hello Jean, I just read your post. You and Bellemarie both have brought up the question of the baby boomers and how they feel about being the "older" generation as opposed to the "new" generation.

Let's talk about it. My daughter is a baby boomer, I'll ask her tonight how she feels. If her generation is the "older" one, then my generation is what? The "oldest?"

Well, of course, it's a matter of pride, who wants to be the older generation, but Bellemarie mentioned her husband was thinking of retiring, my daughter is thinking of it. Remarks such as these lead one to believe that it is true; the baby boomers do not have the prestige that title brought to them. However, certainly some candidate will come up with a better slogan than the "New Generation." That's boring.

During the years that Kennedy, Johnson and Nixon were presidents, I was having a very busy time. I have been especially pleased to read about those years here in Morrow's book. I feel as though I touched base with Washington's antics just sporadically during those years.

I did recognize the changes that occurred in our country that Morrow speaks about even though I lived in a mostly rural area of California. I noticed the changes in the attitudes of the public toward authority, toward earlier concepts of patriotism and loyalty and toward history. It was disturbing and sad. It could be seen as a somewhat permanent condition beginning.

It was affecting children at a very young age. They seemed to be more agitated and restless or very tired much of the time. I was teaching first grade at the time, and my colleagues and I would discuss the changes we were noticing.

As Morrow states,It is interesting that it was in the era of the three presidents, Kennedy, Johnson, and Nixon, that amid the crises of the Vietnam War, the civil rights movement, and women's liberation many Americans repudiated its supposedly heroic and glorious past. The myth of the West was bunk. The real heroes were those Comanches, not the genocidal whites who had come to steal the Native Americans' lands and kill off their buffalo. John Wayne (who played the Johnson brothers and other men like them in the movie versions of the myths) was the sort of monster of machismo whose sham heroics in The Sands of Iwo Jima had been playing in the minds of naive American boys when they went off to Vietnam to murder peasants.

It was in the presidencies of the three that the American myth pivoted on its axis until the side that had been bathed in sunlight became dark.

Oh, dear, I don't mean to be here all day, hahahaaaa

I came to Seniornet for another reason but had to peek in here. MERIJO, what an idea:

"It was affecting children at a very young age. They seemed to be more agitated and restless or very tired much of the time. I was teaching first grade at the time, and my colleagues and I would discuss the changes we were noticing."

What do you attribute that to today? Today the increase in children taking Ritalin is disturbing to me. Is this a permanent condition also? Can we reverse the trend you speak of?

We don't need for me to post questions - they are here.

My book is at the library - I'll pick it up tomorrow.

Re Jean's "4 Cs of the 50s", and about children: I was having children during the 1950's (56, 57, 59, and 61). So our kids are younger boomers. That's an interesting thought about the boomers resenting the "next generation" who are wanting to take over. I'm quite sure the boomers don't feel that they are even remotely old enough to be considered "old" and to be pushed out.

When I posted Obama using the slogan "New Generation" and him stating that meant he was NOT a baby boomer. In no way in my post did I mean to imply the baby boomers would or do resent the younger generation or feel they are being pushed out. The baby boomers are truly more in touch and relate so much more openly and informatively with their children and even their grandchildren then our parents ever did with us. When I was a child and I am certain all you 50 and over will remember the saying was, "Children are to be seen and not heard." The baby boomers are just the opposite, we want our children to be heard, we want our children to share their thoughts and feelings with us and you will see the country has more confident, informed and outspoken candidates because of it.

I have admiration and respect for the younger generation and welcome their participation in politics, after all its their children, grandchildren and their senior citizen parents who will benefit in the future years to come.

Also, When I showed the similarities of the Checkers speech and Obama's interview PLEASE do NOT even consider I was implying Obama could be another Nixon. My only point of interest was to show how when a politician begins his career and campaign they have such youth, idealism and naivete. I was thinking of how when they begin they have so much promise and how politics can and do corrupt the best of them. I personally like Obama and am excited to see if he can successfully win the democratic ticket. That being said, I also like Hilary Clinton and I do not see any of the qualities that were posted about her. I find her warm, exciting, a hard worker, experienced and a people person. Nothing dark about her, She has been on Oprah, and The View and is very warm and friendly. Nothing whatsoever like the Nixon that LM describes in this book.

HAPPY VALENTINES' DAY TO ALL!!

Ella:

Morrow points out the cultural changes that were taking place. Ritalin was starting to be given to little children in the early seventies as I recall. Parents would tell us as their little ones were considered to be hyperactive.

The general consensus among us teachers was speculative. It was a new experience for us, but we had noticed that some of the parents had been recently divorced or recently remarried, some had been on drugs and some parents were both working. Some worked at two jobs, and some were going to school. One parent was working nights or a later shift so the other could go to school or stay home. The children were staying with sitters, grandparents, aunts, or in nursery school or a kind of day care. Day care was an incipient industry in the sixties.

If one analyzes the above all those family settings are pretty disruptive, disorderly, unsettling and would affect children, some more than others.

I had the experience of a cute little boy with freckles all over his face and a nice smile and demeanor coming back to school after Christmas with the startling announcement that his mother had married a man wih eight children and now there were a lot of people in the house. His behavior changed and the following year I learned that he had become a discipline problem.

Ella: With regard to your question about whether we will be able to reverse the trend, I think that it will gradually reverse itself although not in the sense of going back to the fifties. I think there has been an increased awareness of social needs, and many parents are most interested in managing their time so as to spend much of it with their families - more so than in the past.

We have already had two baby boomers as president - Clinton and G. W. Bush.

(I had two war babies and one baby boomer - my youngest was born in the same year as Clinton and Bush, 1946 - the first year of the boom babies. There were so many babies in the hospital that I was on the medical floor instead of the maternity floor!!) He is very vocal about the government and the times!

BELLEMARIE states that The baby boomers are just the opposite, we want our children to be heard, we want our children to share their thoughts and feelings with us and you will see the country has more confident, informed and outspoken candidates because of it.

We have heard from two of them. Both presidents. Both confident, informed and outspoken.

Baby boomers. They started the trend, as MERIJO reminds us, of easy divorces, both parents working, day care centers (have you noticed they are franchised now and beautiful?), drugs and disturbed children.

My generation of parents struggled in their marriages to stay together (right or wrong), the mothers took care to be at home when the children were and sent them out to play away from TV and computers, never heard of drugs to keep children quiet, and watched the baby boom generation in amazement and oftimes envy!

NEW QUESTIONS IN HEADING.

WE ARE AU COURANT!

THE HISTORY CHANNEL, ACCORDING TO MY PAPER, IS HAVING A DOCUMENTARY ON PRESIDENT NIXON TONIGHT AT 8 p.m. EST. There is a review of the program, sad!

I teach history at a community college, so my students range in age from 18 to 75. The "children" in my 4 C's of the 50's alludes to a fact that some of you obviously experienced - there were a lot of them being born in the 50's and the society began to focus on them, attention was given to children in a way that had not been true previously in history. I also talk about the 50's as the seeds to the 60's. Many political and cultural events of the 60's/70's came about because of the large number of young people and the attention they were given: rock and roll being a great example; the Civil Rts movement was motivated by the young - sit-in participants were almost entirely college students and were the first major civ rts demonstrations. Of course, the drug culture, the anti-war movement, the environmental movement all largely made up of those "children" from the 50's. The emphasis on conformity that their parents had foisted on them got turned on it's head in the 60's/70's. The consumerism - "keeping up w/ the Jones," making money, Dad working long hours - Remember the book "The ORganiztion Man," the movie "Man in the Gray Flannel Suit," both discussing the new corporation man - and it was "man." The stereotypical 60's young adults rebelled against that image, a la communes, etc.

Interestingly, our three presidents were of the previous generation and LBJ and RMN responded as the "parents," trying to keep control. Remember "law and order?" Spiro AGnew attacking the press and the young people? Many of those reporters were baby boomers, especially those in Viet Nam.

Ella asks: "Many of our past presidents have had "hardscrabble" lives growing up. How does this affect a man/woman and does it make for better character." - I don't know if that fact alone makes for better character, but it was rather appalling to have GHW Bush not know how to shop for socks - i think that has more importance than just the act itself, it speaks to being waaaayyy out of touch w/ most of the country. JUst as JFK was protected from the poverty of the country..........

interesting comments.....more later.......jean

JEAN, what a challenge to teach a class with such disparate ages. I'm bursting with questions, but I'd like you to tell us how they differ in a history class.

IMHO society's attention is still focused on the young or I should the teenagers. am I right do you think?

"Trying to control" - a phrase that was used in last night's program in describing Nixon; a program I think would be of benefit to every presidential candidate. I learned a few new things about the man and some of the comments were enlightening.

To understand Nixon you have to look at where he grew up, his childhood.

Nixon promised an honorable end to Vietnam.

Halderman often made his own decisions about the erratic proposals of Nixon.

Nixon believed in the imperial presidency.

Nixon was flown to Camp David after the Kent State riots for his own protection. He was "on the edge" - had gone two days without sleep.

The encounter at the Lincoln memorial with a group of students.

There were 3700 hours of tape recordings from the oval office.

Kissinger was portrayed as a "dark confidant."

The trip to China was a "triangular" game with the Soviet Union and thereafter he made the trip there.

--------------------------------------

WHERE ARE YOU BELLEMARIE? I imagine the children are back again and you are busy? I hope you can take time to comment on the new questions.

HATS, are you around? MERIJO?

WHAT DID YOU THINK OF THE TITLE OF THE CHAPTER - "LYNDON FOR SALE?" My first thought was is every candidate? They must raise all this money for their campaigns, MILLIONS, and what do the donors expect in return? Or do they?

Later..................

Ella asks: "WHAT DID YOU THINK OF THE TITLE OF THE CHAPTER - "LYNDON FOR SALE?" My first thought was is every candidate? They must raise all this money for their campaigns, MILLIONS, and what do the donors expect in return? Or do they?

As far as what I thought about the title, I would have to say it seems to be accurate. How does a man like Lyndon Johnson go from having little money to having lots? As Morrow stated, Johnson was the most wealthy President to take office. Where did all that money come from?

I do believe every candidate comes with a price. Look at Bush, Cheney and Haliburton. The Iraq war has funneled endless amounts of money into the pockets of Haliburton the major company to supply machinery etc for the war. Its not a secret Cheney is connected to stock in the company. Not to mention the OIL deals and their connections. The Michael Moore movie was a true wake up call to me.

I think when a candidate has to begin a campaign years ahead of the election there is only one way to keep money flowing in and that is to make silent deals with whom ever is willing to front you the money. The system needs to be changed and politicians have asked for a reform yet nothing has been done and I think in part due to the benefactors who want, expect and are delivered the favors once the person is in office. Unless the candidates have extremely wealthy families who can back them financially there is NO other way. Even simple contributions come with a price tag or expectation. Just the statement Obama made about he would be more apt to take the phone call of a contributor says volume of the pressure and expectancy that is attached to the contribution.

Everyone expects Something!

1. Would you be pleased when after some years of public service your son announced his intention to run for the presidency? What advice would you give him?

If after some years in public service my son/daughter announced his/her intention to run for the Presidency I would be very proud of him/her. The advice I would give to him/her is to not sell his/her soul. I would remind him/her that it is his/her faith in God that has gotten him/her to this point and to always remember a position in the Presidency is at the most 8 years of his/her life, so don't embarrass or shame thy self, thy family or this country, because that will remain with him/her a lifetime.

I have to say that I think most parents of politicians hope the good seeds sown will have taken strong roots in their son or daughter by the time they enter politics. That being said, I also believe good people enter politics such as Obama with youthful, idealistic and true will to do good. I only question if at one point the naivete is unrealistic and the small Ooops begin and before you know it they have engaged in the bigger Oooops and the acknowledgments are no longer forth right and the apologies are no longer forthcoming.

I truly believe politics do corrupt the best of man/woman in their quest for the Presidency.

2.How diligent should the press be about the private lives of presidents? Had they been more diligent, would the mistakes of Kennedy, Nixon and Johnson been avoided?

In the cases of these three presidents, the times prompted the kind of stories that were written about them. The general media at the time would not have dwelt on their private lives, but the Kennedys had a public relations person in their employ whose job it was to publicize as much good as possible about the Kennedys and quash any negative news.

LBJ was a crook, pure and simple. In Texas, rumors began that were not squelched by anyone. Indeed, LBJ was pretty coarse and unscrupulous. He twisted the truth to get elected and Coke Stevenson defeated.

Nixon did approximately the same thing in his campaign against Voorhis in California.

This is the amorality of the men, as opposed to being unmoral or immoral. They were just plain without morals.

At that time no one in the press would have glommed on to these facts and insinuated or stated what was going on. The press would have reported facts and events and left any analyses up to muckrakers or journalists.

People did not let anything that they might have heard get in the way of their voting. At that time, nominations for the presidency occurred in a real convention - complete with smoke-filled backrooms where chosen ones came up with sufficient delegates' votes and created their "king". The last two or three conventions were not in the model of the earlier conventions. What took place then was the result of primary elections. The candidates were pre-ordained then at the primaries and caucuses.

For the 2008 election some large States are positioning themselves to have a primary election before or just after the New Hampshire election and the Iowa caucus. This coming election will be the first of its kind. A nominal convention to present a platform and some dramatics in announcing a previously-determined candidate.

Ella, Thank you for the Larry King interview with Rudy. I have to say after reading 3/4 of it I had to stop. That man speaks out of both sides of his mouth. He said make a decision how many times and yet he can't make one and stand by it. What was all that flip flopping about?

Who goes on Larry King Live to announce they are in the race for Presidency the way he did? Its almost like he fumbled it out of his mouth. Talk about Monday morning quarterbacking..... he needs to go back and read this interview. He never once committed to one thing and backed it up with conviction. He did not sound intelligent or informed to me. He's pro choice but hates abortion?? He is for gay rights but against them being able to be married?? Gun control again flip flopping. He just can't make up his mind. And not being able to say anyone is to blame for this Iraq war, but learn from the mistakes is a cop out.

This interview rang of someone who refused to commit for fear of losing favor with this administration and his party.

Ella, Thank you for the kind words of voting for someone from my family. I understand how many parents like yourself would tell their child to run as fast as they can away from the office. Its almost like a double edge sword, but someone's gotta do it.

"In the cases of these three presidents, the times prompted the kind of stories that were written about them."

I can understand that, MERIJO, the media today are more insistent, more probing. Is it because of the expansion of the media into fragmented TV news stations and the Internet news? Many more employed and hungry for any small news items?

If so, why do we not hear more about President Bush, his friends and acquaintances, his daughters, his health, etc.?

In skimming over our present chapters Nixon's only friend, Bebe Rebozo, was a "sauna and massage, a visit to the club."

Kennedy's friends were "factotums - "the kind that the Kennedys liked to employ as part of their court."

How do we pick our friends anyway and what do they show about our characters?

LM states that all three presidents exhibited, at one time or another, behaviour that was "sick." Where were the reporters then?

I wouldn't identify these presidents with their wartime activities would you? Is that a "man" thing? There is Kennedy's PT-109 fiasco, Nixon's war record and LBJ's Silver Star. Those incidents would not have come to mind in remembering these three men. LM writes quite a bit about them and are they important in judging their character?

At one time, perhaps, war record, war achievement, looked good on a candidate's resume for the office of the presidency. At present, none of the candidates have suscribed to this idea. Of course, Hillary would be out in the cold if it was all that important.

LM, obviously, considers sexual infidelities, or the lack thereof in Nixon's case, to be of great import.

Do you? If you were writing a book, hoping to sell it to the public, would you? Has he spent too much time on this subject.

BELLEMARIE, my sentiments exactly! When are we going to hear possible solutions to the country's problems?

But, BELLEMARIE, in thinking over your question of who goes on Larry King's program to announce his candidacy, I am reminded that Barack Obama announced on 60 Minutes. Has Hillary announced anything yet and where?

These programs are free to the candidates and I think one of the ways in which they can reach the American public with their ideas (or lack thereof). So I would encourage all such programs to invite the candidates on frequently; although I think it is way too early for any of them to be speaking out on anything. A year and a half away - much can happen before the next election, don't you think?

Ella, Hillary announced a couple of weeks ago - on the internet, on her web page.

SHE DID???

AND ON THE INTERNET?

IS THIS WISE OF HER? There are many people who may not have access to the Internet. Class distinction showing?

I don't watch much TV, actually none at all. I get summaries of the news on the radio but the TV holds little interest for me for some reason. I'll try to be more alert in the future??? But I doubt it. I read, I read, I read................

MARY, I'm bouncing around the house doing this and that, not much of anything! Thinking...........

I'm out of touch! I must keep up better. But I do read the newspapers and magazines and I missed Hillary's announcement. Oh, well, I'll hear/read plenty in the next year.

Was it BELLEMARIE that mentioned Hillary was on a show - THE VIEW - isn't that primarily a women's program? Would men watch it? What else has she been on?

I think the recent posts here are using the word “Class” to mean some sort of innate "cool" personality possessed by some individuals particularly some recent political personalities. Obviously JFK is the definitive politician of this types and Obama seems the one in current favor. Bill Clinton seems to have enjoyed this “Class” through much of his career, but he got caught in an un-cool situation and lost it.

Of the Republicans, Ronald Regan seems to haave enjoyed this benefit through \most of his political life

And Bellamarie is right in pointing out that "Class" does not guarantee the inclusion of high moral principals

I liked Ella’s comment in #153

Who had it? Not Nixon, although he wanted it.

Not LBJ, who didn’t care, he was from Texas, who needed it?

Ella:

The reason we didn't hear anymore at that time is because such stories were not considered appropriate for the mainstream media about anyone not just the presidents. There was more reserve among the general public, I think. The country had not entered the pyschobabble era ushered in by the Kinsey Report.

I have found that I get ample news about Bush on the national evening news. Last night's, for example, pointed out that he had had some lesions removed from his face, pre-cancerous and otherwise.

I read the LATimes, the Economist, U. S. News and World Report, and the Atlantic Monthly. These come to the house, and they each have different philosophies re government. I read the NYTimes on the Internet.

Most presidents and their wives try to protect their children from the glare of publicity. Bill Clinton and Hillary did for Chelsea. The twins are adults now, and busy with their own lives. One has been helping AIDS victims in Africa and the other has been teaching. Both went to Argentina, and Barbara had her purse stolen there much to the consternation of the Argentinian authorities.

I do not think the public has been deprived of information. Some of it has been wrong and it has been declared wrong publicly when found out. I think there is much artificial animosity around now. I think that there are many writers talking pro and con about the president. TV and Radio are full of both pro and con information. It is up to the listener to determine how sensible the news they are watching or hearing appears to be.

So much has been said about the country going in the wrong direction that I have studied the comments to see where the problem may be. For example, I agree that the private Health Insurance situation needs a remedy, and that Social Security needs to be overhauled. The immigration problem, also, needs to be resolved. These are mostly within the purview of Congress. Bush has proposed and asked and formed committees to discuss all these things, but we have members of Congress balking - just because they don't like Republicans or Bush, perhaps. In my opinion, the American people don't care one way or another for political victories; they want these things remedied.

During the administrations of these three men so much was done and kept away from the public that if it had been going on now there would have been a genuine public brouhaha. The Internet has turned the world into a peoples requiring instant gratification and responses to their needs.

Regarding the three presidents' war experiences only Nixon's was lengthy and under fire. He was appreciated by his men and his superiors. Kennedy misjudged terribly, and Johnson's was a farce and a real manipulation of an event. His one "combat mission" was as a passenger.

Regarding Hillary Clinton's declaration that she was running for president, I saw and heard her on ABC Nightly News. She was speaking to a rather large audience, but I don't remember where. I think in New Hampshire.

Ella post 188...But, BELLAMARIE, in thinking over your question of who goes on Larry King's program to announce his candidacy, I am reminded that Barack Obama announced on 60 Minutes. Has Hilary announced anything yet and where?

Obama announced on Feb 10th in Springfield Ill.

Hilary Clinton announced on Jan. 20th on her web site, then appeared publicly in New York and on to Iowa the following week. http://www.hillaryclinton.com/news/release/view/?id=1234

Edwards announced in New Orleans.

Ella...These programs are free to the candidates and I think one of the ways in which they can reach the American public with their ideas (or lack thereof). So I would encourage all such programs to invite the candidates on frequently; although I think it is way too early for any of them to be speaking out on anything. A year and a half away - much can happen before the next election, don't you think?

My point in saying Rudy announced on Larry King was that if you read the transcript it was like a fumbled announcement. It was almost as though he did not intend to announce it there and then. Larry asked, are you in and he says, "I'm in". That's not exactly how I see a candidate announcing his bid for Presidency or at least not a formal bid.

I have nothing against Larry King and he certainly has great guests, not that I am a regular viewer. Hilary has been on his show many times and I am sure she will be many more.

Ella, as for Hilary being on the View and Oprah, a "woman's show" I have to say, the View has millions of viewers and I am certain there are men watching also.

HAHAHAAA, HAROLD!

Of course, you would like me to say in reference to presidents having "class."

NOT GEORGE W. BUSH, who doesn't care, he's from Texas and doesn't need it.

(Harold is from Texas also and doesn't need it)

later, eg

Thanks, BELLEMARIE, for Hillary's web site. Has any of you posted a blog yet? What are some other ones, do you know? Other candidates?

8. LM never mentions the tensions of the Cold War in this book (unless I missed the reference) and yet that period of history was a frightening one in many ways and must have had some impact on the lives of these three presidents. What else is missing in LM's history of this period?

I seemed to remember that Morrow wrote of the Cold War. It is in the Introduction on pages 32 and 33 in Roman numerals. ANNUS MIRABILIS (1948) It was a cold winter__a little postwar Ice Age, a literal-minded siege of weather to mark the start of the Cold War. Twenty-five inches of snow fell on New York just after Christmas, 1947.

And at the bottom of the page 33 after mentioning the death of Ghandi, Morrow says,So much of the world had been torn loose____by world war, of course, but also by science.

Continuing on page 34, Now, in early 1948, Oppenheimer was the director of the Advanced Study at Princeton (home, as well, to Albert Einstein, another genius in whose mind science and mysticism circled round to meet one another in an unexpected, apocalyptic rendezvous.) In Technology Review, Oppenheimer published an article reflecting his bad conscience. He wrote:

The experience of the war... has left us with a legacy of concern...Nowhere is this troubled legacy more acute...than among those who participated in the development of atomic energy for military purposes....The atomic bomb came straight out of our laboratories and our journals....In some sort of crude sense which no vulgarity, no humor, no overstatement can quite extinguish, the physicists have known sin. And this is the knowledge which they cannot lose.

This introduction is well worth re-reading. Morrow continues with the narration of the profound sadness that accompanied the dropping of the atomic bomb.

Morrow quotes Ghandi:...It is a question now whether the victors are really the victors or the victims. The world is not at peace. It is still more dreadful.

THANK YOU MERIJO!

I will reread the Introduction, doesn't he write well? I so enjoyed reading this book if for no other reason than that.

Do you remember first hearing the phrase "illegal aliens?" Did you wonder who came up with that and how they determined who they are? How do they find them? Exactly what do they do to those that they find? There is an underlayer in society that I know very little about it.

Do we feel rather smug about being a "real" American as opposed t an "un-American" and therefore putting more distance between us

Is this an issue that will go away in a few years?

#2. How diligent should the press be about the private lives of presidents? Had they been more diligent, would the mistakes of Kennedy, Nixon and Johnson been avoided?

The first part of this question is no longer debatable as I see it. The media has shown there is NO place they will stop at and there is NO way they can be stopped. The proverbial Pandora's box has been opened and can never be closed again. Princess Diana paid the price of the media not allowing anyone's private life alone. The press no longer has any morals or good judgment on where to pull back and say its just not right to invade a person's private life.

Would the same mistakes have been made? Yes, of course...look at the politicians and celebrities today. Do they alter their life choices due to the fact the media is publishing every little or huge step they take? No, people are essentially living their lives regardless of how much or how little press is there to cover it. In today's world I have to think the more press the more sin. Paris Hilton, Britney Spears, Lindsey Lohan, the President and his fallen administration today are examples, they do NOT alter their lives knowing the media is going to find out and report it. A person's character and personality is what it is and they will live it as such. When caught and confronted the socially acceptable thing to do today is admit the wrong, say I can learn from my mistakes or go into therapy or rehab. That makes it all right. If you read the Larry King transcripts with Rudy he did just that, he admitted he is human, has made mistakes and hopes he can learn from them. Obama has already admitted to two big mistakes and has apologized and says he hopes to learn from them. The media is hounding Hilary Clinton to admit to her mistake for voting to give authority to President Bush to go to war in Iraq. Americans are begging President Bush to admit to his mistake for invading a country under false pretenses.

Are people learning from their mistakes, admitting to them or not and doing better? History shows NO! The same mistakes are being made over and over again regardless of the consequences. Soldiers are still dying senselessly and celebrities are still over dosing and dying from drugs, anorexia, and senseless life styles.

Each day a soldier dies and his number is added to the count and the world goes on with NO accountability or apology forthcoming.

Each day a celebrity is reported anorexia, drug overdose, or showing blatant remarks of bigotry and prejudice.

Each day the media, photographers and magazines make millions of dollars reporting and it has not and will not change people's decision making. They are who they are regardless.

Johnson, Kennedy and Nixon are just a few fish in the sea of sinners.

#10. In such a book as LM has written, does he concentrate too much on the bad qualities of these three presidents? Would we have discussed it if he did otherwise?

Yes and Yes, I feel LM would not have had a book had he not concentrated heavily on the bad qualities of these three presidents. I can not even begin to tell you how bored and frustrated I was each time I read and reread his repetitive accounts of their bad qualities. Almost every chapter he repeats it.

I would have still read the book because I was ready to join this book discussion and wanted to learn more about Johnson and Nixon. I love sharing with all of you and that alone kept me interested in this book. I was disappointed the book was not more positive or at least balanced. This book helped me research on the internet even more facts and knowledge so I am glad I did read it.

As the candidates announce their intentions of running for president my interests have heightened and this book has shown many similarities of the candidates who have declared their bid. I have found Morrow to be a writer I may stay away from in the future basically because of his repetitive writing. You can tell me something once and then maybe twice and after that I am bored with hearing it again and again. It becomes redundant.

Ella:

I did notice how well Morrow writes, especially last night as I was reading through the introduction.

About the illegal aliens: There is really no way of telling who is illegal or not. In my area of Central California there are many nationalities represented, not just Hispanics.

My daughter teaches English as a Second Language to adults, and in addition to Mexicans, her students have included, Chinese, Yemeni, Ecuadoreans, Guatemalans, Ethiopians, Laotians and Russians. Lately she has had an influx of Chinese. Eventually, many of her students go on to get their naturalization papers.

The only time that an illegal alien is discovered is if one breaks the law and is arrested. He/she may get deported right back to their country.

Many Americans do not know that there is a provision for aliens to pay income taxes. Special ID numbers from the IRS can be obtained for this purpose. Others just pay and never expect a benefit.

Illegals Pay Income Taxes

6. Should the presidency be a trophy; something to win in a competition? Does this detract from the image we should have of our president?

The presidency should not be a trophy, but in a sense, I believe it is, and has been for each president except George Washington. He did not want to be in charge, but because there was no one around in those days that his fellow founding fathers could vote for enthusiastically, he agreed to be president. It is a good thing that he was as he set the correct protocol for being a president of the U. S.

Political ambitions seem to obscure the fact that it is a "trophy". Yet we read that there is intense disappointment when the "prize" is lost.

As for detracting for our image of a president, I think that may come down to the thoughts of the individual citizen in regard to the matter.

C-SPAN has had some wonderful authors on this afternoon - writers of history and if I didn't have other things to do, I would listen all the time!

JEAN, are you listening? Or do you want to get away from history during the week? And you didn't answer my question about how the age groups in your history class vary. Who talks more? Who asks more questions? Why are they there, etc?

One author (who is a fellow of this and that in Britain) was asked what leaders he most admired in American history (since 1900) and British history and who he least admired. America, Most Admired - Teddy Rosevelt, Franklin D. Roosevelt and Ronald Reagan - Least admired Jimmy Carter; Britain, Most Admired - Churchill, Margaret Thatcher - Least admired John Major.

The author is Andrew Roberts and his book is A HISTORY OF THE ENGLISH SPEAKING PEOPLE SINCE 1900. He also wrote a book about Leadership: Hitler and Churchill.

A HISTORY OF ENGLISH SPEAKING PEOPLE

"This book helped me research on the internet even more facts and knowledge so I am glad I did read it"

The discussions do don't they? You learn more than what is in the book because of our own experiences that we bring and the digressions we make, even though the book may be limited in scope or disappointing.

MERIJO, thank you for those observations about illegal aliens. No, I didn't know "there is a provision for aliens to pay income taxes. Special ID numbers from the IRS can be obtained for this purpose."

What would make aliens do that? If no one knows they are here and they can make money and then escape back into Mexico, what would motivate them to pay taxes?

"When caught and confronted the socially acceptable thing to do today is admit the wrong, say I can learn from my mistakes or go into therapy or rehab. That makes it all right." - Bellemarie

"The only time that an illegal alien is discovered is if one breaks the law and is arrested. He/she may get deported right back to their country." - Merijo

I know they are entirely different, but I couldn't help but notice the similarity. They are both people who have done wrong, one deported, one admits to the wrong (admittedly it may not be illegal) and goes into therapy. Hahahaaa True.

Thank you both for those remarks.

To return to our three presidents I was thinking today about the religions of each, or lack thereof, and wondered if their presidency would have been different had they adhered to early principles in their childhood. Nixon, a Quaker; Kennedy, a Catholic, Johnson, ????

Religion has been thrust into politics in current years - we hear of the Religious Right and President Bush has often been mentioned in connection with his faith. I am not sure of the influence it plays in politics; actually I am uninformed on the subject.

Can any of you enlighten me?

MERIJO, I see you are using font color now and also bold. Did you just learn or have you known before this? I noticed, I noticed!!!!!

Ella:

About the ID number, there are people here who are resident aliens. They work and live here, but have no immediate intention of becoming a citizen. They are here legally. However, illegal aliens may get these numbers because it is not compulsory for them to identify themselves as legal or illegal aliens. They are not asked. Resident aliens may be people who are living here, going to citizenship classes in order to become a citizen, also. It is necessary to live here five years before becoming a citizen.

On edit: Movie people, sports figures, couture designers, writers, etc. are often here temporarily. If, on an extended stay, they may choose to remain resident aliens. Some people live in foreign countries and in the U. S. For example: My younger son was a journalist in Tokyo, Japan, for many years. He paid Japanese Income Taxes, and did receive the benefit of the health insurance as long as he lived in Japan. (Also paid U. S. income taxes.)

About my font: I learned how to do some HTML things some time ago. I find, I can identify some quotations easier if I change the font. The one I use most often is choosing one of the blues and sizing the bold font to 2. It is bright enough without hitting the reader in the face. I like to use italics, too.

Ella:

The great attention paid to the religion of others, especially candidates, is a product of the early education of those who do place an importance on religion. Often this is a sterotype and not wholly correct. It is another aspect of a candidate he/she must explain to those who do not understand.

I had always read that Quakers were a gentle and quiet-mannered people. However, Morrow explains a side of Nixon's mother who used a quiet-manner of lecturing that just maddened her children. This had to have an effect on Nixon. It could make one feel terribly insecure, I think.

Kennedy was a Catholic in name only, in my opinion. Obviously his early Catholic education was limited to what his mother may have taught him, because Joe, his father sent him to private non-denominational schools in general. He attended private elementary schools, none of them parochial. He later spent a year at Canterbury School in New Milford, Conn., where he was taught by Roman Catholic laymen, and four years at Choate School in Wallingford, Conn.(Encyclopedia Americana) His public/ personal adult behavior was not that of a practicing Catholic. He did have charm and a sense of what was fitting publicly, but I believe it was not well-informed by Catholicism.

Lyndon Johnson was a Disciple of Christ. He was a member of the Stone-Campbell (Restoration Movement) denomination known as the "Christian Church (Disciples of Christ).("Religious Affiliations of U. S. Presidents")

Johnson's application of his religion was in the separation of church and state, and his family emphasized an education. He doesn't seem to have emphasized education much himself, but, I can imagine his being respectful of his faith. From what we have read here, however, Johnson seems to have paid little attention to religious principles in his own life.

Merijo, "Kennedy was a Catholic in name only, in my opinion.

His public/ personal adult behavior was not that of a practicing Catholic. He did have charm and a sense of what was fitting publicly, but I believe it was not well-informed by Catholicism."

As a Catholic since birth I have to comment on this. If in your opinion each Catholic is judged by the measuring stick of Morrow or anyone else, then I would expect many of the people sitting in my parish are as you put it "Catholic in name only."

As Catholics we are taught a faith of forgiveness. We are taught that we are born with the natural instinct of humanness which means we are going to sin. We are taught to remember that God is a forgiving God and let he without sin cast the first stone. The Catholic church would never look to a fallen human sinner and say, you are not considered a Catholic or that your public or private life disqualifies you of your Catholicism. I know many nun-practicing Catholics who have committed the sins of JFK and as a Christian Catholic I would never sit in judgment of whether they should be rejected by our church. No one has the least idea of what any other person holds dear to their heart when it comes to their personal relationship with their religion and God.

We know what all the books, friends, colleagues and fellow roommates have written and told us about JFK's life. We know that the worst sin they can cast on him is his affairs with women when he was single and married. Only JFK and God knew what was in his heart and if he is not considered a Catholic for his sins then I suppose a whole lot more Catholics would not be either.

Obviously his early Catholic education was limited to what his mother may have taught him, because Joe, his father sent him to private non-denominational schools in general.

I was raised by the faith of my mother who was Catholic and never attended a church on a regular basis due to financial circumstances and no car. The faith my mother taught me about our Catholicism was so strong and to this very day as a 54 year old woman I can say a Mother's love for her faith can show a child more love then you can imagine. My brother has been married three times and had multiple affairs. I, along with my five sisters have discussed how did he turn out as he did. We thought maybe our Mom spoiled him and because he was raised in a home without a father figure to guide him he lacked something. So Joe Kennedy was a father figure that lacked direction of morals to his son. Nixon's mother gave the quiet-mannered lectures to cause him to be the person he was. And Johnson, lets see, was a corrupt man who obviously had NO religious direction.

I personally think that Morrow has been obsessed with writing about these three men's flaws, imperfections and failures. The world is so ready to judge and condemn rather then to praise and forgive today. Rudy Guiliani has been married three times and is Catholic, he had his affairs and I am sure as he continues his journey down his campaign trail there will be many Morrows ready to write and uncover all his sins. Will he also not be considered a Catholic, held to this standard...His public/ personal adult behavior was not that of a practicing Catholic.

As a practicing Catholic who has taught CCD for 12 yrs., taught in a Catholic grade school for 15 yrs., Facilitated pre-cana classes for engaged couples, attended many religious workshops, and have been a parishioner in my community for 30 yrs and presently attending Bible study classes weekly, I have to say this is NOT what our Catholic church is teaching. This is NOT the attitude of our CATHOLIC religion. We see every member practicing or not, sinner as we all are a Catholic. Jesus did not come for the nun-sinner, he came to save the sinners, US all of us no matter how little or grave the sin.

I truly believe we all have to be more responsible in passing judgments on any person's faith and religion. Morrow wrote this book for what purposes? To make money and to entertain and give a little bit of facts of history. We as the reader must keep in mind that this is Morrow's opinions and conjectures of these men.

I apologize if I went on lengthy, I just feel as a Catholic I could not let this go unanswered and misrepresent the Catholic church. Our Catholic church has taken a lot of hits and yet the attitude is and will remain to not be quick to judge, to forgive and await for the Prodigal son's return.

Bella Marie:

In my opinion, Kennedy did not behave as a practicing Catholic, and the public behavior he displayed re his Catholicism did not jibe with what is taught by that faith. His public acts were what gave examples of Catholic or non-Catholic behavior. That is what others saw and from which they learned how a Catholic could behave.

I admire your profession of your faith here, and it is true that Catholicism teaches forgiveness. No one knows what Kennedy said in confession, but many saw and heard him publicly.

I believe that Morrow showed that each of these presidents were very human. They failed in the ways that the frailty of being a human being can cause, but he also identified for the reader certain innate characteristics of goodness in each man.

Kennedy displayed personal courage, Johnson was humanely generous, helping the poor, and Nixon extended a certain compassion towards the afflicted, the paralytic young man whom he carried up the stairs of a building at college and his urgng his parents not to pursue the poor woman who had not paid her grocery bill - that she would pay it in time.

Ella - sorry i haven't answered your questions, i've had a house full of people for two weeks, so i haven't been here much - but i loved having them.

A few semesters ago i had a Friday night course of U.S. History 102 - reconstruction to the present. I said to my husband that i would never have a class as diverse as that one again. I had ages 18-76, and sev'l 40 and 50 year olds, many ethnic groups and creeds and more men than usual. That's what i love about teaching in community college. There were 35 of them and my first question was "you do know it's Friday night, right?" Most of them were employed full-time and some traveled, so Fri fit their schedule.

One women, the 76 yr old, was dyslectic, but didn't know that when she was in school, so she quit before graduating. Her grandchild had been diagnosed recently and so she got tested and got help. She had gotten her GED, was working on her associate's degree in my class, intended to get her B.S. and continuing to her PhD, if she lived that long - her words.......isn't that a great story?

It's wonderful having that age range, particularly in the 102 class becuase they have stories to tell about their parents, or their own immigration, WWII, the 60's, WAtergate, etc. The older students are always prepared - have read the assignments - do well on the essay exams that i give, etc. and they usually participate in class discussions better than the average trad'l age student.

I always teach in the evenings, so i get that age-range.

Bellemarie - I also like joining in these discussions because it forces me to read books i might not otherwise and to find other resources on line.

Re: son/dgt running for office......i don't know, it's such a pain to be in any spotlight these days. I have a friend who is a producer for a local tv program. I have expertise in sev'l areas that they talk about and she has asked me sev'l times to be on the show. I've always turned her down, because i don't feel comfortable putting myself in the public eye. I will call in, but i no longer wish to be on the show.....there are too many nuts out there and some of the topics can be controversial.........

You all are providing very interesting comments and sites.....thanks.....jean

Religious Right

A web site declaring that the religious right is attempting to take over the Republican party to establish a theocracy (a word derived from the Greek meaning God will rule). I've seen that church in Columbus, Ohio that is mentioned. Huge!

Have any of you noticed the number of "new" churches being built and they are not the established churches that we knew in our youth. Interesting.

Religious Right

There is also a site on Wikipedia on the Christian Right. Whew, information overload.

Christian Coalition of America

You click to join.....

And these web sites go on and on. Who would read all this?

"Johnson seems to have paid little attention to religious principles in his own life" - Merijo

I think this is true of all three of these presidents but, as Merijo has pointed they often displayed their humanity. In several places in the book Morrow has pointed out these inconsistencies in their character. As Bellemarie stated:

"natural instinct of humanness which means we are going to sin"

Bellemarie, you have 5 sisters and so do I; two still living. Aren't they wonderful!! I never had a brother although we longed for one.

I do believe we must continue to read history which includes the biographies of the world's leaders. Examining the lives of past leaders can illuminate qualities that we should look for when we elect our officials. We cannot depend on TV speeches or lovely web sites alone.

They lead, we follow and we must attempt to choose the best leaders available for that very reason. Leaders have great power; witness President Bush taking our country to war and causing friction in the whole world.

Perhaps this is a good place and time to discuss the Vietnam war – it is appropriate in discussing these three presidents. Kennedy started it; Johnson escalated it and Nixon finished it. I think these statements of Morrow deserve mention:

All wars leave both an idealizing battlefield nostalgia and, in the other direction, a certain bitterness in the young who did the dying at the orders of the old men who made the decisions. Johnson, Kennedy, and Nixon were the young men of the Good War…………..the three men would also become the presidents who made the decisions that took America into its Bad War, Vietnam. America got into the Bad War because of the Good War. It was precisely the apparent moral and strategic lessons of the Good War - such lessons as Munich—that guided Kennedy, Johnson, and Nixon in their response to what they perceived to be the Communist threat in Southeast Asia.

I know Bellemarie is a baby boomer and must have been affected in some way by that war.

How about the rest of you? How were you affected?

It was such a traumatic time in our history and no matter your age today, you will have memories of it always.

HELLO JEAN - AND WELCOME BACK!

Thanks for answering my questions. What fun that class must be, and an education in itself. All those people of all ages and culturally diverse. I'd love to be sitting in on it!!! Even on a Friday night; at my age all nights are the same.

I have taken a few college courses since retirement and I thought I knew the answers to some of my questions. The older ones do come prepared, do participate more. I took one class, a World HIstory class, in a very small college near my home and I became very self conscious because I was the only student in the class who was prepared and who did the talking! It was embarassing! Hahahaa

But I realized that the young ones are taking 4-5 other courses at the same time and are just plowing through history because they have to take a liberal arts class. One student argued with me that there was never a Communist threat of nuclear war - it was government propaganda! I told him I knew of several well-educated people who had built bomb shelters in their back yards from blueprints received from the government and that school children had to practice what to do in case of a bomb explosion. For a time the threat was real.

Ella:

I agree with you about the older people having more time to give to a class or a discussion. That is where I am now, as you recall I posted that in 1948 I was raising three little ones.

The Vietnam War was a disaster, in my opinion, from the very beginning when Eisenhower first sent advisors to the country. The French had pulled out, but somehow because we were signatories of the South East Asian Treaty Organization (SEATO) someone in Washington believed that we had the responsibility of picking up where the French left off. There was a notion that if the Communist Chinese would be allowed to win then one by one each of the south east Asian countries would become communistic, the domino effect. In fact, this did happen, even though we lost over 55,000 military in that long war.

Indeed, Kennedy did send additional advisors and with the Gulf of Tonkin attack the war did escalate. It was under Johnson that the Selective Service Act of 1967 that allowed some student deferments for college was repealed. There was an increase in troops sent to Vietnam. Nixon ordered going into Cambodia where the North Vietnamese were hiding from the South Vietnamese and the Americans. They were also storing their weapons in Cambodia right along the Vienamese border. Who knows if that expansion would have won the war, at last, for us. Congress refused to fund the war and Ford in desperation ordered the Americans home in April, 1975.

The thinking behind the Vietnamese War was guided, Morrow explains, "...by the lessons of the Good War (WWII) to their response in what they perceived to be the Communist threat in Southeast Asia." The appeasement negotiated by Neville Chamberlain at Munich with Hitler was one of that Good War's lessons that informed these three presidents.

Kennedy, in his 1961 inaugural address, Morrow comments,"made a dangerous open-ended promise:""Let every nation know, whether it wishes us well or ill, that we shall pay any price, bear any burden, meet any hardship, support any friend, oppose any foe, in order to assure the survival and the success of liberty."

And here, I would like to submit another quotation of Kennedy's from the speech he did not live to deliver in Dallas, November 22, 1963: We in this country...are___by destiny rather than by choice___the watchmen on the walls of world freedom.

Vietnam..... i have seen many results of VN that aren't the kind of things we read in the papers, or heard on the news - and probably will relate to soldiers coming home from Iraq......I was teaching in Harrisburg PA in the latter 60's. I was in a high school that that was about 30% minorities -most first generation Blacks up from the South - about 15% Jewish and the rest white ethnics. It was a good place to teach, the Black parents knew education was the way out of the ghetto for their children and were very supportive of the teachers. The Jewish students had a tradition of valuing education and those two groups brought the attitude of others to that same goal. I had sev'l students, particularly some young Black men who had goals and would have probably lead very productive lives - but they were headed immediately for Nam after graduation........two, w/ good potential ended up on drugs while in Nam and robbed or attempted to rob businesses after they returned home. One of them never became productive, the other did come out of prison and has owned his own business since the 1980's. They were emblematic of others who didn't have bullet wounds, but other wounds when they came home.

I worked for 13 years for Dept of Army in the 80's and 90's and met many men who were permanently traumatized by being in VN. As late as that time, wives did not shake husbands to wake them up - they might come up swinging. Some had severe drinking and drug problems. Others had terrible dreams two decades after returning from Nam. On the other hand, i heard from some non-commissioned officers that they had been given the choice by a judge to "go to the army, or go to jail" and they had chosen the army and had been very successful, more so then they had ever imagined that they could be. Many had earned college degrees - they had to take college courses to get promoted, so they continued and got degrees......... that experience convinced me that it might not be a bad idea to have all young people devote a year or two at 18 - 30 in some sort of national service. Young men in paraticular seem to need a few years to mature after high school.

This takes me back to the conversation about presidents needing to understand the lives of the common people.......altho' i'm not sure if that "took" w/ LBJ and RMN even tho that's where they came from. Our leaders have some how got to understand how their decisions effect many diverse people in our society. They get so isolated and insulated but i don't know how that can be fixed.......jean

#11. These three presidents all served in wartime and made use of that service in their campaigns and speeches believing it enhanced their image. Does it still today?

I personally don't feel the same respect is given to the politician that is campaigning who has served in the military. This administration has deduced even that to a minor insignificance. Look at how Kerry was attacked and accused of not deserving and earning his medals while in service. Some veterans spoke out against him and all I could see was a split in ranks. It saddened me to see there were veterans willing to lie and deny Kerry his rightful medals. We've witnessed news reports of soldiers mistreating detanees and prisoners. We seen one of the most respected... Colin Powell sit and testify there were weapons of mass destruction to gain approval of invading Iraq. You have seen the military refusing to exchange information with the CIA causing breaks in security giving terrorist the opportunity to invade us. You've seen a woman's undercover identity be revealed due to her husband's lack of cooperation with this administration. If the Commander in Chief, his Vice President and veterans do not honor and protect the image of the military and what it stands for, how can Americans see a politician's image be enhanced for serving?

President Bush had no problem getting elected even though he was said to have gone AWOL from his assigned position or rather never even showed up, yet Kerry's image got bashed for his serving his country and earning medals.

I support our troops but I can't say they are going to find their service time an enhancement of their image should they run for any politics in their future. The controversy of this war alone will leave them with a mark of this administration. Talk about a Bad war, this one will go down in history overshadowing Vietnam.

There are many results in having experienced war.

My husband was an army medic during WWII and served from February 27, 1941 when he was drafted in Washington D.C. the second number drawn, to November 7, 1945, when I met him at Fort MacArthur in San Pedro, CA. He had served in Italy.

My two sons served three and a half years in the Navy during the Vietnam War. One of my sons went to sea, and the other did not. Both were Russian linguists.

This book is about the three presidents, and what their life was like in 1948, and that from that fairly hopefully prospective beginning as young congressmen, their paths ended in the Presidency - for better or for worse.

Their behavior during the Vietnam War was a direct result of their notion of what Vietnam meant. Their interpretation was to prevent communism from taking over a whole section of Asia and giving China a foothold in the area.

There is a fog to war and it is an undertaking no president should initiate without complete analysis and consultation.

I think that these recent wars in which the U. S. has participated were/are against ideologies threatening our freedoms, Naziism, Communism and now, Radical Islam. I think this last is by far the most difficult.

This particular ideology has no notion of individual rights and personal freedom. The Iraq war would better have been thought through longer before initiating it.

Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it.

George Santayana, The Life of Reason, Volume 1, 1905

My husband was in the Air Force from 1966 - 1970.(I met him after he was out.) He had orders to go to Viet Nam but because his discharge time was within a few weeks he was not sent. He never saw any combat his years in the military although he had friends who did. I still remember my brother's best friend coming to our house and talking about how his older brother had come home from Viet Nam and slept with a rifle. He would jump up and scream as though he were still in the fox holes. My brother in law spent two years in combat on the front lines and earned the Purple Heart for bravery. He sent home all his money he was paid since he had no reason for it where he was. He came home addicted to drugs, and his mother had spent all his savings he sent home intending to use to begin a new life. He was addicted to drugs and alcohol for many years to come and would not talk about any of his time in Nam I had so much compassion and pride for him. He finally went into a drug rehab center and got the help he needed after years of therapy.

The stories are endless of the friends and family who fought in Viet Nam. I was just a teenager so I really did not understand the depth of what was going on. I only remember my mother saying because my brother was the only son and F4 so he would not be drafted. I heard my sisters talk about the fear they had thinking the draft would take their husbands. As a teen I only saw what my mother would allow to be watched on the nightly news which was not much. I didn't understand the controversy over the war. I did not understand why when the troops came home they felt shame and people blamed them. I have not had much interest in History and possibly because all I knew was it was something that wars took place and we needed to remember the dates, times, places and names of them. I wanted to gain more knowledge by reading this book and participating in the group discussions. I have to admit I didn't expect to be so enlightened.

Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it.

Thank you Merijo for this, I read this in Washington D.C. when I visited there six years ago. My husband and I walked the wall, I could not phantom the number of names on that wall. I saw family members with a piece of paper laying it on the name of the loved one and using a lead pencil to stencil the name on their paper. I could not hold back the tears. I visited Arlinton cemetery and Kennedy's eternal flame. We watched the changing of the guards at the Tomb of the Unknown soldier and felt nothing but pride for our country and the brave soldiers who have gone to battle to serve and protect our homeland.

Today I feel like all hope has been washed from me watching the mistakes being made. Has this administration forgotten and condemned us to repeating it? 911 was a frightening day, but with hindsight there was information early on that shows it may have been prevented. Was the revenge for his father and the arrogance of this administration too great to resist them from this war we are in now? How will the soldiers who come home feel and be effected? Will their be shame and blame brought upon them? I think NOT because, I think the American people still have the pride and support for these troops regardless of how they feel towards this administration.

Merijo, "The Iraq war would better have been thought through longer before initiating it."

Millions of people can agree with you here.

C-SPAN 3 has been broadcasting programs the last few days about our subjects. Last night i saw a program w/ Lynda Johnson Robb, Jack Valenti, LBJ's social secretary - sorry i've forgotten her name and Edward Norton Smith. At the moment, (11:00am)they are presenting a program on Kennedy and the Civil Rights Movement w/ Ted Sorenson, Robt Moses, Taylor Branch and Harris Wofford......it's wonderful......jean

THANKS, MARIJO, for that well-organized summation of the Vietnam War; my memory is not functioning well. I had thought it was on Nixon’s watch that the last soldiers, those in that pitable helicopter rush from Saigon, came home. I was in error.

JEAN, what a sad reflection on the Vietnam War.. Do you believe that the same situation is developing today – "I had sev'l students, particularly some young Black men who had goals and would have probably lead very productive lives - but they were headed immediately for Nam after graduation......." (substituting Iraq for Nam)

I agree, Bellemarie, - neither do I "feel the same respect is given to the politician that is campaigning who has served in the military. This administration has deduced even that to a minor insignificance." And remember what Clinton went through to deflect his absence from the Vietnam War.

LM believes it is still "necessary to get one’s ticket punched through wartime service. Is that out of date? Certainly it is with a female candidate (who, incidentally, to all appearances is running ahead of the pack monetarily). And we have a Mormon running do we not? Are they pacifists? I’m not sure of my facts.

You will be interested in the Timeline for the Vietnam War:

Timeline of the Vietnam War

I remember most of it, but time has eroded some memories. Note how many times Congress failed to act. March l973 is considered the date when the War officially ended; however it was on President Ford's watch - April l975 when that pitiful helicopter left Saigon. Also note that after the war had progressed to the stage of the public getting incensed, Congress started to act to "end the war."

What are your comments on reading this timeline?

I have many more comments on the war, but enough for today. Time for a rest – I have been busy all day!

MERIJO, I am happy to note that there is one other of my age in this discussion. WWII was the “Good War” of history. I can understand historians calling it that because we had a clear enemy, objectives, we had been attacked, we had to save Europe, the country was definitely behind it, all those and many more factors. But at the time, seeing our young men go off to various branches of the service, it did not carry that message home to us.

I want to do some research on the lessons of Munich. JEAN, what are your comments on this and what do you teach your students?

More later………………………..

Note, also, the POWER OF THE PRESIDENCY in this timeline. The power that resides in one man. LM discusses this power, the secrets to gaining power and the secrets of power. We have yet to define them, if we are ever able to do so!

Ella, I had many appointments last week, this week and will have more appts. again next week. I have tried to keep up with the posts. Unfortunately, I fell further behind. I will need to pull out of this discussion early. I am very sorry. I have really enjoyed the thoughts of the whole group. I will continue to read the posts. Thank you for picking a really interesting book.

Bella Marie:

You're welcome. I remembered that quotation, but couldn't remember the exact words Santayana had written. Glad I found the reference. It is something that should be repeated often these days.

Ella:

Thanks for the timeline of Vietnam. Found out there that I had SEATO wrongly defined - although it did allow for U. S. participation in defending the area.

It is a valuable reference, I think. Eisenhower knew that Vietnam was a losing situation at the time the French were there. However, the domino theory seems to have been correctly identified as a possibility which did happen.

Presidental Powers:

http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/data/constitution/article02/

Yes, Ella, I'm an octogenarian!

The power of the president to take the country to war seems to me to be a grey are; perhaps I'm just not reading it well???

War Powers Act

What do the rest of you think?

A letter from Peggy Willliams of Mineral Ridge, Ohio in TIME this week is interesting:

"Eventually, we will have to explain 9/11 to a new generation, just as the greatest generation had to explain Pearl Harbor to my baby boomer generation. What will we offer as an excuse for the mess we have created? That we envied the greatest generation's World War II glory and felt cheated that Vietnam was all we got? As it has turned out, the Iraq war isn't our World War II, nor is it another Vietnam. It is our World War I: a frivolous, costly, arrogant war that has set off an economic disaster, bred not just one maniac bent on genocide but a million and ended in a standstill that has merely set the stage for the next world war."

And have we successfully explained Pearl Harbor?

I have much to say about America and wars. We are comparatively a young nation but we have been engaged in so many and I have lived through 4 of them and that is far too many for one lifetime.

Often it seems that when we talk of the past we bookmark the years by the wars and our history is taught by the periods of the wars.

It is wrong! But I am just one small cry in the wilderness.

Let's answer Question No. 7 in the heading.

Back later.................

#7. "We had to destroy the village in order to save it." - Vietnam logic. LM states that American history is full of a ruthlessness not taught in civics books and gives examples. Should it be emphasized more in schools and universities? Is our present war in Iraq an example of ruthlessness?

Yes, I do believe this Iraq war is an example of ruthlessness. Sadam Huissen was a ruthless dictator, and President Bush has proven to be as ruthless in the sense his determination to destroy Sadam led him to the point of sending our troops to invade this country under false pretenses, and now we have over 3,100 American soldiers dead. Bush is ruthless to the point of refusing to admit the wrong, and the fact there is NO way to win this war especially since it has turned into a civil war. He is arrogant, ignorant,pig headed and in my opinion a war monger. His Texan attitude "Dead or Alive" shows the mentality of someone who sees life as black and white. He is not intelligent enough to diplomatically sit and negotiate or accept the advice of the United Nations, Generals, and advisors of years of experience. His actions and decisions are the true definition of ruthless:lacking pity or compassion, merciless, cruel

I think he had the Munich Logic view, "Get the terrorists on their home soil before they get us." Iraq was NOT responsible for 911 the reports have proven it. They did not have WMD the reports have proven it. He used fear tactics from the leftover effects of 911 to convince the Senate, Congress and American people there was justification to invade Iraq. When I explain this war to my grandchildren I will tell them our President used his power to gain revenge and wealth and lied to everyone. I will tell them this is a war that never should have happened.

I believe the Munich lesson that was learned is that appeasement was not the answer. That is what happened in Munich.

http://www.spartacus.schoolnet.co.uk/2WWmunich.htm

Because Adolf Hitler soon violated the terms of the agreement, it has often been cited in support of the principle that tyrants should never be appeased.

11.These three presidents all served in wartime and made use of that service in their campaigns and speeches believing it enhanced their image. Does it still today?

Unfortunately, it still does.

BELLEMARIE, I think you are echoing the country’s sentiments when you talk of President’s Bush ruthlessness in invading Iraq; there are so many ways of looking at it and only history – some 30-50 years down the road – only an journalist, three or four of them or more – will be able to sort it all out, if ever.

Thank you, MERIJO, for the URL to that site explaining appeasement. History has taught us well – perhaps too well – that appeasement of a tyrant does not work; however, as LM has pointed out, we have leaned too far in that direction in our modern times. Don’t you agree? As LM pointed out all three of these presidents were guided by the principles of Munich “in their response to the threat of Communism.”

Was Bush (or his military advisors) also guided by those principles after we were attacked on 9/11 – another date that will “live in infamy” as FDR put it.

And as one young student argued with me, the history books are teaching the young that the Communism of the Cold War was propaganda fed to us by our government as an excuse to build up the military machine that had been neglected since WWII.

Is it any wonder that our young people are cynical about the government?

An essay in TIME disagrees with our author:

”Is a propensity to rely on military force a vice to which we Americans are prone? And doesn’t the Bush Administration need to learn a lesson about the danger of using military force in pursuit of foreign policy goals?

NO.

The problem of U.S. foreign policy for the past century hasn’t been too great a willingness to use military force – or too great a confidence about its efficacy. If anything, it’s been the opposite. An earlier American intervention in WWI could have averted countless deaths and various political calamities. American intervention against Nazi Germany in the 1930s, or American support for intervention by our allies, could have averted WWII. Are we proud that it took the Japanese attack on Pearl Harbor, and a German declaration of war against the U.S. for us finally to enter the war against Hitler? Then, even with the lessons of Munich fresh in mind, we were slower than we might have been to react to Stalin’s aggression in Central and Eastern Europe. We foolishly….suggested early in 1950 that we might not take action to protect South Korea, inviting aggression from the North. WE pursued a policy of gradual escalation in Vietnam.

Isn’t history absolutely fascinating? Historians giving us several viewpoints of our wars, - as one historian said history is never dead - it thrives, it throbs.

Where is our history teacher and what does she teach her students about our responses to threats from potential enemies?

JEAN, we need your opinion. We need each other’s opinions! We are all historians.

I’ll be awaiting your opinions about the above essay.

Later, eg

Ella, could you please help me. I am not sure where we are in the book now. Did we conclude Questions of Character?

Sadly, we are nearing the end of this book and it seems time has flown by. I look forward to your next set of questions. Yes, I do believe history is very fascinating and could never be dead.

I am surprising myself since when I was in High School I hated History so much so that my History teacher told me he would give me a passing grade only because he wanted to be certain he never got me the following year. I did anything and everything to disrupt our class because I was so bored. (Going as far as actually putting a tack on his chair, HE knew instantly which student did it without a doubt .)

GOOD MORNING, BELLEMARIE!

Are we alone in the room? Hahahaaaa I think so, but it's okay because we are just about through with the book, aren't we? I'll put up the remaining few questions today.

Morrow's obsession with the Hiss-Chambers case is quite beyond my understanding in this book. Although it is very interesting if you have never been exposed to that trial, still he has bored his readers by insisting they learn the details over and over.

What a shame, Bellemarie, that you were so bored with history in school and that is the fault of your teacher, I think. Little do they realize what an influence they have on the lives of their students.

I had a remarkable teacher for history in high school and I've never forgotten her. I can close my eyes and see her still today. She would divide the class into two sections and we would have to debate issues; i.e., American independence vs. England and the King, or the North vs. the South, etc. I was on the debate team in high school and loved controversy; still do because I think it is the best way to learn and remember anything.

Be back in a little while. That sunshine outside is a welcome sight isn't it?

Questions are up for discussion.

Have you read other books about these three presidents? Which of the three do you think you would most like to read more about?

later, eg

Good morning Ella, Yes, the sunshine is a warm welcome to our state. I think we did lose a few of our members, not sure if their lives got too busy or the book got to repetitive and boring.

You are so right about the obsession of the Hiss trial. The Late Summer chapter bored me to tears. Without seeming too critical I have to say Morrow seemed obsessed with the Hiss trial and Kennedy's sex life and that seemed to be the bulk of this book. But I won't go into that since we still have your questions to discuss.

1. Walt Whitman wrote that it does not matter what disease you have, for when you die, the disease is gone, and the body, the life, is purified. Not so, it seems, with presidents, or public figures. Their lives are examined over and over by historians, probed or praised. What is the purpose of reading and/or writing about these men

I think as for Walt Whitman writing, the body and the life are purified, he may have meant that in a spiritual sense. Physically, a president will be alive in discussions, books, memorials,etc. til the end of time. For history's sake we need this information to be passed down through the generations. The Presidency is the most highest position a politician can hold. It is the most important position held in our country so of course it rightfully should be examined, written about and used for future reference. I think the purpose of reading or writing about these men is for information, enjoyment and curiosity. I think when you read a book about one of the presidents you can identify with him on a more personal level whether it be praise or prudence.

Ella, I have to tell you that yesterday on the View the ladies were discussing Obama and Hilary and Joy Bahar came to the conclusion I had said early on in one of my posts, that she is afraid they will in the end cancel each other out due to the fact the country will be nervous choosing a black man or a woman for the democratic ticket and so for the safety and sureness bet they would go with someone like John Edwards or even Al Gore stepping in at the last minute. In other words as I said, "A white male. Isn't it interesting how as much as we all say this country is ready and should be ready for a woman or black man in the end it may never happen in our lifetime. Let's keep our finger, toes and eyes crossed and prayers strong our country can and will give these two a fair chance because of their policies and positions rather then exclude them because of their skin color or sex.

I have read more books I can count on JFK and really am not interested in reading anymore on him. As far as wanting to read any more books on Nixon or Johnson I have no desire to learn anything else about them. I rely heavily on GOOGLE for facts and information so I would be more apt to go there and just read from a site rather a book on them in particular.

Enjoy the Sunshine today!

I'm here:

My eyes were dilated yesterday after going to the opthamologist. Couldn't see a thing!

I appreciated the chapter on the Hiss case. It identified the beginning of Nixon's rise in Congress that sent him on the way to the presidency. Also, I was pretty busy in those days, and didn't follow politics that closely.

The problem of U.S. foreign policy for the past century hasn’t been too great a willingness to use military force – or too great a confidence about its efficacy. If anything, it’s been the opposite. An earlier American intervention in WWI could have averted countless deaths and various political calamities. American intervention against Nazi Germany in the 1930s, or American support for intervention by our allies, could have averted WWII. Are we proud that it took the Japanese attack on Pearl Harbor, and a German declaration of war against the U.S. for us finally to enter the war against Hitler? Then, even with the lessons of Munich fresh in mind, we were slower than we might have been to react to Stalin’s aggression in Central and Eastern Europe. We foolishly….suggested early in 1950 that we might not take action to protect South Korea, inviting aggression from the North. WE pursued a policy of gradual escalation in Vietnam.

I agree with the essayist. Although he covers a lot of time, it is true Americans have been reluctant to go to the aid of other allies. There is a lot left unsaid in this essay regarding each war he cites. The time setting of each war presented different demographics and different conditions of progress. Situations were not as singular as he intimates.

I have found the book very interesting. And I have recommended it to another who also finds it interesting and informative.

I do think, as Morrow says, that the times of these three presidents did see a great change among the people in the country and not for the good. We have become a highly populist country that for the most part is uninformed in critical thinking and actual facts.

I think we shall have a stormy future no matter who is elected in 2008.

I have never visited a presidential library, but I think it is a worthy endeavor. It is not only of interest to the general public as a matter of learning about a portion of their history, but is a good resource for researchers, writers, historians.

Poor people already have all kinds of help - at least, they do here in California, and children's initiatives have made possible healthy families programs, pre-pre-school activities and programs all the way up to the college level. I worked as a volunteer after I was widowed in several charitable programs and am impressed with the work that has been and is being done. I worked with the adult developmentally-handicapped at a creative center, high school education abroad students, both going from here and coming from abroad here, and in an affordable housing project for low-income families.

Also, I worked part time for twelve years (until I was eighty) at a local business college as an independent test administrator of an ability-to-benefit test for young adults who had not graduated from high school. If they passed this test required by the Federal government they would receive financial aid to study for a career there at the college. This was indeed rewarding. One of my students became a member of the staff after completing her course.

4.What will you take away from reading this book? Did you learn anything new or was it just interesting reading? Good writing?

I have probably mentioned this before in different words, but I did learn a lot about the lives of these men - knew quite a bit about Kennedy as he has been written about a lot, but much of Johnson's life and Nixon's life was informative to me here.

This book may serve different people in different ways. It is so well annotated that it is a starting point for additional study and research if one wants to develop the information for different disciplines. Morrow's style of writing did take some getting used to and required research, but I liked it.

I read "John Adams" by David McCullough and it is, indeed, well-written as is his smaller book "1776". But the one biography I read recently and liked the best that is revealing of our early history is "Alexander Hamilton" by Ron Chernow. That is, indeed, a beautifully written book and thoroughly detailed and annotated. It is a vivid tale.

I've just finished reading the section on George C. Marshall. What a fascinating man he is. I know he's not the focus of the book, but Morrow seems to be trying to explain why Marshall isn't as well known.

#5. Have you known someone who you would consider a "great man?" Have you read of someone who you believe was a "great man."

Pope John Paul II is one of the most "great men" I would consider to walk the earth. We was a true example of all the virtues a person could and should hold. He is said to be the most recognized person in the world. His compassion, his strengths and his devotion to his church and people throughout the world was a testament to the greatness of who he was. He was willing to meet with Presidents and leaders to help them come to peaceful outcomes. He cared for all races, creeds, and income levels, of life form. If only these three presidents and all future presidents could hold him as their bar to achieve greatness. The world mourned at the loss of this great man.

This site is just one of many to learn more about this fantastic Pope http://www.zpub.com/un/pope/

OH, WOW! MANY POSTS TO READ, I LOVE THAT. I LOVE CONVERSATION, PARTICULARLY WHEN IT PERTAINS TO BOOKS!

THANK YOU ALL SO VERY MUCH!

"the body and the life are purified, he may have meant that in a spiritual sense"

I disagree, Bellemarie. When Whitman mentions both the body and the life I believe he meant the “life” is purified which we all know is baloney, to be frank. Countless lives are examined after death; ours will be by our children and grandchildren and over and over lives are discussed and not purified. For awhile after death I think folks speak kindly; then it evaporates and the truth will be uncovered, whether it be a president or simply a mother, a person.

I also hope that our country can give Hillary and Barack a square deal whatever that means. I’m reading Barack’s first book – DREAMS FROM MY FATHER – and then I will read his second one; gosh, he writes well for one so young.

HAS ANYONE READ HILLARY’S BOOK?

MERIJO! I’m so pleased you have enjoyed the book. Do read the book – WITNESS – by Whittaker Chambers. It’s an old one but a very good one and it will give you more of the story about the Hiss-Chambers trial.

I enjoyed this book, even though I didn’t learn anything very new but I appreciate good writing and new ideas and this book was full of that I thought.

I applaud your volunteer activites. I had always thought I would do the same but poor health and age (just try to stop that! Haha) has intervened since my husband’s death two years ago.

Thanks for the suggestion of the book - "Alexander Hamilton" by Ron Chernow. I’m going to get it after finishing a few that are sitting by my bed. I splurged at Barnes & Nobles the other day and purchased three books; the Obama one, and one entitled MY NAME IS IRAN by Davar Ardalan. The author spent her childhood there and then came to America with her family, returning there later. Looks very good.

And from the Library, several books. You may know that Art Buchwald recently died. I’ve read all his books and if you need something on the lighter side and something to make you smile (although he has a darker side also) you may want to read one of his books. The last one – TOO SOON TO SAY GOODBYE – he wrote from a hospice awaiting death. It is not sad, it is – well, what can I say, it’s Art Buchwald and he’s funny and I would have liked to have known him.

ENOUGH POSTING FOR NOW – I’LL BE BACK LATER……………………….. ella

Bella Marie:

I agree with you that Pope John Paul II was a great man. In one of the two TV movies made about him after his death I recall the scene where he walks in the woods with Lech Walesa telling him what to do to resist Communism and he stresses the point, " No killing". (I think it was the one with Jon Voigt as the older Pope.) It is true, Poland striving for solidarity did ward of war and communism.

Ella:

I did enjoy the whole book. There was an undercurrent of sadness and melancholy throughout Morrow's book. I was not able to put my finger on the feeling I was experiencing as I read it. Toward the end as Morrow summarizes here and there in the later chapters, I did recognize the fact that all three men truly had experienced extreme sorrow in many different ways - personally, in childhood and in adulthood, frustration with the status quo with which they had to cope, and not truly grasping the correct ways to rectify things in and for the country. The poignancy apparent to me in each of these men's lives loomed as gray clouds over their lives at the end.

When I became ill in 2004, I found after quite a few weeks of wanting to merely rest after getting four small stents in my heart I was attracted to a great new book, "An Empire of Wealth, The Epic History of American Economic Power." The review I read of the book made it seem like a "must-read" book. After that, I began to read the larger volumes of current best-selling historical biographies. After I had hip surgery, within less than a year after the stents procedure, I began to read Mark Kurlansky's marvelous books - history from the point of view of a food stuff such as "Salt" and "Cod," a truly intriguing perspective and so well-written. Another good, but different kind of history is, "How The Scots Invented the Modern World, The True Story of How Western Europe's Poorest Nation Created Our World and Everything in It." by Arthur Herman. His book is well annotated and quite clearly written.

After years of teaching, "Run, Spot! Run!", the new books and current authors are refreshing and made the days of recuperation enjoyable. We have some wonderful new authors around.

Thank you for the recommendation of "Witness" and Art Buchwald's books. I enjoyed his humor so much.

Ella, I respect your beliefs on Walt Whitman's intention of the "body and life is purified" although, I have to say, because I have a steadfast belief that once we die the life and body are spiritually purified in the sanctity of Christ I saw Whitman's quote in a spiritual sense. And through memories, books, discussions etc. I see the person continuing to be alive in our hearts. Yes,there is a certain amount of personification and respect given when an individual dies. With passing time the reality of the person's flaws and faults come back into play and are mentioned more and more without the feel of desecrating the person at the time of their death.

Yes, I have read Hilary's book and I have to say I admire her very much. She is a strong willed and strong minded person and I think she showed her sensitive side when she was faced with the adultery publicly. She did not allow the media or public opinion deter her from going through her grief and healing and coming to her own decisions to forgive her husband and stay in their marriage. I love how in her book she expressed how she was told and the pain she experienced. She felt like she had lost her best friend through this because they had been friends, and partners. I like how Bill got therapy and guidance through their religious leader and he acknowledged the pain he caused Hilary and Chelsea. If Hilary were to be elected as our next President I have faith she would be a great force to be reckoned with should any country try to invade us or terrorize us. I love the strength women of today are not afraid to show for fear of being labeled a B--ch.

I am planning on buying Obama's book tomorrow when I get out to do my Sunday book browsing. Thank you for the heads up.

Ella, I saw the picture on the Home page of Senior net with all the book leaders are you in the picture? I recognized Ginny, who I participated in the discussions of Teacher Man this past summer.

I admire the time and effort all of you leaders give to make this possible. I love to debate also so I find we have something in common. I am sorry to hear of your health issues and the loss of your husband. My sister lost her husband three years ago and having interaction through the internet since her health does not allow her to get out and about as often has been a great help to her.

I applaud Senior Net and all the people who have made this site possible. Thank you!

MARY, have you been with us throughout the book? That chapter on Marshall was one of his best I think, his admiration for the man is something isn't it?

And thanks, Bellemarie, for telling us about another great man. I am not sure of the definition of a "great" man; I have known quite a few "good" men, would they qualify? They did not do great things but led ordinary lives, working daily to support their families and community.

I got curious about presidential libraries and was surprised by a few facts; particularly, the fact that the Nixon presidential library is not one of those in the system being cared for by our government. I wonder why?

Read the facts: Presidential Libraries

Have you joined the group for the ISLAND AT THE CENTER OF THE WORLD scheduled for March 15th? It promises to be a fascinating historical conversation.

Bellemarie, I came to Seniornet in 1997 when I got my first computer and we just discussed one book at that time; that was it! Amazing to see what all we have done with the site since then. All wonderful stuff; all pertaining to books!

Thanks, MERIJO, for the recommendations. What are you reading, Bellemarie?

"She is a strong willed and strong minded person and I think she showed her sensitive side when she was faced with the adultery publicly."

I'll read the book now, Bellemarie, thanks for your review.

In clicking on other sites regarding Nixon's presidential Libary it seems that it will soon join others in the federally funded system:

Richard Nixon Presidential Libary

"In March 2005, the Archivist of the United States and the Executive Director of the privately run Richard Nixon Library and Birthplace Foundation exchanged letters on the requirements that will allow the Nixon Library and Birthplace to become the twelfth federally funded Presidential Library operated and staffed by the NARA as early as February 2006."

How would we ever know such facts if it were not for the Internet and Google?

I read somewhere that Wikipedia (the online encyclopedia) was started by a few volunteers and is still staffed by volunteers. What a feat!

Anger, lust and greed - three sins that LM ascribes to the three presidents in this book.

Dilgence, courage and generosity

Nixon, Kennedy and Johnson

Having lived through the years of these three presidents, LM has chosen the right qualities for the three men. If someone had mixed them up and asked me to choose the men whose personality best fit I would have had no problem.

For the fun of it let's name one quality that comes to mind (whether it be good or bad) when you think of the presidents since Johnson.

They are Gerald Ford, Jimmy Carter, Ronald Reagan, George H. Bush, Bill Clinton, and George W. Bush.

Games people play. Let's play.

I've been reading the discussion all along, Ella. But I didn't get the book until about 10 days ago. So I'm not really in the "weekly" format with the group. It is an interesting book about these three men who were "in control" for two turbulent decades of our history. I am enjoying seeing his take on their contrasting personalities, and comparing that to what I remember from the time.

For the fun of it let's name one quality that comes to mind (whether it be good or bad) when you think of the presidents since Johnson.

They are Gerald Ford, Jimmy Carter, Ronald Reagan, George H. Bush, Bill Clinton, and George W. Bush.

• Gerald Ford...................Honesty
• Ronald Reagan.................Likeable
• George H. Bush................Stoic
• Bill Clinton..................Charismatic
• George W Bush.................Incompetent

Gerald Ford came at a time the world needed faith restored and his honest, stable presence was welcomed and appreciated. He gained the American's trust and respect.

Jimmy Carter has a peaceful presence that says all is going to be okay, yet you couldn't help but wonder if it would be. He lacked in a strength of leadership yet is able to accomplish many things.

Ronald Reagan coming from people knowing him from the big screen and liking him I think brought celebrity/politician to the forefront literally. Americans liked him but I am not sure they saw him as a strong leader. Oliver North seemed more in the driver's seat.

George H. Bush was a man who could not relate to the average American person. The world saw him stand offish and untouchable. Like a thousand beams of light he seemed out into space and not on planet earth.

Bill Clinton the baby boomer playing the music by Fleetwood Mac, Don't Stop Thinking About Tomorrow, Don't stop it'll soon be here, cause yesterday's gone yesterdays gone.........immediately brought back the fun carefree attitude of the American people. He took us by storm with his good looks and charisma that lit up the television screen. He promised action and leadership.

George W. Bush came into the Presidency under controversy, without his brother's state of un counted ballots and hanging chads, he would never have been president and thanks to Ohio's crooks he was placed back in for four more years. There were immediate feelings of dishonesty and unfairness back in the American people's minds. His incompetence has cost us American lives, allies, and integrity and a deficit that will take years and years to get out from under. Incompetence is the first word that will always come to my mind when I hear his name in the years to come.

Ella:

As we come to the end of this book of Morrow's, I want to thank you for your guidance. I only participated in one previous book discussion, the one about "Galileo's Daughter". It is very interesting to be led throughout the reading of a book within a group. I learned that those of different ages, mixed backgrounds and varied education give altogether different impressions of a subject in contributing to the general composition of American thought. This could be fractious, but you steered us on a good and true course. You have a gift. Thank you, again.

Regarding the presidents we have had since, I hesitate in giving my opinion because none of them have affected me personally since Vietnam. I definitely watched FDR with my husband and so many of my family fighting in WWII, and was very concerned with the three we have discussed because my two sons served in the Vietnam Era.

Our current president has done the best he could without proper advise from his Congress and from his foreign policy advisors and foreign intelligence agencies. I admire his fortitude and long-suffering. In all my life I have never seen such vitriol toward another human being. It would have been better if he had been given proper information, and now I am appalled to have learned that Congress is working to change the wording of the permission they granted him to go into Iraq in the first place.

I admire the fact that our presidents give of themselves and their lives to guide this nation. They need to be served best no matter what their party may be.

Gerald Ford was a kind man, did bring the troops back from Vietnam because Congress withheld the money to properly service the needs of the troops.

Carter did win a Nobel Peace Prize, but his concepts of what was needed to govern the country were limited and subjective.

Reagan did end the Cold War and caused the Berlin Wall to be eliminated. I saw that wall and it was heart-breaking to see the crosses where those who had tried to escape were killed. There was a sense of relief when that came down.

George H. W. Bush was a gentle and kind man, brought much federal government experience to the office, and acted prudently.

Clinton was a presidential personality. He had much intelligence,and was perceived to have accomplished much.

One word descriptions:

Gerald Ford - honorable
Jimmy Carter - not up to the job, unfortunately
Ronald Reagan - phoney
George H. Bush - out of touch
Bill Clinton - charismatic
George W Bush - frightening

Merijo...."Our current president has done the best he could without proper advise from his Congress and from his foreign policy advisors and foreign intelligence agencies.

I respectfully beg to differ, President Bush had a mind set to avenge his father when he took office. He refused to meet with the United Nations and try diplomacy, he rushed to war. He even now refuses to listen to his military advisors who tell him he CAN NOT win this war. He refuses to see Iraq is engaged in a civil war and our troops need to come home. Great Britian has finally decided to pull out and recognize this is a civil war. His position as President is to serve the American people and he even refuses to hear their voices. If this is the best he could do then it truly shows his incompetence and no else is to blame. Congress was given false information, Colon Powell sat at the hearings and provided false information of WMD. They had NO proof Sadam was linked to the 911 terrorist attacks, yet they used the fear to gain acceptance. This congress and senate has been dominated with his own party constituents along with democrats and they have backed him and are now seeing how arrogant and wreckless he is with our American troops. They are sorry for the day they gave him their vote because he has shown complete incompetence since. I am happy to see there will no longer be a blank check for him to carelessly spend to continue to bankroll Haliburton.

Presidents campaign and seek the office of Presidency, the day they are sworn in they vow to uphold the Constitution and protect the American people and our land. The life they choose and the time they spend serving as president is something they have accepted. The respect they will or will not get during this time will be determined on how well they serve this country, uphold the Constitution and serve the American people. President Bush has failed in all these areas and his poll showing he is the least liked president in all of history is his making.

Merijo "I admire his fortitude and long-suffering."

HIS fortitude and long suffering? What about the fortitude of our American soldiers and the families of the ones who will never return? How has this President suffered? He has gotten all that he has asked for and wanted. The soldiers are the ones who have suffered, this country is suffering and will for years to come.

With all due respect I can not find an ounce of sympathy, respect or admiration for this President. His legacy will be one worse then any other president who has served this country so far.

On further thought, I'd like to slightly alter my commenet about Clinton to "charisma wasted".

Bella Marie:

You certainly have a right to your opinion. I think, however, for an individual to become a president of the most powerful country in the world to "avenge his father" is incongruous. It doesn't follow. The rationale of the American people is not that simplistic. The U. S. is not a banana republic.

Bush talked to the U. N. about this, and he consulted with Congress. Kofi Annan and four of the five voting countries of the U. N. Security Council - China, Russia, Germany and France - the U. S. is the fifth - voted against our going into Iraq.

Our Congress voted to give Bush permission to do so. The rationale was that Hussein was lying about having dirty bombs and biological weapons. Our country had been attacked for years by these radicals. Remember the first time the World Trade building was bombed in 1993? The perpetrators of that including the blind mullah are in the Florence penitentiary - maximum security, in solitary - in Colorado. Remember the seventeen Navy personnel who were killed on the S.S.Cole, the bombing of the American embassies in Nairobi, the hospital in Aden staffed by American Seventh Day Adventists doctors and nurses - a doctor was killed among others, the hospital ruined, the bombing of the Marine barracks in Lebanon killing over 200 Marines, and night club bombing in Bali killing mostly Australian tourists and the restaurant bombing in Germany killing American soldiers. And more! For 25 years our country has been taking it and taking it without much of a response. (Reagan responded in Grenada until our medical students were rescued. Bush I responded when Hussein marched into Kuwait. Clinton responded in Somalia, but it was a disaster.)

Bush got misleading intelligence from the CIA and NSA, but it was not completely erroneous. Because of Hussein's antipathy to the U. S. it was believed that it would easily bcome a safe haven for Al Qaeda. And most curious of all, fourteen resolutions by the U. N. advising Iraq to open all their weapons facilities to inspectors were ignored. Iraq did not comply and when it did, credibility had weakened.

There is a fog to war. Things are not always apparent. Few people in the U. S. can speak Arabic and even fewer can speak Farsi, the language of Iran. Fewer people understand the history of radical Islamism. It wasn't taught in school until one got into college and then it would be an elective or a separate course of study toward a degree.

Al Qaeda is invisible. It is just about everywhere in the world. Radical Islamists persuade young Arabs or sympathizers - Americans, even, to join a group and then proceed to brainwash them into killing themselves as suicide bombers. Death means nothing to them after such an indoctrination. They believe their death is for a higher cause. Trains in Madrid and in London can attest to that suicide goal.

We're dealing with barbarians in Iraq. Recently there have been two attacks by insurgents with chlorine gas. This gas was outlawed after WWI.

In my opinion the U. S. is being ill-served by people with little brain who are in government, in the entertainment industry (few of them have had disciplined advanced education) journalists and writers of blogs who have a penchant for debauching the truth and mocking those who are working to bring an understanding of just how in danger the world finds itself. It isn't from global warming which is several hundred years away.

There are checks and balances in our Constitution. There are few things that the president may do by executive order, and even they can be overruled or modified.

The U. S. broke Iraq and when one breaks something they own it. This is a situation that must be peaceful when our soldiers leave or if not the slaughter at that point will be overwhelming.

Merijo,

While I would not attempt to debate with a History teacher, I would like to rebutt and say I am an informed, active American and have followed from beginning to now as to the process in which this war developed. All the rhetoric will never convince the millions of Americans Bush did not rush to war and has handled this in an arrogant, wreckless manner. He is the Commander in Chief you don't get to make these decisions and create this quagmire and then pass the buck onto Congress and everyone else. As the saying goes, "The buck stops here."(at the desk of the President)

Your defense of his actions can't help but remind me of my day care children....One begins the fight, and then wants to blame all the others for his actions and believe me a child can make a great argument as you did, to convince someone he had NO other choice from the information and actions leading up to his violent response. In the end acknowledging he should have done differently, talking it out, serve his time out and apologize is the only way any child will become a responsible nonviolent adult. Too bad we can't put Mr. Bush in a time out. In 2008 he is going in a longgggg time out.

Each individual has a personal attachment to this and so you can rationalize it in which ever ways best gives you credence. You sound like you would make the perfect defense argument for President Bush, although all the reports are in and refute your arguments.

Banana Republic? Don't know how to respond to that.

It does not take an advanced educated person to see this was a senseless war and someone with the mentality of this president shows me his avengance for his father, his war monger attitude and his greed to stuff the pockets of Haliburton are not incongruous.

Merijo, "In my opinion the U. S. is being ill-served by people with little brain who are in government, Starting with our Commander in Chief Mr. Bush, and all his fallen cronies and crooks.

in the entertainment industry (few of them have had disciplined advanced education) This sounds very superior and condescending and I beg to differ, it does not take advanced education or a rocket scientist to know this has been handled poorly.

journalists and writers of blogs who have a penchant for debauching the truth

Who's truth would that be? Are we now at the level of liar, liar, pants on fire. Or he said, she said.

If they do not agree with the President they are consideredand mocking those who are working to bring an understanding of just how in danger the world finds itself. It isn't from global warming which is several hundred years away."

So shall we just sit and wait and leave this global warming for future generations to deal with since obviously you nor I will be here in several hundred years? I for one feel it is as Al Gore stated last night, "This is NOT a political issue, its not a red or blue issue, this is a moral issue."

I see you watched the Academy Awards last night.

The U. S. broke Iraq and when one breaks something they own it.

The U.S. did NOT break Iraq, we invaded a country under false pretenses and assumed they wanted the same democracy we have. For centuries before and for centuries to come Iraq will continue to have civil uprisings. It is NOT our responsibility to go into any country with a tyrant leader and invade them and impose our Constitution on them. Where does it end if that is the attitude?

This is a situation that must be peaceful when our soldiers leave or if not the slaughter at that point will be overwhelming.

The slaughter is already overwhelming, have you NOT been watching the news? There will be NO peaceful time for pulling out, Iraq chooses to fight amongst themselves and will continue whether we are there or not.

Merijo....Al Queda was responsible for the attacks NOT Sadam. Bush wanted to take the attention off of Osama because he was in bed with the oil companies, Haliburton and Osama Bin Laden, so instead he shifted the blame to Iraq. We will never see eye to eye on this because YOU are for his actions and I am against them. America holds Mr. Bush accountable for this war because ultimately he chose to ignore the vote NOT TO INVADE IRAQ! You can blame Congress because they gave him their votes, but as you stated there was misinformation and had they known he planned on using their vote as approval of NO HOLDS BARRED and NO EXPENSE too large life or money, I am certain they would NOT have given their vote.

He like all the other presidents who have gone to war during their time in office is going to have the legacy of their wars. You can't have it both ways...it is what it is.

This is a very sad situation that needs to be remedied and the Americans have spoken in these last elections and will speak again in 2008. He can ignore them NOW but their voices will not fall on deaf ears in this next election.

Bella Marie:

I am not a history teacher although I did teach Humanities for three years to gifted and talented middle school children.

Remember this, the Senate is in Democratic hands by virtue of one vote. The House of Representatives by about six members. This means that approximately half the voting population of this country voted for Bush and his people because they believed that he was the best choice for keeping the U. S. safe. It is true we have had no more attacks on our soil since 9/11.

I said in an earlier post that we should not have gone into Iraq in the first place, but now that we are there, we need to stabilize the country. Iraq has a government, has had free elections, but its ethic is Muslim. One must hope and pray that Muslims who want to stop the killing will lead the way.

I became part of this discussion because I hoped to have a pleasant and informative time, but in too many posts here, the subject became personal and moved ahead into the present accompanied by negative and pejorative remarks about the current administration. I tried in my posts to return the discussion back to the subject, but still the discussion moved into the present.

I do not wish to discuss current politics here. If I wanted to debate I would have gone to the political issues discussion.

IT'S GOODBYE TIME, FOLKS! IT WAS JUST GREAT GETTING TO KNOW YOU AND DISCUSSING MORROW'S BOOK AND I HOPE WE MEET AGAIN IN ANOTHER DISCUSSION!

I tried to compile your descriptions of our recent presidents and I had them all lined up in a post and then.......................I hit the wrong button and they all disappeared!

As Bugs Bunny used to say (or was it a pig?) in the cartoons.........that's all, folks!!!

It was great fun and thanks again for your interest, your cooperation in Seniornet book discussions and your insightful comments.

Merijo,

My apologies, I got you confused with our History teacher. Your post sounded as though you were. As far as personal remarks, I too could see possible posts as such, but I would rather see it as others with different opinions and expressing them with respect to all.

This means that approximately half the voting population of this country voted for Bush and his people because they believed that he was the best choice for keeping the U. S. safe.

This president was NOT elected by the people, he gained his office by uncounted votes and corrupt politicians as in past history. And because he gained the office does not in any way indicate the American people believed him to be the best choice for keeping the U.S. safe. And, if this were remotely true, he has failed to do so.

I tried in my posts to return the discussion back to the subject, but still the discussion moved into the present.

It is almost impossible to discuss this book about three past presidents, their wars and their faults and not look at the present president and his faults and war. I would expect this to be debatable without offense taken.

I do not wish to discuss current politics here. If I wanted to debate I would have gone to the political issues discussion.

<Because of your posts I only assumed you did in fact have an opinion and wanted to share it in this forum. As I have said, I apologize if you have taken this in a personal way. Sometimes it is hard to accept others do not feel the same as we do. It is a hard reality this President has the lowest poll rating ever in history. ALL Americans are and should be sad he has performed poorly. You, should not take any of these personally since YOU are not responsible for any of his actions.

This book is about politics, how could we NOT discuss them?

Ella,

Thank you for being our leader. Your questions and this book brought about much thought and controversy which makes for good discussions.

Merijo,

You have my most sincere apology, I along with Ella expressed we loved to debate. By everyone else's post it appeared they did too. You had a lot of interesting and great posts and I truly respect your's and everyone's ability to express them. Thank you.

And as our leader so graciously put it...yab da dab dab dab...That's all folks!

I've been reading along with this Discussion and found it interesting as I've also been rereading the Archived Discussion of Bush At War. It was fascinating to see the hopes,doubts and fears that were put forward in 2003 on the eve of the War.

I do think Presidents(and PM's in our case), would benefit a lot if there was a return to the old system of training Diplomats in the field. In those days they understood the mindset and ethnic peculiarities of foreign countries, and why Saddam mightn't want to publicly admit to not having his Weapons even if it meant War. My country seems to reward retiring Politicians with Diplomatic postings, and they go in cold turkey.

It's been interesting.

Ella, Thanks for the discussion. I haven't participated a lot, but I am glad that you provided the impetus for me to read the book - and maybe check out more presidential biographies.

Ella, I also would like to thank you. I am sorry not to have been here to finish the discussion. I did have some doctor appts. I have two to go to on Wednesday and Friday. This is no excuse for not participating. I will admit to paying more attention to Snow. I will try to do better in the future.

Bella Marie:

Glad to know your comments were not meant to be personal. They certainly sounded like they were. Thank you for your apology. I appreciate it.

Merijo,

I know what you mean, I too thought some posts were meant personally. That is the thing about the internet, one can voice a passionate opinion and someone can read it to be something it is not. I try to always use the word respectfully or with all due respect to indicate its a rebuttal but no personal or disrespect is intended. It is difficult to discuss religion or politics without passion and personal feelings. Thank you for acknowledging my post and I look forward to future discussions with you possibly on lighter material.

Have a great day!

This discussion is now READ ONLY and will be archived.