-
The Book Club Online is the oldest book club on the Internet, begun in 1996, open to everyone. We offer cordial discussions of one book a month, 24/7 and enjoy the company of readers from all over the world. Everyone is welcome.
SEPTEMBER BOOK CLUB ONLINE
PLEASE POST BELOW IF YOU PLAN TO JOIN US.
(http://www.seniorlearn.org/bookclubs/presclub/Presidentsclubcvr.jpg)
As we head into another overheated and polarizing presidential campaign, at least it's a comfort knowing that former presidents have learned to mostly put aside partisan politics and work together. Thanks to the brilliant investigative work of Time magazine's Nancy Gibbs and Michael Duffy, The Presidents Club uncovers a powerful secret fraternity, in which ex-leaders stay in the game by counseling inexperienced successors. - USA Today
Realizing that membership in the Presidents Club bestows a singular perspective can help explain certain minor mysteries of our political life. How, for example, could Clinton ever forgive George H.W. Bush, who in the 1992 campaign all but charged him with being a traitor, if not a Soviet stooge, for visiting Russia as a college student and protesting the Vietnam War “from foreign soil”? Why has Obama, whose presidential quest embodied a repudiation of everything George W. Bush stood for, heard scarcely a grumble about his policies from his once-belligerent predecessor? The answer lies in what Kennedy said to Arthur Schlesinger when asked to rank the presidents: “Only the president himself can know what his real pressures and his real alternatives are.” It’s a sentiment that virtually every president voices at one point or another in this book. - Washington Post
Related Links: Secrets of the Presidents Club - Video (http://videos.simonandschuster.com/Secrets-of-THE-PRESIDENTS/1510374688001);
Book TV with Nancy Gibbs and Michael Duffy (http://www.booktv.org/Watch/13439/The+Presidents+Club+Inside+the+Worlds+Most+Exclusive+Fraternity.aspx);
Discussion Leaders: Ella (egibbons28@columbus.rr.com) and Harold (hhullar5@yahoo.com)
-
All of you are invited to join us in the discussion of this great new book about the continuing interests, activities, and post presidential lives of the small fraternal groups of men (and in the future women) who have served as President of the United States. The story at times might be funny or serious, but it is always interesting. Also the Book records details of the many perks and privilges, and even occasionally serious duty assignments attaching to this membership.
For this discussion to become a reality, we will need at least 5 or 6 people who will commit to reading and actively participate in the discussion. Please join Ella and I by posting your intention here.
-
As HAROLD says it is a very interesting book. President Clinton said only a few know what life in the White House was truly like, only ex-presidents. This book, so well researched, is their story; their passions, prejudices, relationships with each other. Absolutely fascinating!
"It makes little difference how much they may have fought on the way to the White House; once, they've been in the job, they are bound together by experience, by duty, by ambition, and by scar tissue." (pg.2)
"Nixon, the man who eternally longed to belong, actually created a private clubhouse, a brownstone across the street from the White House, purchased discreetly by the givernment in 1969 for the use of former presidents. It is still in operation. "(pg.6)
Four of the former presidents are in this YouTube picture, good sound, details of which are in the book:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zkzjodKAQhA
JOIN US IN SEPTEMBER!
POST A MESSAGE NOW!
-
Just got put on hold at library - 62. I think there are 6 copies. I should have it in time.
-
will order the book
-
HELLO JOANP AND KIDSAL. Happy to have you both in this discussion. It promises to be interesting; the book gives us new insight into these men. The first chapters deal with PRESIDENTS TRUMAN AND EISENHOWER.
We are not going to mention AGE, but can either of you remember those two when they were in office? If not, I'm sure you have read something about them.
Do you think President Truman will always be remembered for being the one who made the decision to drop the atom bombs on Japan? Do young people today know that?
He didnt have to campaign for that job, but what a terrible decision to have to make. It's not easy being a president, is it?
-
A neighbor has loaned me the book and isn't in a hurry to get it back. :)
Marking my spot. X
-
Callie, lucky you. The title came up in my library's online catalog, but when I tried to put on a hold, I was told holds were not available. Have sent library a note asking about the status.
Yesterday both Gibbs and Duffy were on Morning Joe, along with historians Doris Kearns Goodwin and Jon Meachem, talking about presidents past and present, those who emerged unbroken and those who were broken by the events of history. Even if I can't get hold of the book, I want to follow the discussion along.
-
That sounds like fun. I am sloowwly reading The Clinton Tapes by Taylor Branch - it's 600 pgs! - and is very interesting. You may want to take a look at that if you have some time thru the summer. I'm scanning some of the passsages about events, especially Bosnia, etc, but i find the discussions about the decision-making processes very interesting and the behind-the-scenes White House is insightful.
I have frequently said there is no training to take that job, it's all on-the-job-training and so much more complicated than we can imagine. That's why i am reluctant to be too critical of sitting presidents. I do disagree sometimes with idealogy, of course, but i just feel i'm probably missing a hundreds of pieces of information that they have at hand, to be able to criticize individual decisions.
Oh, yes! Definitely remember Truman and Eisenhower!
-
Pedlin, I suspect I will mostly "follow" and go back to the book to read details on comments. I expect to have 'Aha!" moments - since I always seem to miss points that others see.
-
I've read the book, and will follow along - maybe even comment from time to time. ::)
-
I have to see the book before committing, but if I like it, I'm in. My library system has 17 copies; I put my name down just for fun, and I'm #95 in the queue. I'll follow that just for laughs, and take my name off before I'm close to the top. I wouldn't do it with a book I can only keep 3 weeks, my memory isn't good enough. I need to have the book in my hands for the whole discussion, so I'll buy it or borrow from a friend.
-
I do remember Truman. In spite of having lived in the DC area my whole life, the only inaugural parade I saw live was Truman's. My father worked at the Patent Office, and he took JoanK and me to the 8th floor of the building, where we looked down on it in comfort.
-
CALLIE, you mustn't just follow - post your thoughts, we want opinions, good, bad, liberal, conservative, whatever comes to mind. And.......
PEDLIN, buy the book, then give it to someone for Christmas telling them how good it was, or is that a bit miserly? I would love a present like that - from someone who likes history or politics and has told me it's a good book. Spread it around the family, you'll find they like the book.
I'm so sorry I missed the authors on Morning Joe, I never watch the program, I never have TV on except in the evenings but I have no idea what I do, time just goes. I'm slow I think.
And I hope PATH will either buy or borrow the book. Your library didn't buy enough copies, who was it said their library had 269 copies? Was it me, I'll have to check.
JEAN, I hope you get the book also. I think we all agree how burdensome the job of being presidenet of our country is and I often wonder why they work so hard to get in that Oval Office. In the book you'll read many remarks from the various presidents how they felt in their early days. Fascinating reading.
THANK YOU ALL FOR YOUR COMMENTS!
-
P.S. - My library has 58 copies with 65 requests waiting.
-
Ella, the authors have been interviewed on BookTV. Click here (http://www.booktv.org/Program/13439/quotThe+Presidents+Club+Inside+the+Worlds+Most+Exclusive+Fraternityquot.aspx) to get to a page where you can click to watch the interview online.
-
Ella: from your post: CALLIE, you mustn't just follow - post your thoughts, we want opinions, good, bad, liberal, conservative, whatever comes to mind. And.......
I never have TV on except in the evenings but I have no idea what I do, time just goes. I'm slow I think.
Oh, I'll post if I have any opinions or comments. :) However, I don't like to take up posting space with "I agree" or some such remark. I'm looking forward to reading the book straight through and then meandering along with the discussion.
I am the same as you re: TV on only in the evenings - and, sometimes, not even then.
We are not slow; we do things leisurely. :D
-
While I think we should have at least 5 who have the book during the discussion period, monitors are of course are welcome if it makes. I bought the digital book from B&N for the nook. Why I don't know, but I could not find a digital copy at the Apple store. So I will bring the old Nook out of retirement for this occasion.
-
I read the sample on my kindle, and found it very interesting. So I'll at least start the discussion. But I won't be able to spend major time on it.
-
I would like to participate. Thank you.
-
WELCOME THREAD, happy to have you on board!
And,JOANK, hope you have time to spend a few hours with us.
We will all have a lot to talk about as we reminisce about our presidents. Not only our own memories, but the book gives us details of the relationships between these ambitious men, particularly as they retire.
Don't you think it would be difficult to go back to being a private citizen after the power of the Oval Office? Of course, they still have many trappings, benefits galore and the money they can glean from speeches, sitting on boards, etc.
Still, it's not the same........
-
It must be frustrating sitting on the sidelines watching others make the decisions you used to make. Especially if you see them going through the same learning mistakes that you made.
-
If you were smart (and many were) you would listen to all the past presidents, all the advice they could give you and then, of course, do it your way. And pleasing your party, congress, the people with the media after you constantly, dogging you, whew!
The book gives us many examples of the "club" attempting to preserve the OFFICE, if not always agreeing with the current president and his policies.
-
In recent TV interviews, Michael Duffy has shared vignettes from the book:
-Ronald Reagan showing Bill Clinton how to salute
-Eisenhower on tape telling John Kennedy not to worry about the Soviet Union's bomb threats
So touching, in these bitter times, that leaders from opposite parties actually trued to help each other. But a reminder of how lonely the job is (Ike's opinion of Krushchev's intentions was probably off the mark and contrasted with the military's chant to bomb pre-emptively).
I know it wasn't all sweetness and light but I'm really looking forward to reading this book, for the history but also for the balm.
-
I finally got ahold of the book, and it looks very interesting--well written, and a subject I care about, so I'm in. I now own the book, so I'm well equipped.
I had put my name down to reserve it at the library, and in 10 days have advanced from #95 to #85. At that rate, I'd get it about the time the discussion is over. I'll leave my name on for a while, just for fun, but remove it well before my turn.
-
This sounds like a really interesting book. I am a political junkie so I would love to read this book along with all of you. I will purchase it on my nook and anticipate September. Only not too anxious because I don't want my summer to fly by too quickly.
Ciao for now~
-
Hi, Bellamarie. It's good to see you again; it's been a while since we were in the same discussion.
-
Thanks for the post, THREAD, I'm sorry I have misssed hearing either author on TV. Were they on BookTV? I had it on a bit over the weekend, but nothing interesting - I even get notices from BookTV on my email and don't pay proper attention to it, time just goes past and fast!! But you are right - in bitter times we need to read that rivals can be friends.
I think that only history can prove it though; if perchance Obama and Romney were to meet the handshakes would be friendly but underneath that public persona what gives? Only historians can examine the truth.
And that's what we will be reading and absorbing.
Hey, PAT AND BELLAMARIE, happy to have you both on board. It's a good time to review old rivalries and friendships in politics.
-
Ella, the authors were on BookTV last month sometime. You can go to the BookTV web site, search for the name, and watch it on your computer. I posted a link a while back.
-
I just bought the book from Amazon. Count me in!
Nancy
-
Thank you Pat H. yes, its been awhile for me. I took on a couple of special needs children in my day care this past year so just getting through the day was a real challenge for me. I'm looking forward to a bit less hectic year come Sept. so I really would love to get back to the book discussions. I always enjoy sharing with all of you.
Marz, thank you for the heads up on the web site. I like learning something about the authors if possible.
Ciao for now~
-
Hey! Aberlaine and Bellamarie both with us. Hoorah!
-
Welcome, everyone! Ella asked me to add the two very interesting links you'll find in the heading today. One of them is the BookTV production with Nancy Gibbs and Michael Duffy that maryz told us about a few days ago. It's really fascinating. I'm listening to it as I go about my postings here this morning. Thanks for bringing these links to our attention, Ella and maryz!
-
Thank you, JOANP!
And a hearty welcome to NANCY!
What a great group we have and isn't this an appropriate year to be discussing politics; although this is history - still relevant. Politics does not change too much over the years; the nation does, of course, and the decisions that are made by our presidents, but politics, campaigns, rivalries, that is what the book is about.
Does it seem to anyone other than myself that the president has gained too much power over the years?
Maybe Harold can correct me, but I think Jefferson feared this might happen; whereas John Adams believed in presidential power. It was he that wanted to call the presidenet - His Excellency.
HAROLD, am I correct?
-
Harold will know better than I, but I believe you are. Although it was John Adams I believe who came up with the idea if "balance of Powers" between Executive, Legislative, and Judiciary, when he became President, he was not so balanced (for example, The Alien And Sedition Act, which allowed imprisonment of anyone critisizing the government. It was repealed under Jefferson).
In the whiole early period of our government, there was a great fear that in revolting we would have merely subtituted a new tyrant for the old. But in spite of those fears, and not withstanding the prefgerances of whoever was president, as the country baecame bigger, more complex, and its pieces mor interdependent, the Executive has, of necessity become stronger and stronger.
-
I just completed a review of all the above post and am happy to report that we now have at least five participants who will have a copy of the book during the September discussion. These five plus Ella and myself should have the material available to make the discussion interesting. Others who may not have the book during the discussion will be welcome to participate to the extent that they desire.
I have a digital copy of the book on my 1st generation nook and am in the process of reading it and highlighting and noteing particular discussion threads for posting. I was surprized at the amount of detail included in the book. It has been a long time since one of our projects ran to over 600 pages in the print edition. There will be many interesting points to talk about.
-
Regarding Ella's question in her message#33 concerning the views of Jefferson in contast with those of John Adams and George Washington (the federalists) on the degree of popular democracy guaranteed in the new nation. I will offer the following off the cuff comments.
True the Jefferson view (there were other prominant supporters) certainly appears more favorable to what today might be considered a popular democracy. Many of these views were incorporated in the original written Constitution. This document was circulated for approval by the 13 State Governments. During the approval debates opposition developed on the fear that the words allowed loopholes for Federal abuse of power. To insure approval of the constitution the first 10 amendments were written to specifically deney the federal government the power to pass laws limiting certain basic civil rights (speach, religion,press etc). It also specifically stated that any powers not specifically granted to the federal government were reserved for the States and the people. This is the package that was approved by vote of the people resulting in the first Congress and the Washington administration launching the United States in March 1789.
The Uniited States began its history aparently with limited enumerated Federal powers. Since the first 10 amendments did not apply to the states they began their function with soverign powers limited only by the specific powers granted to the Federal Government. Some of the enumerated federal powers proved significant; for examble the federal power to regulate interstate commerce and of course Foreign relations. Also the Supreme Court early claimed the power to declare a Federal Law passed by congress and the President unconstitutional and vioid. Some of the 19th/early 20th century amendments also increased federal power (particularly the Civil War amendments). Finally in the 1960's a series of Supreme court decisions made the civil rights limitations of the first 10 amendments applicable to the States making possiible the United States governance as it now functions today.
ella's question
-
Adams and Jefferson are interesting in another context as well. Looking at a bit of the Presidents Club made clear to me something I'd long wondered about.
Adams and Jefferson were bitter political enemies. They fought the first contested presidential election, and it was bitterly contested, complete with dirty tricks, bitterness afterwards, the whole nine yards. And yet, years later, in their retirement, they started a correspondance that continued for years and made them fast friends. That correspondance is still read today.
This always seemed paradoxical to me: now seeing the other unlikely alliances, it seems natural.
-
On July 4, 1826 John J.Audubon was six weeks at sea on the Dellos, a sailing ship taking him to Liverpool where he intended to publish his Birds of North America. That afternoon, slightly drunk on porter (a strong beer) he awoke from a dream in which some great undiagnosed calamity had befallen his adopted country, the United States. Weeks later in Liverpool he read that such an event had occurred; John Adams and Thomas Jefferson had both died that day, in their respective Massachusetts and Virginia homes.
-
Jefferson was concerned about the power of the federal govt. ironically, when he became president he took at least two actions that were probably not constitutional at the time - doubling the size of the country by agreeing to the La Purchase before it was approved by Congress and establishing an institution to train military officers, West Point, as a federal entity.
It's always easier to state opinions when they are a candidate. The job gets much tougher once they are on the job. Almost every president has done things he said he wouldn't and was not able to do things he said he would. The powers of the executive branch have increased in every war time, so Lincoln, Wilson and FDR have expanded excutive powers the most.
Ella, at this point in our history we see the legislative and judicial branches very much balancing the powers of the executive branch. The legislative branch has stymied the president's legislation and the court has given financial power to his opposition. The reasons many presidents have worked hard at foreign relations is because that's pretty much his ballywick, unless the Congress has to approve a treaty. Wilson discovered his opposition can clobber him with that "right to consent."
Jean
-
The Book Club Online is the oldest book club on the Internet, begun in 1996, open to everyone. We offer cordial discussions of one book a month, 24/7 and enjoy the company of readers from all over the world. Everyone is welcome.
SEPTEMBER BOOK CLUB ONLINE
PLEASE POST BELOW IF YOU PLAN TO JOIN US.
(http://www.seniorlearn.org/bookclubs/presclub/Presidentsclubcvr.jpg)
As we head into another overheated and polarizing presidential campaign, at least it's a comfort knowing that former presidents have learned to mostly put aside partisan politics and work together. Thanks to the brilliant investigative work of Time magazine's Nancy Gibbs and Michael Duffy, The Presidents Club uncovers a powerful secret fraternity, in which ex-leaders stay in the game by counseling inexperienced successors. - USA Today
Realizing that membership in the Presidents Club bestows a singular perspective can help explain certain minor mysteries of our political life. How, for example, could Clinton ever forgive George H.W. Bush, who in the 1992 campaign all but charged him with being a traitor, if not a Soviet stooge, for visiting Russia as a college student and protesting the Vietnam War “from foreign soil”? Why has Obama, whose presidential quest embodied a repudiation of everything George W. Bush stood for, heard scarcely a grumble about his policies from his once-belligerent predecessor? The answer lies in what Kennedy said to Arthur Schlesinger when asked to rank the presidents: “Only the president himself can know what his real pressures and his real alternatives are.” It’s a sentiment that virtually every president voices at one point or another in this book. - Washington Post
DISCUSSION SCHEDULE:
Chapters 1-9 9/1 through 9/8
Chapters 10-14 9/9 through 9/15
Chapters 15-19 9/16 through 9/22
Chapters 20-26 9/23 through 9/30
Some Topics for Consideration
CHAPTERS 1 THROUGH 5
1. He had very bad eye sight and would rather have won a medal in war than to sit in the Oval Office. Many of our presidents have fought in wars; does this fact impact on their campaigns? Is it true that wartime heroes get into politics? Does it work?
2. Truman was called “stupid, vulgar, loud mouth, etc. How did he overcome this image to win an election.
3. Truman stated that he had invented the White House office so efficiently that no future president could make a mistake. What did he mean?
4. A president who entered the Oval Office and left more popular than any man? Who? Do you agree?
5. Friends and then enemies and then friends again - who could take it without a nervous breakdown? How could you face a good friend after making harsh statements about him in a campaign?
6. Truman “had been in politics a long time and he knew the rules of the game?” - (pg77) What do you think they are?
7. Truman was the first president to claim “executive privilege” - what were the circumstances and how many times since has that been used by our presidents?
8. IF PRESIDENT TRUMAN WAS THE FIRST MEMBER OF THE “CLUB WHAT PRECEDENTS DID HE ESTABLISH?
9. Truman disliked Kennedy, Eisenhower disliked Kennedy , so what happened to the club?
10. Did you learn anything new about Truman, Eisenhower, or Kennedy?
11. You got to have ego, lots and lots of ego. - “I don’t know anybody who can do it (the job of being president) any better than I can…..and the pay is pretty good” - JFK Ego, money, a war hero, he had it all and yet...........................??
12. The question should be - If Kennedy had lived, what would have been different?
13. “Presidents inherit the foreign policy of their predecessors; they inherit their wars and their treaties ,,,,,and their covert operations.” - What examples can we think of?
Related Links: Secrets of the Presidents Club - Video (http://videos.simonandschuster.com/Secrets-of-THE-PRESIDENTS/1510374688001);
Book TV with Nancy Gibbs and Michael Duffy (http://www.booktv.org/Watch/13439/The+Presidents+Club+Inside+the+Worlds+Most+Exclusive+Fraternity.aspx);
Discussion Leaders: Ella (egibbons28@columbus.rr.com) and Harold (hhullar5@yahoo.com)
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
VERY INTERESTING, HAROLD, JOAN AND JEAN! Thank you!
sMuch to think about in the history of our government. The book by David McCullough - JOHN ADAMS - examines the relationship between Jefferson and Adams brilliantly and is an easy read. We discussed it here a few years ago at some length.
Put simplya: Adams was a Federalist, a group, later a party, who wanted more power centralized in the Federal Goverment. Jefferson belonged to a group identified as Democratic Republicans who wanted the a minimun of power in the federal goverment. It was the beginning, I believe, of the two-party system of government which, of course, dominates the news today. |
-
We will be putting the chapter schedule - the discussion schedule - which we will adhere to, in the heading in the next week or two. Watch for it and try not to read very far in the book as you will forget it all by the first of September.
-
My book is sitting in the living room whispering "read me", but I'll resist until mid-August or later.
-
Regarding the book I am polking my way through it slowly highlighting points for discussion. The book is certainly more than a fast read. In fact I am finding it a rather comprehensive political history of the United States between 1945 and the present.
I am reading and highlighting discussion points on the I-pad. I now have all my Nook books on the I-Pad. In all I have about a dozen digital titals purchasd from B&N over the past year and a half on the I Pad. I think reading and inserting margin discussion notes is easer on the brighter screened I pad than on the Nook.
-
I have over 300 titles on my Nook purchased from Amazon in the last year and a half. Unfortunately mystery stories are fast reads.
-
Click here (http://www.thirteen.org/blog/announcements/thirteens-summer-reading-2012/) for an interesting list of books people are reading this summer. I loved that Gwen Ifill is reading The Presidents' Club.
-
Just bought the book. I'll be joining you.
Nancy
-
Great, NANCY, to have you are part of our group.
Browsing through bookstores in the past (which lately, by the way, are getting very lean looking inside) I couldn't help but notice that every few months, it seemed, there was another biography of Abraham Lincoln and one can't help wondering what else there is to write about the man. We've all read much about him over the years, I suspect.
And now another very popular book about him, THE KILLING OF LINCOLN by Bill O'Reilly. Has anyone read it?
If so, anything new?
-
Without opening the book - NO FAIR PEEKING INSIDE - which president since Truman has received more attention from the authors?
Just guess! Sorry, no prizes. I would like to meet you all for lunch somewhere if at all possible and buy you all a piece of pie. Cherry? Lemon? Apple?
I recently sold my condo and moved into a retirement situation and we have a Current Events discussion twice a month. How very interesting it is. Although I have belonged to book clubs most of my life, I have never participated in such a group. And politics does come up now and then - bipartisan politics!
-
Wow! That's a hard question to answer. My first thought was Johnson because of all that happened during his administration, but i don't recall his interacting with presidents - congress, YES, but not previous presidents and he died soon after his presidency. Then i thought Reagan, but i also don't recall any interaction w/ other presidents. I think of Clinton as having done that most often.
Of course, i'm making an assumption that that is what the book is going to focus on, and i may be "all wet" as the saying goes. :D
Jean
-
Ella the current events discussion at your apartments is interesting. I am surprised the they are so open. How many attend the meetings and do they all participate? A current event issue might come up at our table during lunch, but I don't see a special current event discussion. We probably would not have a halfdozen attendants and half of those would not talk.
This is a relatively small apartment with only 37 apartments . I estimate that at least half of them should be in an assisted living facility. Some we almost never see since they have their dinners delivered to their rooms. Most other senior independent living facility include at least 100 units. Yet it seems we have one of the better activity programs with frequent day trip to museums, local special events with restrauant dinners, and even hundred mile day trips to area fairs etc. Last month we went to a wine tasting at a vinyard near Fredreckburg. For this reason and because of its location near nowntown San Antonio convienent to my other outside activities, I really like it here.
-
THE DISCUSSION SCHEDULE IS IN THE HEADING - THE TEACHERS WILL RAP YOUR KNUCKLES IF YOU DON'T PAY ATTENTION IN CLASS TO THE ASSIGNMENT!!!
What? Only one guess to my quiz posted yesterday. JEAN, thanks for the vote but you are wrong. I think we should wait until the discussion to ask this question again. August will go fast, we rather hope, because the drought and very hot weather continues in Ohio and farmers are very worried about crops.
HAROLD, we have a group of about 10-12 which is just right for a Current Events discussion, everyone participates, we have it every other month with a very good leader who calls on each person by name. But my retirement home is in a 10 floor building with 23 different-designed apartments, something for everyone, with two restaurants, a gym, all kinds of meeting rooms, a library, etc. A big place. I'm adjusting to it slowly, using elevators to get around is very different living and new faces everywhere. There are no meals included. YOu pay at the two restaurants if you go; otherwise we do our own cooking. No one delivers meals here.
Strictly independent living.
A rehab, assisted living, nursing home, etc. is attached by a long hallway.
But I have come to love the art class, just finished my first portrait - a pencil sketch of James Thurber - appropriate because our building is named Thurber Tower.
-
Ella, I was writing as you were posting, and even though my second guess is wrong, I'll let it stand -- in support of Jean :D
Ella, you ask an interesting question. I can’t peek because I’m No. 2 on the lib list and the book is long overdue from July 16. First I had to make a list so as not to overlook anyone. Probably not Eisenhower (the first President I voted for – in some administrative office my senior year in college.) or Kennedy, both long gone, nor Ford – he just doesn’t seem that memorable. My first guess would be Nixon, partly because of his location in the chronology, and because much has been said about Watergate and his relations with China. Second guess would be Clinton, in part because he is so actively interacting today and has been since leaving the presidency.
Harold, your apartment sounds like a place I would like. I don’t think I want to live in a big building, but 37 apartments sounds fine. Because of my hearing I avoid large discussion groups, but with my assistive listening gadgets can enjoy and participate with a small group around a table.
-
Thanks, PEDLIN, for your guess anyway. Am going to wait to discuss these presidents until Sept. I was premature, probably, with my question. It's such a good book, I know you will enjoy it.
What is an assistive living gadget? Even though our builing is very large, the groups are small, e.g. about 10-12 sit around a table in our Current Events discussion. At times just 5-6 show up. My art class has about 10 in it and most paint. Wonderful teacher, the participants enter senior art contests and 6 of them won a contest to be on a calendar.
Remember the SECRET LIFE OF WALTER MITTY by James Thurber! Thurber's home is in Columbus, OHio, where I live and is a very active part of our community.
http://www.thurberhouse.org/
A history of the author -
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/James_Thurber
-
My sketch of Thurber: (larger than this)
(http://www.seniorlearn.org/bookclubs/presclub/ellasthurber.jpg)
I should mention that though it is my sketch it was modeled after a small one in the Columbus Monthly Magazine. Not entirely original
After doing a bit of sleuthing on the Internet my sketch is from a self-portrait done by Thurber himself ( I just now found that information). Click here:
http://www.google.com/search?q=james+thurber+images&hl=en&prmd=imvnso&tbm=isch&tbo=u&source=univ&sa=X&ei=A9gdUMKrOoT86gG_iICgCw&ved=0CEAQsAQ&biw=1083&bih=798s
-
Great sketch, Ella!
Your new living arrangements sound ideal.
-
That's wonderful!
-
Can i come live w/ you Ella, that sounds like a fun place to be. The community where i taught courses the last two yrs is really a community. It has houses, apartments and condos on a campus. It has both independent and assisted living. I don't know how many people live there. There were 70 people in the Women's history course I taught and 80 in the class about the 60s,70s and 80s. Some of those are non-residents from the surrounding communities, especially the Quaker community.
They have all sorts of classes all year round, current events, some wonderful watercolors are displayed onthe walls from the art classes, and Elderhostel schedules some courses there. Some are 2 hour lectures, and then classes w/ schedules of various lengths up my classes which were 6 two-hour courses.
Maybe in five or ten years i'll get to live there.
Jean
-
This book really piques my interest. Include me in the discussion.
-
Ella, your sketch is fantastic. I hope you have it framed and hanging on your wall.
-
Very happy to welcome you into the group discussion, DEAN!
Thanks for the comments about my Thurber sketch. I wish you were all in the class, it's great fun and you really don't have to have any talent. Our teacher makes it very easy and enjoyable.
-
SHEILA, will you email me, please! Cannot find where I put your email address.
-
The book is waiting for me at the library. I'll pick it up this afternoon. Hooray!
Jean
-
Perfect timing. I took my name off the list when it became obvious I would get it about 3 months from now. (I own the book, was just having fun.)
-
This was a president in need of a friend if there ever was one...
(http://www.seniorlearn.org/bookclubs/presclub/presidentsHT.jpg)
"I felt like the moon, the stars, and all the planets had fallen on me."
-
Ella, Your new home sounds like a fun place to live.
I'll take a shot at your question and guess Richard Nixon. Don't ask me why I choose him, I think only because he was such a troubled president/man.
I do watch Bill O Reilly and just saw that some schools are asking about using his "Killing Lincoln" in their classrooms. It seems everyone who has read it has given him great praise for the book.
Just a few days away to beginning our book and I can't wait. I must say I better get to reading it. I was born in 1952 and was not very good in History throughout my years in school and the first President I voted for was Jimmy Carter. Oh dear please do NOT ask me why because I'm not sure I can honestly defend myself. I had never been pro active in politics nor had I paid very close attention to the elections until John Kennedy. My awareness began when he was killed and I feel I was truly awakened the day Bobby Kennedy was killed. I have to also admit I truly did not know what Democrat or Republican represented and never considered myself either once I did gain more knowledge. I've become more pro active in politics and am very anxious to read this book for the sake of learning more about these men who chose to give up their private sector lives to become public/president.
I now consider myself a political junkie.....lolol I just hope with the help of all you brilliant members, I will be able to retain something from this book.
Ciao for now~
-
Hello BELLAMARIE: I doubt anyone here considers themselves "brilliant" - we all just like to read, to learn something, to wonder about the authors and their choice of words, characters, style, etc.
Were you surprised that the authors chose Truman to start the book?
I believe they considered they were beginning with the "modern" presidents. Why this classification, do you suppose?
-
I guess with a little research i could answer this question for myself, but i'm not up for it tonight, perhaps between all of us we could figure out..........how often thru history had there been an ex-president and a possibility of a presidents club?
Well, it's obvious and we probably all know that Washington survived beyond his administration. As much as i've learned about the Federalist period, i don't recall John Adams ever calling on GW for advice. I have McCollough's book on JA, i'll see if i can find out. Jefferson, of course, had Adams, but they weren't speaking while TJ was in office. Madison had been close to TJ, so he may have called on him for help, but i don't recall him "giving him a job". But imagine Madison could have had Adams and Jefferson's brains to use and Monroe had A, J and Madison, what a president's club that would have been! I'll see what i can find in McCullough. We could go on thinking about this, it may be that Hoover and Truman really were the first members of the club to work together.
Jean
-
I believe they considered they were beginning with the "modern" presidents. Why this classification, do you suppose?
The country had been through three traumatic events -- two wars and a great depression -- so post WWII seems like a good place to start. We were changing gears. People could now buy washing machines, automobiles, veterans were going to school under the GI Bill. A new era, a modern time.
-
Hello Ella~I think they began with Truman because he and Hoover dates us up to the "new presidency", also they wanted to discuss the more recent presidents because "The President's Club" has the most members alive so they can show more of the interaction of the presidents in the club. IMO
-
BELLAMARIE, the "new presidency" began with Truman, why? It's just a thought and probably there is no answer. One has to start a book somewhere. In my opinion, I could not have left out FDR while writing a book on presidents; but FDR was solely unique, he didn't share himself with anyone.
JEAN, indeed - a retired GW and JA advising Madison! What a president's club that would have been, we can only speculate. Our authors do tell us that the presidents club started with GW as he left office and became a "former" president. It seems to me the authors are stating that the presidents club consists of all former presidents. Is that your opinion?
But the modern presidency begins with Truman, hmm.
We'll learn some interesting stuff about Truman when we begin the discussion.
Well, some of us, remember Truman. I do!!! FDR paid no attention to his VP and Truman, as he put it, felt as though the planets had fallen on him.
PEDLIN, yes, the country had been through troubled times, but why consider Truman a "modern" president? We were "changing gears" - true; it was the middle of the 20th century, we had cause to celebrate after that war, but it also brought in the nuclear age of which we are all in fear of today.
"Modern" what does it mean?
Did you notice the club is an exclusive "FRATERNITY?" We are not modern enough are we?
-
When choosing a Vice President, don't you wonder how much thought is given to the possibility that he - or she - might have to step in and suddenly take over the helm without any advance warning?
-
Oh yes indeedy. I've thought so before and think so now. That No. 2 position is just a heartbeat away from the presidency.
I'm trying to remember Ford -- he was Nixon's VP, but was he selected or did he fall into it. Wasn't Spiro "WHO?" Nixon's first VP, and did he resign under a cloud or was he just not selected again?
I don't remember much about LYndon Johnson or Nixon as we were living in Puerto Rico and more concerned with island affairs, like the bombing of the ROTC building at the U and the Independentista party. We were in the States the summer they televised the Watergate trials with Sam Ervin, but I don't remember if we were visiting or had moved back.
-
Spiro Agnew was Nixon's VP. He resigned because of scandal in his home state. Gerald Ford was appointed to fill the position, and then succeeded to the presidency when Nixon resigned.
-
We'll learn all about those facts and concerns when we get into our book discussion AND IT STARTS TOMORROW. I'll put questions to be considered for the first week in our heading. They might help condense our thoughts a bit. There is much to consider here.
We are in the midst of a bitter campaign and we'll be reading about many more in the past. We have survived them before, oftentimes becoming stronger for the divergent views.
One small comment (I don't think we should get into present politics) but I must say keep Hollywood out of it, wasn't Eastwood a shameful presenter last night?)
-
Didn't watch, missed the Eastwood, haven't a clue, but everyone on Morning Joe was just bewailing it.
Reading this book just raises so many questions and also brings back so memories, so now I've been flipping around, checking the index, and also going online to look stuff up. Like the 25th Amendment, and also the line of successsion. I'm finding a lot of gaps in my knowledge.
-
Ella I have to say Eastwood was as usual an entertainer at his best! I laughed out loud at him. You really do have to be able to find the humor in times like this because it can get a bit overwhelming. Critics are always ready to attack the morning after so it did not surprise me what they were saying about Eastwood or any of the other speakers last night at the RNC. The mainstream media has not been at all unbiased in the past election nor this one. I am shocked at how they refuse to cover stories that don't seem to fit in their narrow mindedness or party favor.
I think throughout history the media has played an essential part in how people are able to get to know candidates. I am so thankful for more sources than just our televisions. Anyone now wanting to know background is just a mouse click away rather than wait for your newscasters to spoon feed you what "they" want you to know. Egads.....can you tell I have little faith in the media today? LOLOL
Ciao for now~
-
I agree, BELLEMARIE, if we listened to TV how in the world could a person learn the truth. I think we must read more indepth material before we decide; I find PBS to be less biased.
I have put questions (many, many questions, too many I'm sure) for you to consider as you read our chapters and we begin out discussion.
I have company early in the morning from out of state, so may not get in here until late, if at all. Perhaps Harold will drop in.
MEANWHILE, HAVE AT IT! WHAT DO YOU ALL THINK OF TRUMAN AND HIS RELATIONSHIP WITH HOOVER AND EISENHOWER??
-
OK, everyone we are about to begin our discussion of the Ex Presidents Club. Based on Eastern time we are within an hour of the official start. I 'll be back in the morning to respond to you east coast early birds.
Meanwhile I will comment now on recent post relative to earlier Ex Presidents associations/quasi clubs. Looking back on the century and a half history of the Nation pre Truman, as I see it in general Ex Presidents on the completion of their term or terms went home to their farm, town or City where they lived their remaining years in relative obscurity. There were exceptions I'm sure, the most notable Taft who went to the Supreme Court. I suspect also there were a few others who returned to politics in the Congress or state or local positions. Finally the well known correspondence between Thomas Jefferson and John Adams has some of the characteristics of a club although this was strictly between the two Ex Presidents and never seems to have involved a sitting President. Definitely as I see it today's Club association of Ex Presidents as it has developed since the 1950's is a new but today a real and important institution making the accumulated experience of the pool of past Presidents available to the current President.
It has also provided continue service for the retirees apparently without additional pay, some of which has involved physical discomfort and even danger not always enthusiastically accepted by the members. This can be something to discuss as we proceed through the project.
-
Examples of presidents inheriting wars and covert operations? Truman -- inherited WWII but had been kept out of the loop and didn't know about the atomic bomb until he became president. Obama -- two wars - naturally he was informed of ongoing secret operations concerning terrorists. It must be quite a shock to incoming presidents when briefed about what is happening behind the scenes in foreign affairs.
-
The Book Club Online is the oldest book club on the Internet, begun in 1996, open to everyone. We offer cordial discussions of one book a month, 24/7 and enjoy the company of readers from all over the world. Everyone is welcome.
SEPTEMBER BOOK CLUB ONLINE
PLEASE POST BELOW IF YOU PLAN TO JOIN US.
(http://www.seniorlearn.org/bookclubs/presclub/Presidentsclubcvr.jpg)
As we head into another overheated and polarizing presidential campaign, at least it's a comfort knowing that former presidents have learned to mostly put aside partisan politics and work together. Thanks to the brilliant investigative work of Time magazine's Nancy Gibbs and Michael Duffy, The Presidents Club uncovers a powerful secret fraternity, in which ex-leaders stay in the game by counseling inexperienced successors. - USA Today
Realizing that membership in the Presidents Club bestows a singular perspective can help explain certain minor mysteries of our political life. How, for example, could Clinton ever forgive George H.W. Bush, who in the 1992 campaign all but charged him with being a traitor, if not a Soviet stooge, for visiting Russia as a college student and protesting the Vietnam War “from foreign soil”? Why has Obama, whose presidential quest embodied a repudiation of everything George W. Bush stood for, heard scarcely a grumble about his policies from his once-belligerent predecessor? The answer lies in what Kennedy said to Arthur Schlesinger when asked to rank the presidents: “Only the president himself can know what his real pressures and his real alternatives are.” It’s a sentiment that virtually every president voices at one point or another in this book. - Washington Post
DISCUSSION SCHEDULE:
Chapters 1-9 9/1 through 9/8
Chapters 10-14 9/9 through 9/15
Chapters 15-19 9/16 through 9/22
Chapters 20-26 9/23 through 9/30
Some Topics for Consideration
CHAPTERS 1 THROUGH 9
1. You got to have ego, lots and lots of ego. - “I don’t know anybody who can do it (the job of being president) any better than I can…..and the pay is pretty good” - JFK Ego, money, a war hero, he had it all and yet...........................??
2. On a personal vote, did you vote for Kennedy? What were your thoughts about that election?
3. “Presidents inherit the foreign policy of their predecessors; they inherit their wars and their treaties ,,,,,and their covert operations.” - What examples can we think of?
4. What were President Kennedy’s mistakes in his first year in office and how could he have avoided them?
5. Do you think most presidents believe that foreign affairs is the most important issue to handle? (see pg.160)
6. Would you bring in your own crew or put experienced men as cabinet members or in powerful positions? How loyal should one be to friends/financial supporters?
7. What crises prompted Kennedy’s calls to the club?
8. Lyndon Johnson had several strokes against him when he was catapulted into the presidency - did he ever conquer them?
9. What has history taught us about LBJ? His successes, failures in office.
10. Johnson’s torment is understandable - could it have been avoided?
Related Links: Secrets of the Presidents Club - Video (http://videos.simonandschuster.com/Secrets-of-THE-PRESIDENTS/1510374688001);
Book TV with Nancy Gibbs and Michael Duffy (http://www.booktv.org/Watch/13439/The+Presidents+Club+Inside+the+Worlds+Most+Exclusive+Fraternity.aspx);
Discussion Leaders: Ella (egibbons28@columbus.rr.com) and Harold (hhullar5@yahoo.com)
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
One note about why the President's Club starts with Hoover and Truman, in the 20th century there was not often that there was a healthy,living ex-president and almost never more than one ( Taft and TR are the only two that come to mind, oh no,Coolidge and Hoover could have advised FDR for a while - HAHA) McKinley died in office, Wilson was ill after leaving office and died in '24. Harding died in office in '23 and FDR died in office.
Kennedy inherited the Bay of Pigs invasion. Johnson and Nixon inherited Viet Vam. We seem to be always planning, in the middle of, or just ending a military expedition.
Jean |
-
Truman stated that he had invented the White House office so efficiently that no future president could make a mistake. What did he mean?
I think he was referring to the new executive order that was voted in that would give the president the power to over ride or by pass congress if need be. I personally think it was an arrogant statement and not only does passing all the orders that followed NOT guarantee a mistake will not be made by presidents, but in fact we have seen that there are presidents to follow him that are questioned as to whether they have made mistakes. NO man is infallible regardless of how perfect a design seems to be made.
Every president inherits the good with the bad when he takes the oath of office. Some may be up to the challenge while others are not. Having the president's club and being able to call upon their predecessors has to be an enormous help and support if the ex presidents are willing to be generous, and can set aside their partisan party views and loyalties.
So much more to say, but have to run. Going to see the movie Hope Springs with one of my favorite actresses Meryle Streep. Be back later.
Ciao for now~
-
Haven't quite finished the reading, but so far i'm fascinated. No idea that Hoover had contributed so much. Reminds me that every person (president or not) has their strengths and weaknesses. Hoover may not have known what to do about the sudden depression, but he knew how to handle food shortages, and was there when that was needed.
-
It's fun watching Truman and Hoover coming to work together--Hoover very touchy, both of them suspicious, and with many different views. But they made it work, and ended up with respect and affection for each other.
-
8. IF PRESIDENT TRUMAN WAS THE FIRST MEMBER OF THE “CLUB WHAT PRECEDENTS DID HE ESTABLISH?
It would seem to me that Technically Hoover has to be counted as the first member of the Club. He was the only Ex President still living through the entire length of the Truman Presidency. For Me Truman was very much the founding father of the Club. Knowingly or unknowingly it was He, who first conceived the Club when he as the sitting President ask Ex President Hoover to study and develop a plan to feed starving post war Europe. He chose Hoover for this task because of Hoover’s experience in the same task after WWI. Truman reinforced his commitment to the development of the Club when later in his term he gave Hoover another assignment, the preparation of a comprehensive study developing a new modern plan for the operation of the Federal Government. It was interesting to read in our book how President Truman tried to get Eisenhower to run for the Presidency in 1952 as a Democrat. At the same time Hoover was supporting Eisenhower as a Republican. In the end Ike choose to run as a Republican with Truman bitterly disappointed.
Truman became the 2nd member of the Club when his term ended with the inauguration of Eisenhower in January 1953. This made Truman the second member. The Club seems to have continued its informal, unofficial existence throughout the Eisenhower, Kennedy, Johnson administrations to the Nixon’ s administration and beyond. Along the way it has obtained a more legally defined existence with Congressional legislation involving ex Presidential pensions and other perks pertinent to the Club. As a result The accumulated experience of all living ex Presidents are now available to the current president should he or she choose to ask for it. I find this process an interesting revelation of our governmental evolutionary process.
-
Truman stated that he had invented the White House office so efficiently that no future president could make a mistake. What did he mean?
I don't think Truman meant just one think. He meant the massive number of improvements , reforms, and changes resulting from the Hoover Commission. These not only saved money, they made the Executive Branch more efficient and effective, so it was easier to do what one intended. It's a silly remark, though; if someone is determined to make mistakes they'll find a way no matter what.
-
3. Truman stated that he had invented the White House office so efficiently that no future president could make a mistake. What did he mean?
Ella I too, like bellamarie above, am confused by this point. Where was this statement in the book? If Truman actually stated this he was certainly wrong? Under our Constitution both the President and Congress are independent branches of the Government. Hence Presidents can send troops to Viet Nam and a shooting war might result. In that case there was a form of authorization in the Gulf of Tonkin Resolution. During the past half century there have certainly been at least a half dozen incidents where a Presidents has on his own ordered Air strikes or other military intervention for one purpose of another (Clinton Bombing Yugoslavia 1996, Bush in Iraq and Afghanistan to name a couple). Nixon’s problem was not what he did in Viet Nam. He was in fact trying to conclude our involvement there. His problem was his violation of rather common U.S. laws that all of us, Presidents included, are expected to respect.
-
It's on page 51, a little over half way down. He said it on his last night in office.
-
Ooops, you probably don't have page numbers in your ebook. It's at the end of the second paragraph under "Rebirth of a President", the next to last heading of chapter 2.
-
3. Truman stated that he had invented the White House office so efficiently that no future president could make a mistake. What did he mean?
I agree with PatH, that Truman refers to the reorganizations that came out of the Hoover Commission. Was this a shrinking of government, a consolidation of sorts. Just the agencies established during WWII must have added to the size of government. Perhaps Truman felt that these were now blueprints for his successors to follow.
Am learning so much here. I thought it interesting (p44) to learn that the government owned a quarter of the continental US, including a distillery in the Virgin Islands. And since my FIL had been associated with the Virgin Islands Corp, I googled and found Truman's statement about his signing the act that incorporated VICORP in 1949. One teeny bit of govt. that has to be dealt with.
-
"I thought it interesting (p44) to learn that the government owned a quarter of the continental US."
I found that interesting too. I wonder if it's still true.
To give truman the benifit of the doubt, perhaps by "can't make a mistake" he meant can't do something by mistake, due to some snafu in the system.
Or maybe he meant he can't do anything without being thoroughly informed by his subordinates, and he was being sarcastic: like "yeah, then he'll always know exactly what to do."
-
Regardless of what or how Truman meant it in making the statement, there never will be a way to guarantee any process to prevent a president from making a mistake. Even the Supreme court justices get it wrong sometimes.
I was very impressed with how Truman utilized Hoover's knowledge in feeding the people. Interesting how Hoover seems to have played a large part in Truman's presidency even though he was bitterly hated. Then years later Truman becomes bitterly hated. When the people turn on a president its OVER, they know their time has come and gone. Jimmy Carter and Bush come to mind, in the most recent years. Truman sounded like he could not wait to leave the office and was offering it to Ike without even knowing his party allegiance.
“Presidents inherit the foreign policy of their predecessors; they inherit their wars and their treaties ,,,,,and their covert operations.” - What examples can we think of?
The Navy Seals capturing Bin Laden is the most recent one. Bush's administration had designed and laid out the plans for the capture, and Obama gave the go ahead.
Haven't finished my reading, just up to Ike deciding to run, so catch y'all tomorrow.
Ciao for now~
-
from http://nationalatlas.gov/printable/fedlands.html
page last modified Feb 2011
"The Federal Government owns nearly 650 million acres of land - almost 30 percent of the land area of the United States. Federally-owned and managed public lands include National Parks, National Forests, and National Wildlife Refuges."
-
from http://nationalatlas.gov/printable/fedlands.html
page last modified Feb 2011
"The Federal Government owns nearly 650 million acres of land - almost 30 percent of the land area of the United States. Federally-owned and managed public lands include National Parks, National Forests, and National Wildlife Refuges."
That's interesting--I wouldn't have thought it to be so high.
-
I understand that the authors alternated writing chapters but shared research duties/material. They did a good job writing with one voice. Loving all the anecdotes. The one I can't get out of my mind is Truman ordering Ike's son be given leave from his military unit to attend his father's inauguration and Eisenhower's initial negative response. Methinks we want our presidents to shoulder all that responsibility, to operate autonomously, yet the strongest of them know when/how to accept a helping hand.
-
Regarding Truman's order bringing Eisenhower's Son home on leave from his front line post in Korea to attend Eisenhower's swearing in as President I remember the incident and a most unfavorable reaction of some local friends who also had close family members in Korea at the time. The son had his own successful Army career ending not so spectacular as the father but he made it up to Brigadier General rank at retirement.
Regarding Federal ownership of Federal Land it is quite true that major portions several Western states are federal owned. Under the Constitution all land outside the jurisdiction of the original 13 states was federally manage. Most of the mid-west was distributed to settlers under the federal land policy. Much of the western mountain and desert states judged too unsuitable for agriculture is still in federal hands.
In Texas under the Annexation Agreement bringing the Republic of Texas into the Union it was agreed that the new State of Texas would retain ownership of its Public Land. The new State of Texas use this land to attract new settlers much as the Federal Government settled other Western States. Much of the Texas desert regions unsuitable for agriculture is still in State hands and the State retains some mineral rights over other lands now in private hands. These mineral interests have been a major contributor to the favorable economic outlook for the State today.
-
And Truman felt that way at one time, Harold, for wasn't it Truman who said "no" to Ike's request to bring Mamie to be with him in post-war Europe. That would not be fair to the other service personnel who did not have their familiesl with them.
MacArthur, however, sent for his wife without asking. Now I'm trying to remember -- which president fired MacArthur -- "old soldiers never die, they just fade away."
-
Question #1 - generally wartime heroes do not get into ELECTED politics. Just because a handful became presidents gives us more of the sense that most men of their generations were in the military. Many more of these heroes were in appointed political jobs. We see both types after the Revolutionary War, the Civil War, and both World Wars when so many of the general population of men were involved.
Question #2 - about the derogatory terms used on Truman reminds us that all presidents, and sometimes First Ladies, have been viciously attacked. Our selective memory, or sometimes lack of historical knowledge, leads us to think that "this campaign", whenever it is, is the worst ever. Harry Truman appealed to the voters on his famous train journey throughout the country, talking about "the do-nothing Congress" that endeared him to the voters.
I think we should mention that Truman is now often mentioned by historians as one of the top five best presidents. If you read even short bios about him, his list of accomplishments/decisions made - even w/ a stubborn, oppositional Congress - is amazing.
Let me see if i can find such a list online.
Truman fired MacArthur for taking the fight in Korea into N. Korea, potentially involving the Chinese even more, when he had been told by Truman to not cross the S Korea border.
Jean
-
This is a good summary of Truman's major decisions.......
http://www.answers.com/topic/what-are-the-key-accomplishments-of-harry-s-truman-s-presidency
-
Pedin and all. My I-Pad digital edition of the book does purport to preserve the print edition page numbers. The way I have my font size set there are generally 3, I pad pages to complete each print edition page. Even so I did not find the material sought on my page 51 that did concern Truman's last night as President
That is an interesting bit of information threadheadnet gave us in message #94 about how each of our authors drafted alternate chapters in the writing of the Book. I suspect this would be a more productive procedure that the two sitting around in the same room writing together. Of course it would require an extended rewrite session with the two together . I think in this case it worked out well. In my reading, I certainly never noticed any evidence of conflict between the two authors
-
I had actually tagged that paragraph when i read it for another reason..........the paragrapgh reads...
"And so (my ninth grade English teacher would not approve of this sentence started with a conjunction ;)) it went:an unlikely partnership had produced a new kind of presidency. It was an arrangement that favored them both; by 1951, T and H ranked 3 and 5 on Gallup's list of most admired men. Together, the 2 presidents had pushed through the greatest transformation of the presidency in history A commission created to kill the New Deal instead helped save it, by making the structures it created more effective. In fact, the last night in office ... T was said to have observed proudly that he had reinvented the WH office in such a manner that no future president could make a mistake."
A little grandiose, but he was reminescing in his own house.
Jean
-
THANK YOU ALL FOR YOUR COMMENTS, HOW INTERESTING THEY ARE TO READ! And how timely! In addition to the book, I have learned from you.
Gosh, we need to read and discuss political history in an election year, don't we?
Personally I was very amazed by the editors writing so much in the first chapter about HOOVER! Going back in time that far without mentioning FDR at all. When I look back to that era, I am a teenager writing letters to fellows overseas, the greatest war of all time was being fought.
And no one knew Harry Truman and no one remembered Hoover. Just my own history.
But, of course, we all soon knew Truman, now thought of as one of our greatest. How many times have you discussed the bombing of Japan with your friends?
And the Hoover Commission was born - a commission which "produced the greatest transformation of the presidency in history, a concentration of power that ultimately yielded the CIA, the National Security Coucil, the Council of Economic Advisors, the General Services Administration, a unified Defense Department, and much more."
Every president who followed would have reason to thank Truman and Hoover. That's what the book says!
Personally I think the presidency has become too powerful, just a personal opinion
-
Ella It is good to have you back as this afternoon and early evening I will be out of pocket principally at my work at the local National Historic Park Mission Espada site. I'll check back in probably a bit after 8:00 PM (Central)
-
JEAN, we were posting at the same time and thinking along the same lines. Thanks for your insights.
And a thank you to THREAD for that map. You can preview what the FED owns in your own state, very interesting. I'm very glad so much of the country is in "our" hands, "our" children's future, saved from developers. Teddy Roosevelt comes to mind when I think of saving our forests, our streams, our land.
PEDLIN, I remember very well Truman firing MacArthur, it had never been done; our generals have always been put on pedestals, well, most of them. And soon enough, one becomes a president!!!
BELLEMARIE gave us examples of people turning on/off their presidents. In what ways do we show our "people power?"
Hi HAROLD!
-
FYI - Michael Beschloss is at the moment on Booktv/CSPAN2 talking about his books on the presidents. It is a live call-in show on from 12-3:00 EST.
He just made the point that until presidents get into the office they do not have all the facts about what's happening in the world and often have to readjust what they said as campaigners.
Going back to look at other things i had tagged as i read....in the intro they mention that Eisenhower instituted the presidential pension in 1957. That surprised me. I knew Congress had granted Mary Lincoln a special pension, but i assumed their would be a presidential pension at least by the 20th century.
I liked their comments about memoirs and how memories differ. One of the reasons we need to read more then one source about history.
On pg 21, ".....many people were blaming Hoover for the depression as though he caused it all by himself.....Roosevelt decided that he was smarter than Hoover in every way.....". I think R believed he was smarter than everyone, but was that one of his pluses? Would he have been able to cope with all that he did if he didn't have that enormous ego? I guess we have to thank his Mother for that. ;) And we have Eleanor to thank for reigning him in on occasion!
Re the first part of the phrase, it is seldom that one person is responsible for any event. Presidents are easy targets because they are right there in front of us, but there are only a few things that a president can do all by themselves. Unfortunately most people have not learned enough about how the govt works to understand that. The opposition often talks as tho we have a dictatorship and the president should just speak and things get fixed.
Jean
-
starting ~p 110: The Club Brokers a Cease-Fire: the authors describe the machinations that lead to Nixon's graceful concession just days after the election. Though Nixon did not pursue a popular vote recount, I thought the Republican Natl. Committee did ... a process involving 11 states and not ending until mid-1961. The only change, however, was Hawaii being moved to Kennedy's column, so Nixon was probably wise not to pursue the recount. Imagine all that the authors decided to omit!
-
Thread - do you think the authors omitted such information because they didn't know about it - or because they didn't think it was important enough to mention? Or?
-
Thread - do you think the authors omitted such information because they didn't know about it - or because they didn't think it was important enough to mention? Or?
The book's been criticized for omissions but I bet the authors made a conscious decision (with the help of editors, no doubt) to focus on what these Presidents actually did and their interactions with each other. For example, there's not much in the book, so far, about the spouses. BTW, Kati Marton's book, Hidden Power: Presidential Marriages that Shaped our Recent History, is a good read about First Ladies from Woodrow Wilson through George W. Bush administrations.
Kathleen
-
I notice that the reading goes through Chapter 9 but the questions only go through Chapter 5. Did you just run out of room?
Chapter 5 is about where I am. I figured I'd talk abou Truman for a few days before I read on, so I wouldn't get confused.
I admit that I was afraid reading a political book so close to an election would make it hard not to fall into bitter political debates. But now I'm reading it, I see the opposite. While there are real important differences in party position on many issues, being the President is so multi-faceted that there are many commonalities. And we see presidents united or divided on things that have nothing to do with party. personality, experience, self-confifence. One simple thing is that some people want advice and to bring in others: some do not.
-
You are all going so fast, but, of course, we must if we intend to only take a week on the first 9 chapters. I could take a month on those alone. How can we ignore such a towering figure as Eisenhower, who wasn't interested in the job of president at all. He had been a world figure, was it a comedown to be USA president, no, no, no. Just kidding.
Eisenhower - the former president whom President Kennedy liked the least and consulted the most. (p.103)
I'll put more questions up today.
-
Just a note - "executive privilege" - aren't we all a bit suspicious when a president claims this privilege? I thought you might be interested in the history of it - from Wikipedia:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Executive_privilege
"Justice Anthony Kennedy noted "Executive privilege is an extraordinary assertion of power 'not to be lightly invoked.' United States v. Reynolds, 345 U.S. 1, 7 (1953).
"Once executive privilege is asserted, coequal branches of the Government are set on a collision course. The Judiciary is forced into the difficult task of balancing the need for information in a judicial proceeding and the Executive’s Article II prerogatives. This inquiry places courts in the awkward position of evaluating the Executive’s claims of confidentiality and autonomy, and pushes to the fore difficult questions of separation of powers and checks and balances. These 'occasion for constitutional confrontation between the two branches' are likely to be avoided whenever possible. United States v. Nixon, supra, at 692."[9]"
-
Jean
Re the first part of the phrase, it is seldom that one person is responsible for any event. Presidents are easy targets because they are right there in front of us, but there are only a few things that a president can do all by themselves. Unfortunately most people have not learned enough about how the govt works to understand that. The opposition often talks as tho we have a dictatorship and the president should just speak and things get fixed.
I would have agreed with you maybe a decade ago on "most people have not learned enough about how the govt works to understand that." Today, I think the American people are very much aware of the workings of the govt and they have shown either their satisfaction or dissatisfaction by making the effort to balance the power by their voting. Americans are aware that the president alone can not do the things he wants to accomplish in policy making. (Unless he exercises his executive privilege power) I am not especially one who cares much for "polls" but if you look at any poll its shows the American people's favorabilty toward congress is around maybe 20% or lower.
Ella, the most important way we "show our people power" is by casting a ballot. Voting is our most strongest power we have because that is how the people running for election truly hear our voices. IMO
I think I agree with Ella, I also think the presidency has too much power. The men elected to the presidency are men with very large egos. In reading this book I am realizing how so much alike these presidents are when it comes to wanting and needing power. I'm not liking Eisenhower much, even given he was a war hero.
They all seem to be filled with a lot of spit and vinegar. lolol
Got to run having our end of the summer annual Labor Day cook-out/swim party!!! Where did summer go? ???
Ciao for now~
-
My final comment on Truman as President concludes with his interesting talks with Eisenhower concerning the possibility of Ike becoming the Democratic Party Candidate for President in the 1952 election. I had not previously realized that this possibility was open to Ike. Truman certainly considered it a serious possibility. Didn’t he even offer to join the ticket in the Vice Presidential slot? Truman was bitterly disappointed when Ike committed to seek the Republican nomination. Hoover of course had been a principal recruiter of Ike as a Republican and was over joyed by his party's success.
1952 was the year Adlai Stevenson became the Democrat Party Nominee. I was much drawn to him, but in the end I cast my vote for Ike. In 1956 Stevenson once again won the Demo nomination, but again he was defeated by Ike. That was the last time that an unsuccessful candidate was given a second opportunity by his party.
-
I read the Eisenhower chapter last night and just wanted to slap his head and say "grow up!" but then i remembered the first five years i worked for Dept of Army. The first commander i worked for was Gen Tom Kelly, you may remember him as the spokesperson for the Pentagon during the first Gulf War, Desert Storm. He had the same arrogance, bull-headedness, "don't challenge me, i'm the general/cmdr" that we see in Ike's response to HT. The fragile egos of who outranks who and "did you just disrespect me?" must have been taught to earlier generations of military officers. The three following cmdrs were more concerned with team work and very gracious at giving credit to their soldiers and civilians. By the way, when i read Thomas Flemings novel "Officer's Wives" i laughed thruout thinking of Tom Kelly. It's a good novel stereotyping that personality of some officers.
I thought it was a thoughtful gesture on HT's part to bring John from Korea and just a macho response on Ike's part. "We're tough, we're not sentimental, family comes after duty!" Now, there are times that is true and we should be grateful for it, but John was not uniquely important to the mission in Korea. Even if Ike disagreed w/ T's action, he could have appreciated the intent.
Bellmarie - we do see a lot of interest in govt these days, but those folks are still a small percentage of our population. When asked questions about govt operations, or who is vice-president, or which document such statements as "life, liberty and pursuit of happiness" come from, or which branch of govt does what............it's appalling to listen to the answers. Of course, most K - 12 schools teach very little civics these days. I was a history professor for 16 years and the wide range of knowledge - or lack of - was very spotty. I spent a lot of time on the constitution so students could understand the rest of Amer History.
Jean
-
I'm not liking Eisenhower much, even given he was a war hero.
I agree, Bellamarie. It's interesting how he was so loved by the American public, but yet many who were closely associated with him described him as cold and unfeeling.
Just a note - "executive privilege" - aren't we all a bit suspicious when a president claims this privilege?
Ella, I don't know. I am sympathetic to Eisenhower's use of it in connection with the Army/McCarthy hearings. Am not sure I understand just what it is, other than the priviledge of not having to answer to subpoenas. Does this include matters of security and confidentiality?
-
>the most important way we "show our people power" is by casting a ballot. Voting is our most strongest power we have because that is how the people running for election truly hear our voices. IMO
>I think I agree with Ella, I also think the presidency has too much power. The men elected to the presidency are men with very large egos. In reading this book I am realizing how so much alike these presidents are when it comes to wanting and needing power. I'm not liking Eisenhower much, even given he was a war hero.
My problem with the first point is that people vote their emotions for what appears to best satisfy their immediate needs. What is best for the long term gets little recognition.
Regarding Presidential Power I agree the Constitution makes our president a very strong, powerful executive leader. In fact the framers in enumerating presidential powers pretty well listed the executive power of the 18th Century English King.. Stripped of the royal preoperative of the English King the President still enjoys the principal executive powers including Commander in chief of the armed services, control of foreign relations, the right to approve or veto new laws passed by Congress (subject to Congressional 2/3 majority override and possible later Supreme Court override). Finally the president is the CEO of what might be the biggest and most complex business structure in the World, the United States Government.
Don’t get me wrong! I am not suggesting the need for any major change. The system requires a manager, and the constitution has provided for the President with the powers required to do his job.
-
JEAN, what courses in history or government, civics, whatever, are taught in our high schools? I know very few, if any, young people today, but I have heard that our history is not being taught or absorbed, sad to learn. And yet, I have great faith in the future of the country and I know good leaders will emerge.
HAROLD, I can't remember who I voted for in 1951. I agree with BELLEMARIE and PEDLIN that Ike was a cold fellow, distant, and even our authors didn't warm too much to him. They recall Ike removing Truman's picture from the public rooms, petty behaviors (p. 93) his romance overseas and his unbelievable ignorance of ordinary life (p.98).
Years ago while we were in Gettysburg, PA. we toured Ike's home; his last painting that he was working on is sitting in the sunroom facing his lovely farmyard. However, the guide told us quite a number of things which disgusted my husband who had seen Ike as a war hero. Ike had never chosen his own clothes, had never dressed himself - he had a valet at the farmhouse and had always had one in the service. Remember he designed the battle jacket worn in WWII.
JEAN, yes, those egos of officers. That you respect me! Perhaps it is deserved by some though!
IKE will live on in history as one of our most decisive leaders of WWII. Remember D-Day. Ambrose (was his first name Stephen, a senior moment here) built a museum in New Orleans I believe in remembrance of those days.
-
Unfortunately (depending on how much of a state's rights or home-rule person you are) there is no national standard about teaching history or civics. In NJ, all third graders have NJ history, in high school in ninth grade there is a semester of NJ history and a semester of civics, altho the content varies a great deal from district to district. Sophmores are to have a year of world culture, juniors a year of Am History - this applies to public schools, but we have a lot of private and charter schools in NJ.
Perhaps even sadder is that the majority of college students thruout the country take NO histry. Business majors, science, math and technical majors seldom are required to take any history courses.
Family coming to celebrate son's birthday..... Be back later.....jean
-
" The men elected to the presidency are men with very large egos. In reading this book I am realizing how so much alike these presidents are when it comes to wanting and needing power. "
I think you have to be that kind of person to WANT to be president, at least enough to keep doing what you have to do when you get it. But there are different ways of handling power when you have it: anyone who feels that to delegate power or be open to contrary opinions threatens their power is a problem.
-
LBJ was quite a character. I first heard his name in the summer of 1948 . I voted for the first time in July 1948 in the Texas Democratic Party primary. LBK was on the ballot for the first time as a candidate for the U.S. Senate. He was opposed by a popular former Texas Governor who got my vote. That was the last time I voted against LBJ who won to begin his long Senate tenure ending Vice President and President.
LBJ's senate career is detailed in the Manchester biography in the 2nd volume, “Master of the Senate.” This volume details his successful decade of Senate leadership that led to theVice- presidency. His enemies view him as crooked as Nixon, but if that be true he had the skill to avoid getting caught.
It was the quagmire of the Viet Nam war that marred his presidency. Our book notes (p 274) that as a member of the Club, just before his death, Johnson who previously had been of some help to Nixon, refused Nixon’s request he join him in a bi partisan denunciation of the NY Times Publication of the leaked Pentagon Papers. Johnson died in Jan 1973
-
The Book Club Online is the oldest book club on the Internet, begun in 1996, open to everyone. We offer cordial discussions of one book a month, 24/7 and enjoy the company of readers from all over the world. Everyone is welcome.
SEPTEMBER BOOK CLUB ONLINE
PLEASE POST BELOW IF YOU PLAN TO JOIN US.
(http://www.seniorlearn.org/bookclubs/presclub/Presidentsclubcvr.jpg)
As we head into another overheated and polarizing presidential campaign, at least it's a comfort knowing that former presidents have learned to mostly put aside partisan politics and work together. Thanks to the brilliant investigative work of Time magazine's Nancy Gibbs and Michael Duffy, The Presidents Club uncovers a powerful secret fraternity, in which ex-leaders stay in the game by counseling inexperienced successors. - USA Today
Realizing that membership in the Presidents Club bestows a singular perspective can help explain certain minor mysteries of our political life. How, for example, could Clinton ever forgive George H.W. Bush, who in the 1992 campaign all but charged him with being a traitor, if not a Soviet stooge, for visiting Russia as a college student and protesting the Vietnam War “from foreign soil”? Why has Obama, whose presidential quest embodied a repudiation of everything George W. Bush stood for, heard scarcely a grumble about his policies from his once-belligerent predecessor? The answer lies in what Kennedy said to Arthur Schlesinger when asked to rank the presidents: “Only the president himself can know what his real pressures and his real alternatives are.” It’s a sentiment that virtually every president voices at one point or another in this book. - Washington Post
DISCUSSION SCHEDULE:
Chapters 1-9 9/1 through 9/8
Chapters 10-14 9/9 through 9/15
Chapters 15-19 9/16 through 9/22
Chapters 20-26 9/23 through 9/30
Related Links: Secrets of the Presidents Club - Video (http://videos.simonandschuster.com/Secrets-of-THE-PRESIDENTS/1510374688001);
Book TV with Nancy Gibbs and Michael Duffy (http://www.booktv.org/Watch/13439/The+Presidents+Club+Inside+the+Worlds+Most+Exclusive+Fraternity.aspx);
Discussion Leaders: Ella (egibbons28@columbus.rr.com) and Harold (hhullar5@yahoo.com)
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Jean~ I have to agree with you when it comes to the younger people of this country not being informed or taught Civics and History in the schools or colleges. Most don't seem to be the least bit concerned or interested in govt. When I spoke of the American people being aware of the workings of govt I was referring to the largest voting sector (seniors and the middle aged.) The college kids got largely involved in the 2008 election mostly because Obama seemed to be younger, cool, he was using the internet, iphone, twitter and they saw him as the hip candidate. They thought he could relate closer to their activities. They liked the fact he had a celebrity personality and Hollywood was smitten with him. Now they are disappointed, distracted, the newness of all these modern day technologies have worn off and the polls show the percentage that voted in 2008 are not likely to be voting in this upcoming election. I crack up when Jay Leno or Jessie Waters goes out in the public and asks them who is the Vice president or Secretary of State and they have NO clue. I laugh at their ridiculous answers and then realize how ill informed they really are. This is our next generation....God save us. lololol
It saddened me when Ike could not just graciously thank Truman for the kind gesture of bringing his son home for his inauguration, even if he thought he should not have shown special favor. I sense Ike was not used to acts of kindness. Removing the picture was a bit childish.
I'm not sure all men/women have to have large egos to run for or hold a political office, or presidency. I know some pretty humble politicians who are there to truly care for their state/people/country. We don't hear much about them because they are the silent doers rather than the flashy attention seekers.
Ciao for now~
-
But there are different ways of handling power when you have it: anyone who feels that to delegate power or be open to contrary opinions threatens their power is a problem.
Amen, JOANK. Are you talking in general terms or a specific president?
-
Yes, BELLEMARIE, I'm sure there are many unsung, unpublicized, silent politicans. People behind the scenes and there must be many, many. Somehow our country works - from day to day. It's just not the president who does it all.
OH, WE ARE UP TO LBJ in the book. - the man who had the skill to keep from getting caught (quoting Harold) And we are moving right along. Thanks, HAROLD, for your remarks, always. You are a Texan I know, and we expect comments from you when we get to the Bush family.
WHAT DID THE REST OF YOU THINK OF LBJ? Before and after reading the book?
-
... WHAT DID THE REST OF YOU THINK OF LBJ? Before and after reading the book?
In this book, LBJ comes across as really *needing* The Club. I've listened to Doris Kearns Goodwin (historian and one-time Johnson aide) quite a bit, and she confirms how lonely he was. But, the nation can be grateful for the way Johnson finessed the transition after JFK was assassinated. I guess the lesson is each President has weaknesses and strengths, as do we all ... the only difference is how they're managed.
-
I was in college in 1960 and very much a JFK fan, but then my whole family were Dems, so whomever they ran, i would have liked that platform. But i was surprised at how many of my fellow students were voting for Nixon. My naivete. Of course, i lived in southcentral Pa, which is largely rural and largely Rep. My feeling was also one of empathy for the apparent discrimination against Kennedy's religion. I had grown up in a staunch CalvinistPresbyterian/Methodist family and church. My Mother seriously considered voting Rep because of her prejudice against Catholicism. Naturally i had to counter that old-fashioned idea. ;)
I still don't get any president's, but especially Kennedy and Clinton's, philandering!?! How could anyone that smart and in such a delicate situation feel such internal pressure to fulfill that libido need? That "15 yr old boy" needs to be harnessed. Yes, Joe Kennedy set an example, but he wasn't POTUS.
I do believe Joe finagled the election. Other than her redecorating of the White House, i was not a fan of Jackie. However, she seemed to have raised two good kids.
JFK turned out to be a better president than i suspected, but i don't think, from my reading the last several decades that he was one of the greatest. His handling of the missle crises was probably his finest hour........ I think i would probably not like most of these guys as a friend - to have dinner with? Oh Yes! But as a friend? Oh No!
Jean
-
"WHAT DID THE REST OF YOU THINK OF LBJ? Before and after reading the book? "
I think the whole message of this book to me will be to give me a more nuanced view of all the presidents -- as opposed to the angel or devil view the political campaign gives us. Since Lbj is a former president, I'm not in the business of voting him up or down anymore.
-
In this book, LBJ comes across as really *needing* The Club. I've listened to Doris Kearns Goodwin (historian and one-time Johnson aide) quite a bit, and she confirms how lonely he was. But, the nation can be grateful for the way Johnson finessed the transition after JFK was assassinated. I guess the lesson is each President has weaknesses and strengths, as do we all ... the only difference is how they're managed.
I agree, KATHLEEN, and I feel sorry for the man who had been such a strong, albeit cunning, manipulator in his Congressional years and taking the office after witnessing Kennedy's death, and attempting to follow in that shadow.
Truman, likewise, took office unexpectedly with little help from his former president and somehow to me Truman did a better job of handling affairs
-------------------------------------
BUT BEFORE LBJ, there was JOHN F. KENNEDY.
Thanks, JEAN, for keeping us on track with your reminiscences. One of the saddest, most tragic periods of the presidency in my lifetime.
This book purportedly is about a club whose members are former presidents? But it is difficult to stay on that subject isn't it, with such rich personalities, such power to discuss.
Let's discuss JFK. He neeed the club - he needed Eisenhower.
He kept all of Eisenhower"s people in key positions (p.130).
What went wrong with that plan? Seems rather llike a good idea, what went wrong?
-
Oh heavens.....LBJ, and skipping entirely over JFK?
Jean, From reading many books on the personalities and lives of the past presidents there were more than Kennedy and Clinton who did their share of philandering while in the White House. Seems power goes to these men's heads and they can't seem to control their libidos. I know I read LBJ had a secret room for his lady friends and Lady Byrd was aware of it.
I loved Jackie Kennedy, she was my first impression of a First Lady since I was only 9 yrs old when the Kennedy's took the world by storm. She was more than a decorator, she was huge in the fine arts, she spoke many different languages, she was very much active in the literary world and I have a few of her poems Caroline published in her books after her death. Jackie loved John in spite of his cheating. She too wanted the Presidency as much as he did. I applaud her courage after John was shot. She raised two beautiful, intelligent unspoiled children keeping them as protected from the paparazzi as possible. They were "Camelot" to me, and the world, and that is something I think this world will never experience again.
#5. What were President Kennedy’s mistakes in his first year in office and how could he have avoided them?
I could see a few mistakes Kennedy made in his first 100 days. He wanted to be too hands on and eliminate the middle guy/woman. Trying to take on too much will cause more stress then need be. He also did NOT follow his OWN instincts with the Bay of Pigs. Everything he saw and heard told him it would not be a successful mission, yet he trusted in the "plans" of a 5 star General and all the people he kept regarding those top positions. I found it interesting how later when Eisenhower was talking with Gordon Gray going through the notes of the conversation stored with Eisenhower's other classified presidential papers how Ike was surprised to see the word "planning" and decided to change it.
pg. 142 "The account did confirm the importance Ike had placed on there being a plausible government in exile in place before any move was made on Castro. But it was when they came across the word "planning" that Eisenhower recoiled. "This is wrong," he insisted. "We did no military planning." All he had approved was the training of the Cuban exiles, not a blueprint for the deploymen. "With your permission," he told Gray, "I'm going to have this page rewritten to reflect the facts." Gray agreed; more than a decade later, he wrote to the assistant director of the Eisenhower library explaining how the original version of the memo had been misleading, and how they altered it.
Imagine how that one word "planning" may have changed the entire event. Had Kennedy called Eisenhower to confirm or confer with him, I am almost certain the Bay of Pigs mission would not have taken place at that time, changing history. I am impressed how Kennedy did not try to put the blame on Ike even though he could have.
Lessons learned indeed: "The Bay of Pigs changed Kennedy's approach to executive management. He stopped believing that the judgement of professionals was infallible, and he rebuilt part of the Eisenhower system, even reviving some of the committees he had so intent on stamping out.
I agree, I think the Cuban missile crisis was his finest hour, and I pray NO president will ever have to be faced with that decision again.
Ella, Seems we were posting at the same time. lol I'm happy to see we will not skip over Kennedy. I was surprised to read how Eisenhower was impressed with young Kennedy. lol
pg. 120 Eisenhower was pleased by the invitation to remain involved, as Kennedy had plainly intended. And he was, against all expectations, impressed. Persons later told Clifford that Ike had been "overwhelmed" by Kennedy. "What impressed the President the most, "Persons said, "was your man's understanding of world problems, the depth of his questions, his grasp of the issues and keenness of his mind." Ike called him one of the "ablest, brightest minds I've ever come across," and confessed to perhaps having misjudged him."
Yet later he says,
But he also glimpsed the blind spots. "I think he was pretty quick, but my impression was this, "Eisenhower told an interviewer years later, reflecting on that first encounter. "At that time, he looked on the presidency as not only a personal thing, but as an institution that one man could handle with an assistant here and another there. He had no idea of the complexity for the job at that time."
I sense that is the case in every man who sits in that Oval office after being sworn in......
-
Great post, BELLEMARIE! YOu've said it well, I think most of us agree, it was a Camelot moment in istory.
But Kennedy did check in with the club from time to time for advice, for sympathy, perhaps, from those who had been there.
Krushehev and Kennedy, for many reasons, documented in the book, had troubles from the start. I can't remember if it is in the book but I have read about their first meeting. Hard to believe that Kennedy, this polished confident debater, speaker, war hero, was so demolished by the Soviet leader.
But for his strengths in office I remember the Peace Corps.
Why should we remember Kennedy as one of our greatest presidents? Was ist solely for the tragecy of his assassination?
-
Pushing on deeper into the 20th century we reach 1968 and the Presidential election scheduled for that year. LBJ’s abrupt decision to abandon his reelection campaign in the face of the Viet Nam situation, elevate Nixon to the favorite position among the Republicans. But also Ronald Regan just had succeeded in doing what Nixon had failed to do, had just won the California Governor race and was suddenly on the screen as an alternate to Nixon as the republican Presidential Candidate. Our book discusses this campaign in its minute details. To me Regan somehow did not seem fully committed and Nixon ended up with the nomination that led to his winning the Presidency in the Nov 1968 Election.
I wonder how much if any the earlier Regan Presidency would have differed from his term that he won12 years later post Nixon, Ford, and Carter. In 1968 Regan would have been just 58 years old. In 1981 when Regan began his first term he had just turned 70 the oldest of all our presidents. I guess my opinion is that he was luckily for the 12 year delay. The time then was ripe for his setting of the stage for the ending of the cold war that came shortly after the end of his second term. during the first Bush Presidency.
-
An aside:
I'm reading an autobiography of George Stephanopoulos - the Clinton years, titled ALL TOO HUMAN.
Speaking of presidents he has this to say: "It's a small, select club, a peerage, the few men alive at any one time who have served as president. What unites them, ultimately, overwhelms partisan differences or even the bitter memories of past political battles. Only they know what it's like to be president......to sit alone in the Oval Office late at night and contemplate the imperfect choices that are the stuff of history."
Did our authors get the idea for the "club" from GS's book? Interesting.
-
Ella~ I have read that book and I absolutely have great respect for George Stephanopoulos. I won't spoil your read, but I will say George is a fine man. Like him and his book very much.
I think our authors did get the idea for the club right form GS's book. Each of the presidents so far that we have read about in "the club" does acknowledge, that ONLY once you have sat in that Oval office chair, can you understand what it is like and the pressures that come with it.
-
There maybe has never been as good a use of"The Club" in public then what happened on tv tonight. Bill Clinton, not only a past president who was dissed by Al Gore, a potential successor, but whose wife bid to be in the club and was defeated by this president! Imagine how Eisenhower would have behaved in this situation - or Harry Truman for that matter. Whoo! Bill Clinton and Barack Obama embracing after C had given O an amazing speech of support this was a night to remember, historically, re: "The Club".
-
I've been thinking about drawing a sociogram ... names of presidents with lines to/fro and an arrow indicating who initiated contact. So many surprises in this book I can't absorb them all!
Apparently, the authors got the idea for this project from their previous collaboration on a Billy Graham book. They were struck how the minister interacted with presidents across the political perspective, and how they interacted with each other.
My fave pres so far is Truman ... so practical and generous, a winning combination in my book.
This is my first seniorlearn.org book discussion; are we waiting until 09-10-12 to proceed to Chap. 10? I can hardly wait ... esp. after watching this year's conventions. Thanks.
Kathleen
-
I was especially touched by LBJ's trip to Independence, MO to sign the Medicare bill into law and giving Truman the first card. Remember visiting Wash DC and seeing LBJ relaxing and talking with another senator -- only the two of them on the Senate floor. My roommate in the 60s became a secretary in the LBJ White House. She took a few trips to Texas on the presidential plane - apparently quite ribald trips.
Was living in Los Angeles at the time and saw Kennedy accept the nomination at the Coliseum.
This book brings back so many memories.
-
Can you think, JEAN, or has it ever occurred, when the current president has a former president as a keynote speaker at the convention? My memory needs warming, I need a book, an article, a quote. I agree, Clinton, did a great job, and is, indeed, able to speak to a crowd well; personal, dramatic, southern Baptist style. Our paper, a Republican paper, has the speech fact checked, I haven't read it yet.
Thanks, KATHLEEN, for that note about our authors; I believe that appeared somewhere, I remember reading it now. We are alike in that it is hard to absorb all this knowledge; so much of it new. I want to spend a week on just a chapter, but no, we must go on.
Yes, KATHLEEN, we will wait until the 10th to continue with the next chapters in the book (see Schedule in the heading). We try to stick to the schedule listed as much as possible in our discussions and we are so pleased when a new person finds our discussions and posts their comments.
WE WELCOME ALL AND ANY COMMENTS, both affirmative and negataive.
-
Harold is pulling us forward into Nixon's presidency, but we have two days before we start on the next week's chapters.
Probably most of us remember the Vietnam War, I had a nephew who fortunately came back alive and I remember a young neighbor graduating from high school frightened at the prospect of being drafted. Remember the lottery system?
Being curious about the whole system of selective system I looked up a web site -
http://usmilitary.about.com/od/deploymentsconflicts/l/bldrafthistory.htm
WHAT ARE YOUR MEMORIES OF THE VIETNAM WAR?
-
This is PatH, using JoanK's computer.
The schedule in the heading says we move on on the ninth. Is that right?
Kathleen/threadheadnet, you might be interested in why we discuss the books in chunks this way. We find that it makes for a more coherent, deeper discussion. If we do the whole book at once, people are all over the map in which section they have comments on, and it's hard to develop any one topic completely. And reading speeds and available time vary a lot, so it's good to give enough time to each section to be sure everyone has read up to date. There aren't any spoilers in a history book, but in fiction, especially books with plot twists and surprises, it's crucial not to talk ahead and spoil things for those who haven't read ahead.
It can get frustrating, though, when one is eager to talk about something.
-
Well to weigh in on the Convention last night, I couldn't help but wonder just what was the deciding factor for Bill Clinton to be persuaded to give that speech. He really didn't give a lot of accolades to Obama, if anything what struck me strange is when he said, "Look. No president, not me, no other president could have gotten us out of this hole in just four years."
Read more: http://www.foxnews.com/on-air/on-the-record/2012/09/06/clinton-touch-bill-recasts-dialogue-makes-case-obama-better-president-has#ixzz25iylXQqT
It almost is giving the republicans a new slogan, Clinton couldn't , Obama couldn't, so move over and let Romney..He can! I am certain Clinton still holds a grudge against Obama for him calling him a racist, and for how Obama and the DNC treated Hillary when she was trying to win the Democratic nomination in 2008. That speech Clinton gave last night in my opinion (someone who voted for Bill and has always liked him, went to listen to his speech in my home town in 08 and worked on Hillary's campaign) was more puffing himself up rather than helping Obama. Bill loves a stage! When he stood there wagging his finger it brought back the image of his famous denial, "I did not have - - - with that woman." Not so sure the American people can get past that image. lolol He is a man who loves his country, and I am certain is helping Hillary's future run for presidency, if she so chooses. He was a successful president, and I believe, he could have gotten us out of this hole in 4 yrs. But enough about Bill.
If ever there was a need for the "club" I can see where it was imperative for LBJ to have Eisenhower to reach out to. Throughout the Vietnam decision making, its as if LBJ did not feel strong enough, informed enough or much of a leader. Reading these chapters gives me the impression LBJ was president in name only, Eisenhower seemed more the commander in chief. LBJ seemed a very weak man who was not ready to be president, even though it was thrust upon him.
pg. 177 The Club War Council.....The key players assembled in the Cabinet Room at ten on February 17: Johnson and Eisenhower, McNamara and Bundy, Army Chief and Staff General Earle Wheeler, and Andrew Goodpaster, who kept notes and would become Johnson's personal emissary to Eisenhower for the next three years. Everything was on the table: Vietnam's history, the role of the French, the Soviets, and the Chinese, the odds of success, the risks of escalation, the case for using nuclear weapons if it came to that. At this crucial meeting, Ike acted as if he were still the commander in chief and Johnson let him.
pg. 174 "I'm not tempermentally equipped to be Commander-in-Chief," Lady Bird overheard her husband tell Vice President Hubert Humphrey as the internal debate raged. "I'm too sentimental to give the orders."
These are not the words I would want or expect to hear from a president at the cusp of sending in thousands of soldiers to fight in a war on foreign soil.
Did Eisenhower push LBJ into the decision knowing he wasn't capable of making it on his own? Why didn't Eisenhower take on Vietnam himself during his presidency?
Ella~ I remember a friend of mine had a brother who came home from the Vietnam war and he was telling us how his brother slept with a gun in his bed, left his clothes on and would wake up in the middle of the night thinking he was still in Vietnam, on the front lines. That had to be horrifying for these young men/women to return home with all the nightmares to deal with. The question always lingers...was it worth it?
-
WELCOME KATHLEEN!
-
I agree with Ella’s’ comments regarding the schedule. I had to take most of today off to complete some necessary business. But I do think we need to move on so to be ready for the next week chapters. This will start Saturday. Also we probably still have more to say about the Nixon’s addition to the Club and how about Regan’s sudden emergence on the national political scene in 1968. Nixon had his second chance, but Regan made him sweat before achieving his second chance, and in the end Nixon won in 1968 and again in 1972, only to get caught in his Watergate mesh a year later. Some of you might comment on the events leading to his impeachment and resignation. Were you surprised at Nixon’s rather easy acceptance as a member of the Club. Also we need some comments on the Ford administration that replaced Nixon as President for the last three years of that term.
As a Texan I have liked LBJ. Except for that first Senate race, I voted for him every time he was on the ballot. I had a friend who was closer to the Texas Democratic Party than I, who actually had an invite to attend one of LBJ’s events at the Ranch during his Presidency. I think it was for the West German Chancellor. He actually got to shake his hand and eat LBJ’s bar b’ que. My group from this senior’s apartment where I live toured the ranch last year Since Lady Bird died, the ranch has been administered as a National Park. It is a rather simple ranch house quite close to a pretty little hill country river, but the ranch shows the effect of its Owner’s rank in the aircraft landing strip and many buildings built by the Government to house the president’s communications, security, and offices. Also LBJ had quite a collection of automobiles.
-
I'm a little behind you all in my reading. I'm just staring LBJ. So i'll answer the question about whether i liked him. I liked almost all of his policies except Viet Nam. I thought he used all his powers to push some great legislation. I don't think i would have wanted to be a woman in his White House. Lady Bird must have been one of the strongest First Ladies if all time.
I love the stories i've read about his persuasive powers, of all kinds, charm, knowledge, chits called in, but i wouldn't have wanted to be on the end of his in-your-face aggressiveness. :) i'm sure he would have called in the Club and been as respectful and charming as he needed to be. ........looking forward to see if i'm right, as soon as the convention is over, i'll be reading.
Jean
-
I don't believe Johnson's torment could have been avoided because i think it was who he was. With all the power and successes he had had in his life, he had a tremendous need for approval. The flip side of that was a paranoia that others were against him. Therefore, he bounced back and forth between being kind and generous, being ingratating, including to Ike and Truman, but then worrying about whether they might be manipulating him the way he manipulated people.
I think that's typical of people who are sneaky, manipulative, dishonest, needy. They assume others think and act the way they do and feel they have to get the jump on others, and/or they become depressed about how s/he is not liked. Nixon also falls into this category and maybe Bobby Kennedy. People w/ good self-esteem meet people w/ more optimism that others are going play fair, until they prove they will not. People w/ confidence also assume that if the other person proves untrue they can handle them.
Jean
-
OH, THANK YOU ALL FOR YOUR COMMENTS. IT IS SO INTERESTING TO COME TO THE COMPUTER AND READ THEM.
I don't have time to respond to posts but I did take the time to do a bit of research into war and who has the power to declare it. I've never actually known how we got into the Vietnam War or the Korean; and furthermore did the two Bush presidencies have the power to take us to war in the Middle East.
Haven't you ever wondered. Here are two sites that interesting:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Declaration_of_war_by_the_United_States
For the United States, Article One, Section Eight of the Constitution says "Congress shall have power to ... declare War".
And on another site I read this:
"After Congress repealed the Gulf of Tonkin Resolution in January 1971 and President Richard Nixon continued to wage war in Vietnam, Congress passed the War Powers Resolution (Pub.L. 93-148) over the veto of Nixon in an attempt to rein in some of the president's claimed powers. Today, Congress recognizes no claimed power of the president to wage war outside of the War Powers Resolution.
-
Briefly, I remember my reaction to this chapter, #9, was the same reaction I had to those awful years of Vietnam. America is in trouble, what to do?
Johnson was caught up in this and he was not up to the task. It ruined him and he quit and died on his farm a broken man.
-
ONE LAST THING TODAY:
from Wikipedia: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/War_Powers_Resolution
"The War Powers Resolution requires the President to notify Congress within 48 hours of committing armed forces to military action and forbids armed forces from remaining for more than 60 days, with a further 30 day withdrawal period, without an authorization of the use of military force or a declaration of war. The resolution was passed by two-thirds of Congress, overriding a presidential veto.
The War Powers Resolution was disregarded by President Reagan in 1981 by sending military to El Salvador, by President Clinton in 1999, during the bombing campaign in Kosovo, and by President Obama in 2011, when he did not seek congressional approval for the attack on Libyan forces, arguing that the Resolution did not apply to that action. All incidents have had congressional disapproval, but none have had any successful legal actions taken against the president for violations.[2][3] All presidents since 1973 have declared their belief that the act is unconstitutional. [4][5]
So, yes, the Presidenet has too much power today.
-
I remembered reading more than once that President DE had said we should not get in a land war in Asia. I can't find that exact quote, but here is another.......
"In February 1954, President Eisenhower refused to commit American troops to the Franco-Vietnamese War. In a press conference he stated, "I cannot conceive of a greater tragedy for America than to get heavily involved now in an all-out war in any of those territories."
And
"In the end, convinced that the political risks outweighed the possible benefits, Eisenhower decided against the intervention.[81] As an experienced five-star general, Eisenhower was wary of getting the United States involved in a land war in Asia."
So i was surprised at the encouragement he gave LBJ to continue to increase troop numbers. As the authors said, not being the one making the decisions make the ex-presidents more agressive. Interesting.
-
Ella~ Thank you so much for the information on The War Powers Resolution. It seems to me that regardless of what acts, bills, resolutions, etc., etc. is passed either with bipartisan or partisan, depending on who has the power balance, the resolution is ONLY as effective if respected, recognized and regarded by the President. As we have seen, it is not always the case as Ella pointed out. One man alone should never be able to decide a military attack beginning a war. That is the reason for democracy, checks and balances, to be certain someone's ideology does not over rule good judgement.
LBJ had his accomplishments and its sad how he summed up his decision/presidency in this, pg.173 "I knew from the start that I was bound to be crucified either way I moved," he told Goodwin. "If I left the woman I really loved-the Great Society--in order to get involved with that bitch of a war on the other side of the world, then I would lose everything at home. All my programs. All my hopes to feed the hungry and shelter the homeless...But if I ...let the Communists take over South Vietnam, then I would be seen as a coward and my nation would be seen as an appeaser." That would yield "a mean and destructive debate, that would shatter my presidency, kill my administration and damage our democracy."
I think LBJ was indeed pressured into going to war, by not only the military, but the news media by this statement he made, pg. 173 And all he heard from his military advisors, Johnson complained, was "bomb, bomb, bomb," which he was not convinced would do any good at all. He'd always been wary of military men, he said, because of their thirst for glory: "It's hard to be a hero without a war. Heroes need battles and bombs and bullets in order to be heroic. That's why I am suspicious of the military."
I just come away with the impression, that LBJ was not up to being a president. I wonder why Kennedy chose Johnson as his VP?
So, on to Nixon and Reagan.....I'm just beginning chapter 10 and have a busy day tomorrow, so I hope to get a chance tonight after going to my two grand- daughters pizza/birthday party to read the next few chapters.
Ciao for now~
-
Jean, We were posting at the same time. Interesting, indeed! So, was it easier for Eisenhower to push LBJ into making the decision to go to war because he knew it would not be on his back? Eisenhower could clearly see the weakness of LBJ. Did he take advantage of that weakness, knowing LBJ had such admiration and trust in him, as a 5 star general? Regardless of what Eisenhower's input was, in the end, history writes it as LBJ's war and failure.
Got to run......
-
Kennedy needed a Southerner! There is also a rumor that K went to J's hotel room during the convention and offered himthe v.p. slot thinking he'd never take "second place." but J said "thank you, yes." The story goes that Bobby was furious at Jack.
-
We have now completed our first week of the “President’s Club" discussion, and it is time to move on to the week 2 schedule. This material comprises Chapters 10 through 14. If the page numbering system of my I-Pad edition is the same as in the print edition (I think it is) the week’s assignment covers pp 210 - 329. This material covers U.S. national political events from the election of 1968 through the Nixon and Ford administration that ended in 1976. This period that included the national elections of 1968 and 1972 may have been the most spectacular, the most colorful politically active period in the history of the United States. It began with the comeback of Richard Nixon for a second shot at the presidency and the sudden emergence of Ronald Regan as a National political figure. It ended with the disgraced downfall of Nixon and the short 2 ½ year presidency of Gerald Ford.
Instead of providing a group of question recommending specific discussions points, I suggest we each look to our book for the particular events involving each of the sitting Presidents and their responses to the political and domestic and national events of their administration. Also discuss the emergence of new individuals as player (want-to-be Presidents) on the national political stage, particularly Ronald Regan. And how were the Ex President club member involved during this period. At times during this period the Club included Hoover, Truman, Eisenhower, Johnson, and Nixon.
-
Yes, HAROLD, time to begin new chapters.
At the very beginning, our authors state that:
"Richard Nixon and Ronald Reagan DEFINED Republican politics in America from 1966 until Nixon's death in 1994."
]What a long reign for the republicans and what a long life and a political life, to boot, Richard Nixon
had. And how very different the two men were.
THE CALIFORNIA BOYS!
You think, HAROLD, that this period "was the most spectacular and most politically active period in the history of the United States."
Why? The two men or what?
What do the rest of you think?
-
OH, IT'S ON YOUTUBE, I REMEMBER THIS - I don't think he ever got over his anger:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_RMSb-tS_OM
-
Chapter 10 in my book starts on pg 193.
Ella i don't recall a former president ever giving a convention speech, but then conventions are so innocuous i tend forget them immediately. Tom Brokow said last night on Charlie Rose that we have to change the conventions significantly. That we don't need three days of a pep rally, that it diminishes the process. I agree, since we aren't really nominating a candidate any more. However, these two conventions did introduce us to the next generation of possible contenders in each party. I did enjoy that.
Also re: former presidents, not many of them leave office w/ enough prestiege to be able to help a candidate. Sad to say. They really get beaten up as presidents. Bill Clinton has unusual star power, one of the reasons being that he is a great politician, plus he has that great ability to educate us w/ facts - which he seems to have in the computer in his brain and they come trippingly off his tongue - without boring us to death. It's rather astounding that a president who was accused of what he was, and impeached, could, 12 yrs later, be supporting a Club member in a keynote speech at the convention. I think that speaks clearly to how the country felt about Ken Star and his tactics. Eisenhower and Reagan may have been liked enough to have provided help to a later candidate.
I think Nixon is a very sad character. This brilliant man with so few social/people skills. So rigid, so lacking humor and playfulness and charm. I'm sure you've all heard the story of him walking on the beach in his suit and wing-tip shoes, that seems so symbolic. (a friend of mine whose husband worked in Hoover's FBI office as an atty told me a similar story about J. Edgar going to the beach dressed in suit and tie, OVERCOAT and dress shoes.) i always felt so sorry for Pat Nixon also. Altho recently i've read some stories and heard her secret service man talking about how good she was on foreign trips and it sounded like she enjoyed those.
Lady Bird seemed to have more of a life of her own than Pat Nixon and a stronger self. The First Ladies seem to have a bond as strong, or stronger then, the presidents.
Jean
-
Looking forward to the next installment, Ch 10-14 covering 1968-76, when the Presidents Club finally had a fixed physical location. Interesting that Nixon, who comes across as socially awkward, was the one who chose a small townhouse immediately across from the White House, isn't it?
Kathleen
-
I agree with Brokaw, there really is no need for the 3 - 4 nights of speeches for these conventions. By the time they have the conventions the candidate knows he/she has already won the nomination for their party, so it's a matter of going through the process. Also, people generally have already made up their minds, and don't want their regularly scheduled programming interrupted all week long. The candidate should just take one night to accept their nomination, give a speech, nominate their VP, and let him give a speech. That would be sufficient. As for Clinton's facts, I fear the fact checkers the next day showed his figures were not factual. Obama "needed" Clinton's popularity and experience to help him because the polls are showing over 50% of the American people feel his policies have failed. He needed Clinton to come out and say, "Not me, or any of his predecessors could have fixed this hole." It reminds me of LJB needing Eisenhower to come out and back him with the Vietnam war because he had lost the support of the the American people, he too knew Eisenhower's popularity and experience would carry weight.
Makes me wonder....if there were no President's club, would these past presidents, who don't like each other, give them so much help and support?
Learning Nixon lacked in social skills and was not a likeable person, I can only imagine how being a part of "the club" made him feel. He would finally have a spot among his predecessors for life. Whether they liked him or not, he would always be in the club. This had to make him feel good and accepted.
I'm still reading Nixon. Had a busy Saturday with grandchildren's volleyball and baseball games, and more volleyball for Sunday.
Ciao for now~
-
Regarding ex Presidents giving Convention speaches, I too do not recall it happening. Yet probably it has happened before since some former presidents did have a life after their Presidency. For example, Looking back to the 19th century take Ulyses S. Grant as an example. When the 1880 Republican Convention opened Grant with the largest number of pledged delegates was the favorite to win the nomination. It was a freakish sudden turn to Garfield after his speech to the Convention nominating Grant that Convention suddenly turned to Garfield depriving Grant of being the first 3 term President.
Today the convention is hardly necessary since the issue is already all but decided by the primary system. But the Parties today certainly love the advertisement opportunity the conventions provide. Those speeches are going out at no cost to them. It is the TV networks that today seem less enthusiastic. I think there were times this week when the PBS noncommercial network was the only network on the air while the commercial networks ran their money maker in the earlier prim time hours.
-
Regarding the "Club's Fixed Location," Can the Brown Stone near the Whitehouse that Nixon had purchased for club members really be considered a fixed location? According to the book the members rarely;y take advantage of its availability when they are in Washington. One of the wives refereed to it according to the book, as "a dump.
Awaiting the sitting President's call the individual members are scattered through the U.S. at their homes in N.Y. City, Texas, Maine. or elsewhere. True Nixon as President was responsible for promoting the Club's legitimacy and enhancing the perks available to members. Do you suppose maybe he was looking forward to his own future membership?
-
... According to the book the members rarely;y take advantage of its availability when they are in Washington. One of the wives refereed to it according to the book, as "a dump.
Harold, I read that 'dump' comment, too. I'm guessing it came from Barbara Bush, capable of refreshingly honest blurts. Some of our Presidents came from wealth, with multiple properties. But, after living in spacious quarters with lots of help (the other Clubhouse <grin>), I bet a 4-story townhouse *would* feel like a comedown. The property was extensively remodeled during George W Bush's administration. Here's a piece from Time, where the authors work http://www.time.com/time/nation/article/0,8599,2112080,00.html. CBS did a tour last April http://www.cbsnews.com/video/watch/?id=7405062n
What I've read so far, it seems that Presidents carefully manage seeing and being seen, choosing whether to meet in D.C. or elsewhere. Wonder if there's a secret entrance to The Club?
-
Ooops, looks like I goofed when I responded to Harold's comment, so my typing tagged onto his quote. Sorry 'bout that!
Kathleen
-
The Book Club Online is the oldest book club on the Internet, begun in 1996, open to everyone. We offer cordial discussions of one book a month, 24/7 and enjoy the company of readers from all over the world. Everyone is welcome.
SEPTEMBER BOOK CLUB ONLINE
PLEASE POST BELOW IF YOU PLAN TO JOIN US.
(http://www.seniorlearn.org/bookclubs/presclub/Presidentsclubcvr.jpg)
As we head into another overheated and polarizing presidential campaign, at least it's a comfort knowing that former presidents have learned to mostly put aside partisan politics and work together. Thanks to the brilliant investigative work of Time magazine's Nancy Gibbs and Michael Duffy, The Presidents Club uncovers a powerful secret fraternity, in which ex-leaders stay in the game by counseling inexperienced successors. - USA Today
Realizing that membership in the Presidents Club bestows a singular perspective can help explain certain minor mysteries of our political life. How, for example, could Clinton ever forgive George H.W. Bush, who in the 1992 campaign all but charged him with being a traitor, if not a Soviet stooge, for visiting Russia as a college student and protesting the Vietnam War “from foreign soil”? Why has Obama, whose presidential quest embodied a repudiation of everything George W. Bush stood for, heard scarcely a grumble about his policies from his once-belligerent predecessor? The answer lies in what Kennedy said to Arthur Schlesinger when asked to rank the presidents: “Only the president himself can know what his real pressures and his real alternatives are.” It’s a sentiment that virtually every president voices at one point or another in this book. - Washington Post
DISCUSSION SCHEDULE:
Chapters 1-9 9/1 through 9/8
Chapters 10-14 9/9 through 9/15
Chapters 15-19 9/16 through 9/22
Chapters 20-26 9/23 through 9/30
Related Links: Secrets of the Presidents Club - Video (http://videos.simonandschuster.com/Secrets-of-THE-PRESIDENTS/1510374688001);
Book TV with Nancy Gibbs and Michael Duffy (http://www.booktv.org/Watch/13439/The+Presidents+Club+Inside+the+Worlds+Most+Exclusive+Fraternity.aspx);
Discussion Leaders: Ella (egibbons28@columbus.rr.com) and Harold (hhullar5@yahoo.com)
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
(from Bellamarie)
What a nice link you provided for us Kathleen. Thank you!
-
Yes, I agree, JEAN AND BELLEMARIE, Nixon was a sad character, complex, brilliant, all that you have said. And, as you can see by the chapters in this book, he dominated national politics for many years.
Thank you KATHLEEN for that update on the brownstone, the clubhouse, which is certainly no dump now since being remodeled. It looks lovely and I'm sure is being used. Let's see - there is Clinton, Carter, the two Bushes, who am I leaving out. Would their children and grandchildren be elegible to stay there do you think?
Being curious I have looked up a couple of places mentioned in the book ---- (pg.211)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bohemian_Grove
They are adamant about women not being members..
Yesterday I saw a program on Book TV, a panel discussion with Susan Ford, daughter, Truman's grandson, and Hoover's great grandaughter. They told humorous, touching stories about their relatives. The Little White House in Key West was mentioned by the grandson and was also mentioned in our book. Here it is:
http://www.trumanlittlewhitehouse.com/
Was it Nancy Reagan pushing Ronnie do you think or was Reagan so ambitious that only nine days after his election as governor he met with top advisors to discuss a possible presidential bid? (p.206)
It doesn't seem in character for the charismatic Ronald Reagan that I saw.
What did all of you think of Reagan?
-
Ella, but what is the Brownstone mansion being used for? Certainly not by the intended ex President's club members. As I understand it's present status, it is open to the public being managed by the National Park Service. I suppose that like my my volunteer Docent work at the San Antonio Mission's National Park they receive a stream of tourist type visitor with docents giving tours during during which they mention its intended role as a Washington house for ex Presidents and Nixon's role in making the purchase, but principally they tell more detail on the house's history in the 19th century, and the early families that lived there. If I was still going to DC like I was in the 90's, I would like to visit it. Perhaps some of you have visited it?
-
Before we get to Regan let us cover Nixon whose administration has left a lots of issues for us to talk about. Our authors began their account of the Nixon administration by noting that the transition from Johnson to Nixon could have been as frosty as the Truman - Eisenhower exchange in 1952. But the controversy didn’t happen. Immediately after the election there were several white house meeting on the transition after which Nixon appeared like he was staging a coup of a sort or at least demanding a co-Presidency during the last month of the Johnson term. This was not LBJ’s way of being President causing his strong declaration that until Jan 20 1973 , all decision would be by him or his appropriate cabinet officers.
I think that at this point Johnsons was obviously at and end and he knew it. To his credit he did not push for a controversial transition.
-
The Nixon Administration has left us a lot to talk about. EVERYONE NOW PLEASE add your input on both the administration and you remembrance of it and how it has been covered by the authors of our book.
-
Egos, egos, egos, backstabbing scallywags! None of them, not one person in this chapter, is forthright! I knew that Kissinger was working against the peace talks, but having all this info in a short summary is just nauseating. They act like 15 yr old boys. " i can lie until i get caught." the beginning steps leading to Watergate. This is an example of why i said i would not like to have LBJ as a "friend." How does anyone deal with people who are just giving you BS all the time? You couldn't believe anything any of them said to you. Sounds very much like today's campaign. But i'm enough of an historian to know that none of it is new. It's just discouraging.
I liked HHHumphrey at the time and after reading this, i still do, but i'm still not sure how strong a president he would have been. Of course, the country would not have had to go through the constitutional crises that was brought about by Watergate. A scary event but one that did prove to us that our democracy and constitution can stand up to severe crises, which is nice to know.
Jean
-
Hello, JEAN, you are discouraged aren't you? But it's the only government we have and somehow it works, and every year (especially in an election year) we wonder if it will continue! These politicians, Congressmen, are egotistical, competitive to the point that either they or their campaign mnagers will come close to slander or libel against their opponent. I don't listen to many of the commentators who want/need any little thing to blow up and sound scandalous.
What stations do the rest of you listen to, where do you get your news?
Walter Reed hospital ws mentioned (251) and I remember that it closed. Here's an interesting site about it:
http://usnews.nbcnews.com/_news/2011/07/27/7182486-walter-reed-healing-place-for-warriors-set-to-close?lite
HAROLD, give us your opinion of the Nixon years???
Wasn't it interesting about David and Julie getting marriedd!, bringing together two political families - and we haven't heard from that young couple yet. I wouldn't blame them if they hid out in the mountains somewhere never to be seen again.
"They (family members) know what it means to live in the bell jar; to have family vacations
turned into photo opss to wonder at the sudden surfeit of friends and absence of intimacy."
So it seems the public is suspicious, the president's family is suspicious of the public, too bad.
WHERE IS EVERYONE, IT IS EMPTY IN HERE!!!! COME BACK!!!
-
NIXON - pg. 260 sums him up very well:
"He was not above the law-he was the law, as he famously explained: if a president does something, that means it's not illegal." Expecially in time of war, the president's powers, in his view, were virtually unlimited.
-
NIXON - Pg. 265 - A BROODING MAN , A LONER. He knew himself to be a loner, why would such a man pursue the limelight all his life?
-
I didn't mean to sound so negative, but just reading those chapters, as i said, putting it all together in a short passage, made it seem so much worse than when we lived thru it or when i've read about it before. i believe our democracy is the best form of government - Churchill said something about it being ineffecient, but better than all the other forms, and something about Americans trying everything else, but coming up with the right answer at the end.
The Nixon years had some positives, finally ending the VN war and opening diplomatic relationships w/ China. Nixon may have been the only person of the era who could do that w/out being accused of being soft on communism. Given the numbers of their population and their power in the geographic area, it was ludicrous not to have contact w/ them.
One of the most important happenings for the country of the period of the 60s and 70s is the beginning of the power of the conservatives and the Republican Party move to the right. I think Reagan is rather a fascinating character: his switch of parties, his charm, his leadership qualities, whether he was really leading or not, the adoration his fans still have for him and whether the present right really knows him, or just the myth of him. I must read an objective book about him
Julie and David have been in the spotlight lately with a new book about Ike. They've written several books and go on the book tour each time. They are sometimes on panels on the History Channel. They appear to be very happy w/ each other and yes, it is interesting that given the relationship of the father and grandfather that they got married. But they were thrown together a lot as young people. Maybe they are the best product of the President's Club. ;)
-
THANKS, JEAN, for your comments - I particularly liked this one:
"Maybe they are the best product of the President's Club."
Certainly there is something positive about this group of presidents, hahaha YOu did mention two of Nixon's achievements.
In reading TIME this week,I'll quote an editorial by Fareed Zakaria re: the coming election
""The winning party will be the one that is more optimistic about America - even among a struggling economy."
His article goes on to talk about confident leaders and optimism and states that the ones who had it were Theodore Roosevelet, Franklin D. Roosevelt, John F. Kennedy, Ronald Reagan, Bill Clinton and George W. Bush.
NIXON AND FORD neither one is mentioned, but our chapter is: - Mercy at all costs. True statement.
Sunny Ford, moody Nixon. Born in the same year (the year that produced the zipper, thank goodness for whoever?)
So what happened?
-
I got behind on the reading, partly because I was traveling, but also because I found reading the section on Vietnam quite painful. It brought back all the feeling of frustration and horror of that time. It seemed so obvious that what we were doing was wrong; we couldn’t win, we were getting more and more brutal, destroying the whole countryside for nothing. But there seemed to be no way to get our country to stop, cut the losses, and get out.
I feel sorry for LBJ. He was stuck too. He felt guilty about the war, and not strong enough for it. He was ill-served by his advisors. Ike was good, but ended up urging policies he would not have taken the responsibility for himself. Most of the others had axes to grind. I can’t find it now, but someone said you can’t trust military men because they want to be heroes, and it’s hard to be a hero without a fight.
I know this is backtracking, but I wanted to say it.
-
Oddly enough, in the end my frustration with Vietnam led to strengthening my patriotism. Bob and I could have made a chance to move to another country. We thought about this very carefully, and it made us realize just how much we loved our country, how much it is in our bones. So I am loyal and patriotic not just as a knee-jerk reaction, but because I have thought about it seriously and know that is what I am.
However, there are times when I am less proud of my country's actions than other times.
-
Sunny Ford, moody Nixon. Born in the same year (the year that produced the zipper, thank goodness for whoever?)
I can't let that one slide by without comment, because my father once wrote an article about it.
The zipper was invented in the 1890s by Whitcomb Judson, and patented in 1893. His drawing is crude compared to modern zippers, and looks less reliable.
-
Regarding today’s posts by Ella, Jean and Pat, I will offer the following comments. Our national federal union despite its many weaknesses, particularly when it comes to the extent of defining Presidential powers does somehow manage to bungle through in the end. This appears to be what happened August 9, 1974 when President Richard Nixon resigned in favor of the newly confirmed Vice President, Gerald Ford. After his close loss in the 1960 election Nixon continued in politics determined for another chance at the presidency. Barely escaping from a loss in a California election for Governor, he won the Republican nomination in 1968 coming back to win the election from a Democrat Party nominee weakened by the party’s handling of the Viet Nam War and other social issues at home. Nixon came back as President determined to be a great president.
During his first term as President a truce in Viet Nam involving the withdrawal of U.S. from the country, and its abandonment to the Communists was achieved, and the social issues largely resolved themselves enabling Nixon to win a second term in 1972. Early in his 2nd term Nixon’s suspicion of others supposed enemies actual or imagined led him to take measures beyond the power granted the President by the constitution. This included the use of the FBI to investigate other individals both Federal office holders and civilians. More importantly he hired others to commit particular criminal acts such as burglarizing the office of a private company, an operation that failed with the arrest and indictment of the Individuals involve.
This was just too much. The Constitutional Impeachment process began with the approval by the House of representatives of a bill of impeachment, the formal indictment of the President for trial by the Senate. This quickly led to Nixon’s resignation on September 9. 1974. We will continue our discussion of this matter through the remainder of the week including the events that immediately followed under the former Vice President, the new President Gerald Ford
-
Ella will it be OK with you if I take an extra day to complete this Week 2 material. This will Keep the discussion of the Ford administration open through Saturday???. You can the begin a full 7 days for your week 3 material beginning Sunday with Jimmy Carter and the 1976 election.
-
Pat Your feelings about LBJ expressed above sort of reflects my own. Being a Native Texan I had come to admire him for his service in the senate, particularly his ability to maintain control. Also I was impressed with his achievement as President in getting the first Civil Rights legislation past a senate filibuster and making it law despite his previous decade of opposition. I think his withdrawal of his 1970 candidacy for a 2nd elected term was unfortunate and premature. I noted that our book said as late as the August Convention, he had hope that the Delegates would still draft him. I had not heard that before.
-
Regarding Julie and David Eisenhower I see they are still active. Click the following fpor more Information:
http://www.aarp.org/politics-society/history/info-12-2010/where_are_they_now_julie_and_david_eisenhower.html
r I see Julie and David Eisenhower are still alive. Click the following URL for current information:
http://www.aarp.org/politics-society/history/info-12-2010/where_are_they_now_julie_and_david_eisenhower.html
-
Oh my heavens I just finished reading how Nixon interfered with the peace talks and halting the bombing to get elected and I have to say this chapter has made my stomach turn. I never liked Nixon before Watergate, but this I feel was an act of treason, and for LBJ and HHH to not expose him was inexcusable. He did not deserve to be president, he belonged in prison. And Henry Kissinger's involvement is more than I could even image, yet he was such a revered man. Ughhhh....
LBJ had no backbone, and to think he actually sat back hoping and waiting the people would ask him to run again after he decided not to was ridiculous. IF he would have exposed Nixon's disgusting behavior and announced he would for the good of the country jump back in the race, while ending the Vietnam war he most likely would have been re elected.
The Nixon chapters have really disgusted me and made me aware that these candidates will do just about anything regardless if it will hurt our country or not to get elected. While reading this book I can see this type of behavior and hate has gone on for decades. The President's club in my opinion is a man's club of egos. They certainly don't NEED the club, they could still engage the support and help of past presidents without it. Protect the legacy and club is hogwash. These men/presidents who do despicable/criminal acts, and then protect each other by not exposing this behavior is enabling it to continue.
So I am up to Nixon winning the election and the realization of the extent of Watergate. Sorry for the ranting post, I am just so disgusted. Nothing has changed.......it is all still going on. We have criminals for presidents.
Ciao for now~
-
Bellamarie, I just finished reading about Nixon's sabotaging the peace talks too. It's really shocking, and as you point out, treasonous. I always knew Nixon was dishonest and unscrupulous, but this takes the cake--disgusting. I wonder if he ever felt guilty for all the American lives he wasted with this move.
-
What a tangled web we weave, when. We practice to deceive. And the water gate web that Nixon wove was a complex one. The long message I left yesterday does not even scratch the surface. Nixon coming out of it as good as he did was surprizing.
Further comment on Nixon is welcome and we can move on to the Ford administration and the pardon.
-
IMHP, this book strays often from its theme - "the presidents''s club" - did Nixon ever use thie brownstone? Or ask for advise from his predecessors? Did you read that he did?
THANK YOU JEAN, PAT, BELLAMARIE, HAROLD, for all your comments and for making this discussion so interesting. We can lean on history during this rather bitter campaign for president this November.
THE PARDON! Yes, the pardon.
Our authors give rather extensive coverage of it. As we look back wasn't it the best action President Ford took? He believed that a pardon "carries an imputation of guilt, acceptance, a confession of it." pg 309.
That's news to me, I just never thought of it in that way.
BELLEMARIE, your statement of the former presidents protecting the Office of the Presidency is "sright on." Our authors make this point over and over.
IS THIS WRONG?
PATH - why did you think of leaving the country? Over the Vietnam War? Where is it better?
-
What is most disturbing for me is that it was not just LBJ and Nixon who were willing to lie, manipulate and act in knowingly criminal ways, but a whole group of men, especially in the N White House, many of them lawyers! Thank goodness John Dean finally had an attack of conscience and then Cox, Richardson and Ruckelshaus (sp?) said "No!". Does that show us that good people will finally will out?
-
Ella, After I posted that statement of protecting the club and presidents, pages later I read where it was written, and thought about it a little more. NO, IMO, it is not right to take part in a cover up of treason, but then again how could LBJ expose Nixon without exposing his own illegal acts of wire tapping. I think it is ironic how LBJ longed for a legacy as great as his predecessors, and Nixon so wanted to hold that precious office, and yet, they both held the smoking gun, that kept them from actually achieving and or enjoying what they wanted most.
Imagine beginning your presidency under a cloud of fear, knowing you have broken laws, and there are people and paper trails that could one day blow you to smithereens.....loll It is karma once you think about it.
Harold, " What a tangled web we weave, when. We practice to deceive." Isn't this fitting?
Yes, Jean, it sickened me that there were so many men involved in the cover up. Win at all costs, and protect at all costs. I haven't gotten to the part where Watergate is uncovered, and these men you mention step up. It is refreshing to know they finally do. I was just beginning my married life as this was unfolding, and just had my first baby, so I did not follow politics what so ever. At the age of 20 yrs old I had so many more things to deal with, becoming a young bride, a young mother and a home to find to begin raising my family, in a town away from my mother and siblings. Now at the ripe old age of 60, I am a political junkie!! LOLOL
I don't really think the actual club building was used for them to gather and meet. If anything it sounds like Elder Bush used it the most, while younger George was in office.
Okay on to the revealing and pardoning.......got to go read so be back later.
Ciao for now~
-
Yes, LBJ was in a real bind--couldn't reveal what Nixon had done without admitting his own lesser crimes. In addition, the furor that would have resulted might very well have derailed the peace talks anyway. I'm guessing Nixon wasn't exactly under a cloud of fear. His style seems to have been more anger and lashing out at opponents.
-
PATH - why did you think of leaving the country? Over the Vietnam War? Where is it better?
Yes--we were both horrified at the brutalities our country was committing, and frustrated at the seeming impossibility of getting it to stop. (No fear of being drafted was involved--Bob was over age and a veteran of WWII.) How serious were we? I don't really know, but suspect we wouldn't ever actually have left. We did think it over a lot though.
Where is it better? Nowhere; that's one reason we didn't go.
-
OH , the irony....At the top of pg 277, nixon says to Haldeman, "i want Brookings, i want them just to break in, break in and take it out ( the files on him) Do you understand?" ...... At the bottom of the pg N is saying "Remember that any intellectual is tempted to put himself above the law.... That's the rule that i've known all my life. Any intellectual, particularly - watch what schools they're from. If they're from any Eastern schools, or Berkeley, those are particularly the potential bad ones!?!"
This is a smart man who can't see the irony in his own words and life! Very scary.
I remember thinking what a little mouse E. Howard Hunt looked like. Apparently he was anything but! But that "everyman" look worked for him in the CIA. Now Gordon Liddy looks and talks like a macho, hardline spy. ;D
".....(Johnson showed Nixon) the recording contraptions that Kennedy had installed under the beds." Under the bed? I don't even want to know who listened to them!
"RN treated the presidency as sacred, even as he set about defiling it" that first sentence in "Nixon and Johnson" really says it all, doesn't it. He was a man of ambiguities.
I had to laugh at the story of Nixon having the Oval Office pocked- marked floor cut up into TWO INCH squares mounted them on plaques and sent them to an "appreciative coterie." Really? Quirky. Does the mental health field have a categorie of behavior that is between neurotic and psychotic? He is certainly more than neurotic, but he was living in reality enough to get elected to the presidency and look presidential a lot of the time.
This is a scary, but interesting book.
-
NO, BELLEMARIE, I don't think the brownstone was meant for meetings; it was to be a temporary place for former presidents and famiies to reside when in Washington. They would be close to the White House for social events or conferences with the current president. IT WAS A PERK!!
I think our authors' theme in the book is not just the physical location of the brownstone, but the office of the presidency and those that have occupied it. They are all club members.
One statement the authors made on pag.302 caught my attention:
"The most precious commodity of the United States of America is neither the gold bullion in Fort Knox nor the launch codes in its ballistic misiles. It is the time of the commander in chief; there is only so much of it, and how it is spent shapes pretty much everything else."
WOW! What do you think of that statement?
As President Ford said speaking of the tragedy of Nixon - "It could go on and on and on or someone must write an end to it."
We must get past Nixon and onto REAGAN.
Did you love him or hate him and what did you think of those 8 years in office?
-
A note - several people were interested in the book discussion; Nancy, Callie, Dean, Maryz and Kidsal. Kathleen, we miss you.
If you are following along, we hope all of you will post now and then!
-
Jean, Great minds think alike. I had marked this exact paragraph to comment on. lolol
"Remember that any intellectual is tempted to put himself above the law.... That's the rule that I've known all my life. Any intellectual, particularly - watch what schools they're from. If they're from any Eastern schools, or Berkeley, those are particularly the potential bad ones!?!"
Nixon was a real piece of work. He reminds me of a little boy who is always plotting a way to break rules, and when thinking he is going to get caught, he immediately begins the cover up and argument, that others did it too. When the book mentions how Nixon could be happy and jovial, and then seconds later be depressed, because it seems it took alot out of him to muster up those emotions (paraphrasing) it made me wonder if Nixon could have been bipolar. The ups & downs and the grandiose attitude. I can't imagine being in that man's head, it had to drain him, with his constant conspiracies and cover ups. Phew it exhausted me just reading these chapters on him. This man had NO character and yet he says: "I think Johnson died of a broken heart, I really do. Here's Johnson, this big, strong, intelligent tough guy, practically getting so emotional that he'd almost cry, because his critics didn't appreciate him. He, til the very last, thought that he might be able to win them. And the point is, rather than have them love him, he should have tried to do what he could have done very well--have them respect him. And in the end, he lost. He neither gained the love nor retained the respect." In his final remarks to the White House staff, on the day he resigned his office, Nixon applied a version of the lesson to himself. "Always remember, others may hate you, but those who hate you don't win unless you hate them, and then you destroy yourself."
I'm not so sure I agree with Nixon. He knew he was hated and destroyed, and in his own twisted mind, was trying to say he was able to rise above the hate, by not hating them back. IMO BS!!!! LOLOL
Yes, we must go on even though there is so much on Nixon I feel like Ella pointed out Ford saying... "It could go on and on and on or someone must write an end to it." LOLOLOL perfectly said!!!
I am actually only up to pg. 298 Third Time's The Charm, where Ford is announced as his choice for VP. Which is only a few pages til the next assigned pages Ford/Reagan. So off I go to finish and begin next week's chapters.
p.s. Just out of curiosity, Ella, when you asked before the discussion, which president did we think the author spent more time on in the book without looking, I answered Nixon. Can I assume I was correct? lol
Ciao for now~
-
Happy Friday, everyone ... haven't been able to touch our book since last week but, reading your comments, am looking forward to picking it up this weekend. I just finished re-reading Catch-22 which came out in 1961. Even though it's set in WWII, it sure captured the pure evil and idiocy of the Vietnam war years, didn't it? About two-thirds of the way through the book, a character gives us another version of Catch-22; an old woman whose young prostitutes have been driven into the street states:
"Catch-22 says they have a right to do anything we can't stop them from doing."
It reminded me of Nixon's statement about presidential power, so I went to
http://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/Richard_Nixon
to find the quote; from the 1977 interview w/David Frost:
"Well, when the President does it, that means that it is not illegal."
-
Regarding the pardon, it was the first major issue Ford had to face. I now think Ford did the right thing by issuing it. All the nation's government And public energy was focused on the Nixon issue disregarding all other national and international issues. Apparently the cold war front was relatively quiet at that tine. Perhaps Russia was occupied with their own problem at the time. In any case Ford boldly did what he determined he had to do, he issued the pardon.
The timing of the pardon seemed premature since Nixon while indicted had not yet been found guilty. Our book notes that was an issue Ford checked out with experts before issuing it. Much of the nation I included was shocked, and dismayed at Ford for this pardon. Certainly 2 1/2 years later, the pardon issue remained costing Ford another term as President.
-
Ford restored my faith in politicians, and maybe mankind, after Watergate. I did not believe that he made a deal for the pardon. I liked the whole Ford family.
-
Ella, I'm here and reading - just haven't chimed in.
-
I'm also here and reading. For so much of the time we're discussing now, I wasn't paying one bit of attention to politics - national or otherwise, so I didn't form any opinions or impressions.
However, I'm enjoying your comments.
Edit: I suppose I thought we would be talking about the interactions between and among the presidents rather than discussing the traits of the individuals. I just don't have anything to add to that.
-
You were right, BELLEMARIE, can you believe so much was written about Nixon in this book.
WHY?
President Carter is briefly mentioned, right?
"JERRY fORD AND JIMMY cARTER DISLIKED EACH OTHER FOR FIVE YEARS UNTIL THEY REALIZED THEY BOTH DISLIKED RONALD REAGAN EVEN MORE. AND THEN THEY BECAME FRIENDS."
WHY?
You are right CALLIE in believing we would/should "be talking about the interactions between and among the presidents rather than discussing the traits of the individuals."
Do you think the book strays from that subject a bit too much?
What do you think the authors meant by a "presidents club?"
I do admire the authors for not straying into the wives of the presidents - which is the subject of other books.
Hey, MARYZ, wish you would post, but happy to see you here.
And here we are on Chapters 15-19. It is going too fast, too fast, I can't keep up. Later today I'll put some questions for your consideration in the heading.
-
Ella, I there is so much on Nixon, because he is the one president that was so complex, and seemed to be the one intertwined with so many other presidents due to the timing of their years in politics. Also, his administration was so filled with conspiracies and criminal acts that the author used it to help fill the book.
Do you think the book strays from that subject a bit too much?
Yes, I do think the author does stray a bit too much. I felt the first chapters kept to the club and then up to Kennedy, it seems to have gone off into the personalities of the men/presidents. I'm not so sure we are actually even seeing "the club" in these past chapters. Do you think its because the presidents quit relying on past presidents so much for their advice and help? It seems to have dwindled once Eisenhower took office.
Okay off to volleyball games....ciao for now~
-
Ella, I agree with Bellamarie that the book spends too much time on the individuals. However, without that - it would be a much shorter book. :)
I wish the authors had spent more time showing how the individual actions affected the relationships between the presidents. Maybe there isn't that much reference material to research this aspect?
-
bellanarie regarding the book my main complaint is that it is certainly packed with detail making it somewhat difficult to respond on our accustom level. On the whole I judge it an excelent, well research political history of the U.S. presidency from 1945 to the present. I am glad Ella suggested it and happy to participate.
We will wind up on on the Ford term today during which we might comment on the several assinagination attempts, both by women. Both failed to hit their target and both received long prison sentences. Are both of them still in jail?
-
Joannie-come-lately - just moved to the front of the line at the library and picked up my copy of the book yesterday. Not having read the book, I can't comment on whether the authors stray from the club too much. No way I can catch up with the rest of you. I plan to just dive into Chapter 15 and Gerry Ford - scheduled to begin tomorrow, right?
I did read the Introduction carefully in which the Presidents Club is described. From the intro, I see the answer to the reason why Ford sacrificed a term when granting Nixon the pardon. He pardoned Nixon not to save the man, but to restore the office and let the country move on. "The office trancends the individual." I noted how "former presidents line up with fat bristle brushes to whitewash stains on their records." They don't seem to have been there for Nixon...but Nixon's "club" differed from the others. In 1972, there wasn't any club. Truman and Johnson had died. Nixon was alone.
The introduction dwells on the loneliness of the presidency - how the circle of trust shrinks. Former presidents understand the pressures, the weight of their decisions and can be enormous help and source of advice to the sitting president. Nixon had no such advisors.
Not sure how Truman and LBJ would have advised him...but they would certainly have tried to guide him.
I think it was Jean who wrote of Nixon's stellar performance as president - especially foreign policy - China... He was doing fine, in my memory, right up until the election. Some say his true nature and inadequacies came out and led to his downfall at that time. I can't help but think he would not have fallen with advice from the club.
Was impressed at Clinton's comments in the Introduction - Following Nixon's death he read his letter of advice every day, he says. Oh and the remark - that he felt as he did when he lost his own mother. I strongly believe that History will treat Nixon kinder than the bad taste Watergate left.
Off to read Chapter 15 on Gerry Ford. A president I feel I know little about...
-
The Book Club Online is the oldest book club on the Internet, begun in 1996, open to everyone. We offer cordial discussions of one book a month, 24/7 and enjoy the company of readers from all over the world. Everyone is welcome.
SEPTEMBER BOOK CLUB ONLINE
(http://www.seniorlearn.org/bookclubs/presclub/Presidentsclubcvr.jpg)
As we head into another overheated and polarizing presidential campaign, at least it's a comfort knowing that former presidents have learned to mostly put aside partisan politics and work together. Thanks to the brilliant investigative work of Time magazine's Nancy Gibbs and Michael Duffy, The Presidents Club uncovers a powerful secret fraternity, in which ex-leaders stay in the game by counseling inexperienced successors. - USA Today
Realizing that membership in the Presidents Club bestows a singular perspective can help explain certain minor mysteries of our political life. How, for example, could Clinton ever forgive George H.W. Bush, who in the 1992 campaign all but charged him with being a traitor, if not a Soviet stooge, for visiting Russia as a college student and protesting the Vietnam War “from foreign soil”? Why has Obama, whose presidential quest embodied a repudiation of everything George W. Bush stood for, heard scarcely a grumble about his policies from his once-belligerent predecessor? The answer lies in what Kennedy said to Arthur Schlesinger when asked to rank the presidents: “Only the president himself can know what his real pressures and his real alternatives are.” It’s a sentiment that virtually every president voices at one point or another in this book. - Washington Post
DISCUSSION SCHEDULE:
Chapters 1-9 9/1 through 9/8
Chapters 10-14 9/9 through 9/15
Chapters 15-19 9/16 through 9/22
Chapters 20-26 9/23 through 9/30
Related Links: Secrets of the Presidents Club - Video (http://videos.simonandschuster.com/Secrets-of-THE-PRESIDENTS/1510374688001);
Book TV with Nancy Gibbs and Michael Duffy (http://www.booktv.org/Watch/13439/The+Presidents+Club+Inside+the+Worlds+Most+Exclusive+Fraternity.aspx);
Discussion Leaders: Ella (egibbons28@columbus.rr.com) and Harold (hhullar5@yahoo.com)
-
"I'm not so sure we are actually even seeing "the club" in these past chapters- BELLEMARIE
And I'm not so sure what exactly "the club" is - a political history of the presidency that HAROLD mentioned is more in line with the theme of the book, but titling a club has some merit - one way of looking at it. A club has members and the former presidents are all members, I suppose. It's stretching..........
Still, it's a very interesting read, I love the history of it all. I lived through these years.
As CALLIE and BELLEMARIE stated it would have been shorter if the authors just wrote about the relationships of members to each other and to the president.
JOANP - Welcome! Happy you got your book!!! You are coming in halfway through the book and Nixon is still on stage. I'm just amazed at the material on Nixon. Personally, I wanted nothing more to do with that president once he left offfice. Those awful tapes, our local paper published them, or parts of them, I can't remember; but they downgraded the Office of the President. I was ashamed of them.
I agree that history will treat Nixon with a bit more respect, but he will always be tainted by Watergate, etc. etc. I doubt that the club, even if there were some, would have prevented his deviousness.
This book is not soft on Nixon, do you think?
-
I now think the author's inclusion of the detailed pre club history of each president was necessary to prepare us reader's for understanding how each of them functioned as members of the club. In particular I was surprized at nixon's come back after his forced resignation in disgrace. In the club he may have been the most persistently active member actively seeking out the attention of the sitting President. In particular the sitting President could not ignor his several trips as ex President to China and Russia.
-
I liked the way the authors characterized the JFK Profile in Courage award to G Ford at the end of chapter 14 "It was almost as if the Kennedys had issued Ford a pardon for pardoning Nixon." i remember that ceremony and thought it was very nice of them to give him that award. I didn't realize how controversial it had been.
Nixon's return to China in 1976...........Nixon just couldn't play nice, could he? He just could not be a team player, even for the Republicans. he was so self-centered.
Re: Reagan/Ford..........I am wondering - in order to run for president, do you have to have a huge ego and a bushel-full of pride? Generally to say "s/he had too much pride" means a person is preserving their own dignity from doing something stupid, but with these guys, i think we can see how "pride" just means "highly sensitive to slights." Not that they didn't need to be cautious about the slings and arrows of the other guy, but "pride" seems to get in the way of sensible thinking. Obama and Hillary Clinton seem to have resisted continuing the pattern. Obama being willing to offer his opponent the Sec of State job -ala Lincoln - and Hillary being willing to work FOR Obama. What a change from these stories we're reading about.
Jean
-
I've just finished Chapter 15 - intending to look for the authors' tendancy to stray far from "the club"... I can see what Harold is talking about. All of the material in Chapter 15 was interesting - and as Harold says, "necessary to prepare us to understand how each funcionned as members of the club.
I have no complaints about straying too far afield so far...but I do get uncomfortable (and a bit annoyed) when I read judgemental comments from the authors like this:
"Nixon was being his usual self-centered self."
I think it's one thing for us to reach such conclusions as Jean does - after reading the facts, what took place, who said what, etc. But I'd prefer authors leave that for us to decide after they provide the details. What do you think? Should they give their own personal opinions - after digging up the facts? They did the hard work. Do they deserve it to express their own opinions? Am I being too critical?
-
I'm totally dumbfounded reading about the interaction between Ford and Reagan - the trade-offs Reagan was willing to make to get Ford to agree to the Vice Presidential slot on the ticket! Where was I? Was everyone (but me) aware of all this? If not, where did our authors pick up this detailed account of what Ford was demanding?
The real irony - neither of the two men wanted Ford on the ticket! :D (Not Ford himself, who might have had the powers of a co-president!)
Jean, I think that both of them had their own very different reasons for naming Hillary Secretary of State - but that our authors either decided not to go there, or the reasons were never made public. Have you finished the book? Perhaps this will be discussed at the end.
-
No i haven't finished the book, just thinking about what has happened.
Joan, i agree about the authors personal opinions. Their "facts" can give the book direction that provides the reader w/ their opinions. But, it's their book, i guess they can write it the way they want.
Jean
-
In Chapter 16 the authors give an account of what is probably the most dangerous exposure that the Club members have been subject. This was the 15,000 mile flight from Washington, D.C. to Cairo, Egypt in 1981 where ex-Presidents Ford, Nixon, and Carter with his wife, Rosalyn attended the funeral and internment of the assassinated Egyptian President Adwar Sadat . Also aboard the 707 aircraft was the delegation chief, the Secretary of state; also the Secretary of Defense and a number of Senators and Representatives, and a large press corps contingent. The trip was deemed too dangerous for the President or Vice President. Our book describes flight and the interesting interaction of the three ex-Presidents as they probed for opportunities to promote their own particular interest.
Regarding the exposure of the three to physical dangers, there was a tense moment during the ceremony that was resolved by the quick action of an Egyptian officer present. The return trip gave the Press reporters present an opportunity to interview Ford and Carter. Nixon was not present on the return flight since he had left the group to fly on to his own previously planned visit to Saudi Arabia.
-
1981 - and here we are in 2012, some 30 years later and Middle East problems are still plaguing, much the same problems; violence, Palestine/Israel relationships. Seems as though we should have made some progress in all the time toward a peaceful settlement. It remains a hotbed to this day doesn't it? Comparisons in history over time, we are not pointing the way to a peaceful world for out children.
JOANP - There are NOTES in the back of the book as to sources, but I agree there are opinions now and then of the authors. I think they have a right after extensive research to do this; TIME magazine is noted for the opinions of the editors. I'll look for critical reviews of the book later.
As HAROLD stated, an historic trip to Egypt; I remember Anwar Sadat as force for peace in that troubled region; I was impressed with him, the Camp David Peace Accords at the time.
JEAN, I agree with your comments about Nixon, so intelligent, so well informed and so nasty in so many ways. And here he is still making headlines (as he intended to do) with his trip to Moxcow. Still and all, I enjoy reading about his exploits. "A first rate intellect but a third-rate person." - H.W. Bush.
President Reagan dreamed of a nuclear-free world and we are still in fear of it in Iran. We all have our particular memories of each president. I wasn't fond of Reagan for president but I will never forget "Mr. Gorbachev tear down that wall" ending the Soviet's era of great power in the world.
-
I just finished ch 15 and my mouth is hanging open at even the remote consideration and possibility of a co-presidency. Why on earth would Reagan even approach the idea, and more so, why on earth was Ford playing Reagan? Ford would never accept VP after being the President. I have to say the entire negotiations of the idea was weird for me.
IMO Hillary and Obama had and still does have bad blood amongst them. She was pushed out of that convention by the DNC. They had chosen Obama for the ticket, and she was not to be a part of the equation. I worked on her campaign, and there were rumors before she bowed out, that she was being pressured to give the spot to Obama. When Diane Feinstien held that late night meeting with Hillary & Obama, and the next day she announces her withdrawal and her support for Obama I was in shock. She was leading in the polls. I have NO doubt she would have won that election had the DNC not split her electoral votes from Florida and Michigan. I don't for one second think Bill or Hillary have forgiven the DNC or Obama for what they did to get him elected, and I suspect when history is written years from now we will learn so much more about the private deal that was made that night at Feinstein's. Secretary of State was part of the deal, but I am thinking they promised to back her in her run in 2016 after Obama has his 8 yrs. Afterall, the Democrats would be able to claim history making with the first black president, and then the first woman president. That is in part what turned me away from the Democratic party and made me declare myself an Independent. I could never see myself a loyalist to one party ever again. Egads....sorry for getting off the beaten path, Jean, you got me remembering how I felt about all of this....lolol
Politics are a game, just as Reagan and Ford were playing a game with each other.....NO way would Reagan share his duties as president with Ford, and NO way would Ford ever go to VP after being President.
So let the games begin....or should I say....continue. lolol
Nixon just does not want to go away, he is like this annoying kid on the block, who no one really likes and wants to run in their house when they see him coming down the block. Ughhh...back to my reading.
I really don't mind authors giving their personal opinions or comments, it does not in any way influence my own, while reading the book.
Ciao for now~
-
Isn't it interesting how once Ford and Carter were no longer competing in the game that they could see their commonalities and become good friends. There must be a lesson to be learned there.
I understand, Bellemarie, about a deal of some kind being made w/ Hillary. Where i see a new positive behavior is that Hillary and Obama seem to have been able to look at the positives of each other and continue to work together after a hard-fought campaign. I wonder how much that has to do with their being of different genders? If it was Barack and Bill would it work? I don't think so, men seem to have much stronger competition and defenses against each other - just by nature?
I wish the authors had included more about the wives and the Club, but maybe that's another book. I think it is no longer, if it ever was, possible to talk about presidential administrations w/out including the mportance of the wives.
Jean
-
Interesting that Roslyn insisted on accompanying "Jimmy" on that plane with Dick and Jerry to Sadat's funeral, wasn't it? She seems always at his side. Sometimes I think she's there to protect him. As I was reading the description of Air Force One - it sounded as if it was on its last legs. I'm hoping it's been replaced? Does anyone know?
The passengers were cramped, close together for many hours on that trip - except for Haig - who refused to give up his space to Roslyn and Jimmy. What a guy!
So what was the significance of that trip abroad in cramped quarters? It seemed to me that Jerry and Jimmy found they had more in common than they had thought - and their warmed up relationship would continue. Not so much with Nixon - He wanted so much to be liked, walking up and down the aisles shaking hands...and then he disappeared and didn't make the return trip with the others.
It seems the necessary ingredient was COMMUNICATION.
So what was it that brought Nixon back into the club? Was it Bill Clinton?
-
Politics are a game, just as Reagan and Ford were playing a game with each other.....NO way would Reagan share his duties as president with Ford, and NO way would Ford ever go to VP after being President.
So let the games begin....or should I say....continue. lolol
Ciao for now~
-
A game, BELLEMARIE, I know, but such a game! The older I get the more frightened I am of the position the USA holds in tshe world. Our decisions can affect the future for decades.
HI JOANP, didn't they call Reagan the Great Communicator? That is, when they didn't call him sthe Gipper. Maybe my memory is faulty.
If President Nixon was not a joiner, neither was Jimmy Carter. But the difference in character is like night and day.
Did they do justice to Carter; it seemed very negative to me. He did not appeal to the public except to the conservatives; couldn't make speecheshave ; but his attitude towards the Gulf War (pg.406) was my own. We should not entered the Middle East; the Persian Gulf War should never have happened. Trouble every since.
THANK YOU ALL FOR YOUR CONTINUING COMMENTS, I love reading them, I love your interest in the book that Harold and I chose for a nonfiction discussion.
Do you read many nonfiction books? And, if so, what kind?
If you were writing a biography of a president, which of these we have discussed would you choose?
-
We have had an interesting burst of activity today. Thank you all. Regarding Ford, I think he was lucky in being limited to his short 30 month term during which the nation pretty much recovered from the Nixon fiasco. I firmly believe the pardon was the best since it cut short the Watergate problem. Thereafter like a long inactive volcano, it remained a historical scar, but the nation move on with its many active issues through the remaining months of Ford and Carter terms.
Bellamarie, it may be a bit early for a full discussion of Obama and Hillary but I will note Hilary is certainly the one who got the WORK out of the arrangement. I suspect she has come to be the most traveled Secretary of State throughout the nearly 3 years since she took office. I too was impressed with her 2008 campaign that suddenly faded with Obama’s surge in the early summer. It would have been interesting with her as President in the Whitehouse and Bill as - - - - would it have been “first Gentleman”? I am sure you had a great experience working for her, and great experiences are always welcome here.
Jean and Joan regarding Ford and Carter the author’s noted the point that the Sadat Funeral trip did raise memory of the Ford/Carter campaign against one another that resulted in Ford’s defeat and Carter’s victory. They seemed to see a cooling of the remaining animosity as the Flight progressed. At least I got that impression. Also I don’t think the 707 Aircraft that they traveled in was Air force One. I think it was an old 707 that happened to be available at the time. I think Air Force One with its ultimate Communication Equipment Facilities including nuclear warfare computer capability must always be available should it be required by the President in a sudden war situation.
Thank you every one for the Interesting Comments you are making about the material in this book. It makes an interesting story, doesn’t it?
-
Jean
I understand, Bellemarie, about a deal of some kind being made w/ Hillary. Where i see a new positive behavior is that Hillary and Obama seem to have been able to look at the positives of each other and continue to work together after a hard-fought campaign. I wonder how much that has to do with their being of different genders? If it was Barack and Bill would it work? I don't think so, men seem to have much stronger competition and defenses against each other - just by nature?
I think the jury is still out, and I will wait for history to be written on the results of this relationship. I sense its ALL smoke and mirrors. The Clintons, be it male or female do not strike me as a forgiving politician. Hillary is in the same league as the big boys, she is one of them, her gender has no baring. IMO LOLOL I would LOVED to have seen her win, but now, not so much, she has been tainted, her spirit has been crushed. When I see her now, she looks like an empty shell of a person. I suppose the only thing that will bring back that sparkle in her eyes will be the birth of her first grandchild. The glass ceiling was broken in a million pieces, along with her dreams of being the first woman president. Bill knows this and makes nice with Obama, for the party's sake, and maybe, just maybe for the club's sake.
Yes, Harold, it may be a bit early to discuss the Clintons, but I could not resist replying. lolol I can't wait to get to them because I seriously got so excited for politics with Bill & Hillary. He came to my hometown and I went to see him speak when Hillary was still running, it was cold and raining and I stood in line to get in, and oh how he could capture and audience......
Getting back to our most recent chapters....I am shocked at how much Reagan relied on Nixon. Tricky Dick was not to be trusted. I knew he was an awful person, but after finishing these chapters I am simply appalled with his underhanded actions. He went to great lengths to get attention and stay involved with Russia.
So now my question is this....the book is titled "The President's Club" it seems to be more about Nixon and his personality, presidency and shenanigans. The authors could have covered more on Ford or Carter, yet they seem enamored with Nixon. Granted, he was like a bad virus that wouldn't go away, but do you think it was necessary to give him so much attention in the book?
Ella, The older I get the more frightened I am of the position the USA holds in tshe world. Our decisions can affect the future for decades.
I could not agree with you more. I fear the politicians, the congress, the house, the supreme court and the president are forgetting who they swore to serve. The world does not see America as a strong force to be reckoned with. When you owe trillions of dollars to China, who is the stronger nation?
-
The description of the Oct 1981 trip to Egypt was so vivid; did anyone find the transcript or audio of the Ford and Carter ruminations, aboard the 707 on the way back from Sadat's funeral? I found this piece describing the behaviors among Nixon, Ford, and Carter during that same trip
http://www.jpost.com/Magazine/Features/Article.aspx?id=167088
This book is making me think about each president handled loyalty (to personal values, country, peers, political party, family, office of the President).
Kathleen
-
"He (Nixon) went to great lengths to get attention and stay involved......" - JEAN. Indeed he did and so did the editors! Perhaps they might have had more material on Nixon than on the others?
And even on that trip to Egypt, Nixon was still attempting to gain publiclity for his many achievements in office, as was stated in that video/essay KATHLEEN was kind enough to find for us.
President Ford - our gentlemen president: I quote - "As he sat down Ford was heard to whisper into Kissinger’s ear, “Sometimes I wish I had never pardoned that son of a bitch.”
Thanks Kathleen!
All the pictures were good, weren't they? Clinton looks so young, well, most of them do! And to think that four of them are still living. No one has proposed cutting perks for a former president. Besides their exorbitant fees for giving speeches, untold board memberships, a pension, an office, a secretary, Secret Service. One good reason to become a president - the benefits.
Carter goes rogue - he wrote a letter clearly "lobbying foreign heads of states, and leaders of the countries on the U.N. Security Council , lobbying them to work against a sitting U.S. president as war loomed. And from a former president of the USA that letter would have been opened and commented on.
As I recall (and probably somewhere in this book it is stated) that Bush went to war in Iraq without approval of the U.N.
Trusting memory here, am I right? Is it illegal for the president to declare war?
(my eyesight due to aging and needful of a cornea transplant soon) is not very good and I am probably making many grammatical errors, please pardon. I have my computer practically sitting on my lap)
-
I have observed that several recent participants, myself included, have made recent posts noting an individual club member’s special interest. Such a special interest tends to trigger a particular activity relative to the club,most often promoting his individual special interest. Some members had more reason than others and as a result were more active than others. Nixon certainly falls into this category and in fact often succeeded in achieving what might described as the sitting Presidents go to Guy among the other members.
I want to wait until next week to say more on Nixon’s relation with Bill Clinton. For now let us just note that Nixon was making progress in achieving a measure of redemption through making is considerable experience in foreign affairs refreshed by contemporary travel available to several receptive sitting Presidents.
-
Ella, I haven't gotten up to the Bush/Iraq chapter, so I can't comment on if they explain if indeed he went to war without the UN's approval. I do know their was a vote taken in the Senate because I recall hearing it was voted with approval of the Senate, because Colin Powell made a great argument on WMDs. I remember watching the TV that day Powell was giving the visuals of where the WMDs were suppose to be hidden, and I thought to myself, that is not enough proof. It obviously, at the time was enough for the votes to approve the invasion.
Yes, Harold, it seems Nixon was nagging the heck out of the sitting presidents to be given face time. Constantly writing to them with his advice. I come away with a new found respect for Nixon's actual knowledge and intelligence, when it came to foreign affairs. He knew the ins and outs of D.C., but yet was so extremely ignorant to think he could get away with Watergate. Was this a man with just too big of an ego, that he ended up tripping over it? lol I think because of "the club" it made it possible for Nixon to be accepted by the other presidents, past & present. Had they NOT had "the club" do you suppose they would have given him the opportunity to be involved?
I haven't read ahead, but I can't wait to get to Bill Clinton and Hillary's run for presidency.
Ella, So sorry to hear about your eyesight, but rest assured, your typing skills are perfect!
Ciao for now~
-
That is not enough proof
You were certainly right there, Bellamarie; too bad nobody could listen to you.
Nixon was an odd mixture, wasn't he? He was so good at foreign affairs, and knowledgeable about political strategies, but when it came down to anything about himself, he was fiercely paranoid and vindictive and willing to do anything, no matter how unscrupulous. It's too bad we couldn't have split him in two, kept the good side for public life, and banished the bad side to private life.
-
Kathleen, thanks for the great link - filling in more of the details of the Air Force One trip to Sadat's funeral. I found a bit more about that plane -
Several aircraft have been used as Air Force One since the creation of the presidential fleet, including two Boeing 707s introduced in the 1960s and 1970s, respectively; since 1990, the presidential fleet has consisted of two Boeing VC-25As – specifically configured, highly customized Boeing 747-200B series aircraft. The Air Force is looking into replacing the two VC-25 aircraft with three replacement aircraft beginning in 2017.
So, Nixon did not endear himself to Jerry and Jimmy on that trip - but as we see in these chapters, Nixon had Reagan's ear. I guess that wasn't surprising. Jimmy and Jerry "had no use for Reagan." Reagan is the new guy in town and needs some guidance regarding how things worked in Washington - and foreign policy too. As Bellamarie points out - Nixon knew the ins and outs of D.C - and foreign policy. Reagan wasn't getting these offers of help from the other members of the "club."
Once again I'm struck by the authors' bias - when they described Nixon's reasons for endorsing Haig for Secretary of State:
"...he sold the president-elect an unusually large helping of hokum about how Haig would 'reassure the Europeans, give pause to the Russians, and in addition, because of over five years as Henry Kissinger's deptuy in the White House and two years at NATO, he has acquired a great deal of experience in dealing with the Chinese, the Japanese, the various factions in the Mideast, the Africans and the Latin Americans."
We're also told in the next paragraphs that Nixon "offered lots of advice freely and even if Reagan didn't always take it, much evidence suggests he did."
If Nixon's role as a member of the club is to offer advice from his experience, I don't find it surprising that Nixon would do so. I also don't see Haig's credentials amounting to "hokum" as our authors characterized it...
-
I would think that all following presidents would have had great ambiguous feelings about Nixon. Here was a man they probably knew on one hand they couldn't trust to be forthright with them and yet, he was a brilliant political stratagist and often gave valuable advise. Here was the most disgraced recent president, how much redemption did they want to give him? Here was a man who was once the most powerful man in the world and had squandered it all with criminal acts, did they want to be seen in pictures w/ him, or seem to be friendly w/ him? I can see how it could be enjoyable for them to have history conversations, or speculative conversations w/ him. I never did understand his seeming redemption by these guys and by the public, but i guess if you have some value to others, they can forgive you.
He was always seeking ways to turn the spotlight to himself. The scenario of kicking off his "Nixon Center" in the middle of G. H. W. Bush's campaign was so symbolic and incredible. He not just set up the event and asked Bush to speak, but undercut Bush w/ the press release on Russian policy. yet everybody came!?!
Carter is in many ways the same ego-centric personality, but in miniature, altho perhaps treasonous!?! Amazing! Amazing!
I'm glad you folks got me to read this book..........Jean
-
Me, too: glad to have a chance to read this book and discuss it with y'all.
I've been wondering how history would be different if Nixon had not screwed up so badly so he couldn't complete an eight-year term; would he have been as busy-busy-busy asserting himself in the next administrations? Also, what would have happened if there had been one or two living ex-Presidents watching his administration? They all were capable of manipulating events, triangulating, behind the scenes.
What was the main reason Ford and Carter disliked Reagan? Was it jealousy that they only had one term, or that they vehemently disagreed with his philosophy of confronting communism head on? Seems like Nixon was more about containment than Reagan, so why the bond between Dick and Ronnie? My head swims thinking about these complex relationships!
-
Nixon & Carter just seemed to "NEED" attention, and want to hold on to power with their foreign affairs. Both committed acts of treason, but their sitting president chose not to hold them accountable for the sake of the club & presidency. Do you believe that???
I think, the reason the sitting presidents did NOT take any action against them, because they would have had to expose how they took into their own hands, the power that belonged to the president. How embarrassing would that have looked? It was like these two guys spit in the eye of the sitting president. Just the fact they were not held accountable, and then was allowed to continue in some capacity, was a bit disgusting for me.
I am really enjoying this book. I have learned so much, and my hubby is a history buff, and I am sharing things with him that he had no idea happened between these presidents.
Okay I am going on to the next chapters because I can't wait til Saturday. I promise not to post any spoilers.
Ciao for now~
-
Enough NixonQ And Carter, too? Like BELLEMARIE I'm ready to go on to THE GOLDEN AGE OF THE CLUB - Chapter 20.
Is that all right with you HAROLD?
Are there any other comments about the preceding chapters before we proceed?
These next chapters are so current it seems - we just heard a white-haired Bill Clinton speak on national TV in this campaign.
W. Bush is keeping very quiet and I wonder why he is not campaigning for Romney.
So much to talk about that is current.
If you all agree let's go on.
-
I have one comment to make. It would help us all in our conversations if, when commenting on a particular incident in the book, you would put the page numbers of the book you are citing.
We can then read it over and comment further. As KATHLEEN stated this material, these relationships, are so complex , each page so full of references to conversations, actions, etc., that a re-reading is necessary.
Thanks much.
-
Just finished chapter 19 last night - all comments are from that chapter - sorry I didn't note page numbers. Most comments are impressions I got - and questions I had after reading this chapter.
Earlier someone asked, was it you Ella - which president would you like to learn more about? I've been thinking about that since you asked. Right now, I think it would be Jimmy Carter. So many unanswered questions about this man - especially since his term in office.
~ My questions - starting with HOW did he ever get elected President in the first place? How much was known about him - how closely was he scrutinized by the press, by the public? Was it just that the country was tired - tired of Nixon and then Ford who had pardonned him?
I thought President Bush treated him kindly, included him in peace talks, let him know his experience was useful. What happened to this relationship?
~ He seems to have had a bad time in the "CLUB" - as authors say, every club needs a black sheep - and after Nixon died, Carter stepped seemlessly into this role." Do the authors really mean this? Who is the "black sheep now" Is it still Carter? Or?
~ "Carter goes rogue" What on earth made him change his mind about using force if necessary as he stated in his speech before the UN...which became known as the "Carter Doctrine" - When Bush deemed it necessary to get Sadam out of Kuwait using force, Carter does the unthinkable and turns against the sitting president in what many have called an act of treason. Can it be looked at any other way? It was suggested that he didn't understand Bush's intentions...thought he wanted to chase SH all the way back to Iraq and started a bigger war. Thought peace talks were in order, but why not have this conversation with Bush before his mass mailing. It was all a misunderstanding, is that what we are told?
The authors say he's never apologized or admitted he did anything wrong - in fact says he'd do it over again.
So, Bush cut him out of the loop - and the State Department ignored his requests for aircraft and international travel expenses which he had used so extensively in the past. Do the other members of the club also ignore him at this time?
I'm looking forward to the next chapter to see how his reputation was restored under Clinton...
-
I'm delighted to be back online after dealing with computer trouble. And caught up on the reading!
In an era where party differences have grown so wide and so devisive, it's amazing to read about these things which are all about the strengths and weaknesses of the people, not about party!
-
WE'RE HAPPY YOU WITH US, JOANK!
That's just how I remember, JOANP. The country couldn't forgive Gerald Ford for pardoning Nixon; he was a criminal after all. Shouldn't he have been punished somehow regardless of status? The country had been in a turmoil after Watergate and Jimmy Carter, an outsider, unknown to politics, seemed refreshing.
Nixon and the Watergate affair - it all seemed so unseemly (for lack of a better word).
Do the rest of you remember it that way?
-
JOANP, let us know if you find a good book on Jimmy Carter. We all know of his HABITAT FOR HUMANITY program; he has said "I am a better ex-president than I was Presdent." Well, in some ways that is true.
Meanwhile on an American EXperience site I found this concerning his campaign for President:
"The country approached the 1976 election season already exhausted by a decade of war and scandal. The divisive Vietnam conflict and Richard Nixon's Watergate saga had undermined confidence in government and left public spirit at an all-time low. Traveling around the country long before other candidates began their campaigns, Carter listened, assessed the national mood, and decided it was the perfect time for an outsider like himself to run. While running essentially as a moderate to conservative Democrat, Carter emphasized his message of honesty, integrity, and character over specific issues. "I will not lie to you," he said, and he meant it. "The fact that he was unknown was part of his appeal," remembers Carter speechwriter Hendrik Hertzberg. "And he brought simple verities to the campaign trail: a promise not to lie to the American people, a promise to be good, a promise to love. And this was enough to bring him through the early primaries."
"http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/americanexperience/features/general-article/carter-election1976/
-
... American EXperience site I found this concerning his campaign for President:
... "I will not lie to you," he said, and he meant it. ...
"http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/americanexperience/features/general-article/carter-election1976/
I'll have to remember where I read it (think it was a Bob Woodward book) that on Carter's *first* two days in office, he actually told four lies. The author's point was not that Carter was devious but that it was necessary to withhold facts from the media and therefore the public. What a burden our Presidents carry.
-
I think just reading this book, and looking back at the elections throughout the years I have been politically aware, in my opinion, the American people make decisions on their mood/emotions at the time of elections. If they are happy with the sitting president, then they generally stay with that party. Jimmy Carter, like Barack Obama, had perfect timing. The American people were upset with wars they did not agree with, Viet Nam/Iraq, so they were determined to change the party.
Were either of these men experienced and ready to lead this country? I would say NO! If anything it was the perfect timing for Hillary Clinton who was ready and experienced or even John McCain. Americans can be very fickled and swayed easily. I think this election just may be the first in all the years, more information is available for voters to be better informed than ever before. The country is in an economic crisis and now a Middle East crisis. So let's see if the pattern consists, and the American people once again feel its time for a party change.
"And he brought simple verities to the campaign trail: a promise not to lie to the American people, a promise to be good, a promise to love. And this was enough to bring him through the early primaries."
Do you really think this was what got Carter and or Obama elected, since they were basically unknowns?
Many presidents before them, and after them have pretty much said the same things. If that is the case, then are Americans voting with their emotions, rather than their knowledge, and policies, these candidates stand for? If so.... is this an intelligent way to elect anyone to the highest office of the United States, putting our trust and safety in their hands? Food for thought.
Okay on to Clinton.... Ciao for now~
-
"Carter listened, assessed the national mood, and decided it was the perfect time for an outsider like himself to run."
Exactly. The fact that he was an outsider with no connection to anything that had gone on before was a large part of his appeal. Probably the same with Obama.
-
Yes, KATHLEEN, what a terrible burden is on the shoulders of a president - it's as if taking on the whole world and not just Americans. And although he has many advisors of all kinds, he makes the decisions. As Harry Truman said THE BUCK STOPS THERE.
What kind of man wants the job and then wants another term at it? Something beyond my imagination.
Thanks, BELLEMARIE, for the comments. What do you think? ON what basis do most Americans vote? We stumble some of the time, but on the whole, America doesn't look bad when we look around the world.
China and Russia are a llittle frightening to look sometimes, both communist, China doing well economically, Russia full of corruption and unrest from what I read. Perhaps we should discuss a book on those two countries. Would be interesting.
CLINTON - LUCKY - a member of a club which had five former presidents living!
They wanted to be used; life was boring in their retiring years and he used them in different ways.
In many ways, they were the only ones able to help the young and the charming new president.
Were you surprised by who was the most helpful to Clinton?
-
Wow! That Jimmy Carter is a real snake in the grass. He is a rouge ex president who has no respect for the commander in chief. Not once but twice he goes it on his own after being told by Clinton to NOT make any deals only go to feel these leaders out. And the nerve of Carter to go public on CNN before even reporting back to Clinton. What is it about Carter that NEEDS the power to be the one who negotiates the deals and then has to make sure he gets full credit by going public? He reminds me so much of Nixon. The both of them use the club, and the fact they want to keep the presidency maintained with honor, to do what ever they want, with the confidence they will not be revealed for their treasonous acts.
I personally have never been fond of "clubs" be it for colleges, sports, tree clubs as kids, sisterhood, brotherhood, presidents, etc., etc. For me they hold a connotation that "we in the club" are better than those not chosen to belong to our club. This chapter really annoyed me, especially this:
pg. 451-452 A Moment of Majesty.......And yet what Ford was suggesting in his Times op-ed was highly irregular. He urged members of the House Judiciary Committee to proceed with their inquiry, but suggested the full House resolve the crisis with a parliamentary device that had no name. Clinton, Ford argued, should voluntarily go to the well of the House during a joint session of Congress and receive "not an ovation from the peoples' representatives, but a harshly worded rebuke as rendered by members of both parties. I emphasize: this would be a rebuke, not a rebuttal by the President...the President would accept full responsibility for his actions, as well as for this subsequent efforts to delay or impede the investigation of them...Let it be dignified, honest and above all, cleansing. The result, I believe, would be the first moment of majesty in an otherwise squalid year."
And that was the most important mission: members of the club tend to put protecting the presidency above protecting individual presidents, and the Oval Office, sullied by the whole episode, needed a ritual bath. However appalled they were at Clinton's private conduct, the former presidents understood the profound but intangible costs of putting him on trial before the United States Senate. A certain amount of the president's power comes from the "majesty" that adheres to the office; they did not want to see it diminished by the squalor of one individuals conduct."
One individual's conduct??? So, let me get this straight, to protect the club and presidency, these presidents found it justified, to allow Nixon to be pardoned for criminal acts, and also treasonous acts. Carter committed treasonous acts, not once but twice, but that needed to be covered up. Ford, made efforts to try to keep Clinton from impeachment, and I am sure I missed listing other implorable acts. IMO, I think the club is used for self serving interests. It rather sickens me, that these presidents did not hold these men accountable for their actions. NOT only, did they NOT hold them accountable, but they continued to feed their egos by calling upon them in future endeavors. I have lost so much respect for the presidents in this book, after reading and finding out their actions and cover ups. But then I suspect these are only the tip of the iceberg. Cover ups and conduct unbecoming a president seems the normal. Then, they award these guys with medals of honor. REALLY?? In reality if someone commits a felony, could you ever imagine a President rewarding them with medals of honor? In the military, when a soldier commits an act of treason, do they get rewarded with medals of honor? I think NOT, they get a dishonorable discharge, and the shame they carry the rest of their lives. As it should be!!
Ella~They wanted to be used; life was boring in their retiring years and he used them in different ways.
In many ways, they were the only ones able to help the young and the charming new president.
Were these past presidents the "only" ones that could be used? I have to say NO. What if....they were not around, died? What would these sitting presidents have done in place of them? Did these presidents fall back to these past presidents because they felt they were not capable of achieving the goals. In the end how much help were they actually?
I am shocked that Clinton used Carter as much as he did, especially after knowing he was rouge and could not take a direct order. To this very day Carter sees himself so much more important than what he in reality is. He is trying to rewrite is awful presidency by trying to make himself ingratiating to the presidents who came after him.
-
Sorry I didn't realize I was away as long as I was' but my last post was the 17th and today is the 21st. I did have a network problem Wednesday that I didn't trouble shoot until yesterday. Today we had a Day trip to Castorville and I didn't get back until 6:00 PM. I do have more to say about Carter and Regan.
Regarding Carter, he comes through to many as a weak and in effectual President. Fortunately for us the Cold war was beginning to cool as the Soviet Union was feeling the pinch of the weaknesses inherent in its Communist economic system. U.S. International problems as I recall was mostly in the near east principally in Iran where the U'S' Embassy was attack and the staff was held hoatage for over a year during the Carter Presidency during which negotiations for their release were carried out mostly through friendly foreign embassy's. I suppose Carter's slow negotiation's were necessary for the safety of the hostages, but the incident made Carter appeared a weak and ineffectual President an probably contributed substantially to his reelection defeat in 1980. Other events such as the Treaty with Panama giving them sovereignty over the Panama Canal and his pardoning of American draft dodgers who had fled to Canada also contributed even though these acts are today considered necessary and correct.
Ronald Regan was the principal beneficiary of these events. His greatest asset was his communication skills and his low Tax Policies led to what I suppose is the longest US period of economic prosperity and growth. It was a happy period that may have ended in 2008 although a continuing low tax medication have continued to be administered through the Obama first term.
-
Regarding Carters years as a member of the club, his early year's were marked with an interesting civic activity that was "extra club," I am of course referring to, what is the group called---, Habit for Humanity. I had an acquaintance who lived in one of these homes in San Antonio. He was a janitor at the National Historical Park where I do volunteer work. It was a nice little 1100 sq ft, 2 bed room house, on the San Antonio south side. I let him trap feral hogs on my ranch Property near San antonio.
-
BELLEMARIE, I do appreciate your comments and opinion, but in some respects I must disagree. The Presidency, not particularly, the one who is holding the office in any year, must be honored and respected for the sake of the country's reputation as a democracy abroad and throughout our history. I think the club members realize the importance of maintaining this respect.
I agree with:
"A certain amount of the president's power comes from the "majesty" that adheres to the office; they did not want to see it diminished by the squalor of one individuals conduct."
However, an in-house rebuke in full view of the Congress should be sufficient to punish a wayward president. But not Nixon. He committed an offense against our law while in office - unlawful breaking and entering, or he sanctioned it, and a president should not be obove the law.
I think what you are referring to was Carter's acts out of office??
I don't have my book in front of me, must go back to those pages.
HAROLD, did you agree with giving up the Panama Canal at the time? I remember being outraged, it was Teddy Roosevelt who finally was able to get that thing cleaned out wasn't it? I'm forgetting that part of history for the moment.
As I remember people died by the hundreds from malaria in the attempt. American workers.
-
Ella, I think that it was not unheard of - "breaking and entering" party headquarters before an election...both parties knew subterfuge, bugging went on, both parties knew they were breaking the law. That's not to say that "everybody does it" is an excuse - It was Nixon's cover-up, lies, passing the blame to protect himself that brought him down. His defensiveness at any expense, his character flaw.
I agree, it was an amazing come-back, though. I marvelled as I read of their "mutual admiration society" - Nixon and Clinton's! Clinton drew from Nixon's knowledge and experience...and his ability "to look beyond minor worries - and take the long view." This probably explains how he was able to carry on after his disgraceful exit from Washington and make his bold come-back.
Clinton knew how to make use of the club - approached each of the former presidents - and learned from them.
Harold, I'm still trying to picture those feral hogs on your property. Are they still there? Good eating?
-
The Book Club Online is the oldest book club on the Internet, begun in 1996, open to everyone. We offer cordial discussions of one book a month, 24/7 and enjoy the company of readers from all over the world. Everyone is welcome.
SEPTEMBER BOOK CLUB ONLINE
(http://www.seniorlearn.org/bookclubs/presclub/Presidentsclubcvr.jpg)
As we head into another overheated and polarizing presidential campaign, at least it's a comfort knowing that former presidents have learned to mostly put aside partisan politics and work together. Thanks to the brilliant investigative work of Time magazine's Nancy Gibbs and Michael Duffy, The Presidents Club uncovers a powerful secret fraternity, in which ex-leaders stay in the game by counseling inexperienced successors. - USA Today
Realizing that membership in the Presidents Club bestows a singular perspective can help explain certain minor mysteries of our political life. How, for example, could Clinton ever forgive George H.W. Bush, who in the 1992 campaign all but charged him with being a traitor, if not a Soviet stooge, for visiting Russia as a college student and protesting the Vietnam War “from foreign soil”? Why has Obama, whose presidential quest embodied a repudiation of everything George W. Bush stood for, heard scarcely a grumble about his policies from his once-belligerent predecessor? The answer lies in what Kennedy said to Arthur Schlesinger when asked to rank the presidents: “Only the president himself can know what his real pressures and his real alternatives are.” It’s a sentiment that virtually every president voices at one point or another in this book. - Washington Post
DISCUSSION SCHEDULE:
Chapters 1-9 9/1 through 9/8
Chapters 10-14 9/9 through 9/15
Chapters 15-19 9/16 through 9/22
Chapters 20-26 9/23 through 9/30
Related Links: Secrets of the Presidents Club - Video (http://videos.simonandschuster.com/Secrets-of-THE-PRESIDENTS/1510374688001);
Book TV with Nancy Gibbs and Michael Duffy (http://www.booktv.org/Watch/13439/The+Presidents+Club+Inside+the+Worlds+Most+Exclusive+Fraternity.aspx);
Discussion Leaders: Ella (egibbons28@columbus.rr.com) and Harold (hhullar5@yahoo.com)
" ON what basis do most Americans vote? We stumble some of the time, but on the whole, America doesn't look bad when we look around the world."
I agree. And the reason we don't look bad is not that we always elect great people (we clearly don't) but that we hold our presidents accountable, and only let them hold office for 8 years at most.george Washington really did us a favor, there.
I think at bottom, many prople vote the economy. If things aren't going well, they want a change: if things are, they want to stay the same. Whether it is the current president's doing or not, he (someday she) gets the blame or praise.
-
I've found our authors to seem fairly even-handed in apportioning praise and blame until they came to Carter. They really have nothing good to say about him: and there seems to be real anger there. I don't feel able to judge his presidency, or whether he committed treason or not --- but I would like to see another version to compare.
In their defense, it would be impossible to write a book like this without ones own political biases creeping in.
-
Ella, regarding Carter’s treaty with Panama giving up U.S. sovereignty and operation of the canal, yes I suppose I did see it as a sign of Presidential weakness, and I was concern about the loss of U.S. control and the future inability to quickly move Naval forces and commercial cargo from the Atlantic to the Pacific and back. However as a practical manner the transfer has not created any real problem. To begin with the U.S. control was created about 1904 in the form of a 99 year lease scheduled to expire about 2003. The 1980 treaty simply settled the Canal’s future issue about 25 years early. Apparently the system is working
JoanP: regarding the feral hogs, they were certainly edible but they were not the equivalent of farm fed pork. A lot depended on the age and health status of the particular animal. By my measure even the best young would not measure up to butcher shop quality. I always refused the landowners right to a share.
I sold the property in 2006 just a year after moving back to San Antonio to live here at Chandler after I received an unsolicited offer that I simply could not refuse. I was sorry because previously I had remarked to the trapper that I could not imagine selling during the current year. I know that this inconvenienced him as he had 3 months to complete his trapping and remove his corral traps from the back pasture. I have not seen him since the sale. I called his house 6 months later to find a new resident living there. I suppose he moved to El Paso where he had family.
-
There are TV programs on the Discovery Channel featuring the people who trap feral hogs. Incredibly scarey work.
-
Ella~
The Presidency, not particularly, the one who is holding the office in any year, must be honored and respected for the sake of the country's reputation as a democracy abroad and throughout our history. I think the club members realize the importance of maintaining this respect.
With all do respect, I must say, I would have agreed with this years ago. But....we can not even begin to believe other leaders are blind to what goes on behind closed doors, inside the walls of the Oval office, abroad or inside the club. Leaders have lost respect for our "presidents and presidency" in spite of all the cover ups of crimes and behaviors of these presidents. With the internet at anyone's disposal and close friends and foes inside the White House, with access to all of the information, there are constant leaks. In my opinion, it is a myth to think the "majesty of the presidency" still exists. These presidents are covering up for each other, with the idea of protecting "the presidency"
I do not want to sound cynical, but I just don't see our presidents of late, being respected around the world. I don't see honor being shown, when our enemies are attacking us not only on our homeland, but on our American embassies abroad. When our American flags and pictures of our president are being burnt, I am not seeing honor for our presidency. I fear these men/Presidents have harmed the presidency, and lost the respect and honor it used to represent. Lies, crimes, treason and dishonorable behavior tarnishes the presidency, regardless of how they come back and play a role in helping. Americans may be able to forgive, but our enemies do not, and see these as signs of weakness. So....does the club, really exist, or is it fallacy, an image of what these presidents have created, for their own self serving purpose? Just wondering.....
Found this quote that seems a bit fitting. lolol
Warren G Harding
“I have no trouble with my enemies. I can take care of my enemies in a fight. But my friends, my goddamned friends, they’re the ones who keep me walking the floor at nights!”
http://www.allamericanblogger.com/14498/44-great-president-quotes/
Okay got to run the Michigan vs Notre Dame football game is about to begin.
Ciao for now~
-
The American Presidents series is sort of a "Cliff Notes" for presidential biographies; here's the one on Carter #39:
http://www.americanpresidentsseries.com/bookpage.asp?NUM=39
Douglas Brinkley wrote the Ford entry; he also wrote a biography on Jimmy Carter. Not sure why Reagan's #40 is missing from the series; they have one on H.W. Bush #41. #42-44 still to come.
One thing to consider in reading this book is how much the authors used corporate references (CNN, Time, etc.) and how little they used international sources. At least that's my read on their sources and methods.
Other random thoughts: do we want our President to utilize all resources available? If s/he needs to make a decision, should resources be limited to people with similar idealogical leanings and/or with spotless records?
-
Not sure what happened, I wanted to block out the cuss word in that quote, but for some reason it would not let me back to modify my post. My apologies, I would NEVER use that word, nor intentionally post it.
Ciao for now~
-
THANK YOU ALL FOR YOUR COMMENTS but I must lead on as our final week is approaching -
Chapter 20. Bush, Clinton.
Do you know I had trouble locating President H. W. Bush in the book - skimming back over it. I had to look in the index and he does have a few comments scattered throughout, rather on single pages it seems. I liked him, a thoughtful man, not colorful, not loud. Although at the time I was furious for him for invading Kuwait and then not even taking out the man it was all about it. I suppose part of my anger was because my daughter had joined the Army Reserve unit as a nurse to help pay her expenses in the PH.D. program in Pittsburgh and her unit got called up. A busload of nurses left their base as we waved goodbye and my husband got tears in his eyes saying this is not right.
Of course, she was home in six months time but there were scuds going overhead all the time and not knowing what they might be dropping.
And our book states this:
"The United States was the world's clearly dominant military power; but the stability of the region and the security of the world's oil supplies required more than a unilateral response and Bush set about assembling his unprecedented coalition and lining up support for an invasion if Saddam refused to retreat."
And his son had to finish the job without that support!
How ironic it all seems now. We are still engaged and will be, it seems, for decades of instability in the Middle East.
My soapbox for the day.
_______________________
-
Clinton - Well let's have it!
Shall we start with the good? (later, the bad)
What do you say?
President Ford said of Clinton "This guy can sell three-day old ice." Are you charmed?
He's still very much around for a former president, a national address at the Democratic Convention, a TIME cover story this week titled OPTIMISM - a cover story written by him (interesting, I can't remember when this happened before).
-
The Jan 1991 Gulf war to stop Iraq’s invasion and annexation of oil rich Kuwait was the major achievement of the Bush one Presidency because it was a true international operation with 26 nations participating. It was authorized by the U.N. and led by the U.S., but including British, other European and even Russian units it slashed through Kuwait in true blitzkrieg fashion at which point President Bush judged its mission complete with the liberation of Kuwait, halting the operation leaving Iraq its self unoccupied with Sadam Husain still in power. The Bush decision to halt the operation with Husain still in power was probably a factor that cost him the 1992 election for a 2nd term.
We now begin the last week assignment, Chapters 20 – 26. This discussion is now open for discussion of the presidencies of Bill Clinton, George W. Bush (Bush 2), and Barack Obama. In addition it is open for discussion of the activities of any ex- Presidents who have lived and functioned during the period as members of the Club.
-
I too noted what I judged the author's rather limited coverage of thee Bush (one) administration. I got the idea that the Publisher might have been pushing the authors at this point for a finished manuscript?
Also I want to mention the fact that I am having trouble using my new HP notebook, Windows s 7 note book. Perhaps I just don't understand it yet but its navigation seems different from what I have been use to in the Windows XP and earlier Windows.
Right now it is either the HP Notebook or the I Pad, and for more than two sentences the notebook with its keyboard is the best.
-
"ironic" - such a good way to describe the interactions among the sitting president and the members of the club. In one sense, they were a great resource, in another, a big headache that demanded the President's constant attention. I'm thinking of President Clinton now, and the masterful way he used the knowledge and experience of the former presidents.
Just finished Chapter 21 this morning...about Jimmy Carter going to N. Korea...and then Haiti as Clinton's fact finder and messenger - each time turning into a negotiator, making deals contrary to US and Clinton's policies. Once again the authors describe his actions as "traitorous."
Was all this general knowledge at the time - or just coming out now? I had no idea that Jimmy's actions were anything other than helpful to our country's foreign relations. On the surface, I suppose everything turned out well, but I was totally unaware of all ths shouting and hair-pulling back in the White House. Where did Carter get his nerve?
-
THANK YOU ALL FOR YOUR COMMENTS but I must lead on as our final week is approaching -
Chapter 20. Bush, Clinton.
Do you know I had trouble locating President H. W. Bush in the book - skimming back over it. I had to look in the index and he does have a few comments scattered throughout, rather on single pages it seems.
from http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/americanexperience/features/biography/bush-family/
"George Bush's mother, Dorothy Bush, had a strong influence on her son. Her lessons in modesty and humility tipped almost to the extreme as she strove to impress upon her children the importance of being team players and not participating in, in her word, "braggadocio." While her sense of humanity and compassion may have left a positive impression on Bush, many also believe that her influence led to a discomfort in calling attention to himself that may have handicapped him for a life in the political spotlight. ..."
Reading about George HW Bush and Clinton working together really fed my soul. I always read a political history as the Presidential election draws near, as a reminder of what our country has been through.
-
I do think George H.W. Bush single term deserves more attention than our authors give him in the book. True he was a one term President but a lot happened during his tenure including the effective end of the Cold War when the Berlin wall fell from the collapse of the Communist governments in Russia and eastern Europe particularly East Germany. He managed the creation of the coalition that quickly ended the Iraq occupation of Kuwait though his abrupt stop at the border leaving Sudam in power in Iraq was probably a mistake. The 1992 election was very close but Clintons win ended his lease on 1600 Pennsylvania Ave.
-
I wonder if there are fewer sources available for the more recent presidents than for the older ones?
-
A short comment. Out of curiousity I went to our Columbus Metro Library and typed in Presidents H.W.Bush and Bill Clinton. The former had 4 books written about him; the latter - I gave up counting after 24.
-
Harold~ I agree, I really was hoping for more on #41 President Bush. I like the relationship, he and Clinton formed. It gives me a new look at them. I loved the term #43 Bush referred to Clinton's Lewinsky scandal as "the shadow" lolol That is hilarious. When I read this"
President Ford said of Clinton "This guy can sell three-day old ice."
I thought...spot on! He still can do that. Although I think only to those who have forgotten or forgiven his despicable behavior inside the White House. His speech at the DNC's convention seemed to possess that same attention grabber personality. I am not enamored with him anymore so I just sat thinking....here we go again. I noticed the authors did not mention anything about Obama calling on Clinton even though Clinton had much expertise on the economy. So Obama wants to be the new, young, hip president leaving behind Clintonism. Well, whichever way he saw the presidents before him, he still is dealing with the same issues these presidents had to deal with. So wouldn't you think he would use them?
JoanP, No, this is not just coming out about Carter's treasonous behavior. I remember hearing about it, and reading about it years ago.
-
I count 11 ex-Presidents since Hoover who have been members of the Clubs. The post presidential careers of each of these have been described in greater or lesser detail in our book. I suspect if one of us had the software capable scanning the digital text counting the number of times each member’s name appeared, the name that would emerge with the highest number would be Richard Nixon, probably by a large margin.
It is the logical result of his foreign travel, first as President to Red China, and most later as an ex-President to Soviet Russia with working stop overs in London or other European capitals. His China trips participated its opening to U.S. and other Western trade a relationship that has become a key contributor to western economic growth and individual prosperity. By the 1980’s Nixon knew everyone in power in Key Governments east and west. Is it any wonder that in the 1980’s and 90’s he became the “go to” man for sitting presidents as diverse as Ronald Regan and Bill Clinton?
Of course Nixon’s driving motivation during his post Presidential career was his redemption after his presidential disgrace criminally]y involved in the Watergate scandal. While there can be no doubt that a person involved in ordinary business who committed similar crimes would never have been allowed to escape with a mere resignation, as President as a fact he was allowed this course and he used it. Through his own effort he was able to achieve a pretty impressive come back
-
All participants are urged to mention other particular Club member assignments similar to my above post on Nixon that has impressed them. Also specific Presidents who have used Club members for special purpose.
Regarding Nixon's post presidential travel I wonder about how it was financed. It seems most often to have been his idea, not the idea of a sitting president assigned to Nixon. I don't think he had the deep pockets he would need for such truly private travel, but? I bet somehow the government paid.
The same question would apply to other Club Members. Carter too did substantial post presidential travel but his travel does appear more definitely the sitting presidents assignment.
-
That's a good question. Our presidents all have different personal financial situations: I would hate to think that you had to be rich to be a successful ex-president. Now they all think they have to build an expensive presidential library.
Of course, they have many opportunities to earn money as consultants, speakers, authors, etc. They all have a lot more money than you and I do. But they also have more expectations financially.
-
I just finished the book and must say, even though I have enjoyed reading it and discussing it, and feel I have learned a great deal, I am very disappointed in the amount of time given to Nixon. I was so looking forward to more on both Bush 41 & 43, more on Clinton, and especially since Obama is our sitting president, I so hoped the authors would have at least covered more about the DNC's choice to back Obama and push Hillary out of the race. It says: pg. 505
The three brothers, Clinton, George W. Bush and Obama, had plenty to quarrel about: Clinton, christened by novelist Toni Morrison as "America's first black president," did not have an easy time welcoming a new messiah, let alone the man who beat his wife for the nomination."
As I recall it, there was NO beating Hillary. The meeting that took place at Diane Feinstien's house was the turning point to push Hillary out of the race. She did not concede, and had the DNC NOT cheated her out of her electoral votes in Florida and Michigan by splitting them and giving some to Obama, it was clear she could have been the one on the Democratic ticket. These authors, for what ever purpose, was more interested in Nixon than any of the other presidents, and I feel a bit cheated in the last chapters of the book. It's as if once they covered Nixon, they rushed to end the book, IMO.
In the Acknowledgements they wrote: We were lucky to have in John Huey and Rick Stengel two bosses who know history is told best through big personalities and long narratives. Rick and John supported this project from its inception and never complained when we occasionally seemed more interested in 1968 than 2012.
By admission of the authors, they intended this book to be a large portion to Nixon. Not, that I minded covering Nixon, but it was so unfair to the reader (at least me) to not give more time to the presidents who came after him. I would like to have read more on Obama's childhood, schools attended, pre politics, and much more about the campaign. The only thing the authors covered where Obama used Clinton in any large way, was having him go and negotiate the release of the two American journalists from North Korea. And how petty was Obama to want Clinton to remain on the aircraft, while the two women walked off, so Obama could take all the credit himself and deny Bill the credit due. Good for Lisa Ling for going to bat for Clinton and changing Obama's mind.
I thought this was especially telling how Clinton has lost effectiveness, when it comes to the American people.: pg. 519
Democrats facing reelection found it useful, however, to have Clinton at their side. A Gallup survey in mid-October revealed that all voters, but particularly independent voters, would be more likely to vote for candidates if Clinton campaigned on their behalf than if Obama did. He jumped back into the game like a man starved for a meal. He campaigned for sixty-five candidates at more than a hundred events, appeared on Meet the Press, The Daily Show, even Fox News.......pg. 520 Though Clinton was careful in all his conversations never to say anything critical about Obama, he often sounded like the lifeguard who was trying to save a drowning man......But all of Clinton's public testimony could not avert the inevitable. Voters turned Election 2010 into a revolt, tossing dozens of incumbent House Democrats overboard, Republicans gained sixty-three seats (and majority control) in the House, and narrowly missed gaining control of the Senate; they captured more state legislative seats than at any time since 1928.
Although polls showed the people, especially Independents, preferred Clinton's presence, in the end neither Clinton nor Obama was going to change their minds. I think while Clinton is still likeable, he is not necessarily believable. The outcome of this 2012 election will be very interesting, and I can't wait years from now, to read how history will write it.
Ciao for now~
-
Belamarie, as we approach the end of the book we are all realizing that the Authors of our book have given much more verbal coverage to some of the ex-President members than to others. In fact some were almost ignored.
The only reason that I can come up with is that the unequal coverage is the result of the Author's purpose in writing the book which seems to me is to describe the nature and extent of post presidential work assigned to Club members by each successive sitting President. Some ex-President members had more inclination to be involved in actual work than others causing them to actively seek the sitting Presidents attention. Also some sitting Presidents were more inclined than others to enlist an ex-Presidents service. In fact Nixon eagerly sought the attention of the sitting President, and he was certainly successful in getting assignments from Regan and later Clinton. This was his route to redemption from his Watergate disgrace. Also Carter and Ford who had been removed from office by re election defeat after a single term in Carters case and only a fraction of a single term for Ford seemed inclined to seek assignment. I think this is the explanation for the unequal coverage.
-
Harold~ Yes, I agree some were almost ignored. The part the authors wrote in their acknowledgement leaves me to believe their intent was as they said, "occasionally seemed more interested in 1968 than 2012." It's as if they got to Nixon (1968) and could not leave him. Sorta like Nixon, would not go away. Maybe the authors were trying to redeem him as well.
-
Yes, during his years an a member of the Club, Richard Nixon was unique, definitely a man on a mission. His whole purpose was to achieve a degree of redemption from his Watergate disgrace. I judge his work during the1980's and early 90's useful to the sitting presidents. Nixon died before the end of Clinton's first term. I think both of these presidents appreciated his help. This while short of redemption for his Watergate crimes, was something.
-
Let's descuss Bill Clinton's problem that led to his impeachment by the House of Represenatives. How was a formal trial by the Senate avoided.
Also let's discuss the George W. Bush (2) presidency. How might his family experience with his dad have effected his decisions as President?
-
Enough, enough about NIXON, we have three more presidents to discuss.
I must say it, I lilked Bill Clinton, young, enthusiastic, personable. (let's forget the Monica business, we all know about it). His programs live on - Americorps, his latest, the Global Iniative Foundation.
Both Romney and Obama will be at CGI's annual meething where they will be joined by the new presidents of Libya and Egypt. Oh, how we need global communication, friendship - some counstries so mired into past culture and enmities they cannot see the future.
It's one step forward and we need more steps and other club members to get involved.
DID YOU LEARN ANYTHING NEW ABOUT CLINTON EITHER AS A PRESIDENT OR AS A CLUB MEMBER IN THE PAGES OF THIS BOOK?
-
We were posting together, HAROLD.
GOOD QUESTION, HAROLD. WE HAVE TWO ON THE BOARD. PLEASE RAISE YOUR HAND, - or post!!!!
-
The Time magize fot this week includes an article by one of our club members, Bill Clinton. It is entitled "Big Ideas That Are Changing The World..". Have any of you read this article? I just completed a quick read and judge it worth further comment that will come later
-
HAROLD, I can't find in the book where the impeachment of Clinton is written, but anyone that can't remember the details can read it here:
http://www.historyplace.com/unitedstates/impeachments/clinton.htm
When I think of all the past presidents sinful affairs, Clinton's was no worse, in my opinion. I did think it was dreadful, absolutely dreadful, that he used the Oval Office, but as you will read in the article cited above, he retained a 70% approval of the public throughout.
No longer will the media protect a president from such pecadillos as they have in the past.
Did it come down to partisan politics in the end? What do you think?
-
HAROLD, see my post #248 above. I did read the TIME magazine article.
-
Ella~
When I think of all the past presidents sinful affairs, Clinton's was no worse, in my opinion. I did think it was dreadful, absolutely dreadful, that he used the Oval Office, but as you will read in the article cited above, he retained a 70% approval of the public throughout.
Why do you suppose he had such a high approval rating? I was a HUGE Bill Clinton supporter and he did NOT have my approval, after learning about his behavior. I still remember he and Hillary walking together after getting off Air Force One, after the story broke, and how terribly sad Hillary seemed. Its bad enough for a couple to go through an affair, but to have to go through it with the media and public, is just so sad. I read Hillary's book and I cried when I read how she reacted to learning about it.
Here is just one of many sites that show presidents who had affairs or ladies in the white house.
http://www.mentalfloss.com/blogs/archives/4949
I also read Monica Lewensky's book, and she did admit to pursuing him, NOT that it let's him off the hook. Bill would have stuck to the denial forever, had that little black Gap dress not appeared.
-
Loved the statement on pg 449, the last sentence in the chapter.
By 2000, it was practically a club bylaw: even when you were doing Carter a favor, you never knew what you might get in return. But it probably won't feel good.
Made me chuckle.
Carter probably had parents who thought they had to be careful not to spoil their children, so, imitating his parents, he had to throw in a negative statement when he had made a positive one about the current president. (Can't be too nice to them, you'll spoil them. I knew some parents like that.) But he obviously thinks he is smarter than everyone else, also. So he has to get his point of view out there before he talked to Clinton. Very like Nixon. Altho, i'm sure each of them would vehemently deny being anything like the other.
I understand the authors spending so many pages on Nixon, he lived a long time as a member of the Club and put himself into play. I can also understand their not spending much time on Ford or Bush #1 bcs they didn't involve themseves in the Club very much. Other parts of their lives didn't fit the theme of the book.
I think we have learned that presidents generally are very smart people, have to have huge egos even to think about attempting to go for the job, and are very complicated people. We tend to think of smart people as only that. "he is so smart how could he have done/said that?" But being intelligent in one arena (general knowledge, politics, law, logic, etc) doesn't necessarily make one whole/smart as a psychological person. Where we see these smart guys screw up is when their psychological needs have taken over.
I am amazed at how easily both Nixon and Clinton rehabilitated their reputations. I'm not judging that, i'm just surprised that the country seemed to get over their misdeeds so quickly and thoroughly. However, they did it w/ different styles. Clinton is just flatout Southern charming. Anybody i know who has met him, male or female, has said so. Charm is not a word that anybody has ever used w/ the name Nixon. But there seems to be no doubt that both were/are two of the smartest political minds in the last 60 yrs, maybe ever. BUT, both were considered to be put out of office!?!
I guess they both can wear the title "The Comeback Kid."
Jean
-
Good point mable
Our Chandler House players has a performance this mornisg so i' ll be away until this Afternoon.
Harold
-
BELLEMARIE - "Why do you suppose he had such a high approval rating?"[/i][/b]
Some men can get away with affairs - think John Kennedy. Think of all the streets, buildings, etc. that are named for him throughout the country today. The Kennedy Center. He is revered and yet he had women in the White House also. Gosh, we should do a book on his campaign and presidency someday.
JEAN [i]"there seems to be no doubt that both were/are two of the smartest political minds in the last 60 yrs, maybe ever"[/i]
POLITICAL MINDS, I think so, too. And persistence in the face of indomitable odds. Both of them "comeback kids." They were/are resolved they would not go down in history as disgraced presidents and history is proving both right.
Carter was not disgraced, but a weak president and was determined to not be forgotten in retirement.
It's all interesting, isn't it. These men, so ambitious with huge egos, and yet different in retirement agendas.
-
GEORGE W. - A man easy to understand or complicated?
What do you think about him?
-
Not that I cared one way or the other, for George W. when he was president, I think he was easy to understand. He made up his mind and that was that. He didn't seem to care about getting popular approval in the polls for his decision to go to war with Iraq, and maybe because he had Congress's vote. He showed great strength when we were attacked on 9-11.
I am still waiting for our sitting president, Obama, to show strength in the most recent attacks on this 9-11, on our embassies, and the killings of our Ambassador, and the other 3 men. I agree there are times for diplomacy, and then there are times you send a clear message, violence against the United States will not be tolerated. Having Hillary as Secretary of State at a time like this I would have thought she, like Bill, would have shown great courage and strength against terrorist attacks. She is looking so very weak, and this may be what will hurt her chances for ever becoming president, or a club member one day.
Bill may have missed some of his targets when he sent missiles into Baghdad, after them trying to assassinate George H.,(pg. 422), but he took action to show it would not be tolerated. NO excuses, NO apologies, NO blame, and NO tolerance of such attempts on a past president.
Much like, Kennedy, Nixon and Clinton, I think history will write George W. as a president of intelligence, courage, and strength, in times of necessity and adversity, in foreign affairs.
Much like Carter, I think history will write Obama as a president of weakness. If ever there is a president who NEEDS the president's club, I feel it is Obama, needing Clinton.
-
GEORGE W. - A man easy to understand or complicated?
I agree with Bella, Ella - I found GW easier to understand than Nixon, than Jimmy Carter. The authors seemed to dismiss him as a spoiled, priviliged son of an ex-President. I really don't think that was the case.
There was talk about the report he had drawn up about the children of 40 ex-Presidents and how they had fared in life. This really seemed to set his light a fire..
~ many couldn't hold jobs, died young, suffered from addictions and depression. One became president, none became a governor.
It occurred to me - there haven't been many sons growing up in the White House recently. Daughters seem to do better than the report describes.
GW wondered what he would do after being president. He was a young man when he left office. Campaigns were what he loved more than anything. Idon't hear much about him now, do you?
I enjoyed reading about the friendship between Clinton and George W. I wasn't aware of that. They really seemed to like and respect one another while in office and as exPresidents too. Clinton found Bush personally appealing and a shrewd politician. Liked giving the new president advice - on speech-making no less. Taught him the secret of a good speech was the timing. Imagine that. ;D .
The authors tell us both of these men "limped out of office, battered, exhausted and unapologetic...the club would become their infirmary." That indicates to me that they are still friends, can call on one another for support and understanding.
ps. the little Gap dress was blue...
-
Regarding George W. I was sort surprised when he beat the popular lady Democratic Governor Ann Richards to become Governor of Texas in January 1995. I was not much concern with politics at the time but noted in 1999 even though he was on the ballot for a 2nd term as governor he was also seeking the Republican Nomination for President. In the General election in 2000 in Texas, he was on the ballot both for Governor and President. He ended winning both races. I remember there was an impressive Nationally TV broadcast in December 2000 during which he resigned as Texas Governor to be inaugurated President Jan 20, 2006. Do any of you remember that broadcast?
I early September 2001 a few days after Labor day I saw President Bush in San Antonio at the National Historic Park, Mission San Jose. He came their to dedicate the newly restored 18th century grist mill giving a dedication speech to several thousand spectators. I was seated with the Docent corp in the audience about 100 feet away from the President. I had my 1st generation, 2 Megapixel digital camera, and shot about 75 pictures many of which included the president. A Secret Service person had open the camera and pass it when I entered the seating area. It was I think less than a week later when the 9/11 attack on New York change drastically the nature of the Bush (2) Presidency.
-
O.k., i'm a little slow, but i just noticed that on the intros to each presidential grouping there are key symbols at the beginning and end of each one. what do they stand for?
On pg 478, George W says,"i tend to be a quick judge of people. I don't know how accurate i am, but all that matters is what i think." ??? What an amazing admission! "It doesn't matter if i'm right or wrong as long as i'm making a decision!?!" this from the man who said "i am the Decider." i guess he was! And i guess that's the answer to our going into Iraq........."i don't know if it's right or wrong, but i'm making the decision to invade another country!?!"
That's VERY scary.
On the other hand i have been very impressed that he followed his Dad's model and has stayed under cover since he left office. It's very interesting how the last four presidents have been able to put partisanship aside and just be human beings. Is that all attributable to Clinton's personality? It obviously couldn't have happened if Carter had been in Clinton's spot.
Ella - i haven't figured George W out yet. I think he is probably a smart man who was much tamed by his wife and later by his father's influence. I probably would like to have a beer with him. I think he would like to think of himself as uncomplicated, but i'm not sure that's an accurate self assessment. The drinking and the high jinks were happening for a reason.
I'm a little surprised at how malleable Bill Clinton has been - being willing to do or not do whatever Bush and Obama have wanted him to do, especially staying in the plane (at first) after the return of the N Korean hostages. I haven't finished that section, so i may have to revise that when i finish.
Harold, what an interesting story abt Bush's visit and your being able to take pictures. I've always wondered about how nervous secret service people are about cameras. It seems they could be a devious device. Wasn't it in one of the Jms Bond movies or some other spy movie where a camera was modified to be a gun?
Interestingly Joan, i didn't interpret the authors as saying W was a spoiled privileged son. Oh, i guess privileged is accurate and maybe not good for much for his first 40 yrs, but i thought they ended w/ his redeeming himself. While he was president, and knowing only what i read or saw on the news, i did think he was not kind to G.H.W. i remember someone asking who his role models were - or something to that effect and he said Jesus.......o.k., that's a good answer, but i thought it was a slap at his Dad to not have included him.
I read in the early 90s a book by Martin Seligman titled "Learned Optimism". The theme of the whole book was how optimism can be a force in your life. But the thing that i still remember and think of in every election is his saying that the candidate who is the most positive and optimistic about the future, the country, the economy, etc almost always wins. You can see that, just think of Reagan and then Clinton and Obama. It seems to me that every campaign staff should have read that book, but apparently not. I was surprised (pg519) when Clinton told Dems in 2010 to brag abt what the Obama administration had accomplished, but the White House resisted, preferring to emphasize Rep faults over Dem strengths. WELL.........guess who was right.....again!
Jean
-
Jean~ "i don't know if it's right or wrong, but i'm making the decision to invade another country!?!"
I personally think, every president who is facing a decision on going to war, may feel this exact same way. They never know if they are right or wrong, but they make the decision and live with it. When John Kennedy sat there waiting to see if his call was right with the Cuban Missile crisis, I am sure he wondered if he was wrong or right, in the way he was handling it. Imagine if he would have been wrong. I believe they consider all the information provided to them, they have advisers, generals, etc., etc. giving them their expertise and in the end, right or wrong, the President alone MUST make that final decision.
Harold how exciting to get the opportunity to get your picture. Ironically, today in my hometown here in Ohio we had President Obama, and candidate Gov. Mitt Romney visit. I was not able to go see either due to scheduling conflicts. I have had the privilege to see Carter, Clinton, and Kerry speak when they were running for president. I took many pics especially of Clinton. lol
I think the author may have been implying George W. was privileged, and spoiled compared to Clinton. Seems Laura gave G.W. the ultimatum with the drinking. Behind every successful man is a woman. lolol
-
The Book Club Online is the oldest book club on the Internet, begun in 1996, open to everyone. We offer cordial discussions of one book a month, 24/7 and enjoy the company of readers from all over the world. Everyone is welcome.
SEPTEMBER BOOK CLUB ONLINE
(http://www.seniorlearn.org/bookclubs/presclub/Presidentsclubcvr.jpg)
As we head into another overheated and polarizing presidential campaign, at least it's a comfort knowing that former presidents have learned to mostly put aside partisan politics and work together. Thanks to the brilliant investigative work of Time magazine's Nancy Gibbs and Michael Duffy, The Presidents Club uncovers a powerful secret fraternity, in which ex-leaders stay in the game by counseling inexperienced successors. - USA Today
Realizing that membership in the Presidents Club bestows a singular perspective can help explain certain minor mysteries of our political life. How, for example, could Clinton ever forgive George H.W. Bush, who in the 1992 campaign all but charged him with being a traitor, if not a Soviet stooge, for visiting Russia as a college student and protesting the Vietnam War “from foreign soil”? Why has Obama, whose presidential quest embodied a repudiation of everything George W. Bush stood for, heard scarcely a grumble about his policies from his once-belligerent predecessor? The answer lies in what Kennedy said to Arthur Schlesinger when asked to rank the presidents: “Only the president himself can know what his real pressures and his real alternatives are.” It’s a sentiment that virtually every president voices at one point or another in this book. - Washington Post
DISCUSSION SCHEDULE:
Chapters 1-9 9/1 through 9/8
Chapters 10-14 9/9 through 9/15
Chapters 15-19 9/16 through 9/22
Chapters 20-26 9/23 through 9/30
Related Links: Secrets of the Presidents Club - Video (http://videos.simonandschuster.com/Secrets-of-THE-PRESIDENTS/1510374688001);
Book TV with Nancy Gibbs and Michael Duffy (http://www.booktv.org/Watch/13439/The+Presidents+Club+Inside+the+Worlds+Most+Exclusive+Fraternity.aspx);
Discussion Leaders: Ella (egibbons28@columbus.rr.com) and Harold (hhullar5@yahoo.com)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Harold Arnold:
Our authors in Chapter 24 discuss Bush (2)’s growing up with his Dad in rather great detail. I’m not sure I follow the fine points of the details but I emerged with the conclusion that George W.’s experience growing up was rather typical for the upper class mid 20th century U.S. family. Father/son antagonism (particularly Father/ elder son) are rather common. George W. seems to have straightened out his bout with alcoholism rather well, and when I first knew of him during and after his father’s term as President he was one of the owners and active in the management of the Dallas National league Baseball club. I certainly never thought of him as Presidential material. It was a real surprise when he suddenly was in the news running for Governor of Texas and even more so when he was elected President. John Adams had to wait nearly 25 years before his son won the Presidency, George H.W. had to wait only 8 years for his son to win making them the second two generation Presidential family.
I think public opinion initially enthusiastically approved George W. handling of the World Trade Center attack. Our Intelligence agencies knew the source and missiles (I think all launched from U.S. and British Submarines) were hitting Afghan targets before 9/11 was over. The U.S. followed immediately with ground force operations against the Alquida element then governing Afghanistan that quickly succeeded in removing the Alquida Government after which a guerrilla war continued. It still continues today.
The situation was complicated in March 2003 when the Iraq Invasion began. Again this was an international operation that included U.S., British and Polish forces. It quickly occupied the entire country and removed the Husain government. The 9 year operation continues to this day, but is scheduled to end next year. Never the less George W. won the election giving him a 2nd term in 2004 after which he served out his term increasingly unpopular to become a member of the Club where he seems to be fitting in after the pattern of other unpopular ex’s such as Nixon Ford, and Carter etc.
-
JEAN, I agree G.W.Bush was frightening - two speeches are burned in my memory from his presidency. The Axis of Evil speech naming 3 countries scared me. This goes out to the world and I wondered how those countries thought - did Bush intend war on all of them. N.Korea, Iran and Iraq. And then, of course, his stupid landing on a carrier boasting MISSION ACCOMPLISHED. Unlike Clinton, I think he was just dumb, obsessed with proving his worth to his father. I once read in a book that the father was furious that Junior campaigned and won the presidency as he intended Jeb to be the son as president. I don't remember once that father Bush appeared on the scene to back Junior politically.
"Between father and son, it was virtuallly impossible to reconcile the two worldviews." - p.487
Many politicians, and others, bellieve the Iraq/Afghanistan war wrong. I think history will prove that.
JOANP remarked - "I don't hear much about him now, do you"
No, I don't, JOAN, and I think that is surprising, but Bush did say (p.496) that he cherished his friendship with Clinton; however - "I'm out of the game. He's not. He's going to be active for a good while longer."
He was right.
-
BARACK OBAMA. We have about two days to discuss the man, his campaigns (two of them) his 4 years of being the Commander-in-Chief, leader of the world.
A black man, not an elite, not from wealth or close family bonds, he nevertheless came from nowhere and won the big prize. What do you think personally about him and what do our authors state? Do you think they lean one or another?
-
Comments on recent Posts.
North Korea, Iraq (under Saddam Hussein), Iran, "Axis of Evil"Sounds appropriate to me. How else could these Governments be described?
"Mission Accomplished," Definitely premature as later developments decided, but arguably an apparent judgement at the time.
-
I'm too lazy to go upstairs to get our book but does it have this photo from January 2009?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Five_Presidents_Oval_Office.jpg
Our authors say Obama suggested W host a Club luncheon. Why would Obama suggest this? How gracious was W to do it? Why is there distance between Carter and the others? Is that the only photo w/five Presidents?
I hate to finish this book but it has helped me put our current campaign in perspective. Thanks to Ella and Harold for facilitating the discussion.
-
HAROLD - Neither N.Korea, Iran or Iraq had attacked the United States. What right did we have to proclaim them evil? Is our judgment so superior or correct that we can divide countries into evil and good?
If I were a Muslim country that attitude would have made me more angry, more liable to attack any soldiers sent to Iraq. Just an opinion. I would not make a good political leader because I believe in the Golden Rule of do until others as you would have others do unto you.
Until we know exactly who attacked us on 9/11 I think Bush should have kept quiet. Of course, he should have denounced the attack on the World Trade Center and assured the world that we would find those responsible.
KATHLEEN, that same picture is in the book. I must review the last chapter before I post any more. Am in a hurry this morning.
I do want to tell KATHLEEN, who is new to our book discussions, to stay with us. We do a book a month, of all kind of books, see our Archives below. We are so happy you found us and appreciate your comments.
-
Yes, a B&W version is in my digital edition of the book. According to the text caption Obama was not yet President when the picture was made. The occasion was just before the Jan 20th inauguration. Bush, still President, had invited the President elect and the ex Presidents to a pre inauguration visit where the picture was made.
Is it color or B&W in the print edition?7
-
Just saw this in my History Newsletter......
Who was or is the best president of the United States since 1900? Newsweek recently polled 10 eminent historians and 600 randomly selected Americans about our country’s presidents. And the differences in their responses were striking.
The top two finishers among the public were Ronald Reagan and Bill Clinton, while the top two finishers among the historians were Franklin Roosevelt and Theodore Roosevelt. Jimmy Carter and George H.W. Bush both made the top 10—9th and 10th, respectively—in the public’s list, but not the historians’ rankings. And Lyndon Johnson and Woodrow Wilson—3rd and 5th, respectively, in the historians’ poll—didn’t make the public’s top 10.
How to account for these divergences? The most obvious explanation is that historians, true to their profession, seemed to place a greater emphasis on the distant past, while the public’s selections skewed toward recent decades...
I'll find the whole list and put it up. Obviously the historians have a better sense of the earlier presidents.
-
Here's a nice video w/ an interview w/ historian Harold Evans who coordinated the historians to choose the top 10 presidents since Teddy R.
http://mrctv.org/videos/newsweek-obama-top-10-presidents-teddy-roosevelt
-
Thanks, Mabel, for posting that MSNBC video with Harold Evans. He's married to Newsweek editor, Tina Brown, and publisher of The Week, one of my favorite mags). Evans says the historians ranked Presidents using two factors:
-active *and*
-effective
He added that FDR has a vision for the country (the "vision thing").
Wonder how these same historians would judge the men covered in our book ... Hoover to Obama ... as *ex-Presidents.* The two Bushes have not been active, at least publicly. Of the active ones, methinks effectiveness is in the eyes of the beholder. I imagine each President had a vision for the country; is the difference his ability to articulate it while in office?
What truly amazes me is when/how an ex-President cooperates to help the current office-holder ... probably in tension with his vision of correct strategy but also best tactics, huh? Some do it better than others, at least in our authors' eyes.
-
great that you were able to see Bush. The only one of these presidents I've seen are Truman (inaugaration parade, from a distance) and Clinton. I wangled an invitation to be in the Rose garden when clinton and Hillary greeted Nelson Mandela as a head of state for the first time. A very emotional experience for me.
Since I was in a wheelchair, I was in a special section, near to the president, almost near enough to shake Mandela's hand. My fellow whellchairers were clearly regulars who came to every such ceremony, and were comparing this one to others.
Unfortunately, I didn't have a camera.
-
Ella~
A black man, not an elite, not from wealth or close family bonds, he nevertheless came from nowhere and won the big prize. What do you think personally about him and what do our authors state? Do you think they lean one or another?
Barack Obama is a bi-racial man. His father was African from Kenya, and his mother was white from Kansas. He was raised with his white grandparents, in Hawaii who were very well off. She held a high position in banking. He seemed to hob nob with many elites on his way to the White House, not to mention he has Hollywood celebrities enamored with him. In his book "Dreams From My Father" I read where he speaks of animosity toward his mother's white race. Throughout his years in college he formed friendships with mostly blacks, Chicanos and more radical people. He admittedly, spent much of his college years doing drugs. He also writes, because he did not spend much time in the company of his father, he learned about him through his mother. His mother was a bit of a rebel herself, and left him with her mother to raise. So, I wonder if Obama even really knew his mother or father. Is this why we see so few pictures of him, and we know so little about him? The men he drew himself to as mentors, as a young male and in his early adulthood, are those who had very radical/anti American ideas. Rev. Jeremiah Wright, he calls, not only his lifelong mentor of 20 yrs in his church, his spiritual guide, but also, was like a father to him. Then as Ella states, he "came from nowhere and won the big prize."
My personal feelings, are that he was groomed by these men in his life, from the time he was young, into early adulthood, to "win the big prize," to pursue their ideologies. I feel Obama, and many of his democrats, have used the racist card many times to make white Americans feel bad, if we do not support, or agree with their policies, yet he is half white and seems to not want to recognize that. As far as his effectiveness in the four years he has been president, I can honestly say, I feel it will take years to undo the damage he has done with the economy, foreign relations, racial tensions and class warfare. Yes, he keeps reminding us that he had a mess when he took office, which is true. BUT.....I feel he has not helped to make it at all better, if anything adding 16 Trillion dollars more in debt over 4 yrs, has put this country deeper in debt to China, weakens our dollar, and lessens our strength as a country. He acknowledges his success in killing Bin Laden, yet we are now dealing with the out come of that, with terrorists killing our Ambassador, two navy seals and an assistant of our Ambassador. The uprising in the Middle East since 9-11-2012, does not in any way make me feel safer. If anything I believe Al Quieda, as they are stating, will avenge Bin Laden's death with more terrorist attacks. On the 11th anniversary of 9-11, I am still trying to understand, after receiving information of a possible attack on our embassies, why did he NOT beef up security with our own soldiers to secure our embassies? Was campaigning and winning re election so much more important, that he thought skipping security briefings was okay?
My biggest concern when I saw the DNC push Hillary out of her right to continue running for the spot on the ticket, and hand it to Obama, was that he was a person with NO experience what so ever. When I discussed my concerns with Obama supporters I asked them, "If you were the owner of a huge successful company, would you appoint a newly, inexperienced college graduate to the CEO position?" So when he won the presidency, I was in shock, especially when he was running against John McCain, a longtime, intelligent, respected Senator, POW, ex veteran, and has experience with foreign affairs. I can't explain the why, but I think I understand the how it happened. Instead of Obama using the president's club to help him more, (with the state of affairs he inherited), since he lacks knowledge and experience, he surrounded himself with appointees/czars, that were his friends, with the same ideologies as his own. Other than using Clinton for public approval ratings and the release of the journalists, the authors did not give us any indication Obama reached out much, if any, to others in the club.
I think the authors did not lean one way or the other, where Obama is concerned. They did not cover him as much as I feel they could have, but then again, there has been so little that the public has been allowed to have access to, leading up to being elected, and to this very day, so it would be difficult for them. No school records, no college transcripts, no thesis or papers he wrote in college, no access to his other brothers, sister, cousins, grandmothers, friends etc., etc. Rev. Wright his long time spiritual guide, was some how removed from the picture once the videos of him became public how he hates whites and America. Just a Law review professor, and community organizer, before being elected to the Illinois senate. Then "out of NOWHERE" he becomes President...wins the big prize! ???
I hold my faith, priests, church and religion sacred in my life. I could never image denouncing them or the church, I have attended my entire life, or for 20 yrs. I am still bewildered with that entire decision, he made on his way to the White House. But then again, was it a decision he could avoid?
Well, as all good things must come to an end, our book discussion draws to an end. I have truly enjoyed being back with all of you. If nothing else, we are an intelligent, spunky, opinionated, fact finder, and fun group. Thank you to Ella and Harold for once again, guiding us, informing us and leading us into an in depth look at "The President's Club." I look forward to the next time we join one another for an interesting discussion.
Happy Fall to y'all....... Ciao for now~
-
OH, WELL, GOODNESS, JEAN!
What a video.
Perhaps to the "effective" and "vision" criteria that the historians used for the 10 best presidents since Teddy Roosevelt, should be added the word "optimism."
That was a word used in an essay in TIME a few weeks ago, stating that the candidate who will win the psresidency is the one who is most optimistic about the future. Americans like optimism, see themselves as such.
-
I also saw Harry Truman at his inauguration (the only inauguration I've seen in person). I saw Kennedy once after his election but before his inauguration. I was walking down a street in Georgetown, and he came out of his house across the street. Bush 41 came to NIH once, and some of us guessed his route and stood in a cross-corridor and waved at him, only about 25 feet away. He waved back charmingly.
-
I also saw Harry Truman at his inauguration (the only inauguration I've seen in person) ...
PatH: how wonderful that you attended an inauguration; I cannot imagine! The only President I've seen "up close and personal" was Bill Clinton, at a Costco book signing. I thanked him for his service to our country from the bottom of my heart, as I can't imagine one person doing this job. Many people were sportin' buttons 'I remember 8 years of peace & prosperity.' Is that a way to measure Presidents?
Back to the book! I liked the early chapters and learned a lot; the editing and writing seemed above average. The later ones (1980 Reagan ---> Obama 2012) were less cohesive. Is that because there's not enuff distance for me to assess the authors' text?
-
I've been out of town and busy, just finished the book Wednesday evening, and my punishment is I have only 2 days left to say anything about it.
It's not too surprising the authors are skimpy about Obama. We're still in the middle of things, too close to be objective, and too much is still an unfinished story. And they can't yet have access to nearly as much behind the scenes material as they have about most of the men. It's interesting how much we know now about some of the events in the book that wasn't known at the time.
What do I think of Obama? He was immediately handed a number of very messy, difficult problems. I don't think anybody would have been able to fix all the messes, but he is trying hard, and doing as good a job as anyone else could. He is certainly finding out what the other presidents in the book found, that even if you have ideas of what you want to do, it isn't as easy to implement them as you thought it would be. I find him personally quite impressive.
I think the authors try to be even-handed, even a bit bland, toward the presidents while they are in office, not criticizing when they can avoid it.
-
We are now nearing the end of our discussion though I am sure the board will remain open tomorrow and probably Monday for concluding remarks by all. Hopefully all of you will post your concluding comments on the book and the discussion. This afternoon I will be at the Texas Indian exhibit at the Institute of Texan cultures but will return this afternoon for further comments.
To day and tomorrow lets have an active close by everyone.
-
I really enjoyed the book. I learned a lot of details, but more important, I saw the office and the men in it in a new way.
And our discussion leaders did a great job. Hooray!
-
GEE, here it is the 30th and the month went so fast. Due in large part because of our book discussion; I sat down every day in front of the computer eager to see what each of you had to say about these presidents, each chapter.
THANK YOU ALL FOR YOUR PARTICIPATION, FOR YOUR INSIGHT. I also learned something new about each president.. We had some criticisms of the book, but taken altogether it was a good read. A different look at our history, the times we lived through, the presidents we followed.
"Historians measure and rank presidents (as do we as citizens). But when they take the longer view, presidents do not just compare themselves to one another, they weigh their leadership against what might have been.............they are often just as proud of what didn't happen."
No one knows the job better than those who walked in your shoes and we can certainly understand that a president needs the support of those who walked before.
I hope you enjoyed the book and the discussion and that you will join us in other nonfiction book discussions as they are offered.
If you have any ideas for one, please post them in the nonfiction folder. -
http://seniorlearn.org/forum/index.php?topic=84.2280
THANKS TO ALL OF YOU AGAIN!
-
Before closing this discussion I do want to say a word about the Obama Presidency that now appears will be rewarded with a second four year lease on the residence at 1600 Pennsylvania Ave. It is marked by a cautious determination to conclude the military operations in Iraq and Afghanistan begun by the previous Administration. The Iraq operation is in fact scheduled for conclusion early in the coming New Year. The administration seems on course to continue its policy through this term and the next though the prospects of a developing Iran armed with atomic warheads and long range delivery vehicles might test their resolve. It will make for an interesting four years.
-
I too feel rewarded by my reading of this book and participation in this discussion. I certainly had not realized the ex-Presidents Association has become the National institution that it now is. Also I had not realized how close the individual members from parties opposite formerly bitter political enemy’s now routing work together on such a variety of assignments.
These conclusions are presented by the authors in the group of pictures that follow the final chapter. All of these picture groups off ex-Presidents with caption describing a particular work project on which they were involved. Taken as a whole these pictures really constitute a final Chapter.
Thank you Ella for discovering this book and initiating this discussion. And thank you each and everyone who posted. I look forward to other book projects next year.
-
Harold~
the Obama Presidency that now appears will be rewarded with a second four year lease on the residence at 1600 Pennsylvania Ave.
Hmm...with the election 30 some days out, the polls are showing a dead heat, if you follow the most trusted polls. I'm not ready to make a definitive outcome at this point. I suspect all those who plan to vote are not ready to concede to one candidate or the other either.
I am excited to watch Nov. 6th, regardless the outcome, because its history in the making!
-
One of the more surprising aspects of the book was the alliances and enmities of the former presidents with sitting presidents and other former presidents. They were often the opposite of what you would expect; former bitter enemies became good friends, former friends broke up, party lines were crossed freely.
-
This was a really enjoyable discussion; I'm sorry I had to miss the middle of it.
I would never even have heard of this book if Ella hadn't found it and Ella and Harold hadn't discussed it. Thank you both.
And thanks to my fellow discussers; you pointed out so many things I missed, and brought up so many points of view.
It was great.
-
I really enjoyed reading this book, my thanks also to Ella for finding it and to you and Harold for leading the discussion.
As i've said the info about the relationships was really interesting. I got to know their personalities in a way i didn't know about them before. I like complicated people and these guys are certainly complicated. The book reenforced my thinking that it is difficult for citizens to have any real idea about what leads to the decisions that presidents have to make. There is so much we are not aware of. The talking heads on tv act as though they know what is happening, i have a sense they only think they know what is happening. They act as though it is all so simple.
I was impressed w/ each one of them for at least one decision they made, even Geo Bush, who i may have been the least impressed with, put an enormous amt of money into fighting AIDS in Africa. If Obama had done nothing more than make the speech at the UN last week about child slavery and supported gay marriage, i would consider his first term a success, and oh yeah, gave the risky go ahead to Seal Team Six. I like his considered, thoughtfulness about issues.
Thanks everybody for your opinions and contributions, as always this has been a great discussion.
Jean
-
Jean~
If Obama had done nothing more than make the speech at the UN last week about child slavery and supported gay marriage, i would consider his first term a success, and oh yeah, gave the risky go ahead to Seal Team Six. I like his considered, thoughtfulness about issues.
It seems our president likes taking credit for the go ahead to the Seal Team Six, which now we are hearing it was actually Hillary having to convince him, after he hesitated and almost lost the perfect timing. Keep in mind, the architect for the entire plan was George W. before he left office. Obama followed it to a letter. One way Bush helped without being asked.
His position on gay marriage just a few months earlier was actually against it, up until he realized he needed those who are for it, to vote for him. His speech at the UN was deflecting the priorities, Iran getting a nuclear bomb, and Israel needing our support. He speaks of child slavery, but is for partial birth abortion and late term abortion which are laws he voted for and passed while senator in Illinois. He defends the rights of some, yet not of the unborn or the baby who was born due to a botched abortion. I truly hope and pray Americans will hold his success, higher than his thoughtfulness about issues. We have American embassies burning, and an Ambassador, two Navy Seals and his assistant dead. Those are not talking points, they are a reality. John Kerry and other democrats and republicans are demanding answers from him and Hillary, as to why there was no added protection for our embassies on 9-11-2012 when they were given information there was going to be planned attacks on them. I hope it does not turn out to be his Watergate.
Next month's book The Temptest looks very interesting, but I will have to pass. Hope to join in a new discussion soon.
Ciao~
-
As i said, this book reenforced my thinking that these questions and decisions are much more complicated than we have any idea. We, the public, have very few of the facts at the time events are happening and then much that we hear comes from idealogues. I like reading these books that have some perspective of years and many opinions of people involved.
-
Ella, Harold, so happy to have made it back before the door to this discussion was locked. Nothing could have kept me away but a grandson's birthday celebration. I didn't always agree with the differing points of view, but everyone was so amiable and polite - What a pleasure coming in to read your posts after a long car ride home!
The book revealed what a difficult, lonely job the Presidency really is. Sometimes the only people who can understand that are those who had a turn in the Oval Office before. I came away wondering who would want the job...but that's another book, isn't it?
A big THANK YOU to Ella, Harold and all of you who have been so generous sharing your views. Looking forward to the next adventure!
ps. Harold, I'm with the others who believe it's not over until it's over. :D
-
It has been very interesting to follow this discussion. To hear the views of the citizens regarding their political institutions and their leaders. The rest of the world looks on in wonder at how democracy works in America. One thing seems new. Presidents no longer need to retire into obscurity. They can still remain active, stay involved. We love to have your exes come to Canada and talk to us.
Naturally it's fun to make comparisons between presidential and monarchial systems of government. I thought the presidential pardon was a great way to end Nixon's caper of wrong doings. Pardon does imply guilt and public indignation seems satisfied. With a king it's: Off with his head! With a president, having been elected, it's natural to expect some understanding of the trials of public office.
-
Jonathan, Thank you for your comment. How about suggesting a non fiction title about the operation of the Canadian or other English derived Parliamentary system. If you know of any post it on the Non Fiction board or send me and E-mail. (hhullar5@yahoo.com )