Neat, but — Ravel’s Bolero???

I can think of, oh, a hundred songs off the top of my head that would be more appropriate.

My top pick (which you should play with the sound of the other clip turned down), after the jump.

Click here to view the embedded video.

‘Variations on America,’ by Charles Ives, Played by Stadtkapelle Tulln (Lower Austria), Conductor: Hans Peter Manser

Above: me, with turkey, 1972

So if it wasn’t Truman, Eisenhower or Kennedy, who was the 1st president to actually technically officially issue a “presidential pardon” for a turkey?

You may be surprised at the answer, after the jump.

The turkey “will not end up on anyone’s dinner table, not this guy. He’s granted a presidential pardon as of right now,” said George H.W. Bush whose announcement in 1989 inaugurated the first official Thanksgiving presidential turkey pardon. In 1990, the practice of sending the “pardoned” bird to Frying Pan Park in Fairfax County, Virginia began.

This ‘pardoning the turkey’ tradition is only 19 years old! I was surprised, too.

~~~~~~~~Happy Thanksgiving from Vote08!!!!~~~~~~~~

Above: a picture of President Harry S Truman, who as we all know was the 1st president to pardon a turkey for Thanksgiving — right?

.

~~~~Wrong!~~~~

.

Find out the truth about this photo after the jump.

From the Truman Library’s website:

“The Truman Library has received many requests over the years for information confirming the story that President Truman “pardoned” a Thanksgiving turkey in 1947, thus initiating a Presidential tradition that continues to this day.

The Library’s staff has found no documents, speeches, newspaper clippings, photographs, or other contemporary records in our holdings which refer to Truman pardoning a turkey that he received as a gift in 1947, or at any other time during his Presidency. Truman sometimes indicated to reporters that the turkeys he received were destined for the family dinner table. In any event, the Library has been unable to determine when the tradition of pardoning the turkey actually began.

Various groups presented turkeys to President Truman, often during the Christmas season instead of at Thanksgiving. There seems to have been only one presentation a year, with the National Turkey Federation and the Poultry and Egg National Board as the organizations most frequently involved. For example, these two groups presented the President with a turkey during a ceremony at the White House on December 15, 1947.”

Okay, so we’ve established that Truman in fact was not the 1st president to pardon a turkey.

That must mean that the tradition started with his successor, Dwight D. Eisenhower, right?

.

~~~~WRONG!~~~~

Get the facts after the jump.

The bird you see in the top photo, like the bird you see in the above photo, was presented to the president for eatin‘:

“Documents from President Dwight Eisenhower’s first term in office indicate that the live turkey he received was then killed, dressed, and frozen. This photograph is from Eisenhower’s first Thanksgiving as president, in 1953. During his second term, the turkey tradition changed; the turkey presented to the president was not the same bird that was later eaten in the White House. “In 1960, the files clearly show that a live bird was brought in for a photo op and a separate ‘dressed turkey’ was left at the White House for the President,” according to presidential archives.”

OK, so it wasn’t Truman, & it wasn’t Eisenhower. This photo of JFK (taken 3 days before he was killed) is veritable proof that it was he who began this time-honored White House tradition by issuing an official ‘presidential pardon.’

Right?

~~~AGAIN - NO!~~~

When President John F. Kennedy was presented with a bird wearing a sign that read “Good Eatin’ Mr. President” he responded with “Let’s just keep him.”

NOTE: though the flightless bird’s life was spared, that was not an official ‘pardon.’

…

Well dang it, who was it, then?

Stay tuned!

.

I had a birthday last week; that’s me, 2 days old.

I was trying to think of a way to tie it in to a political post, & it’s taken me until today to come up with an idea.

Barack Obama, like myself, was born in the 1960s. (at the other end of the decade, but I still can claim the rights).

I had long thought that those born in the 1960s would still see another decade or more before claiming power.

It got me to thinking about which presidents are products of which decades of the 1900s.

See which 20th Century decade gets the bragging rights for producing the most White House occupants, after the jump.

Born in the 1940s

Bill Clinton, George W. Bush (just 5 weeks apart, actually)

.

Born in the 1920s

George H.W. Bush, Jimmy Carter

.

Born in the 1910s

Ronald Reagan, Gerald Ford, Richard Nixon, John Kennedy.

The 1910s are (so far) the century’s most Presidentially productive, with 4.

.

Born in the 1900s

Lyndon Johnson

.

John McCain would have been our 1st president born in the 1930s.

I suspect that he represents the decade’s last chance to make a mark (in 2012, someone born in 1939 would be 73 years old).

So can you glean any meaning from any of this?

Perhaps not - but feel free to try!

]]> http://vote08.freedomblogging.com/2008/11/24/whats-in-a-decade/8394/feed/ http://vote08.freedomblogging.com/2008/11/24/obama-is-the-nextgeorge-hw-bush/8300/ http://vote08.freedomblogging.com/2008/11/24/obama-is-the-nextgeorge-hw-bush/8300/#comments Mon, 24 Nov 2008 16:49:50 +0000 Dan Lehr http://vote08.freedomblogging.com/?p=8300

John Feehery, today:

“Bill Clinton might win a popularity contest if it came to vote of the peoples of the world, but among the world’s leaders, George Bush is more respected.

The first President Bush has largely kept his mouth shut about the performance of his son. His former colleagues, like Brent Scowcroft, have taken to speaking for him, in expressing his displeasure with some of the policies of the George Bush II.

But with Barack Obama now our President, he will have to rely on many different voices to help guide him through the most difficult global economy in seven decades. Obama shouldn’t hesitate to call on George Bush. He is a true patriot and a great resources for the new President.”

David Brooks, May 19th:

“Obama doesn’t broadcast moral disgust when talking about terror groups, but he said that in some ways he’d be tougher than the Bush administration. He said he would do more to arm the Lebanese military and would be tougher on North Korea. “This is not an argument between Democrats and Republicans,” he concluded. “It’s an argument between ideology and foreign-policy realism. I have enormous sympathy for the foreign policy of George H.W. Bush. I don’t have a lot of complaints about their handling of Desert Storm. I don’t have a lot of complaints with their handling of the fall of the Berlin Wall.”

In the early 1990s, the Democrats and the first Bush administration had a series of arguments — about humanitarian interventions, whether to get involved in the former Yugoslavia, and so on. In his heart, Obama talks like the Democrats of that era, viewing foreign policy from the ground up. But in his head, he aligns himself with the realist deal making of the first Bush.”

The New York Sun editorial page, April 18th:

“Another candidate is stepping forward to embrace the legacy of the first President Bush. That candidate is Senator Obama, who said in Wednesday night’s presidential debate, “I think that when you look back at George H.W. Bush’s foreign policy, it was a wise foreign policy. In how we executed the Gulf War, how we managed the transition out of the Cold War, I think it’s an example of how we can get bipartisan agreement.”

Here’s the follow up question that did not get asked: Just what aspect of President George H.W. Bush’s foreign policy did you think was “wise,” senator? Was it the part where Saddam Hussein was left in power after the Gulf War to preside over the mass murder of Iraqi Shiites? The part where the secretary of state, James Baker, told Mr. Bush, “F— the Jews, they don’t vote for us anyway,” and proceeded to conduct a foreign policy toward Israel along those lines? Or the part where Mr. Bush went to Ukraine and counseled the Soviet Republics not to break away from Moscow because it would be too destabilizing?”

& the final argument that Barack Obama could be the next “41:” They have similar bowling skills:

What do you think?

EARLIER ON VOTE08:

Obama is the next..George W. Bush

Obama is the next..Bill Clinton

Above: Theodore Roosevelt, 1900.

Life Magazine has digitized quite a few of its photos going back to the 1860s, & with the help of Google has posted many of these fascinating images (including the one above) online. Worth your time perusing.

My Backyard, 10:21am, November 7th, 2007

“..great as our tax burden is, it has not kept pace with public spending. For decades, we have piled deficit upon deficit, mortgaging our future and our children’s future for the temporary convenience of the present. To continue this long trend is to guarantee tremendous social, cultural, political, and economic upheavals.

You and I, as individuals, can, by borrowing, live beyond our means, but for only a limited period of time. Why, then, should we think that collectively, as a nation, we are not bound by that same limitation?

We must act today in order to preserve tomorrow.”

Who said that?

Ronald Reagan, on January 20th, 1981

Above: Watch the episode of the CBS soap opera “As the World Turns” that aired during the JFK assassination.

The 1st bulletin doesn’t appear until the end of the clip above; watch more after the jump.

& pray that this never happens again.

UPDATE: My father points out that on this same day, my great-great grandfather, Paul Bliss Cousley, Editor and Publisher of the Alton Telegraph, died (earlier in the day).

Click here to view the embedded video.

Click here to view the embedded video.

Click here to view the embedded video.

Click here to view the embedded video.

Click here to view the embedded video.

Click here to view the embedded video.

Click here to view the embedded video.

[Above: Walter Cronkite confirms the president's death at the beginning of tihs clip]

Click here to view the embedded video.

With all of the cabinet (& lower level posts) assigned to members of the Clinton administration, this comparison looks more & more apt every day.

I will say that Obama benefits hugely by not being a ‘baby boomer’ (he’s technically one - born in 1961 - but not of that generation).

He also is less of a “50% +1″ type, like not just #42 but also #43.

& in terms of self-absorption (always present in a president), though you could make a case this is a problem with Obama, I’d say it’s far, far, farther down on the scale when compared with Bill.

If you can think of any other similarities/differences, I’d love to hear from you.

On to the similarities:

Jeremy Scahill, today:

“Obama has a momentous opportunity to do what he repeatedly promised over the course of his campaign: bring actual change. But the more we learn about who Obama is considering for top positions in his administration, the more his inner circle resembles a staff reunion of President Bill Clinton’s White House. Although Obama brought some progressives on board early in his campaign, his foreign policy team is now dominated by the hawkish, old-guard Democrats of the 1990s. This has been particularly true since Hillary Clinton conceded defeat in the Democratic primary, freeing many of her top advisors to join Obama’s team.”

Politico, November 14th:

Obama’s victory in the general election produced what his primary campaign couldn’t: A swift merger of the Clinton Wing of the Democratic Party with the Illinois Senator’s self-styled insurgency. The merger began, during the campaign, in the policy apparatus — which is now rapidly becoming the governing apparatus.

The absorption of the Clinton government in waiting represents Obama’s choice not to repeat what he and his advisors see as an early mistake made by the last two presidents: Attempting to wield power in Washington through an insular campaign apparatus new to town.

Paul Krugman, June 30th:

“Like Mr. Clinton, Mr. Obama portrays himself as transcending traditional divides. Near the end of last week’s “unity” event with Hillary Clinton, he declared that “the choice in this election is not between left or right, it’s not between liberal or conservative, it’s between the past and the future.” Oh-kay.

Mr. Obama’s economic plan also looks remarkably like the Clinton 1992 plan: a mixture of higher taxes on the rich, tax breaks for the middle class and public investment (this time with a focus on alternative energy).

Sometimes the Clinton-Obama echoes are almost scary. During his speech accepting the nomination, Mr. Clinton led the audience in a chant of “We can do it!” Remind you of anything?”

Abe Greenwald, January 15th:

“On July 20, 2007, the Associated Press reported “Democratic presidential hopeful Barack Obama said Thursday the United States cannot use its military to solve humanitarian problems and that preventing a potential genocide in Iraq isn’t a good enough reason to keep U.S. forces there.” Forget the immediate depravity of such a pronouncement. The most disturbing and, not coincidentally, most Clintonesque aspect of the story is that Obama’s statement came a week after the New York Times‘ landmark editorial calling for a U.S. withdrawal from Iraq, genocide notwithstanding. This deference to popular opinion over humanity represents Clintonian moral calculus of a chilling potency.”

EARLIER ON VOTE08: Obama is the next..George W. Bush

]]> http://vote08.freedomblogging.com/2008/11/20/obama-is-the-nextbill-clinton/8024/feed/ http://vote08.freedomblogging.com/2008/11/19/team-of-rivals-nope/7810/ http://vote08.freedomblogging.com/2008/11/19/team-of-rivals-nope/7810/#comments Wed, 19 Nov 2008 13:37:39 +0000 Dan Lehr http://vote08.freedomblogging.com/?p=7810

For all the talk of how a “team of rivals” would be a good thing, Matthew Pinsker of the Los Angeles Times isn’t convinced:

“Consider this inconvenient truth: Out of the four leading vote-getters for the 1860 Republican presidential nomination whom Lincoln placed on his original team, three left during his first term — one in disgrace, one in defiance and one in disgust.”

Reminder: Doris Kearnes Goodwin, who wrote the book about this topic that Obama’s been reading, is coming to Chattanooga one week before the inauguration.

FURTHER READING: James Oakes is also skeptical.

Found this entry from Patrick Murfin about the layered symbolism behind the black cowboy hat, & Barack Obama’s continuance of this narrative:

As a Black man running for President he has already smashed stereo types and expectations. As an already iconic Good Guy himself and the oracle of Hope and empowerment (Yes We Can!) he can don a black hat and casually demolish another.

The entire post has some great stuff on the history of presidents & cowboy hats. Good reading.

I stumbled upon the post while looking for this photo, which I had never seen before:

…What. Is. Going. On. in this shot? LBJ is manic!

..anyway, looking for that photo to head the post I was going to link you to about the demise of Texas’ role in Washington, after dominance for over 20 years, which you can read here:

“The 28th state has loomed large over Washington for much of the past century — think the president, his father, Lyndon Johnson, Sam Rayburn, John Tower, Dick Armey and Tom DeLay.

But at noon on Jan. 20, Texas becomes — please don’t throw things — just another state.

“I guess Washington can finally exhale,” half-jokes former Bush counselor Dan Bartlett, a born-and-bred Texan who escaped to Austin last year.”

MSNBC runs through the early mistakes in the Clinton, Carter, & Kennedy administrations as lessons for Obama to learn. For Kennedy, it was the Bay of Pigs; for Carter, it was bringing in too many of his own people; for Clinton, it was pretty much everything.

We’ll have to wait on the Kennedy comparison. For Carter .. Obama seems to be hiring a lot of Washington experience (yes, counter to his message of change). For Clinton.. Clinton waited a month before he announced anything.

Wikipedia:

The phrase “lame duck” is of contested origin. In the literal sense, it refers to a duck which is unable to keep up with its flock, making it a target for predators.

Some say it originated during the last days of the administration of U.S. President James Buchanan, who remained inactive upon the secession of the southern states^{[citation needed]}, or the last days of President Grover Cleveland’s administration, when Cleveland took to domesticating ducks.^{[citation needed]}

Others believe the phrase was coined in the 18th century at the London Stock Exchange, to refer to a broker who defaulted on his debts.^[2][3] The first known mention of the term in writing was made by Horace Walpole, in a letter of 1761 to Sir Horace Mann: “Do you know what a Bull and a Bear and Lame Duck are?” ^[4]

Happy Lame Duck session of Congress, everyone.

Charles M. Blow:

“In 1980, the Republican Party platform spoke at length to blacks and Hispanics, promising to stand “shoulder to shoulder with black Americans” in the fight against racism and to “pursue policies that will help to make opportunities of American life a reality for Hispanics.” That year, Ronald Reagan captured 14 percent of the black vote, becoming the last Republican to do so. He also doubled the Hispanic support that Gerald Ford had enjoyed in the previous election.

The 1980 platform went on to make a specific pitch to the nation’s youth, committing itself to broadening “the involvement of young people in all phases of the political process.” Reagan won 44 percent of the youngest voters in 1980, and that support grew to 61 percent when he was re-elected in 1984. No Republican has seen this level of support from that demographic since.”

From the e-mail inbox:

Historian and Author Doris Kearns Goodwin to Kick Off 2009 George T. Hunter Lecture Series

The Benwood Foundation, in partnership with the University of Tennessee at Chattanooga, the Ochs Center for Metropolitan Studies, and CreateHere, has announced that the 2009 George T. Hunter Lecture Series will kick off on January 13th with world-renowned historian and author, Doris Kearns Goodwin. Ms. Goodwin, an expert on presidential politics, is the author of several books including the Pulitzer Prize-winning No Ordinary Time: Franklin and Eleanor Roosevelt: The American Homefront During World War II. Her most recent book is entitled Team of Rivals: The Political Genius of Abraham Lincoln, which won the Lincoln Prize and the Book Prize for American History. Speaking just one week prior to the presidential inauguration, Ms. Goodwins lecture will focus on leadership lessons learned from Abraham Lincoln.

The lectures will begin at 7pm in the Roland Hayes Concert Hall located inside the Fine Arts Center on the UTC campus. All lectures are free and open to the public. Seating is limited and is on a first-come first-serve basis. More information on the George T. Hunter Lecture Series is available (here).

Doris Kearnes Goodwin? Here? A week before the inauguration? You had better believe I’ll be there. I also plan to contact UTC to see about getting her to come into the NewsChannel9 studios. Stay tuned.

[above: me, August 1972, the nearest photo I can find of me being 1000 days old.]

THIS IS THE 1000th POST OF THE VOTE08 BLOG.

I can’t believe I’ve made it this far. Thanks, of course, due to your participation & interest.

I’m ready to go another thousand - or more. You can depend on me to keep you updated on the momentous events happening in Washington for the next couple of months, at the very least, & hopefully beyond.

I have wondered what to do with this ‘milestone’ post.. I’ve decided to demonstrate to you what my purpose in bringing you this blog is about.

I was thinking about the people in my family who helped shape who I am.

Naturally my immediate family deserves the most credit - this is my mother, father, sister & myself in 1975. Interestingly - half of the people in this photograph voted for McCain, & the other half voted for Obama. I certainly have been exposed to multiple political views growing up.

But credit for getting me where I am also, I believe, goes to both of my grandmothers (may they both rest in peace).

(June, 1970)

My maternal grandmother was a school librarian, & instilled in me a love for learning, literature & patriotism (I still have a book she gave me called ‘A Book of Great Americans’ that contains poems about those who made this country great, which I remember reading a bunch as a kid). She was also the 1st person in my family to correctly predict that I would grow up to be a journalist, based on her observing my eagerness to bring news to those who hadn’t heard it yet.

(November, 1970)

My paternal grandmother, like me (& my grandfather), was a graduate of the University of Missouri
in Columbia. She was a master at storytelling, & I have many fond memories of holiday dinners when she would tell tales, which we all knew by heart, but enjoyed hearing again.

Thinking about it further, I believe I can also credit ‘who I am today’ to the fathers of both of these women.

My maternal grandmother’s father (above) was (like me) was a graduate of the University of Missouri. He moved into the (then new) Oklahoma settlement of Konawa in 1904 & became that settlement’s 1st superintendent of schools.

My maternal grandfather’s father was part of the Cousley family which owned the Alton Telegraph, a newspaper on the banks of the Mississippi river in Illinois, & the site of a momentous event in the history of both journalism & abolitionism. My paternal grandmother’s family operated the Telegraph from 1889 to 1980 - which, as coincidence would have it, was bought in 2000 by Freedom Communications, which owns NewsChannel9. How’s that for confluential history?

[Mom, Dad, if you want to add anything, feel free]

So you can see that I view traversing the uncharted waters of the internet as a way to connect with the past, in addition to defining the future.

At any rate, I feel I am carrying on the traditions - both educational & journalistic - that has been handed down to me in equal measure from both sides of my family, & it is my honor to pledge to you that I will do my best to both inform you & continue to search for practical solutions to today’s problems that can be reached by all political stripes, in the hopes of creating a better world.

Thanks for indulging me.

On to post #1001…

E.J. Dionne:

“The public’s desire for more government action to heal the economy and guarantee health insurance coverage, along with its new skepticism about the deregulation of business, suggests that we are a moderate country that now leans slightly and warily left.

But that wariness means that progressives should avoid offering advice based on the assumption that an ideological revolution has already been consummated. They should not imitate the triumphalism of Karl Rove and his acolytes, who interpreted President Bush’s 50.8 percent victory in 2004 as the prelude to an enduring Republican majority.

[Hear, hear - Vote08]

Fundamentally, ours is a non-ideological nation. Many who would like the government to act more boldly still need to be persuaded of government’s capacity to succeed.

Here again, Obama’s situation closely resembles Reagan’s. Like our 40th president, Obama has been authorized to move in a new direction. If Reagan had the voters’ permission to move away from strategies associated with liberalism, Obama has sanction to move away from conservative policies. Reagan was judged by the results of his choices, and Obama will be, too.

Yet Reagan offers another lesson: His first moves were bold, and Obama should not fear following his example.”

Take a look at where 2008 stands on the totem pole, comparing with all presidential elections since 1960 (ie, since we’ve had the total be ‘538′):

1. Ronald Reagan, 1984: 525-13

2. Richard Nixon, 1972: 520-17

3. Ronald Reagan, 1980: 489-49

4. LBJ, 1964: 486-52

5. George H.W. Bush, 1988: 426-11

6. Bill Clinton, 1996: 379-159

7. Bill Clinton, 1992: 370-168

8. Barack Obama, 2008: 365-173*

*this is still without Missouri’s 11 electoral votes counted. If Obama ends up winning the state (McCain currently has a slim lead), he jumps ahead of Clinton ‘92 on this list)

In terms of 1960+ elections, Obama’s followed electorally next on the list (see it here) by Kennedy ‘60, Nixon ‘68, Carter ‘76, Bush ‘04, & Bush ‘00.

]]> http://vote08.freedomblogging.com/2008/11/10/electorally-ranking-obamas-win/6630/feed/ http://vote08.freedomblogging.com/2008/11/08/good-for-us/6531/ http://vote08.freedomblogging.com/2008/11/08/good-for-us/6531/#comments Sat, 08 Nov 2008 16:31:38 +0000 Dan Lehr http://vote08.freedomblogging.com/?p=6531

[image by Patrick Moberg, h/t Andrew Sullivan]

Reminder: It’s okay to be happy about this moment in American history & still be critical of Barack Obama.

To those of you who didn’t choose him, take comfort in the fact that Americans have just wielded a powerful global blow to those who (wrongly) believe America is ‘weak’ or ‘in decline’ & thus ‘vulnerable.’

It is one of if not the most effective strikes against those around the world who would do us harm in the past 7 years & 2 months.

& it didn’t involve the firing of a single bullet.

People of every nation around the globe see that America is the one civilization which has proven over time to work the best, & as of Tuesday I would say more people are going to demand their leaders reflect the American system more, not less.

& to those who feel less certain today about the future than they did last Monday - temper your doubt & fear with faith in the genius of the American system.

America & the idea behind it truly does work, & is worth dying for.

This past Tuesday reaffirmed that loud & clear.

Since we started this blog back in January, this blog has received more than 32 thousand page views.

That’s not “the Page” or “ABC News” by a long shot, but it’s still pretty impressive, & I thank you for your attention.

I hope I’ve been informative & entertaining for you through this long election year. This has certainly been a labor of love for me.

After the jump, the list of the top 10 most viewed pages on this blog, as of today.

10. BIDEN’S BLUNDERS, CHAPTER 1

(from September 12th)

.

9. DICK CHENEY COMING TO CHICKAMAUGA BATTLEFIELD

(from September 2nd)

.

8. THE LATEST PENNSYLVANIA POLLS

(from March 6th)

.

7. WHAT’S HAPPENING TO THE ECONOMY FOR DUMMIES (LIKE ME)

(from September 16th)

.

6. SQUIRRELING AROUND: THE STRANGE RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN PRESIDENTS & SQUIRRELS

(from February 11th)

.

5. ANSWERING YOUR QUESTIONS ABOUT BARACK OBAMA

(from February 12th)

.

4. “REG’LAR FOLKS DEBATE THE IRAQ WAR“

(from March 20th)

.

3. MEASURING PAST JULY 4th PRESIDENTIAL POLLS

(from July 7th)

.

2. THE FOUNDING FATHERS & RELIGION

(from April 18th)

.

1. CNN FINDS MANY IN COPPER HILL, TENNESSEE BELIEVE OBAMA’S A MUSLIM

(from August 1st)