The History Book Club discussion

Jim, thanks for that great video link.

Martin wrote: "We do know, however, that Kennedy was the only voice in opposition to sending 8,000 troops to Vietnam in a cabinet meeting early in his administration."

This is one of the tragedies of the enmity between the Kennedys and Johnson: He was deliberately excluded from all the meetings and from JFK's thoughts; so, when he took over, he listened to the advisers JFK had appointed, probably thinking that that would be fulfilling the late president's wishes.

Do we really know what LBJ was thinking? Caro hasn't gotten that far in his biographical odyssey, has he? And, at the rate he's going it might not be for a rebirth or two before he does.

Martin wrote: "Do we really know what LBJ was thinking? Caro hasn't gotten that far in his biographical odyssey, has he? And, at the rate he's going it might not be for a rebirth or two before he does."

It's true that Caro is definitive, but other biographies of LBJ, in particular by Doris Kearns Goodwin make the point of LBJ being overwhelmed by his advisers on Vietnam - foreign affairs had never been his area of expertise and, from earlier volumes of Caro, we do know that LBJ felt insecure and perhaps even ashamed of his poor schooling. Further, unlike (say) Truman, LBJ was not a big reader. He read people, not books.

Makes sense. Thanks.

His ignorance didn't prevent him from spinning a yarn about the Gulf of Tonkin though, and he seemed pretty convinced of hizself.

Jill wrote: "Barry Goldwater's loss was a humiliation but he did not make good political decisions, even in the run-up to his nomination. The Republicans were badly divided....conservative and moderately libera..."

Barry Goldwater always seemed to be a polarizing figure - a lightning rod. Folks either hated him or they loved him - no in between. But I think he gave a lackluster performance as a candidate and also appeared to be a sore loser. Jill you are correct in your assessment in mho.

Martin wrote: "Don't forget the advertisement linking Goldwater with the bomb. It was devastating and spoke to the fear that his extremism would lead to annihilation. The alternative was a society of peace and we..."

Very true Martin.

Peter you made me smile with the quote.

Jim wrote: "I had forgotten that LBJ won the presidential election by such a large margin. I was thinking that the title of the book reference his run for Governor of Texas that he won by less than 70 votes. A..."

I think we are all eager to see that Jim and it will be an interesting story.

Martin wrote: "Makes sense. Thanks.

His ignorance didn't prevent him from spinning a yarn about the Gulf of Tonkin though, and he seemed pretty convinced of hizself."

Martin, LBJ was always an insecure man no matter how much power he garnered . I think he never felt the equal of others like JFK for instance. And maybe that is why he strived so hard and became the Master of the Senate but in the back of his mind - he always valued those who were very educated and had the family standing that JFK had. As you recall, McNamara was one of JFK's guys and I think in some way - he felt important by honoring what Kennedy wanted - but I don't think that JFK would have escalated that war although he was no dove. I think he was knee deep in Vietnam but I think he might have found another alternative to escalation given an exit strategy - although many of the sources below disagree - although National Security Action Memorandum 263 indicated that he was pulling advisors out.

Here is an article for you all to ponder - and other point-counterpoint ones - critically evaluate on your own and let us know your thoughts.

All, let me know your opinions on this:

Was JFK going to pull out of Vietnam?

April 10, 2014 JFK Facts - http://jfkfacts.org/assassination/exp...

The question is still “hotly debated” says the JFK Library and Museum, not the least because the question has become part of the debate over the causes of JFK’s assassination.

What does the record show about Kennedy’s thinking and actions on Vietnam?

“The view that Kennedy would have done what [his successor Lyndon] Johnson did — stay in Vietnam and gradually escalate the war in 1964 and 1965 — is held by left, center, and right,” wrote economist and historian James Galbraith in an extended 2003 Boston Review article about this question.

Galbraith, whose father was among JFK’s most dovish advisers, cites leftist icon Noam Chomsky who has argued that Kennedy was no dove.

In this YouTube interview, for example, Chomsky says JFK was “a hawk on Vietnam… He wanted to get out but only after victory” and “there was no significant change [in U.S. policy] after the assassination.”

That view is echoed by liberal biographer Kai Bird and conservative historian William Gibbons, according to Galbrath.

Yet, Galbraith notes, that a powerful counterargument came from unexpected source. Late in life, Robert McNamara, Secretary of Defense for JFK and LBJ, and a man reviled by the anti-war movement in the 1960s for his support of the war, said that he thought JFK would not have escalated the war as LBJ did in 1964. McNamara’s statements lent credence to the arguments of historians, John Newman (“JFK and Vietnam”) and Howard Jones (“Death of a Generation”) who found that JFK had been quietly laying the groundwork for withdrawal without battlefield victory for much of 1963.

That interpretation gained more support in 1998 when the Assassination Records Review Board released the records of the May 1963 SecDef conference in which a phased withdrawal from Vietnam was put on the books as a policy option, something that was not known at the time and remained a state secret for 35 years. When JFK’s national security advisers met in Honolulu on Nov. 20, 1963, their briefing books reiterated the plans for withdrawal without victory.

The debate endures because JFK expressed support for both his dovish policy option (withdrawal without victory) and his hawkish option (escalation until victory). But overall, Galbraith notes that on a series of foreign policy decisions in his first two years and half years in office, JFK rejected the recommendation of his hawkish advisers. He sees JFK’s unfinished Vietnam policy in 1963 as

“part of a larger strategy, of a sequence that included the Laos and Berlin settlements in 1961, the non-invasion of Cuba in 1962, the Test Ban Treaty in 1963. Kennedy subordinated the timing of these events to politics: he was quite prepared to leave soldiers in harm’s way until after his own reelection. His larger goal after that was to settle the Cold War, without either victory or defeat—a strategic vision laid out in JFK’s commencement speech at American University on June 10, 1963.”

JFK Library on Vietnam

During the early 1960s, the U.S. military presence in Vietnam escalated as corruption and internal divisions threatened the government of South Vietnamese President Ngo Dinh Diem.

After World War II, the French tried to re-establish colonial control over a region known as French Indochina—today the countries of Vietnam, Cambodia, and Laos. Following the defeat of the French, Vietnam was partitioned by the Geneva Accord of 1954 into Communist North Vietnam and non-Communist South Vietnam. The United States supported a military government in the South and the decision of its leader, Ngo Dinh Diem, to prevent free elections, which might result in the unification of the country under the control of the Communists. Guerilla forces supported by the Communist government of the North initiated a series of attacks in South Vietnam, and the Geneva Accord began to crumble.

The Domino Theory

American foreign policy after World War II was based on the goal of containing Communism and the assumptions of the so-called "domino theory"—if one country fell to Communism, the surrounding countries would fall, like dominoes. In response to that threat, the Southeast Asia Treaty Organization (SEATO) was formed in 1955 to prevent Communist expansion, and President Dwight D. Eisenhower sent some 700 military personnel as well as military and economic aid to the government of South Vietnam. The effort was foundering when John F. Kennedy became president.

Internal Divisions

Corruption, religious differences, and mounting successes by the Vietcong guerrillas weakened the South Vietnamese government of Ngo Dinh Diem. Diem was Catholic, and public protests over the repression of Buddhists threatened the stability of his regime. Kennedy accelerated the flow of American aid and gradually increased U.S. military advisers to more than 16,000. At the same time, he pressed the Diem government to clean house and institute long-overdue political and economic reforms.

The situation did not improve. In September of 1963, President Kennedy declared in an interview, "In the final analysis, it is their war. They are the ones who have to win it or lose it. We can help them, we can give them equipment, we can send our men out there as advisers, but they have to win it, the people of Vietnam, against the Communists. . . . But I don't agree with those who say we should withdraw. That would be a great mistake. . . . [The United States] made this effort to defend Europe. Now Europe is quite secure. We also have to participate—we may not like it—in the defense of Asia."

The Overthrow of Diem

A few weeks later, on November 1, 1963, the South Vietnamese government was overthrown. The coup had the tacit approval of the Kennedy administration. President Diem was assassinated, after refusing an American offer of safety if he agreed to resign.

In the final weeks of his life, President Kennedy wrestled with the future of the United States' commitment in Vietnam. Whether he would have increased military involvement or negotiated a withdrawal of military personnel still remains hotly debated among historians and officials who served in the administrations of President Kennedy and President Lyndon B. Johnson.

A Domino Falls

United States military aid to Vietnam increased during 1964. By 1965, President Johnson authorized U.S. troops to begin military offensives and started the systematic bombing of North Vietnam. By 1968, the number of U.S. forces surpassed 500,000. During that year's presidential campaign, Americans were deeply divided by the deteriorating military and political situation in Vietnam.

In May 1968, President Johnson announced that formal peace talks would soon begin in Paris. The talks stalled during the last eight months of Johnson's presidency, and the deadlock continued during the early years of Richard Nixon's administration. Finally, in January 1973, an agreement was reached, and President Nixon ordered an end to all U.S. offensive actions against North Vietnam.

In January 1975, North Vietnam began massive invasions of South Vietnam. A few months later, the North Vietnamese captured the capital city of Saigon, and the last Americans were evacuated from the U.S. embassy. The American war in Vietnam was over. More than 3 million Vietnamese and 58,000 Americans had lost their lives.
(Source: http://www.jfklibrary.org/JFK/JFK-in-...)

Martin wrote: "Ulla - it seems to me, half-blind though I am, that Darman's framework - a thousand day period from which two conflicting visions of America emerged - actually is a dynamic very much a part of Amer..."

Martin, you are spot on. It is not what a politician says, but what he or she does that is important. Actions speak louder than words. Championing for smaller government while ballooning up its bureaucracy (Reagan and Bush) is hypocritical. Similarly, claiming to be anti-war while quietly sending troops into the Middle East or using drones that also kill civilians (Obama) is hypocritical. I don't understand how politicians get away with not practicing what they preach. It was only George Bush Senior who was punished for failing to live by his promise not to raise taxes.

Exit Strategy: In 1963, JFK ordered a complete withdrawal from Vietnam

In 1963, JFK ordered a complete withdrawal from Vietnam.

James K. Galbraith
September 01, 2003

http://www.bostonreview.net/us/galbra...

Q&A Chomsky on JFK and Vietnam

Professor Noam Chomsky answers question on President John F. Kennedys policies towards Vietnam, and refutes the myth that Kennedy was going to withdraw without victory.

http://youtu.be/aC5nhzN2fHU

Would JFK Have Left Vietnam?: An Exchange
Kai Bird, reply by William Pfaff

http://www.nybooks.com/articles/archi...

Assassination Records Review Board released the records of the May 1963 SecDef conference in which a phased withdrawal from Vietnam was put on the books as a policy option, something that was not known at the time and remained a state secret for 35 years.

NARA Record Number: 202-10002-10027
JCS OFFICIAL FILE

http://www.maryferrell.org/mffweb/arc...

1963 Briefing Books - loads here folks

https://www.maryferrell.org/wiki/inde...

Robert Kennedy on Vietnam:

Was Kennedy Planning to Pull Out of Vietnam?

http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/vietnam.htm

Kennedy and the Cold War

http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/progjfk5.htm

Presidential Library - JFK - National Security Action Memorandum 263

National Security Action Memorandum Number 263: South Vietnam, October 11, 1963Date: 10/11/1963Creator: The Papers of John F. Kennedy, Presidential Papers, National Security Files, Meetings and Memoranda Series, National Security Action Memoranda, National Security Action Memorandum Number 263. John F. Kennedy Presidential Library and Museum, Boston, Massachusetts Copyright: Public Domain

http://www.jfklibrary.org/Asset-Viewe...

Foreign Relations of the United States, 1961-1963, Volume IV: Vietnam August-December 1963
Current Section: 331. National Security Action Memorandum No. 273

http://www.maryferrell.org/mffweb/arc...

Listen to Kennedy's own words:

American University Commencement (June 10, 1963)
John F. Kennedy (Watch JFK's speech at American University and hear his own words)

http://millercenter.org/president/spe...

Hi, everyone.

Many thanks to Bentley for helping us to line up another great read with the book group.

I decided to major in history after participating in a small seminar for honors history students in high school. I have dabbled in most of areas of historical study but I find myself lacking in knowledge in regard to LBJ and Reagan, which is why I was interested in participating in this book discussion. I am an attorney with 20+ years working in-house for various corporations.

I am a liberal but open-minded to understanding the opinions of others. I was too young to really know anything about LBJ, but I remember Reagan well and actually voted for him as President the second time (when I was old enough). I was a conservative growing up for fiscal and defense reasons, but grew disillusioned while Reagan was President and became a Democrat thereafter. I have been a liberal ever since.

I am looking forward to learning about LBJ and revisiting Reagan. What was it about him that infatuated people? How much did he really accomplish? And how was he able to move the party right when Goldwater could not?

As for LBJ, why was he unsuccessful when he was voted in by a landslide? How did he lose the momentum thtat he had established?

I also thought found it interesting how the Kennedys didn't want to let LBJ into the Oval Office. I found Bobby's conduct to be disconcerting since he was more concerned about his brother's legacy than the country. I don't blam LBJ for acting awkwardly during the transition. However, he had been preparing for it for a very long time that one might have thought that he would have been more prepared.

Sera wrote: "Martin wrote: "Ulla - it seems to me, half-blind though I am, that Darman's framework - a thousand day period from which two conflicting visions of America emerged - actually is a dynamic very much..."

Sera wrote: "Martin wrote: "Ulla - it seems to me, half-blind though I am, that Darman's framework - a thousand day period from which two conflicting visions of America emerged - actually is a dynamic very much..."

Sera, interesting points. I would have to admit it's true even for the "guys" I like (Reagan, Bush). The campaign is a time when I imagine the best case scenario has to be laid out to the voter. Maybe I'm making excuses but things always seem to pop up that no one campaigned on....9/11, ISIS, scandals, financial crisis that is usually out of their control, ect).

Bush campaigned on a compassionate conservatism that barely got off the ground when 9/11 happened. He then became a war president.

But crisis or not, I don't think even the most honest of candidates can campaign on anything but a 110% "this is what I'll do" campaign. And then there's this thing called checks and balances in the government which both sides at one time or another would say "thank goodness!" too.

Discussion Questions:

In posts 159, 160 and 161 - I have compiled numerous sources which talk about what Kennedy would or would not do regarding Vietnam and also what he had done up to the time of his death. Some of the sources are from the JFK library and some are even National Security Action Memorandums and one of them is the American University Commencement speech given by JFK himself on world peace. We will never know what Kennedy ultimately would have done.

Take a look at the above sources and cite any of the above or other sources and discuss the situation that the country found itself in when LBJ took over as President. There are all sorts of conspiracy theories regarding this or that but let us try to focus on real sources which may show what LBJ was thinking and whether it was the same or different from his predecessor.

Vietnam - what are your thoughts? Was LBJ alone is his thinking regarding Vietnam?

Sera wrote: "Martin wrote: "Ulla - it seems to me, half-blind though I am, that Darman's framework - a thousand day period from which two conflicting visions of America emerged - actually is a dynamic very much..."

Hi Sera welcome - just a gentle reminder for us to stay the course for the reading and focus primarily on LBJ and Reagan - we only discuss JFK in terms of what LBJ inherited and its effects on LBJ as well as the Kennedy relationships with LBJ and Reagan of course - with a primary focus on the parallels of the two men on horseback. Reading for this week includes the Prologue and Chapter One. Delighted to have you.

Sera wrote: "Hi, everyone.

Many thanks to Bentley for helping us to line up another great read with the book group.

I decided to major in history after participating in a small seminar for honors history stud..."

You are welcome Sera. And we are delighted to have a legal mind with us to delve into the nitty gritty of what LBJ was dealing with when he took over and the legal ramifications for the country. It is interesting isn't it how our viewpoints sometimes change - in fact Reagan's changed too. He started out as a Democrat and ended up as a Republican.

Goldwater laid the foundation - he was successful in that endeavor although Reagan seemed to run with it and had the personality and delivery that Goldwater was sorely lacking.

I am not sure how much LBJ was prepared for getting the presidency the way he did and for the assassination of the president - I think everybody was thrown for a loop and observing what they observed and went through collectively had to place all of them in shock to a certain degree. Maybe at some level LBJ understood this and wanted to tread lightly in deference to the Kennedy's losses which were significant. Husband, son, brother, father, uncle, president - all lost at once.

Bentley wrote: "Yes and No on Goldwater.

The country in 2012 moving towards purple is interesting too. In discussing the 1964 map the point was that it was a landslide and the map was predominantly blue.

And I..."

Cities are what make Presidents. As long as the candidate wins the majority of Metropolitan area's they can sway states electoral votes. Goldwater never had a chance. Even if LBJ was not the Vice President who ever was Vice President at the time would have one the nation. With how close the assassination of Kennedy to the election was people were still in a state of shock.

What I wonder is how many of those votes were sympathy votes. It would have been interesting to see a poll like this after the election.
Though Johnson was the stronger of the two opponents. It is a curious thing to wonder.

Regarding A Time for Choosing Video - Reagan's televised speech on behalf of Goldwater

Have you all had an opportunity to watch this yet. It is on the main page of the History Book Club. Please watch and post your impressions of Reagan even before he ran for governor and was just an actor at that time. What did you view were his strengths and weaknesses and were you impressed with the man giving that speech or not? What did you like, what didn't you like?

https://www.goodreads.com/videos/7586...

Christopher wrote: "Bentley wrote: "Yes and No on Goldwater.

The country in 2012 moving towards purple is interesting too. In discussing the 1964 map the point was that it was a landslide and the map was predominant..."

Christopher - I agree - what happened on television was played out in all of its horror and you are right the nation was in shock. Goldwater was not a good candidate but whoever was the Republican candidate probably would have lost.

I am not sure about sympathy votes but I think there were a lot of voters who did not want to rock the boat and Goldwater did not inspire confidence that rocking the boat would not happen. The country was shaken up enough.

Bentley wrote: "Christopher wrote: "Bentley wrote: "Yes and No on Goldwater.

The country in 2012 moving towards purple is interesting too. In discussing the 1964 map the point was that it was a landslide and the..."

Though if Reagan was in politics as he was in 1980 I wonder if he could have won the election. Reagan "A Time for Choosing" speech was pretty powerful and well thought out.

Though I know he did not write it. If they had know how well he would have come off years earlier I think he would have given LBJ a run for the Presidency.

The speech was good - in fact very, very good - the delivery was pitch perfect - but I think he was too new on the stage and he possessed absolutely no executive background or even a legislative one - I think he would have lost as bad as Goldwater and he would have deserved to lose too.

But he did give a great speech which helped launch him and helped him win the governorship of California I am sure later on. It is just my opinion of course but I think folks like to think that Reagan could have walked on water and at that point in time for career opportunities he was only looking at a part in a film called The Killers where he played a rich, double-crossing bad guy.

But if you were a betting man - you would have said that the guy had potential and that was very true.

I have finished the prologue and I am very happy so far. I found quite a bit of detail and a great opening to the story. Very well written so far and I am very interested to get into the reading.

Glad to have you Jack and the discussion is brisk here. Just jump in and let us know your thoughts. Do you have any remembrances of Kennedy, LBJ and/or Reagan?

Bentley wrote: "The speech was good - in fact very, very good - the delivery was pitch perfect - but I think he was too new on the stage and he possessed absolutely no executive background or even a legislative on..."

Yes I do agree he was to new in politics at that time to pose any real threat to LBJ. What I am saying if he had the experience that he had in 1980 in 1964 I think he may have given LBJ a run for his money.

He knew how to hold an audience and his speeches were always good. He had something LBJ lacked which was stage presence.

Bentley wrote: "The speech was good - in fact very, very good - the delivery was pitch perfect - but I think he was too new on the stage and he possessed absolutely no executive background or even a legislative on..."

Timing is everything in these speeches. Clearly one could see the "rock star" status for Reagan when it came to politics in this speech. Same could be said for Obama in 2004. Again, Reagan at the RNC for Gerald Ford. BUT, neither Reagan nor Obama were ready right then and there for the limelight or the campaign. Both would have been up against events out of their control (JFK assassination for Reagan and 9/11 for Obama). I would think the audience in both parties for both speeches probably thought, "uhhh...can we run this guy instead"? But it would probably been a mistake for both and who knows where their political careers would go from there. Events happen for reasons.

And then there are the devastating speeches given which slam the door shut on a career. (Marco Rubio "bottlegate" anyone?). Sorry to digress there.

OK I agree that experience was lacking but if he had the necessary credentials and skill set at the time - he certainly had the ability to connect with people and read them well.

One thing that I will say about LBJ - when he spoke you listened and though there was never any jocularity in the speeches that I recently have listened to him give - there was a pathos and a seriousness that is extremely relevant in a president. I know that I am not the type who wants the president to be a regular guy or one that I would want to have a beer with - what I am looking for is somebody who can get the job done - I could care less if the person was as dull as dirt as long as he was smart, hard working and could safeguard the country and protect my loved ones. And of course you would want a person who cared about the country and its citizens more than they cared about their image and political capital or how they were going to capitalize on the presidency after they left the White House. For me serious is good.

But everybody is looking for something different and since Ronald Reagan was trained as an actor - I would agree that he had stage presence and his timing and delivery were pitch perfect. But I think what LBJ lacked in stage presence - he was the master of getting things done and executing and that is far less glamorous - the nitty gritty of keeping things on track.

I think when Reagan demonstrated executive experience along with the ability to connect with the people - he found that winning combo which propelled him into the White House whether he deserved to be there or not. He was popular and the experience made him formidable and a winner.

Justin wrote: "Bentley wrote: "The speech was good - in fact very, very good - the delivery was pitch perfect - but I think he was too new on the stage and he possessed absolutely no executive background or even ..."

I see it differently though. If Obama had run in 2004 against Bush he very well could have won that race. First it was a close race to begin with even though Kerry being a mediocre candidate. Had Obama been the DNC golden boy at that time rather then 4 years later he very well may have won that race.

I believe had Reagan having had the experience he had in 1980 in 1964 would have given LBJ a run for the Presidency as well.

Bush (43) vs Obama who would be better in the National spotlight Obama. He knew how to carry the people with every word he spoke in 2008. LBJ vs Reagan in the National spotlight Reagan wins that hands down.

I think that Reagan's maiden speech is very much like Obama's. And to be honest with you I see some similarities between the two. Lack of experience yet great popularity. But it did take some time and some brief time in the Senate to make Obama a viable candidate even though his experience was slim to none. At that point in time - the people liked and wanted different - they wanted anybody but Bush or anything that reminded them of a Bush. Reactionary for sure but I think the same thing was true when Reagan ran.

But I think LBJ still would have won against Reagan for all of the reasons that I gave. And I think that Bush would have beaten Obama too. The Presidency is not a quick study.

I do understand where you are coming from though and like I said many feel similarly to you.

Bentley wrote: "OK I agree that experience was lacking but if he had the necessary credentials and skill set at the time - he certainly had the ability to connect with people and read them well.

One thing that I..."

Excellent points Bentley. I don't disagree with any of your post.

LBJ, as Darman points out, was much better in a crowd, small group, or face to face then he was on TV. Apparently he had a way of reading a person's personality and then winning them over to his side. I chuckled at the George Wallace quote in the Prologue, page xxvi, when Wallace says about LBJ, "Hell, if I'd stayed in there much longer, he'd have had me coming out for civil rights."

Clearly LBJ had a gift. Fortunately for him it wasn't TV in an era when TV was just getting ramped up.

Yes, Justin I agree.

Loved, loved that quote especially coming from George Wallace (lol).

I think the difference is between "reality and the day to day" and the "illusion of a speech or a performance". LBJ could push and hammer and break the walls down. His ability was not the quick speech with a teleprompter. When Reagan was able to blend the two - he was unstoppable.

The author writes:

"Only two years after his landslide, Johnson's dreams of immortal greatness would vanish for good. In the midterm election of 1966, American voters would deliver a powerful rebuke to Johnson at the ballot box. That year Democrats lost a staggering forty-seven House seats. The Republicans, so recently written off for dead, won nine new governorships, three new Senate seats, and 557 seats in state legislatures nationwide.

In a space of a single Autumn day, Newsweek would write, the 1000 day reign of Lyndon I came to an end. The Emperor of American politics became just a president again.

After reading the above - I kept thinking about this past midterm election - here is an article that puts some things into perspective with the mid term election of 1966.

Obama has lost nearly 70 House seats since taking office
By David McCabe

President Obama has lost nearly 70 seats in the House since taking office and more seats in midterm elections than any president since Harry Truman.

Democrats have suffered a net loss of at least 69 House seats since 2008, with the possibility that Republicans could pick up even more as the final 2014 midterm races are called.

Senate Democrats have not fared much better, losing a net of at least 13 seats since Obama took office.

Midterm elections have been brutal for congressional Democrats in the Obama era. The party lost at least 77 seats in the midterms in 2010 and 2014, though they gained back eight seats in 2012.

Obama has already surpassed President Dwight Eisenhower’s tally of 66 midterm losses in the House, according to data published by the Rothenberg Political Report. President Franklin Roosevelt and Truman each lost more House seats during their midterm years.

The 2010 midterms account for the bulk of the losses. In the tumultuous period after the passage of ObamaCare, Republicans picked up 63 seats in a wave election that awarded them control of the House.

The president has not always been a drag on congressional Democrats. His victory over Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.) in 2008 lifted candidates down the ballot, and in 2012 Democrats in the House picked up eight seats as the president defeated Republican nominee Mitt Romney.

On Tuesday, though, House Democrats lost at least 14 seats as the GOP swept to victory in races around the country.

Senate Democrats have lost seven seats so far, and are at risk of having three more slip away.

Sen. Mary Landrieu (D-La.) will face a tough runoff in December that is expected to favor Republican Rep. Bill Cassidy. Sen. Mark Begich (D) has yet to concede against Dan Sullivan as votes continue to be counted in Alaska, and in Virginia, Sen. Mark Warner (D) leads by a thin margin.

The losses in the Senate could surpass those suffered by Eisenhower in his midterms, when he lost 13 seats. Truman lost a net of 17 Senate seats in his midterm elections.

Republicans and their allies chose to focus much of their messaging on Obama this year, betting correctly that his low approval ratings would doom incumbents like Sens. Kay Hagan (D-N.C.), Mark Udall (D-Colo.) and Mark Pryor (D-Ark.).

Historically, the incumbent president’s party tends to fair poorly in midterm elections during his second term in office. Before 2014, the president’s party had suffered significant congressional losses in five of the six second-term midterm elections.

Democrats have repeatedly noted that trend to try to explain their election defeats and make the case that the party will come back strong in 2016, when a new standard-bearer will be on the ticket.

They have also pinned blame on Obama, arguing his flagging poll numbers were too much for their candidates to overcome.

“The president’s approval rating is barely 40 percent,” David Krone, Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid’s (D-Nev.) chief of staff told The Washington Post. “What else more is there to say? ... He wasn’t going to play well in North Carolina or Iowa or New Hampshire. I’m sorry. It doesn’t mean that the message was bad, but sometimes the messenger isn’t good.

Exit polls registered high rates of disapproval of Obama among voters on Tuesday. He is scheduled to hold a press conference Wednesday afternoon.
(Source: The Hill - http://thehill.com/blogs/ballot-box/h...)

Discussion Question(s): In comparison to what has transpired with President Obama and other presidents during their second term - do you think that the midterm of 1966 sent any special message to newly elected President Lyndon Johnson?

Do you agree with the author that in 1000 days the country had changed forever?

The author states that the Voting Rights Act of 1965 was one of those things that changed the country forever - do you agree or disagree?

We have added the video of the Speech to Congress by LBJ on March 15, 1965 - The American Promise on the Voting Rights Act of 1965: (watch the speech and discuss on this thread)

https://www.goodreads.com/videos/7594...

Christopher wrote: "Bentley wrote: "
Cities are what make Presidents. As long as the candidate wins the majority of Metropolitan area's they can sway states electoral votes...."

This isn't completely so; if it were, we would have had no Republican presidents for quite a while. The general rule is "Cities vote Democratic, rural areas Republican and suburbs swing".

Even Utah (arguably the most conservative state in the union) elected a Democrat (Rocky Anderson) as mayor for two terms. Reagan is (I think) the last Republican presidential candidate who was even close in the top 10 cities

The top 10 cities in 1980:

New York - Mondale won
Chicago - Mondale won
Los Angeles - Reagan won
Philadelphia - Mondale won
Houston - Reagan won

Detroit - Mondale won
Dallas - Reagan won
San Diego - Reagan won
Phoenix - Reagan
Baltimore - Reagan

(data from Dave Leip's site http://uselectionatlas.org/RESULTS/na... but it's not exact as it is for counties, not cities and they don't correlate perfectly).

Martin wrote: "We do know, however, that Kennedy was the only voice in opposition to sending 8,000 troops to Vietnam in a cabinet meeting early in his administration."

Indeed, and JFK learned from the Cuban Missile Crisis not to trust the military at face value.

Another thing to keep in mind for the 1966 election that did not favor LBJ: there was a considerable back-lash from whites due to the 1964 Civil Rights Act and 1965 Voting Act. Nixon played on this in 1968.

Very true Bryan - and that is why LBJ had a few problems in some of the Southern States. You are also correct about Nixon.

Bryan wrote: "Martin wrote: "We do know, however, that Kennedy was the only voice in opposition to sending 8,000 troops to Vietnam in a cabinet meeting early in his administration."

Indeed, and JFK learned from..."

Bryan, I think you would enjoy the JFK museum - although you must have visited it and probably have access to the cuban missile crisis discussion tapes but they were an eye opener I have to agree - listening to the tapes and the actual voices of the folks in those meeting(s). Thankfully, JFK did not go along with the military recommendation but preferred beginning with the blockade.

"Do you agree with the author that in 1000 days the country had changed forever?"

It's a neat framing device. And, let's be honest. This is a delightful read, but it is an expanded magazine piece. Well crafted and informative reporting.

Bentley - I had a chance to look at Reagan's Choice (speak about ironic) speech. Thanks much for posting it and energetically encouraging us to look at it. I've read of the speech before, but never before seen or heard it.

It's a revelation.

I made two associations first time through. Reagan comes across as:

1) as a character who belongs in Orson Welles' Citizen Kane.
2) as if he is possessed by Robert Coover's Uncle Sam in his The Public Burning.

This is the Reagan behind the avuncular mask that we saw in his presidency ("Well, there you go again.") If he smiled during the speech, I missed it. Instead of humor, we get condemnation, anger, outrage, and statements whose relation with the facts is tangential.

And that brings me to the substance of the speech. We all know Reagan, even more than most presidents, had a passing relationship with facts. Some was laughable, killer trees for instance; some not so much - conjuring the phantom threat of communism and its relative socialism.

I want to go through it a second time to note some of the inaccuracies, although my feeling is that I won't have the time to single out all of them.

by Robert Coover

Martin - thank you for your responses. I think you are right that this is a delightful read and is a neat framing device. However, in retrospect - Darman did have a point. We had the assassination of a sitting president right in front of the American people televised no less, we had a war escalated and civil rights brought to the forefront and a host of other things pressuring the sensibilities of a country and its people and maybe the country was changed because of these events and discussions. Many referred to those days as the end of Camelot.

Thank you also for watching Reagan's maiden political speech. It actually shows a great deal about the man. The delivery is as important as what he said; most important in mho is how he said it. I enjoyed reading your views on the speech and hope that others will post their impressions pro and con. It was an incredibly important speech for Reagan because it launched his political career which was nil at the time of the endorsement of Goldwater. And from that one speech alone - you can tell he was a man to watch. Whether you agreed with the tenets of the speech or not, here was a man who had the power to connect.

No argument from me on either account, Bentley.

You know, I forgot one other allusion. The speech also brought to mind the Pandemonium scene in Blind Johnny's Paradise Lost when Lucifer & Co. are holding their convention to get organized and the fallen angels give speeches to make their various cases. Each angel has a rhetorical style reflective of his nature.

I think that's what we're seeing with Reagan's (false) Choices speech. It reveals the man behind the mask that was developed to sell him to the voting public.

by John Milton

On edit, can you believe Cromwell's censor has a picture & link? How digital is that?

Martin you are making me laugh. I thought he did a very credible job for Goldwater more than Goldwater made for himself. I thought the jab at LBJ with the Bobbi Baker comment was a bit mean spirited and he acted as if he was being jocular - but overall Reagan was very very effective. He made some good points and of course it is up to each member to determine if they believed him or not. You are right about one thing - he seemed more hard edged during this first speech than any of the speeches I have watched lately which he made as President when he always at the very least appeared to be good natured. But Reagan seemed to me to be a sphinx. I wonder if even Nancy knew the whole man. But effective he was in politics and his influence is still being talked about today by every Republican.

No argument from me. He was most effective. If you haven't read the section of Milton's epic poem I cited, read it. It's an outstanding demonstration of various rhetoric styles, which when push comes to shove is what Reagan primarily was about.

He did a great job delivering his lines, for a politician.

Not bad for a failed actor.

I think Reagan found the role of a lifetime as President and I think he relished that role and enjoyed it the most. And to tell you the truth he was and is still beloved by many folks so he was successful in terms of trying to be the hero in his own lifetime. Many foreign leaders liked him too - Elizabeth the Queen, Margaret Thatcher, Mikhail Gorbachev. I also stand by my statement that I feel he dealt a death blow to manufacturing in this country but many think that Reagan was the best thing since sliced bread.

And I think his maiden speech was a phenomenal debut for an upcoming political giant.

I am very interested in hearing what folks liked about the speech and what they felt were his weaknesses if any. It is perfectly fine to have whatever impressions you had whether pro or con or both.

There are some other quotes in the Prologue which is a very dense reading segment which we should talk about and discuss - this section was chock full of great kernels of information and discussion points.

Here is another one that we can discuss:

"A thousand days later, Vietnam was an American war with nearly four hundred thousand American troops on the ground and more soon to go. In the course of the thousand days, the Johnson administration made the fateful decision to "Americanize the Vietnam conflict, despite Johnson's own doubts about whether the war could be won, locking in a policy that would end up costing fifty-eight thousand American lives."

Questions for Discussion:

In terms of deaths, Vietnam was the fourth deadliest war for Americans:

Wars ranked by total number of U.S. military deaths

1	American Civil War 1861–1865 625,000 casualties

2	World War II 1941–1945 405,399 casualties

3	World War I 1917–1918 116,516 casualties

4	Vietnam War 1961–1975 58,209 casualties

5	Korean War 1950–1953 36,516 casualties

6	American Revolutionary War 1775–1783 25,000 casualties

7	War of 1812 1812–1815 15,000 casualties

8	Mexican–American War 1846–1848 13,283 casualties

9	War on Terror 2001–present 6,717 casualties

10	Philippine–American War 1899–1902 4,196 casualties

a) Do you think the number of deaths for a war that the American people did not understand caused the American people to turn their back on the Vietnam war and in doing so to a large extent LBJ?

b) Did you realize that LBJ had doubts about the war or were you convinced that he was a hawk and wanted to escalate the war at all costs in order to have a clear victory?

Those of you who are wondering what next week's assignment is - here it is -

WEEK TWO -> CHAPTER 2: Watching: November 22-24,1963 - p.31 - 54 (December 8, 2014 - December 14, 2014)

Here is the link to the Table of Contents and Syllabus thread where you can check all assignments:

https://www.goodreads.com/topic/show/...

"Do you think the number of deaths for a war that the American people did not understand caused the American people to turn their back on the Vietnam war and in doing so to a large extent LBJ?"

A couple of thoughts on this question, Bentley: 1) while Americans love a war, do they ever really understand one at any time, before, during, or after? I don't think so.

2) Americans begin to lose their taste for war, figuratively speaking, when the first body bag comes home. Perhaps WW II, to a degree, was an exception; and this shouldn't be taken too literally, but there is a large degree of truth to it.

As far as LBJ having doubts, that seems in conflict with his notion that we had to win the war. I don't doubt that he had some doubts. There almost always are some doubts about any serious decisions, but those decisions that require a serious commitment usually eclipse, or obliterate doubts.

Martin, I think Americans understood World War II in spades. I think to a certain extent they may not have agreed but understood the country entering into World War I. At the time, I think both the North and South understood the Civil War and what that was about and I think the Revolutionary War and the War of 1812 were well understood. When Americans are fighting for their own democracy and freedom - and against a man like Hitler - I think they understand well. But the Vietnam war was never one that folks felt was relevant to them and to their well being - in fact to the contrary. I think the Korean War and the Mexican and Philippine American Wars are three others.

I questioned that sentence too Martin when I was reading it and a critical reader should do just that. It would sound like LBJ was the only doubter in a roomful of hawks or was the wise man among those who knew no better not the one who escalated the war which resulted in 58, 209 casualties. I wondered at the choice of words and I will have to dig deeper to see what I find.

I did check out the Miller Center and here is a link for those folks wanting to make up their own minds:

Some great videos:

http://millercenter.org/president/lbj...

Lyndon lamented to Lady Bird:

The major initiative in the Lyndon Johnson presidency was the Vietnam War. By 1968, the United States had 548,000 troops in Vietnam and had already lost 30,000 Americans there. Johnson's approval ratings had dropped from 70 percent in mid-1965 to below 40 percent by 1967, and with it, his mastery of Congress. "I can't get out, I can't finish it with what I have got. So what the hell do I do?" he lamented to Lady Bird. Johnson never did figure out the answer to that question.

He did say this however:

During the summer and fall of 1964, Johnson campaigned on a peace platform and had no intention of escalating the war if it were not absolutely necessary. "Some others are eager to enlarge the conflict," Johnson warned his audiences. "They call upon the U.S. to supply American boys to do the job that Asian boys should do." But the President was full of reassurances: "We are not about to send American boys nine or ten thousand miles away from home to do what Asian boys ought to be doing for themselves," Johnson explained to his audiences. "We don't want to get . . . tied down to a land war in Asia." Even so, Johnson was planning for just that contingency if the situation deteriorated—which it did.

Bentley wrote: "There are some other quotes in the Prologue which is a very dense reading segment which we should talk about and discuss - this section was chock full of great kernels of information and discussion..."

I knew a few airmen who were sent to Vietnam; some that made it back and some that didn't. My father was there from July of 1967 through July 1968. I think most of us questioned why we were fighting and what we were fighting for. It was a frustrating time.

I think it was too Francie - I think folks were worn out by the events in the country as well and losing so many young men had to be another blow for a war that many did not understand. This war was in Southeast Asia and that is even more removed than a war in Europe where there was a foe like Hitler. It must have been a hellish time for your Dad.