When is a lobbyist not a lobbyist? Sunday, Nov 20 2011 

History and Politics , victorgold 4:40 pm

“I wasn’t a lobbyist, I was a strategic adviser.”

— Newt Gingrich, explaining why he took $1.8 million in fees from Freddie Mac, a federal agency that operates on taxpayer/bailout money

Move past, if you will, the part of this story that involves a Republican presidential candidate’s having what reporters call “baggage” (though in this particular candidate’s case it’s sure to be either Gucci’s or Louis Vuitton’s).

That Newt Gingrich has always viewed political cachet as a route toward becoming Newt Getrich dates back to his first touch of power, assuming the House speakership in 1995 and immediately hooking onto a $4.5 million book deal he gave up only after being pressured by his embarrassed Republican colleagues.

No, Gingrich-being-Getrich shouldn’t be the focus of media attention here. That’s old news. The question to be raised – the thing to be condemned by good government moralists in the media – is why federal departments and agencies like Freddie Mac are allowed to spend millions of taxpayer dollars to lobby Congress for additional millions of taxpayer dollars.

Gingrich’s audacity (somebody has to pay those Tiffany bills, so why not Freddie Mac?) simply expresses the routine acceptance by members of Congress — Democrat and Republican alike — that influence-peddling not merely for but with taxpayer money is now the accepted norm in Washington.

There ought to be a law against it — and as a matter of fact, there is: Taxpayer-subsidized federal departments and agencies are strictly prohibited from using their funds for lobbying purposes. But then, this isn’t lobbying, is it? No, it’s “strategic advice,” given when the price is right by ex-Republican and ex-Democratic congressmen alike.

Who says there isn’t bipartisan agreement on some federal expenditures?

Sound Bite to Remember (circa 1955)

“Why is it that when I take it, it’s stealin’, but when a governor who’s a lawyer takes it, it’s called a fee?”

 Alabama Governor Big Jim Folsom, complaining about the inequity of it all

 

Sound Bite to Remember (Civil War variety) Monday, Sep 5 2011 

History , victorgold 11:55 am

“I always thought the Yankees had something to do with it.”

— General George Pickett, on being asked whether it was Lee’s indecision, Longstreet’s delay, or J.E.B. Stuart’s absence that led to the Confederate defeat at Gettysburg.

 

Barack and the Kingfish Tuesday, Aug 2 2011 

History and Politics , , victorgold 10:43 am

About that debt limit problem . . .

George Will, who has seen more erudite days as a political sage, screwed up badly in a recent column when he dismissed Barack Obama as “Huey Long with a better tailor.”

A story from my Louisiana youth to show how inapt is any comparison between the Kingfish and this president:

In the worst days of the Great Depression, midwinter of 1933, the Hibernia National Bank of New Orleans was about to close down after massive withdrawals. Desperate, the Hibernia’s directors turned to Huey for help and in short order the Kingfish lined up funds from the Reconstruction Finance Corporation and the Federal Reserve.

One problem, however: The transfer of funds couldn’t be made until Monday, February 6, and since the bank would have to open on Saturday, February 4, the withdrawals would continue. Huey’s answer? Find some reason to declare a bank holiday. The problem, as historian T. Harry Williams put it, was that “February 4 was apparently the most unmemorable day in the history of the nation.”

But February 3, that was another matter. On that date in 1917, President Woodrow Wilson had severed diplomatic relations with Germany. That was good enough for Huey. Hell, said the Kingfish, a move that big couldn’t have been completed in just one day.

So it was that in 1933 both February 3 and 4 became Louisiana state holidays, the Hibernia National Bank was saved from defaulting, and the Kingfish could turn his attention to the serious business of teaching bartenders at New York’s Waldorf-Astoria the proper way to mix a New Orleans gin fizz.

Huey Long was many things – a demagogue, a megalomaniac, a clown — but he understood that leadership comes not from the audacity of hope but of action.

That said, if George Will’s comparison were apt, what would have happened had the Kingfish handled the Hibernia problem in the patented style of our 44th president?

First, he would have called a news conference, followed by a radio address, to announce the appointment of a “balanced” commission composed of auditors and creditors to conduct a study of possible options to save the bank.

Second, he would have called a news conference, followed by a radio address, to announce a meeting of New Orleans business, labor, and religious leaders to arrive at a consensus on solving the crisis.

Third, by this time the Hibernia having gone under, he would have appointed a Banking Czar to explore the possibility of asking the RFC and Federal Reserve for funds and, if necessary, declaring a holiday to prevent such a bank failure from happening again; after, of course, calling a news conference, followed by a radio address, to give us his thoughts on the upcoming 1933 basketball, baseball , and football seasons . . . .

 

Sound Bite to Remember Saturday, Jun 18 2011 

Aphorisms and History victorgold 10:28 am

No public character has ever stood the revelation of private utterance and correspondence.

— Lord Acton, 1887 (pre-Twitter)

 

It’s Not the Heat, It’s the Puerility Wednesday, Jun 15 2011 

History and Politics victorgold 5:27 pm

“What I do after seven in the evening is my business.” 

                                               — French President Georges Pompidou (1972)   

 Before the story is buried under an avalanche of irrelevant news about the war in Afghanistan, the economy and the deficit, a few wayward thoughts on L’Affaire Weiner:

1. This isn’t a case in which the Pompidou Rule — that even a public figure is entitled to a private life — applies.  Having 45,000 “followers” on Twitter doesn’t suggest a lust for after-hours privacy. When public figures go public with their private lives, they’re fair game.

2. Neither is it a scandal brought about because Anthony Weiner merely did a “stupid” thing. Stupid things are done out of ignorance or lack of understanding.  Weiner knew exactly what he was up to. Call it arrogance, call it puerility, but let’s not give the stupid among us a bad name.

3. Nor is this a case of the cover-up bringing on the problem. That’s a conventional canard that dates back to Watergate. Does anyone seriously believe that if Richard Nixon had gone on television to confess, “I approved the break-ins,” The Washington Post and Democrats on Capitol Hill would have dropped the matter? Or that Anthony Weiner’s confessing that he sent a photo of his crotch to a 23-year-old co-ed would have led Fox News and Republicans on the Hill to laud him for candor?

No, for politicians it’s not the cover-up that leads to trouble. It’s being guilty of something that needs covering-up.

4. Finally, about this business of Weiner seeking “professional help.” That’s simply the secular politician’s equivalent of calling in Billy Graham for a prayer session; which, I recall, has a 50-50 track record as a tactical ploy. It worked for Clinton but not for Nixon.

 

Speaking of Civil War Re-Enactments . . . Tuesday, Apr 19 2011 

History victorgold 6:10 pm

How did it escape the notice of those gung-faux warriors hung up on mock battles that last week was the 50th anniversary of the Bay of Pigs?

Oh, sorry, my mistake. That was a CIA fiasco, no U.S. troops involved. Too bad. It would have made a swell souvenir show, though it might have offended a large segment of the population in south Florida.

Not that the door’s ever closed for exhibitionist war buffs. Casting calls are out for bit players anxious to celebrate next year’s bicentennial of the War of 1812, including the master scene that features the burning of Washington (Tea Party members preferred, but Bring Your Own Torch).

Then of course there’s that long-awaited biggie in battlefield slaughter, the upcoming 100th anniversary of World War One, those glory years of trench-digging, mustard gas, Verdun and the Somme, beginning with a stirring re-enactment of the assassination of the Archduke Ferdinand in scenic Sarajevo (Sean Penn would be perfect for the part).

All of which is by way of wondering what confederacy of historical dunces came up with the idea that the way to mark the sesquicentennial of the bloodiest war in American history is with a four-year orgy of fun-and-wargames, climaxed presumably by the crazed John Wilkes Booth’s assassination of our 16th President. (Charlie Sheen would be perfect for the part.)

 

Ike Re-Revised Friday, Mar 11 2011 

History and Movies and Politics , , victorgold 12:08 pm

As Winston Churchill once posted, all history is revisionist. It all depends on the bias of the writer. Take, for example, the revisionist distortion of Dwight Eisenhower’s civil rights record in HBO’s recent production of the one-man play, “Thurgood.”

The writer-producer in this case, George Stevens, Jr., set out to dramatize the life-and-legend of Thurgood Marshall, the first black member of the Supreme Court and leading counsel in the NAACP’s effort to break down the barriers of segregation in the 1940’s and Fifties.

Having lived in the South during that turbulent period and met Justice Marshall after coming to Washington, I was naturally drawn to actor Laurence Fishburne’s vivid depiction of the man and his times. Then, three-quarters of the way through the performance, came the playwright’s negative account of Eisenhower’s stand on racial equality.

To hear Fishburne’s “Thurgood” tell it, Ike was little more than a closet segregationist, lukewarm if not in fact hostile to the Warren Court’s 1954 decision de-segregating public schools in the South.

There’s nothing new about this negative view of Eisenhower’s civil rights record. It’s been spun for over half a century, since the days when Arthur Schlesinger, Jr., was in his revisionist prime.  However . . .Call me a Right-wing eccentric (it wouldn’t be the first time), but that’s not the way I remember the history of that period.  As I recall: (more…)

 

« Previous Page — Next Page »