Inside Secret Service ears when Reagan was shot
Thirty years after the assassination attempt on President Ronald Reagan, the U.S. Secret Service offers an unusual peek into history with the release of about 10 minutes of radio traffic between agents protecting the president and their command center.
The never-before-heard recording shows that agents initially believed Reagan, referred to by his code-name “Rawhide”, was fine after being shot as he left the Washington Hilton Hotel following a speech on March 30, 1981.
“Rawhide is okay. Follow-up, Rawhide is okay,” said Special Agent in Charge Jerry Parr, after hustling Reagan into his limousine which quickly sped away from the hotel.
Parr told the command center he wanted to head back to the White House, referring to it by its code name “Crown”.
But less than a minute later, the agent driving the limo said they had changed course and were headed instead to George Washington Hospital.
“We want to go to the emergency room of George Washington,” said special agent Thomas Drew Unrue. Then he said “Go to George Washington fast.”
Parr said in an interview with NPR that there was a “profuse amount of blood” coming out of Reagan’s mouth so he ordered the change of destination because he was concerned about Reagan.
Obama, facing resurgent Republicans, reaches for Reagan bio
President Barack Obama, facing a divided Congress when he returns to Washington from vacation in early January, has invoked Republican hero Ronald Reagan during his own presidency to muster bipartisan support.
Perhaps he thought he could pick up some tips on how to deal with the other party, which takes control of the U.S. House of Representatives next month. Democrat Obama is now reading a biography of the former Republican president during his Christmas stay with the first family in Hawaii.
White House spokesman Robert Gibbs revealed in a tweet on Friday that Obama was reading a biography of Reagan by journalist Lou Cannon.
Obama cited Reagan last week when he pushed for ratification of a new START nuclear weapons treaty with Russia. He also referenced Reagan when talking this month about a major overhaul of the U.S. tax code, which was last accomplished under Reagan in 1986.
Photo credit: REUTERS/Kevin Lamarque (Obama’s dog Bo is walked near the first family’s vacation home in Kailua, Hawaii on Dec. 24)
If this story, like so many others about apparent contradictions, baffles you, I suggest you read Matt Taibbi’s new book Griftopia. I did, and I can now face and understand the merger of Barack Obama and Ronald Reagan.
I don’t even feel depressed.
For Biden, it’s START “day and night”
Instead of counting sheep to fall asleep at night, we imagine Vice President Joe Biden may be counting votes.
That’s because President Barack Obama just announced that he has told Biden to focus “day and night” on getting the START treaty ratified by Congress. (That’s what happens when you let the boss “drop by” one of your meetings.)
Obama said ratifying the nuclear arms treaty with Russia was the single most important national security issue for the lame duck Congress. “It is a national security imperative that the United States ratify the New START treaty this year.”
Obama brought up the Republican who is sacrosanct for Republicans — Ronald Reagan — as having supported START, as did every president after him, to make the point that it should not be a partisan issue.
Then, with Biden seated to his right, Obama said: “I’ve asked Vice President Biden to focus on this issue day and night until it gets done.”
Sounds like the Veep won’t get his 40 winks unless he gets the 67 votes…
Photo credit: Reuters/Larry Downing (Obama and Biden at meeting on START at White House)
Why should I be surprised the GOP is putting petty party politics over country? They’ve been sabotaging Obama from day one.
First Republican presidential debate planned for next spring
Okay here we go again. Now that the 2010 elections are behind us, it’s time to start looking ahead to 2012. And so today we have former first lady Nancy Reagan announcing plans to invite Republican candidates to the first presidential debate. It’s to be held next spring at the Ronald Reagan Presidential Library and Museum in Simi Valley, California.
Setting up the first debate could have the net effect of forcing some would-be candidates who are sitting back and testing the political winds to go ahead and make a decision on whether they will run. We’re talking about you, Sarah Palin.
“Ronnie would be thrilled that the road to the White House will begin at his presidential library,” Mrs. Reagan said in a statement. “I look forward to welcoming and watching the top candidates debate the issues next spring.”
NBC News and Politico are to co-host the debate, which will be followed by a second debate at the Reagan library on the eve of Super Tuesday of 2012 when the Republican primary campaign will be on full boil.
Now that we have the first debate set, the big question will be: Who is going to attend?
Lots of names spring to mind — Mitt Romney, Tim Pawlenty, maybe Palin, Newt Gingrich. Many Republicans have said they are considering a run to challenge President Obama in 2012. We’ll see some providing their final decision late this year or early next.
Campaign’s over, so start campaigning
Finally get some shut-eye after Tuesday’s election? Well, rise and shine. 2012 is just around the corner and the presidential campaign is already getting under way.
Folks at the White House may be asking themselves if the humbled, chastened President Barack Obama will face a primary challenge from the Left.
That bit of speculation got churning after newly unemployed Senate Democrat Russ Feingold conceded defeat with the decidedly unchastened message: “It’s on to the next fight. It’s on to the next battle. It’s on to 2012. And it is on to our next adventure — forward!”
Then the Washington political journal Politico wondered aloud if Obama’s almost meek-sounding response to the Republican midterm wave could make him vulnerable to a fiery challenge from Howard Dean.
According to the latest speculation, a primary challenge from the Left could weaken Obama in 2012 by making it much harder for him to galvanize his base for the general election. Teddy Kennedy did the same favor for Jimmy Carter in 1980.
Enter: Ronald Reagan.
The names of more than a dozen prospective Republican wannabes are already floating around. And some of them have lost no time in the post-midterm race for recognition. Minnesota Gov. Tim Pawlenty, seen as a potential GOP frontrunner in 2012, was on MSNBC’s Morning Joe saying that one sweet spot for compromise between Obama and Republicans would be the reform of entitlement programs like that longstanding third rail of politics, Social Security. Pawlenty’s got it all figured out, as a potential presidential candidate should, and says reassuringly that there’s nothing scary involved, be ye beneficiary or politician. “The American people aren’t stupid. They need people to look them in the eye and say: ‘Here’s the truth,” says the Republican governor from the traditionally Blue state. Just reduce cost-of-living increases for wealthier Americans and index the retirement age to reflect U.S. life expectancy, which happens to rank 38th globally (right behind Cuba’s). In an arena where size really does matter, political rock star Sarah Palin has long been the 2012 Republican prospect with the biggest public spotlight.
Are Obama’s approval ratings that bad? Maybe not, relatively speaking
President Obama’s approval rating has been below 50 percent for most of 2010. But are things really so bad? Gallup suggests they’re not, relatively speaking.
In fact, Democratic incumbents who’ve shunned or tried to avoid associating with Obama may have denied themselves the chance to firm their own party base for an election contest that’s all about turnout.
The Obama approval rating, at the moment, stands in the mid- to low-40s and foreshadows stiff losses for congressional Democrats on Nov. 2.
But Gallup says the president’s average rating since taking office is at 52 percent — a number above George W. Bush’s 49 percent rating and on par with Ronald Reagan’s. That’s not all. The really good news for Obama is how well he’s doing vis-a-vis Congress. Gallup’s study, which has a 4 percentage point sampling error, shows Obama’s 52-percent approval average to be twice that of Congress, which got only 26 percent.
That 26-percentage-point margin outshines those for all but one of the five preceding presidents, the exception being George H.W. Bush, who was better liked than lawmakers to the tune of 30 percentage points.
The president’s way ahead of Congress in the latest round of polling, too, with his weak 45 percent approval towering over the 21 percent popularity rating that U.S. adults gave lawmakers. (Twenty-one percent of Americans also think the country’s heading in the right direction, though Gallup gave no hints about who they might be.)
Washington Extra – Slipping poll numbers
It’s more bad news for President Barack Obama with the release of our latest Reuters/Ipsos national poll today. The headline number is that, for the first time since he took office, more Americans now disapprove of his performance than approve. After a long period where his approval rating was stable at just over 50 percent, the last three months have seen a steady deterioration, matching the economy’s faltering performance. Just like Ronald Reagan in 1982, Obama’s mid-term poll ratings are suffering from the economy’s woes. Faith in Obama’s ability to tackle the crisis was a key factor that swung the presidential race his way in 2008, but his performance on the economy is fast becoming his Achilles heel in the face of a concerted Republican assault. As Ipsos pollster Cliff Young told us, many voters had long been giving Obama the benefit of the doubt, but now patience has “basically vanished.”
Last month’s Reuters/Ipsos poll found Obama’s approval rating for his economic leadership was lower — and was deteriorating faster — than on any other issue. This month’s poll gives some more clues as to why this is the case. Unemployment and government spending topped voters’ economic concerns, with 72 percent and 67 percent of respondents saying they were very worried over those issues respectively.
Republicans have been trying to convince voters that last year’s deficit-financed economic stimulus was not effective in reducing unemployment and ending the recession, and this argument may be striking home.
Nor are voters that keen on the administration’s plans to let the Bush tax cuts expire for the highest earners. Some 49 percent said they would prefer tax rates to be maintained for everyone, while 46 percent said they favored letting the tax cuts expire for some or all Americans. Not surprisingly, it seems like Americans want the deficit tackled through lower spending rather than through higher taxes.
There is also a widespread feeling Washington no longer works. Although Republicans get more of the blame for this, that feeling would be dangerous for the Democrats if they are perceived by voters as the party of big spending and big government.
To read Richard Cowan’s full story on the poll findings, click here.
For a Factbox on the comparison between Obama’s ratings now and Reagan’s in 1982, click here.
‘Lefty’ Obama signs Reagan tribute as Nancy looks on
Nancy Reagan, radiant in a red pantsuit, rested her hand on President Barack Obama’s shoulder as he signed a bill to honor her late husband and icon of the right Ronald Reagan.
Obama, as is usual, signed with his left hand.
“Oh, you’re a lefty,” Reagan said, to scattered chuckles in the room.
“I am a lefty,” Obama replied evenly, adding: “Well, I think that President Reagan’s signature was more legible than mine.”
The bill creates a panel to plan and carry out events to honor Reagan’s 100th birthday in 2011. He died in 2004.
Obama slowly escorted the 87-year-old Reagan into the White House Diplomatic Room for the ceremony, as she clutched onto his arm and walked with a cane.
His remarks were almost Reaganesque.
1. I fully understand that President Obama won by a landslide of electoral votes. But the fact that he won in the states with larger numbers of electors does not make his election a popular mandate.
2. I still resent President Obama’s apologies to our enemies. I resent his characterization of America as a Muslim country. Look at that coin in your pocket- does it say, “In Allah we trust?” Furthermore, his pandering is not working. The terrorists who hate us are laughing at him.
3. The dictators he is patronizing are allowing him to look foolish and then carrying on the same anti-US policies. I read this morning that Hugo Chavez laughingly warned his fellow despot, Fidel Castro that if they weren’t careful, they would end up being to the right of President Obama!
4. I do NOT want the US Government to run healthcare. I do NOT want the US Government to run large companies such as GM. I do NOT think we need to reform this country. True, not all is right with America, and many things need fixing. But socialism is UNAMERICAN, and I will fight it as long as I am able.
To salute or not to salute, that’s Obama’s question
Barack Obama went to a gym at a military base in Hawaii the other day and did something positively Reaganesque — he returned a Marine’s salute. In so doing, he wandered directly into the middle of a thorny debate: Should U.S. presidents return military salutes or not? Longstanding tradition requires members of the military to salute the president. The practice of presidents returning that salute is more recent — Ronald Reagan started it in 1981. Reagan’s decision raised eyebrows at the time. Dwight Eisenhower, a former five-star general, did not return military salutes while president. Nor had other presidents. John Kline, then Reagan’s military aide and now a Minnesota congressman, advised him that it went against military protocol for presidents to return salutes. Kline said in a 2004 op-ed piece in The Hill that Reagan ultimately took up the issue with Gen. Robert Barrow, then commandant of the Marine Corps. Barrow told Reagan that as commander in chief of the armed forces, he was entitled to offer a salute — or any sign of respect he wished — to anyone he wished, Kline wrote, adding he was glad for the change. Every president since Reagan has followed that practice, even those with no military experience. President Bill Clinton’s saluting skills were roundly criticized after he took office, but the consensus was he eventually got better. The debate over saluting has persisted, with some arguing against it for protocol reasons, others saying it represents an increasing militarization of the civilian presidency. “The gesture is of course quite wrong: Such a salute has always required the wearing of a uniform,” author and historian John Lukacs wrote in The New York Times in 2003. “But there is more to this than a decline in military manners,” he added. “There is something puerile in the Reagan (and now Bush) salute. It is the joyful gesture of someone who likes playing soldier. It also represents an exaggeration of the president’s military role.” Garry Wills, the author and Northwestern University professor, echoed those remarks in the Times in 2007. “The glorification of the president as a war leader is registered in numerous and substantial executive aggrandizements; but it is symbolized in other ways that, while small in themselves, dispose the citizenry to accept those aggrandizements,” he wrote. “We are reminded, for instance, of the expanded commander in chief status every time a modern president gets off the White House helicopter and returns the salute of Marines.” What do you think? Is returning a salute a common courtesy? Or should Obama reconsider the practice? For more Reuters political news, click here.
Photo credit: Reuters/Hugh Gentry (Obama waves after leaving a gym at a Marine Corps base in Hawaii Dec. 23); Reuters/Pool (Bush salutes at a ceremony in New York Nov. 11)
Well, O bows to any foreign official he finds. Might as well salute our military.
Talk about timing for McCain’s trip south of the border
WASHINGTON – Republican presidential hopeful John McCain, who often invokes former President Ronald Reagan, had an almost Reaganesque moment this week — a hostage rescue. Hours after McCain left Colombia, where he had spent the day pushing free trade, that country’s president Alvaro Uribe revealed the military had freed several hostages, including three Americans, long held captive by the militant group FARC. Just minutes after Reagan took office in 1981, coincidentally, the American hostages in Iran were released. Sadly for those conspiracy theorists wondering whether McCain had a role in the Colombia rescue or was tipped off about it before he arrived in the country, signs suggest otherwise. McCain said in a statement that he had been briefed by Uribe the day before the operation and that the two later spoke about it. “He told me some of the details of the dramatic rescue of the people who were held hostage,” McCain said. While the United States helped with some aspects of the operation, White House spokeswoman Dana Perino denied any suggestion that McCain was advised by his fellow Republicans in the Bush administration. “I think this was long in the planning stages,” she told reporters. I’ve heard nothing to suggest that there was any connection,” she told reporters. “I just think it was coincidence.”
Click here for more Reuters 2008 campaign coverage.
Photo credit: Reuters/Jose Gomez (McCain and Uribe at news conference July 1)
I don’t think he had anything to do with it and he isn’t claiming so. Fox News doesn’t care though, they went so far as to claim that because he was a POW, he organized this rescue… That is the degree of idiocy that resonates well with Fox News viewers.
