Al Haig, 1924-2010

RIP Alexander Haig. In his defense, Mr. Haig was realistically correct, although not constitutionally. The Speaker of the House and the President pro temp of the Senate were next in the line of succession to take the Presidency. However, given that Reagan was not dead, this would only be a temporary take-over, and one that would require either of these (Tip O’Neill and Strom Thurmond) to relinquish their then current positions. It would have been politically irrational for either of them to step down from the House or Senate to temporarily take the presidency while Reagan was hospitalized. Thus, realistically, given their unwillingness to do this, Alexander Haig was in command of the executive branch. He later said, “I wasn’t talking about transition. I was talking about the executive branch, who is running the government. That was the question asked. It was not, “Who is in line should the President die?”

I forgot to mention this obvious point, that the VP is next in line after the President. However, the entire reason this question arose at the time was that VP Bush was unavailable.

He was citing the Constitution. There is no constitutional succession for taking over the White House, or even the executive branch.

What I remember about Haig was his being picked over senior officers for a succession of military leadership positions.
.
He seemed to have the keen political instincts and connections to propel himself to the top, both inside and after his military career.
.
Excessive humility wasn’t one of his failings.

Well, Karen, Constitutionally the line of succession is limited to the the VP, and then to the discretion of Congressional statutes. In 1886, the Presidential Succession Act provided for the Secretary of State to be next in line following the VP. This was widely popular, and remained unchanged until 1947 when the Speaker and President Pro Temp were inserted into the succession line after the VP. Haig could have made an honest mistake and was under the impression that the line of succession up to 1947 was still the law of the land. Or, as he states, he might have been referring to executive authority. Not succession, but ranking. Without the transfer of presidential power, the executive hierarchy does follow the President, VP, and Secretary of State as the chief embodiments of the nation’s executive power. Haig did say, “Constitutionally, gentlemen, you have the President, the Vice President and the Secretary of State in that order, and should the President decide he wants to transfer the helm to the Vice President, he will do so. He has not done that. As of now, I am in control here, in the White House, pending return of the Vice President and in close touch with him. If something came up, I would check with him, of course.” This first part is slightly ambiguous. Is he talking about Presidential succession or simply executive hierarchy? But, surely, Karen, in the absence of the VP and the unwillingness of O’Neill or Thurmond to step in, Haig was absolutely in command at the WH, if only temporarily.

It’s nice that you recap that one moment in General Haig’s long and distinguished career. You could have touched on some of his other accomplishments.

For example, General Haig was awarded the Distinguished Service Cross for his actions in the battle of Ap Gu in March 1967. He earned 2 Silver Stars for heroism during the Korean War and retired as the Vice Chief of Staff of the Army. He leaves behind Patricia, his wife of 60 years, three children, and eight grandchildren.

Even President Obama and Secretary Clinton were quick to remember and praise his service to our country. It’s a shame you couldn’t be so kind.

He will a military asst to both McNamara and Nixon. That does indeed speak to some amazing political skills.

Did you read the post?:
.

The great irony was that there had been a time, seven years before, when Haig really had been in control at the White House. At that point, the country didn’t know it. In retrospect, however, we should be glad that he was.

The point being, Karen, that you chose one singular moment in his illustrious, heroic career, and framed the obituary on that. This is not to say that you did not write anything positive about the man, but you hinged his entire being on this one controversial moment, frozen in time, it would now appear.

The lede, Karen. It’s all about the lede in journalism, yes?

The lede makes the point that it’s a pity that this is what he is most remembered for. haig himself knew that, as weiner’s obit noted.

BEFORE he was in a combat role in Korea, he was a support officer on MacArthur’s staff. That’s the type of assignment you get when you have been selected for leadership “stardom”.
.
I will give Haig credit for having keen political instincts. Had his ethical instincts been a little better honed, he MIGHT have been one of the first resignations from the Nixon Whitehouse. The attorneys-general that quit rather than fire the Special Prosecutor served the country better during that period.
.
Al placed career over country and earned points for loyalty to his adopted party, loyalty which was further rewarded during subsequent administrations.

Kennedy had Chappaquiddick and a few other moments (e.g., assaulting a waitress)–I don’t recall that the posts (as opposed to the comments) said things like “thirst for power”. Kennedy, who killed someone and who used connections to stay out of combat, got better treatment than a true American war hero in the Swamp.

The statement was inartful and incorrect, but the intention was correct and needed. It was particularly important for the international audience, Soviets in particular at that time, to know there was a command structure in place. I doubt they knew Haig was incorrect.

spob,
.
Audie Murphy was a true American war hero; ditto Sergeant Alvin York. I’d put Ted Williams in that category too. And a number of others who put their professional careers on hold to serve when they didn’t have to do so.
.
Haig was a career military officer with good career instincts and sponsorship who could not bring himself to resign over principle during Watergate. He rode it out, followed the 11th Commandment studiously, and was well-rewarded for it.

Whatever, afguy. I guess the career guys in Iraq aren’t real heroes. Amazing how people like John Kerry, who didn’t live up to the highest standards of Naval officers, are “war heroes”, but Haig, because he was a career guy, gets his heroism discounted.

For most Americans, Al Haig is remembered for his actions in the wake of the assassination attempt on Reagan.
.
All KT did was put that famous moment in context that argued that Haig was (a) not as power-crazy as many took him to be and (b) had led the WH before, and done so with skill.
.
I don’t see how that’s a sleight on the man’s memory.

Kevin, the “thirst for power” quote undercuts your argument.

Also, don’t want to interrupt your ongoing/perpetual Ted Kennedy “hate-o-thon” but you might want to read up on the Sole Surviving Son or Daughter provision of the Selective Service Act.
.
Joe Kennedy, Jr. was killed during service in WWII. JFK in 1962, Bobby in 1968.

In 1964, recognizing that sons of World War II veterans were reaching draft age, Congress changed the law to include the sole surviving son of a family where the father, or one or more sons or daughters, died as a result of military service.

I realize this won’t deter you, but there it is.

The lede is accurate because Haig burned it in everybody’s mind who watched the live telecast. I remember it distinctly. It was very brief, and obviously of good intention on Haig’s part to give assurance that things were in order in the WH. But it was immediately after the assassination attempt and everybody in the room was still in the initial stages of shock and panic. That includes the hordes of WH reporters and Haig himself. It was not a pretty picture and whatever his good intentions it was a serious flop at a critical time and it was bound to remain, however unfairly, a big part of his legacy.

As you say, spob, whatever.
.
You’re the one who has taken it on yourself to designate who can be called a “hero”. I didn’t.
.
I never called Kerry one either.
.
As for those who are now serving, my hat’s off to them. I think you will find they don’t consider themselves heros either.
.
However, if it makes you feel better about yourself to call them Heroes, rather than getting your sorry a$$ down to the enlistment office to go in their place so they don’t have to be away from their families repeatedly, knock yourself out.
.
I’m sure they appreciate the long-distance applause and praise for their service.

Fair enough, Karen. You feel that the lede was fair, and uncontroversial because you said it was a pity. I, however, see you end that lede with an assertion of Haig’s flawed understandings and his “thirst for power.” I then see you go on and fail to mention any of his accomplishments, commendations, awards, medals, service history, etc. etc. To me, his death seemed more of a reason to respect and honor his career than to assault his character. But, that’s just me. Carry on, KT, I’ll expect more of these obituaries in the future, across the political spectrum.

Right. I misread that sentence as implying an “inaccurate understanding … [of] his thirst for power.”
.
The point is this — KT made a post about Haig’s most famous moment, and pointed out that he had once been in charge and stated “we should be glad” about that.
.
I know conservatives are in 24/7 perpetual outrage mode these days, but that was a kind thing for her to say, and anyone who finds a way to twist themselves into knots over it is beyond help.

I served 5 years, US Navy, afguy.
.
Also, strings were pulled to keep Teddy out of Korea, and that had nothing to do with the Selective Service Act.

As an aside, the administration more successfully concealed the serious condition of Reagan at the time, leaving the impression that no serious harm had resulted, when in fact he nearly died and never fully recovered.

Kevin, the criticisms in here are fair ones. I juxtapose how Ted Kennedy was treated and how Haig was here. That’s fair to do. And that KT meant to be complimentary to Haig doesn’t mean that her post cannot be criticized.

Oh, criticize the post all you want. To most of us, the complaint just looks petty and small.
.
And Ted Kennedy wasn’t exactly lavished with unqualified praise in these parts:
.
http://www.time.com/time/specials/packages/article/0,28804,1918784_1958837_1919041,00.html
.
http://www.time.com/time/specials/packages/article/0,28804,1955750_1955749_1955826,00.html

spob,
.
This won’t end, so let’s just agree on the position that politicians of all stripes have used their family connections to get out of serving in combat situations.
.
Including GWB.
.
Al Haig served with distinction, but I remember too may officers like him, with their eyes up the military corporate ladder. to hear a “Halleujah Chorus” when his name is mentioned.
.
Haig was more Doug MacArthur than George C. Marshall.
.
Now Marshall was a general officer I can admire.

KT:
.
You’re getting hammered in here today, for simply stating facts.
.
1) It’s a pity
.
2) Haig will most likely be remembered for an unfortunate statement
.
3) the statement was inaccurate
.
4) the statement was revealing
.
5) there is some irony to the situation, given Haig’s prior responsibilities in the waning days of the Nixon disgrace
.
If some folks don’t feel as if you’ve lionized Haig enough (especially in comparison to posts on Kennedy’s legacy and death), then I wouldn’t take that criticism too hard, myself. I don’t think that this says anything about your credibility as a journalist.
.
I can’t see how any of the history you’ve relayed today has been inappropriate, KT.

Who was that former Marine and US Navy cardiopulmonary technician who helped care for President Johnson after his surgery in 1966?
.
I’m sure that some day, he’ll be remembered for his service to his country and his fellow man.
.
I’m sure he’ll have a terrific lede…

I gratefully respect both of you for your service to our nation.

stuart: Less than 2 weeks ago “some folks” were celebrating the death of Jack Murtha with a chorus of “ding-dong the witch is dead”.
.
http://swampland.blogs.time.com/2010/02/08/jack-murtha-77-dies/#comment-131979
.
and:
http://swampland.blogs.time.com/2010/02/08/lets-vote/#comment-131917
.
The hypocrisy is is truly staggering.

Thanks, stu.
.
The ones I feel for are those who are having to return over and over to Iraq or Afghanistan. Lives and marriages are being ruined because we have this policy that sacrifice is only for those few who volunteer or have no place else to go to provide for their families.
.
I wonder if they can unequivocally state WHY they are over there and why we have been there for so long.
.
This war has become a video game event or adventure TV show for most of the country – an abstraction. An unpleasantless that they can stop by changing the channels if the need arises. But, by and large, nothing they need to actually worry about.

Thanks, Karen.

Mark Knoller had some interesting tweets today about Haig’s career. I did not remember some of the items he mentions.

—
Pres. Obama mourns passing of Alexander Haig. Issues statement calling him “a great American who served our country with distinction.”

“Gen. Haig exemplified our finest warrior-diplomat tradition of those who dedicate their lives to public service,” says Obama statement.

Haig was WH Chief of Staff under Richard Nixon at time of his resignation. Was Reagan’s first Secretary of State. Lasted in job only 17 mos.

Haig alienated Reagan & top aides in effort to be “vicar of foreign policy.” Reagan demanded his resignation in June 1982.

Haig to be forever remembered for declaring “I am in control here in the White House,” on the day Reagan was shot, Mar. 30 1981.

I was in the WH briefing room for that Haig statement & it struck me as a poorly-worded effort to reassure the nation that govt was working.

Others misinterpreted it as ill-timed attempt by Haig to suggest he was in charge when of course, VP Bush was next in line of succession.

I also covered some of Haig’s presidential campaign in early 1988. He was smart, but not much of a politician or people-person.

Haig’s campaign speeches were more like a General than that of a politician asking for votes.

Haig ended his presidential campaign a few days before the New Hampshire primary in 1988, endorsing Bob Dole, not VP Bush.

—

AZ, “stating facts” is not a synonym for playing it straight. Kennedy got better treatment, and that does say something . . . .

Most of the supposed bad press Ted Kennedy received was well after most of the MSM media gave Teddy a lap dance.

The quote was not just mentioned in KT’s post, it was the start. Imagine a post after Bill Clinotn dies with “I did not have sex with that women”

==

Heads would be exploding and the media would be whining about how horrific the person who wrote it was.

How do spob and others of his ilk on this site take a simple statement of fact by Karen and turn it into another whine about how unfair the media is to their conservative sensibilities? Amazing.

Kennedy served in Europe 2 years.
Is that sort of like the strings GW’s daddy pulled to get him into the Air National Guard, keep him flying over those treacherous Gulf of Mexico waters, and get him off duty to help in a political campaign?

“‘As of now, I am in control here in the White House.’”

“It is a pity that he will be most remembered for this unfortunate sound bite, from March 30, 1981. It was an inaccurate assertion that the then-Secretary of State made ….”

If we were to use just one of the millions (billions?) of exhibits to demonstrate the complete idiocy of the Washington/New York/American press corps, this would have to be one of the best.

Since neither the president nor the vice president were present at the White House on March 30, 1981 when Haig spoke, the Washington/New York/American press corps thinks that the sous chef in the White House mess hall was in charge of the White House and every other employee working in the White House, including Al Haig when he was present.

So why would it be the Secretary of State, as opposed to, say, the Attorney General?

Ms. Tumulty:

Since you allege that Al Haig was not “in control … in the White House”, then whom do you allege was “in control … in the White House” at the time that Haig spoke? The White House pastry chef? The plumber? Obama’s illegal alien aunt living the the attic? Also, please cite your authorities for who should have been in control at the White House at the time that the living president and the living vice president were not present at the White House.

BTW, I especially love seeing all of these military hating leftist loons in the Washington press corps (e.g., MSNBC’s Andrea Mitchell) claiming that a person like Al Haig (who only wore four freakin’ stars) needs lessons on the chain of command from anti-military leftist loons like Andrea MItchell.

Why wouldn’t GHW Bush have been? You don’t have to be physically present in the White House to be running the govt.

From the NYT piece:

That day, Mr. Haig wrongly declared himself the acting president. “The helm is right here,” he told members of the Reagan cabinet in the White House Situation Room, “and that means right in this chair for now, constitutionally, until the vice president gets here.” His words were taped by Richard V. Allen, the national security adviser.
.
His colleagues knew better. “There were three others ahead of Mr. Haig in the constitutional succession,” Mr. Allen wrote in 2001. “But Mr. Haig’s demeanor signaled that he might be ready for a quarrel, and there was no point in provoking one.”
.
Mr. Haig then asked, “How do you get to the press room?” He raced upstairs and went directly to the lectern before a television audience of millions. His knuckles whitening, his arms shaking, Mr. Haig declared to the world, “I am in control here, in the White House.” He did not give that appearance.

So, textee, his high military rank made the statement accurate?
.
That sounds suspiciously like the famous military regulation no. ISS – “I Said So”.
.
I’m familiar with that one – used to cover up a myriad of illogical decisions over military history.
.
Puts an end to any discussion from that point on.

Karen,
.
General officers don’t like to have the chain of command not be nice and tidy. Given a gap like that at the top, they step in and take charge. Looks good on the next performance report.
.
I would imagine that might be part of his thinking at the time – not that he was expecting to have to try to get in touch with the REAL next in command (or figure out who that might be).
.
Probably figured out someone else was handling that detail (as they undoubtedly were).

textee: So you think if both the President and VP are out of the White House whomever is there is in control of the country? Let’s see. Many days Obama is out of the White House and Biden isn’t there. Oh No! Does that make Michelle President if she declares so?. Or maybe Sasha? Haig said until the VP arrived he was constitutionly in charge. What?
Please show me this provinsion in the constitution.

I don’t think it possible to say that Haig’s comment wasn’t problematic. He was on the spot, and he said the wrong thing. In the grand scheme of things, it was deserving of a little more mention than Admiral Stockdale’s performance at a Vice Presidential debate, but hardly deserving of the “thirst for power” slam in KT’s post.
.
From the standpoint of journalism–I do think it useful to compare how Kennedy was treated in here when he died and the “thirst for power” slam. The bottom line is that Kennedy was a dissolute creep. That’s what he was until his marriage late in life. Al Haig, in an otherwise great career, made a big mistake in a bright spotlight. He fought in Korea–he didn’t have his daddy pull strings. (And no, I don’t believe that GHW Bush pulled strings for Bush 43.) He didn’t molest waitresses. He didn’t boff lobbyists. And he certainly didn’t make overtures to the Soviet Politburo to further his own personal political interest. And to top it all off, Haig never left some poor woman in a pond without lifting a finger to help. Yet, there was no comparable slam of Kennedy by the Swampland journos. That’s the reality, and if people want to say that’s whining, fine.

And no, I don’t believe that GHW Bush pulled strings for Bush 43.
.
spob,
.
If he didn’t, he may be one of the few who had the ability that didn’t use the Guard to protect a son during that time. You simply didn’t get into the Guard during that period if you just walked in and enlisted.
.
And getting out of your commitment early during that period – didn’t happen without “help”.
.
You’re certain he did not – I’m just as certain that he did.
.
But, since Karen Hughes and Karl Rove got to “scrub” those records before the campaign, we’ll never know for sure…

Ms. Tumulty:

The author(s) of that New York Times piece evidently were unaware that both Reagan and Bush were still alive and thus there was no “constitutional succession”. Unlike those at the New York Times, Haig knew that Reagan and Bush were still alive and thus there was no need for “constitutional succession”. Nevertheless, the idiots at the New York Times think that Helen Thomas assumed command of the White House and that they “knew better” than Haig. FAIL. AGAIN ….

Textee,
.
Succession is invoked if the President is incapable of executing the office – which Reagan was not after he was wounded and had to go into surgery.
.
Being alive in and of itself has little to do with the decision… although obviously death does simplify the decision process.

textee: it was haig, not the NYT, who invoked the constitution:
.
“Constitutionally, gentlemen, you have the President, the Vice President and the Secretary of State in that order.”
.
“The helm is right here,” he told members of the Reagan cabinet in the White House Situation Room, “and that means right in this chair for now, constitutionally, until the vice president gets here.”
.
Now what was your point, again?

Ms. Tumulty:

Haig did not say that he was “running the govt.”

Haig said: “”As of now, I am in control here in the White House.”

It’s kind of like a second lieutenant who is the staff duty officer one night. If at 3:00 a.m., that lieutenant walks into the empty, dark Division headquarters, that lieutenant can say correctly “I am in control here at division headquarters”. When he says that, he is not saying that he “controls” and “is running” the freakin’ division.

So why would that job go to the Secretary of State (whose job it is to run foreign policy), rather than the White House Chief of Staff (whose job it is to run the White House)? The Secretary of State is not the “staff duty officer.”

Karen, Karen, Karen….
.
Haven’t we taught you better?
.
Don’t you know it’s not nice to feed the trolls… Especially when they have their fingers in their ears?

Thank you so much for responding to commentary, KT, your patient engagement with so many of your commenters is very much appreciated.

Kbangintown~
~~
“Some folks” would be Rusty, and only Rusty. He is the only one who said that. Here, today, it is both Spob and I that have criticized Karen for her post. So, how is any one other than Rusty responsible for his remarks? How is our criticism here today emblematic of hypocrisy for what he said? You are a fool, or worse, an intentional purveyor of faleshoods. Take your pick.

Textee, Haig butchered it. It’s hard to argue otherwise.

After the JFK assassination anybody who was not aware of the line of session was just not in touch. I give Haig the benefit of the doubt that he was trying to do good and was lost in the panic and hysteria of the moment. In any event, even though I don’t think he served my interests for our country, I am sorry for his passing, mostly for his family who will miss him.

Karen,
~
This is your post on Kennedy (http://swampland.blogs.time.com/2009/08/26/ted-kennedy-1932-2009/). Read it over again. You’ll see the unbridled affection you so unabashedly inject into your post. That’s fine, given that Kennedy had just passed and you wanted to focus on his more admirable moments. But, you’ll also find this: As things stand now, it would take up to five months before a special election could be held to fill the seat. Kennedy, in his final days, sought to rectify that, proposing that the law be changed so that a temporary caretaker could be put in the job.
.
By ‘sought to rectify,’ I assume you meant to say, “sought to duplicitously reverse the process he had original fought to implement, now that it no longer served his partisan needs.” So, given that you wrote an entire post entirely in a positive light (which, admittedly, is probably the best way to handle an obituary, at least in the initial wake of a death), and that you went so far as to cover up Kennedy’s politicking, you know, so as not to malign the recently departed, I must now ask, why did you not extend this same civility and respect to Mr. Haig?

Nice catch, exiled.
.
The “thirst for power” was a slam. And no such slams, with infinitely more inviting targets, were made on Ted Kennedy.
.
That’s not evenhandedness . . . .

And, KT, I do appreciate your engagement here today. It is above and beyond your duty, and I respect your willingness to include those who are critical of your post here today in your discussions. I do not mean to nitpick, I really do not. But, from where I stand there truly is a vast difference in the manner in which you covered Kennedy’s passing and Haig’s passing. Any impartial observer can see that, and I am an impartial observer. I have no affinity or disdain for either Kennedy or Haig. I’m too young to really have had personal emotions about either of them. I know some of their failings, I know some of their successes. I understand the vicissitudes of public political life, and I respect them both for having endured theirs for so many years. I only am interested in consistency of coverage, especially when dealing with the sensitivities of a death. It may seem a minor issue, the inclusion of the statement of Haig’s “thirst for power,” or the exclusion of anything remarkable he had ever accomplished. Perhaps it is a minor matter. However, you were much more careful not to commit such lapses in your Kennedy coverage. A simple question in regard to a simple matter: why?

This is so sad. The civil war of the present day incarnation of conservatism versus slightly more rational thought.
.
Jesus Christ, yeah, rest in peace Haig.

Haig was not Kennedy. Haig did lust for power. He could not have possibly stepped all over himself in that press room had he not been lusting for power. Kennedy was born to power. It was a birthright. Given to him. I understand what you are saying, Exiled, but you are pissing against the wind. And for what? This is a stupid discussion.

formerlyjames~
.
Perhaps, Haig was lusting for power, or as KT put it, he had a “thirst for power.” This, in my opinion, is a negative view of the man’s character, yes? Now, take Kennedy, certainly, as you say, he was a silver-spoon man. He never had to yearn for anything, not even privilege and power. So he was not lusting for power. Yet, he had other character flaws, no doubt. Don’t we all? But Karen rightly omitted those out of respect and in accordance with obituary etiquette.

neorationalist86:

why did you not extend this same civility and respect to Mr. Haig?

As someone who was less than enamored of Ted Kennedy when he was alive and in the Senate, I can say that you seem to have this a little askew.
.
It’s not that this post is particularly uncivil or disrespectful toward Haig, it’s that the hagiography that accompanied the passing of Kennedy was excessive. Given my opinions of Kennedy, and what I believe to be his political failures and his role in the degeneracy of liberal thought –he was the “Benevolent Democrat” incarnate– I found that excess offensive and disingenuous. I found the “on the eve of health care reform, liberals want to pass it for Teddy” storyline revolting, as well. I could go on and on tearing down the memory of Teddy Kennedy, and in the future, I probably will do my best to distance his “legacy” from new liberalism. I will examine the praise that drenched coverage of his passing in a more critical light at some more appropriate date.
.
Here’s the thing, though:
.
The effusive farewell that Kennedy received was not a function of his incarnation of a certain degraded liberalism, it was a function of his incarnation of American royalty. There is one aspect of political life in Versailles on the Potomac that Village will praise and worship above all, above ideology and certainly above the mundane value of serving the nation in an exceptionally productive manner. That idol is hereditary status, the passing on of elite privilege to one’s heirs. Teddy Kennedy was a Senator; Chris Wallace is an anchor. Such is life in a court of civil power that lusts for aristocracy.
.
This was a Kennedy –the last Kennedy– and so a royal funeral was prepared, and appropriate genuflection required. Nothing against Haig or his Republicanism, that’s just the way it is.
.
Unlike a member of the Kennedy family, Haig was not royalty, and so protocol does not demand his exaltation. That’s why this civil, respectful post appears less so in contrast with the orgy of attention, fidelity and courtiership that a Kennedy must be entitled –else the hereditary, incestuous hierarchies of the Village be unsettled (and proponents of meritocracy encouraged).

You are correct, Stuart, that this is not a particularly uncivil or disrespectful post. It was, though, certainly not a flattering recapitulation of all that was endearing and honorable about the late Alexander Haig. It was simply a depthless glance at an otherwise nuanced career. It was imperfect, unremarkable, and not the least bit adulating. For this, KT cannot really be faulted, though, as you note Haig’s rather insignificant stature.
.
However, what KT can be faulted for, and what you would generally lambaste as status quo establishment dogma, is her obsequious adoration of the life and times of America’s elite, of the late Ted Kennedy. You yourself have caressed her ego and comforted her from the hammering howls of criticism today in defense of the substance of her Haig obituary. Fine. Yet, given the primary reason of my ostentation being the disparity between the coverage of the forgettable Republican and the lionized patriciate, and given that you also are repulsed at the excessive and panegyrical glorification of Kennedy, should you not also be questioning KT’s fawning deference? Did that not amount to the proverbial kiss of the Kennedy ring, which in turn nudged her further into the realm of establishment journalism?

*Yet, given the primary reason of my indignation being the disparity between the coverage of the forgettable Republican and the lionized patriciate…

I talked to Al Haig once. I came away from that conversation thinking he was nuts. His “I’m in charge” statement reinforced that impression.

I’ve often wondered if Haig was really just trying to signal the Russians that someone still had a finger on the nuclear football.

I’ve been chuckling my way through this long exchange, especially the comparison of the treatment of Ted Kennedy’s death and Haig’s death.

Seriously, Exiled and friends, get a grip. Haig had a fine, long distinguished career, almost all of it in behind-the-scenes roles. His most famous, visible one is the “I’m in charge” moment. Guess which one is going to be mentioned the most in the obits?

Yes, he did other things behind the scenes that were valuable to the nation…which Karen mentioned in the post you’re so busy attacking.

Now, as for Kennedy, the main reason Ted Kennedy never became President is actually because of the work of the media you think served as his ring kissesrs. Roger Mudd’s interview is the foremost example along with their coverage of Chappaquiddick and his later misdeeds in several bars across the country. Maybe those reports didn’t delve into the details you would have preferred, but they were out there and people read them and they had an impact.

The reason Kennedy’s obits were so glowing is twofold. One, he bounced back from Chappaquiddick and those other embarrassments to become one of the most important members of the Senate. That’s not an opinion, it’s a fact, one stated by the Republican leaders of the Senate. We call holding an elected office “public service” for a reason. What you do is done in front of everyone, so everything Kennedy did for the last 40-50 years was visible and impacted millions of people. That’s going to affect the type of obituary you get.

Two, he was the “end of a dynasty.” I don’t happen to agree with the concept of dynasties, Democratic or Republican, but it’s a common media theme. Look at the coverage of Evan Bayh’s retirement. A large portion of the credibility given to him came from what his father did. So the dynasty thing was going to be part of any obituary written about Kennedy.

Haig wasn’t a “forgettable Republican” he was a guy who worked behind the scenes almost his whole life with one major moment in public view. Kennedy wasn’t a “lionized patriciate” (should be “patrician,” but whatever) he was a man with decades of moments in the public eye, who in the end was generally admired by those with whom he interacted. The coverage of both reflected that, it just didn’t reflect the warped image some people bring to the conversation here.

A lot of yapping for not saying a lot. Bottom line, the “thirst for power” was a slam, and there were a lot more opportunities for slams on Kennedy, both in number and in pure reprehensibility. The shots weren’t taken in here, and that deserves examination from a journalism perspective.

spob, I’ve read a lot of your past comments. Please let us know when you start examining things “from a journalism perspective.”

Whatever. Bottom line: it’s fair to compare how Kennedy was treated and how Haig was treated. There was a shot at Haig (“thirst for power”) and none at Kennedy. There’s nothing wrong with pointing that out–your long-winded apologia notwithstanding.

spob:
.
Bottom line:
.
It looks remarkably like you’re comparing treatments to serve partisan ends (and to work the refs again), instead of accepting the common acknowledgment that Kennedy’s accolades were a largely function of his dynasty and the press corps’ exploitation of it.

Virginiagentleman~
~
Seriously, Exiled and friends, get a grip. Haig had a fine, long distinguished career, almost all of it in behind-the-scenes roles. His most famous, visible one is the “I’m in charge” moment. Guess which one is going to be mentioned the most in the obits?
.
This is truly a frivolous perspective that emboldens quiescent journalism. That Haig’s finer moments were “behind the scenes” warrants their import being stricken from the pages of history? Doesn’t journalism at its finest bring to light that which the public does not necessarily have a full grasp of? Isn’t it the role of journalism to go beyond the most visible? And, oddly, Haig’s distinguished service is not exactly all that behind the scenese, anyway. His long service in the military, his many medals, commendations, and leadership positions are quite readily available for public consumption. It would behoove a good journalist to perhaps at least note these distinguishments.
~
I don’t happen to agree with the concept of dynasties, Democratic or Republican, but it’s a common media theme.
.
And you’re comfortable with this theme? You’re not at all perturbed by the incessant stroking of the Kennedy ego in comparison to this nonchalant dismissal of the career of Haig? It’s not simply the lack of congratulation bestowed upon Haig in his obituary, but rather the vast disparity between his and Kennedy’s. It’s the lack of consistency that betrays this theme, which you yourself declare your opposition to. So, where is your real issue with my commentary?

Well, besides the fact that you come off as insufferably smug, my biggest issue with your commentary is that it’s coming off as pointless and lacking in understanding of journalism, “quiescent” or otherwise.

Karen wasn’t writing an obituary, she was making a relatively brief comment on a blog about Haig’s passing. In journalism, there’s a difference between the two.

Meanwhile, what she said was true:

“It is a pity that he will be most remembered for this unfortunate sound bite, from March 30, 1981.” TRUE

“It was an inaccurate assertion that the then-Secretary of State made to reporters in the White House briefing room, after gunman John Hinckley nearly assassinated the new President, Ronald Reagan.” ALSO TRUE

“The great irony was that there had been a time, seven years before, when Haig really had been in control at the White House. At that point, the country didn’t know it. In retrospect, however, we should be glad that he was.” ALSO TRUE

You don’t appear to like the fact that Haig will be most remembered for that quote. You also appear to wish that Ted Kennedy had been treated more harshly upon his passing. You seem to feel that Haig is being underrated for his accomplishments and Kennedy overrate for his. You see “incessant stroking of the Kennedy ego” and “nonchalant dismissal of the career of a Haig.” I’m not sure very many people would see the same thing.

In other words, you’re trying to apply your opinions of these two men to journalistic coverage of them, especially in a blog post, as if your opinions were proven facts. They’re not, they’re just your opinions.

I’d go on but spob would get mad at me.

true is not a synonym for playing it straight–kennedy, with far more warts, didn’t get the shiv that haig did.

sz, you miss the mark.. The issue is not whether there was an explanation for the press corps’ treatment of Kennedy, but whether the differing treatment by the Swamp journos showed a lack of even-handedness. Whining about my partisanship really doesnt address the point. Haig got a shiv–Kennedy got none of that.

I’m not familiar with your moniker, so I cannot say whether or not you are a casual reader who happened across this post or a quiet lurker who suddenly felt the urge to engage the community. In any event, though, you make several points which desperately need attention.
.
Karen wasn’t writing an obituary, she was making a relatively brief comment on a blog about Haig’s passing. In journalism, there’s a difference between the two.
.
As many others here can attest, the poor blokes who offer us there insights here at Swampland are held to rather high journalistic standards. Blog or no blog, these are journalists and they should follow some sort of protocol and standard. True, this is not a formal obituary, yet, it straddles the line. KT should still adhere to her own standards of journalism, which she applies quite appropriately to the majority of her blogs.
.
In other words, you’re trying to apply your opinions of these two men to journalistic coverage of them, especially in a blog post, as if your opinions were proven facts.
.
I am not comparing KT’s brief commentary on Haig’s death to the greater media coverage of Kennedy’s death. If that were the case, you’d have a point. I am comparing KT’s commentary of Haig’s death with KT’s own commentary of Kennedy’s death (see: http://swampland.blogs.time.com/2009/08/26/ted-kennedy-1932-2009/). They are both in the same venue, by the same journalist, thus there should be little variance in the standards applied.
.
I’d go on but spob would get mad at me.
.
Oh, please, don’t hold back. “Insufferably smug” doesn’t even begin to describe my special breed of arrogance. Do go on…

http://www.cnn.com/2009/POLITICS/08/26/obit.ted.kennedy/index.html
http://www.time.com/time/politics/article/0,8599,1918758,00.html
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/08/27/us/politics/27kennedy.html
The above are a few of the obituaries of Ted Kennedy.
I haven;t listed them all. But, everyone I read through referred to his WARTS. I watched a good share of TV coverage and the journalists certainly talked about his failings. Did they talk about his legislative career? Yes. Did they talk about the Kennedy dynasty? Yes.
Wouldn’t it have been odd if they didn’t?
The right wouldn’t have been happy unless the traditional media had a smearathon.
Do you remember the coverage of the death of Ronald Reagan? It was a week of nonstop adulation by the press. There was little mention of his mistakes and failings. Appropriately so.
History will address the lives of our leaders with, hopefully, an objective look at their careers.

You guys aren’t worth wasting much more time (and you’re reminding me why I stopped posting here, which is why you don’t recognize my moniker). But the bottom line is, you’re not interested in critiquing journalism, you’re trying to rewrite history.

Al Haig will be an interesting footnote in the history of the 70s and 80s. Ted Kennedy will be a major figure in the history of the 60s, 70s, 80s, 90s and 00s. Not always a positive figure but a major one.

Comments on their passing reflected their comparative status.

That’s all I have to say. Goodbye.

stuart,
.
There are two ways to make your side look better than the competition: make yourself better than they are or try to make the other side look worse.
.
spob is most definitely trying to game the refs in the same way that the MSM are ALWAYS claimed to be liberal – hoping that they will over-compensate against the accusation.
.
He has had a special dislike for the Kennedys for quite a while. Actually for the philosophy they stood for. He cannot admit they did anything good – and cannot REALLY admit the GOP did anything bad, unless there is an opportunity to accuse the other side of something even worse.
.
Tribal, first and foremost, and to the core…
.
and a talented misdirection, “shiny object” specialist…

Somehow there was always a tinge of the novel “Seven Days in May” when his name name came up. Perhaps it was just me.

thank for post
Dien dan Mua ban