u/RopeGloomy4303

There’s this fantastic interview Vincent Kartheiser’s did with GQ, and at one point he touches on this iconic scene, saying the following:

“Yeah, because Don relates to him on that. I mean, we all do, right? Like, none of us really have anything, we're all just trying to fill this spot inside of us with things and work and people. It's an inevitable truth about the human condition, that there's no escape from this hollow feeling deep inside. Don Draper definitely knows that, and I think Don feels uncomfortable when he relates to Pete.”

I’m curious to hear people’s thoughts on this.

Inspired by a recent post I made where I received numerous comments complaining about the number of departments we have.

Oprah Winfrey’s campaigning for Obama had a huge impact in his career, especially since it started way back in 2006.

Her rallies and fundraisers gained Obama necessary attention and funding.

Some experts have estimated that the Oprah effect netted Obama over a million extra votes in the primary.

In 1793, Founding Father Benjamin Rush proposed creating a Department of Peace, but despite numerous efforts over the years, it has never come to fruition.

Other departments that have been floated around are Culture/Arts, Technology, Senior Affairs, Oceans and Environment.

I think someone like John Quincy Adams could have been great in it, with his colossal knowledge of the law and strong morals.

Funnily enough, Adams was offered a seat on the Court by James Madison, but he declined by insisting he was too partisan for the job.

Perot’s speech got a lot of flack at the time, and I get it.

He kept constantly referring to the black community as “you people”, bragged about how his father employed black employees and his mother gave money to “black hoboes”, and overall he came across as really condescending.

Pero apologized afterwards, but the damage was done.

I’m curious if people here see the speech as genuinely racist, or if he was just out of touch as an older billionaire white man?

At the time Roosevelt felt furious at the way conservative Democrats were blocking his grand New Deal plans, so he aggressively campaigned for more leftist candidates like Walter George, Ellison Smith, Millard Tydings, etc.

But the strategy was a failure, with most of his rivals managing to maintain their seats. And of course this ended up further alienating and emboldening them.

Why did this campaign fail, despite FDR’s popularity?

In 1952, faced with a nationwide strike by the United Steelworkers, Harry Truman seized the nation's private steel mills, arguing that a steel shortage would severely cripple the U.S. war effort in Korea.

So the mill owners sue, and the Supreme Court sides with them, arguing that only Congress has the constitutional authority to seize private property, even during wartime.

I’m curious to hear perspectives on this, especially since I know Truman is very popular on here.

So I was listening to the LBJ tapes, and there’s a June 1964 phone conversation he had with Senator Richard Russell in which he straight up calls Lodge a “miserable failure”.

The thing is that the very next year Johnson re-appointed HCL to his old post as Ambassador to South Vietnam.

Now I know at this time Lodge must have been running in the Republican primary, so that must create some sense of rivalry… but still, this feels really extra, was something else going on?

In 2014, the Supreme Court ruled unanimously that Obama exceeded his constitutional authority when he used recess appointments to fill three vacancies on the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB). The Court found that the Senate was not actually in a recess period.

It’s worth noting that the “recess” was literally a three day break, so yeah it doesn’t feel like a valid recess.

Furthermore, because the appointments lacked constitutional authority, the Board lacked the quorum required to operate. As a result, the NLRB was forced to invalidate over 100 rulings issued during the time the improperly appointed members served.

Was Obama right to try this? Or, in the words of Mitch McConell, was this a “brazen power grab” from the President?

In 1969, Nixon appointed Rockefeller to lead a study into the current state of Latin America, in order to reassess how the US’s relationship with the region.

The trip did not go well, with the American delegation being greeted with protests and dissatisfied leaders everywhere they went. In Rocky’s own words:

“There is general frustration over the failure to achieve a more rapid improvement in standards of living. The United States, because of its identification with the failure of the Alliance for Progress to live up to expectations, is blamed. People in the countries concerned also used our visit as an opportunity to demonstrate their frustrations with the failure of their own governments to meet their needs ... demonstrations that began over grievances were taken over and exacerbated by anti-US and subversive elements which sought to weaken the United States, and their own governments in the process.”

Rockefeller overall recommended that the US should reduce their involvement, stating that “we, in the United States, cannot determine the internal political structure of any other nation”.

However it seems these conclusions didn’t really change Nixon’s Latin America policy.

I suppose Al Gore is the obvious answer, considering his passion for global warming.

There’s also George McGovern, Frank Church and Mo Udall.

Tenet’s tenure as DCIA from 1997 to 2004 is for good reason highly controversial.

I mean he was the one publicly touting how the case for Iraqi WMDs was a “SLAM DUNK”, and by most accounts they had a close relationship.

So of course when the truth came out… well, of course it seriously hurt his reputation, and he had to resign.

Cut to 2007. Tenet publishes a memoir, goes on 60 minutes and a whole press tour, where the former DCIA changed his tune. He claims that the White House was exerting huge pressure to start the Iraq War, that he wasn’t as influential as people assumed he was, that the CIA was being used as a scapegoat by the Bush administration, etc.

Was this a genuine and useful revelation from Tenet? Or an opportunistic and hypocritical move from someone who was desperately trying to distance himself from the drastically declining popularity of Iraq and the Bush administration? I mean he was happy to accept his Presidential Medal of Freedom back in 2004.

Through history there’s been a trend where a failed candidate will get offered the Secretary of State position.

William Seward, John Kerry, Hillary Clinton, Edmund Muskie, Charles Evans Hughes, William Jennings Bryan, John Sherman, James Blaine, etc.

This makes me curious who could have done well in the role? And as an extra, under what President could they have served well under?

Personally,

For the republicans I’m going with Harold Stassen, and for the Democrats with Estes Kefauver.

I also wish to throw in Wayne Morse, although I know his foreign policy was very unique in comparison to his peers, so it’s tricky to realistically picture him in the role.

Pictured here is Alexander Hamilton, who I suppose is the obvious choice.

I also wish to give their flowers to Henry Morgenthau and Robert B Anderson, who did some really impressive work, however they do have some noteworthy flaws; the former was behind the infamous Morgenthau Plan, and the later was involved in some really shady business dealings later in life.

Fun fact: Eisenhower adored Anderson, and was always raving about what a great President he would make and pushing him to campaign, even against Nixon himself.

William Howard Taft enjoyed a great relationship with both Harding and Coolidge.