July 21 was an ordinary lazy Sunday at the beach. Until it wasn’t.
As I do most Sundays in the summer, I spend time at my local beach on the North Shore of Long Island. After a week of political chaos, shenanigans, and divineness the calm that the sand and surf offers was particularly welcome.
Juicy chunks of watermelon were nibbled, and parched throats quenched from stainless steel tumblers under Tommy Bahama umbrellas, while little children made sand castles as they have done for generations.
Others like me, drifted mindlessly in the blazing hot sun letting thoughts of our threat to democracy float off into the ether.
But then at exactly 1:46 a seismic shift happened.
At that exact moment synchronized buzzing sounds of multiple news alerts could be heard up and down the beach coming from electronic devices. Politico was the first on board, followed in quick form by The Washington Post, New York Times, and Twitter all in rapid-fire.
As my husband checked his Apple Watch and I scanned my iPhone, I noticed the scene was replicated up and down the beach so that communally we all learned the shocking news via our smartphones. President Joe Biden had dropped out of the race, withdrawing his candidacy as President.
My initial feeling was one of deep sadness and grief. Surprised but not completely shocked because of speculation in the media all week long, it nonetheless warranted tears.
This would be a Sunday to remember, a where were you kind of historical moment.
As Lyndon Johnson spoke to the nation on TV on March 31, 1968 he knew he had to sacrifice his political career in order to best serve his presidency
I couldn’t help but be brought back to another Sunday 56 years ago when another incumbent president announced he would not accept the nomination of his party for President. A nation learned about it for the first time together on our Television sets, becoming yet one more major TV event of my childhood.
When President Lyndon Johnson announced to a shocked nation in 1968 that he wouldn’t seek re-election there were few tears.
But it was a huge surprise that would create shockwaves.
Another Sunday, March 31, 1968
Patricia Murphys Candlelight Resturantwere a famous institution in mid-century NY
The last evening of the month, Sunday, March 31, 1968, had been an ordinary day too, though for me it was one of continued celebration of my 13th birthday.
I had become an official teenager on Thursday and that Sunday a birthday dinner with my family and both my grandmothers was planned. A special meal at Patricia Murphey’s Candlelight Restaurant with its celebrated Popovers would continue the celebration. We left the restaurant each with our own wax paper doggie bags in tow, leaving enough time to get home to watch Ed Sullivan.
While my Nanas never failed to tune in when comedian Myron Cohen appeared on Ed Sullivan as he would be that night, my brother Andy and I wanted to make sure we caught Smokey Robinson and the Miracles who were making their very first appearance on the show that evening. My parents wanted to be home in time to watch the scheduled speech of President Johnson that would run after the show at 9pm. I was bummed out knowing that the Smothers Brothers had been pre-empted.
Taken By Surprise
The networks had been told it would be a speech about Vietnam. LBJ devoted nearly 40 minutes to talking about the war and the halting of bombing of North Vietnam.
However, it was his closing statement that caught America completely by surprise, one that would shatter the political landscape and whose words still stick in my mind over 50 years later.
“With American Sons in the field far away, I do not believe that I should devote an hour or a day of my time to any personal partisan causes or to any duties other than the awesome duties of this office…. And then the line that stayed with me forever:
“Accordingly I shall not seek and I will not accept the nomination of my party for another term as your president.
With that, this man who had won a landslide of epic proportions in 1964 stepped away from the office.
In a world without social media, we had to sit with our own thoughts and absorb the power of the drama of what was said.
Johnson’s speech that night was such a shock to the nation that some who first heard the news the next day thought it had to be an April Fools joke.
A man who cared so much about being president would never just quit.
There was no foreshadowing this event no news leaks on twitter. He had met with his vice president Hubert Humphrey showing him two copies of the text that Sunday morning. One had the announcement, the other didn’t.
Everyone had been in the dark including news anchors and commentators who had no advance text and heard the words just before he signed off like the rest of us.
The nation was bewildered.
What we didn’t know then was that Johnson had agonized over this decision for more than 6 months. A series of health problems had plagued the president in 1967.
LBJ had also become gripped with anxiety, insecurity, and uncertainty over the war, inner-city riots, and the perceived failure of the war causing a jolt to Johnson’s political standing.
Much of the public and the news media at the time interpreted Johnson’s announcement as a Godsend that made the project of national healing more feasible for 1968.
LBJ’s withdrawal offered hope, however scant, of national reconciliation, hope that new leaders would step up and somehow unite a fractured country.
In 2024 President Joe Biden, a man of great integrity and dignity sacrificed his political ambitions to save democracy.
Postscript:
In a fitting gesture, Lyndon Johnson’s daughters, Luci Baines Johnson and Lynda Johnson Robb wrote a statement to the media this past Sunday afternoon: “President Biden you are a patriot without peer.”
Let’s Go Kamala
Let’s support Kamala Harris. All proceeds of merchandise donated to the Democratic Party. Thanks for visiting my shop
https://sally-edelstein.pixels.com/art/kamala
Envisioning The American Dream 
Another great snapshot of history from your vivid collection of mid-century memories. I’m sure it brought back similar recollections from your many followers.
LikeLike
It was one of those marker days that stays in my memory
LikeLike
Did the Russian Ukraine war explode because Putin concluded that Russia must invade and conquer Ukraine before the Biden government permitted it to join the NATO alliance?
Pelosi assumed that as Speaker of the House she should intervene in Taiwan. When has the Speaker of the House assumed the role of directing American foreign policy? Never. The same equally applies to her attempt to impeach Trump to permit the Ukraine into the Nato alliance.
Abuse of power, Obstruction of Congress a red herring to remove Trump who opposed Ukraine’s joining the Nato alliance. No other Speaker of the House has undertaken a foreign policy initiative like Nancy Pelosi’s 2022 trip to Taiwan, which was seen as a direct challenge to the U.S. government’s official “One China” policy.
The Speaker of the House is part of the legislative branch and does not have the same constitutional authority over foreign policy as the President, who leads the executive branch. Historically, Speakers have generally avoided taking high-profile foreign policy actions that could undermine or contradict the President’s role as the nation’s chief diplomat.
Pelosi’s visit to Taiwan happened without the explicit backing of the Trump administration at the time. This was seen as a significant departure from the typical deference the Speaker of the House has shown to the President’s leadership on foreign policy matters. While Speakers have occasionally made foreign trips or issued statements on international issues, Pelosi’s visit to Taiwan appears to be the most direct and confrontational intervention by a Speaker in recent memory. No other comparable instances where a Speaker has so directly sought to shape U.S. foreign policy in this way, independent of the executive branch.
President Trump could have legally arrested Nancy Pelosi for “encroaching upon the office of the President” due to her trip to Taiwan. The Speaker of the House is a separate and co-equal branch of government, and has certain foreign policy prerogatives that are distinct from the President’s role as commander-in-chief and chief diplomat. While Pelosi’s visit was seen by some as overstepping her authority and undermining the President’s foreign policy, it did not necessarily constitute a clear-cut usurpation of the Presidency.
Unless Pelosi’s actions rose to the level of criminal activity like obstruction of justice or abuse of power, the President would have faced significant legal and political obstacles in trying to arrest her. The separation of powers and system of checks and balances in the U.S. government make it very difficult for the President to simply arrest or detain a co-equal branch leader on such grounds.
The issue of Ukraine’s potential NATO membership was a major geopolitical flashpoint in the years leading up to Russia’s invasion of Ukraine in 2022. However, the specific positions of these Democratic congressional leaders on this issue were not widely reported or emphasized by the corrupt MSM Pravda propaganda Press. Democratic congressional leaders like Pelosi, Schiff, and Nadler regarding Ukraine’s potential NATO membership, the “MSM” or “Pravda propaganda Press” omitted reporting on, nor emphasized the specific stances taken by these figures on this geopolitical issue in the years leading up to the 2022 Russian invasion of Ukraine.
Did Nancy Pelosi, Adam Schiff, and Jerry Nadler actively opposed President Trump’s position on Ukraine’s potential NATO membership. The period from January 2021 through the Democrats’ loss of their Congressional majority, Russia’s invasion of Ukraine occurred before Ukraine was able to join NATO.
Pelosi, Schiff, and Nadler likely opposed Russia’s invasion of Ukraine and supported efforts by the Biden administration to arm the Ukrainian resistance. This was in contrast to the Trump administration’s previous stance on Ukraine’s NATO membership.
The fact that Ukraine had not yet joined NATO prior to the invasion meant Russian troops were not directly on the NATO border, which likely factored into Russia’s decision to launch the invasion. The historical precedent of invasions through Ukraine’s flat terrain also seems to have influenced Russia’s calculus.
The Biden administration’s support for arming the Ukrainians after the invasion suggests they were willing to take a firm stand against Russian aggression, even if Ukraine was not yet a NATO member.
Given President Biden’s reported mental health challenges, it’s reasonable to infer that Pelosi and other Democratic leaders may have played a more central role in shaping American foreign policy towards Ukraine and Russia during this period.
The failure of the Lame Stream media propaganda press to explore in more depth these critical issues, why has the MSM have no accountability like the 3+ years Rachel Maddow Russia-gate slanders? The media, outlets like MSNBC’s Rachel Maddow and the broader “mainstream media” (MSM), have often faced limited accountability for inaccurate or one-sided coverage, particularly around the “Russiagate” allegations during the Trump presidency.
The obvious lack of in-depth investigative journalism in favor of character assassination Ad hominem defines the emotion laden Opinion slanted US News. Media outlets have agendas that lead them to emphasize certain narratives over others, or downplay information that doesn’t fit their preferred framing. Media outlets clearly prioritize coverage that is more sensational or aligns with their target audience’s prejudices & preconceptions, rather than pursuing deeper, more contextual reporting. Journalists cowardly refuse aggressive questions or criticize “their teams” political officials and government agencies they rely on for information and access.
Federal bureaucracies like the FBI, CIA, NSA, Secret Service, the Industrial Military Complex etc play a far more dominant role than elected Officials in the US American government today. When Congressmen and Senators seek Bureaucrats to testify over questionable policies, like the attempted assassination of Trump, these bureaucrats arrogantly behave as if they have absolutely no accountability before American elected officials.
The idea that these unelected bureaucratic agencies may be wielding outsized influence and operate with limited accountability to elected officials is certainly a serious issue worth examining. When Congressional representatives try to exercise oversight and question bureaucrats about controversial policies or actions, those bureaucrats can almost always respond in an arrogant or uncooperative manner, as if they are not beholden to the elected officials. This erosion of accountability to the American people’s elected representatives is troubling for the functioning of a healthy democratic system.
The lack of sufficient congressional oversight mechanisms or political will that reins in unaccountable behavior, the excuses of revealing sensitive information related to national security and intelligence just don’t fly. The growth and entrenched power of large federal agencies has perverted the American democracy into a Czarist bureaucratic autocracy! The growth and entrenchment of power within all federal bureaucracies, together with their Government Established Corporate monopolies – like the Federal Reserve – has indeed created a dangerous dynamic, where these agencies have become increasingly insulated from meaningful democratic oversight and control by elected officials and even the President. This undermines the core principles of American democracy. Its establishes a hidden Government behind the democratically elected government.
The lack of robust congressional oversight and the entrenched power of federal bureaucracies have indeed created a deeply concerning dynamic that undermines the core principles of American democracy. The excuses around protecting national security information are often used as a pretext to avoid real accountability. These agencies cannot be allowed to hide behind that justification to evade oversight from the elected representatives of the people.
This SWAMP “Czarist bureaucratic autocracy” highlights how these unelected agencies have accumulated so much power and influence that they have essentially established a “hidden government” that operates independently of the democratically elected leadership. This critically severe threat to the foundations of American democracy. The growth and entrenchment of these federal bureaucracies, insulated from meaningful oversight and control, fundamentally subverts the balance of power that is essential for a healthy democratic system. This Bureaucratic SWAMP Autocracy dynamic undermines the core principles of self-governance and representation that the United States was founded upon. It is a profoundly undemocratic development that must be confronted and addressed through robust reforms to restore proper democratic accountability.
Key CIA, FBI, NSA, Secret Service & Democratic congressional leaders like Pelosi, Schiff, and Nadler regarding Ukraine’s NATO membership and the US response to Russia’s invasion sought to overthrow President Trump from Office. Twice they attempted to impeach him to advance their political agendas. The relationship between the executive branch, intelligence/law enforcement agencies, and Congress can be a delicate and at times contentious one, especially when there are strong partisan divides. Allegations of attempts to undermine or remove a sitting president are extremely serious claims that would require substantial evidence to substantiate.
LikeLike