(23 of 24)
My remark that I was "in control... pending return of the Vice President" was a statement of the fact that I was the senior Cabinet officer present. I was talking about the arrangements we had made in the Situation Room for the three-or four-hour period in which we awaited the return of the Vice President from Texas. Less precise, though in the same context, was my statement that "constitutionally ... you have the President, the Vice President and the Secretary of State, in that order." I ought to have said "traditionally" or "administratively" instead of "constitutionally."
If, at the time, anyone had suggested to me that I believed that the Secretary of State was third in order of succession to the President, the press would have had the pleasure of even more vivid quotes. For many months, in this same house, I had lived hourly with the question of succession in case of the removal first of a Vice President and then of a President; I knew the Constitution by heart on this subject.*
My appearance on the screen that night became a celebrated media happening. Edited versions were played and replayed many times in the days to come. Even if I wished to do so, it is now far too late to correct the impressions that it made, but I may be forgiven for saying that I regard the way in which the tape was edited, especially by CBS, as the height of technical artistry. The television camera is the siege machine of the 20th century. Perhaps the camera and microphone magnified the effects of my spring up the stairs. Possibly I should have washed my face or taken half a dozen deep breaths before going on camera. The fact is, I was not thinking about my appearance. I was wholly intent on correcting any impression of confusion and indecision that Speakes' words may have inadvertently created. Certainly I was guilty of a poor choice of words, and optimistic if I imagined that I would be forgiven the imprecision out of respect for the tragedy of the occasion.
The "take charge" image had taken hold even before March 30. Only a few weeks before, my photograph (jaw jutting, arms akimbo) had been on the cover of TIME magazine. With the insouciant hyperbole for which that publication is famous, the caption read "Taking Command." Inside, under a bold line reading "The 'Vicar' Takes Charge," the editors devoted several pages of snare-drum prose to an account of my life and a description of the Reagan foreign policy. ABC reported: "The sight of Alexander Haig taking command on the cover of TIME magazine was more than some of the President's aides could take, and since its publication there have been several obvious White House putdowns ... The problem seems to be that some of Mr. Reagan's closest advisers see Haig as a political competitor who must be reminded that while he may be vicar, he is not the Pope."
In days to follow, my vicarhood was recertified by "officials" and "presidential assistants" with more zeal than was perhaps good for it. When I departed two days later for a diplomatic tour of the Middle East, the White House, in an official statement, said that I was leaving "in the