Barack Obama

The Fourth Period Of Six Living Presidents Ends With Death Of George H. W. Bush

We have just seen the end of the fourth time in American history that we have had six living Presidents.

The first time was in 1861-1862, from March to January, a total of about 10 and a half months, when we had President Abraham Lincoln, and former Presidents Martin Van Buren, John Tyler, Millard Fillmore, Franklin Pierce, and James Buchanan, until John Tyler died in January 1862.

The second time was 1993-1994 from January to April, a total of about 15 months, when we had President Bill Clinton, and former Presidents Richard Nixon, Gerald Ford, Jimmy Carter, Ronald Reagan and George H. W. Bush, until Richard Nixon died in April 1994.

The third time, the longest time, was 2001-2004, from January to June, a total of about 40 and a half months, when we had President George W. Bush, and former Presidents Gerald Ford, Jimmy Carter, Ronald Reagan, George H. W. Bush, and Bill Clinton, until Ronald Reagan died in in June 2004.

And now, the fourth and last time, was 2017-2018, from January to November, a total of about 22 and a half months, the second longest time, when we had President Donald Trump, and former Presidents Jimmy Carter, George H. W. Bush, Bill Clinton, George W. Bush, and Barack Obama, until George H. W. Bush died on the last day of November 2018.

The odds of having a fifth period of six Presidents anytime soon seems unlikely, as Jimmy Carter, at age 94, would seem unlikely to have much more life longevity, but if Donald Trump were to be forced out of office, in the next two years, or be defeated, and Carter stayed in good health, it could happen.

Presidents In Conflict With The Judiciary Are Nothing New Historically, But Trump Could Be The Biggest Threat Yet To Our Constitutional System

The conflict of President Donald Trump with the judiciary is not the first time there has been a challenge from a President to the judicial branch.

Thomas Jefferson and Andrew Jackson had regular conflict with Chief Justice John Marshall and the federal courts in the first third of the 19th century.

Abraham Lincoln had vehement disagreements with Chief Justice Roger Taney in the era of the Civil War.

Theodore Roosevelt and Woodrow Wilson both found the Supreme Court as standing in the way of progressive reform in the early 20th century.

Franklin D. Roosevelt was so frustrated by a conservative Supreme Court negating important legislation of the New Deal in the mid 1930s, that he proposed the idea of adding six new Justices to the Court in 1937. This came to be known as the “Court Packing” plan, and was soundly defeated, including by members of his own Democratic Party.

Richard Nixon had issues with the rulings of the Earl Warren Court before he was President, and the continued Warren influence on the Court under his successor, Warren Burger. And, Nixon was stopped dead in his tracks in US. V. Nixon in 1974, forcing him to hand over the Watergate Tapes to the Special Prosecutor, Leon Jaworski, leading him to resign the Presidency in August 1974.

Barack Obama was critical of the John Roberts Court on its conservative decisions early on in his Presidency in 2010.

And now, Donald Trump has unleashed what many consider the strongest challenge to the whole federal judiciary, alarming many constitutional experts as far more dangerous and threatening to the checks and balances of the Constitution and the separation of powers.

It is clear that Trump has declared war on the judiciary, but it could be that the Roberts Court will smack back at him when cases regarding his abuse of power make it to the Court, so Trump may be “hoist by hid own petard”, and regret the attacks he has made on the whole court system.

President Trump In Time Of Tragedy: A Horrific Leader, Unable To Express Deep Mourning And True Compassion

Donald Trump is truly the most horrific leader possible in time of tragedy, unable to express deep mourning and true compassion and empathy.

Think of Ronald Reagan and the Challenger Astronaut Disaster in 1986.

Think of Bill Clinton and the Oklahoma City Bombing in 1995.

Think of George W. Bush after September 11, 2001.

Think of Barack Obama after the Charleston Church Massacre in 2015, and the Sandy Hook School Massacre in 2012.

These and many other disasters are times when we look to leaders to act appropriately, and we see Presidents of both parties and all philosophies know how to act.

Not so with Donald Trump, who instead:

Throws paper towels in Puerto Rico after Hurricane Maria, and threatens to cut off funding for the island.

Shows up at an inappropriate time after the Pittsburgh Synagogue Massacre, when funerals for the victims are being held.

Comes to Paradise, California, after the most disastrous fire in modern history, and refers to the town as “Pleasure”, of all names.

His body language and facial expressions show he does not give a damn, and he does not know how to console and hug and show a dose of empathy and compassion.

Rather, he is going through the motions, more staging an appearance so he can draw attention to himself than anything else.

Donald Trump proves again, and again, and again, and again, that he is a horrible human being, a disgrace to the American Presidency, who deserves none of our compassion as he faces the challenge of a Democratic House of Representatives ready with subpoenas and investigations galore, which will stress him out in massive ways.

It could not happen to a “better” person.

The Ultimate Outcome Of The Midterm Elections Of 2018: The Social Welfare, Social Justice State Is Permanent After 83 Years

The ultimate outcome of the Midterm Elections of 2018 is the success and institutionalization of the Social Welfare, Social Justice State, finally permanent after 83 years.

It all goes back to the New Deal of Franklin D. Roosevelt, and the passage of Social Security in 1935, bitterly fought by Republicans and conservatives of that era, and still argued about by such leaders as Barry Goldwater and Ronald Reagan over the next half century.

But in 1983, President Reagan and Democratic Speaker of the House Thomas “Tip” O’Neill negotiated a bipartisan deal to save Social Security, not destroy it as Reagan had wanted to do, and it is the fundamental part of the Social Safety Net.

In 1965, after years of opposition by Republicans and conservatives, Lyndon B. Johnson and his Great Society accomplished Medicare and Medicaid. It has continued to be attacked and condemned, but it has survived and is a great part of the Social Safety Net.

Then, in 2010, Barack Obama accomplished the Affordable Care Act or ObamaCare, with no cooperation from Republicans or conservatives, even though back in 1993, conservatives, with the support of Bob Dole and Newt Gingrich, came up with a very similar health care plan, in opposition to the Bill and Hillary Clinton health care plan, which ultimately failed of passage. Also, Mitt Romney in Massachusetts accomplished a very similar plan as ObamaCare, but ran against his own plan for the nation when he ran for President in 2012.

The Republicans continued to try to destroy ObamaCare ever since 2010, having 70 votes on it over the years, but Chief Justice Roberts and Senator John McCain in 2012 and 2017, respectively, backed continuation at crucial moments. Now, Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell has indicated that, clearly, ObamaCare is here to stay, so like Social Security, Medicare, and Medicaid, ObamaCare has survived and become a permanent part of the Social Safety Net.

The Democrats and progressives have accomplished these great pieces of legislation since 1935, and the goal has always been to improve the laws, as no one ever said they were perfect, but it is the Democrats, not the Republicans who have advocated and succeeded in accomplishing the Social Welfare, Social Justice state, and they should be very proud of the work they have done.

So FDR, LBJ, and Obama are the three most successful domestic policy Presidents, and not just in the areas mentioned in this article!

A “Dream List” To Elect: Beto O’Rourke, Andrew Gillum, Stacey Abrams, Richard Cordray, Gavin Newsom

As we near the Midterm Elections of 2018 on Tuesday, this blogger and author has a “dream list” that he would wish and hope would be elected to office.

One is competing for the US Senate–Congressman Beto O’Rourke of Texas, trying to defeat Senator Ted Cruz. O’Rourke has become a true “rock star”, often compared in face and charisma to Robert F. Kennedy, who he is not related to, but O’Rourke has inspired many people, and has a following, particularly, among millennials. Many see him as a future Presidential contender, whether he wins or loses next week, and some see him as a contender for 2020, absolutely amazing.

Four others are competing for governors of their states.

Andrew Gillum and Stacey Abrams are both African Americans, inspiring many people of all age groups, as they compete to become Governors of Florida and Georgia, and if they both win, it will be truly historic. Both are well spoken and charismatic, and Gillum reminds many of Barack Obama. Gillum has been Mayor of Tallahassee, the state capitol, and Abrams has been the Democratic minority leader in the Georgia House of Representatives from 2011-2017.

Richard Cordray is running for Ohio Governor, and was the head of the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau under Barack Obama, and a five time “Jeopardy’ winner, and would really be a plus for Ohio’s future if he was elected. He was also Attorney General, Treasurer, and Solicitor General of Ohio over a long storied career, and some see him as a future potential Presidential contender.

Gavin Newsom is assured of victory for California Governor, and as San Francisco Mayor, was the first public official to marry gay couples in 2004, and has served as Lieutenant Governor for the past eight years. He drips with charisma, and is also seen as a potential future Presidential contender.

Health Care IS The Issue That Will Determine The Future Of Congress And State Governorships, Above All Other Issues

With five days to go until the Midterm Elections of 2018, it is more clear than ever that HEALTH CARE is the issue that will determine the future of Congress, as well as many state governorships, next week.

Other issues matter, but first and above all, every person is concerned about their own health and that of their loved ones and friends and neighbors, and it is clear that the Republican Party is running scared, as it lies and tries to convince gullible voters that they are NOT against health care and protection for preexisting conditions, when the record is clear that they have opposed exactly that for the past ten years since Barack Obama was elected in 2008.

A total of 70 times, the Republicans in Congress have tried to kill the Affordable Care Act, but now they are running commercials and ads denying what is fact, and looking in the cameras and stating bare faced lies.

The facts are that the Republican Party claims to be pro life, but are anything but that, including wanting fetuses born, but if they are disabled in any way, deny such children health care.

A party so mean spirited and lacking in compassion and empathy, just as Donald Trump exhibits every day, deserves a smashing defeat on Election Day next week.

And do not forget, the Republican Party is determined to strip Medicare and Medicaid as well, which makes them willing to see people die, while the wealthy get major tax cuts.

This is selfishness and greed and lack of morality and ethics which needs a total repudiation next Tuesday!

The Facts About Barack Obama’s Achievements On The Economy , Corruption, And Health Care, As Compared To Donald Trump’s Record

With the Midterm Elections of 2018 only ten days away, we are now in the season of lying about Barack Obama’s record by Republicans, who act as if the 44th President accomplished nothing while in office, and was an abject failure.

Somehow, the experts see it differently, as the C Span Poll of Historians in 2017 put Obama 12th of all Presidents, and the American Political Science Association poll of 2018 puts Obama as 8th among all Presidents.

Obama brought about the greatest economic revival from a economic collapse in US History, far better than Franklin D. Roosevelt and the ending of the Great Depression, only brought about ultimate entrance into World War II, while Obama brought about an end to the Great Recession without a major war. The stock market nearly tripled under him, and the unemployment rate went from 10 percent when George W. Bush left, to under 5 percent when Obama left office. But Donald Trump tries to claim that magic took place when he came into office, and that the present booming economy is all his doing, ignoring the recovery under his predecessor. It is clear that the economy’s improvement would have been much the same under Hillary Clinton had she won the Electoral College and become our President.

There was no corruption under Barack Obama of note, and no one was indicted or convicted, while the record of the George W. Bush administration had quite a lot of corruption, but already Donald Trump has seen more corruption in less than two years than Bush had in eight years. Trump’s cabinet and other advisers have demonstrated more corruption than any in American history. and so many people have been indicted or pleading guilty in the probe on Russian collusion.

Obama also promoted the protection of preexisting conditions under the Affordable Care Act or ObamaCare, which the Republicans have tried to destroy 70 times, although now all candidates for reelection are claiming otherwise, but a pure lie. Donald Trump has no concern about health care, and instead brags about the massive tax cut to the wealthy, which is leading to Republicans claiming that not only must ObamaCare be repealed, but also there is a need for massive cuts in Social Security, Medicare, and Medicaid.

Trump supporters who believe any of the propaganda coming from Trump and Republicans running for reelection, are truly delusional, and fail to understand that the facts are very different from the myths being perpetrated by Republicans who hope to keep control of Congress after the elections in less than two weeks.

Midterm Election History In First Presidential Midterms Since 1946, And Likelihood Of Results Of Midterm Elections In 2018

With the Midterm Elections of 2018 upon us in less than two weeks, it is time to analyze midterm election results in the first such elections after a new President has come to office, starting with Harry Truman in 1946 and all the way through to Barack Obama in 2010.

We are discussing 12 Presidents and how they were factors in the midterm elections which followed their entering the Presidency.

Six of the 12 Presidents entered that first midterm election with their popularity in public opinion polls under 50 percent—with the order of lack of popularity being lowest to highest the following—Truman, Reagan, Lyndon B. Johnson, Obama, Clinton, and Carter. Notice this list is all Democrats except for Reagan.

The other six Presidents were above 50 percent popularity at the time of the first midterm elections–from the highest to the lowest being George W. Bush, Kennedy, Eisenhower, George H. W. Bush, Nixon, Ford. Notice this list is all Republicans except for Kennedy.

The record shows that only George W. Bush and Kennedy saw the best results, with Bush seeing a gain of 8 House seats and 1 Senate seat, in the year after September 11, and Kennedy losing 4 House seats but gaining 2 Senate seats in the weeks after the Cuban Missile Crisis in 1962.

And George H. W. Bush, Nixon, and Eisenhower midterms showed respectively 8 House seats and 1 Senate seat lost; 12 House Seats lost and 1 Senate seat gained; and 18 House seats and 1 Senate seat lost.

Only Ford, three months after taking over the Presidency, and with still a high public opinion rating of 54 percent, but the Nixon Watergate Scandal still reverberating with Ford’s pardon of Nixon, do we see a major loss of 48 House seats and 4 Senate seats lost.

Meanwhile, those six Presidents with a lower than 50 percent public opinion poll rating at the first midterm of their Presidency saw a much greater loss, with Carter having the smallest loss, 15 House seats and 3 Senate seats lost with a 49 percent rating.

Reagan, with a 42 percent rating, lowest except for Truman, saw a loss of 26 House seats but one Senate seat gained.

The other four Presidents—Johnson, Clinton, Truman, Obama—suffered far worse losses—with Johnson losing 48 House seats and losing 4 Senate seats, the same as Ford, who had ten points higher public opinion rating of 54 percent to LBJ’s 44 percent.

Clinton, Truman, and Obama, all Democrats,lost massively in seats in both houses of Congress—Clinton losing 54 House seats and losing 8 Senate seats; Truman losing 55 House seats and losing 12 Senate seats; and Obama losing 63 House seats and losing 6 Senate seats.

What all this leads to is the strong belief that Donald Trump, with 47 percent approval rating most recently, will see a major loss of House seats for sure, and the guess at this time, after much reflection, is that it will be between 40-45 seats. In the Senate, with the great Republican advantage in only having 9 seats open for election, and the Senate having a 51-49 Republican margin, the odds of the Democrats holding on to their seats and gaining two or more of the nine contested Republican seats would seem to lead likely to a 50-50 tie, meaning a one seat Democratic gain, but still a Republican controlled Senate at 50-50, whereby Vice President Mike Pence will still organize the Senate for the next two years. This so unless there is a move by Alaska Senator Lisa Murkowski, who voted against Brett Kavanaugh, and has been attacked by her state’s Republican party leadership, to switch to Independent or Democratic support, and giving the Senate to the Democrats.

The Governorships generally follow Congressional results, and are extremely important for reapportionment of state legislative districts and US House districts after the Census 2020 population figures are tabulated, so having more Governors of one party over the other are crucial. At this point, it would seem likely that the Democrats will gain from 16 present Governorships by 10-11, and have 26-27 Chief Executives of states.

So overall, a Democratic gain to a majority of House seats to about 235-240 and 26-27 Governorships, but likely a tied 50-50 Senate, putting the results worse for Trump than for Reagan in the House and Senate, but not as bad as for Ford among Republican Presidents.

Multiple Women Running For President: Will That Help Men In the Democratic Presidential Race Of 2020?

It is not too soon to start considering potential nominees for the Democratic Presidential nomination in 2020.

We know that as soon as the Midterm Elections of 2018 are decided, the 2020 Presidential battle begins.

We have the potential of four women running for President, but the question is whether that possible reality will actually help men to triumph, with the women neutralizing each other.

So one wonders if it would be a better idea for at least two of the four women to forgo the Presidential race, not that it is likely that will actually happen.

2020 is the year of the Centennial of the 19th Amendment, the woman suffrage amendment, and it would certainly be appropriate for a woman to be nominated for and win the Presidency, particularly after Hillary Clinton won the popular vote, and still lost the Electoral College in 2016.

Who among the women would be most likely to have a good chance to win?

This author would argue Minnesota Senator Amy Klobuchar would be the best case scenario.

Klobuchar has had both state and national experience, and comes across as less controversial and more mainstream than the other three women who are considering running for President.

Klobuchar has a great advantage coming from the Midwest, and the Democratic Farmer Labor tradition of Hubert Humphrey, Eugene McCarthy, Walter Mondale, and Paul Wellstone.

Do not forget that the Midwest is the crucial area of the nation that the Democrats must win, and there is no other leading figure from the Midwest in the Presidential competition.

Elizabeth Warren of Massachusetts may be best known, but she comes across to many people as too combative, too outspoken, too divisive a figure, and too much like Bernie Sanders, who might co-opt her support.

Kirsten Gillbrand of New York has an earlier history of being quite conservative in her upstate New York district, and then suddenly being very liberal, and then becoming controversial when she pressured former Minnesota Senator Al Franken to resign without a hearing about sexual harassment charges lodged against him, which alienated many people, including this author.

Kamala Harris of California may be the best alternative to Amy Klubuchar, and being of mixed race (mother from India, father from Jamaica), and with a compelling background of long experience in law enforcement as District Attorney of San Francisco and then Attorney General of her state, and her dynamic and charismatic manner, she could be a great possible choice for the Presidency. She is often called “the female Barack Obama”, but has much more experience in government than Obama had when he ran for President in 2008.

Two Outliers: Republican Governors In Heavily Democratic States—Larry Hogan In Maryland And Charlie Baker In Massachusetts

In the midst of highly partisan elections being the norm in America under Donald Trump, we have the two outliers that are hard to explain.

In Maryland and Massachusetts, two heavily “Blue” states, we have very popular moderate Republican governors on their way to easy reelection victories.

Maryland, a heavily Democratic state, with strong backing from those living in the Washington DC suburbs, Larry Hogan has a 68 percent rating in his popular support, and is way ahead of Ben Jealous, the African American Democratic nominee for Governor, who was former head of the NAACP. Barack Obama twice and Hillary Clinton won the last three Presidential races by 25 to 26 points in each of those contests.

But somehow, Hogan is seen as an easy victor for a second term. He has 65 percent approval from Democrats, 64 percent backing from Independents, and 81 percent support from Republicans. Hogan has avoided being supportive of Donald Trump, and in fact, has been clearly critical of the President.

Every poll shows Hogan winning, as high as 58 percent, with a undecided percentage being as high as 10-18 percent in some polls, indicating the likelihood that Hogan will win a landslide victory of more than 60 percent in November. Hogan has had to deal with a heavily two thirds Democratic legislature and a Congressional delegation (7 Democrats to one Republican) dominated by Democrats.

Massachusetts, another heavily Democratic state, and a heavily (80 percent) Democratic legislature, and an all Democratic Congressional delegation, yet has had Republican Charlie Baker as its governor for the past four years, and in polls, Baker is ahead of his Hispanic Democratic opponent, Jay Gonzalez, by margins of 52 to 68 percent, depending on the poll. Barack Obama won by 26 and 23 percent, and Hillary Clinton by 27 points in the last three Presidential elections.

Baker has also shown himself to be a moderate Republican who has been regularly critical of Donald Trump, and has had as high as a 71 percent majority of popularity in his term of office, higher even than Larry Hogan in Maryland. One can assume that he will win two thirds or more of the vote on November 6.

So both Larry Hogan and Charlie Baker are outliers, on the way to what is conceived as a “Blue Wave”.