George H W Bush

Presidents And Dictatorships: Double Standard Of Critics Of Obama Change Of Cuban Policy

Presidents of the United States deal with reality, not what they might wish was so.

America has had diplomatic relations with all sorts of terrible people who govern the world’s nations over time.

Latin American dictatorships, including those of Fulgencio Batista in Cuba; Rafael Trujillo in the Dominican Republic; the Duvalier dynasty, father and son, in Haiti; Anastasio Somoza in Nicaragua; and military dictatorships in all of the South American nations at different times, have been accepted by American Presidents.

Our Presidents have dealt with Asian dictatorships, including China beginning with Richard Nixon; and with Taiwan, the Philippines, Indonesia, Malaysia, Myanmar, Pakistan, Vietnam, South Korea for decades, Laos, Cambodia, Afghanistan and the former Soviet Republics, now independent, but almost all of them dictatorships.

We have dealt with the Arab nations of the Middle East and with Iran under the Shah, despite their harsh dictatorships.

We have had dealings with African dictatorships of all stripes, including South Africa under Apartheid; and the brutal governments of much of the continent.

Somehow, Cuba has been seen differently, when the governments of many of the world’s nations has been far worse in their oppression than Fidel and Raul Castro.

This is not saying that Fidel and Raul Castro cannot, rightfully, be condemned for their human rights violations, but if human rights was the guide, we would not have any diplomatic relations or trade with 80 percent of the world!

When Richard Nixon, Ronald Reagan, and the two Presidents Bush have embraced, and even endorsed, dictators, it was always seen as no big deal, but when Barack Obama opens up to Cuba after 54 years, it is perceived as a crime of massive proportions, while we willingly accepted the previous harsh dictatorship in Cuba of Batista and his henchmen!

Hypocrisy anyone?

Presidents In Last Two Years In Office: Tradition Of Opposition Congress And Little Legislation Accomplished!

When one looks back at the past century of Presidential history, it is clear that it is common for the President to have to deal with an opposition Congress in the last two years of his tenure, and in two cases, a divided Congress in the last two years in the White House.

This, of course, means little can be accomplished, other than by judicial appointments, and by executive orders, as significant legislation is unlikely.

Look at the list of Presidents who dealt with opposition Congresses in their last two years:

Woodrow Wilson–1919-1920
Dwight D. Eisenhower–1959-1960
Richard Nixon–1973-1974
Gerald Ford–1975-1976
Ronald Reagan–1987-1988
George H. W. Bush–1991-1992
Bill Clinton 1999-2000
George W. Bush–2007-2008
Barack Obama–2015-2016

Add to this list two Presidents who had a divided Congress in their last two years:

William Howard Taft–1911-1912–Democratic House and Republican Senate
Herbert Hoover–1931-1932–Democratic House and Republican Senate

So if all the Presidents from Theodore Roosevelt to Barack Obama are counted, it means ELEVEN Presidents faced a Congress unfriendly to them in the last two years of office, with only TR, Calvin Coolidge, Franklin D. Roosevelt, Harry Truman, Lyndon B. Johnson, and Jimmy Carter having “friendly” Congresses in their last two years, with Warren G. Harding and John F. Kennedy in office too short a term to qualify, since they died in office, unlike Gerald Ford, who actually completed a short term.

So 11 of 17 Presidents, two thirds of the total, have had to deal with the reality of the decline of their ability to control events, other than judicial appointments and executive orders!

It Looks As If The Bush Dynasty Is Not Done: Hints That Jeb Bush Will Announce For President!

It now seems clear that Jeb Bush, the former Florida Governor; and brother of the 43rd President, George W. Bush; and son of the 41st President, George H. W. Bush, will soon announce his candidacy for the 2016 Republican Presidential nomination.

Jeb has not run for political office since 2002, and has not been in political office since 2006, but he is making the rounds of appropriate sites and venues, and speaking out on the issues as he sees them, many of them alienating the Tea Party Movement within the GOP, but soothing the mainstream, “Establishment” Republicans, who tend to control the party machinery when it comes to actual nomination battles, including those of Bob Dole in 1996, John McCain in 2008, and Mitt Romney in 2012.

If Jeb does run, he will run as a hawk in foreign policy, and sympathetic on immigration and “common core” educational standards in domestic policy, all of which will irritate many who are part of the right wing extremists in the party in 2014.

If he runs, it will also make the Bush family a true dynasty covering nearly 40 years of American politics, as his dad was considered as a possible Vice Presidential alternative, instead of Gerald Ford, when Spiro Agnew resigned at the time that Richard Nixon was under fire for Watergate.

Ford also thought of George H W Bush as a possible running mate in 1976, maybe not seriously, but under consideration, and then Bush became a Presidential candidate in 1980, ended up as the runner up, and agreed to join Ronald Reagan as Vice President for two terms. This was followed by one term in the White House, and then a bitter defeat to Bill Clinton in 1992.

But his two oldest sons then ran for the Governorships of Texas and Florida in 1994, and when Jeb lost in Florida by a very small margin, he set his sights on 1998, when he won in Florida, and then served as Florida Governor for two terms, while brother George W. went to the White House for two controversial terms.

Jeb running would create great controversy, but the Bush Family is not afraid of that, and it seems doubtful now that mother Barbara arguing against Jeb running will be listened to anymore.

Were he to win and serve two terms, Jeb would add to the fact that the Bush Dynasty would have lasted longer than any other, even more than the Adamses (John and John Quincy, and with THREE Presidents, not two. And the theoretical Kennedy dynasty would look quite insignificant, since only John F. Kennedy had the opportunity to serve as President, despite the desires of many that Robert and Ted Kennedy might do the same.

So although the Bush dynasty might not seem as glamorous as the Kennedy dynasty has often been seen, it is still making history!

Are We Entering An Age Of Older Presidents?

In American history, we have had only five Presidents who were 64 or older in office when inaugurated—Ronald Reagan, William Henry Harrison, James Buchanan, George H. W. Bush, and Zachary Taylor.

An additional five Presidents were ages 60-63 when inaugurated: Harry Truman, Gerald Ford, John Adams, Andrew Jackson, and Dwight D. Eisenhower, but Truman and Ford were not elected at that age, but instead succeeded to the Oval Office.

This means 33 of our 43 Presidents were younger than 60 when being inaugurated President, with 24 in their 50s, and 9 in their 40s, and with Grover Cleveland in his 40s for his first term, and 50s for his second nonconsecutive term. The nine Presidents in their forties were, at the time of inauguration: James K. Polk and James A. Garfield (49); Franklin Pierce (48); Grover Cleveland and Barack Obama (47); Ulysses S. Grant and Bill Clinton (46); John F. Kennedy (43); and Theodore Roosevelt (42).

But it is now likely that the next President will be in his or her 60s, or even 70s, at the time of taking the Presidential oath. There are a total of eight potential Republican nominees in their 60s–ranging from, at the time of inauguration as follows: Mitt Romney (69); Rick Perry (66); Dr. Benjamin Carson (65); John Kasich (64); Jeb Bush (63); Mike Huckabee, Rob Portman, and Lindsey Graham (61). Romney and Perry would reach the age of 70 during a first term, and Romney, Perry, Carson, Kasich and Bush would all be in their 70s in a second term.

Meanwhile, the Democrats have four potential Presidential nominees who will be in their seventies when they would take the oath of office—Jerry Brown (78); Bernie Sanders (75); Joe Biden (74); and Jim Webb (70). All four, plus Hillary Clinton (69) and Elizabeth Warren (67) would reach the 70s during a first term, and Mark Warner (62) would reach 70 as well in a second term.

So a total of eight Republicans and seven Democrats would be over 70, either at the time of the inauguration, or within the next four years after, or the next eight years after!

When one realizes that only Dwight D. Eisenhower (70) and Ronald Reagan (77) were actually in the Presidency past their 70th birthday, and Ike was only three months beyond 70, it is clear that we are likely to create new ground, since much of the talent pool is comparatively old, and from the “Baby Boomer” generation born from 1946 onward.

Of course, there are younger Presidential candidates or potential candidates–for the Republicans–Rick Santorum (58); Mike Pence (57); Rand Paul and Chris Christie (54); and in the 40s in 2016, the following: Scott Walker (49); Ted Cruz and Paul Ryan (46); Marco Rubio and Bobby Jindal (45), a total of nine other potential Presidents.

The Democrats have fewer alternatives: in the 50s in 2016 are: Andrew Cuomo (59); Amy Klobuchar (56); Martin O’Malley (54); and Kirsten Gillibrand (50). No one in their forties is seen as a potential Democratic nominee.

So we might end up with the oldest combination of Presidential candidates in American history, with Hillary Clinton and Mitt Romney being front runners for now, and both reaching 70 within months of taking the oath of office!

Is Mitt Romney To Be A Repeat Of Richard Nixon And Ronald Reagan, Having Another Chance To Be President?

Mitt Romney, the 2012 GOP Presidential nominee, is giving strong hints that he might seek the Presidency again, after failing to win the nomination in 2008, and then losing to Barack Obama in 2012.

Public opinion polls show him leading, mostly based on recognition factor, that having been the nominee two years ago, most Americans know who he is.

But Romney lost, and to believe that a loser for the Presidency has another life defies reality.

Henry Clay and William Jennings Bryan ran three times each for the Presidency, and never won.

Thomas E. Dewey and Adlai Stevenson ran two times each for the Presidency, and never won.

The only first time losers who won the Presidency were Thomas Jefferson, Andrew Jackson and William Henry Harrison, along with Richard Nixon

The only other President in modern times who lost a battle for a nomination and went on to reside in the White House was Ronald Reagan. It is also true that George H. W. Bush tried for the nomination against Reagan in 1980, but the battle was lost early, while Reagan fought to the convention in 1976 against Gerald Ford before he lost a very close race for the nomination.

So forgetting the early Presidents, the only realistic comparison is Romney to Nixon and Reagan.

But Romney is NOT Nixon or Reagan in any comparison.

Nixon had 14 years of federal government experience when he ran the first time for President in 1960, and Reagan had eight years as Governor of California, about one seventh of the nation, while Romney had one lone term as Governor of Massachusetts, and never had real interest in governing, as Nixon and Reagan did.

Nixon was very knowledgeable in how government worked, and Reagan had very strong conservative credentials and principles, and Romney has neither, as he only served as Governor to add on to his business experience.

No matter what one thinks or thought about Nixon and Reagan, we knew we would get what we saw, a man who had real commitment to definite ideas, while Romney is infamous for having no principles or beliefs that he will not change tomorrow if it might advance him.

Face the facts, that no one could possibly accuse Nixon or Reagan of being shallow, of “flip flopping”, of being someone who is a mystery, and of just wanting to be President for the sake of being President.

But that is the basic definition of Mitt Romney!

Barack Obama: Who Is Our 44th President?

The attacks on Barack Obama, our 44th President, have reached a point of being totally ridiculous and preposterous in so many ways!

Critics say Obama is a Muslim, even though he never attended services at a mosque, and has called himself a Christian. Meanwhile, he has had America war against terrorist Muslims, and has used drones and troops to kill more Muslims than George W. Bush, including Osama Bin Laden!

Critics say Obama is a weak President, who has been unwilling to confront Vladamir Putin and defend Ukraine, while George W. Bush did not confront Putin on military action in Georgia in 2008; Lyndon B. Johnson did not confront the old Soviet Union on military action in Czechoslovakia in 1968; and Dwight D. Eisenhower did not confront the old Soviet Union on military action in Hungary in 1956.

Critics say that Obama is an “Emperor” or “King” because of action on immigration reform, but this is the same President they have said is “weak”, and when Ronald Reagan, George H. W. Bush, and all of the other Republican and Democratic Presidents since Dwight D. Eisenhower took action on immigration, none of them were called “Emperor” or “King”. So Obama is a “weak” President who is also an “Emperor” or “King”?

Critics say Obama is a Socialist, but Obama accepted the Newt Gingrich–Bob Dole–Heritage Foundation–Mitt Romney concept of health care, when he pushed for “ObamaCare”, which gives private insurance companies full control over health care when many Democrats and liberals and progressives really want “Medicare for all”.

Critics say Obama is anti capitalist, but Obama has tied himself to Wall Street much more than many Democrats and liberals and progressives wish he had, and the stock market is at an all time high, up about 250 percent from when he came in.

Critics say Obama is adding more to the national debt than anyone, forgetting he came in at the lowest point in 75 years, and that much of the new debt was an outgrowth of the disastrous George W. Bush economic policies that would have added the same to the national debt if John McCain and Mitt Romney had been elected President.

Critics say that Obama refused to work with the opposition party, but NO President EVER had such obstructionism as Barack Obama has had, and Republican Presidents, in particular, have found that opposition Democrats, while challenging them, NEVER promoted total lack of cooperation as the extremist right wing Republicans, led by the Tea Party Movement, have done over the past six years. Despite that, Obama has presided over a long list of accomplishments.

Critics blame Obama for the loss of seats in Congress in midterm elections, when ALL Presidents have faced that, except Franklin D. Roosevelt in 1934. Harry Truman in 1946, Dwight D. Eisenhower in 1954, Bill Clinton in 1994, George W. Bush in 2006, and now, Barack Obama in 2014, have seen the opposition party gain control of both houses of Congress. Also, FDR in 1938, Truman in 1950, Dwight D. Eisenhower in 1958, John F. Kennedy in 1962, Lyndon B. Johnson in 1966, Richard Nixon in 1970, Gerald Ford in 1974, Jimmy Carter in 1978, Ronald Reagan in 1982, George H. W. Bush in 1990, and Barack Obama in 2010 lost seats, and in the case of Obama, control of the House of Representatives.

These are just eight ways in which the critics of Obama are manipulating the truth and the facts, and despite all these attacks, Barack Obama stands tall and will look much better in history than his critics wish to concede!

Opposition Congresses Vs Split Congresses: Which Performs Better?

America is about enter a new period of an opposition Congress in both houses, something that been quite common in the past 70 years since World War II.

Harry Truman had an opposition Congress in 1947-48, and despite his “do nothing Congress’ attack on them in 1948, they actually accomplished a lot, just not all that Truman preferred, an example being the anti labor Taft Hartley Act.

Dwight D. Eisenhower had an opposition Congress in 1955-1961, but a lot was accomplished, including two Civil Rights laws in 1957 and 1960, and the National Defense Education Act in 1958.

Richard Nixon had an opposition Congress in his time in office from 1969-1974, but despite conflict and Watergate, actually accomplished a lot in domestic affairs by cooperation, including the Environmental Protection Agency, Consumer Product Safety Commission, and Occupational Safety and Health Administration.

Gerald Ford had an opposition Congress in his time in office from 1974-1977, and although no major legislation was passed, got along quite well with the opposition party.

Ronald Reagan had an opposition Congress in 1987-1989, and while his last two years were declining years of performance amidst the Iran Contra Scandal, he still got along quite well with the opposition party, including when the House of Representatives remained Democratic during his first six years, and Social Security was reformed by bipartisan agreement.

George H. W. Bush had an opposition Congress in his time in office from 1989-1993, but was able to move ahead on the Americans With Disabilities Act, and made a deal on a tax increase with the opposition party.

Bill Clinton had an opposition Congress in his time in office from 1995-2001, after the first two years having his party in control, and while there was plenty of turmoil and drama, they actually came to agreement on balancing the budget in his last years, and working together on welfare reform.

George W. Bush had an opposition Congress in his last two years in office from 2007-2009, and despite a lot of conflict, gained support on a bailout of banks and other financial institutions during the Great Recession.

One will notice most times that the Republicans were in the White House, and the Democrats were in control of Congress when we had opposition Congresses, and that they were a lot more cooperative in general. The point was that at least most things that had to be done, and some others as well, were accomplished!

The split Congress of 2011-2015 has seen just about total stalemate, gridlock, and failure to accomplish anything, with a GOP House and a Democratic Senate. The four other Congresses in this situation, had also much more difficulty to gain new legislation, but those five from 1911-1913 under William Howard Taft, 1931-1933 under Herbert Hoover, and 1981-1987 under Ronald Reagan still accomplished more, due to the fact that the House was Democratic, and the Senate was Republican, the opposite of the last four years.

So when we have a Democratic Congress, or a split Congress with a Democratic House, historically, things get done; while when we have a Republican Congress, or a split Congress with a Republican House, the ability to get things done is far worse!

So the prognosis for Democratic President Barack Obama and a Republican Congress, led by a party much further to the right than earlier Republicans, to accomplish much in 2015-2016, is gloomy

Media Distortion Of Presidential Approval Ratings Undermine Obama And Democrats In Midterm Elections!

The news media has done a terrible job in reporting and analyzing Presidential approval ratings of Barack Obama.

We constantly hear that Obama has very low approval ratings, when the present approval rating is 43 percent.

Of course, 53 percent say they disapprove of the President’s performance, which is not a good thing for the administration.

But what the media do not tell us is that even with his all time low rating a few months ago of 39 percent approval, the facts are that Barack Obama has the highest rating for lowest approval of any President since John F. Kennedy!

With all of the attacks on Obama that have come, incessantly, from conservatives and the Republican Party, Obama’s 39 percent low rating ever in office can be compared to the following lowest ratings of other Presidents:

George W. Bush 19
Harry Truman 22
Richard M. Nixon 23
Jimmy Carter 28
George H. W. Bush 29
Lyndon B. Johnson 35
Ronald Reagan 35
Bill Clinton 36
Gerald Ford 37

Only Franklin D. Roosevelt and Dwight D. Eisenhower had higher lowest approval ratings of 48 and John F. Kennedy had 56.

Additionally, Richard Nixon with 67, Ronald Reagan with 68, Bill Clinton with 73, Gerald Ford with 74, and Jimmy Carter with 75, all had lower highest approval ratings than Obama with 76. The other Presidents since FDR had higher highest approval ratings, with Dwight D. Eisenhower with 79, John F. Kennedy with 80, Lyndon B. Johnson also with 80, Franklin D. Roosevelt with 84, Harry Truman with 87, George H. W. Bush with 89, and George W. Bush with 92.

So the purposeful negative portrayal of Obama’s lowest approval rating has contributed to the negativism that the Democrats face, and may, very well, undermine the Democrats two days from now in the midterm elections.

Justices Scalia, Thomas, Alito MUST Go!

Three members of the Supreme Court live in their own parallel world of the Founding Fathers and the Gilded Age and the 1920s, and refuse to consider modernization as a factor in their judicial judgments!

Antonin Scalia, appointed in 1986 by Ronald Reagan; Clarence Thomas, appointed in 1991 by George H. W. Bush; and Samuel Alito, appointed in 2006 by George W. Bush are a team of three, which has worked against gender equality,racial equality, fair treatment to immigrants, and gay rights, among other modern controversies.

Often, Chief Justice John Roberts joins them, and sometimes, but less often than Roberts, Justice Anthony Kennedy also joins to make a right wing five on the Court.

But Roberts and Kennedy have also taken stands with the four liberal justices on the Court lately–Ruth Bader Ginsburg, Stephen Breyer, Sonia Sotomayor, and Elena Kagan.

It is time to demand that Justices Scalia, Thomas, and Alito adjust to modern times, or else leave the Court, and there is a dire need to have a constitutional amendment to limit the terms of all federal judges at all levels, to promote open mindedness and diversity, and allow for change after, at most 18-20 years!

George W. Bush Promotes Brother Jeb For President!

We have had two Bush Presidencies, but now George W. Bush is promoting his younger brother, former Florida Governor Jeb Bush, to run for President in 2016!

Jeb Bush would be seen as part of the Establishment Republicans, not a popular group in the extreme right wing Tea Party Movement that has hijacked the traditions of the Republican Party historically.

Jeb is not nativist like many Republicans on immigration; after all, his own wife is Mexican-American!

Jeb has never gone as far to the right as many Republicans do today, and that makes him suspect among them.

And of course, there is exhaustion over the concept of a third Bush Presidency, after twelve years of Bushes in the past 26 years, with only Bill Clinton between them, and if Jeb became President, with only Barack Obama between the two sons of George H. W. Bush.

Jeb would be a mainstream, rational choice for President, but that is not the bent of the GOP of 2014.

And Jeb has NOT been running for public office since his second gubernatorial run in 2002, and will have been out of office for ten years, by the Presidential Election of 2016. And no one ever elected President has been out of public office as long as Jeb will have been, other than those who were generals, or businessman Wendell Willkie in 1940, with the one other exception being Abraham Lincoln, who had been out of public office for 12 years when elected to the Presidency in 2016!

Jeb would bring intelligence, knowledge, and competence to the White House, much more than his brother George W. had in 2000.

But he also represents the past, and is very likely to cater to the right wing, and most certainly, would NOT be a progressive oriented President, anymore than his brother or dad.

The odds of Jeb deciding to run should be seen as 40 percent, and the chances of being the nominee is more like 30 percent, and the odds of being elected would be no more than 45 percent.

The best guess is that Jeb will decide, ultimately, NOT to run, as his own wife seems reluctant, and that is an important factor in any candidate’s decision to run.

Imagine though a scenario of Jeb Bush vs. Hillary Clinton. Would that encourage voters to stay home or to come out in droves to vote? More likely, the latter!