Posts Tagged Joe Biden
It seems now more than ever that the Democratic Party is stepping aside for Hillary Clinton to be its nominee.
It may be that it simply seems like a “fait accompli”, an inevitable situation that makes possible rivals unwilling to enter the field, hesitant to challenge her.
The point is that Senator Elizabeth Warren of Massachusetts and New York Governor Andrew Cuomo have made it clear that they are not in the field, unwilling to promote any action that indicates a challenge to the giant shadow of the former Secretary of State, Senator, and First Lady.
No discussion is going on for anyone else, other than possibly Joe Biden and former Montana Governor Brian Schweitzer, and it is really possible at the end that we will have the first uncontested nomination ever seen in modern American history, almost as if Hillary Clinton is President running unopposed for a second term in the White House, rather than as an outsider seeking the office of the Presidency.
Since Hillary resided in the White House for eight years, it is a scenario unseen in American history, and would strengthen her as the Republican Party, with its nightmarish group of candidates, fights it out on the far right, alienating the great center of the American population.
A CNN poll indicates that New Jersey Governor Chris Christie is seven points ahead of Congressman Paul Ryan, the Republican Vice Presidential nominee in 2012, for the Presidential race in 2016; and with Hillary Clinton far ahead of Joe Biden, but Biden far ahead of anyone else in the Democratic field for 2016.
But one must be aware that this far out, to assume that Christie and Clinton will be the nominees, or that Ryan and Biden will be the backup nominees, is not a good bet at all.
Face the facts: Christie’s name has been in the news because of his landslide victory in New Jersey in an off year election, where his story was the major one to report. Ryan, having been the VP nominee, is well known. Hillary Clinton has been seen as a public figure constantly, most recently as Secretary of State, and Joe Biden has been a very active Vice President.
There is a very good chance that someone else will be the nominee in the GOP, while less likely for the Democrats, where Hillary and Joe seem to have a lead that is unlikely to be surpassed, particularly for Hillary over Joe.
But one only has to look at the surprises of history, including Richard Nixon, Jimmy Carter, Bill Clinton, and Barack Obama, to know that anything is possible in a Presidential race this far out from the actual election year.
One cannot easily decide if the announcement of the Iran nuclear deal last night is a moment to celebrate or to condemn. The US, Great Britain, France, Russia, China, and Germany came to an agreement which is being much questioned by many diplomatic observers.
The history of Iran’s dealings with the West makes one pause and wonder how anyone can trust the fundamentalist Islamic regime,
This is not an issue of the Iranian people, but rather the Iranian government.
With Israel and the Arab nations (including Saudi Arabia) for once in agreement, all of them alarmed at the growing influence of Iran in Syria, and their engagement with terrorist networks, the tendency would be to see any agreement with the Islamic regime as a ploy, and that we will soon face the reality that Iran is a nuclear power.
But if diplomacy does not work, then the likelihood of warfare in the Middle East beckons, and most Americans do not want our nation involved in another war.
The threat to the survival of Israel is a very worrisome aspect of all this, but it is more than that.
It is also an issue that Iran presents a threat to world peace unmatched since the Cuban Missile Crisis of 51 years ago.
The question is whether Barack Obama, John Kerry, Chuck Hagel, Joe Biden et al know what they are doing, and whether in the future, we will look back on this as another “Munich”, when Great Britain and France made an ill fated deal with Nazi Germany and Fascist Italy over the future of Czechoslovakia in the fall of 1938, which did not bring peace, but instead, within a short time, the outbreak of World War II.
So the author has a very mixed feeling, and a sense of foreboding, that the future is likely to be very gloomy, and lead to a dangerous, widespread war.
Disllusionment With Washington Opens Up Possibility Of State Governors Again Having Advantage For Presidential Race!
Much of the time in American history, there has been disillusionment with the Washington DC establishment, and a desire to have an “outsider” being our President.
Only three Presidents of the past century were elected directly from the Senate—Warren G. Harding, John F. Kennedy, and Barack Obama—while a total of six Governors or former Governors were elected to the Presidency—Woodrow Wilson, Franklin D. Roosevelt, Jimmy Carter, Ronald Reagan, Bill Clinton, George W. Bush. Additionally, former Governors who were Vice President first, and succeeded during the term—Theodore Roosevelt and Calvin Coolidge–were also elected to a full term.
So the present anger at Washington and everything it represents opens up new opportunities for sitting or former Governors in both parties, such as follows:
Democrats—Andrew Cuomo of New York, Martin O’Malley of Maryland, Deval Patrick of Massachusetts
Republicans-Chris Christie of New Jersey, Jeb Bush of Florida, Jon Huntsman of Utah, Scott Walker of Wisconsin, John Kasich of Ohio, Bobby Jindal of Louisiana, Rick Perry of Texas, Susana Martinez of New Mexico
Having said this, one still has to wonder if the Democratic Governors can overcome Hillary Clinton or Joe Biden or Mark Warner or Elizabeth Warren or Amy Klobuchar or Cory Booker.
And one has to wonder if the Republican Governors can overcome Ted Cruz, Rand Paul, Paul Ryan, Marco Rubio, Rick Santorum and others.
The new book, DOUBLE DOWN: GAME CHANGE 2012, states that Barack Obama’s campaign seriously considered dumping Vice President Joe Biden for Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, a rumor long believed and promoted.
Would such a change have brought about a different election result? Hardly so, and Obama came to realize that his Vice President was an asset, and that it was best to leave well enough alone.
When one looks at history, it is clear that “dumping” a Vice President is not a good idea, although there have been cases of such situations sometimes being necessary.
This is true of Thomas Jefferson and Aaron Burr, with Burr having tried to take the Presidency away from Jefferson in the Presidential Election of 1800.
It is also true of Andrew Jackson and John C. Calhoun, who were at tremendous odds over the protective tariff in 1832, with Calhoun finally resigning the Vice Presidency with three months left in the term, before being replaced by Martin Van Buren for Jackson’s second term.
Abraham Lincoln’s decision to dump Hannibal Hamlin for Andrew Johnson in 1864 is seen as a mistake, as Johnson ended up being impeached, although not convicted, by Congress when he became President.
Ulysses S. Grant’s first term Vice President, Schuyler Colfax, being involved in scandal, was replaced by Henry Wilson for the second term, a necessary action, due to the Credit Mobilier Scandal revelations.
Franklin D. Roosevelt had three Vice Presidents in his four terms, with John Nance Garner refusing to run with FDR when he went for his third term. But Henry A. Wallace was replaced with Harry Truman for the fourth term, due to opposition from Southerners and conservatives who worried about Wallace on the issue of race relations, and his views of the Soviet Union during World War II. Looking back, it was better that Truman, rather than Wallace, became President upon FDR’s death in April 1945.
Gerald Ford is the last President to replace his Vice President, Nelson Rockefeller, with the choice of Bob Dole, but that helped to defeat him in a close race with Jimmy Carter.
Overall, it is best for a President to stick with his Vice President when running for a second term, unless there are extenuating circumstances as with Jefferson, Jackson, Grant and FDR.
A Des Moines Register Poll of Democrats in Iowa shows that they prefer a “fresh face” for the Democratic nomination for President in 2016, over a more experienced candidate such as Hillary Clinton or Joe Biden, who together have about 70 years in public governing service.
Since Iowa is the first state to have a say in the nominating process, this could encourage “newer” faces, such as Governor Andrew Cuomo of New York, Governor Martin O’Malley of Maryland, Senator Amy Klobuchar of Minnesota, Senator Elizabeth Warren of Massachusetts, Senator Mark Warner of Virginia, soon to be Senator Cory Booker of New Jersey, and San Antonio Mayor Julian Castro, to “throw their hat in the ring”, a term developed by former President Theodore Roosevelt, when he announced he was running again for President in 1912.
This blogger has suggested earlier that such a development might be good for the Democratic Party, particularly at a time when the Republican Party will have a much younger nominee than either Hillary Clinton or Joe Biden.
This past weekend, the Iowa Democratic Party held its Annual Steak Fry celebration, hosted by Iowa Senator Tom Harkin, bringing together two Democratic stars–one of experience and one of youth.
Vice President Joe Biden, a colleague and friend of Senator Harkin for the past thirty years, was there to remind people that he and Barack Obama had worked every day in the White House to advance the middle class, which they have done an excellent job on, considering the terrible economic collapse occurring just five years ago in mid September.
There is no question of Biden’s great credentials for the Presidency, although he will have to deal with former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, and other Democrats of a younger generation, with at least one likely to join the fray for the 2016 Democratic Presidential nomination to succeed Obama.
So the youth of the party was represented by San Antonio Mayor Julian Castro, who is 39 today, and runs the seventh largest city in America. Castro made a very good impression at the Democratic National Convention in 2012, reminding many of Barack Obama’s fantastic performance at the 2004 Democratic National Convention, which catapulted the Illinois Senator into the 2008 Presidential race and the White House!
Castro would be 42 in 2016, and would bring a Latino into the Presidential race, a sign of the future growth of the United States. He is very charismatic, handsome, and well spoken, but the question is whether he would challenge both Biden and Clinton if they were to run.
Certainly, Biden and Castro got along famously, but they represent a difference of 32 years, nearly two generations of leadership apart, at ages 42 and 74 in 2016.
Castro made clear that the Democratic Party belief in helping those in need had made a difference in his life plan, as well as that of his identical twin brother, Congressman Joaquin Castro.
Without question, Castro would be a good choice if youth and promise matter, but Biden has the edge on experience and knowledge and connections.
In any case, either is far better than any Republican considered likely to enter the Presidential race in 2016!
Senator Ted Cruz Praises The Late Senator Jesse Helms, Adding To The Image Of Cruz As The Most Dangerous And Divisive US Senator Today!
Senator Ted Cruz of Texas, a freshman, is like a bull in a China shop, still in his first year, but laying waste to his party establishment, and making enemies along the way, and thoroughly enjoying the attention he is getting, and unconcerned about the enemies which are piling up in the process!
Cruz, who looks eerily like the infamous Senator Joseph McCarthy of Wisconsin, and is the same age as McCarthy was when he became noticed (42), has already gained infamy by claiming that Harvard Law School professors were Communists, and advocating the Tea Party Movement desire to destroy ObamaCare, and go to war against everything Barack Obama stands for!
Now, Cruz has hit a new low, praising former Senator Jesse Helms of North Carolina as a model for the Republican Party.
Helms, who died in 2008 at the age of 86, served thirty years in the US Senate, from 1973-2003, and “took no prisoners”, using racist tactics in his election campaigns, opposing a Martin Luther King national holiday, and being rude and nasty toward the first African American woman Senator, Carol Mosley Braun of Illinois, among other horrible actions!
Helms was a full scale segregationist in the age of civil rights, non apologetic for upholding the Confederate heritage, and never reformed in any form, unlike Senator Strom Thurmond of South Carolina and Governor George Wallace of Alabama, who both mellowed and reformed somewhat in their later careers.
Helms would go down as one of the most negative characters ever to serve in the US Senate, and yet, now, Ted Cruz has said that we should have 100 Jesse Helmses in the US Senate, and it would be a far better body!
What is going on in the mind of this man, Ted Cruz? Why is he declaring war on common decency and humanity, insulting both Democrats and fellow Republicans on a daily basis?
Well, Cruz wants to be President, and he will stop at nothing to achieve his goal, no matter how many victims he leaves in his wake!
Many Republicans are afraid, literally, of him and his tactics and personality, reminding too many of Senator McCarthy, which again, Cruz has an uncanny resemblance to, in facial features and aggressive personality!
McCarthy was eventually, and rightfully, censored by the US Senate, including most of his own colleagues, and it may come to a time where an action like that will be required to tone down this threat to order and stability in the Senate, and the nation at large!
While we are on this idea of needing “100″ of a particular person, this author has better suggestions, although the concept of “100″ is actually ridiculous!
But if we are to do so, how about 100 Bernie Sanders; 100 Elizabeth Warren; or going back to past Senators, how about 100 Robert La Follette, Sr; 100 George Norris; 100 Hubert Humphrey; 100 Ted Kennedy; 100 George McGovern; 100 Paul Wellstone; 100 Joe Biden?
President Barack Obama is now facing the ultimate crisis—repudiation by a vote of either or both houses of Congress on the issue of responding to Syria’s use of chemical weapons on its own people.
Obama could have gone ahead a week ago, utilized his Commander In Chief powers, used by every Chief Executive in the past thirty years, to initiate military action, but instead chose to promote Congressional involvement, not realizing that this divided Congress would not cooperate!
The Republicans, always vastly hawkish, are now playing politics, except for a few (including Speaker John Boehner, Senators John McCain and LIndsey Graham as the most outstanding examples), who are supporting Obama on what they see as a national security issue. People who would have backed George W. Bush without pause now are refusing to support Obama, in order to weaken him.
But even the Democrats are showing unwillingness to back Obama, and in so doing, are taking away his credibility as a leader.
So with the likely defeat of what Obama wants, a resolution backing the President’s use of force in Syria, it is putting Obama on the spot. Does he go ahead anyway, and do what he feels he must do? Or does he back off, and look like a “paper tiger”, who roars, but has no bite?
It looks now that whatever the eventuality, Barack Obama may have reached the point that his second term will be unproductive and unfulfilled on almost any issue, domestic or foreign, and that the Presidency has been greatly harmed by this ultimate crisis that could have been avoided by doing what Ronald Reagan, George H. W. Bush, Bill Clinton, and George W. Bush did—take action, and answer criticisms later!
So will Barack Obama go down as a failed President, allowing his domestic enemies to destroy him, and try to make his accomplishments, which are many, to be overlooked or even reversed over time?
What a mess we are in, and it makes one wonder, if what this author is stating, turns out to be basically reality, whether or not Barack Obama should consider resignation, giving Vice President Joe Biden the Presidency, and allowing him the chance to pursue the agenda of Obama, with his much greater ability to get along with Congress, and work with opposition leaders in the Republican Party, even though, of course, Biden would still face fierce attacks and challenges without any doubt!
It is very radical to suggest resignation, but one can make the argument that for the future of the nation, if there is total paralysis, and inability to have influence in either domestic or foreign policy, that it is something to consider, as much as this author loathes the idea, the concept, of “quitting”!