Posts Tagged Presidential Election of 2008

Former Arkansas Governor Mike Huckabee Has Become A Total Lunatic By Predicting That Barack Obama Will Not Finish Second Presidential Term!

Posted by Ronald in News and Politics on May 17, 2013

Former Arkansas Governor Mike Huckabee was one of many Republicans who sought the Presidency in 2008, and while not winning the nomination, he came across as a strong conservative with somewhat reasonable views, seen as in the mainstream of the party for that election year. He even came across as likeable and pleasant in personality.

However, once Huckabee gained a radio talk show and an hour on the weekend on Fox News Channel, he went berserk, the best term that can be applied to a man who moved to the “hard” right and has emerged as a delusional and whacky man in his statements, making him a lunatic to any reasonable, rational human being!

And now, Huckabee has declared that the Benghazi, Libya tragedy makes it likely that Barack Obama will be impeached, and be unable to finish his second term as President!

Think about just how loony that statement is! Could Obama be impeached by the Republican controlled House of Representatives? YES, for certain, similar to the 105th Congress under Speaker Newt Gingrich which impeached Bill Clinton on December 19, 1998!

But Clinton ended up, even with a Republican controlled Senate, having votes to remove him from office on two impeachment counts, with a 50-50 tie and a 55-45 vote to remove, making it 17 and 12 votes short of removal from office by a two thirds vote!

And now, the Senate is Democratic 55-45, and even if a Senate trial came in 2015 or 2016, with a possible Republican controlled Senate, there would still be no more than, say, 53-54 Republican Senators, and where would the GOP gain anywhere from 13 Senators then to 22 Senators this year or next to convict and remove Obama from the Presidency?

Huckabee is a true lunatic, therefore, and even if it were to happen, all it would do is give Vice President Joe Biden the Presidency, and an edge for the Presidential Election of 2016, which no one should think would lead to his likely defeat as a sitting President. So what would be gained by the GOP removing a term limited President?:

The answer is, simply, race hatred, pure and simple! There is NO justification to impeach and remove Obama, anymore than there was for Bill Clinton, and just as with Clinton, an impeachment would besmirch Obama in history, but he would still survive in office, and leave more popular as a result, just as with Clinton, who has become a “rock star” in his post Presidency!

Share

, , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

11 Comments

If Hillary Clinton Runs, Will ANY Democrat Challenge Her For The Nomination?

Posted by Ronald in News and Politics on May 5, 2013

Based on public opinion polls and general perceptions that are out there, Hillary Clinton is a shoo-in for the Democratic Presidential nomination in 2016, if she chooses to want it and run for it.

The hints are that she will run, and polls indicate more than 60 percent want her as the nominee, and only Vice President Joe Biden is in double digits with 12-13 percent, and Andrew Cuomo the only other person to really have even a few percent.

IF she does not run, there is an open season, with Joe Biden having the advantage, but certainly not a “slam dunk” against Cuomo, Martin O’Malley, Deval Patrick, and several possible women candidates, including Elizabeth Warren, Kirsten Gillibrand, and Amy Klobuchar.

It seems clear that Hillary Clinton, who even this author thought would not run, IS likely to run, and seemingly, be “crowned” the nominee, although there are skeptics who point out that she seemed in the same position in 2006-2008, and lost to a newcomer named Barack Obama.

But now , with extra experience as Secretary of State, it seems as if she is “unstoppable” if she chooses to make the run.

And the GOP is already starting to attack her, because they know it will be extremely difficult for ANY GOP nominee to stop her, as she could lose some of the states that Barack Obama won, and still win the election. The odds of Texas going to her, along with Georgia and Arizona, and the return of North Carolina to the Democratic column, seems possible, with growing Hispanic and Latino population and voting participants, and the likelihood that a higher percentage of women would vote for her, along with African Americans and young people, that how could any Republican nominee be able to come up with 270 electoral votes?

Share

, , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

12 Comments

Under 30s In This Decade More Socially Liberal, More Democratic

Posted by Ronald in News and Politics on March 31, 2013

Those citizens under 30 years of age now, and throughout this decade, are emerging as much more socially liberal and Democratic than many realized.

Under 30s now have no problem with gay marriage, immigration reform, more gun regulations, preservation of abortion rights, and tolerance toward the growing diversity of America’s population.

They are far less religious in a traditional sense, and are more likely to vote Democratic now and in the long term, and young women, particularly, are thrilled at the thought of having a woman President in Hillary Clinton or someone else, as an example of massive social change similar to the election of Barack Obama in 2008 and 2012.

This spells gloom and doom for the Republican Party if they do not “get their act together”, so to speak!

Imagine, 37 percent of the electorate in 2020 will be under 30, meaning born after 1990!

Share

, , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

No Comments

Last Four Originally Elected Democratic Presidents Were Underdogs: Will That Happen Again In 2016?

Posted by Ronald in News and Politics on March 22, 2013

In the past half century, four Democratic nominees for President, all considered “underdogs”, were elected President.

John F. Kennedy was an underdog in 1960, being a Roman Catholic nominee, thought unlikely to be nominated or elected, but defeating Vice President Richard Nixon, who was far better known.

Jimmy Carter was an underdog in 1976, the first Southern nominee for President since Zachary Taylor in 1848, and really considered the longest of long shots to be the Democratic nominee, and yet won the Presidency over President Gerald Ford.

Bill Clinton was an underdog in 1992, considered part of the “second tier” of possible Democratic nominees for President, and thought to be “dead in the water”, due to the Gennifer Flowers sex scandal, but managing to be the “Comeback Kid”, and win the nomination and the election against President George H. W. Bush.

And Barack Obama was certainly considered an underdog to Hillary Clinton in 2008, and being African American, seemed a particularly “long shot” to go all the way to the Presidency, defeating Senator John McCain of Arizona.

All four Democratic winners all had youth–Kennedy at 43, Carter at 52, Clinton at 46, and Obama at 47 years of age. And get this–these four men were elected exactly SIXTEEN years apart–1960, 1976, 1992, and 2008!

Could this happen again?

Hillary Clinton is seen as the clear front runner, and Joe Biden is the second established “veteran” in the potential race for President in 2016.

But could it be that Governor Martin O’Malley of Maryland, or Governor Andrew Cuomo of New York, or Senator Elizabeth Warren of Massachusetts, or Senator Amy Klobuchar of Minnesota, or Senator Mark Warner of Virginia, or a future Senator Cory Booker of New Jersey, or Governor Deval Patrick of Massachusetts would end up as a sudden surprise during the primaries and caucuses in 2016, and emerge the nominee and the winner of the Presidency?

Who can say, but the past COULD be an indicator of the future!

Share

, , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

2 Comments

Disgraceful Action By Republicans Against Former Republican Colleague, Chuck Hagel, Demonstrates Mistake Democrats Made In Refusing To Reform Filibuster!

Posted by Ronald in News and Politics on February 14, 2013

The Republican Senate minority has reached a new low, in rejecting former colleague, Chuck Hagel of Nebraska, for Secretary of Defense, as a measure of spite against Hagel for backing Barack Obama in 2008, criticizing the George W. Bush “surge” in Iraq in 2007, and the exploitation of the Benghazi, Libya tragedy as a means to smack the President directly!

Hagel is perfectly qualified to be Secretary of Defense, and to have utilized the filibuster as a means to deny a vote, is reprehensible beyond description! Even Senator John Tower of Texas, a George H. W. Bush appointment as Secretary of Defense in 1989, while rejected for that position in 1989 over womanizing and liquor abuses, had the dignity of going down in an actual vote, rather than the prevention of such a vote, through the dastardly misuse of the filibuster tactic!

The Democrats and Majority Leader Harry Reid of Nevada had a opportunity to change the filibuster rules, and had no guts or courage, and this is the disastrous result!

The Democrats need to learn to play hardball, since the Republicans fail to understand anything else! They should be ashamed at their weakness, and the Republicans, led by Minority Leader Mitch McConnell, once again, prove how unprincipled and despicable they are in their “war” on the Obama Administration! They have no common decency, and it is clear that any attempt at bipartisanship over the next two years is out of the question!

So Defense Secretary Leon Panetta, who already has had a farewell at the Pentagon, will have to stay on longer, until another attempt at overcoming the filibuster on Hagel is attempted, or Hagel withdraws, and another individual is selected to head the Defense Department.

Share

, , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

19 Comments

Age Vs Youth: Will The Republicans And Democrats Be Switching On Their Presidential Nominees In 2016?

Posted by Ronald in News and Politics on January 29, 2013

When one analyzes the two major political parties in the past forty years, it has been a general reality that the Republican Party has run Presidential candidates who tend to be much older than the Democratic Party nominees for President.

Witness Richard Nixon, nine years older than George McGovern in 1972; Gerald Ford eleven years older than Jimmy Carter in 1976; Ronald Reagan thirteen years older than Jimmy Carter in 1980; Reagan seventeen years older than Walter Mondale in 1984; George H. W. Bush eight years older than Michael Dukakis in 1988; Bush twenty two years older than Bill Clinton in 1992; Bob Dole twenty three years older than Clinton in 1996; John McCain twenty five years older than Barack Obama in 2008; and Mitt Romney fourteen years older than Obama in 2012. Only in 2000 and 2004 did we see George W. Bush older than Al Gore by only two years and in 2004 actually younger than John Kerry by three years.

This phenomenon is maybe just a coincidence, but it has often been said that the Democrats go for youth and the Republicans for experience in their Presidential nominees.

Well, if that is the case, it is about to be switched dramatically in 2016 if one assumes that either Hillary Clinton or Joe Biden are the likely front runners for the Democratic Presidential nomination, as Hillary will be 69 in 2016, and Joe will be 74 in 2016. Clinton would be the second oldest first time nominee, behind Ronald Reagan, and Biden would be the oldest first time nominee.

The Republicans are certain to nominate a candidate decades younger, such as Marco Rubio, Paul Ryan, Nikki Haley, Bobby Jindal, or Ted Cruz, all born in the early 1970s, being therefore mid 40s in 2016. If you consider Chris Christie, Scott Walker, or John Thune, they were born in the 1960s, so would be in the mid 50s. Jeb Bush, Rick Perry, Rick Santorum and Michele Bachmann all were born in the 1950s, so would be in their late 50s or in the 60s. There is no candidate born in the 1940s seriously mentioned, unless one expects Newt Gingrich to try again for the Presidency, being just a year younger than Joe Biden and four years older than Hillary Clinton.

The Democrats have alternative possible candidates in Martin O’Malley and Amy Klobuchar born in the early 1960s, so either would be mid 50s in 2016, but Andrew Cuomo and Mark Warner, born in the mid 1950s would be nearing or at the age of 60 when running in 2016, and Elizabeth Warren, born in 1949, would be 67 in 2016, only about two years younger than Hillary Clinton.

So we are seeing a likely switch from an older to younger Republican nominee, and a younger to an older Democratic nominee, and the difference in years could be massive, as it was in the past forty years in most Presidential elections.

A final thought: In the nine elections between 1972 and 2012 when the GOP nominee was always older than the Democratic nominee, the Republicans won the election four times, and the Democrats five times, so basically, trying to determine whether age or youth are an advantage is clearly a pure guessing game!

Share

, , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

2 Comments

The Exit Of Sarah Palin: We Hardly Know Ye And Do NOT Wish To Know You Better!

Posted by Ronald in News and Politics on January 29, 2013

After four years and five months, the saga of Sarah Palin is finally over, as her services are no longer required at Fox News Channel.

First making the national news at the end of August 2008, when Senator John McCain made the tremendous mistake of selecting her as his Vice Presidential running mate, she now exits the news at the end of January 2013.

Therefore, for a total of 53 months, she has plagued the public discourse with her stupidity, ignorance, prejudicial views, and her obvious jealousy that others were gaining more attention.

But she was a smart business woman, making millions on her mediocrity, and the story of a very ordinary, unqualified person being a potential heartbeat away from the Presidency, had McCain won the White House, was a story that terrified intelligent people.

When one looks back on all those journalists who made us think that Palin would run for President, and was qualified in the minds of some Republicans and conservatives to be the Commander in Chief, it makes us realize how gullible and naive many people really are.

And the report that Fox News Channel offered to keep her at a reduced contract, which she turned down, just proves, beyond a shadow of a doubt, how delusional Sarah Palin is about her own knowledge and intellect!

It is good to clean out the files on Sarah Palin, and see her as a phenomenon which has run its course, and America is the better for it ending finally in January 2013!

Sarah Palin, we hardly know ye, and we do not wish to know you better! Goodbye and good riddance!

Share

, , , , ,

4 Comments

The Battle Between Bush I Loyalists And Bush II Loyalists Begins Over Chuck Hagel Nomination For Defense Secretary

Posted by Ronald in News and Politics on January 7, 2013

Hard to conceive, but the battle between loyalists to President George H. W. Bush and loyalists to President George W. Bush has begun over the nomination of former Republican Senator Chuck Hagel to be Barack Obama’s Secretary of Defense in his second term in the Presidency.

The “old guard” Establishment Conservatives around the first President Bush, including Brent Scowcroft, James Baker, Colin Powell, Condoleezza Rice, and the former President himself, have no major problems with Hagel.

On the other hand, the neoconservatives, including Dick Cheney, Donald Rumsfeld, and conservative ideologues like Bill Kristol of the Weekly Standard, Paul Wolfowitz, Richard Perle, Elliot Abrams, Frank Gaffney, John Bolton, and Charles Krauthammer all will find Hagel wanting in his foreign and defense policy views. It is not clear where President George W. Bush will come down, but in theory, he would agree with his key advisers and consultants mentioned above. Note that Powell and Rice are more linked to father Bush, and both were certainly involved in major battles with Cheney, Rumsfeld, and others during the second Bush Administration.

It will be an interesting battle, and it is likely that many Republican Senators will refuse to back Hagel, including Minority Leader Mitch McConnell of Kentucky, newly sworn in Senator Ted Cruz of Texas, and Senator Lindsey Graham of South Carolina, who has particularly gone on the attack already against Hagel.

A key person to watch will be Senator John McCain of Arizona, who still harbors resentment that Hagel backed Obama over him in the 2008 Presidential campaign, and vehemently disagrees with Hagel on issues involving Afghanistan and Iraq and Iran. McCain has been attacking Obama on every front lately, but will he concede that Obama has a right to the Defense Secretary he wants?

Stay tuned for the fireworks, particularly to wonder where Senator Marco Rubio of Florida and Senator Rand Paul of Kentucky will take their stand–with the old line establishment figures, which include also many military and naval leaders; or with the neoconservatives who brought us into long, drawn out wars in Iraq and Afghanistan with very little success!

Share

, , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

No Comments

The Hillary Clinton “Bubble” For President Likely To Fade

Posted by Ronald in News and Politics on December 19, 2012

There has been so much speculation about Secretary of State Hillary Clinton being a candidate for President in 2016, with many ready to “crown” her without a primary race and a general election on the way to her becoming President.

Let’s begin by saying to just forget such a scenario, as no one is going to “drop dead” for Hillary! No one is going to decide to avoid running for President, whether on the Democratic side or the Republican side. Hillary, if she ran, would have severe competition, and it would not be pleasant or nice in any fashion!

But the odds are growing that Hillary will NOT run! She looks really tired, worn out, exhausted, and has aged dramatically, at age 65. To believe that after a year or two off, that she is ready emotionally for a rough two years campaigning like a “maniac”, as she did in 2008, is not living in the “real” world! And then to have four to eight years of constant stress at the age of 69 to 77 in the White House just does not seem very appealing.

After all, Hillary could make tons of money writing and lecturing, with very little criticism, and loads of praise and adulation. Who would not like that? And she is likely to become a grandmother through her daughter Chelsea, and would want time to adore her grandchildren without the burdens of office!

And beyond all that, the report condemning the State Department handling of the killing of Ambassador Chris Stevens in Benghazi, Libya, is an opportunity for criticism of her handling of the State Department, after so much adulation and praise from most sources. She has already been accused of avoiding testimony so far, with the report of her having suffered a concussion while sick with a stomach virus, with many wondering if such a report is true.

Hillary will face lots of attacks in the future for the Libya mess, and that will only add to her conviction that she has done enough for her country, and that it is better to retire and become an admired figure, out of the political fray.

So expect, eventually, that Hillary will decide NOT to run, and will open the field to others, much younger and a new generation, with maybe the exception of Vice President Joe Biden!

Share

, , , , , , , , ,

1 Comment

Can Hillary Clinton Be Crowned President For 2016? Not Realistically!

Posted by Ronald in News and Politics on December 6, 2012

As Hillary Clinton gets ready to leave the State Department after four distinguished years, she is being flattered by kudos paid to her brilliance, and public opinion polls that make her, on paper, an easy nominee and winner of the Presidency in 2016!

But hold it, everyone! Our system of government and elections does not permit the nomination and election of anyone without real competition, hard work, and lots of grief and “blood, sweat and tears”!

We do not crown anyone to be President, and if you believe otherwise, ask such luminaries of the past as Henry Clay, Daniel Webster, William Seward, Charles Evans Hughes, William Borah, Hiram Johnson, Robert La Follette Sr, Al Smith, Henry A. Wallace, Robert Taft, Arthur Vandenberg, Adlai Stevenson, Hubert Humphrey, Nelson Rockefeller, George McGovern, Bob Dole, Bob Kerrey, Al Gore, John Kerry, John McCain, and even Hillary Clinton, about the conclusion that they would be President of the United States someday!

Fifty seven percent in a poll want Hillary to be President, but it is a long four years to 2016, and there will be many others who wish to be President, and the question is whether she wants to go through the same hell she went through in 2008!

Don’t be so sure that Hillary will run in 2016!

Share

, , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

No Comments