Five Presidents Of Both Parties, 40 Years, And Unity, As Compared To Donald Trump’s Divisiveness

That was quite a scene on Saturday night in College Station, Texas, at the George H W Bush Presidential Library on the campus of Texas A & M University.

Five former Presidents–two Republicans (Bush and his son George H W Bush) and three Democrats (Jimmy Carter, Bill Clinton, Barack Obama)—representing all of the Presidents since 1977 except for Ronald Reagan, were together raising relief funds for the victims of Hurricane Harvey, Hurricane Irma, and Hurricane Maria.

All five had been rivals–Carter vs the senior Bush’s boss, Reagan–Bush Sr vs Clinton—Bush Jr critical of Clinton when he ran against his Vice President, Al Gore in 2000—Obama critical of Bush Jr when he ran in 2008 to succeed him—Carter and Clinton both critics of Obama during his Presidential run and years in office—but they all came together and unified in a manner that Donald Trump is incapable of accomplishing.

All five former Presidents were far from perfect in office, but they all had high levels of popularity at some point, unlike Donald Trump.

Carter and the Senior Bush lost reelection, while the other three won and completed second terms, the first time we had three Presidents in a row finish eight years in office since Thomas Jefferson, James Madison, and James Monroe from 1801-1825.

We have had five former Presidents alive now for the fourth time in American history—1861-1862 for ten and a half months under Abraham Lincoln, until John Tyler died in January 1862, with one of the five former Presidents, Martin Van Buren, living to see eight future Presidents take the oath office—1993-1994 under Bill Clinton for 15 months until Richard Nixon died in April 1994—2001-2004 under George W. Bush for three years and four and a half months until June 2004 when Ronald Reagan died in June 2004.

With the miraculous accomplishment that George H W Bush has passed Ronald Reagan’s age, and will pass Gerald Ford’s age on November, and that Jimmy Carter, three and a half months younger than Bush, has also reached 93, and seems in better health than Bush, although has cancer in remissions, one wonders if it is possible that both Bush and Carter might last longer than June 2020, which would make the longest period of five living former Presidents, with Bush and Carter both being 96 in the year 2020.

That would be an amazing situation, and of course, were Donald Trump to leave office by impeachment, the 25th Amendment Section 4 utilization, or resignation, then we would have for the first time ever a total of SIX former Presidents of the United States alive and well at the same time frame!

13 comments on “Five Presidents Of Both Parties, 40 Years, And Unity, As Compared To Donald Trump’s Divisiveness

  1. D October 24, 2017 6:23 pm

    Former Republican,

    I, in fact, posted it at 05:50 p.m. ET in this thread:

    “Three Essential Victories–Virginia And New Jersey Governorships And Alabama Senate Race”

    Following Ronald’s blog entry, I posted a response touching on a scenario in which majority control of the U.S. Senate would flip from Republican to Democratic with the midterm elections of 2018.

    Jeff Flake saying no to a possible second term may be partially motivated on him being vulnerable anyway.

  2. D October 25, 2017 6:33 am

    This video came to my attention.

    Since this topic does address “Presidents,” the subject in this video is dealing with presidential candidates in the Democratic Party and the continued use of the party’s superdelegates nominating system.

    I would like to know what Ronald, and everyone else, thinks.

    Interviewed is superdelegate Elaine Kamarck.

    Go to the mark of 01:54.

  3. Ronald October 25, 2017 8:03 am

    This video disturbs me.

    The system of “super delegates” is undemocratic, and I do not think it should continue.

    Donald Trump is an aberration, and I do not see a dangerous person like him emerging in the Democratic Party.

    The Democratic Party must not allow itself to be going down this road of super delegates, as it will undermine any chance to overcome the Republicans anytime in the future, and that would be the death knell of our system of government.

    At the same time, the idea that anyone with NO experience in government should be the nominee of a major political party must be vehemently prevented, as experience in government IS necessary.

    I do NOT want a Mark Cuban or a Mark Zuckerberg being permitted to be President, until and unless they have experience as Governor, Senator, or Mayor, or as a major Cabinet officer for a substantial period of time.

    I also do not wish to see a military man without government experience in office–no more Grant or Eisenhower, thank you!

  4. Princess Leia October 25, 2017 12:10 pm

    I wasn’t a fan of Uygur’s Young Turks show on MSNBC. As with Ed Schultz and Dylan Ratigan, and to a lesser extent Chris Matthews, the loud blowhard shows the station has had on aren’t my favorites.

  5. Pragmatic Progressive October 25, 2017 4:43 pm

    Agreed about the shows Leia. Of their current lineup, I watch The Beat with Ari at 6 pm, then I watch All In with Chris Hayes at 8 pm, Rachel Maddow’s show at 9 pm, and The Last Word with Lawrence O’Donnell at 10 pm. On weekends, I watch AM Joy at 10 AM.

    I’ve quit watching CNN ever since they started hiring pro-Trump people for their panels.

  6. Pragmatic Progressive October 25, 2017 8:04 pm

    To second what the Professor, and also, what several people in the comments section said, the super-delegates provide a “safety switch” in case the Democrats ever have a candidate like Trump.

  7. D October 26, 2017 8:50 am

    I am focused with an agreement on the first two paragraphs Ronald wrote in response to my asking him, and other participants, for their reaction to the video.

    To quote Ronald: “This video disturbs me. | The system of ‘super delegates’ is undemocratic, and I do not think it should continue.”


    Continuation of superdelegates are an act of the Democratic Party Establishment—and I include the word “Establishment”—trying to exert control over who specifically gets nominated.

    That is not okay with me.

    The superdelegate in this video is Elaine Kamarck. Here is background information on her: . “[Elaine] Kamarck is also a Lecturer in Public Policy at the Harvard Kennedy School of Government. She started at the Kennedy School in 1997 after a career in politics and government. She has been a member of the Democratic National Committee and the DNC’s Rules Committee since 1997. She has participated actively in four presidential campaigns and in ten nominating conventions—including two Republican conventions. | In the 1980s, she was one of the founders of the New Democrat movement that helped elect Bill Clinton president.”

    Given the fact that Kamarck lectures on public policy, she should value democracy. What she says in that video, expressing her support of continuing superdelegates, betrays that. In fact, nominating a president has nothing do with a candidate needing to have a comfy relationship with same-party members of Congress or the governorships or whatever else crosses her mind. Kamarck should take a look at the U.S. Constitution for eligibility to the presidency of the United States.

    If Elaine Kamarck valued democracy, she would look to Donald Trump—despite her not approving of him—and value that democracy. The 2016 Republican presidential primaries voters wanted Trump. They voted him the nomination. They got him. That is democratic.

    I want superdelegates totally gone.

    Thank you, Ronald, and others, for your responses!

  8. Rational Lefty October 26, 2017 12:18 pm

    Thanks for the info about the super-delegates, Former Republican.

  9. D October 27, 2017 11:59 am

    Since this thread addressed “Presidents,” I am going to post the following report regarding the nation’s 43rd U.S. president George W. Bush.

    . . .

    George W. Bush knew he’d be missed someday. Now he is, even by Democrats.

    By Christopher Wilson (10.26.2017)

    “In the aftermath of the speech, a YouGov/Economist survey of 1,500 Americans taken between Oct. 22 and 24 found that 51 percent of Democrats had a positive view of the former president.”

    . . .

  10. Rational Lefty October 27, 2017 4:48 pm

    I still have a negative view of Dubya. Poor response to Katrina, diverting to Iraq instead of hunting down Bin Laden, trashing the economy.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published.

You may use these HTML tags and attributes: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <s> <strike> <strong>

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.