Alaska

Michele Bachmann To Leave Congress: Goodbye, Good Riddance, And Please No More Public Appearances Once You Leave (Fat Chance)!

Ronald 55 Comments

Minnesota Congresswoman Michele Bachmann, arguably the most infuriating Republican House member, although there are others who could certainly compete for that honor, has announced she is not going to run for a fifth term in her Congressional district, and everyone should celebrate this news!

Bachmann will go down as one of the most reckless, most irresponsible members of the US House of Representatives in its entire history!

She said stupid, inane things on a regular basis; worked at character assassination of Democrats and progressives; and her husband added to the embarrassment of her public appearances and speeches, both on the floor of the House and off!

She contributed NOTHING positive to American politics, working at dividing Americans, rather than unite them on anything!

She was also an embarrassment to the advancement of women in politics, and her Presidential campaign was a disgrace, that she even thought she was qualified to serve in the Oval Office!

To believe that she is a tax attorney is hard to conceptualize, as he came across as brain dead, having no understanding of the Constitution and the Bill of Rights, and rejected science totally, and accepting mythology and hearsay as fact!

To believe that this dumb moron was on the Intelligence Committee of the House demonstrates what a mockery the Republican Party has become in the House of Representatives, accomplishing the least legislative action of any Congress in 70 years!

Bachmann claims that she was not worried about losing her seat, even though her margins of victory were smaller each time, and the last round, she won by one percent.

Bachmann also claims that she is not concerned about the investigation of her Presidential campaign funding by the Internal Revenue Service and the Federal Bureau of Investigation, but an active pursuit of information about likely corruption is in process, and do not be surprised that she could be indicted, and could, in theory, face expulsion from the House if the investigation develops quickly enough over the next 18 months.

It would be fitting for Bachmann to be repudiated and forced out, as she is a a literal nightmare that brought out the ugliest side of the American right wing!

And the Tea Party Movement, of which she was the leading member, is also in trouble, and hopefully, there will be a repudiation of that hateful, backward, movement that promoted selfishness and greed, and condemns people who are not part of the elite upper class white establishment that put us into the Great Recession!

Meanwhile, we have rid ourselves of Florida Congressman Allen West, South Carolina Senator Jim DeMint, and former Alaska Governor Sarah Palin, other morons and threats to a stable future in America, so we do have some things, as progressives, to be happy about!

The Senate In Crisis A Century After The 17th Amendment

Ronald 2 Comments

The US Senate was a very undemocratic institution a century ago, controlled by special interests, including the oil, steel, banking and other trusts and monopolies, and its membership selected by the vote of corrupt state legislatures across the nation.

The Senate was exposed for its faults and corruption by David Graham Phillips in his article in 1906 in Cosmopolitan Magazine, which has been reprinted in 2012, an article of 108 pages, a small book, exposing the corruption of Senate Majority Leader Nelson Aldrich of Rhode Island. This was followed up by other articles in muckraking periodicals, exposing the corruption of other US Senators.

These articles motivated a reform movement, leading to the 17th Amendment to the Constitution, establishing popular vote elections for the US Senate. It did not mean that every Senator elected was brilliant, or a positive force, but at least the people had the final say on who would represent them, as in the US House of Representatives!

Now, a century later, the US Senate is in paralysis, greatly due to the abuse of the filibuster system, which now requires 60 Senators to end a filibuster, while it used to be even worse, 67 before reforms in 1975. The filibuster was originally utilized to stop civil rights advancements, but now it is used to prevent any action on many nominations and many bills, effectively hamstringing any progress or change on anything controversial.

But also, it is clear that special interest groups, similar to those a century ago, but more such groups and more widespread, have made the US Senate captive again.

And with growing differences in population in coastline states, as compared to states in the interior, we are finding the concept of each state having two US Senators, whether they represent millions of citizens, or just hundreds of thousands of citizens, becoming one where states with few people, are able to stop what the majority of the American people want!

Four Democratic Senators, scared to death of the National Rifle Association, end up refusing to support the end of the filibuster on extended background checks on gun sales, and yet these Senators represent small populated states (North Dakota, Alaska, Montana, Arkansas) which represent only about 5.4 million people, out of a national total of 309 million people, meaning they represent 1.6 percent of the people, in a nation in which up to 90 percent, including gun owners, want extended background checks on gun sales.

We allow the 49th 48th, 45th, and 33rd states in population to hamstring the rest of the nation, absolutely insane when one thinks about it, and this is not just true on one issue, but many!

This problem of small populated states,the abuse of the filibuster, and special interest groups (including major corporations) is a situation which threatens resolution of ANY major issue facing the nation in the 21st century, unless, somehow, some kind of reform of an outdated system of the 18th century is brought about, which is extremely unlikely!

The Coming Battle For The Hispanic Republican Leadership: Marco Rubio Of Florida Vs. Ted Cruz Of Texas

Ronald 2 Comments

Florida Senator Marco Rubio is gaining the spotlight next Tuesday evening, when he is commissioned by Speaker of the House John Boehner and Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell to deliver the Republican Party response to the State of the Union Address of President Barack Obama.

Rubio is young, good looking, charming, charismatic, and represents the Sunshine State, which sometime late in this decade will surpass New York in population and become the third largest state. In addition, it is a “swing state”, arguably the most important if the Republicans are ever to recover from their last two defeats for President, and losing the popular vote in five of the past six elections. And Rubio is clearly planning to run for President. So his response to the State of the Union Address will be crucial to his campaign to build up his image.

But as he becomes seen as the “savior” of the Republican Party, as Time Magazine terms it, he will have another Hispanic Senator, like Rubio a Cuban American, as a rival, who comes from a state much larger in population and in land area, and that is newly minted Senator Ted Cruz of Texas, second in land area to Alaska and second in population to California, and four and a half times the land area of Florida.

Cruz, just 17 months older than Rubio, clearly has his own Presidential plans in the future, and he is much more willing to be openly aggressive in his rhetoric and behavior than Rubio, who tends to be more gentlemanly by nature. Cruz is like a bull in a China shop, and does not care what anyone thinks, because he is an open Tea Party activist, while Rubio is only loosely connected to that right wing movement.

Rubio is diplomatic compared to Cruz, who is less than tactful in just a short time in the Senate, going on the offensive, not being a quiet freshman in the Senate. Cruz was born in Canada, but claims he can run for President, an issue which would have to be investigated further for its validity, particularly when Barack Obama was born in Hawaii, but has had his native citizenship questioned because his father was Kenyan. Cruz is an “in your face” type, and his arrogance is likely to cause him to have fewer friends in the Senate than Rubio.

So Cruz cannot help but wish that Rubio “falls on his face”, as Louisiana Governor Bobby Jindal did in delivering the response to the State of the Union Address in 2009.

The irony though is that both Rubio and Cruz represent only three percent of Hispanics, and their conservative ideology is highly unlikely to draw Mexican American support (almost two thirds of all Hispanics in America) or Puerto Rican support ( the second highest percentage among Hispanics with a little over 9 percent), something that they seem not to understand.

So it really does not matter what happens with Rubio and Cruz and their Presidential ambitions, as it is clear that the vast majority of Hispanics will continue to vote Democratic over the long haul. A sign of this is that even the Cuban American population, traditionally Republican because of Fidel Castro, is starting to move in the direction of the Democratic Party, at least among the younger generation which has no memory or experience in fleeing Communist Cuba under Castro control for the past 54 plus years!

As John Kerry Becomes Secretary Of State, An Assessment Of The Most Influential Secretaries Of State In American History

Ronald 25 Comments

With Hillary Clinton leaving the State Department, and John Kerry becoming the 68th Secretary of State, it is a good time to assess who are the most influential Secretaries of State we have had in American history.

Notice I say “most influential”, rather than “best”, as that is a better way to judge diplomatic leadership in the State Department.

Without ranking them, which is very difficult, we will examine the Secretaries of State who have had the greatest impact, in chronological order:

Thomas Jefferson (1789-1793) under President George Washington—set the standard for the department, and was probably the most brilliant man ever to head the State Department.

John Quincy Adams (1825-1829) under President James Monroe—brought about the Monroe Doctrine, treaties with Canada, and the acquisition of Florida.

William H. Seward (1861-1869) under Presidents Abraham Lincoln and Andrew Johnson—brought about the neutrality of Great Britain and France in the Civil War, and purchased Alaska from Czarist Russia, a fortunate development.

Hamilton Fish (1869-1877) under President Ulysses S. Grant—involved in many diplomatic issues in Latin America, had America become more engaged in Hawaii, and settled differences with Great Britain, and often considered the major bright spot in the tragic Grant Presidency.

James G. Blaine (1881, 1889-1892) under Presidents James A. Garfield and Chester Alan Arthur briefly, and full term under President Benjamin Harrison—helped to bring about eventual takeover of Hawaii, and promoted the concept of a canal in Central America.

John Hay (1898-1905) under Presidents William McKinley and Theodore Roosevelt—-involved in the issues after the Spanish American War, including involvement in the Philippines, Cuba, Puerto Rico, and Guam, and a major influence over TR’s diplomatic initiatives in his first term.

Elihu Root (1905-1909) under President Theodore Roosevelt—-a great influence in TR’s growing involvement in world affairs in his second term in office.

Robert Lansing (1915-1920) under President Woodrow Wilson—a major player in American entrance in World War I and at the Versailles Peace Conference.

Charles Evan Hughes (1921-1925) under Presidents Warren G. Harding and Calvin Coolidge—-had major role in Washington Naval Agreements in 1922.

Henry Stimson (1929-1933) under President Herbert Hoover—-was a major critic of Japanese expansion, as expressed in the Stimson Doctrine of 1932.

Cordell Hull (1933-1944) under President Franklin D. Roosevelt—-was the longest lasting Secretary of State, nearly the whole term of FDR, and very much involved in all of the President’s foreign policy decisions.

Dean Acheson (1949-1953) under President Harry Truman—-involved in the major decisions of the early Cold War, including the Korean War intervention.

John Foster Dulles (1953-1959) under President Dwight D. Eisenhower—had controversial views on Cold War policy with the Soviet Union, including “massive retaliation”.

Dean Rusk (1961-1969) under Presidents John F. Kennedy and Lyndon B. Johnson—highly controversial advocate of the Vietnam War escalation, but served under the complete terms of two Presidents, and never backed away from his views on the Cold War.

Henry Kissinger (1973-1977) under Presidents Richard Nixon and Gerald Ford—-easily one of the most influential figures in the shaping of foreign policy in American history, earlier having served as National Security Adviser.

George Shultz, (1982-1989) under President Ronald Reagan—-very close adviser to the President on his major foreign policy initiatives.

James Baker (1989-1992) under President George H. W. Bush—very significant in Persian Gulf War and end of Cold War policies.

Madeleine Albright (1997-2001) under President Bill Clinton—-first woman Secretary of State and played major role in many issues that arose.

Colin Powell (2001-2005) under President George W. Bush—-involved in the justification of the Iraq War based on Weapons of Mass Destruction, which undermined his reputation because of the lack of evidence on WMDs.

Condoleezza Rice (2005-2009) under President George W. Bush—second woman Secretary of State and intimately involved in policy making.

Hillary Clinton (2009-2013) under President Barack Obama—third woman Secretary of State, and hailed by most as a major contributor to Obama’s foreign policy initiatives.

This is a list of 21 out of the 68 Secretaries of State, but also there are 15 other Secretaries of State who were influential historical figures, including:

John Marshall
James Madison
James Monroe
Henry Clay
Martin Van Buren
Daniel Webster
John C. Calhoun
James Buchanan
Lewis Cass
William Jennings Bryan
George Marshall
Cyrus Vance
Edmund Muskie
Alexander Haig
Warren Christopher

So a total of 36 out of 68 Secretaries of State have been major figures in American history, and contributed to the diplomatic development of the United States in world affairs!

Twenty Women In The United States Senate In The 113th Congress: All Time High!

Ronald Leave a comment

The 113th Congress will have TWENTY women, the highest number in American history!

The 112th Congress had seventeen women, 12 Democrats and 5 Republicans.

The 113th Congress will have 16 Democrats and 4 Republicans, with Senator Olympia Snowe of Maine and Senator Kay Bailey Hutchison of Texas, both Republicans, retiring!

Five new women will join the Senate—Elizabeth Warren of Massachusetts,.Tammy Baldwin of WIsconsin, Heidi Heitkamp of North Dakota, Mazie Hirono of Hawaii, and Deb Fischer of Nebraska, with Fischer being the lone Republican. Fifteen women Senators will remain, including three Republicans—Susan Collins of Maine, Kelly Ayotte of New Hampshire, and Lisa Murkowski of Alaska. The twelve returning Democratic women include: Jeanne Shaheen of New Hampshire, Kirsten Gillibrand of New York, Barbara Mikulski of Maryland, Kay Hagan of North Carolina, Mary Landrieu of Louisiana, Debbie Stabenow of Michigan, Amy Klobuchar of Minnesota, Claire McCaskill of Missouri, Diane Feinstein of California, Barbara Boxer of California, Parry Murray of Washington, and Maria Cantwell of Washington.

Also, three states have both Senators being women—New Hampshire, California, and Washington!

And to top it off, New Hampshire not only has two women Senators, but also both House members are women, and the new Governor is a woman, the first state to have an all female representation in Congress and the Governorship!

How far America has come as we enter the year 2013!

John Tyler, Andrew Johnson, And Barack Obama

Ronald Leave a comment

When one looks at American history and the conflicts that arise between Presidents and Congresses, it is clear that all Presidents have battles with Congresses over some issues, even when their party is in control of both houses of Congress.

Some Presidents are more effective than others in accomplishing legislative goals, and of course, some Presidents face an opposition party Congress control in both houses, and much more rarely, in one of the houses of Congress.

But when one looks at the depth of hatred and refusal to cooperate of the Republican majority in the 112th Congress, and probably likely to continue in the 113th Congress in 2013-2014, it makes one want to look back and see when did such hatred and refusal to cooperate become a general reality in our 224 year history?

The answer is twice before the present situtation with President Barack Obama–the times of President John Tyler (1841-1845) and of Andrew Johnson (1865-1869).

Both were Democrats put on the Presidential ticket of the Whig Party (in the case of Tyler), and the Republican Party (in the case of Johnson), to bring Democratic party votes to Whig William Henry Harrison in 1840 and Republican Abraham Lincoln in 1864.

Both Presidents Harrison and Lincoln died within weeks of their inauguration–Harrison after a month from pneumonia, and Lincoln by assassination six weeks into his second term.

When Tyler and Johnson, therefore, became President by succession, the party that had put them on the ticket as a balancing act electorally, totally turned against cooperation with both Presidents, considering them to be illegitimate successors, although constitutionally, legitimate.

So Tyler had battle after battle with Henry Clay and other Whigs, who were furious that he was President, and very little could be accomplished without constant battle,. There was also a motion to impeach Tyler, which, fortunately, went nowhere.

In the case of Johnson, things deteriorated quickily, and eventually, Johnson faced an impeachment trial on flimsy grounds, was found not guilty by the Senate, but had been weakened and repudiated, nevertheless.

In both cases, their major accomplishment was the acquisition of Texas under Tyler, and of Alaska under Johnson, the two largest states in land area.

The difference now is that Barack Obama legitimately won a majority of the popular vote twice, and still is rejected and mistreated by the Republican House, in a way not seen since the time of Tyler and Johnson!

Puerto Rico Statehood Around The Corner–Or Is It?

Ronald Leave a comment

For the first time since 1959, the United States is likely very soon to have another state added to the Union–Puerto Rico–or is it?

Puerto Rico has had special commonwealth status since 1952,and had rejected statehood by narrow margins a few times over the years, but on Election,Day, the voters chose to ask for statehood, which should be automatic next year under ordinary circumstances.

This would require a new 51 star flag; the addition of probably five House members; and two US Senators, based on the fact that the island has about 3.7 million population, and each Congressional district is about 750,000 population, making for a 440 member House of Representatives.

It probably means that both Senators and most of the five House members will be Democrats, at least initially, but also based on the overwhelming Puerto Rican vote for President Obama in New York, Florida, Illinois, and elsewhere, where Puerto Ricans have settled.

Puerto Rico would be the second island nation after Hawaii, which would not be part of the American mainland, and by its population size, would have greater input than Hawaii, with its two House members, and Alaska, with its one state wide Congressman.

The plebiscite vote was non binding, and came with the unusual defeat of the statehood Governor and loss of control of both houses for his party, and the victory of the pro Commonwealth party, which wishes to leave Puerto Rican status as it has been for the past half century.

So because of the contradictory results, it could be that Congress will ignore the results and leave things well enough alone!

Wing Nuts Of 2010, And Now Of 2012–Lost Republican Opportunities In The Senate Then, And Possibly, Now!

Ronald Leave a comment

The Republican Party is infamous for running wing nuts for the Senate, and as a result, lost the chance for control of the US Senate in 2010.

They ran such characters as Christine O’Donnell in Delaware; Ken Buck in Colorado; Sharron Angle in Nevada; and Joe Miller in Alaska.

The first three were so whacky that the Democrats held on to the seats, and kept control of the Senate, with Harry Reid of Nevada remaining Senate Majority Leader. Lisa Murkowski won a miraculous victory in Alaska over Tea Party favored Joe Miller, keeping that seat sane and sensible, while Republican.

At the same time, Rand Paul and Mike Lee won in Kentucky and Utah, respectively, and Marco Rubio was also backed by the Tea Party, and now Paul and Rubio are likely leaders of the party in the near future, no matter how right wing they are!

Now we have in 2012 the following: Ted Cruz in Texas, backed by the Tea Party and likely to win a Senate seat; Debbie Fischer in Nebraska, who faces former Democratic Senator and Presidential seeker Bob Kerrey, who faces a tough battle; Richard Murdock, who defeated respectable conservative Richard Lugar in Indiana; and now, Todd Akin, challenging Senator Claire McCaskell in Missouri.

With the likelihood of Cruz, Fischer, and Murdock victories for the Tea Party and the right wing of the social conservatives, the only thing that may stop GOP control of the US Senate is the Todd Akin controversy, but in theory, Akin could win that race too, and with only three or four seats gain needed to win control of the Senate for the Republicans, the future makeup of the Senate is disturbing!

It should be pointed out that the Texas and Indiana seats coming up for election are already GOP seats, so only Nebraska and maybe Missouri would be gains for the Tea Party element as things stand now! But going from Kay Bailey Hutchison and Richard Lugar to Ted Cruz and Richard Murdock is a major step backward toward further deadlock, confrontation, and paralysis in a Senate already with a terrible reputation

March 30: Important Date In History In Many Ways, Including A Personal One!

Ronald Leave a comment

Today, March 30, is a very significant date in American history.

It is the day in 1981 that President Ronald Reagan was seriously wounded in an assassination attempt, but survived, recovered, and went on to serve two full terms as the 40th President.

It is also the day in 1867 when Secretary of State William Seward signed the treaty arranging for the purchase of Alaska from Czarist Russia for $7.2 million, becoming infamously known as “Seward’s Folly”, It was fortunate that the United States bought Alaska, because if it had remained Russian, imagine the security problems for Canada and the United States during the Cold War years with the Soviet Union!

And it was the day in 1870 that the 15th Amendment, granting African American men the right to vote, was finally ratified and added to the Constitution. Sadly, the South would soon disobey the amendment, and successfully take away the right to vote until the passage of the Voting Rights Act under President Lyndon B. Johnson in 1965, guaranteeing federal intervention to insure everyone’s right to vote. Now the Republican Party in many states, including, most grievously the state of Florida under Governor Rick Scott and a dominant state legislature, is making it more difficult for people to register and vote, particularly the elderly, the poor, college students, and the poor.

And, in the mind of this author, March 30 is MOST significant because in 1984, his younger son Paul was born, and has brought joy and pride to his father and brother and uncle now for 28 years!

Florida Casualty Toll Due To “Stand Your Ground” Law Signed By Governor Jeb Bush: 93 Incidents, With 65 Murders!

Ronald 2 Comments

Governor Jeb Bush, by signing the Florida “Stand Your Ground” law in 2005, must take responsibility for the results from 2005 to 2012.

93 incidents have occurred, with 65 murders!

Thousands of people gathered last evening in Sanford, Florida, to show their anger over the Trayvon Martin murder by George Zimmerman.

This issue will not go away, and Jeb Bush will pay the price for this in history, as he could have prevented these 65 tragedies and 93 incidents, but no apology or responsibility is forthcoming.

And now, Democratic Senator Mark Begich, from the “Wild, Wild West” of Sarah Palin’s Alaska, has proposed legislation for “reciprocity”, allowing any citizen anywhere in the nation to use the “Stand Your Ground” laws in 21 states to cover any situation in the other 29 states!

This is pure insanity! Imagine this happening in Manhattan, in Los Angeles, in other cities and suburbs in states where the desire is to curb the gun maniacs of the National Rifle Association!

This tragedy must lead to action in just the opposite direction, to curb gun rights, or else we are doomed as a nation to constant tragedies such as that of Trayvon Martin!