George H W Bush

Nuclear Disarmament and Nuclear Security: Senator Obama To President Obama

One of President Obama’s great commitments is to promote nuclear disarmament and nuclear security, an issue also pursued by Presidents Richard Nixon, Jimmy Carter, Ronald Reagan and Bill Clinton in office. Also, other efforts were made by Gerald Ford and both Presidents Bush, as well.

But Obama showed interest and concern over this as early as being a freshman in the Senate, when he traveled to the former Soviet Republics in Eastern Europe to promote such activities, in league with Republican Senator Richard Lugar of Indiana, who was Chairman of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, in the year 2005.

Obama made a new commitment to such work in a speech today at the National Defense University in Washington, DC, explaining the need to dismantle nuclear weapons, one by one, to lower the danger of a nuclear disaster caused by accident worldwide, or by terrorists gaining control of such weapons.

So Barack Obama can be added to the list of Presidents who have worked to make a safer world for future generations of people worldwide! There is no more important responsibility for any American President!

The Extraordinarily Close Relationship Between President Obama And Vice President Biden

Now that the first term of Barack Obama and Joe Biden is ending, it is worth a few moments to recognize the extraordinarily close relationship that exists between the President and the Vice President.

When one looks back on such relationships in the past, it is clear that no other relationship has been quite as close, as warm, as personally friendly, since the time when Jimmy Carter utilized Walter Mondale as practically a “co President” from 1977-1981.

Vice Presidents never really mattered or were close to a President until the 1950s, when Richard Nixon made the office of Vice President a significant office. But President Dwight D. Eisenhower was not very happy, a lot of the time, with his Vice President, and there were hints that he would have preferred a different running mate in 1956,

The John F. Kennedy–Lyndon B. Johnson relationship was not close at all, and neither was the Johnson–Hubert Humphrey relationship.

The Richard Nixon–Spiro Agnew relationship was not much better, and Nixon with Gerald Ford was only a brief period where the two men avoided contact with the other during the Watergate crisis.

Gerald Ford and Nelson Rockefeller were closer, but Ford chose to drop Rockefeller in favor of Bob Dole for the 1976 Presidential race to please the conservative wing led by Ronald Reagan, and years later, Ford expressed regret that he had allowed himself to dump Rockefeller.

Jimmy Carter and Walter Mondale were extraordinarily close, with Mondale being treated as an absolute equal, and the two men remain close friends now after nearly 32 years out of office, the longest lasting Presidential-Vice Presidential team, breaking all records for longevity every day.

Ronald Reagan was not very close to George H. W. Bush personally, and Bush did not take Dan Quayle very seriously at all as a Vice President.

Bill Clinton and Al Gore were friendly and close until the Monica Lewinsky and impeachment issues arose, and then Gore stayed away from Clinton during his own campaign for President in 2000, which very well may have harmed his ability to win, despite a popular vote majority of about a half million votes.

George W. Bush relied on Dick Cheney a great deal, but their closeness, if it ever existed, dissipated in the second term over various matters.

The Obama-Biden friendship and closeness seems not at all affected in any way by events, or Biden’s well known problem with gaffes, and he has played a major role as an adviser on so many issues, domestic and foreign. One can see in so many situations and photos that the two men are close, and have a very warm, personal relationship with each other.

This could create a problem for President Obama IF both Biden and Secretary of State Hillary Clinton decide to run for President, as the President owes a lot to both of them, as well as to former President Bill Clinton, for having worked so hard for his reelection, and giving what many consider the best speech for Obama at the Democratic National Convention as well.

The best situation for Obama then, would be to remain neutral, but with the hope that maybe one or both would decide ultimately, because of their ages and long careers, not to run for President in their 70s (Biden) or nearing 70s (Clinton).

Some Conservative Activists Recognize Need For Change In Republican Party Views, But It Will NOT Revive Republican Fortunes!

Imagine this: SOME conservative activists are realizing that there is a need for change in the Republican Party views, but it will NOT have a positive effect on the fortunes of the GOP any time soon.

Fox News Channel’s Sean Hannity suddenly thinks that the GOP attitude toward Hispanics and Latinos should change, and that a passage to citizenship for eleven million undocumented immigrants is the answer to this problem.

Bill Kristol, also on Fox News Channel on Sundays, and editor of THE WEEKLY STANDARD, suddenly believes that it is right to tax millionaires and billionaires, as necessary for the economic growth of America.

Karen Hughes, former adviser to President George W. Bush, has made it clear that Republicans can no longer use the issue of rape and abortion against women, and that women will not accept the extremist views of the Republicans toward the rights of women to be in charge of their own lives.

These are all feeble attempts, however, as plenty of other conservatives and Republicans, such as Rush Limbaugh, Grover Norquist, and Glenn Beck advocate no change in Republican principles or policies..

Also, even if there were unity on changing the ideas and principles of the Republican Party, why would any intelligent voter, whether a person of Hispanic or Latino heritage, a middle class taxpayer, or a woman, believe a word they say?

After all, talk is cheap, and it will take YEARS before any of the groups which voted for Barack Obama will again, if indeed ever, have trust and faith in the Republican Party, so the Democrats have a tremendous advantage as one looks forward to the future of our political system.

After all, the Democrats have won the popular vote now in FIVE of the past six elections, only failing to do so in 2004!

The Republican Party of 1988 under George H. W. Bush and of 1980 under Ronald Reagan is long distant history!

If Only: Jimmy Carter Had Been President For Second Term! How Would America Be Different?

As we celebrate Barack Obama’s second term victory, and as we thank Bill Clinton for his super efforts for Obama, crucial to Obama’s victory, we can have a wistful moment and wonder:

How would America be different if Jimmy Carter had won a second term as President in 1980?

Ronald Reagan would never have been President, just be seen as a mediocre, second rate actor on Death Valley Days and the General Electric Theater on television, and a few good movies in Hollywood, and a mixed record as two term Governor of California. We would not have him being seen as an icon, a god like figure, totally misrepresented by those who adore him!

We would not have George H. W. Bush as Vice President for eight years, and then be the successor in office after Reagan left.

We would not have had George W. Bush as President, and we would not be speculating about Jeb Bush as possibly a candidate for the 2016 Presidential Election.

We would have had a much more responsive, sympathetic reaction to the rise of the AIDS epidemic in the early 1980s, and would have saved many lives in the process.

We would not have had a tripling of the national debt, as Carter was very tight fiscally, and added very little to the national debt.

We would have had a President who would have continued his great environmental work into a second term.

We would not have allowed the rich to get richer, and the poor to get poorer, and the maldistribution of wealth to accelerate, and then again occur again under George W. Bush.

We would not have seen the decline of labor unions, caused by Ronald Reagan being our President.

We would have had Vice President Walter Mondale having a much better opportunity to be our President in 1984, a continuation of the tradition and principles of Hubert Humphrey and Minnesota progressivism.

The Iran hostage seizure crisis would have been resolved sooner with Carter having defeated Reagan in November 1980.

The early 1980s would have seen further promotion of human rights, a policy backtracked by Ronald Reagan.

There would have been no friendship with Saddam Hussein in Iraq, and no backing of the South African Apartheid regime.

These are just 12 ways life would have been different if Jimmy Carter had been reelected in 1980. And Carter would not have been constantly attacked and ridiculed as a failed President if he had served a second term.

Oh well……

American Jews, Israel And Barack Obama: Why Two Thirds Of Jews Will Support Obama Over Mitt Romney

With two days to go until the election, the Republican Jewish Coalition has been actively trying to convince American Jews that Barack Obama is not supportive of Israel, and that they should support Mitt Romney for President.

Will the RJC succeed? To some extent, yes, in the sense that while 78 percent of American Jews backed Barack Obama in 2008, the number will be down to about 60-63 percent in 2012.

There are those Jews who are extremely wealthy and do not wish to pay more taxes, such as the group which met in Boca Raton, at the infamous gathering where Romney talked about the “47 percent”. Those who are corporate, Wall Street, and banking related will wish to have the government abandon any regulations, so they can go about their merry way abusing their industries, as they did in 2008. and earlier, without any care for the damage they were doing to the American economy!

Those who are highly religious will use it as a means to promote prejudice, based on the belief that Obama is a secret Muslim, and of course, being black, is not a plus to highly religious people, whether Jewish or Christian, a sad commentary on what the meaning of religion is all about!

Those who look at Israel as the number one issue will wish to allow Benjamin Netanyahu to influence American policy, even though if any other foreign leader ever attempted to interfere as Netanyahu has, they would be infuriated by such boldness of a foreign leader!

But American Jews, while caring about Israel, will not allow Netanyahu, or religiosity, or counting their money, to be the key factors in their voting. So yes, the percentage will be down, but Jews who do not allow any of the above to influence them will remember that Obama and his party are the party of the New Deal and Great Society reforms, which Romney and the Republicans wish to destroy!

They will know that it was REPUBLICAN Presidents who made life much more difficult for Israel, including Dwight D. Eisenhower, George H. W. Bush, and George W. Bush, even though the RJC conveniently manipulates the truth about that

They will know that Defense Minister Ehud Barak (a former Prime Minister); Shimon Peres (Israel’s President); Haaretz (the oldest Israeli daily newspaper); Holocaust survivor Elie Wiesel; and most prominent American Jewish leaders have all endorsed Obama, or said that he has been the best friend of Israel of all American Presidents.

They will know that most American Presidents either never visited Israel, or not in their first term, despite the lies of the RJC.

They will know that Obama has supplied Israel with the IRONDOME missile defense system, and more than $3.1 billion in security spending beyond that, and has defended Israel consistently in international organizations, including the United Nations.

They know that George W. Bush also talked about the 1967 borders as a beginning point for negotiations, the same thing that Barack Obama said.

They know the Jewish tradition of being activists in civil rights; of supporting women’s rights; of being big promoters of labor unions; of being involved in promoting education and the environment on a regular basis; and advocates of aid to the disabled; and of always being against the negativism of the Republican Party on domestic matters, always resisting Social Security and Medicare and Medicaid and every other social, economic and political reform the Democrats have promoted over the past century.

They know that the party of the people is NOT the Republicans, but the Democrats, and they are not about to abandon the party that has done so much good, particularly when we could see the alternative of the most right wing threat in American history since Barry Goldwater in 1964!

American Jews are OVERWHELMINGLY oriented toward reform, progress, change, compassion for those who are discriminated against and less fortunate, and they are intelligent and wise enough not to vote for the party of Mitt Romney, Paul Ryan and right wing evangelicals who wish to take away our civil liberties and civil rights!

So close to two thirds of American Jews will repudiate the RJC, and support their President, Barack Obama!

Traits We Need In Our President: Competence, Compassion, Empathy, Sincerity—Barack Obama Possesses All Four, While Mitt Romney “Maybe” At Most Has Competence!

Essential qualities needed in an American President, particularly in this 21st century of a complex world, and a growing population of what is now 315 million people, would include:

Competence
Compassion
Empathy
Sincerity

We need a leader who demonstrates care about ALL of us, not just the elite and wealthy!

We need a leader who has known struggle in his life at some point–such as Franklin D. Roosevelt, Harry Truman, Dwight D. Eisenhower, John F. Kennedy, Lyndon B. Johnson, Richard Nixon, Gerald Ford, Jimmy Carter, Ronald Reagan, Bill Clinton and Barack Obama—whether it is:

Family Problems And Issues While Growing To Adulthood—Truman, Johnson, Nixon, Ford, Carter, Reagan, Clinton, Obama
Personal Health Issues—Roosevelt, Kennedy
Major Challenges To Success—Roosevelt, Eisenhower, Kennedy, Nixon, Reagan, Obama

Only the two Bushes really did not have major family problems while growing to adulthood; personal health issues; or major challenges to success.

But even they had compassion and empathy for the disabled (the elder Bush), and for the victims of September 11 (the younger Bush), although later, both the elder and younger Bush botched up the emergency of Hurricane Andrew and Hurricane Katrina in a massive wave of incompetence!

Barack Obama possesses all of these qualities mentioned above, while Mitt Romney has not proved his worth in these regards, even so much as competence as Massachusetts Governor, although he has rose colored glasses in looking back on what was, basically, a term in office that made him so unpopular he could not have won reelection as Governor of his state had he decided to run!

Mitt Romney, simply, does not have the qualities needed for our Presidency in the 21st century. He lacks, for sure, compassion, empathy, and sincerity!

He is much more like Herbert Hoover, and yet, even Herbert Hoover first became famous for reacting properly in human tragedies in the time of the Mississippi River Flood of 1927, the massive Soviet relief effort in the 1920s, and the Belgian relief effort in World War I!

So we would have to push Romney back to the Gilded Age of monopoly capitalism, before the Progressive Era ended the concept of a limited government, which had ignored the needs of its citizens en masse!

The 20th century dawned, and the battle for the federal government to play a major role in people’s lives began, and we are not about to revert to the late 19th century!

Sorry, Mr. Romney, your attempt to go back one hundred years and more to the worst times of the Gilded Age is rejected, and YOU ARE FIRED as a potential President of the United States this coming Tuesday, November 6, 2012!

BIG Government IS Essential In The 21st Century In Third Largest Nation On Earth!

The tragedy of Hurricane Sandy has brought to the forefront a reality that many Republicans and conservatives have refused to recognize—BIG government IS essential in the 21st century in the third largest nation on earth, and we cannot go back to the past concept of small government, and leaving everything to Mitt Romney’s concept of privatization!

We are a nation of 315 million people and counting, and this is very different than when America was a nation of 4 million in 1790; or 31 million in 1860; or 125 million in 1930; or 200 million in 1970!

The states have proved over and over again that they are incapable of handling the issues and problems of their population, without assistance from the federal government.

It is time to say that states rights is dead, in the sense that states cannot be allowed to stand in the way of progress, cannot be allowed to dictate differing policies that affect the American people in a detrimental way!

The Civil War was fought over states rights, as one of the issues, and we have had problems with states rights advocates ever since, who choose to use state power to promote racism, discrimination, and prejudice. The time for state leaders to understand that such policies are no longer acceptable is now, at a time when states fully understand that it is the national government and its bureaucrats who are the only ones who can be relied on to deal with man made or natural crises.

The only thing that is obvious is that the BEST people must be hired to run federal agencies that deal with crisis, such as the Federal Emergency Management Agency, and that we must have Presidents who realize the need to prioritize such activities, rather than those, such as George W. Bush, himself incompetent, who allowed FEMA to fail to react properly to Hurricane Katrina in 2005, or his dad, George H. W. Bush, who failed to react properly to Hurricane Andrew in 1992.

This is proof that what we need in the Presidency is a person who understands the role and need for national government, not someone such as Mitt Romney, who only thinks of money and privatization every day of his life, and does not give a damn about ordinary people and the struggles they face every day of their lives!

We need a leader, such as Barack Obama, who has empathy and compassion and concern, not a plutocrat, who is only concerned about the power of the Presidency, and wants to bring us back to the Gilded Age, when we were a nation of 50 million people!

The need for government has been so well displayed now, that for anyone to advocate small government, and returning power to the corrupt state and local governments, or to privatization, needs to be repudiated in as strong a manner as possible!

Barack Obama And Hurricane Sandy: He Cannot Afford The Poor Response Of Both Presidents Bush To Hurricanes Andrew And Katrina!

President George H. W. Bush was greatly harmed by his government’s poor response to Hurricane Andrew in 1992, and it certainly contributed to his defeat in the Presidential Election Of 1992.

George W. Bush’s lowest moment in his Presidency was his poor response to Hurricane Katrina in 2005, and had the second term election been in 2005, instead of 2004, he would have lost reelection.

This has to be in the mind of President Barack Obama, as a poor response to Hurricane Sandy could guarantee, in a close race, that his opponent, Mitt Romney, defeats him in the upcoming Presidential Election of 2012!

If Obama Loses, We Lose MUCH More Than He Loses!

President Obama has made the statement that were he to lose the Presidential Election Of 2012, he and Michelle would do just fine, and that is certainly true.

After all, he has been President, will go down in history as a President who had some positive effects on the nation, and will be able to spend the rest of his life with great earnings potential, and rising popularity over time, and would be mourned when he dies, with a state funeral, and always be part of the story of American history.

Being a one term President, he would be likely to have a lower ranking in the list of Presidents, as Jimmy Carter and George W. Bush have had, along with William Howard Taft, Herbert Hoover, and Gerald Ford, the five Presidents of the 20th century who lost reelection.

Obama has had a record deserving of being listed higher, but he needs a second term to reach the ranks of the more outstanding Presidents.

But, ultimately, the biggest loser if Obama is not reelected, are:

Women–who will see their movement toward equality and dignity stalled or reversed in massive ways.

Gay men and women–who will likely lose the advancements on gay rights and gay marriage, and true equality in all ways.

Hispanics and Latinos–who will see more anti immigrant backlash, and will lose the advancements for young Immigrants under the proposed DREAM Act.

African Americans—who will see greater racism and discrimination, and setbacks in the promotion of equality and fairness of treatment.

Labor–who will see more attacks on workers rights, favoritism toward corporate employers, loss of collective bargaining rights, and setbacks in the lives of ordinary, struggling Americans who have no union representation.

Environmentalists–who will see more oil drilling, air pollution, refusal to understand the dangers of climate change, and allow economic development that endangers the health of millions of Americans, all for the motivation of profit over health concerns.

The poor–who have rough lives, will see a lack of concern or action to deal with the reality of child poverty, homelessness, hunger, the lives of single mothers, and further condemnation of the poor, reminding us of the Gilded Age and Social Darwinism.

The Middle Class–who will suffer further degradation, loss of opportunity to advance, and the potential for their children to succeed being lessened dramatically.

Young People–who will have fewer opportunities to advance in education and work, and will be embittered and disillusioned about the American Dream, which will be unfulfilled for millions.

Senior Citizens–who will have to live in fear of dangers to Social Security and Medicare, and will lose the sense of security and contentment in their older years.

The Disabled—whether young, middle aged, or old, who will see a loss of concern and support, as through Medicaid and other government programs.

Civil Libertarians–who will see further erosion of the Bill of Rights, and the promotion of narrow minded views of Muslims and Hispanics-Latinos by government policy.

The Peace activists–who will see America engaged in more wars, because of the power of Neoconservatives who will promote further foreign adventures.

Military Personnel and Veterans–who will see more soldiers killed in the future, and more ignoring of the needs of veterans who are fortunate enough to come home alive.

Educators and Intellectuals–who will be less appreciated and admired, and will be labeled “Communists, Socialists, Terrorists” by people in the Republican Party, who will do everything they can to attack education and freedom of thought, and call critics “unpatriotic”.

So Barack Obama will do just fine if he loses, but we, the American people, will lose so much, and it will transform our lives in so many negative ways that most people cannot conceptualize or imagine!

Republicans And Foreign Policy Knowledge And Expertise In The Past 50 Years

Whether one agrees or disagrees with Republicans in foreign policy in the past 50 years, one cannot deny the expertise of Presidential candidates, or in the absence of expertise by them, their Vice Presidential running mates.

Richard Nixon and Henry Cabot Lodge in 1960 had exceptional foreign policy background and experience.

Barry Goldwater may have been wrong headed and too aggressive, but at least he had knowledge of foreign affairs as a Senator from Arizona.

Richard Nixon in 1968 and 1972 had even greater expertise on foreign policy than in 1960.

Gerald Ford and Bob Dole had extensive background in foreign issues in 1976.

While Ronald Reagan had limited background in 1980, he had George H. W. Bush to assist him for eight years.

Bush had the expertise needed in 1988 and 1992, although he had the inferior Dan Quayle as his running mate and Vice President.

Bob Dole and Jack Kemp had experience and background when they ran together in 1996.

While George W. Bush had little background and experience, he had his dad and his running mate, Dick Cheney, who had been Secretary of Defense under his father.

John McCain had extensive background in foreign policy in 2008, although Sarah Palin was an embarrassment.

Now in 2012, we have two GOP candidates, Mitt Romney and Paul Ryan, who have no real background or experience, but both love to bluster and threaten and act tough, and the world looks on with trepidation at the thought that this inferior team might be in charge of national security and defense and foreign policy!