George H W Bush

The “Lynching” Of Attorney General Eric Holder: Racism And Political Revenge Against Principled Cabinet Member And Barack Obama!

Ronald Leave a comment

In American history, we have had Attorneys General in several Presidential administrations that have proved to be involved in criminal activities–Harry Daugherty in the Warren G. Harding Presidency and John Mitchell in the Richard Nixon Presidency, most notably.

But never have we had a Congressional committee do what was done today to Obama Attorney General Eric Holder, citing him for contempt of Congress, in a dispute over the withholding of internal Justice Department documents in an investigation of a botched gun trafficking investigation called “Fast and Furious”, begun by Attorney General Michael Mukasey under President George W. Bush, and ended under Attorney General Holder.

This action by the House Committee On Oversight And Government Reform, headed by publicity seeker Congressman Darrell Issa of California is an embarrassment to the Republican Party and the House of Representatives, and was accomplished by a straight party line vote.

This action, which may lead to a full House of Representatives vote next week, could in theory lead to Speaker John Boehner disgracing the House if he allows such a vote, and could lead to Holder, in theory, being put into a jail cell that exists in the chamber, something unprecedented in American history!

And why is this occurring? Is Eric Holder such a lawbreaker, such a criminal, that it is proper to disgrace him in this manner?

NO, it is simple RACISM and POLITICAL REVENGE against the principles and policies of the Obama Presidency!

Do not forget that Eric Holder is African American, and President Barack Obama is African American! This would NOT be happening if they were white, simple to say!

Eric Holder has angered many Republicans because he is having the Justice Department fight the racist immigration laws of Arizona and Alabama!

Eric Holder has angered many Republicans because he is fighting the voter suppression laws of Florida and other states, designed to stop the African American, Hispanic and Latino vote in many states that would vote for the Democrats this November!

Eric Holder is pursuing justice, fairness, equity in civil rights and civil liberties cases that give the average American a fair shake, rather than favoring the elite and the powerful!

Eric Holder has done an excellent job as Attorney General, and for that, and being black, he is being “lynched”!

What a disgrace the Republican Party has become, an embarrassment to Abraham Lincoln, Theodore Roosevelt, Dwight D. Eisenhower, and even Ronald Reagan, Gerald Ford, and George H. W. Bush!

The Wartime Presidency: One Out Of Every Three Presidents!

Ronald 1 Comment

America has had 43 Presidents, and a total of 14, or one third, have been wartime Presidents.

Some inherited wars, as Theodore Roosevelt and the Filipino Insurrection of 1899-1902; Harry Truman and World War II; Dwight D. Eisenhower and the Korean War; Richard Nixon and the Vietnam War; and Barack Obama and the Iraq War and Afghanistan War.

Others took us to war, believing it was necessary and unavoidable, including James Madison and the War of 1812; James K. Polk and the Mexican War; Abraham Lincoln and the Civil War; William McKinley and the Spanish American War; McKinley and the Filipino Insurrection; Woodrow Wilson and World War I; Franklin D. Roosevelt and World War II; Harry Truman and the Korean War; Lyndon B. Johnson and the Vietnam War; George H. W. Bush and the Gulf War; and George W. Bush and the Iraq War and the Afghanistan War.

Of these 14 wartime Presidents, one was a Democratic Republican (James Madison); seven were Republicans (Abraham Lincoln, William McKinley, Theodore Roosevelt, Dwight D. Eisenhower; Richard Nixon, George H. W. Bush, George W. Bush); and six were Democrats (James K. Polk, Woodrow Wilson, Franklin D. Roosevelt, Harry Truman, Lyndon B. Johnson, Barack Obama).

Two Republicans Not In Tune With Party Direction: Jeb Bush And John McCain!

Ronald Leave a comment

Former Florida Governor Jeb Bush and Arizona Senator John McCain have complained about the direction of the Republican Party in the past few days.

Bush, certainly a conservative, has questioned the rightward tilt of the party, saying it is a party that his dad, George H. W. Bush, and Ronald Reagan, would have a problem recognizing, and a problem also being nominated by the present GOP.

McCain has been highly critical of the wild spending by billionaires, such as Sheldon Adelson and the Koch Brothers, and the former author of the McCain Feingold law that tried to limit campaign finance, made it clear that he disagreed with the Citizen United decision of the Supreme Court, and believed corporations were not people, a line that Mitt Romney has used in his campaign speeches.

The best thing that could happen is the walloping of the Tea Party Movement and its mentality in the upcoming elections, but there is no guarantee that such will happen, and therefore, there is concern that democracy will decline, with McCain referring to Theodore Roosevelt’s attack on monopolies in big business a century ago, an action totally reversed by the right wing Supreme Court two years ago.

One can long for the “good old days” of a reasonable Republican Party, and wonder if what Jeb Bush and John McCain advocate will ever return to American politics!

Barack Obama And Mitt Romney Have Similarities In Many Ways!

Ronald 2 Comments

It is certainly odd, but it is reality that Barack Obama and Mitt Romney have many things in common.

Among them are the following:

Both were born to families that had polygamy in their family history–Obama’s father being a Muslim, and Romney coming from Mormon background.

Both have graduate degrees from Harvard University–Obama with a law degree, and Romney with a law and a business degree.

Both Obama and Romney served in their prominent position for only four years–Obama in the US Senate from Illinois, and Romney as Governor of Massachusetts.

Both Obama and Romney are very bright and knowledgeable, but people find both of them are somewhat aloof and difficult to know on a personal level.

Both Obama and Romney have wives who are very popular, more than they are, and their wives are major assets to their careers and candidacy.

Both Obama and Romney saw health care as a primary issue, with Romney promoting a program in many ways adopted by Obama nationally, although now Romney repudiates his health care program in Massachusetts as a model for a national plan, and endorses the end of the Obama Health Care legislation.

In their careers, both were more liberal than most members of their parties, but both became more moderate in office as time went by.

Both have an element of shyness, and are considered analytical introverts, as compared., say, to Bill Clinton or George W. Bush. In this way, they are more like Jimmy Carter or Richard Nixon.

Both are suspicious of the news media, but then most politicians are that way!

Both love Star Trek, which shows an interest in science fiction and imagination.

Both Obama and Romney have had their religious heritage from their fathers (Muslim and Mormon respectively) seen as suspect, particularly with the fact that their fathers were born in foreign countries (Obama, Kenya and Romney, Mexico).

Both Obama and Romney had strong mothers, not uncommon, and in fact, very common among recent Presidents (including Franklin D. Roosevelt, John F. Kennedy, Richard Nixon, Jimmy Carter, George H. W. Bush, Bill Clinton, and George W. Bush).

Both Obama and Romney lost an earlier race of significance, Obama for the House of Representatives in 2000, and Romney for the US Senate in 1994.

Both Obama and Romney set a new standard for the Presidency, with Obama being the first African American President, and Romney potentially the first Mormon President.

Both Obama and Romney are excellent family men, with not a hint of personal scandal in either one’s background.

Both Obama and Romney would have to be considered among the most intellectual politicians and Presidential candidates we have ever had in US history.

There is no question that debates coming up in September and October will be fascinating to watch and analyze!

Mitt Romney: A Chameleon, But Also A Damned Liar!

Ronald 2 Comments

Mitt Romney, the Republican Presidential nominee, has often been described as a chameleon, a person who constantly changes his views, which already makes him a suspect candidate, as one finds it hard to believe anything he says, and to accept any position he takes on any subject as being his final view.

But worse than being a chameleon is the reality that he also is a damned liar!

Romney has been campaigning on the idea that Barack Obama is a wild spender, when the truth is that federal spending has slowed up under his Presidency.

Federal spending increased the most under George W. Bush, 7.3 percent in his first term and 8.1 percent in his second term, followed by Ronald Reagan, George H. W. Bush, Bill Clinton, and finally, Barack Obama, with only 1.4 percent annually during his first term.

Romney, as Eugene Robinson in the Washington Post observes, lies about Obama “apologizing for America” when he has never done that; claims that Obama does not believe in American “Exceptionalism”, which is also false; and says that Obama is guilty of “appeasement”, which is ridiculous, considering Obama’s exceptional work against terrorism; and while stating all these falsehoods about Obama, Romney exaggerates his job creating while at Bain Capital, another total lie.

For a person who claims to be a “good Mormon”, very religious, it makes one wonder what that term “very religious” means! Apparently, it is the right to lie through one’s teeth and keep a straight face!

New Statistical Method Predicts Election Victory For Barack Obama In November

Ronald 3 Comments

Three political scientists–Seth Hill of Yale, John Sides of George Washington University, and Lynn Vavreck of UCLA–have set up a new election forecasting model, and used it to judge past Presidential elections, as well as the present one.

The factors involved in the predictions are the gross domestic product in the first three quarters of the election year; the President’s public opinion rating in June of the election year; and and whether one of the candidates is the incumbent in the office.

By these standards, Barack Obama, if his popularity rating holds at 48 percent, and even if there is ZERO economic growth, he has a 58.4 percent chance of winning a second term in the White House!

This works if one looks at 12 of the past 16 Presidential elections, and is, therefore, seen as authoritative by many observers.

Using this model, Bill Clinton and Ronald Reagan had a 97 percent rating; George W. Bush had 76 percent, his dad 64 percent (but affected by Ross Perot’s third party run and Pat Buchanan’s challenge in the primaries), and Jimmy Carter at 34 percent, with everything against him in 1980.

This is just another indication that Mitt Romney has a major challenge overcoming Barack Obama this coming fall!

Dan Rather Memoir Worthy Reading For Anyone Who Is Journalism “Addict”!

Ronald Leave a comment

Dan Rather, the former long term CBS News journalist, and anchor, who has spent nearly 50 years in the news business, has just published RATHER OUTSPOKEN, a revealing and stimulating book on his long news career.

Rather was a man of courage and conviction in the news business, and was one of the author’s most admired television journalists of the past, including also Walter Cronkite and Ted Koppel.

Rather made a lot of enemies over the years, and had particular challenges with the two Bush Presidencies, but the man never held back on his search for the truth, and he is still seen often on MSNBC as a guest, and has his own show on HDNet.

It is always good to see Dan Rather on television, and his book will reveal a great deal about the controversies he dealt with, and help us to understand this man who has had a great impact on television journalism!

Barack Obama’s Most Courageous Decision: One Year Ago, A Moment That Will Live In History!

Ronald Leave a comment

A year ago today, President Barack Obama followed through on a courageous decision, a moment which will live in history on a short list of decisive moments of America’s Presidents.

The decision to gamble on the killing of Osama Bin Laden was extremely risky, and had it failed, it is likely that Barack Obama would be facing defeat in 2012, rather than the strong likelihood of a great victory this coming November.

What else matches this courageous decision of Barack Obama?

The decision of Abraham Lincoln to resupply Fort Sumter, leading to possible confrontation with South Carolina in 1861, and the beginning of the Civil War.

The decision of Franklin D. Roosevelt to give aid to Great Britain in 1940 and 1941 to help them to survive Nazi Germany’s assault.

The decision of Franklin D. Roosevelt to open up the “Second Front’ on D Day in 1944.

The decision of Harry Truman to use the atomic bomb on Japan in 1945.

The decision of Harry Truman to overcome the Berlin Blockade of the Soviet Union, with the Berlin Airlift of 1948-1949.

The decision of John F. Kennedy to overcome threats, and resolve the Cuban Missile Crisis peacefully in 1962.

The decision of George H. W. Bush to go to war with Iraq’s Saddam Hussein after the invasion of Kuwait in 1990.

We are very blessed that this nation had a man of courage and conviction to lead us into this effort to end the life and career of the greatest terrorist of modern times, Osama Bin Laden!

And when we watch ROCK CENTER with Brian Williams tonight on NBC, we also realize how fortunate we are that Obama had around him such talented and brilliant people as Vice President Joe Biden, Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, and Secretary of Defense Robert Gates, along with others!

Rare Popularity Of Former “Living” Presidents In Past Century: TR, Ike, Reagan, Clinton

Ronald Leave a comment

The Presidency tends to cause the decline of popularity of those who hold that office, because they have to make controversial and difficult decisions which undermine their image after four or eight years in office.

In the past century, in the time of modern media exposure, which makes the Presidency a national concern on a daily basis, most Presidents, upon leaving office, have seen their public opinion rating collapse, and usually, only after they die, does their image, and respect for the difficult decisions they made, revive their popularity among both scholarly experts and the general public.

This discussion, of course, must eliminate those Presidents who did not survive the office, including Warren G. Harding, Franklin D. Roosevelt, and John F. Kennedy. However, FDR and JFK would remain highly popular in death on a regular basis since their deaths, while Harding’s brief popularity after his tragic death collapsed upon learning of the sex and other scandals during his Presidency, and he has not recovered in ratings by any group.

The only Presidents who remained generally popular after leaving office were Theodore Roosevelt, Dwight D. Eisenhower, Ronald Reagan and Bill Clinton.

William Howard Taft, Herbert Hoover, Gerald Ford, Jimmy Carter, and George H. W. Bush left office after defeat, and none of them were well regarded after their time in office. Carter and Bush had the bad luck of being followed by popular Presidents Reagan and Clinton, and Bush has had the bad luck of having both his predecessor and successor well regarded, making his time in office look quite unimpressive by comparison.

Woodrow Wilson, Calvin Coolidge and Lyndon B. Johnson left office, with each under a cloud of disrepute, with Wilson seeing the defeat of the Versailles Treaty ratification and membership in the League of Nations; Coolidge seeing the coming of the Great Depression crash on Wall Street within months of his retirement; and Johnson having to bear the burden of the Vietnam War: and all three died within four years of retirement, highly unpopular.

Taft regained respect for his service as Chief Justice of the Supreme Court; Richard Nixon gained respect for his foreign policy expertise in his long 20 years of retirement, but did not gain popularity for the rest of his lifetime; Harry Truman also had 20 years of retirement, but only gained popularity and respect after his death; Gerald Ford and Jimmy Carter started to be regarded better as the years went by, with Carter about to surpass Herbert Hoover in longevity after the Presidency, but still condemned by many experts and the general public; and George W. Bush remains unpopular and seems resigned to the fact that he may not gain popularity or respect until he has passed from the scene.

Eisenhower and Reagan retained their public popularity in their post Presidency despite scholarly criticism of their time in office, and both are now regarded more highly, even by scholars, than they were when they were retired and alive.

TR and Clinton share a special bond, as both were young when leaving office; both were highly verbal and opinionated and constantly made news; both had charisma and were loved by the general public in their post retirement years; and TR actually ran for President on a third party line, while Bill Clinton would love to run again, as many Americans wish he could be President again, but of course, the 22nd Amendment prevents that, so instead, the push for his wife, Hillary Clinton, to try for the Presidency again in 2016 is growing!

“Cool” Vs. “Stiff” Presidential Candidates: The Vote Goes To The “Cool’ Candidate Eighty Percent Of Presidential Elections Since 1932!

Ronald 1 Comment

One aspect of the battle for the Presidency over time, particularly in the age of modern media and national campaigning, is the personality of the candidates, and whether a person running for the Presidency is “cool” or “stiff” with people.

When one investigates this from the time of Franklin D. Roosevelt in 1932 onward, in most cases, but not all, the “cool” , more personable, candidate wins.

This happened with FDR against Herbert Hoover in 1932, against Alf Landon in 1936, against Wendell Willkie in 1940, and against Thomas E. Dewey in 1944.

It also occurred with Harry Truman against Dewey in 1948; Dwight D. Eisenhower against Adlai Stevenson in 1952 and 1956, and John F. Kennedy against Richard Nixon in 1960.

1964 was a rare year, where Barry Goldwater seemed more personable by far than Lyndon B . Johnson, but the Johnson campaign successfully depicted Goldwater as dangerous and extremist.

In 1968, Hubert Humphrey was certainly more gregarious and warm than Richard Nixon or George Wallace, but still lost, due to the Democratic split over the VIetnam War; and in 1972, George McGovern came across as more trustworthy and personable than Richard Nixon, but was depicted as extremist and radical in a way similar to Goldwater eight years earlier.

In 1976, Jimmy Carter, a new face on the scene, came across as more personable than Gerald Ford, who seemed stiff and uncomfortable to many.

By 1980, Ronald Reagan easily came across to Americans in a more charming manner than Jimmy Carter, and Walter Mondale never could overcome the Reagan mystique in 1984.

In 1988, neither George H. W. Bush nor Michael Dukakis came across as personable, the only time in modern history that such a situation existed.

In 1992 and 1996, Bill Clinton easily came across much better in personality than Bush or Bob Dole.

George W. Bush definitely had the edge in his personality in 2000 and 2004 against Al Gore and John Kerry.

And Barack Obama had a clear advantage over John McCain in 2008, and certainly has that edge as well against Mitt Romney in 2012.

In conclusion, only Lyndon B. Johnson and Richard Nixon were the less personable candidate when they ran in 1964, 1968, and 1972, and only in 1988 could it be said there was no difference between George H. W. Bush and Michael Dukakis in the level of their “coolness”.

The conclusion is that the more personable or “cool” candidate has a clear edge in the modern era in being elected to the Presidency!