George H W Bush

Time For TRUE Conservative Republican Nominee So That Conservatism Can Be Exposed For What It Is: A Plea For Rick Santorum’s Nomination For The Presidency!

Conservatism has been said to be a dominant factor in the Republican Party for a long time, and conservatives in Congress and on talk radio and Fox News Channel have been spewing forth their poison, whether it is to go to war as a first resort, rather last last resort; putting women, African Americans, Hispanics and Latinos, gays and lesbians, labor, poor people, environmentalists, public service workers, consumer advocates, and anyone who promotes progressivism, in their place; and promoting corporations, the wealthy, and religion and the military as dominant parts of American power to make our nation a militaristic, religiously based plutocracy, only advocating the interests of the few, rather than the many!

But the frustration of these conservatives is that, somehow, it never seems to work out quite like they expect. Witness: Dwight D. Eisenhower defeats Robert Taft in 1952 and does “unconservative” policies in office; Richard Nixon also disappoints in many areas; Gerald Ford and his wife Betty actually promote social progressivism; even Ronald Reagan shows that he can be moved away from hard line conservative ideas; George H. W. Bush is clearly too moderate and centrist; George W. Bush follows certain aspects of conservatism, particularly following the “neocons” in foreign affairs, but too involved in “compassionate conservatism” in domestic affairs and government spending; and even Bob Dole and John McCain, losing GOP Presidential nominees, are insufficiently conservative, and actually come across as “moderates”, a hated term.

And now Mitt Romney cannot be trusted to be hard line conservative, despite his own efforts at protestations. And even Barry Goldwater, thought to be in 1964, the “ideal” conservative, later revealed his social progressivism and condemned the role of religion in the Republican Party! What is a frustrated conservative to do?

The answer is back and nominate former Pennsylvania Senator Rick Santorum, who wants to bomb Iran on Day One in office; wants a very hard line social conservatism, putting women “back in their place”; wants no regulation of business or corporations that interferes with “free enterprise”; wishes to wipe out by any means the rights of gays and lesbians; wishes to take away all of the federal entitlement programs of the New Deal and Great Society; return America back to the 1950s in some ways, the 1920s in other ways, and the Gilded Age of the late 19th century in other ways!

Conservatives want to bring back the “good old days” of white male domination over society, and corporate influence, joined with the military and religious control over our foreign and domestic policies.

Let’s hope, even pray, that Rick Santorum is nominated, and watch as he is obliterated in November, and his support by conservatives sets them back for at least a generation, and give mainline Republicans the opportunity to rebuild the party as what it once was, a centrist party, a good competition for the Democratic Party. And if the GOP refuses to reform itself, then it should be replaced by a new moderate centrist party in the mainstream of 21st century America!

Of course, notice that the author said a “generation” would pass of conservative decline, as sadly, to believe conservatism will leave our shores forever, is not going to happen, as it is like a recurring cancer on the body politic–it WILL return eventually, and the battle for control of government and politics is, therefore, a never ending battle of American history!

Can Mitt Romney Survive A Loss In Michigan Primary? His “Competition” With George Romney’s Image And History!

The biggest crisis in Mitt Romney’s privileged life is coming in Michigan, the state of his birth, the state which elected his father George Romney Governor for three terms in the 1960s, the state which he fundamentally abandoned when he called for the ordered bankruptcy of the auto industry, the state in which there has been a major turn around and drop in unemployment due to the intervention of the federal government to help General Motors and Chrysler survive. General Motors has seen its best growth in 25 years, and Michigan and the Midwest, as bad as they are in economic terms, are far better off because of what Barack Obama did, as opposed to what Romney wished to do for the area–NOTHING!

Romney is about to be paid back in spades, as the odds are now heavy that he will lose his “home state” to Rick Santorum, who can relate to blue collar workers on a fundamental basis, as compared to the filthy rich Romney who has no clue as to the struggles of auto workers or anyone else, and lives off investments but can joke about being “unemployed”!

If Romney loses the Michigan Primary, he is doomed, and will not be able to survive and win the nomination. And even if, by some intervention by “establishment” forces on Wall Street, he gets the nomination, he will have a flaw that will be enough to cause his defeat in November. He is simply too plastic, to stiff, too elitist, for the average American, and by catering to the extreme right in his rhetoric, he is causing the loss of major groups of voters–women, Hispanics and Latinos, African Americans, labor, the struggling middle class, independents, conservative Democrats, gays, etc. Does anyone NOT get the point?

Mitt Romney is NOT electable; he may have the lifelong desire to be what his father failed to be–President of the United States! But in a way, he is competing with a ghost, as George Romney was a much more genuine candidate, a man who knew what it was like to be poor, a man who really built up the auto industry, rather than live off buying up companies and firing workers, and making money on the resale of those companies.

George Romney was genuine, compassionate, principled, and honest to a set of values! Mitt Romney is none of these attributes of his father!

In a way, this reminds us of the struggle between father and son of George H. W. Bush and George W. Bush, another case of son trying to overcome the achievements of the father, but never matching up in any way, shape or form.

The difference is THIS time, it is not going to work out that this country has to deal with the psychological effects of the father-son battle for supremacy, as Mitt Romney is NOT going to be President of the United States, and is highly unlikely, as things stand now, to be the GOP nominee chosen at the Tampa Republican National Convention in August.

It is actually humiliating and embarrassing to see Romney trying to pander to Michigan now, talking about his old high school, the height of the trees, loving the lakes of the state, loving cars and Detroit! Such phoniness and catering to voters who know better than to be suckered by a rich guy who does not care about the “very poor”, the middle class, but only the rich, despite his protestations to the contrary!

Presidential Empathy: The Shortcoming Of Mitt Romney’s Candidacy For President

The reality of American politics, past and present, is that most politicians have always been very wealthy, as running for and serving in public office requires assets, and the time and effort needed to be elected and to serve in office.

No one has a problem with a politician’s wealth unless it leads to a belief that he has a callous lack of concern about the lives of ordinary people, a disconnect between the politician and the people.

Therefore, Theodore Roosevelt, Franklin D. Roosevelt, John F. Kennedy, George H. W. Bush, and George W. Bush came across as leaders who could connect to the American people at the time they were elected.

This is the problem of Mitt Romney, his inability to connect to average people, and demonstrate concern for the average American’s everyday existence.

We don’t fault a person being rich who wishes to govern us, but we do resent a person who looks down on us as the “plebeians”, who should just accept the “patricians” without any expectation of such leaders considering our needs and problems.

Presidential Empathy And Emotional Connection With The American People

There are so many talents, abilities, and skills required for a person in any occupation or field of work to have success, and the same is so for the American Presidency.

We have had Presidents who, despite many other talents, abilities and skills, were simply unable to show empathy and emotional connection with the American people. Instead, they came across as aloof, distant, plastic, and unable to relate to the “common man”!

Among those Presidents who failed to demonstrate empathy and emotional connection with the American people would be the following:

William Howard Taft
Woodrow Wilson
Warren G. Harding
Calvin Coolidge
Herbert Hoover
Lyndon B. Johnson
Richard Nixon
Jimmy Carter
George H. W. Bush
George W. Bush

Among those Presidents who had the ability to display Presidential empathy and emotional connection were the following:

Theodore Roosevelt
Franklin D. Roosevelt
Harry Truman
Dwight D. Eisenhower
John F. Kennedy
Gerald Ford
Ronald Reagan
Bill Clinton
Barack Obama

Does Mitt Romney, Newt Gingrich, Rick Santorum, or Ron Paul have these abilities? The answer is ABSOLUTELY NOT, and this will make it more difficult for any or them to serve in the Oval Office in a time of great human suffering due to the economic collapse since 2008.

Mitt Romney: A Wealthy Person Without Work For Long Time!

We hear so much talk about how IF a person is out of work for more than one to two years, that he or she loses their work skills, their talents, their expertise, by the long layoff from getting up daily and going to work.

Well, if that is the case, and many companies have made clear that they will NOT hire anyone who is unemployed for more than a short time, then Mitt Romney, the former Massachusetts Governor, should be disqualified, as he has not “worked” in six years, and much of his life, he has lived off his wealth WITHOUT contributing to public service.

One might say: “Hey, rich people often do not work, as they make money on their investments”! Well, Theodore Roosevelt, Franklin Roosevelt, John F. Kennedy, George H. W. Bush, Nelson Rockefeller, Jay Rockefeller, Ted Kennedy, and even George Romney, among other very rich people, all WORKED their entire lifetime, some of it in private enterprise, but much of it in public life and service!

Mitt Romney, on the other hand, never produced any products in his corporate experience; and only served one term as Governor of Massachusetts, choosing not to run; and had a brief involvement with the Salt Lake City Olympics. He did not choose to run for re-election in Massachusetts, because he was looking to create as “mimimum” a public service as he could do, and be able to run for President.

This man does not know what the work ethic is, and has lived a privileged life with very minimal commitment to public service, and no commitment to creating new jobs, but rather simply to enrich his own pockets!

Romney sees the Presidency as something he is “entitled to”, because his much harder working dad was unable to reach that pinnacle. He has no plans or agenda other than his own aggrandizement, both in ego and in wealth.

Being a good family man is no big virtue either, as Barack Obama easily fits that image.

So, Mitt Romney, a wealthy person who has not worked most of his life, and not recently, is not “entitled” to become our 45th President. That will come to someone else in January 2017, when Barack Obama leaves the Presidency after two terms in the Oval Office!

One Year To Inauguration Day!

Three years ago today, Barack Obama took the oath of office as the 44th President of the United States.

One year from today, we will see the inauguration of a President–at this point, one of five men.

Tomorrow’s South Carolina Primary may decide who will be challenging Barack Obama in November.

One has to wonder where is the leadership, the statesmanship, of the opposition party, that they cannot come up with anyone on the level of Abraham Lincoln, Theodore Roosevelt, Dwight D. Eisenhower, Gerald Ford, Ronald Reagan, or George H. W. Bush. This is not saying that all of the above had records in office approaching perfection, but compared to Mitt Romney, Ron Paul, Rick Santorum and Newt Gingrich, they appear as a long lost Republican leadership.

And of course, to wish for the likes of past Republicans such as Nelson Rockefeller, William Scranton, George Romney, and Henry Cabot Lodge, among others, all of whom sought and failed to win their party’s nomination, is to expect too much in today’s political climate!

One Term Presidencies: Seven Significant Leaders Not Appreciated

Tomorrow marks one year to the inauguration of the next President of the United States, and the question arises whether Barack Obama will become another one term President.

Historically, those who have been one term Presidents and lost re-election have tended to go down in history as “losers”, “failures”, and as “insignificant” in American history.

But nothing could be further from the truth. Consider the following cases:

John Adams–one of the most significant Founding Fathers in the Revolution and Federalist Eras, but defeated by Thomas Jefferson in the first political party struggle.

John Quincy Adams–brilliant in diplomacy before his Presidency as one of our greatest Secretaries of State, and exceptional as a Congressman for nearly 18 years after his Presidency, fighting against the evil of slavery, but losing to Andrew Jackson.

William Howard Taft–much underrated President who also served later as Chief Justice of the Supreme Court, but losing to Woodrow Wilson, and even ending up behind his promoter, Theodore Roosevelt, who ran on a third party line, the Progressive Party, the greatest third party performance in American history.

Herbert Hoover–acknowledged as great humanitarian as aide to Woodrow Wilson during World War I, and as Secretary of Commerce under Warren G. Harding and Calvin Coolidge, but paralyzed by the Great Depression and slow to react to the massive crisis it presented.

Jimmy Carter–Despite major accomplishments in office, particularly in foreign policy, lost reelection to Ronald Reagan because of the Iranian hostage crisis, but pursued commitment to fighting disease and promoted diplomacy and free elections after his Presidency, and won the Nobel Peace Prize.

George H. W. Bush–very talented as Ambassador to China, United Nations Ambassador, and head of the Central Intelligence Agency before his Presidency, but despite his victory in the Gulf War, he was defeated due to the economic recession and the third party candidacy of Ross Perot, and lost to Bill Clinton.

Another one term President who chose NOT to run for re-election, of course, had a very successful term of office. James K. Polk gained the Oregon Treaty with Great Britain, giving America the Pacific Northwest states, and waged war with Mexico, gaining California and the Southwest states. Worn out by his labors, he chose not to run, and died 103 days after retirement, the shortest retirement period of any President in American history.

So the whole concept that one term Presidents do not matter is shown to be totally incorrect.

Holy War In Play: Social Conservatives Against Mitt Romney, Barack Obama, And Separation Of Church And State!

Social conservatives have always been a problem for the Republican Party since the rise of Jerry Falwell, Pat Robertson and the Moral Majority, Christian Coalition and their associated groups, including large numbers of Tea Party Movement activists.

Insisting that separation of church and state are not the beliefs of the Founding Fathers who created our Constitution, the evangelical Right has been exasperated over the performance in office of Republican Presidents Ronald Reagan, George H. W. Bush, and George W. Bush, and discontented with the candidacies of Bob Dole in 1996 and John McCain in 2008.

So now, a large group of these social conservatives, including many religious leaders and wealthy businessmen, have met in Texas, and decided to coalesce around former Pennsylvania Senator Rick Santorum as the best hope to stop former Massachusetts Governor Mitt Romney in the race for the Republican Presidential nomination.

More than two thirds of those gathered in Texas decided that Texas Governor Rick Perry and former House Speaker Newt Gingrich had too many weaknesses and shortcomings, and that Santorum, who has emphasized his opposition to gay rights and abortion rights, was their “man”!

These religious right wingers are desperate to defeat Barack Obama, but see Romney as a “Massachusetts liberal”, and many are uncomfortable with a Mormon running for the Presidency, as many of them see the Church of Latter Day Saints as a cult.

It will be interesting to see whether the Evangelical Right will be able to stop Romney from being the nominee, and stop Barack Obama from having a second term of office in the White House.

The whole idea of a Mormon candidate against a mixed race President, who is black in appearance, drives these religious fanatics crazy. The whole concept of separation of church and state, and the idea of personal freedom of individuals to control their own lives, drive these extremists to fury and anger.

Hate is the key word here, and it seems likely that the evangelical Right will lose on both counts, and America will be the better for their repudiation!

Mitt Romney’s Running Mate: Who Could End Up As Vice President Next Year?

It may seem premature to ponder who could be Mitt Romney’s running mate for Vice President, after only two contests, the Iowa Caucuses and the New Hampshire Primary, but speculation is already beginning.

It is not an unimportant issue, as one must remember that a Vice President is one heartbeat away from the Presidency, and we have had nine Vice Presidents succeed to the office of President, mostly recently Gerald Ford, after Richard Nixon’s resignation in 1974.

We have now had a longer period of no Vice Presidential succession than ever since the first time the Vice President (John Tyler) replaced a President who had died after one month in office in 1841 (William Henry Harrison).

We have had Vice Presidential choices that have been nightmares, such as Sarah Palin in 2008, Dan Quayle in 1988 and Spiro Agnew in 1968, with the latter two making even opponents of George H. W. Bush and Richard Nixon wish for their continued good health!

Many individuals are being speculated about who would not be good choices in one way or another.

Among these are:

Florida Senator Marco Rubio
South Carolina Governor Nikki Haley
Former Pennsylvania Senator Rick Santorum
Wisconsin Governor Scott Walker
New Jersey Governor Chris Christie

All of the above are highly controversial in different ways, and would not draw moderates or independents, crucial in an election more than a nomination battle. And all, except Santorum, have been in high office too briefly, so the lack of experience would be harmful, as each has only finished one year in his or her position in government on a national level, with the exception of Christie with two years in office. Santorum lost reelection by a wider margin than just about any incumbent senator in history, when he lost his seat in 2006.

So, a better list would be the following, all adding to Romney, rather than subtracting:

Former Minnesota Governor Tim Pawlenty
Virginia Governor Bob McDonnell
Tennessee Senator Bob Corker
Ohio Senator Rob Portman
Indiana Governor Mitch Daniels
Louisiana Governor Bobby Jindal
Missouri Senator Roy Blunt
South Dakota Senator John Thune
Illinois Senator Mark Kirk

All of these nine, four governors and five senators, have had experience and come across as less controversial, and all would be qualified to take over in an emergency, if that were to happen.

Of course, all would have to be vetted, but on first look, they all seem to be capable of serving as President if need be, and far better than Palin, Quayle or Agnew!

The Republican Tradition Of “Next In Line” For The Presidential Nomination

The Republican Party has developed a tradition of choosing the “next in line” for their Presidential nomination in the past half century, with the one exception of Barry Goldwater in 1964, which became a total disaster.

Witness:

1960–Richard Nixon was “next in line” as Vice President to succeed Dwight D. Eisenhower.
1968–Richard Nixon was “next in line” after the Goldwater debacle, as a “second chance” for the “workhorse” of the Republican Party.
1976–Gerald Ford had succeeded Richard Nixon, and was therefore “entitled” to the nomination of the party.
1980–Ronald Reagan had fought the “good fight” against Gerald Ford and carried the conservative tradition of Barry Goldwater, so was “next in line”.
1988–George H. W. Bush had finished behind Reagan in 1980, and served as his Vice President loyally for eight years, so was “next in line”.
1996–Bob Dole had competed and lost to Bush in 1988, had also competed for the nomination in 1980, and run with Gerald Ford for Vice President in 1976, so was “entitled” to the nomination.
2000-George W. Bush wished to carry on the tradition and heritage of his father, who had been defeated by Bill Clinton, with the assistance of third party candidate Ross Perot in 1992, so was seen as “next in line”.
2008–John McCain, who had been the leading opponent of George W. Bush in 2000, was seen as “next in line”, “entitled” to the nomination of the party.
2012–Mitt Romney ended up second, losing to John McCain in 2008, so is seen by many as “next in line” for the nomination.

Of course, in none of these elections did the “next in line” gain the nomination just for the asking, and that will not happen in 2012 either, but it is, in historical terms, an interesting state of affairs!