George H W Bush

The Persistent Hillary Clinton For Vice President Chatter: Does It Make Sense? YES!

Ronald 2 Comments

Chatter is arising again, as it has on and off for a year, that President Barack Obama might ask Secretary of State Hillary Clinton to become his Vice Presidential running mate for the Presidential Election of 2012, with Vice President Joe Biden dutifully steeping aside and becoming Secretary of State in a second Obama term.

This is something that has been dismissed in the past as not going to happen, and not advisable to happen. The author himself is a great Joe Biden fan, and the general feeling is that Joe Biden has done a great job as Vice President, adding distinction to the office.

However, the arguments for Hillary Clinton as Vice President are as follows:

1. Hillary Clinton has improved her credentials as Secretary of State, but is tiring of the constant travel and wants to leave the State Department.

2. While Hillary claims she wishes to retire, and proceed to write, speak and travel, it is hard to believe that the highly competitive Mrs. Clinton really wants to do what she says!

3. With the possibility of a close election due to the slowly recovering economy, Hillary would certainly be a plus for Barack Obama, more so than Joe Biden, as she has great public support, with a present public opinion rating of 64 percent, higher than anyone.

4. Hillary Clinton running for Vice President would be likely to bring more Democratic victories in Congress, which is essential to accomplish the goals of a second Obama term.

5. Hillary would bring more support for the President among women, Hispanics and Latinos, African Americans and young people, the core of the Obama victory in 2008, but flagging somewhat in all areas after the realities of three years in power.

6. Hillary running would bring about the first woman Vice President in reality, an exciting proposition after the disastrous candidacies of Geraldine Ferraro in 1984 and Sarah Palin in 2008.

7. The Democratic Party would have a front runner for President in 2016, although others would challenge Hillary, but it would increase the chances of a third Democratic term, and even possibly a fourth Democratic term, in the White House, and extra strength for the Democrats in Congress for the future beyond Barack Obama.

8. So called “shotgun marriages” in politics have occurred before with success, such as John F. Kennedy with Lyndon B. Johnson in 1960 and Ronald Reagan with George H. W. Bush in 1980.

9. Having Bill Clinton, supremely popular almost on the level of his wife, fully working for Obama and his own wife, would make for an exciting, dynamic campaign, creating a “marriage” between two powerful families, and would work well electorally.

10. Hillary could help President Obama in the crucial Midwest, with white working class men and women, her strong point in 2008, and his weak point.

11. Joe Biden would be a “good soldier”, who would willingly agree to step aside, but would get his ideal job, based on his career in the Senate, as having been former chairman of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, and loving that area of policy, he would have great impact as Secretary of State in a second Obama term, and being 74 by the end of the second Obama term, would not be likely to seek the Presidency or be a real challenge to Hillary or other Democrats at that stage of his life. But since he has good relations with Hillary, he could have a future in the position of Secretary of State or some other important position in 2016.

12. Finally, some might say that the Bill and Hillary Clinton shortcomings might be revived in a race in 2012 and beyond, but that is all old news, not new, and would have little impact, as their reputations have soared, rather than declined!

So therefore, it makes sense at this point for Barack Obama to ask Hillary Clinton to be his running mate, and for Joe Biden to replace her in 2013 as Secretary of State in a second Obama administration, good for all of them, for the Democratic Party, and for the future of America!

Crossing Party Lines To Serve A President: The BEST American Tradition!

Ronald Leave a comment

Following up on Jon Huntsman’s defense of serving President Obama as Ambassador to China for two years, when one looks at American history, one sees many examples of public figures crossing party lines to serve a President of the other party, a commitment that is in the BEST American tradition of bipartisanship and service to country.

A look back reveals many examples of such bipartisanship and putting the country ahead of party, as witness the following examples:

President Barack Obama

Robert Gates, Secretary of Defense
Ray LaHood, Secretary of Transportation
John McHugh, Secretary of the Army
Jim Leach, Chair of the National Endowment for the Humanities
Ben Bernanke, Chairman of the Federal Reserve

President George W. Bush

Norman Mineta, Secretary of Transportation

President Bill Clinton

Alan Greenspan, Chairman of the Federal Reserve
William Cohen, Secretary of Defense

President George H. W. Bush

Robert Strauss, Ambassador to the Soviet Union/Russia
Richard Stone, Ambassador to Denmark

President Ronald Reagan

Mike Mansfield, Ambassador to Japan
Paul Volcker, Chairman of the Federal Reserve
Jeanne Kirkpatrick, Ambassador to the United Nations
William Bennett, National Endowment for the Humanities
Secretary of Education

President Jimmy Carter

James Schlesinger, Secretary of Energy
Lawrence Eagleburger, Ambassador to Yogoslavia

President Gerald Ford

Daniel Patrick Moynihan, Ambassador to India and to the United Nations

President Richard Nixon

Sargent Shriver, Ambassador to France
John Connally, Secretary of the Treasury
Daniel Patrick Moynihan, Ambassador to India

President Lyndon B. Johnson

Henry Cabot Lodge, Ambassador to South Vietnam and to West Germany
Edward Brooke, Kerner Commission on Civil Disorders

President John F. Kennedy

Robert McNamara, Secretary of Defense
C. Douglas Dillon, Secretary of the Treasury
McGeorge Bundy, National Security Adviser
Henry Cabot Lodge, Ambassador to South Vietnam

President Dwight D. Eisenhower

Martin Durkin, Secretary of Labor
William McChesney Martin, Jr., Chairman of the Federal Reserve
Robert B. Anderson, Secretary of the Treasury

President Harry Truman

Warren Austin, Ambassador to the United Nations

President Franklin D. Roosevelt

Frank Knox, Secretary of the Navy
Henry Stimson, Secretary of War
William Donovan, Head of the Office of Strategic Services
John G. Winant, Ambassador to Great Britain
Harlan Fiske Stone, Chief Justice of the Supreme Court

President Herbert Hoover

Benjamin Cardozo, Associate Justice of the Supreme Court

President Warren G. Harding

Pierce Butler, Associate Justice of the Supreme Court

President Grover Cleveland

Walter Q Gresham, Secretary of State
Theodore Roosevelt, Civil Service Commissioner

President Rutherford Hayes

David Key, Postmaster General

President Ulysses S. Grant

Caleb Cushing, Ambassador to Spain

President Abraham Lincoln

Edwin M Stanton, Secretary of War
Andrew Johnson, Military Governor of Tennessee

This is quite a list of distinguished Americans who served their country for a President of the other party, and Jon Huntsman, as Ambassador to China for two years, adds to that distinct list, and it should NOT disqualify him to run for President of the United States!

Further Evidence Of Insignificance Of Iowa Caucuses, And Significance Of New Hampshire Primary!

Ronald Leave a comment

So much attention is paid to the Iowa Caucuses, but the more one examines them, one realizes how unimportant to history Iowa really is.

Only George W. Bush and Barack Obama have won the Iowa Caucuses and gone on to being elected President. Jimmy Carter fell behind “Uncommitted” in 1976. One could say that since the two most recent Presidents won Iowa, that it is an indication of the changing role of Iowa, but that is really highly doubtful!

At the same time, New Hampshire’s Primary HAS been VERY significant in picking Presidents, as Jimmy Carter in 1976 and John F. Kennedy in 1960 won the state, and Republicans Dwight D. Eisenhower in 1952, Richard Nixon in 1968, Ronald Reagan in 1980, and George H W Bush in 1988 also won the state.

Historical Reality Of Iowa (Top Three) And New Hampshire (Top Two) Are The Only Choices For Presidential Nomination Of Either Party

Ronald Leave a comment

All of the candidates for the Republican Presidential nomination contend they will go on, even if they perform poorly in Iowa and New Hampshire.

But the historical reality is that unless one ends up in the top three in Iowa AND the top two in New Hampshire, there is no future for such a candidate.

The only exceptions are Bill Clinton in 1992 in Iowa in 4th place behind “favorite son” Tom Harkin, “Uncommitted”, and Paul Tsongas, but Harkin winning 76 percent of the vote; and John McCain, who in 2008 in Iowa ran behind Mike Huckabee, Mitt Romney and Fred Thompson, but lost to Thompson for third place only by a total of 424 votes. NEVER has anyone in either party ending up lower than second place in New Hampshire won the Presidential nomination of either political party!

Thus, only five Iowa third or fourth place finishers have ended up winning New Hampshire and being the nominee: Bill Clinton fourth in 1992, Michael Dukakis third in 1988, George McGovern third in 1972, John McCain fourth in 2008, and George H W Bush third in 1988.

So, assuming the polls are correct, Jon Huntsman (not really competing in Iowa), Michele Bachmann, Rick Perry, and probably Newt Gingrich, are “toast”, with Mitt Romney, Ron Paul and probably Rick Santorum (due to a late surge at the proper time), the real contenders in New Hampshire.

That would mean that Rick Santorum would become the candidate of the “social conservatives”, but the odds are that Mitt Romney will win New Hampshire and go on to become the GOP nominee for President in 2012 against President Obama!

The Iowa Republican Caucuses Historically: A Waste Of Time!

Ronald 1 Comment

The Iowa Caucuses, which have existed since 1972 for the Democratic Party and competitively for the Republicans since 1976, have been largely a “waste of time” as far as picking future Presidents, and even Presidential nominees.

At least, the Democrats have chosen Jimmy Carter, Walter Mondale, Bill Clinton, Al Gore, John Kerry, and Barack Obama, with Carter, Clinton and Obama going on to the White House.

But the Republican Caucuses have been much less successful and representative of what happened. Only Bob Dole in 1996, and George W. Bush in 2000 and 2004 have gone on to be the nominee, and only Bush being elected and reelected. There was no actual vote between Gerald Ford and Ronald Reagan in 1976, and Reagan lost in 1980 and ran unopposed in 1984, and the same for George H W Bush in 1988 and no opposition in 1992.

The point is that the Iowa Caucuses gain an inordinate amount of attention, but only maybe a bit more than 100,000 people participate, far fewer than a primary in percentage of voters, and therefore, it has never been seen as a reliable barometer of who a future Presidential nominee or winner might be!

So don’t tend to think that the results in Iowa will matter, as the New Hampshire primary has ALWAYS been a much better barometer for the fortunes of Presidential candidates, since it emerged in 1952.

Newt Gingrich: Vitriol, Hatred, Confrontation, Tumult, Division, Distortion–The New Joseph McCarthy!

Ronald 2 Comments

As former Speaker of the House Newt Gingrich continues to surge in the polls for the Republican Presidential nomination, it becomes more obvious that the Republican Party “establishment” is horrified at his rise.

Former Congresswoman Susan Molinari of New York, Congressman Peter King of New York, former New Hampshire Governor John Sununu (who worked as Chief of Staff to the first President Bush), former Florida Congressman and MNSBC talk show host Joe Scarborough, and innumerable others are ringing the alarm bell about the dangers of Newt Gingrich as the GOP nominee.

They and those who know politics best see Gingrich as a disaster for the party, similar to Barry Goldwater in 1964, but in many worse worse than Goldwater.

Goldwater did not have the ethical and moral problems of Gingrich. Goldwater did not set out to be another Joseph McCarthy, as Gingrich has done in modern terms.

Why call Gingrich another Joseph McCarthy? Gingrich, similar to McCarthy, levels ridiculous charges and accusations; utilizes virtriol and promotion of hatred; promotes confrontation and tumult and division and distortion with a great relish; does not care how many corpses he leaves behind in his lust for power; and would make the stalemate and gridlock that exists in Washington even worse than it is now!

Newt Gingrich cannot unite the country; cannot solve any of the major problems we are facing; and likely would take us into more foreign wars; promote more wild spending leading to a greater national debt; cause more corruption and scandals (both in government and personally); create more centralization of the powers of the Presidency in dangerous, abusive ways; and would make us wish for the times of Richard Nixon, the most divisive President of the 20th century!

This man is reckless, dangerous, and does not work well with others of his own party, let alone the opposition and the news media. He is a danger to the nation’s future, and one would hope that he would lose massively to Barack Obama, and cause a reassessment of the right wing madness of the Republican Party!

The Republican Presidential Race And Foreign Policy: What A Change For The Worst!

Ronald Leave a comment

The Republican Party since World War II has built its reputation more on foreign policy than domestic policy, being seen as the stronger party in shaping our relationship with the outside world.

Republicans can rightly brag about Senator Arthur Vandenberg, Secretary of State John Foster Dulles, President Richard Nixon, Secretary of State Henry Kissinger, Senator Bob Dole, President George H. W. Bush, Secretary of State George Shultz, Secretary of State James Baker, Senator Richard Lugar, Secretary of State Colin Powell, and Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice as brilliant examples of people who shaped and understood foreign policy.

Today, we have a motley group of Republicans running for the Presidency, with Herman Cain, Michele Bachmann, Rick Perry, Ron Paul, Newt Gingrich, and Rick Santorum showing no evidence of even a clue as to how to deal with the outside world! Instead, their primary idea is to attack Iran and discipline Pakistan, the two most dangerous nations at this point for the United States.

Instead, Dwight D. Eisenhower, Richard Nixon, Gerald Ford, Ronald Reagan, and George H. W. Bush understood the need for diplomacy and to attempt alternatives to the use of force, except when unavoidable.

Only Mitt Romney, somewhat, and Jon Huntsman in a major way, have the skills and common sense to deal with foreign policy, and this indicates the sad, pitiful situation we are in, when six “dangerous” people are considered possible Presidents, without any understanding of diplomacy!

God forbid that the United States gets one of these six “losers” in the Oval Office!

The Republican Party: Fiscal Discipline And National Security–Foreign Policy Expertise Reputation Replaced By Incompetency And Ignorance!

Ronald Leave a comment

The Republican Party used to be the party of Fiscal Discipline, until George W. Bush and the Republican Congress spent wildly on the War on Terror and a Prescription Drug Plan without raising taxes, and in fact, cut them dramatically on the wealthy, causing the economic crisis of the Great Recession as a result!

The Republican Party used to be the party of National Security–Foreign Policy Expertise, the party of Richard Nixon and George H. W. Bush, until Sarah Palin came along as a Vice Presidential choice in 2008, and then Michele Bachmann and Herman Cain came along, all three of them displaying total ignorance of the subject, and Rick Perry not much better!

To believe that the Republican Party could have serious challengers for the Presidency who have no clue on foreign policy or economic matters is something that promotes speechlessness!

Sarah Palin showed plenty enough ignorance, and there was a great sigh of relief when she decided finally not to run for President.

But instead, we have Michele Bachmann and Herman Cain, who seem in many ways, even worse than Sarah Palin.

We also have Rick Perry, who seems even worse than George W. Bush.

What has happened to the party that used to be respectable and knowledgeable, the party of Richard Nixon, Gerald Ford, Bob Dole, George H. W. Bush, John McCain, and yes, even Ronald Reagan?

The Republican Party is in mourning for itself among its Establishment, and the nation should be in mourning as to how far downhill the party has gone!

A major political party with a glorious history in many ways has become an embarrassment to itself, and the nation suffers as a result!

The Supreme Court: Most Important Issue Of Presidential Campaign Of 2012

Ronald 2 Comments

It is amazing how little this Presidential campaign of 2012 has been connected to foreign policy, and to constitutional law, as if ONLY the economy matters.

As much as the Great Recession and its supposed aftermath has created a major crisis for Americans, to overemphasize it is a dangerous action, as the LONG RANGE problem is much more our relations with the world AND the future of our judiciary.

Regarding the judiciary, the thought that a Republican President would select MORE conservatives to a Court already top heavy with conservatives is absolutely terrifying on issues such as the power and influence of corporations, the rights of women, the rights of gays, the role of religion in government, and the struggle to preserve civil rights and civil liberties.

For instance, if Michael Dukakis had been elected in 1988 instead of George H. W. Bush, we would not have had Clarence Thomas on the Supreme Court.

If John Kerry had been elected President in 2004, instead of George W. Bush, we would not have had John Roberts and Samuel Alito on the Supreme Court.

Going further back, if Walter Mondale had defeated Ronald Reagan in 1984, we would not have had Antonin Scalia and Anthony Kennedy on the Supreme Court, and Justice William Rehnquist would not have become Chief Justice.

So the election of the President has LONG TERM consequences in judicial and constitutional interpretation, just as much as foreign policy is not only short term, but long range affecting.

When one realizes that Ruth Bader Ginsberg is 78, and Justices Antonin Scalia and Anthony Kennedy are 75, it seems realistic to believe that all three COULD be out of office in the next term of office.

So the Court could become more conservative if a Republican is elected to the Presidency, and more moderate if Barack Obama is elected to a second term in the White House.

Therefore, every voter MUST realize that the Presidential election has consequences, not only in foreign policy long term, but also in the future of our legal system and our constitutional rights.

Barack Obama: The Foreign Policy Success, Greatest Since World War II!

Ronald Leave a comment

When one thinks about Presidents and foreign policy, we tend to have the image that Republicans, particularly Richard Nixon and George H. W. Bush, are the great success stories, and to look down on Democrats as better in domestic policy than foreign policy, where they are perceived as weak!

In 2008, Hillary Clinton had commercials that made one wonder if Barack Obama was prepared to make tough decisions at 3 AM, in the area of foreign policy, where he was seen as a novice.

Well, here we are nearly three years into Barack Obama’s term, and what has happened?

1. Obama has had Hillary Clinton as his Secretary of State, arguably one of the very best in American history!

2. Barack Obama has had great success in improving the image of America worldwide through his cooperation with NATO, the United Nations, and the Arab League, a development no one would ever have believed when he became President!

3. Obama has been successful in the withdrawal from Iraq, which just today he announced would end by Christmas.

4. Obama has been able to move toward the idea of eventual withdrawal from Afghanistan, while not recklessly moving in that direction too quickly.

5. Obama intervened, in just the right amount, in Libya, and has now improved his image in that nation, many flying American flags, as Gaddafi has just, after 42 years, been removed finally as a threat to the international order. And it cost not one American life, only about $2 billion in expenditures, and showed that the international community could work successfully together!

6. Obama has been able to go after dozens of terrorists and eliminate them through our intelligence gathering and our drones, including Osama Bin Laden and Anwar al Awlaki, and these two terrorists, along with Moammar Gaddafi, have been successfully neutralized in a period of less than six months!

7. While there are certainly challenges in foreign policy, particularly with Iran, Pakistan and Venezuela, along with Russia and China, one notices a lot of rhetoric, primarily, as these nations and their leaders have realized that Obama is not a person to “mess with”! They recognize that he is one tough “hombre”!

Compare the record on foreign policy and national security of Obama to George W. Bush, and one wonders why Republicans and conservatives refuse to salute and honor the President for his accomplishments! The obvious answer is that they know this is his major strong point of all, and they are not about to give him the time of day!

Meanwhile, the GOP candidates for President sound like morons, as some of them actually are, when it comes to these issues, and it is clear that our foreign policy and national security would be undermined by a defeat of Barack Obama in 2012!

So the job of the Obama campaign team is to emphasize these achievements, and to work to convince the American people that Obama has more concern and better ideas about how to deal with the economic future, than members of the party who will not even allow funding of extra teachers and first responders because it might raise, very slightly, the tax responsibility of the obscenely rich!