George W. Bush

Is Mitt Romney “Captive” Of Grover Norquist, Paul Ryan, And Bill Kristol?

Mitt Romney, the presumptive GOP Presidential nominee, is a man with very few interests, other than making money, along with caring about his family and his Mormon Church.

He has really no background or great knowledge in foreign policy, and has very little interest in improving the lives of average Americans.

Many are starting to wonder if he the “captive” of Grover Norquist, Paul Ryan, and Bill Kristol.

Grover Norquist, the head of Americans For Tax Reform, has been able to convince almost all Republicans in Congress to agree NEVER to raise taxes on ANYONE, and in fact, lower them ever more. Mitt Romney has committed himself to this insanity, and of course, he personally benefits from such a policy.

Paul Ryan, the House Budget Chairman from Wisconsin, promotes the idea of destroying Medicare, Medicaid and Social Security as we know it, and has been even criticized by leaders of his own Catholic Church for his harsh view and attitude towards the poor. Romney has also expressed the thought that nothing more needs to be done for those less fortunate.

Bill Kristol is the publisher of the conservative weekly, The Weekly Standard, since its inception in 1994, and he is infamous as one of the “neocons”, the so called neo conservatives, who call for use of force overseas, and advocated the invasion of Iraq in 2003. Mitt Romney has pushed for the idea of bombing Iran, rather than diplomacy first being pursued over their nuclear program.

So one has to wonder if Mitt Romney, having no interest in issues other than what will elect him, is allowing himself now, and later as President, were he to be elected, to enact policies favored by these three men and others, which many would call “radical” ideas.

It is truly ironic that Barack Obama is often called a “radical” President, when if one examines Mitt Romney and who has influence or power over him, we should instead be concerned that Mitt Romney is the true “radical” in the race, ready to reverse progress and change under Barack Obama, and go back to the failed policies of George W. Bush!

The Barack Obama Economic Record: Worth Defending!

Republicans love to attack Barack Obama as a dissater on economic matters, claiming he is a total failure, and conveniently forgetting the horrible record of George W. Bush, and what Barack Obama inherited, the worse economic conditions for a new President entering office since Franklin D. Roosevelt in 1933!

But just as the FDR economic record is seen as positive by most historians and other scholars, someday the Obama record in his first term will be praised.

Of course, there are still naysayers for FDR’s economic record, and they seem to be multiplying, as part of the conservative and Republican assault on Barack Obama, but the truth is otherwise from what the propagandists state!

Is there room for improvement? Of course, but considering where we started in January 2009, the economy has come a long way.

What has been accomplished?

The creation of 4.1 million jobs.
25 straight months of economic growth.
The lowering of the unemployment rate from a high of 9.7% to 8.2%.
An increase of 63 percent in the stock market.
The revival and success of the auto industry.

This is a record Obama can be proud of, and we must remind ourselves that, as Obama has stated, the mess we were left in by the Bush Administration cannot be reversed completely in four years, and maybe not even eight years.

It will be a long haul, but the point is progress is being made, and Mitt Romney refuses to recognize that, and thinks his business experience will be the way to get us out of our economic mess more quickly.

A final thought: The last businessman President was Herbert Hoover! That is correct, Herbert Hoover! Enough said!

In Defense Of Jimmy Carter In The Controversy Over Osama Bin Laden

With the debate over the question of whether President Barack Obama should be able to take credit for the death of Osama Bin Laden and use it in the upcoming campaign, we have heard the name “Jimmy Carter” constantly brought up in a derisive manner by Mitt Romney, John McCain and other Republicans, and it makes one want to scream!

Jimmy Carter is very proud of the fact that we did not go to war in his administration; that he helped to negotiate a long lasting agreement, the Camp David Accords, between Egypt and Israel; that he successfully negotiated an agreement to give back the Panama Canal to that nation’s control; promoted human rights, setting a standard principle which has been utilized as a principle of American foreign policy since; and had the courage to take strong action to try and rescue American hostages in Iran, the failed mission occurring in April 1980.

Yes, the rescue mission failed, but Carter could take the credit for the fact that all of the hostages came home, upon the inauguration of Ronald Reagan. The problem was that all of the good that Carter did in foreign policy, as well as domestic policy, was overshadowed by the Iran crisis, the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan, and the economic recession that occurred, including an oil embargo that raised gasoline prices.

Carter was the victim of circumstance, but deserves much better treatment and respect, as the only other President so attacked on a regular basis after his Presidency as incompetent, who was Herbert Hoover.

It is ironic that these two Presidents, educated as engineers, both brilliant in intellect, both one term Presidents soundly defeated for re-election, ended up having longer retirements than any other President, with Hoover’s thirty one and a half years in retirement to be passed by Carter on September 8, 2012, just four months from now.

Hopefully, when he reaches that milestone in September, we will see the country celebrate Carter’s longevity, and celebrate his contributions to the country, instead of constant ridicule and disrespect.

But, if anything, Carter’s failure to rescue the hostages probably led to his defeat in 1980 by Ronald Reagan, and that makes Barack Obama’s gamble on Osama Bin Laden, and his courage and decisiveness in the matter, even more impressive, and means everyone should be willing to applaud Obama, and give him the right to use it as an issue in the Presidential Election of 2012!

One can be sure a Republican President would use it as a campaign issue, and we all know that George W. Bush politicized the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan to his political advantage!

The Flap Over “Politicizing” Of The Death Of Osama Bin Laden

A major flap has developed over the “politicizing” of the death of Osama Bin Laden by the Barack Obama campaign team, but it is false in its pretenses.

George W. Bush bragged about his intervention in Iraq and the capture of Saddam Hussein. and that was seen as acceptable by Republican operatives.

There is nothing wrong with taking credit for the death of Osama Bin Laden, and claiming it as an accomplishment, as one can be certain that IF the mission to kill Bin Laden had failed, the Republicans would be constantly beating Obama over the head on the failure, much like they did when Jimmy Carter failed to rescue the hostages in Iran in April 1980.

And it is a fact that Mitt Romney had said in 2007, that he was unwilling to spend inordinate amounts of time or money to find and eliminate Osama Bin Laden, something people in his campaign want us to forget!

And Mitt Romney only makes things worse by his nasty comment that EVEN Jimmy Carter would have tried to get Osama bin Laden, and in so doing, besmirching the record of Carter, which is a lot better than Republicans give him credit for.

So if it is alright to attack if something fails, then it is alright for praise and take credit if something succeeds.

So the Republicans are hypocrites, annoyed that Obama can look strong in foreign and defense policy, more than George W. Bush, who was unable to accomplish the goal of getting bin Laden in eight years in office!

And in a surprise, Arianna Huffington of the Huffington Post is wrong to criticize Barack Obama on this.

And congratulations to Bill Clinton, for agreeing to do a commercial for Obama, endorsing and praising Obama’s actions against Osama bin Laden one year ago, making this country safer than it has been since September 11!

The Democratic Party Edge In The Electoral College Is Reality!

In the midst of all of the public opinion polls about popularity of the Presidential candidates, one is tempted to forget that the Electoral College will decide who the next President will be, and the Democrats have a vast advantage since they have a clear edge in most of the larger states with many more electoral votes.

If one candidate wins the top ELEVEN electoral vote states, he wins the election, even if he were to face a massive defeat in popular votes in the other 39 states!

Of course, no one is likely to win all of the top eleven states, but the point is that the Electoral College gives great power to the larger populated states, and all that is required is to win one more popular vote in a state than your opponent to win all of the electoral votes of that state.

So if one looks at the top eleven states, we discover that the Democrats and President Barack Obama have a guaranteed win in California (55), New York (29), Illinois (20), and New Jersey (14) for a total of 118 electoral votes.

Obama also has an edge to win in Pennsylvania (20), Ohio (18), Michigan (16), and North Carolina (15) for a total of 69 electoral votes.

If Obama wins these eight states, he has 187 electoral votes already, not counting other Northeastern, New England, and Pacific Coast states that he is widely expected to win.

The three states that might go Republican are Texas (38), Florida (29), and Georgia (16), but Florida could go Democratic, and even Georgia is considered a long shot for the Democrats.. These three states together have 83 electoral votes. If Obama won Florida, as he did in 2008, and the eight states he is expected to win, which he also won in 2008, he would have 216 electoral votes from just those nine states!

So together, the top eleven states have 270 electoral votes, EXACTLY what is needed to win the White House!

So forget popular vote public opinion polls, as the odds of Mitt Romney winning the election in the Electoral College, let alone the popular vote totals, is not worth betting on, once one realizes the reality of the Electoral College.

Further proof of the difficulty for Republicans to win a vast majority of the Electoral College is the fact of the massive Electoral College wins by Bill Clinton twice (370 and 379) and Barack Obama once (365), while George W. Bush could not hit over 271 and 286 in electoral votes in 2000 and 2004!

The odds are much greater that Barack Obama will surpass his 365 electoral votes of 2008 in 2012, just as Bill Clinton improved his second time around!

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

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!

Further Proof That Mitt Romney Is Out Of Touch With Reality

Mitt Romney, the presumptive GOP nominee for President, spoke to college students at Otterbein College in Ohio yesterday, and suggested they take a risk and start a small business.

Sounds like not a bad idea, right?

But he suggested that if that student does not have the money to start a business, then ask one’s parents to help him out with a loan.

Does Romney not realize that many families cannot afford to pay for their children’s college education, and yet they are supposed to be able to help their children start a business?

Does he not realize that many middle class, as well as poor families, are living hand to mouth, having lost jobs, homes, pensions, due to Republican policies under George W. Bush and the Republican Party in the first eight years of this century?

Mitt Romney had the advantage of wealthy parents, but most Americans do not have that advantage, and now, millions of them also have unbelievable levels of debt from their education, and would have, therefore, no means to be able to start a small business!

And of course, Romney would not support the idea of having taxpayers help pay off those student debts by, god forbid, expecting wealthy people to pay a fair share of taxes after eight years of getting away with that responsibility due to the Bush tax cuts. After all, that would mean that HE would have to pay more taxes, and that would be an absolute outrage, wouldn’t it?

So expect students to pay their debts in full, now nearing $1 trillion, even though we spend $2 trillion a month in Afghanistan, but still suggest that their impoverished parents give them a loan to start a small business!

It is clear that Mitt Romney is an ostrich with his head in the sand, totally out of touch with reality!

Joe Biden The “Attack Dog”: “Osama Bin Laden Is Dead, and General Motors Is Alive!”

Vice President Joe Biden is clearly a very effective “attack dog” for Barack Obama!

Yesterday, Biden went after Mitt Romney, the presumptive GOP Presidential nominee, pointing out that he wants to take us back to the Bush era of foreign policy and economic policy.

His most effective lines were that due to Barack Obama, Osama Bin Laden is dead and General Motors is alive, and that had Mitt Romney been in the White House, the opposite result would have been likely!

Wow, that has to really hurt, and it shows how Joe Biden is one of the very best Vice Presidents we have seen in pure rhetoric and defense of the President they serve, and is exactly the right man to have a heartbeat away from the Presidency. It also shows his level of mental and physical strength, and why he should not be dismissed as the potential successor to Barack Obama in 2016!

And Biden reminds us that it is time to celebrate what are certainly two of the greatest accomplishments of Barack Obama as we come to the one year anniversary of the demise of Bin Laden, the terrorist’s death, and the great success of the auto industry.

And, although Biden did not mention another great accomplishment of the Prresident, Rush Limbaugh indirectly reminded us of it, when he referred derisively to Secretary of State Hillary Clinton as “just a Secretary”, the biggest bull line of late from the overweight airbag, when everyone knows that Hillary has been an exceptional asset for the country as our chief foreign policy figure, a record which puts her in the line of possible successors to Barack Obama, as much as Joe Biden!

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

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!

Unpleasant Presidential-Vice Presidential Ties Throughout American History

It has become evident that in many cases, no love is lost between sitting Presidents and Vice Presidents, who often link up for electoral reasons, but often have poor chemistry in working together. And many times, a President has wished to “dump” his Vice President, when running for another term in office, and a few times has done so.

Examples of unpleasant Presidential-Vice Presidential relationships include:

John Adams and Thomas Jefferson, with Jefferson, the opponent in the 1796 Presidential election, becoming Vice President, but leading to the 12th Amendment in 1804, to prevent any future such combination. The two men fought each other bitterly, and opposed each other again in 1800.

Thomas Jefferson and Aaron Burr, “tied” in electoral votes in 1800, forcing the election to the House of Representatives, leading to Alexander Hamilton’s endorsement of Jefferson and trashing of Burr, and causing Hamilton’s death in a gun duel with Burr in 1804. Jefferson had no relationship with Burr, after Burr tried to “steal” the election, and he was “dumped” in 1804.

John Quincy Adams and John C Calhoun, who were rivals in 1824, had totally different views of the protective tariff, with Calhoun switching to support of Andrew Jackson and running with Jackson in 1828.

Andrew Jackson and John C. Calhoun were elected together in 1828, but Calhoun broke with Jackson over the protective tariff, resigning, and creating a potential threat of civil war, with the Nullification Crisis of 1833, resolved by a compromise devised by Henry Clay. Jackson even threatened to kill Calhoun if he promoted secession of South Carolina from the Union.

William Henry Harrison, elected with John Tyler in 1840, had totally divergent views since Tyler was a Democrat running on the Whig Party line, and Tyler succeeded to the Presidency when Harrison died after one month in office in 1841, and the Whigs made Tyler’s life miserable.

Abraham Lincoln and his first Vice President, Hannibal Hamlin, elected in 1860, hardly knew each other, and the indications are that Hamlin had no major role in the administration, and was replaced by Andrew Johnson on the ticket for 1864 for political reasons.

Abraham Lincoln and Andrew Johnson, elected together in 1864, with Lincoln picking Democrat Johnson to help win support in the North, then was assassinated, and succeeded by Johnson after six weeks of the second term in 1865.

James Garfield and Chester Alan Arthur were elected together in 1880, from different factions of the Republican Party, and when Garfield died from assassination wounds six months into office, Arthur finished up the rest of the term from 1881-1885.

Woodrow Wilson and Thomas Marshall were elected together in 1912, but Marshall was “kept out of the loop”, and when Wilson suffered a stroke in 1919, was denied access to the President by Mrs. Wilson, never knowing the extent of Wilson’s incapacity for the rest of the term to 1921.

Franklin D. Roosevelt and his first Vice President, John Nance Garner were elected to two terms together in 1932 and 1936, with Garner unhappy with the New Deal programs, and wanting to succeed FDR in 1940, and alienated when FDR ran for a third term in 1940.

Franklin D. Roosevelt and his second Vice President, Henry A. Wallace were elected together in 1940, but Wallace was “dumped” by FDR in 1944, to please Southern Democrats unhappy with Wallace’s advocacy of civil rights for African Americans, and his backing of close relations with the Soviet Union.

Dwight D. Eisenhower and Richard Nixon were elected together in 1952 and 1956, but Ike wished to “dump” Nixon in 1956 although that did not happen, and he was less than supportive of Nixon in 1960 and 1968.

John F. Kennedy and Lyndon B. Johnson, elected together in 1960, were never close, having been rivals for the Presidential nomination, with LBJ feeling slighted by Robert F. Kennedy, the Attorney General and brother of the President, and rumors swirling that he would be “dumped” in 1964, if Kennedy had lived.

Lyndon B. Johnson and Hubert H. Humphrey were elected together in 1964, but with Humphrey feeling mistreated by LBJ, and unhappy as Vice President, seeing himself trapped, and being undermined when he was the Presidential nominee in 1968, and LBJ working against him when Humphrey ran against Richard Nixon.

Richard Nixon and Spiro Agnew were elected together in 1968 and 1972, with Agnew feeling “used” by Nixon to do his “dirty work” against the news media, and gaining no support from Nixon when in legal trouble over accepting bribes, leading to his resignation in 1973. Agnew refused to speak ever again to his former boss.

Ronald Reagan and George H. W. Bush were never close, and the Bushes were never invited to the White House by the Reagans, after their two victories in elections in 1980 and 1984.

George H. W. Bush and Dan Quayle were elected together in 1988, with obvious discomfort by Bush as to Quayle’s performance in his term of office as Vice President, and considered “dumping” him in 1992, but not done in that losing re-election effort.

Bill Clinton and Al Gore, elected together in 1992 and 1996, got along well, but after the Monica Lewinsky scandal, a growing divide occurred between the two men, and Gore decided not to have Clinton help him in the Presidential campaign of 2000, and then the two men had angry words in a confrontation in the Oval Office after the defeat.

George W. Bush and Dick Cheney, elected together in 2000 and 2004, originally worked well together, but Bush then ignored Cheney’s advice often in the second term, and refused Cheney’s request that Scooter Libby be given a pardon. Cheney, in his memoir, made clear that his relationship with Bush had cooled.

So often, the relationship between President and Vice President has been a very difficult one, an interesting aspect of American history!

Exceptions to this were the close relationship of Gerald Ford and Nelson Rockefeller between 1974 and 1977, although Rockefeller was “dumped” from the ticket in 1976 for Bob Dole, a move that Ford later said he did for political reasons, and greatly regretted; the extremely close ties between Jimmy Carter and Walter Mondale between 1977-1981, with Mondale practically a “Co President”; and the present relationship between Barack Obama and Joe Biden since 2009.