Herbert Hoover

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

Ronald Leave a comment

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!

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!

Rick Santorum And Barry Goldwater Would NOT Be Friends!

Ronald Leave a comment

Arizona Senator Barry Goldwater was the MOST right wing nominee for President we have ever had, and lost in a massive landslide to Lyndon B. Johnson in 1964.

Barry Goldwater was an economic conservative, who was against the New Deal, wishing Robert Taft, the earlier conservative Republican leader, had become President, because he wished to repeal the New Deal, and President Dwight D. Eisenhower institutionalized the New Deal as the first Republican President since Herbert Hoover. Goldwater wished to make Social Security voluntary, rather than required as part of the tax collection, which it had been for a quarter century.

Barry Goldwater was also a foreign policy conservative, who believed in ultimate confrontation with the Soviet Union and any foreign enemy, including potential use of nuclear weapons.

Barry Goldwater appealed to states rights advocates, and although supportive of the broad concept of civil rights for African Americans, he criticized the civil rights movement and its leaders, and accepted the backing of Southern segregationists.

BUT with all of his faults, one thing Barry Goldwater was NOT–a social conservative a la former Pennsylvania Senator Rick Santorum.

Barry Goldwater was NOT a believer in the role of religion in government, and was a major critic in later years of the Christian Coalition, and the Moral Majority, led by Jerry Falwell and Pat Robertson and other evangelical Christian ministers.

Barry Goldwater never believed it was the business of government to interfere in private life of individuals and their families, so did not support the Pro Life Movement against abortion rights for women.

Barry Goldwater never believed it was anyone’s business to condemn or vilify people because of their sexual orientation, and so supported the rights of gay men and women.

Barry Goldwater believed that all Americans should be allowed to serve in the military, so was against “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” interfering with the right of gay men and women to serve our nation, asserting that he did not care what one’s sexual orientation was, as long as he or she could “shoot straight!”

Barry Goldwater would have been mortified to see a candidate who condemned sexual relations except for procreation purposes, and to observe a candidate speak out against the use of contraception by couples for their family planning and the health and welfare of women.

It is clear that were Barry Goldwater alive and active today, he would repudiate Rick Santorum as a social totalitarian, an extremist, a dangerous man to give power to, as there is nothing worse than a “Puritan” trying to promote morality by force!

Conclusion: Barry Goldwater and Rick Santorum would NOT be friends!

Barry Goldwater came across as whacky, extreme, untrustworthy to be our President, and he often “shot from the lip”, getting himself into major troubles that could be exploited by Democrats and President Lyndon B. Johnson in 1964. IF Rick Santorum ends up as the GOP nominee in 2012, the same weaknesses will get him in major troubles that could be exploited by the Democrats and President Barack Obama!

Rick Santorum: Another Barry Goldwater, But Far Worse!

Ronald Leave a comment

Former Pennsylvania Senator Rick Santorum’s victories in Dixie tonight, in Alabama and Mississippi, now sets up the ultimate confrontation between Establishment Republicans and the extreme right wing of the party.

The difference is that Mitt Romney is no Nelson Rockefeller of 1964, and Rick Santorum is no Barry Goldwater of 1964..

Rockefeller worked to fill the centrist position in the party, while Romney has flirted uncomfortably with trying to satisfy the far Right, which sadly cannot be done.

Barry Goldwater was at heart a libertarian, and Rick Santorum is as far from that as anyone can imagine, with his desire to control the social and private lives of Americans.

Nelson Rockefeller would be shocked at the performance of Mitt Romney, and Barry Goldwater would be totally appalled at the social totalitarian mentality of Rick Santorum.

In his time, 1964, Barry Goldwater was considered a “nightmare” by Establishment Republicans, many of whom, including Rockefeller abandoned him, leading to the worst GOP defeat since 1912.

Today, Rick Santorum is considered a “nightmare” by Establishment Republicans, and many will abandon him if he is the nominee of the Republican Party, and Santorum will suffer the greatest defeat since 1964, 48 years ago!

Rick Santorum, if he won the Presidency, would undermine the country with his right wing views, making him the most extremist President EVER in American history! He would make us long for the times of George W. Bush, Ronald Reagan, Herbert Hoover, Calvin Coolidge, and William Howard Taft, considered the five most conservative Presidents of the 20th century in no special order, but all having some personality traits or views that showed their humanity!

Rick Santorum has NO such visions or leanings!

Mitt Romney Does Not Work Well With Others: Forecast Of An Isolated Presidency If He Wins

Ronald Leave a comment

Mitt Romney, the front runner in the Republican Presidential nomination race, has already revealed himself to be very stiff, formal, and aloof from the problems of ordinary Americans.

Now we are learning that he is much the same in dealing with other politicians.

Romney acts as if he is the Chief Executive Officer of a corporation, who isolates himself in his plush offices, makes policy with just a few aides, and then expects that everyone will follow his lead and avoid challenges at group meetings, where he expects to announce his decisions on policy, and everyone joins in unison in support of the initiatives he has promoted. He does not like criticism or alternative ideas, as he has great confidence in his own ability and intellect.

This was Mitt Romney as a corporate leader, and it is the prescription for disaster if he is President of the United States.

One might ask how one can conclude that this is so. The answer is that we have learned that this was his approach in his one term as Massachusetts Governor from 2003-2007!

Having to deal with a Democratic state legislature which was 85 percent against him, one would think he would realize that he had to deal with the opposition by getting to know members of the legislature, and conducting lots of meetings trying to bridge the gap in a bipartisan way, but that was not Romney’s style at all.

Interviews with Massachusetts politicians who served under Governor Romney reveal a man who avoided contact with them; never learned the faces or views of most of them; avoided socializing with legislators; came across as emotionally remote; overused the veto pen to no effect, but set a record of 844 vetoes, the most in Massachusetts history; worked as an outsider from the beginning to the end of his governorship; openly criticized legislative leaders that he needed to work with and in the process turned them away from any cooperation efforts with him; acted as a control freak in wanting every action of the legislature to go through the governor’s office; and failed to give recognition to those legislators present at public events (a policy that Barack Obama is a master of).

It is clear that Mitt Romney may be a corporate leader of great talents and skills, but that is NOT going to get things done with the US Congress, whether his own party controls, or particularly if the opposition party has control, which is probably quite likely, or a split Congress, which would create a nightmare scenario far worse than the one Barack Obama faces now with the 112th Congress.

Face the facts, Mitt Romney can only relate to wealthy people of corporate mentality, to his family, and to the Mormon Church. With the kind of obscene wealth he has, he can go on enjoying his life, but we need a more hands on President of the United States to deal with the rest of us folks, and we already have one named Barack Obama!

In other words, Mitt Romney is no Franklin D. Roosevelt, no Lyndon B. Johnson, and no Ronald Reagan! He is more like Herbert Hoover or Calvin Coolidge, and we know where that ended up!

Rick Santorum And Rural America Vs Mitt Romney And Suburban America

Ronald Leave a comment

Tonight’s results in Michigan and Arizona preserved Mitt Romney’s lead, and edge in the battle for the Republican Presidential nomination.

But Romney did not knock Santorum out of the box, as the saying goes. Super Tuesday next week has the potential to assist Santorum in his battle promoting social conservatism.

And the new realization is that Santorum appeals to rural areas, which tend to wish for the past of America, when cities and suburbs were not so highly developed and influential.

Rick Santorum proved in the Michigan Primary that he could win the land and the rural areas, while Romney won the suburbs, although most urban areas are heavily Democratic.

It brings back memories of the struggle between urban and rural America that became most evident in the Presidential Election of 1896 (William McKinley vs. William Jennings Bryan) and the Presidential Election of 1928 (Al Smith vs, Herbert Hoover).

It is also the battle nationally, as the “heartland” is heavily rural and Republican, and the coastlines, highly urbanized and suburban areas, are Democratic.

This election is really a battle to move into the future, or to move backwards to the nostalgia of the past, and the future is the only sensible choice!

President Vs. President In Presidential Elections: 14 Times and 20 Presidents

Ronald Leave a comment

On George Washington’s actual birthday, 280 years ago (1732), it is appropriate to ask how many times has there been a Presidential election in which two Presidents opposed each other?

The answer is 14 times, and a total of 20 Presidents have competed against a fellow Oval Office occupant, present or future!

Here are the details:

Presidential Elections of 1796 and 1800–John Adams vs Thomas Jefferson, with Adams first winning, and then Jefferson.

Presidential Elections Of 1824 and 1828–John Quincy Adams vs Andrew Jackson, with Adams first winning (even though behind Jackson in popular votes), and then Jackson.

Presidential Elections of 1836 and 1840–Martin Van Buren vs William Henry Harrison, with Van Buren first winning, and then Harrison.

Presidential Elections of 1888 and 1892–Benjamin Harrison vs Grover Cleveland, with Harrison first winning (even though behind Cleveland in popular votes), and then Cleveland.

Presidential Election Of 1912–the only time three Presidents, past, present and future, ran against each other, with Woodrow Wilson defeating President William Howard Taft and former President Theodore Roosevelt (running on a third party line, the Progressive Party).

Presidential Election of 1932–Herbert Hoover vs Franklin D. Roosevelt, with FDR winning.

Presidential Election of 1960–John F. Kennedy vs Richard Nixon, with JFK winning, but Nixon later winning the Presidency in 1968.

Presidential Election of 1976–Jimmy Carter vs Gerald Ford, with Carter defeating President Ford.

Presidential Election of 1980–President Jimmy Carter vs Ronald Reagan, with Reagan defeating President Carter.

Presidential Election Of 1992–President George H. W. Bush vs Bill Clinton, with Clinton defeating President Bush.

Of these 20 Presidents, only Woodrow Wilson, Franklin D. Roosevelt, John F. Kennedy, Ronald Reagan, and Bill Clinton–a total of five–never lost to their Presidential competitor, although it could be pointed out that FDR lost the Vice Presidency in 1920, a race that Warren G. Harding won for the White House, and that Ronald Reagan lost the Republican nomination for President to Gerald Ford in 1976!

So another trivia contest for those who are interested!

Business Background And The Presidency: Herbert Hoover And George W. Bush

Ronald Leave a comment

Former Massachusetts Governor Mitt Romney touts his business background and experience as a plus in his race for the Republican Presidential nomination. Many people take him at his word, but is that a good thing?

Historically, the answer is a resounding NO!

Who are the Presidents with a business background?

Two precisely, Herbert Hoover (1929-1933) and George W. Bush (2001-2009).

Isn’t that enough information all by itself?

Both presided over the WORST economic collapses in American history, Hoover with the Great Depression, and Bush with the Great Recession.

Hoover was, by far, the smarter and more talented and creative of the two, but still the business background was of no help at all in the Presidency.

The point is that business is NOT the same as government, and never will be. Business is NOT the right background to run a government, as the needs of people are vastly different than the need for profits.

So, business background and the Presidency do not mix well, and it will not insure that Romney would have a successful Presidency and revive the economy!

13 Former Presidents And Public Service After The Presidency

Ronald Leave a comment

With Presidents Day upon us, another interesting point of investigation about the American Presidency is the extent of public service of former Presidents.

The Presidents who remained active public figures after their Presidency, chronologically, were:

President John Quincy Adams (1825-1829), who served as a Congressman from Boston from 1830-1848, dying on the House floor during a debate over expansion of slavery into the territories gained from the Mexican War.

President Martin Van Buren (1837-1841), who after his difficult term in office due to the Panic of 1837, attempted to come back to the Presidency in 1844, failing at that venture, but running as the Presidential candidate of the Free Soil Party in 1848, the forerunner of the Republican Party.

President John Tyler (1841-1845), who renounced his American citizenship, and served for one year in the Confederate Congress before his death in 1862, which was not officially acknowledged by the United States government, due to his treason, as Americans saw it.

President Millard Fillmore (1850-1853), who after completing Zachary Taylor’s unfinished term without much distinction, came back and ran as the Presidential candidate of the American (Know Nothings) Party, an anti immigrant party, in the 1856 Presidential election, winning only Maryland in the Electoral College, and then went back into obscurity.

President Andrew Johnson (1865-1869), who served a few months as US Senator from Tennessee in 1875, serving alongside many of that body who had voted to remove him from office in the Impeachment trial of 1868, but died after those few months in the upper chamber.

President Theodore Roosevelt (1901-1909), who remained active, and ran for President on the third party Progressive Party line in 1912 against his own successor, William Howard Taft, and by running, helped to elect Woodrow Wilson as the next President. He also wrote and made speeches incessantly on every public topic imaginable!

President William Howard Taft (1909-1913), who was appointed Chief Justice of the Supreme Court by President Warren G. Harding in 1921, served nine years, and helped to plan the construction of the Supreme Court Building, which opened five years after he left the Court.

President Herbert Hoover (1929-1933), who served on the Hoover Commission on Organization of the Executive Branch of Government under appointment by President Harry Truman after World War II. Hoover also kept active in writing, and speaking up about public affairs.

President Richard Nixon (1969-1974), stayed active, writing about ten books and doing a lot of traveling around the world, and was an informal adviser to every President after him, including Bill Clinton in whose first term he passed away.

President Jimmy Carter (1977-1981) remained extremely active in his post Presidential years, writing over 20 books, forming the Carter Center to promote peace and diplomacy, and the fight against many diseases, and working for Habitat for Humanity in the construction of housing for the poor. He also had innumerable interviews and constantly spoke his mind on all kinds of domestic and foreign policy issues, and that continues today.

President Bill Clinton (1993-2001) followed in the steps of Jimmy Carter, promoting regular activity through his Clinton Global Initiative, and also promoting earthquake relief in Haiti in 2010 in tandem with President George W. Bush (2001-2009). Also, Clinton was involved in promotion of relief for victims of Hurricane Katrina in 2005 and the Indian Ocean tsunami in 2004 with former President George H. W. Bush (1989-1993). He also has been interviewed regularly and published many books and articles.

So these are the contributions, after being President, of 13 Presidents, and it is highly likely that President Barack Obama will continue that tradition, leaving office, whether in 2013 or 2017, as one of the youngest retired Presidents in our history as a nation!