Jerry Brown

“What Ifs” Of Presidents Defeated For Reelection

The game of “What If” is a fun game, trying to imagine what would have changed history!

An example is to wonder what changed circumstances would have caused Presidents defeated for reelection to have won reelection.

Since World War II, three Presidents have been defeated when running for another term—Gerald Ford, Jimmy Carter, and George H. W. Bush.

What are the common bonds among these three Presidents that caused them to lose?

Presidential Primary Opposition—Gerald Ford from Ronald Reagan in 1976; Jimmy Carter from Ted Kennedy and Jerry Brown in 1980; George H. W. Bush from Pat Buchanan in 1992.

Bad Economy and Recession—Gerald Ford, Jimmy Carter, George H. W. Bush

Third Party Candidate Opposition In Election Campaign—Jimmy Carter from John Anderson in 1980; George H. W. Bush from Ross Perot in 1992.

Communication Problems With the American People—Gerald Ford, Jimmy Carter, George H. W. Bush.

Additionally, Gerald Ford had the problem of the Richard Nixon Pardon, which hurt him; and Jimmy Carter had the problem of the Iran Hostage Crisis, which dogged him through Election Day and beyond.

Finally, all three Presidents had the problem of an opponent who became very appealing as an alternative—Gerald Ford with Jimmy Carter; Carter with Ronald Reagan; and George H. W. Bush with Bill Clinton. Carter and Clinton represented a generational change–eleven years between Ford and Carter, and 22 years between Bush and Clinton, while Reagan represented a charismatic actor who had a loyal following able to overcome doubts by the perceived weaknesses of Carter.

One has to wonder what might have been had Ford been elected in 1976, preventing a President Carter; what might have been had Carter been reelected, preventing a President Reagan; and what might have been had Bush been reelected, preventing a President Clinton.

Reagan might still have succeeded President Ford, but after what would have been 12 years of Nixon and Ford, one wonders?

Would Ted Kennedy have had an open season to win in 1980, or Jerry Brown, or who else, as a result? If Reagan had not been President, would Bush have been so, and if not, would his son, George W. Bush have been President? Unlikely, but also if father Bush had defeated Clinton, who would have been the likely front runner for the Democrats in 1996, after what would have been 8-16 years of GOP control?

And would we be speaking about Hillary Clinton as a likely Presidential candidate, and even winner, now in 2013?

This is all food for thought, and a fun game, and a great novel, in the lines of Jeff Greenfield”s book on a “Second Kennedy Term”, due out on the book market very soon!

America’s Underappreciated Presidents—James K. Polk, Grover Cleveland, William Howard Taft, Jimmy Carter, George H. W. Bush

With Presidents Day celebrated on Monday, this is a good time to reflect on which Presidents are underappreciated for their contributions in the White House.

Five Presidents, four of them having only one term, and three of them soundly defeated for reelection, are often overlooked in an unfair manner.

These five underappreciated Presidents are as follows, chronologically:

James K. Polk (1845-1849), Democrat—-who did not wish a second term in office, died only three months after his term of office, but accomplished more than any President, regarding expansion of the nation, as he negotiated the gaining of the Pacific Northwest with Great Britain, and went to war with Mexico to gain the Southwestern United States. Because of Polk, highly controversial due to his manipulation of conditions setting up war with Mexico, and often criticized as an “imperialist”, we gained more land than any other President, including Thomas Jefferson with his Louisiana Purchase.

Grover Cleveland (1885-1889, 1893-1897), Democrat—-the only two term non consecutive terms President, although winning the popular vote three consecutive times, Cleveland accomplished the passage of the Interstate Commerce Act, promoted civil service reform, and became regarded as a man of strong principles, including refusing to take over Hawaii, after a treaty was negotiated by the previous President, Benjamin Harrison. A rare President on the concept of opposing the addition of territory to the United States, he refused to go to war with Spain over the issue of Cuba in his second term, and opposed the Spanish American War and the Filipino Insurrection intervention under William McKinley, standing out as a leading anti imperialist.

William Howard Taft (1909-1913), Republican—-was unfortunate in coming in between two very charismatic Presidents, Theodore Roosevelt and Woodrow Wilson, both of whom would end up ranked in the top ten of all Presidents, in most polls of experts on the Presidency. Taft also was the worst defeated President running for reelection, competing against both TR and Wilson, and ended up third, rather than second in defeat, and winning only 23 percent of the vote, two states, and eight electoral votes. But he deserved better, and did have the distinction of becoming Chief Justice of the Supreme Court in the 1920s, where he was much happier. But Taft actually signed a highly successful regulation of the railroads, the Mann Elkins Act of 1910; won lawsuits causing the breakup of the monopolies of Standard Oil, United States Steel, and International Harvester; and supported two constitutional amendments, the 16th (Federal Income Tax) Amendment, and the 17th (Direct Election of United States Senators) Amendment.

Jimmy Carter (1977-1981), Democrat—served one divisive term, defeated for reelection by Ronald Reagan, due to the Iran Hostage Crisis, high inflation and unemployment, and the Soviet Union invasion of Afghanistan, and faced primary challenges from Ted Kennedy and Jerry Brown. But he accomplished the Camp David Accords between Israel and Egypt; the Panama Canal Treaty; the promotion of the principle of human rights in foreign policy; the advancement of the environment, making him the third best President on that issue; and creation of three cabinet agencies–Health and Human Services, Education, and Energy. And his post Presidency, now the longest in American history, has been a model for Bill Clinton’s post Presidency, and Carter continues to promote human rights and economic and social reform nationally and world wide, and is often considered the best former President of the United States in American history.

George H. W. Bush (1989-1993), Republican—the second worst defeated President in American history, despite having led the coalition which forced Iraqi leader Saddam Hussein out of Kuwait, lessening a threat to the Middle East oil supply and the government of Saudi Arabia, in the Persian Gulf War of 1991; being the President under whom the Cold War came to an end in a stable manner in 1991; managing the unification of Germany between 1989 and 1990 in a skillful manner; and promoting the passage of civil rights law for the disabled population of America, a major reform in American history. Bush was always considered a master in the field of foreign policy, and for years after, had an impact on policy making through his significant staff members, who continued to have an impact.

All five Presidents deserve a better coverage and appreciation, despite the fact that each could be roundly criticized for events that would cause them to be overlooked as outstanding Presidents. Presidents Day is an appropriate time to do so!

Past Presidential Debates With An Incumbent President: Naturally On The Defensive!

When one gets away from the momentary panic that many Obama supporters had after last night’s debate against Mitt Romney, and thinks rationally, and analyzes Presidential debate history, it is not all that surprising that a challenger will go on the attack and be aggressive with a sitting President, and set him back in the first debate they have in a campaign year.

Remember that a sitting President is busy every day, and is not as up to date in debating as a challenger, who has had to survive many debates and questions in order to reach the point of a Presidential nomination.

So when we look at the past, we realize the following:

Gerald Ford was on the defensive against Jimmy Carter in 1976.

Jimmy Carter was on the defensive against Ronald Reagan in 1980.

Ronald Reagan was on the defensive against Walter Mondale in 1984.

George H. W. Bush was on the defensive against both Bill Clinton and Ross Perot in 1992.

George W. Bush was on the defensive against John Kerry in 2004.

Despite this reality, Reagan and the second Bush recovered to win, while Ford, Carter, and the first Bush lost the election that ensued.

But also realize that Ford had inherited a mess from Richard Nixon, and had never seen himself in the Presidency before being selected by Nixon to replace Spiro Agnew as Vice President, and he was strongly challenged by Ronald Reagan in the primaries in 1976.

Also realize that Jimmy Carter was challenged by both Ted Kennedy and Jerry Brown in the primaries in 1980, and faced a charismatic former actor in Reagan, and a tumultuous crisis with Iran in 1980.

And realize that the first Bush faced a challenge from Pat Buchanan in the primaries in 1992, and a double challenge from Bill Clinton and Ross Perot, which undermined his ability to win votes that Perot took away from him in the fall campaign.

Ronald Reagan and George W. Bush faced no such challenges, and were able to overcome their weaknesses in the first debate of 1984 and 2004.

Additionally, Bill Clinton, facing no challenge in 1996, simply overwhelmed Bob Dole in the first and all debates of that year, with his charisma a major plus!

If one remains calm, one realizes that Barack Obama will recover from this disappointing debate, has charisma, had no challenger in the primaries, and therefore, will do like Reagan, Clinton, and the second Bush did–win reelection—-rather than lose election as Ford did, and reelection as Carter and the first Bush did!

The Senior Citizen Generation In California Politics, And A Future Potential Leader

California, the state which represents the future in American politics to many, has become a state which has government leaders who are senior citizens, who have been part of the political system for decades.

A strongly Democratic state in the past twenty years, California’s top office holders are all in their 70s.

Governor Jerry Brown is 74, and was governor when he was in his mid 30s in 1975.

Senator Diane Feinstein is 79 years old, has been in the Senate for 20 years, and was Mayor of San Francisco in the late 1970s.

Former House Speaker Nancy Pelosi is 72, and has been in the House of Representatives since 1986.

Senator Barbara Boxer is 71, and has been in the Senate for 20 years, and was previously a House member since 1982.

When one wonders who the leaders of the future are in California politics, the person who sticks out the most is Lieutenant Governor Gavin Newsom, who is 45, and seen as a likely nominee for Governor in the near future, after his earlier service as Mayor of San Francisco.

Medicaid Expansion And State Governors: Reaction Based On Party Affiliation!

The federal government has offered to cover Medicaid expansion for the poor and uninsured in 2014 and after, because otherwise, millions of Americans will have no health care coverage, and that will increase the number of serious illnesses and deaths long term.

But predictably, and sadly, we find most Republican Governors refusing to expand their Medicaid system, including Bob McDonnell of Virginia, Nikki Haley of South Carolina, Rick Scott of Florida, Bobby Jindal of Louisiana, Rick Perry of Texas, Jan Brewer of Arizona, Paul LePage of Maine, and Scott Walker of Wisconsin, among others.

Meanwhile, most Democratic Governors, including Andrew Cuomo of New York, Deval Patrick of Massachusetts, Dan Malloy of Connecticut, Martin O’Malley of Maryland , Jack Markell of Delaware, Mark Dayton Of Minnesota, Pat Quinn Illinois, and Jerry Brown of California, among others, have made it clear they will expand the Medicaid coverage.

The contrast is startling, as GOP Governors, following in tune with the Republican House and Senate minority members, are in lockstep, making it clear they will not support expanded medical coverage, as part of their plan to wipe out ObamaCare, despite the Supreme Court decision last month!

The fact that the federal government would pay most of the costs, an estimated $931 billion through 2022, with the states only having to pay $73 billion, has had no effect on the Republican Governors!

Why Barack Obama Will Be A Repeat Of Bill Clinton Electorally, Rather Than Gerald Ford, Jimmy Carter, And George H.W. Bush!

A lot of political observers seem to think that Barack Obama is doomed to lose re-election, just as Gerald Ford, Jimmy Carter, and George H. W. Bush did in 1976, 1980, and 1992.

The author will contend that rather than that unfortunate history, Barack Obama will repeat the electoral experience of Bill Clinton in 1996!

The question, of course, is what is the rationale behind this thought of the author?

Gerald Ford–was an unelected President, coming after Watergate, challenged in the primaries by Ronald Reagan, an extremely charismatic individual, who almost took the nomination from him. Ford was unable to unite the party around him after the Reagan battle, despite dumping Nelson Rockefeller for Bob Dole for Vice President. Ford had little opportunity to convince the country that he was deserving of election, and yet ALMOST defeated Jimmy Carter, which he would have done if he had won a few more thousand votes in Ohio and Hawaii! Ford was not seen as all that capable to be President by many people, with the poor economy of the time.

Jimmy Carter–had a difficult last year in office, with the Afghanistan invasion by the Soviet Union, the Iranian hostage crisis, and the challenge in the primaries by Senator Ted Kennedy and Governor Jerry Brown. He faced a charismatic opponent in Ronald Reagan, and a third party opponent in John Anderson. He was not a warm personality, and came across as weak and ineffective.

George H. W. Bush–faced a primary opponent in Pat Buchanan, and a strong third party challenger in Ross Perot. His Democratic opponent, Bill Clinton, had a lot of charisma, and was helped by the strong showing of Perot. And Bush did not have a particularly likeable personality, more respected for his ability than his understanding of average Americans and their lives.

Bill Clinton–engendered strong feelings for and against during his first term, and had charisma dripping off him, as compared to Bush and Bob Dole, his 1996 re-election opponent. Times were good, and he looked strong in his battles against the GOP Congress run by Speaker of the House Newt Gingrich. He had no opposition for the second term nomination, and his opponent, Dole, being 73 years old, did not help his challenge to Clinton. Also, Wall Street gave more financial support to Clinton to hedge their bets, frustrating Bob Dole!

Barack Obama–well liked, even by those who do not like what he has done, but he has accomplished a lot in office, particularly in foreign affairs and national security. He has brought about substantial domestic reform despite strong opposition from the Republican party, and has loads of charisma, and tons of funding, including as with Clinton, from Wall Street, which, even if opposed as they were to Clinton and now Obama, hedge their bets and support him more than the Republican nominee, just as with Bob Dole in 1996. Also, there is a good chance of a Tea Party right wing party rebellion if Mitt Romney, the likely nominee, is the choice of the Republican party. The opposition does not have a candidate to excite the nation, so although the economy is horrible, the likelihood is that more Americans will recognize the reality that one does not overcome a near depression overnight, and will decide to stick with Obama, just as they did in the height of the Great Depression with Franklin D. Roosevelt!

The Congress And Job Creation Failure: How The Republicans Will Suffer More Than President Obama!

Right now, there is panic in the Democratic Party over the job statistics, with 9.1 percent unemployment, with many thinking President Obama cannot be reelected in 2012.

The fact is, that despite this hysteria, it is in the hands of the Republicans in Congress as to whether Obama will be reelected, due to the fact that they control the majority in the House of Representatives, and with their 47 Senators, are able to filibuster any action desired by the Democrats in the Senate!

If no jobs program is enacted to help bring about the creation of employment, it will reflect on them more than President Obama, who will be able to use the same “do nothing Congress” argument on them that Harry Truman utilized in 1948, leading to his upset victory and the return of the Democrats to control in both houses of Congress.

The Democrats tend to panic whenever times are tough, so President Truman had much liberal opposition in 1947-1948, but he came through, with foreign policy helping him to look like the strong, stable leader that he was!

President Jimmy Carter had much liberal opposition in 1979-1980, including challenges within the party from Ted Kennedy and Jerry Brown, weakening him, and foreign policy crises of Afghanistan and Iran undermined his ability to recover from economic difficulties that arose at the same time.

President Bill Clinton had liberal opposition in 1995-1996, but won a battle over the budget with the Republican majority in Congress, faced no opponent in the primaries, and while unable to throw the GOP out of control of the Congress, won reelection handily and weakened the Republican majority.

With Obama having no opposition within the party for the nomination, demonstrating a strong successful policy against terrorism, and having an extreme right wing GOP in the House of Representatives determined to do nothing to create jobs, the need for panic and hysteria is overdrawn!

As long as Obama fights the good fight for his program, even if nothing is done over the next 14 months, the Republicans will hand the election to him, particularly if Rick Perry is their nominee!

The ability of the Republicans to self destruct is immeasurable, and with a public opinion rating of 12 percent for Congress (under the control effectively of the GOP), and with Obama’s personal popularity being a plus and his overall rating being 43 percent, the future is not as gloomy as many might think!

The Republicans, Barack Obama, And The 2016, NOT 2012, Presidential Election!

All of America is focused on the 2012 Presidential Election, as the Republicans compete over who should oppose President Barack Obama for re-election.

There are a lot of people who seem to think that Barack Obama will be easy to defeat, because of the high unemployment rate, which will be the highest for a President running for re-election since the time of Franklin D. Roosevelt.

But these are not ordinary times, and the thought that Barack Obama is going down the road of Gerald Ford, Jimmy Carter, and George H. W. Bush is a false premise!

Remember that Ford, Carter and Bush I all had strong primary challenges, with Ford having to deal with Ronald Reagan, Carter with Ted Kennedy and Jerry Brown, and Bush I with Pat Buchanan in the primaries and Ross Perot in the general election.

Also remember that none of those three Presidents had a record of domestic accomplishments that Barack Obama has!

Also remember that none of those three had the charisma or oratorical ability of Barack Obama!

Also realize that Obama has foreign policy accomplishments in the fight against terrorism, unmatched by any of those three, except briefly with the Gulf War under George H. W. Bush!

Although there are those competing for the Presidency in the Republican Party, actually, on the sidelines, there are others who desire the job, but either are not ready yet to run for the office, or are smart enough to realize that the odds of ultimately defeating Obama are long, so better to wait to 2016, when Obama would be finishing his two terms of office, if he is reelected.

It is a gamble, of course, to sit back and wait, but likely a good gamble, and if it is an open Presidential election, the odds of success for the Republicans grows by 2016.

So who is sitting on the sidelines, salivating for the Presidency, and secretly hoping no Republican is elected in 2012?

In no special order, here is a list of ambitious Republicans:

1. Governor Chris Christie of New Jersey
2. Congressman Paul Ryan of Wisconsin
3. Former Governor Jeb Bush of Florida
4. Senator Marco Rubio of Florida
5.Senator Scott Brown of Massachusetts
6. Governor Bob McDonnell of Virginia
7. Governor Scott Walker of Wisconsin
8. Governor Rick Scott of Florida
9. Governor John Kasich of Ohio
10.Senator Jim DeMint of South Carolina

Notice particularly THREE Floridians who have ambitions–Bush, Rubio and Scott, and realize the fact that Florida will have 29 electoral votes, the fourth largest number, as Florida is the fourth largest state.

So, particularly among Republicans in Florida, there are those who secretly hope that 2016 will be an open election, and are willing to sit back and wait for just that reason!

Barack Obama And Progressive Disillusionment: What Is The Alternative?

With the announcement of a deal on the Debt Ceiling Crisis last night, but still to be voted on today by both houses of Congress without a guarantee of its passage at this moment of writing, the question arises as to what is the future of the progressive movement in America.

Many might say the answer is to give up on Barack Obama and challenge him in the primaries, and or run a candidate on a third party line in November 2012.

If one looks at the history of such efforts, however, it always leads to the worst alternative to progressivism being triumphant!

In November 1967, Senator Eugene McCarthy entered the race for the Presidency against President Lyndon B. Johnson, followed by Senator Robert Kennedy in March 1968, leading to his withdrawal and replacement as the administration candidate by Vice President Hubert Humphrey. The split engendered in the party over the war in Vietnam led to a divided Democratic convention, and the defeat of Humphrey by Richard Nixon, who proceeded to continue the war in Vietnam another four years, something assuredly that would not have happened under a President Humphrey. This tumultuous split in the Democratic Party helped to make for a Republican advantage, and permanently changed the Democratic party, whereby they would only win the Presidency three times out of the next ten national elections.

In late 1979 and early 1980, President Jimmy Carter was challenged in the primaries, for being too moderate and centrist, by both Senator Ted Kennedy of Massachusetts and Governor Jerry Brown of California. The effect of the primary challenge was to weaken Carter for the campaign, with all of the attacks by Kennedy and Brown used by the Republicans against Carter, and Ronald Reagan won the election, setting back the progressive movement dramatically, still having an effect in 2011!

There was similar discontent among some progressive elements with Bill Clinton in his first term, but no revolt or challenge from within the progressive movement, and Bill Clinton, with his faults and shortcomings, was reelected to a second term, the only Democrat to do so since Franklin D. Roosevelt.

So while there can be discontent and disappointment with Barack Obama, that he has not achieved everything that progressives desire, try to imagine President John McCain instead, and try to imagine whether any of the many accomplishments of the Obama Presidency would have been achieved, and the answer is clearly negative.

So when Ralph Nader, who helped to defeat Al Gore by running in Florida in the 2000 election, talks about challenging Barack Obama, the answer is to steer clear of him unless one wants another 2000 election, unless one wants a Republican likely to be further to the right than George W. Bush or Ronald Reagan were in 2000 or 1980.

And when one tries to consider what progressive spokesman could really win the nation in 2012, one comes up empty handed. Certainly, Ralph Nader has no credibility and is seen as fringe in nature. Dennis Kucinich has appeal for some of what he advocates, but has run twice in the Presidential primaries and comes across as loony to many with his personal quirks. Bernie Sanders is appealing to many, but is actually a Socialist, not a Democrat, and could not possibly have broad based appeal. Russ Feingold is probably the most attractive alternative, and has formed Progressives United, an advocacy organization in Madison, WIsconsin, but he is weakened by the loss of his Senate seat in 2010, and it would be better if he ran for Senator Herb Kohl’s Senate seat with Kohl retiring, with a good chance to come back to the Senate in 2012 and promote the progressive cause from that location, in a more constructive manner.

Who else is possible, with any credibility? Realistically, NO ONE, and therefore, there is no alternative but to support Barack Obama, have him and his party fight the good fight over the next 15 months, and work to create a solid majority for progressive causes in the House of Representatives and the Senate!

If that quest is successful, and with a second term and no reelection to face, Barack Obama would likely turn further to the left, stick his neck out, and become more progressive than he has been able to do, logistically, in this first term. With all the criticism that has been and will be made of Barack Obama, he still has the most progressive term in office since Lyndon B. Johnson in the 1960s with his Great Society!

Supreme Court Issues Surprising Decision On California Prisoners: Release 30,000 Inmates Within Two Years!

The Supreme Court, in a surprise decision by 5-4, ordered California yesterday to release 30,000 inmates in its prison population due to improper care and attention to the medical and mental problems faced by many prisoners.

Justice Anthony Kennedy, the swing vote on the Court, again surprised people in that he joined the four liberals–Stephen Breyer, Ruth Bader Ginseberg, Sonia Sotomayor, Elena Kagan–in arguing that the living conditions of many prisoners were unacceptable under the 8th Amendment’s banning of “cruel and unusual punishment”!

The case, Brown V. Plata, drew an oral condemnation from Justice Antonin Scalia, and an equally scathing written attack by Justice Samuel Alito, and Justice Clarence Thomas and Chief Justice John Roberts also joined the minority.

California, in the midst of a horrible economic crisis, will need to find solutions within two years, and possibly gain an extension, and can utilize new construction, out of state transfers and utilizing county facilities to resolve the issue. Otherwise, up to 30,000 inmates could be unleashed on the general population, a security issue of horrifying proportions if it actually comes to be!

While the future seems grim, Justice Kennedy can be applauded for recognizing the concept of human dignity and a minimal condition of medical care and basic sustenance, and Kennedy has long been a critic of long and harsh sentences.

Realize that not all of the inmates of California state prisons are murderers or rapists, as many are in prison on drug convictions, and there have been laws in California requiring a three strikes concept that puts a prisoner under a life term, no matter how small the infractions on later legal issues.

Key solutions that will arise over the next few years under Governor Jerry Brown will be financing, meaning the need for more taxes to support keeping more people in state prison; making sure that violent criminals do not walk the streets in the future; and overcoming recidivism by promoting real job training and mental health intervention to assist parolees in finding work and going straight, rather than returning to prison through a “revolving door”!

It is clear that America has never been very good at promoting change in felons, whether younger or older. The tendency has been to “throw the keys away”, but in reality, that is not a solution long term, and we must work as a nation on improving the odds of prisoners learning from their incarceration, and hopefully not having to return to prison after having created new victims!