Jimmy Carter

Rush Limbaugh And The Ultimate Right Wing Agenda: Reverse The Social And Economic Progress Since World War II!

Ronald Leave a comment

Radio talk show host Rush Limbaugh is on a roll with the Debt Ceiling Crisis and the Stock Market Crisis of the past few weeks, and he has declared war on all social and economic progress for the past 65 years, since World War II! Other right wing radio talk show hosts also promote what he does!

Actually, showing his total ignorance, Limbaugh probably means the past 80 years, since the New Deal of Franklin D. Roosevelt in the 1930s!

By declaring, in any case, that it is time to reverse the past 65 years, that means the following:

1. The Harry Truman improvements on the New Deal programs of FDR.
2. Reversal of Truman’s executive order to enforce racial integration in the military.
3. Reversal of racial integration as ordered by the Supreme Court and enforced by Presidents Eisenhower, Kennedy and Johnson.
4. Reversal of Eisenhower’s acceptance of the New Deal and institutionalizing it.
5. Wiping out of the programs of the New Frontier of JFK and the Great Society of LBJ–including Medicare, Medicaid, Federal Aid to Education, Consumer Protection Laws, Civil Rights and Voting Rights Act, programs to fight poverty, Environmental laws, National Public Radio, Public
Broadcasting, and other programs.
6.Ending of Richard Nixon’s domestic reforms–including the Occupational Safety and Health Administration, Environmental Protection Agency, Consumer Products Safety Commission, Affirmative Action programs, and others.
7.Ending of programs to aid the disabled and handicapped, begun under George H W Bush.
8. Other reforms passed under Jimmy Carter, Bill Clinton, and now Barack Obama.

This is totally insane, and the progressive movement MUST fight tooth and nail to prevent such total destruction of everything which has made America a better nation, a more tolerant nation, a more compassionate nation!

We cannot afford to go back to the 1920s, and there is no way that this agenda of Rush Limbaugh and his ilk can be allowed to triumph!

Right Wing Talk About Impeachment Or Resignation: A Dangerous And Preposterous Idea!

Ronald Leave a comment

The right wing will stop at nothing to get President Barack Obama out of office!

Talk of impeachment comes from a Texas Republican Congressman Michael Burgess of the Dallas area, the same district that used to be represented by Dick Armey, the head of Freedom Works and promoter of the Tea Party Movement. Burgess’s reasoning is that Obama is totally ineffective and should be removed for that reason, rather than any specific violation of the Constitution.

The concept of impeachment has already been abused, as with the proceeding against former President Bill Clinton in 1998-1999. It is preposterous to say that even if a President is ineffective, which is highly debatable, in the case of Obama, that it should be considered an impeachable offense. In any case, even were an impeachment proceeding to develop, there is no possibility of a two thirds vote in the US Senate to convict and remove the President, and all it would do, therefore, is cause more economic tumult and political disarray, which is precisely what this country does NOT need!

If one wants to place blame for the chaos and tumult going on right now, it must be shared not only by the President and his party, but also, and to a greater extent, the refusal of the Republicans in the House of Representatives, and their extremist Tea Party allies, to negotiate and compromise on any agreement that would raise taxes to help balance out the budget crisis!

But now, we also have right wing critics who are suggesting that the President resign because of lack of public support, and that he first replace Joe Biden as Vice President with someone more unifying. This assumes that Joe Biden would resign, and one wonders who would the right wing prefer to become Vice President temporarily before becoming President. Would the extremists accept Hillary Clinton? Highly doubtful, and in any case, why should the right wing tell us who our President is, when Obama was elected for a four year term and should finish that term, and leave it to the American people as to whether they prefer him or the Republican opponent as their next President!

It would be unprecedented for Obama to resign, even if one thinks of him as a failure, which he is clearly NOT!

Only Richard Nixon has resigned, just 37 years ago on August 9 because of the Watergate Crisis, and that was for criminal activity!

Only Woodrow Wilson secretly planned to resign in 1916 if he lost reelection, with World War I on, and America in danger of getting involved. His secret idea was to hand over the Presidency to his opponent, Charles Evans Hughes, ahead of time, if Hughes had won.

Many Presidents have been seen as failures in different ways, but NEVER has a President resigned because of that belief, and it would destroy the whole American system of government if every time there was discontent, the President should be forced out by resignation.

Think of the many cases that would exist:

1, James Madison, when Washington, DC was attacked by the British, and Congress and the President had to flee, during the War Of 1812.
2. Martin Van Buren, when the country suffered from the Panic of 1837.
3. John Tyler, upon succeeding the dead William Henry Harrison in 1841, being told he was illegitimate even though he had been Vice President.
4. James Buchanan, when we went through the Panic of 1857, and later when the South was seceding from the Union.
5. Abraham Lincoln, when he waged war against the South, and violated civil liberties in wartime for purposes of saving the Union.
6. Andrew Johnson, who was actually impeached but found not guilty, who many wanted to resign as well, because of his opposition to the goals of the Radical Republicans on Reconstruction policy.
7. Ulysses S. Grant, who presided over the worst political corruption up to that point of time, and under whom we suffered from the Panic of 1873.
8.Warren G. Harding, who had the most corrupt administration after Grant, but died just as we learned about the extent of the corruption.
9. Herbert Hoover, who was cautious and ineffective as the Great Depression became the worst economic crisis in American history.
10. Franklin D. Roosevelt, for his controversial domestic and foreign policy actions and strong executive leadership in the time of the Great Depression and World War II.
11. Harry Truman, who many thought should resign after the Republicans won both houses of Congress in 1947-48, and for his Korean War policies.
12. Jimmy Carter, for his ineffective policies on the economy and the Iran hostage crisis.
13. Ronald Reagan, for the Iran Contra scandal which erupted in his second term of office.
14. Bill Clinton, for various accusations of scandals, and for his affair with Monica Lewinsky, which led to impeachment, but not conviction by the Senate.
15. George W. Bush, for taking us into war In Iraq on false pretenses, and reckless spending, creating the debt problems of today.

The answer is NOT to have a President resign, but rather to overcome partisanship in a crisis as we have now, and unite around the President, help him, not attack him, and put COUNTRY FIRST!

The Presidency will be destroyed if we let the naysayers rule the roost, and tell the occupant of the Oval Office to resign, as that will not restore confidence!

We have survived good and bad Presidents, and the answer is to follow the US Constitution and stop this irresponsible attack by the right wing on the Constitution they claim to revere, but in practice violate and abuse on a regular basis!

Barack Obama And Progressive Disillusionment: What Is The Alternative?

Ronald 1 Comment

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!

Iowa: Rapidly Becoming Insignificant In The Presidential Nominating Contest!

Ronald Leave a comment

The state of Iowa has the first vote in the Presidential contest of 2012, as it is the host of the first caucuses on February 6, 2012. Tons of publicity and media coverage are being given to that state, but it is hard to believe that what happens in Iowa will have any real impact long term on the Election of 2012.

Since the caucuses began in 1972, only two Presidential winners running in a non-incumbent year have won Iowa–George W. Bush in 2000 and Barack Obama in 2008. Ronald Reagan ended up second in 1980 and George H. W. Bush was third in 1988. Jimmy Carter ended up second in 1976 and Bil Clinton fourth in 1992.

The problem with all caucuses, which about one third of the states use instead of primaries, is that only activists are involved, rather than the masses of the population, and they tend to be more extreme–with the Republicans being more to the RIght of center, and the Democrats to the Left of center.

So when it seems that Michele Bachmann is in the lead in Iowa, but that Rick Perry, if he enters, would compete for the evangelical Christian vote, and that Tim Pawlenty will be left “in the dust”, and Herman Cain has some support because of his statements about Muslims and Mormons, and that Mitt Romney and Jon Huntsman are not seen as serious candidates–all this should tell us that once Iowa has done its part in the nominating process, we are very likely to look back and say Iowa AGAIN had little impact on the ultimate nominee of the Republican Party in the Presidential Election of 2012!

First Appeals Court Test Of Obama Health Care Law: It Is Constitutional!

Ronald Leave a comment

In the first appeals court test of Barack Obama’s Health Care Reform this week, the Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals in Cincinnati voted 2-1 that the law was constitutional!

There will be two more such judgments by Courts of Appeal in Atlanta and Richmond, before the subject goes to the US Supreme Court for final judgment this coming term.

Interestingly, the two judges voting in favor were a Carter appointee and a George W. Bush selection, while the one judge opposed was a Reagan pick.

The majority upheld the concept that an individual “mandate” to buy health insurance was legitimate, as refusing to insure oneself puts the burden on everyone else when a person not insured ends up having to obtain health care that he has not paid for. The financial burden, therefore, falls on others because a person is irresponsible in obtaining his own health care, but cannot be denied care, nevertheless.

So the majority upheld the Commerce Clause of the Constitution as making mandated health insurance coverage an acceptable use of federal power!

In five District Court judgments, judges have divided directly on partisan limes, with three Democratic appointees backing the law, and two Republican selections opposing the legislation.

So it will be up to the Supreme Court, in what will be one of the most watched and significant cases in the next term of the Court, and just in time for the Presidential Election of 2012!

Split In The Republican Party On Foreign Interventions! Mitt Romney And Jon Huntsman Open A Debate!

Ronald Leave a comment

The Republican Party has been a warlike, hawkish party for the past two decades since the Gulf War, with Congressman Ron Paul of Texas being a rare critic.

When Paul was competing for the GOP Presidential nomination in 2008, he was ridiculed in debates by Rudy Guiliani and other GOP candidates as loony and unrealistic about America’s role in the world.

But as we near ten years in Afghanistan and soon withdraw our forces from Iraq and wonder about the Libyan intervention, nearing three months with no resolution, we are starting to see chinks in the armor of the war wing of the Republican Party.

Senators John McCain of Arizona and Lindsey Graham of South Carolina are always looking to bomb and intervene in another Muslim country, and most Republicans in Congress have refused up to now to realize the heavy financial cost of constant military intervention, particularly at a time of record deficits and the growing dispute over raising the debt limit.

But now, at least two Presidential candidates, the two most likely to go all the way to the nomination, are expressing doubts about continuation of the war in Afghanistan, and the need to reconsider military spending in some form. Mitt Romney and Jon Huntsman have taken a courageous stand in this regard, but this has led at least Lindsey Graham to call Mitt Romney another Jimmy Carter, of all things!

IF either Romney or Huntsman become the GOP nominee against Barack Obama next year, there could be an opening for Obama to start moving to end the involvement in Afghanistan.

And if real discussion of defense and military cuts could move forward, it would change the economic outlook dramatically, and allow some relief on such issues as education, health care, and the environment taking all the hits in spending cuts!

Jimmy Carter, North Korea, And Food As Issue Of Human Rights!

Ronald Leave a comment

Former President Jimmy Carter hast just returned from a visit to North Korea, which is suffering from a famine considered one of the greatest of modern times.

Carter reports that people are eating tree bark, grass, and leaves because of tremendous shortages of food, causing mass loss of life.

North Korea’s dictator, Kim Jong Il, has refused to cooperate with the six party talks attempting to negotiate an end of his nuclear threat to his neighbors. These nations include the US, Russia, China, South Korea, and Japan.

As a result, the Obama Administration is refusing to ship food stuffs to North Korea, despite the massive famine conditions that exist there.

Carter is criticizing that decision, stating that politics should not be connected to food supply availability, and that this action is a violation of human rights.

This is a very interesting viewpoint, and it gives one food for thought, no pun intended.

Should a nation use the weapon of basic human needs as a way to push a nation which has its people suffering, but has a recalcitrant government?

The tendency of the author is to agree with Carter, that the United States should immediately make food stuffs available, and stop making it a political issue. The people of North Korea are victims already of a terrible government, but the world should not abandon them and allow mass loss of life if they can have some input to prevent that!

The Change In The Democratic Party Image On Foreign Policy: From JFK To Obama

Ronald Leave a comment

Ever since the failure of John F. Kennedy to overthrow Fidel Castro at the Bay of Pigs fiasco in April, 1961, Democratic Presidents have had to carry the burden of being perceived as weak and ineffective in foreign policy.

Of course, this is not totally the truth as John F. Kennedy negotiated very skillfully through the Cuban Missile Crisis a year after the Bay of Pigs, but the concept stuck to the party image.

In so many cases, it proved to be true in many people’s minds.

Lyndon Johnson escalated our involvement in Vietnam, and could not resolve the conflict in a satisfactory manner, and was forced out of the race for the Presidency in 1968 as a result.

Jimmy Carter was unable to accomplish the goal of rescuing the 52 hostages being held in Iran after the rise of Ayatollah Khomeini in 1979. and the humiliation of those hostages being held for 444 days still rankles many Americans.

Carter’s inability to stop Soviet intervention in Afghanistan in 1979, and the problems involved in the Cuban wave of immigrants to Florida, known as the Mariel Boat Lift, also doomed his image.

Bill Clinton’s constant threats to intervene in Bosnia with air power, a total of eleven threats, before actual intervention in a successful way, also doomed him as being perceived as weak and ineffective.

The fact that JFK not only handled the Cuban Missile Crisis expertly, but also brought about the Nuclear Test Ban Treaty, is forgotten.

The fact that Carter brought about the Panama Canal Treaty and the Egyptian Israeli Camp David Accords is forgotten.

The fact that Bill Clinton brought about the Dayton Peace Accords that ended the fighting in Bosnia; the successful intervention in Kosovo by NATO; and the peace arrangement in Northern Ireland is also forgotten.

And, of course, the fact that Barack Obama overcame the Somali Pirates seizure of a merchant ship in 2009 is also forgotten, conveniently.

But now, with the death of Osama Bin Laden, and the gathering of much evidence that should help the apprehending of more Al Qaeda terrorist operatives, suddenly the reputation of Democratic Presidents may be undergoing a renaissance!

It will be very difficult for the Republican Party to sully the reputation of Barack Obama, as they have been doing for the past two plus years, as a result of this gutsy, courageous, daring decision by Obama to take a chance, realizing it could have been total failure, but demonstrating resolve and commitment to the principle of fighting terrorism wherever it is!

So from April 17, 1961 to the first day of May 2011, exactly fifty years and two weeks apart, the image of the Democrats has now been transformed for the good of the future of the “party of the people”!

Does Osama Bin Laden Success Guarantee Second Presidential Term For Barack Obama?

Ronald 1 Comment

As a result of the successful raid into the Osama Bin Laden compound in Pakistan, the first thought would be that it gives President Obama a tremendous edge in the contest for re-election as President in 2012.

But before we conclude that, we need to look at history, whether military success insures a political victory.

In at least three cases, two American and one British, exactly the opposite occurred.

British Prime Minister Winston Churchill was the great hero of World War II and the struggle against Adolf Hitler and Nazi Germany. And yet, when the British people voted months after the end of the European war, they chose to vote out the Conservative Party of Churchill and put in as Prime Minister the Labour Party leader, Clement Attlee, who served from 1945-1951.

In 1975, President Gerald Ford mounted a successful rescue mission of 39 US Navy personnel from the ship Mayaguez, which had been seized by the radical Khmer Rouge government of Cambodia. While 41 military personnel died in the successful rescue mission, two more than the number saved, it was still seen as a victory to be able to release the hostages unharmed. But in 1976, President Ford lost to Governor Jimmy Carter of Georgia for a full term in the White House!

And in 1991, President George H W Bush was able to mount a UN offensive which defeated Saddam Hussein in six weeks, the very brief Gulf War! Bush’s ratings hit an all time high for any President, 91 percent, but a year and a half later, only 37 percent voted for Bush against Bill Clinton, the second worst defeated President in American history, despite the great and quick victory over Iraq!

So while it would seem likely that Obama gains a great edge for next year’s election by the death of Osama Bin Laden, there is no certainty in any sense of what the future holds!

Earth Day: Time To Reflect On Progress Made, But Challenges Ahead!

Ronald Leave a comment

The environmental movement celebrates its greatest day on April 22 every year, since Wisconsin Senator Gaylord Nelson promoted the idea of an Earth Day in 1970, and President Richard Nixon and Interior Secretary Walter Hickel acted on it nationally.

We have had environmental champions since, including Nixon, Hickel, President Jimmy Carter, Interior Secretary Cecil Andrus under Carter, Vice President Al Gore under Bill Clinton, Interior Secretary Bruce Babbitt under Clinton, and many others in and out of government!

We have also had those who have become environmental enemies, including President Ronald Reagan, Interior Secretary James Watt under Reagan, President George W. Bush, Senator James Inhofe of Oklahoma, other Republicans in Congress, and of course, the corporate community!

So the battle for environmental protection is a never ending struggle, but one which is worth remembering on this Earth Day!

The energy industry is always at work to combat environmentalism, including the coal, oil, and nuclear power industry. The Republican Party is far from the era oF Theodore Roosevelt, the great conservationist, who would be mortified were he to come back and see what the GOP has become–a corporate party not concerned about pollution of the environment!