John F. Kennedy

Amazing How Republicans Are Attacking The “Religion” Of Capitalism, And Yet Claim Barack Obama Is A “Socialist”!

Ronald Leave a comment

It is actually quite hilarious how many Republicans, led by Newt Gingrich, are attacking Mitt Romney over his career with Bain Capital, and yet have enriched themselves in similar ways through Wall Street and other capitalistic interests without any shame, and at the same time, have no concern about the sufferings of the middle class and the poor, as a result of the Wall Street bank collapse of 2008-2009!

While attacking Barack Obama as a “Socialist”, the Republicans have been willing to support government aid to the corporations and the banks, a different form of “Socialism”, which benefits the wealthy and powerful at the expense of the middle class and the poor!

Without realizing it, the Republicans are presenting to us the evils of capitalism, and the dire need for MORE reform and regulation, which is actually “Progressivism”, as in the early 20th century, but is being labeled by them as “Socialism”!

But the same charges were leveled against “Progressives” in the early 20th century, and against the New Deal of Franklin D. Roosevelt, a time when the government, instead of setting out to destroy capitalism at the peak of the Great Depression, instead SAVED capitalism from those who truly wanted to destroy it!

What Barack Obama is trying to do is also NOT revolutionary! It is the same purpose as FDR had, to save capitalism from its own shortcomings and weaknesses, by increasing government regulation and intervention in the public interest.

So the internal GOP debate over capitalism and its excesses can have the purpose of bringing about what needs to be done, a recognition that Barack Obama is NOT a revolutionary, but in the best progressive tradition of Theodore Roosevelt, Woodrow Wilson, Franklin D. Roosevelt, Dwight D. Eisenhower, John F. Kennedy, Lyndon B. Johnson, Richard Nixon, and Bill Clinton!

99th Anniversary Of Richard Nixon’s Birth: Anything To Celebrate? YES!

Ronald 1 Comment

Today, 99 years ago, Richard Nixon was born in California, and went on to become the most complex, most controversial, most divisive President we have ever had.

There is so much that is negative about Richard Nixon, and more is coming out from the Nixon Library itself, with the Watergate exhibits, and the constant revelations from the Watergate tapes, and the research being done by scholars in political science and history, and by veteran White House journalists, including a recent book in October on his judicial appointments (Kevin J. McMahon) and a scathing attack on his ethics and policy making (Don Fulsom), due out at the end of this month.

So Nixon will never be able to rest easily in the afterlife, so to speak, but since it is his birthday, can we find anything decent to say about his time in office, in the midst of the mountain of evidence of negativism?

Richard Nixon continued to expand on the New Frontier of John F. Kennedy and the Great Society of Lyndon B. Johnson, even while claiming to cut back on the economic and social programs of both Democratic Presidents. After all, he signed into law many initiatives that are now opposed by Republicans who would like nothing better than to repeal what he signed into law.

Nixon accomplished the following in domestic policy:

The Environmental Protection Agency
The Consumer Product Safety Commission
The Occupational Safety and Health Administration
Affirmative Action for Women and Minorities
Appointed Associate Justice Harry Blackmun
Supported the Equal Rights Amendment for Women
Initiated Wage and Price Controls in a time of inflation

He also had the following successes in foreign policy:

Negotiated Detente with the Soviet Union
Began Economic and Diplomatic Ties with China
Supported Israel in the Yom Kippur War

This list of ten accomplishments in no way makes up for the many negatives of the Nixon Presidency, and the damage he did long term to the institution itself.

This post is NOT an attempt to whitewash the Nixon record of horrible abuse of power, just a recognition that the 37th President did have a positive impact in ways worth remembering, a year before the Centennial of his birth, which will NOT be celebrated quite the same as Ronald Reagan’s centennial in 2011, or the future centennial of John F. Kennedy in 2017, or the bicentennial of Abraham Lincoln in 2009!

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

Ronald 2 Comments

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Ronald Leave a comment

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

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

President Barack Obama

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

President George W. Bush

Norman Mineta, Secretary of Transportation

President Bill Clinton

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

President George H. W. Bush

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

President Ronald Reagan

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

President Jimmy Carter

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

President Gerald Ford

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

President Richard Nixon

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

President Lyndon B. Johnson

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

President John F. Kennedy

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

President Dwight D. Eisenhower

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

President Harry Truman

Warren Austin, Ambassador to the United Nations

President Franklin D. Roosevelt

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

President Herbert Hoover

Benjamin Cardozo, Associate Justice of the Supreme Court

President Warren G. Harding

Pierce Butler, Associate Justice of the Supreme Court

President Grover Cleveland

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

President Rutherford Hayes

David Key, Postmaster General

President Ulysses S. Grant

Caleb Cushing, Ambassador to Spain

President Abraham Lincoln

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

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

The “Bible Belt”, Religion, And The Republican Presidential Race

Ronald Leave a comment

After Mitt Romney won the Iowa Caucuses by EIGHT votes over Rick Santorum, some saw it as a victory.

But others pointed out that Romney actually received SIX fewer total votes than he did in 2008 in the Iowa Caucuses!

And Romney did not do well among evangelical Christians, which are a very large portion of the Republican vote in Iowa. Considering also that he received just 25 percent of the vote, the same percentage as in 2008, brought to mind that his Mormon faith MAY have an effect in the Southern primaries and other Midwest primaries where evangelical Christians still look at Mormonism as a religious cult, in areas considered the “Bible Belt”!

So Mitt Romney is not seen as overcoming the religion question as John F. Kennedy did in 1960.

But the problem is that Jon Huntsman is also a Mormon, and Rick Santorum and Newt Gingrich are Catholic, the problem that existed for Kennedy. Only Rick Perry and Ron Paul are evangelical Christians or Baptists, which is predominant in the South.

The question is whether Rick Santorum, who shares the religious and family values of many Southerners, but is a Catholic, can win them over and have an impact in future primaries. He is already trying to appeal to blue collar whites who are often rural in environment and religious more than the rest of the country. Will Perry and Paul have a better shot, particularly in the South, and can Gingrich, who converted to Catholicism, overcome that fact?

The point is that religion COULD be a factor in the final decision as to who the GOP Presidential nominee will be!

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

Ronald Leave a comment

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

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

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

In Interview, Barack Obama Compares Himself In Accomplishments To Abraham Lincoln, Franklin D. Roosevelt, And Lyndon B. Johnson! Is That Appropriate?

Ronald 1 Comment

President Obama has now compared his accomplishments after three years in office to three other Presidents–Abraham Lincoln, Franklin D. Roosevelt and Lyndon B. Johnson.

This comment will stir much reaction and commentary, and it requires analysis and judgment, which will go on forever!

Certainly, Obama’s time in office has caused tremendous controversy and turmoil, but one could argue the same for Lincoln, FDR, and LBJ!

Assuming that the Supreme Court does not declare Obama’s Health Care plan unconstitutional, that achievement will stand out as one of the most profound in American history!

Obama also has saved the auto industry, prevented a Great Depression, and has brought about more reforms in his time in office than anyone except FDR, LBJ, and possibly Woodrow Wilson! He also has been extremely impressive in his attack on terrorism and Al Qaeda, and in ending the war in Iraq.

It is certainly true that George Washington, Thomas Jefferson, Andrew Jackson, Theodore Roosevelt, Woodrow Wilson, Harry Truman, and Ronald Reagan had a great significance in our history!

It is also true that even James K. Polk, John F. Kennedy, Richard Nixon, and Bill Clinton had major accomplishments that will not be forgotten.

But in terms of pure legislative accomplishments, Obama must, at this point, rank with FDR and LBJ, and again possibly Wilson, and Lincoln always needs to be mentioned when talking about accomplishments, although for Lincoln, it was in time of the Civil War.

But it will be the whole record of Obama, not just the first three years, that will be part of the ultimate judgment on his tenure. If he is reelected, the odds of a favorable view of his Presidency will grow, while if he is defeated for a second term, his reputation will be dimmed, typical of one term Presidents.

Barack Obama Invokes Teddy Roosevelt And The “New Nationalism” Of The Progressive Party Of 1912

Ronald Leave a comment

President Obama invoked Teddy Roosevelt and the “New Nationalism” program of the Progressive Party of 1912 in a speech today at Osawatomie, Kansas, the site of a speech by the former President in 1910, setting the standard for his later third party run for President in 1912.

Called a socialist, a radical, and even a Communist by many conservatives a century ago, President Theodore Roosevelt promoted a very advanced series of ideas out of office, more than when he was in, including the end of child labor, equal pay for women, a minimum wage, a social insurance program including social security and health care, a progressive federal income tax, and reforming the political system.

His program, known as the “New Nationalism” became the forerunner of much of the “New Freedom” of Woodrow Wilson, the “New Deal” of Franklin D. Roosevelt, the “Fair Deal” of Harry Truman, the “New Frontier” of John F. Kennedy, and the “Great Society” of Lyndon B. Johnson.

Obama talked of the need for a strong middle class and a raised standard of living, and the need to regulate corporations and to raise taxes as other Presidents have done, in order to promote a “fair shake” for everyone, giving everyone “equal opportunity” to succeed.

Obama emphasized that major tax cuts for the rich had led to greater inequality, lower creation of jobs, growing deficits, and the collapse of the American economy in the past ten years. He declared that “trickle down economics” had never worked in the past successfully, and that assertive actions by government were necessary to promote a bright future for all Americans.

He called for more investment in education, research, technology, infrastructure, and manufacturing, rather than in banking and finance which leads to phony manipulation of financial figures and causes financial “bubbles”!

His speech, as usual, was well delivered, and was designed to inspire the American people to take on the struggle that was fought during the Progressive Era by Theodore Roosevelt to promote a bright future for America!

And remember that Theodore Roosevelt was a Republican who believed in the role of government to make a better society, something regrettably not the viewpoint of the transformed Republican Party of today, which speaks only for the wealthy and the corporations, and spends time dividing people and gaining support based on social conservatism issues, including gay rights, abortion rights, gun rights, illegal immigration and affirmative action. Meanwhile, the lives of the masses of Americans who vote on their emotions, rather than their reason, for the GOP, does not lead to better lives for those people!

The Dangers Of Political Extremism: Assassination Of Political Leaders

Ronald Leave a comment

Today is a day to dwell on the dangers of political extremism, the kind of rhetoric that we have been witnessing more than ever since the Great Recession occurred in 2008 and after. The election of the first African American President in 2008 has added to the cauldron.

The chasm between the political parties is wider than ever, and the hot rhetoric displayed on much of talk radio and Fox News Channel is more intense than ever, and will, unfortunately, get worse as the heat of the Presidential campaign intensifies.

Political extremism of the past led to political assassination in American history, as witness:

Abraham Lincoln, murdered at the end of the Civil War, April 14, 1865, by a Confederate sympathizer, John Wilkes Booth.

William McKinley, murdered by an anarchist, Leon Czolgosz, on September 14, 1901.

John F. Kennedy, murdered by Lee Harvey Oswald, a supporter of Fidel Castro and Cuba, 48 years ago on this date, and being commemorated today.

Martin Luther King, Jr,, murdered by a racist, James Earl Ray, on April 4, 1968.

Robert Kennedy, murdered by an Arab sympathizer, Sirhan Sirhan, on June 5, 1968.

These five assassinations, along with the assassination by mentally ill people of James Garfield and Huey Long; and the attempted assassinations of Theodore Roosevelt, Franklin D. Roosevelt, Harry Truman, Richard Nixon, Gerald Ford, and Ronald Reagan are constant warnings of the dangers of violence once passions are aroused to a dangerous level.

When one considers that an individual was recently arrested for having shot at the White House, and perceived as a danger to President Barack Obama, it makes one feel a chill go through his spine, this on top of a similar incident under Bill Clinton.

Our nation’s leaders are under constant threat, and we need to tone down our rhetoric in memory of the death of John F. Kennedy nearly a half century ago, as we do not want to go through the horror and pain of such an event ever again!

From JFK And The Cuban Missile Crisis To Barack Obama And Al Qaeda, Iraq, And Libya: Statesmanship Personified

Ronald Leave a comment

49 years ago today, President John F. Kennedy informed the nation about the Cuban Missile Crisis.

Now, 49 years later, President Barack Obama was able to tell us in the past few months that leading Al Qaeda figures (Osama Bin Laden and Anwar al Awlaki) had been neutralized; that our involvement in the Iraq War is finally coming to an end by Christmas; and that Libya has finally been liberated from its war criminal despot, Moammar Gaddafi.

Is there a link between these two Presidents nearly a half century apart? Absolutely, as in both cases, we have seen wisdom, good judgment, and statesmanship, characteristics all too rare.

Kennedy decided NOT to launch a nuclear attack on the Soviet Union or a direct hit on missile bases in Cuba, but instead to negotiate a peaceful settlement of the greatest crisis of the nuclear age after starting a naval blockade.

Obama, often considered not ready for crisis leadership, has successfully overcome terrorist threats and eliminated leading terrorists; has brought about a final end to involvement in Iraq, a war we did not need to fight; and cooperated with NATO allies in liberating Libya, at a low cost of about $2 billion, and NO American casualties.

Both Presidents have demonstrated strong, assertive leadership in ways that should be emulated by future Presidents. When one engages in war, one must be careful and cautious, and recognize international cooperation promotes a better result than being a LONE RANGER, out to swagger and flaunt American power, without concern as to how the international community perceives the United States.

Hopefully, the age of George W. Bush is a bad memory that will not be repeated by future Presidents, but the lack of insights by the Republican Presidential field is troubling as a sign that we may be in danger of moving away from the statesmanship represented by these two Democratic Presidents, John F. Kennedy and Barack Obama.

This is an issue that MUST become a major part of the Presidential Election of 2012, the qualifications and views of the Republican contenders to lead our nation into an uncertain future in international relations.

With foreign policy to be the center of the next presidential debate in November, it is time that the nation focus on and realize that economic policy is not the only consideration in the selection of the next President. We need a statesman on the level of JFK or Obama, and the prognosis to find such a person in the Republican field (outside of maybe Jon Huntsman) is NOT promising.