John Kerry

Ironic That Senator John Kerry Will Act As Mitt Romney In Preparation Of Barack Obama For Presidential Debates This Fall!

Ronald 1 Comment

It is extremely ironic that Senator John Kerry of Massachusetts, the 2004 Democratic Presidential nominee, will be the “stand in” for Mitt Romney in Barack Obama’s preparations for the three Presidential debates which will take place this fall.

Kerry must be thinking he is reliving the Presidential battles of 2004, when he was called an elitist because of his own and his wife’s great fortune, his awkwardness and stiffness, coming from the same state as Romney, and the charges of being a “flip flopper” on many issues, just like Romney.

Kerry knows Romney better than many, being that they both represented the same state, and it is rumored that Kerry can help Obama a great deal on the debate tactics, and that the reward might be the offer of becoming Secretary of State in a second Obama Administration, since Hillary Clinton has made it clear that she wishes to retire from the State Department next year, and a Kerry appointment should make it through without much trouble due to Senatorial courtesy.

Kerry has been the Chair of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, and is superbly qualified to become the next Secretary of State, without any doubts.

Of course, comparing Kerry’s record in politics up to 2004, and since, there is no comparison that can be made between him and the comparatively thin record of Mitt Romney, but Kerry understands Romney probably better than any Democrat, so will be a great help to Barack Obama in scoring wins over Romney in the Presidential debates!

“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!

A Comparison Of The Presidential Elections Of 2004 And 2012 And A Contrast At The Same Time!

Ronald Leave a comment

When one thinks about it, there are comparisons that can be made between the Presidential Elections of 2004 and 2012. But there are also dramatic differences!

In both elections, there is an incumbent President, highly unpopular among members of the opposition party in Congress, as well as voters of that opposition party.

In both elections, the opponent comes from the state of Massachusetts!

In both elections, the opponent is far wealthier than the President in office.

In both elections, the opponent is a stiff person in public, not good at relating to ordinary people.

In both elections, the opponent proved to be a “flip flopper”, a person who was constantly changing views on many issues, and seemed uncomfortable in his beliefs and in his own “skin”!

Of course, there is a world of differences between Senator John Kerry and former Massachusetts Governor Mitt Romney, and this post is not meant to denigrate Senator Kerry.

Senator Kerry has had more than 30 years of service in Congress, including 28 in the US Senate, and is presently Chairman of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee. He has dedicated his life to public service, and could very well be Barack Obama’s next Secretary of State when Hillary Clinton leaves the State Department in 2013. He had an issue of being a “flip flopper” on some issues, but was never as much a master of changing his mind as Mitt Romney. Kerry also served his country in VIetnam, while Romney did not serve, and spent his life making money, except for a brief stint as a one term Governor.

So to compare Kerry to Romney is interesting, but Kerry comes out looking a lot better than the Republican nominee for President in 2012!

Losing Vice Presidential Candidates And Their Careers

Ronald 2 Comments

In the past fifty years, since the Kennedy-Nixon election of 1960, we have had a total of 12 losing Vice Presidential nominees of major parties, not including Vice President Walter Mondale under President Jimmy Carter in 1980, and Vice President Dan Quayle under President George H. W. Bush in 1992.

What ever became of these 12 losing Vice Presidential nominees?

Henry Cabot Lodge, who ran with Richard Nixon in 1960, went on to be Ambassador to South Vietnam for President Kennedy in 1963-1964, a sign of bipartisan cooperation, even though Lodge had lost his US Senate seat to President Kennedy in 1952. He then was a candidate for the Republican nomination for President in 1964, but did not get very far in the race. Lodge had had a distinguished career as Senator from Massachusetts from 1937-1953, played an influential role in drafting Dwight D. Eisenhower for President in 1952, and served as Ike’s United Nations Ambassador for eight years, before becoming Nixon’s running mate in 1960. Overall, a very distinguished career, to say the least!

William E. Miller, who ran with Barry Goldwater in 1964, served as a member of the US House of Representatives from upstate New York from 1951-1965, and was Republican National Chairman from 1961-1964. His public career ended with the Goldwater defeat, but his daughter, Stephanie Miller, is a comedian and radio talk show host, and also on Current TV five mornings a week. Interestingly, she is very liberal, while her father was a solid conservative.

Senator Edmund Muskie of Maine ran with Hubert H. Humphrey in 1968, after having served in the US Senate for ten years, and continued to serve in the Senate until 1980, when he agreed to be President Jimmy Carter’s Secretary of State for one year. He also sought the Presidency himself in 1972, was considered a front runner, but his candidacy floundered.

Senator Thomas Eagleton of Missouri was George McGovern’s first running mate in 1972, but was forced out over revelations that he had undergone shock treatments and taken psychiatric medication. Despite that, he served in the US Senate for 18 years from 1969-1987, and served with distinction, with whatever mental problems he had not interfering with his performance.

Sargent Shriver, the brother in law of President Kennedy, replaced Eagleton, and was well known as the head of the Peace Corps under Kennedy, and as head of the War on Poverty under President Lyndon B. Johnson. Then he served as Ambassador to France under Johnson and Richard Nixon, before running for Vice President. He also ran for President unsuccessfully in 1976, and became the head of the Special Olympics. His daughter, Maria Shriver, became an NBC reporter and the wife of Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger of California. His decline due to Alzheimer’s Disease had an impact on publicity about that disease. He died a much beloved public servant.

Gerald Ford had Senator Bob Dole of Kansas as his running mate in 1976. Dole had been a member of the House of Representatives from 1961-1969, and served in the Senate from 1969 until his resignation in 1996, when he became the Republican nominee for President. He remains active today, and is highly honored for his public career, and his wife Elizabeth also served as a United States Senator from North Carolina. Additionally, Dole had served as Republican National Chairman from 1971-1973 under Richard Nixon. He also was, at different times, Senate Majority Leader and Senate Minority Leader.

Geraldine Ferraro was Walter Mondale’s running mate in 1984, becoming the first woman to run for Vice President. She had been a Congresswoman from Queens County, New York City from 1978-1984, and was later US Ambassador to the United Nations Commission on Human Rights under President Bill Clinton from 1993-1996. She ran unsuccessfully for the US Senate in 1992 and 1998, and later was involved in the Hillary Clinton Presidential campaign of 2008.

Senator Lloyd Bentsen of Texas was the running mate of Michael Dukakis in1988. He served in the House of Representatives from 1949-1955, and as US Senator from 1971-1993, winning his seat the first time over future President George H. W. Bush, He was also Senate Finance Committee Chairman, and Treasury Secretary under BIll Clinton in 1993–1994.

New York Congressman Jack Kemp, a former football player for the San Diego Chargers and the Buffalo Bills of the American Football League, served in the House of Representatives from upstate Buffalo, New York, from 1971-1989. He ran for President unsuccessfully in 1988, before agreeing to be Bob Dole’s running mate in 1996. He also served as Secretary of Housing and Urban Development under the first President Bush from 1989-1993. He was a major supporter of economic conservatism, and a follower of President Ronald Reagan. He continued to advocate his views after losing the Vice Presidency.

Connecticut Senator Joe Lieberman was Al Gore’s running mate in 2000, and was the first Jewish nominee for Vice President. He had served in the Senate since first being elected in 1988, and will retire from the Senate in 2012, after four complete terms, as a controversial independent Democrat, progressive on social issues, but hard line conservative on foreign policy. He was called conservative intellectual William F. Buckley, Jr’s “favorite Democrat”.

In 2004, North Carolina Senator John Edwards was John Kerry’s Vice Presidential running mate. He served in the Senate for one term from 1999-2005, and sought the Presidency in 2008, and when his campaign failed, he was revealed to have a consensual affair with a woman while his wife was sick with cancer, and the liaison produced a daughter, and now has led to a trial that might lead to his imprisonment on charges of illegal use of campaign funds to cover the affair and the needs of the child and mother. This is truly a sad situation, still to be played out.

And finally, who could forget Alaska Governor Sarah Palin, who came out of obscurity as the second woman to run for Vice President, with John McCain in 2008. She became a lightning rod, and many blamed the debacle of the McCain campaign on her, and her obvious ignorance of the issues and the facts of American politics and history. She has remained a controversial figure, who has made millions writing some books and giving speeches,and is seen by many as a major factor in the conservative wing of the Republican Party. Her future is still ahead of her, and we will not be able to ignore her, as she will be part of political news for a long time.

So who stood out among these losing VP candidates?

Clearly, Lodge, Muskie, Eagleton, Shriver, Dole, Bentsen, Kemp, and Lieberman had a positive effect on American history.

The same cannot be said for Miller, Ferraro, Edwards, and Palin.

However, all of them contributed to our history, and should be remembered!

Presidential And Vice Presidential Candidates: “Shot Gun” Marriages Most Of The Time!

Ronald Leave a comment

When a Presidential nominee selects his Vice Presidential running mate in any Presidential campaign, it can be regarded as a judgment of the Presidential nominee’s leadership.

It can also cause much grief, as too often, the combination of Presidential and Vice Presidential nominees does not work, whether elected or not.

Since the time of Richard Nixon as Vice President under Dwight D. Eisenhower, as the Vice Presidency has become a significant and powerful office, there has been much distrust, stress, and alienation between the people running for the top two offices, and if elected, has become a major problem that affects the nation.

Witness the following:

While President Eisenhower allowed Vice President Nixon to take on more authority as Eisenhower suffered health crises, the two men never were very close, and Eisenhower held off on backing Nixon publicly for a second term as Vice President in 1956.

Lyndon B. Johnson had very little role and a difficult relationship with President John F. Kennedy, and his brother, Attorney General Robert F.Kennedy.

When Nixon ran against Kennedy in 1960, his running mate, Henry Cabot Lodge, followed a very relaxed campaign strategy, taking long naps and breaks during the Fall campaign, and it was clear that the two men did not get along well.

When Lyndon Johnson chose Hubert Humphrey as his Vice President in 1964, he treated Humphrey in a very disrespectful way, similar to what had occurred to Johnson under Kennedy. Humphrey was ruined in his later Presidential candidacy by having to endorse and support the Vietnam War, a war he had grave doubts about, and was often left out of important cabinet meetings.

When Nixon became President, he looked at his Vice President, Spiro Agnew, in a less than respectful way, and just allowed Agnew to do “dirty work” of attacking liberals and the news media, and refused to keep him informed about many policies, and let him resign due to scandal, without a word of support.

When Nixon chose Gerald Ford after Agnew resigned, he saw him as a lightweight, who would insure his own survival in the Watergate scandal, an assumption that Nixon was totally wrong about!

George McGovern chose Thomas Eagleton in 1972, without any knowledge of his mental treatments and then, effectively abandoned him for Sargent Shriver, a Kennedy brother in law.

Gerald Ford got along well with Nelson Rockefeller as his Vice President, but dropped him in favor of Bob Dole when he ran in 1976, a move that probably caused his defeat.

When Ronald Reagan chose George H. W. Bush in 1980, the two men did not trust each other, and had been major rivals, and although Bush worked hard for Reagan, there was no personal chemistry between them, and the Bushes were never invited to stay at the White House under the Reagan Administration.

Walter Mondale chose Geraldine Ferraro in 1984, without knowing about the illegal activities of her husband, and they did not seem very close during the campaign.

George H. W. Bush did not have much confidence, or give much authority, to his Vice President, Dan Quayle, who was a major burden during his administration, due to Quayle’s blunders and misstatements.

Michael Dukakis and Lloyd Bentsen seemed like oil and water, when they ran together in 1988.

Much the same can be said for Bob Dole and Jack Kemp in the 1996 Presidential campaign.

The combination of Al Gore and Joe Lieberman never seemed to click during the 2000 Presidential campaign, and Lieberman publicly called for giving up the fight for Florida’s electoral votes when Gore was still suing for a recount against George W. Bush.

In 2004, John Kerry and John Edwards did not get along very well, as Edwards was very much his own man in his own mind.

And sadly, the same holds true for John McCain and Sarah Palin, with her becoming a major headache, embarrassment, and burden in 2008.

The only times running mates really seemed to work well together were:

Hubert Humphrey and Edmund Muskie in the 1968 campaign.

Jimmy Carter and Walter Mondale in the Carter Presidency, with Mondale practically seen as co-President.

Bill Clinton and Al Gore in the Clinton Presidency, until the time of the Monica Lewinsky scandal, when there was a falling out between the two men, which affected the 2000 Presidential campaign.

George W. Bush and Dick Cheney in the second Bush Presidency, although their relationship started to deteriorate in the second term.

Barack Obama and Joe Biden, presently, in the Obama Presidency, working very well together, as united as Carter and Mondale were in the 1970s

This is all discussed as reality in our history as Mitt Romney edges closer to the Presidential nomination of his party.

And even if, somehow, Rick Santorum, or someone else ends up as the Republican nominee, who is chosen to be his Vice Presidential running mate will be crucial to the campaign, and if he wins, to the office of Vice President, and to the nation.

The Issue Of Presidential Sexual Scandals And The Candidacy Of Newt Gingrich

Ronald 1 Comment

The controversy surrounding former Speaker of the House Newt Gingrich’s private life has multiplied, with the revelation by his second wife of Newt’s desire for an “open marriage”, so that he could carry on an affair with the woman who became his third wife, since his second wife disagreed with his desire for an open marriage. This issue arose when the second wife was diagnosed with Multiple Sclerosis, just as the move by Newt to divorce his first wife came when she was diagnosed with cancer.

Have Presidential candidates and Presidents before now been involved in sex scandals? Of course, the answer is yes, but only becoming public knowledge and controversy in the past 25 years with the candidacies of Gary Hart, Bill Clinton, Rudy Guiliani, and Newt Gingrich, and the planned but aborted candidacies of Mark Sanford and John Ensign.

Have Presidents had affairs in the past, in or out of office? Of course yes is the answer, including George Washington, Thomas Jefferson, James Buchanan, James Garfield, Grover Cleveland, Woodrow Wilson, Warren G. Harding, Franklin D. Roosevelt, Dwight D. Eisenhower, John F. Kennedy, Lyndon B. Johnson, Ronald Reagan, and Bill Clinton, that we are aware of. But ONLY Bill Clinton was revealed to be involved in such scandals before he was elected, and during his Presidency, as news and gossip on other Presidents was kept well hidden from the news media and the general public.

Have Presidents or Presidential candidates ever been divorced? The answer is yes, although only Ronald Reagan has been elected. But Adlai Stevenson, Bob Dole, John Kerry, and John McCain all were married for the second time when they ran for the White House.

Has any candidate ever been married THREE times, and openly cheated on his first two wives, other than Newt Gingrich? The answer is NO, and the hypocrisy of Newt Gingrich is that he pursued the impeachment of Bill Clinton in 1998-1999 while pursuing his own affair outside of marriage.

No President or Presidential candidate has openly pursued the idea of a “open marriage”, although one could argue that Eleanor Roosevelt and Hillary Clinton, at the least, seemed to accept such a concept in the sense that they knew their husbands were involved in cheating and did not choose to break up their marriages.

Other First Ladies and wives of Presidential candidates MAY have silently agreed to their husbands committing adultery and staying married, but that is all speculation at best.

The point is that the second wife of Newt Gingrich, in revealing the “open marriage” idea of her former husband, made it clear that Newt had said that Callista, the third wife, had no problem with “sharing” Newt.

So what this means is that IF Callista Gingrich becomes First Lady, we will have the first acknowledged believer in an open marriage, who has no concept of a problem with adultery. In the past, there were choice words for such a woman, which will not be used here. It indicates the likelihood of an “open marriage” between Callista and Newt from the beginning of their marriage, and the excellent possibility that there would be sex scandals in the White House, something we do not need to occur, or to learn about.

In a country in which many “religious” people claim to believe in the sanctity of marriage, and the importance of “family values”, to have Newt and Callista Gingrich in the White House would be a mockery of the concept of marriage and loyalty, and a degradation of the Presidency as an institution.

And for conservatives, such as Sarah Palin and Rush Limbaugh to ignore this, and to support Newt, indicates the total hypocrisy of the Right, which was only too eager to remove Bill Clinton from office on moral grounds.

The Iowa Republican Caucuses Historically: A Waste Of Time!

Ronald 1 Comment

The Iowa Caucuses, which have existed since 1972 for the Democratic Party and competitively for the Republicans since 1976, have been largely a “waste of time” as far as picking future Presidents, and even Presidential nominees.

At least, the Democrats have chosen Jimmy Carter, Walter Mondale, Bill Clinton, Al Gore, John Kerry, and Barack Obama, with Carter, Clinton and Obama going on to the White House.

But the Republican Caucuses have been much less successful and representative of what happened. Only Bob Dole in 1996, and George W. Bush in 2000 and 2004 have gone on to be the nominee, and only Bush being elected and reelected. There was no actual vote between Gerald Ford and Ronald Reagan in 1976, and Reagan lost in 1980 and ran unopposed in 1984, and the same for George H W Bush in 1988 and no opposition in 1992.

The point is that the Iowa Caucuses gain an inordinate amount of attention, but only maybe a bit more than 100,000 people participate, far fewer than a primary in percentage of voters, and therefore, it has never been seen as a reliable barometer of who a future Presidential nominee or winner might be!

So don’t tend to think that the results in Iowa will matter, as the New Hampshire primary has ALWAYS been a much better barometer for the fortunes of Presidential candidates, since it emerged in 1952.

The Supreme Court: Most Important Issue Of Presidential Campaign Of 2012

Ronald 2 Comments

It is amazing how little this Presidential campaign of 2012 has been connected to foreign policy, and to constitutional law, as if ONLY the economy matters.

As much as the Great Recession and its supposed aftermath has created a major crisis for Americans, to overemphasize it is a dangerous action, as the LONG RANGE problem is much more our relations with the world AND the future of our judiciary.

Regarding the judiciary, the thought that a Republican President would select MORE conservatives to a Court already top heavy with conservatives is absolutely terrifying on issues such as the power and influence of corporations, the rights of women, the rights of gays, the role of religion in government, and the struggle to preserve civil rights and civil liberties.

For instance, if Michael Dukakis had been elected in 1988 instead of George H. W. Bush, we would not have had Clarence Thomas on the Supreme Court.

If John Kerry had been elected President in 2004, instead of George W. Bush, we would not have had John Roberts and Samuel Alito on the Supreme Court.

Going further back, if Walter Mondale had defeated Ronald Reagan in 1984, we would not have had Antonin Scalia and Anthony Kennedy on the Supreme Court, and Justice William Rehnquist would not have become Chief Justice.

So the election of the President has LONG TERM consequences in judicial and constitutional interpretation, just as much as foreign policy is not only short term, but long range affecting.

When one realizes that Ruth Bader Ginsberg is 78, and Justices Antonin Scalia and Anthony Kennedy are 75, it seems realistic to believe that all three COULD be out of office in the next term of office.

So the Court could become more conservative if a Republican is elected to the Presidency, and more moderate if Barack Obama is elected to a second term in the White House.

Therefore, every voter MUST realize that the Presidential election has consequences, not only in foreign policy long term, but also in the future of our legal system and our constitutional rights.

The Flaws Of A Mitt Romney Presidential Candidacy

Ronald 1 Comment

Former Massachusetts Governor Mitt Romney has many virtues, many positives, that should make him a model candidate for the White House, including:

1. Strong business background with Bain Capital and as head of the Salt Lake City Olympics Committee for 2002.
2. Promoted a health care plan in Massachusetts which is seen as a major success by many.
3. Bright, intelligent, photogenic candidate, with great family image, including his wife and five sons.
4. Knowledgeable about economic matters, and seen as Presidential caliber in many people’s minds.
5. Has presented good body language in debates and has greater potential to appeal to moderates, Independents, and conservative Democrats.

Despite all of the above, there are a long list of flaws that will make it difficult for Romney to win the GOP nomination for President, and if he does, to win the election over President Barack Obama. Among them are :

1. Romney comes across as a chameleon, a person who is constantly over the years changing his views on many issues, seen as originally a moderate and trying to paint himself as a conservative–therefore perceived as a phony candidate, and a “flip flopper”!
2. Romney was not well liked personally by his opponents in the 2008 Presidential race, particularly John McCain and Mike Huckabee, and is not even now well liked by the Bush clan and other Establishment Republicans.
3. Romney is not well regarded by evangelical Christians, a large group in primaries and caucuses, because of his Mormon faith, and one wonders could he win the “Bible Belt” South and Great Plains, areas usually Republican. but seeing Mormons as a cult, and not Christian!
4. All through the race for the GOP nomination, despite Romney showing the best ability in polls to compete with President Obama, there has been a constant search for an alternative, whether Donald Trump, Michele Bachmann, Rick Perry, Herman Cain, Jon Huntsman, and now Chris Christie, not a sign of much feeling of emotion or passionate feelings of love for Romney.
5. Romney has shown insensitivity toward average people, by joking that he is unemployed; by talking about his Cadillacs collection; and by having a project to increase the size of his home to a mansion at a time when many are losing their own homes. Being the richest candidate in the race may give him a money edge, but he comes across as not understanding the problems of the middle class!
6. Despite his recent improved debate performances, Romney still has an image of being stiff, uncomfortable in his own skin, not totally relaxed, and not truly knowing how to deal with irate questioners at rallies, and with strong criticism. It makes one wonder would he be able to work well with Congress, whether his own party or the opposition, with so little political experience, only one term as Governor, and thinking his lack of a career in politics is a plus, which it really is not!
7. Romney’s ability to get people out to vote for him is doubtful, since he does not evoke strong feelings of support, and his poll numbers are still seen as very soft.
8. Romney’s attempt to steer clear of the Tea Party Movement makes one wonder if he could ever work well with fellow Republicans, who in many cases would be much further to the right politically than he would feel comfortable being himself, once in office.
9. Can a candidate from the Northeast, the stronghold of Barack Obama, have any opportunity to defeat him in any scenario that would add up to 270 electoral votes? That seems highly doubtful, as in many ways, Romney comes across as somewhat distant in the same way as two past Massachusetts Democrats who ran for President had trouble overcoming–Michael Dukakis in 1988 and John Kerry in 2004. Those two who lost to father and son Bush did not face a man with the charisma and emotional feelings of support that Barack Obama has had, and even in bad times, still has to some extent today!
10. By coming out hard line against immigration reform that allows illegal immigrants and their children a path to citizenship, Romney, like other Republicans, is losing the future, as Hispanic population and voter participation is growing in the Southwest and across the nation, and they are not likely to throw support to a candidate who demeans them and treats them as not deserving of respect and empathy for their futures in America!

There are probably other points that could be made, but it is clear that Mitt Romney has major flaws in so many ways that his candidacy for President is going to require a lot of luck and good fortune for him to end up in the Oval Office!

Tom Ridge Endorsement Of Jon Huntsman An Interesting Development In Light Of Poor Poll Performance of Huntsman: Is There Still Hope For Mainstream Republicans?

Ronald Leave a comment

The endorsement today of Jon Huntsman, former Utah Governor and Ambassador to China, for the Republican Presidential nomination, by former Pennsylvania Governor Tom Ridge, who also was our first head of the Homeland Security Department under President George W. Bush, is an interesting, and possibly revealing, development!

With Huntsman so low in the polls, only one or two percent, and in danger of being eliminated from future Republican debates as a result, it would seem odd that Ridge, a reputable moderate, would bother endorsing him, when it seems like a lost cause.

But, as has been said earlier in other posts, one must remember that John McCain in 2007 and John Kerry in 2003 looked hopeless at this point of those Presidential campaigns, and instead, Howard Dean and Wesley Clark in 2004 and Rudy Guiliani and Fred Thompson in 2008 looked like the favorites as rivals for the Presidential nominations of their parties.

So to assume that Rick Perry and Mitt Romney might be the frontrunners all the way is a major gamble in many ways!

With Huntsman easily the best candidate in the race, and with solid foreign policy credentials that no one else has, it might be said that former Minnesota Governor Tim Pawlenty’s endorsement of Romney, and Louisiana Governor Bobby Jindal and Nevada Governor Brian Sandoval endorsements of Perry might be a major blunder!

Again, IF the GOP nominates Huntsman, and fights the Tea Party influence, they have a golden opportunity to defeat Barack Obama! If not, it is a lost cause in an almost certain way!