John Kerry

Ed Markey Wins John Kerry’s Senate Seat: First Step Toward Retention Of Democratic Senate In 2014!

Ronald 4 Comments

The Democratic Party has taken the first step toward hoped for retention of the majority of the US Senate in 2014, with the solid victory tonight of Congressman Ed Markey to John Kerry’s Senate seat in Massachusetts!

Markey, a 36 year veteran of the House of Representatives, enters the Senate with more years in the lower house of Congress than any in American history, and at an older age than most for a first term, being age 66!

Markey has been an outstanding liberal, and will add distinction to the US Senate, alongside fellow Senator Elizabeth Warren, making Massachusetts again one of the best states in representation, as it was with Ted Kennedy and John Kerry!

Congratulations to the new Senator Ed Markey!

John Kerry’s Senate Seat: Democrats Cannot Afford To Lose Seat, As Occurred With Ted Kennedy’s Senate Seat In 2010!

Ronald Leave a comment

When Senator Ted Kennedy died in 2009, it was assumed that the Democrats would hold his seat in the special election set up in early 2010, but instead Martha Coakley lost to Scott Brown, who held the seat for three years, until Elizabeth Warren defeated him in the next regular election in 2012.

Now we are faced with the same circumstance, as the special election for John Kerry’s Senate seat will be held in two weeks, and Democratic Congressman Ed Markey is competing against Republican Gabriel Gomez, and indications are that the race is close!

Markey has been an outstanding Congressman for an amazing number of years, 36, ever since 1976. If he wins, with his outstanding liberal record on issues, he would be an exceptional replacement for John Kerry, just as Elizabeth Warren is for Ted Kennedy. He likely is the longest serving Congressman to attempt a change to the US Senate, and one of the older freshman Senators in history, if he wins, at age 66!

We cannot afford to have a Republican take away a seat that the Democrats have always been able to count on, particularly with tight races coming up in the midterm elections of 2014! Markey deserves all support he can gather, financially, and with volunteer work, to hold on to a seat that represents the most Democratic state in the nation in recent years!

Appointment Of Susan Rice To Be National Security Adviser A Great Move!

Ronald 32 Comments

President Obama has selected UN Ambassador Susan Rice to be his National Security Adviser, a great move for our foreign policy team!

Rice was shabbily treated in the aftermath of the Benghazi, Libya tragedy, and lost the opportunity to be considered for the position of Secretary of State, due to Republican attacks, denigrating her qualifications which are exceptional.

But now, the position of National Security Adviser is her new position, one which does not require Senate confirmation, and it is not only a good move, but also an appropriate smack in the face of the Republican critics, who cannot stop Rice’s elevation.

Obama’s foreign policy and national security team is now complete, with Rice and Secretary of State John Kerry and Secretary of Defense Chuck Hagel, and American foreign policy is in good hands for the next four years!

The Korean Crisis Could Be The Most Important Foreign Policy Moment For Barack Obama!

Ronald 2 Comments

President Barack Obama, Vice President Joe Biden, Secretary of State John Kerry, and Secretary of Defense Chuck Hagel, along with other top administration officials, now face what is likely to be the most profound crisis in foreign policy of the Obama Presidency.

We could be on the edge of a major war in the Korean peninsula, with the potential for a massive loss of life in South Korea and Japan, and danger to our own troops, presently numbering 28,000 brave men and women.

Kim Jong Un is a young man who should not be in power, has nuclear capability, and is even worrying his neighbor, China, with his reckless statements and actions.

It will take all of the statesmanship and courage of our leadership to resolve this without a major disaster, and the prognosis seems grim indeed!

A Time For Foreign Policy Experts To Be Utilized Over Korean Crisis–Jimmy Carter, Bill Clinton, Al Gore, Bill Richardson, Jon Huntsman

Ronald 5 Comments

The crisis that has arisen over North Korea’s bullying and nuclear threats represents a danger to international stability in Asia, worrying not only the United States, but also South Korea and Japan, and even next door neighbor China.

Kim Jong Un, 29 years old, is clearly a wild card in the greatest description of the term, and could incite a major war that could devastate prosperous South Korea, and endanger US troops there and in Japan and the American territory of Guam, along with what seems like crazy threats to Hawaii, California, Texas, and Washington DC.

The new Secretary of State, John Kerry, and the new Secretary of Defense, Chuck Hagel, have their hands full, and rationality and balance in response is required of President Barack Obama in what could become the major foreign policy crisis of his administration.

In the past, former Presidents and Vice Presidents have been utilized as contacts with North Korea—meaning Jimmy Carter, Bill Clinton, and Al Gore, along with former New Mexico Governor Bill Richardson.

Additionally, former Ambassador to China Jon Huntsman is an acknowledged expert on China and its neighbors.

It might be time to utilize Carter, Clinton, Gore, Richardson or Huntsman to figure out how to communicate with Kim Jong Un and resolve the tinderbox without war. President Obama would be wise to consider such diplomacy, in order to cut down the chance of war that no one can win!

Second Term Presidencies Taken Over By Foreign Crises: Will It Happen Again Now?

Ronald Leave a comment

Three American Presidents in the last hundred years have been faced by foreign crises leading to war, and disrupting their domestic intentions for their second term of office. All three hoped to accomplish much more internally, but were distracted and diverted by major wars they could not avoid.

Woodrow Wilson had accomplished the most domestic reform in American history of any President until his time, but then World War I intruded, and his second term was dominated by the war and its aftermath.

Franklin D. Roosevelt had surpassed Woodrow Wilson in domestic accomplishments in his first term with his New Deal, but his second term became one of growing concern over the threat of the Japanese Empire to our territories (Hawaii, Guam, The Philippines) in the Pacific, plus the growing threat of Fascism and Nazism represented by Fascist Italy and Nazi Germany in Europe—leading to concern of its effect on our traditional European friends if not formal allies, Great Britain and France. Although America would not enter World War II until FDR’s third term, the threat of war was ever present, and divided this nation in a massive way between internationalists and isolationists.

Harry Truman had a much more difficult time domestically, and had to deal with the Cold War with the Soviet Union, but hoped to promote a Fair Deal in his second term, but instead had to deal with the Korean War.

Now, Barack Obama faces the growing threat of real war with two nations who have lunatic leadership, and are capable of provoking major wars, emboldened by their nuclear intentions—Iran and North Korea.

Iran moves ahead on nuclear development, unaffected by the major nations bringing pressure and economic sanctions on them, and still seen as potentially able to threaten the survival of Israel, and cause a major cut off of oil in the Straits of Hormuz. While President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad is leaving in June, it is clear that the Ayatollah Khamenei and the extremist Shiite Muslim leadership really dictates policy, and that anything is possible, including war.

North Korea, under its new young (30) leader, Kim Jong Un, has now declared that the truce agreement which ended the Korean War sixty years ago is null and void; has been testing nuclear weapons against international outcry, including China; and has threatened this past week that it might launch a pre-emptive nuclear attack on South Korea and the United States. This all seems bluster, but who can say for sure?

So our need as a nation to face the possibility of war with two international outlaws makes the whole budget issue much more complex, and makes the odds of more domestic reform activities all the harder to accomplish.

Much like Woodrow Wilson, Franklin D. Roosevelt, and Harry Truman, Barack Obama may face being a war President against his will, and his Secretary of State John Kerry and Secretary of Defense Chuck Hagel will be sorely tested over the next four years in their hope to avoid a war, just as we are trying to exit a war in Afghanistan, after having done just that in Iraq!

Former Vice President Dick Cheney And Obama Foreign Policy: Total Hypocrisy!

Ronald Leave a comment

Former Vice President Dick Cheney, one of the architects of the disastrous Bush foreign policies in Iraq and Afghanistan, has now denounced the Barack Obama foreign policy as a failure, and termed his appointments of John Kerry, Chuck Hagel, and John Brennan as dismal and second rate. when the Bush team, including Cheney, Donald Rumsfeld, George Tenet and others demonstrated total arrogance and total incompetence in their leadership of our foreign policy for eight years!

The fact that Obama has fought terrorism effectively is ignored, an amazing development when it was under Cheney and George W. Bush that America was attacked. Imagine if Al Gore had been President on September 11, 2001, and the literal hell that Gore would have suffered for such an attack occurring!

Cheney predicted that the war in Iraq would be won easily, and the fact that more than 4,000 Americans were killed in that war does not concern him, or the tens of thousands of men and women disabled by the war.

Cheney helped contribute to a feeble war effort in Afghanistan, and ten years later, we are still in that nation, with over 2,000 Americans killed, and still with 68,000 troops there facing threats every day of loss of life or serious disabilities.

This man also said that deficits and the national debt were not important issues, but of course, now his party emphasizes that, after the destructive financial policies they pursued, including NOT raising taxes in time of war, and helping the top two percent gain the biggest tax cuts in history, and yet see total abuse by Wall Street and the corporations, leading to the Great Recession!

The fact that this most despicable man of recent times has the nerve to even speak up on Presidential leadership, when his own President was a true disaster in so many ways, shows he has no shame or feeling of guilt or responsibility for what he and George W. Bush have wrought!

As John Kerry Becomes Secretary Of State, An Assessment Of The Most Influential Secretaries Of State In American History

Ronald 25 Comments

With Hillary Clinton leaving the State Department, and John Kerry becoming the 68th Secretary of State, it is a good time to assess who are the most influential Secretaries of State we have had in American history.

Notice I say “most influential”, rather than “best”, as that is a better way to judge diplomatic leadership in the State Department.

Without ranking them, which is very difficult, we will examine the Secretaries of State who have had the greatest impact, in chronological order:

Thomas Jefferson (1789-1793) under President George Washington—set the standard for the department, and was probably the most brilliant man ever to head the State Department.

John Quincy Adams (1825-1829) under President James Monroe—brought about the Monroe Doctrine, treaties with Canada, and the acquisition of Florida.

William H. Seward (1861-1869) under Presidents Abraham Lincoln and Andrew Johnson—brought about the neutrality of Great Britain and France in the Civil War, and purchased Alaska from Czarist Russia, a fortunate development.

Hamilton Fish (1869-1877) under President Ulysses S. Grant—involved in many diplomatic issues in Latin America, had America become more engaged in Hawaii, and settled differences with Great Britain, and often considered the major bright spot in the tragic Grant Presidency.

James G. Blaine (1881, 1889-1892) under Presidents James A. Garfield and Chester Alan Arthur briefly, and full term under President Benjamin Harrison—helped to bring about eventual takeover of Hawaii, and promoted the concept of a canal in Central America.

John Hay (1898-1905) under Presidents William McKinley and Theodore Roosevelt—-involved in the issues after the Spanish American War, including involvement in the Philippines, Cuba, Puerto Rico, and Guam, and a major influence over TR’s diplomatic initiatives in his first term.

Elihu Root (1905-1909) under President Theodore Roosevelt—-a great influence in TR’s growing involvement in world affairs in his second term in office.

Robert Lansing (1915-1920) under President Woodrow Wilson—a major player in American entrance in World War I and at the Versailles Peace Conference.

Charles Evan Hughes (1921-1925) under Presidents Warren G. Harding and Calvin Coolidge—-had major role in Washington Naval Agreements in 1922.

Henry Stimson (1929-1933) under President Herbert Hoover—-was a major critic of Japanese expansion, as expressed in the Stimson Doctrine of 1932.

Cordell Hull (1933-1944) under President Franklin D. Roosevelt—-was the longest lasting Secretary of State, nearly the whole term of FDR, and very much involved in all of the President’s foreign policy decisions.

Dean Acheson (1949-1953) under President Harry Truman—-involved in the major decisions of the early Cold War, including the Korean War intervention.

John Foster Dulles (1953-1959) under President Dwight D. Eisenhower—had controversial views on Cold War policy with the Soviet Union, including “massive retaliation”.

Dean Rusk (1961-1969) under Presidents John F. Kennedy and Lyndon B. Johnson—highly controversial advocate of the Vietnam War escalation, but served under the complete terms of two Presidents, and never backed away from his views on the Cold War.

Henry Kissinger (1973-1977) under Presidents Richard Nixon and Gerald Ford—-easily one of the most influential figures in the shaping of foreign policy in American history, earlier having served as National Security Adviser.

George Shultz, (1982-1989) under President Ronald Reagan—-very close adviser to the President on his major foreign policy initiatives.

James Baker (1989-1992) under President George H. W. Bush—very significant in Persian Gulf War and end of Cold War policies.

Madeleine Albright (1997-2001) under President Bill Clinton—-first woman Secretary of State and played major role in many issues that arose.

Colin Powell (2001-2005) under President George W. Bush—-involved in the justification of the Iraq War based on Weapons of Mass Destruction, which undermined his reputation because of the lack of evidence on WMDs.

Condoleezza Rice (2005-2009) under President George W. Bush—second woman Secretary of State and intimately involved in policy making.

Hillary Clinton (2009-2013) under President Barack Obama—third woman Secretary of State, and hailed by most as a major contributor to Obama’s foreign policy initiatives.

This is a list of 21 out of the 68 Secretaries of State, but also there are 15 other Secretaries of State who were influential historical figures, including:

John Marshall
James Madison
James Monroe
Henry Clay
Martin Van Buren
Daniel Webster
John C. Calhoun
James Buchanan
Lewis Cass
William Jennings Bryan
George Marshall
Cyrus Vance
Edmund Muskie
Alexander Haig
Warren Christopher

So a total of 36 out of 68 Secretaries of State have been major figures in American history, and contributed to the diplomatic development of the United States in world affairs!

A First: Two Vietnam War Veterans In Charge Of Our Foreign And Defense Policies

Ronald 15 Comments

Here we are, 40 years after the Paris Peace Accords ended US involvement in Vietnam, and we finally have two Vietnam War veterans in charge of our State Department and Defense Department, with Senator John Kerry of Massachusetts taking over the State Department on Friday, and former Senator Chuck Hagel of Nebraska facing a Senate confirmation hearing tomorrow, in which he will be challenged by critics who never served in Vietnam, and could best be described as “chicken hawks”!

Hagel will have a rough reception, but he will be confirmed, rightfully, and he and Kerry will bring a different perspective to our foreign and military policies, the concept of thinking clearly and moving toward confrontation and engagement only when absolutely necessary for our national security and safety.

Kerry and Hagel are a repudiation of neoconservatism, which sees engagement in wars overseas as always a good thing, and constantly looking for places to send military force to promote American capitalist values and Christianity, and in so doing, antagonizing much of the “third world” nations of the Middle East, Africa, Asia, and Latin America. That is why they are fighting so hard to stop Hagel, but they will fail to do that.

Kerry and Hagel know the horrors of war and the reality of military life, and Hagel has war wounds to prove it. They will be excellent advisers to President Barack Obama, and will help to promote sanity in our foreign and military policies. May we wish both of them good fortune as they chart the course of America at a time when rational, sane behavior is essential for America’s revival from a decade of war and economic turmoil.

Age Vs Youth: Will The Republicans And Democrats Be Switching On Their Presidential Nominees In 2016?

Ronald 2 Comments

When one analyzes the two major political parties in the past forty years, it has been a general reality that the Republican Party has run Presidential candidates who tend to be much older than the Democratic Party nominees for President.

Witness Richard Nixon, nine years older than George McGovern in 1972; Gerald Ford eleven years older than Jimmy Carter in 1976; Ronald Reagan thirteen years older than Jimmy Carter in 1980; Reagan seventeen years older than Walter Mondale in 1984; George H. W. Bush eight years older than Michael Dukakis in 1988; Bush twenty two years older than Bill Clinton in 1992; Bob Dole twenty three years older than Clinton in 1996; John McCain twenty five years older than Barack Obama in 2008; and Mitt Romney fourteen years older than Obama in 2012. Only in 2000 and 2004 did we see George W. Bush older than Al Gore by only two years and in 2004 actually younger than John Kerry by three years.

This phenomenon is maybe just a coincidence, but it has often been said that the Democrats go for youth and the Republicans for experience in their Presidential nominees.

Well, if that is the case, it is about to be switched dramatically in 2016 if one assumes that either Hillary Clinton or Joe Biden are the likely front runners for the Democratic Presidential nomination, as Hillary will be 69 in 2016, and Joe will be 74 in 2016. Clinton would be the second oldest first time nominee, behind Ronald Reagan, and Biden would be the oldest first time nominee.

The Republicans are certain to nominate a candidate decades younger, such as Marco Rubio, Paul Ryan, Nikki Haley, Bobby Jindal, or Ted Cruz, all born in the early 1970s, being therefore mid 40s in 2016. If you consider Chris Christie, Scott Walker, or John Thune, they were born in the 1960s, so would be in the mid 50s. Jeb Bush, Rick Perry, Rick Santorum and Michele Bachmann all were born in the 1950s, so would be in their late 50s or in the 60s. There is no candidate born in the 1940s seriously mentioned, unless one expects Newt Gingrich to try again for the Presidency, being just a year younger than Joe Biden and four years older than Hillary Clinton.

The Democrats have alternative possible candidates in Martin O’Malley and Amy Klobuchar born in the early 1960s, so either would be mid 50s in 2016, but Andrew Cuomo and Mark Warner, born in the mid 1950s would be nearing or at the age of 60 when running in 2016, and Elizabeth Warren, born in 1949, would be 67 in 2016, only about two years younger than Hillary Clinton.

So we are seeing a likely switch from an older to younger Republican nominee, and a younger to an older Democratic nominee, and the difference in years could be massive, as it was in the past forty years in most Presidential elections.

A final thought: In the nine elections between 1972 and 2012 when the GOP nominee was always older than the Democratic nominee, the Republicans won the election four times, and the Democrats five times, so basically, trying to determine whether age or youth are an advantage is clearly a pure guessing game!