John Quincy Adams

John Kerry Joins Distinguished Company Of Seven Former Presidential Nominees Who Have Served As Secretary Of State

The indication that President Barack Obama has decided to nominate Massachusetts Senator John Kerry as the next Secretary of State adds dignity and statesmanship to that office, particularly in light of the exceptional leadership of the present Secretary of State, Hillary Clinton.

Kerry has had a distinguished career as a United States Senator for 28 years, and is the tenth most senior member of the present Senate, and was, of course, the 2004 Democratic Presidential nominee, losing a close race to George W. Bush, because of the electoral result in Ohio.

Kerry has been Chairman of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee for the past four years, and had he won the Presidency in 2004, he would have been responsible for our foreign policy for the past eight years, assuming he had won a second term.

He becomes the eighth Presidential nominee to lose the White House and become Secretary of State, following Henry Clay (under John Quincy Adams); Daniel Webster (under John Tyler); John C. Calhoun (under John Tyler); Lewis Cass (under James Buchanan); James G. Blaine (under Benjamin Harrison); William Jennings Bryan (under Woodrow Wilson); and Charles Evans Hughes (under Warren G. Harding and Calvin Coolidge).

These Secretaries of State stood out as major figures in their times, and in our history long term, and John Kerry will be seen the same way when he retires from the State Department after serving Barack Obama.

Presidents, Presidential Nominees, Presidential Seekers, Supreme Court Justices, And The Position Of Secretary Of State

Many followers of American history, government and politics may not be aware of the large number of Presidents, Presidential nominees who lost the White House, and Presidential seekers who failed to win their party’s nomination, who have been Secretary of State, the most important cabinet position. And also there are four Secretaries of State who have served on the Supreme Court of the United States.

The following Presidents have been Secretary of State earlier:

THOMAS JEFFERSON
JAMES MADISON
JAMES MONROE
JOHN QUINCY ADAMS
MARTIN VAN BUREN
JAMES BUCHANAN

The following have been Presidential nominees, but failed to win the White House:

HENRY CLAY
JOHN C CALHOUN
DANIEL WEBSTER
LEWIS CASS
JAMES G BLAINE
WILLIAM JENNINGS BRYAN
CHARLES EVANS HUGHES

The following sought their party’s Presidential nomination, failed to win it, but went on to be Secretary of State:

WILLIAM SEWARD
EDMUND MUSKIE
HILLARY CLINTON

Additionally, four Secretaries of State have served on the Supreme Court, with three of them being Chief Justice:

JOHN JAY
JOHN MARSHALL
CHARLES EVANS HUGHES
JAMES F BYRNES (Associate)

This is of great interest now as we have Senator John Kerry, 2004 Democratic Presidential nominee, under serious consideration by President Obama to be his second term Secretary of State!

Will 2012 Presidential Election Mirror 2000 Presidential Election?

There is a growing possibility that the Presidential Election of 2012 will become a reprise of the Presidential Election Of 2000, where the winner of the popular vote does not win the Electoral College, and therefore does not become President of the United States.

This time, the Democratic incumbent, Barack Obama, would be the lucky recipient, while last time the Republican candidate, George W. Bush, was to become the fourth Presidential nominee to fail to win the popular vote but become President, after John Quincy Adams in 1824, Rutherford Hayes in 1876, and Benjamin Harrison in 1888.

Some would say that such a result, with Obama being reelected, although losing the popular vote to Mitt Romney, the Republican nominee, would be “justice” for what happened to Al Gore, the Democratic nominee in 2000.

But there is a major difference, in that Obama is already President, while Bush was competing for the position, but was not yet our President.

It would be the first time that a sitting President was reelected without the popular vote of the American people, and would make Republicans say he was “illegitimate” to be our President, something already said, but still would be a great tragedy,and probably guarantee another four years of stalemate and gridlock.

It would make, more likely, a move by the Republicans, if they controlled the House of Representatives, which seems likely at this point, to move to impeach the President, as they succeeded in doing to Bill Clinton in 1998.

It would be a political circus, which would paralyze the nation, and the Republican Party would do everything it could to undermine Obama, and to attempt to make it seem as if he was a failed President, to stain his name in history, even if they had been unable to dislodge him from the White House.

It is hoped that this whole scenario will not happen, and that Barack Obama will end up winning the popular vote, but with the impending Hurricane Sandy, likely to cut down voting totals in the Northeast and Midwest, considered strongly Democratic at least in the Northeast, it could assist Romney in winning the national popular vote, and even the Electoral College win is certainly possible for Romney, although still considered unlikely.

With the impending storm, there is a lot to pray for, regarding safety of the population in the Northeast and Midwest, as well as the future of the nation after the Presidential Election Of 2012. We are living in very difficult times, and have to hope for reason and tolerance, without any certainty of either occurring!

The Environmentally Oriented Presidents: A Poll, And Commentary On The Poll

Last week, CorporateKnights.com, which advertises itself as “The Company For Clean Capitalism”, and publishes a magazine, asked twelve environmental oriented organizations to rank our 43 Presidents on the issue of their “greenness”, a fascinating ranking!

They also held a press conference, which was shown on C Span, and Ralph Nader, the well known environmentalist and leader of Public Citizen, was on the panel discussing the results.

The conclusion was that eight Presidents deserved recognition, with three being way ahead of the other five on the issue of the environment.

The easy winner was Republican Theodore Roosevelt, followed by Republican Richard Nixon, and Democrat Jimmy Carter.

The other five in order were Democrat Barack Obama , Democratic -Republican Thomas Jefferson, Democrat Franklin D. Roosevelt and Republican Gerald Ford tied for sixth, and Democrat Bill Clinton in last place among the eight.

While some might be surprised at Richard Nixon being second, actually the author of this blog well recognizes his leadership on the environment, and has pointed it out when teaching students about recent American history.

This author also fully agrees on TR as first, and Jimmy Carter as certainly the best one term President on the environment, and when one realizes that he was succeeded by a President, Republican Ronald Reagan, often judged the absolute worst on the environment,, it makes him feel very depressed!

Also, since Republican George W. Bush is rated the second worst to Reagan, and worst by some observers, it makes one wish that Ralph Nader had not run as a Green Party candidate in 2000, and taking almost 100,000 votes away from Al Gore, who would certainly have been a great environmental President, and had a major role in making Bill Clinton, who had a terrible record on the environment in Arkansas, able to make the present list as one of the better environmental Presidents.

It is pleasing to see Barack Obama as high as fourth on this list, with the potential to be more accomplished in a second term, and the record of Mitt Romney in action and words makes one concerned that he might be President, as every indication is that he would not put the environment high on his list of priorities, were he to win the White House.

Also, however, it must be said that it seems to this author that other Presidents should be commended for their environmental interests, including:

John Quincy Adams, who first promoted the idea of a cabinet office, the Department of the Interior, in the 1820s, but created a year after his death, in 1849.

Rutherford B. Hayes, who appointed one of the best Interior Secretaries in history, Carl Schurz, who did what he could on the environment, in the late 1870s.

Woodrow Wilson, who made major advances on the subject, in the second decade of the 20th century.

Harry Truman, who promoted environmental advancements in the late 1940s and early 1950s.

John F. Kennedy and Lyndon B. Johnson, who in the 1960s, promoted environmental concerns, with their Interior Secretary Stewart Udall, appointed by Kennedy but kept on and given support by Johnson.

Also, the record clearly shows that It was Republican Presidents such as William Howard Taft, Warren G. Harding, Dwight D. Eisenhower, and George H. W. Bush, who took steps to harm the environment, on a lesser scale than Reagan and the second Bush, but still damaging.

So, not suprisingly, Democrata have been better than Republicans on the environment, but with the major exceptions of Theodore Roosevelt, Richard Nixon, Gerald Ford, and Rutherford B. Hayes.

Medicare Will Decide The Election: IF Obama Wins Florida AND New Hampshire Of “Battleground” States, He Wins The Presidency!

Chuck Todd of NBC’s Meet The Press just demonstrated how close Barack Obama is to a victory for the White House.

Showing an electoral vote map with 237 electoral votes in Obama’s camp and 191 in Mitt Romney’s camp, Todd demonstrates that there are NINE true “battleground” or “swing” states, and if Obama wins Florida and New Hampshire, he has the second term he wants in the White House! And the issue of Medicare, brought to central focus by Paul Ryan and his budget plans on that program, will be the center of the victory of Obama for the Presidency!

Even if Romney wins the other seven contestable states—Virginia, North Carolina, Ohio, Wisconsin, Iowa, Colorado, and Nevada—he would lose the Electoral College 270-268, due to Florida’s 29 electoral votes and New Hampshire’s 4 electoral votes!

But, to assume that Obama would really lose all seven of those states is also delusional, as it is certain that he will win some, and probably, most of them!

This author has been saying this for a long time, and has found some readers of this blog, conservative and Republican friends and associates, and people on Fox News Channel and talk radio, act as if only the public opinion polls, which often show a close race in many states and nationally, should be paid attention to, but that is NOT the case!

The election is decided by the Electoral College, NOT the popular vote nationally,and do not forget that George W. Bush LOST the popular vote in 2000, but was declared the winner of the Electoral College! The same happened to Benjamin Harrison, Rutherford Hayes, and John Quincy Adams in the past!

But to conclude that, somehow, Barack Obama will lose the national popular vote, with the Republican alienation of Hispanics-Latinos, African Americans, women, young voters, the middle class, senior citizens, gays and lesbians, the poor, labor, educators, consumer advocates, environmentalists, and secular voters—in each case, the majority, not all of any group, of course—indicates that those believing what they do are indeed delusional, and cannot be helped by ordinary medical intervention!

Hardball, Knuckleball Political Campaigning: Part Of The American Tradition!

Right or wrong, hardball and knuckleball political campaigning is part of the American tradition, and is nothing new in 2012.

We can go back to the origins of political parties in the 1790s, with the Federalists and Democratic Republicans at each other’s throats, beginning with John Adams and Thomas Jefferson nasty toward each other in 1796 and 1800.

Andrew Jackson and John Quincy Adams, and Jackson against Henry Clay, is another example widely reminiscent of hardball, knuckleball campaigning.

Abraham Lincoln and Stephen Douglas went at each other, and after the Civil War, the Republicans looked at the Democrats as “traitors”!

When the progressives became prominent, conservatives went on the counterattack and have not stopped, under Woodrow Wilson, Franklin D. Roosevelt, Harry Truman, John F. Kennedy, Lyndon B. Johnson, Jimmy Carter, Bill Clinton, and now Barack Obama.

The no holds barred attack by the right wing, including McCarthyism in the 1950s and again now with Michele Bachmann and others, is finally getting a full measure of counterattack by the Democrats and liberals and progressives, as they have come to realize that being a civil campaigner does not work, and only emboldens the opposition.

Sadly, many people are turned off to this attack and counterattack, but it is not going to go away, and for anyone to decide not to vote because of this is the height of irresponsibility, as even with disgust with both sides and their tactics, it still does matter who wins and who controls power!

To sit on the sidelines is a horrible mistake at at time when the future is so uncertain, and requires all citizens to participate!

The Founding Fathers And Religious Intolerance

Having spent the past few days touring Presidential homes of the Founding Fathers in Virginia, it becomes ever more clear how they viewed organized religion.

All of the great Founding Fathers were born of the Christian faith, one sect or another, but all were skeptical of organized religion, being very educated and learned about the history of Christianity, which had included mass murder, bloodshed, violence, and holy wars against Islam, and promotion of antisemitism against Jews.

So George Washington, Thomas Jefferson, James Madison, and James Monroe all were not regular church goers, and in many respects were Deists, having given up on organized religious trappings.

The Adamses, John and John Quincy, also had similar views, as did Benjamin Franklin and Alexander Hamilton.

If they had been here in today’s world, witnessing the bias, prejudice, and hate promoted by SOME Christian groups in the name of Jesus, they would be totally disgusted for sure!

Presidential Courage And Human Rights: From John Quincy Adams To Barack Obama

One of the most important roles of a President is to be a moral leader, a person who sets the standard for what is moral and ethical in public affairs,

And nothing is more important than to have the courage to take leadership on human rights matters, whether in the United States or in other nations.

In that regard, Barack Obama will always stand out for what he did on Wednesday, speaking up for gay rights, including the right to marry.

Who else among our Presidents can be seen as a moral leader on human rights issues?

John Quincy Adams, as President and in his post Presidential career in the House of Representatives, campaigned against slavery and the slave trade, and was censured by the House of Representatives for fighting the gag rule (forbidding discussion of slavery in the House chamber) over and over again. He also represented the slaves aboard the slave ship Amistad, and won the court case for their freedom in 1841.

Abraham Lincoln issued the Emancipation Proclamation, a move many thought was unwise and might undermine the Union effort during the Civil War. But he believed that African Americans should be given freedom.

Harry Truman took the earliest steps in promoting civil rights for African Americans in the 1940s when segregation reigned in the South, and he went ahead anyway and promoted integration of the military and of the nation’s capital, Washington, DC.

Dwight D. Eisenhower alienated the white South when he sent in National Guard troops to Little Rock, Arkansas, to enforce integration of a public high school.

John F. Kennedy followed Eisenhower’s lead, in promoting National Guard intervention at the University of Mississippi and the University of Alabama, to bring about integration, and also proposed a civil rights law that he had to know would be extremely difficult to accomplish.

Lyndon B. Johnson, despite his Southern heritage, became the great proponent of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and the Voting Rights Act of 1965, knowing it would turn the white South over to the Republican Party, as it did.

Richard Nixon signed affirmative action into law, which became one of the great advancements in civil rights for women and minorities.

Jimmy Carter became the advocate of promoting human rights overseas, instead of accepting violations by so called “friendly” nations, as part of the business of diplomacy. He was bitterly criticized as naive, but his human rights beliefs remain one of his great legacies.

And now Barack Obama joins this group on Presidential courage in relation to the advancement of human rights! Kudos to him!

Unpleasant Presidential-Vice Presidential Ties Throughout American History

It has become evident that in many cases, no love is lost between sitting Presidents and Vice Presidents, who often link up for electoral reasons, but often have poor chemistry in working together. And many times, a President has wished to “dump” his Vice President, when running for another term in office, and a few times has done so.

Examples of unpleasant Presidential-Vice Presidential relationships include:

John Adams and Thomas Jefferson, with Jefferson, the opponent in the 1796 Presidential election, becoming Vice President, but leading to the 12th Amendment in 1804, to prevent any future such combination. The two men fought each other bitterly, and opposed each other again in 1800.

Thomas Jefferson and Aaron Burr, “tied” in electoral votes in 1800, forcing the election to the House of Representatives, leading to Alexander Hamilton’s endorsement of Jefferson and trashing of Burr, and causing Hamilton’s death in a gun duel with Burr in 1804. Jefferson had no relationship with Burr, after Burr tried to “steal” the election, and he was “dumped” in 1804.

John Quincy Adams and John C Calhoun, who were rivals in 1824, had totally different views of the protective tariff, with Calhoun switching to support of Andrew Jackson and running with Jackson in 1828.

Andrew Jackson and John C. Calhoun were elected together in 1828, but Calhoun broke with Jackson over the protective tariff, resigning, and creating a potential threat of civil war, with the Nullification Crisis of 1833, resolved by a compromise devised by Henry Clay. Jackson even threatened to kill Calhoun if he promoted secession of South Carolina from the Union.

William Henry Harrison, elected with John Tyler in 1840, had totally divergent views since Tyler was a Democrat running on the Whig Party line, and Tyler succeeded to the Presidency when Harrison died after one month in office in 1841, and the Whigs made Tyler’s life miserable.

Abraham Lincoln and his first Vice President, Hannibal Hamlin, elected in 1860, hardly knew each other, and the indications are that Hamlin had no major role in the administration, and was replaced by Andrew Johnson on the ticket for 1864 for political reasons.

Abraham Lincoln and Andrew Johnson, elected together in 1864, with Lincoln picking Democrat Johnson to help win support in the North, then was assassinated, and succeeded by Johnson after six weeks of the second term in 1865.

James Garfield and Chester Alan Arthur were elected together in 1880, from different factions of the Republican Party, and when Garfield died from assassination wounds six months into office, Arthur finished up the rest of the term from 1881-1885.

Woodrow Wilson and Thomas Marshall were elected together in 1912, but Marshall was “kept out of the loop”, and when Wilson suffered a stroke in 1919, was denied access to the President by Mrs. Wilson, never knowing the extent of Wilson’s incapacity for the rest of the term to 1921.

Franklin D. Roosevelt and his first Vice President, John Nance Garner were elected to two terms together in 1932 and 1936, with Garner unhappy with the New Deal programs, and wanting to succeed FDR in 1940, and alienated when FDR ran for a third term in 1940.

Franklin D. Roosevelt and his second Vice President, Henry A. Wallace were elected together in 1940, but Wallace was “dumped” by FDR in 1944, to please Southern Democrats unhappy with Wallace’s advocacy of civil rights for African Americans, and his backing of close relations with the Soviet Union.

Dwight D. Eisenhower and Richard Nixon were elected together in 1952 and 1956, but Ike wished to “dump” Nixon in 1956 although that did not happen, and he was less than supportive of Nixon in 1960 and 1968.

John F. Kennedy and Lyndon B. Johnson, elected together in 1960, were never close, having been rivals for the Presidential nomination, with LBJ feeling slighted by Robert F. Kennedy, the Attorney General and brother of the President, and rumors swirling that he would be “dumped” in 1964, if Kennedy had lived.

Lyndon B. Johnson and Hubert H. Humphrey were elected together in 1964, but with Humphrey feeling mistreated by LBJ, and unhappy as Vice President, seeing himself trapped, and being undermined when he was the Presidential nominee in 1968, and LBJ working against him when Humphrey ran against Richard Nixon.

Richard Nixon and Spiro Agnew were elected together in 1968 and 1972, with Agnew feeling “used” by Nixon to do his “dirty work” against the news media, and gaining no support from Nixon when in legal trouble over accepting bribes, leading to his resignation in 1973. Agnew refused to speak ever again to his former boss.

Ronald Reagan and George H. W. Bush were never close, and the Bushes were never invited to the White House by the Reagans, after their two victories in elections in 1980 and 1984.

George H. W. Bush and Dan Quayle were elected together in 1988, with obvious discomfort by Bush as to Quayle’s performance in his term of office as Vice President, and considered “dumping” him in 1992, but not done in that losing re-election effort.

Bill Clinton and Al Gore, elected together in 1992 and 1996, got along well, but after the Monica Lewinsky scandal, a growing divide occurred between the two men, and Gore decided not to have Clinton help him in the Presidential campaign of 2000, and then the two men had angry words in a confrontation in the Oval Office after the defeat.

George W. Bush and Dick Cheney, elected together in 2000 and 2004, originally worked well together, but Bush then ignored Cheney’s advice often in the second term, and refused Cheney’s request that Scooter Libby be given a pardon. Cheney, in his memoir, made clear that his relationship with Bush had cooled.

So often, the relationship between President and Vice President has been a very difficult one, an interesting aspect of American history!

Exceptions to this were the close relationship of Gerald Ford and Nelson Rockefeller between 1974 and 1977, although Rockefeller was “dumped” from the ticket in 1976 for Bob Dole, a move that Ford later said he did for political reasons, and greatly regretted; the extremely close ties between Jimmy Carter and Walter Mondale between 1977-1981, with Mondale practically a “Co President”; and the present relationship between Barack Obama and Joe Biden since 2009.

Mitt Romney And Harvard: A Phony Issue!

Barack Obama went to Harvard.

George W. Bush went to Harvard.

John F. Kennedy went to Harvard.

Franklin D. Roosevelt went to Harvard.

Theodore Roosevelt went to Harvard.

Rutherford B. Hayes went to Harvard.

John Quincy Adams went to Harvard.

John Adams went to Harvard.

A total of EIGHT Presidents went to Harvard!

Mitt Romney, if he won the White House,. would be the NINTH to have gone to Harvard.

But Romney tried to use this fact, of Obama’s Harvard Law School degree, against him last week, which is awfully lame, when Romney received not only a law degree, but also a business degree from Harvard, and spent four years in Cambridge, as compared to Obama’s three years at the law school.

What is Romney trying to do?

is he trying to say that one should not elect people who went to Harvard, and that no Harvard educated people should be in the cabinets or in advisory positions of any President?

If that is so, then Romney would have very few advisers for his campaign, and would have trouble filling top positions if he became President!

Is this the best that Mitt Romney can do, to be petty, to be ridiculous, to be glorifying mediocrity, rather than advertise the fact that Harvard educated people, and that of other Ivy League universities, are among the best educated people in this nation?

And if a reader wants to imagine that the author has a Harvard degree, forget it, as he is the product of public university education, but has no grudge, jealousy, or anger in understanding and accepting the reality that Harvard and other Ivy League universities have contributed a massive amount to the governing of our nation, as well as in all the professions and the business world!

One should be proud of his or her Ivy League education, and have a sense of purpose and commitment to use that education,. not only to advance oneself, but also to advance the nation that gave him or her that opportunity for a world class education!