Louisiana

Eight Poor, Backward States Reject Expansion Of Medicaid For Their Poor, Sick, Disabled And Elderly Citizens: Reprehensible!

Eight states, among the poorest in the nation, and mostly in the South, have now seen their Governors and Republican legislatures reject an expansion of the Medicaid program, which is so desperately needed by their poor, sick, disabled, and elderly citizens, an absolutely reprehensible development!

The states are Alabama, Mississippi, Georgia, Louisiana, South Carolina, Texas, Oklahoma and Maine.

2.8 million people will suffer, with half of them being in Texas. So this means that Governors ranging from Rick Perry, Nikki Haley, Paul LePage to Bobby Jindal, all except LePage having shown interest in running for President, have taken a hard stand against those less fortunate!

It is unbelievable that in 21st century America that we could have such backward leaders of states, who show contempt for their own citizens, and yet are likely to be reelected by an ignorant, uncaring population, and in states where, with the exception of Maine, the population claims to be “religious” and “good Christians”, but defy the message of their faith, to care for the poor and disadvantaged!

Texas, Louisiana, Florida, And Other States Have Secessionists Petitioning For Separation From The Union: Adjust, Or Seek Out Better Pastures Which Do Not Exist!

This is the whacko season, and suddenly, as a result of the Presidential Election Of 2012, we have petitions from thousands of people in Texas, Louisiana, Florida, and 17 other states, mostly the Red states, demanding secession from the Union, because they are unhappy with Barack Obama as President.

The answer to these people is to remind them that the Civil War, 150 years ago, settled this issue.

But if these Americans are that unhappy, they are welcome to leave the country and find better pastures!

However, if they go to any other English speaking nation, such as Great Britain, Canada, Australia or New Zealand, they will discover that all of them have much more advanced social programs, have much better health care systems, and all prevent religion from having as much of a foothold in politics as we allow in this country!

And if they choose to move to other advanced industrial nations that do not speak English, such as France, Germany, the Scandinavian nations, Italy, Japan, or Israel, they will find out quickly that they also are way beyond our concept of social justice, religious freedom and separation, and regulation of business.

So, instead of acting like spoiled children, these secessionists should adjust and work to make America a better place for all, not just the rich and privileged!

Crisis Leadership: FEMA, Mitt Romney, And Partisanship Displayed

This disastrous Hurricane Sandy has demonstrated already the difference in leadership of President Barack Obama and his Republican Presidential opponent, Mitt Romney.

Obama has conducted himself fabulously, and has been praised by Republican Governor Chris Christie for his leadership in the crisis. He has demonstrated a steady, calm, cool hand, as he always has in every tough moment of his Presidency, including the operation to eliminate Osama Bin Laden.

Meanwhile, we are reminded that Mitt Romney has advocated getting rid of the Federal Emergency Management Agency, and farming its operations back to the state and local governments, and even promoting privatizing its activities. He constantly said this during the Republican primary campaign, as he rushed to please the far right wing of his Republican Party.

Now he is caught in a bind, and has avoided direct comment about the situation caused by Hurricane Sandy.

But he has also, this quickly, shown partisanship, instead of bipartisanship, by calling and consulting with Republican Governors Chris Christie of New Jersey, and Bob Mc’Donnell of Virginia, but NOT calling and consulting with New York Governor Andrew Cuomo, Maryland Governor Martin O’Malley, and Delaware Governor Jack Markell, all Democrats.

This is evidence, and not good, that shows that Mitt Romney would NOT be a good crisis President, and would play political games, similar to what George W. Bush did with Hurricane Katrina, and the Democratic Mayor and Democratic Governor of Louisiana, and thus giving a bad image to FEMA, which had been effective before Bush, and is again under Obama!

FEMA can be effective IF we have the right crisis President, and the proper people put into the agency to operate it efficiently. And if there is a need to fund more money for FEMA, by raising taxes, so be it, as we cannot afford to leave the management of a natural or man made disaster to 50 state governors alone, and certainly NOT to private companies, whose only purpose is to maximize profits at the expense of their employees and the general public!

Should Disgraced Politicians “Come Back”?The Cases Of Anthony Weiner And Eliot Spitzer And The New York Mayoralty In 2013

The political world is abuzz with rumors that former New York Congressman Anthony Weiner is thinking of running for Mayor of New York City in 2013, to succeed Mayor Michael Bloomberg!

There has also been discussion of the possibility of former New York Governor Eliot Spitzer running for Mayor as well.

Both New York politicians resigned after sex scandals, which would ordinarily destroy their future careers, but at least Spitzer has been a host of news shows on CNN and now the CURRENT channel, and has come across very well as a political commentator.

One could argue that after such scandals and disgrace, that these and others, including former Senator John Edwards of North Carolina, the 2004 Democratic Vice Presidential nominee, should just go into the woodwork and never re-emerge again!

And yet, Louisiana Republican Senator David Vitter survived a sex scandal, never resigned, and was reelected to the Senate!

So the best answer is that anyone has a right to run for public office, and the scandals will reflect on their character, but ultimately, IF the American people want a former disgraced politician to run and win, that is their right, and none of us should condemn such action by the candidates, or by the people who choose to support them!

Pockets Of Opposition To Barack Obama In Democratic Presidential Primaries: What Does It Mean?

Barack Obama may be popular among most Democrats, and is ahead in many polls nationally against Mitt Romney, but there certainly are areas where he is extremely unpopular, a lot of it based on his race, but also on cultural issues affected by religious beliefs, including gay marriage, abortion rights, and the role of women, and also based on backing of gun rights in the hinterland of the nation, with fear that Obama is out to take away one’s guns.

So we saw Oklahoma and West Virginia strongly against him earlier, and last night, we witnessed Arkansas and Kentucky also having strong opposition against him.

However, this must all be seen in perspective, as the lowest percentage Obama has received is the 57 percent in Oklahoma. Obama gained 58 percent in Arkansas and Kentucky and 59 percent in West Virginia.

If anyone running for any office gains between 57% and 59% of the vote, that is considered a landslide by any measure. The fact that the next lowest percentage was 76 percent in Louisiana, 79 percent in North Carolina, and 80 percent in Alabama tells us Obama has nothing to be worried about.

With only seven states yet to vote in Presidential primaries, the likelihood of any of those states voting lower percentages than these seven states mentioned above is extremely low.

So, yes, Barack Obama is opposed in portions of the country, primarily the South and Appalachia, but that is not a measurement of his overall popularity nationwide!

The Supreme Court On Trial IF It Destroys Health Care Reform: Creation Of A Constitutional Crisis

The US Supreme Court is in the midst of a crisis of massive proportions, if it destroys the Obama Health Care reform in June.

It will create a crisis in health care for about 50 million Americans, and affect young adults, senior citizens, and people with pre-existing conditions in a massively negative way.

It will undermine the major effort of the Obama Administration to bring health care into the 21st century, and on the same level as every other democratic nation in the world, many of whom have had national health care for all for decades.

It will also put the Supreme Court as an institution on trial, as it is already perceived as overly partisan, with many of the decisions decided on party line vote, based on which party’s President chose the members of the Court.

It will also make it even more obvious that the election will have the effect of deciding the future direction of the Court, based on which party gains the Presidency and has control of the US Senate. This has always been true, and has been mentioned by this author numerous times on this blog.

This Court could undermine public faith and respect for the institution itself, doing even more damage than the Bush V. Gore case of 2000, and the Citizens United case of 2010.

The Court has been a hot political issue in the past in election years, including:

1800-Thomas Jefferson vs. John Adams, with the power of the Court a key issue, and Adams’ last minute appointment of Chief Justice John Marshall leading, despite opposition of Jefferson, James Madison, James Monroe and Andrew Jackson, to a very powerful Supreme Court shaped by Marshall.

1860–The election of Abraham Lincoln, who attacked the Dred Scott decision that stated that a slave owner could take his slave anywhere in the United States, and helping to lead to the secession of the South, and the coming of the Civil War.

1876–An election where the popular vote loser, Rutherford B. Hayes, was chosen by a committee which included five Supreme Court Justices, when no one was able to win the contested electoral votes of three Southern states–Louisiana, South Carolina and Florida.

1912 and 1924–Third party (Progressive Party) candidates Theodore Roosevelt and Robert La Follette, Sr., respectively, proposed limitations on the powers of the Supreme Court .

1936–Franklin D. Roosevelt made the Court an issue because of its constant declaration of New Deal laws as unconstitutional, and tried to “pack” the Court by a proposal to add six new Justices for each one on the Court over the age of 70, an idea soundly defeated in 1937.

1968–Richard Nixon campaigned against the “liberal” Court of Chief Justice Earl Warren, who then had to swear him as President in January 1969, but retired shortly after.

2000–The Supreme Court on a partisan vote stopped the vote count in the state of Florida, thereby awarding George W. Bush the Presidency over Al Gore, with a margin of victory in Florida of 537 votes statewide.

2012 could be another such case of a President confronting a defiant Supreme Court to the will of the majority in Congress and the American people!

The “Old South” A Century And A Half After The Civil War: Still The Poorest Section Of America!

Here we are 150 years after the Civil War era, and still, the “Old South” remains the poorest section of America.

It is astounding to realize that seven of the top ten poorest states are from the “Old South”–in ranked order from poorest forward being Mississippi, Arkansas, Tennessee, Louisiana, South Carolina, Alabama, and North Carolina, with two Borders states (West Virginia number 4 and Kentucky number 8) also on the list, along with the western state of Montana (number 6 on the list).

The only “Old South” states that are prosperous are Virginia, Georgia, Florida and Texas. Virginia (at least in the Northern part) is part of the Washington DC suburbs; Georgia has Atlanta as its major modernization motivation; Florida has the Northeastern influence in its Southern section; and Texas has major cities in Houston, Dallas-Fort Worth, San Antonio and Austin, and is, of course, a major oil state. But even all four of these states have major areas of poverty that are unacceptable!

It is a sad state of affairs that the South remains an area way behind the rest of the nation, and that race prejudice and anti-Yankee sentiment remains so strong, major factors in their continued inferiority!

Mitt Romney’s Endorsement By Jeb Bush And What It May Mean

Former Massachusetts Governor Mitt Romney has had a good 24 hour cycle, with the major win in Illinois, support from a wide band of voting groups, and the endorsement by former Florida Governor Jeb Bush.

Bush is one of the heavyweights in the GOP, and his endorsement, held off to now, is a prized one.

It would seem that former Pennsylvania Senator Rick Santorum, ending up 12 points behind, will have less opportunity to move ahead, although he might win Louisiana this weekend. But he would have to win WIsconsin on April 3, and his home state of Pennsylvania on April 24, to remain alive, and nothing in this regard is certain.

Meanwhile, with Newt Gingrich ending up last, behind Ron Paul, in Illinois, it would seem that it is time for the former House Speaker to leave the race, but his ego, and the fact money is still rolling in, means he will wish the publicity to continue running, even though he has only won South Carolina and Georgia.

Ron Paul has won nowhere except the US VIrgin Islands, but he is not about to withdraw either.

The goal of the three stragglers is to prevent 1,144 delegate votes for Mitt Romney on the first ballot at the Republican National Convention in Tampa in August, and the promotion of the first contested convention since Ronald Reagan and Gerald Ford fought it out on the convention floor in 1976.

Bush’s backing of Romney is certainly a sign that the “Establishment” Republicans want unity, seeing it as essential now to organize against President Barack Obama.

And there is now speculation that Jeb Bush might accept the Vice Presidential nomination with Romney, but that seems highly unlikely. Bush certainly would help with Hispanic and Latino voters, and mainline conservatives, but Bush does not seem like the type to be number two on anyone’s ticket.

Ten Other Presidential Elections That Transformed American History For Better Or Worse

In addition to what are considered the ten most important Presidential elections in American history, there are also ten other elections that transformed our history, as history would have been different had the results been the opposite of what they were.

In chronological order, these elections are as follows.

Presidential Election of 1844—If James K. Polk had not won over Henry Clay, the likelihood of gaining the Pacific Northwest by treaty with Great Britain, and gaining the Southwest by war with Mexico, together the greatest land expansion since the Louisiana Purchase under Thomas Jefferson, would have been far less likely. But also the Civil War might have been delayed without the battle over freedom or slavery in the Mexican Cession territories gained from the war.

Presidential Election of 1864—An election often ignored, if Abraham Lincoln had not won over General George McClellan, who he had fired from Union Army military leadership, the Civil War, in its late stages, might have ended differently in some form, hard to determine.

Presidential Election of 1876—If the Electoral Commission and Compromise of 1877, giving Rutherford B. Hayes victory over Samuel Tilden, had not occurred, after a disputed election result in Florida, Louisiana, and South Carolina, there might have been civil war erupting all over again.

Presidential Election Of 1896—If William McKinley had not defeated William Jennings Bryan, there might have been no Spanish American War, no Filipino Insurrection, and no gaining of overseas colonies, as Bryan opposed the idea.

Presidential Election Of 1916—If Woodrow Wilson had not squeaked out a victory over Charles Evans Hughes, he had readied plans to hand over the Presidency to Hughes early, with the Secretary of State resigning, Hughes being named Secretary of State, the Vice President resigning, and then Wilson resigning. Wilson left behind a hand written memorandum to this effect, concerned about the transition of power as the dangers of World War I came closer to the possibility of American participation.

Presidential Election Of 1928—If Herbert Hoover had lost to Alfred E. Smith, the likelihood of a very different reaction to the onset of the Great Depression in 1929 might have led Smith to being the equivalent of Hoover’s successor, Franklin D. Roosevelt, and his New Deal.

Presidential Election of 1968—If Hubert Humphrey had defeated Richard Nixon, it is likely that the Vietnam War would have ended earlier, and that there would not have been a Watergate scandal, and instead a continuation of the Great Society begun by Lyndon B. Johnson.

Presidential Election of 1976—If Gerald Ford had defeated Jimmy Carter, it is likely that after 12 years of Republican control and growing economic and foreign policy challenges, that the Democrats would have retaken the White House in 1980, and there would have been no Ronald Reagan Presidency.

Presidential Election Of 1992–If George H. W. Bush had not had to deal with an economic recession and the third party challenge of Ross Perot, the second highest popular percentage third party effort in US history, it is very likely that Bill Clinton would never have been President.

Presidential Election of 2000—If the popular vote recount in Florida had been continued, and the Supreme Court had not intervened to declare the election over, then Al Gore would have become President instead of George W. Bush, and there might not have been a September 11 terrorist attack, the resulting war in Afghanistan and Iraq, and likely not a tremendous growth in the national debt from $5 trillion to $10 trillion

How much history would have been different if only the results of these elections had been other than what they were!

The “Birthers” Turn On Republicans: Marco Rubio And Bobby Jindal

The “Birthers”, including lunatic Orly Taitz, are now turning their fire on two Republicans with Presidential ambitions in the future: Florida Senator Marco Rubio, and Louisiana Governor Bobby Jindal.

Rubio, born of Cuban parents who were not naturalized at the time of his birth, and Jindal, born of Indian parents who were not naturalized at the time of his birth, are being attacked as ineligible to be President under a very narrow interpretation of the 14th Amendment.

Having failed to convince anyone, except lunatics and ignoramuses, that Barack Obama was ineligible to be President, now the “Birthers” are out to destroy any chance that either Republican, born 13 days apart 40 years ago, will have an opportunity to run for the Presidency.

The attempt will fail, and it is likely both will compete against each other in 2016 for President, and the issue should not be the issue of naturalization of their parents.

The issue should be whether Marco Rubio, having deceived and lied to the nation about when his parents left Cuba, has the ethics and honesty to run for President. He told Floridians that his parents fled after Fidel Castro came to power in 1959, when they came to America in 1956. By all ethical standards, he should be forced to resign, and his Senate seat declared vacant, but of course Marco has displayed no problem with ethics even during his state legislative career in Florida, and will not voluntarily leave office.

Bobby Jindal has shown bad judgment in backing Rick Perry for President, and considering the fact that Louisiana is one of the poorest states in the Union, one would think he would have a more open minded view on many issues, but such is not the case, sadly.

Both Rubio and Jindal will be heard from in the future, despite the looney “Birther” movement campaign against both of them.