Presidential Election Of 1912

The Most Significant Long Range Events Of 2013

Ronald 1 Comment

Now that we are in the last day of 2013, it is time to reflect on what the most significant long range events of 2013 are, events that will affect us in the future, and are signs of progress, which can never be reversed.

They include in no special order:

The accomplishment of national health care, a dream since Theodore Roosevelt first mentioned the concept in his Progressive Party campaign in 1912, later suggested by Harry Truman, partially enacted by Lyndon B. Johnson, attempted by Bill and Hillary Clinton unsuccessfully, promoted by Senator Ted Kennedy, and finally becoming law under Barack Obama. Even with all of the kinks and quirks now and in the future, national health care is here to stay, finally making America reach the stage of all other democracies in the world, but as usual the last to adopt social and economic reform, as compared to Europe, Canada, and Australia.

The acceptance by the Supreme Court of the concept of gay marriage, and the expansion from nine to eighteen states of acceptance of same sex marriage, and nothing will ever reverse what has happened, and eventually, the Supreme Court will mandate its legality throughout America, just as they did for interracial marriage in 1967. Many may not like it, but just as with interracial marriage, one does not have to engage in either interracial or same sex marriage, but it is nobody’s business to tell someone else who he or she is to love and to have the benefits of marriage, and no religious institution needs to accept it, as civil marriage will always be available.

The civil war raging in the Republican Party, which will determine if the party of Lincoln, TR, and Ike will survive or go into the dustbin of history, which Is certain, if the right wing Tea Party Movement is allowed to take over the party apparatus, and control the House and Senate Republican caucuses, and control major state governments around the nation. An extreme right wing Republican Party will not survive, and will give the Democrats such dominance that a moderate centrist party, maybe on the pattern of the Whig Party of Henry Clay, Daniel Webster, John Quincy Adams and Abraham Lincoln in the 19th century, will then emerge as a valid alternative to the more leftist Democratic Party by comparison.

The rise of a permanent Democratic majority in the Electoral College, as Georgia, Texas, Arizona and North Carolina will turn “blue” over the rest of the second decade of the 21st century, due to the growth in the Hispanic-Latino population, and the alienation of women from the Republican Party, which is working to control the reproductive lives of women. Both groups will swing these Sun Belt States to the Democrats, and with the Atlantic Coast from New England down to Virginia, and the Pacific Coast and the Upper Midwest more “blue” all of the time, there will be no way that Democrats will lose the White House over the next couple of decades, whether they nominate Hillary Clinton or Joe Biden, or someone else, for the Presidency in 2016 and beyond.

The Supreme Court will turn more liberal, as over the remaining years of this decade, the likelihood of new Supreme Court appointments, as well as circuit and district courts, will fall to Democratic Presidents, who no longer have to worry about a filibuster proof majority of 60 votes. The need for only 51 votes or 50 with the Vice President breaking the tie, insures that the courts, and eventually the high Court, will take a different view over time on same sex marriage, abortion rights, civil rights, and civil liberties, reminding one over the next two decades (due to lifetime appointments) of the history of the Warren Court.

A happy 2014 to all my readers and contributors!

Key Dates In Republican Party History 52 Years Apart-1860, 1912, 1964, 2016!

Ronald 10 Comments

The Republican Party has had its key elections which transform the party on a regular basis 52 years apart, and we are on the way to that occurring yet again!

In 1860, just six short years after the founding of the party in the upper Midwest, the Republican Party won its first national victory, gaining control of both houses of Congress, and electing Abraham Lincoln, even though he won slightly less than 40 percent of the total national popular vote. The party went on to dominate American politics for the next 52 years, only losing the Presidency twice to Grover Cleveland, in 1884 and 1892.

Then in 1912, the split between former President Theodore Roosevelt and incumbent President William Howard Taft, a conflict between conservatives and progressives, led to a disastrous defeat for Taft, the worst defeated President running for reelection ever in American history before and after 1912. This put the opposition Democrats in control of both houses of Congress, and gave Democrat Woodrow Wilson two terms in the White House, although coming close to losing in 1916. He proceeded to promote programs known as the New Freedom and the New Nationalism, stealing the second slogan from TR.

The Republican Party went on to revive itself from 1920-1932, but was then made the minority party in voter registration after 1932, due to the Great Depression, and only won two terms in the White House under Dwight D. Eisenhower, and two separate two year terms in Congress over the next 32 years.

After years of establishment Republicans losing, except for Eisenhower, the conservatives took over the party in 1964, again 52 years after the 1912 split, and nominated Senator Barry Goldwater, and suffered a massive defeat, insuring the biggest landslide victory in history for Lyndon B. Johnson, and the promotion of the Great Society.

While the Goldwater mentality in broad outline became the government under Ronald Reagan in 1980, the split between conservatives and progressives revived under the two Bush Presidents, as well as criticism of the Gerald Ford, Bob Dole, John McCain, and Mitt Romney Presidential runs.

And here we are again with the right wing striving to take over the party, with Ted Cruz, Rand Paul and Marco Rubio, along with some others, trying to move the party to an extreme, more so than Barry Goldwater represented.

And one can be sure that 2016, 52 years after 1964, we will see another massive defeat, for the GOP, probably to Hillary Clinton, but with no certainty that the party, 160 years old in 2014, can survive as a viable political party opposition!

Des Moines Register Poll Of Iowa Democrats Prefers “Fresh Face” In 2016

Ronald 1 Comment

A Des Moines Register Poll of Democrats in Iowa shows that they prefer a “fresh face” for the Democratic nomination for President in 2016, over a more experienced candidate such as Hillary Clinton or Joe Biden, who together have about 70 years in public governing service.

Since Iowa is the first state to have a say in the nominating process, this could encourage “newer” faces, such as Governor Andrew Cuomo of New York, Governor Martin O’Malley of Maryland, Senator Amy Klobuchar of Minnesota, Senator Elizabeth Warren of Massachusetts, Senator Mark Warner of Virginia, soon to be Senator Cory Booker of New Jersey, and San Antonio Mayor Julian Castro, to “throw their hat in the ring”, a term developed by former President Theodore Roosevelt, when he announced he was running again for President in 1912.

This blogger has suggested earlier that such a development might be good for the Democratic Party, particularly at a time when the Republican Party will have a much younger nominee than either Hillary Clinton or Joe Biden.

The Case For A New Generation Of Democrats For The Presidential Election Of 2016!

Ronald 7 Comments

As the Presidential race begins, and it has started already, like it or not, it is clear that Hillary Clinton, who will be 69 in 2016, and Joe Biden, who will be 74 in 2016, are the frontrunners, and that Hillary is using up most of the oxygen in the room, way ahead of Biden in polls, with other potential Democratic candidates in single digits.

But despite the confidence and optimism about Hillary and even Joe as a backup, there is a growing case for the argument that the Democratic Party should bypass both Hillary and Joe, no matter how much one may love or admire either of them, and go for a new generation of Democrats, as was done in 1960 with John F. Kennedy, in 1976 with Jimmy Carter, in 1992 with Bill Clinton, and 2008 with Barack Obama!

All of these successful Democratic Presidential winners were young–43, 52, 46, and 47 respectively at the time of the inauguration. All were younger than their GOP opponents, although Richard Nixon was only four years older, but represented a continuation of Dwight D. Eisenhower, our oldest President at the time when he retired in 1961!

But Jimmy Carter was eleven years younger than Gerald Ford; Bill Clinton 22 years younger than George H. W. Bush; and Barack Obama 25 years younger than John McCain!

The fact is ONLY three Presidents were inaugurated at age 65 or older—William Henry Harrison at age 68 and dying a month later; James Buchanan at age 65 but only 50 days short of age 66, and rated by many historians the worst President in American history; and Ronald Reagan, inaugurated at just weeks before his 70th and 74th birthday, and judged by many to have deteriorated mentally, with early Alzheimers in his second term of office!

And we have seen Bob Dole defeated at age 73 in 1996; John McCain defeated at age 72 in 2008; and Mitt Romney, defeated at age 65 inn 2012, but also about 50 days short of age 66 if he had been inaugurated, the same exact age as Buchanan was when he won in 1856!

Meanwhile, the Republican Party future is clearly in the hands of young politicians, including Ted Cruz, Marco Rubio, Rand Paul, Paul Ryan, Chris Christie, and others, with these candidates being mostly in their 40s and 50s, and all younger than Hillary Clinton or Joe Biden!

Historically, in most elections, the younger candidate wins, and the party of the President usually does not do well if it utilizes someone connected with the administration leaving office, no matter what level of popularity reigns when that President leaves office, as witness:

Richard Nixon lost after Eisenhower
Hubert Humphrey lost after Lyndon B. Johnson
Gerald Ford lost after Richard Nixon
Walter Mondale lost after Jimmy Carter
Al Gore lost after Bill Clinton

If Hilary Clinton runs, she represents Obama’s foreign policy record, for good or for bad, and also brings back the good and the bad of the Presidency of her husband, Bill Clinton.

If Joe Biden runs, he represents what happens to a Vice President under a President, that the negatives of that President harm the Vice President, as with Nixon, Humphrey, Ford, Mondale, and Gore.

Only George H. W, Bush was able to overcome this hex, and succeed Ronald Reagan in 1988, although then losing reelection in 1992, the greatest percentage loss of any President in American history, except William Howard Taft in 1912!

It is reality that Democrats will be heavily favored in the Electoral College in 2016, no matter who runs, but it would be easier for a “New”, younger Democrat to be the Presidential nominee, such as Martin O’Malley, Andrew Cuomo, KIrsten Gilllibrand, Amy Klobuchar, Cory Booker, Deval Patrick, Mark Warner, John Hickenlooper, or Elizabeth Warren, all of whom are much younger than Hillary Clinton and Joe Biden, with the exception of Warren, who would be 67 in 2016, which makes her a less ideal candidate based upon age!

It is important for Democrats to think carefully before they decide for a continuation of the Obama Presidency through Hillary Clinton or Joe Biden, as nominating someone younger and separated from the Obama Administration would be preferable, and easier for the grueling campaign ahead!

The Death Of Vice Presidents In Office, And Vice Presidential Resignations

Ronald Leave a comment

America has seen 47 Vice Presidents, all a heartbeat away from the Presidency, and nine of them—John Tyler, Millard Fillmore, Andrew Johnson, Chester Alan Arthur, Theodore Roosevelt, Calvin Coolidge, Harry Truman, Lyndon B. Johnson, and Gerald Ford—have succeeded to the Presidency during their term, and the fifth through eighth of these nine being, subsequently, elected to the Presidency.

What has not been investigated, studied, or thought about much, is the record of Vice Presidents dying in office, since most Vice Presidents have been in the shadows, relatively unknown and forgotten.

But when one investigates the issue of the death of Vice Presidents in office, one discovers that a total of seven Vice Presidents have died in office, beginning in 1812 and finishing precisely one century later in 1912. So no Vice President has died in office for the past hundred years.

The list of Vice Presidents who died in office, and the President they served under follows:

1812—George Clinton under James Madison
1814—Elbridge Gerry under James Madison
1853—William King under Franklin Pierce
1875—Henry Wilson under Ulysses S. Grant
1885—Thomas Hendricks under Grover Cleveland
1899—Garret Hobart under William McKinley
1912—James Sherman under William Howard Taft

The most interesting case is Hobart, who, if he had not died, likely would have run with McKinley in 1900, and succeeded him in the Presidency in 1901, instead of the very famous and influential Theodore Roosevelt!

Also notable is that both King and Hendricks died in the first year of the Presidential term, leaving no Vice President to succeed for the remainder of the term, with Gerry dying in the second year of the Presidential term, and and Wilson and Hobart in the third year of the Presidential term. Only Clinton and Sherman died in the last full year of the Presidential term, with Sherman dying just weeks before the election defeat of Taft, and his name being replaced on the Electoral College ballot by Columbia University President Nicholas Murray Butler, for the measly eight electoral votes of Utah and Vermont, which Taft won, as the worst defeated President running for another term in American history!

Also of interest is that only Madison lost both of his Vice Presidents in office!

So this is the record of Vice Presidents who died in office, with also mention to be made that John C. Calhoun and Spiro Agnew are the only Vice Presidents to resign from the Vice Presidency, in 1832 and 1973, during the administrations of Andrew Jackson and Richard Nixon!

Presidents Who Could Have Had Third Terms In Office

Ronald 3 Comments

Anyone who studies American history knows that our only President who had more than two terms (eight years) in office was Franklin D. Roosevelt, who actually was elected four times, and served a total of 12 years and 39 days before dying in office in 1945.

But there were others who could have had more than eight years in office, were it not because of their own decision not to seek another term, or due to constitutional limitations via the 22nd Amendment!

These potential cases of Presidents who could have had more than eight years in office include:

Andrew Jackson (1829-1837), who would have won a third term had he chosen to run, but instead his Vice President, Martin Van Buren, ran and won the Presidency.

Theodore Roosevelt (1901-1909), who served seven and a half years after succeeding William McKinley six months into his second term, and then chose not to run in 1908, backing William Howard Taft who won, and then challenging Taft in 1912, on a third party line (Progressive Party), but lost to him. Despite the loss, TR won six states and 88 electoral votes, the best third party performance in American history.

Calvin Coolidge (1923-1929), who served five and a half years in the Presidency, after succeeding Warren G. Harding after two and a half years in office, and decided not to run in 1928, and instead, we saw Herbert Hoover win the Presidency.

These three Presidents mentioned above were popular enough to have won another term, and in each case, would have ended up serving more than eight years in office, as FDR did!

And then there are four Presidents since the 22nd Amendment limitation of two terms or ten years in office if succeeding to the Presidency with less than two years left of the term when they became President, all of whom could have been elected to another term, had there been no such limit!

Dwight D. Eisenhower could have won and run a third term in 1960, as could Ronald Reagan in 1988, and Bill Clinton in 2000, while Lyndon B. Johnson, had he not dropped out in 1968, likely would have beaten Richard Nixon, since his Vice President, Hubert Humphrey, came close to doing so, and did not have the fact of being President to help him win the election!

It is interesting that in all cases mentioned except three—Eisenhower, Johnson, and Clinton–the party of the President who did not run for reelection won the election. Eisenhower saw Richard Nixon lose a close election, despite much evidence of a fixed result for John F. Kennedy in 1960, and Johnson saw Humphrey lose to Nixon in another close election, where LBJ would likely have turned the tide! And Al Gore lost in 2000, despite a popular vote majority, due to the intervention of the Supreme Court in 2000, giving the Presidency to George W. Bush!

So instead of one President with 12 years and 39 days in the Presidency, we could have had, additionally, Andrew Jackson, Dwight D. Eisenhower, Ronald Reagan and Bill Clinton with 12 years in office; Theodore Roosevelt with 11 and a half years in office; and Calvin Coolidge with nine and a half years in office and Lyndon B. Johnson with nine years and two months in office!

And Martin Van Buren, William Howard Taft, Herbert Hoover, John F. Kennedy, Richard Nixon, George H. W. Bush, and George W. Bush might never have been President if the Presidents before had sought or been able to seek a third term in the Presidency!

PS Another thought that has come to me, belatedly, is that Grover Cleveland (1885-1889, 1893-1897), the only President with two nonconsecutive terms, actually won the popular vote in 1888, but lost in the Electoral College. Had the result been different, Cleveland, in theory, might have run in 1892, anyway, and could have been a three term President, and Benjamin Harrison would never have been President!

Evaluating Woodrow Wilson A Century After His Election To The Presidency, And On His 156th Birthday Commemoration!

Ronald Leave a comment

Woodrow Wilson, our 28th President, was born on this day in 1856, and was elected President in the four way race of 1912, running against Theodore Roosevelt, William Howard Taft, and Eugene Debs, arguably the most exciting Presidential election in American History.

The President with the least government experience, only two years as Governor of New Jersey; the only earned PH. D. to become President; the first President elected who grew up in the South (Virginia) since the Civil War; the President to face the greatest war crisis since Abraham Lincoln; the President who emphasized the importance of international affairs and the need for an international organization to promote peace; the President who was the culmination of the Progressive reform movements of the early 20th century; and the President who promoted successfully his domestic agenda, and then took on Theodore Roosevelt’s even more advanced progressive ideas and made them his own—this President has also been bitterly attacked by many for his shortcomings in many areas, and particularly has been viciously attacked by right wing conservatives, including Glenn Beck and George Will, who have torn his image to shreds.

Well, the question is whether the attacks on Wilson are fair and just, so that requires a careful examination of the positive and negative aspects of his Presidency.

Let’s start with the negative points that can be made about Wilson, and they are plenty!

1. Wilson was a white supremacist, despite his stellar education, and failed to treat people of African, Asian, and Latin American heritage in a dignified way, whether in the nation or with foreign nations overseas. His treatment of China, Japan, Mexico, Haiti and governments of other nations outside of Europe were treated in an insensitive and unacceptable manner, and he issued an executive order mandating segregation of the races in Washington, DC, and failed to recognize the contributions of soldiers of other than the Caucasian race during World War I. He legitimized and set back mistreatment of African Americans for another thirty years, until progress was made by President Harry Truman after World War II.

2. Wilson, inexplicably, opposed the woman suffrage movement, and had suffragettes arrested for disturbing the peace in their marches on Pennsylvania Avenue near the White House. Theodore Roosevelt had proposed this constitutional change in his 1912 Progressive Party campaign, but Wilson never moved in that direction on his own. Despite his opposition, the 19th Amendment was added at the end of his term in 1920.

3. Wilson had a horrible record on civil liberties in wartime, promoting passage of the Espionage Act, Sedition Act, and numerous other laws violating freedom of speech and press. He displayed total intolerance toward critics, once America was at war, and is regarded as one of the absolutely worst Presidents on the subject of civil liberties overall for his eight years in office.

4. Wilson was intolerant of opposition in Congress, refusing to work with Republicans when events worked against him, and tended to see things in religious terms, with him having God behind him, and often invoking religion in his speeches and comments. So he was seen as manipulative and deceitful in his actions and words that took us to ultimate war in 1917, and refused to negotiate on the Versailles Treaty after the war.

5. Wilson had a supreme, and self righteous ego, and this made him blind to reality much of the time, as when he had a severe paralytic stroke, but refused, along with his second wife, to keep Vice President Thomas Marshall informed, or to consider resigning in 1919-1921 so that the nation would have a President capable of leading the nation in the difficult post war days, when Attorney General A. Mitchell Palmer led the Red Scare or Palmer Raids, another massive violation of civil liberties, which helped to spur the creation of the Civil Liberties Union in 1920. The nation was basically leaderless for a period of 18 months, as Wilson slowly recovered and even thought of running for an unprecedented third term despite his poor health.

Now to the positive side of Woodrow Wilson!

1. Wilson was the most successful President in domestic policy achievements up to his time in office, and only surpassed later by Franklin D. Roosevelt in the 1930s and Lyndon B. Johnson in the 1960s. He accomplished all of his original domestic agenda, including legislation that has stood the test of time, despite criticism by conservatives and Republicans over the years, including the Federal Reserve Act, the Federal Trade Commission Act, and the Clayton Anti Trust Act, as well as the first attempt at so called “free trade”, the lowering of tariff walls on foreign goods.

2. Wilson also accomplished the passage of laws originally promoted by Theodore Roosevelt in 1912, including the temporary end of child labor, protection for some workers on hours, workers compensation, and the protection of the merchant marine workers who are employed on ships offshore. Also, the first real attempt at agricultural aid to farmers to encourage expansion of acreage and the buying of new equipment, was also an idea promoted by TR. Basically, Wilson adopted much of the Populist Party and Progressive Party agenda of earlier times, and brought Progressive reform to its peak in the period before the conservative 1920s.

3. Wilson dealt with a war that was the most massive for America in 50 years, and was skilled enough to keep America out of war for two years and eight months after World War I began in Europe, but his role in the eventual entrance of America is still highly disputed even today, seen by some as dishonest and deceptive, but praised by many others as the best one could have expected.

4. Wilson had a vision of a peaceful post war world, and saw an international organization, the League of Nations, as the most important accomplishment of the Treaty of Versailles, and was stunned by the rejection of the US Senate to any international commitment, with America going into isolation. But his vision came to fruition a generation after his passing, with the establishment of the United Nations, but with many conservatives and Republicans bitterly opposed today in the US involvement in that international organization.

5. Wilson comes across, despite his many faults and shortcomings as worthy, in the minds of most experts, to be rated in the top ten of all Presidents–number 6 in the C Span 2000 poll and number 9 in the 2009 C Span Followup poll, and this despite bitter condemnation by so many right wing sources who only emphasize the evil side of Wilson, and give him no credit for his accomplishments. There is no question, however, that he had an important impact on the growth of Presidential power, the exact reason why the right wing hates his guts.

This blogger and author understands the mixed legacy of Woodrow Wilson, but still sees him as an influential President, who still impacts America a century after his first election to the Presidency!

So Happy Birthday, President Wilson, a man we will hear a lot about as we commemorate the major events of his administration over the next eight years from March 4, 1913, to March 4, 1921!

1912–Triumph Of Progressivism! 2012–Triumph Of Progressivism!

Ronald 2 Comments

A century apart, America veered to the left, and we had a triumph of progressivism both in 1912 and 2012!

In 1912, Theodore Roosevelt, Woodrow Wilson, Eugene Debs, and even, to some extent, William Howard Taft, promoted an agenda that would set the standard for the future New Deal and Great Society and ObamaCare.

Now, in 2012, we have institutionalized the New Deal, Great Society, and ObamaCare for the future; and we have seen more women elected to the House and Senate than ever before; we have seen openly gay candidates win in the Senate and House and in local races; we have seen the first Buddhist Senator and Hindu House member from Hawaii elected; we have seen labor help elect a whole group of progressive Democratic Senators across the nation; we have seen Hispanics and Latinos play a major role in politics; we have seen a more progressive House and Senate emerge; we have seen Barack Obama given political capital to bring about greater change in his second term; we have seen the Supreme Court preserved as a balanced body for the long term; we have seen the progressive vision of TR, Wilson, FDR, Truman, Eisenhower, Kennedy, Johnson, even Nixon and Ford, Carter, and Clinton preserved and enhanced; and we have seen a repudiation of an interventionist foreign policy , as under the neoconservative influence during the Presidency of George W. Bush.

America is moving forward into the 21st century, just as in 1912, we moved forward into the 20th century. We have repudiated, in 1912 and 2012, returning to the 19th century!

Theodore Roosevelt’s 154th Birthday: He Would Mourn What His Republican Party Has Become!

Ronald Leave a comment

Today is the 154th Anniversary of President Theodore Roosevelt’s birth.

TR is one of the most acclaimed Presidents, often listed as high as 4th all time, just below Abraham Lincoln, Franklin D. Roosevelt, and George Washington.

TR is certainly regarded as the second greatest Republican President of all time, behind only Lincoln, unless one chooses to believe the lunacy of conservative propagandist Glenn Beck, who constantly denounces TR, and would put Ronald Reagan higher than TR, and who also has reservations about Lincoln, because correspondence between Lincoln and Karl Marx has been uncovered, which makes some right wing nuts think Lincoln “might” have been a “Socialist”, or a “Communist”, or even the word “Progressive”, which is considered the same thing by Beck, Florida Congressman Allen West, and other right wing lunatics!

TR was a “Progressive” who promoted conservation and the environment; promoted the advance of labor rights; believed in regulation of big business; created the Food and Drug Administration to monitor safety of what Americans consume; and believed later in his life, when he ran as the Progressive Party nominee for President in 1912 that there was a need for health care and labor laws and other aspects of a social safety net. This made TR the forerunner of Woodrow Wilson, Franklin D. Roosevelt, Harry Truman, Dwight D. Eisenhower, John F. Kennedy, Lyndon B. Johnson, Richard Nixon, Gerald Ford, Jimmy Carter, Bill Clinton, and Barack Obama in advocating more government, more regulation, more social safety net, and concern about the environment.

None of the above is now believed by the Republican Party of Mitt Romney and Paul Ryan, who wish to repeal everything TR and his successors of both parties believed in!

So it is clear that TR, certainly not perfect but still exceptional in so many ways, would NOT be a Republican today!

But then Abraham Lincoln would not be a Republican today.

Neither would Dwight D. Eisenhower or even Richard Nixon or Gerald Ford, who were condemning the religious extremism of their party in their later years.

And right now, former Florida Governor Charlie Crist, former Secretary of State Colin Powell, former Rhode Island Senator Lincoln Chafee, and former South Dakota Senator Larry Pressler have endorsed President Barack Obama.

And under the surface, not willing to speak up, but clearly uncomfortable with the GOP of 2012, are many other former Republican Governors, Senators, and Congressmen who feel that their party has been “hijacked” by an evil, selfish, greedy, nasty group of weirdos who wish to take away rights from women, labor, minorities, the disabled, the poor, and the middle class, and are refusing to come out openly and endorse Mitt Romney and Paul Ryan.

The party of Theodore Roosevelt and his “progressivism” and reform is long gone, and sadly, may never return!

Republicans Claim Obama-Biden Are More Nasty And Divisive Than In Any Presidential Campaign In History: Really?

Ronald 13 Comments

The Republican Party is complaining, from Mitt Romney and Paul Ryan on down, that Barack Obama and Joe Biden are more nasty and divisive than in any Presidential campaign in history! Really?

Obviously, the Republicans have no knowledge or sense of history!

The Election of 1800 was NOT nasty and divisive, heh?

The Election of 1828 was not nasty and divisive, heh?

The Election of 1860 was not nasty and divisive, heh?

The Election of 1896 was not nasty and divisive, heh?

The Election of 1912 was not nasty and divisive, heh?

The Election of 1932 was not nasty and divisive, heh?

The Election of 1948 was not nasty and divisive, heh?

The Election of 1968 was not nasty and divisive, heh?

The Election of 1980 was not nasty and divisive, heh?

The Election of 1992 was not nasty and divisive, heh?

The Election of 2000 was not nasty and divisive, heh?

The Election of 2004 was not nasty and divisive, heh?

The Election of 2008 was not nasty and divisive, heh?

In fact, beyond these MORE divisive elections, EVERY Presidential election is nasty and divisive!

What IS different is that this round, the Democrats are striking back aggressively, which often in the past did not happen, to the same level as the Republicans, who are always nasty and divisive, whether favored to win the election or not!

But both Barack Obama and Joe Biden have stuck to attacks on the issues, not personalities, as both have always said that Mitt Romney and Paul Ryan are good family men, decent people, but are wrong on the issues.

On the other hand, the Republicans have launched personal attacks on both Obama and Biden, making insulting comments about them, particularly Obama, questioning whether he is an American, wondering about his birthplace, playing the race card, and showing him disrespect. And now, Biden is being attacked that he may have “lost it”, ridiculing mistakes he makes, which are few and far between as compared to Mitt Romney throughout his Presidential campaign!

So what it comes down to is that GOP does not like an aggressive opposition on the issues and contradictions they have as their record. The answer is tough on them, as this is the “big time”, and no longer will the Democrats allow themselves to be disrespected and ridiculed without a strong, aggressive response!