Presidential Election Of 1980

Triumph Of Progressivism: A Turning Point Challenge Fifty Years Apart: 1912, 1964, 2012!

The battle between conservatism and progressivism/liberalism has been an never ending struggle throughout American history, going back to the time of Thomas Jefferson and Alexander Hamilton, and the creation of the first political party system in the Federalist Era of the 1790s.

After a half century of conservatism in charge in the Gilded Age and early Progressive Era, in 1912, we finally had the triumph of progressivism with the election of Woodrow Wilson, and the stellar second place finish of Theodore Roosevelt on the Progressive Party line. Wilson proceeded to promote economic and social reforms, partly based on Roosevelt’s ideas, and partly his own, and much of what was accomplished in the second decade of the 20th century remains with us today.

Reversion to Gilded Age mentality occurred under GOP Presidents in the 1920s and early 1930s, and the Great Depression led to a smashing landslide for Franklin D. Roosevelt in the 1930s and 1940s, with the New Deal expanding much of what TR and Wilson had advocated, and additional ideas growing out of the economic crisis.

Harry Truman attempted more reforms in the late 1940s and early 1950s, but most were stymied by a conservative resurgence, and a similar situation existed in the Eisenhower years, and the Kennedy Presidency.

But when Lyndon B. Johnson came in after the assassination of President Kennedy, he dedicated himself to accomplishment of what FDR, Truman, and Kennedy could not achieve, and to expand beyond the New Deal of FDR with the Great Society.

The Republican Party and conservatives saw an opportunity to negate all of the economic and social changes of TR, Wilson and FDR, and Barry Goldwater, the 1964 right wing opponent of Johnson, declared war on the New Deal, and the result was a landslide defeat, and the greatest expansion of progressivism yet in our history.

By the time that Ronald Reagan won a victory for conservatives in 1980, and continuing through George W. Bush leaving in 2009, Republicans and the right wing set out to reverse the Great Society and New Deal, one program at a time, with Democrats being able to stop complete destruction, but Republicans and conservatives nipping away at one area of policy after another, and in the process increasing our national debt from $1 trillion when Reagan became President to $10.5 trillion when George W. Bush left office.

Barack Obama came in with the intention of solidifying the New Deal and Great Society, and also bringing a new Progressive Era. And now Mitt Romney and Paul Ryan are declaring war on everything that has been done by the federal government in the past century—from TR, to Wilson, to FDR, to Truman, even to Ike, to JFK, LBJ, even Nixon, Carter, even George H. W. Bush, to Clinton, to Obama–in their desire to make America ever more an oligarchy, a corporate dominated nation, and to destroy the middle class and the poor, and return us to the Gilded Age that began in the 1870s!

So 2012 is the most ideological election since 1964, as that election was the most ideological election since 1912!

The future of every social and economic reform of the past century is at stake in this election, and progressives and liberals cannot afford to sit on the sidelines, as this is as Theodore Roosevelt dramatically called it a century ago, an ultimate battle of Armageddon for the future of America!

“It’s The Middle Class, Stupid!”: The Campaign Slogan For 2012, Thanks To James Carville And Stan Greenberg!

James Carville, who coined the campaign slogan “It’s The Economy, Stupid!” in the 1992 Bill Clinton Presidential campaign against President George H. W. Bush, has just published a new book with Stan Greeenberg, coining a new campaign slogan, this time for President Barack Obama against GOP Presidential nominee Mitt Romney in 2012, entitled “It’s The Middle Class, Stupid!”

Pointing out that there has been class warfare against the middle class for the past 32 years, since the victory of Ronald Reagan in 1980, the authors make it clear that Obama can win an election with his critics claiming he is declaring class warfare against the top two percent, who have become extremely wealthy due to GOP economic policies under Reagan and George W. Bush.

And Mitt Romney is the perfect candidate to use this slogan against, as he proposes to make the wealthy wealthier, and to cut programs that benefit the middle class, as well as the poor.

And if conservatives and Republicans try to use what Reagan used as a slogan against Jimmy Carter in 1980–“Are you better off than you were four years ago?”–the answer is YES, as what Obama has done has made life better, and he could have done a lot more without Republican obstructionism over the past 18 months when they have controlled the House of Representatives, and have made it their mission to do NOTHING to make life better for the middle class!

A Liberal-Progressive Mount Rushmore And A Conservative Mount Rushmore: Who Would Be On Such Mount Rushmores?

Last Friday, Joe Scarborough and MORNING JOE on MSNBC had distinguished historians assess which Presidents might be on a new, second Mount Rushmore, if such a monument were ever built.

This brought to mind the idea of who might be on a Liberal-Progressive Mount Rushmore, and who would be on a Conservative Mount Rushmore, if such were ever constructed anywhere in America.

This is mostly just interesting scholarly speculation, but here goes my suggestions for such honoring on both sides of the political spectrum.

LIBERAL/PROGRESSIVE MOUNT RUSHMORE

Robert La Follette, Sr.–Republican Governor (1900-1906) and Senator (1906-1925) of Wisconsin–Mr. Progressive of the early 20th century and 1924 Progressive Party nominee for President.

George Norris–Republican Congressman (1902-1912) and Senator (1912-1942) of Nebraska–the most creative reform figure and longevity of the first half of the 20th century, a bridge between the Progressive Era of Theodore Roosevelt and Woodrow Wilson and the New Deal of Franklin D. Roosevelt.

Hubert H. Humphrey–Democratic Mayor Of Minneapolis (1945-1949), Senator (1949-1964, 1970-1978) of Minnesota, and Vice President of the United States (1965-1969) and Democratic Presidential nominee in 1968, who had the most creative record of promoting reform in the years after World War II throughout the 1960s.

Ted Kennedy–Democratic Senator (1962-2009) of Massachusetts, the fourth longest serving US Senator in American history, and the most creative reformer in the years from the 1970s until his death in 2009.

A possible alternative would be Democratic Senator George McGovern of
South Dakota (1922-2012), who ran for President in 1972, and was a major critic of the Vietnam War, one of the most decent men ever in American politics, serving in the Senate from 1963-1981.

CONSERVATIVE MOUNT RUSHMORE

Arthur Vandenberg–Republican Senator (1928-1951) of Michigan, who opposed the New Deal and was an isolationist in foreign policy through World War II, but then became an internationalist in support of the United Nations and President Harry Truman’s Cold War policy against the Soviet Union after World War II, and potential Presidential candidate twice.

Robert Taft–Republican Senator (1939-1953) of Ohio, son of President and Chief Justice William Howard Taft, promoted the anti labor union Taft-Hartley Act, promoted an isolationist foreign policy, and considered Mr. Conservative by his party, and a potential Presidential candidate numerous times.

Barry Goldwater–Senator (1952-1964, 1968-1986) of Arizona, succeeding Robert Taft as Mr. Conservative, and 1964 Republican nominee for President, becoming the hero of conservatives long term, and having an effect on President Ronald Reagan.

Ronald Reagan–Republican Governor of California (1966-1974), and President of the United States (1981-1989), after a career as a movie actor, influenced by the principles and ideas of Barry Goldwater, who he publicly backed in a famous speech in 1964.

The author welcomes commentary on these selections!

Why Barack Obama In 2012 Is NOT George H. W. Bush In 1992, NOR Jimmy Carter In 1980!

With exactly four months to go until the Presidential Election of 2012, the job figures this month, showing a slowing of the economy, very little job growth, and a steady 8.2 percent unemployment rate, makes it clear that Barack Obama will not be able to bring the numbers under 8 percent before the election, and will have the highest unemployment rate of a President seeking re-election since Franklin D. Roosevelt in 1936.

So there are the hysterical political followers who fear that Obama is about to lose the election to Mitt Romney, but that is not going to happen!

Obama is compared to George H. W. Bush in 1992 and Jimmy Carter in 1980, with both of them losing, but the situations are VERY different!

Bush lacked any charisma, was running against a charismatic opponent, Bill Clinton, and had a serious, strong third party candidate in Ross Perot, which helped to cause his loss in the election. He also had accomplished very little beyond the Gulf War victory, and the passage of the Americans With Disabilities Act.

Jimmy Carter in 1980 was also lacking in charisma, was running against a very charismatic candidate, Ronald Reagan, who was able to unify people with his speaking skills, and faced the Iranian hostage crisis, and super high inflation due to the second Arab Oil Embargo, and also faced a third candidate in the Presidential race, Independent John Anderson.

Obama has tons of charisma; while Mitt Romney has absolutely NONE, not even being well liked as a personality as Clinton and Reagan were; and Obama faces no third party or independent challenger.

Obama is personally popular, which Bush and Carter were not, based on public opinion polls.

But having said that, it is clear that what Obama must do is take parts of three former Democratic Presidents, and make it part of his campaign.

Obama must give the GOP “hell” as Harry Truman did in 1948, and must push job plans and education and infrastructure spending by calling Congress into special session in September after the ocnventions, as Truman did, even though Truman knew and we know no such legislation will pass, but still put the Republicans on the defensive!

Obama must act like Franklin D. Roosevelt by saying he welcomes the hate of the GOP, since they refuse to work with him, and drop the “nice guy” image!

And Obama must take on a Lyndon B. Johnson image, that he will push and prod Congress by constant news conferences and speeches on the essential need for massive changes in America!

In taking on ideas of Truman, FDR, and LBJ, Obama would stir the enthusiasm of progressives and liberals, and the groups that might be lazy about voting, and would also draw many of the independents who would realize we have a President who really CARES about average Americans, as Truman, FDR and LBj demonstrated, and contrast it with Mitt Romney, who has made it clear he has no care or concern for more than the one percent at the top of our society!

2012 Presidential Election: Possibly Another Bush, And Even A Clinton?

Speculation is rampant that former Florida Governor Jeb Bush might indeed agree to run for Vice President with Mitt Romney.

After denying it for so long, Jeb now has left the door open, but makes clear he would rather not be on the ticket.

It is interesting how Florida Senator Marco Rubio promotes Jeb, and Jeb keeps on promoting Rubio for Vice President.

Would Jeb Bush help Romney in the Fall campaign? Both yes and no!

Obviously, Jeb is very intelligent, a good speaker, and a mainline conservative, who is not reckless, and does not make loony statements about issues. He is married to an Hispanic (Mexican) woman, is seen by many as a successful Governor of Florida, and in theory, could help to deliver that state to Romney in the fall. He is seen as a potential candidate for President in 2016, and even being on a losing ticket, he probably would gain stature for such a race by coming to the aid of Romney and the party now.

On the other hand, the question is whether there is a desire for a third Bush on a national ticket, particularly with the controversies over his brother, George W. Bush, and his eight years in office. There is believed to be an exhaustion with things Bush at this point of time. And imagine the idea of having a Bush on the national ticket every election since 1980 except 1996 and 2008, six of the last eight Presidential elections! Those who dislike the Bushes, particularly, George W. Bush, might not be willing to vote for Mitt Romney with Jeb Bush on the ticket.

And then, there are still the rumors flying that Secretary of State Hillary Clinton might agree to run for Vice President, in place of Joe Biden, in order to add strength to Barack Obama’s campaign. She laughs it off, and says it will not happen, but if Obama were to ask her, could she really say no?

So imagine an election with a Bush AND a Clinton on the national tickets, which would mark one or both names on the national scene every election since 1980, except 2008, and only not in 2008 because Hillary Clinton lost the nomination to Barack Obama.

There could very well be exhaustion and disgust at the thought of what might be seen as two “royal” dynasties in America, the Bushes and the Clintons!

History Favors Obama and Democratic Party Second Term Presidencies

In the discussion over whether Barack Obama will have a second term of office, one must consider history as a guide.

If one looks at the facts, one discovers that only THREE Democratic Presidents have ever been defeated for re-election–Martin Van Buren in 1840; Grover Cleveland in 1888 (even though he actually won the popular vote by about 100,000 nationally); and Jimmy Carter in 1980.

So in the past 124 years, only one Democrat has lost re-election, and face the facts, Barack Obama is NOT Jimmy Carter and Mitt Romney is not Ronald Reagan!

Grover Cleveland came back to win in the following election over Benjamin Harrison who had defeated him in 1888, being the only nonconsecutive terms President in American history.

Woodrow Wilson had a very close contest against Charles Evans Hughes for re-election in 1916, but won.

Franklin D. Roosevelt still had over 20 percent unemployment when he first ran for re-election in 1936, but won a landslide over Alf Landon, as well as solid victories over Wendell Willkie in 1940 and Thomas E. Dewey in 1944.

Harry Truman overcame all polls and defeated Dewey in an upset victory in 1948, even after the opposition party had won both houses of Congress in 1946.

Lyndon B. Johnson won the biggest popular vote landslide in history over Barry Goldwater in 1964.

Bill Clinton won a solid victory over Bob Dole in 1996, despite having lost both houses of Congress in 1994.

And despite criticisms, Barack Obama has a positive record of achievement in his first term to match that of Wilson and FDR in their first term and Lyndon B. Johnson in his first year, and more than Grover Cleveland, Harry Truman, and Bill Clinton in their first term, and Jimmy Carter in his only term of office.

So don’t bet too heavily on Obama losing re-election in November!

Illinois: NOT Prime Material For Republicans In 2012 Presidential Election

Illinois is the state of President Abraham Lincoln, the first Republican President. Today, Republicans vote in their Presidential primary, but the state will not go to whoever wins the state.

It is the state of mainstream moderates in the past, including Senator Charles Percy, Senator Everett Dirksen, House Minority Leader Bob Michel, and House Republican Conference Chairman John Anderson, who ran an Independent race for President against Ronald Reagan and President Jimmy Carter in 1980.

None of the above would have a chance in the Illinois Republican Party of 2012, or the national Republican Party.

This is a tragedy, and it is copied in many other states throughout America.

When Senator Scott Brown of Massachusetts can claim to be the second most bipartisan Republican Senator, after retiring Senator Olympia Snowe of Maine, and only Senator Susan Collins of Maine can claim to be much the same, that is testimonial to just how right wing the GOP has become!

There is NO chance for Illinois to go Republican in 2012, or anytime soon! The spirit of compromise and bipartisanship does not exist, sadly!

The Gasoline Mythology And Barack Obama’s Public Opinion Ratings

After having improved his public opinion ratings in recent months, with the improvement in unemployment numbers and other successes, suddenly Barack Obama has witnessed a dramatic drop in poll ratings, due primarily to the rise in gasoline prices.

Apparently, the people polled feel that Barack Obama is out to cost them more money in purchase of gasoline for their cars and trucks.

This is totally preposterous, as the facts are that NO PRESIDENT can control the price of gasoline, which is controlled by foreign conditions in the Middle East and elsewhere, and by manipulation of prices by the oil companies and their wealthy supporters, including the Koch Brothers.

The oil companies have heard that Obama wants to cut down oil subsidies on taxypayers’s backs, so this is the way they can undermine him, while making even more obscene profits than ever before.

And of course, the instability over Iran’s development of nuclear capability also contributes to uncertainty, when it comes to the future of oil prices, mostly based on hysteria and panic, rather than reason.

This is not the first time that a President has been undermined by oil prices that he could not control. Ask former President Jimmy Carter about how oil prices rising in 1979 and 1980 harmed his quest for re-election.

Nothing could please conservatives and Republicans more than to see Obama defeated, and then the oil lobby would be in full control of the White House and Capitol Hill, and we would be far worse off!

The gasoline prices will simply make Obama’s battle for re-election tougher, as he will have to try to reason with voters that he has no control over that issue, which again, I wish to reiterate, is the truth!

Barack Obama Advice From Yogi Berra: “It Ain’t Over Till It’s Over”!

There will be the tendency for Barack Obama supporters to feel good after Super Tuesday, and feel that Barack Obama has a second term in the White House in the bag.

That would be the worst assumption possible!

On paper, yes, things are looking good as the GOP race for the Presidential nomination continues, and Mitt Romney looks in trouble, and Rick Santorum, who most logical people cannot see having any chance to win the nomination or election, continues to do well, particularly in the heartland of the nation.

Eight months to go until the election, and the world can turn upside down and inside out, in less than that amount of time.

We could have a major war in the Middle East against Iran, or another economic downturn, which could be triggered by that war with Iran.

Unforeseen circumstances we cannot imagine could occur, and the tides could turn.

Remember that Thomas E. Dewey was ahead of Harry Truman in 1948; Richard Nixon ahead of John F. Kennedy in 1960; Jimmy Carter ahead of Ronald Reagan in 1980; Michael Dukakis ahead of George H. W. Bush in 1988; George H. W. Bush ahead of Bill Clinton in 1992; and Al Gore ahead of George W. Bush in 2000 to the end, but not considering the electoral vote issue that would help Bush in the end.

There is plenty of work ahead for the Obama team, and they cannot afford to be cocky.

They need to remember the admonition of Yankee great, catcher Yogi Berra, who is famous for his line about baseball games: “It ain’t over till it’s over”!

No more true statement can be expressed regarding politics, as well as sports!

Speculation About Reported Alliance Between Mitt Romney And Ron Paul: Could It Lead To Rand Paul Being Vice Presidential Running Mate Of Romney?

Political pundits, including Joe Scarborough of MORNING JOE on MSNBC, have noticed what seems like a warm friendship between two Republican Presidential candidates, former Massachusetts Governor Mitt Romney and Texas Congressman Ron Paul.

It has become obvious that Ron Paul has spent a lot of money on attack ads in various states against Rick Perry, Newt Gingrich, and now Rick Santorum, as each has become a major challenger to Mitt Romney. He has also attacked them on debate stages, as he did last night against Rick Santorum.

This seems very weird to many observers, as Mitt Romney is not a libertarian or a believer in the withdrawal of America’s involvement overseas, which Ron Paul stands for.

And Ron Paul is too old to be considered as a running mate, but then it is recognized that his son, Kentucky Senator Rand Paul, who is 49 years old, has already said he would be honored to be considered for Vice President, a very strong hint that a deal could be struck to put Rand Paul in the Vice Presidential slot as a way to unite diverse elements of the GOP for November.

In many ways, it would be a “shotgun marriage”, but not the first in American history, as for instance, the team of Franklin D. Roosevelt and John Nance Garner in 1932; the team of Dwight D. Eisenhower and Richard Nixon in 1952; the team of John F. Kennedy and Lyndon B. Johnson in 1960; and the team of Ronald Reagan and George H. W. Bush in 1980, were not based on close friendship or ties between the Presidential and Vice Presidential nominees. They were done for maximum political advantage.

The problem with this possibility of Mitt Romney teaming with Rand Paul is that it puts Rand Paul and his extremist libertarian philosophy a potential heartbeat away from the Presidency, although the positive side for Romney is that it makes a Libertarian Party challenger less likely or, at least, less able to draw away votes if there is one, such as former New Mexico Governor Gary Johnson. Ron Paul has a lot of supporters, who could be drawn to support Mitt Romney, if he selected Rand Paul.

So this new rumor makes one think that it could be a way to help Romney clinch the nomination and have somewhat united support, but the thought of a possible President Rand Paul would be a radical change unacceptable to mainstream and centrist political attitudes.