Presidential Election Of 1996

The Negatives Of Mitt Romney Growing, Making His Nomination For President Less Likely Scenario!

Ronald Leave a comment

Former Massachusetts Governor Mitt Romney has long been thought to be the frontrunner for the Republican Presidential nomination, but as we get closer to the Iowa Caucuses and New Hampshire primary, about a month from now, his problems and challenges are growing rapidly!

Romney is now seen as very vulnerable in many different ways, including:

1. Romney may be respected, but is not loved, as Time Magazine reports this week.

2. Romney, being a Mormon, a subject he tries to avoid discussing, is becoming a growing issue to many evangelical Christians and other Protestant religious groups, who feel that the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints is a cult, and not Christian, but instead a phony religion.

3. Romney, being extremely wealthy (estimated $250 million minimum) comes across as part of the elite, the one percent, as one of “them” against the rest of us, and with his comments advocating the destruction of the auto industry in Michigan and elsewhere, his support of accelerating home foreclosures, and his bad joke about being “unemployed” , that image is hard to overcome.

4. Romney, being from the Northeast, and specifically Massachusetts, a Democratic state, is unappealing to a party which gets its major support from the South, Midwest and Mountain West.

5. Romney has an image of being a moderate, in fact to some as liberal, due to his support of a state health care plan in Massachusetts, which became a model for Barack Obama’s push for health care reform, and Romney cannot escape that image and advocacy no matter how hard he tries.

6. Having moved from liberal to moderate viewpoints when first running against Senator Ted Kennedy unsuccessfully in 1994, and then successfully for Governor in 2002, and now claiming to be a conservative who has completely transformed himself and his views, he comes across as a massive “flip flopper”, possibly one of the greatest such cases in American history, and therefore, is seen as not genuine, not honest, not believable, not reliable that he will keep the views he now professes.

7. Romney comes across as arrogant, haughty, not liking to be challenged, snobby, and seemingly believing he is “entitled” to be the next Repubiican nominee as the so called “next in waiting” runner up candidate in the past, just like John McCain in 2008 and Bob Dole in 1996.

So Mitt Romney is in deep trouble, and many are starting to think he may not be the GOP nominee for President in 2012!

The Herman Cain Phenomenon And Public Opinion Polls: A Parallel Universe!

Ronald 1 Comment

Herman Cain has had one hell of a week, and yet, unlike Michele Bachmann and Rick Perry, he goes up in public opinion polls, while Mitt Romney stays stagnant in his numbers, still only about one out of four Republicans supporting him.

Herman Cain does not know China has had nuclear weapons since 1964.

Herman Cain does not seem to care that his 9-9-9 plan would raise taxes on 84 percent of the people, while lowering taxes on the wealthy.

Herman Cain suggests that we build a fence between Mexico and the United States which is electrified, and also wants a moat with alligators in it to stop illegal immigrants.

Herman Cain says he is against abortion completely, but wants the woman to have the choice on ending pregnancies.

Herman Cain does not know anything about foreign policy, and makes fun of the name of an important ally in the Near East in the war in Afghanistan, Uzbekistan, saying he does not know who its leader is and does not care.

Herman Cain believes that it is alright to sexually harass women in the workplace and that no one should be disturbed by this.

Herman Cain has made so many other inane statements and shown a tremendous lack of interest in details on public issues, and seems more interested in selling his book and improving his chances to make money on motivational speeches.

Through all this, apparently, many Republicans either do not believe the sexual harassment charges or think they are no big deal, according to a new Washington Post-ABC News poll, so Cain’s ratings have improved.

It does not matter to these Republicans that Herman Cain has no knowledge or experience in government, and they seem to be willing to “wing” it and let an incompetent, stupid man become the leader of the free world, whose best credentials is that he headed a pizza corporation!

The ability of Republicans and many Americans to live in a “bubble”, in their own version of the “parallel universe” is mind boggling!

Will the American people at large be moronic enough to put into office a businessman who is no Wendell Willkie or Ross Perot, both men having had an intelligent, accomplished career before running for President?

And remember, neither Willkie nor Perot WON, and if Herman Cain somehow becomes our next President, God save the United States and the world!

Why Barack Obama Will Be A Repeat Of Bill Clinton Electorally, Rather Than Gerald Ford, Jimmy Carter, And George H.W. Bush!

Ronald Leave a comment

A lot of political observers seem to think that Barack Obama is doomed to lose re-election, just as Gerald Ford, Jimmy Carter, and George H. W. Bush did in 1976, 1980, and 1992.

The author will contend that rather than that unfortunate history, Barack Obama will repeat the electoral experience of Bill Clinton in 1996!

The question, of course, is what is the rationale behind this thought of the author?

Gerald Ford–was an unelected President, coming after Watergate, challenged in the primaries by Ronald Reagan, an extremely charismatic individual, who almost took the nomination from him. Ford was unable to unite the party around him after the Reagan battle, despite dumping Nelson Rockefeller for Bob Dole for Vice President. Ford had little opportunity to convince the country that he was deserving of election, and yet ALMOST defeated Jimmy Carter, which he would have done if he had won a few more thousand votes in Ohio and Hawaii! Ford was not seen as all that capable to be President by many people, with the poor economy of the time.

Jimmy Carter–had a difficult last year in office, with the Afghanistan invasion by the Soviet Union, the Iranian hostage crisis, and the challenge in the primaries by Senator Ted Kennedy and Governor Jerry Brown. He faced a charismatic opponent in Ronald Reagan, and a third party opponent in John Anderson. He was not a warm personality, and came across as weak and ineffective.

George H. W. Bush–faced a primary opponent in Pat Buchanan, and a strong third party challenger in Ross Perot. His Democratic opponent, Bill Clinton, had a lot of charisma, and was helped by the strong showing of Perot. And Bush did not have a particularly likeable personality, more respected for his ability than his understanding of average Americans and their lives.

Bill Clinton–engendered strong feelings for and against during his first term, and had charisma dripping off him, as compared to Bush and Bob Dole, his 1996 re-election opponent. Times were good, and he looked strong in his battles against the GOP Congress run by Speaker of the House Newt Gingrich. He had no opposition for the second term nomination, and his opponent, Dole, being 73 years old, did not help his challenge to Clinton. Also, Wall Street gave more financial support to Clinton to hedge their bets, frustrating Bob Dole!

Barack Obama–well liked, even by those who do not like what he has done, but he has accomplished a lot in office, particularly in foreign affairs and national security. He has brought about substantial domestic reform despite strong opposition from the Republican party, and has loads of charisma, and tons of funding, including as with Clinton, from Wall Street, which, even if opposed as they were to Clinton and now Obama, hedge their bets and support him more than the Republican nominee, just as with Bob Dole in 1996. Also, there is a good chance of a Tea Party right wing party rebellion if Mitt Romney, the likely nominee, is the choice of the Republican party. The opposition does not have a candidate to excite the nation, so although the economy is horrible, the likelihood is that more Americans will recognize the reality that one does not overcome a near depression overnight, and will decide to stick with Obama, just as they did in the height of the Great Depression with Franklin D. Roosevelt!

Herman Cain, Ross Perot And Wendell Willkie: Businessmen As Presidential Candidates

Ronald 1 Comment

Herman Cain has become the newest “flavor of the month”, or some would say the “flavor of the week”, in the Republican Party battle to find a candidate who can defeat President Barack Obama.

Right now, he is running high in the polls, similar to Donald Trump, Michele Bachmann, and Rick Perry in the past few months, but he has many shortcomings.

1. He has NO experience in government and politics, and that makes him unable to understand that government is NOT a business, and cannot successfully be run as a business.

2. He is very ignorant on most issues other than his 9-9-9 tax plan, which economists say would not be a solution to the economic crisis, and would never pass Congress.

3. Cain has no concern about poverty and the struggles of the middle class, and his plans would include the destruction of Social Security and Medicare as we know it, and that does not go across well with a wide swath of voters in polls.

4. He may be popular among those who want a blunt personality, but that is not the way to make progress in diplomacy, and he lacks tact and basic knowledge in international affairs.

5. He would represent a backward trend in the African American community, a person who succeeded and does not care about those he left behind, in many ways an executive branch Clarence Thomas (Associate Justice of the Supreme Court).

Some would say that Herman Cain is this generation’s Ross Perot, the billionaire who ran for President twice in 1992 and 1996 as a third party candidate, and by so running, helped to put Bill Clinton in office and keep him there. But Perot actually, with all of his idiosyncratic nature, actually really addressed one issue that still affects us–the deficit and the national debt. Cain has no such vision or intelligence on the level of Ross Perot.

Others would wish to compare Cain to Republican Presidential nominee Wendell Willkie in the 1940 Presidential Election against Franklin D. Roosevelt, who ran a good race against the New Deal, but still lost by a substantial margin, but in the process, gained respect for his backing of FDR on foreign policy. Willkie’s background as a utilities executive harmed him, but his oratory wowed delegates at the Republican National Convention in 1940, who went berserk and nominated him.

The point is that Cain is no Ross Perot and is no Wendell Willkie!

Interestingly, C Span has a series on Friday nights this fall, mentioned in an earlier post, regarding losing Presidential candidates, and both Perot and Willkie will be portrayed in coming weeks. Willkie will be covered on Friday, October 21; and Perot on Friday, December 9.

This nation has never elected a businessman to the White House, and except for Willkie and Perot (third party), has never nominated one, either. We are NOT going to see Cain match those two in being a choice of the voters in the national election!

The Congress And Job Creation Failure: How The Republicans Will Suffer More Than President Obama!

Ronald 1 Comment

Right now, there is panic in the Democratic Party over the job statistics, with 9.1 percent unemployment, with many thinking President Obama cannot be reelected in 2012.

The fact is, that despite this hysteria, it is in the hands of the Republicans in Congress as to whether Obama will be reelected, due to the fact that they control the majority in the House of Representatives, and with their 47 Senators, are able to filibuster any action desired by the Democrats in the Senate!

If no jobs program is enacted to help bring about the creation of employment, it will reflect on them more than President Obama, who will be able to use the same “do nothing Congress” argument on them that Harry Truman utilized in 1948, leading to his upset victory and the return of the Democrats to control in both houses of Congress.

The Democrats tend to panic whenever times are tough, so President Truman had much liberal opposition in 1947-1948, but he came through, with foreign policy helping him to look like the strong, stable leader that he was!

President Jimmy Carter had much liberal opposition in 1979-1980, including challenges within the party from Ted Kennedy and Jerry Brown, weakening him, and foreign policy crises of Afghanistan and Iran undermined his ability to recover from economic difficulties that arose at the same time.

President Bill Clinton had liberal opposition in 1995-1996, but won a battle over the budget with the Republican majority in Congress, faced no opponent in the primaries, and while unable to throw the GOP out of control of the Congress, won reelection handily and weakened the Republican majority.

With Obama having no opposition within the party for the nomination, demonstrating a strong successful policy against terrorism, and having an extreme right wing GOP in the House of Representatives determined to do nothing to create jobs, the need for panic and hysteria is overdrawn!

As long as Obama fights the good fight for his program, even if nothing is done over the next 14 months, the Republicans will hand the election to him, particularly if Rick Perry is their nominee!

The ability of the Republicans to self destruct is immeasurable, and with a public opinion rating of 12 percent for Congress (under the control effectively of the GOP), and with Obama’s personal popularity being a plus and his overall rating being 43 percent, the future is not as gloomy as many might think!

Barack Obama And Progressive Disillusionment: What Is The Alternative?

Ronald 1 Comment

With the announcement of a deal on the Debt Ceiling Crisis last night, but still to be voted on today by both houses of Congress without a guarantee of its passage at this moment of writing, the question arises as to what is the future of the progressive movement in America.

Many might say the answer is to give up on Barack Obama and challenge him in the primaries, and or run a candidate on a third party line in November 2012.

If one looks at the history of such efforts, however, it always leads to the worst alternative to progressivism being triumphant!

In November 1967, Senator Eugene McCarthy entered the race for the Presidency against President Lyndon B. Johnson, followed by Senator Robert Kennedy in March 1968, leading to his withdrawal and replacement as the administration candidate by Vice President Hubert Humphrey. The split engendered in the party over the war in Vietnam led to a divided Democratic convention, and the defeat of Humphrey by Richard Nixon, who proceeded to continue the war in Vietnam another four years, something assuredly that would not have happened under a President Humphrey. This tumultuous split in the Democratic Party helped to make for a Republican advantage, and permanently changed the Democratic party, whereby they would only win the Presidency three times out of the next ten national elections.

In late 1979 and early 1980, President Jimmy Carter was challenged in the primaries, for being too moderate and centrist, by both Senator Ted Kennedy of Massachusetts and Governor Jerry Brown of California. The effect of the primary challenge was to weaken Carter for the campaign, with all of the attacks by Kennedy and Brown used by the Republicans against Carter, and Ronald Reagan won the election, setting back the progressive movement dramatically, still having an effect in 2011!

There was similar discontent among some progressive elements with Bill Clinton in his first term, but no revolt or challenge from within the progressive movement, and Bill Clinton, with his faults and shortcomings, was reelected to a second term, the only Democrat to do so since Franklin D. Roosevelt.

So while there can be discontent and disappointment with Barack Obama, that he has not achieved everything that progressives desire, try to imagine President John McCain instead, and try to imagine whether any of the many accomplishments of the Obama Presidency would have been achieved, and the answer is clearly negative.

So when Ralph Nader, who helped to defeat Al Gore by running in Florida in the 2000 election, talks about challenging Barack Obama, the answer is to steer clear of him unless one wants another 2000 election, unless one wants a Republican likely to be further to the right than George W. Bush or Ronald Reagan were in 2000 or 1980.

And when one tries to consider what progressive spokesman could really win the nation in 2012, one comes up empty handed. Certainly, Ralph Nader has no credibility and is seen as fringe in nature. Dennis Kucinich has appeal for some of what he advocates, but has run twice in the Presidential primaries and comes across as loony to many with his personal quirks. Bernie Sanders is appealing to many, but is actually a Socialist, not a Democrat, and could not possibly have broad based appeal. Russ Feingold is probably the most attractive alternative, and has formed Progressives United, an advocacy organization in Madison, WIsconsin, but he is weakened by the loss of his Senate seat in 2010, and it would be better if he ran for Senator Herb Kohl’s Senate seat with Kohl retiring, with a good chance to come back to the Senate in 2012 and promote the progressive cause from that location, in a more constructive manner.

Who else is possible, with any credibility? Realistically, NO ONE, and therefore, there is no alternative but to support Barack Obama, have him and his party fight the good fight over the next 15 months, and work to create a solid majority for progressive causes in the House of Representatives and the Senate!

If that quest is successful, and with a second term and no reelection to face, Barack Obama would likely turn further to the left, stick his neck out, and become more progressive than he has been able to do, logistically, in this first term. With all the criticism that has been and will be made of Barack Obama, he still has the most progressive term in office since Lyndon B. Johnson in the 1960s with his Great Society!

The Effects Of A Government Shutdown After March 4

Ronald Leave a comment

How quickly people forget what happens if the government, which we all take for granted, was to “shut down”!

Of course, the defense of the United States continues, and air traffic controllers still are on the job, but in so many ways, the country and its citizens suffer if the government runs out of money and cannot come up with a compromise budget bill to support government expenditures.

In 1995, Newt Gingrich and the Republicans in Congress forced a government shutdown, which went on for two weeks, and ended up with President Bill Clinton winning the public relations battle, and going on to win a second term, and seeing the Republican party lose seats in the Congress, as a result.

But the memory of Americans is very limited as to what a government shutdown actually entails.

Here are the facts:

Health care–disease monitoring, clinical research, and toxic waste cleanup came to a halt.

Law Enforcement–delays in applications being processed by the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms; delay in delinquent child support cases; cancellation in recruitment and testing of federal law enforcement officials, including border control and immigration officials.

Parks, Museums and Monuments–seven million tourists to 386 National Park Service sites prevented by closures; 2 million visitors to national museums and monuments also prevented by shutdowns; effect on local communities economically due to these closures.

Visas and Passports–20-30 thousand visa applications by foreigners unprocessed every day; 200,00 applications for passports delayed; tourist industries and airlines suffered millions of dollars in lost revenue.

Veterans Services–health, welfare, finance and travel cut back dramatically.

Federal Contractors–lost revenue in the millions of dollars, and many people furloughed without a pay check.

A shutdown would affect the American economy at a delicate moment, while in 1995, the economy was flourishing, and still the shutdown had a deleterious effect, and left a sour taste in many people’s mouths!

How can a government shut down? Only when its leader are so irresponsible as Newt Gingrich and the Republicans were then, and even worse, as John Boehner, Mitch McConnell and other GOP leaders are today, at a time when economic growth and stability should be the priority, but is obviously not the case.

To avoid a shutdown will probably require a miracle, and the Republican Party will again acquire the image as the anti government party, which yet wishes to govern!

Hopefully, the American people will turn on the party which is promoting suffering and mean spirit as their answer to the economic collapse caused by their party under President George W. Bush!