Ronald Reagan

Most Significant Election Since 1968: Presidency, Senate, And Supreme Court Are In Play!

Ronald Leave a comment

It is becoming very clear that the Presidential Election of 2016 will become the most significant election since 1968, when we saw the beginning of the Republican resurgence under Richard Nixon, due to the splintering of the Democratic Party under Lyndon B. Johnson, due to the turmoil around the Vietnam War and the Civil Rights Movement.

The Democratic New Deal coalition had lasted 36 years, with only Dwight D. Eisenhower, really a non politician who ran on the Republican line after being briefly considered by Democrats in 1948, breaking the Democratic dominance, which also included Democratic dominance of the Congress, except in 1947-1948 and 1953-1954.

Since 1968, the Republicans controlled the White House for all but for the four Jimmy Carter years up to 1992, and then won a contested election in the Supreme Court, giving the Presidency and the Republican Party control in the early 2000s under George W. Bush.  And the Congress was Republican, except briefly from 1994-2006, and again after 2010 in the House of Representatives and 2014 in the US Senate, after the Senate had been Republican in the first six Reagan years of the 1980s.  And the Court appointments after 1968 have been 13 under Republicans and only 4 under Democrats, but with the death of Antonin Scalia, the possibility of a permanent (for a generation) Democratic and liberal majority is within reach.

Now, after a long period of Republican control of the Supreme Court, it will come to an end if the Democrats can win the Presidency again, and if they can regain control of the US Senate, so this is easily the most transformative election in a half century!

It would transform America IF the Democrats can gain the upper hand in the Senate, the Supreme Court, and the Presidency, and the hope is that the House of Representatives might be different after reapportionment after 2020. with the goal now to create a smaller GOP margin in the lower House in the interim.

One period of Democratic dominance was replaced by a period of Republican dominance, and with the GOP splintering around Donald Trump, we might be seeing a return to the concept of the New Deal-Great Society and a new Progressive Era.

It all depends on voter turnout and commitment, and for anyone to be lackadaisical and not vote, is inexcusable in the present circumstances!

1992–Young, Southern, Appealing Ticket (Democrats); 2016–Young, Southern, Appealing Ticket (Republicans)?

Ronald 5 Comments

In 1992, the Democrats offered a young, Southern, appealing ticket—Governor Bill Clinton of Arkansas (age 46) and Senator Al Gore of Tennessee (44).  They were both photogenic and represented a new generation of leadership after Ronald Reagan and George H. W. Bush.  The fact that both were from the South did not undermine their candidacies.

Now in 2016, we have a potential similarity offered by the Republicans—Senator Marco Rubio of Florida (age 45) and Governor Nikki Haley of South Carolina (45 on Inauguration Day in 2017).  They are young, Southern, appealing, photogenic, and represent a new generation of leadership.  And they are ethnic minorities, with parents from Cuba and India.

Could the Republicans revive their party and save it from Donald Trump, age 70, and an outsider who is destroying the Republican Party?

We shall see in the coming days, weeks, and months!

Many Presidents Have Made Court Appointments In Last Year Of Term Or Presidency

Ronald Leave a comment

The Republican Party is making the preposterous argument that a President, in his last year in office, should not be able to make an appointment to the Supreme Court, when history tells us otherwise.

Just because a President is finishing his time in office does not mean that he has no authority to do his job, which includes appointing judges and Justices!

And what about Presidents running for reelection, with the possibility that he might not be reelected?  Does that mean every President in the last year of any Presidential term should lose his powers to make appointments to the federal judiciary?

History tells us otherwise as witness the following:

George Washington 1796 –two appointments

Thomas Jefferson 1804–one appointment

Andrew Jackson 1836–two appointments, including Chief Justice Roger Taney, who remained on the Court for 28 years

Grover Cleveland 1888–two appointments, including Chief Justice Melville Fuller, who remained on the Court for 22 years

Benjamin Harrison 1892–one appointment

William Howard Taft 1912–one appointment

Woodrow Wilson 1916—two appointments, including the controversial, longest battle, to put Louis Brandeis on the Supreme Court

Herbert Hoover 1932–one appointment (Benjamin Cardozo)

Franklin D. Roosevelt 1940–one appointment  (Frank Murphy)

Ronald Reagan 1988–one appointment (Anthony Kennedy)

Additionally, Presidents have made appointments to the federal district and circuit courts when in the last year in office (Reagan 26 and 7; Clinton 37 and 9; Bush II 26 and 6; Obama 4 and 4).

And from 1947 to 2014, 416 District Court and 79 Circuit Court appointments have been made in Presidential election years.

So the Republican Party has no case for why Barack Obama should not be able to make an appointment, other than that they do not want a liberal replacing a conservative, and bringing the end of the 44 year conservative and Republican dominance on the Court.

But the answer to that is to stop being a crybaby and accept that your reign of dominance is coming to an end, and not too soon.

It is time to move into the 21st century of constitutional law, rather than dwell in the 19th century Gilded Age mentality of the conservatives on the Supreme Court!

 

 

44 Years Of Republican Supreme Court Majority Comes To An End With Death Of Justice Antonin Scalia!

Ronald 5 Comments

The death of the most right wing Supreme Court Justice, Antonin Scalia, in modern American history, offers Barack Obama and the Democrats a real opportunity to transform the majority of the Supreme Court, which has been with a Republican appointed majority for the last 44 years!

With the appointment and confirmation of Justices William Rehnquist and Lewis F. Powell, Jr. by Richard Nixon in January 1972, the beginning of the fourth year of his Presidency, we have had a Republican appointed majority, and the Democrats have only had a total of four appointments to the Court, as compared to the nine that the Republicans have had.

With nearly a full year until the next Presidential inauguration, there is no excuse for the Republicans to filibuster or to dismiss an appointment without just cause, and the Republicans are playing a very dangerous game in so threatening, within hours after Scalia’s death.  Public opinion is likely to reverberate against them if they follow through and create the longest delay in a Court appointment being confirmed.

The all time record is the 125 days between when Woodrow Wilson nominated Louis Brandeis, the first Jewish member of the Court, until his confirmation in 1916.  The second longest delay was when Ronald Reagan nominated Robert Bork in 1987, and his rejection by the Senate after 114 days.

So to say it will take more than the 342 days when the next President is inaugurated to gain a ninth Supreme Court Justice is totally preposterous, and delays so many decisions, and basically cripples the ability of the Court to do its job, its constitutional duty.

Already, the Republicans have shown they do not believe in doing the government’s business in the House of Representatives and the Senate, so are they now going to do the same with the Supreme Court?

Is this the way for them to convince the nation to give them responsibility for control of both houses and the Presidency, and also the Court for the long term future?

Obviously, the answer is NO, so the chance for a Supreme Court of nine members might very well be resolved with Barack Obama appointing a perceived moderate to the Court, which will be hard for the Republicans to refuse to confirm!

Barack Obama is our President for another eleven months, and constitutionally, he has the right and the responsibility to choose a new Supreme Court Justice, no matter how the Republican Party feels about it!

The Era Of The Elderly Running For President: Possibility Of Three Candidates Past 70 Competing For White House In 2016!

Ronald 3 Comments

We may be witnessing an event that has never happened in the history of Presidential elections–three candidates, or even if only two candidates, all over the age of 70!

The only two cases of a President serving in his 70s are Ronald Reagan, who came to office 17 days short of age 70 and left office nearly 78 years old; and Dwight D. Eisenhower, who left office at age 70, three months and six days of age.

We also have had Senator John McCain running at age 72 in 2008, and Senator Bob Dole running at age 73 in 1996.

Now we have the potential for Donald Trump, who would be 70 years seven months and six days old on Inauguration Day; Bernie Sanders, who would be 75 years four months and twelve days old on Inauguration Day; and Michael Bloomberg, who would be 74 years 11 months and six days old on Inauguration Day!

And even if Hillary Clinton were to replace Bernie Sanders, she would be 69 years, nine months and six days old on Inauguration Day, so would reach age 70 after less than three months in office!

With two former Presidents alive at age 91 (Jimmy Carter, George H. W. Bush); four consecutive Presidents having reached age 90 (Gerald Ford and Ronald Reagan, additionally); and four former First Ladies since 1963 having reached age 90 (Lady Bird Johnson, Betty Ford, Nancy Reagan, Barbara Bush); and with the average American living much longer and in better health, it should not be surprising that we have Presidential candidates in good health, running at an older age than ever in American history.

But one requirement is that younger Vice Presidential nominees be available as backups in case fate occurs, and the older Presidential winner dies in office!

Since World War II, many of the Vice Presidents have been older than their President, as with Harry Truman and Alben Barkley; John F. Kennedy and Lyndon B. Johnson; George W. Bush and Dick Cheney; and Barack Obama and Joe Biden.

So now the opposite may likely happen.

February 9, 1950 And Now: The Ugly “Red Scare” Revived!

Ronald 7 Comments

On this day in 1950, Wisconsin Republican Senator Joseph R. McCarthy came to notice when he accused the Truman Administration of being “soft on Communism”.    This  began a nearly five year rampage of accusations against government officials, college professors, journalists, actors, and many ordinary citizens, that they were either “pinkos” or were actually Communists who had undermined the nation in favor of the interests of the Soviet Union and Communism.

Many politicians and others joined the crowd of attacks, and many others in and out of government were terrified, and kept silent, as people’s lives were ruined.  This had begun even before McCarthy became infamous, and the film TRUMBO well portrays what happened to Hollywood writers in the later 1940s, and the role of actor John Wayne, actor Ronald Reagan, and Congressman Richard Nixon, among others, in that “witch hunt”.

This is a day to recall, because it is clear that we are witnessing the beginning of attacks on Vermont Senator Bernie Sanders, a democratic Socialist, who just became a member of the Democratic Party this past year, and is now, contending for the Democratic Presidential nomination seriously. Bernie Sanders is no danger in any sense, but he is now facing vicious attacks beginning, and they will not stop as long as he has a serious chance to be the Democratic Presidential nominee in 2016.

Donald Trump has called Sanders a “Communist”, and if Sanders becomes more of a serious contender beyond his expected win in New Hampshire, then we will see a slew of such attacks by Republicans and the right wing, making Sanders out to be Joseph Stalin, Mao Tse Tung, Ho Chi Minh, and Fidel Castro, all wrapped in a 74 years old Senator, who is the longest serving Independent in all of American history!

This is very disturbing, and all good people MUST, whether they support or oppose Bernie Sanders, fight against a new “McCarthyism”, as to have a new period of a Red Scare is simply intolerable, and it must be exposed for the evil that it is!

The Age Issue’s Effect On Hillary Clinton, But Also Possibly On Bernie Sanders, Against Younger Republicans in November!

Ronald 28 Comments

The Iowa Caucuses results demonstrate a major problem that Hillary Clinton faces–the age issue.

A vast majority of young voters, those under 45, but even more so those under 29, supported Bernie Sanders, the oldest candidate ever to seek the nomination of a major political party.

Even John McCain (age 72)and Bob Dole (age 73) were not the same age at the time of the election campaign as Bernie Sanders.

Even Ronald Reagan (age 73) was “younger” when seeking reelection in 1984!

How is it that young voters, who flocked to Barack Obama, age 47 in 2008, now love Bernie Sanders, age 75 by the time of the election?

What is it about Hillary Clinton age 69) that makes young Democratic voters dislike her that much, when young voters back in 1992 liked her husband, Bill Clinton, age 46?

This is a serious issue, as it looks more likely that Hillary, the likely Democratic nominee, will face a much younger Republican candidate in Ted Cruz, age  45, or more likely, Marco Rubio, also 45 but five months younger than Cruz.  It means that the age difference would be almost 24 years.

The argument that either Cruz or Rubio are not “old” enough or experienced enough to be President is an argument that will not work, as John F. Kennedy, Bill Clinton, and particularly Barack Obama, were accused of the same “weakness”, but all became President.

To have the Democratic nominee, either Hillary or Bernie (six years older) as the “old” candidate, against a young Republican such as Cruz or Rubio, is unprecedented in American history.

A difference of 24 years is not the all time difference, as John McCain was 25 years older than Barack Obama in 2008; Bob Dole was 23 years older than Bill Clinton in 1996; and George H. W. Bush was 22 years older than Bill Clinton in 1992, but in each case the Democrat was the younger nominee.

But if it was Bernie Sanders against Cruz or Rubio, the difference would be nearly 30 years!

This time, it will be the opposite, with the Democrat much younger than the Republican, and one has to wonder how it might affect the election results, particularly with younger voters in the Democratic Party gravitating to Bernie instead of Hillary, and possibly younger voters in general going for Cruz or Rubio due to youthfulness!

Personal Attacks On Barack Obama Far Surpass Such Nastiness Toward Any Other Modern President!

Ronald Leave a comment

Here we are, about to start the eighth and last year of the Barack Obama Presidency, and new evidence of the personal attacks on Barack Obama continues to mount, far surpassing such nastiness toward any other modern President.

We are not talking here about disagreement and attacks on Barack Obama for his viewpoints, his beliefs, his policies, his attitudes, or the results of his effect on the nation.

We are talking about attacks on his appearance, his clothes, his religious views, his wife, his children, his childhood, his close friends, his sincerity when he makes statements or sheds tears or laughs—really anything imaginable that any stupid, ignorant, nasty person could possibly conjure up to demonstrate lack of respect and decency toward an American President!

Yes, comments have been made about John F. Kennedy’s Roman Catholicism; Lyndon B. Johnson’s acquisition of wealth; Richard Nixon’s character; Gerald Ford’s blunders; Jimmy Carter’s ineptness; Ronald Reagan’s ability to promote mythology; George H. W. Bush’s poor communications skills; Bill Clinton’s womanizing; and George W. Bush’s intellectual limits.

But none have had depictions of Obama and his family as chimpanzees; or said Michelle Obama looks like the family dog Bo; or that the children are monkeys; or that Obama is homosexual; or that his wife is really a man; and other outrageous personal attacks, and not by teenagers, but by full fledged adults who believe what the Ku Klux Klan and other white supremacist groups preach. No one else has been called the AntiChrist, the devil, the personification of evil, and accused of every immoral action imaginable.

More evidence showed up two days ago when it was revealed that the Presidential dog Bo was subject of a threatened kidnapping by a crazy person, with this blogger posting about this on Facebook, and getting some of the most nasty, sick, abusive responses directed at the First Family and the President.  It is enough to make one furious at the mental illness that many Obama haters clearly have, and makes one realize it is almost a miracle that the President has not been harmed after more threats against him than any President since Abraham Lincoln!

And what other President has been condemned by extremist right wing so called church pastors and talk show hosts with insulting statements that only a person of no character or ethics would ever dream of such attacks?

After seven years of Barack Obama, the level of racism and bigotry is in full pitch, an embarrassment that should not exist, and a sign of just how far we have to go to overcome prejudice and narrow mindedness, as his election twice to the Presidency has not led to an improvement in public decency. until and when such attitudes are wiped from the American psyche!

And the concept that the opposition party would condemn such attacks in the name of common decency is not present, and never has been, as Republican leaders remain silent, and in so doing, are endorsing these nasty, outrageous personal attacks that have reached a fever pitch unseen in earlier American history!

The “Lame Duck Presidency” Transformed By Barack Obama As He Enters Last Year Of Presidency!

Ronald Leave a comment

The standard argument is that once a President is reelected to his second term, his power wanes quickly, particularly after the midterm election of his second term.

That has generally proved to be true, as occurred with Richard Nixon, Ronald Reagan, Bill Clinton, and George W. Bush.

But it most certainly has NOT happened with Barack Obama!

The “Lame Duck” Presidency does not exist, as Obama has seen the victories in the Supreme Court on gay marriage and ObamaCare; has seen him move to start relations with Cuba and negotiate an agreement with Iran to prevent nuclear expansion; has led to him speaking openly on the problem of race relations and crime; has led to great initiatives on the environment; and has led to him openly challenging Republicans on a whole host of issues, and when defied, using executive orders as earlier Presidents did to overcome Congressional recalcitrance,

Of course, Obama is helped by the fact that the economy has improved dramatically under his time in office; and by the fact that we are not engaged in a major war with large numbers of troops on the ground, getting killed and wounded; and has no major scandal that saps energy from the office of the Presidency.

So do NOT expect Barack Obama to sit back in his last 12 months in public office, as he has every intention and desire to promote more change in every way he can in the economy, in foreign policy, in executive orders, and in making the Presidency an office of great power and promotion of reform!

Activist Vs. Passive Presidents, 1901 To The Present

Ronald 2 Comments

There have been 19 Presidents since the accession of Theodore Roosevelt to the Presidency in 1901, upon the assassination of William McKinley.

Some have been activists, hard workers, dynamos, who saw the Presidency as a position that required constant attention, and avoided much vacation time, but even when on vacation, these activist Presidents were always working and alert to changing events.

Among the 19 modern Presidents, the following 11 Presidents would qualify as part of the activist category:

Theodore Roosevelt

Woodrow Wilson

Franklin D. Roosevelt

Harry Truman

John F. Kennedy

Lyndon B. Johnson

Richard Nixon

Jimmy Carter

George H. W. Bush

Bill Clinton

Barack Obama

The other 8 Presidents since 1901 were much more passive, avoided work, were quite frankly lazy, and took lots of vacation time, often were not alert to changing events, and delegated authority to others:

William Howard Taft

Warren G. Harding

Calvin Coolidge

Herbert Hoover

Dwight D. Eisenhower

Gerald Ford

Ronald Reagan

George W. Bush

Note that all eight passive Presidents were Republicans, while only Theodore Roosevelt, Richard Nixon and George H. W. Bush were activist Republicans, joining the 8 Democratic Presidents in that category!

Also, note that the eleven activist Presidents all were highly intelligent and curious about the world around them, while the eight passive Presidents were generally less naturally intelligent, with the exceptions of William Howard Taft and Herbert Hoover, both highly intellectual and accomplished, although both were seen as unsuccessful in office, and defeated for reelection!