Ronald Reagan

The Vice Presidential Selection: More Important Than Many People Realize!

Ronald Leave a comment

The office of the Vice Presidency has often been ridiculed, and some have argued for its abolition by a constitutional amendment, but that is a wrong headed idea.

The Vice Presidency has become an important office since the 1950s, when Richard Nixon transformed the office, both by his own ambitions, and the willingness of President Dwight D. Eisenhower to allow the office to expand.

While Lyndon B. Johnson under John F. Kennedy and Hubert H. Humphrey under Johnson were not used effectively by their Presidents, and while Spiro Agnew under Richard Nixon and Dan Quayle under George H. W. Bush could be seen as disasters in office, still the office has grown in stature and accomplishments otherwise.

So Gerald Ford, in his brief Vice Presidency under Richard Nixon, Nelson Rockefeller under Gerald Ford, Walter Mondale under Jimmy Carter, George H. W. Bush under Ronald Reagan, Al Gore under Bill Clinton, Dick Cheney under George W. Bush, and Joe Biden under Barack Obama have had a great impact on the office, and made it an office of real power and influence!

When one realizes that Ford and the first Bush ended up in the White House, as did Nixon and Lyndon Johnson; and that Humphrey, Mondale, and Gore were Presidential nominees; and that Rockefeller and Biden both sought the Presidential nomination, one realizes that choosing a Vice Presidential nominee is not to be regarded as insignificant to the nation!

But can we afford another Agnew, Quayle, Geraldine Ferraro, or Sarah Palin to be a possible heartbeat away from the Presidency?

The answer clearly is NO, so Mitt Romney, by taking his time to choose a running mate, hopefully is carefully considering who could really contribute to the office, and help Romney if the two of them end up in the White House!

If one decides to forget everything but experience and competence, and ability to add to Romney’s candidacy, then the choice must be one of the following: Condoleezza Rice, Rob Portman, or Tim Pawlenty.

Bobby Jindal, Marco Rubio, Chris Christie, Paul Ryan, Bob McDonnell, John Thune, and Kelly Ayotte all have issues and problems if they are chosen, and one could argue that some of them could not match the list of Vice Presidents who have served, as not being on their competency level.

But if one had to predict what now seems likely, don’t be surprised that Mitt Romney selects Paul Ryan, which would be an unmitigated disaster, as the controversy surrounding him and his economic plans would reverberate against Mitt Romney.

The gut feeling is that Ryan is on the top of the list, followed by Kelly Ayotte, who is simply not qualified to be President, and would not be much better than Sarah Palin was in the 2008 election cycle.

So bet on Ryan or Ayotte, but if Romney does the best for the nation, it would be Rice, Portman, or Pawlenty!

Barack Obama: The First Democratic Presidential Noninee Since 1964 To Have The Edge On Foreign Policy In A Presidential Campaign!

Ronald Leave a comment

The Republican Party has often been seen as stronger on foreign policy, particularly in a Presidential year.

The last time that a Democrat had the edge on foreign policy in a Presidential campaign was in 1964, before the major escalation of the war in Vietnam, with Lyndon B. Johnson making Barry Goldwater look like a danger to world peace.

Richard Nixon had an edge on strength in foreign policy over Hubert Humphrey and George McGovern, in 1968 and 1972, just as Gerald Ford had an edge over inexperienced Jimmy Carter in 1976.

Ronald Reagan was seen as stronger than Carter and Walter Mondale in 1980 and 1984; and George H. W. Bush had significant foreign policy experience, as compared to Michael Dukakis and Bill Clinton in 1988 and 1992.

Bob Dole was seen as tougher on foreign policy than Clinton in 1996, and George W. Bush somehow came across as stronger in 2000 because of his running mate, Dick Cheney, and kept that edge over John Kerry in 2004.

And finally, John McCain was seen as far more knowledgeable than Barack Obama in 2008.

But now, with the respect Obama has around the world, his active drone attack on terrorists. and the removal of Osama Bin Lade and Moammar Gaddafi, it is tough for Mitt Romney, who has no background in foreign affairs, to look stronger in foreign policy.

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

Ronald Leave a comment

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!

The Misleading Public Opinion Polls: The Electoral College Will Decide The Election, Not A Public Opinion Poll!

Ronald 5 Comments

The public opinion poll industry is, sadly, misinforming the American people, when they try to tell us that the Presidential Election of 2012 is going to be a tight race, some even say, similar to 2000!

The facts are that Barack Obama has to deal with certain factors, including:

Massive HATRED by many people who simply will not accept that we have an African American President and will do whatever is required to defeat him.

The fact that the Citizens United case allows corporations SuperPACS, and billionaires to spend inordinate amounts of money to attempt to poison the atmosphere, and defeat Obama simply by the power of money.

The fact that the Republican Party is trying to disenfranchise millions in 24 states, by refusing to accept alternative forms of identification, such as college student IDs, but, as in Texas, for example, accepting gun permits as an acceptable ID. So we are having poor people, college students, the elderly, and minorities being told they cannot vote, unless they spend large amounts of money, time and travel to acquire what is required under various discriminatory state laws, that violate the Voting Rights Act of 1965, and are veiled poll taxes, outlawed under the 24th Amendment to the Constitution in 1964!

But Attorney General Eric Holder, despite being cited for contempt of Congress for flimsy reasons, is determined to do what is necessary to stop these violations of the right to vote!

In any case, only by race hatred, corrupt fund raising, and violations of the Constitution, amendments and civil rights laws, can the Republicans win, and that is NOT going to happen!

Remember the following, which this author has emphasized again and again!

The election will be won in the “swing states”, the “battleground states”, but there are enough BLUE states already to give Barack Obama a total of 242 electoral votes, 28 short of what is needed, a total of 270 electoral votes, to win the Presidency on November 6!

As stated many times before, these states are: Maine, Vermont, Massachusetts, Connecticut, Rhode Island, New York, New Jersey, Pennsylvania, Delaware, Maryland, the District of Columbia, Michigan, Wisconsin, Minnesota, Illinois, Washington State, Oregon, California, and Hawaii–18 states and Washington, DC.

The “Swing States” or “Battleground States” are as follows: New Hampshire, Virginia, North Carolina, Florida, Ohio, Indiana, Iowa, Missouri, Colorado, New Mexico, and Nevada–eleven states with a total of 129 electoral votes, and all of these states, except Missouri won by Barack Obama in 2008, with Missouri lost by just a few thousand votes to John McCain.

So IF Barack Obama wins Florida, he wins the Presidency!

If he wins Ohio and Virginia, he wins the Presidency!

If he wins Virginia and North Carolina, he wins the Presidency!

If he wins North Carolina and Ohio, he wins the Presidency!

If he wins Ohio and Missouri, he wins the Presidency!

If he wins Colorado, New Mexico, Nevada and Virginia, he wins the Presidency!

Obama is likely to win Virginia, Ohio, Iowa, Colorado, New Mexico, and Nevada right now, while having more trouble in North Carolina, Florida, Indiana, Missouri, and New Hampshire.

But he COULD win them all, adding Missouri to the other states he won last time! And he has a shot at winning Arizona, Montana and Georgia, as well, with the growing Hispanic and Latino vote in those states! So he COULD win a total of 32 states and Washington DC in this upcoming election!

So Obama COULD win MORE electoral votes than last time, which has been the case for EVERY two term President since Woodrow Wilson failed to do that in 1916, after winning his first term a century ago in 1912.!

Just for the record, Franklin D. Roosevelt, Dwight D. Eisenhower, Richard Nixon, Ronald Reagan, Bill Clinton, and George W. Bush are the Presidents who won a bigger second term electoral vote than their first term!

So, readers, stop obsessing and worrying, if you are a supporter of Barack Obama, and to those who are Mitt Romney supporters, stop being delusional and believing that your candidate will be the 45th President, because the 44th President of the United States is coming back: FOUR MORE YEARS FOR 44!

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

Ronald 9 Comments

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!

Ronald 2 Comments

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!

Which Presidents Would Belong On A Second Mount Rushmore?

Ronald 7 Comments

This morning, on MORNING JOE on MSNBC, there was a fascinating three hour discussion on the American Presidency, to commemorate the Fourth of July national holiday.

Joe Scarborough and Mika Brzezinski had many distinguished guests, journalists and historians, to analyze the office and the 43 men who have held that position.

Three distinguished historians–Doris Kearns Goodwin, Jon Meacham, and Evan Thomas–gave their view of which Presidents would be appropriate for a second Mount Rushmore, if such a momument were ever to be built in South Dakota or elsewhere.

Their selections were certainly fascinating, controversial, and highly debatable.

Goodwin’s list was Franklin D. Roosevelt, Harry Truman, Lyndon B. Johnson, and Ronald Reagan.

Meacham’s list was Andrew Jackson, Franklin D. Roosevelt, John F. Kennedy,and Ronald Reagan.

Thomas’s list included Franklin D. Roosevelt, Dwight D. Eisenhower, Ronald Reagan, and George H. W. Bush.

So FDR and Reagan are on all three lists, and would certainly please progressives and Democrats on the one hand, and conservatives and Republicans on the other hand.

But there the disagreements begin, and lead to a total of six other Presidents being listed–Jackson, Truman, Ike, JFK, LBJ, and Bush No. 41.

One wonders if there has been disrespect shown toward Woodrow Wilson, who had such a long range impact on the office of the Presidency, although there has been a lot of criticism directed toward him over the years.

One also wonders about the famous “obscure” President, James K. Polk, who gained more territory in his one term than anyone other than Thomas Jefferson.

Also, the question arises whether Bill Clinton will see his historical stock rise as the years go by, to the point of possibly being a candidate for a second Mount Rushmore.

If this author and blogger were queried about his choices, the Presidents he would select would be to agree totally with Doris Kearns Goodwin: FDR, Truman, LBJ, and Reagan!

But now the reader can chime in with his or her views about a second Mount Rushmore, and the more the merrier!

Interview with WWRL (New York) Morning Show with Mark Riley

Ronald 1 Comment

This morning, I woke up bright and early on the 4th of July to discuss the American Presidency, the Tea Party, and more with Mark Riley of WWRL in New York. Click on the link below to listen to my interview.

Interview with WWRL (New York) Morning Show with Mark Riley

Mitt Romney As Compared to Barry Goldwater And George McGovern And Walter Mondale

Ronald Leave a comment

Mitt Romney is infamous for constant change in his positions on every issue imaginable, making people unable to trust him.

In the past half century, we have had three losing Presidential candidates, all of whom lost by landslides, but even so, kept their dignity as men of principle, who did not change their views to fit the changing mood of the country, and therefore, even in losing badly, can been seen as men who truly believed what they advocated.

These are Republican Senator Barry Goldwater of Arizona, who lost to President Lyndon B. Johnson in 1964; Democratic Senator George McGovern of South Dakota, who lost to President Richard Nixon in 1972; and Senator and former Vice President Walter Mondale of Minnesota, who lost to President Ronald Reagan in 1984.

All three men are regarded more highly because they stuck to their principle, but when Mitt Romney loses to President Barack Obama in 2012, he will NOT be regarded highly as a man of principle, as he has NO PRINCIPLES, except his own advancement!

Despite Health Care Ruling, Supreme Court Is Still Out Of Control, And Presidential Election Will Decide If It Regains Confidence Of The American People!

Ronald Leave a comment

The Supreme Court came through by the barest of margins on the issue of “ObamaCare” last week, but when one looks at the Court’s radical swing to the right in so many other ways, it is clear that the future reputation of the Court and the long term future of the nation requires the victory of Barack Obama for a second term as President.

By confirming their Citizens United decision again in a case involving Montana state law, and by actions against labor unions and their rights in another case, and in the solidity most of the time of the Republican appointees in rejecting past precedent and tradition, the Court has gained an image of being extremist and confrontational, and lost American public opinion and respect, which is dangerous for our democracy.

Ronald Reagan, George H. W. Bush, and George W. Bush effectively moved the Court away from the political center to the extreme right, and we are suffering the effects of this extremist rightward tilt.

We cannot afford to base the future on Anthony Kennedy SOMETIMES going with the liberal side of the Court, or Chief Justice John Roberts seemingly being concerned about the reputation of the Court. Neither is reliable to keep the Court in the political center, and protect the rights of the powerless.

The only answer is to insure that when the older members of the Supreme Court retire or die while in service on the Court, that we replace them with Justices who have a vision of the country more in line with the reality of the 21st century than the 19th century Gilded Age!

With Ruth Bader Ginsberg, Antonin Scalia, and Anthony Kennedy to be over 80 before the next Presidential term ends, the likelihood is that whoever is President in the next four years will have a transformative effect on the Supreme Court and constitutional law.

The thought of Mitt Romney making those choices is truly terrifying, and will make the Court a right wing extremist influence into the 2040s, totally unacceptable!

Barack Obama will be able to make the Court shift more into the mainstream, preserving the brilliant times of the Warren Court in the 1950s and 1960s, when America advanced constitutionally in so many ways!