Ronald Reagan

Inevitable Result: Defeat Of Richard Lugar, And The Death Of Bi-Partisanship In The US Senate

Ronald Leave a comment

The inevitable defeat of Senator Richard Lugar in the Indiana Republican Senate primary by Richard Mourdock, a Tea Party favorite, is a major tragedy for Indiana and for the US Senate,and also, for the Republican Party’s history and future!

Lugar, without question, was one of the most brilliant, insightful, intelligent, and learned members of the US Senate, not just now, but for decades in the past.

Richard Lugar was a man who promoted bi-partisanship and reason, rather than yelling and screaming and gridlock and stalemate, and he will be greatly missed.

And with him being forced out of the Senate, and Maine Senator Olympia Snowe voluntarily leaving the Senate, the Republican Party in the Senate becomes a true disaster area, leaving who is left as easily the most disgraceful group under the party name that we have ever seen in American history, from the beginning of the history of the party in 1854!

The GOP was a party of reform in the Civil War-Reconstruction Era, in the Progressive Era, and in the post World War II period, at least in the Northeast and scattered cases elsewhere in the 1960s and 1970s.

The deterioration of the moderate and liberal Republicans began with the election of Ronald Reagan in 1980 and now is complete!

And to try to understand why Lugar was defeated is enough to make one wonder about the ignorance and stupidity of the voters who defeated him in Indiana.

What were their reasons to defeat him?

He is too old, being 80–totally ridiculous, as Lugar was a spry 80, fully in charge of his physical and mental faculties, more than most Republican Senate colleagues, who have far less ability at their younger ages than Lugar has always had.

Lugar spent most of his time in Virginia, and hardly ever was in Indiana for residence purposes–ridiculous as doing his job requires a Senator to spend most of his time in the DC area. This is such a totally phony issue and excuse to defeat a Senator who devoted his life to his state’s betterment.

Lugar was from Indianapolis, and the rest of the state resented his urban background–preposterous excuse to defeat him, but not uncommon in many states that the rural areas of a state resent the urban areas. But the thought that “country yokels” resent urban areas, and educated, intelligent people is an example of the problem of this country, that the “Know Nothing” hillbillies resent anyone who actually has brains and talent, and instead want a “good old boy”!

Lugar had the gall to do bi-partisan things, even with Barack Obama, when he was in the Senate–idiotic as that is the only way to get things done effectively, and Lugar always used principle over politics in his judgments, and was far from a liberal, but an honest, decent conservative.

Lugar specialized in foreign policy, and many rural people in Indiana hate foreign governments and the outside world in general–another example of the dangers of these”rural folk” having the ability to keep themselves and their fellow citizens out of touch with the “real world” out there. This anti foreign attitude is much too prevalent all over the country, and endangers our future in a complex world.

So the question arises over what Richard Lugar will do in 2013. He could go home to retirement, but does not seem like the type to want to do that. He could become a professor with specialty in international relations, and many universities would grab at the possibility of employing this brilliant statesman. He could write his memoirs, which would be fascinating.

But also, imagine this! As a good friend, and at times, supporter of Barack Obama on some issues, and with their common work on trying to prevent the spread of nuclear, biological and chemical weapons when Obama was in the Senate in 2005-2006, and with Hillary Clinton leaving the State Department next year, there will be a vacancy that Lugar could fill very well!

Would the Republicans in the Senate oppose their long time colleague, with 36 years of experience, much of it in foreign policy, similar to the experience in foreign policy issues of Vice President Joe Biden, if Lugar wished to serve Obama as Secretary of State?

The assumption is that they would back him if Obama was re-elected and asked Lugar to serve his nation in another distinguished way, as Secretary of State.

So Indiana’s loss could be America’s and Barack Obama’s gain in 2013, and Lugar would richly deserve such an opportunity!

Nobel Prize Winner Paul Krugman And The American “Depression” Solution: An Activist Government!

Ronald Leave a comment

Paul Krugman, the winner of the Nobel Economics Prize, columnist for the New York Times, and Professor at Princeton University, has written a new book about how to deal with the American “Depression”, as he calls the Great Recession.

Just suggesting that we are going through a depression is a stunning statement, but Krugman, despite attacks from conservatives, Republicans, and Texas Congressman Ron Paul and his libertarian views, is correct in stating that austerity, being pursued in Great Britain and elsewhere in Europe in a way that has led to a worsening economic condition throughout the continent, is absolutely the wrong thing to do at this time.

The time for cutting spending is when there is a booming economy, not an economy with millions of people unemployed, and attempts being made to cut back the social safety net for desperate people. As Krugman writes, it is John Maynard Keynes, whose ideas helped Franklin D. Roosevelt during the Great Depression, who needs to be followed today.

After all, even Richard Nixon said he was a Keynesian when he decided to impose wage and price controls in the 1970s, and it was Keynesian ideas that helped Gerald Ford and Ronald Reagan during the two worse economic downturns in the 1970s and 1980s since the end of the Great Depression until those time periods!

So Krugman advocates much more government intervention and spending than Barack Obama was able to get through Congress in 2009, and argues that had more been done then and since, our economic condition would be far better than it is now.

There may be skeptics, and certainly Ron Paul supporters live in their own parallel universe, but Paul Krugman needs to be listened to, and followed, hopefully, by a Democratic controlled Congress in 2013 and after!

In Defense Of Jimmy Carter In The Controversy Over Osama Bin Laden

Ronald Leave a comment

With the debate over the question of whether President Barack Obama should be able to take credit for the death of Osama Bin Laden and use it in the upcoming campaign, we have heard the name “Jimmy Carter” constantly brought up in a derisive manner by Mitt Romney, John McCain and other Republicans, and it makes one want to scream!

Jimmy Carter is very proud of the fact that we did not go to war in his administration; that he helped to negotiate a long lasting agreement, the Camp David Accords, between Egypt and Israel; that he successfully negotiated an agreement to give back the Panama Canal to that nation’s control; promoted human rights, setting a standard principle which has been utilized as a principle of American foreign policy since; and had the courage to take strong action to try and rescue American hostages in Iran, the failed mission occurring in April 1980.

Yes, the rescue mission failed, but Carter could take the credit for the fact that all of the hostages came home, upon the inauguration of Ronald Reagan. The problem was that all of the good that Carter did in foreign policy, as well as domestic policy, was overshadowed by the Iran crisis, the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan, and the economic recession that occurred, including an oil embargo that raised gasoline prices.

Carter was the victim of circumstance, but deserves much better treatment and respect, as the only other President so attacked on a regular basis after his Presidency as incompetent, who was Herbert Hoover.

It is ironic that these two Presidents, educated as engineers, both brilliant in intellect, both one term Presidents soundly defeated for re-election, ended up having longer retirements than any other President, with Hoover’s thirty one and a half years in retirement to be passed by Carter on September 8, 2012, just four months from now.

Hopefully, when he reaches that milestone in September, we will see the country celebrate Carter’s longevity, and celebrate his contributions to the country, instead of constant ridicule and disrespect.

But, if anything, Carter’s failure to rescue the hostages probably led to his defeat in 1980 by Ronald Reagan, and that makes Barack Obama’s gamble on Osama Bin Laden, and his courage and decisiveness in the matter, even more impressive, and means everyone should be willing to applaud Obama, and give him the right to use it as an issue in the Presidential Election of 2012!

One can be sure a Republican President would use it as a campaign issue, and we all know that George W. Bush politicized the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan to his political advantage!

Rare Popularity Of Former “Living” Presidents In Past Century: TR, Ike, Reagan, Clinton

Ronald Leave a comment

The Presidency tends to cause the decline of popularity of those who hold that office, because they have to make controversial and difficult decisions which undermine their image after four or eight years in office.

In the past century, in the time of modern media exposure, which makes the Presidency a national concern on a daily basis, most Presidents, upon leaving office, have seen their public opinion rating collapse, and usually, only after they die, does their image, and respect for the difficult decisions they made, revive their popularity among both scholarly experts and the general public.

This discussion, of course, must eliminate those Presidents who did not survive the office, including Warren G. Harding, Franklin D. Roosevelt, and John F. Kennedy. However, FDR and JFK would remain highly popular in death on a regular basis since their deaths, while Harding’s brief popularity after his tragic death collapsed upon learning of the sex and other scandals during his Presidency, and he has not recovered in ratings by any group.

The only Presidents who remained generally popular after leaving office were Theodore Roosevelt, Dwight D. Eisenhower, Ronald Reagan and Bill Clinton.

William Howard Taft, Herbert Hoover, Gerald Ford, Jimmy Carter, and George H. W. Bush left office after defeat, and none of them were well regarded after their time in office. Carter and Bush had the bad luck of being followed by popular Presidents Reagan and Clinton, and Bush has had the bad luck of having both his predecessor and successor well regarded, making his time in office look quite unimpressive by comparison.

Woodrow Wilson, Calvin Coolidge and Lyndon B. Johnson left office, with each under a cloud of disrepute, with Wilson seeing the defeat of the Versailles Treaty ratification and membership in the League of Nations; Coolidge seeing the coming of the Great Depression crash on Wall Street within months of his retirement; and Johnson having to bear the burden of the Vietnam War: and all three died within four years of retirement, highly unpopular.

Taft regained respect for his service as Chief Justice of the Supreme Court; Richard Nixon gained respect for his foreign policy expertise in his long 20 years of retirement, but did not gain popularity for the rest of his lifetime; Harry Truman also had 20 years of retirement, but only gained popularity and respect after his death; Gerald Ford and Jimmy Carter started to be regarded better as the years went by, with Carter about to surpass Herbert Hoover in longevity after the Presidency, but still condemned by many experts and the general public; and George W. Bush remains unpopular and seems resigned to the fact that he may not gain popularity or respect until he has passed from the scene.

Eisenhower and Reagan retained their public popularity in their post Presidency despite scholarly criticism of their time in office, and both are now regarded more highly, even by scholars, than they were when they were retired and alive.

TR and Clinton share a special bond, as both were young when leaving office; both were highly verbal and opinionated and constantly made news; both had charisma and were loved by the general public in their post retirement years; and TR actually ran for President on a third party line, while Bill Clinton would love to run again, as many Americans wish he could be President again, but of course, the 22nd Amendment prevents that, so instead, the push for his wife, Hillary Clinton, to try for the Presidency again in 2016 is growing!

Mitt Romney And American Society: In The 1950s! Mitt Romney And Foreign Policy: In The 1980s!

Ronald Leave a comment

Now that Mitt Romney has the GOP Presidential nomination, we are realizing that he is back in the 1950s, as far as American society is concerned, and back in the 1980s, as far as American foreign policy is concerned!

One might wonder, what does the author mean?

Well, socially, Romney’s family is a 1950s family: a dutiful wife who has never worked for pay, only as a mother and housewife; having a large family of five children; the five sons being well behaved and never getting into trouble; no question of unhappiness or conflict or divorce; very religious; and living a comfortable, suburban life! This is the image of the 1950s, when women knew their “place”; when children did not use illegal drugs or get drunk or even smoke if they came from a “good” family; and minorities were seen, but not heard, and there was very little direct contact with them.

Well, foreign policy wise, Romney is in the 1980s, with the image of the Cold War under Ronald Reagan; with the Russians called the Soviet Union, and seen as an “evil empire”; with the Soviets controlling Eastern Europe, including the nation of Czechoslovakia, and Eastern Europe enslaved by the Russian armies.

Top aides to Romney have used the term “Soviet Union” recently, as has Romney, forgetting that the Soviet Union disappeared in 1991, and while Russia is certainly a nation to watch and keep track of their activities, they are certainly nothing like the old “Soviet Union”, do not control Eastern Europe, and do not even control all of the separate provinces that are now independent nations.

Also, the references to “Czechoslovakia” are truly laughable by Romney aides on foreign policy, as that nation broke up peacefully 19 years ago, in 1993, into the Czech Republic and Slovakia. This is the same mistake made by Senator John McCain, the 2008 Republican Presidential nominee!

One would think that a candidate for President, and his top advisers, would know the true story about Czechoslovakia!

One would also think that a candidate for President would realize we are not in the 1950s regarding the family, the role of women, and the reality of minority groups in America!

So one has to say, is this what the nation wants in 2013 and beyond: a candidate socially in the 1950s, and foreign policy wise in the 1980s Cold War mentality? One would hope the answer is NO!

The Hard Reality: The Need For Long Term Reform Of Social Security And Medicare

Ronald 1 Comment

Anyone who is a progressive or a Democrat is proud of the fact that it was a Democratic President, Franklin D. Roosevelt, who gave us Social Security in 1935.

Anyone who is a progressive or a Democrat is proud of the fact that it was a Democratic President, Lyndon B. Johnson, who gave us Medicare in 1965.

But hard reality is setting in, that something major must be done to promote sustainability of both Social Security and Medicare, as Social Security is now believed to be starting to operate in the red in 2033, and Medicare in 2024.

That is a danger sign that requires serious negotiations and acceptance of a need for major changes in both programs for the long term future.

The answer is not privatization, however, but rather recognition of the longevity of American lives and work careers, and the realization that payroll taxes on both programs must increase.

In 1983, President Ronald Reagan and Speaker of the House Thomas “Tip” O’Neill negotiated a bipartisan agreement on Social Security which raised the retirement age to 66 for people born in the mid 1940s through 1959, and to 67 for those born after 1960. The agreement affected people with a long time to retirement, so was easy to adjust to without much controversy.

What must be done with Social Security would be to raise the full retirement age to age 68 for those born in 1980 and after, the beginning of the baby “boomlet” after a baby “bust” from 1965 to 1978. Additionally, those born in 1990 and after would have the age rise to 69. Additionally, all income, not just about $110,000, should be taxed, as is the case with Medicare.

As far as Medicare is concerned, the tax rate needs to be raised to collect more money, and the age of eligibility should go up to age 66 for those born in 1980 and after, and to age 67 for those born in 1990 and after.

No plan is going to have everyone satisfied, but with plenty of notice and planning, and with more money collected, and age levels raised, there is no reason why Social Security and Medicare cannot survive and prosper in the long term!

“Cool” Vs. “Stiff” Presidential Candidates: The Vote Goes To The “Cool’ Candidate Eighty Percent Of Presidential Elections Since 1932!

Ronald 1 Comment

One aspect of the battle for the Presidency over time, particularly in the age of modern media and national campaigning, is the personality of the candidates, and whether a person running for the Presidency is “cool” or “stiff” with people.

When one investigates this from the time of Franklin D. Roosevelt in 1932 onward, in most cases, but not all, the “cool” , more personable, candidate wins.

This happened with FDR against Herbert Hoover in 1932, against Alf Landon in 1936, against Wendell Willkie in 1940, and against Thomas E. Dewey in 1944.

It also occurred with Harry Truman against Dewey in 1948; Dwight D. Eisenhower against Adlai Stevenson in 1952 and 1956, and John F. Kennedy against Richard Nixon in 1960.

1964 was a rare year, where Barry Goldwater seemed more personable by far than Lyndon B . Johnson, but the Johnson campaign successfully depicted Goldwater as dangerous and extremist.

In 1968, Hubert Humphrey was certainly more gregarious and warm than Richard Nixon or George Wallace, but still lost, due to the Democratic split over the VIetnam War; and in 1972, George McGovern came across as more trustworthy and personable than Richard Nixon, but was depicted as extremist and radical in a way similar to Goldwater eight years earlier.

In 1976, Jimmy Carter, a new face on the scene, came across as more personable than Gerald Ford, who seemed stiff and uncomfortable to many.

By 1980, Ronald Reagan easily came across to Americans in a more charming manner than Jimmy Carter, and Walter Mondale never could overcome the Reagan mystique in 1984.

In 1988, neither George H. W. Bush nor Michael Dukakis came across as personable, the only time in modern history that such a situation existed.

In 1992 and 1996, Bill Clinton easily came across much better in personality than Bush or Bob Dole.

George W. Bush definitely had the edge in his personality in 2000 and 2004 against Al Gore and John Kerry.

And Barack Obama had a clear advantage over John McCain in 2008, and certainly has that edge as well against Mitt Romney in 2012.

In conclusion, only Lyndon B. Johnson and Richard Nixon were the less personable candidate when they ran in 1964, 1968, and 1972, and only in 1988 could it be said there was no difference between George H. W. Bush and Michael Dukakis in the level of their “coolness”.

The conclusion is that the more personable or “cool” candidate has a clear edge in the modern era in being elected to the Presidency!

Unpleasant Presidential-Vice Presidential Ties Throughout American History

Ronald Leave a comment

It has become evident that in many cases, no love is lost between sitting Presidents and Vice Presidents, who often link up for electoral reasons, but often have poor chemistry in working together. And many times, a President has wished to “dump” his Vice President, when running for another term in office, and a few times has done so.

Examples of unpleasant Presidential-Vice Presidential relationships include:

John Adams and Thomas Jefferson, with Jefferson, the opponent in the 1796 Presidential election, becoming Vice President, but leading to the 12th Amendment in 1804, to prevent any future such combination. The two men fought each other bitterly, and opposed each other again in 1800.

Thomas Jefferson and Aaron Burr, “tied” in electoral votes in 1800, forcing the election to the House of Representatives, leading to Alexander Hamilton’s endorsement of Jefferson and trashing of Burr, and causing Hamilton’s death in a gun duel with Burr in 1804. Jefferson had no relationship with Burr, after Burr tried to “steal” the election, and he was “dumped” in 1804.

John Quincy Adams and John C Calhoun, who were rivals in 1824, had totally different views of the protective tariff, with Calhoun switching to support of Andrew Jackson and running with Jackson in 1828.

Andrew Jackson and John C. Calhoun were elected together in 1828, but Calhoun broke with Jackson over the protective tariff, resigning, and creating a potential threat of civil war, with the Nullification Crisis of 1833, resolved by a compromise devised by Henry Clay. Jackson even threatened to kill Calhoun if he promoted secession of South Carolina from the Union.

William Henry Harrison, elected with John Tyler in 1840, had totally divergent views since Tyler was a Democrat running on the Whig Party line, and Tyler succeeded to the Presidency when Harrison died after one month in office in 1841, and the Whigs made Tyler’s life miserable.

Abraham Lincoln and his first Vice President, Hannibal Hamlin, elected in 1860, hardly knew each other, and the indications are that Hamlin had no major role in the administration, and was replaced by Andrew Johnson on the ticket for 1864 for political reasons.

Abraham Lincoln and Andrew Johnson, elected together in 1864, with Lincoln picking Democrat Johnson to help win support in the North, then was assassinated, and succeeded by Johnson after six weeks of the second term in 1865.

James Garfield and Chester Alan Arthur were elected together in 1880, from different factions of the Republican Party, and when Garfield died from assassination wounds six months into office, Arthur finished up the rest of the term from 1881-1885.

Woodrow Wilson and Thomas Marshall were elected together in 1912, but Marshall was “kept out of the loop”, and when Wilson suffered a stroke in 1919, was denied access to the President by Mrs. Wilson, never knowing the extent of Wilson’s incapacity for the rest of the term to 1921.

Franklin D. Roosevelt and his first Vice President, John Nance Garner were elected to two terms together in 1932 and 1936, with Garner unhappy with the New Deal programs, and wanting to succeed FDR in 1940, and alienated when FDR ran for a third term in 1940.

Franklin D. Roosevelt and his second Vice President, Henry A. Wallace were elected together in 1940, but Wallace was “dumped” by FDR in 1944, to please Southern Democrats unhappy with Wallace’s advocacy of civil rights for African Americans, and his backing of close relations with the Soviet Union.

Dwight D. Eisenhower and Richard Nixon were elected together in 1952 and 1956, but Ike wished to “dump” Nixon in 1956 although that did not happen, and he was less than supportive of Nixon in 1960 and 1968.

John F. Kennedy and Lyndon B. Johnson, elected together in 1960, were never close, having been rivals for the Presidential nomination, with LBJ feeling slighted by Robert F. Kennedy, the Attorney General and brother of the President, and rumors swirling that he would be “dumped” in 1964, if Kennedy had lived.

Lyndon B. Johnson and Hubert H. Humphrey were elected together in 1964, but with Humphrey feeling mistreated by LBJ, and unhappy as Vice President, seeing himself trapped, and being undermined when he was the Presidential nominee in 1968, and LBJ working against him when Humphrey ran against Richard Nixon.

Richard Nixon and Spiro Agnew were elected together in 1968 and 1972, with Agnew feeling “used” by Nixon to do his “dirty work” against the news media, and gaining no support from Nixon when in legal trouble over accepting bribes, leading to his resignation in 1973. Agnew refused to speak ever again to his former boss.

Ronald Reagan and George H. W. Bush were never close, and the Bushes were never invited to the White House by the Reagans, after their two victories in elections in 1980 and 1984.

George H. W. Bush and Dan Quayle were elected together in 1988, with obvious discomfort by Bush as to Quayle’s performance in his term of office as Vice President, and considered “dumping” him in 1992, but not done in that losing re-election effort.

Bill Clinton and Al Gore, elected together in 1992 and 1996, got along well, but after the Monica Lewinsky scandal, a growing divide occurred between the two men, and Gore decided not to have Clinton help him in the Presidential campaign of 2000, and then the two men had angry words in a confrontation in the Oval Office after the defeat.

George W. Bush and Dick Cheney, elected together in 2000 and 2004, originally worked well together, but Bush then ignored Cheney’s advice often in the second term, and refused Cheney’s request that Scooter Libby be given a pardon. Cheney, in his memoir, made clear that his relationship with Bush had cooled.

So often, the relationship between President and Vice President has been a very difficult one, an interesting aspect of American history!

Exceptions to this were the close relationship of Gerald Ford and Nelson Rockefeller between 1974 and 1977, although Rockefeller was “dumped” from the ticket in 1976 for Bob Dole, a move that Ford later said he did for political reasons, and greatly regretted; the extremely close ties between Jimmy Carter and Walter Mondale between 1977-1981, with Mondale practically a “Co President”; and the present relationship between Barack Obama and Joe Biden since 2009.

Jon Huntsman Compares Republican Party To Communist China

Ronald 3 Comments

Jon Huntsman, former Utah Governor and Ambassador to China, in a speech in New York City last evening, compared the Republican Party of today to the government of Communist China, in that in both cases, dissent is cracked down upon.

Huntsman said the extreme right wing, controlled by the Tea Party and religious conservatives, has made it impossible for even Ronald Reagan to be nominated and elected in today’s political climate.

Doubting that he could be elected Utah Governor now, Huntsman deplored the challenge against traditional conservatives, including Utah Senator Orrin Hatch, who has been forced into a primary by right wing elements, and Indiana Senator Richard Lugar, who faces a similar challenge next month.

Huntsman said that the Republican Party today has little in common with the party of Abraham Lincoln, Theodore Roosevelt, Dwight D. Eisenhower, and Ronald Reagan, but has hopes that Mitt Romney can move the party back toward the center.

In that, Huntsman is overly optimistic, as Romney sadly has catered to the right wing on the road to be the GOP nominee for President, but in the process, has not won their hearts!

Earth Day, The Environment, And Republicans From TR And Nixon To James Inhofe And Mitt Romney!

Ronald Leave a comment

The Republican Party under Theodore Roosevelt a century ago promoted conservation and growth of national parks.

The Republican Party under Richard Nixon promoted the creation of the Environmental Protection Agency, and expanded on the air and water pollution legislation of Democrat Lyndon B. Johnson.

The Republican Party under Ronald Reagan, despite his wish to destroy the Environmental Protection Agency, and having a terrible record on the environment, possibly the worst of modern times, actually came to realize the dangers of global warming, which became part of the national security agenda in 1985 and after.

The Republican Party under George H. W. Bush, and then Democrat Bill Clinton, continued to deal with the issue of global warming.

It seems clear that once Al Gore, an environmental champion before, during, and after serving as Vice President under Bill Clinton, lost the Presidential Election of 2000 in the Supreme Court, it became the clarion call of those who would deny global warming and climate change, to push against any such crusade, and to condemn environmentalists on principle, much of it based on fake science promoted by right wing Evangelical Christians, with their leading champion being Oklahoma Senator James Inhofe, but certainly joined by others in the Republican Party in both houses of Congress.

So we have even Mitt Romney now straddling the fence, refusing to take a strong stand on the environment, global warming, and climate change, and about to give a commencement speech next month at the late Jerry Falwell’s Liberty University in Virginia, where denial of environmental crisis, and even of evolution, runs rampant.

Look how far the GOP has fallen from the time of TR and Nixon to the present–a true national tragedy playing itself out, and certain to have a negative impact on the future of this country and the planet!