Ronald Reagan

The Impeachment Of Andrew Johnson In 1868: The Beginning Of Presidential Decline For A Third Of A Century!

On this day, in 1868, President Andrew Johnson was impeached by the House of Representatives for “high crimes and misdemeanors in office”.

Although Johnson was found not guilty by one vote short of the two thirds needed to remove him from the Presidency, his impeachment trial, based on accusations that he had defied an unconstitutional law which he had not defied, and charges that he had a foul mouth in his attacks on Congressional opponents (which he did), undermined the Presidential office for the next third of a century until the rise of Theodore Roosevelt to the Presidency in 1901.

Impeachment as a weapon had been attempted unsuccessfully against Andrew Jackson and John Tyler earlier, and would be threatened against Harry Truman, Ronald Reagan and George W. Bush later, but was only actually utilized against Richard Nixon on a just basis, with Nixon resigning after being impeached by the House Judiciary Committee; and Bill Clinton, whose impeachment trial was politicized as much as Andrew Johnson’s trial was.

Impeachment has even been suggested by some irresponsible Republicans against Barack Obama, but it is something that should NOT be employed or threatened unless it is clear that the President has committed “high crimes” on the level of Richard Nixon.

Weakening the Presidency on flimsy grounds is an idea that undermines the safety and security of the nation, and takes our mind off important issues and problems.

A “Brokered” Republican Convention Possible? YES!

With the struggle going on for the Republican Presidential nomination, a scenario of a “brokered” convention looms.

IF Mitt Romney does not win Michigan and Arizona next Tuesday, and/or loses Ohio and other states on March 6, the “Establishment” Republicans, terrified at the thought of Rick Santorum or Newt Gingrich as the party nominee, COULD work together to prevent a majority for either of them, and create a “brokered” convention.

If that were to occur, the first contested convention since 1976, when Gerald Ford defeated Ronald Reagan by fewer than 100 delegate votes (a losing campaign, by the way), then former Florida Governor Jeb Bush, New Jersey Governor Chris Christie, Indiana Governor Mitch Daniels, or Wisconsin Congressman Paul Ryan COULD emerge as the nominee.

It is clear at this time that trying to predict what will happen politically this year is still very much up in the air, as foreign policy or economic crisis could transform the race not just for the GOP, but also for President Barack Obama!

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Presidential Communication: Essential But Not Always Present

As this race for President wears on, it is more obvious than ever that the ability of a President to communicate with the general public is a major factor in promoting success, and that some Presidents, but not a majority, have been exceptional in displaying Presidential communication skills.

Presidents who have shown the communications skills that are urgent to possess include:

Theodore Roosevelt
Woodrow Wilson
Franklin D. Roosevelt
John F. Kennedy
Ronald Reagan
Bill Clinton
Barack Obama

The other Presidents, in one degree or another, lacked these skills and no matter how successful they may have been in accomplishing their goals, they tend to rank lower in the public mind.

President Vs. President In Presidential Elections: 14 Times and 20 Presidents

On George Washington’s actual birthday, 280 years ago (1732), it is appropriate to ask how many times has there been a Presidential election in which two Presidents opposed each other?

The answer is 14 times, and a total of 20 Presidents have competed against a fellow Oval Office occupant, present or future!

Here are the details:

Presidential Elections of 1796 and 1800–John Adams vs Thomas Jefferson, with Adams first winning, and then Jefferson.

Presidential Elections Of 1824 and 1828–John Quincy Adams vs Andrew Jackson, with Adams first winning (even though behind Jackson in popular votes), and then Jackson.

Presidential Elections of 1836 and 1840–Martin Van Buren vs William Henry Harrison, with Van Buren first winning, and then Harrison.

Presidential Elections of 1888 and 1892–Benjamin Harrison vs Grover Cleveland, with Harrison first winning (even though behind Cleveland in popular votes), and then Cleveland.

Presidential Election Of 1912–the only time three Presidents, past, present and future, ran against each other, with Woodrow Wilson defeating President William Howard Taft and former President Theodore Roosevelt (running on a third party line, the Progressive Party).

Presidential Election of 1932–Herbert Hoover vs Franklin D. Roosevelt, with FDR winning.

Presidential Election of 1960–John F. Kennedy vs Richard Nixon, with JFK winning, but Nixon later winning the Presidency in 1968.

Presidential Election of 1976–Jimmy Carter vs Gerald Ford, with Carter defeating President Ford.

Presidential Election of 1980–President Jimmy Carter vs Ronald Reagan, with Reagan defeating President Carter.

Presidential Election Of 1992–President George H. W. Bush vs Bill Clinton, with Clinton defeating President Bush.

Of these 20 Presidents, only Woodrow Wilson, Franklin D. Roosevelt, John F. Kennedy, Ronald Reagan, and Bill Clinton–a total of five–never lost to their Presidential competitor, although it could be pointed out that FDR lost the Vice Presidency in 1920, a race that Warren G. Harding won for the White House, and that Ronald Reagan lost the Republican nomination for President to Gerald Ford in 1976!

So another trivia contest for those who are interested!

Ten Other Presidential Elections That Transformed American History For Better Or Worse

In addition to what are considered the ten most important Presidential elections in American history, there are also ten other elections that transformed our history, as history would have been different had the results been the opposite of what they were.

In chronological order, these elections are as follows.

Presidential Election of 1844—If James K. Polk had not won over Henry Clay, the likelihood of gaining the Pacific Northwest by treaty with Great Britain, and gaining the Southwest by war with Mexico, together the greatest land expansion since the Louisiana Purchase under Thomas Jefferson, would have been far less likely. But also the Civil War might have been delayed without the battle over freedom or slavery in the Mexican Cession territories gained from the war.

Presidential Election of 1864—An election often ignored, if Abraham Lincoln had not won over General George McClellan, who he had fired from Union Army military leadership, the Civil War, in its late stages, might have ended differently in some form, hard to determine.

Presidential Election of 1876—If the Electoral Commission and Compromise of 1877, giving Rutherford B. Hayes victory over Samuel Tilden, had not occurred, after a disputed election result in Florida, Louisiana, and South Carolina, there might have been civil war erupting all over again.

Presidential Election Of 1896—If William McKinley had not defeated William Jennings Bryan, there might have been no Spanish American War, no Filipino Insurrection, and no gaining of overseas colonies, as Bryan opposed the idea.

Presidential Election Of 1916—If Woodrow Wilson had not squeaked out a victory over Charles Evans Hughes, he had readied plans to hand over the Presidency to Hughes early, with the Secretary of State resigning, Hughes being named Secretary of State, the Vice President resigning, and then Wilson resigning. Wilson left behind a hand written memorandum to this effect, concerned about the transition of power as the dangers of World War I came closer to the possibility of American participation.

Presidential Election Of 1928—If Herbert Hoover had lost to Alfred E. Smith, the likelihood of a very different reaction to the onset of the Great Depression in 1929 might have led Smith to being the equivalent of Hoover’s successor, Franklin D. Roosevelt, and his New Deal.

Presidential Election of 1968—If Hubert Humphrey had defeated Richard Nixon, it is likely that the Vietnam War would have ended earlier, and that there would not have been a Watergate scandal, and instead a continuation of the Great Society begun by Lyndon B. Johnson.

Presidential Election of 1976—If Gerald Ford had defeated Jimmy Carter, it is likely that after 12 years of Republican control and growing economic and foreign policy challenges, that the Democrats would have retaken the White House in 1980, and there would have been no Ronald Reagan Presidency.

Presidential Election Of 1992–If George H. W. Bush had not had to deal with an economic recession and the third party challenge of Ross Perot, the second highest popular percentage third party effort in US history, it is very likely that Bill Clinton would never have been President.

Presidential Election of 2000—If the popular vote recount in Florida had been continued, and the Supreme Court had not intervened to declare the election over, then Al Gore would have become President instead of George W. Bush, and there might not have been a September 11 terrorist attack, the resulting war in Afghanistan and Iraq, and likely not a tremendous growth in the national debt from $5 trillion to $10 trillion

How much history would have been different if only the results of these elections had been other than what they were!

The Ten Most Important Presidential Elections In American History

With Presidents Day coming on Monday, this is a good time to reflect on the 56 Presidential elections that this country has had, and to judge which ten are the most significant, path breaking elections.

Of course, there can be debate and disputes as to the judgment of this author and blogger, but here goes, in chronological order.

Presidential Election of 1789–the selection by the Electoral College of our first President, George Washington, the absolutely right choice for the beginning of our nation under the Constitution, as Washington set important precedents for the future, and had no ambition to grab power long term.

Presidential Election Of 1800–the first time we had an opposition party come to power with grace, and without violence, setting a standard for the future, as Thomas Jefferson defeated John Adams, and the dispute between him and Vice President Aaron Burr, who claimed a tie in the Electoral College, was settled peacefully as well, and caused a modifying of the Electoral College process.

The Presidential Election of 1828–the first one decided by popular vote synchronizing with the electoral vote, and giving the country a so called “Common Man” in the Presidency, Andrew Jackson, representing city workers and frontiersmen alike.

Presidential Election of 1860–leading to the election of Abraham Lincoln, who set out to preserve the Union at all costs, and wielded power in a controversial, but thoughtfully considered way, through four years of the Civil War.

Presidential Election Of 1912–the triumph of progressivism, the recognition that government’s role had been changed irrevocably in a country that had been transformed from an agricultural to an industrial nation, had tripled in population since the Civil War, had become a multi ethnic nation, and had recognized the need for the regulation of capitalism in the public good, as well as political reforms and social justice. And it was the most exciting election, as three Presidents, past (Teddy Roosevelt), present (William Howard Taft), and future (Woodrow Wilson) competed against each other.

Presidential Election Of 1932–the triumph of Franklin D. Roosevelt at the worst moments of the Great Depression, offering hope and action (the New Deal) to revive the spirits of the nation, and have the American people believe in the future. Without his victory, there might have been social revolution and bloodshed on a large scale.

Presidential Election of 1960–witnessing the first Catholic President elected (John F. Kennedy) and the promotion of idealism and a new beginning in the advancement of social justice and political reform.

Presidential Election Of 1964–the victory of liberalism with the election of Lyndon B. Johnson, and the defeat of Barry Goldwater and conservatism, therefore insuring the continuation of the New Deal, and the evolution of the Great Society.

Presidential Election Of 1980–seeing the triumph of conservatism under Ronald Reagan, with some modifications of the New Deal and Great Society, and great speeches, but not the conservative “heaven” that many imagine it was, but making Reagan a national icon like Washington, Lincoln and FDR.

Presidential Election Of 2008–witnessing the first African American President (Barack Obama), and his work to provide health care reform, preserve the New Deal and Great Society, and overcome the worst economic downturn since the Great Depression.

The author welcomes discussion and debate on this post!

Grim, Tragic Anniversary: 70 Years Since Executive Order 9066 Forcing Japanese American Internment Camps

Today is a grim, sad anniversary, 70 years since President Franklin D. Roosevelt signed Executive Order 9066, forcing the internment of about 110,000 Japanese American men, women and children, two and a half months after Japan attacked Pearl Harbor, bringing America into World War II.

This denial of the Bill Of Rights, one of the worst violations of civil liberties in US history, was imposed out of hysteria and panic after the Pearl Harbor attack, and very few people or groups denounced it, and it was later upheld as a necessary war action by a wartime US Supreme Court decision.

It is shocking in itself, but even more so when one considers the fact that first Lady Eleanor Roosevelt, highly disturbed by the decision of her husband, complained to him, and was angrily told never to bring up the issue again.

This shows how the Presidency can give one, even as outstanding in other ways as Franklin D. Roosevelt, a sense of cockiness and arrogance, that he can lose a sense of what is right and wrong, and what is necessary.

This is one of the most despicable acts of FDR in office, and compensation for the surviving victims came only in 1988, when President Ronald Reagan signed into law an apology, and compensation of $20,000 per survivor.

Meanwhile, the Japanese Americans who served in segregated units in World War II were heroes, who accomplished more than any other military units of that war, and were finally given recognition by the US Mint in 2011 with a special medal commissioned for public sale to commemorate their heroism.

Time For TRUE Conservative Republican Nominee So That Conservatism Can Be Exposed For What It Is: A Plea For Rick Santorum’s Nomination For The Presidency!

Conservatism has been said to be a dominant factor in the Republican Party for a long time, and conservatives in Congress and on talk radio and Fox News Channel have been spewing forth their poison, whether it is to go to war as a first resort, rather last last resort; putting women, African Americans, Hispanics and Latinos, gays and lesbians, labor, poor people, environmentalists, public service workers, consumer advocates, and anyone who promotes progressivism, in their place; and promoting corporations, the wealthy, and religion and the military as dominant parts of American power to make our nation a militaristic, religiously based plutocracy, only advocating the interests of the few, rather than the many!

But the frustration of these conservatives is that, somehow, it never seems to work out quite like they expect. Witness: Dwight D. Eisenhower defeats Robert Taft in 1952 and does “unconservative” policies in office; Richard Nixon also disappoints in many areas; Gerald Ford and his wife Betty actually promote social progressivism; even Ronald Reagan shows that he can be moved away from hard line conservative ideas; George H. W. Bush is clearly too moderate and centrist; George W. Bush follows certain aspects of conservatism, particularly following the “neocons” in foreign affairs, but too involved in “compassionate conservatism” in domestic affairs and government spending; and even Bob Dole and John McCain, losing GOP Presidential nominees, are insufficiently conservative, and actually come across as “moderates”, a hated term.

And now Mitt Romney cannot be trusted to be hard line conservative, despite his own efforts at protestations. And even Barry Goldwater, thought to be in 1964, the “ideal” conservative, later revealed his social progressivism and condemned the role of religion in the Republican Party! What is a frustrated conservative to do?

The answer is back and nominate former Pennsylvania Senator Rick Santorum, who wants to bomb Iran on Day One in office; wants a very hard line social conservatism, putting women “back in their place”; wants no regulation of business or corporations that interferes with “free enterprise”; wishes to wipe out by any means the rights of gays and lesbians; wishes to take away all of the federal entitlement programs of the New Deal and Great Society; return America back to the 1950s in some ways, the 1920s in other ways, and the Gilded Age of the late 19th century in other ways!

Conservatives want to bring back the “good old days” of white male domination over society, and corporate influence, joined with the military and religious control over our foreign and domestic policies.

Let’s hope, even pray, that Rick Santorum is nominated, and watch as he is obliterated in November, and his support by conservatives sets them back for at least a generation, and give mainline Republicans the opportunity to rebuild the party as what it once was, a centrist party, a good competition for the Democratic Party. And if the GOP refuses to reform itself, then it should be replaced by a new moderate centrist party in the mainstream of 21st century America!

Of course, notice that the author said a “generation” would pass of conservative decline, as sadly, to believe conservatism will leave our shores forever, is not going to happen, as it is like a recurring cancer on the body politic–it WILL return eventually, and the battle for control of government and politics is, therefore, a never ending battle of American history!

Richard Nixon (China) And Barack Obama (Iran): Why Not Try Diplomacy Before War?

Forty years ago, Richard Nixon, a Republican President, took a bold step and went to visit and negotiate with the government of the People’s Republic Of China, better known in America as Communist China or Red China.

We had had no negotiations or dealings with mainland China since 1949, had made a career of demonizing the leadership of that nation, and had made clear that we would defend the island of Taiwan (Nationalist China) at all costs. We had also fought Chinese troops in the Korean War, and had known of Chinese support of the North Vietnamese in the Vietnam War, and were still bombing near the Chinese border.

But with all that, Richard Nixon went to China, negotiated trade and travel and cultural exchanges, and opened up our country and China to the promotion of less fear and more diplomacy and understanding in the interests of international harmony and avoidance of war.

Many conservatives bitterly condemned Nixon for going to China, and reversing his own anti Communist stand of twenty five years standing. But Nixon went anyway, and this occurred in an election year. It was statesmanlike and showed Nixon to be a pragmatic man in foreign policy.

Today, in 2012, forty years later, we are on the brink of possible military conflict with Iran, with which we have not had real dealings since the Iranian Revolution of 1979 and the fall of the Shah of Iran from power. Iran has become a very belligerent state, heavy on rhetoric and threats, similar to what China was for 25 years. In the case of Iran, it is now 33 years since the two nations, in the midst of tensions and stress, have sat down and tried to negotiate differences.

It may seem as if there is very little hope for a breakthrough with a harsh enemy who wishes us ill, but remember that was the same mentality toward China, and even more so, toward the Soviet Union, during the Cold War years, but still Eisenhower, Kennedy, Johnson, Nixon, Ford, Carter, and even Reagan all agreed to joint meetings, often in each other’s country, and made progress toward coexistence, and to avoid a direct confrontation that would benefit neither side.

So when the Republican candidates for President, conservative talk show hosts, and many others call for war on Iran, and think the idea of negotiations with Iran are fruitless, remember what Richard Nixon, the ultimate anti Communist did forty years ago this week. He went to the enemy and NEGOTIATED, and prevented any conflict with China, a dramatic and significant moment in world history!

It is time for Barack Obama to show courage and statesmanship, and since the Iranian leader Mahmoud Ahmadinejad has said he is ready for diplomatic talks, it is wise to take him up on it, and see if it can go anywhere. If it does not, and war results, at least we will be able to hold our heads high and say we TRIED! Is Ahmadinejad really any worse than Mao Tse Tung, Nikita Khrushchev Leonid Brezhnev, or Mikhail Gorbachev?

It is not cowardly to agree to talk and negotiate; it is cowardly to refuse to talk and negotiate, with the possibility of avoiding war that neither the United States citizens or Iranian citizens really want. And it would be better for Israel too, if war could be avoided which would likely have a very heavy toll on their citizens, in a country so small in population, it cannot afford to lose even one hundred people in an unnecessary war that MIGHT be avoidable!