Ross Perot

Past Presidential Debates With An Incumbent President: Naturally On The Defensive!

Ronald Leave a comment

When one gets away from the momentary panic that many Obama supporters had after last night’s debate against Mitt Romney, and thinks rationally, and analyzes Presidential debate history, it is not all that surprising that a challenger will go on the attack and be aggressive with a sitting President, and set him back in the first debate they have in a campaign year.

Remember that a sitting President is busy every day, and is not as up to date in debating as a challenger, who has had to survive many debates and questions in order to reach the point of a Presidential nomination.

So when we look at the past, we realize the following:

Gerald Ford was on the defensive against Jimmy Carter in 1976.

Jimmy Carter was on the defensive against Ronald Reagan in 1980.

Ronald Reagan was on the defensive against Walter Mondale in 1984.

George H. W. Bush was on the defensive against both Bill Clinton and Ross Perot in 1992.

George W. Bush was on the defensive against John Kerry in 2004.

Despite this reality, Reagan and the second Bush recovered to win, while Ford, Carter, and the first Bush lost the election that ensued.

But also realize that Ford had inherited a mess from Richard Nixon, and had never seen himself in the Presidency before being selected by Nixon to replace Spiro Agnew as Vice President, and he was strongly challenged by Ronald Reagan in the primaries in 1976.

Also realize that Jimmy Carter was challenged by both Ted Kennedy and Jerry Brown in the primaries in 1980, and faced a charismatic former actor in Reagan, and a tumultuous crisis with Iran in 1980.

And realize that the first Bush faced a challenge from Pat Buchanan in the primaries in 1992, and a double challenge from Bill Clinton and Ross Perot, which undermined his ability to win votes that Perot took away from him in the fall campaign.

Ronald Reagan and George W. Bush faced no such challenges, and were able to overcome their weaknesses in the first debate of 1984 and 2004.

Additionally, Bill Clinton, facing no challenge in 1996, simply overwhelmed Bob Dole in the first and all debates of that year, with his charisma a major plus!

If one remains calm, one realizes that Barack Obama will recover from this disappointing debate, has charisma, had no challenger in the primaries, and therefore, will do like Reagan, Clinton, and the second Bush did–win reelection—-rather than lose election as Ford did, and reelection as Carter and the first Bush did!

Important To Remember: No Wartime President Has Been Defeated For Reelection!

Ronald 25 Comments

An interesting point to remember with 80 days left to the Presidential election, and just two days to August 20, precisely five months to the inauguration!

NEVER has a President in wartime been defeated, including two times when war clouds hovered, but we were not technically at war!

Witness the following:

James Madison, the War of 1812, reelected in 1812
Abraham Lincoln, the Civil War, reelected in 1864
Woodrow Wilson, World War I, not at war but nearing it, reelected in 1916
Franklin D. Roosevelt, World War II, not at war but nearing it, reelected in 1940, and then at war, reelected in 1944.
Lyndon B. Johnson, using the Vietnam War issue through the Gulf of Tonkin, elected in 1964
Richard Nixon, Vietnam War, reelected in 1972
George W. Bush, Iraq and Afghanistan Wars, reelected in 2004

This list does not include James K. Polk, who chose not to run for reelection AFTER the end of the Mexican War in 1848; William McKinley, reelected AFTER the Spanish American War’s end, in 1900; Harry Truman, who chose not to run in 1952 during the Korean War; Lyndon B. Johnson, who chose not to run during the Vietnam War in 1968; and George H. W. Bush, who was triumphant during the Persian Gulf War, but then lost 18 months later for reelection in 1992, due to the bad economy and the candidacy of Ross Perot helping Bill Clinton to win in a three way race.

So the odds of Barack Obama winning reelection with the Afghanistan War raging are excellent!

Libertarian Gary Johnson For President: What Effect Might His Candidacy Have In 2012?

Ronald 6 Comments

Former New Mexico Republican Governor Gary Johnson is the candidate of the Libertarian Party for President in 2012.

Johnson has been pretty much ignored, and was only allowed in two GOP Presidential debates during the primary season.

Johnson, however, will be on the ballot in all 50 states, and the question is whether he could be an effective third party candidate, and be a threat to either Barack Obama or Mitt Romney, and even reach the threshold of 15 percent required to be part of the three Presidential debates in September and October, as Ross Perot was able to accomplish in the 1992 Presidential campaign.

Right now, that possibility seems highly unlikely, but who knows what might transpire over the next three months, as disillusioned Americans might start to look at Gary Johnson’s candidacy!

Johnson’s views are a mix which COULD draw support from voters who are unhappy with Obama and Romney.

Among his views are:

Creating a balanced budget by cutting 43 percent of the Medicare and Medicaid budget in one year.
Abolishing the federal income and corporate taxes, and instituting a national sales tax based on consumption, instead.
Opposition to the ObamaCare legislation and the Prescription Drug Plan under George W. Bush.
Desire to withdraw from overseas engagements in Afghanistan and elsewhere, and was opposed to our involvement in Iraq and Libya from the beginning.
Opposition to the Patriot Act, and belief in civil liberties without interference by the American government.
Belief in states rights to deal with issues in their borders.
Opposition to abortion and the death penalty.
Belief in legalizing marijuana use, and the lowering of the drinking age, and believes the war on drugs has failed, and should be abandoned.
Opposition to measures for gun control legislation.
Belief that the Arizona law on illegal immigration was wrong, and would have vetoed it had it passed the legislature in New Mexico.
Support of same sex marriage and gay rights, including in the military.
Opposition to public funding of stem cell research.

This is a mix of issues that has the capacity to draw support , particularly among young people, and disillusioned voters with the major political parties.

So the question remains: Will Gary Johnson have an impact on the election, and if so, in what way?

The guess of the author is that Johnson could actually harm Mitt Romney in certain states, and possibly throw the election in those states to Barack Obama, including the states of Arizona, Idaho, Montana, Utah, Oklahoma, West Virginia, Kentucky, South Carolina, Alabama, Mississippi, and Alaska, all states believed to be RED or Republican!

So Gary Johnson COULD effectively become the Ross Perot of 2012, even without gaining 19 percent of the total national vote, a feat only a wealthy person such as Ross Perot could manage. However, Gary Johnson is said to be worth about $40 million, not a measly amount, to say the least!

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!

New Statistical Method Predicts Election Victory For Barack Obama In November

Ronald 3 Comments

Three political scientists–Seth Hill of Yale, John Sides of George Washington University, and Lynn Vavreck of UCLA–have set up a new election forecasting model, and used it to judge past Presidential elections, as well as the present one.

The factors involved in the predictions are the gross domestic product in the first three quarters of the election year; the President’s public opinion rating in June of the election year; and and whether one of the candidates is the incumbent in the office.

By these standards, Barack Obama, if his popularity rating holds at 48 percent, and even if there is ZERO economic growth, he has a 58.4 percent chance of winning a second term in the White House!

This works if one looks at 12 of the past 16 Presidential elections, and is, therefore, seen as authoritative by many observers.

Using this model, Bill Clinton and Ronald Reagan had a 97 percent rating; George W. Bush had 76 percent, his dad 64 percent (but affected by Ross Perot’s third party run and Pat Buchanan’s challenge in the primaries), and Jimmy Carter at 34 percent, with everything against him in 1980.

This is just another indication that Mitt Romney has a major challenge overcoming Barack Obama this coming fall!

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

Ronald Leave a comment

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!

One Term Presidencies: Seven Significant Leaders Not Appreciated

Ronald Leave a comment

Tomorrow marks one year to the inauguration of the next President of the United States, and the question arises whether Barack Obama will become another one term President.

Historically, those who have been one term Presidents and lost re-election have tended to go down in history as “losers”, “failures”, and as “insignificant” in American history.

But nothing could be further from the truth. Consider the following cases:

John Adams–one of the most significant Founding Fathers in the Revolution and Federalist Eras, but defeated by Thomas Jefferson in the first political party struggle.

John Quincy Adams–brilliant in diplomacy before his Presidency as one of our greatest Secretaries of State, and exceptional as a Congressman for nearly 18 years after his Presidency, fighting against the evil of slavery, but losing to Andrew Jackson.

William Howard Taft–much underrated President who also served later as Chief Justice of the Supreme Court, but losing to Woodrow Wilson, and even ending up behind his promoter, Theodore Roosevelt, who ran on a third party line, the Progressive Party, the greatest third party performance in American history.

Herbert Hoover–acknowledged as great humanitarian as aide to Woodrow Wilson during World War I, and as Secretary of Commerce under Warren G. Harding and Calvin Coolidge, but paralyzed by the Great Depression and slow to react to the massive crisis it presented.

Jimmy Carter–Despite major accomplishments in office, particularly in foreign policy, lost reelection to Ronald Reagan because of the Iranian hostage crisis, but pursued commitment to fighting disease and promoted diplomacy and free elections after his Presidency, and won the Nobel Peace Prize.

George H. W. Bush–very talented as Ambassador to China, United Nations Ambassador, and head of the Central Intelligence Agency before his Presidency, but despite his victory in the Gulf War, he was defeated due to the economic recession and the third party candidacy of Ross Perot, and lost to Bill Clinton.

Another one term President who chose NOT to run for re-election, of course, had a very successful term of office. James K. Polk gained the Oregon Treaty with Great Britain, giving America the Pacific Northwest states, and waged war with Mexico, gaining California and the Southwest states. Worn out by his labors, he chose not to run, and died 103 days after retirement, the shortest retirement period of any President in American history.

So the whole concept that one term Presidents do not matter is shown to be totally incorrect.

The Profession Of Politics And The Field Of Business: Never The Twain SHOULD Meet!

Ronald Leave a comment

The field of politics, despite many cynics, is a PROFESSION, and requires a lot of training and expertise to do it well.

That is why people who go into politics run for local office and state office usually before running for national office, such as the Senate and House of Representatives.

That is why ALL Presidential winners in our history, except for three generals–Zachary Taylor, Ulysses Grant, and Dwight D. Eisenhower–have had some kind of political experience before becoming President.

Only two people have ever been nominated for the Presidency WITHOUT any political or military experience–Wendell Willkie in 1940 by the Republicans, and Ross Perot, who ran as an Independent and Reform Party candidate in 1992 and 1996.

The thought of Herman Cain running for the Presidency without any knowledge or expertise in any field of government policy turned out to be a total disaster, beyond his own moral and ethical issues. It is obvious that Herman Cain undermined the respect of the Presidential office by having the gall to run, knowing full well that he was not qualified by any measurement!

Cain took advantage of his race to enter the race, knowing no one would dare challenge it because of his race. But all he did was exploit the publicity that one gains running for the Presidency to sell books, promote more lucrative, highly paid speeches, and to gain the opportunity for a likely television show, because now he is a celebrity, who loves the spotlight and the ability to profit from it by his associations with the political class that he knows nothing about!

This disaster of Herman Cain is good enough reason to say that never again should an arrogant businessman, including Donald Trump, think he or she is qualified to hold our highest office! If one wishes to strive for such, get serious and get experience in politics and political office first before lessening the dignity of the Presidency for one’s own selfish gains!

Political Experience, Public Office, And The Presidency

Ronald 1 Comment

One would think that to be President of the United States, one should have political and governmental experience, and have been voted into office by American citizens. That is, the Presidency is NOT a place to learn how government works, and experience of some type electorally is essential!

And yet, Herman Cain is running without ANY government credentials, and having never been elected to any office by any part of the American population!

What gall to think that he is qualified because he is a businessman, when government is NOT a business, and business experience is greatly overrated, and does not train one to run a government, on the scale that being in elective office DOES qualify someone to lead the American people!

The question arises as to how many Presidential candidates or Presidents have had no government electoral experience.

There have been two businessmen who ran for President–Wendell Willkie in 1940 as a Republican and Ross Perot in 1992 and 1996 as an Independent candidate for the White House. Both had a much more distinguished business career than Herman Cain could ever even dream of!

We have also had military generals who have run for office without political experience, with three being elected President–Zachary Taylor in 1848, Ulysses Grant in 1868 and 1872, and Dwight D. Eisenhower in 1952 and 1956, with only Eisenhower rated highly by scholars of the Presidency.

Three other generals ran and lost the Presidential race–Winfield Scott in 1852, George McClellan in 1864, and Winfield Scott Hancock in 1880.

Also, there were two cabinet members who never served in elective office, other than the Presidency–William Howard Taft in 1908 after serving as Secretary of War; and Herbert Hoover in 1928, after serving as Secretary of Commerce. But neither is rated very high among the Presidents.

So the best way to look at it is: If you wish to run for President and lead our nation, you MUST have electoral experience, particularly in the modern era when the job requires political experience as crucial, not business experience as head of a corporation whose only aim is PROFIT!

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

Ronald 1 Comment

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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