Month: November 2012

Missouri Loses Its Bellwether Status In Presidential Elections

Ronald 2 Comments

The state of Missouri has long been seen as a bellwether state, as it had correctly voted for the winner of the Presidency in every election in the 20th century, except 1956, when it voted for Adlai Stevenson over Dwight D. Eisenhower by a small margin of a few thousand votes.

The Missouri tradition of voting for the winner continued in 2000 and 2004, but again, in 2008, by a few thousand votes, Missouri voted for John McCain over Barack Obama.

So only twice did the Presidential winner lose Missouri since 1900, but now it has happened a third time, and this time not only a few thousand votes separate Mitt Romney from Barack Obama.

So the margin is 260,000 votes, a massive lead for Romney, making Missouri clearly lose its status as a bellwether state, at least for the time being!

Why Chris Christie Will NEVER Be President Of The United States!

Ronald Leave a comment

New Jersey Governor Chris Christie has indicated he will run for reelection in 2013, an off year when only the New York City Mayoralty and Virginia Governorship compete for attention.

But with a new NYC Mayor and a new Virginia Governor to be selected, identity unknown, Chris Christie will be focused on more than usual, because he is a potential Presidential candidate for the Republican Party in 2016. He already leads Marco Rubio, Condoleezza Rice, Jeb Bush, and Paul Ryan, respectively, in a public opinion poll on 2016.

There are those who think Chris Christie might be the next President of the United States, but this author and blogger will explain now why Christie is NOT going to be the next President, for many reasons, in no special order. So here goes!

Chris Christie could very well be defeated for reelection by the charismatic Newark, New Jersey Mayor Cory Booker. It should be a competitive race.

Even if Christie wins a second term, he will not become President because:

1, He is much too outspoken, controversial, opinionated, to become our President. He rubs many people wrong, comes across as a bully to many, is crude and rude, and would wear thin in a Presidential campaign, with plenty of documentary evidence already available as to his unpleasant, annoying personality!

2. If he were nominated, he would not even be guaranteed to win his home state of New Jersey, which tends Democratic in Presidential elections.

3. He would be unlikely to win any Northeastern or New England state, except maybe New Hampshire.

4. He would not be able to compete in the Pacific Coast states or Hawaii.

5. He would have a rough time carrying Virginia or Florida, which Barack Obama won twice.

6. He would have a difficult time winning the upper Midwest or Illinois, but with some chance of winning Ohio and Iowa.

7. He would be unlikely to win Hispanics and Latinos in Colorado, New Mexico, and Nevada, and would likely lose those states.

8. Christie might win New Hampshire and Ohio, and Iowa, potentially, but that would give him only 28 more electoral votes than Mitt Romney, a total of only 234.

9. Christie’s handling of the Hurricane Sandy situation helped him at that point, but will be forgotten by 2016, and will hurt him among mainstream conservatives, angry that he cooperated with President Obama, and took attention off Mitt Romney.

10.Christie is unacceptable on “social issues’ for his party base, issues such as abortion rights, gun control and acceptance of gay rights, although opposing instituting gay marriage in in New Jersey.

11. Christie has no background or experience in foreign policy, and imagine his personality on the international scene, where with his big mouth, he could cause grief in diplomacy big time! A gruff bully, which Christie is, is not fit to be President of the United States, although it may please the anti foreign tendencies of his party, who think the world is inferior to American “exceptionalism”!

12. This final point is not said in jest or ridicule, or designed as an insult, but to believe that we are going to elect a President as large as William Howard Taft in modern times is to believe in miracles, as Christie is a terrible model for health and physical fitness, and that will be to his detriment, right or wrong, in a Presidential campaign!

So forget about Christie’s own delusions of grandeur, as he is NOT going to be President of the United States in 2017!

Grover Norquist Is Being “Divorced” By Republican Office Holders Rapidly!

Ronald Leave a comment

Grover Norquist, the powerful head of Americans For Tax Reform, has been able to dominate Republican thinking for a generation, with the goal of NEVER raising taxes EVER again!

But suddenly, after Republican defeats in the recent election in both the House and the Senate, we are seeing the beginnings of “divorce” proceedings by such Republican luminaries as:

Senator John McCain of Arizona
Senator Lindsey Graham of South Carolina
Senator Saxby Chambliss of Georgia
Senator Bob Corker of Tennessee
Congressman Peter King of New York
Congressman Eric Cantor of Virginia, the House Majority Leader

The difference from the Presidential campaign, when all of the GOP candidates refused to accept a deal of one dollar in tax increases for ten dollars of budget cuts, is long gone, a part of distant history, as the Republicans understand the concept that taxes must go up, and that the wealthy cannot have the same advantages they had for ten years under the Bush tax cuts.

This is a good beginning step, but it is a long way from ‘divorce” in theory to actual vote for tax increases.

So we shall see how far this goes!

Presidents, Presidential Nominees, Presidential Seekers, Supreme Court Justices, And The Position Of Secretary Of State

Ronald Leave a comment

Many followers of American history, government and politics may not be aware of the large number of Presidents, Presidential nominees who lost the White House, and Presidential seekers who failed to win their party’s nomination, who have been Secretary of State, the most important cabinet position. And also there are four Secretaries of State who have served on the Supreme Court of the United States.

The following Presidents have been Secretary of State earlier:

THOMAS JEFFERSON
JAMES MADISON
JAMES MONROE
JOHN QUINCY ADAMS
MARTIN VAN BUREN
JAMES BUCHANAN

The following have been Presidential nominees, but failed to win the White House:

HENRY CLAY
JOHN C CALHOUN
DANIEL WEBSTER
LEWIS CASS
JAMES G BLAINE
WILLIAM JENNINGS BRYAN
CHARLES EVANS HUGHES

The following sought their party’s Presidential nomination, failed to win it, but went on to be Secretary of State:

WILLIAM SEWARD
EDMUND MUSKIE
HILLARY CLINTON

Additionally, four Secretaries of State have served on the Supreme Court, with three of them being Chief Justice:

JOHN JAY
JOHN MARSHALL
CHARLES EVANS HUGHES
JAMES F BYRNES (Associate)

This is of great interest now as we have Senator John Kerry, 2004 Democratic Presidential nominee, under serious consideration by President Obama to be his second term Secretary of State!

Secretary Of State John Kerry Or Secretary Of State Susan Rice? Kerry Should Be Favored!

Ronald Leave a comment

With all of the hullabaloo over Senator John McCain’s derogatory comments about United Nations Ambassador Susan Rice in regards to the September 11 Libyan ambassador death controversy, a momentum has built up in the Obama Administration to double down on Rice, and decide to nominate her to be Hillary Clinton’s replacement as Secretary of State.

Susan Rice is certainly qualified for the position, and would do a fine job in the State Department. She has excellent qualifications, and educational and scholarly credentials to back her up for the nomination.

But what this struggle between John McCain and Barack Obama has done is minimize the possibility that the Chairman of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee and 2004 Democratic Presidential nominee, Senator John Kerry, might gain the position.

Kerry has has a long, distinguished career in the Senate, and had he been President, he would have had to deal with all of the many international matters that would have arisen. He has been a forceful spokesmen on foreign affairs for many years, and having been an anti war advocate in the past, SHOULD be seen as a positive factor, unlike conservative commentator Bill Kristol’s assertion on Fox News Channel yesterday that Kerry’s past anti war stands should disqualify him for the position. Kerry truly deserves this position, and would not be the first losing Presidential candidate to become Secretary of State, joining a long list who have served in the State Department after losing the Presidency, including

HENRY CLAY
JOHN C CALHOUN
DANIEL WEBSTER
LEWIS CASS
JAMES G BLAINE
WILLIAM JENNINGS BRYAN
CHARLES EVANS HUGHES

Also, there have been former Presidential contenders, who failed to win the nomination, who have later served as Secretary of State, including:

WILLIAM SEWARD
EDMUND MUSKIE
HILLARY CLINTON

So TEN former Presidential seekers have gone on to serve as Secretary of State, and anyone with knowledge of American diplomatic history KNOWS that they are among the very best people we have had in that position, particularly the case with Clay, Calhoun, Webster, Blaine, Hughes, Seward, and Clinton. So if seven out of the ten have made a major impact, that is an excellent argument for John Kerry as Secretary of State!

Inflexible, Rigid Presidencies: Major Problems For Woodrow Wilson, Lyndon B. Johnson, And Richard Nixon

Ronald Leave a comment

One of the most important personality characteristics needed for a successful Presidency, and to avoid a tragic end to a leader’s time in power, is his ability to be flexible and open minded to new ideas other than his own, and not to be outraged by criticism.

This does not mean, however, that a President should not have courage, guts, and decisiveness, but still flexibility and openness to others and their ideas is essential.

Going by this standard, America has had three Presidents in the past hundred years, who, despite some of their great accomplishments, were ultimately tragedies in office.

These three Presidents would include the following:

Woodrow Wilson
Lyndon B. Johnson
Richard Nixon

Woodrow Wilson was never good at negotiating with his critics in Congress, and his moment of great failure was when he lost the battle for ratification of the Versailles Treaty and American membership in the League of Nations in 1919-1920. While things were going well for him in domestic affairs, he was very effective, but lost it all once there was strong opposition. He never fully recovered from a stroke, which incapacitated him in his last 18 months, and only had three short years of retirement in bad health before his death in 1924.

Lyndon B. Johnson had brilliance as a legislative strategist, with his Great Society programs, but again, as with Wilson, he fell apart and became defensive and stubborn when opposition developed over the escalation of the Vietnam War, and he left office beaten, and only had four unhappy years of retirement before his death in 1973.

Richard Nixon, on the other hand, had great foreign policy ability, but despite his great foreign policy and some domestic policy accomplishments, he reacted defensively, and with a sense of being persecuted and mistreated, brought about by his own psychological demons. So he ended up pursuing his “enemies”, who criticized his Vietnam War policies and his use of his executive authority in an illegal and unethical manner, and he became saddled with the Watergate scandal, which brought him down by resignation in 1974, with his mission being to rehabilitate himself during the last 20 years of his life, but never quite accomplishing that goal.

All three men were brilliant and talented, but each had an inflexible and rigid personality that trapped them in tragedy they could not escape!

Barack Obama Second Term Victory More Impressive As Vote Count Continues

Ronald Leave a comment

The final vote count for the Presidential Election of 2012 is still being tallied, as absentee votes and overseas military votes are late in arriving and being included in the election results, and as a result, the Barack Obama victory over Mitt Romney is becoming ever more impressive.

What had been thought to be a close popular vote and percentage of vote victory is no longer close at all.

Latest numbers show Obama with about 64.5 million popular votes and 50.8 percent of the vote, with Mitt Romney having 60.3 million popular votes and 47.5 percent of the vote.

So Obama has about 4.2 million more popular votes and about 3.3 percent more percentage of the vote.

Of course, Obama also won 26 states and the District of Columbia, to Romney’s 24 states, and had 332 electoral votes to Romney’s 206 electoral votes, and Obama won every “swing state”, and every state he won in 2008, except for Indiana and North Carolina.

And if one looks at the top ten states, with a majority of the American population, the only states won by Romney were Texas (Number 2), Georgia (Number 9), and North Carolina (Number 10).

And if one looks at the top 22 states, all with 5 million population or more, only seven states (Texas, Georgia, North Carolina, Indiana, Arizona, Tennessee, Missouri), were Republican states in 2012.

And of course, Obama won among African Americans, Hispanics and Latinos, women, single women, Jews, Catholics, Gays and Lesbians, Asian Americans, young people, the Northeast states, the New England states, the Upper Midwest states, the Pacific Coast states, urban voters, secular voters, educated voters, suburban voters, environmentalists, labor voters, intellectual voters—-is this enough indication of his massive victory, with a reaffirmation that the American people had NOT made a mistake in 2008 in voting for the first African American President by voting for him again in 2012?

Mitt Romney, Linda McMahon, And Wealth: Total Disdain For Campaign Workers!

Ronald Leave a comment

It is amazing how some wealthy politicians make it clear how much they disdain the average American, and only when they lose, do their overly loyal campaign workers realize just how despicable and cheap these losers are!

Right after Mitt Romney lost the Presidency, he cut off the credit cards of his campaign workers, and they had to pay their cab fare home in Boston! This came after his infamous “47 percent” statement, and was followed up by his “gifts” comment after the election, showing he was a sore loser, and in so doing, alienated his own party, who now consider him someone to be repudiated in a total manner!

Right after World Wrestling Entertainment Chief Executive Officer Linda McMahon lost her second straight attempt to “buy” a Connecticut Senate seat, she cur off payment of the last paychecks to her campaign workers, for work they had done in her behalf! One worker received a bad check and a condom! What a despicable, nasty, mean spirited woman this candidate was during her two campaigns to “buy” a Senate seat, and thank goodness she did not win!

This shows the true nature of these wealthy, “privileged” people who think they are “owed” the position they desire, but discover that just because they are “loaded” and willing to spend their own money, as well as others, does not guarantee that they are given power to victimize the average American, in their mad dash to become ever richer!

Good Question: Would Abraham Lincoln, Theodore Roosevelt, And Dwight D. Eisenhower Be Republicans In 2012? ABSOLUTELY NOT!

Ronald 2 Comments

When one looks at the sad state of the Republican Party in 2012, having lost the popular vote FIVE times in the past six elections, and when one analyzes the kinds of groups and viewpoints of their base—right wing social and religious extremists, neoconservatives, Grover Norquist inspired economic viewpoints, Wall Street elitists, and the Old Confederacy view on racial matters, the feeling that develops is that the Republican Party has lost its moorings, and will not reach national power in the Senate and the White House until they change radically, and back toward the moderate center.

But one has to wonder, would three of the icons of the Republican past even wish to be associated with the present mess that is the GOP?

Would Abraham Lincoln be a Republican today? Clearly, the answer is no, as his views would not conform with today’s GOP, including the racism, the movement toward secession by extremist elements, and the religious foothold in the party.

But neither would Teddy Roosevelt, with his belief in regulation of big business, trust in national government, promotion of the environment, and dislike of wealthy corporate leaders who exploited labor.

And neither would Dwight D. Eisenhower, affectionately known as “Ike”, who was basically nonpartisan, who could have just as easily become a Democrat in 1948, when offered a chance to run for President, but turned it down. With his ultimate election as a Republican, he ended the debate among conservatives in the party about attempting to repeal the New Deal of Franklin D. Roosevelt, and announced acceptance of what it had done.

Imagine: the three most respected and honored leaders of the party, if alive today, would have broken with the Republicans, and would have found the Democratic Party much more to their liking, with its platform of change, reform, and progress!

And all three would have been proud of a nation that not only elected the first African American President, Barack Obama, but went ahead and reelected him as well!

The Extraordinarily Close Relationship Between President Obama And Vice President Biden

Ronald Leave a comment

Now that the first term of Barack Obama and Joe Biden is ending, it is worth a few moments to recognize the extraordinarily close relationship that exists between the President and the Vice President.

When one looks back on such relationships in the past, it is clear that no other relationship has been quite as close, as warm, as personally friendly, since the time when Jimmy Carter utilized Walter Mondale as practically a “co President” from 1977-1981.

Vice Presidents never really mattered or were close to a President until the 1950s, when Richard Nixon made the office of Vice President a significant office. But President Dwight D. Eisenhower was not very happy, a lot of the time, with his Vice President, and there were hints that he would have preferred a different running mate in 1956,

The John F. Kennedy–Lyndon B. Johnson relationship was not close at all, and neither was the Johnson–Hubert Humphrey relationship.

The Richard Nixon–Spiro Agnew relationship was not much better, and Nixon with Gerald Ford was only a brief period where the two men avoided contact with the other during the Watergate crisis.

Gerald Ford and Nelson Rockefeller were closer, but Ford chose to drop Rockefeller in favor of Bob Dole for the 1976 Presidential race to please the conservative wing led by Ronald Reagan, and years later, Ford expressed regret that he had allowed himself to dump Rockefeller.

Jimmy Carter and Walter Mondale were extraordinarily close, with Mondale being treated as an absolute equal, and the two men remain close friends now after nearly 32 years out of office, the longest lasting Presidential-Vice Presidential team, breaking all records for longevity every day.

Ronald Reagan was not very close to George H. W. Bush personally, and Bush did not take Dan Quayle very seriously at all as a Vice President.

Bill Clinton and Al Gore were friendly and close until the Monica Lewinsky and impeachment issues arose, and then Gore stayed away from Clinton during his own campaign for President in 2000, which very well may have harmed his ability to win, despite a popular vote majority of about a half million votes.

George W. Bush relied on Dick Cheney a great deal, but their closeness, if it ever existed, dissipated in the second term over various matters.

The Obama-Biden friendship and closeness seems not at all affected in any way by events, or Biden’s well known problem with gaffes, and he has played a major role as an adviser on so many issues, domestic and foreign. One can see in so many situations and photos that the two men are close, and have a very warm, personal relationship with each other.

This could create a problem for President Obama IF both Biden and Secretary of State Hillary Clinton decide to run for President, as the President owes a lot to both of them, as well as to former President Bill Clinton, for having worked so hard for his reelection, and giving what many consider the best speech for Obama at the Democratic National Convention as well.

The best situation for Obama then, would be to remain neutral, but with the hope that maybe one or both would decide ultimately, because of their ages and long careers, not to run for President in their 70s (Biden) or nearing 70s (Clinton).