After a great week of radio interviews for my new book last week, I am looking forward to more radio interviews this coming week. I’ll start the week on Monday morning at 7:10am ET on the Frank Truatt Morning Show, WTBQ-AM/FM (1110am/93.5FM) in Poughkeepsie, NY. If you’d like to tune in, you can listen live at http://www.wtbq.com/.
With three Republican Presidential candidates for 2016 being “non politicians”, people who have never served in a government position on the city, state or national level, the issue arises: have there been any other such candidates in the past?
It turns out that we have had several military generals who never served in a civilian position, that could qualify as “non politicians”.
This includes the following:
Zachary Taylor 1848 (Mexican War)
Winfield Scott 1852 (Mexican War)
George McClellan 1864 (Civil War)
Ulysses S. Grant 1868, 1872 (Civil War)
Winfield Scott Hancock 1880 (Civil War)
Taylor and Grant were elected, while Scott, McClellan, and Hancock were defeated in their attempts to become President.
McClellan did serve as Governor of New Jersey from 1878-1881, AFTER running for President against Abraham Lincoln. But Taylor, Scott, Grant and Hancock never ran for public office.
Additionally, Horace Greeley, the New York Tribune publisher, ran for President in 1872, as the candidate of the Democratic Party and the breakaway group in the Republican Party opposed to Grant’s reelection, known as the “Liberal Republicans”. He served very briefly as an appointed member of the House of Representatives, but not by vote of the people, but rather a choice of Whig Party leaders to fill a short term replacement before the election for the next term in Congress. He served a total of only three months from December 1848 to March 1849, and did not run for the New York City seat. Technically, one could say he had that political experience, but so little in time, that he could be seen as basically a “non politician” when he ran for President 24 years later, although being the editor of the New York Tribune was certainly “political” in nature.
Then we have Wall Street industrialist and businessman Wendell Willkie, who ran against Franklin D. Roosevelt in 1940, after stirring the Republican National Convention and overcoming much better known Presidential candidates, but while running a good race, he lost, and then supported the World War II effort and cooperated with FDR until Willkie died in late 1944.
And finally, we have billionaire Ross Perot, who ran for President as an independent in 1992 and as the Reform Party candidate in 1996.
So only Zachary Taylor and Ulysses S. Grant were “non politicians” who were elected President.
The odds of Donald Trump, Carly Fiorina, or Dr. Benjamin Carson being elected President in 2016, therefore, are astronomical!
It has been pointed out that billionaire Donald Trump “speaks without notes”; “has passion and joy in campaigning”; “speaks his mind”, all traits that most politicians, including Presidential candidates, often do not have.
Well, there is someone else who has the same traits that Trump has, but also has tons of REAL government experience; a record of REAL accomplishments; a true compassion for those NOT wealthy; a sincerity, authenticity, and genuine nature rarely seen in politicians; a person with not a mean bone in his body; a person who would “give the shirt off his back”; a true man of the people, who has managed to serve longer than any political leader in public office in the entire history of the nation; and has NOT enriched himself in the manner that most politicians do!
In these other traits mentioned in the above paragraph, Donald Trump is entirely different, the diametric opposite of this other person who shares the traits in the first paragraph.
Who am I talking about? Vice President and former Delaware Senator Joe Biden!
It can be argued that Jeb Bush and Hillary Clinton cannot compete in the traits that Donald Trump and Joe Biden share. Bernie Sanders may share the traits in the first paragraph, but his connection to the “dirty” word “Socialism” creates many potential complications were Sanders to end up as the Democratic nominee for President, a real “long shot”!
A debate between Donald Trump and Joe Biden would be the debate of the century, as Joe Biden would combat the demagoguery of Trump with a strong, rational, but fiery and emotional attack on “Trumpism”. Biden has already proved how he can make “mince meat” of Paul Ryan and Sarah Palin in Vice Presidential debates. He proved to be the best debater in the Presidential primaries of 2008, but of course could not overcome the star power of Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama.
But now, coming off the successful and significant Vice Presidency of Joe Biden, he would have the best opportunity to overcome the phenomenon of Donald Trump, and institutionalize the Obama Presidency, and keep the virtues of the Great Society of Lyndon B. Johnson and the New Deal of Franklin D. Roosevelt!
Donald Trump’s Presidential candidacy has brought back memories of three other Presidential candidates.
First is Wendell Willkie, a corporate leader and Wall Street industrialist from Indiana who had never run for public office, who wowed the Republican convention in 1940 with his charisma, rhetoric, and attack on “career politicians”. He was able to win the Republican Presidential nomination in 1940, and run a good but losing race against the master politician, Franklin D. Roosevelt, running for an unprecedented third term.
Next is George C. Wallace, Governor of Alabama, who formed the American Independent Party in 1968, rallying those opposed to the Civil Rights laws passed under Lyndon B. Johnson. He attracted angry working class whites, and won 13.5 % of the popular vote, the fourth best percentage for a third party in American history. He also won five Southern states and 46 electoral votes, making him the second best in total states and electoral votes in American history, only behind former President Theodore Roosevelt, who won six states and 88 electoral votes as the nominee of the third party known as the Progressive (Bull Moose) party, in 1912. TR also is the only third party nominee to end up second, rather than third in the election results. His campaign in 1912 decimated the Republican Party under President William Howard Taft, and helped to elect Democrat Woodrow Wilson.
And then we have Ross Perot, a billionaire businessman who had never run for public office, who ran an independent race twice, winning nearly 19 percent of the vote in 1992, and 8 percent of the vote in 1996, while winning no states in the Electoral College. He appealed to those who were disgusted with the federal government, and worried about the growing national debt. His candidacy undermined the Republican Party nominees, President George H. W. Bush in 1992 and Senator Bob Dole in 1996, and elected Democrat Bill Clinton twice.
Now we have Donald Trump, a billionaire, who has developed an appeal to those who are disillusioned with politics and the federal government, making him similar to Perot. But Trump also appeals to the baser instincts in many people, those who dislike African Americans, Latinos, immigrants in general, in these ways having similar views to Wallace. These Trump supporters also think women should not be treated equally, preferring the old image of women who should cook, clean, and be available for the sexual satisfaction of their men, but with no rights over their bodies and reproduction, similar to the Tea Party Movement. Also, there is a distaste for labor rights, and for the environment, and an orientation toward absolute belief in religion as the gospel, and a repudiation of science.
Can Trump “storm” the Republican Party, as Wendell Willkie did in 1940; or will he run on a third party, like Ross Perot, and make it impossible for the GOP to win the White House? And will Trump continue to appeal to the George Wallace type voters, and promote a right wing populism as Wallace did?
This is what is yet to be evolving, but in many ways, Trump is a combination, right now, of Willkie, Wallace, and Perot!
As I continue my radio promotion tour for my new book tomorrow, you can find me at the following stations and times:
I hope you can tune in! I will also be pre-recording an interview on The David Lile Show, KFRU-AM 1400 in Columbia, Missouri, and will post when that interview can be heard when that information becomes available.
With the growing likelihood that we could have two candidates, or even three candidates for the Presidency nearing or over 70, in the Presidential Election of 2016, an argument can be made that we should expect that such candidates agree to a one term Presidency if they win.
One might say why should any Presidential candidate forgo the possibility of a second term, which effectively, would make such a candidate a “lame duck” President?
However, the argument could also be that in the first term of a President, he or she must spend inordinate amounts of time campaigning and strategizing for reelection, when he or she should be focusing on doing what he or she thinks is right and proper for the nation.
Most second term Presidents have great difficulty accomplishing much, as historically, most Presidents have accomplished much more in their first term than their second term.
With older Presidents, the odds of him or her dying in office magnifies, and makes the choice of the Vice Presidential nominee ever more important, as it can be expected that such a Vice President being elevated to the White House is much greater than normal.
It would be a good idea to suggest that a one term pledge might be in order, as the experience of Ronald Reagan, clearly declining in his second term health wise, was a silent crisis in the 1980s, a very worrisome situation.
One might say why is it different for a President than a member of Congress or a Justice on the Supreme Court? And the answer is that the responsibilities, the burden, the pressures, are far greater on the occupant of the White House than anyone else has.
Most Americans are retired, and at the most working part time, in their 70s, so having a one term limit on Presidents over or near 70 when elected, seems a legitimate alternative!
On Thursday, August 20th at 3pm ET, I’ll spend an hour talking with Mathew Mari on WVOX-AM 1460 in New York about my new book. You can listen live at http://wvox.com/. I hope you’ll join us!
In case you missed it, here is my interview from Tuesday, August 18 with Steve Bowers on Prime Time Drive, WNWS 101.5 FM in Memphis, Tennessee.
Audio Player
On Wednesday August 19 at 8:30am ET, I will be interviewed live on the New 55 KRC Morning Show on WKRC-AM in Cincinnati by Brian Thomas, discussing the release of my new book: Assassinations, Threats and the American Presidency. If you live in Cincinnati, be sure to tune in on AM 550, or listen online at http://www.55krc.com/main.html.
Also, if you’re a night owl, tomorrow night at Midnight ET/11:00pm CT, I’ll be on the Al Mamberg Show on AM 830 WCCO in Minneapolis. You can listen live at http://minnesota.cbslocal.com/.
I hope you’ll tune in!
On this day in 1920, women finally gained the right to vote on a national level, after a struggle begun as early as 1848 at the Equal Rights Convention in Seneca Falls, New York.
The heroines of the women suffrage movement included Elizabeth Cady Stanton, Susan B. Anthony, Alice Paul, and Jeanne Rankin, among others, and also included many men.
72 years had passed, and many women had been arrested for marching for the right to vote, including under President Woodrow Wilson, who, ironically, opposed the 19th Amendment, but under whom the amendment was added to the Constitution.
The effect of the right to vote for women took time to sink in, but in the past 25 years, women have become an important factor in the success of the Democratic Party on the Presidential level, with the Democrats winning the national popular vote five of the last six elections, including the two elections of Bill Clinton and Barack Obama, and Al Gore, who was denied the Presidency by the machinations of the Republicans in the close election in Florida in 2000.
Most of the women who have been political leaders in the last century have been Democrats, but there have been a smattering of Republican women Governors, Senators, and House of Representatives members, as well as Mayors of cities.
The vast majority of women have voted Democratic regularly, due to the fact that the Democrats have dealt with real issues affecting women.
Meanwhile, the Republicans have done everything possible to alienate the majority of women—on issues of reproductive rights, labor rights, the issue of rape, the problems of minority women and single mothers, and so many other issues that affect women.
Additionally, Ann Coulter and others have called for the removal of the 19th Amendment, because of the reality that a majority of women vote for the Democrats, an idea which will never occur in the real world.
This is a massive mistake by the Republicans, as without support of a large percentage of women—including minority, single, young, and educated women—the GOP is destined to continue to lose elections for President over the long haul!