Domestic Policy

40th Anniversary Of Richard Nixon Resignation, Due To Watergate Scandal

Ronald 1 Comment

It is hard to believe, but it is now 40 years since Richard Nixon was forced out of the Presidency, due to the Watergate Scandal.

It was stunning that a President, who had won 49 of the 50 states, and all but 17 electoral votes, would be the only President to resign after only one year and almost seven months of his second term.

It was also amazing that Nixon was the only President facing impeachment, and resigning after the House Judiciary Committee, in a bipartisan vote, adopted three articles of impeachment, who truly deserved impeachment.

Andrew Johnson was wrongfully impeached and found not guilty in 1868, and Bill Clinton was to face the same circumstances and results in 1998-1999. And now, there is a threat of Barack Obama facing the same scenario next year, but with the same results assured.

The point was that Richard Nixon had actually been abusive of his powers as President, and had led a lawless administration unmatched before or since.

It is also a tragic story as, in reality, Richard Nixon had many accomplishments in foreign and domestic policy, many of which remain part of American life 40 years later, particularly so in domestic affairs, including the Environmental Protection Agency, Consumer Product Safety Commission, and Occupational Safety and Health Administration, among others.

The evaluation and interpretation of Richard Nixon will continue to be controversial, and a new HBO special, “Nixon on Nixon,” has been unveiled this week, demonstrating the man’s illegalities and prejudices and biases, straight from the Watergate tapes themselves. Additionally, a new book has been published with the revelation of these tapes, authored by historian Douglas Brinkley of Rice University, with the assistance of Professor Luke Nichter of Texas A & M University.

So Nixon will be written about for generations, both for the good he did, as well as the bad!

Presidents And Intelligence

Ronald Leave a comment

A YouGov Survey on the past eight elected Presidents, therefore not including Gerald Ford, ranks their “intelligence” with unusual results.

The word “intelligent” has different meanings to different people.

Is it based on grades while in school?

Is it based on ability to get things done effectively?

Is it based on oratorical skill and charm and charisma?

Is it based on accomplishments in office?

Is it based on personal popularity with the American people?

Is it based on reaction to crises that arise?

Does being “intelligent” matter as much as other characteristics, including: honesty, experience, ability to inspire, boldness, and having a sense of humor?

What it comes down to is that how people react to Presidents is very personal, and trying to rank them on the word “intelligence” is simply extremely political in nature!

According to the YouGov poll, Bill Clinton and Ronald Reagan are the two most “intelligent” of the eight recent Presidents, followed by Barack Obama and George H. W. Bush. Notice that the first two are also seen as most “successful”, while Obama, even under attack recently, looks better than the rest, and the senior Bush is remembered for the Persian Gulf War, which led him to an all time high public opinion poll rating of 91 percent.

The other four recent Presidents, generally seen as “failures”, or at least seen as negative, are in order: Jimmy Carter, Richard Nixon, Lyndon B. Johnson, and George W. Bush.

Interestingly, George W, Bush and Barack Obama have the highest percentage, both 17 percent, thinking they are not intelligent at all! This is purely emotion based on opposition that each has had from his critics!

What it comes down to is that this poll is basically useless, as it fails to look at historical reality and the record of each President!

If that was done, one could argue that LBJ should rank the highest in pure accomplishment in domestic affairs, in a way that still affects us, while Richard Nixon would rank highest in pure accomplishment in foreign policy, despite his many other shortcomings, including Watergate.

In pure native intelligence, based on information we have on their backgrounds, Bill Clinton and Jimmy Carter would rank the highest.

Ronald Reagan has been over inflated in image, while George H. W. Bush has been underrated for his accomplishments.

Barack Obama cannot be adequately evaluated while in office, while George W. Bush, ranking last, seems likely to remain that way for the long run!

Jon Huntsman Hints That He Might Run For President Again In 2016

Ronald 2 Comments

Former Utah Governor and Ambassador to China Jon Huntsman will give the commencement address at the University of Wisconsin in Madison on May 17th.

He has also been interviewed recently by Larry King on his online PoliticKing series, with the interview available on You Tube!

He is involved in leadership of a group called NO LABELS, which purpose is to stop the divisiveness on Capitol Hill and bring solutions to our domestic and foreign policy problems.

Barack Obama was concerned that Huntsman might be the GOP Presidential nominee in 2012, and has very high respect for him.

This author has certainly made clear over the years of his blog of his admiration and respect for Jon Huntsman, who he sees as the ONLY legitimate candidate for the Republican Presidential nomination in 2016. He is very knowledgeable, very informed, very impressive as a public speaker, has a handsome manner about him, a warm personality that fits what we need in the Presidency in the future, if there is to be a viable alternative to Hillary Clinton or Joe Biden. When one compares Huntsman to ANY other Republican who might run for President, they all come across as laughable by comparison. Their intelligence level, their compassion, their understanding of what really affects the middle class and the poor, and their understanding of the world, all demonstrate massive gaps!

No one else has his breadth of experience, particularly in foreign policy, so important for the next term, other than Hillary Clinton and Joe Biden, but he also has proved he can lead as Governor and get things done.

His problem is the right wing extremism of the Republican Party, and the evil Tea Party Movement, which are likely to prevent any chance of his being a serious candidate for the nomination, unless he chooses to run as an independent or third party candidate, but if he does that, it will insure the Democrats, who have the edge in the Electoral College anyway, will keep the White House!

What If Hillary Clinton, Joe Biden, And Jeb Bush Do Not Run For President?

Ronald 4 Comments

So much attention has been paid to the concept that Hillary Clinton, Joe Biden, and Jeb Bush will run for President, but what if none of these three career politicians choose to run?

There are some hints that Hillary will not run, and there has been concern about her health, her age, and whether she wants to go through the “hell” of running for President, knowing that she is soon to be a grandmother, and will be in her 70s nine months into her Presidency. There seems to be the belief that she wants to be President, but does not relish running for the job. The vicious attacks have begun anew, as when she was First Lady, and she could have more leisure time, and make more money by writing more books, doing more lectures, and being a “statesman”, instead of being a politician.

The problems to be faced by the next President in domestic and foreign affairs are overwhelming, and cannot make her feel that there will be any sense of peace or tranquility, with the total chasm between the Democratic and Republican Parties. And despite lack of criticism openly by the Left in the Democratic Party, many would rather see Senator Elizabeth Warren of Massachusetts, or Governor Martin O’Malley of Maryland, running as fresh faces. Some even imagine Socialist Senator Bernie Sanders of Vermont as an alternative, although both he and Warren are not good on the age factor, with Sanders in his 70s, and Warren entering it late in the next term of the Presidency.

Vice President Joe Biden faces the same situation–age and health issues, and the desire to spend more time with his family, with him reaching the age of 74 shortly after the next Presidential election. Biden loves his job, but is he, maybe, having second thoughts as well about the challenges ahead, and after 44 years of public service, it would not be surprising if he decided not to run.

Jeb Bush is being promoted by his brother, George W. Bush, and his dad, George H. W. Bush, while his mother, Barbara Bush, advises against his running for President. Jeb has a quandary, as the “establishment” in the party wants him, as Chris Christie flounders with his scandal in New Jersey, but it is clear that he has strong doubts, as to the wisdom of running, and facing vehement opposition from the Tea Party Movement and others in the right wing dominated GOP, that it would be a tough battle to win the nomination, and he is behind, even in Florida, to Hillary Clinton. Also, remember that Jeb has not been public office for ten years by 2016, and will not have faced a campaign since 2002, by 2016, and his experience does not come anywhere near that of Hillary and Joe.

But the question arises, what happens if these three “leaders” do not run for President? Who would benefit, come out of the shadows, and become the new John F. Kennedy, Jimmy Carter, Bill Clinton, or Barack Obama for the Democrats (all not considered front runners in the second year of the Presidential term before they were elected)? And who would become the man able to demonstrate the experience and ability of Richard Nixon, George H. W. Bush, Bob Dole, and John McCain, which led the GOP to pick people with foreign policy expertise as their candidates (even if Dole and McCain did not win the White House)?

Would another woman be likely to run if Hillary did not run, and to have a real chance to win–such as Elizabeth Warren of Massachusetts, Kirsten Gillibrand of New York, or Amy Klobuchar of Minnesota? Or would a Northeastern Governor, such as Martin O’Malley of Maryland or Andrew Cuomo of New York be the best bet? Or would another African American Senator, Cory Booker, be the way to go? Or would the Democratic Party go to the moderate center, and pick Senator Mark Warner of Virginia, or go out to the Mountain West and pick former Montana Governor Brian Schweitzer? Or could Senator Bernie Sanders of Vermont really have a chance to be the nominee?

For the Republicans, would former Utah Governor and Ambassador to China Jon Huntsman, easily the most qualified in foreign policy and effective in domestic matters while governing Utah, be able to gain “establishment” support, and overcome the Right Wing extremism of the Tea Party Movement? Or would the party go to a Governor Scott Walker of Wisconsin, or John Kasich of Ohio, or Bobby Jindal of Louisiana, or Rick Perry of Texas? Or would they go for the newcomers in the Senate–Ted Cruz of Texas, Rand Paul of Kentucky, Marco Rubio of Florida, or go for 2012 Vice Presidential nominee, Congressman Paul Ryan of Wisconsin?

The reality is that IF Hillary, Joe, and Jeb were to choose not to run, the 2016 Presidential campaign would be wide open, and probably chaotic, path breaking, and historic, and no one could possibly predict the ultimate outcome!

New Reality: Foreign Policy Will Matter More Than ObamaCare In 2016 Presidential Election!

Ronald 4 Comments

It is becoming clear, as a result of recent events involving Russia and Ukraine, that the foreign policy issue will matter more in the Presidential Election of 2016 than domestic policy, including ObamaCare.

This is NOT what many progressives and liberals would prefer, as there are many domestic problems that need attention on the agenda, and President Barack Obama has been trying to deal with many of these issues, despite obstructionism and stalemate caused by the Republican control of the House of Representatives.

But national security and defense, and the possibility of armed conflict in Europe, related to NATO and the European Union, may force the hand of President Obama and his successor to focus more on foreign policy in the next Presidential term of office.

In a way, it reminds us of Franklin D. Roosevelt in 1940, able to run for a third term, and seen as the only legitimate person to be our President in the midst of an international crisis, the victory of the Axis Powers in Europe and Asia, at that time. Alternative possible candidates, such as Senator Robert Taft of Ohio, Senator Arthur Vandenberg of Michigan, Vice President John Nance Garner of Texas, and Senator Burton Wheeler of Montana, were all isolationists, the wrong viewpoint at the time. When Wendell Willkie came along as a surprise opponent of FDR, it was clear that on foreign policy, they had an agreement, which was good for the nation as it faced the likelihood of engagement in World War II.

Now, of course, an experienced and wise President in foreign policy, not rushing into conflict, and using his diplomatic skills, is ineligible to be President for another term, so it becomes extremely important that the proper person be elected to succeed Barack Obama.

When one looks at the cast of characters on the Republican side, and the alternatives on the Democratic side, it is clear that ONLY three potential future Presidents meet the need for appropriate foreign policy experience in a delicate and dangerous time, as we may now be entering. Not only is there the threat of war in Europe over Ukraine or other Russian attempt at advancement west, but also the looming threat of Iran and North Korea, as well as the Syrian Civil War and its effect on the entire Middle East, and the growing influence of China.

So reality tells us ONLY Hillary Clinton, Joe Biden and Jon Huntsman fit the bill to be our Commander in Chief, based on their experiences, expertise, and skills!

There are other Democrats who have positive aspects, but do NOT have the diplomatic experience of Clinton, Biden and Huntsman.

On the GOP side, it is literally horrifying to imagine a Chris Christie, Scott Walker, Rick Perry, Rick Santorum, Ted Cruz, Marco Rubio, Rand Paul, Paul Ryan, Bobby Jindal, Mike Huckabee, or anyone else as Commander in Chief, with many of them purely ignorant, or bullyish, or extreme in their rhetoric, or in the case of Rand Paul, a flaming isolationist! Only Jeb Bush, conceivably, due to his intelligence and connection to his dad, but not his brother, MIGHT be otherwise acceptable, but not with the same sense of confidence in Clinton, Biden and Huntsman!

So the best we can hope for is a Clinton-Huntsman or Biden-Huntsman race for the security and safety of our nation, because we would know that any one of them could perform well as our 45th President, and do the best we can hope for in the area of foreign policy!

Senator Rand Paul Becomes Poll Leader For GOP Presidential Nomination: What Does It Mean?

Ronald 16 Comments

Kentucky Senator Rand Paul, the son of libertarian favorite Ron Paul, former Congressman from Texas, has suddenly emerged as the leader in two polls–the CPAC straw poll and the New Hampshire straw poll, both in the past ten days.

This is seen as very surprising to many observers, and it certainly upsets Establishment Republicans who see Rand Paul as far from who they prefer to be the Republican Presidential nominee in 2016.

Rand Paul seems to appeal to young people, who also liked his dad, due to their desire to cut down American involvement in overseas interventions, but that is seen by critics as an unrealistic isolationism, which becomes more problematical with the Russian takeover of Crimea, and the possible intervention in the rest of Ukraine.

Rand Paul’s desire to cut the federal government and spending dramatically in a downward spiral also appeals to many young people, but worries those concerned about the growth of poverty and the decline of the middle class.

And Rand Paul’s statements about the Civil Rights Act of 1964, in regards to the dislike of “forcing” businesses to serve customers they do not want to serve, is also alarming to ethnic minorities, particularly African Americans and Latinos.

Rand Paul’s opposition to women controlling their own reproductive lives also is an alarm bell to many.

There are many who think Rand Paul is a shallow person, who should not even be considered Presidential material.

Are we ready for a libertarian isolationist in the 21st century, after the growth of government in the 20th century, and engaging in wars to promote freedom and liberty and justice in the world?

Are we ready to negate TR, Wilson FDR, and LBJ in domestic affairs, and turn inward in foreign policy?

These are the questions all Americans have to consider, and the thought of Rand Paul possibly becoming President terrifies many Republicans, as well as American citizens who feel that he cannot walk in the shoes of our greatest Presidents!

Lyndon B. Johnson Forty Years After His Death: Mixed Legacy

Ronald Leave a comment

Forty years ago today, President Lyndon B. Johnson died at the age of 64, two days after the second inauguration of President Richard Nixon, an event he did not attend due to poor health.

Johnson had only been out of the Presidency for four years and two days, and one has to wonder had he run in 1968 and won, whether he would have died in office from the stresses and burdens of the job, and particularly the ongoing war in Vietnam.

Vietnam will always be the ultimate “Achilles Heel” of the Johnson Presidency, with the President hating foreign policy and just wishing for the Vietnam mess to go away, but his fateful decision to commit a half million troops to the war doomed the unity he had experienced in his landslide victory in 1964 over Senator Barry Goldwater, the greatest popular vote victory percentage in American history!

Johnson did so much good in expanding the vision of the New Deal of FDR, the Fair Deal of Harry Truman, and the New Frontier of JFK, and accomplished everything they pursued, and failed to accomplish in their Presidencies. And just yesterday, President Barack Obama evoked the image of the Great Society, and the goals that he outlined to expand that Great Society a half century later, after a long time in the political “wilderness”.

Without Johnson as President, we would not have had the following, in many cases, EVER up to now:

Medicare
Medicaid
Immigration Reform
Federal Aid to Education
Civil Rights Act
Voting Rights Act
War on Poverty—Office of Economic Opportunity, Job Corps, Project Head Start, Model Cities, and other programs
Environmental Legislation
Consumer Legislation
National Public Radio
Public Broadcasting System
National Endowment For The Arts
National Endowment For The Humanities
Gemini and Apollo Space Programs
Cabinet Agencies–Department of Housing and Urban Development and Department of Transportation
First African American appointments to the Cabinet–Robert Weaver–and the Supreme Court–Thurgood Marshall

Can anyone imagine NOT having most, if not all, of these programs and agencies?

Some might have been accomplished over time under other Presidents, but it is hard to conceive that much of it would have occurred with the rise over time of the conservative movement to power under Ronald Reagan, and Reagan’s impact on the next thirty years of American government until now.

As always is true of any President, Lyndon B. Johnson will remain highly controversial, but it is worth remembering his positive legacy on this, the 40th anniversary of his death, while not overlooking the damaging effect of his foreign policy actions, particularly in Vietnam.

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!

Interesting How Obama Integrated Importance Of Domestic Policy Into Debate On Foreign Policy

Ronald Leave a comment

Barack Obama was masterful in last night’s debate, cleverly integrating the importance of domestic policy into the debate on foreign policy.

A strong America, with promotion of education, rebuilding of the infrastructure, and development of alternative energy resources, along with economic growth of the middle class, were all emphasized by Obama, and Mitt Romney was unable to come out against such assertions by the President.

So Romney, while trying to act more moderate than he has been in the past year of seeking the Republican nomination, ended up agreeing much of the time with Obama, which will not please hard line conservatives, who wanted a real alternative to Obama, and are not very happy with Romney, but realize he is the only alternative they now have.

Romney looked very uncomfortable much of the time, did not smile or smirk nearly as much, and seemed to look to the audience and his wife in the front row for sustenance, as the debate wore on, and it seemed clear that Romney was just glad the debate was over.

But had he scored a touchdown or a field goal? To most observers, the clear answer was no, as Obama recovered nicely from the first debate through to the second and third debates, while Romney had his best performance by far in the first debate, and then did worse in the second and even worse in this final debate!

A Day To Celebrate! New York Times At 161 Years And Counting!

Ronald 2 Comments

The best newspaper in America, the one no scholar or serious student can do without, became 161 years old today!

The New York Times is often under attack by conservatives because it dares to investigate, to question, to challenge the views of the Right.

But it is still the most respected news source, the most thorough one, the one that can be counted upon to examine all sides of any domestic or foreign policy controversy.

And its Week in Review, its Magazine, its Book Review, its Entertainment section, its Business Section, are unmatched by any other Sunday newspaper.

The New York Times has adapted well to the digital age, and all readers and researchers on public affairs owe a debt to the New York Times, with its fantastic Annual Index, which makes investigation of any topic manageable!

So Happy 161st Birthday to the newspaper with “All The News That’s Fit To Print!”