New York

Ken Burns’ New PBS Documentary On The Vietnam War Due In September

Ronald Leave a comment

Ken Burns, the brilliant documentary producer, is about to present to America what may be his most brilliant series yet, on the Vietnam War, scheduled for 18 hours on PBS in late September.

Burns, of course, produced series on the Civil War, Baseball, National Parks, Jazz, The Roosevelts, The War (World War II), The West, New York, Prohibition, Jackie Robinson, and other creative films, many of which have been seen as the best documentaries ever produced.

No one can accuse Burns of not tackling difficult subjects, and this new extended series, will be exhaustive in covering all angles of the impact of the Vietnam War on Southeast Asia, as well as the United States.

With the Vietnam War now part of the past for 42 years, since its ultimate end in 1975, it is time for a thorough study of that war which divided America like no event since the Civil War, and Ken Burns does a superb job!

The President of Vietnam was greeted at the White House last week by President Trump, with nary a mention of the fact that we fought there for a decade, and lost 58,000 military personnel. As I watched, I wonderered why there is still so much tumult over Cuba, with the hint that Trump would cut back on the advancements in the relationship between America and Cuba made under Barack Obama, a nation where we lost no combat troops.

The Need For A Real “Newer” Generation Of Leadership, Age 47 To 60 In Election Year 2020!

Ronald 1 Comment

With the victory of Emmanuel Macron as President of France, it draws attention to the need for a real “newer” generation of leadership in America to move the nation forward in 2020 and beyond.

So although age alone should not decide who should be President, or Presidential candidates, there is an argument for a big drop in age of the next President, similar to what happened when Dwight D. Eisenhower left office at age 70 in 1961, and was replaced by 43 year old John F. Kennedy.

The same situation arose when George H. W. Bush left office at age 68 in 1993, and was replaced by 46 year old Bill Clinton.

So if age is an issue, then the following are those potential Democratic Presidential candidates who should be in the forefront:

Senator Chris Murphy of Connecticut, age 47 in 2020.

Los Angeles, California Mayor Eric Garcetti, age 49 in 2020.

Senator Cory Booker of New Jersey, age 51 in 2020.

Future California Governor (heavily favored in 2018) Gavin Newsom, age 53 in 2020.

Senator Kirsten Gillibrand of New York, age 54 in 2020.

Senator Kamala Harris of California, age 56 in 2020.

Senator Amy Klobuchar of Minnesota, 60 in 2020.

With Donald Trump, if still in office in 2020 being 74, this would mean a drop in age of 27 down to 14 years if any of the above seven named possible nominees were to emerge as the next President.

This group includes three women (Gillibrand, Harris, Klobuchar); two African Americans (Booker and Harris who is multi racial); one Jewish and Mexican American (Garcetti); and two White Anglos Males (Murphy and Newsom). We would have three California contenders (Garcetti, Newsom, Harris); three from the NY, NJ, Connecticut metropolitan area (Gillibrand, Booker, Murphy); and one from the Midwest (Klobuchar). Two will be in their 40s (Murphy, Garcetti); four in their 50s (Booker, Newsom, Gillibrand, Harris); and one just 60 years old at that time (Klobuchar).

If this blogger were to forecast his sense of what “may” happen, I would think the ones to watch are Murphy, Garcetti, Newsom, and Klubuchar, but just an educated guess!

Time For “A New Generation Of Leadership” For Democrats Running For The Presidency

Ronald 19 Comments

The Democratic Party needs “new blood” running for President in 2020, just as it had in John F. Kennedy in 1960; Jimmy Carter in 1976; Bill Clinton in 1992; and Barack Obama in 2008.

This is not the time for “old” leadership, meaning another run for the White House by Hillary Clinton or Joe Biden. Anyone reading this blog knows of my great admiration for Biden, but at age 78 in 2020, it is too late, in the author’s opinion, for him to be a serious alternative. And as much as Hillary Clinton has an exceptional background, having run for President twice, and being still seen by many as a divisive figure, and being 73 in 2020, it is proper to say that her time has passed.

It is also NOT the time for Bernie Sanders, who despite his strong support, is not really a cooperative member of the Democratic Party, not having been a member until he decided to run for President, and now backing away again from membership in the party. His age in 2020, 79, also makes him far from a good choice for such a demanding job.

What about Elizabeth Warren? She will be 71 in 2020 and is an inspiring person, but the problem of misogyny that Hillary Clinton faced, which was a factor in her defeat, argues against Warren, as she has been cast in a negative light by many, for her vehement and outspoken manner. This blogger admires her, but finds it hard to believe she could win in the 2020 Presidential race.

So basically, what we need is someone not thought about before, and there are a multitude of candidates one can think of to consider for 2020.

Senator Tim Kaine of Virginia, (62 in 2020) )Hillary Clinton’s Vice Presidential running mate, is one, as is his fellow Virginian, Senator Mark Warner (65 in 2020). But both are seen by many as too moderate centrist, not appealing to the Bernie Sanders supporters in 2016.

There is Senator Sherrod Brown of Ohio, (68 in 2020), who was thought of as an alternative running mate for Clinton, and who might have helped keep the white working class in Ohio and elsewhere for the Democrats in 2016.

There is also Senator Chris Murphy of Connecticut, who would be 47 in 2020, and comes across as very appealing in appearance and views on the issues.

Then, there is Senator Cory Booker of New Jersey, who would be 51 in 2020, but is seen as too centrist by many, and being African American, after the racism so evident during the term of Barack Obama, one wonders if that would be a problem.

And there are also Senator Amy Klobuchar of Minnesota (60 in 2020)and Senator Kirsten Gillibrand of New York (54 in 2020), but being females might be a negative factor, sad to say.

Additionally, there is Senator Jeff Merkley of Oregon (64 in 2020), the only Democrat to endorse Bernie Sanders in 2016.

Less likely possibilities include Senator Chris Coons of Delaware (57 in 2020); Senator Al Franken of Minnesota (69 in 2020); Senator Kamala Harris of California (56 in 2020); and Senator Sheldon Whitehouse of Rhode Island (65 in 2020).

Other than the US Senate, the only possible gubernatorial Presidential possibilities that seem reasonable are New York Governor Andrew Cuomo (62 in 2020), and California Lieutenant Governor and likely next Governor Gavin Newsom (53 in 2020), former Mayor of San Francisco.

Trying to figure out this early who might indeed run is really difficult, but one can assume that a good number of these 18 possibilities will actually enter the Presidential race.

First thoughts on this would be that Chris Murphy, Cory Booker, Amy Klobuchar, Andrew Cuomo, and Gavin Newsom would have the best chance, with all likely to be candidates. All are young enough, and have a record of accomplishment worthy of consideration. But also, it is likely that Mark Warner, Sherrod Brown, and Elizabeth Warren will also announce for President, and others might as well.

Of course, someone not yet thought of, who might be elected to the governorship or the Senate in 2018, might be added to the list.

And, one cannot eliminate someone from outside the political system, likely a businessman or media or entertainment star, could enter the race, and one cannot project against such a person having a real chance to be the Democratic Presidential nominee.

One must recall that John F. Kennedy had the issue of Catholicism that was a problem; Jimmy Carter the Southern issue and basically unknown nationally; Bill Clinton having the ethics and morality issue; and Barack Obama having the racial problem.

No one would have predicted three years before their elections that any of them would have been the nominee of the party, let alone the next Presidency of the United States!

Total Disarray And Chaos In The Trump White House: Are Stephen Bannon And Reince Priebus On The Way Out?

Ronald 2 Comments

There seems to be total disarray and chaos in the Trump White House.

There are hints and indications that the Alt Right forces led by Stephen Bannon, already demoted from the National Security Council this past week, may be on the way out, which would be a good thing.

But there are also hints that Chief of Staff Reince Priebus may be gone soon, as well, seen as ineffective in controlling the chaos. Also, the role of Kelly Anne Conway has been cut back dramatically.

The growing role of Trump son in law Jared Kushner may be occurring, but one wonders if he is not being given too much responsibility and burdens for a man just 36 years old, and with ZERO experience in government.

Kushner’s Democratic heritage, and that of others close to him, primarily from New York, makes one wonder if Trump will recast himself completely from what he was when he ran for President.

If Trump does that, it will alienate much of the Republican Party and many of the voters who supported him, as it is already apparent that he has veered away from much of what he pledged and promoted to his audiences on the campaign trail.

What it comes down to is that Trump is an open vessel, with no clear agenda as he sees failures in his first two and a half months, and may be shifting gears dramatically as we observe it occurring.

That does not mean that any progressive can trust or endorse whatever changes Trump creates, as he is still a very dangerous demagogue, and could enmesh America in two wars at once, in Syria and with North Korea.

And his policies on deportation of immigrants and a Muslim Ban are totally unacceptable, as are most of his cabinet officers, and policies on the environment, health care, and so many other areas of government.

What America Is Losing In 13 Days: The Best, Most Elegant, Most Dignified POTUS And FLOTUS In Modern Times!

Ronald 18 Comments

In just 13 days, America is losing its best, most elegant, most dignified President of the United States and First Lady of the United States in modern times!

This is not to attack the Presidents and First Ladies who came before Barack Obama and Michelle Obama, as many of them had talents and abilities worthy of commendation, and many contributed in a good way to the nation.

But really, the Obamas are the most glorious couple in the White House since the Kennedys (John F. Kennedy and Jacqueline Kennedy) in the early 1960s.

There were many times when one had to wonder whether Barack Obama would survive his time in the Presidency, as the number of death threats and plots against the 44th President were the greatest since Abraham Lincoln, and twenty such cases were documented in my chapter on Assassination threats, Chapter 16, of my Assassinations book, which will be out in paperback on March 8, 2017.

The level of hatred and refusal to show respect was greatest under Obama since Lincoln, and many still wish his personal demise, including former NY Republican gubernatorial nominee Carl Palladino, as just one example.

The level of hate and disrespect displayed by Donald Trump is unmatched in the relationship between any two Presidents, and yet Obama has done everything possible to cooperate with the transition, or as Michelle Obama has said, “when they go low, we go high!”

Let us wish the Obamas a long, productive, and healthy retirement, and let us hope that they will be with us in their 90s, as four Presidents (Gerald Ford, Jimmy Carter, Ronald Reagan, George H. W. Bush have reached), along with earlier Presidents John Adams and Herbert Hoover; and also five First Ladies (Bess Truman, Lady Bird Johnson, Betty Ford, Nancy Reagan, Barbara Bush), with Rosalynn Carter reaching 90 in August of this year.

Chuck Schumer, The Great Jewish Hope: The Highest Ranking Elected Jew Ever In American Government!

Ronald 8 Comments

The new Senate Minority Leader is New York Senator Chuck Schumer, who has been in the Senate since 1999, and defeated a tough opponent, Republican three term Senator Alfonse D’Amato.

Schumer began his political career at the age 23, and entered the House of Representatives at age 29 from Brooklyn, New York.

He had to compete first with fellow, soon to be retired Senator Daniel Patrick Moynihan, and then his newly elected replacement, Hillary Clinton, who would seek the Presidency despite being the Junior Senator from New York.

Schumer worked his way up the leadership, being a loyal subordinate for ten years to Nevada Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, and built up the Democratic majority in 2006 and 2008, before the bottom fell out, and the Democrats lost seats, from a high of 60 down to 46 and now up to 48 in 2017.

Schumer is a man who is very accessible and warm, and will do a lot of good for the Democrats, and he happens to have the distinction of being the highest ranking elected Jews ever in American government.

Yes, we have had other distinguished Jewish US Senators, but none in a leadership position in the Senate.

Yes, we had House Republican Majority Leader Eric Cantor of Virginia, second ranking in the House of Representatives, and hoping to become Speaker of the House someday, before he was defeated for nomination to his seat in 2014 by a more extremist right wing Republican, David Brat.

Yes, we have had Senator Joe Lieberman of Connecticut, who was Vice Presidential nominee with Al Gore in 2000, when they won the popular vote, but lost the Electoral College to George W. Bush and Dick Cheney.

Yes, we have had Jewish cabinet officers, including Henry Morgenthau, Jr, Henry Kissinger, Abraham Ribicoff, and Arthur Goldberg among others, who have had impact on government.

And yes, we have had Jewish Supreme Court Justices by appointment, including Louis Brandeis, Benjamin Cardozo, Felix Frankfurter, Ruth Bader Ginsburg, Stephen Breyer, and Elena Kagan among others.

But Schumer has the potential to have a greater impact politically than most party leaders, so we must wish him the best fortune as the Democrats battle against the Trump Presidency.

Yesterday, Schumer gave a fighting, defiant speech to the Senate on his first day as Minority Leader, making it clear his party would contest Trump on the Cabinet and on every policy that undermines the middle class and promotes the elite wealthy against the average American.

How Slim Margins Decide So Many Presidential Elections And Affect American History And Government Policies!

Ronald 3 Comments

The argument that many ill informed people have is that “voting does not matter”, when just the opposite is true.

As we begin 2017 and the reality of President Trump in 19 days, a look at history tells us clearly how small numbers of votes or percentages of votes make a dramatic difference, as demonstrated in the following elections in American history:

1844– a switch of a few thousand votes in New York would have given the election to Henry Clay, instead of James K. Polk, and the difference was the small third party, the Liberty Party.

1848–a switch of a few thousand votes, again in New York, would have given the election to Lewis Cass, instead of Zachary Taylor, but Free Soil Party nominee, Martin Van Buren, former Democratic President and from New York, won ten percent of the total national vote, and threw the election to Whig candidate Taylor in New York.

1876—the dispute over the contested votes of South Carolina, Louisiana, and Florida led to a special Electoral Commission set up, which rewarded all of those three states’ electoral votes to Rutherford B. Hayes, although Democrat Samuel Tilden led nationally by about 250,000 popular votes.

1880–James A. Garfield won the popular vote by the smallest margin ever, about 2,000 votes, and won the big state of New York by only 20,000 votes, in defeating his opponent Winfield Scott Hancock.

1884–Grover Cleveland won his home state of New York by about 1,000 votes, which decided the election, and nationally only by about 57,000 votes over James G. Blaine.

1888–Grover Cleveland won the national popular vote by about 90,000, but lost in close races in his home state of New York and opponent Benjamin Harrison’s home state of Indiana, so lost the Electoral College, as Harrison became President. The Harrison lead in New York was less than 14,000 votes and in Indiana, less than 2,000.

1916—Woodrow Wilson won California by less than 4,000 votes, but enough to elect him to the White House over Republican Charles Evans Hughes.

1948–Harry Truman won three states by less than one percent–Ohio, California and Illinois–over Thomas E. Dewey, and that decided the election.

1960–John F. Kennedy won Illinois by about 8,000 votes; Texas by about 46,000 votes; and Hawaii by under 200 votes, and only had a two tenths of one percentage point popular vote victory nationally, about 112,000 votes, over Richard Nixon.

1976–Jimmy Carter won over Gerald Ford by two percentage points, but a switch of 5,600 votes in Ohio and 3,700 votes in Hawaii would have given the election to Ford.

2000—Al Gore lost Florida by 537 votes, in the final judgment of the Supreme Court, which intervened in the election, and had he won Florida, he would have been elected President, even though he won the national popular vote by about 540,000. Bush also won New Hampshire by only about 7,000 votes, but won the Electoral College 271-266.

2016–Hillary Clinton won the national popular vote by about 2.85 million, but lost the crucial states of Michigan by about 10,000; Wisconsin by about 22,000; and Pennsylvania by about 46,000, to Donald Trump, so together about 79,000 votes decided the Electoral College.

So the idea that voting is not important, does not matter, is proved wrong so many times in American history! Every vote does indeed count, and has long range implications on who sits in the White House, and what policies are pursued, which affect all of us!

Donald Trump: The Most Unpopular Presidential Winner In American History

Ronald 1 Comment

Donald Trump may have won the Electoral College, and will be inaugurate on January 20, 2017, as our 45th President.

But he will be inaugurated knowing that he is the most unpopular Presidential winner in American history!

It looks as if Hillary Clinton will have won the widest popular vote victory of the five Democrats who have lost the Electoral College.

Andrew Jackson had a 45,000 vote edge over John Quincy Adams in 1824.

Grover Cleveland had a 100,000 vote edge over Benjamin Harrison in 1888.

Samuel Tilden had a 250,000 vote lead over Rutherford B. Hayes in 1876.

Al Gore had a 540,000 vote lead over George W. Bush in 2000.

But now in 2016, Hillary Clinton has a constantly mounting popular vote lead over Donald Trump of at least 672,000 votes, and it is thought when all votes are counted, including absentee, overseas, and mail ballots not yet counted, and many of them coming from California and Washington State and even New York, that the margin could reach 2 million!

Trump already was the most unpopular Presidential winner in public opinion polls, with 60 percent not endorsing him, and yet he won the right combination of states to win the Electoral College.

National Popular Vote Bill A Major Electoral College Reform That Can Overcome 5 Times Where Popular Vote Winner Has Lost Presidency

Ronald 1 Comment

In the midst of the great disillusionment over having a popular vote winner losing the Presidency for the second time in 16 years, and 5 times in American history, attention is being brought to a method to overcome that travesty without the need for a constitutional amendment to end the Electoral College.

11 states with 165 electoral votes have passed legislation that provides that their states’ electoral votes will go to the national winner of the popular vote.

The bill has passed one house in 12 additional states with 96 electoral votes, and would take place once states with a total of 105 electoral votes take such action.

It passed overwhelmingly in three Republican chambers, in Arizona, Oklahoma and New York, and in one Democratic chamber in Oregon.

More than 70 percent in polls on the topic support this change in the Electoral College, as a true example of democracy, so that never again do we have the horrible situation that has now occurred twice in a generation.

We would have a true national campaign every four years if this was enacted, instead of having only about 12 states gaining visits by the major party Presidential candidates.

Why should North Carolina, Ohio, Florida, Pennsylvania, New Hampshire, and Nevada. along with a few other states, have the privilege of crowds being able to see the Presidential candidates, while, for example, New York, Texas, California, Illinois, and other states with large populations are denied visits, along with many other states?

Former Speaker of the House Newt Gingrich, and former Congressman Bob Barr, both of Georgia, both Republicans, have endorsed the change, even though each of the five times the popular vote winner in American history was a Democrat, and four times the Republicans won without the popular vote! So they have displayed bipartisanship on this issue.

This needs to be accomplished before 2020! There needs to be a national demand by the American people that the present situation never happens again!

Important Facts About President-Elect Donald Trump

Ronald 1 Comment

Donald Trump has achieved something quite unusual.

The President-Elect is the first President to lose his home state, New York, since James K. Polk lost his home state of North Carolina in 1844, although Polk did win the state he migrated to and served in public office, Tennessee.

Since Trump has spent his whole life in Queens County and New York City, he is unique even over Polk.

Additionally, Trump will be nearly eight months older than Ronald Reagan when he takes the oath of office on January 20, 2017, being 70 years, seven months, and six days, and so the oldest inaugurated first term President in American history.

And Trump will also be the first President ever to have served not a day in public office or the military.

And Trump will be the first New Yorker to serve as President since Franklin D. Roosevelt won his 4th term in 1944, although Dwight D. Eisenhower did live in New York when he served as President of Columbia University, and Richard Nixon lived in New York when he ran for President. But Eisenhower was born in Texas and spent much of his life when not away in the military in his boyhood state of Kansas, and Nixon spent most of his life in his native California.