Presidential Election Of 1940

Carly Fiorina: The Republican Female Alternative To Hillary Clinton! No Match For Hillary Clinton!

Ronald Leave a comment

The Republicans have their obligatory woman candidate for President in former Hewlett Packard CEO Carly Fiorina, and hope to gain the women’s vote with her competing in the primaries.

Instead of Michele Bachmann, who anyone intelligent knew was more of a joke than anything else in the 2012 Presidential race, we have a woman who certainly has more brains, but not much else.

The odds of Carly Fiorina ending up on the national ticket in 2016 for President or Vice President are highly unlikely for many reasons, but one stands out—her lack of any political experience.

Were Carly Fiorina to become the Republican Presidential nominee, she would have to overcome the reality that she would be only the second Presidential nominee in history, after Republican Wendell Willkie in 1940, to be on a national ticket, not counting third party Presidential nominee Ross Perot in 1992 and 1996.

But there are more obstacles to overcome, such as her personality and her viewpoints on major issues.

Fiorina is not exactly Ms. Charming, and is actually extremely arrogant, snobby, elitist, with a sense of entitlement that borders on obnoxious. She thinks she is very smart, which she may be in the business world, but she wears it as she goes about her daily life, and it is not exactly appealing.

Fiorina comes across as someone who we cannot resist, as she says she is above 90 percent likely to run for President, quite an egotistical, insufferable statement, which makes one want to say: “OK, Carly, if that is the case, what are you waiting for then? Go ahead and announce!”

The fact is that Carly Fiorina made enemies as CEO of Hewlett Packard, made many enemies in the corporate world, and would be very hard to work with, as she thinks she has all of the answers to everything, and that we are blessed to be in her presence. She was so “popular” that she was fired from Hewlett-Packard, and given a “golden parachute” upon leaving, making her extremely wealthy, and therefore, totally unconcerned about other women who are not as fortunate as her! She has been rated one of the ten worst CEOs ever in American history, making many enemies and critics.

Carly Fiorina showed her true nature when she ran for the Senate in California against Barbara Boxer in 2010, losing by ten points. And she has now shown her true lack of concern for the drought issue in California, by stating it is not part of climate change, but simply the result of “liberal environmentalists’ who have harmed industrial development while working to save endangered species, a totally outrageous, asinine statement. She had accepted big contributions from both oil and coal industry lobbyists during her Senate campaign, and takes the typical Republican view on most issues.

Fiorina has gone on the attack against Hillary Clinton with relish, but it is clear that while Hillary Clinton has faults, her record of experience and abilities far surpasses Carly Fiorina in every measurement.

So let’s just say, Carly Fiorina is no match for Hillary Clinton!

Eleven Foreign Policy Presidential Elections In American History, And Now 2016!

Ronald Leave a comment

America has had foreign policy affect eleven Presidential elections, overshadowing domestic policy issues. This has usually been centered about military intervention and wars. The list of foreign policy dominated Presidential elections follows:

1812—With the War of 1812 having begun, it became the major issue under President James Madison

1844—With the issue of Texas annexation a major issue, and with James K. Polk running on expansionism and “Manifest Destiny”, the issue of relations with Mexico became a major issue under John Tyler and Polk.

1848—With the Treaty of Guadalupe Hidalgo after the Mexican War under James K. Polk granting so much new territory to the United States, the issue of what to do with these territories became the major issue of the campaign.

1900—With the Treaty of Paris ending the Spanish American War under William McKinley granting new territories to the United States, the issue of what do to with those territories reigned during the campaign, and the Filipino Insurrection was a hot issue as well.

1916–The issue of keeping America out of World War I dominated, with Woodrow Wilson campaigning on the fact that he had kept us out of the war.

1940—The issue of isolationism and World War II in Europe and Asia, and Franklin D. Roosevelt campaigning on keeping us out of war, but offering some assistance to Great Britain, dominated the campaign.

1944—The fact that we were still in World War II, and what to do about the postwar world and the Soviet Union, were key issues of the campaign.

1952—The debate over what to do about the limited nature of the Korean War under Harry Truman was a major factor in this campaign which elected Dwight D. Eisenhower.

1968—The debate over the Vietnam War under Lyndon B. Johnson, and the resulting split in the Democratic Party, and Richard Nixon declaring he had a secret plan to end the war, dominated the discussion in the campaign.

2004—The Iraq War and Afghanistan War under George W. Bush dominated the discussion in this campaign, as September 11 transformed the issue of national security.

2008—The continued intervention in Iraq and Afghanistan became a major issue, along with the Great Recession emerging during the campaign, and benefited Barack Obama, who promised to end the war in Iraq and downgrade the war in Afghanistan.

Now 2016 seems likely to be centered much more than many people want over foreign policy, particularly the threat of Iran in the Middle East, along with the danger of ISIL (ISIS) Terrorism, and the growing menace of the Russian Federation under Vladamir Putin, overall adding to the image of growing threats to national security.

And in these circumstances, one needs a steady hand at the helm, and only Hillary Clinton and Joe Biden have the experience and the judgment needed, along with Jon Huntsman, who, although listed by many as a long shot nominee for the Republicans, has indicated he is not a candidate. In any case, the Republicans are not smart enough to realize that the true treasure in their midst is Jon Huntsman!

The CPAC Convention: Display Of Delusional Thinking And A Comedy Of Would Be Presidents!

Ronald Leave a comment

The Conservative Political Action Conference in Maryland this weekend has been a revelation of delusional thinking, as well as a comedy of Would Be Presidents!

A conference that has Sarah Palin, Donald Trump, both supposed candidates for the White House, but just wanting attention, makes it worthy of ridicule from the beginning.

A conference that has elected Rand Paul as their favorite in a straw poll three years in a row, when there is zero chance of his being the Republican nominee, is a conference not worthy of any more attention, other than how Saturday Night Live treats it for laughs.

A conference that has a candidate, Scott Walker, who compares marchers for retention of labor rights to the fighting of terrorism is a conference that is clueless and insulting of the vast majority of America’s population, which are workers, not corporate leaders.

A conference that has retreads such as Rick Santorum, Mike Huckabee, and Rick Perry desperately trying to get notice and to make themselves relevant is quite pitiful.

A conference that has two totally inexperienced candidates, Dr. Benjamin Carson and corporate leader Carly Fiorina, thinking they should be President, when we have never had a President or Presidential candidate with no political experience on the ballot, except for Wendell Willkie in 1940, is a sign of how little the people involved in this conference understand reality in a complex world.

A conference that allows propagandists who claim to be journalists, Sean Hannity and Laura Ingraham, to be the interviewers of Presidential candidates, making them totally lacking in any credibility, is a conference that should be seen as something not worthy of serious consideration.

A conference that demonstrates intolerance toward women, immigrants, minorities, and gays and lesbians is a conference that has no desire to unite the American people, but rather to divide them, and fail to recognize the impending changes in the population long term, that dooms their agenda!

The History Of Foreign Policy Crises At Election Time

Ronald Leave a comment

It is nothing new to have foreign policy crises at election time in American history, whether Presidential elections or midterm Congressional elections!

Examples include:

Franklin D. Roosevelt in the Election of 1940, after Great Britain was being bombed by the Germans, and France had fallen to the Nazis.

Harry Truman in the Election of 1948, facing the Berlin Blockade Crisis with the Soviet Union.

Dwight D. Eisenhower in the Election of 1956, facing the Hungarian invasion by the Soviet Union and its Eastern European allies, and the Suez Crisis in the Middle East.

John F. Kennedy facing the Cuban Missile Crisis in the midterm election of 1962.

Lyndon B. Johnson facing opposition growing in the Vietnam War after the Tet Offensive, and the invasion of Czechoslovakia by the Soviet Union and its allies, in the Election of 1968.

Jimmy Carter facing the Afghanistan invasion by the Soviet Union, and the Iran Hostage Crisis, in the Election of 1980.

George H. W. Bush facing the Kuwaiti invasion by Iraq in the midterm election of 1990, leading to the Persian Gulf War.

George W. Bush facing the War on Terror, and the invasion of Afghanistan, and planned invasion of Iraq, in the midterm election of 2002.

And now, Barack Obama facing the Russian intervention in Ukraine, and the growing threat of ISIL (ISIS) in the Middle East, in the midterm election of 2014.

How A Speech Elevated Four Presidential Candidates To Nomination, And Two Of Them To The White House!

Ronald 3 Comments

The power of oratory in advancing a political candidacy for the Presidency,that no one expected to occur, is part of American history!

There have been four cases of people who were elevated to a Presidential nomination, and two of them to the White House, by the electrifying effect that a speech had on their political party and the nation at large!

Two of these were Democrats, and two were Republicans.

One of the Democrats was former Nebraska Congressman William Jennings Bryan, who delivered the “Cross of Gold” speech at the 1896 Democratic National Convention, with this leading to his Presidential nomination. Despite losing to William McKinley, Bryan went on to be the nominee of the Democrats two more times, in 1900 and 1908.

The other was Illinois State Senator Barack Obama, who gave a dynamic speech at the 2004 Democratic National Convention, arguing against a divided America, and calling for a united America, instead of a “red’ America and a “blue” America. It drew attention to him, and after being elected to the US Senate, he decided to campaign for the Presidency, and overcame many adversities to win two terms in the White House, but sadly saw “red” and “blue” America split ever further apart!

The first Republican was businessman Wendell Willkie, who despite no political experience, stirred the Republican National Convention of 1940 with his speech and charisma, and went on to become the nominee of his party, but losing to Franklin D. Roosevelt.

Ronald Reagan was the other Republican, making a well noticed speech on television in support of Arizona Senator Barry Goldwater, the GOP nominee for President in 1964. Goldwater lost in a massive landslide to Lyndon B. Johnson, but Reagan gained enough support and notice to run for California Governor in 1966, and eventually to be elected to two terms as President in the 1980s!

So the power of speech and charisma has had a great effect on American politics!

Multiple Losing Presidential Candidacies, And Those Who Lost, Then Won The Presidency

Ronald 2 Comments

The history of multiple candidacies for the Presidency is an interesting one, with five candidates being nominated more than once and losing each time, and five candidates being nominated more than once, and losing before winning the White House (with unusual circumstances for Grover Cleveland)

Those who ran multiple times and continued to lose are:

Charles Pinckney, Presidential Elections of 1804 and 1808
Henry Clay, Presidential Elections of 1824, 1832, and 1844
William Jennings Bryan, Presidential Elections Of 1896, 1900, and 1908
Thomas E. Dewey, Presidential Elections of 1944 and 1948
Adlai Stevenson, Presidential Elections of 1952 and 1956

Those who ran multiple times and first lost, and then won the Presidency are (with unusual case of Grover Cleveland described below):

Thomas Jefferson, Presidential Elections of 1796, 1800 and 1804
Andrew Jackson, Presidential Elections of 1824, 1828 and 1832
William Henry Harrison, Presidential Elections of 1836 and 1840
Grover Cleveland, Presidential Elections of 1884, 1888, and 1892 (winning in 1884, losing in 1888, winning in 1892)
Richard Nixon, Presidential Elections of 1960, 1968 and 1972

Also, Jackson and Cleveland won the popular vote in the elections they lost in the Electoral College, so both actually won the popular vote three times, the only candidates to do that, other than Franklin D. Roosevelt, who won the popular vote and electoral vote four times, in the Presidential Elections of 1932, 1936, 1940, and 1944!

Additionally, Martin Van Buren ran a third time in 1848 on the Free Soil Party line and lost; and Theodore Roosevelt ran a second time in 1912 on the Progressive Party line and lost.

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!

Presidents Replacing Their Vice Presidents: Not Very Productive

Ronald Leave a comment

The new book, DOUBLE DOWN: GAME CHANGE 2012, states that Barack Obama’s campaign seriously considered dumping Vice President Joe Biden for Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, a rumor long believed and promoted.

Would such a change have brought about a different election result? Hardly so, and Obama came to realize that his Vice President was an asset, and that it was best to leave well enough alone.

When one looks at history, it is clear that “dumping” a Vice President is not a good idea, although there have been cases of such situations sometimes being necessary.

This is true of Thomas Jefferson and Aaron Burr, with Burr having tried to take the Presidency away from Jefferson in the Presidential Election of 1800.

It is also true of Andrew Jackson and John C. Calhoun, who were at tremendous odds over the protective tariff in 1832, with Calhoun finally resigning the Vice Presidency with three months left in the term, before being replaced by Martin Van Buren for Jackson’s second term.

Abraham Lincoln’s decision to dump Hannibal Hamlin for Andrew Johnson in 1864 is seen as a mistake, as Johnson ended up being impeached, although not convicted, by Congress when he became President.

Ulysses S. Grant’s first term Vice President, Schuyler Colfax, being involved in scandal, was replaced by Henry Wilson for the second term, a necessary action, due to the Credit Mobilier Scandal revelations.

Franklin D. Roosevelt had three Vice Presidents in his four terms, with John Nance Garner refusing to run with FDR when he went for his third term. But Henry A. Wallace was replaced with Harry Truman for the fourth term, due to opposition from Southerners and conservatives who worried about Wallace on the issue of race relations, and his views of the Soviet Union during World War II. Looking back, it was better that Truman, rather than Wallace, became President upon FDR’s death in April 1945.

Gerald Ford is the last President to replace his Vice President, Nelson Rockefeller, with the choice of Bob Dole, but that helped to defeat him in a close race with Jimmy Carter.

Overall, it is best for a President to stick with his Vice President when running for a second term, unless there are extenuating circumstances as with Jefferson, Jackson, Grant and FDR.

Mitt Romney: Least Government Experience Since 1912 Of Any Presidential Nominee, Except Wendell Willkie In 1940!

Ronald 7 Comments

When one examines ALL of the Presidential nominees of the two major parties in the past century since 1912, one discovers that former Massachusetts Governor Mitt Romney has the LEAST total government experience of any nominee, with the exception of the Republican nominee in 1940, businessman Wendell Willkie!

If we go back to 1896, we would need to add two nominees and one winner of the White House who had an equal amount of experience or less than Romney has–a total of four years and two years each. These are three time Democratic nominee (1896, 1900, 1908) William Jennings Bryan, who served as a Nebraska Congressman from 1890-1894; and Democratic President Woodrow Wilson, who served only two years as New Jersey Governor from 1910-1912, although serving as President of Princeton University for eight years previous to running for Governor.

When we talk about government experience, it includes time in the US House of Representatives, US Senate, the Governorship, state legislature, local office, service in administrative positions in government, and military experiences.

So only Wendell Willkie (no government experience) and Woodrow Wilson (two years of government experience) have less experience than Romney, with William Jennings Bryan matching Romney with four years in government.

Everyone else who ran as nominees for President had extensive experience in government, which is what one should expect for someone who wants the responsibility to be the leader of the most powerful nation on earth!

This is a very different nation than it was in 1896, 1912, or even 1940!

History Favors Obama and Democratic Party Second Term Presidencies

Ronald Leave a comment

In the discussion over whether Barack Obama will have a second term of office, one must consider history as a guide.

If one looks at the facts, one discovers that only THREE Democratic Presidents have ever been defeated for re-election–Martin Van Buren in 1840; Grover Cleveland in 1888 (even though he actually won the popular vote by about 100,000 nationally); and Jimmy Carter in 1980.

So in the past 124 years, only one Democrat has lost re-election, and face the facts, Barack Obama is NOT Jimmy Carter and Mitt Romney is not Ronald Reagan!

Grover Cleveland came back to win in the following election over Benjamin Harrison who had defeated him in 1888, being the only nonconsecutive terms President in American history.

Woodrow Wilson had a very close contest against Charles Evans Hughes for re-election in 1916, but won.

Franklin D. Roosevelt still had over 20 percent unemployment when he first ran for re-election in 1936, but won a landslide over Alf Landon, as well as solid victories over Wendell Willkie in 1940 and Thomas E. Dewey in 1944.

Harry Truman overcame all polls and defeated Dewey in an upset victory in 1948, even after the opposition party had won both houses of Congress in 1946.

Lyndon B. Johnson won the biggest popular vote landslide in history over Barry Goldwater in 1964.

Bill Clinton won a solid victory over Bob Dole in 1996, despite having lost both houses of Congress in 1994.

And despite criticisms, Barack Obama has a positive record of achievement in his first term to match that of Wilson and FDR in their first term and Lyndon B. Johnson in his first year, and more than Grover Cleveland, Harry Truman, and Bill Clinton in their first term, and Jimmy Carter in his only term of office.

So don’t bet too heavily on Obama losing re-election in November!