Presidential Election Of 1960

Barack Obama Advice From Yogi Berra: “It Ain’t Over Till It’s Over”!

There will be the tendency for Barack Obama supporters to feel good after Super Tuesday, and feel that Barack Obama has a second term in the White House in the bag.

That would be the worst assumption possible!

On paper, yes, things are looking good as the GOP race for the Presidential nomination continues, and Mitt Romney looks in trouble, and Rick Santorum, who most logical people cannot see having any chance to win the nomination or election, continues to do well, particularly in the heartland of the nation.

Eight months to go until the election, and the world can turn upside down and inside out, in less than that amount of time.

We could have a major war in the Middle East against Iran, or another economic downturn, which could be triggered by that war with Iran.

Unforeseen circumstances we cannot imagine could occur, and the tides could turn.

Remember that Thomas E. Dewey was ahead of Harry Truman in 1948; Richard Nixon ahead of John F. Kennedy in 1960; Jimmy Carter ahead of Ronald Reagan in 1980; Michael Dukakis ahead of George H. W. Bush in 1988; George H. W. Bush ahead of Bill Clinton in 1992; and Al Gore ahead of George W. Bush in 2000 to the end, but not considering the electoral vote issue that would help Bush in the end.

There is plenty of work ahead for the Obama team, and they cannot afford to be cocky.

They need to remember the admonition of Yankee great, catcher Yogi Berra, who is famous for his line about baseball games: “It ain’t over till it’s over”!

No more true statement can be expressed regarding politics, as well as sports!

Rick Santorum Declares War On Two Democratic Presidents: John F. Kennedy And Barack Obama!

Former Pennsylvania Senator Rick Santorum continues to rampage in his “cultural war” against liberals, progressives, and the Democratic Party.

He seems not to understand that what he is doing is political suicide, and if he is selected as the Republican nominee for President, a disaster awaits the party.

Establishment Republicans realize this, and can only hope that Mitt Romney, the former Massachusetts Governor, can stop Santorum’s ascent in the 14 primaries coming up in the next eight days.

Santorum is stopping at nothing, not only attacking President Barack Obama, but also President John F. Kennedy.

Santorum continued his attack this past weekend on Barack Obama as an elitist, and a snob, for promoting higher education for all young people, continuing to assert that Obama is trying to poison the minds of young people, making them liberal and hating religion, and promoting indoctrination.

And he has attacked Kennedy’s declaration of the absolute separation of church and state that Kennedy uttered during the Presidential campaign of 1960, stating that religion should be part of government as the Founding Fathers intended, except for the fact that they were very clear in agreeing with Kennedy’s statement that religion and politics should not mix.

Santorum seems to be totally out of control, and one can wonder whether he has ever been able to accept those who disagree with him, as he still does not have even one US Senator and only three House members from Pennsylvania willing to endorse him.

The theocracy he is promoting will not be accepted by the American people, and hopefully, Republican primary voters will realize the dangers he presents and repudiate him finally, and send him back to Pennsylvania, where he should be, helping his poor wife and older children take care of his very sick three year old daughter, instead of pontificating on what he calls the “truth”, which is totally false!

The “family values” candidate needs to focus on his own family, and stop pursuing his ego that he is qualified and acceptable to be the President of the United States, which he most certainly is not. There is no way that he could ever unite the American people in any fashion!

Speculation About Reported Alliance Between Mitt Romney And Ron Paul: Could It Lead To Rand Paul Being Vice Presidential Running Mate Of Romney?

Political pundits, including Joe Scarborough of MORNING JOE on MSNBC, have noticed what seems like a warm friendship between two Republican Presidential candidates, former Massachusetts Governor Mitt Romney and Texas Congressman Ron Paul.

It has become obvious that Ron Paul has spent a lot of money on attack ads in various states against Rick Perry, Newt Gingrich, and now Rick Santorum, as each has become a major challenger to Mitt Romney. He has also attacked them on debate stages, as he did last night against Rick Santorum.

This seems very weird to many observers, as Mitt Romney is not a libertarian or a believer in the withdrawal of America’s involvement overseas, which Ron Paul stands for.

And Ron Paul is too old to be considered as a running mate, but then it is recognized that his son, Kentucky Senator Rand Paul, who is 49 years old, has already said he would be honored to be considered for Vice President, a very strong hint that a deal could be struck to put Rand Paul in the Vice Presidential slot as a way to unite diverse elements of the GOP for November.

In many ways, it would be a “shotgun marriage”, but not the first in American history, as for instance, the team of Franklin D. Roosevelt and John Nance Garner in 1932; the team of Dwight D. Eisenhower and Richard Nixon in 1952; the team of John F. Kennedy and Lyndon B. Johnson in 1960; and the team of Ronald Reagan and George H. W. Bush in 1980, were not based on close friendship or ties between the Presidential and Vice Presidential nominees. They were done for maximum political advantage.

The problem with this possibility of Mitt Romney teaming with Rand Paul is that it puts Rand Paul and his extremist libertarian philosophy a potential heartbeat away from the Presidency, although the positive side for Romney is that it makes a Libertarian Party challenger less likely or, at least, less able to draw away votes if there is one, such as former New Mexico Governor Gary Johnson. Ron Paul has a lot of supporters, who could be drawn to support Mitt Romney, if he selected Rand Paul.

So this new rumor makes one think that it could be a way to help Romney clinch the nomination and have somewhat united support, but the thought of a possible President Rand Paul would be a radical change unacceptable to mainstream and centrist political attitudes.

President Vs. President In Presidential Elections: 14 Times and 20 Presidents

On George Washington’s actual birthday, 280 years ago (1732), it is appropriate to ask how many times has there been a Presidential election in which two Presidents opposed each other?

The answer is 14 times, and a total of 20 Presidents have competed against a fellow Oval Office occupant, present or future!

Here are the details:

Presidential Elections of 1796 and 1800–John Adams vs Thomas Jefferson, with Adams first winning, and then Jefferson.

Presidential Elections Of 1824 and 1828–John Quincy Adams vs Andrew Jackson, with Adams first winning (even though behind Jackson in popular votes), and then Jackson.

Presidential Elections of 1836 and 1840–Martin Van Buren vs William Henry Harrison, with Van Buren first winning, and then Harrison.

Presidential Elections of 1888 and 1892–Benjamin Harrison vs Grover Cleveland, with Harrison first winning (even though behind Cleveland in popular votes), and then Cleveland.

Presidential Election Of 1912–the only time three Presidents, past, present and future, ran against each other, with Woodrow Wilson defeating President William Howard Taft and former President Theodore Roosevelt (running on a third party line, the Progressive Party).

Presidential Election of 1932–Herbert Hoover vs Franklin D. Roosevelt, with FDR winning.

Presidential Election of 1960–John F. Kennedy vs Richard Nixon, with JFK winning, but Nixon later winning the Presidency in 1968.

Presidential Election of 1976–Jimmy Carter vs Gerald Ford, with Carter defeating President Ford.

Presidential Election of 1980–President Jimmy Carter vs Ronald Reagan, with Reagan defeating President Carter.

Presidential Election Of 1992–President George H. W. Bush vs Bill Clinton, with Clinton defeating President Bush.

Of these 20 Presidents, only Woodrow Wilson, Franklin D. Roosevelt, John F. Kennedy, Ronald Reagan, and Bill Clinton–a total of five–never lost to their Presidential competitor, although it could be pointed out that FDR lost the Vice Presidency in 1920, a race that Warren G. Harding won for the White House, and that Ronald Reagan lost the Republican nomination for President to Gerald Ford in 1976!

So another trivia contest for those who are interested!

The Ten Most Important Presidential Elections In American History

With Presidents Day coming on Monday, this is a good time to reflect on the 56 Presidential elections that this country has had, and to judge which ten are the most significant, path breaking elections.

Of course, there can be debate and disputes as to the judgment of this author and blogger, but here goes, in chronological order.

Presidential Election of 1789–the selection by the Electoral College of our first President, George Washington, the absolutely right choice for the beginning of our nation under the Constitution, as Washington set important precedents for the future, and had no ambition to grab power long term.

Presidential Election Of 1800–the first time we had an opposition party come to power with grace, and without violence, setting a standard for the future, as Thomas Jefferson defeated John Adams, and the dispute between him and Vice President Aaron Burr, who claimed a tie in the Electoral College, was settled peacefully as well, and caused a modifying of the Electoral College process.

The Presidential Election of 1828–the first one decided by popular vote synchronizing with the electoral vote, and giving the country a so called “Common Man” in the Presidency, Andrew Jackson, representing city workers and frontiersmen alike.

Presidential Election of 1860–leading to the election of Abraham Lincoln, who set out to preserve the Union at all costs, and wielded power in a controversial, but thoughtfully considered way, through four years of the Civil War.

Presidential Election Of 1912–the triumph of progressivism, the recognition that government’s role had been changed irrevocably in a country that had been transformed from an agricultural to an industrial nation, had tripled in population since the Civil War, had become a multi ethnic nation, and had recognized the need for the regulation of capitalism in the public good, as well as political reforms and social justice. And it was the most exciting election, as three Presidents, past (Teddy Roosevelt), present (William Howard Taft), and future (Woodrow Wilson) competed against each other.

Presidential Election Of 1932–the triumph of Franklin D. Roosevelt at the worst moments of the Great Depression, offering hope and action (the New Deal) to revive the spirits of the nation, and have the American people believe in the future. Without his victory, there might have been social revolution and bloodshed on a large scale.

Presidential Election of 1960–witnessing the first Catholic President elected (John F. Kennedy) and the promotion of idealism and a new beginning in the advancement of social justice and political reform.

Presidential Election Of 1964–the victory of liberalism with the election of Lyndon B. Johnson, and the defeat of Barry Goldwater and conservatism, therefore insuring the continuation of the New Deal, and the evolution of the Great Society.

Presidential Election Of 1980–seeing the triumph of conservatism under Ronald Reagan, with some modifications of the New Deal and Great Society, and great speeches, but not the conservative “heaven” that many imagine it was, but making Reagan a national icon like Washington, Lincoln and FDR.

Presidential Election Of 2008–witnessing the first African American President (Barack Obama), and his work to provide health care reform, preserve the New Deal and Great Society, and overcome the worst economic downturn since the Great Depression.

The author welcomes discussion and debate on this post!

The Republican Tradition Of “Next In Line” For The Presidential Nomination

The Republican Party has developed a tradition of choosing the “next in line” for their Presidential nomination in the past half century, with the one exception of Barry Goldwater in 1964, which became a total disaster.

Witness:

1960–Richard Nixon was “next in line” as Vice President to succeed Dwight D. Eisenhower.
1968–Richard Nixon was “next in line” after the Goldwater debacle, as a “second chance” for the “workhorse” of the Republican Party.
1976–Gerald Ford had succeeded Richard Nixon, and was therefore “entitled” to the nomination of the party.
1980–Ronald Reagan had fought the “good fight” against Gerald Ford and carried the conservative tradition of Barry Goldwater, so was “next in line”.
1988–George H. W. Bush had finished behind Reagan in 1980, and served as his Vice President loyally for eight years, so was “next in line”.
1996–Bob Dole had competed and lost to Bush in 1988, had also competed for the nomination in 1980, and run with Gerald Ford for Vice President in 1976, so was “entitled” to the nomination.
2000-George W. Bush wished to carry on the tradition and heritage of his father, who had been defeated by Bill Clinton, with the assistance of third party candidate Ross Perot in 1992, so was seen as “next in line”.
2008–John McCain, who had been the leading opponent of George W. Bush in 2000, was seen as “next in line”, “entitled” to the nomination of the party.
2012–Mitt Romney ended up second, losing to John McCain in 2008, so is seen by many as “next in line” for the nomination.

Of course, in none of these elections did the “next in line” gain the nomination just for the asking, and that will not happen in 2012 either, but it is, in historical terms, an interesting state of affairs!

The Persistent Hillary Clinton For Vice President Chatter: Does It Make Sense? YES!

Chatter is arising again, as it has on and off for a year, that President Barack Obama might ask Secretary of State Hillary Clinton to become his Vice Presidential running mate for the Presidential Election of 2012, with Vice President Joe Biden dutifully steeping aside and becoming Secretary of State in a second Obama term.

This is something that has been dismissed in the past as not going to happen, and not advisable to happen. The author himself is a great Joe Biden fan, and the general feeling is that Joe Biden has done a great job as Vice President, adding distinction to the office.

However, the arguments for Hillary Clinton as Vice President are as follows:

1. Hillary Clinton has improved her credentials as Secretary of State, but is tiring of the constant travel and wants to leave the State Department.

2. While Hillary claims she wishes to retire, and proceed to write, speak and travel, it is hard to believe that the highly competitive Mrs. Clinton really wants to do what she says!

3. With the possibility of a close election due to the slowly recovering economy, Hillary would certainly be a plus for Barack Obama, more so than Joe Biden, as she has great public support, with a present public opinion rating of 64 percent, higher than anyone.

4. Hillary Clinton running for Vice President would be likely to bring more Democratic victories in Congress, which is essential to accomplish the goals of a second Obama term.

5. Hillary would bring more support for the President among women, Hispanics and Latinos, African Americans and young people, the core of the Obama victory in 2008, but flagging somewhat in all areas after the realities of three years in power.

6. Hillary running would bring about the first woman Vice President in reality, an exciting proposition after the disastrous candidacies of Geraldine Ferraro in 1984 and Sarah Palin in 2008.

7. The Democratic Party would have a front runner for President in 2016, although others would challenge Hillary, but it would increase the chances of a third Democratic term, and even possibly a fourth Democratic term, in the White House, and extra strength for the Democrats in Congress for the future beyond Barack Obama.

8. So called “shotgun marriages” in politics have occurred before with success, such as John F. Kennedy with Lyndon B. Johnson in 1960 and Ronald Reagan with George H. W. Bush in 1980.

9. Having Bill Clinton, supremely popular almost on the level of his wife, fully working for Obama and his own wife, would make for an exciting, dynamic campaign, creating a “marriage” between two powerful families, and would work well electorally.

10. Hillary could help President Obama in the crucial Midwest, with white working class men and women, her strong point in 2008, and his weak point.

11. Joe Biden would be a “good soldier”, who would willingly agree to step aside, but would get his ideal job, based on his career in the Senate, as having been former chairman of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, and loving that area of policy, he would have great impact as Secretary of State in a second Obama term, and being 74 by the end of the second Obama term, would not be likely to seek the Presidency or be a real challenge to Hillary or other Democrats at that stage of his life. But since he has good relations with Hillary, he could have a future in the position of Secretary of State or some other important position in 2016.

12. Finally, some might say that the Bill and Hillary Clinton shortcomings might be revived in a race in 2012 and beyond, but that is all old news, not new, and would have little impact, as their reputations have soared, rather than declined!

So therefore, it makes sense at this point for Barack Obama to ask Hillary Clinton to be his running mate, and for Joe Biden to replace her in 2013 as Secretary of State in a second Obama administration, good for all of them, for the Democratic Party, and for the future of America!

The “Bible Belt”, Religion, And The Republican Presidential Race

After Mitt Romney won the Iowa Caucuses by EIGHT votes over Rick Santorum, some saw it as a victory.

But others pointed out that Romney actually received SIX fewer total votes than he did in 2008 in the Iowa Caucuses!

And Romney did not do well among evangelical Christians, which are a very large portion of the Republican vote in Iowa. Considering also that he received just 25 percent of the vote, the same percentage as in 2008, brought to mind that his Mormon faith MAY have an effect in the Southern primaries and other Midwest primaries where evangelical Christians still look at Mormonism as a religious cult, in areas considered the “Bible Belt”!

So Mitt Romney is not seen as overcoming the religion question as John F. Kennedy did in 1960.

But the problem is that Jon Huntsman is also a Mormon, and Rick Santorum and Newt Gingrich are Catholic, the problem that existed for Kennedy. Only Rick Perry and Ron Paul are evangelical Christians or Baptists, which is predominant in the South.

The question is whether Rick Santorum, who shares the religious and family values of many Southerners, but is a Catholic, can win them over and have an impact in future primaries. He is already trying to appeal to blue collar whites who are often rural in environment and religious more than the rest of the country. Will Perry and Paul have a better shot, particularly in the South, and can Gingrich, who converted to Catholicism, overcome that fact?

The point is that religion COULD be a factor in the final decision as to who the GOP Presidential nominee will be!

The Republicans On The Road To Self Destruction Over Religion!

The Republican Party, in theory, has a fantastic opportunity to win the 2012 Presidential Election, considering the bad economic situation we are in, with no likelihood of the unemployment rate going down below 9 percent over the next year.

But in the midst of this hopeful sign for the party, it is religion that looks as if it will divide the GOP, and help to cause their defeat.

It is the same issue that we had with Al Smith in 1928 and John F. Kennedy in 1960, because of their Catholicism.

It is now the issue of the Mormon Church and the candidacy of Mitt Romney, and also, Jon Huntsman, both of whom have the best opportunity to overwhelm Barack Obama in next year’s election, were either of them to become the nominee of the party.

But with evangelical Christians in the South and border states having prejudice against not only Mormons, but also Catholics. Jews, Muslims, Hindus and Buddhists, there is a real barrier to Romney or Huntsman being able to win enough support in the primaries and caucuses, many of the early states (Iowa and South Carolina as examples) dominated by the evangelicals.

And if either were to, somehow, win the nomination, there is a good chance that someone would form a third party and divide the Republican vote, helping Obama to return to office.

As if the Republican Party does not have enough trouble with its inability to attract African Americans, Hispanics and Latinos, gays, and educated women, they add the burden of using religion as a disqualifying factor that may destroy any chance of them regaining power in the White House!

Here We Go Again: New Hatred By Evangelical Christian Pastors!

It is a sad reality that many Evangelical Christian pastors have made a career out of promoting divisiveness and hate, in the name of their conservative values and the almighty dollar!

How else to explain why many of these pastors have continued to promote hatred toward President Barack Obama, including that he is a Muslim, born in Kenya, a Socialist, and out to undermine American values?

How else to explain a so called “unifying” pastor, Joel Osteen, who runs the largest megachurch in America in Houston Texas, on nationwide TV on CNN advocating homophobia, knowing full well that it is a major crisis in America, particularly for young gay men and women who are committing suicide because of bullying, and has no problem continuing to quote the Bible on this matter, in a distorted way? And then to learn that Joel Osteen, who inherited his father’s leadership of their church, dropped out of college and has NO ministerial training at a seminary, so therefore is, technically, a phony minister, who is very wealthy because of the contributions of his congregants, and of course, like all religious leaders, avoids personal income taxes?

How else to explain another Evangelical Christian pastor at the Values Voters Summit In Washington, DC, supposedly asked to introduce Texas Governor Rick Perry, declaring that Mormons are not Christians, but instead are a “cult”, an attack directed against former Massachusetts Governor Mitt Romney, the frontrunner in the GOP Presidential race, and indirectly against the other Mormon in the race, former Utah Governor Jon Huntsman?

It should not matter whether a candidate for President is a “good Christian”, as we have a belief in separation of church and state, and religion should no more be a barrier now than it was in 1960 when John F. Kennedy was the first Catholic to win the White House, after Al Smith, the earlier Catholic nominee in the 1928 Presidential Election, was soundly defeated because of his Catholicism. Of course, who were the leading critics of Smith and Kennedy? Evangelical Christians, who claim to be holier than thou!

It is clear that the same anti Mormon sentiments would be visited against a serious Jewish nominee in the future. These “good Christians” are excellent at promoting hate and division!

Mitt Romney or Jon Huntsman should be judged for everything except their Mormon faith. Neither is out to promote or advocate their faith, anymore than Smith or Kennedy were, or a future Jewish nominee would! Why do Evangelical Christian pastors however feel they have the right to force their congregants to think their narrow minded way?

It is time for all of the non Mormon Presidential nominees to condemn this pastor and make it clear that religious bigotry of any kind is not acceptable, and will not be part of the GOP Presidential race from this day forward! But don’t bet on that happening!