Presidential Election Of 1984

Could Joe Biden-Paul Ryan Vice Presidential Debate Be A Forerunner Of 2016?

Ronald 8 Comments

The Joe Biden-Paul Ryan Vice Presidential Debate this Thursday could be a forerunner of 2016!

If Joe Biden performs well, and seals a Barack Obama victory in November, he will be the frontrunner for the Democratic Presidential nomination in 2016.

If Paul Ryan does a reputable performance, and is not harmed by Biden, even if Biden is declared the winner on points, he becomes the front runner for 2016 as the Republican Presidential nominee, presuming a Mitt Romney defeat in 2012.

In theory, both Biden and Ryan could be running against each other–74 year old Biden with 44 years of government experience, the most of any Presidential nominee or winner of the White House in history—and 46 year old Paul Ryan, who will have had 18 years in the House of Representatives by then, assuming he wins his House seat while being on the losing Presidential team!

Certainly, one or the other could very well be on the Presidential ballot in 2016, as Walter Mondale was in 1984, after the Mondale-Bush debate of 1980; as George H. W. Bush was after the debate with Geraldine Ferraro in 1984; and as Al Gore was after the debate with Jack Kemp in 1996.

CORRECTION: I discovered after writing the above that there was no VP debate between Bush and Mondale in 1980, so I stand corrected, and that means twice in VP debate history, one of the candidates was on the Presidential ballot in the following election, not three times!

Past Presidential Debates With An Incumbent President: Naturally On The Defensive!

Ronald Leave a comment

When one gets away from the momentary panic that many Obama supporters had after last night’s debate against Mitt Romney, and thinks rationally, and analyzes Presidential debate history, it is not all that surprising that a challenger will go on the attack and be aggressive with a sitting President, and set him back in the first debate they have in a campaign year.

Remember that a sitting President is busy every day, and is not as up to date in debating as a challenger, who has had to survive many debates and questions in order to reach the point of a Presidential nomination.

So when we look at the past, we realize the following:

Gerald Ford was on the defensive against Jimmy Carter in 1976.

Jimmy Carter was on the defensive against Ronald Reagan in 1980.

Ronald Reagan was on the defensive against Walter Mondale in 1984.

George H. W. Bush was on the defensive against both Bill Clinton and Ross Perot in 1992.

George W. Bush was on the defensive against John Kerry in 2004.

Despite this reality, Reagan and the second Bush recovered to win, while Ford, Carter, and the first Bush lost the election that ensued.

But also realize that Ford had inherited a mess from Richard Nixon, and had never seen himself in the Presidency before being selected by Nixon to replace Spiro Agnew as Vice President, and he was strongly challenged by Ronald Reagan in the primaries in 1976.

Also realize that Jimmy Carter was challenged by both Ted Kennedy and Jerry Brown in the primaries in 1980, and faced a charismatic former actor in Reagan, and a tumultuous crisis with Iran in 1980.

And realize that the first Bush faced a challenge from Pat Buchanan in the primaries in 1992, and a double challenge from Bill Clinton and Ross Perot, which undermined his ability to win votes that Perot took away from him in the fall campaign.

Ronald Reagan and George W. Bush faced no such challenges, and were able to overcome their weaknesses in the first debate of 1984 and 2004.

Additionally, Bill Clinton, facing no challenge in 1996, simply overwhelmed Bob Dole in the first and all debates of that year, with his charisma a major plus!

If one remains calm, one realizes that Barack Obama will recover from this disappointing debate, has charisma, had no challenger in the primaries, and therefore, will do like Reagan, Clinton, and the second Bush did–win reelection—-rather than lose election as Ford did, and reelection as Carter and the first Bush did!

Choosing A Sitting House Member For Vice President Not Productive!

Ronald Leave a comment

This author mentioned last week that Paul Ryan was the fifth member of the House of Representatives to be nominated for Vice President in the past half century, which is true.

However, two of those five House members were not still in the House of Representatives when nominated for Vice President, and had accomplished beyond being a member of the House. These are Jack Kemp, nominated with Bob Dole in 1996, who was Secretary of Housing and Urban Development under President George H. W. Bush from 1989-1993; and Dick Cheney, nominated with George W. Bush in 2000, who was Secretary of Defense under the first President Bush for the same years as Kemp, 1989-1993.

But the only SITTING House members to be nominated were William E. Miller with Barry Goldwater in 1964; Geraldine Ferraro with Walter Mondale in 1984; and now Paul Ryan with Mitt Romney in 2012.

The first two experiments were a total failure, with Goldwater losing all but six states in 1964, and Lyndon B. Johnson winning the highest percentage in history, 61.1 percent of the popular vote. And Mondale lost all states except Minnesota and the District of Columbia, with Ronald Reagan winning 525 electoral votes, an all time high, and 59.4 percent of the total popular vote!

No one is saying that Romney and Ryan will do as disastrously as the other two cases, but the prospects for victory are based on very long odds!

Odd And Interesting Points About Paul Ryan, And The Presidential Election Of 2012

Ronald 4 Comments

There are many odd and interesting points about Vice Presidential nominee Paul Ryan that have been gathered, and here are some of them!

Paul Ryan, like Mitt Romney, is handsome, and they look good together photogenically.

Paul Ryan looks as if he could be one of Mitt Romney’s sons, and actually is only 12 days older than Romney’s oldest son, Tagg!

Paul Ryan has spent his whole adult life in government, with no experience in the private sector.

Paul Ryan was affected by the narrow minded, selfish teachings of Ayn Rand, and he was involved in work with former Congressman Jack Kemp, one of the authors of what became known as Reaganomics, which started tripling the national debt in the 1980s, due to the theory of Supply Side Economics. Now, Ryan wishes to multiply what Reaganomics in the 1980s and Bushonomics in the 2000s brought about, most of the increased national debt, $7 trillion of the total $10.5 trillion debt that existed when George W. Bush left the Presidency in January, 2009!

Paul Ryan’s dad died when he was in high school, and he was supported by the social safety net of Social Security with survivors benefits while in college.

Paul Ryan has lived off the American taxpayer his entire life, and will receive better health care and pension benefits as part of the federal payroll, that he wishes to cut for everyone else in the middle and lower classes!

Paul Ryan alienated Catholic nuns when he came out for cuts in food stamps and other benefits to poor children, and called for privatizing of Social Security, Medicare, and Medicaid, while wanting greater tax cuts for the top two percent!

Paul Ryan was booed in his own congressional district for the Ryan plan which passed the House of Representatives earlier this year, but with no Democratic support and ten Republicans voting against, as well.

Paul Ryan comes across as articulate, handsome, and charming personally, the latter much more than Mitt Romney, but he also comes across to many as arrogant, nasty, mean spirited, uncaring, hypocritical , uncompromising, and loved by the Tea Party and the right wing media which have declared war on women, senior citizens, the middle class, minorities, and the poor!

Paul Ryan has no foreign policy experience, and being only a Congressman, can be seen as not qualified to be Commander in Chief on Day One!

This is the 5th time in the past half century that a member of the House of Representatives has been selected as a Vice Presidential running mate—William E. Miller of New York with Barry Goldwater in 1964; Geraldine Ferraro of New York with Walter Mondale in 1984; Jack Kemp of New York with Bob Dole in 1996; Dick Cheney of Wyoming with George W. Bush in 2000; and now Paul Ryan of Wisconsin with Mitt Romney in 2012. Notice all four of the earlier choices LOST the election that followed, with the exception of Cheney with Bush, but remember that Al Gore actually won the popular vote in 2000 by 540,000 votes, and the Supreme Court decided the election, intervening for the first time in American history!

And as said in an earlier post, finally, this marks the fourth time in the past 60 years that the Vice Presidential nominee has been more than 20 years younger than the Presidential nominee—Richard Nixon with Dwight D. Eisenhower in 1952; Dan Quayle with George H. W. Bush in 1988; Sarah Palin with John McCain in 2008; and now Paul Ryan with Mitt Romney in 2012.

Additionally, we have no one on either ticket for this upcoming election who is from the Sun Belt states, the growing part of the nation. Instead, we have a Midwesterner and an Easterner on each ticket–Barack Obama and Paul Ryan from the Midwest, and Joe Biden and Mitt Romney from the Northeast!

Also, there is no candidate with military experience on either Presidential ticket, the first time since the 1940s!

And we also have no mainline Protestant on the Republican ticket, a mainstay of the GOP, and instead have a Mormon and a Catholic.

If anything, the only true “Protestant” is Barack Obama, as Joe Biden is Catholic!

More oddities and trivia will probably arise as the campaign develops further!

The Misleading Public Opinion Polls: The Electoral College Will Decide The Election, Not A Public Opinion Poll!

Ronald 5 Comments

The public opinion poll industry is, sadly, misinforming the American people, when they try to tell us that the Presidential Election of 2012 is going to be a tight race, some even say, similar to 2000!

The facts are that Barack Obama has to deal with certain factors, including:

Massive HATRED by many people who simply will not accept that we have an African American President and will do whatever is required to defeat him.

The fact that the Citizens United case allows corporations SuperPACS, and billionaires to spend inordinate amounts of money to attempt to poison the atmosphere, and defeat Obama simply by the power of money.

The fact that the Republican Party is trying to disenfranchise millions in 24 states, by refusing to accept alternative forms of identification, such as college student IDs, but, as in Texas, for example, accepting gun permits as an acceptable ID. So we are having poor people, college students, the elderly, and minorities being told they cannot vote, unless they spend large amounts of money, time and travel to acquire what is required under various discriminatory state laws, that violate the Voting Rights Act of 1965, and are veiled poll taxes, outlawed under the 24th Amendment to the Constitution in 1964!

But Attorney General Eric Holder, despite being cited for contempt of Congress for flimsy reasons, is determined to do what is necessary to stop these violations of the right to vote!

In any case, only by race hatred, corrupt fund raising, and violations of the Constitution, amendments and civil rights laws, can the Republicans win, and that is NOT going to happen!

Remember the following, which this author has emphasized again and again!

The election will be won in the “swing states”, the “battleground states”, but there are enough BLUE states already to give Barack Obama a total of 242 electoral votes, 28 short of what is needed, a total of 270 electoral votes, to win the Presidency on November 6!

As stated many times before, these states are: Maine, Vermont, Massachusetts, Connecticut, Rhode Island, New York, New Jersey, Pennsylvania, Delaware, Maryland, the District of Columbia, Michigan, Wisconsin, Minnesota, Illinois, Washington State, Oregon, California, and Hawaii–18 states and Washington, DC.

The “Swing States” or “Battleground States” are as follows: New Hampshire, Virginia, North Carolina, Florida, Ohio, Indiana, Iowa, Missouri, Colorado, New Mexico, and Nevada–eleven states with a total of 129 electoral votes, and all of these states, except Missouri won by Barack Obama in 2008, with Missouri lost by just a few thousand votes to John McCain.

So IF Barack Obama wins Florida, he wins the Presidency!

If he wins Ohio and Virginia, he wins the Presidency!

If he wins Virginia and North Carolina, he wins the Presidency!

If he wins North Carolina and Ohio, he wins the Presidency!

If he wins Ohio and Missouri, he wins the Presidency!

If he wins Colorado, New Mexico, Nevada and Virginia, he wins the Presidency!

Obama is likely to win Virginia, Ohio, Iowa, Colorado, New Mexico, and Nevada right now, while having more trouble in North Carolina, Florida, Indiana, Missouri, and New Hampshire.

But he COULD win them all, adding Missouri to the other states he won last time! And he has a shot at winning Arizona, Montana and Georgia, as well, with the growing Hispanic and Latino vote in those states! So he COULD win a total of 32 states and Washington DC in this upcoming election!

So Obama COULD win MORE electoral votes than last time, which has been the case for EVERY two term President since Woodrow Wilson failed to do that in 1916, after winning his first term a century ago in 1912.!

Just for the record, Franklin D. Roosevelt, Dwight D. Eisenhower, Richard Nixon, Ronald Reagan, Bill Clinton, and George W. Bush are the Presidents who won a bigger second term electoral vote than their first term!

So, readers, stop obsessing and worrying, if you are a supporter of Barack Obama, and to those who are Mitt Romney supporters, stop being delusional and believing that your candidate will be the 45th President, because the 44th President of the United States is coming back: FOUR MORE YEARS FOR 44!

A Liberal-Progressive Mount Rushmore And A Conservative Mount Rushmore: Who Would Be On Such Mount Rushmores?

Ronald 9 Comments

Last Friday, Joe Scarborough and MORNING JOE on MSNBC had distinguished historians assess which Presidents might be on a new, second Mount Rushmore, if such a monument were ever built.

This brought to mind the idea of who might be on a Liberal-Progressive Mount Rushmore, and who would be on a Conservative Mount Rushmore, if such were ever constructed anywhere in America.

This is mostly just interesting scholarly speculation, but here goes my suggestions for such honoring on both sides of the political spectrum.

LIBERAL/PROGRESSIVE MOUNT RUSHMORE

Robert La Follette, Sr.–Republican Governor (1900-1906) and Senator (1906-1925) of Wisconsin–Mr. Progressive of the early 20th century and 1924 Progressive Party nominee for President.

George Norris–Republican Congressman (1902-1912) and Senator (1912-1942) of Nebraska–the most creative reform figure and longevity of the first half of the 20th century, a bridge between the Progressive Era of Theodore Roosevelt and Woodrow Wilson and the New Deal of Franklin D. Roosevelt.

Hubert H. Humphrey–Democratic Mayor Of Minneapolis (1945-1949), Senator (1949-1964, 1970-1978) of Minnesota, and Vice President of the United States (1965-1969) and Democratic Presidential nominee in 1968, who had the most creative record of promoting reform in the years after World War II throughout the 1960s.

Ted Kennedy–Democratic Senator (1962-2009) of Massachusetts, the fourth longest serving US Senator in American history, and the most creative reformer in the years from the 1970s until his death in 2009.

A possible alternative would be Democratic Senator George McGovern of
South Dakota (1922-2012), who ran for President in 1972, and was a major critic of the Vietnam War, one of the most decent men ever in American politics, serving in the Senate from 1963-1981.

CONSERVATIVE MOUNT RUSHMORE

Arthur Vandenberg–Republican Senator (1928-1951) of Michigan, who opposed the New Deal and was an isolationist in foreign policy through World War II, but then became an internationalist in support of the United Nations and President Harry Truman’s Cold War policy against the Soviet Union after World War II, and potential Presidential candidate twice.

Robert Taft–Republican Senator (1939-1953) of Ohio, son of President and Chief Justice William Howard Taft, promoted the anti labor union Taft-Hartley Act, promoted an isolationist foreign policy, and considered Mr. Conservative by his party, and a potential Presidential candidate numerous times.

Barry Goldwater–Senator (1952-1964, 1968-1986) of Arizona, succeeding Robert Taft as Mr. Conservative, and 1964 Republican nominee for President, becoming the hero of conservatives long term, and having an effect on President Ronald Reagan.

Ronald Reagan–Republican Governor of California (1966-1974), and President of the United States (1981-1989), after a career as a movie actor, influenced by the principles and ideas of Barry Goldwater, who he publicly backed in a famous speech in 1964.

The author welcomes commentary on these selections!

Mitt Romney As Compared to Barry Goldwater And George McGovern And Walter Mondale

Ronald Leave a comment

Mitt Romney is infamous for constant change in his positions on every issue imaginable, making people unable to trust him.

In the past half century, we have had three losing Presidential candidates, all of whom lost by landslides, but even so, kept their dignity as men of principle, who did not change their views to fit the changing mood of the country, and therefore, even in losing badly, can been seen as men who truly believed what they advocated.

These are Republican Senator Barry Goldwater of Arizona, who lost to President Lyndon B. Johnson in 1964; Democratic Senator George McGovern of South Dakota, who lost to President Richard Nixon in 1972; and Senator and former Vice President Walter Mondale of Minnesota, who lost to President Ronald Reagan in 1984.

All three men are regarded more highly because they stuck to their principle, but when Mitt Romney loses to President Barack Obama in 2012, he will NOT be regarded highly as a man of principle, as he has NO PRINCIPLES, except his own advancement!

2012 Presidential Election: Possibly Another Bush, And Even A Clinton?

Ronald 3 Comments

Speculation is rampant that former Florida Governor Jeb Bush might indeed agree to run for Vice President with Mitt Romney.

After denying it for so long, Jeb now has left the door open, but makes clear he would rather not be on the ticket.

It is interesting how Florida Senator Marco Rubio promotes Jeb, and Jeb keeps on promoting Rubio for Vice President.

Would Jeb Bush help Romney in the Fall campaign? Both yes and no!

Obviously, Jeb is very intelligent, a good speaker, and a mainline conservative, who is not reckless, and does not make loony statements about issues. He is married to an Hispanic (Mexican) woman, is seen by many as a successful Governor of Florida, and in theory, could help to deliver that state to Romney in the fall. He is seen as a potential candidate for President in 2016, and even being on a losing ticket, he probably would gain stature for such a race by coming to the aid of Romney and the party now.

On the other hand, the question is whether there is a desire for a third Bush on a national ticket, particularly with the controversies over his brother, George W. Bush, and his eight years in office. There is believed to be an exhaustion with things Bush at this point of time. And imagine the idea of having a Bush on the national ticket every election since 1980 except 1996 and 2008, six of the last eight Presidential elections! Those who dislike the Bushes, particularly, George W. Bush, might not be willing to vote for Mitt Romney with Jeb Bush on the ticket.

And then, there are still the rumors flying that Secretary of State Hillary Clinton might agree to run for Vice President, in place of Joe Biden, in order to add strength to Barack Obama’s campaign. She laughs it off, and says it will not happen, but if Obama were to ask her, could she really say no?

So imagine an election with a Bush AND a Clinton on the national tickets, which would mark one or both names on the national scene every election since 1980, except 2008, and only not in 2008 because Hillary Clinton lost the nomination to Barack Obama.

There could very well be exhaustion and disgust at the thought of what might be seen as two “royal” dynasties in America, the Bushes and the Clintons!

John Glenn: Fifty Years Ago The Hero Of The American Space Program

Ronald Leave a comment

John Glenn, the first American astronaut in space on February 20, 1962, celebrated the 50 year anniversary at the Cape Canaveral Kennedy Space Center in central Florida yesterday, alongside the only other surviving Mercury astronaut, Scott Carpenter. The other five original astronauts have all passed away.

Glenn, also the oldest astronaut in space in 1998 at age 77, was a great national hero on the level of Charles Lindbergh in 1927. The author remembers the news of his ride into space being broadcast over the public address system in classrooms of his high school, before the era of televisions in classrooms. It was a very exciting and patriotic moment.

Glenn went on to become a three term Democratic Senator from Ohio, and a failed Presidential candidate for the Democratic nomination in 1984. Despite his failure at gaining the Presidency, Glenn always came across as a popular, pleasant, approachable hero, much admired by Americans over the course of a lifetime.

The sadness of the celebration of the fifty year anniversary of John Glenn in space was the fact that we have, as a nation, abandoned a space program for the future, a shortsighted view of the importance of space. John Glenn expressed the sadness that we have lost our long range view, and the hope that at some point, we will start up again the adventure into space, the final frontier.

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

Ronald 2 Comments

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!