Strom Thurmond

Senators Who Reached Age 90 In Office, Other Possible Additions To The List in Future Years To 2026, And Democratic House Leadership Reaching 80 By 2020

Ronald Leave a comment

Strom Thurmond, Democrat and then Republican, South Carolina 100

Theodore F. Green, Democrat, Rhode Island 93

Robert Byrd, Democrat, West Virginia 92

Carl Hayden, Democrat, Arizona 91

Additionally, the potential future shows the following:

Dianne Feinstein, Democrat, California, would reach age 90 in next term ending 2024 with her reaching that age in 2023, with her victory in November for another six year term assured.

Chuck Grassley, Republican, Iowa, would reach age 90 in 2023 if he won another term in 2022.

Richard Shelby, Democrat and then Republican, Alabama, would reach age 90 in 2024, if he won another term in 2022.

James Inhofe, Republican, Oklahoma, would reach age 90 in 2024, if he won another term in 2020.

Pat Roberts, Republican, Kansas, would reach age 90 in 2026, if he won another term in 2020.

The question is whether it is good for the nation to have five Octogenarians in the US Senate in 2019, and this after John McCain died and Orrin Hatch is retiring.

It is, however, a growing trend, and the present Democratic leadership in the House of Representatives (Nancy Pelosi, Steny Hoyer, and James Clyburn), all will reach 80 soon, with Pelosi reaching 80 in March 2020, Hoyer reaching 80 in June 2019, and Clyburn reaching 80 in July 2020, so all age 80 during the 116th Congress.

The debate will grow over the aging of Congress, and particularly of leadership and influence over the future of American democracy.

Amazing Record Of Longevity Of Presidential Nominees And Of Presidential Running Mates For Vice President

Ronald 4 Comments

With Walter Mondale having reached the age of 90 yesterday, January 5, we have an amazing continuation of a record of age longevity of Presidential nominees, as well as Vice Presidential nominees.

The first such case was Strom Thurmond, the States Rights (Dixiecrat) Presidential nominee in the Presidential Election of 1948, who reached the age of 100 and a half, when he died in 2003. That is a record unlikely to be matched.

But beginning in 1972 and continuing through 1996, either one or both Presidential nominees and in most cases Vice Presidential nominees have reached the age of 90.

In 1972, Democratic Presidential nominee Senator George McGovern, died at the age of 90 in 2012, and Vice Presidential nominee Sargent Shriver died at age 95 in 2011.

In 1976, both Presidential nominees—Gerald Ford and Jimmy Carter—reached the age of 90, with Ford dying at age 93 in 2006, and Carter on the way to surpassing Ford on March 15 of this year, but still behind George H. W. Bush, 111 days older than Carter. But also Vice Presidential nominees Walter Mondale and Bob Dole both reached the age of 90, with Dole now 94.

In 1980, Jimmy Carter and Ronald Reagan both reached the age of 90, and Reagan died at age 93 in 2004, and again, Carter on the way to a final age competition with the senior Bush. And Mondale and Vice Presidential running mate George H. W. Bush both have reached the age of 90 plus.

In 1984, Reagan and Walter Mondale both would reach the age of 90 and counting for Mondale, as of yesterday’s 90th birthday, and George H. W. Bush has the all time record of age of Presidents as of now.

In 1988 and in 1992, George H. W. Bush would survive many health issues and is still adding to the all time record of longevity, but again in competition with Jimmy Carter.

Finally, in 1996, Republican Presidential nominee Bob Dole, who was Gerald Ford’s Vice Presidential running mate in 1976, has passed the age of 94 last July, and is still adding to his own longevity.

The Sickening Sexual Harassment Scandals

Ronald 3 Comments

The last few weeks have seen the destruction of the public reputations of many prominent people in Hollywood and in politics.

Being a public figure, and with great power, influence, and financial assets, many well known men have exploited women, and in some cases, men, in a disgraceful way over the years.

It was an unspoken secret that this was going on for a long time, with few individuals being exposed.

The attention was primarily on Bill Clinton and Ted Kennedy, but also many Republicans, including Newt Gingrich and Strom Thurmond, plus Dennis Hastert, Henry Hyde, Mark Foley, Rudy Giuliani, Bill O’Reilly, Bill Cosby, and now in the last month, Harvey Weinstein, and numerous others who became infamously involved in sex scandals.

But now the list of exposed public figures continues to mount, with resultant disillusionment by many that such people as George Takei, Dustin Hoffman, Richard Dreyfuss, Kevin Spacey, and Al Franken, all much admired, have been engaged in sexual harassment and abuse, including children and boys, as well as girls, women, and men.

And now, Bill Clinton, who went through impeachment and disbarment twenty years ago, is again being pilloried, along with his wife, Hillary Clinton for covering it up, but somehow, Donald Trump, the ultimate sexual harasser and abuser, seems able to escape accountability, along with Alabama Senate candidate Roy Moore.

The only good aspect of the present revelations is that women are now more engaged in doing something momentous about it, unlike the failure to move ahead on this after the Clarence Thomas scandal of 1991.

Women must insist on full disclosure of misbehavior, and do whatever is necessary, to change the situation in Hollywood, politics, sports, and the corporate business community.

Most Crucial Trump Cabinet Member To Resist Is Jeff Sessions, Attorney General Nominee— A Danger To Civil Rights And Civil Liberties!

Ronald 6 Comments

The Trump cabinet choices are overall horrific, but the most that might be expected is to stop maybe one or two of the nominees.

It is so hard to judge which are the worst of all of them, but clearly, after reflection, the record of Senator Jeff Sessions disqualifies him for the position of Attorney General.

This is a man who has displayed racism, misogyny, nativism, and homophobia, and was opposed to extension of the Voting Rights Act, and he was already rejected for a federal judgeship in 1986 by a Senate with a majority of his own Republican Party.

In an age when civil rights and civil liberties are in danger from Donald Trump and his mentality, to put Jeff Sessions into the Justice Department would set back the Bill of Rights tremendously, as Sessions is no different than if one were to select former Alabama Governor George Wallace, or former North Carolina Senator Jesse Helms, or former South Carolina Senator Strom Thurmond to be Attorney General.

These were the worst of all Southern politicians who undermined civil rights, and there is no evidence that Jeff Sessions is any different in 2017.

All that is needed is for a few Republican Senators to show courage, and vote against their own colleague, replicating the Republican Senate of 1986, as then Arlen Specter and Charles Mathias blocked Sessions from a federal district court judgeship, a very rare occurrence.

Pressure must be brought on Lindsey Graham of South Carolina and Jeff Flake of Arizona to show the same kind of courage now, within the Senate Judiciary Committee.

Otherwise, it is essential that such Senators as Susan Collins of Maine, Rob Portman of Ohio, Lisa Murkowksi of Alaska, John McCain of Arizona, Pat Toomey of Pennsylvania, and Dean Heller of Nevada be appealed to, to reject Sessions.

Alabama Senator Jeff Sessions: A Horrible Successor To The Position Of Attorney General

Ronald Leave a comment

Alabama Senator Jeff Sessions may be very cordial and pleasant to his Senate colleagues, but he is clearly a horrible successor to the position of Attorney General of the Unites States.

The only Senator given a cabinet post, Sessions is, unfortunately, the totally wrong choice to enforce civil liberties and civil rights. He is rated one of the most conservative, hard right members of the US Senate.

He was rejected for a Circuit Court Judgeship thirty years ago by a Republican controlled Senate due to his insensitive statements on race, and has no record of tolerance on immigrants, Latinos, Muslims, gays and lesbians, and women.

Sessions would present a very different image of the Justice Department, to favor the powerful and elite over the powerless and middle class and poor in legal and constitutional matters.

He voted against use of medicinal marijuana, and is opposed to stem cell research. He also was highly critical and voted against Barack Obama’s two Supreme Court nominees, Sonia Sotomayor and Elena Kagan.

Sessions is like bringing back the “Old South” image of George Wallace, Jesse Helms, and Strom Thurmond, with lack of concern about the growing number of cases of police behavior in controversial cases where people of minority status are often the victim of trigger happy cops, and end up deceased.

Will the Senate again reject one of its own, of the majority party as thirty years ago? That is the question that will be focused on next month when Sessions faces Senate Judiciary Committee hearings.

Ten Most Divisive And Polarizing Elections In American History

Ronald Leave a comment

As we near the end of an extremely divisive and polarizing election, it is a good time to look back and judge what were the ten most divisive and polarizing elections in American history.

Chronologically, they would be the following:

The Election of 1800 between John Adams and Thomas Jefferson

The Election of 1828 between John Quincy Adams and Andrew Jackson

The Election of 1860 between Abraham Lincoln, Stephen Douglas, John C. Breckinridge, and John Bell

The Election of 1876 between Rutherford B. Hayes and Samuel Tilden

The Election of 1884 between Grover Cleveland and James G. Blaine

The Election of 1896 between William McKinley and William Jennings Bryan

The Election of 1912 between Woodrow Wilson, Theodore Roosevelt, William Howard Taft, and Eugene Debs

The Election of 1948 between Harry Truman, Thomas E. Dewey, Strom Thurmond, and Henry A. Wallace

The Election of 1968 between Richard Nixon, Hubert Humphrey, and George Wallace

The Election of 2000 between George W. Bush, Al Gore, Ralph Nader, and Pat Buchanan

Are We On The Road To A 5th Four Way Presidential Election?

Ronald 3 Comments

In American history, we have had four Presidential elections in which there were four candidates who gained a substantial percentage of popular votes.

The first time was 1824, with Andrew Jackson, John Quincy Adams, William Crawford and Henry Clay.

The second time was 1860, with Abraham Lincoln, Stephen Douglas, John C. Breckinridge, and John Bell.

The third time was 1912, with Woodrow Wilson, Theodore Roosevelt, William Howard Taft, and Eugene Debs.

The fourth time was 1948, with Harry Truman, Thomas E. Dewey, Strom Thurmond, and Henry A. Wallace.

The first two times, 1824 and 1860, saw the success of new political parties, the Democrats under Jackson by 1828 and the Republicans under Lincoln in 1860.  The third time brought the success of progressivism at its peak under Wilson with Roosevelt’s indirect contributions, and the fourth insured the forward movement in foreign and domestic policy under Truman.

Now in 2016, we could have four candidates, including Hillary Clinton, Donald Trump, Ted Cruz, and potentially Bernie Sanders or Jesse Ventura.  And who can deny that Paul Ryan or Mitt Romney or John Kasich might also be potential candidates?

The first three named above seem almost certain, but there is some speculation that Sanders could run on a independent line, and that Jesse Ventura, the former Governor of Minnesota, might run if Sanders fails to be the Democratic nominee, and decides to avoid an independent run.  If Trump is nominated, the odds of Ryan or Romney or Kasich running as the “Establishment” Republican opponent grows, just as is likely that Trump will run as an independent if he is not the party’s nominee.

Hillary Clinton would win against a split Republican Party, but IF Sanders runs or even Ventura, the potential exists, in a four way race, for anything to happen, including the need to use the 12th Amendment, as occurred in 1824, which would give the Republican nominee the advantage, with the Republican control of the House of Representatives!

Could Ted Cruz Be William Howard Taft Vs. Donald Trump Being Theodore Roosevelt In 2016 Presidential Race?

Ronald 2 Comments

There is now a good chance that Donald Trump will refuse to back the Republican Presidential nominee, if he is not the nominee, and will run on a third party line in November.

That will further insure that the Democrats, who are already heavily favored in the Electoral College, will win an even bigger one sided victory!

Donald Trump cannot win the Presidency, but he could win a few states and end up second, like Theodore Roosevelt did in 1912, while Ted Cruz, could, as the GOP nominee, end up winning fewer states and electoral votes, and end up third, as William Howard Taft did in 1912!

Trump could surpass George Wallace in 1968 with five states and 46 electoral votes, and Strom Thurmond in 1948 with four states and 39 electoral votes.  He could also surpass Theodore Roosevelt who won six states in 1912, but highly unlikely to gain anywhere near the 88 electoral votes that TR won.

So the 2016 election could repeat the Presidential Election of 1912, with the Democrats benefiting, as they did in 1912!

Of course, this blogger is not trying to compare Cruz to Taft or Trump to TR, as both Cruz and Trump have far from the accomplished public records of both the 26th and 27th Presidents of the United States!

Major Historic Splits In Democratic Party

Ronald 5 Comments

The Democratic Party has existed for 188 years, since the election Of Andrew Jackson in 1828.

In that nearly two centuries, there have been major splits and divisions:

In 1860, the party split, and the Northern Democrats. the official party, nominated Illinois Senator Stephen Douglas for President, while Vice President John C. Breckinridge was the nominee of Southern Democrats.

In 1896,  the “Gold Democrats” refused to back the party nominee, the  “silver tongued orator”, thirty six year old William Jennings Bryan, who promoted “free silver”, and drew support from the rural states in the Midwest and Great Plains and Mountain West, and kept the South loyal to the party.

In 1948, Southern Democrats broke from the convention that nominated Harry Truman for a full term, and ran South Carolina Governor Strom Thurmond as the States Rights (Dixiecrats) candidate.

In 1968, Alabama Governor George C. Wallace formed the American Independent Party, and ran against Democratic nominee Hubert Humphrey.

Notice that it was the South that caused three of the four splits, with the result being Douglas and Humphrey losing because of the split, while Truman won despite Thurmond’s opposition.

The other time, it was the rural West that revolved against the “Eastern Establishment”, represented by Wall Street, but Bryan, nominated three times for President, was unable to win the Presidency, although he helped to shape the Progressive Era with some of his reform ideas.

 

No Comparison Between David Duke And Robert Byrd! Or For That Matter, Hugo Black, George C. Wallace, Or Strom Thurmond!

Ronald 5 Comments

A massive controversy has arisen over the initial refusal of Donald Trump to repudiate the support of former Ku Klux Klan leader David Duke of Louisiana, who ran for Governor 25 years ago, and later for the US Senate as a Republican, losing both times, and being denounced by President George H. W. Bush and other reputable Republican leaders in the 1990s.

Those defending Trump’s hesitation are now comparing the despicable hate monger David Duke, who is not only a racist but also an anti Semite of a major order, to the late Democratic US Senator Robert Byrd, who served longer in the Senate than anyone in American history (from 1959 to his death in 2010).

No one is saying that Byrd cannot be criticized, as he was a youthful member of the Klan in West Virginia, and opposed the Civil Rights Acts of the 1960s.  But over time, he evolved, and repudiated his despicable past, and even supported Barack Obama in 2008 for the nomination and election as President, and helped to make ObamaCare make a successful journey through the legislative process, including being brought in a wheel chair to cast votes for the legislation, in his last months of life.

David Duke has never done anything to repudiate his past record, and is still defiant as a racist and anti Semite, unlike Byrd.

Also, former Alabama Senator Hugo Black sat on the Supreme Court for 34 years (1937-1971), repudiating by his words and actions the fact that he was a member of the Ku Klux Klan in his youth.

Also, Alabama Governor George C. Wallace, after running racist campaigns for President in 1968 and 1972, repudiated his past and apologized, although he was never, actually, a member of the Ku Klux Klan.

Even Strom Thurmond, who ran as  a racist for President in 1948, and served in the US Senate from South Carolina from 1954-2003,  later modified his views, even if not formally apologizing for his earlier behavior and statements.

No one is saying that we cannot criticize Byrd, Black, Wallace, and Thurmond, but none of them were on the level lifetime on racism and anti Semitism of David Duke, so the comparison is preposterous!