About Me

Name: reasonmclucus
Biography
Loading...

Create Your Own Blog Find Other Townhall Blogs

Comments

Blog Roll

 
Uncategorized

Editor Tells Rev. Wright to "Shut Up"

  The editor of the Hutchinson, Kansas, News says "Rev. Jeremiah Wright needs to shut up"
 
Barack Obama's supporters in the media are piling on Rev. Wright for having the audacity to speak his mind and possibly harm their candidate's chances of being elected president.

Forgive my cynicism, but they are ignoring the fact that Obama made Wright a public figure by using Wright's church to try to convince black voters to vote for him. Politicians have been using church membership to win votes for generations.

I can understand criticizing Wright for his statements about government being responsible for the HIV virus, but why do some like the New York Times criticize him for his statement that the 9/11 attack was punishment for various American actions abroad which killed innocent civilians. Religious leaders have been blaming calamities on "sin" since biblical times.
 

I have read the sermon in question and see nothing wrong with it. As a social scientist I look at human actions in terms of direct cause and effect actions.

I would explain 9/11 in terms of the reaction of al Qaeda to having our troops stationed in their Holy Land and the failure of the FBI and CIA to do their jobs and prevent the attack. The FBI had a man in custody who wanted to learn how to fly planes but not how to land them, but no one at the FBI could foresee the obvious possibility that someone was planning to hijack a plane or planes and deliberately crash them. To me the 9/11 attack occurred because of incompetence at the FBI and CIA.

Preachers look at events from the view point of moral issues of right and wrong. Positive consequences are rewards for doing right. Negative consequences are the punishment for doing wrong. Like the prophets of biblical times Rev. Wright looked at the wrongs he felt America had done and suggested punishment was understandable.

Those who condemn Rev. Wright for his statement about 9/11 reveal themselves as anti religious bigots. They are the ones who should shut up.

Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (0) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

In Defense of Rev. Wright

I disagree with Rev. Jeremiah Wright on many things, but as an American I believe that he has the right to believe whatever he wants to believe and express those beliefs. 

My father believed the  rights of freedom of  belief and freedom of expression were important enough to risk his life in Europe  in World War II.  I believe those rights were important enough to risk my life in Vietnam.

I disagree with Rev. Wright that the U.S. government is responsible for the HIV virus, but as an historian I know that some of our ancestors  gave small pox infected blankets to the Indians.

America  has a long tradition of  belief in conspiracies.  Many believe there was some type of government involvement in the assassination of President John F. Kennedy and the fall of the World Trade Towers.  I disagree with those theories but see nothing wrong with people wanting to have such beliefs.

Wright's statements about 9/11 being punishment are consistent with a long religious tradition dating from biblical times.  Religious leaders have often explained calamities as punishment for sins.  I disagreed with Rev. Martin Luther King's statements about the Vietnam War, but I recognized that  he had a duty to speak out  against what he believed to be wrong.

One of the functions of religious leaders is to condemn what they believe people or nations are doing wrong.   If we want to truly guarantee religious freedom,    we must allow them  to continue to do  so even if we disagree with them.  

If anyone is to blame in the controversy, it is Senator Barack Obama  not Rev. Jeremiah Wright.   No one held a gun to Obama's head and forced him to attend Rev. Wright's church for 20 years.  If Obama had serious disagreements with Rev. Wright, Obama should have left the church instead of belatedly condemning Rev. Wright for holding various beliefs.

Obama's behaviior is scary in someone who wants to be president.  Presidents can become intoxicated with the powers of the presidency.  A candidate who makes a practice of condemning those he disagrees with as a candidate might attempt to punish those who disagree with him if he's elected.

Rev. Wright's statements about HIV might not make sense to most of us, but many of those who are condemning him believe ideas that make even less sense. 

For example, many of them believe that carbon dioxide which is less than 0.04% of the atmosphere has some type of magical power to control the temperature of the atmosphere.  They believe  this even though the process they talk about is inconsistent with the laws of physics and with scientific experiments.   They claim the earth is getting significantly warmer, even though they admit that the average temperature they use changed by only 1F during the entire 20th Century and such change represents only a 0.17% increase in temperature.     Such a small change could  indicate nothing more than differences in equipment or differences  in the characteristics of the sites containing the equipment.


Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (0) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

Obama Not Ready for Presidency

Barack Obama's ongoing dispute with his former pastor  Rev. Jeremiah Wright raises serious doubts  about  his fitness for the presidency.   If he had disagreements with his pastor he should have resolved the dispute before he decided to run for president instead of interrupting the campaign for a personal dispute. 

 If he attended the church for 20 years and didn't know what the pastor was saying how can we expect him to know what his advisors are telling him?  We need a president who knows what is going on around him, not a president who is oblivious to what those around him are saying.

 Obama made a bad situation worse  by  deciding  to condemn Rev. Wright's statements.  Obama should have admitted he made a mistake  by continuing the attend the church considering the pastor's views instead of blaming Wright for having such views.

 Politicians who attempt to  tell preachers what views they should or shouldn't have are not desirable in a nation that prohibits the state from dictating to the church.

Perhaps Obama's  relatively young age and lack of experience could explain his use of the media to argue with his former pastor. If so then we should wait for him to mature before choosing him as president.

Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (0) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

Has Obama Broken the Law?


I'm not an expert on Senate rules regulating campaign activities.  I would like to know if it is legal for a Senator to use his Senate website to further his presidential campaign.  Barack Obama has decided to use his Senate website to help his presidential campaign  by posting  information  about  the earmarks he has requested as a Senator. 

If tax money is used to fund Senate website activities than Obama's  action is unethical because it forces taxpayers to subsidize his presidential campaign.  The appropriate place to post the list would have been Obama's presidential website.

His disclosure indicates further unethical activity by requesting money for the Chicago Medical Center which increased his wife's salary by nearly  $200,000  after he was elected to the Senate .  Is this  earmark  request  a  payback for a bribe?  His supporters have also potentially benefited from his earmark requests. 

The Senate, or a federal grand jury, needs to investigate this possibility.  This question needs to be resolved before Democrats decide whether to nominate Obama as their presidential  candidate.  If they cannot resolve the legal issues first they may once again have a candidate running for office with a special prosecutor breathing down his neck.

Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (0) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

Michael Bloomberg Doesn't Get It

New York City Mayor Michael Bloomberg doesn’t understand the problem with the two major parties.  After announcing he wouldn’t seek the presidency as a third party candidate, he suggested he would support a major party candidate who leveled with the American people about the issues facing the country.  Unfortunately, major party candidates are prisoners of their own parties.

Those running on a major party ticket need  the support of party activists who often  have an unrealistic oversimplified view of issues.  These activists want candidates who will at least give lip service to their views.  Many of these activists are what longshoreman Eric Hofer once described as “True Believers” who believe they are right and anyone who disagrees is wrong.    

Democrats, for example, want a candidate who will end U.S. involvement in Iraq regardless of the consequences.  They don’t care what happens afterwards because they cannot comprehend any negative consequences such as al Qaeda taking control of Iraq or the substantial number of American casualties that might result from a precipitous retreat from a combat zone.

Many Republicans want all illegal immigrants removed from the country regardless of the economic consequences.  They would prefer to endure a severe recession or depression than have to share the country with “illegals”.  The anti-immigrant group doesn’t understand that we have a shortage of younger workers and will need even more workers as the baby boomer generation retires.

Bloomberg has no national constituency that he could encourage to support either major party candidate so his offer of support to one of them is meaningless.  Bloomberg can change the situation only  if he runs for president himself.  As a third party candidate he would be free to take any position on the issues he felt was appropriate.   

Only by running for president Bloomberg could demonstrate that Americans want a candidate who levels with them.  Of course maybe Bloomberg is wrong.  Maybe Americans prefer a president who lies to them.  Maybe they want a president who tells them what they want to hear instead of what they need to know.
 
  
Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (0) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

Baby Boomer Nonsense

I'm watching a PBS special I recorded earlier called the "Boomer Generation".  I hope the rest of it  is better researched than  the part about the Kennedy administration.  The speaker ignores the fact the oldest of us were high school freshmen when John F. Kennedy was elected and senior when he was assassinated.  We were not a significant factor in the civil rights  movement as the show suggests.  The young people who aided the civil rights movement were from the generation born during the depression and WWII who are often ignored because there were fewer of them. They were the first members of the Peace Corps.  Except in a couple of states we couldn't even vote until the 1968 election.

The documentary also misrepresents 50's television by ignoring the numerous female characters like Lois Lane who were not housewives and who may have encouraged baby boomer girls to look for careers outside the home when they became women.

http://www.writing.com/main/view_item/item_id/1227591


    

      
Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (1) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (1) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

Fascism Isn't on the Right

The idea that fascism is "on the right" is a common myth spread by those who haven't taken the time to study it.  Adolf Hitler was an avowed socialist who headed the National Socialist Workers Party.  He did not establish his administration to benefit business.  He merely recognized that he needed German industrialists to produce his war machine and thus allowed them to keep their businesses so long as they weren't Jewish and didn't question him.  

He co-opted non-Jewish business owners by telling them if they didn't support him the communists would take over instead.  He treated Jewish business owners the same way the communists treated all business owners.  he convinced ordinary Germans that Jewish business owners including small business owners as well as bankers were the cause of German economic problems.

The non-Jewish business owners who supported Hitler lost their political rights just like other Germans. 

Democrats like to call Republicans "fascists" but if fascism is likely to come to America it is more likely to be brought in by the Democrats than the Republicans.  Democrats are more prone to the charismatic leaders who could provide a fascist leader.


The myth of fascism is that it is the opposite of communism. The fact is that fascism is just a less extreme version of totalitarianism than is communism.

Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (0) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

Ignorance of the Presidency

Many Americans seem ignorant about what the job of President of the United States involves. The debate over who to nominate largely ignores the fact that the President is the nation's Chief Executive Officer.

Democrats are preoccupied with the color or sex of their candidates. Many Republicans are preoccupied with which candidate is "conservative" enough.

Too little attention has been paid to who has the most relevant experience to be an executive. Democrats had the candidate with the best resume, Gov. Bill Richardson, but they have rejected him in favor of media stars Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton who have never run any large organization. We can evaluate Richardson on the basis of how he ran the Department or Energy or how effective he has been as a governor.

Republicans at least considered experienced executives, even if they devoted more attention to their ideological views. We can evaluate John McCain on how he ran the Navy fighter wing he was in charge of. Governors Mitt Romney and Mike Huckabee could be evaluated on how they handled their governorships.

Ignorant voters blindly assume that a candidate who agrees with them will be able to implement policies they support. The reality is that even the most well meaning candidate cannot automatically gain support for his or her proposals. Gaining approval for an agenda requires experience.


Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (0) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

Worst Afghanistan Winter in Memory

Believers in the god "Global Warming" have been insisting that melting in the Arctic proves Global Warming exists.  This winter  raises doubts about the existence of such a situation.    Alaskans don't remember warmer summers than last year. Afghans don't remember a worse winter than they are having this year.

800 people  are known dead in the worst winter  in  the memory of Afghan natives.  Many others are likely to be discovered later.  10's of thousands of farm animals are  also dead.  

Madison, Wisconsin, has broken its  all time winter snow record.   many other cities are 1 to 4 feet above normal in showfall.   The situation provides further evidence that  the   Pacific Oscillation  has been responsible for warmer temperatures.  Now that the  PDO has flipped winters may become worse. 
 
Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (0) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

Bad Girl, Bad Girl What You Gonna Do...

The current la Nina is being a very bad girl.  Although members of the Church of Global Warming are claiming the recent tornado outbreak in the southern U.S. was caused by their god "Global Warming", real climatologists believe the current la Nina is the culprit.  Mark C. Bove of the Center for Ocean-Atmospheric Prediction Studies (COAPS) in a paper published in 1999 noted a connection between ENSO and tornadic activity in the U.S. La Ninas were associated with tornado outbreaks and strong tornadoes.  The tornado that wiped out Greensburg, Kansas, last May occurred while the current la Nina was developing. 

According to Bove,  "The results indicate that El Nio events reduce tornadic activity in the southern plain states, while El Viejo [la Nina] events increase tornadic activity in the Ohio River Valley and Deep South. Results further show that El Nio inhibits the chances of multiple tornado outbreaks, while La Nia facilitates large tornadic outbreaks and produces more devastating tornadoes."

A 1996 report for the Defense Technical Information Center noted increased freezing rain in the western U.S. during la Nina years as compared to el Nino years.

 A recent study   indicates cool la Nina events create more economic losses than warm el Nino events.    http://icecap.us/images/uploads/WOULD_YOU_BELIEVE_LA_NINAS_HURT_THE_U.pdf


Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (0) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

Martin Luther King and Lyndon Johnson

Sen. Hillary Clinton recently got into trouble with Democrats  because she correctly pointed out that President Lyndon Johnson, rather than Dr. Martin Luther King,  was responsible for passage of  the 1964 Civil Rights Act.  Her opponents Barack Obama and John Edwards ignorantly criticized her  for  pointing out the obvious facts.

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/us_and_americas/us_elections/article3173652.ece

 According to Josh Marshall the quote in question is:
  "I would point to the fact that that Dr. King's dream began to be realized when President Johnson passed the Civil Rights Act of 1964, when he was able to get through Congress something that President Kennedy was hopeful to do, the President before [Dwight Eisenhower] had not even tried, but it took a president to get it done. That dream became a reality, the power of that dream became a real in peoples lives because we had a president who said we are going to do it, and actually got it accomplished."

http://talkingpointsmemo.com/archives/063023.php

http://www.talkingpointsmemo.com/horsesmouth/2008/01/new_york_times_11.php

The interview is available at
 http://embeds.blogs.foxnews.com/2008/01/07/clinton-talks-tears-with-fox-news/

Dr. King was a dreamer.  President Lyndon Johnson was a doer.   King inspired people to act.  Johnson was a skilled political operator who knew how to get legislation through Congress.  Johnson combined the skills he had developed as Senate   Majority Leader with the power of the presidency to  push civil rights legislation through Congress.  As Majority Leader Johnson had previously gotten  weak civil rights legislation passed in 1957 and 1960  without  the help of then President Dwight Eisenhower. 

Johnson has gotten a bad rap from Democrats because  they blame him for the Vietnam War rather than President John Kennedy.  Johnson inherited Vietnam from Kennedy, along with Kennedy's advisers, and didn't know how to handle it.

Many people don't understand Dr. King's role in the civil rights movement and the passage of civil rights legislation.  The image many people have today is that Dr. King was a Moses who led his people out of bondage.  The fact is that King did not start the civil rights movement.  It had been building for decades through lawsuits and  protests by people who were often lynched for the their trouble.  The integration of the military by President Harry Truman and of major league baseball directed by Branch Rickey had built up hopes that  racial segregation might be on the way out.

The south in the 50s was ready to explode because of pent up resentment by its black population.   All that was needed was a spark.  The arrest of Rosa Parks for  refusing to give up her bus seat in December, 1955, could have provided that spark.  It did provoke a mass meeting of Montgomery, Al., residents  who were looking for something to do to support her.  Dr. King took control of the situation and gave them something they could do - engage in a non-violent action by boycotting the bus line. 

Fortunately for the nation, King's efforts to encourage non-violent actions including non-violent civil disobedience kept the resentment  of those who had been mistreated for generations from turning to violence  and a racial war. King did not start the civil rights movement.  He kept it under control so that those who participated were a well disciplined army rather than an angry mob.

King's  approach exposed racist southern government officials as monsters and made it possible for northern politicians to support civil rights legislation.  If southern blacks had reacted violently to their mistreatment, northern politicians might have had trouble justifying their support for legislation that their constituents thought of as applying  only to the south.  King's approach also encouraged the next generation of southern leaders like Jimmy Carter to abandon  racism. 

King and Johnson were both essential to the civil rights movement.   King kept the movement focused on demonstrating  the need for legislation. Johnson  provided the power to get that legislation passed.  King had hoped to get southern politicians to voluntarily change their ways.  Johnson recognized that force was needed in the form of laws that would allow prosecution of those who violated people's rights.

Most people think of Dr. King's  contributions as only involving racial equality.  He did much more than that.  By working to eliminate the south's emphasis on racism, he caused southern leaders to shift their focus to economic matters.  Prior to King southern politicians had been elected to keep black residents "in their place" regardless of the economic situation.  After King, southern politicians had to do something about the economy. 


Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (0) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

Is Osama bin Laden Dead?

Pravada is reporting that  Benazir Bhutto stated in a Nov.  2, 2007,  Al-Jazeera  interview  that Ahmed Omar Saeed Sheikh had killed Osama bin Laden.

http://english.pravda.ru/print/world/asia/15-01-2008/103426-benazir_bhutto_osama-0

 

The interview is available on YouTube.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UnychOXj9Tg

She made the comment responding to a question about the names of people who didn't want her back in Pakistan:  “Omar Sheikh is the man who murdered Osama bin Laden.”
 
 
Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (0) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

Only Gullible Believe Global Warming

Weather Channel founder John Coleman calls global warming the biggest scam in history. Unfortunately many politicians and journalists are gullible enough to fall for the false theory that carbon dioxide is causing what Coleman calls “the illusion of rapid global warming”.
 
The claim that carbon dioxide is a “greenhouse gas” with the power to control air temperature sounds like magic. Someone offering a product capable of doing what CO2 can supposedly do in the atmosphere would likely be arrested by the police for fraud. The evidence for “global warming” is of little value.

Those who talk about global warming claim a 1 F (0.5 C) increase in what they call the global average temperature over the last century indicates the earth is getting warmer. You don’t have to be a mathematician or physicist to recognize that one temperature cannot represent every place on earth from frigid polar regions to blazing deserts. Nor can a single temperature represent year round conditions in temperate regions where temperatures can range from 0 F (-18 C) in the winter to 100 F (35 C ) in the summer.

“It is impossible to talk about a single temperature for something as complicated as the climate of Earth,” according to thermodynamics expert Professor Bjarne Andresen, of the Niels Bohr Institute, University of
Copenhagen. “A temperature can be defined only for a homogeneous system. Furthermore, the climate is not governed by a single temperature. Rather, differences of temperatures drive the processes and create the storms, sea currents, etc. which make up the climate.”

The claim that a 1 F (0.5 C) increase is significant ignores the fact that the number represents only a 0.17% change over a century. (Note: Per cent changes in temperature must be calculated using the Kelvin
scale because of the arbitrary zero points of the Celsius and Fahrenheit scales.) Scientists might be able to obtain an accuracy within 0.17% in laboratory conditions, but not in the real world. Inadequate maintenance of equipment can reduce accuracy. Changes in the area near the site of the reading can affect temperatures.

Anthony Watts, Chief Meteorologist for KPAY-AM radio, has established a site  that tracks poorly located weather stations. He has found temperature stations with sensors on the roofs of buildings; near air-conditioning exhaust vents; in parking lots; near hot automobiles, barbecues, chimneys and on pavement and concrete surfaces - all of which would lead to higher temperature recordings than properly located equipment. .

Ross McKitrick and Pat Michaels in an article published in the Journal of Geophysical Research-Atmospheres (December 2007) charge that temperature data have been processed in ways that allow inaccuracies to remain. Some temperature data are known to be subject to local environmental factors that may make the temperatures unrepresentative, but current procedures are inadequate to correct errors that can inflate temperature data and create the false impression of “global warming”

Dr. Nils-Axel Mrner is the former head of the Paleogeophysics and Geodynamics department at Stockholm University in Sweden, past president (1999-2003) of the INQUA Commission on Sea Level Changes and Coastal Evolution and leader of the Maldives Sea Level Project. He claims that the IPCC has falsified data indicating a sea level rise. According to Morner sea levels rose from 1850 through 1940 but there is no recent trend of sea levels rising. In one case the IPCC used a tide gauge in an area of Hong Kong that is sinking because of the compaction of sediment to indicate that sea levels were rising even though other tide gauges in Hong Kong indicated no rise.

 

CO2 constitutes less than 0.04% of the atmosphere. How can anyone believe that an increase from 0.036% to 0.037%, for example, could possibly increase air temperature? CO2 is supposed to heat the ground by
re-emitting radiation it has absorbed. The idea that individual CO2 molecules can actually radiate enough energy to heat anything sounds so ridiculous that it’s hard to understand how any logical person could
believe it.

Greenhouse gas advocates claim the process involves trapping radiation produced by the ground, but physicist R. W. Wood, the inventor of both infrared and ultraviolet photography, proved in 1909 that greenhouses did not raise temperatures by trapping radiation.
 


One of the oldest scams in physics involves the perpetual motion machine. Such machines supposedly operate with little or no energy. The inventor may claim that his machine may produce nearly as much, if not as much, energy as it consumes. Claims about greenhouse gases imply they cause the atmosphere to function as a perpetual motion machine according to Dr. Gerhard Gerlich and Ralf D. Tscheuschner of the Institute for Mathematical Physics at the Carolo-Wilhelmina Technical University, Germany, in their essay “Falsification of the Atmospheric Greenhouse Effects Within the Framework of Physics”.
 

The only gas humans put into the atmosphere that might affect temperature is water vapor, but the effect doesn't involve radiation. Water vapor carries what physicists call latent heat which is the heat energy required to turn ice and liquid water into water vapor.
 

The fact that some scientists support the idea of greenhouses gases doesn’t make it valid. There are other scientists who say it is nonsense. Scientists are just as capable of being con artists as anyone else. Scientists once defrauded European nobles by claiming the ability to turn lead into gold. Modern scientist con artists seek funding for research to develop miracle cures or perpetual motion machines.


Police will tell you that if something sounds too good to be true, it probably is. Scam artists tend to oversell whatever they are peddling.

Business oriented scam artists overstate the benefits of what they are selling. Politically oriented scam artists like Al Gore and the IPCC overstate the dangers of whatever they are warning about. The people who warn of global warming are overselling claims about climate change and gullible politicians and journalists are buying what they are selling.

Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (0) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

Do Democrats Want to Lose?

Why have  Democrats done so poorly in presidential elections during the last 60 years?

Franklin Roosevelt won four presidential elections with at least 53% of the popular vote.  Since FDR only one Democrat ( Lyndon Johnson in 1964) has won 53% or more  of the popular vote. Only one other Democrat (Jimmy Carter in 1976) has even gotten 50% of the vote.

During the same period, Republicans won at least 53% of the popular vote in 5 elections and at least 50% in two others.

Four Republicans have been elected to two terms as President, but only one Democrat and that Democrat (Bill Clinton) didn't get a majority of the popular vote either time he ran.

The poor showing of Democratic presidential candidates is particularly surprising considering that during the last 60 years more Americans have identified themselves as Democrats than as Republicans.

The Democrats seem unable to select strong presidential candidates.  Do they prefer weak candidates?  Why do those who might  be strong candidates decline to seek the party's nomination?

Former Texas Governor John Connally (who had been shot in the attack on John Kennedy) might have been a strong Democratic candidate, but when he decided to run for president he chose to switch to the Republican Party which wasn't interested in electing a former Democrat at that time.

Two of the 20th Century's most popular presidents (Theodore Roosevelt and Frankling Roosevelt ) had been New York governors, but New York Governor Mario Cuomo never sought his party's presidential nomination.  Sen. Danial Patrick Moynihan had held a cabinet office and was one of the most intelligent members of his generation, but he never sought the Democratic Party presidential nomination.  Many analysts believe former Virginia Governor Mark Warner could have been a strong presidential candidate this year, but he decided not to run.

Instead Democrats have run weak candidates like Sen. George McGovern who in 1972 made the Vietnam War (which was nearly over for the U.S.) the issue instead of the economy which was in trouble.  In 2004,  Democrats ran John Kerry who  claimed he should be elected because he very briefly served as a swift boat skipper in Vietnam.

Perhaps the problem is too much of an influence by the northeast Camelot crowd whose members seem oblivious to the fact that most Americans don't agree with their view of the world.  

The two leading candidates for the party's nomination this year  lack any real qualifications for the job.  Hillary Clinton believes she should be nominated because her husband was president.   Being president requires more than can be learned by being married to one, or for that matter playing one on television.

Barack Obama believes his oratorical ability qualifies him for the office.  The White House  might  provide a "bully pulpit", but oratorical ability isn't an essential qualification for president as should be obvious considering President George W. Bush's lack of ability in this area.

Neither has demonstrated they know how to run an organization or  make decisions which are relevant to the duties of a president.

If Democrats want to win this year they need to examine how they won elections in the past.  Since the Republican Party became the second major party in 1860,  all but one of  the Democrats who was elected without first inheriting the office because of the death  of  a  president  was a governor before running for president.  All but one of the governors was subsequently reelected (although Grover Cleveland spent four years out of office before being reelected). 

Since 1960 every elected president (from either party) has come from  the southern half of the country.

 
 
Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (0) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

Who Wins Presidential Elections

Political analysts tend to look at the winners of presidential elections in terms of their political party affiliation or whether  they are considered "liberals" or "conservatives".   Another way to look at the winners is to examine their previous jobs to determine if the candidate's resume may be a more important factor in their success than their philosophy.

Party activists may be motivated by a candidate's political philosophy, but other voters may consider other factors such as what  the candidate's previous job history or where the candidate is from.   

I'll emphasize the period after the 1900 election because it resulted in Theodore Roosevelt becoming President after the assassination of President William McKinley.  Roosevelt  was the first president who was younger than the Republican Party.

In the 27 elections from 1900 - 2004, 16 were won by governors. including 7 of the last 8 elections.

  The 1908 election was won by the former governor-General of Philippines and provisional governor of Cuba, William Howard Taft who also served as Secretary of War.  Herbert Hoover also held a cabinet office before being elected president.

Two elections  were won by General Dwight Eisenhower.  Incidentally. Theodore Roosevelt had been a  military leader as well as a governor.  Prior to 1900 former generals had won 10 presidential elections.

Two were  won by vice presidents( who hadn't been governors) who had succeeded to the presidency because of the death of the president.  Two others were won by candidates who had been vice presidents who were elected without succeeding to the presidency because of death  first.   Since the U.S. began electing president and vice president as part of team only two vice presidents have been elected to succeed the president they served as vice president, Martin van Buren in 1836 and George H.W. Bush in 1988.  Former vice president Richard Nixon won in 1968, but he was running against incumbent vice president Hubert Humphrey as well as a strong third party candidate Gov. George Wallace.

Only two elections were won by incumbent Senators, with the last win coming in 1960.  The two biggest losers since WWII were both   incumbent Senators.  Most of the Senators who have run for the nomination since Kennedy have failed to win the nomination. The four who were nominated all lost.

Geography may also play a role in presidential victories.  The first 6 presidents came from either Massachusetts or Virginia.  Andrew Jackson in 1828 was the first of the presidents from the  western "frontier".  New York and its neighbors New Jersey and Massachusetts dominated the presidency from 1884 through 1944. Since 1944 all but two elections have been won by candidates from west of the Mississippi.

From 1860 to 1960 all elections were won by candidates from north of the Mason Dixon line.  Since 1960 every election has been won by candidates from south of the Mason Dixon line extended to the Pacific Ocean.  The last 5 elections have been won by candidates from either Texas or Arkansas.  This change may reflect that the fact that people have been moving from the northern half of the country to the southern half sometimes referred to as the sun belt.  Southern politicians have to appeal to people who have moved from the north
 as well as those who have always lived in the south.

Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (0) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive