tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-58196504078672920502024-03-07T22:01:33.145-08:00The Chuck Dunn ReportThe Chuck Dunn Reporthttp://www.blogger.com/profile/04203184377920062551noreply@blogger.comBlogger31125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5819650407867292050.post-10465570470168341152009-01-20T13:27:00.000-08:002009-01-20T13:43:50.518-08:00President Obama's Ironic Inaugural Address<div style="text-align: justify;"><span style="color: rgb(255, 0, 0);">Who would have thought</span> that President Obama’s Inaugural Address would:<br /><ol><li>Have fewer <span style="color: rgb(255, 0, 0);">applause lines</span> than most Inaugural Addresses, but in the light of history will likely earn more accolades than most?</li><li>Contain fewer uses of <span style="font-style: italic; color: rgb(255, 0, 0);">I</span> than most, but use the collective <span style="font-style: italic; color: rgb(255, 0, 0);">we</span> to strengthen his leadership more than most?</li><li>Speak -- as a Democrat and an African-American -- more about <span style="color: rgb(255, 0, 0);">personal responsibility</span> and less about individual rights?</li><li>Include fewer references to the role and policies of government and more references to the <span style="color: rgb(255, 0, 0);">values</span> needed to restore the quality of government?</li><li>Offer a sometimes <span style="color: rgb(255, 0, 0);">conservative, patriotic, and spiritual message</span> to a largely Democratic and Liberal audience?</li><li>Use <span style="color: rgb(255, 0, 0);">down-home, colloquial rhetoric</span> to drive home key points during one of America’s most formal occasions?</li><li>Exalt the historic successes of <span style="color: rgb(255, 0, 0);">white America</span> in a manner that drew black and white America together?</li><li>Hold out an <span style="color: rgb(255, 0, 0);">olive branch to the world</span>, but shrouded with a firm warning?</li><li>Demonstrate <span style="color: rgb(255, 0, 0);">personal humility</span> on an occasion filled with pride, pomp and circumstance?</li><li>Show <span style="color: rgb(255, 0, 0);">genuine affection and appreciation for his predecessor</span>, when many in the audience held him in contempt?</li></ol><span style="color: rgb(255, 0, 0);">Who would have thought</span> that President Obama’s Inaugural Address could do all of the above without alienating and offending many? It did, and for that all Americans should be thankful. President Obama started us on the right course, uniting a divided America.<br /><br /><span style="color: rgb(255, 0, 0);">Martin Luther King and Ronald Reagan</span> would have been proud of President Obama's Inaugural Address.<br /></div>The Chuck Dunn Reporthttp://www.blogger.com/profile/04203184377920062551noreply@blogger.com11tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5819650407867292050.post-86985518636102751272008-10-28T06:39:00.000-07:002008-11-02T11:52:50.392-08:00"It Ain't Over 'Til It's Over"<div>Yogi Berra got it right. “It Ain’t Over ‘Til It’s Over.”<br /><br /><div style="text-align: justify;">On <span class="Apple-style-span" style="color: rgb(255, 0, 0);">November 1, 1948</span> Thomas E. Dewey led Harry S. Truman by 5 percent, 49.5 percent to 44.5 percent in the Gallup Poll, but on election day Truman beat Dewey by 4.4 percent, 49.5 percent to 45.1 %. </div><div style="text-align: justify;"><br /></div><div style="text-align: justify;">On <span class="Apple-style-span" style="color: rgb(255, 0, 0);">October 27, 1980</span> Jimmy Carter led Ronald Reagan by 6 percent, 45 percent to 39 percent in the Gallup Poll, but on election day Reagan beat Carter by 9.8 %, 50.8 percent to 41.0 %.<br /></div><div style="text-align: justify;"><br /></div><div style="text-align: justify;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style=""><span class="Apple-style-span" style=""><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-weight: bold;">Will history repeat itself in 2008? </span></span></span><br /></div><div style="text-align: justify;"><br /></div><div style="text-align: justify;">Barack Obama leads John McCain in (1) nationwide polling data, (2) polling data among key groups, and (3) fund raising. Compared with McCain, Obama has more charisma and crowd appeal, better speaking ability, and a superior political organization. And he could win several “red” or Republican states, which are must-win states for McCain.<br /></div><div style="text-align: justify;"><br /></div><div style="text-align: justify;">Meanwhile, McCain has an albatross around his neck, one of history’s most unpopular presidential administrations, and the economic crisis has deflected attention from his signature issue, the successful surge in Iraq.<br /></div><div style="text-align: justify;"><br /></div><div style="text-align: justify;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style=""><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-weight: bold;">2008 is Obama’s to lose. But so it was for Dewey and Carter.</span></span><span class="Apple-style-span" style=""> </span><br /></div><div style="text-align: justify;"><br /></div><div style="text-align: justify;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="color: rgb(255, 0, 0);">Dewey appeared destined to win in 1948.</span> After four Democratic administrations, which included the economic and social problems of the Great Depression and World War II and its aftermath, the handsome, suave, and debonair Dewey should have won, but he fell victim to overconfidence and arrogance, which enabled the feisty Truman to mount a successful “whistle-stop” campaign against a “Do-Nothing Republican Congress.”<br /></div><div style="text-align: justify;"><br /></div><div style="text-align: justify;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="color: rgb(255, 0, 0);">Carter had history on his side in 1980.</span> Only once since the Civil War had the incumbent party in the White House lost a bid for reelection after its first term. But Americans chose optimism over pessimism, preferring Reagan’s “It’s morning in America” to Carter’s “malaise in America.”<br /></div><div style="text-align: justify;"><br /></div><div style="text-align: justify;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-weight: bold;">In 2008, however, Barack Obama’s lead appears insurmountable. </span><br /></div><div style="text-align: justify;"><br /></div><div style="text-align: justify;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="color: rgb(255, 0, 0);">On Tuesday, October 28, one week before the election</span>, RealClearPolitics.com averaged 9 nonpartisan polls to report (1) a 3 to 12 percent margin nationally for Obama over McCain with an average lead of 6.2 percent, down from 7.4 percent on Monday, and (2) a lead for Obama in each of seven key battleground states, Colorado, Missouri, Virginia, Pennsylvania, Florida, Ohio, and Nevada.<br /></div><div style="text-align: justify;"><br /></div><div style="text-align: justify;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="color: rgb(255, 0, 0);">But could Yogi Berra be right once again? </span>Yes, if the following occur in the Electoral College, in Obama's campaign, and on key issues and with key groups.<br /></div><div style="text-align: justify;"><br /></div><div style="text-align: justify;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-weight: bold;">Electoral College</span><br /></div><div style="text-align: justify;"><br /></div><div style="text-align: justify;">If the reliably “red” Republican states of Florida, Indiana, Missouri, North Carolina, Ohio, and Virginia return to the McCain column and if he retains all other states now in his column, <span class="Apple-style-span" style="color: rgb(255, 0, 0);">McCain would have 260 of the necessary 270 electoral votes to win</span>. Each of these reliably “red” Republican states is within striking distance for a McCain victory.<br /></div><div style="text-align: justify;"><br /></div><div style="text-align: justify;">Then if McCain either wins <span class="Apple-style-span" style="color: rgb(255, 0, 0);">Pennsylvania</span>, a “blue” state, <span class="Apple-style-span" style="color: rgb(255, 0, 0);">or</span> puts together <span class="Apple-style-span" style="color: rgb(255, 0, 0);">the right combination of wins</span> in Colorado, Nevada, New Hampshire, and New Mexico, he would win the Electoral College vote.<br /></div><div style="text-align: justify;"><br /></div><div style="text-align: justify;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-weight: bold;">Obama’s Campaign</span><br /></div><div style="text-align: justify;"><br /></div><div style="text-align: justify;">If the Obama campaign exudes an <span class="Apple-style-span" style="color: rgb(255, 0, 0);">overconfidence</span> that strikes Americans as inappropriate and premature, McCain could gain momentum. Already news has leaked that the Obama campaign may be organizing the largest victory celebration in presidential campaign history and that plans for the presidential transition are underway.<br /></div><div style="text-align: justify;"><br /></div><div style="text-align: justify;">If McCain benefits from more <span class="Apple-style-span" style="color: rgb(255, 0, 0);">turning points</span>, such as Obama’s encounter with “Joe, the plumber,” or gaffs by Joe Biden, the momentum could shift in his favor.<br /></div><div style="text-align: justify;"><br /></div><div style="text-align: justify;">If the Obama campaign fails to win at least 96 percent of an enlarged <span class="Apple-style-span" style="color: rgb(255, 0, 0);">African-American vote</span> and the votes of White Democrats in key conservative areas, such as southwestern Pennsylvania, McCain’s campaign would receive a significant boost.<br /></div><div style="text-align: justify;"><br /></div><div style="text-align: justify;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-weight: bold;">Key Issues and Groups</span><br /></div><div style="text-align: justify;"><br /></div><div style="text-align: justify;">If McCain can gain traction on the issue of <span class="Apple-style-span" style="color: rgb(255, 0, 0);">taxes</span>, he could reap a harvest of votes from voters who do not like Obama’s ideas for redistributing wealth.<br /></div><div style="text-align: justify;"><br /></div><div style="text-align: justify;">If the pro-life and other <span class="Apple-style-span" style="color: rgb(255, 0, 0);">Family Values issue</span><span style="color: rgb(255, 0, 0);">s </span>energize Roman Catholic and Evangelical voters in Pennsylvania and other key states, they could turn the tide in favor of McCain.<br /></div><div style="text-align: justify;"><br /></div><div style="text-align: justify;">If a substantial bloc of <span class="Apple-style-span" style="color: rgb(255, 0, 0);">Jewish voter</span><span style="color: rgb(255, 0, 0);">s </span>moves into the McCain column, they could help him carry Florida, Pennsylvania, and Ohio. Some reports suggest that McCain may win as much as 30 percent of the Jewish vote, which is substantially more than what George W. Bush won in 2000 and 2004.<br /></div><div style="text-align: justify;"><br /></div><div style="text-align: justify;">If <span class="Apple-style-span" style="color: rgb(255, 0, 0);">undecided voters</span>, who may number 8 percent or so of the electorate, turn to McCain, they could make the difference for him in the battleground states. During the Democratic primaries, undecided voters broke for Hillary Clinton over Barack Obama, enabling her to win New Hampshire and carry most of the large states. In breaking for Clinton, undecided voters appeared to choose experience over youth and a call for change.<br /></div><div style="text-align: justify;"><br /></div><div style="text-align: justify;">If McCain can make the case that the American people need him to check a very <span class="Apple-style-span" style="color: rgb(255, 0, 0);">unpopular Congress</span> led by Speaker Nancy Pelosi and Senator Harry Reid, he may yet turn the tide.<br /></div><div style="text-align: justify;"><br /></div><div style="text-align: justify;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="color: rgb(255, 0, 0);">Possible? Yes. Probable? No. </span>But to that Yogi would say, “It Ain’t Over ‘Til It’s Over.”</div><br /></div><div style="text-align: justify;"><br /></div>The Chuck Dunn Reporthttp://www.blogger.com/profile/04203184377920062551noreply@blogger.com4tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5819650407867292050.post-23206024967973442162008-09-30T09:20:00.000-07:002008-09-30T11:01:56.409-07:00Who Will Win the White House?<div style="text-align: justify;"><div style="color: rgb(0, 0, 0);"><span style="color: rgb(255, 0, 0);"><div><span style="color: rgb(0, 0, 0);"><span style="color: rgb(255, 0, 0);"><span style="color: rgb(0, 0, 0);"><div><span style="color: rgb(255, 0, 0);">To win John McCain must snatch victory from the jaws of defeat<span style="color: rgb(0, 0, 0);">. </span></span>Many times he has done just that, but now he faces a stacked deck.<br /><br /><span style="color: rgb(0, 0, 0);">Economists, historians, political scientists, pollsters and psychologists point to an Obama victory, based upon their forecasting models and analysis.</span><br /><br /><span style="color: rgb(0, 0, 0);">Economists find that when economic growth is significantly up, inflation down and disposable income up, the party in the White House usually wins. That’s not the case now. James Carville got it right: “It’s the economy, Stupid.” </span><span style="color: rgb(0, 0, 0);"><span style="color: rgb(255, 0, 0);">Advantage?</span></span><span style="color: rgb(0, 0, 0);"> Obama.</span><br /><br /><span style="color: rgb(0, 0, 0);">Some psychologists believe that a candidate’s charisma and optimism foreshadow success. In 1960 Kennedy’s charisma and optimism, “Let’s get the country moving again,” contributed to his razor-thin victory. In 1980 Reagan’s charisma and campaign theme, “It’s morning in America,” helped him beat Jimmy Carter, who spoke about “malaise in America.” On this count Obama is more like Kennedy and Reagan than is McCain. </span><span style="color: rgb(255, 0, 0);">Advantage?</span><span style="color: rgb(0, 0, 0);"><span style="color: rgb(255, 0, 0);"> </span>Obama.</span><br /><br /><span style="color: rgb(0, 0, 0);">Historians note that when the incumbent party in the White House has a reasonably good record and standing in the polls, that party’s presidential candidate will likely win as occurred in 1988 when Bush succeeded Reagan. The present standing of the Bush administration presents McCain with a long, uphill climb. </span><span style="color: rgb(0, 0, 0);"><span style="color: rgb(255, 0, 0);">Advantage?</span> </span><span style="color: rgb(0, 0, 0);">Obama.</span><br /><br /><span style="color: rgb(0, 0, 0);">The third-party candidacies of Ross Perot in 1992 and Ralph Nader in 2000 and 2004 crippled the campaigns of Bush and Gore, respectively. But this year’s principal third-party candidates, Ralph Nader and Bob Barr, are not making waves. </span><span style="color: rgb(255, 0, 0);">Advantage?</span><span style="color: rgb(0, 0, 0);"> Obama.</span><br /><br /><span style="color: rgb(0, 0, 0);">When Ted Kennedy and Pat Buchanan challenged the nominations of Carter and Bush in 1980 and 1992, respectively, they created lasting wounds, which contributed to the defeats of Carter and Bush. Unlike those contests, Bill and Hillary Clinton’s support of Obama is unifying the Democratic Party. For McCain questions still remain about whether his choice of Sarah Palin will maintain his party’s unity. </span><span style="color: rgb(255, 0, 0);">Advantage?</span><span style="color: rgb(0, 0, 0);"> Obama.</span><br /><br /><span style="color: rgb(0, 0, 0);">Data from the Civil War through 2004 show that the incumbent party in the White House normally wins reelection after the first term and also has a marginal advantage after a second term, but the public’s disapproval of the Bush administration negates that historical benefit for McCain. </span><span style="color: rgb(255, 0, 0);">Advantage?</span><span style="color: rgb(0, 0, 0);"><span style="color: rgb(255, 0, 0);"> </span>Obama.</span><br /><br /><span style="color: rgb(0, 0, 0);">Customarily a higher voter turnout favors Democrats as occurred in 1976 when good weather in all 50 states generated record turnouts and contributed to Carter’s narrow victory over Ford. Obama’s extensive “ground campaign” of registering new voters and increasing voter turnout should favor him. </span><span style="color: rgb(255, 0, 0);">Advantage?</span><span style="color: rgb(0, 0, 0);"><span style="color: rgb(255, 0, 0);"> </span>Obama.</span><br /><br /><span style="color: rgb(0, 0, 0);">Presidential campaigns can turn on a dime. In 1960 Nixon, the odds-favorite to beat Kennedy, lost the first debate and never recovered. In 1980 Reagan’s unexpected win over Carter in the first debate laid the groundwork for his convincing victory.</span><br /><br /><span style="color: rgb(0, 0, 0);">This year Obama demonstrated in the first debate that he could stand head to head with the more experienced McCain. That and the unexpected Wall Street debacle have changed the circumstances of this year’s race. </span><span style="color: rgb(0, 0, 0);"><span style="color: rgb(255, 0, 0);">Advantage?</span> </span><span style="color: rgb(0, 0, 0);">Obama.</span><br /><br /><span style="color: rgb(0, 0, 0);">Almost always public opinion polls accurately predict the winner, and to date they give a slight advantage to Obama. But beneath these head-to-head polls are two lesser-known polls: “negative ratings” and “racial voting.”</span><br /><br /><span style="color: rgb(0, 0, 0);">In 1980 and 1992 “high negatives” contributed to the defeats of Carter and Bush, respectively. The most recent polls show Obama with lower “negatives” than McCain, especially after the first presidential debate, which increased McCain’s “negatives.” </span><span style="color: rgb(255, 0, 0);">Advantage?</span><span style="color: rgb(0, 0, 0);"><span style="color: rgb(255, 0, 0);"> </span>Obama.</span><br /><br /><span style="color: rgb(0, 0, 0);">Polls reveal a tug-of-war along racial lines among Democrats. While Obama expects to win perhaps 96 percent or more of a greatly enlarged Black vote, he faces the prospect of losing a significant number of white Democrats, who may not vote for him for reasons of race and/or qualifications.</span><br /><br /><span style="color: rgb(0, 0, 0);">In a close race, Obama may need an extraordinary turnout of Blacks to compensate for whatever losses he may incur from white Democrats, especially in such battleground states as Pennsylvania, Missouri, Ohio, Virginia, Colorado, and Florida.</span><br /><br /><span style="color: rgb(0, 0, 0);">But Obama’s support from Bill and Hillary Clinton should reduce the risk of his losing a significant number of these white Democratic voters. </span><span style="color: rgb(255, 0, 0);">Advantage?</span><span style="color: rgb(0, 0, 0);"> Obama.</span><br /><br /><span style="color: rgb(0, 0, 0);">Before pronouncing “last rites” on the McCain campaign, </span><span style="color: rgb(255, 0, 0);">remember 1948</span><span style="color: rgb(0, 0, 0);">.</span></div></span></span></span></div></span></div><br /></div>The Chuck Dunn Reporthttp://www.blogger.com/profile/04203184377920062551noreply@blogger.com8tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5819650407867292050.post-58033166686194971362008-09-08T09:57:00.000-07:002008-09-08T13:45:53.993-07:00Is Sarah Palin the Next Ronald Reagan?<div style="text-align: justify;"><div>Sarah Palin and Ronald Reagan appear poles apart in their backgrounds. Before coming to the center stage of national politics, Palin was a small-town mother of five and Governor of Alaska, and Reagan, a Hollywood actor and Governor of California. But these and other dramatic differences mask surprising similarities, which now appear to merge at the intersection of time and circumstance.<br /></div><div style="text-align: justify;"><br /></div><div style="text-align: justify;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-weight: bold;">Low Bar of Expectations. </span>Critics contended that Ronald Reagan was nothing more than a third-rate Hollywood actor, who lacked the intellectual depth and educational training to serve successfully as president. And critics now contend that Sarah Palin lacks adequate experience to be one heartbeat away from the Oval Office. By jumping high over the bar of expectations set for her acceptance speech at the Republican National Convention, Palin has become the "rock star" of conservatism, drawing huge crowds and raising untold campaign cash. Of course, after Senator Barry Goldwater's humiliating defeat in 1964, Reagan surprised his critics by unexpectedly transforming the lost cause of conservatism into a victorious nationwide movement.</div><div style="text-align: justify;"><br /></div><div style="text-align: justify;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-weight: bold;">Insurgent Leadership. </span>Just as Reagan became the leader of a conservative insurgency in the Republican Party that ultimately propelled him into the Oval Office in 1980 so, too, has Sarah Palin led insurgent reform movements to become Mayor of Wasilla and Governor of Alaska. As a reformer she became the perfect fit for John McCain's image as a maverick challenging Washington's "Beltway establishment."</div><div style="text-align: justify;"><br /></div><div style="text-align: justify;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-weight: bold;">Surprising Ecumenicity. </span>In their rise to power Palin and Reagan demonstrated political pragmatism by reaching out to both Democrats and Republicans. Reagan appealed to the so-called "Reagan Democrats," primarily conservative Roman Catholics in the North, and also to the Democratic Party's southern evangelicals. He even converted some Democratic members of Congress to the Republican Party. As a reformer Palin crossed over party lines to lead as Mayor and Governor. Time and circumstance have now bestowed upon her the Reagan mantle of appealing to those same "Reagan Democrats" and southern evangelicals, whose votes were vital to Reagan's election then and McCain's election now.</div><div style="text-align: justify;"><br /></div><div style="text-align: justify;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-weight: bold;">Reserved Religiosity. </span>Both Palin and Reagan subscribe to similar religious beliefs, such as trusting Jesus Christ as their personal savior and supporting the Genesis account of creation. But not with great fanfare. Reagan attended the comfortable Bel Air Presbyterian Church in Hollywood, while Palin left the more emotional Assemblies of God Church to attend the more reserved Wasilla Bible Church. Her personal faith, like Ronald Reagan's, appeals to the increasingly large and vital evangelical movement.</div><div style="text-align: justify;"><br /></div><div style="text-align: justify;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-weight: bold;">Instinctive Leaders. </span>Like Reagan, Palin is not a "policy wonk." She does not devote herself to the minutiae of public policy details, but rather she leads by instinct, based upon her guiding principles of right and wrong. When Reagan's advisors tried to prep him for presidential debates through reading thick manuals, he refused. Rather he brought to the debates a set of well-honed conservative principles, which he used as a grid to filter his answers to policy questions. Sarah Palin's early campaign speeches, especially her acceptance speech at the Republican Convention, suggest that she is cut out of the same cloth.</div><div style="text-align: justify;"><br /></div><div style="text-align: justify;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-weight: bold;">"Skin Comfort." </span>As former San Francisco Mayor Willie Brown said of Sarah Palin's acceptance speech at the Republican National Convention: "Her timing was exquisite. She didn't linger with applause, but instead launched into line after line of attack, slipping the knives in with every smile and joke. And she delivered it like she was just BS-ing on the street with the meter maid. She didn't have to prove she was 'of the people.' She really is the people." Likewise, Reagan exuded that same comfort with his persona whether delivering major speeches or dealing with members of Congress. In working with House Speaker Tip O'Neill, he demonstrated that despite major partisan differences, it was difficult for political adversaries to dislike him.</div><div style="text-align: justify;"><br /></div><div style="text-align: justify;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-weight: bold;">Compelling Personal Stories. </span>Reagan and Palin beat the odds. Coming from the small town of Dixon in the midst of flat Illinois cornfields, raised by a very religious mother, whose training led him to become a Sunday School teacher of grade-school boys, a graduate of a tiny and little-known religious college, Eureka, Reagan hardly had the pedigree to become President of the United States. Neither does Sarah Palin. Her small-town background, a degree from the out-of-the-way University of Idaho, and sportscaster start, the same as Ronald Reagan's first job after college, hardly qualified her to become Governor of Alaska, much less a Vice Presidential candidate.</div><div style="text-align: justify;"><br /></div><div style="text-align: justify;">Time and circumstance merged for Ronald Reagan. Will they for Sarah Palin?</div></div><div><br /></div><div><br /></div>The Chuck Dunn Reporthttp://www.blogger.com/profile/04203184377920062551noreply@blogger.com11tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5819650407867292050.post-729638563930646242008-08-07T09:49:00.000-07:002008-08-07T10:12:38.877-07:00John McCain’s Lottery Game<p align="justify"><div align="justify">Selecting the right vice-presidential running mate is like winning the lottery. A survey of Republican vice presidential picks since 1960 shows that <span style="color:#ff0000;">Republican presidential candidates have had the wrong lottery pick six times</span>.<br /><br />As the saying goes, “He who does not learn from history is condemned to repeat it.” John McCain can greatly improve his chances of winning the vice-presidential lottery by testing prospective nominees against six types of losing lottery picks.<br /><p align="justify"></p><p align="justify"><div>Type 1. <span style="color:#ff0000;">Henry Cabot Lodge</span>. In 1960 Richard Nixon sought to unify the Republican Party geographically and ideologically by selecting the handsome, suave and debonair Henry Cabot Lodge, but his choice backfired. <strong>Lodge upstaged Nixon</strong>, causing some critics to say that Lodge, not Nixon, should have been the Republican presidential candidate. And still other critics pointed out that <strong>Lodge was lazy</strong>, even taking afternoon naps, including one in the most critical State of Illinois the Saturday before the Tuesday election, which Nixon lost by about 9,000 votes.</div> </p><p align="justify"><div>Type 2. <span style="color:#ff0000;">William Miller</span>. In 1964 Barry Goldwater picked someone exactly the opposite of Lodge, choosing William Miller, a little-known Congressman from Buffalo, New York, who added <strong>no stature</strong> to Goldwater’s candidacy.</div><br /><br />Type 3. <span style="color:#ff0000;">Spiro Agnew</span>. In 1968 Richard Nixon made sure he did not choose someone who would upstage him by selecting a little-known former PTA President, who had won a fluke race for the Governorship of Maryland. Although Agnew did not hurt Nixon’s candidacy, he did hurt his presidency when he had to resign in disgrace because of <strong>scandals in his closet</strong>.<br /><br />Type 4. <span style="color:#ff0000;">Bob Dole</span>. In 1976 Gerald Ford chose the <strong>sharp-tongued</strong> Bob Dole, who alienated many voters with his acerbic campaign style. In a come-from-behind campaign, Ford almost closed the gap against Carter, leading some critics to say that Dole’s <strong>caustic style</strong> might have cost Ford the election.<br /><br />Type 5. <span style="color:#ff0000;">Dan Quayle</span>. In 1988 George H. Bush chose Dan Quayle, whose <strong>youthfulness and inexperience</strong> made him prone to mistakes. Also the Bush campaign did not sufficiently vet Quayle to learn about some of his problems, such as his <strong>efforts to avoid the draft</strong> during the Vietnam War. Throughout Bush’s presidency, Quayle was a drag and was one of the reasons he lost his bid for reelection in 1992.<br /><br />Type 6. <span style="color:#ff0000;">Jack Kemp</span>. In 1996 Bob Dole chose Jack Kemp, who <strong>failed to live up to expectations</strong>. One of the reasons Dole chose Kemp was his speaking ability and knowledge of issues. What he did not account for, however, was his <strong>lack of preparation</strong> to debate Al Gore, who handily defeated him.<br /><br />John McCain has bought many vice-presidential lottery tickets, including Tim Pawlenty, Rob Portman, Mitt Romney, Tom Ridge, Bobby Jindal, Sarah Palin, Eric Cantor, Joe Lieberman, Michael Bloomberg, Mike Huckabee, Meg Whitman, and others.<br /><br />How do these oft-mentioned lottery picks stack up against the six losing lottery picks? <span style="color:#ff0000;">Does John McCain have a winning lottery number among them?</p></div></span><p></p><p></p>The Chuck Dunn Reporthttp://www.blogger.com/profile/04203184377920062551noreply@blogger.com3tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5819650407867292050.post-5067392694810298992008-07-30T07:32:00.000-07:002008-07-30T07:41:32.378-07:00Tim Kaine for Vice President?<div align="justify">Trends indicate a Democratic presidential candidate could win Virginia for the first time in 40 years, and perhaps thereby win the presidency itself. <span style="color:#ff0000;">But why Virginia and why Tim Kaine for Vice President?<br /></span><br />In what promises to be another very tight election like 2000 and 2004, the change from Republican to Democratic in just one or two states could propel Barack Obama into the White House. And that’s where <span style="color:#ff0000;">Virginia’s 13 electoral votes</span> and Governor Tim Kaine’s vice-presidential candidacy come in.<br /><br />First, <span style="color:#ff0000;">the South is the key that unlocks the White House door</span>. Every winner of the Presidency from 1976 forward has carried a substantial portion of the South. For example, Ronald Reagan won the White House in 1980, because he won a significant portion of the South while running against a southerner, Jimmy Carter. In the razor-thin Democratic losses in 2000 and 2004, if Al Gore and John Kerry could have penetrated the South, they would have won. So if history is the best predictor of the future, Barack Obama needs to capture a foothold in the South.<br /><br />Second, more than any other southern state, <span style="color:#ff0000;">Virginia offers the greatest promise for Democratic success</span>. Republicans have lost Virginia’s last two gubernatorial elections and the most recent senatorial election. In no other southern state has the Democratic Party done as well in recovering from the Republican Party’s domination.<br /><br />Third, the latest Rasmussen Reports on the Virginia presidential election show McCain and Obama in a <span style="color:#ff0000;">dead heat</span> at 44 percent each. When the Rasmussen includes “leaners” in its poll, McCain leads Obama by a statistically insignificant margin, 48 percent to 47 percent.<br /><br />Fourth, recognizing its potential for a victory in Virginia, <span style="color:#ff0000;">the Obama campaign has shifted substantial resources into Virginia</span>, including money and staff. Historically, what is the significance of this effort? No Democrat has won Virginia in a presidential race since 1964 when a southerner, Lyndon B. Johnson, carried the state. Since then no Democrat has made a serious investment of time, talent, and treasure in winning Virginia.<br /><br />Fifth, <span style="color:#ff0000;">Virginia’s demographics</span> make it the most likely southern state for Obama to capture from the Republicans. The rapidly growing electorate in the Washington, DC suburbs of Northern Virginia, which is Virginia’s most Democratic-friendly region, helped to propel Mark Warner and Tim Kaine to victory in the two most recent gubernatorial contests and Jim Webb in the most recent senatorial election.<br /><br /><span style="color:#ff0000;">Northern Virginia</span> had a 15 percent growth rate in its Washington, DC suburbs between 2000 and 2006. Fully one-third of all Virginians now live in these suburbs, but more than that Northern Virginia’s exurbs expanded by 60 percent since 2000. Voters moving to these areas lean Democratic.<br /><br /><span style="color:#ff0000;">Blacks</span> constitute 20 percent of Virginia’s population. Because all polls show Barack Obama energizing the Black electorate, he will likely reap the dividend of a significant increase in Black voter registration and voter turnout. Typically Blacks cast 85 to 90 percent or more of their votes for Democratic candidates, but with Obama running for President that percentage could reach 95 percent or more, which would present Republicans with a formidable challenge in keeping Virginia in the win column after 40 years.<br /><br />Sixth, as a popular Democratic Governor in a Republican state, Tim Kaine could not only help Barack Obama seal the deal in Virginia, but he also could help him elsewhere, especially among one of the Democratic Party’s most important constituencies, <span style="color:#ff0000;">Roman Catholics</span>. From Franklin D. Roosevelt and the New Deal until now, Democrats have depended heavily on capturing the lion’s share of Roman Catholic voters. As a Roman Catholic in good standing, Governor Kaine holds positions on various social and moral issues that generally accord with Roman Catholic teaching.<br /><br />As a Southern Governor, Tim Kaine would have the added advantage for Barack Obama, a Protestant, of balancing his ticket with a Roman Catholic running mate, who could also <span style="color:#ff0000;">help Obama outside the South</span> in such battleground states as Pennsylvania, Michigan, and Ohio, which have substantial Roman Catholic populations.<br /><br /><span style="color:#ff0000;"><span style="color:#000000;">Could it be that</span> Tim Kaine holds the key </span><span style="color:#000000;">to a Barack Obama victory in November?</span> </div>The Chuck Dunn Reporthttp://www.blogger.com/profile/04203184377920062551noreply@blogger.com3tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5819650407867292050.post-45530854464302238452008-07-23T11:45:00.000-07:002008-07-23T11:55:47.899-07:00Tired of McCain and Obama?<div align="justify">Are you tired of the presidential campaign? Should you be tired?</div><div align="justify"><br />To the casual observer, American presidential campaigns are <span style="color:#ff0000;">excessively long</span>. In some countries, national campaigns last no more than 30 days. But in America, they begin not with the 60 to 90 day, head-to-head race between the major party candidates after the national conventions, which campaigns for delegates in conventions, primaries and caucuses precede by many months, but they also include several years of serious exploratory efforts by prospective candidates to raise funds and to create campaign organizations.</div><div align="justify"><br />Advances in technology and transportation along with front-loading of caucuses and primaries have combined to lengthen presidential campaigns. <span style="color:#ff0000;">In anticipation of 2008</span>, prospective <span style="color:#ff0000;">candidates</span> <span style="color:#ff0000;">began</span> to establish exploratory committees and to travel to key states <span style="color:#ff0000;">in </span><span style="color:#ff0000;">2005</span>.</div><div align="justify"><br />Critics contend that elongated American presidential campaigns waste substantial sums of money on advertising, travel, media coverage and campaign staff. <span style="color:#ff0000;">But</span> these same lengthy campaigns also insure that the candidates face <span style="color:#ff0000;">five vital tests</span>.</div><ol><li><span style="color:#ff0000;">Test</span> whether candidates have sufficient mental, emotional and physical capabilities and energies to survive the extraordinary rigors of four years in office.</li><li><span style="color:#ff0000;">Test</span> the ability of candidates to unify their parties after divisive primaries and caucuses. </li><li><span style="color:#ff0000;">Test</span> the public’s acceptance of the candidates’ issues and ideas. </li><li><span style="color:#ff0000;">Test</span> the administrative skill of candidates to organize personnel and to develop coherent policies. </li><li><span style="color:#ff0000;">Test</span> the ability of the front-runner to maintain his lead against the challenger. </li></ol><div align="justify">So, these five tests make the presidential campaign the best test we have to determine if Senator McCain and Senator Obama have what it takes to lead the world’s oldest, largest, most prestigious, and most powerful democracy. </div><div align="justify"><br />In short, <span style="color:#ff0000;">a presidential campaign serves as a simulation of the presidency itself</span>.</div>The Chuck Dunn Reporthttp://www.blogger.com/profile/04203184377920062551noreply@blogger.com1tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5819650407867292050.post-43494449654377215432008-07-09T14:34:00.000-07:002008-07-09T14:51:00.225-07:00Obama, Truman and a “Do-Nothing” Congress<div align="justify"><span style="color:#ff0000;">Will 2008 become 1948 in reverse?</span><br /><br />Public support for Congress has plummeted to all-time lows:<br /><br />• Only <span style="color:#ff0000;">9 percent</span> of Americans give Congress a good or excellent rating, the lowest approval rating in the history of Rasmussen Reports tracking polls.<br /><br />• <span style="color:#ff0000;">52 percent</span> in the Rasmussen survey say Congress is doing a poor job, tying the record high for this dubious distinction.<br /><br />• Only <span style="color:#ff0000;">13 percent</span> of Democrats and <span style="color:#ff0000;">8 percent</span> of Republicans give Congress an excellent or good rating.<br /><br />Are House Speaker Nancy Pelosi and Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid in danger of giving Republicans an opportunity to run against a “do-nothing” Congress?<br /><br />What if Republicans, copying President Harry S. Truman’s brilliant strategy in 1948, decide to put before the Congress a set of initiatives that a Democratically-controlled Congress would refuse to act upon?<br /><br /><span style="color:#ff0000;">Barack Obama</span> not only faces the possibility of looking like the over-confident Thomas E. Dewey, but also the possibility of <span style="color:#ff0000;">John McCain</span> looking like Harry S. Truman.<br /><br />To date John McCain’s campaign has not gained traction. His poor speaking skill and lack of charisma, like Harry Truman’s, have not captured the imagination of the American public. But Truman’s 1948 stratagem, one of the most brilliant in presidential campaign history, changed all of that.<br /><br /><span style="color:#ff0000;">Will history repeat itself in reverse?</span></div>The Chuck Dunn Reporthttp://www.blogger.com/profile/04203184377920062551noreply@blogger.com7tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5819650407867292050.post-85083800441363695462008-07-07T09:02:00.000-07:002008-07-07T09:13:58.834-07:00Obama’s Race against History<div align="justify"><span style="color:#ff0000;"></span> </div><div align="justify"><span style="color:#ff0000;">Barack Obama should easily beat John McCain.</span><br /><br /><span style="color:#000000;"><span style="color:#333333;">After all Obama leads McCain by essentially every objective and subjective measurement, including (1) nationwide polling data, (2) polling data among key groups, (3) fund raising, (4) charisma, (5) speaking ability, and (6) the all-important barometer of public opinion. Believing that the nation is headed in the wrong direction, the American public wants change.</span><br /></span><br />Regarding the public’s desire for change, let’s remember that in 1980 and 1992 Jimmy Carter and George H. Bush ran and lost against Ronald Reagan and Bill Clinton, who ran on platforms of change.<br /><br />So <span style="color:#ff0000;">if 2008 repeats the history of 1980 and 1992</span>, Obama will win, maybe even in a landslide. And his slogan, “Change We Can Believe In,” could go down in history as one of the greatest, possibly ranking alongside such slogans as the “New Deal.”<br /><br />But Obama is running against another history – 1948 and 1988.<br /><br /><span style="color:#ff0000;">In 1948</span> the handsome, suave and debonair Thomas E. Dewey led Harry S. Truman on almost all counts, so much so that the Gallup Poll stopped polling several days before the election. Dewey became overconfident, some would say even arrogant, in his race against the non-charismatic Truman, who was not a good public speaker.<br /><br />Is Obama revealing a touch of arrogance in refusing to hold Town Hall meetings with the Truman-like John McCain and in delivering a major speech behind a prominently displayed presidential seal on his lectern?<br /><br /><span style="color:#ff0000;">In 1988</span> Michael Dukakis got caught in a vise between the left and the center of American politics. He ran so far to the left of center to get the Democratic presidential nomination that when he swung back to the center to compete against George H. Bush in the General Election he created a credibility gap. Neither the left nor the center could completely trust him. In the early summer of 1988 Dukakis held a commanding 17-point lead in the polls.<br /><br />Is Obama in danger of blowing his lead as he shifts positions to the center on various issues?<br /><br />So for Barack Obama, it’s a race against history: <span style="color:#ff0000;">1980 and 1992 <span style="color:#333333;">versus</span> 1948 and 1972</span>. Will Obama win like Reagan and Clinton or lose like Dewey and Dukakis? </div>The Chuck Dunn Reporthttp://www.blogger.com/profile/04203184377920062551noreply@blogger.com4tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5819650407867292050.post-60788485420943695992008-06-03T07:47:00.000-07:002008-06-04T13:59:20.888-07:00Presidential Preacher Politics<div align="justify">Senator Obama has his Jeremiah Wright and Michael Pfleger, and Senator McCain has his John Hagee and Rod Parsley.<br /><br /><span style="color:#ff0000;">Republicans</span> contend that Senator Obama has the more serious problem, because he sat under Pastor Wright’s preaching for 20 years and cultivated a close relationship with Pastor Pfleger, but <span style="color:#ff0000;">Democrats</span> respond that Senator McCain’s enthusiastic embrace of Pastors Hagee and Parsley make him equally culpable.<br /><br /><span style="color:#ff0000;">Both are right.</span> Obama and McCain set aside their better judgment to advance their political careers, which subjected them to the charge of political opportunism. In the end they suffered public embarrassment. And both have recently made haste to disavow their connections to these pastors.<br /><br /><span style="color:#ff0000;">Most Americans are in the center of a bell curve.</span> They are neither far right nor far left. Pastors Wright, Pfleger, Hagee, and Parsley enjoy significant followings, but they are outside the mainstream of American political and religious thought. Neither the substance of their theology nor the style of their preaching appeals to the American mainstream.<br /><br />Theologically Pastors Wright and Pfleger hold to the doctrines of “Black Liberation Theology,” and Pastors Hagee and Parsley hold to a variety of doctrines, but especially regarding the “end times,” that place them outside the American mainstream.<br /><br />Marshall McLuhan remarked that “Television is a cool medium,” which we might add does not serve well the “hot” preaching styles of Pastors Wright, Pfleger, Hagee, and Parsley. Their followers like their “in-your-face” style, but the American public does not.<br /><br />As Americans, living under the First Amendment of the U.S. Constitution, both presidential candidates and pastors enjoy the privileges of “freedom of religion” and “freedom of speech.” But constitutional freedoms and political wisdom do not necessarily go hand in hand.<br /><br /><strong><span style="color:#ff0000;">What lessons should we learn about “Presidential Preacher Politics”?</span></strong><br /><br /><span style="color:#000000;"><strong>Today’s associations may become tomorrow’s embarrassments.</strong></span> In 1976 Jimmy Carter accepted the endorsement of Jim Jones, who later led several hundred religious followers to their deaths in a mass suicide. In 2000, after speaking on the campus of Bob Jones University in Greenville, SC, George W. Bush had to immediately disavow any connection with its anti-Catholic image.<br /><br /><span style="color:#000000;"><strong>Tacit endorsements are usually better than explicit endorsements.</strong></span> Pastors can effectively convey their political preferences without making major public pronouncements. John McCain did not need a major public endorsement from John Hagee to have Hagee’s followers fall in line behind Hagee’s preference. For example, Billy Graham never overtly endorsed presidential candidates, but in subtle and indirect ways, such as prominently featuring a candidate or president at one of his giant evangelistic rallies, he conveyed his preferences. Richard Nixon, for one, benefited from this approach when he attended a massive Graham rally in Tennessee.<br /><br /><span style="color:#000000;"><strong>Religious leaders risk a crisis of credibility in making endorsements.</strong></span> If a religious leader endorses a candidate whose positions conflict with those of his followers, a credibility problem will likely follow. When the Chancellor of Bob Jones University (BJU), Bob Jones III, endorsed Mitt Romney, a Mormon, massive resistance from BJU alumni prompted his son, BJU President Stephen Jones, to immediately distance the University from his father’s endorsement.<br /><br /><span style="color:#000000;"><strong>Religious success does not insure political success.</strong></span> The requirements for building a major church or religious movement are not the same as those required for successful participation in politics. Religious leaders may speak with ultimate and final authority on matters of doctrine and organizational structure, but in the political realm, successful political leaders must speak more tentatively and respond more frequently to the necessity of compromise. So when religious leaders bring their confident assurance into the political realm with its emphasis on change and compromise, they risk making major mistakes.<br /><br /><strong><span style="color:#ff0000;">What religious problems do Obama and McCain now have?</span></strong><br /><br />Obama and McCain have religious problems, but they differ. <span style="color:#ff0000;">Obama</span> must shed his attachment to the far left religiously in order to appeal to the American mainstream, where most voters are, while <span style="color:#ff0000;">McCain</span> must win the enthusiastic support of American evangelicals and conservative Catholics, who are part of the Republican Party’s power base.<br /><br />As it is now, <span style="color:#ff0000;">Obama’s principal liability</span> is that the public perceives him as out of touch with mainstream America. That’s why Senator Clinton had such success against him during the primaries in winning the votes of evangelicals, conservative Catholics, rural voters, and others. And for McCain he has positioned himself slightly to the right of center, just as Ronald Reagan did, but unlike Reagan <span style="color:#ff0000;">McCain's principal liability</span> is that he does not yet enjoy the enthusiastic support of the religious right. </div>The Chuck Dunn Reporthttp://www.blogger.com/profile/04203184377920062551noreply@blogger.com6tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5819650407867292050.post-55772506624869777042008-05-13T15:47:00.000-07:002008-05-20T18:51:36.742-07:00Hillary for Vice President?<div align="justify"></div><p align="justify"></p><p align="justify"></p>The more Senator Obama's nomination appears assured, the greater the pressure to unify the Democratic Party behind an Obama-Clinton ticket. But <span style="color: rgb(204, 0, 0);">(1)</span> <span style="color: rgb(0, 0, 0);">should Senator Obama ask Senator Clinton to be his running mate? </span>And if so, <span style="color: rgb(255, 0, 0);">(2)</span> <span style="color: rgb(0, 0, 0);">should she accept?<br /></span><span style="color: rgb(0, 0, 0);"></span><div align="justify"><br />Of the seven criteria -- geography, ideology, religion, governance, succession, compatibility/loyalty, and electability -- that have governed the selection of vice-presidential running mates, three favor an Obama-Clinton ticket and four do not. </div><div align="justify"></div><div align="justify"></div><div align="justify"><span style="color: rgb(255, 0, 0);"></span></div><div align="justify"><span style="color: rgb(255, 0, 0);"></span></div><p align="justify"><span style="color: rgb(255, 0, 0);"><span style="color: rgb(0, 0, 0);"></span></span></p><p align="justify"></p>1. <span style="color: rgb(0, 0, 0);"><strong>Geography?</strong></span> Often presidential nominees try to unify their party by selecting a nominee for geographic reasons as in 1960 when John F. Kennedy (Massachusetts) chose Lyndon B. Johnson (Texas) and Richard M. Nixon (California) chose Henry Cabot Lodge (Massachusetts). So for geographic reasons, should Senator Obama ask Senator Clinton to be his running mate?<br /><br /><p></p><p></p><div align="justify"></div><div align="justify"></div><div align="justify"></div><div align="justify"></div><div align="justify"></div><blockquote></blockquote><blockquote></blockquote><div align="justify"><ul><li><div align="justify"><span style="color: rgb(255, 0, 0);">No.</span> From a traditional geographic standpoint, Senator Clinton would add little or nothing to the Democratic ticket, because both come from large urban states in the north. From a non-traditional geographic standpoint, however, namely having a vice-presidential running mate with greater appeal than what Senator Obama has in some geographic areas, such as West Virginia and Kentucky, then the nod might go to an Obama-Clinton ticket. </div></li></ul></div><div align="justify"></div><div align="justify"></div><div align="justify"></div><div align="justify"><span style="color: rgb(255, 0, 0);"><span style="color: rgb(0, 0, 0);">2.</span> </span><span style="color: rgb(0, 0, 0);"><strong>Ideology?</strong></span> Because of the historic ideological diversity in our two major parties, presidential nominees have frequently turned to vice-presidential running mates who would balance the ticket ideologically as also occurred in 1960 and in many other years. Would Senator Clinton's presence on the Democratic ticket balance the Party ideologically?</div><div align="justify"></div><div align="justify"></div><ul><li><div align="justify"><span style="color: rgb(255, 0, 0);">No.</span> Senators Obama and Clinton hold essentially the same views on almost all issues. Indeed, some critics have said: "There's not a dime's worth of difference between them."</div></li></ul><div align="justify"><span style="color: rgb(255, 0, 0);"><span style="color: rgb(0, 0, 0);">3.</span> </span><span style="color: rgb(0, 0, 0);"><strong>Religion?</strong></span> When John F. Kennedy (Roman Catholic) chose Lyndon B. Johnson (Protestant) as his running mate in 1960, and when Hubert H. Humphrey (Protestant) chose Edmund Muskie (Roman Catholic) in 1968, they revealed an understanding of the importance of religious faith in electing presidents. But would Senator Obama gain a religious advantage by asking Senator Clinton to be his running mate?</div><div align="justify"></div><div align="justify"></div><ul><li><div align="justify"><span style="color: rgb(255, 0, 0);">No.</span> Senator Obama's religious affiliation is with the most liberal Protestant denomination in America, the United Church of Christ, and Senator Clinton's affiliation is with one of the most liberal Protestant denominations, United Methodist. </div></li></ul><div align="justify"><span style="color: rgb(255, 0, 0);"><span style="color: rgb(0, 0, 0);">4.</span> </span><span style="color: rgb(0, 0, 0);"><strong>Governance?</strong></span> Presidents Bill Clinton and George W. Bush understood that they lacked meaningful governing experience in Washington, and so they balanced their tickets by choosing running mates with significant experience, Al Gore and Dick Cheney. Does Senator Obama have the same need? </div><div align="justify"></div><ul><li><div align="justify"><span style="color: rgb(255, 0, 0);">Yes.</span> Senator Obama has not yet served one term in the U.S. Senate and only had a short tenure in the Illinois Senate. Almost every president has sustained a long public career, far longer than Senator Obama's. So on balance, it might behoove Senator Obama to ask Senator Clinton to become his running mate. </div></li></ul><div align="justify"></div><div align="justify"><span style="color: rgb(255, 0, 0);"><span style="color: rgb(0, 0, 0);">5.</span> </span><span style="color: rgb(0, 0, 0);"><strong>Succession?</strong></span> The issue of vice-presidential succession to the presidency has become more important in light of presidential assassinations (William McKinley and John F. Kennedy), deaths (Warren Harding and Franklin D. Roosevelt), and forced departures (Richard M.Nixon). In 2000 George W. Bush recognized that he not only needed a vice president to help him govern, but also to succeed him, if necessary. Should the possibility of succession figure into Senator Obama's thinking in asking Senator Clinton run with him?</div><ul><li><div align="justify"><span style="color: rgb(255, 0, 0);">Yes.</span> The choice of Senator Clinton by Senator Obama would send a clear signal that the vice presidency would be occupied by someone definitely capable of serving as president. In fact, in the eyes of many, she would be more capable of serving as president than Senator Obama. </div></li></ul><p align="justify"><span style="color: rgb(255, 0, 0);"><span style="color: rgb(0, 0, 0);"></span></span></p><p align="justify"></p><p align="justify"></p>6. <span style="color: rgb(0, 0, 0);"><strong>Compatibility and Loyalty?</strong></span> Presidents Bill Clinton and George W. Bush deserve considerable credit for selecting running mates with whom they were personally compatible. But even with their compatibility, grievances emerged between them, revealing that under the best of circumstances, compatibility and loyalty may become strained. Should Senator Obama choose Senator Clinton as his running mate for reasons of compatibility and loyalty?<br /><p></p><p></p><p></p><div align="justify"></div><div align="justify"></div><ul><li><div align="justify"><span style="color: rgb(255, 0, 0);">No.</span> Over and over and over again critics have noted that there is little love lost between Senators Obama and Clinton. In the minds of critics Senator Obama sees Senator Clinton as the one who will not get out of the way of his inevitable nomination, and Senator Clinton sees Senator Obama as the one who drove a stake into the heart of her inevitability as the Democratic Party's presidential nominee. There is a long history of presidential nominees choosing vice presidential running mates to help them win, but then shoving them aside upon taking office. John F. Kennedy, the young Senator from Massachusetts, did that to the most powerful majority leader in the history of the U.S. Senate, Lyndon B. Johnson. </div></li></ul><div align="justify"></div><div align="justify"><span style="color: rgb(255, 0, 0);"><span style="color: rgb(0, 0, 0);">7.</span> </span><span style="color: rgb(0, 0, 0);"><strong>Electability?</strong></span> Vice presidential nominees may not assure a presidential candidate's victory, but they can certainly help. For example, could John F. Kennedy have defeated Richard M. Nixon in 1960 without Lyndon B. Johnson's vital help in carrying the South? No. Should Senator Obama consider the criterion of electability in deciding whether to invite Senator Clinton to become the Democratic Party's vice-presidential nominee? </div><div align="justify"></div><ul><li><div align="justify"><span style="color: rgb(255, 0, 0);">Yes.</span> Not only has Senator Clinton run an almost neck-and-neck race with Senator Obama, but more importantly she has won the votes of significant voting blocs, which Senator Obama must win if he is to win the presidency -- namely women, blue-collar voters, Roman Catholics, Jews, and rural voters. And she won in almost every head-to-head match-up with Senator Obama in such large states as Texas, Ohio, California, and Pennsylvania.</div></li></ul><div align="justify"></div><div align="justify"><strong>Analysis</strong> </div><div align="justify"></div><div align="justify"></div><div align="justify"></div><p align="justify"></p><div align="justify">Like their photo-finish race for the Democratic nomination, the questions of <span style="color: rgb(0, 0, 0);"><strong>(1) </strong></span>whether Senator Obama should ask Senator Clinton to serve as his running mate and <span style="color: rgb(0, 0, 0);"><strong>(2)</strong></span> whether she should accept also come to a photo-finish.</div><p align="justify"></p><div align="justify"></div><div align="justify"></div><div align="justify"></div><div align="justify"><span style="color: rgb(255, 0, 0);"></span></div><p align="justify"><span style="color: rgb(0, 0, 0);"><strong></strong><div align="justify"><strong></strong><div><strong><span><div><div style="font-weight: normal;"><span><div><span style="font-weight: bold;">First</span>, Senator Obama needs Senator Clinton more than Senator Clinton needs Senator Obama. He needs Senator Clinton to help him unify the Democratic Party and to make himself more electable in November. But that could come at a high price, namely having a high-profile running mate, who together with her husband could upstage him on the campaign trail. In short, how could Senator Obama control Senator Clinton as his vice-presidential running mate?</div></span></div><span style="font-weight: normal;"><p align="justify"></p><div align="justify"></div><div align="justify"></div><div align="justify"><span style="color: rgb(255, 0, 0);"></span></div><div align="justify"><span style="color: rgb(0, 0, 0);"><strong></strong><div><strong>Second</strong><span>,</span> Senator Clinton should enjoy a bright political future regardless of whether she would accept an invitation from Senator Obama to serve as his running mate. For example, she could make history by becoming either the first woman to serve as the Majority Leader of the U.S. Senate or as Governor of New York. And should Senator Obama lose the presidential election, Senator Clinton could have a significant advantage in winning the nomination in 2012.</div> </span></div><div align="justify"></div><div align="justify"></div><p align="justify"><span style="color: rgb(0, 0, 0);"><strong></strong><div align="justify"><strong><br /></strong><div><strong>Third</strong>, Senator Clinton should only accept an invitation from Senator Obama under these conditions:</div></div><p></p><div align="justify"></div><div align="justify"></div><ul><li><div align="justify"><span style="color: rgb(255, 0, 0);"><div>Party unity becomes paramount. <span style="color: rgb(0, 0, 0);">If Democratic Party power-brokers prevail upon her that she accept the vice-presidential nomination just as the extraordinarily powerful House Speaker Sam Rayburn (Texas) prevailed upon Lyndon Johnson (Texas) to accept the vice-presidential nomination as John F. Kennedy's running mate in 1960, then she should accept, but not without clear understandings of her role in an Obama administration.</span></div></span></div></li></ul><ul><li><div align="justify"><span style="color: rgb(255, 0, 0);"><div>Acceptable understandings reached about governance. <span style="color: rgb(0, 0, 0);">N.B. President Franklin D. Roosevelt won four presidential elections, each with a different running mate. And his last, Harry Truman, was kept at arm's length by Roosevelt, so that when Truman assumed the presidency upon Roosevelt's death, he knew little or nothing about Roosevelt's policies. To insure that she would not be put out to pasture by President Obama as President Roosevelt did with four vice presidents, Senator Clinton would need to negotiate acceptable understandings about her role in an Obama administration.</span></div></span></div></li></ul></span></p></span></div></span></strong></div></div></span></p><p></p><p align="justify"><strong><br /></strong></p><ul><p align="justify"></p></ul><p align="justify"><strong><br /></strong></p><ul></ul><p></p><p></p>The Chuck Dunn Reporthttp://www.blogger.com/profile/04203184377920062551noreply@blogger.com3tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5819650407867292050.post-23121359662400159482008-05-07T04:04:00.000-07:002008-05-07T13:16:25.726-07:00Obama and McCain: Appearances and Achilles Heels<div style="TEXT-ALIGN: justify">Obama and McCain appear to have secured their respective party’s nominations, but <span style="COLOR: rgb(255,0,0)">appearances are deceiving</span>. Neither has won the heart and soul of his party. Both have Achilles heels.<br /><br /><div style="TEXT-ALIGN: justify"><span style="FONT-WEIGHT: bold">Obama’s Achilles Heel </span><br /><br />Despite the best-financed and one of the best-organized presidential primary campaigns in American history, Senator Obama:<br /><ul><li>Has <span style="COLOR: rgb(255,0,0)">lost</span> to Senator Clinton in most of the largest states, including California, Texas, Ohio, and Pennsylvania;</li><li>Has <span style="COLOR: rgb(255,0,0)">never significantly penetrated</span> Senator Clinton’s advantage among key Democratic Party constituencies -- female, senior, Catholic and working-class voters; </li><li>Has <span style="COLOR: rgb(255,0,0)">depended upon</span> an overwhelming African-American vote, which hovered around 85 to 90 percent, and a larger-than-average vote from college-educated and younger voters to secure many of his victories; </li><li>Now <span style="COLOR: rgb(255,0,0)">confronts</span> the daunting task of wooing some 40 percent of Senator Clinton’s voters in the general election, who declared in exit polls that they would not vote for him in a race against Senator McCain; and </li><li><span style="COLOR: rgb(255,0,0)">Faces</span> the likelihood that Senator Clinton will once again reveal his Achilles Heel in such states as West Virginia and Kentucky, if she persists in her campaign.</li></ul><span style="FONT-WEIGHT: bold">McCain’s Achilles Heel</span><br /><br />Weeks ago Senator McCain’s opponents for the Republican nomination left the battlefield, but their presence remains, revealing a <span style="COLOR: rgb(255,0,0)">potentially fatal flaw</span> in his campaign. Senator McCain has not yet won the heart and soul of the Republican Party as revealed by one fact:<br /><ul><li>Non-candidates -- Huckabee, Romney, and Paul -- have won approximately 25 percent of the primary vote since their departure from the campaign.</li></ul>Support for McCain’s opponents comes from the center of gravity of power in the Republican Party – the right. As Richard Nixon used to say: For a Republican to become President he must tack hard right to win the nomination and then tack hard left back to the center to win the election. Remember that not so long ago, Rush Limbaugh and others bashed McCain’s candidacy. Although some on the right have made up with McCain, he still has a <span style="COLOR: rgb(255,0,0)">long way to go</span> to win their enthusiastic support, without which he cannot win the general election.<br /><br /><span style="FONT-WEIGHT: bold">Overcoming Their Achilles Heels</span><br /><br />Unquestionably Obama and McCain have Achilles Heels, but they may overcome them by (1) <span style="COLOR: rgb(255,0,0)">selecting</span> vice-presidential nominees who will help to unite their parties, (2) <span style="COLOR: rgb(255,0,0)">taking</span> positions on issues that will appeal to their party’s disaffected, (3) <span style="COLOR: rgb(255,0,0)">bringing</span> on board in their campaigns key leaders from their opponent’s campaigns, and (4) <span style="COLOR: rgb(255,0,0)">allowing</span> their opponents appropriate platforms to speak during their party’s national conventions.</div></div>The Chuck Dunn Reporthttp://www.blogger.com/profile/04203184377920062551noreply@blogger.com3tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5819650407867292050.post-86938912468781502632008-04-22T11:37:00.000-07:002008-04-22T12:07:10.333-07:00Clinton versus Obama: Beyond Pennsylvania<div align="justify">Given what we now know, when the Democratic primaries and caucuses end, neither Senator Clinton nor Senator Obama will have a sufficient number of pledged delegates to win the presidential nomination. So they must make their cases to the “Super Delegates,” who hold the balance of power. How should they sell themselves to the “Super Delegates”?<br /><br /><strong><span style="color:#ff0000;">The Case for Senator Clinton</span></strong><br /><br />Senator Clinton’s political strength rests principally upon two factors, (1) Electoral College assets and (2) knowledge of issues. In competing against Senator Obama, she has beaten him in head-to-head contests in the states with the largest number of Electoral College votes, and she has demonstrated excellent knowledge of the issues.<br /><br /><span style="color:#ff0000;">Electoral College Assets.</span> The 11 most populous states control 271 Electoral College votes, one more than the magic number of 270. In head-to-head primary contests in these states, Senator Clinton has beaten Senator Obama in all but Illinois, Senator Obama’s home state. These 11 states, which have seven factors in common, constitute an excellent cross-section or microcosm of the whole of America. They have:<br /><br />1. Competitive two party systems,<br />2. Substantial minority group populations,<br />3. Significant industrial complexes,<br />4. Big labor unions,<br />5. Major agricultural interests,<br />6. Sizable suburban areas, and<br />7. Large cities and small towns.<br /><br />In short, in these 11 states, which are the most representative of the whole of America, Senator Clinton can justifiably claim that she rather than Senator Obama would have the best chance to beat Senator McCain. The “Big 11” states and their Electoral College votes are California (55), Texas (34), New York (31), Florida (27), Illinois (21), Pennsylvania (21), Ohio (20), Michigan (17), New Jersey (15), Georgia (15), and North Carolina (15).<br /><br /><span style="color:#ff0000;">Knowledge of Issues.</span> In the last debate before the Pennsylvania Primary, Senator Clinton demonstrated great confidence and knowledge with regard to the issues, while Senator Obama looked like a deer staring into the headlights. His supporters criticized ABC-TV for the questions asked, but whether they liked or disliked the questions is beside the point. Senator Obama did not answer the questions well. He appeared to wilt in the heat of battle.<br /><br />Barring a miracle, Senator Clinton will end the race for delegates behind Senator Obama, so she must mount an intensive and largely behind-the-scenes lobbying campaign to woo the “Super Delegates.” Her case will succeed only if she can persuade them that compared to Senator Obama her potential superior Electoral College strength and better debating skill will enable her to beat Senator McCain.<br /><br /><span style="color:#ff0000;"><strong>The Case for Senator Obama</strong></span></div><div align="justify"><br />Senator Obama’s political strength rests principally on four factors, (1) breadth of support, (2) lower negative ratings, (3) fund-raising appeal, and (4) stump-speaking ability.<br /><br /><span style="color:#ff0000;">Breadth of Support.</span> While Senator Clinton demonstrates greater strength than Senator Obama in the “Big 11” Electoral College states, he has greater nationwide strength throughout the heartland of America, especially in smaller and medium-sized states.<br /><br />Significantly, Senator Obama’s range of support spans from better educated and wealthy white Americans to African-Americans, and of special significance is Senator Obama’s appeal to a large number of new voters, especially young people. By encouraging so many people to get involved in American politics he has made a great contribution to American democracy.<br /><br /><span style="color:#ff0000;">Lower Negative Ratings.</span> Until recently Senator Obama had significantly lower negative ratings than Senator Clinton, but despite several recent miscues, which have combined to increase his negative ratings, he continues to enjoy an advantage over Senator Clinton in this all-important consideration. In politics the higher a candidate’s negative ratings, the more difficult it is for a candidate to win. Assuming that Senator Obama’s negative ratings do not rise to the level of Senator Clinton’s, he can make the case to the “Super Delegates” that this will enable him to have a better opportunity of beating Senator McCain.<br /><br /><span style="color:#ff0000;">Fund-Raising Appeal.</span> While Senator Clinton has had to rely on contributions from major donors and interest groups, Senator Obama has raised enormous sums from ordinary Americans. His fund-raising machinery far excels those of Senator Clinton or Senator McCain. As the old saying goes, “money is the mother’s milk of politics,” and Senator Obama’s milk can is filled to overflowing. In fact, he may go down in history as the best presidential fund raiser, especially among rank-and-file Americans.<br /><br /><span style="color:#ff0000;">Stump-Speaking Ability.</span> As a speaker before large and small audiences, whether in person or on television, few excel Senator Obama. Were it not for his weakness as a debater he would be a tailor-made candidate. He connects well with his audiences and speaks well on television and the Internet.<br /><br />On the stump, he has effectively used the theme of change to develop his following. If Senator Obama succeeds in winning the Democratic nomination and the presidency, the slogan of “Change You Can Believe In” could go down in history with the greatest presidential campaign slogans, such as New Deal, Fair Deal, New Frontier, and Great Society.<br /><br /><span style="color:#ff0000;"><strong>The “Super Delegates” Dilemma</strong></span></div><div align="justify"></div><div align="justify"></div><div align="justify"></div><div align="justify"></div><div align="justify"></div><div align="justify"></div><div align="justify"><br />How can the “Super Delegates” say “no” to either Senator Clinton or Senator Obama? They appear to be in a “lose-lose” situation. If they decide for Senator Clinton, they will alienate African-Americans and many new voters, but if they decide for Senator Obama, they will alienate female voters.<br /><br />Democrats need a modern miracle to keep their Party from splitting apart. Democrats had such a miracle in 1960 after the blood-letting between John F. Kennedy and Lyndon B. Johnson. In 2008 Democrats will need an even greater miracle.</div>The Chuck Dunn Reporthttp://www.blogger.com/profile/04203184377920062551noreply@blogger.com2tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5819650407867292050.post-23637344064832791572008-04-07T08:55:00.000-07:002008-04-07T09:45:27.659-07:00John McCain: The Last Man Standing<div align="justify">“Divided We Stand,” the bold headline in <em>World</em> (April 5/12: pp. 34-36), introduces an article about the religious right in presidential politics, which concludes:<br /><br /></div><blockquote><p align="justify"></p><p align="justify"></p>"Unable to unite behind a GOP candidate, religious right leaders face a wilderness road to the White House."<br /><br /><p></p><p align="justify"></p></blockquote><div align="justify"><span style="color:#ff0000;">Why did the religious right fall into disarray?</span> Abraham Lincoln understood the Scriptural answer to the question: “A house divided against itself cannot stand.”<br /><br /><strong>Divided Leadership</strong><br /><br />The religious right no longer has a solid core of seasoned leaders who can bring disparate factions together. In the heyday of Ronald Reagan a few leaders stood out, such as Jerry Falwell, Pat Robertson, and James Dobson, who could rally the religious right in presidential races. For various reasons these leaders no longer occupy center stage in presidential politics. Many other leaders have come on the scene, but they lack the political cache to unify the movement. In some respects the religious right now has too many chiefs and not enough Indians.<br /><br /><strong>A Fractured Political Movement</strong><br /><br />Political movements in America fracture over time, becoming victims of their own success, such as labor, civil rights, and veterans. The religious right is no different. Sometimes movements take their success for granted and fail to work in the trenches as they once did. Also as they mature new issues and leaders emerge which may distract the movement from its founding motivations. For example, among evangelical Christians, new issues and ideas have emerged, such as those espoused by Rick Warren and others, which were not even on the drawing board at the time of the religious right’s emergence on the scene of American presidential politics.<br /><br /><strong>John McCain: The Last Man Standing</strong><br /><br />Richard Nixon understood that the center of gravity of political power in America is in the center of a bell curve. That’s where most Americans are, neither far left nor far right. But Nixon also understood that the centers of gravity of power in the Democratic and Republican Parties are to the far left and far right, respectively, which prompted him to say that for a Republican to become president, he must tack hard right to get the nomination and then hard left to get back to the center and win in November.<br /><br />In 2008 several Republicans competed for the support of the far right, leaving only one candidate, John McCain, competing for Republicans just slightly to the right of center. The religious right failed to unify around one candidate on the far right, thereby leaving John McCain as the last man standing.<br /><br /><span style="color:#ff0000;">But is all lost for the religious right?</span> No, not at all.<br /><br />John McCain, like Ronald Reagan before him, must have the overwhelming and enthusiastic support of the religious right to win in November. That support includes a broad spectrum of evangelical Christians, conservative Catholics, and Jews. Ronald Reagan, for example, combined the support of conservative Catholics in the north and evangelicals in the south along with significant, though not majority, support from Jews. As Reagan before him, McCain must sweep the south and win several northern and Rocky Mountain States.<br /><br />That’s the key to the White House Door for John McCain. And for that reason the religious right is in a strong bargaining position with John McCain. </div><div align="justify"></div><blockquote><p align="justify"><div align="justify">To receive a free subscription to <em><span style="color:#ff0000;">KeyNote</span></em>®, Regent University's digest of political commentary from Bill Kristol, Rudy Giuliani, John Ashcroft, and others please see <a href="http://www.regent.edu/keynote">www.regent.edu/keynote</a>.</div><br /><p></p></blockquote>The Chuck Dunn Reporthttp://www.blogger.com/profile/04203184377920062551noreply@blogger.com1tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5819650407867292050.post-81780953840968895762008-04-01T08:37:00.000-07:002008-04-01T09:06:50.357-07:00Conservatism versus Liberalism in the Presidential Campaign<div align="justify"><span style="color:#ff0000;">In 1964</span> the Republican Party candidate for President, Barry Goldwater, advocated abolition of Social Security while campaigning in St. Petersburg, Florida, and elimination of the Tennessee Valley Authority on a campaign trip to Tennessee.<br /><br /><span style="color:#ff0000;">In 1972</span> the Democratic Party candidate, George McGovern, advocated a major shift in tax policy, increasing taxes on middle and upper classes and transferring the revenue to social welfare programs. </div><div align="justify"><blockquote>While other reasons contributed to their defeats in two of history’s greatest landslides, the advocacy of radical policy changes contributed significantly to their losses. </blockquote></div><div align="justify">Elsewhere in American history, <span style="color:#ff0000;">William Jennings Bryan</span>, three times the Democratic presidential candidate (1896, 1900 and 1908), paid dearly for violating this dictum when he advocated “free silver” to replace the American gold standard and delivered one of history’s most famous Convention addresses, declaring in 1896 that "You shall not press down upon the brow of labor this crown of thorns, you shall not crucify mankind upon a cross of gold.” Several decades later America went off of the gold standard, but in 1896 his proposal was too radical.<br /><br />In these three instances, the Republican and Democratic Parties nominated presidential candidates whose views more closely resembled the more extreme positions of third-party candidates, which makes an important point: </div><div align="justify"><blockquote>Whenever a major party nominates a candidate who acts like a third-party candidate, that party will likely suffer an overwhelming defeat. </blockquote></div><div align="justify"></div><div align="justify">Third parties with an ideological bent, such as the Socialist and Communist Parties, advocate positions far outside the American mainstream. Other third parties, such as the Populist (1892), Progressive (1924), States Rights (1948) and American Independent (1968), promote positions that may later gain acceptance, but when first introduced, the political system finds them unacceptable.<br /><br /></div><blockquote><p align="justify"><div align="justify">In America change comes slowly. Only after protracted debate, often over several decades, does change occur. Successful presidential candidates and presidents advocate changes that the political system is ready to digest.</div><p></p></blockquote><div align="justify"></div><div align="justify"><span style="color:#ff0000;">In 2008</span> which party -- Democratic or Republican -- and which candidate -- Clinton or Obama or McCain -- will advocate changes in public policy most acceptable to the people?</div>The Chuck Dunn Reporthttp://www.blogger.com/profile/04203184377920062551noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5819650407867292050.post-77576096987014736262008-03-27T10:55:00.000-07:002008-03-27T11:24:50.153-07:00The Presidential Marathon: Part Two<p><span style="color:#ff0000;"></p>Who will win the marathon race to the White House?</span> If history is the best predictor of the future, then prognosticators should carefully examine the following three conclusions about the <strong>19 Presidents</strong> from William McKinley through George W. Bush.<br /><br /><span style="color:#ff0000;">First</span>, <strong>14 of the 19 Presidents</strong> have come from the “Big 11 States,” i.e., those with the largest number of Electoral College votes, which are California (55), Texas (34), New York (31), Florida (27), Illinois (21), Pennsylvania (21), Ohio (20), Michigan (17), New Jersey (15), Georgia (15), and North Carolina (15). These states control 271 Electoral College votes, one more than the 270 necessary to win the presidency.<br /><br />The South and Sun-Belt South have produced four of our five most recent presidents, two from Texas, and one each from Georgia and Arkansas. As population has shifted from northern industrial states, sometimes called the Rust Belt, to the Sun Belt, southern strength in the Electoral College has increased. Among the “Big 11 States” are four from the South and the Sun-Belt South, Texas, Florida, Georgia, and North Carolina.<br /><br />Because the South and Sun-Belt South control 189 Electoral votes, this region will play a pivotal role in determining who will win the Presidential Marathon Run. That’s why Richard Nixon developed a “southern strategy,” which each succeeding President has developed in his own way. As examples, President Carter won the South in 1976, but lost a substantial portion of it four years later in his loss to President Reagan, and President Clinton chose a fellow southerner and Southern Baptist, Al Gore, as his Vice Presidential running mate.<br /><br />Senators Obama and Clinton come from two of the “Big 11 States,” Illinois and New York, respectively, while Senator McCain comes from the Sun-Belt South, Arizona. So who will win the Presidential Marathon Run? Fundamentally the prospective nominees face a reversal of geographic roles.<br /><br /><br /></span><p></p><ul><li>Either Senator Obama or Senator Clinton would need to win a substantial portion of the “Big 11 States” and also penetrate the South and Sun-Belt South. </li><br /><li>Senator McCain would need to win the South and Sun-Belt South and also penetrate the “Big 11 States.”</li></ul><br /></li><ul></ul><p></p>Thus, their respective geographic needs may influence their choices of vice presidential running mates.<br /><br /><span style="color:#ff0000;">Second</span>, <strong>18 of the 19 Presidents</strong> have identified with a mainstream Protestant denomination. Interestingly in 1952 General Eisenhower, who had no religious affiliation, became a Presbyterian, and his opponent, Adlai E. Stevenson, a Unitarian, became a Presbyterian, which is more within the comfort zone of mainstream Protestantism.<br /><br />On two counts, Senator Obama’s church affiliation places him at least superficially outside the Protestant mainstream. First his denomination, the United Church of Christ, is generally recognized as the most liberal Protestant denomination in America. Second, his local church affiliation, Trinity United Church of Christ, emphasizes “black liberation” theology, which is clearly outside the mainstream of American religious thought, especially among whites, but also among many blacks. Senators Clinton and McCain have religious affiliations within the Protestant mainstream, Methodist and Episcopal, respectively.<br /><br />Change, however, is on the horizon. Roman Catholics, whose population has greatly increased, especially in the “Big 11 States,” now play a greater role in presidential politics. Likewise, African-Americans have increased their influence in presidential politics along with Hispanics. Again each of these groups has a sizeable population in the “Big 11 States,” and Blacks also constitute a significant voting force in the South. These emerging groups could influence the type of Vice Presidential nominees the two parties may choose.<br /><br /><span style="color:#ff0000;">Third</span>, <strong>13 of the 19 Presidents</strong> have graduated from our nation’s most prestigious colleges and universities, including Harvard (3), Yale (3), Princeton (1), Stanford (1), Michigan (1), Amherst (1), West Point (1), Naval Academy (1), and Georgetown (1). As alumni of Harvard, Yale, and the Naval Academy, respectively, Senators Obama, Clinton, and McCain fit this pattern.<br /><br />The political dynamics of presidential backgrounds – geographic, religious, and educational – play a sometimes overlooked and underestimated role in the marathon run to the White House. Prognosticators overlook them at their peril.<br /></span><br /><p></p><p></p>The Chuck Dunn Reporthttp://www.blogger.com/profile/04203184377920062551noreply@blogger.com1tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5819650407867292050.post-83398623473388443372008-03-19T14:43:00.000-07:002008-03-20T03:44:44.572-07:00The Presidential Marathon: Part One<p><span style="color: rgb(255, 0, 0);"><span style="color: rgb(51, 51, 51);"></span></span></p><span style="color: rgb(255, 0, 0);">Who will win the White House?</span> If history is the best predictor of the future, the winner will have sustained a long public career, often over decades. Using the modern presidents from Franklin D. Roosevelt through George W. Bush as illustrations:<br /><br /><p></p><ul><li><span style="color: rgb(51, 51, 51);">Franklin D. Roosevelt</span> served in the President’s Cabinet and as Governor of New York; </li><li><span style="color: rgb(51, 51, 51);">Harry S. Truman</span> held the offices of U.S. Senator and Vice President; </li><li><span style="color: rgb(51, 51, 51);">Dwight D. Eisenhower</span> had a very public career as one of history’s most notable generals and as President of Columbia University; </li><li><span style="color: rgb(51, 51, 51);">John F. Kennedy</span> won election to both the U.S. House and Senate;</li><li><span style="color: rgb(51, 51, 51);">Lyndon B. Johnson</span> did the same, but also had a stint as Vice President;</li><li>Richard M. Nixon not only served in both houses, but also as Vice President and as a losing presidential candidate;</li><li>Gerald R. Ford held office in the U.S. House of Representatives from 1946 until replacing President Nixon in 1974;</li><li>Jimmy Carter had a long career in Georgia politics as both a State Senator and Governor;</li><li>Ronald Reagan not only had a public career as an actor, but also as Governor of California; </li><li>George H. W. Bush held numerous offices, including membership in the U.S. House of Representatives, Director of the Central Intelligence Agency and Envoy to China;</li><li>William Jefferson Clinton served as both Attorney General and Governor of Arkansas; and</li><li>George W. Bush was a two-term Governor of Texas. </li></ul><p></p>The same holds true for earlier presidents. Abraham Lincoln, for example, ran for office, winning and losing, over several decades, and Theodore Roosevelt served as both Governor of New York and as Vice President.<br /><br />But candidates who do not sustain a long public career, such as Wendell Wilkie, the Republican Party’s 1940 standard-bearer, usually come up short, failing to demonstrate to key leaders in politics, the media and interest groups as well as to the public at-large that they have the desire, dedication, intellect, organizational skill and wisdom, among other things, to stay the course and go the distance. In 2004 U.S. Senator John Edwards (D NC), who had served less than one term in the U.S. Senate, ran a credible campaign for the Democratic Party’s nomination, but lacked the nation-wide breadth and depth of political and financial contacts to challenge U.S. Senator John Kerry’s (D MA) superior resources, which he had built over a much longer political career.<br /><br />The complexities of America – political, economic, social, religious, geographic and cultural – make the race for the White House a <span style="color: rgb(255, 0, 0);">marathon run</span> and not a 100-yard dash. <p></p><blockquote><p></p><div>For more analysis, please see: Charles W. Dunn, <em>The Seven Laws of Presidential Leadership</em> (Prentice-Hall, 2007).</div><p></p></blockquote><br /><p></p><blockquote></blockquote><br /><p></p><blockquote></blockquote>The Chuck Dunn Reporthttp://www.blogger.com/profile/04203184377920062551noreply@blogger.com1tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5819650407867292050.post-50500776160375703622008-03-10T16:19:00.000-07:002008-03-19T14:34:51.503-07:00Vice Presidents: “You’ve Come a Long Way, Baby.”<div style="TEXT-ALIGN: justify">There is more to the vice-presidential debate between Senators Clinton and Obama than meets the eye. Because the choice of a vice-presidential running mate can significantly change history, it is an important test of a presidential candidate's judgment. But it was not always so.<br /><br />The first of Franklin D. Roosevelt’s four Vice Presidents, John Nance Garner, said: “The Vice Presidency is not worth a pitcher of warm spit.” And Finley Peter Dunne’s Mr. Dooley described it this way:<br /><blockquote>It wasn’t a crime exactly. Ye can’t be sint to jail f’r it, but it’s a kind of disgrace. It’s like writing anonymous letters.</blockquote><span style="COLOR: rgb(255,0,0)">In 1900</span>, Republican Party leaders decided to bury the presidential potential of their political foe, New York Governor Theodore Roosevelt, in the Vice Presidential cemetery. Alas, for them, the assassination of President William McKinley resurrected him from the Vice Presidential graveyard. Prior to Roosevelt vice presidents routinely served only one term before their consignment to political oblivion.<br /><br /><span style="COLOR: rgb(255,0,0)">Until the 1950s</span>, vice presidents may have helped get a president elected, but once elected, they hardly did more than preside over the U.S. Senate and vote in case of a tie unless a president needed a vice president to perform a rare ceremonial function. From Vice President Richard M. Nixon until now, however, vice presidents have become increasingly more important in governing and influencing history.<br /><br />Today presidential candidates need to consider six criteria in choosing their vice presidential running mates.<br /><br /><span style="FONT-WEIGHT: bold">Geography.</span> Some presidential candidates balance their state of residence with that of the vice presidential choice. In 1952, for example, on the Republican ticket, President Eisenhower (New York) chose Richard Nixon (California), while on the Democratic ticket, Presidential candidate Adlai E. Stevenson (Illinois) chose John Sparkman (Alabama).<br /><br /><span style="FONT-WEIGHT: bold">Ideology. </span>In 1960 the more conservative Richard M. Nixon balanced his ticket by choosing the more liberal Henry Cabot Lodge (Massachusetts).<br /><br /><span style="FONT-WEIGHT: bold">Religion.</span> As running mates in 1960 and 1968, respectively, a Roman Catholic John F. Kennedy chose a southern Protestant, Lyndon B. Johnson, and a Protestant Hubert Humphrey chose a Roman Catholic Edmund Muskie .<br /><br /><span style="FONT-WEIGHT: bold">Governance.</span> Ability to help the president govern played a significant role in Bill Clinton’s choice of Al Gore as his running mate. Gore, who had extensive experience in both houses of Congress, which Clinton did not have, brought an understanding of Washington politics to the Clinton administration. The governance criterion also influenced George W. Bush's selection of Dick Cheney as his running mate.<br /><br /><span style="FONT-WEIGHT: bold">Succession. </span>Ability to succeed the president in the event of a vacancy in the presidency has become more important. In 2000 George W. Bush chose Dick Cheney, who had served in Congress and also as a Cabinet Secretary and Presidential Advisor to Presidents Nixon, Ford and Bush, Sr.<br /><br /><span style="FONT-WEIGHT: bold">Compatibility and Loyalty. </span>In the cases of Clinton-Gore and Bush-Cheney, compatibility and loyalty became apparent. Clinton selected Gore, a fellow southerner, Southern Baptist and member of the centrist Democratic Leadership Council. Immediately after the 1992 Democratic National Convention, Clinton and Gore began a highly successful bus tour, which helped to cement their compatibility in the public mind. And for eight years Gore effectively participated in many important White House decisions. Bush chose Cheney, whose compatibility and loyalty became increasingly obvious during the Terrorist crises and the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq.<br /><br />Because <span style="FONT-WEIGHT: bold; COLOR: rgb(51,51,51)">five Vice Presidents assumed the presidency during the 20th Century</span> by filling a vacancy created through presidential assassination or resignation, the criteria of help in governance, potential successorship, and compatibility and loyalty now stand out as exceedingly important. The Vice Presidents, who assumed the Presidency in this manner, were <span style="COLOR: rgb(255,0,0)">Theodore Roosevelt</span> after William McKinley’s assassination, <span style="COLOR: rgb(255,0,0)">Calvin Coolidge</span> after Warren Harding’s death, <span style="COLOR: rgb(255,0,0)">Harry Truman</span> after Franklin Roosevelt’s death, <span style="COLOR: rgb(255,0,0)">Lyndon Johnson</span> after John F. Kennedy’s assassination, <span style="COLOR: rgb(255,0,0)">Gerald Ford</span> after Richard Nixon’s resignation.<br /><br />Where once Vice Presidents routinely never ran for President, now they often appear as the heir apparent. Since 1900 <span style="FONT-WEIGHT: bold">ten former</span><span style="FONT-WEIGHT: bold; COLOR: rgb(0,0,0)"><span style="COLOR: rgb(51,51,51)"> Vice Presidents </span></span><span style="COLOR: rgb(0,0,0)"><span style="COLOR: rgb(51,51,51)"><span style="FONT-WEIGHT: bold">won their party’s nomination for President</span>: </span></span><span style="COLOR: rgb(255,0,0)">Theodore Roosevelt</span> (1904), <span style="COLOR: rgb(255,0,0)">Calvin Coolidge</span> (1924), <span style="COLOR: rgb(255,0,0)">Harry Truman</span> (1948), <span style="COLOR: rgb(255,0,0)">Richard Nixon</span> (1960, 1968), <span style="COLOR: rgb(255,0,0)">Lyndon Johnson</span> (1964), <span style="COLOR: rgb(255,0,0)">Hubert Humphrey</span> (1968), <span style="COLOR: rgb(255,0,0)">Gerald Ford</span> (1976), <span style="COLOR: rgb(255,0,0)">Walter Mondale</span> (1984), <span style="COLOR: rgb(255,0,0)">George Bush, Sr. </span>(1988), and <span style="COLOR: rgb(255,0,0)">Al Gore</span> (2000).<br /><br />And so it is that John McCain and in all likelihood either Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton or Senator Barack Obama must make critical decisions that could significantly affect history. As pundits pontificate about who their running mates might be, the would-be presidential candidates and party leaders should seriously weigh prospective vice presidential nominees on the scales of these six criteria.<br /><br /><span style="COLOR: rgb(255,0,0)"><span style="COLOR: rgb(51,51,51)">What greater test of a presidential candidate's judgment of personnel than the selection of a vice-presidential running mate?</span></span><br /><span style="COLOR: rgb(255,0,0)"><span style="COLOR: rgb(51,51,51)"><br /></span></span><span style="COLOR: rgb(255,0,0)"><span style="COLOR: rgb(51,51,51)">For additional analysis, please see: Charles W. Dunn, <span style="FONT-STYLE: italic">The Seven Laws of Presidential Leadership</span> (Prentice-Hall, 2007).</span></span></div><span style="COLOR: rgb(255,0,0)"><span style="COLOR: rgb(51,51,51)"><br /></span></span>The Chuck Dunn Reporthttp://www.blogger.com/profile/04203184377920062551noreply@blogger.com1tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5819650407867292050.post-21024834191903509762008-03-02T16:11:00.000-08:002008-03-02T20:46:36.568-08:00William F. Buckley: His Overlooked Legacy<div><span style="color: rgb(51, 51, 51);">As beautiful as water gushing from Buckingham Fountain, so have tributes gushed forth with praise for William F. Buckley's greatness.</span><br /><br /><span style="color: rgb(51, 51, 51);">But as John Donne said: "No man is an island unto himself." What Buckley did, he did not do alone.</span><br /><br /><span style="color: rgb(255, 0, 0);">First</span>, <span style="color: rgb(51, 51, 51);">others set the stage for Buckley's rise to greatness.</span><br /><br /><span style="font-weight: bold;">In 1944</span> Friedrich <span class="blsp-spelling-error" id="SPELLING_ERROR_0">von</span> <span class="blsp-spelling-error" id="SPELLING_ERROR_1">Hayek's</span> <span style="font-style: italic;">Road to Serfdom</span> challenged the ideas of a state-managed economy. <span style="font-weight: bold;">In 1948</span> Richard Weaver's <span style="font-style: italic;">Ideas Have Consequences</span> contended that liberalism would produce disastrous consequences for personal freedom and the social order. <span style="font-weight: bold;">In 1949</span> Ludwig <span class="blsp-spelling-error" id="SPELLING_ERROR_2">von</span> <span class="blsp-spelling-error" id="SPELLING_ERROR_3">Mises</span>' <span style="font-style: italic;">Human Action</span> created a case for the superiority of free-market economics, and Peter <span class="blsp-spelling-error" id="SPELLING_ERROR_4">Viereck's</span> <span style="font-style: italic;">Conservatism Revisited</span>, which <span style="font-style: italic;">The Times of London</span> praised, contained classical conservative principles, originally molded by British parliamentarian Edmund Burke.<br /><br />Only then did Buckley and others come to the center stage of contemporary conservatism.<br /><br /><span style="font-weight: bold;">In 1951<span style="font-weight: bold;"></span></span> Buckley wrote <span style="font-style: italic;">God and Man at Yale</span>. <span style="font-weight: bold;">In 1952</span> Eric <span class="blsp-spelling-error" id="SPELLING_ERROR_5">Vogelin</span> penned <span style="font-style: italic;">The New Science of Politics</span>. <span style="font-weight: bold;">In 1953</span> Russell Kirk produced his monumental work, <span style="font-style: italic;">The Conservative Mind</span>, Leo Strauss wrote <span style="font-style: italic;">Natural Right and History</span>, and Robert <span class="blsp-spelling-error" id="SPELLING_ERROR_6">Nisbet</span> authored his classic, <span style="font-style: italic;">The Quest for Community</span>.<br /><br />These and other books fore and aft of <span style="font-weight: bold;">1950</span> served as bookends, challenging the contention of Lionel <span class="blsp-spelling-error" id="SPELLING_ERROR_7">Trilling's</span> <span style="font-style: italic;">The Liberal Imagination</span> that in America "liberalism is not only the dominant but even the sole intellectual tradition. For it is the plain fact that nowadays there are no conservative . . . ideas in general circulation."<br /><br />Buckley and his conservative contemporaries foreshadowed today's far-reaching conservative critique of liberalism in America -- economically, educationally, politically, religiously, and socially.<br /><br />So just as William F. Buckley was not an island unto himself, neither are today's conservatives, who depend upon the conservative foundation built by Buckley and his contemporaries.<br /><br /><span style="color: rgb(255, 0, 0);">Second</span>, Buckley understood that the many facets of conservatism -- economic, political, religious, and social -- cannot succeed as islands unto themselves. He pictured conservatism as a big tent, under which conservatives of diverse persuasions could hammer out their differences and unify to face a common enemy. And that is precisely how Ronald Reagan succeeded.<br /><br /><span style="color: rgb(255, 0, 0);">Third</span>, Buckley recognized that just as "no man is an island unto himself," so too no generation of mankind is an island unto itself. Buckley's conservative forerunners, contemporaries, and successors hold to the view that:<br /><blockquote>"Conservatism is the defense of inherited political, economic, religious, and social traditions from the forces of abrupt change, based upon the belief that to maintain continuity and stability in society, established customs, laws, and mores should guide change."</blockquote> <span style="color: rgb(0, 0, 0);"><span style="color: rgb(51, 51, 51);">And thus Buckley would argue that</span> </span><span style="font-style: italic; color: rgb(255, 0, 0);">change</span><span style="color: rgb(255, 0, 0);">,</span> today's political buzz word, should occur gradually and incrementally.<br /><br />[For additional analysis, see: Charles W. Dunn, ed., <span style="font-style: italic;">The Future of Conservatism: Conflict and Consensus in the Post-Reagan Era</span> (<span class="blsp-spelling-error" id="SPELLING_ERROR_8">ISI</span> Books, 2007.]</div>The Chuck Dunn Reporthttp://www.blogger.com/profile/04203184377920062551noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5819650407867292050.post-52763441093617887832008-02-25T07:40:00.000-08:002008-02-25T09:52:01.853-08:00Ralph Nader: The Energizer Bunny<div>Ralph Nader is now the Energizer Bunny of presidential candidates. Much like the Socialist Party candidate Norman Thomas, who ran for president during six straight presidential elections from 1928 to 1948, Ralph Nader has competed for the presidency in every primary or general election since 1992.<br /><br />In 1992 Nader ran as a write-in candidate in the New Hampshire and Massachusetts primaries, in 1996 and 2000 as the Green Party candidate, and in 2004 as an independent, who garnered some support from the remnants of Ross Perot's Reform Party.<br /><br />While reflecting on his six presidential campaigns, Norman Thomas pronounced them successful, because in his view the Democratic Party had adopted his platform.<br /><br />Ideology is the fuel that drives the candidacies of ideological parties on the far left and far right. They do not define success as winning, but rather as defining the issues and hopefully pulling the major parties in their direction on the issues.<br /><br />Nader's stated intention in 2008 is to move the Democratic Party to the left on several economic, military, international and social issues. Which, if he succeeds, will seriously damage the Democrats' chances of winning the White House.<br /><br />Most Americans fall in the center of a bell curve -- neither far right nor far left, but pragmatic and non-ideological. They are the magnet of the middle. When Democrats and Republicans nominate candidates outside the magnet of the middle, they lose overwhelmingly, such as Republicans did in 1964 with Barry Goldwater on the right and as Democrats did in 1972 with George McGovern on the left.<br /><br />Nader's candidacy on the left is to Democrats what the Libertarian and Constitution Parties on the right are to Republicans. To the extent that these ideologically-driven third parties define the issues and move the major parties to the far left and far right, they lessen their prospects for winning the White House. So it is that Nader on the left and the Libertarian and Constitution Parties on the right are playing a game of tug-of-war, not to win, but to influence the positions of the major parties.<br /><br />Ralph Nader, the Energizer Bunny, does not run on the fuel of winning, but rather on the fuel of ideology.<br /><br />Of the third parties receiving 10 percent or more of the vote in eight presidential elections between 1848 and 2004, not one was ideologically-driven. Which points to another type of third party, issue-driven. Teddy Roosevelt's Bull Moose Party in 1912, Robert La Follette's Progressive Party in 1924, Strom Thurmond's States' Rights Party in 1948, George Wallace's American Independent Party in 1968, and Ross Perot's Independent Party in 1992 focused on selective issues rather than ideology.<br /><br />Issue-driven parties may win more votes than ideologically-driven parties, but they have a shorter life-span. By co-opting their issues, the major parties bring them back into the fold of the major parties. For example, Richard Nixon moved quickly in 1968 and 1972 to adopt his "southern strategy" in order to co-opt the issues raised by George Wallace.<br /><br />The eight years and third-party percentage of the vote were: <strong>1848 </strong>(10.2), <strong>1856</strong> (21.6), <strong>1860 </strong>(30.7), <strong>1892 </strong>(10.9), <strong>1912 </strong>(35.0), <strong>1924 </strong>(17.1), <strong>1968 </strong>(13.9) and <strong>1992 </strong>(19.6).<br /><br />Ralph Nader had his day in the sun in 2000 when he won 2.7 percent of the national vote, and probably cost Gore Florida. Assuming Nader's Florida votes would have gone to Gore, Democrats would likely have won Florida without the recounts and legal challenges, which ultimately gave Florida and the White House to Bush, and left Nader with a residue of ill-will among Democrats.<br /><br />As the Energizer Bunny Ralph Nader's goal is not to win a large number of votes, but to move the Democratic Party to the left by the threat of winning just enough votes to keep Democrats out of the White House. If Democrats move to the left to appease Nader and lose the White House, he wins, and if they don't and win the White House, he still wins. In either case he has stood four-square for his ideology.<br /><br />For Nader, the Energizer Bunny, it's a win-win proposition.</div>The Chuck Dunn Reporthttp://www.blogger.com/profile/04203184377920062551noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5819650407867292050.post-68703250528072943282008-02-19T08:29:00.000-08:002008-02-19T19:22:57.115-08:00Obama's Two Achilles' Heels<div><div><div>Senator Barak Obama, now surfing on the crest of the wave of rock stardom, appears to have the Democratic presidential nomination in easy reach and a head start on winning the presidency. No candidate in the history of presidential politics has ever attracted crowds like those of a rock star. No, not John F. Kennedy. No, not Ronald Reagan. But the question comes.<br /><br />Will Senator Obama sustain his successful surfing on the crest of the wave of rock-stardom?<br /><br />If he does, he will have written a new chapter in the history of presidential campaigns. But if he does not, he will prove his subservience to the law of presidential campaign history. Here is that law:<br /><br />“Long and sustained public careers together with stable political and public policy strategies usually mark successful presidential candidates and presidents. Thus, presidents have customarily had their personal abilities, character, and policy inclinations tested along the way. The political system customarily filters out candidates with policy ideas outside the mainstream of American politics, making 'centrist' candidates and presidents the norm.” Charles W. Dunn, <strong><em>The Seven Laws of Presidential Leadership</em></strong> (Prentice-Hall, 2007).<br /><br />So what are Obama’s two Achilles' Heels?<br /><br />First, unlike all modern presidents from Franklin D. Roosevelt through George W. Bush, Senator Obama has not had a long and sustained public career. His very brief tenure in the Illinois Senate and the U.S. Senate pales when compared to the public careers of all of our presidents, notably those in the modern era.<br /><br />Second, Senator Obama has not yet faced the intense scrutiny of the high-powered media microscope. His abilities, character and policy inclinations are largely untested.<br /><br />The question becomes: Will Senator Obama become a falling star or the author of a new chapter in presidential campaign history?</div></div></div>The Chuck Dunn Reporthttp://www.blogger.com/profile/04203184377920062551noreply@blogger.com2tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5819650407867292050.post-14565105688023626402008-02-18T11:56:00.000-08:002008-02-19T19:26:12.097-08:00Bloomberg's Bubble<div><div>Has the bubble burst on Mayor Michael R. Bloomberg's third-party candidacy? If the Mayor's avoidance of the subject means anything, then the bubble has burst.<br /><br />But why?<br /><br />Certainly money is not the reason. After all Bloomberg's multi-billion dollar fortune makes Mitt Romney's multi-million dollar fortune look like a pauper's.<br /><br />If we take the Mayor at his word, he would only seek the presidency if he thought he could win. And therein he must have checked the history books.<br /><br />Between 1848 and 2004 only eight third-party candidates received more than 10 percent of the popular vote. And of the eight:<br /><br />• No one won;<br />• Only two received more than 30 percent of the vote, and<br />• And their average vote was a mere 19.9 percent.<br /><br />The eight years and third-party percentage of the vote were: <strong>1848 </strong>(10.2), <strong>1856</strong> (21.6), <strong>1860 </strong>(30.7), <strong>1892 </strong>(10.9), <strong>1912 </strong>(35.0), <strong>1924 </strong>(17.1), <strong>1968 </strong>(13.9) and <strong>1992 </strong>(19.6).<br /><br />Bloomberg's fortune didn't come by making unwise financial investments. He understands that "History is the best predictor of the future" and that "The past is prologue."<br /><br />Knowing that most Americans are politically neither far right nor far left, Bloomberg premised his candidacy on the prospect that he could appeal to the American mainstream, hoping that the Democratic and Republican Parties would nominate candidates outside the mainstream. For example, Bloomberg saw an opening for his candidacy if Democrats nominated Senator Clinton with her high negative ratings and liberal record and Republicans nominated Governor Huckabee with his conservative religious beliefs.<br /><br />Now that Senator Obama's "phenom" candidacy draws rock-star crowds and Senator McCain's appeal to independents and moderates makes him a formidable challenger to either Senator Clinton or Senator Obama, Bloomberg's bubble has burst.<br /><br />For further analysis, see: Charles W. Dunn, <strong><em>The Seven Laws of Presidential Leadership</em></strong> (Prentice-Hall, 2007).</div></div>The Chuck Dunn Reporthttp://www.blogger.com/profile/04203184377920062551noreply@blogger.com1tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5819650407867292050.post-14229910403303455112008-02-08T18:28:00.000-08:002008-02-11T13:13:30.752-08:00Al Gore on the Horizon?<div>Will the presidential sun rise on Al Gore? If the Clinton versus Obama shoot-out continues with neither emerging as the party's presumptive nominee before the Democratic National Convention, Al Gore could emerge as the Party's standard bearer. Put another way who better than Al Gore to serve as a consensus nominee to unify a potentially deadlocked Convention? Here are the reasons why Al Gore may be on the horizon.<br /><br /><strong>1. Healing Political Wounds.</strong><br /><br />Because Republicans have already begun the healing process of rallying around John McCain well in advance of their September 1-4 Convention in St. Paul, Minnesota, they could have a decided advantage over Democrats, who face the prospect of a protracted struggle, ending in a heated fight at their Convention on August 25-28, 2008 in Denver, Colorado.<br /><br />The Democratic Convention could produce a donnybrook of contested issues and possible law suits, including whether to seat the Florida and Michigan delegations, which could postpone the healing process until well into the fall campaign season, when the Party would desperately need unity to compete against John McCain, who runs well against both Clinton and Obama in early head-to-head polls.<br /><br /><strong>2. "Super Delegates" and a Bill Clinton versus Ted Kennedy Showdown. </strong><br /><br />The Democratic Party's 796 "Super Delegates" may want to sidestep a showdown between Clinton and Obama, which would require them to choose sides between their principal heavyweight sponsors, Bill Clinton and Ted Kennedy. Compromising on Al Gore might give them "the out" they need to keep from making a really tough political decision.<br /><br /><strong>3. Rectifying "The Stolen 2000 Election."</strong><br /><br />Because Democrats firmly believe that Republicans stole the 2000 presidential election from Al Gore, they could seek to rectify history by rallying around him as their 2008 nominee. <strong>N.B.</strong> He is more popular today than he was in 2000.<br /><br /><strong>4. Merits of the Al Gore Candidacy.</strong><br /><br />Al Gore has at least two assets today that he did not have in 2000:<br /><ul><li>A Nobel Prize, and</li><li>The successful launch of a popular movie, "An Inconvenient Truth."</li></ul>He has earned, particularly among Democrats and many of our nation's opinion leaders, the status of statesman. Wisely he has generally kept out of party politics and burnished his image, thereby lowering his "negative ratings" in the polls. <br /><br /><strong>5. Countering the Liabilities of Clinton and Obama.</strong><br /><br />Although Senator Clinton offers significant experience as a candidate, she has high "negative ratings," often the death knell of a political candidate. Meanwhile Senator Obama does not have high "negative ratings," but he lacks experience. Both advocate change, today's political calling card. Al Gore could combine the best of both worlds, low "negative ratings and substantial experience in a campaign touting change, for which he is particularly well suited, given his Nobel Prize and leadership of the "green" movement.<br /><br /><strong>6. Electability.</strong><br /><br />After eight years of George W. Bush, Democrats desperately want to win the White House. To achieve that most coveted goal, Al Gore may well offer them the best opportunity. So the presidential sun may yet rise on Al Gore.</div>The Chuck Dunn Reporthttp://www.blogger.com/profile/04203184377920062551noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5819650407867292050.post-19545252621803694452008-02-05T07:19:00.000-08:002008-02-05T13:00:52.947-08:00The Key that Unlocks the White House Door<div>In <font color="#ff0000">1968</font> Richard Nixon rode his "southern strategy" into the White House. In <font color="#ff0000">1976</font> Jimmy Carter rallied the South to win the nomination and then the election. In <font color="#ff0000">1980</font> Ronald Reagan began his campaign in the South, in Mississippi. In <font color="#ff0000">1988</font> George H.W. Bush carried the South against Michael Dukakis. In <font color="#ff0000">1992</font> Bill Clinton chose a fellow southerner, Al Gore, to help him win the South. In <font color="#ff0000">2000</font> George W. Bush captured the South on the way to the White House.<br /><br /><font color="#ff0000">Who will win the South in 2008?</font> That's the key that unlocks the White House door.<br /><br />Today's political pundits pontificate about Super Tuesday and the remaining primaries and caucuses. They praise Obama for his rhetorical skill and puzzle over McCain's resurrection from the dead. They agonize about Romney's fizzled campaign, and Clinton's lost momentum. They wonder why Huckabee's evangelical horse faltered and why Edwards' populist appeal never got out of the starting gate. All of that is interesting, but it misses the point.<br /><br />Who -- Democrats or Republicans -- will nominate a ticket and draft a platform that appeals to the South? That's the vital question.<br /><br />Why is the South important? James Carville would put it this way: <font color="#ff0000">"It's the Electoral College, stupid."</font> <font color="#000000">Which region of the country casts the most Electoral College votes?</font> Here it is.<br /><ul><li>189 South</li><li>124 Midwest</li><li>101 Northeast</li><li>80 West</li><li>44 Mountain States</li></ul>Because 270 Electoral votes unlocks the White House door, the party that wins the South has a head start in the race to turn the key. As the most homogenous region of the country, southerners generally reflect conservative cultural, economic, political, social and religious instincts. So the party that nominates a ticket and drafts a platform appealing to the South can expect to win the favor of the South's homogeneity.<br /><ul><li>Why did Richard Nixon adopt some of George C. Wallace's ideas?</li><li>Why did Jimmy Carter campaign against Washington and big government?</li><li>Why did Ronald Reagan appeal to states' rights?</li><li>Why did George H.W. Bush advocate a strong military?</li><li>Why did Bill Clinton choose a fellow Southern Baptist as his running mate?</li><li>Why did George W. Bush advocate compassionate conservatism?</li></ul>In each instance the winning candidates in various ways testified to their religious faith. For example, Richard Nixon associated with various evangelical leaders, such as Billy Graham, Jimmy Carter spoke of being "born again," Ronald Reagan testified not only of his faith in Christ, but also of his belief in the Genesis account of creation, George H.W. Bush gave a personal testimony of his faith in Christ, Bill Clinton regularly used biblical language and imagery, and George W. Bush spoke of trusting Christ as Savior.<br /><br /><span style="color: #000">So the important questions become:</span><br /><br /><ul><li>If either Barak Obama (Illinois) or Hillary Clinton (New York) heads the Democratic ticket, who could balance the ticket with a southern appeal?</li><li>If either John McCain (Arizona) or Mitt Romney (Massachusetts) heads the Republican ticket, who could balance the ticket by providing a southern appeal?</li><li>What should the parties have in their platforms that would appeal to the South?</li></ul>Those are the key questions to answer in deciding which party has <font color="#ff0000">"The Key that Unlocks the White House Door."<br /></font><br /></div>The Chuck Dunn Reporthttp://www.blogger.com/profile/04203184377920062551noreply@blogger.com3tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5819650407867292050.post-52383320538131735972008-01-22T07:57:00.000-08:002008-01-22T13:19:26.789-08:00Cherry Picking and Leveraging in a Civil War<div>As the possibility of a deadlocked and brokered Republican National Convention looms on the horizon, Giuliani, Huckabee, McCain, Paul and Romney must now concentrate on <strong>cherry picking delegates</strong> so as to <strong>leverage their influence</strong> in the selection of presidential and vice-presidential nominees and in drafting the platform. A winner may emerge before the Convention, but if the early primaries and caucuses foreshadow the future, each of the candidates will demonstrate strength in various regions, states and constituencies, and no winner will emerge.<br /><br />The stakes are high and not just to determine a winner, but to determine <strong>who will win the war for the heart and soul of the Party</strong>. For example, <strong>John McCain</strong> won a narrow victory over <strong>Mike Huckabee</strong> in South Carolina by appealing to more secular or non-evangelical voters and to those concerned about national defense. Conversely Huckabee lost, because he failed to appeal to those voters. Victories by <strong>Mitt Romney</strong> in Nevada and Michigan demonstrate his popularity among Mormons and with Republicans concerned primarily with economic issues. <strong>Rudy Giuliani</strong> has yet to develop a significant following, but if he does, it will probably include a combination of voters with liberal positions on social issues and others very concerned about terrorism. <strong>Fred Thompson</strong> had once appeared as the candidate most likely to bring together the various wings of the Republican Party, but his lethargic campaign foreclosed that possibility unless he emerges in a deadlocked Convention as a compromise candidate. <strong>Ron Paul</strong> appeals to the libertarian wing of the Republican Party, which may enable him to win some delegates, but to date he has not shown significant success. Thus, Republicans have four candidates with followings that may enable them to win significant blocs of delegates.<br /><br />Florida showcases an excellent opportunity for each of these four candidates. <strong>Giuliani </strong>has campaigned extensively there, especially in South Florida, home to many retirees from New York and the Northeast and also to a large Jewish population, where his pro-Israeli position may help him. <strong>Huckabee </strong>should run well among Florida's very large base of evangelical voters, while <strong>McCain </strong>comes with back-to-back victories in New Hampshire and South Carolina, which will likely provide him with momentum in appealing to voters interested in national defense and with a more secular world view. And <strong>Mitt Romney</strong> should have a strong base of support because of his victories in Michigan and Nevada together with his emergence as an advocate of change in Washington and of a new economic policy. But each has a significant question to answer.</div><br /><br /><ul><li>Can <strong>Giuliani </strong>breathe life into his campaign after his suicidal strategy of bypassing the contests in Iowa, New Hampshire, Michigan and South Carolina and can he appeal to the large evangelical voting bloc in the Republican Party?</li><li>Can <strong>Huckabee </strong>broaden his appeal beyond his evangelical constituency?</li><li>Can <strong>McCain </strong>win over rank-and-file Republicans who distrust him because of his numerous policy flirtations with various Democratic leaders in the Senate and his apparent exploration of the possibility of running as John Kerry's vice-presidential nominee in 2004? </li><li>Can <strong>Romney </strong>appeal to evangelicals and rank-and-file Republicans who remember his liberal positions on various issues when he served as Governor of Massachusetts?</li></ul>"Money, the mother's milk of politics," is in short supply among the four except for <strong>Romney</strong>, who can use his personal fortune to finance his campaign, but until he demonstrates that he can win in states other than Wyoming, Michigan and Nevada, where he had built-in advantages, he's not likely to attract a broad base of contributions. <strong>Huckabee </strong>continues to campaign on the wing of a prayer. <strong>McCain </strong>has attracted additional funding since his New Hampshire and South Carolina victories, but neither was a sufficiently convincing victory to bring in large sums from major contributors. And as for <strong>Giuliani </strong>his campaign already has senior campaign staffers working without pay.<br /><br />The Florida primary and Super Tuesday may enable a candidate to emerge as the clear front runner, but Giuliani, Huckabee, McCain and Romney have serious weaknesses to overcome, if anyone of them is to move to the head of the pack. In the meantime the Civil War for the heart and soul of the Republican Party will continue.</>The Chuck Dunn Reporthttp://www.blogger.com/profile/04203184377920062551noreply@blogger.com1