So We Got “Fear Itself”

The political heirs of President Franklin Roosevelt have turned his most famous inaugural phrase on itself 75 years later. On March 4, 1933, FDR reassured Americans that “that the only thing we have to fear is fear itself.” That hour was a moment of maximum national anxiety. Outgoing President Herbert Hoover had not, in the waning hours of his single-term presidency, been able to stem the mounting banking crisis. Everything seemed hopeless. For perhaps the only time in modern American history, there were serious signs and talk of some kind of “revolution.” Roosevelt’s phrase articulated hope at the same time it dashed the national anxiety with common sense.

Many of the liberal Democrats today (and to be fair, some Republicans), however, have adopted a whole amalgam of issues, under the rubric of environmentalism, which are based on fear itself. They have misleadingly contended that their concerns are based solely on science, and therefore irrefutable. This has been developing for some time, and initially these were not political issues. Remember the controversy over DDT, brought on by Rachel Carson’s book “Silent Spring?” Pesticides were, it was claimed, irrefutably carcinogens. A series of issues subsequently arose, most of them “proven” by scientific evidence, and gradually environmentalism became a political issue. I remember, for example, the brief fear that cranberries were dangerous to eat, because of alleged radiation (based on a “scientific” study). It turns out that cranberries are one of the most healthful fruits to consume. DDT has now been shown NOT to cause cancer, but only after decades of banning DDT pesticides in Africa, with the result that tens of millions have died there from hunger and malaria.

The newest environmental “scientific” cause has been so-called “global warming.” The world was told that overwhelming and irrefutable scientific evidence confirmed that the fact of the (temporary) melting of the Arctic polar caps was caused by man-made industrial pollution of carbon dioxide, and that unless the world’s leading industrial nations voluntarily cease their activity, the world is doomed. It turns out that much of the “scientific” evidence was doctored, that short periods of alternating global warming and cooling are normal and natural, that the connection between melting ice caps and industrial production is NOT irrefutably proven, and finally, that the motivations behind the “global warming” movement are not primarily scientific and humanitarian, but are primarily political; specifically, the redistribution of the world’s wealth and productive capacity. It is important, however, to point out that not all environmental concerns and environmentalist claims are bogus. When the action was taken many years ago to reduce lead levels in gasoline, the quality of the air was dramatically improved as was national health. Tobacco smoke does cause cancer and heart disease, and the restrictions on smoking have clearly improved national and international health. Industrial smoke and chemicals, the use of asbestos, and other toxic materials have also been restricted to the undeniable benefit to workers and urban society. Vaccines and medicine have made extraordinary gains against previously uncontrollable epidemics and disease.

International organizations, most notably the United Nations, have joined the efforts of the bogus environmentalists to try to impose a redistribution of global industrial wealth and activity. Is it any surprise that this is so when the U.N. is controlled by the very nations which stand to gain economically and politically by this redistribution? Does the United Nations have any credibility when its own Commission on Human Rights is controlled by the very countries in the world who are committing the worst abuses of human rights on their own populations?

Most persons in the world are not scientifically trained and expert. There is a need for credibility and common sense when scientific claims are made. Citizens of the world have a right to know what are the motivations and consequences of environmental “movements.” Arrogant manipulation, elitism, and bullying have no place in the international community, especially when it hides behind the rhetoric of science.

All of us are susceptible to normal anxieties and concerns. The world of today, with all of its true scientific advance, still holds many dangers, vulnerabilities and threats. We need to act to diminish these threats and problems when we can. But “fear itself” is no cause for action. When we act out of fear alone, we almost always make matters worse.

The Tea Party Mood

Although there was some controversy about the Tea Party meeting in Nashville because its organizers made it a for-profit event, and it was expensive to attend, there should be no serious illusions that the grassroots movement it represents, at least in part, is a movement spent of its energy, ambition and ability to shake up the political establishment.

Since it is not a political party, nor even an organization with membership cards, dues and strict definitions of its beliefs and goals, there is no real way at this time to measure the true Tea Party impact on current politics. In the Illinois GOP gubernatorial primary just concluded, for example, there were two serious candidates who appealed to Tea Party voters. Predictably, they split that constituency, but if there had only been one candidate, their combined totals suggest that a Tea Party candidate would now be the Republican nominee for governor.

Former Alaska Governor Sarah Palin, herself a figure already prematurely dismissed by many as a spent force in American politics, was the keynote speaker at the Tennessee meeting, and her remarks indicate she continues to be one of the most tuned-in politicians in the U.S. to the undercurrents of the public mood.

President Obama, ironically, is the best political personality going for the Tea Party. His continued refusal to adapt his agenda to the hard facts of the special election in Massachusetts, the gubernatorial elections in Virginia and New Jersey last year, and now the overwhelming contemporary trend of poll numbers coast-to coast constantly refuels the voter discontent which is the engine of the Tea Party movement.

I have already predicted that Mr. Obama will change his tune soon enough, but instead of changing it on his terms, his delay will make his actions seem desperate and insincere. This is the price he is paying for being a political amateur, in fact (as I have also written in this space previously) the first amateur president of the United States.

To be fair, the organization of the Tea Party is a bottom-up populist phenomenon, and thus an “amateur” movement itself, but it does not bear any responsibility to govern (as do presidents, governors, senators and house members). The Republican Party is the natural heir to the results of the Tea Party movement, but except in Massachusetts, we have little hard evidence yet that the GOP knows how to fully harness this grass roots energy to its political advantage, especially with so many party elders and conservative pundits putting the movement down.

Let’s cut to the rhetorical chase. The Tea Party has arisen because of the ideas, behavior and agenda of the Obama administration and its far left base in the Democratic Party. Tea Party folks are utterly opposed to government-run healthcare and the other radical “social-democratic” laws and programs now proposed and promised ahead.

Mark these words, the longer Mr. Obama, Mrs. Pelosi and Mr. Reid insist on their agenda, the more rapidly not only will the conservative Tea Party grow, but so will a separate movement among unaffiliated centrist independent voters, many of whom voted Democratic in 2006 and 2008. Rhetorical disguise and costumes will not alter this reality. (Mardi Gras will be over soon.)

The only ones who can rescue the Democratic Party now are its centrist leaders in the Congress and in the state capitals. So far, they have shown little gumption or imagination, and have been rolled over again and again by their more radical colleagues. Apparently, they have a delayed sense of survival because in the election this November coming, it will not be the most liberal politicians (most of them in safe urban districts and states) who will be the first to go. It will instead be these silent centrists, just trying to get along with their noisy and presumptuous more liberal colleagues.

This is what happens to invertebrate politicians, and to regimes which do not seek the consent of the governed.

Obama Did Not “Pivot”, But He Will

President Obama made an empty State of the Union speech, short on new ideas, and long on old rhetoric. He did not “pivot” on the critical issues, that is to say, he did not draw on any lessons from President Clinton’s experiences in 1994, and decide to go to the operative political center on healthcare, trade, domestic legislation and foreign policy.

It was a “brave front” type of speech, the kind which says “I am following the policies I believe in even if they are not popular.” The problem with this approach, however, is not simply that his agenda is unpopular, but that it is wrong-headed as well. No matter what political “sweetmeats” or other favors he offers senators and congresspersons, he no longer has the votes for his agenda. Democratic incumbents can easily see the electoral handwriting on the wall, and nearly all of them are not ready for premature involuntary retirement by angry voters.

So now there will be a period of verbal maneuvering and grandstanding by the Democratic leadership until what is obvious to the rest of us even becomes clear to them as well. In the meantime, opinion polls will continue to disclose diminished support for most incumbent Democrats, increased numbers for Republican challengers, and a persistent decline of the president’s popularity. This may not go in exactly a straight line, but over the spring and summer the numbers for the majority party will be bad news.

At the same time, the unprecedented grassroots organizing effort for the conservatives will grow. The upset special U.S. senate election in Massachusetts demonstrates that conservative voters will not be applying so many “purity” tests that Democrats and their media followers have predicted. Yes, there will be battles. For example, Congressman Rubio will probably prevail in Florida, as will Governor Perry in Texas. Other conservatives will likely win in primary contests with establishment moderates in some race across the country. In other cases, especially in centrist states, the moderates will win. Almost all Republicans, however, will express conservative economic ideas in November.

This presents the Democrats with a much more formidable challenge. They had counted on a weak, unorganized and polarized-to-the-far-right opposition. They thought they could win the battles of 2010 with rhetoric, as they had done in 2008.

Almost a month ago (before Massachusetts), I wrote in The Prairie Editor that the GOP could pick up 12 senate seats and 55 house seats. Most of my readers, including conservative Republicans, probably thought I was daft. (I did request that no one call 9-1-1.) Now I notice that many of my colleagues are suggesting the potential for similar outcomes.( I may have even understated the numbers!)

At some point, cooler and savvier heads in the Democratic Party will prevail over the amateur “true believer” crowd now in charge of strategy, and President Obama WILL pivot.

Otherwise, the voters will clean Congress as it not has ever done before.

Waiting For Norman in Minnesota

Former U.S. Senator Norman Coleman, only months from a controversial recount of his 2008 senate re-election race, a recount in which his opponent “magically” gained enough votes from questionable sources to defeat him, is back in the center of conversation of Minnesota politics. This time he is a putative candidate for governor in a race that is wide open, and notably lacking in favorites in either party.

Recent polls show Coleman leading any of the other Republican hopefuls for the top state executive job, but trailing another former U.S. senator, Democrat (DFLer) Mark Dayton should they win their party’s nomination and face each other in November.

A little history is in order here. Coleman lost the race for governor in 1998 to Jesse Ventura, a celebrity amateur politician, who ran on the Independence Party ticket that year. (He outpolled his former boss, DFL Attorney General Skip Humphrey in that race.) Coleman, originally a DFLer, switched parties in 1997. For two full terms, he was the very successful mayor of the state’s capital city St. Paul. In 2002, he announced again for governor, but Vice President Dick Cheney, speaking for the White House, called to persuade him to switch to the senate race against then-incumbent DFLer Paul Wellstone. A few days before the election that year, with the race too close to call, Wellstone was tragically killed in a campaign plane accident, and even though the DFL substituted former Vice President Walter Mondale for Wellstone, Coleman won.

A natural executive with no previous legislative experience, Coleman performed well in the senate, associating himself often with the moderate wing of the party. A long-time prolifer, Coleman did not arouse anger among social conservatives, but as a vote against drilling in Alaska, for the bank bailouts, and for stimulus legislation, the economically conservative wing of the GOP became increasingly unhappy with him. In 2008, facing a grassroots surge for the Obama candidacy in the state, and a third-party candidate who got 16% of the vote, Coleman was only about 700 votes ahead the day after the election. Correcting for errors, this

was reduced to about 300 votes before an official recount began. Combining inept legal counsel and strategy of his own, aggressive and smart tactics by his opponent, an embarrassingly unfair recount led to his eventual defeat.

It was then thought by most political observers (including this one) that Coleman’s electoral career in politics was over. He had been the target of many bitter attacks by his opponent in 2008 (many of them unfair, including attacks on his family), and after 30 years of public service, being over 60 years old, and having limited financial resources, it seemed to make sense for him to take a lucrative job in the private sector.

Two matters have intervened. First, a truly ideal job has so far eluded Coleman (not surprising in this weak economy), and his friend Governor Tim Pawlenty decided to retire, presumably to run for president in 2012. With the possibility that Minnesota might lose a congressional seat, and the certainly that state will be redistricted in 2012, holding the governorship has become critical to the state GOP for survival. Nevertheless, being shut out of the governor’s residence for 20 years (with all the patronage and influence that accompanies it), had made the DFL the odds-on favorite to win the race in 2010.

A third factor has now intervened. The DFL field has 3-5 major candidates, but no overwhelming favorite. Even if one DFLer gets party endorsement, there will be a bitter and expensive primary only seven weeks before election day. Finally, national momentum has shifted sharply so far this year against the liberal Democrats, and in races all across the country, Republicans are now favored to win.

The GOP gubernatorial field, objectively speaking, is on its surface weak at best. One of the major candidates, the only woman in the race, has already pulled out, anticipating Coleman’s entry. The two remaining major candidates are state legislator Tom Emmer and state house minority leader Marty Siefert. Each are talented, each have serious political vulnerabilities, and neither are well-known. The fact that Coleman leads each of them by 5 to 1 margins in polls with only months to go before election day makes this assertion indisputable.

What is disputable, however, is how strong Coleman is with his party’s grassroots, and with the GOP political class in the state that will be necessary to fund and staff his campaign. Conservatives are visibly angry with Coleman, and could run a candidate of their own in November.

Coleman’s dilemma, then, is how to enter the race in a positive and credible way, and to have a plan for his party’s nomination without, if possible, a primary, or, if not possible, not creating the kind of intraparty conflicts which the DFL now seems heading for in September.

Considering the passions, ideological pronouncements and the impact of national politics this year, it seems a very daunting, if impossible, political dilemma for this well-known Minnesota political figure. But time is running out for a decision, perhaps only a few days or a week or two at the most. His entry into the race, while now seemingly likely, is not inevitable.

In a 30-year career of public service, marked by controversy and triumph, accomplishment and defeat, this will be the greatest test of his durability and his political survival.

BOOK REVIEW: Presidential Medical Secrets: The Most Disturbing of All?

While gossip mavens love to write about or read about the sexual and other private peccadillos of presidents of the United States, there is another aspect of presidential private lives that is much more pertinent in consideration of executive performance in our political history. That is the question of the medical (including the psychological) condition of the chief executive/commander-in-chief of the national armed forces, and the historical occurrence of secrecy and cover-up when a president is seriously or grievously ill.

Most of the time, the secrets come to light only after the term, or after the death, of a president.

The first presidential medical crisis was not a secret, nor a cover-up, but a case of colossal misjudgment. On inauguration day, March 4, 1841, newly-elected President William Henry Harrison (nicknamed “Tippecanoe” after the famous battle he had won as a general) decided to deliver his very long inaugural address on a bitterly cold Washington, DC day without an overcoat. He subsequently caught pneumonia, and a month later, died. (One might say it was the antithesis of a cover-up.) In any event, the Harrison campaign slogan “Tippecanoe and Tyler, Too!” was unexpectedly fulfilled when John Tyler became the first vice president in U.S. history to succeed prematurely, albeit constitutionally, to the presidency.

Numerous secret medical crises have confronted U.S. presidents since, including a possible undiagnosed case of Marfan’s Disease for Abraham Lincoln, the severe alcoholism of Andrew Johnson, the cover-up of Grover Cleveland’s secret surgery for cancer of the jaw on a naval battleship, Woodrow Wilson’s incapacitating stroke which made his wife the de facto president for almost two years, the circumstances in the sudden and premature death of Warren Harding, cover-ups of medical conditions and surgeries of Dwight Eisenhower and Lyndon Johnson, and the complete suppression of the facts by John F. Kennedy when he took office with then-fatal Addison’s Disease that had also made him, in effect, a drug addict.

But the latest revelation of presidential medical cover-ups may be the most serious of all of in historical risks and consequences for the nation.

“FDR Deadly Secret” by Steven Lomazow, M.D. and Eric Fettman (Public Affairs, 2010) is an extraordinary medical detective story that will force some re-evaluation of the nation’s longest-serving president. Roosevelt was sworn in for this fourth term on January 20, 1945. Less than two months later, the generally beloved “war president” (age only 63) died of a cerebral hemorrhage in his retreat at Warm Springs, Georgia, and Vice President Harry Truman took his place. Roosevelt’s physicians, including his primary caregiver, Rear Admiral Ross McIntyre, cited hypertension as the cause of death. Although Roosevelt’s physical condition had dramatically deteriorated since 1943, McIntyre and Roosevelt himself had repeatedly reassured the public that his health was good.

In fact, as authors Lomazow and Fettman conclusively demonstrate in their book, the president was grievously ill from 1940 on, and almost certainly knew most of the extent of his condition, as did the physicians taking care of him. Roosevelt’s immediate cause of death was the cerebral hemorrhage, and he did have severe (“uncontrolled” his physician admitted in 1970) hypertension, but Roosevelt’s underlying conditions of metastatic skin cancer (melanoma) and congestive heart failure were kept from public view for at least five years.

(Technically, although Lomazow is a distinguished neurologist and Fettman a very credible historical journalist, their contentions are theoretical, and they say so, because all pertinent medical records were destroyed or suppressed. Nevertheless, the first-hand testimony of so many involved, and the brilliant medical detective work of the authors makes their scenario accurate, in my opinion, beyond a reasonable doubt.)

In fact, on the day before (in 1944) when he informed the Democratic National Committee that he would run for the unprecedented fourth term, the book’s authors point out that Roosevelt had been told unambiguously and forcefully by his doctors that he could not survive a new term. Records of this do exist.

The precedent for the cover-up of his desperate medical condition, of course, had been set at the outset of his presidency when Roosevelt, his entourage, and the entire national media participated in the total cover-up of his paralysis following a bout with poliomyelitis in 1923. Hard as it may seem to believe today, most of the nation was unaware that the president of the United States was crippled. My father, a general practitioner and lifelong admirer of Roosevelt, first noticed this in October, 1932 when (New York) Governor Roosevelt passed through his home city of Erie, Pennsylvania on a campaign stop. Having succeeded in the most amazing (and for the media, willing) medical cover up in presidential history to that point, Roosevelt no doubt felt that he could succeed in a much more serious cover-up a decade later.

The authors of “FDR’s Deadly Secret” are telling a medical story, and as admirers of Roosevelt the politician, but they cannot avoid the conclusion that the president’s fourth term bid was a fraud from its outset, and a terrible risk for a nation still at war. They also point out that, contrary to popular opinion, Roosevelt wanted to keep Vice President Henry Wallace (a far leftist and a mystic) on the ticket in 1944. Roosevelt only agreed to name Truman after he was informed that the Democratic convention would likely refuse to renominate Wallace, or at the least, it would split the Democratic Party. His choice of Truman, the evidence suggests, was not because Roosevelt foresaw Truman as the excellent president he became, but because Truman would be the most acceptable to the convention and likely to hold the party together.

The book suggests that Roosevelt was informed that he had a malignant melanoma inlate circa 1940. A large mole on his forehead had appeared in the 1920’a, but had
undergone acute changes circa 1939. Photographs in the book show the changing mole and its disappearance (by surgery) over the next two years. Although there was no autopsy of the president in 1945, and no records of a melanoma diagnosis survive, the book plausibly shows that this deadly skin cancer had probably spread to the president’s brain and stomach prior to the 1944 election.

Furthermore, the authors conclusively prove that Roosevelt had been diagnosed with never-publicly disclosed congestive heart disease in this same period, and that he had a series of undisclosed heart “events”, also prior to 1944. This book also reveals that the president spent much of his last year and a half in office sleeping up to 12-18 hours a day, and only occasionally fully engaged in his duties. His physicians, staff, colleagues and family all participated in a massive concealment of Roosevelt’s condition although only the president himself and three or four physicians caring for him knew the whole extent of his illnesses.

As is well-known, Roosevelt only met with Truman privately once after January 20, 1945, and that the vice president was mostly in the dark about many issues facing the nation at war after his nomination, including most notoriously, the existence of the top-secret Manhattan Project developing the first atomic bomb. A few months after taking office and learning about the secret bomb project, Truman had to make the momentous decision of whether to drop two atomic bombs on Japan.

In recent years, a number of biographies of Roosevelt and other histories of his era, most notably Doris Kearns Goodwin’s excellent “No Ordinary Time” (1994), have increasingly mentioned in passing Roosevelt’s medical “secrets” and a few of them have cited reports of a possible melanoma, noting the disappearance of the mole over FDR’s left eyebrow. Some of these books have also analyzed the impact of the heart disease on Roosevelt’s executive performance, particularly at Yalta. Lomazow and Fettman’s book, however, is the first to concentrate on the medical facts, and to trace the evidence to a “beyond a reasonable doubt” conclusion of the skin cancer metastasis as both the principle cause of FDR’s dramatic physical decline and death. That new material, plus the exhaustive demonstration of a
massive cover up that has continued to the present day, is what makes this book so valuable.

By today’s standards, all of this cover-up is unthinkable, and with the frequent appearances of a president live and on camera, close to impossible. In 1945, my father who, as I previously noted, had met Roosevelt briefly in 1932, had become commandant of the base army hospital (Arlington Hall) at General Marshall’s headquarters in Virginia. Although he treated Marshall and his wife on occasion, my father did not treat the president, nor did he see him up close in person. But he did see him in newsreels, and he remarked then to my mother and later to me that he knew Roosevelt was very ill. And so did intuitively virtually all who met with him from 1943-44 on, especially those who had known Roosevelt before the war. Nevertheless, Roosevelt’s own insistence, and that of his personal physicians, convinced most to accept that his ghastly appearance was simply the result of fatigue and the stresses of the war and his duties as president.

Franklin Delano Roosevelt was a major president in American history. He developed an unprecedented bond with a majority of voters while in office as a result of his efforts during the Depression of the 1930’s. He skillfully guided the nation into its role as the defender of democracy and Western civilization before and after December 7, 1941. A case can be made that he was the indispensable man to be president for a third term in 1941 when the rest of the world was at war. In late, 1944, however, with the war clearly coming to an end, he was no longer indispensable, and his inability function daily as president put the nation and our war effort at huge risk. His performance at the Yalta Conference in 1944 has been virtually universally criticized. The failure of this Conference, many contend, prolonged the ensuing Cold War (which ended finally in 1991). The current constitutional limit of two terms was instituted following FDR’s terms.

As the case of President Franklin Roosevelt and this book show, anyone in the most powerful executive position in the free world too long is likely to lose his or her good judgment.

Teaching the Free World (and the Totalitarian One) a Lesson; Gracias, Honduras

Brave little Honduras has become the modern David, teaching the Goliath nations of our time an inspiring message about the power of freedom, and the endurance of democratic capitalism when faced with formidable obstacles. The recent free elections in the Central American nation have ended a prolonged crisis when its elected president decided to defy the Honduran constitution and stay in power beyond the time legitimately allowed.

When he did this, he not only violated a specific constitutional law, he automatically defaulted on his claim to office. To their credit, the Honduran congress and supreme court acted promptly to remove him, per the constitutional mandate, and replace him with an interim government headed by someone from his own party.

They did make one mistake, however. Instead of jailing the deposed president and trying him for his crime, the interim government acted wisely and humanely by sending him out of the country. They did this to avoid unnecessary bloodshed, and to ease the transition to a new government following an immediately-scheduled free election.

Apparently, acting wisely and humanely is not a good course in today’s world. Sr. Zelaya, the deposed president, is a neo-Marxist, anti-democratic politician who sought to establish a totalitarian regime in Honduras, imitating the regimes of his friends and allies in Cuba, Venzeuela, Nicaragua and Bolivia. He took advantage of the generosity of the Honduran interim government to try to bully his way back to power, using misinformation and other propaganda to assist him. There was no surprise when his totalitarian friends backed him, alleging wrongly that a military coup had removed him, but there was a surprise when U.S. President Obama joined this unholy cabal to call for his reinstatement. The financial influence of the U.S. over Honduras is immense, and many observers in the U.S. and world media expected the interim government (and the majority of the Honduran people who backed it) to cave in.

But brave little Honduras did not cave in. The interim government acted impeccably and kept their promise to hold the immediate election. Sr. Zelaya called on his supporters to boycott the election, but the voter turnout was apparently greater than the previous election in which Zelaya had won! The candidate from Zelaya’s party lost, but he acted graciously and patriotically in embracing the victor, a conservative farmer/businessman who won with more than 50% of the large turnout. The various international organizations and leaders which had supported Zelaya were faced by an undisputedly fair and free election, and many of them have now rallied to the president-elect.

The usual totalitarian suspects, of course, still make laughable claims for Sr. Zelaya. President Lula of Brazil, an emerging and successful new economic power in South America, unfortunately has continued his support of Zelaya, disappointing many of his own Brazilian supporters, as well as his admirers in the rest of the world. As long as he continues to do so, and to shelter Sr. Zelaya in its embassy in Tegucigalpa, Brazil is wasting a superb opportunity to show that its recent economic success (as a capitalist democracy) merits leadership in the political life of the Western Hemisphere.

The free world owes the congress, supreme court and interim government of Honduras a very large debt for its courageous leadership, and the Honduran people for their indomitable resistance to threatening tyranny.

Meanwhile, President Obama and Secretary of State Clinton have wisely accepted the reality of Honduran politics, and finally broken with their totalitarian co-conspirators. They have endorsed the election results, and say they will resume normal relations with Honduras.

The U.S. radical left, of course, is disappointed. But even the Old Media, which had apologized and rationalized the original U.S. policy, is rapidly reversing itself. Perhaps most notable of this phenomenon is the current and embarrassing attempt by that lame duck of American journalism, The Washington Post, to fill its op ed columns and editorials with absurd “Animal Farm” revisionism that claims the Obama policy was right all along. Since I am a long-time admirer of the outstanding Post media critic Howard Kurtz, I hope he is allowed to write about this latest lapse of journalistic integrity and credibility at his newspaper.

It’s Not too Early to Think About the….. 2012 Vice President?

There are many aspects of the U.S. presidential campaigns which could be importantly improved. In the last cycle of 2008, I joined with former Speaker Newt Gingrich and others in an appeal to reform the presidential debates. Although none of our reforms were accepted in the 2008 format, the debate moderator often intervened to produce more back-and-forth discussion by the candidates, something we had especially called for. I hope that, at this very early point in the planning for the 2012 debates, the producers and the candidates will consider formalizing this and other changes in the debate format.

There is another issue which I would like to raise this early in the process. It is the issue of the timing of the naming of the vice presidential candidate. In the 2012 race, of course, the Democratic side already has its vice presidential nominee, the current Vice President Joe Biden. So my suggestions would apply this time only to the Republicans, but I mean them to apply to both parties when there is not an incumbent vice president running for re-election.

The problem, as I see it, is that the nominees of each party wait until a few days before their respective conventions before announcing their vice presidential choice. More often than not in recent years, this has produced problems for both parties.

Until the television, and now internet, age, of course, this procedure seemed to work relatively well. Presidential nominees generally chose safe and often obscure candidates for reasons of geographical, ideological and other political reasons, but the vice presidential office itself seemed less important than it does today, and vice presidents traditionally suffered silently in the shadow of the president who selected them. After World War II, and the death of four-term President Roosevelt, however, the public and the media took increasing interest in the office. President Harry Truman had become vice president when Roosevelt made a last-minute change in 1944, replacing incumbent Vice President Henry Wallace. Two months after the 1945 inauguration, Roosevelt died and the “unknown” Truman was the leader of the nation and the free world. History indicates that was a fortuitous result (especially in light of Wallace’s radical and unstable views), but subsequent choices were often problematic, either in the presidential campaign itself or later.

Truman’s choice of Alben Barkley was relatively harmless, but there was little indication that he was really prepared to assume the presidency. Dwight Eisenhower’s choice of Richard Nixon faced a scandal soon after his name was announced, but he survived it with his famous “Checkers” speech. Although Nixon later was elected president, and accomplished some important things in foreign policy, he finally had to resign his office because of Watergate. Nixon’s own vice president, Spiro Agnew, had taken bribes as an official in Maryland, but this did not come out until years later, and he, too, had to resign. 1964 GOP nominee Barry Goldwater chose Congressman William Miller for his veep, but he was unknown and little help to the GOP campaign against President Lyndon Johnson and his popular veep choice of Hubert Humphrey. In 1972, Democrat George McGovern’s vice presidential choice, Thomas Eagleton, was revealed to have had mental treatment soon after being named, and finally had to resign only days before the Democratic convention. In 1976, both nominees chose already nationally-known running mates, Bob Dole and Walter Mondale without any problems. In 1980, Ronald Reagan did the same with George H. W. Bush, but in 1984, Mondale now his party’s presidential nominee selected Congresswoman Geraldine Ferraro, the first woman candidate, but there were problems with her husband’s finances, and this affected the Democratic ticket adversely. In 1988, George H.W. Bush, now his party’s presidential nominee, picked an unknown Indiana senator Dan Quayle, and was immediately criticized for the choice. Although Quayle’s treatment by the media was often unfair, and he did not excel in his campaign appearances, the ticket won. But in 1992, Democratic nominee Bill Clinton chose well-known Al Gore to be his running mate and defeated Bush-Quayle. In 1996, former GOP veep nominee Bob Dole became a presidential nominee, and picked the familiar figure of Jack Kemp as his running mate. In 2000, George W. Bush selected experienced but relatively unknown former Congressman Dick Cheney for veep, and Democratic nominee selected Joe Lieberman. Since the final result was the closest in history, and the most controversial, it could be argued that, among other factors, the vice presidential choices determined the outcome (although it must be noted that Gore-Lieberman won the popular vote by more than half a million votes).

Walter Mondale had assumed a significant new role as vice president in 1980, and this continued with both Vice Presidents Al Gore and Dick Cheney. Vice presidential nominees (and vice presidents) frequently become presidential nominees. Today, the candidates for vice president are rightfully examined almost as closely as the presidential candidates.

In 2004, Democratic nominee John Kerry chose his senate colleague and major opponent, John Edwards to be his running mate. As with Spiro Agnew, an existing scandal involving Edwards did not become known during the campaign, nor during the 2008 election when Edwards ran again for president, but the scandal did come out later and has destroyed his political career. Sarah Palin was John McCain’s choice in 2008, and like Dan Quayle was often treated unfairly by the press. She was named at the last-minute, and most of her problems in the campaign arose from her inexperience on the national stage.

My point is that naming a vice presidential choice a week or two, or a few days, before a presidential convention carries unnecessary risk. Interestingly, it was Ronald Reagan in 1976, fighting a close contest with President Gerald Ford, who came up with a better approach. He did it for short-term political reasons. Trailing Ford early in the primaries, Reagan chose Pennsylvania Senator Richard Schweiker to be on his ticket long before the traditional time, and during the primary season. Although he ultimately lost to Ford, the strategy helped Reagan.

In short, I am suggesting that the presidential candidates for both parties name their vice presidential choices early in the campaign. This gives the public and the media plenty of time for vetting the candidate, and avoids last-minute political problems that have often plagued presidential campaigns. It has the added benefit of enabling the presidential and vice presidential nominees to get to know one another, and to find the best way the vice presidential nominee can help in the final part of the campaign against the opposing party. A third benefit is that it gives the vice presidential nominee valuable national campaign experience.There is little downside to this new procedure, even as the old way, with Google-type searches and a myriad of blogs, is increasingly fraught with the political danger.