We can learn much from history for history repeats itself. If only Hitler had learned from Napoleon’s invasion of Russia, he would have kept his pact with Stalin, divided up Eastern Europe with him and concentrated on the West, invading Britain instead.  Who knows what would have happened then.

We can also learn from history about American Presidential elections. History will show us Presidential voting patterns of the nation as a whole, generalizations for sure, but useful guidelines just the same. But before that we need to know how the party machinery works. Like many other organizations, the most committed, the most zealous and the most ideological work and volunteer for a political party. Those who have a passion for the dogma of a party are the ones who staff it both with paid and volunteers. For these people the “Cause” is everything and they are devoted to the most radical interpretation of the ideology of their party. Looking at an American political party spectrum looks something like this:

1__________2__________3__________4__________5__________6__________7

1= Hard Left

2= Regular Liberal

3= Soft left

4= Centrist

5= Soft Right

6= Regular Conservative

7= Hard Right

The party workers and the party apparatus then is staffed by 1s and 2s for the Democrats and 6’s and 7’s for the Republicans. These would include local workers in the field such as precinct captains as well as a majority of primary voters. Only about 50-60 % of the general populace vote in Presidential elections. In the primaries the number drops to about 20%. The primaries then sees a majority of 1s and 2s and 6s and 7s. The party nominee has a tendency to be closer to the extreme end of the political spectrum than to the Centrist middle. But in the general election most voters are 3s, 4s and 5s. In fact the voting population as a whole shows it to be about a 4.5. These general election voters do not like hardcore more extreme nominees and they vastly out number party ideologues. Thus a candidate running for President will go through the primaries catering to the political base but in the general election will move the rhetoric closer to the center. Furthermore, we are truly a nation divided right down the middle in party affiliation and/or sympathy. The nation is 45% Democrat and 45% Republican and the 10% left are uncommitted, undecided middle of the roaders. These 10%, however, play a crucial part in the election of a President. They will mostly stay away from the extremes of either party, voting for the candidate who is closest to the middle. So if you have a 1 running versus a 5, the 5 will always win. Conversely a 7 running against a 3 will most often be a loser. Let’s take a look at post WWII Presidential elections.

1952 Dwight Eisenhower a 5 defeated Adlai Stevenson a 1- 55.2 % to 44.3% (popular vote only, as will be the rest of the comparisons). 1956 saw a repeat of the same two work out to be, Eisenhower 57.4 %, Stevenson 42%. The extreme candidate got soundly trounced. In 1960 John Kennedy a 2 barely defeated Richard Nixon a 6, 49.7% to 49.6%. 1964 saw Lyndon Johnson a 3 defeat Barry Goldwater a 1, 61.1% to 38.5%. Here again the radical got the stuffing beat out of him. In 1968 the resurrected Richard Nixona6 got 43.4 % of the vote and Hubert Humphrey a 2 – 42.8%. Notice like in 1960 when both candidates are Regular liberal/conservative nominees how close the vote is. The country is evenly divided and in both instances the centrist 10% split about evenly between the two nominees as neither was on the extreme end of their party. Notice what happens in the next election when one of the nominees is selected from the extreme end of his party. In 1972 Nixon a 6 beat George McGovern a 1 60.7% to 37.5%. It is after this election that the Democrat party changes its nomination process to include Super Delegates who are supposed to never let a McGovern happen again to embarrass the party so much. Consequently the Democrats nominated a far more moderate Presidential candidate in 1976. The Republicans also had a very centrist leaning candidate. Jimmy Carter a 3 beat Gerald Ford a 5 - 50.1% to 48.0 % , the Republicans feeling the identification with Watergate. In 1980 Ronald Reagan a 6 beat Jimmy Carter a 3 – 50.8% to 41.0%. But in this year most of the centrist voters went for a third party candidate John Anderson 6.6%. That took votes away from Carter not Reagan. 1984 saw Ronald Reagan a 6 trounce Walter Mondale a 2 - 58.8% to 40.6%. The Democrats went back to a northern liberal and a highly popular president had an easier time with him then a more centrist candidate. Some would make the case that Mondale was really a 1.5 but we refuse to split hairs here. In 1988 George Bush Sr. a 5 beat Michael Dukakis a 2 – 53.4% to 45.7%. Here the centrist candidate was Bush who was riding the coat tails of his highly successful predecessor. But notice that those coat tails did not last long. The Democrats got smart the next time and went back to a Southern more centrist Democrat rather than a committed liberal from the North. So 1992 saw William Clinton a 3 defeat incumbent Bush a 5 - 43.0% to 37.5%. Here again a third party candidate eschewed the results. Ross Perot got 18.9% of the vote taking three votes from Bush for every one for Clinton. 1996 showed the same problem, Ross Perot ran again but this time he only got 8.4 % of the vote which if they all went to the Republican would have resulted in a dead heat. But it was Clinton a 3 defeated Robert Dole a 6 - 49.2% to 40.7 %. In 2000 George Bush Jr a 6 - got 47.9% to Albert Gore’s leading 48.4 % as a 2. But here again a third party candidate Ralph Nader got 2.7% of the vote. Nader took the hard core left and cost Gore the election. In 2004 Bush running again as a 6 beat John Kerry a 1.5 50.7% to 48.3%.

There are other factors than ideology that determine a winner. Charisma, eloquence and compassion all count as characteristics that the American people look for in their Presidents. Incumbents have a distinct advantage for a second Presidential term unless they have screwed up badly. And let me make the point that the ratings you see here are subjective, they are my opinion. Your opinion may be different. But I rated them as they were perceived at the time of election not as they really were after years as President. Goldwater was perceived, whether rightly or wrongly, as a far right radical. Bill Clinton was perceived as soft left when he ran.

The point to once again make very plain is that  the majority of the party faithful, the workers and those into politics as a vocation and the way they earn a living are 1s & 2s on one side and 6s and 7s on the other. These people determine the nominees for President and supply the campaigns with money and manpower. They therefore will always try to nominate a hard core liberal on the Democrat side and a hard core conservative on the Republican side. But when it comes to the general election the 3s, 4s and 5s come out in large numbers. In fact they are more in number than the 1s, 2s, 6s &7s. The majority of the everyday American workers are “middle of the roaders”. They will vote for a slightly liberal or a slightly conservative candidate. If they were to ever get a nominee right smack in the center they would overwhelmingly vote for that person. But they won’t vote for radical, hard core ideologues and they comprise the largest segment of the electorate. So a Democrat who is a 3 is not going to vote for a Democrat who is a 1 unless the Republican choice is a 7. However if the Republican choice is a 5 he (she) will desert the Democrat Party and vote for a Republican for President while at the same time voting for all Democrats for Congress. Similarly a Republican who is a 5 is not going to vote for a Republican who is a 7 unless the Democrat choice is a 1. However, if the Democrat choice is a 3 he (she) will desert the Republican Party and vote for a Democrat for President while at the same time voting for all Republicans for Congress.

This is one of the main reasons for the success of third party candidates for President. Many Americans feel that the Presidential nomination process is flawed. They end up either not liking either candidate or voting for the lesser of two evils. Thus Anderson, Perot and to a lesser extent Nader in recent years have spoken to those centrist majority voters searching for that practical rather than doctrinaire politician. Hard core radicals do not win Presidential elections but both parties have this death wish to nominate them, especially the Democrat Party. Democrats just can’t seem to let go of their ideology long enough to nominate someone acceptable to the middle. Hubert Humphrey came within a whisker of defeating Richard Nixon in 1968. The next year the Democrats ran a far left radical against him, George McGovern, and they were swamped. Nixon to his own discredit got involved with Watergate and paid the price but many Democrats at the time said that it was foolish to nominate such a hard liner to oppose Nixon. And thus was born the rise of the Super Delegates as part of the Democrat nominating process, so that never again would the ideologues in the party make it look so foolish and inept again. So the next Democrat nominee was Jimmy Carter, a southern more centrist Democrat, at least that was how he was perceived. Then after two defeats with Northern committed Liberals Walter Mondale and Michael Dukakis the Democrats once again nominated a Southern more centrist Democrat in William Clinton and hit pay dirt.

Now we come to the 2008 Presidential election. The Republicans with a lot of help from Democrat voters have nominated John McCain a 5. The Democrats are running two 1s. They haven’t learned. But here is what’s been going down. Both Democrat nominees know that their radicalism will not fly. Hilary expected little serious opposition to her candidacy. She expected a coronation. So some two years ago, since she thought for sure that she was the nominee, she started to move to the center.  This was the remake of Clinton. Her radicalism was tempered by many speeches and position papers that moved right. This angered a lot of the party faithful who as always want that hardcore liberal radical. Many Democrats thought that Hilary was deserting her Liberalism. Along comes Obama to fill the void. But he too knows his radicalism won’t fly. So while clueing in party regulars as to his real feelings, he campaigned on a platform of Unity, Hope & Change. He said he was a liberal, a moderate and a conservative all rolled into one. He pledged to change things while being a uniter.

Much of America would like to put the history of our treatment of African American blacks behind us. We long for the day when race does not matter. And when along comes a black man running for the highest office who isn’t talking about race but about uniting all people, we release a sigh of relief and say to ourselves –“at last.” We can put an African American into the white House and have this sad chapter in our history behind us. Today starts a new day with closure and we have no trouble promoting this little known man because he is preaching centrist views with great eloquence.

But what change is he advocating? Who cares he is a good man. What will be his specific policy decisions? Well based on what he is saying how could they be so bad? What do we know about this man’s real feelings on the issues? Who cares, he’s a fresh face offering hope and change and everybody pulling together.

But then the real truth came out. Obama was really a hardcore radical, some even said a Marxist. Last time I wrote about Obama he was generally considered the third most liberal Senator. Today he is number one, the most far left Senator of them all. And much has been revealed about his associations and his views.

How liberal is he stacked against other liberals? Take the BAIPS – The Born Alive Infants Protection Act enacted to protect infants who were born alive during attempted abortions and left to die. While the bill was supported by Kerry, Kennedy and Clinton, Obama opposed it on the Illinois state level and in the US Senate. And Obama has a virtual cornucopia of socialist government programs which the cash register has totaled up to be more than a trillion dollars in cost. When in doubt try to buy votes.

What has been most revealing are this Presidential candidate’s friends and associates. Take the Reverend Jeremiah Wright who has said:

9/11 was retribution for America’s racist and unjust past

That he considers the anti-Semitic leader of the Nation of Islam, Louis Farrakhan, a friend and one of the “greatest voices” of the 20^th century.

That the government invented AIDS to exterminate Blacks

That because of their brain patterns Blacks and Whites learn differently

Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice is “Condoskeeza Rice” – a street term for whore

And Obama who has called Rev. Wright his “spiritual advisor”, his “mentor”, His “sounding board”, “one of the great preachers of America”, who included him on his campaign committee of religious advisors, who sat in his church for twenty years wants us to believe that he did not know that Rev. Wright had these extreme views, that he never heard him say anything like that! Yet he disinvited Rev. Wright from giving the invocation when the Senator announced his candidacy for the Presidency. His sermons “can get a little rough”, Obama said. Well Rev. Wright said he was there but hidden in the basement praying with the family.

Of Jeremiah Wright Obama said, “I can no more disown him than I can disown my white grandmother.” Last year Obama gave $26,000 to Trinity Church.

Faced with these revelations High UCC officials and sympathizers in the press said well these are statements taken out of context. Rev. Wright has delivered thousands of sermons with millions of words and you are cherry picking a few snippets. So I listened for days while the Hugh Hewitt radio show played Wright’s sermons in full. It didn’t change the perception. Then Rev. Wright appeared before the National Press Club and reiterated all that had been played over and over in these snippets supposedly out of context. He went on to reaffirm every one of these statements. Suddenly Obama was shocked and disowned the Reverend. But nothing new was proclaimed. It was political expediency at its worst.

Obama went on to address in San Francisco a private Democrat Party gathering. This event was closed to the public and press and Obama operatives were charged with seeing that no unauthorized persons should crash this private affair. Well one got through and recorded Obama’s words. Here amongst Party only hacks and operatives this man could let down his hair and say what he really believed. And he said that people in America’s heartland were bitter and clung to their guns and their Bibles.

Next was revealed his relationship with unrepentant terrorists William Ayers and his wife Bernadine Dohrn former members of the Weather Underground who helped to bomb government facilities. Obama says they were not close friends and barely knew each other. Yet both served together on the Board of the Woods Fund for years. They made speeches together. Obama launched his Congressional campaign with a fund raiser at the home of Ayers and Dohrn. But the cross association goes back to 1988 when Michelle Obama an associate of the Sidley Austin law firm of Chicago was assigned to mentor an intern named Barack Obama. Also at that law firm was Bernadine Dohrn.

Ayers and Obama through the Woods Fund were to give $75,000 to prominent Israel basher and Arafat apologist Rahid Khalidi who many say has ties to the PLO. Khalidi was to return the favor by hosting a fund raiser for Obama. Later Obama, Ayers and Dohrn attended a goodbye party for Khalidi.

Now some might say that this is an attempt to prove guilt by association. Yet who you hang around with, your friends, says a lot about you. Obama comes from Academia and like Adlai Stevenson he is a product of college hard left teachings. This tradition is anti American, anti Israel and socialist. And that is precisely what Obama’s associates are. Rev. Wright constantly trashes America and has made a point of visiting Castro’s Cuba and Col. Muammar Gaddafi’s Libya. In a 2001 interview with the New York Times, Ayers is quoted as saying, “I don’t regret setting bombs, I feel we didn’t do enough.” In a reunion of aging radicals in 2007 Ayers and Dohrn were outspoken in their hatred for America. Michelle Obama said, “For the first time in my adult life, I am proud of my country.” 

These are not the positions and the kind of talk which resonates with the average American. Most Americans will look on these statements and these positions as abnormal, fringe, extremist, radical and unacceptable. Middle of the Roaders are not attracted to such views.

The American people need to know all about a Presidential nominee. He should be properly vetted before he has gathered the majority of the primary delegates. This is especially true with a little known new face. The job of the press is to investigate and report. And they have been so busy being cheerleaders for the Obama campaign that they have failed to do their job. Facts coming out to light now probably would have headed off an Obama victory from the start. Many Democrats admit off the record that they know Obama will lose badly. But they will not deny him the nomination because of the large amount of new people he has brought into the party, many who have never voted before. And because Obama’s list of donors are mostly all small contributors, their names cannot be made public and those names remain under the strict control of Obama. The Democrat party cannot afford to lose all these new voters and will let Obama run and hope that those supporters will be back next time for whoever the nominee is. Meanwhile Hilary will openly support Obama but behind the scenes will do everything in her power to see he is defeated. For you see with the Clintons it is all about the Clintons and everybody else be dammed. Hilary looks to 2012 when she can say “I told you so” now nominate me this time.

It is this strangle hold that the far left has on the Democrat party that hurts its chances of winning the Presidency. This year looks to be a Democrat year. The Republicans had the power and fiddled while Rome burned. The American people are in the mood to give the other guy a chance. Democrats are poised to make significant gains in the House and Senate. And they could have easily had the Presidency too if they would have nominated someone more moderate.   A Joe Biden of Delaware or a Tim Kaine of Virginia would have beaten any Republican easily.

Meanwhile McCain as a 5 should be a shoe in to be our next President. The American people are not going to elect a radical extremist to be President. They are not going to install as Commander In Chief of our armed forces a person who hates America. But never put it past the power of a Republican to lose an election. I have written John McCain and advised him that if he truly should want to be the unity candidate that he should select as his Vice President Joe Lieberman. But McCain having no understanding of how a Capitalist economy works, being a poor speaker and a mumbler stumbler can stick his foot in his mouth so badly that Obama will breeze right by him if he is not careful.