WHAT SHOULD I WRITE?

By Edwin Cooney

I dropped into my favorite watering hole the other night and, low and behold, there was my friend Chuck finishing his pizza and beer.

Chuck, aside from being a devoted husband and a very competent professional structural engineer, is one of you -- a reader of these weekly musings.

“I don’t know exactly what I’m going to write about this week, Chuck,” I moaned.

“Well,” said Chuck, “if you don’t know what you’re going to write about this week, why not write about what you’d be doing if you didn’t have a column to write!”

My response was absolutely brilliant.  It was “hmmm, what an idea!”

I once knew a preacher, Pastor Mark, who, when he’d get a case of "sermon block," would write an “open letter” to God as his sermon in search for divine guidance.  That’s not an option for me, not because I don’t believe in God, but because I strongly believe that God expects me to do my own work, just as God does God’s work.  However, I was born with something of an imagination as well as with a capacity for creativity that I like to believe is God-given, so here’s what I imagine!

I generously fly to Boston to lend GOP presidential nominee Mitt Romney a hand. After all, Mitt’s problems are only beginning.

“It’s mighty non-partisan and even patriotic of you to drop in like this, Edwin, as I’m at the end of my rope with respect to two issues,” the handsome and articulate governor would greet me.  "First, what can I say about those ugly stories the Obama camp is passing around about my overseas bank accounts?  Second, who should I choose as my running mate?  Chris Christie of New Jersey is too fat and too sharp-tongued.  Marco Rubio of Florida is as inexperienced as Barack Obama was four years ago.  Former Minnesota Governor Tim Pawlenty is a solid enough citizen, but the last guy from Minnesota to run for Vice President, Walter Mondale, lost.  I’d like to nominate Condi Rice because she’d get me the 2008 Hillary Clinton vote better than Sarah Palin did for McCain.  However, Rush Limbaugh, Sean Hannity and Mark Levin would spend the rest of the campaign calling me names my wife Ann would never get over.  Who should I pick?”

“Well, sir,” I’d respond, "as for your bank accounts, simply admit that they exist and that your goal as president will be to see to it that everyone in America has one of those accounts by the end of your first term.”

“Come on, Edwin, do you really think the American people would swallow that?” Governor Romney would respond with considerable incredulity.

“Certainly,” I’d assure Bain Capital’s former chief executive. "Didn‘t the people believe that Ronald Reagan would balance the national budget in 1980?  Weren’t the American people sure that it was “morning in America” in 1984?  Didn’t America accurately read George Herbert Walker Bush’s lips on raising taxes in 1988?  Didn’t Americans buy Bill Clinton’s fundamental marital fidelity in 1992?  Didn’t Americans swallow the story about hanging chads in Florida and believe in a nonpartisan Supreme Court in 2000?  Didn’t the American people believe that George Walker Bush would likely get Osama bin Laden in 2004?  Finally, didn’t Americans fall for President Obama’s promises for significant change in 2008?

“Yes, indeed,” I imagine the governor saying while flicking a bit of dust from the sleeve of his impeccably pressed suit and gazing down at his mirror image in those highly polished shoes.

“Hey,” the governor would say to me after a moment’s reflection, “you’re quite a problem solver!  I think I’d like to have you on my team!  How would you like to be my running mate?  There aren’t any skeletons in your closet, are there?”

“Only a few,” I’d concede in a near whisper.  “They’re hardly worth mentioning, but since you asked, I voted for Nixon in 1968, Carter in 1976 and 1980, Mondale in 1984, Dukakis in 1988, Clinton in 1992 and 1996, Al Gore in 2000, John Kerry in 2004, and Barack Obama in 2008. I plan to vote for Obama this time, too.  Also, Governor, I write a weekly column.”

“All of those skeletons are easily forgivable and even explainable,” I imagine Governor Romney saying. “After all, if I can explain away my Massachusetts health care law, I can easily explain your voting record as well as your voting intentions.  Unfortunately, however, if you’re a budding columnist, it’s likely that you’ll leak like an old tent, especially during the campaign.  I guess you just won’t do,” I imagine Mr. Romney saying with much disappointment and resignation in his voice.

I offer my last piece of advice as I step toward the door.  It’s about his vice presidential pick.  “You had two primary opponents named Rick—Perry and Santorum.  Pick the Rick who’ll most assure that conservatives stick, even if the Rick you pick makes the rest of the voters sick.  Moral principles are what ultimately must matter although your political ambitions deserve to shatter.”

“Hmmm,” I wonder, “was that the governor’s highly polished shoe I felt on my posterior as I quickly moved out the door?”

Maybe I’d better write a real column next week!  What say you?

RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED,

EDWIN COONEY

“….WHERE DO THEY ALL BELONG?”

By Edwin Cooney

“Eleanor Rigby picks up the rice in the church where a wedding has been

Lives in a dream

Waits at the window, wearing a face that she keeps in a jar by the door

Who is it for?

All the lonely people

Where do they all come from?

All the lonely people

Where do they all belong?"

Those questions, framed in the Lennon/McCartney 1966 ballad “Eleanor Rigby” came to mind recently as two friends and I were discussing the fates of various people, great and small, known and unknown.  To my mind then and now comes forth knowledge of too many people seemingly unacknowledged, and even worse, seemingly unloved -- not for what they’ve done, but for who they are.

Her name was Loretta.  She was deaf, blind, and nearly mute.   She could speak, but only in a whisper.  She was a contemporary of mine, a day student at my residential school.  I knew of her in class, but nowhere else.  Hopefully, her family adored and protected her, but my guess is that many of her contemporaries never knew her or weren’t sufficiently capable of allowing Loretta to share herself with them.  If Loretta wasn’t one of those “lonely people,” she certainly was isolated enough to be lonely!

Ronnie was a cottage mate while I was living in one of two orphanages.  Orphanages, like many institutions of asylum for the disabled or the unwanted, although far from being dens of misery, could be mighty cold places to live.  Ronnie, as I remember him, was more mischievous than he was bad, but he was almost constantly in trouble.  A bit of a runt, he was almost continually bullied -- not merely by us boys, but even by the staff.  You’ll never convince me that Ronnie wasn’t lonely, for no matter the situation, if it went wrong, Ronnie was invariably involved.  If someone’s slipper was missing, Ronnie had stolen it, hidden it, or possibly had eaten it.  If Ronnie’s baseball team lost due to an error, Ronnie surely made the error, because God knew he was incapable of hitting the winning home run.  I pray that Ronnie has grown into a wise, loving and reflective adult; otherwise he has plenty of legitimate rage to vent.  Of course, I should have befriended him, but I was too wrapped up in my own interests to take on his.  Hopefully, someone else was ultimately more noble than I!

John, an adult quadriplegic, wasn’t someone I knew.  John was someone whose voice I heard and whose anger took on public notice. I’d encounter John, a victim of cerebral palsy, on one of our local buses or at the Bay Area Rapid Transit System.  John got about in one of those electric wheelchairs.  His voice was sharp and angry sounding.  Bus drivers often complained about his cursing, rudeness, and general lack of gratitude for the help offered him.  Even with all that, I occasionally wondered about the harsh isolation he must have experienced every day.  I thought about the pain, the spasms, and the tremors that likely visited his body daily.  Finally, I wondered what I would be like were I required to suffer as John did. Sometimes I even wondered if anyone had ever put their arms around John at night because they were glad to be near to him.

Billy was a friend of mine.  He lived at the same orphanage as Ronnie and oh! how he longed to be free and to live in a real home!  Billy suffered from childhood diabetes. From the time he was three he knew only institutional living.  About the time Billy turned 16, an older sister was married and was willing to make a home for Billy.  At last, Billy was free of the often oppressive protectiveness of the orphanage.  Finally, he knew freedom -- finally he had a sense of home rather than institutional care giving.  Finally he was free to eat that which tasted so good because it was so sweet and…then, suddenly, Billy was lonely no more.  Suddenly, Billy was forever free of everything from pain to loneliness.  The freedom that had lifted his loneliness concealed his need for self-discipline and caused him to ignore the delicacy of his very mortality. 

As is often the case with people who are unfamiliar, we’re often prone to making assumptions about the lonely among us.  Lonely people must be homeless, poor, friendless, old, ill, disabled, have lots of time on their hands, and so on. Ah, but the lonely are often the creative, the productive, the busy, the popular, the devoted, the religious, the good and even the beautiful.  Their names can be Loretta, Ronnie, John, Billy, Marilyn Monroe, Elvis Presley or even Lyndon Johnson.

So, what of  “….all the lonely people?  Where do they all come from?  Where do they all belong?”

Unlikely as it may seem, all the lonely people come from you and me.  They belong in our hearts and in our prayers.

Among those lonely people may even be…you and me!

RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED,

EDWIN COONEY

ONE SURPRISED DUDE!

By Edwin Cooney

Yep, that’s me!  I was more than pleasantly surprised -- I was both shocked and thrilled that the Supreme Court upheld “Obamacare” last Thursday, June 28^th, 2012.

I’m not alone, of course. Even today, four days later, pundits, politicians and voters with far more knowledge or sophistication than myself are still either reeling or dancing from the shock of the court’s decision.

Some are asserting that the decision is the most significant Supreme Court ruling since Bush vs. Gore, a decision many still believe turned the 2000 presidential election around.  I’m told that many Republicans and Tea Party types are declaring it the most disastrous decision since Dred Scott which ruled in 1857 that blacks were property not citizens.

Most expected that if the vote went against the plaintiff (the ideologically and financially conservative among us), Associate Justice Anthony Kennedy would deliver that vote based on the liberal view of the commerce clause of the constitution.  Instead, Chief Justice John Roberts ruled that the fee which will be charged to those who refused the law’s mandate to purchase insurance is in reality a tax and that is what won the day for Obamacare.  For as much as most Americans resent taxes, the Sixteenth Amendment of the Constitution authorizes Congress to “lay and collect taxes from whatever income source derived.”  Hence, even the most hated taxes are legal!

Okay, it’s confession time.  A few months after Obamacare was passed, I was visiting a home in Springfield, Missouri and the man of the house was opining against Obamacare as the president’s violation of his 2008 promise not to raise taxes on the income of citizens who make $250,000 or less.  Insisting, as the White House did, that the charge to those who refused to purchase insurance under Obamacare wasn’t a tax but a reasonable fee (since those who did purchase insurance wouldn’t have to pay it), I cheerfully denied that the president had broken his promise not to raise taxes on most Americans.  I didn’t carry the argument too far as I was a guest in his home and matters of a personal nature were far more important to me.  However, since arguments before the justices began in March, I’ve been hoping that if it were necessary to preserve the law by calling the charge a tax, then please God let it be called a tax!

The president did take a 7 to 2 drubbing on another aspect of Obamacare concerning Medicare funding.  In short, the federal government may not force states to accept Obamacare or otherwise lose Medicare funding.  Still, Thursday’s ruling was undoubtedly good for the president politically and perhaps, even more significantly, from the standpoint of his legacy.

Even if Obamacare has to be amended to increase its effectiveness, it will go down in history as a major presidential achievement.  Presidents Richard M. Nixon, Jimmy Carter, and Bill Clinton sought to get some form of national healthcare legislation passed without success. 

If you ask me, Barack Obama has increased his ranking in history among our presidents via the Supreme Court’s validation of Obamacare.  Presidents are usually considered good, or even great, if they achieve one piece of “landmark” or significant legislation and Obamacare has, as of last Thursday, achieved that ranking.  Obamacare now ranks right up there with Reagan’s tax indexing, LBJ’s Medicare and civil rights achievements, Ike’s interstate highway system, Truman’s desegregation of the Military and a whole string of FDR’s anti-Depression reforms.

Even more, coupled with the president’s successful mission against Osama Bin Laden which was a landmark foreign affairs achievement, Barack Obama will have left a significant mark on America’s standing both at home and abroad even if he is defeated in November.

Almost as intriguing as the decision itself were two observations in Chief Justice Roberts’ majority opinion.  First, he wrote that the decision wasn’t an endorsement of the wisdom of the law, but rather reflected the court's reticence to invalidate the acts of the nation’s elected leaders.  Even more interesting was his observation: “It isn’t our job to protect the people from the consequences of their political choices.” 

These observations might be seen by some Conservatives as reflecting the Chief Justices’s personal sympathy for their opposition to Obamacare . However, most Conservatives would have gladly regarded the court’s rejection of Obamacare as a much, much wiser decision.  Just like some houseguests, Conservatives also like to have things both ways when it suits them!

There’s little doubt that opponents of Obamacare believe deep in their souls that the Supreme Court last Thursday was guilty of a terrible injustice.  Yet many assert that the Supreme Court, populated as it is by nine personages called “justices,” is not a court of justice, but a court of law.  Laws, as everyone knows, reflect, but never govern, morality or immorality.

Law may be the legitimate business of our elected leadership, but morality is ultimately the people’s business!

One thing more. Now that Obamacare has been legally validated, the GOP is making national healthcare reform a party priority for the first time in its history.  If nothing else, the idea that the GOP considers any healthcare reform important leaves me one surprised dude indeed!

Lead on, Mr. President -- lead on!

RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED,

EDWIN COONEY

OPINION: EASIER THAN THOUGHT, BUT ONLY MARGINALLY IMPORTANT

By Edwin Cooney

Strange as it may seem to those readers who’ve known me over the years, I’m often urged by some readers to be more definite in many of these writings as to what my opinion is on a topic that I’ve just used several hundred words to describe and analyze.

Throughout my life, I’ve often been seen as dogmatic, argumentative and, most certainly, opinionated.  Back in my “salad days,” I used to grant that my opponents were entitled to their own “stupid” opinions -- mine, of course, always being well thought out and right!  For my own good and for everyone else's peace, age has definitely mellowed me.

I’d be surprised if many of you have much doubt as to which political party or presidential candidate I support, or how I feel about capital punishment.  However, my elderly wisdom has taught me that the ultimate value to others of what I think or feel about any topic I write on is dependant on my capacity to rationally present and support it.

Subsequently, last Monday when I asked the question "does war have real merit if Congress declares it," I saw it as my task to provide information on the War of 1812 and its outcome, leaving it to you to decide the merit and wisdom of Congress’s action in its declaration.

One reader asserted, in reply to last week’s column, that because the Constitution requires Congress to declare war, it’s unlawful to declare war any other way.  That particular reader appears to believe that the law, in most if not all cases, must prevail.  Of course, whether or not I agree with that point of view -- and I don’t entirely buy it -- that view has a healthy dose of merit behind it.  Still, there are other factors that our “Founding Fathers” were incapable of taking into account when making that constitutional requirement.  For all their wisdom and foresight, eighteenth century wise men could not have been expected to comprehend and take into account the perils of twentieth and twenty-first century warfare.

My opinion matters to my friends and sometimes even to my lads, but its merit depends on the listener's or reader's evaluation of its wisdom or applicability.

Okay, here I go out on a nice, flimsy limb, opinion-waving from aloft.  Since I was very young, I’ve always been taught that I’m a sinner, that Christ gave His life to save me from sin.  Lately, however, I’ve come to a new conclusion.  I no longer believe in sin.  I believe that Christ lived to energize you and me to serve others with love and tolerance.  I no longer believe that Christ was born to die.  Now, that opinion won’t and shouldn’t resonate with you if you apply your spiritual principles according to scripture.  Still, I’ve just offered you that opinion.  If my opinion dovetails with your own, the chances are that you might not only find agreement or comfort in it, but also perhaps some wisdom.  If you see my opinion as being defiant of scripture you may well be offended by it.  If you’re an atheist or an agnostic, it’s likely you’ll find that opinion irrelevant.  Furthermore, that opinion probably hasn’t done much more than increase your knowledge of how my mind works.

It’s also my opinion that President Barack Obama ought to be re-elected in November.  Now, I could do a nice comparative analysis of Barack Obama’s first term record in comparison with the first term records of other presidents who have been re-elected and make a pretty good case for my position.  However, if you have a solid ideological mindset that’s different from mine, you can make a case for the opposition.  As for facts, compelling as they are, facts depend on circumstances and context and are vulnerable to other facts that have not been presented -- or selective logic.

It’s my opinion that one of the reasons political discourse in America has deteriorated in recent years is because Republicans, Conservatives, Democrats and Liberals see most differences as moral rather than as merely practical or politically strategic in nature.  Once again, too often opinion invariably stifles rather than stimulates thought. 

Even more, opinion by itself only reinforces those already convinced.  Thoughtful analysis and presentation is usually a more, if imperfect, path to a new mindset, especially when it takes into consideration elements of its counter-argument.  Of course, the greatest challenge to someone whose task is to persuade you or me is our embedded convictions.  I’ve always liked the observation that “truth may set you free, but first it’ll make you mad.”

Whoops, I almost forgot I didn’t offer an opinion in last week’s column.  So, here it is: the War of 1812, although dutifully declared by Congress, wasn’t any more necessary than almost any other war.   Even more tragic, those necessary wars were invariably the ultimate price of previously unnecessary wars -- declared or undeclared.

Here’s another opinion for you.  Stop by and see me and I’ll buy you a drink or even lunch.  Either will probably be more valuable to you than any opinion I might offer!

RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED,

EDWIN COONEY

DOES WAR HAVE REAL MERIT IF CONGRESS DECLARES IT?

By Edwin Cooney

It has become quite fashionable these days for political and social pundits to suggest that war would be more legitimate if it were still declared by Congress rather than advanced and conducted by our presidents.  Since today marks the two hundredth anniversary of the first of five historic declarations of war by Congress, now might be a good time to reevaluate the necessity and the legitimacy of the War of 1812 -- its very first war-making venture.

On Thursday, June 18^th, 1812, Congress, at the request of James Madison, responded affirmatively to the president’s request for a declaration of war against Great Britain.  The war crisis had long been brewing, extending back to the close of the Revolutionary War and the 1783 Treaty of Paris which forced Great Britain to recognize American independence.  Even after 1783 with peace officially in place, the British had followed what was called “Orders in Council.” They would board any American ship, seize any contraband -- especially when Britain was at war -- and impress into the Royal Navy any former British seaman or sailor who might have once served His Majesty’s Government.  Neither President Washington’s celebrated 1795 Jay Treaty nor President Jefferson’s 1807 trade embargo against both Britain and France alleviated this American irritant.

This ongoing insult to American sovereignty was further exacerbated by British exploitation of the increasing warlike activity of American Indians in the Northwest Territory. Additionally, men such as Kentucky’s Henry Clay and South Carolina’s John C. Calhoun were anxious to add Canada to America’s domain.

Two lesser known factors concerned the personages of two rather important men of that time.  James ("little Jemmy”) Madison, a giant of an intellect whom Washington Irving once described as a “withered little apple-John” of a man, had a lifelong fear of Indians.  Born in 1751, he had listened as a child to the bloodcurdling cries of Indians in the mountain forest near his Montpelier, Virginia plantation home.  The French stirred up that generation of Indians against English settlers and thereafter little Jemmy was frightened, believing in his soul that Indians were little more than savages.

The second prominent personage affected by events was British Prime Minister Spencer Perceval. Many insist he wanted to avoid war with America over the impressments issue, not so much for the sake of peace, but rather to cut down on the cost of war.  After all, Britain was then at war with Napoleon Bonaparte and didn’t need a war with its former colonies.  Hence, it has been said that Perceval was ready to alleviate one of America’s major irritants.  Then came Monday, May 11^th, 1812 and Spencer Perceval became the only British Prime Minister to be assassinated.  Perceval was shot to death in the lobby of the House of Commons by Liverpool businessman John Bellingham who had a date with the hangman eight days later.  Thus the process for repealing the Orders in Council was delayed.  Not until after Congress had declared war in the House of Representatives by a vote of 79 to 49 and in the United States Senate by a vote of 19 to 13 did news of the repeal of impressments reach Washington.

From the very outset, the war was pretty much a disaster.  Military victories, though occasionally spectacular, were few and far between.  General William Hull who led an invasion into Canada in August of 1812 became fearful that he might be attacked by Indians and cut off from his base in Detroit.  So Hull retreated to Detroit and subsequently surrendered the city to the British without firing a shot.  Court-martialed and sentenced to death, Hull was pardoned by President Madison due to his past service during the revolution.  In April of 1813, Major General Henry Dearborn invaded York, Ontario (renamed Toronto in 1834), burned and sacked the city, but did not hold it.  Only Oliver Hazard Perry’s naval victory and other gallant naval triumphs over the British on Lake Erie counted for much.  In October 1813, William Henry Harrison -- who would become our ninth president for one month in 1841 -- attacked the forces of the Shawnee Indians, killing their great chief Tecumseh at the Battle of the Thames near Windsor, Ontario Canada.

In August of 1814, largely in reprisal for our attack on York, the British invaded Washington and burned both the president’s mansion and the capital before returning to their ships in Chesapeake Bay.  Additionally, there was the December 1814 Hartford Convention, an abortive threat by New England Federalists to secede from the Union due to economic recession brought on by the war.

On Christmas Eve 1814, America and Britain, thoroughly tired of the war, settled everything by signing the Treaty of Ghent in Belgium status quo ante bellum: each side retaining prewar territory.  No mention of the impressments issue was made in the settlement but, with Napoleon defeated, the British were through with it all.  Of the 286,730 Americans who served in the war, 2,260 were dead and 4,505 were wounded.

Two weeks after the Treaty of Ghent was signed, "Old Hickory" (Andrew Jackson) overwhelmingly defended New Orleans against a British invasion.  British casualties were over 2,000 while American casualties were merely 21.

So were all of the political division, property damage and human destruction worthwhile?  Some might dare assert that they must have been, because, after all, Congress had declared it so!

Some, however, might observe that war is too important a matter to leave up to Congress!  Hmmm! What say you?

RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED,

EDWIN COONEY

MEETING LITTLE JOHNNY

By Edwin Cooney

We’ve all heard of him countless times, mostly in school room jokes, but occasionally in jokes about parenting.  Johnny’s the kid in the back of the room who’s smart: his wisecracking and even occasional off color remarks are loved by almost everyone from you to your Uncle Dudley!

Surprisingly, I met him the other day and was about to interview him for you when he started interviewing me.

“Hey, Mack,” he said, “I understand you write columns with the idea of telling people what they ought to know about history.  So how much do you really know about it?”

“Well,” I began to respond, but little Johnny was, as usual, not in the mood to give any quarter.

“What do you mean "well"? Either you’re some kind of historian or you’re not! Okay, who was the first President of the United States?” he challenged me, sticking the end of a long red liquorice stick into his mouth.

“George Washington, of course,” I snapped in stern school master fashion.

“Wrong!” little Johnny shot back, “It was John Hanson, President of the Continental Congress at the time Lord Cornwallis surrendered to George Washington and the French Navy at Yorktown on Friday, October 19^th, 1781.  Hanson, who signed the State of Maryland’s acceptance of the Articles of Confederation in 1781, was immediately elected President of the Continental Congress.  His formal title was “President of the United States in Congress Assembled.” George Washington, in response to President Hanson’s letter of congratulations, addressed his letter of response to “John Hanson, President of the United States.” How come you didn’t know that, Mack? Haven’t you ever read “The People’s Almanac” by David Wallechinsky and Irving Wallace?” he asked.

“Well,” I began.

“Is that all you can say: well?”

Finally, as Johnny took time to chew on his liquorice stick I got a few words in.

“Of course I’ve heard and read the story of John Hanson, but the idea that he was in fact the first President of the United States is misleading regardless of his official title.  He was merely first among equals in the Continental Congress as he had no executive powers.  His duties were largely ceremonial although he was empowered to sign documents and letters as author Gregory Stiverson pointed out in the American National Biography."

“Yah, I know, and that’s the trouble with adults.  They always want things clean and simple.  More than one answer to almost any question often causes them to lose faith in the answers to all questions.  That’s why I have such problems with parents and teachers.  Parents, teachers, preachers and leaders spend their entire lives trying to convince themselves that most things are either right or wrong.  The fact is that everything is right and everything is wrong depending strictly on the question. We kids naturally understand that and resist the pressure adults put on us to be right about things for as long as we can.”

“Okay,” I said, “but isn’t it right to take direction from one’s parents, teachers, preachers and leaders?”

“Usually, maybe,” said Johnny as he swallowed the last of his candy and reached behind him to pick up his baseball bat.  “A better question is “isn’t it wise to take direction from adults who, after all, have lived in this world longer than all kids -- but me, of course!”

“That’s one of the things I wanted to ask you about in the interview I’ve been hoping to do for my column.  How long have you been a kid  -- and when do you expect to grow up?"

“Look, Mack, for all you think you know, you’re a helluva nice guy, but I don’t answer questions like that.  My Uncle Peter, who comes from the same place I do, taught me that the worst thing you can ever do is think you’re grown up.  That’s what happened to Captain Hook.  He grew up and got greedy and Uncle Peter had to feed him to the crocodile."

With one tap of his baseball bat on a tree branch a large red apple came down and he deftly caught it before it hit the ground.  Then he said, “Sorry Mack, recess is over. I’ve got to get back to class before teacher thinks she knows it all!”

Then, he was gone and I was left to ruminate over whether John Hanson ought to really and truly be considered our first president.

Suddenly, I realized where Johnny had gone.  He must be attending that little red schoolhouse just over the hill.  Soon I was peeking through the window of Johnny’s classroom just as the teacher was calling on him -- and I couldn’t believe my ears.

“Who was the first President of the United States?" The teacher asked as little Johnny’s hand shot straight up and his response was sharp and true.

“Since he was sworn in as Vice President before George Washington ever got to New York City, the answer has to be John Adams."

As always, the little guy’s answer flew from his lips on the wings of Johnny’s truth with the result that forced you, the listener,  to wonder.

RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED,

EDWIN COONEY

ROMNEY’S GOLDEN OASIS!

By Edwin Cooney

With his victory last Tuesday in the Texas GOP primary, it’s all but official that Willard Mitt Romney possesses the Republican presidential nomination.  As for his chances of winning the White House, dyed in the wool Republicans and Democrats will naturally differ in their assessments.  Incumbent presidents are traditionally declared failures by the opposition party almost from the very instant they lower their right hand after taking the presidential oath.  Barack Obama -- black, liberal, and suspected by many of being foreign born -- has been especially vulnerable to such speculation.  Many people have declared that President Obama will be a "one term president” every day of the 1,133 days that have passed between Inauguration Day 2009 and June 4^th, 2012.

So, what does history appear to tell us about Mitt Romney’s chances of defeating President Obama's bid for re-election?  The answer is that history’s signals are mixed.  Only fifteen of the 42 men who served as president before President Obama have been twice nominated and elected.  They are: Washington, Jefferson, Madison, Monroe, Jackson, Lincoln, Grant, McKinley, Wilson, Franklin Roosevelt, Eisenhower, Nixon, Reagan, Clinton and G. W. Bush.

Four presidents, Theodore Roosevelt, Calvin Coolidge, Harry Truman and Lyndon Johnson, were elected to “full presidential terms” after having served as Vice President and subsequently succeeding to the presidency upon the deaths of Presidents McKinley, Harding, Franklin Roosevelt and Kennedy.  Grover Cleveland was defeated in his 1888 bid for a second term, but came back four years later to defeat President Benjamin Harrison, who had defeated Cleveland while losing the popular vote in 1888.  Gerald Ford, who was not elected but was appointed vice president, lost his 1976 presidential election bid.

Thus, twenty-two presidents’ golden opportunity to serve the American people lasted only one full term or even less.

Whatever anti-Republican partisans may say about him, Romney -- a capable administrator and business executive -- is adequately qualified by most measurements to serve as president.  Like the Adams, Roosevelts, Kennedys and Bushes, Mitt Romney comes from a political family.  His father, after a successful career in the auto industry and as President of American Motors, was thrice elected Governor of Michigan before being appointed and serving as President Richard M. Nixon’s Secretary of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) from 1969 to 1973.  In 1970, Mitt’s mother, Lenore (La Fount) Romney was the unsuccessful GOP U.S. Senatorial candidate in Michigan.

President Obama, like the ten major party presidential incumbents nominated and subsequently defeated before 2012 (John Adams, John Quincy Adams, Martin Van Buren, Grover Cleveland, Benjamin Harrison, William Howard Taft, Herbert Hoover, Gerald Ford, Jimmy Carter and George H. W. Bush) lugs heavy political baggage into his re-election campaign.  (I exempted Theodore Roosevelt from this list because he was a third party nominee when he was defeated in 1912 rather than a major party candidate and he also was not an incumbent president.)

John Adams’ “cross” was the Alien and Sedition Act of 1798 that threatened to have the president’s critics imprisoned during the emergency of a possible war with France.  John Quincy Adams’ baggage was the seeming corruption of his election over the popular war hero Andrew Jackson in the House of Representatives on February 17^th, 1825.  Martin Van Buren’s unwieldy load was the Depression of 1837.  Grover Cleveland was plagued by the unpopularity of his vetoes of Civil War veteran’s benefits.  Benjamin Harrison was dragged down by the 1890-91 recession.  William Howard Taft was sabotaged from within the Republican Party by Theodore Roosevelt.  Herbert Hoover was overwhelmed by the 1929 stock market crash and subsequent economic depression.  Gerald Ford committed political suicide when he pardoned former President Richard Nixon on Sunday, September 8^th, 1974.  Jimmy Carter was victimized by inflation, high interest rates and the Iranian hostage crisis.  George H. W. Bush was felled by the third party candidacy of businessman H [Henry] Ross Perot and a sluggish economy. 

President Obama carries as many as three pieces of heavy political baggage into the 2012 campaign: his perceived failure to mold prosperity out of the mess he inherited from the severe 2008 recession, the dubious effect of the healthcare program he signed into law, and the perception that he holds economic and social views outside the American political mainstream.

Thus Mitt Romney reaches a political oasis after nearly a year’s journey across the searing political wasteland.  During the next two months he may privately gloat over the political corpses of Santorum, Gingrich, Perry, Paul, Bachmann, Huntsman and Cain.  What will really matter are the decisions he makes in anticipation of the daunting arctic political Iditarod which he’ll be contesting against President Obama just ahead of the cold November winds.

For the next sixty days, he may bask amidst GOP congratulations, endorsements and fundraising banquets.  How he assesses his presidential opponent, the person he chooses to put forth to be his running mate, and how effectively he masters the willful Tea Party element in the Republican Party will be crucial to either his success or his ultimate political undoing.

Most of all, whether he becomes president or, like John McCain before him, becomes President Barack Obama’s political trophy, is ultimately not up to him.  He may plan, spend, perform and strategize, but you and I will decide!

RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED,

EDWIN COONEY