<div style="background-color: none transparent;"><a href="http://www.rsspump.com/?web_widget/rss_ticker/news_widget" title="News Widget">News Widget</a></div>

Former New York City Mayor Michael Bloomberg is considering entering the Presidential sweepstakes as a centrist Independent. He will likely enter only if the Democrats nominate Democratic Socialist Bernie Sanders and the Republicans select conservative Donald Trump. However, should the Democrats nominate the more centrist leaning Hillary Clinton and should the Republicans nominate Mr. Trump there will be an aperture in the race for a left-leaning anti-Wall Street populist. Former Montana Governor Brain Schweitzer would fit the bill.

Sanders is garnering support from younger voters for his call to “break up the largest financial institutions in the country,” for his support for single-payer healthcare, for his opposition to most free trade agreements, and for his aversion toward foreign interventions.

On these issues, Hillary Clinton comes from a divergent perspective. She earned 2.9 million by delivering 12 speeches to major financial institutions. Moreover, Clinton voices opposition to supplanting the Affordable Care Act regime with a single-payer system.

Clinton has backtracked from her previous views on international trade. In 1998, while serving as First Lady, she praised corporations for waging “a very effective business effort in the U.S. on behalf of NAFTA.” In 2007, however, while running for the Democratic Presidential nomination, Clinton called NAFTA “a mistake.” Furthermore, as U.S. Secretary of State, Clinton lauded the Trans-pacific Partnership, which she now opposes. It would be easy for Trump, an avowed economic nationalist, to style Hillary as a mere political opportunist regarding international trade.

Clinton has a record as an interventionist in foreign affairs, having voted for the authorization of the use of force in Iraq while a member of the U.S. Senate. As U.S. Secretary of State, she spearheaded efforts to dislodge Libyan President Muammar Gaddafi from power in Libya, and proposed a surge of 40,000 troops into Afghanistan as part of a counterinsurgency force.

Enter former Montana Governor Brian Schweitzer. Schweitzer considered a run for the Democratic Presidential nomination, but backed down. He made a verbal gaff after U.S. House Minority Leader Eric Cantor (R-VA) lost his reelection bid, commenting that Cantor “sets off his gaydar” and had “effeminate mannerisms.” While this faux pas set back his political career, he has apologized, and it is far from a career-ending flub.

As an Independent candidate, Schweitzer could consolidate many Sanders supporters. He could also bring disaffected non-voters into the voting fold, siphon off some potential Trump supporters, and attract to Libertarian and quasi-Libertarian voters. Moreover, Schweitzer is a political amalgam who could appeal to a broad cross-section of constituencies.

There is a similitude between a Schweitzer candidacy and the candidacy of Businessman Ross Perot in 1992. While conventional wisdom holds that Perot siphoned votes almost exclusively form Republican George H.W. Bush, exit polls show that his appeal was split evenly. The data indicates that 38% would have supported Bush, 38% would have supported Democrat Bill Clinton, and 24% would not have voted.

Perot’s populist insurrectionist campaign appealed to fiscal conservatives who had supported former U.S. Senator Paul Tsongas (D-MA) in the Democratic Primary. In fact, a group of his supporters, called TCitizens for Tsongas (playing on the silent ‘T’ in Tsongas), backed Perot in the General Election campaign. In addition, Perot’s Economic Nationalism and opposition to the Persian Gulf War exhibited cross-partisan appeal. Some supporters of the populist anti-establishment candidacies of former California Governor Jerry Brown in the Democratic Primary and Republican activist Pat Buchanan in the Republican Primary that year were drawn to Perot’s populist insurrectionist message.

On the issues where Sanders’ supporters diverge from Clinton supporters, Schweitzer is more ideologically in-tune with Sanders. Schweitzer brands Washington, DC as “a giant cesspool of special interests.” He is simpatico with Sanders in excoriating the influence of “the pharmaceutical companies, the insurance companies, the big banks.” Schweitzer bemoans: “You go to Wall Street. They’re the ones who can write the fat checks.” His line of attack on Clinton, tethering her to corporate interests, would be similar to Sanders’ strategy. Schweitzer warns, “We need to have a strong middle class again. We can’t have a Democratic Party that is corporate-lite.”

Like Sanders, Schweitzer is a proponent of establishing a single-payer Healthcare system. As Governor, he inaugurated the first publicly-run medical clinic for retirees and state employees. He praises the Canadian system and bemoans the influence of corporate interests in the drafting of the Affordable Care Act, maintaing the act gives “taxpayer dollars to private insurance companies.”

On the issue of international trade, Schweitzer sides with both Sanders and Trump in opposing recently brokered agreements. He is a critic of NAFTA and the TPP. In 2006, Schweitzer rhetorically asked The New York Times: “Why is it that America supposedly creates the best businessmen in the world, but when we go to the table with the Third World, we come away losers?”

If Clinton were the Democratic nominee, Trump might be able to purloin some rustbelt Democrats by highlighting her waffling on trade issues. If he were in the race, Schweitzer might be able to take many of these voters who would be uncomfortable supporting Trump.

As for foreign interventions, Schweitzer, like Sanders, is critical of military interventions, but his opposition is deeply rooted in the fundamental paradigm of U.S. foreign policy. Schweitzer wages opprobrium on the “military industrial complex.” He sees the blowback that U.S. foreign policy can effectuate against the U.S. Here, his rhetoric is eerily similar to U.S. Representative Ron Paul (R-TX) who galvanized Americans of all political persuasions in his 2008 and 2012 Presidential runs by introducing the concept of blowback into the American political dialogue.

Like Paul, Schweitzer uses the example of Iran to illustrate the deleterious effects of U.S. intervention abroad. Schweitzer points out that the tension between the U.S. and Iran began “because of what we did in 1953, replacing an elected official [Prime Minster Mohammed Mossadegh] with a dictator [Shah Mohammed Reza Pahlavi].” Schweitzer also points out that the U.S. government supplied chemical weapons to Iraqi President Saddam Hussein in the 1980’s, which were subsequently used against Iranians. His characterization of the Iraq War as an “oil-well war to protect profits for multinational oil companies and petro-dictators” would strike a resonate chord with both liberal and libertarian non-interventionists.

Furthermore, Schweitzer could appeal to Libertarian-leaning voters with his opposition to the scope of the NSA surveillance program, calling it “un-effenbelievalbe.” In addition, he declared the War on Drugs lost and suggests Colorado, in legalizing marijuana: “might have it more right than the rest of us.”

Schweitzer could also draw the support of some center-right voters with his opposition to most gun control measures, his support of expanding domestic coal production, and his support for the construction of the Keystone pipeline.

Finally, Schweitzer’s shoot-from-the-hip unadulterated style, coupled with his anti-establishment rhetoric, is advantageous in an election where the candidates are trying to present themselves as authentic, and from outside the beltway. His image as a rancher who regularly sports cowboy boots, and his folksy dialect contribute to his image as an outsider.

In a Trump-Clinton matchup, a Schweitzer Independent bid could be a major challenge to the electoral hegemony of the two major parties. He would offer eclectic appeal. Schweitzer’s populist message would resonate with those Sanders supporters who are skeptical of Clinton, Libertarian-oriented voters who would find little common ground with the major candidates, and low-propensiity voters who would be disenchanted with the offerings of both parties. Like Perot in 1992, the moment is right for an Independent candidate, and Schweitzer would pocket significant support from across the American political spectrum.


U.S. Senator Dale Bumpers (D-AR), who served from 1975-1999, recently died. Bumpers had flirted with a bid for the Democratic Presidential nomination three times, but ultimately chose not to seek the nomination. Had he run in 1988, Bumpers would have been a good bet to win the nomination and ultimately the Presidency.

Bumpers was a rare breed in American politics. He was a Southern Progressive who could garner the support of liberals, moderates and conservatives in his party. Elected Governor of Arkansas in 1970, then elected to the U.S. Senate in 1974, Bumpers represented a new voice in Southern politics, a voice which opposed racial segregation.

He was also a spellbinding orator, having honed his skills as a lawyer in Charleston, Arkansas. He lost just two cases in his 15-year practice. In 1954, as the only lawyer in Charleston, Bumpers advised the Board of Education to comply with the Supreme Court ruling ordering public schools to desegregate. The Charleston School District became the first district in the entire South to unshackle the chains of segregation.

The longest serving Governor in Arkansas history was Orval Fabus. He had retired in 1967 after serving for twelve years as Governor of the state. Fabus had left an indelible stain on the state by ordering the Arkansas National Guard to halt African-Americans from entering Little Rock Central High School. Fabus defied the Court’s order to desegregate. In 1970, Fabus made a bid to get his old job back, but was defeated by Bumpers, who then went on to defeat incumbent Republican Governor Winthrop Rockefeller in the General Election, capturing a whopping 61.7% of the vote.

Bumpers ushered in a more progressive era as Governor. He accrued accomplishments he could have showcased had he been a Presidential candidate, including reforming state government and raising teacher salaries. In addition, Bumpers left the state with a budget surplus. A 1998 survey ranked Bumpers as the best Governor in Arkansas history. His job approval rating reached a stratospheric 91%.

In 1974, the popular Governor Bumpers upended U.S. Senator J. William Fulbright in Fulbright’s re-election bid in the Democratic Primary. Fulbright had first been elected to the Senate in 1944. He became nationally known for his role as Chairman of the Senate Committee on Foreign Relations. While some in Arkansas came to see Fulbright as abandoning parochial concerns, Bumpers’ raw political talent was coming into focus in the state and also within national Democratic circles. Fulbright accused Bumpers of trying to be elected to the Senate as a “stepping stone to the Presidency.” Bumpers’ resounding defeat of Fulbright gave him the distinction of being the only challenger to defeat an incumbent U.S. Senator in a primary race that year.

For his victory over Fabus, Rockefeller, and Fulbright, The New York Times dubbed Bumpers: “The Giant Killer.”

The stars were aligned for Bumpers in 1988. If he had chosen to run for President, Bumpers could have presented himself as a true proponent of fiscal austerity. He inoculated himself from the aeonian charges leveled against Democrats for being tax-and-spend liberals. While Bumpers voted against the tax cuts signed by Republican President Ronald Reagan, he was one of just three Senators to also vote against Reagan’s’ proposed spending cuts.

While other Southern Democratic Senators like U.S. Senators J. Bennett Johnson (D-LA), Howell Heflin (D-AL), and Sam Nunn (D-GA), sported voting records too conservative for a Democratic electorate, Bumpers was in the mainstream of the party with a center-left voting record. He could appeal to the party’s progressive bloodline with his advocacy of arms control, abortion rights, and gun control. In addition, Bumpers could trumpet having been an early Southern advocate for Civil Rights for African-Americans. Bumpers earned the electorally advantageous moniker “the Northerner’s favorite Southerner.”

Despite being a progressive in a conservative state, Bumpers was a proven electoral vote-getter, having just proved his electoral bone fides and popularity in 1986 by being re-elected in a landslide. U.S. Senator Paul Simon (D-IL), who eventually ran himself that year, called Bumpers “the most electable of Democratic hopefuls. He combines conviction . . . and a good speaking style. He conveys compassion. People want to have a (candidate) with a really visceral belief in things.”

While contemplating a run, Bumpers met with many Democratic well-healed benefactors in New York City who came away impressed. Investment banker Bob Schiffer stated at the time: “if competence is going to be the issue of 1988, Dale Bumpers has to be number one when you look at Democrats. We could raise a million dollars for him in New York.”

The 1988 Presidential election cycle was one which historically would have favored the Democrats, the out-party. The Republican nominee was Vice President George H.W. Bush. No incumbent Vice President had won the Presidency since Martin Van Buren in 1836. Moreover, the incumbent President Ronald Reagan had seen his job approval ratings sink to 47% in late 1987, but then rise steadily in 1988.

There was a clear hankering within the American electorate for a change, as evinced by that year’s Democratic Presidential nominee, Massachusetts Governor Michael Dukakis, who harbored a 17-point lead over Bush at one point during the summer of 1988. However, Dukakis could not overcome the narrative promoted by the Bush campaign that he was “that liberal Governor from Massachusetts.”

Bumpers was an atypical Southern politician. He was popular enough with liberal primary voters to muster his party’s nomination. In a General Election, he would have been the worst nightmare for Bush. It would have been nearly impossible to envisage a scenario where Bumpers would have succumbed to the “elitist charge” that was successfully leveled against Dukakis. He was a Marine Veteran who hailed from humble circumstances and once owned a 350-acre Angus cattle ranch. Bumpers was enormously popular in a conservative state where Republican Ronald Reagan had won re-election as President with 60.47% of the vote in 1984. In addition, he was arguably the best speaker and retail campaigner the Democrats could have offered up.

Bumpers seemed to know the political landscape that year. He averred: “There’s not any big trick in defining the issues for 1988. Many of the candidates will be saying essentially the same things about how to deal with them. What will be important is trying to demonstrate the kind of aura or personality people want to lead them through the minefields.”

Bumpers is the epitome of the candidate who could have been President but who chose not enter the Presidential sweepstakes. He was the best candidate on paper, earning the praises of voters in a conservative state. He would also appeal to voters across the political spectrum, and as was aforementioned, was arguably the best speaker within his party. This oratorical prowess was showcased after he left the Senate in 1999 when President Bill Clinton persuaded him to come back to Washington D.C. to deliver an address to the Senate opposing his potential conviction for his role in the Monica Lewinsky episode.



A Trump-Clinton Matchup Would be a Trip Back to the Future in Foreign Affairs

January 13, 2016

Republican Presidential front-runner Donald Trump harbors an aversion to military interventions. This is out-of-step with contemporary mainstream thinking in the Republican Party. Yet non-interventionism in foreign conflicts was once the predominant view in the Republican Party. Contrariwise, Democrat front-runner Hillary Clinton has exhibited support for a muscular foreign policy. Her interventionist proclivities in the foreign […]

Read the full article →

Former GOP Frontrunner Jeb Bush’s Battle With “Restless Insurrectionist Syndrome”

December 22, 2015

Jeb Bush, the early Republican frontrunner, is presently polling in the single digits despite an ambitious advertising blitz. Bush was a weak frontrunner from the beginning, winning plaudits from entrenched members of the GOP hierarchy and obtaining support from traditional Republican benefactors at a time when establishmentarians are reviled by the body politic. Conservative insurrectionist […]

Read the full article →

Trump Could Be an Albatross for Down-Ballot Republicans

December 8, 2015

Should Donald Trump garner the Republican nomination, his presence on the ticket could have deleterious effects on Republicans running for office in closely contested races. Democrats would be in political paradise tethering their Republican opponents to Trump. In affect, Trump would likely be an albatross on Republicans nationwide. There is precedent for an insurrectionist like […]

Read the full article →

Ted Cruz Misinterprets Ronald Reagan’s 1980 Election Victory

November 24, 2015

U.S Senator Ted Cruz (R-TX) is running for president as an unreconstructed conservative Republican. Cruz suggests a Republican nominee can win the presidency by waving the conservative banner and galvanizing conservatives rather than by making inroads with centrist persuadable voters. Cruz’s template for this strategy goes back to 1980 when Ronald Reagan won the presidency. […]

Read the full article →

A Legacy of ‘Congressional Truancy’: From Harding to Kennedy to Obama to Rubio Posted: 11/17/2015 4:42 pm EST Updated: 2 hours ago

November 18, 2015

While waging his Presidential campaign, U.S. Senator Marco Rubio (R-FL) is under constant criticism for missing over 30 percent of Senate votes in 2015. Rubio has also has missed Senate committee hearings in order to attend fundraisers. A major newspaper in his state, The Sun Sentinel, has called on Rubio to resign from the Senate, […]

Read the full article →

Jim Webb’s Next Political Move? Some Historical Context

November 3, 2015

Former U.S. Senator Jim Webb (D-VA) has egressed from the Democratic Presidential sweepstakes and is contemplating running for president as an independent candidate. Webb did not catch on with Democratic voters. His opposition to most forms of gun control, his support for the Keystone Pipeline, and his opposition to the nuclear deal negotiated between the […]

Read the full article →

Seizing the Electoral Moment: Former Allies Bush and Rubio Battle it Out

October 16, 2015

Former Florida Governor Jeb Bush was once a benefactor of U.S. Senator Marco Rubio (R-FL). Bush donated to Rubio’s first political campaign, and in 2005, when Rubio was sworn in as Florida’s House Speaker, Bush gave Rubio a sword, informing Rubio: “I’m going to bestow to you the sword of a great conservative warrior” (referring […]

Read the full article →

Donald Trump Is a Political Aberration: Rather Than Hiding his Wealth and Elite Education, He Flaunts it

September 29, 2015

Republican Presidential candidate Donald Trump unabashedly touts himself as being “really rich.” According to Forbes Magazine, Trump even exaggerated his net worth, alleging to be worth almost $9 billion. Forbes pegs the number at just $4.1 billion. Trump brags that he went to a top tier school, the Wharton School of Business, and even sings […]

Read the full article →

Fatal error: Call to undefined function thesis_footer_area() in /home/mbm1984/webapps/politigeek/wp-content/themes/thesis_18/lib/html/frameworks.php on line 33