Donald Trump loves this female Judge

February 14, 2017
trump-and-his-sister

President Donald Trump and Judge Maryanne Barry, his sister.

Here’s one judge that Donald Trump loves. Federal Judge, Maryanne Barry, his older sister.

Judge Barry, is a Senior United States Circuit Judge of the Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit. She was first appointed to the federal bench during the Reagan administration. The Clinton administration promoted her again.

In 2004, she was presented with a public service award by Supreme Court Justice, Sandra Day O’Connor.

jfk-and-kick

Kick & JFK on the right.

Many presidents have had close relationships with a sister. It is almost eerie. Abraham Lincoln looked to Sarah. Her death broke his heart. John Kennedy was disconsolate when he lost his sister, and best friend, Kathleen “Kick” Kennedy. He vicariously thrilled with her adventures and they shared many secrets together.

 

President Jimmy Carter was close to his sister, Ruth Carter Stapleton.

robin

The George H.W. Bush family.

When George and Barbara Bush called young George, Jr. out of school in Texas, and had him get into the car, to tell him that his sister, Robin had died, he was stunned. He had known that something was wrong. He had begged to play with her at Kennebunkport, Maine that summer but they kept them apart, fearing that young George would be too rough.

Now, weeks later in Texas, told that she had died, he kept repeating, in between sobs, “Why didn’t you tell me, why didn’t you tell me.” He had not been given the chance to say goodbye.

(Read All the Presidents Children.)

Thomas Jefferson’s sister, Martha, was widowed at a young age and spent much of her life at Monticello, running her brother’s estate.

President Rutherford B. Hayes was close to his sister, Fanny. As children, when one got sick, the other one nursed them back to health. Rutherford used to pull his sister around on a sled.

When President Chester Arthur’s wife died, his sister, Molly McElroy, had to step in as first lady, to run the White House and take care of his little girl.

Theodore Roosevelt’s sister, Anna Roosevelt Cowels, “Bamie,” was so talented that Alice Roosevelt once said that she should have been the president.

In the soon to be released book, GAME OF THORNS, you will read about President Donald Trump’s older sister, Judge Maryanne Trump Barry.  When candidate Trump tangled with Megyn Kelly of Fox News, his big sister was there to reassure him. “Just be yourself.”

When the Access Hollywood tape was released, and all seemed lost, she and others counseled calm.

Journalists and television pundits are quick to point out that no president has ever had a sister serving as a judge. It’s true. But some have been close.

President George Washington’s nephew, Bushrod Washington, served on the Supreme Court.

President Zachary Taylor’s sister in law was the daughter of the famous Supreme Court Justice, John McLean.

President William Henry Harrison’s sister was married to a judge.

President John Tyler’s son in law was a judge. He became one of Tyler’s closest confidantes.

President James Buchanan’s brother was the US Attorney for Western Pennsylvania.

President John F. Kennedy’s brother was appointed Attorney General.

Then there is the big one. President William Howard Taft actually, later, became the tenth Chief Justice of the Supreme Court.

As you will learn in GAME OF THORNS, Donald Trump is close to his family members, that’s why his mind turned to them on the night he was declared the President –Elect.

“Truly, great people,” Trump told the nation, “I’ve got a great family.”

 

Advertisements

Jimmy Carter: He never told a lie

August 20, 2015

Jimmy Carter held a press conference today, announcing details on his growing battle with cancer.

“I will never lie to you,” Jimmy Carter said back in 1976.  And so far, he never has.

The dignity, humility and integrity of Jimmy Carter is best illustrated by what he hasn’t done.

Unlike presidents who followed him he has not made millions off of interviews or speeches.  Or taken speaking engagements from companies who needed influence.  He hasn’t used his Foundation to trade influence for money.  He hasn’t taken bribes in return for influencing policies for friends.

Unlike many of the most recent presidents he hasn’t used the courts to block researchers or writers from accessing his presidential papers.  He has been accessible.  He simply has nothing to hide. I interviewed him the year after he left office.

Unlike the last three Democrat presidents who preceded him, he did not have sex with young subordinates on his own White House staff.

What is striking is that there has not even been a single charge of impropriety.  One can disagree with his political views but one cannot find anything wrong with his character.

Jimmy Carter followed Richard Nixon into the White House.  Nixon, who was caught in a lie over the Watergate Scandal, created what was called the Imperial Presidency.  His new White House Secret Service uniforms looked like Prussian police officers.  By contrast, President Jimmy Carter insisted on carrying his own bags when he got off Air Force One.

Secret Service uniforms at the Nixon White House.

Secret Service uniforms at the Nixon White House.

It is said that Jimmy Carter redefined the post presidency.  Most early presidents were careful to retire and stay out of the limelight.  There were exceptions. Ulysses Grant got involved in tawdry business deals with his sons and probably would have gone to prison if he had not been a former president.

In more recent times, Coolidge, Truman, Eisenhower, all kept the tradition that held, former presidents were seldom seen and never heard.

Carter changed all of that.  Determined to be useful, he volunteered with Habitat for Humanity and helped build houses for the needy. There he was, the former president, on a rooftop, pounding nails in the sun.  The media couldn’t resist.  He showed energy and compassion and his Carter Foundation impacted the world.

Jimmy Carter’s political rise was a Cinderella story.  He was a candidate for president who showed up in Iowa the year before with a 2% recognition factor.  That doesn’t mean that 2% of the state supported him, it means only 2% even knew who he was.  But by the summer of 1975, right where we are now in the presidential cycle, Jimmy Carter stunned the nation by winning the important Iowa presidential summer straw poll.  It thrust him into the nation’s limelight where he has remained ever since.

It is hard to explain the euphoria that accompanied the Carter election as president.  He was a Democrat who publicly identified himself as a “born again” Christian.  Which put border states into play and reshuffled the electoral college numbers as Republican evangelicals crossed over to support him.  It forever changed the strategic map of American politics.

His family was a hoot.

Lillian Carter, the president’s mother, was a huge personality, well ahead of her time.  Outspoken and courageous in her political views, Lillian was a Southerner who spent her life exposing racism.  A world traveler, a nurse, a former Peace Corps volunteer to India, she became a delightful bon vivant of the Carter First Family.

His sister, Ruth Carter Stapleton, was a well dressed, good looking, faith healer.

His brother, Billy Carter, was the personification of the old Southern country boy.  When Carter won the Iowa Caucus reporters descended on his tiny gas station in Plains, Georgia where Billy held court with a beer can in his hand.  “My sister is a faith healer,” Billy said. “My brother thinks he’s going to be president.  I’m the only sane one in the bunch.”

It was an exciting and compelling time of hope.  America was coming out of Watergate and corruption.  There was hope that this president could restore integrity to the White House.  He did that. But the economy sagged, Islamic terrorists seized power in Iran and the Soviet Union threatened the end of the world.  American turned to Ronald Reagan.

The Soviet threat is gone now, but the economy still struggles as American finds its new place in a post industrial era and unfortunately, the corruption is back.  The IRS, the Veterans Administration and other agencies are tainted.  The front runners for both parties include a Republican who openly brags that “I buy politicians and they do what the hell I tell them to” and a Democrat who is trying to survive charges that she offered her power for sale to even foreign buyers.

Jimmy Carter’s press conference today was a reminder that at least once, in recent American history, someone held power without corruption.

Jimmy Carter and Doug Wead, 1979.

Jimmy Carter and Doug Wead, 1979.


Syria – What would Reagan do?

September 2, 2013

“The president does not have the authority, under the Constitution, to unilaterally authorize a military attack, unless there is a direct threat against this nation.”

– Senator Barack Obama, 2007

 

The word is that the regime of Bashar al-Assad has used chemical weapons against its own people.  Reportedly 1,500 have died, including 400 children.   It is a heinous crime.  Some are calling for America to invade Syria and put down this regime.  So I pose this question.  What would Ronald Reagan do?

The answer?

Absolutely nothing.  At least for now.  For eight years Ronald Reagan tolerated a tyrant far more malevolent than Bashar al-Assad of Syria.

If we prove that Assad did indeed use chemical weapons then the whole world should condemn this act and such condemnation will likely, eventually, lead to action.   Syria’s wealthy Arab neighbors, such as Saudi Arabia, who arm themselves with our latest jets and weapons may have a moral obligation to respond.  But don’t hold your breath.  Americans like to do these things.  And the rest of the world is smart enough to let us shed our blood to keep things in order.

The fact is that the atrocities of the Assad regime cannot compare to the reign of Cambodian leader, Pol Pot, who may have killed as many as 3 million of his own people during the Carter-Reagan years and he was never brought to justice, nor was it seen as America’s responsibility to do so.

The Pol Pot regime practiced true genocide against helpless civilians.  Marked for execution were Cambodian doctors, nurses, teachers, journalists, college graduates and people who could read, including children.  Even people who wore eye glasses were marked for execution.  It was rationalized that if they wore eye glasses they could probably read.  Pol Pot wanted his regime to start over again without any taint of the past.

I personally appealed to both presidents Jimmy Carter and Ronald Reagan for help.   Carter, who had made human rights a major part of his foreign policy agenda, told me that Pol Pot had driven all of the fork lifts into the sea.  There was no means of unloading aid at the ports.  Hundreds of thousands of Cambodians were starving to death.  At a dinner with the Reagan’s in their home in Pacific Palisades I described images from a recent trip I had taken to the  Cambodia border and Ronald Reagan appeared heart broken.  Meanwhile, in Cambodia, the bleached bones of the dead piled up.   It was called “the killing fields.”

Pol Pot led the Kymer Rouge from 1963 to 1998.  They took over in Cambodia in 1979.   I met some of the survivors who fled the country and entertained the Cambodian Prince, son of Norodom Sihanouk, in my home during this ongoing massacre.  Pol Pot was eventually placed under house arrest by his own people.   He died in 1998.  At no time throughout the Carter-Reagan years was there any substantial political movement calling for military action against Pol Pot nor were any public figures calling for the capture and trial of the worse tyrant since Hitler.

Why?

Because our founding fathers never envisioned that we would rule the world.  Nor does the  U.S. Constitution make provision for that futile and arrogant exercise.

Because there were and still are many evil regimes doing evil things to its people and America could not rid itself of evil within its own borders, let alone throughout the whole world.  What kind of justice would now take out Syria but leave North Korea standing?

Because the U.S. president did not have the authority to go to war without the  nation’s duly elected representatives debating and then making such a declaration.  Even Franklin D. Roosevelt, after the attack on Pearl Harbor, needed the U. S. Congress to make a declaration of war.

Because corporations did not yet have the powerful lobbies in place to make sure their companies got the contracts and profited from such wars and in return gave part of the money back to the politicians who supported it.

Because the corporations who owned the national media were not yet subsidiaries of other corporations who profited from such wars and were financed by banks that gave them preferential interest rates on loans, nor were they yet fully compromised by corporate advertisers who were beneficiaries of the same system.  In other words, some measure of journalism, real journalism, still existed in the Carter-Reagan years.

So why is it likely that America will now take action against Syria?  Cruise missile attack perhaps?  Drones?  What has changed?  Why should America be installing governments all over the Middle East with unintended blowback such as governments that kill their own Christian citizens?

Since 9-11 some parts of the American form of constitutional government have been weakened or abandoned altogether.  This in the name of security.  Some departments and agencies of the Federal Government operate without laws, with only a self imposed sense of ethics limited by their interpretation of popular will which is in turn influenced by a compliant, uncritical media.

The presidency is now a virtual dictatorship limited only by fifty unelected men and women who run the television industry.   This is not the creation of Barack Obama, the process has been ongoing for years and took a great leap forward with George W. Bush and 9-11.  It is the price we paid for security.  It is a process dictated by events as well as the unquenchable thirst for power.

The president’s personal reputation is on the line since he warned Syria not to use chemical weapons.  He said that this represented a line they could not cross.  Now, given his personality, and the need to uphold his personal honor, he will likely use the newly won dictatorial powers of the American presidency to take action.

We have come a long way from the ideal of Thomas Jefferson who dealt with the Barbary Pirates, the Islamic terrorists of his day. Thomas Jefferson once said, “The more you use your power, the less you have.”  American may wake up soon to find itself very weak indeed.  Strong with weaponry but abandoned by a world who has grown tired of our arrogant rule.


Osama is dead, Obama’s re-election is alive!

May 3, 2011

There has been more than one casualty in America’s successful raid into Pakistan to get Osama Bin Laden.  Republican chances to take back the White House are equally dead.  At least for the moment.

It is hard to think of anything that can happen on the world stage, or in the American economy, that could change the atmosphere.  Unemployment at 10%?  Long lines at service stations?  Runaway inflation?  Forget it.  None of that can now drain President Obama’s political equity.

Some in the media had begun to compare Barack Obama to Jimmy Carter, well think again.  Think what would have happened if Carter’s raid to rescue the hostages in Iran had not broken down in the desert?  Think of those rescued hostages and their weeping spouses standing with Carter in the Rose Garden.  Compare Obama to THAT Jimmy Carter and you get just a sense of what has happened here politically.

Remember, some pundits were harping on how Obama was really soft on Islamic Jihad, trying to pretend that there was no such thing as an “Islamic” terrorist, changing the language, bowing before a Saudi King, tilting American policy toward the Palestinians and conflicted about what to do in Libya?  Now, such issues have been erased at the speed of a Ronald Reagan joke.

Barack Obama’s leadership in getting Osama Bin Laden is clear.  It was Obama who took great heat in naming Leon Paneta as Director of the CIA.  Paneta was a political animal who had served as chief of staff to Bill Clinton and not just chief of staff, but one of the most successful in American history.  Cabinet members get listed in the Alamanc, have giant oil paintings of their faces hung in long marble hallways but in our modern presidency chiefs of staff really run the country and sometimes the world.  Their political skills are finely honed.  Obama wanted the best at the CIA and now we know why.  He wanted something done.

Incidentally, there is no better tribute to Paneta’s political skills than his recent move to Department of Defense.  If the operation to get Bin Laden were successful, he would get the credit.  If it failed, if another helicopter had malfunctioned, and Pakistan had reacted to our incursion and there had been a major blow up of relations between America and an Islamic nation with nuclear weapons, well, like the Bay of Pigs, the new man had messed up.  This is the sort of Nixonian genius it took to get a Bin Laden.

Likewise, Obama’s handling of expectations was superb.  While George W. Bush, the master of expectations, uncharacteristically raised the bar, saying that we would get Bin Laden, even if it took a year, but implying that it was weeks away, Barack Obama learned the lesson and never said a thing beyond his early campaign promise that this should be, and would be, his priority.  What has happened is a clear vindication of Obama’s decision and style.

Besides the American people themselves, and the president, Leon Paneta is the big winner.  Obama could do much worse than make him his running mate in 2012.  It would be a daily reminder on the campaign trail that “We got Bin Laden.  It is sunshine again in America.”  Just keep in mind that presidents almost never change their running mates.  It is not only politically disruptive to all the players who have developed their relationships with Vice President Biden, it is an admission of sorts, that Obama could have done better last time.

And how does this huge event impact the Republican nomination process?

Potential candidates that were not sure of their commitment will now probably drop out sooner.  This could mean Sarah Palin and even possibly Mike Huckabee, whose television-radio career makes him richer by the day. Meanwhile, new candidates, like Tim Pawlenty, Michelle Bachman  and Jon Huntsman may benefit from the vacuum.

Frontrunner, Mitt Romney should have an easier path to the nomination.  If he still wants it.  In the latest poll he was the only Republican who beat the president in a head to head contest.  And that was last week.  Now, the impossible quest of defeating Barack Obama will require evangelical Christians and Mormons to get along and make peace to win, which should ease the way for a Romney nomination.   Romney is a Mormon, Palin and Huckabee are both evangelical Christians.

But the big winner in the GOP may just be congressman Ron Paul who leads a movement.  He will lose some of his libertarian Democrat support, who will coalesce behind their newly popular president.  But with Osama Bin Laden dead, Ron Paul’s call for an end to the multiple wars and millions of dollars in aid to countries like Pakistan may resonate even further.  One can hear Ron Paul’s argument, “You mean we borrowed money from China and gave it to Pakistan while they protected Osama Bin Laden?”  And Dr. Paul’s call for economic reform, including an audit of the FED, is now widely embraced by the American public.

The fact is this.  Within 24 hours the world changed.  Obama is back in the driver’s seat.  If he can get an economic bounce, even a little fake, money supply bounce, he will be unbeatable.  And the economic collapse of American will be postponed a few years more.


Will Obama be a Clinton or a Carter?

November 5, 2010

Both Democrats presidents Jimmy Carter and Bill Clinton experienced voter corrections in their second year in office.  But the two reacted differently.   Clinton moderated his policies, worked with a Republican congress and was re-elected.  Jimmy Carter stuck to his guns and was defeated.  So which template will it be for Barack Obama?  Clinton or Carter?

His staff, whose futures depend on his re-election and his money people, who depend on his power, are even now urging him to follow the Clinton path.  And while the liberal world is in a fit of anxiety, warning the president not to back down, his more reasonable constituent leaders will argue the same.

Look, a liberal ideologue can make the case that this president has accomplished more for the liberal left in America than all the other liberal politicians in American history combined.  If he can’t get it done, it can’t be done, at least for now, so they can say to their fellow liberals, get behind him, even if he has to moderate a bit to stay in power.

And what about the Carter option?  What do we see in President Obama that would lead us to believe  he would even consider the Jimmy Carter template?

Well, in fact, there is much.

I interviewed Jimmy and Rosalynn Carter after the election and at one point, Rosalynn stood and said, “If Jimmy had bombed Tehran, he would still be president today.”  And she was right.  But, of course, the hostages would have died.  But Carter would not have blood on his hands.

The point is that this is not just about winning and losing.  This is not college football.  These leaders have egos and they also have convictions.  As a senator, Obama often voted in a minority with four or five others, against everybody else in the Senate, even in his own party. Obama, the ideologue, may repeat Jimmy Carter because it is in his nature.  He may repeat because he cannot help himself.

Remember, Carter blamed Watergate and his predecessors for the economy.  At times he seemed to blame the American people.  He talked about a malaise in the country.   It was their fault.  And this is a very pronounced theme in Obama –speak.  It’s George’s fault.  It’s the gun toting, religious people in Pennsylvania’s fault, it’s a lack of understanding of the American people, it’s Fox TV’s fault.

Let’s assume for a moment that the president pursues the Clinton path, that he moves to the middle and works with the new Republican majority in the House, what does he do?  How will it work?

Dropping any tax increases seem to be a start.  But given this economy, that is not much of a compromise, that is a no brainer.  This is not a time to be discouraging investment.

Will Healthcare be repealed?  I doubt it.  Programs with more government involvement are seldom reversed.  Maybe it will be tweaked.  And then we will have this parade of legislation that the Senate will block and the president will veto and maybe some of it will get public support and pass.

When it comes time for re-election, if the economy is bad, candidate Obama will blame it on the Republican Congress, if it is good, he will take credit for it.  Nothing new.  Except the American people, slow to arouse, are finally beginning to catch on.

So will he get re-elected?  And did this election seriously damage those chances?

Well, as you know, if you read this column, I have long speculated that he was considering the option of one term from the very beginning, that his radical agenda would make that more likely.  He would retire as a great heavyweight champion boxer, retiring without a glove being laid on him.   And his after life would be unlike that of any former president in history.  He would be an international phenomenon.

But then, keep in mind, the whole world can change in 24 hours.  So anything can happen.  And this president, no matter how out of step he may be with the American people, is nevertheless, a great politician and a great personality.  He has most of the national media still behind him.  Anything can happen.


Presidents’ Vacations

July 19, 2010

Presidents’ vacations.

There is an uproar over President Obama’s vacation.  And once again the charge is hypocrisy.   He is a president who champions public schools for the masses, while sending his own daughters to private schools.  And in this case, a president who urges us to visit the beaches of the devastated Gulf while he slips away to Maine.  But all the uproar over Obama’s summer vacation should be seen in context.  Presidents have always taken time off.  And most observers think they should.

In 2000, when the Supreme Court finally declared that George W. Bush was the president-elect and he made his historic flight back to Washington on Air Force One, a friend of mine was onboard.  He said that the plane was practically empty.   No family members, only a couple of staffers and my friend, who was a journalist.   Bush quickly turned the tables on the journalist and asked him the first question.

“How many days did Ronald Reagan spend on his ranch in California?”

Bush was already groaning under the pressure and he had not yet been inaugurated for spent a single day in office. He would pass Reagan’s days off but by no means set the record for a modern president.

The record, if it can be called that, belongs to Lyndon B. Johnson who served 5.5 years in office and spent well over one of those years at his Texas ranch.  484 days to be exact. And the record for the fewest days off belongs to Jimmy Carter, who took off only 79 days.

President Kennedy loved his time off and the Kennedy family had all kinds of retreats.  There was the family compound with multiple homes at Hyannis Port, Massachusetts, the home in Palm Beach, Florida, and of course the President had Camp David and just in case they needed it, another home in the Virginia fox country, an hour outside of Washington, D. C.

Eisenhower wanted to get rid of Camp David.  It reminded him of Franklin D. Roosevelt who had purchased the place.  Only his wife Mamie, who liked it, and the fact that he was able to successfully rename it after his grandson, David Eisenhower, made him finally decide to keep it.  Not that Eisenhower didn’t like to take time off.  He was an avid, year round, golfer.
The work of a president is making decisions.  And that work never stops.  Even when they sleep.  Woodrow Wilson was scandalized by the pace.  It had been the family tradition for him to spend his evening with his wife and daughters reading together but after a few frustrating evenings he confessed that he was exasperated.  He said he was being forced to make decisions without any reflection.  “I can’t even take a walk to think it through.”

In earlier times, when it took three months to get a pair of scissors from Europe, decisions were more deliberate and less predictable.  James Madison once took a four month long vacation.  The business of the nation could simply wait.

No president would likely find fault with Barack Obama, for going where he wants to go or even when.  Nixon strongly urged his successors to take time off to reflect, to walk the beach.  This crisis will pass and the nation will survive.  One may disagree with Obama on the direction of the country.  The direction of his family vacation this summer, should be his own.


Caroline Kennedy in the Senate? An historic perspective

December 7, 2008

 

I am getting a ton of calls from journalists wanting some historical context for Caroline Kennedy’s likely appointment to the U. S. Senate.   Even one of the presidential historian – talking heads has checked in, asking for example, if there have been other children of presidents who have served in the Senate.  “Just Adams and Taft, right?” one famous historian wanted to know.  Gotta make sure before going onto TV to tell the world.

Yep, just Adams and Taft.  Caroline Kennedy would make three.  Although there have been eight who served in the House of Representatives, four in the cabinet, five ambassadors and two governors, both Bushes.

Of course, Kennedy is not in yet.  Presumably she would be appointed to finish the term of Hillary Clinton, whom President Elect Obama is going to make his Secretary of State.  A lot of history there.  Clinton will be the first former first lady to serve in the cabinet, although Eleanor Roosevelt was Ambassador to the United Nations and Edith Galt Wilson practically ran the whole country for her incapacitated husband.

 

U. S. Senators who were children of presidents

1.) John Quincy Adams was the first son born to an American president.  Born in 1767 to John and Abigail Adams, he was a bit of a child prodigy, who accompanied his father on foreign trips and was serving at the ambassadorial level for the new United Sates in his twenties. He served as a U. S. Senator from Massachusetts from 1803 – 1808.  He would later be an ambassador again, secretary of state, and president before returning to the House of Representatives in his later years.

2.) Robert Taft, son of the 27th president, William Howard Taft, served as a Senator from Ohio from 1939 – 1953.  He ran for president three times, and for awhile, was considered a front runner in the 1952 election.  Although a Republican, Taft was named one of the five greatest senators of all time by a committee chaired by Caroline Kennedy’s own father, then Senator John F. Kennedy.

Referred to as “Mr. Republican,” Bob Taft was the father of the modern conservative movement.

If Caroline Kennedy becomes the third presidents’ kid to serve in the U. S. Senate, there were three others who tried and failed, two of them ran for the elusive California seat.

 

The other candidates for the U. S. Senate who were children of presidents

1.) U. S. “Buck” Grant, Jr. was at the heart of a major scandal, talking his father, the former president, into joining the ill fated Grant and Ward brokerage firm.  Some concluded that the only thing that saved the young Grant from prison was the conclusion that he was more incompetent than culpable.  Years later, when he tried for a comeback by entering into the race for the U. S. Senate from California, the old charges resurfaced along with new ones, including bribery.  The new charges were eventually proven to be false, the product of “dirty politics.”  But the race was lost.

2.) Maureen Reagan ran for the Senate from California in 1982.  Her own father, who was then president, refused to break his pledge of remaining neutral in primary battles and wouldn’t endorse her.  Maureen lost.  She tried again for the House of Representatives and lost.  But Maureen is the only child of a president to serve as the Chairman of a major political party.  During her father’s second term, and in spite of White House aides trying to shoot down the idea, thinking that her public persona was only a reminder to the masses that Reagan had been married and divorced, she was elected the Republican National Co-Chairman.

3.) John William “Jack” Carter, a millionaire investment consultant, and eldest son of President Jimmy Carter, ran for the Senate from Nevada in 2006.  Carter won the primary and might have pulled off an upset against a well heeled opponent but Carter became gravely ill in the last months of the campaign and was hospitalized.  Most say he has a political future if he wants it.