Political History

Simply put, the LBJ I knew hungered for power, and knew he knew how to use it. The Kennedy I knew grudgingly but genuinely admired LBJ's ability. Robert Caro's book reminded me of a sad conversation I had with LBJ during the time he was languishing in the vice presidency.

Whatever your political affiliation, this election season will be both virtual and geographic ground zero for making one's voice heard. The objective as always will be to make the message attract as much media and Internet attention as possible.

Imagine giving our Founding Fathers, some of the most learned and intelligent men in history, a tool like Twitter. Would humility win the day or would the draw of casting immediate stones outweigh etiquette?

Our minds -- and those of politicians -- feed on overconfidence. We want to believe not only the promise but that the person who made it can deliver. A recent book by Nobel-winning economist/psychologist Daniel Kahneman helps explain this.

It was Winston Churchill who first used that term, "the crunch," in that way. It means, of course, that crisis when a leader has to make a judgment. It is when lives, perhaps millions of them, hang on the outcome of the decision the leader makes.

With the assassination of JFK, the resignation of Nixon, the near-assassination of Reagan and the impeachment of Clinton, the question of presidential "succession" looms larger than ever. And as a result, voters and the national media are scrutinizing VP qualifications like never before.

While religious freedom sometimes permits a role for religion in politics, other times it requires the opposite, a lawmaking process based in secular justifications, without formal church involvement.

It is rather arrogant and contradictory to run for Congress, proclaiming one's hatred for the institution that is Washington, D.C., vowing not to compromise, while promising to change the political tone.

Perhaps multiple reasons are to blame for the uncertainty of the GOP today and the likely forced marriage that will prevail. But, in the end, this is our system, which is still the greatest in the world. It isn't perfect and will continue to evolve as it has since the founding of our country.

What could be clearer than "the United States of America is not, in any sense, founded on the Christian religion?"

If we think the products of past brokered conventions were good for America, good for good for the conservative cause, or even good for the Republican Party, we should think again. A brokered convention could only leave us all, well, broker.

Rick Santorum, Newt Gingrich and Ron Paul all have reasons to not drop out. With each passing primary, there's a chance the Republican nominee will have to deal with the fallout from the first brokered convention since primaries and caucuses became the critical method of choosing nominees.

If Obama makes his campaign about jobs and debt reduction, he can seize the center and win the bulk of independent voters, and thus stands a good chance of not only winning reelection, but doing so by landslide margins.

This time the conventional wisdom may turn out to be wrong, and the independent candidacies the Americans Elect online delegates select might win.

Do most citizens have a fully reasoned view of what we want government to actually do? Is that at the root of the polarization poisoning American politics? Perhaps a little thought experiment would help.

Don't let the dreadlocks fool you: There's a profound conservatism about Occupy Wall Street.

The pattern is quite clear. When the White House party was in its first term, it has won reelection in five of six cases since 1960, with an average share of 55.5% of the two-party vote.

Barack Obama shares some characteristics with Roosevelt -- both wrote popular books and won the Nobel Peace Prize -- but they are also very different.

Vilified by the Republicans and mocked by the Democrats, Carter reached the point where he was regarded by his own party as such a political liability that they tried to torpedo him in the 1980 primary.

The lesson of Upton Sinclair's 1934 gubernatorial run is that sticking to principles and running hard from the left -- if backed by the grassroots -- can get results from a president, even if the candidate in question loses.