CenterLeftRight

Romney vs. Obama and Dow 12,000: It's the economy stupid

2012-08-10T19:16:00.001-07:00

by Jerry Morgan
I always aim for the middle of the road

What is the number one issue in this and most any other Presidential election?

That's right! It's the economy stupid.

With the Dow Jones Industrial Average nudging over 13,000 team Obama is in control. There is virtually nothing team Romney can do, say, or spend that will make a difference.

If that is the case, Obama will serve four more years, right? Well, maybe. Here's the way I see it:

If the Dow declines ten percent from these levels then the race will be a coin flip. Ten percent for a highly volatile stock market is very much a possibility; that would put the Dow at about 12,000. If it declines by fifteen percent over the next three months, that would put the Dow at around 11,000, a level that makes team Romney the favorites to take back the White House for the GOP.

Why is the Dow Jones Industrial average such an important indicator in a Presidential race? Simple, people measure wealth by numbers they can quantify. Most Americans have pension plans and sleep better on nights when the Dow rises. They often lose sleep during bear markets (definition of a bear market is a decline of 20% or more). The DJIA is a number that the electorate hears on almost a daily basis. Nobody checks their overall net worth on a daily basis, but they cannot but help hear on the news that the Dow went up or down. And if the Dow goes down below a millennium mark like 12,000 or 11,000 it is big news.

With property values depressed, many out of work or underemployed, and the cost of a college education putting young Americans deeply in debt, Americans want to believe that their retirement nest egg is still in tact and they will punish the incumbent if it is not.

The irony is that there is little or nothing either candidate can do to affect the movement of the Dow. Some may argue that the Fed can do another round of Quantitative Easing (QE) but it is becoming increasingly less effective and interest rates are already near 0 so they cannot be lowered. And no new stimulus plan will ever be approved by the GOP controlled house.

So, if you want to handicap this election, pay attention to the Dow Jones Industrial averages.

Jeremy Lin for President

2012-02-20T17:28:00.000-08:00

The Center

by Jerry Morgan

First, there is precedence for a NY Knickerbocker to run for high office. It wasn't that long ago that Bill Bradley, a Princeton grad and NY Knicks star, become the duly elected senior senator from New Jersey and later ran for President of the United States, losing a primary battle to Al Gore.

I don't know if Jeremy Lin is an Independent, Democrat or a Republican, but it doesn't matter. He shoots well from all sides of the court so he can adapt his political rhetoric to fit either party's platform. Or he could run as a third party candidate, perhaps opting for Mike Bloomberg as his VP, another prominent New Yorker with minority status and business acumen.

As I see it, however, his best chance for the oval office is to run as a Republican. Clearly, the GOP is most desperate for a viable candidate who can beat Obama and still appeal to its conservative base. They are talking a lot these days about a brokered convention, but their most favored sons: Jeb, Mitch and Chris are definite nos. So, they may just turn to Lin as a dark horse candidate to go mano a mano with Barack Obama.

How does Lin stack up against the sitting President?

Ø There is little doubt that he can beat him to the hoop in a one on one competition.

Ø His birth certificate shows that he was born in Palo Alto, California, not Taiwan and not Kenya so any potential birthers should be silenced in this regard.

Ø As undergraduates, they both attended Ivy League schools. Harvard is generally rated a notch above Columbia amongst the Ivies. They also have a much better basketball team.

Ø What did Obama major in at Columbia? Was it poly sci? I know it wasn't economics. Score one for Lin as the better economist. You don't have to be a lawyer to be a good President, but considering the state of our economy, we can sure use a Harvard economist at the helm.

Okay! We have established that Lin beats Obama one on one in all the important categories. The question is would Lin appeal to the Republican base?

Well, he is an evangelical Christian and was active in Christian clubs in Harvard. He has expressed a desire for helping inner city youth and the poor and would like to one day become a pastor.

This is in stark contrast to Mitt Romney who proudly proclaims that his campaign is not geared toward the poor but to the middle class. Hey, Mitt, what middle class? The divergence between the upper and lower class in this country has all but squeezed the middle class into oblivion with most heading into the lower strata of our socioeconomic spectrum.

Jeremy Lin would likely appoint judges to the Supreme Court with a strong conservative bent in an effort to repeal Roe v. Wade. This is consistent with the GOP platform.

How about Lin on foreign relations? He certainly would help bridge the gap between the U.S. and the rapidly emerging powerhouse, the People's Republic of China. How could Premier Wen Jiabao go against a national hero when half of China is wearing number 17 jerseys on their backs?

It would undoubtedly help resolve our issues with respect to the rogue states of North Korea and Iran if Lin could ally China with us on imposing sanctions.

So a Lin presidency should translate into greatly improved relations with China. And since Jon Huntsman is out of the race, he would be the only candidate left who speaks Mandarin.

But how would he poll against Obama? He would go neck and neck with him in Lin's home state of California which right now is solidly in the blue camp.

He would also poll very well in NY where his jersey is better advertising than any Super Pac can rival. NYC may be heavily minority, but it also has a large Asian population. Furthermore, the Knicks, Rangers, Mets and Yankees would all be in his camp. I call NY state a toss-up. He will win the south and traditionally Republican bible-belt states, including Iowa which is up for grabs.

Okay, if he is likely to run strong, who should he pick for his running mate? Jack Kemp would have been a good choice had he not died (thank you anonymous). Anyhow, I think he needs to appeal to the middle by picking a democrat. While not such an obvious choice, my pick for the bottom of the ticket isn't an athlete; but he is a fixture at the Garden and is a very good shooter, of movies that is. You guessed it; he will do the right thing as Lin's VP.

Spike Lee would pull his weight against Obama amongst African Americans and would virtually assure a win in NY state as well as California. And he has already endorsed him, not only wearing his jersey, but donning his actual high school jersey.

So, my prediction is a Lin-Lee ticket for the GOP against Obama-Biden. A race too close to call.

Lincoln-Douglas or Obama-Gingrich?

2012-01-24T19:00:00.000-08:00

The Left by Y.I. Wearblack

One Man's Opinion

The victory of Newt Gingrich in South Caroline and his victory speech alluding to seven Lincoln-Douglas style debates with President Obama evokes a number of stark parallels between the issues in 1858 and the issues we face today in the 2012 election.

In 1858, Abraham Lincoln was the Republican challenger to the Democratic incumbent, Steven Douglas. The debates highlighted the issues that would come to the fore in the 1860 presidential election. The debaters agreed to debates in all seven districts of Illinois. The debates were recorded word for word by stenographers from all the nation’s major newspapers, and the public followed every debate, reading every line of text, analyzing the meaning of every word like biblical scholars deciphering scripture.

The first parallel to the 2012 election is the physical similarity of the debaters to their predecessors. Though Gingrich is older than Douglas he resembles him in height and shape, Obama has been said to resemble and admire Lincoln.

Although Lincoln was the Republican in 1858, he represented the anti-slavery position. Remember, at this point the argument was not to abolish slavery, but whether or not slavery would spread to the North by virtue of the ending of the Missouri Compromise ban on slavery in Kansas and Nebraska and the Dred Scott decision by the Supreme Court. Lincoln expressed the fear that the next Dred Scott decision would make Illinois a slave state. White America was born into a culture of bigotry which plagued the nation from its birth and from which the nation has never completely extricated itself; the parallel is stark.

In 1858 the issue was to stem the spread of slavery, preaching to a constituency that believed that all men were equal under the constitution, except for slaves. Today, the issue is class warfare; the right of the poor and middle class to retain the benefits that they have paid for versus the threat of austerity aimed at limiting these benefits.

As in 1858, the rich exploited the poor and middle class to further enrich itself, buttressed by a renegade supreme court, unabashed in their conviction for entitlement. The Romney camp marketed him as an advocate for the rich, using his life as an example, touting the evil of envy and the purity of capitalism. But this last week his strategy was exposed as a canard. No matter how hard he tried he could not identify with the southern electorate that he faced.

But Newt Gingrich, who had been brought up in Georgia, a state whose people have similar values as South Carolina was able to seize the moment. He was a desperate caged tiger, one inch from elimination. He was willing to say anything, do anything to stay alive, as he ever so gingerly tiptoed into the realm of playing to the audience's prejudices disguised in an idealistic framework called work ethic. That was his opening gambit in South Carolina, and Newt pushed the pieces with great precision. He called Williams a liberal, but some South Carolinians had a different word in mind. Just as Douglas did 154 years ago, Newt is set to exploit prejudices by rhetoric, statesmanship and debate. He has proclaimed that he’s the only one who is snarly enough, vociferous enough and pugnacious enough to “put Barack Obama in his place.”

From the perspective of a liberal, I say, let’s do it! I’m willing to suffer the tedium of seven debates. I have two reasons. The first is that an epic struggle of good versus evil defines history. Second, shrinking from this challenge for any reason would only strengthen the argument of Gingrich, namely that the Democratic platform is weak and deserves to be exploited. So, “Lay on McDuff, and damned be him who cries, hold, enough!”

NEWT, NEWT, NEWT

2012-01-22T10:03:00.000-08:00

The Center by Jerry Morgan

Now that Newt has ridden the second wave of popularity back to the top of the polls in the fight for the top spot in the GOP ticket come this fall, it begs the question, just who is Newt and what does he really stand for?

It reminds me of the story of how one would answer the question “how much is 2 plus 2?”. A mathematician would reply 4, an economist would reply 4 plus or minus 1, while a politician would reply “what do you want it to be?”

Newt is first and foremost a politician, so it is difficult to know what the real Newt’s positions are on the issues. Moreover, Newt is always posturing, always thinking of alternatives, always throwing ideas out there without having thought them through. So, who knows if even Newt knows how he really feels on the issues. It varies like the weather and it varies by what town he is stumping in that day. Of course, one could say, with even more conviction, the very same about Mitt.

So then, we will have to examine the record to establish some past history of how Newt stood on issues when he was Speaker and when he made public appearances through the years prior to becoming a serious presidential candidate.

Joe Scarborough knows Newt from his days in Congress. He told David Gregory, after the SC primary, on Meet the Press, that the problem with both Newt and Mitt is that neither are true conservatives. Both were for the individual mandate on health-care and both have held moderate to even progressive positions on many issues in the past.

We all know Mitt’s record as a moderate to liberal governor of the very liberal state of Massachusetts. But we have to turn the clock back further to examine Newt’s record in Congress. For his rather erratic voting record see the excellent post by Steve Jordan in Anna Janek’s blog on November 26, 2011. While Newt has taken many conservative positions during his tenure in Congress, Mr. Jordan points out that he has voted favorably on bills to substantially increase Federal education spending, support NAFTA, and use Federal tax dollars on abortion programs.

My point is that Newt has a long history of voting his conscience on the issues rather than according to strict party lines. In my opinion, I respect any member of Congress who has the guts to vote his or her mind whether or not I agree with the position. The problem that I do have with Newt is that he has sometimes strayed too far from the norm.

He would like to fire judges who differ from his point of view. According to a Reuters.com article on Dec. 28, 2011 during a campaign stop in NH Republican presidential hopeful Newt Gingrich threatened to have U.S. judges arrested if they disagreed with his policies as president, ratcheting up his attacks on the judiciary. This follows earlier comments he made on Face The Nation that he would subpoena a judge that disagreed with him stating, “if you had to or you'd instruct the Justice Department to send a U.S. Marshall” if necessary to bring the judge in. In my opinion, this has to be in the .001 percent of mainline thinking regarding the judiciary.

His remarks about child labor also seemed several standard deviations from the norm when he first enunciated them, however, he has placed them in a better context during the SC debates. Newt is a tough old codger and we need a tough guy in the White House, one who is not afraid to stand up to foreign leaders and one who will demand their respect. But at the same time rationality is critically important for the position of President of the United States of America.

In my mind, Newt has many attributes that make him the best of the four candidates left standing in the GOP race, but some of his liabilities are very troublesome.

Despite his liabilities, Newt would be my choice to oppose Mr. Obama partly because I believe that his conservative convictions are not cast in stone, but are more opportunistic. I believe he will move more to the center and could actually be a bridge builder between the two parties. My hope is that if by some miracle he makes into the White House, he will rise to the occasion and sober up to the realities of the responsibilities of the office.

The Left by Y.I. Wearblack

Newt’s landslide win in SC was a great moment for the Democratic Party and for the progressive movement. The personification of angry, white Conservatism has a new breath of life from Gingrich’s victory. A serial adulterer, a man who has violated his religious beliefs, shown himself to be a hypocrite on family values, cavorted with another woman while his wife was ill with cancer, and was exiled from the House of Representatives has overcome his past transgressions because he is willing to play to the underlying bigotry and naiveté of the American electorate. Should such a man be elected President of the United States of America?

Could a man with a sixty percent disapproval rating make so strong a case against the Presidency of Barack Obama that he can overcome his long dirty laundry list? Was this win in SC a testament to a great politician with superior skills as a statesman and debater or was it an anti-Romney, anti-establishment protest? Mitt Romney has said that Barack Obama divided America by pitting class against class. Newt Gingrich has proposed that Mitt would be a great target for Barack Obama’s class warfare.

What may have made Newt’s comeback possible was his promise of staunch support for Israel. It bought him the support of right-winger and casino mogul, Adelson, who may has written a check for at least 5 million dollars to support his super PAC.

All of that aside, if Newt Gingrich ever became president, the social safety net which saved America would be dismantled. Those on Medicare would likely have to pay more. Those going onto Medicare in the immediate future would be means tested. Social Security would be altered to allow for private accounts that can be dwindled away by the vicissitudes of Wall Street.

Economic austerity would likely follow just as it did in the states that elected Republican governors and as it did in Europe with disastrous consequences. At a time when 50 million people are without health insurance, do we wish to designate their fate to a private market that serves profit over their health; that excludes people on the basis of existing conditions; that throws children off of their parent’s policies at age 21?

The acrimony towards Gingrich extends as much to Republicans as it does to Democrats. He is universally hated by Republicans who worked with him. Even Boehner has stated his misgivings. Why? What is their reason? Could it be they regard him as a psychological time bomb? Like I said, the Newt win in SC was a great moment for Democrats.

Mitt: Show us your tax returns now!!!

2012-01-19T17:26:00.000-08:00

The Left by Y.I.Wearblack

I don't often agree with Newt Gingrich, but at least he is going to show the American people his tax returns. Why can't the front runner, Mitt Romney?

When Mitt Romney stumbled through the answer to the question posed to him at the Fox debate in South Carolina regarding the release of his tax return, I didn’t think too much of it.

I knew he was rich and that he probably didn’t want to let everyone know just how rich because it might work against him in the general election-the “envy” factor. It isn’t a particularly ethical choice, but in the world of ethical choices put before presidential candidates this isn’t the one I’m going to call him out on.

When he sheepishly admitted that he pays, “oh, about 15 percent” I did not think it was a heinous crime, but it did cause me to raise my eyebrows. After all, most of the hedge fund guys pay 15% and so does Buffert. Let’s face it, everyone takes advantage of the tax code and comfort their consciences by assuring themselves that it is perfectly legal. So, that makes it okay. Well, sort of.

However, if it is shown that Romney or Bain Capital knowingly shielded gains in off-shore accounts to avoid paying taxes; even if legal, that is something which should disqualify him as a candidate for President. We expect a certain ethical standard of our candidates, especially when it comes to the responsibility to pay one’s taxes. Why should average citizens pay taxes if rich people don’t pay them?

If the President of the United States doesn’t pay them and thinks it is all right to cheat the tax code, that is a game breaker for me. If tons of Romney moneys are growing tax free in Cayman bank accounts without any taxes being paid on an annual basis, legal or not he should hang his head in shame.

Newt vs. Juan: Is there an implicit message being sent in SC?!

2012-01-18T16:20:00.000-08:00

The Right by Dwight Cameron

On MSNBC’s Hardball, host Chris Matthews talked about the nuance of Newt’s remarks that the Speaker made during a heated response to Juan Williams' questions in Monday’s SC debate.

Newt defended his advocacy for putting poor kids to work in roles such as janitors as well his repeatedly dubbing President Obama the “Food Stamp President”. Matthew’s implication is that Gingrich played to the audience who was eating up the hidden message of bigotry as evidenced by their repeated applause to the Speaker’s remarks.

While I think Newt is a very skilled politician and can play a crowd as well as anyone, and while some in this particular crowd may have held underlying stereotypes about African Americans, I do believe that he was truthful and consistent in his message. He does believe that young people benefit from learning a work ethic at an early age, citing his daughter as an example.

Furthermore, he is sticking to his guns with respect to stressing the fact that more people have been put on food stamps during the Obama administration than ever before. Of course, he conveniently does not factor in the greatest joblessness that we have experienced as a nation since the Great Depression.

The follow up question that Juan Williams didn’t ask is Mr. Speaker, “What would you have done with the millions of Americans who are at or below the poverty level and are having trouble putting food on the table for their families? Would you have denied them food stamps?”

I am certain that Newt would have finessed the question by replying that he would have done something similar to what President Clinton and he accomplished with Welfare Reform in the late nineties.

The bottom line is that there were five candidates on stage and each of them were desperately trying to score points and to eat away at the front runner Romney’s slight lead in the polls. Newt, in my mind, succeeded to do just that. I predict that it will go down to the wire on primary day, Saturday, January 21^st with Newt pulling off the upset.

The Left by Y.I. Wearblack

The way I see it, as a postscript to Newt’s hidden message about the poor being lazy-anyone who asks his second wife for an “open marriage” shouldn’t be running as a “Christian conservative.” Nor should he be playing to the platitudes of the so-called “social conservatives" in South Carolina just to get votes. He should take the high road for once in his life and do what Perry did, leave the race. Sarah, come back!

The Super PAC: Are our elections fair?

2012-01-12T15:00:00.000-08:00

The Center by Jerry Morgan

Many in the media have made an issue out of how the super PACs can spend multimillions of dollars supporting a candidate and hide behind a mask of anonymity. Sheila Krumholz in the opinion pages of the New York Times asks: "Where did they get the money for that?"

The answer, of course is the “Citizen’s United decision,” in which the gang of four: Scalia, Thomas, Alito and Roberts plus the proverbial “swing justice” Kennedy proclaimed that the first amendment was written “in terms of speech, not speakers” and that “its text offers no foothold for excluding any category of speaker.”

Voila, the Super Pac. Any organization, inclusive of corporations, can now spend any sum they like, through a political action committee without having to disclose the donation.

Justice Stevens wrote the dissenting opinion:

"At bottom, the Court's opinion is thus a rejection of the common sense of the American people, who have recognized a need to prevent corporations from undermining self government since the founding, and who have fought against the distinctive corrupting potential of corporate electioneering since the days of Theodore Roosevelt. It is a strange time to repudiate that common sense. While American democracy is imperfect, few outside the majority of this Court would have thought its flaws included a dearth of corporate money in politics."

The argument that speech should be free regardless of who is speaking seems cogent but is in fact, spurious. The reason is that access to “speech” in modern society is restricted to those with money, at least if you want to be heard by a large audience. The constitution was not designed to insure the rights of the moneyed class at the expense of all others; in fact, it was designed to protect the rights of those who have an unfair disadvantage.

Since the nature of “speech” has changed with the advent of the modern media, the flow of money from private interest groups needs to be restricted to protect the right of individual speech. Just as Justice Stevens argued, the election system and democracy itself has been threatened by this inane decision. And now we see it playing out before our very eyes.

So, disclosure is one thing; the very existence of such entities-the so-called super PACs—may be the real issue, worthy of revisiting. There cannot be a level playing field when entities can spend countless of millions of dollars to get their candidate elected. It is no accident that each of the remaining six candidates are multimillionaires in their own right.

I have heard it said that it is no longer possible for a man or woman of modest means to become President. Arguably, some of our greatest presidents, including Lincoln, Truman, and even Ronald Reagan, would probably not have been president if they ran today. They would never have even been able to launch a campaign. In fact, today's elections are bought rather than earned.

When voters were left to making their own choice based on the debates, which may have had their own set of biases, there was a semblance of a level playing field. In fact, the man with the least money behind him emerged as the clear-cut winner, surging in the polls to open a big lead on the rest of the field.

Guess what, that man is not Mitt Romney, nor Herman Cain; it is Newt Gingrich, who, hands down, won every single debate so far, with the possible exception of the NH ABC debate where I thought his performance was mediocre.

My point is, however, that how a candidate fares at the polls and the primaries should not be directly proportional to the amount of money spent. PACS and super PACS aside, every candidate for president should be allocated X amount of money to spend campaigning and not be allowed to exceed X, neither through direct nor indirect spending.

Our elections lack integrity and are hardly more relevant than some around the world that we critique as being "rigged".

Election Map Analysis:Obama vs. Romney

2012-01-10T07:36:00.000-08:00

Election Map Analysis by Y.I. Wearblack

Nine months out from a Presidential election is way too early to make credible predictions, but since it now appears that Mitt Romney will be the Republican nominee, it isn’t too early to lay out the range of possibilities in order to track the progress of the campaigns. Placing a state in one candidate’s column or the other depends on the strategy and execution of the two campaigns, the course of events and the debates. So let’s begin by carving up the map, making certain underlying assumptions. First, assume that the geopolitical situation remains static: no confrontation in the Strait of Hormuz; the EU survives its financial crisis; and no major unrest in the rest of planet earth. Also, assume that we are not hit with an exogenous event like a major earthquake, hurricane or other natural disaster and that the stock market doesn’t crash and the unemployment rate remains stable. Based on past history and demographics we can color states such as New York blue and Nebraska red.

States securely in Obama’s column: New York 29; Connecticut 7; Rhode Island 4; Massachusetts 11; Vermont 3; New Jersey 14; Delaware 3; Maryland 10; DC 3; Illinois 20; Minnesota 10; Wisconsin 10; Michigan 16; Pennsylvania 20; Washington 12; Oregon 7; California 55; Colorado 9; New Mexico 5; Nevada 6; Hawaii 4

Total 258

States securely in Romney’s column: Indiana 11; Kentucky 8; West Virginia 5; Tennessee 11; South Carolina 9; Georgia 16; Alabama 9; Mississippi 6; Louisiana 8; Arkansas 6; Texas 38; Oklahoma 7; Kansas 6; Nebraska 5; South Dakota 3; North Dakota 3; Montana 3; Wyoming 3; Arizona 11; Utah 6; Idaho 4; Alaska 3; New Hampshire 4; Maine 4; Iowa 6

Total 195

Toss ups; Virginia 13, North Carolina 15, Florida 29; Ohio 18; Missouri 10

Total 85

To see in map form click here

Iowa Caucus Results: Where does that leave us now?

2012-01-04T18:15:00.000-08:00

The Left by Y.I. Wearblack

The precipitous decline of Newt Gingrich and meteoric rise of Rick Santorum were two unforeseen events. Though not entirely unrelated they speak to the tenuous nature of our present political landscape. But this account of the Iowa Caucuses shall begin at the front entrance of good journalism, the doorstep of accountability. I picked Ron Paul to win thereby missing the primary political dynamic which determined the outcome. But let us sort out the results, their significance and what it portends for the future.

First let us start off with Ron Paul. He fell about four points in the last week. Those voters most probably went to Romney and were voters who believed that Romney’s prospects of victory outweighed Paul’s radical agenda. But Paul picked up points since 2008 and his support was strong. They came mainly from younger voters who do not want to pay taxes, support entitlements or go to war. That is logic I can understand, and that political dynamic can and will play a strong role in the general election. Paul cannot be President for a variety of reasons, not the least of which is his age. It is simply too stressful a job for a man 78 years old and I believe too stressful for a man who is ten years younger, Newt Gingrich. Also, counting up the constituencies of those who could never vote for Paul similarly disqualifies him. But he is a viable third party candidate who would draw significantly from any Republican ensuring a Republican loss, and he may be inclined to do so because his support will continue at this level.

Next let’s examine Rick Perry’s showing. Ten percent was very disappointing considering the amount of time and money he spent in the state. He performed so poorly in the debates; in both form and substance he virtually eliminated himself for consideration. He didn’t put forth a vision for the country; he depended on platitudes which he could barely express or remember. However, this poor showing does not eliminate him. If he can get Newt Gingrich to drop out and support him, he might beat Santorum in South Carolina and reanimate his candidacy. Although this seems unlikely, it isn’t out of the realm of possibility because Newt realizes he has little chance of winning the Presidency and this move could stop Romney who he now despises for breaking Reagan’s eleventh commandment.

And how about Newt? Newt’s performance in the debates catapulted him into the lead, so much so that he declared himself the ultimate nominee. But the instant that happened, every conceivable Republican of any significance came out against him. But it was Romney’s ten million dollars in ads, and the 3.6 million by his super pac that did in Newt; the most powerful ad of which was based on my posting of “Would Newt’s baggage fly for free on JetBlue?” Check out the archives. I don’t mind being ripped off, but helping Mitt Romney in any way gives me a queasy feeling, to say the least, and it took a good bath and two full days before I could forgive myself. National politics has told many stories of redemption, but Newt was already riding the wave of repentance because of his multiple marriages. So his revival isn’t likely. He has only two reasons to stay in the race, the first being to get Mitt Romney for depriving him of the nomination, and the second is keeping himself in the picture so he can sell his books and memorabilia. The smart political move would be to go after Romney in this week’s debates, weaken him for South Carolina, then throw his support to either Rick Perry or Rick Santorum. But for all of his supposed intellect, which in my opinion is highly over-rated, his behavior will be governed by his self-interest.

That brings us to Rick Santorum. Forget it! The country is not interested in going back to war any time soon. That sentiment is not only coming from the young, it is coming from the old. A major event could change that sentiment but I am not betting on it. Rick has no money and isn’t likely to get any. The big contributors don’t like him. He won’t be able to travel to all the counties in New Hampshire or South Carolina as he did in Iowa, and his social conservative agenda won’t sell anywhere else like it sold in Iowa. Also, Rick Santorum carries a ton of baggage. He was “senator earmark” and admitted it. His family value mantra only applies to Democrats. He was eager to urge Anthony Wiener to resign, but was quite reticent when it came Senator John Ensign, his friend, whose situation Santorum was well aware of before it became public knowledge (as per Rachel Maddow show January 4, 2012). Furthermore, Santorum does not come across well on television; he lacks the aplomb of Romney, Perry and especially Obama. I don’t think there is enough steam in his campaign to sustain it and I am writing him off.

And then there is Romney, the 8 vote winner in a state in which only 5% of the citizens turned out to vote. His staffers bragged that they could not imagine a scenario, given the current group of candidates, in which Romney would not win the nomination. I am inclined to agree. Once Perry eliminated himself, Gingrich was the only real threat, and simply highlighting his past was enough to neutralize it. Romney’s problem is that seventy-five per cent of his party strongly dislikes him. That lack of enthusiasm might hurt him in the general election and could conspire to beat him out of the nomination, I just don’t see how.

One more postscript: I won’t miss Michele Bachmann. I hope she has faded from the political scene permanently. I find her “annoying!”

The Center by Jerry Morgan

The results of Iowa are somewhat of a disappointment for a moderate, someone who aims for the center of the road, who believes in change, but slow thoughtful change, governed by sanity and compromise. I want to keep the American Dream alive; I believe in free market capitalism; I do not think America should be the policemen of the world; I believe that medical research should not be hampered by religious fanatics. Yes, it is difficult to walk down the middle of the road without teetering to one side or the other and at times, I find myself walking down the left side of the road while at other times I veer off inexplicably to the right. I have an opinion on most every issue, so the question in mind, after Iowa, is which candidate comes closest to satisfying my set of beliefs among the remaining 5 viable candidates: Romney, Santorum, Paul, Gingrich or Huntsman? Huntsman was not a player in Iowa so he will be eliminated from my analysis, Bachmann is out and Perry is all but out.

That leaves the top 4 vote getters from the Hawkeye State: Romney, Santorum, Paul and Gingrich.

First, I will eliminate the candidate who I feel would be most detrimental to the health and welfare of this country if elected president and that is Ron Paul. While I agree in principle with many of his fiscal and libertarian views, the reality of putting real policy into practice would be destructive to the fabric of our society in its current form. Further, while his non-interventionist foreign policy platform is progressive in the sense that it allows for open and free trade with all nations, it is dangerous when it comes to hiding our heads in the sand with respect to dealing with potentially explosive situations in parts of the world like Korea, Iran and the rest of the Middle East, India and Pakistan. We cannot merely implement the libertarian perspective of maintaining armies to protect our shores and not worry about potential threats abroad.

Second, I will eliminate Mitt Romney, partly because he rubs me the wrong way. Yes, I resent anyone being able to buy an election, to throw money at a problem in order to make it go away, to bet ten thousand dollars like it is penny. But that is not why I am rejecting him. If he was consistent in his views; if he, like Newt Gingrich suggests, were to admit that he is a Massachusetts moderate, then I could, perhaps, support him. I liked the Mitt Romney who was Governor of Massachusetts, but I don’t like the flip-flopper who is now vying inanely to compete with Santorum and others for the support of the right-wing base of the Republican Party. This man, the man seeking the candidacy of the GOP for president of the United States of America, I can no longer trust because I am convinced that he is not the Mitt Romney of 1994 when he was trying to move to the left of Senator Ted Kennedy on issues such as gay rights, nor is he the Mitt Romney of 2002 when he ran for Governor of the state of Massachusetts and I doubt that he is the Mitt Romney of 2012 who is vowing to expel 11 million illegal immigrants and defines personhood as beginning at the cellular level so that a test tube zygote would have legal protection as a person. The bottom line is that I don’t trust Mitt Romney; I don’t think he knows who he is or what he stands for anymore.

Third, I will eliminate Santorum mainly because I view him as a war-monger and that makes him a dangerous choice in my mind. In addition, he is too much a social conservative for my liking. Levels of sanctimony to which he ascribes rarely if ever meet expectations, resulting in a very demoralizing valley of hypocrisy. His economic plan is limited to bringing back manufacturing to our shores which sounds nice but is very difficult to accomplish, at least not enough to make a significant impact.

That leaves Newt. I cannot believe that I am writing in support of Newt Gingrich, a man who I did not particularly like when he was Speaker of the House and a man who has often rubbed me the wrong way with his abrasiveness, arrogance, and his spewing out whatever gibberish may enter his mind. However, I find myself agreeing more and more with my colleague on the right, Dwight Cameron who endorsed Newt on this blog, shortly after the Manchester Union Leader’s endorsement. I think many of the same reasons for endorsing him back then make sense today. In addition, he has acquitted himself well in the debates, showing the illogic of his opponents’ positions on illegal immigration as well as other issues. He won each of the debates hands down and is clearly the brightest of the candidates. He also has a history of being able to compromise, having worked well with President Clinton to pass critical legislation on welfare reform while adhering to the principles of his contract with America. His foreign policy is principled but a little rough around the edges as is his general personality. Nevertheless, he has proven himself to be the most middle of the road candidate left standing and worthy of my support.

The Right by Dwight Cameron

I do not trust Romney. He seems to have big government instincts--not my cup of tea. The last thing we need is another W. 'Electability' is what carried him to a three way photo finish victory in Iowa. To me that is irrelevant. I want a candidate who has the qualities of leadership and the ability to right the course that Obama has steered us down. Mitt is simply not that man.

Newt knows how Washington works and knows how to compromise; he and Bill Clinton had a plan to save Social Security until Bubba scuttled it. He later worked with Clinton on pushing through important legislation on welfare reform. He is also an excellent debater and would do much better than Mitt facing off with Obama one on one. He has good ideas, expresses them well and can think on his feet. Four years ago he wrote Real Change, a book where he outlined his ideas which, he claimed, may garner support among the majority of Americans. I agree. For instance, we obviously have a great many energy resources which could be developed to make us less dependent on Middle Eastern oil. The Republican slogan of "drill, baby, drill" was one of Newt's ideas that he outlined in his book. Other than Rick Santorum who I do not find overtly objectionable, and Ron Paul who also has some redeeming qualities that I like (see my post on Paul), the other Republicans have either flamed out or could not get the support of the main-stream of the Party. I believe Newt is a small government conservative at heart and like the Manchester Union Leader, he has my endorsement. Click for the endorsement of the paper.

Sure, Newt has heavy baggage but not sooo heavy. Go Newt!

Newt: Would his baggage fly for free on JetBlue???

2011-12-30T05:58:00.000-08:00

The Left by Y.I. Wearblack

"Thank you for flying Jet Blue today, Mr. Gingrich. How many bags will you be traveling with?"
"Five."
"You know that there is a surcharge for additional bags, as well as a surcharge if each bag is over fifty pounds."
"No problem, I'll just charge it to my campaign. Traveling is a legitimate campaign expense."
"Great sir, place that first bag on the scale."
"It's kind of heavy"
"Well let's just see, sir. Wow, its over 200 pounds. What's in it?
"Well, that holds my expulsion from the House of Representatives."
"You were expelled sir?, Why?"
"I'm still not sure. I transferred some of the money from my campaign accounts to establish my teaching course and I forgot to report that to the IRS."
"You evaded paying taxes?"
"It's a gray area."
"But isn't that a crime, sir?"
"It was forgiven if I gave up my seat and admitted to it. So, it wasn't a problem."
"I am sorry, sir, but I'm going to have to charge you for that bag."
"No problem."
"The second bag, sir."
"Here we go young man..."
"Wow, it is over 500 pounds. What's in it?"
"Well, my divorces are in there."
"But sir, I thought you were a Christian Conservative espousing family values."
"Let me remind you young man, divorce is not a capital crime."
"I know sir, but didn't you lie to your ex-wives multiple times and then leave them?"
"Divorce can happen to anyone."
"But you did it twice, sir."
"I can pay my bills, young man, so let's get on with it."
"Yes sir, the third bag, please."
"It's also pretty hefty."
"What's in that one?"
"Well, I have my educational materials and lobbying career in that one."
"And why is that so heavy?"
"I'll tell you. I have written a lot of books, as has my current wife. Then there are tapes, pamphlets etc. And of course my business career. After leaving Congress I offered my "consulting" services to the highest bidders for my historical perspective--I am an historian you know. It came to millions."
"I see sir. I didn't know companies paid historians that well."
"They do if you know the right people in Washington."
"And the fourth bag sir?"
"Well, my age and weight are in that one. I'm 68 years old and I weigh over 250 pounds."
"Yes, sir, that's a big load for a man who wants to be President. But I know, just charge it. And the last bag, what's in that?"
"It's my character."
"That one is the heaviest of all. Well over a ton. But I understand why. A President needs strong character to do his job as he never knows what crises he will face."
"You are so right my boy."
"Mr. Gingrich, I'm afraid we will have to scrub you off of this flight."
"And why would you do that?"
"Just too much baggage, Mr. Gingrich. The plane won't fly."

The Center by Jerry Morgan

Newt is a mixed blessing for the Republicans. On the positive side of the ledger he is a veteran politician who knows first-hand the ins and outs of Congress. On the negative side of the ledger, he is a veteran politician who is a Washington insider. On the positive side he has proven that he could work with the other party to get important legislation passed in both houses and by the executive. On the negative side, he has shown a willingness to meet the Democrats half way, to compromise, to be reasonable, traits not admired by those on the right which will hamper him in states like Iowa. On the positive side, he is a reasoned intellectual who is capable of analyzing a problem and coming up with alternative solutions which may or may not be mainstream. On the negative side, he is an independent thinker---a radical concept these days.
On the positive side, he has had business experience since leaving Washington. On the negative side, he has had business experience since leaving Washington. On the positive side, he has known many women serially, including two failed marriages. On the negative side, there was some parallelism. On the positive side he consulted for Fanny and Freddie. On the negative side, he consulted for Fanny and Freddie, entities he now claims to despise. On the positive side Newt is not afraid to speak his mind. On the negative side sometimes what he has to say should not be on his mind.
Does Newt have too much baggage to fly for free on Jet Blue? Definitely, but name one politician who doesn't.

The Right by Dwight Cameron

Why I, an ardent fiscal and social conservative am for Newt:

First, I do not trust Romney. He seems to have big government instincts--not my cup of tea. The last thing we need is another W. Newt knows how Washington works and knows how to compromise; he and Bill Clinton had a plan to save Social Security until Bubba scuttled it. He is an excellent debater. He has good ideas, expresses them well and can think on his feet. Four years ago he wrote Real Change, a book where he outlined his ideas which, he claimed, may garner support among the majority of Americans. I agree. For instance, we obviously have a great many energy resources which could be developed to make us less dependent on Middle Eastern oil. The Republican slogan of "drill, baby, drill" was one of Newt's ideas that he outlined in his book. The other Republicans have either flamed out or could not get the support of the main-stream of the Party. I believe Newt is a small government conservative at heart and like the Manchester Union Leader, he has my endorsement. For the endorsement itself:http://www.unionleader.com/article/20111127/NEWS/711279999

Sure, Newt has heavy baggage but not sooo heavy. Go Newt!

Our picks in the Iowa caucus

2011-12-28T18:32:00.000-08:00

The Right by Dwight Cameron

As I made clear in an earlier post, Newt is my man. I personally do not trust Mitt, although I would vote for him against Obama. Also, in another post I mentioned that I like most of Paul’s platform, but disagree on his foreign policy. That being said, who will the Iowa caucus on January 3^rd?

It is apparent from the latest CNN/Time/ORC poll that Newt is slipping; he is now behind a surging Rick Santorum in fourth place. Romney is a few points ahead of Paul who is several points ahead of Santorum. Don’t ask me why or what the Iowans are thinking, but Santorum has gathered a steam roller of momentum over the last week, increasing his standings in the polls from single digits to 16 percent.

Apparently, the evangelical block has coalesced around the self-proclaimed evangelical Rick Santorum who spent time hunting with the right people the day after Christmas (www.npr.org has a great pic of Rick in his orange hunting gear) while Bachmann and Perry were laboriously scouring the countryside. Santorum was hunting pheasants with conservative congressman Steve King who has not yet officially endorsed him, but he did get the endorsement of a prominent Christian conservative, Bob Vander Plaats, CEO of the Family Leader an Iowa social conservative organization.

The evangelicals in Iowa wield the power. If they vote as a block rather than splinter their vote among the six candidates, and they decide to support Santorum, then he can pull the upset that he has been counting on. Rick Santorum has practically been living in Iowa for weeks now, hoping that he can do what Mike Huckabee did four years ago—win it all. My prediction is that when it comes down to it, Iowans will shy away from both front runners, Romney and Paul, for various reasons.

The momentum that Rick Santorum has gathered over the last week can and will propel him to the victory that his campaign so desperately needs.

The Left by Y.I. Wearblack

According to Realclearpolitics.com the average of the latest polls, in Iowa, show Ron Paul in the lead but within the margin of error. A week is an eternity in politics so we cannot rule out an unexpected outcome, but after this exhaustive process it isn’t likely.

I think we can happily wave goodbye to Michelle Bachman. She is polling at 8.7 percent; she is low on cash and will not be able to mount a last minute advertising blitz that would put her in contention. On paper, she presents the best candidacy: the best political arguments, best presentation of them and the greatest congruency to the Iowan constituency. She loses on the basis of her overbearing personality, her hideous voice and harsh nature. In short, she is like the loud-mouthed neighbor most people don’t like.

Rick Santorum who is polling slightly lower loses for similar reasons. He isn’t quite as repulsive but also lacks charisma; he is bland, uninspiring and off track on foreign policy as many people feel he is most likely to get us into another war.

Gingrich is slaughtered by his past. There is simply too much baggage for him to overcome, especially in Iowa. Even if he raises the money it won’t matter. He is perceived as a mean-spirited pragmatist posing as an idealist that would say or do anything to promote his media empire.

I am not going to declare Huntsman toast, although a non-factor in Iowa, he could make a surprising comeback in New Hampshire.

Perry is currently at 12 percent in the Iowa polls, ahead of Bachman and Santorum and if he performs to that number he will survive to fight another day but it is extremely doubtful he can pull an upset, splitting the evangelical vote with Bachmann and Santorum. Perry can bank on getting the combined vote of Bachmann and Santorum once they are gone which should be soon after the polls close on January 3, 2012.

That leaves Romney and Paul to fight it out in the cornfields of Iowa. Despite all of his protestations to the contrary, Romney’s flip-flopping has hurt him. Although he has made the political calculation that he can overcome his flip-flopping, his personality is so disingenuous it feeds into the perception that he is a con-man running to satisfy his ego. In any case, his formula has not moved the needle substantially, and the money he spent debunking Newt has benefitted Paul in Iowa.

However, a Paul victory is a Romney victory so the money was well spent. Paul is perceived as sincere, intelligent and capable. He also has captured the anti-war sentiment that Santorum and Bachmann miscalculated. So, Ron Paul will win the Iowa caucus, and that and two dollars and fifty cents will get you a ride on the New York City subway and very little else.

The Center by Jerry Morgan

Is Iowa up for grabs? Will there be a favorite among the ever so important evangelical right as was the case 4 years ago when Mike Huckabee won a resounding victory, or is the evangelical block fractured among the likes of Michele Bachmann, Rick Perry and Rick Santorum?

Also vying for this strong voting block is Dr. Ron Paul and Newt Gingrich. Yes, there are more than a few in the Bible Belt who are willing to forgive the latter, a self-confessed sinner for his past transgressions and believe the former, an accused bigot when he says he knows not who wrote horrible platitudes about blacks and Jews in his newsletters.

The Republican right is confused with as many as 66 percent of Iowans capable of either changing their minds or undecided according to a recent CBS news article.

So the latest Rasmussen poll, which clearly shows Mitt Romney pulling away from Ron Paul and Newt Gingrich cannot be trusted as indicative of anything more than capturing the moment. But the voters are not voting this moment. In fact, they have a whole week to decide if they can really vote for a Morman who used to be pro-choice and used to be pro-Gay and used to be a governor from the liberal state of Massachusetts, the architect for ObamaCare. They are being inundated with ad after ad showing the new Mitt who is taking shots at the old Newt.

The question for Iowans comes down to who to believe: the new Mitt, the new Newt, the old and new but not a bigot Paul, or none of the above. My guess is many of the evangelicals will reject all three front runners on moral and religious grounds and split their vote among Bachmann, Perry and Santorum. I do indeed feel sorry for the GOP electorate in Iowa for their dilemma when on January 3, 2012 they must caucus for the candidate to represent their party in the Presidential race against the incumbent Barack Obama.

I know how I would cast my vote if I were one of them and I will share my secret with you. I would vote my conscience for Michele Bachmann, the consistent conservative, the true Iowan in the race and that is my long-shot prediction. Michele Bachmann, a shocking winner in Iowa.

Jon Huntsman: The Forgotten Man!?

2011-12-21T06:27:00.000-08:00

The Center by Jerry Morgan

Jon Huntsman, former governor of Utah, former ambassador to China under Barack Obama, and former businessman seems to be “different” than the others remaining in the race for the Republican nomination for President of the United States. But is he really different? He is strictly party line on issues of pro-life, gay marriage, and taxes. Where he differentiates himself is on issues related to foreign policy where he is more “middle of the road” than most. He has a plan to pull out of Afghanistan and his intimate knowledge of the Chinese autocracy is an advantage, even though he has been embroiled in controversy as a result of being visible in front of a McDonald’s restaurant in Beijing during a recent protest.

As far as his jobs record there is some controversy. According to a Bloomberg news story published on June 15. 2011, his once family run chemical business employed 90% Americans ten years ago, but since going public in 2005 now employs over 12,000 workers with only 2000 in North America and the rest scattered over Asia. His plan of creating jobs by stimulating the economy with lower taxes and free trade may work, but I consider it an experiment that this country can ill afford to gamble on. His attacks on the EPA are nothing more than the GOP chorus of “drill baby drill”. Again, his attacks on the NLRB and ObamaCare is more preaching to the choir.

The bottom line is that Jon Huntsman is probably a more stable candidate than the others, lacks the nastiness of some, the overt flip-flopping of others, and the extreme positions of yet others. Is he a moderate? Certainly not, but he may not be conservative enough for the GOP base. As for me, he seems more rational than most of the others, more qualified on foreign affairs than most of the others, more in tune with big business than most of the others and more experienced administering a government than most of the others. But in substance, he offers only minor differences on most issues. I suspect that after staking the future of his candidacy on New Hampshire, he will fade away into oblivion after the polling closes in that state on January 10^th.

The Left by Y.I. Wearblack

Jon Huntsman may well be the forgotten man of the Republican field of candidates for President. He has an impressive resume. He is urbane, articulate and experienced in government. He served in the Reagan White House as a staff assistant, served in the George H.W. Bush administration as deputy assistant Secretary of Commerce and Ambassador to Singapore, served two terms as governor of Utah and served in the Obama administration as ambassador to China. He worked in the private sector for his father’s company as an executive of The Huntsman Corporation and the family philanthropic organization, the Huntsman Cancer Foundation. Huntsman was a high school dropout who received his G.E. D and attended the University of Utah, serving a two-year Mormon mission to Taiwan. He graduated from the University of Pennsylvania with a degree in International Politics. He is a devout family man with seven children, a devout Mormon who accepts the validity of science.

As the governor of Utah, Huntsman earned high grades. He cut taxes, instituted a flat tax but increased spending. He was immensely popular, being re-elected with 77 per cent of the vote. His views on the issues are notably more moderate than the other candidates. Huntsman signed the China Initiative for the reduction of greenhouse gases and has admitted the effect man has had on the environment though, like the others, he has rejected cap and trade as a solution. Like the others he has advocated for the building of the Keystone Pipeline. Huntsman is very knowledgeable about foreign affairs, especially Asia and has distinguished himself as a human rights advocate in this region. In this regard, he has a distinct advantage over any of the other candidates. Huntsman has advocated strongly for comprehensive immigration reform, he vowed to veto legislation that would have discontinued tuition aid to illegal immigrants and not allow illegal immigrants the ability to obtain a drivers license. He has advocated the building of a fence at the border. In foreign policy, Huntsman has criticized President Obama’s decision to leave Iraq and advocated a contingent force remain there. In his debate with Gingrich, Huntsman echoed the theme that Iran is an existential threat and “all options should remain on the table,” but reiterated that America’s primary threats and interests are in the pacific. In lockstep with the other candidates and Republican ideology, Huntsman signed various bills which restricted abortion in Utah and although he favors civil unions he frowns on same sex marriage. I scoured the Internet for his position on Don’t Ask Don’t Tell and found that he had not an announced position on that issue. As to Health Care, he opposes “Obamacare” because it is too expensive and is a shroud over the economy. Yet he endorsed a personal mandate when he was governor as well as Mitt Romney’s Health Care plan in Massachusetts.

As a committed Liberal, I believe Barack Obama is a better choice than all of the Republican candidates, not only because I support his views and his values, but because he is the most able communicator, most empathetic advocate for his positions, most highly educated as well as the best decision maker in times of crisis. In considering this set of criteria, I would immediately eliminate the entire Republican field with the exception of Jon Huntsman who I believe has proven to meet my criteria.

But Huntsman’s perceived moderation has proven to be his Achilles heel among Republican voters who are not in the slightest bit interested in compromise. They want to exact revenge for the liberal onslaught on George Bush and the Iraq war, on Obama’s efforts to ameliorate the plight of the poor, and his efforts to make the rich pay their fair share. Even if they do not succeed in beating Obama, they want Obama to know the extent of their wrath, and they will back anyone who will exceed propriety in taking him down. That explains nasty old Newt’s rise in the polls to the frontrunner status. Republicans want to dismantle the “Welfare State.” They want to privatize Social Security, privatize Health Care and privatize Medicare. That works against Huntsman who implemented very extensive social engineering during his term as governor.

If Huntsman survives to the states that have open primaries, and can prove that he can get a credible percentage in deeply conservative states he may emerge out of the clouds into contention in a race that has seen frontrunners come and go like the wind. The next gust may just blow his way. So while Huntsman is the forgotten man at the moment, he is counting on a good showing in New Hampshire which can put him firmly in contention. By my estimation he would be a far more formidable candidate than Romney or Gingrich and as a firm supporter of the President, the candidate I fear the most.

The Iowa debate: The ten thousand dollar bet—“Mother of Mercy, is this end of Mitt?”

2011-12-11T09:09:00.001-08:00

The Center by Jerry Morgan

I feel sorry for Mitt Romney, not because he had what seemed to be an almost insurmountable lead amongst all GOP candidates and has slowly watched it slip away as Newt Gingrich climbed stealthily in the polls to the head of the leader board and Ron Paul, a candidate that most people snickered at, is now likely to outpoll him in the Iowa caucuses. Yes, Mitt may not finish better than third in Iowa, despite committing to spend tons of money on campaign ads and scheduling a blitzkrieg of appearances over the next few weeks.

If the truth be told, I believe it is all over for Mitt. He is like the front runner in the New York Marathon who gets passed just before entering Central Park where the real race for the finish begins. Or perhaps more like the front runner turning for home in the Kentucky Derby who gets passed before they can straighten out for the stretch run. Perhaps he will fade like Rudy Giuliani did in 2008, without even winning a single primary. More likely, though, he will hang on at least for a few more months like Mike Huckabee did against John McCain. There is a chance he will fight tenaciously to the finish like Hillary Clinton did against Barack Obama. One can think of many more analogies, but few if any that show the front runner that has been passed by like he was standing still ever coming back to win. In 2008, he held on until after Super Tuesday, when John McCain emerged as the clear winner. At this point it is doubtful that he will do better or even as well as his 2008 showing. But that is not why I feel sorry for the man; he has my pity because it has become abundantly clear that Mitt no longer knows who he is.

Mitt has become whatever his campaign managers advise that he needs to be. When he ran for governor of Massachusetts in 2002 he was for a woman’s right to choose (although he and his family would never consider abortion), as was he when he ran against Ted Kennedy and lost in 1994. Throughout his term of office as Governor, he was a staunch advocate and friend of the Gay Rights movement, in favor of civil union, although he stated that he favored a constitutional amendment that the institution of marriage is only between a man and a woman.

It is no small wonder that this political hack is having trouble figuring out just what the real Mitt Romney stands for when I doubt he knows himself. While I believe that in his heart, Mitt may be closest to my own political, moral, and philosophical views of any of the candidates, it would only be a guess, and I am not willing to cast my vote on my ability to read minds. Mitt, may I offer you a bit of advice from a very wise man: “to thine own self be true”.

The Left by Y.I. Wearblack

Unlike many Liberals, I am not going to hold Mitt Romney accountable for his flip-flops. People have a right to change their minds, even if it is for political gain. I saw Romney on C-Span the other night and heard him explain how he arrived at his positions. It wasn’t all that convincing, but I shall give him the benefit of the doubt. He claims to be pro-life, and if elected President, I haven’t the slightest doubt that he will sign any legislation that restricts or abolishes a woman’s right to get an abortion. As far as his position on healthcare, why shouldn’t I believe him? If he gets elected he will do everything in his power to repeal The Affordable Care Act and let the system run as it did before. He says he endorses the Ryan budget and a balanced budget amendment, and I believe if he is elected he will sign that budget and campaign to change the constitution. I believe that he has taken the pledge never to raise taxes and if elected President, I believe he would never raise taxes. He claims to come from the business world and therefore knows how to create jobs. That I don’t believe; the type of business he conducted at Bain capital gave him no insight into the complex shell game of macro-economics. His economists will be right-wing remnants of the out of favor Austrian school of economics. Their policies is what got us into this liquidity trap in the first place. Unlike the other Republicans, I think he will be more cautious about getting us into another war, but less reluctant than Barack Obama. He would definitely nominate conservative judges to the courts, utilize Bush advisors on foreign policy and continue the culture war on every front to solidify his base.

As to whether or not Republicans will nominate him: on the plus side of the ledger he stands a better chance of beating Obama than does Newt Gingrich, on the negative side he is a .1 percenter. A .1 percenter is amongst the elite Americans who control 5% of the wealth in this country. Mitt clearly does not relate to the average American as per the huge gaffe he made in the Iowa debate, offering a ten thousand dollar bet with Senator Perry when the average Iowan and average American could never contemplate that large a wager. Mitt has in the past endorsed many of the Democrat’s platforms including healthcare and a woman’s right to choose. Yes, he is a definite flip-flopper and as Governor Perry pointed out, he was a strong advocate for the Massachusetts brand of healthcare, strongly recommending in the first edition of his book, that the Massechusetts model serve as a guide for all the other states in the union.

As a result of his chameleon-like qualities, the GOP party base feels a basic mistrust for Romney; that he is a New England liberal, who governed as a liberal when he was in office, that he is faking it and will move farther to the left than most Republicans are comfortable with. Then there is the likability factor. That is also a negative for Romney. He is an inelastic, plastic, every dyed hair in place, anti-charismatic individual. Despite his best efforts he does not relate well to an audience. In fact, the cadence of his speech and the tenor of his intonations, make him irritating to listen to, bordering on nauseating. He is also a Morman, a religion looked upon by more than would care to admit in the party core, as a fringe, if not cult relilgion. That's two strikes out of three. At some point he will likely have to go mano a mano with Newt in order to win the nomination and so far, in every one on one confrontation Newt has come out the winner. finally, it is difficult if not impossible for a Republican to win the nomination without the strong support of the likes of O'Reilly, Hannity, and Limbaugh. So far, Romney does not have the support of the Conservative media. They hated McCain but they abhor Romney. This was evident in the oft repeated Bret Baier interview. http://www.mediaite.com/tv/tense-bret-baier-confronts-mitt-romney-over-health-care-mandate/

If Romney were to somehow win the nomination, which is looking more unlikely each day, I predict he will lose the election. He has taken the pledge not to raise taxes on the rich. He will make the argument that it is class warfare, but that is a losing argument. Also, by endorsing the Ryan budget he has declared that he would end Medicare. Finally, he has endorsed a balanced budget amendment which means drastic cuts to social programs because of his pledge never to raise taxes. Despite a bad economy, the middle class will lean to Obama on these issues. His hard stance on immigration has alienated Latinos, and despite his statuesque, Presidential-like posture in the debates, he folds under pressure. I predict he will lose the debates with Obama. I am a firm believer in “black swan events.” Anything can happen in an election and usually does. But as Gus Sands said to Roy Hobbs in “The Natural” I think you’re a loser.” Sorry Mitt.

The Right by Dwight Cameron

As a fiscal conservative, I don't trust Mitt Romney. There is something about his plasticized slickness that raises a red flag . . . one that says be wary. Aside from this, there are more than a few tangibles which make me uncomfortable.

He says he will repeal ObamaCare by giving each state a waiver. But, according to my careful scrutiny of the program, he will not be able to grant these waivers until 2014. In the interim, Obama’s program will become deeply entrenched into the bureaucratic framework and the practice of healthcare, which will make it more difficult if not impossible to remedy. A direct defunding and immediate repeal is the manly way to proceed.

There’s no denying that Mitt does have a history of changing his mind depending on the audience he's trying to woo. These deep-rooted flip-flops do not give me confidence in knowing where he really stands. Yes, this tends to be true of politicians in general, but his selling point is that he is not a politician.

I strongly disagree with his immigration policy as to illegal aliens. Sending all 11 million back will require an unbelievable dragnet permeating the length and breadth of our great country. Once we stem the flow of new immigrants by building a fence (or some other solution), we can then try to “legalize” the status of longer-term illegal residents by making them pay a fine to get a green card. If they wish to become citizens they then should go to the "back of the line" but from their quasi-legal status in the U.S. not from their home country which is what Romney wants to do.

A place where his penchant for big government shows is in his capital gains tax proposal. He picks winners and losers by picking an arbitrary income level and saying that those taxpayers below this level get the lower rate while those above it will pay a higher CG tax rate. Capitalism works best with the free flow of goods, labor and capital. A high CG tax creates a barrier to the flow of the latter. A "millionaire" with a long-term holding of a stock may hold it to avoid the paying the tax although there may be other investments which will net him better gains (and a better economy for everyone else). For a very long term investment much of the CG will be merely equal to the effect of inflation since a dollar in 1950 is probably worth $20 or more today. Hence the CG tax on $100 of 1950s XYZ stock, sold for $2000 today will be entirely due to inflation since the stock has not really changed in value. My point is that a policy should apply equally for all taxpayers and the government mandating who wins and who loses is not a conservative doctrine.

The only thing positive that I can say for Mitt is that he may be able to attract moderates. If this is so, he has a better chance of beating Obama than his rivals. As much as I don't trust Romney, I am sure he will be far better than the current occupant of the White House. Thus, if he happens to win the Republican nomination I will have no problem voting for him.

Dr. Ron Paul--Defender of Liberty?!

2011-12-07T06:12:00.000-08:00

Dr. Ron Paul—Defender of Liberty!?

The Center by Jerry Morgan

Ron Paul is an enigma. Is he an intellectual with a philosophy that has the answers to what ails the economy, the healthcare system, immigration, and defense? Or is he a pseudo-intellectual, masked behind lots of rhetoric and false science that has managed to prey upon the naïve public, impressing, mostly young people, with pseudo-economics, pseudo-science and libertarian idealism. The Ron Paul devotees are the most ardent of supporters, people who really believe in the man, elevating him to something just short of sainthood. But does St. Paul really have all the answers? You would think so, listening to him, self-assured, preaching to the masses on why we should revert back to the gold standard and abolish the Fed. Everything that Obama, and Bush before him, initiated was wrong, especially healthcare, the bailout of the banks and GM, and foreign policy. Admittedly, my confusion arises when I find myself nodding in silent agreement to some of the things that he says; he is the only candidate in either party who is willing to take on the powerful military-industrial complex in this country. He promises to slash defense spending in areas where it does not really further the cause of defending our shores. But how does he have the expertise to know where the excesses lie? For that, he must rely upon our generals and if elected President he too would be burdened with the responsibilities of protecting the American people. He may very well yield to the pressures of his military advisors, realizing that the world is a far more complex place than he thought. I happen to believe that Thomas Jefferson, a minimalist with respect to government, had it right. But, in practice, we need government to manage the increasing complexities of modern societies. It is all a question of balance, and in the final analysis, while I respect some (maybe even a lot) of what Ron Paul espouses, my vote will go elsewhere, to someone who can find the middle of the road or at least aim for it.

The Left by Y.I. Wearblack

Let’s go back to Rand Paul’s appearance on the Rachel Maddow Show as a doorway into his beliefs and those of his father, which for all practical purposes, are identical. Rand Paul stated that he would not have voted for the civil rights bill because it imposed restrictions on individual freedom. If the owner of a private business wanted to restrict his clientele to white people that would be okay. That is his right. He even stated that although he hated racism and discrimination, the principle of individual freedom should not be violated. Libertarians like the Pauls pose the question of whether a society has the right to advocate for the public interest by requiring owners of private businesses not to discriminate on the basis of race, religion or ethnic origin. At the heart of this position is the thesis that one should be allowed to do whatever he wants with his money and his property and that alone defines the public interest. The Pauls argue that this is the principle upon which the constitution is based and the foundation upon which America was founded. Everything and anything that tries to define the public interest as something else exceeds the constitution.

Ron Paul believes in non-interventionism. I call it isolationism. The Federal government is endowed with the responsibility to defend our borders. Nothing that happens outside of our borders should concern us. Although this seems plausible on the face of it, the world is regularly confronted by circumstances that could harm us if we don’t act to prevent them. For example, Pakistan has nuclear weapons. If these weapons were to fall into the hands of Islamic extremists they might use it to attack the United States. The same is true for states like Iran; a rogue regime could use a nuclear weapon to disrupt the world economy by threatening or even attacking its neighbors. The Federal government must have the latitude to act—to face threats to our shores that begin off of our shores. However, I do agree with Paul that such action should be sanctioned by the Congress. However, I disagree with Paul when it comes to stopping genocide. My values place the responsibility of anyone and everyone with the ability to stop genocide to either band together to stop it or take unilateral actions to do so. Paul does not. He believes that events which do not directly threaten the national interests of the United States should not be the province of our intervention. Paul is an advocate of free trade. I am not. I believe in fair trade. Twenty million American jobs were free-traded away. Requiring trading partners to conform to certain working rules and labor practices as well as a non-manipulated currency should be conditions we impose on our trading partners. Paul believes that our borders should be secured and I agree with him. I also agree that our entitlements should only be afforded to those who earn citizenship legally. However, unlike Paul, I would not turn down medical treatment for an illegal immigrant who showed up at an emergency room. Paul opposed airport security as an affront to individual freedom. I disagree. The government has a right to protect the public interest. Paul argued that the United States violated the sovereignty of Pakistan in assassinating Osama Bin Laden. However, the government acted within its authority to preserve the public interest as Bin Laden posed an existential threat to our security. I apply the same argument in response to his insistence that the drone attack on Anwar Al-Alaqi was a violation of international law. In his advocacy for smaller government, Paul has advocated the shutting down of various government agencies which he argues have done more harm than good. These include the Department of Education, the Internal Revenue Service, the Department of Interstate Commerce, the Department of Energy, the Department of Health and Human Services, the Department of Homeland Security, and the Federal Emergency Management Agency as well as the Federal Reserve. Without these agencies our society would be near chaos. Although much of the money we send to Washington is wasted, the intent and actions of these agencies are justified. That does not mean that they should not be made more efficient, they should. Since the collective mandate of all of these agencies could never be carried out with the amount of taxes the government collects, the Federal Reserve issues debt securities to make up the difference. Ron Paul does not believe that the Fed should be allowed to carry out its dual mandate of stimulating the economy and creating jobs in times of slowdown by easing rates and conversely combating inflationary pressures by raising rates as necessary. Economists have done studies that prove that we would have lost many more jobs than we did if the Fed hadn’t intervened during the Great Recession by its programs of QE1 and QE2. They estimate that the unemployment rate would have peaked at closer to 15 percent rather than ten percent. A prudent Fed can mitigate the effects of economic declines and Ben Bernanke, a Princeton scholar and student of the Great Depression knew exactly what actions to take to keep this last downturn from becoming another depression.

So, my philosophical disagreements with Ron Paul are deep-rooted. I do respect men of reasoned intellectual persuasion, but not those who would lead us down a very dangerous and extremely slippery slope. This country may never be able to recover from a Ron Paul presidency. It would be an experiment with potentially dire consequences.

The Right by Dwight Cameron

Ron Paul, the Libertarian

Ron Paul is certainly a unique candidate with many unconventional positions, many of which people find outlandish. However, he does make some very good points which should be considered.

The Federal Reserve

The Fed has had an outsized effect on our economy which can be seen by the damage they have done. According to Milton Friedman, they caused the Great Depression by attempting to shrink the money supply. They later (in 1937) prolonged it by tightening and causing a second stock market collapse. They have been instrumental in causing our current mess by creating barrels full of excess money which inflated housing prices which eventually collapsed. And the jury is still out as to whether they did more harm than good with their Quantitative Easing initiatives. Yet, despite all the carnage, only Ron Paul, of the major candidates, is pointing his finger at them.

Foreign intervention

Although Paul is too non-interventionist for me, he makes good points. We cannot police the world nor impose our system on others who have neither desire for it nor ability to absorb it. Putting our troops on the ground where we have no national interest at all and no money to pay for the expedition (remember, 40 cents of each dollar spent is borrowed) is in the end suicidal for us.

War on drugs

Prohibition of alcohol didn't work and prohibition of drugs doesn't work either. We are wasting money and lives trying to stop a flood which can never be stopped. If there is a market for these drugs and they are illegal then the criminal element will do the importing or manufacturing. If they are legalized then legitimate companies will perform these functions and they can be better controlled; also, the price will come down so the need for criminal activities, like muggings, will be less necessary to support addicts' habits. Further, we will add to the coffers by taxing these substances disproportionately heavy. Ron Paul and his Libertarian attitude will work toward this more rational policy.

Real budget cuts

When most politicians say they are cutting the budget they are really not reducing spending, they are actually increasing spending. The Federal budget works on a "baseline" which increases each year automatically by some ridiculous amount, say 8%. It is this 8% higher budget which is then the subject of "cuts." If a legislator says he is cutting the budget 3% it really means he is increasing expenditures 5%. There will be screaming by the liberals of how this 5% increase is gutting the budget and ending vital programs (like building turtle tunnels in Florida or ice cone machines in Michigan). That last point was on the news today. Ron Paul may be the only candidate who is proposing actual reductions in federal expenditures within the next few years.

These are some of the salient points which Paul makes. His varied positions as shown above shows he and his ideas should be seriously considered.

Would Newt's baggage fly for free on Jet Blue?

2011-11-26T18:23:00.000-08:00

Sure, Newt has heavy baggage but not sooo heavy. Go Newt!

9-9-9 Should Cain Stay or Get Out?

2011-11-19T14:18:00.000-08:00

The Center by Jerry Morgan

Herman Cain may not be the most astute politician and in fact he isn't a politician. That is the lure. His 9-9-9 proposal is simplistic but has some merit. It will simplify the tax code and reduce corporate taxes which in turn should stimulate business investment and hiring. However, one can argue that it is inherently unfair for the lower class to pay what could amount to up to 18% (when you take into account local and state taxes) sales tax on essential items.

As far as the accusations of women who are coming out of the closet, they are still only accusations and I respect Mr. Cain for his staying in the campaign. After all, unless he is guilty of a criminal act or found guilty of sexual crimes, he is to be admired for standing up for what he believes under extreme emotional duress. Now the media seems to have ganged up on him from the right and from the left.

It is this centrists opinion that while Mr. Cain may be a flawed candidate, he makes some valuable contributions to the Republican platform and should remain, at least until he no longer is a viable candidate.

The Left by Y. I. Wearblack

Herman Cain’s 9-9-9 plan is a lost leader for Tea Party Conservatives. It could never be enacted because it is a totally unsustainable economic model for America. It is a slogan without substance. Like everything else he peddles it is a sound bite of pop culture, drawn in this case, from the video game Sim City. In fact, I would go as far as to say that Herman Cain’s candidacy is nothing more than an animated billboard to deflect attention from the real intent of those who have financed his candidacy, namely to extract more revenue from the middle class and the poor and less from the rich. It is a business model in which the poor pay more, get less while the rich pay less and get more. His popularity is derived from a sense of entitlement that accompanies the Conservative heart, which repeats and repeats, I have a natural advantage and I wish to use it by exploiting the less fortunate. Ask Herman Cain a question about foreign policy or economics and he tells you that he doesn’t know nor does he need to know. One slogan is sufficient because his form of government is tyranny.

We are a country that has come of age. Unfettered free enterprise is fine to lay the foundation of democracy, but a balance of free enterprise and social equality is the way to sustain it. What we are experiencing in America is a coming of age, a realization that we cannot return to the past or wallow in the present. We must move forward accepting the full mantle of civilization, meaning we must take into consideration the needs of very large constituencies in our population; the young, the aged, the unemployed and the sick, providing a social infrastructure that supports them all. Herman Cain and those like him are icons that we need to reject in the name of progress. The choice must be made soon, and the choruses of protesters are heralding that moment. Herman Cain, get out of the race!

The Right by James Daly Jr.

Herman Cain knows what the American Dream is--in fact, he is a personification of it. He not only espouses the virtues of laissez-faire economics, he built an empire despite the barricades of over-regulation of small businesses by government.

Now he wishes to give something back to society. He is a very wealthy self-made man who owes a debt to the American people, to free market capitalism and the American way. He is a true patriot with Judeo-Christian values who has been maligned by the far left media who are paying women to make heinous accusations against him--accusations that he has proclaimed to be false and we, his apostles, believe him one thousand percent.

No one is claiming that Mr. Cain should be knighted or nominated for sainthood, but he speaks from the heart, and is an honest politician--no, it is not an oxymoron because Herman Cain has not been tainted by the inadequacies of the current Congress and Executive branch of government.

He is exactly what we need in the White House. A fresh face, with new ideas who is not afraid to go where no one else has dared.