Government Shutdown - What That Was REALLY About

So the standoff over Obamacare, the functioning of the Federal government and the debt ceiling is now over. Or, at least until January, at which time we may go through this all over again.

And the point of all that was...?

Seriously, who got what out of that saga?

Do mainstream Republicans benefit? No. Do Democrats or Obama himself "win" with this whole thing. Not really. The American public? Certainly not.

And, could the radical minority of Republicans in the House (Tea Party) really have expected the Senate and Obama to roll over on Obamacare? Not credibly or realistically.

Indeed, my belief is Tea Party Republicans never actually thought Obama and the Democrats would cave. Sure, they might have hoped they would, but that was not the goal of the Tea Party-fueled crisis this time around.

Rather, I think the Tea Party had distinct goals of their own on this action. Holding funding of the Federal government and debt ceiling hostage in an attempt to de-fund or neuter the already passed and Supreme Court reviewed Affordable Healthcare Act did four things quite nicely for the Tea Party - all related to electoral politics and power within the party. And that's why I think we saw what we did over the last month.

So well were the following things accomplished, I think they have to be considered as primary goals...

1. Establish renewed visibility for the Tea Party and a radical-right pecking order going into 2014 and 2016 elections. Had you ever heard of Ted Cruz before five weeks ago? How about some of the other Tea Partiers who got their mugs on the news? Me either. But, now the Tea Party is on everybody's mind and those interested in running the Republicans as far to the right as they possibly can now have a handful of nationally known leaders who will, without a doubt, be in line for House Speaker or running for President in upcoming elections.

2. Ferret out RINOs. One thing Tea Party Republicans hate more than Democrats are politicians they view as "Republicans In Name Only" or RINOs. The Tea Party definition of "Republican" is extremely conservative, so what most the rest of us think of Republicans would be too liberal for them. By pressing the issue they way they did over the last month, the Tea Party conference forced Republicans to take sides. Are you with the Tea Party or are you not?

And why do that? Well, midterm elections are coming up in 2014 and the well funded Tea Party leaders want to find out who to target in the primaries to try and unseat RINOs and get their own "Republicans" in office.  And if shutting down the government and threatening the world economy is how they had to do that political dirty work, that's just fine with the Tea Party.

3. Make a point to the "true believers." There's nothing like grandstanding to make a point to the constituents back home. In this case, the Tea Party Republicans have focused on a law they view as an abomination and affront to "liberty," the Affordable Healthcare Act. By drawing attention to themselves as champions against the law, they assure their constituents back home in their districts are 100 percent sure they are as right wing as they are. By extension, they offer themselves up nationally as an "alternative" certainly to Democrats but also mainstream Republicans. Personally, I think that's radically delusional, irresponsible and foolhardy too. But that's the mindset of the Tea Party.

4. Frustrate Obama and the Ds at all costs. The one unifying goal among Republicans of all stripes since the moment Obama was elected president in 2008 has been to obstruct, frustrate and undermine his and the Democrats agenda at all costs. And there is no more a fervent group against Obama than the Tea Party. So their actions over the last month are just a continuation of this very consistent strategy by conservatives. If Obama is for something, oppose it. If Obama is against something, support it. Stymie, delay, filibuster...do whatever it takes to slow down, alter or stop legislation or policy by the White House. Through these tactics, the Republicans are attempting to make themselves appear to be a strong alternative to Democrats come election time. Why vote Democrat if nothing ever gets done? Get it?

So there you go. Four clear objectives accomplished by the Tea Party over the past few weeks.

And all of this is bad enough as a shallow, narcissistic and detached operation by small men and women with huge egos and ambition. But if that's all that it was, you'd just shake your head and move on. But the real tragedy here is that the shut down of the government and brinkmanship over the debt ceiling  over Obamacare has impacted millions of Americans in a negative way - paychecks missed, benefits on hold, access to services cut off, access to public land eliminated and more. And, on the debt ceiling issue, you have the rest of the world watching this and becoming increasingly concerned over our financial situation and increasing dysfunction in government.

Post Election Thoughts

Here are a few "day after" thoughts on the national election results...

Republicans

• You lost the Presidential race and you need to move on. Sure, it was close in the popular vote, but you lost that and - more important - were clubbed in the electoral college. Your team has won a lot in the past (Reagan, both Bushes, Congressional majorities for the most part over the last 20 years)...but not now. Obama is the President. He is not a foreigner, a socialist, a communist or the anti-Christ. Cleanse yourself of that baggage. He is the twice elected President of the USA. Accept and move on.
• You need to re-think how you approach national races. Your strategy of trying to win by maximizing voter turnout in areas you have an advantage (rural/suburban, white, male, older) in hopes that this counterbalances turnout in the cities and among minorities and women? It failed. It might have worked in 2000 or 2004, but the nation is changing demographically. It's becoming a more ethnically diverse and accepting place. Doubling down on right wing policies that appeal to middle age white guys in the countryside ain't cutting it and won't going forward. Reinvent your party and have a shot. Don't and really risk not seeing the White House for quite a while.
• You need to legitimately work with Democrats to get things done rather than instantly go back to the "party of no" mode to spite Obama and try and set up a R win in 2016. You need to re-define your idea of compromise as something other than demanding the Democrats coming over to do what you want or "no deal." The nation is tired of all that and you are not serving the citizenry by doing that.

Democrats

• Go play the lottery right now. Why? You just got REALLY LUCKY. Recognize that Obama's victory is not some sort of massive mandate for his leadership and ideas. You should not gloat. 
• It's time to get specific. A lot of Obama's campaign - and many Congressional candidates too - was more about not electing the opposition (and wow, the Rs sure put up candidates that were easy to target that way). You did not really run on a clear vision with specific ideas for the next few years. You need to get specific. Set a few clear goals and work to get them done. 
• You too need to work with the Rs. You need to try and work with conservatives to achieve your clear goals. That should be your default first move. It's the right thing to do and will likely result in more things getting done. But...you also need to know how to put pressure on the Republicans if or when they revert to simply obstructing everything you want to do. Figure out what will motivate them and exploit that. 

Prez Debate #2 - Who Won?

So, who "won" the debate last night? Well, I think the answer to that is better revealed by answering another question..."who exceeded expectations?" Yes, the expectations game. It goes hand in hand with debates. Lower the expectations before hand, then over-deliver on those expectations to be seen as a winner.

Anyway, I think both candidates did pretty well in their square off last night at Hofstra. Both had strong stretches. But I think there are two things that tip the balance to Obama.

First, I think Obama exceeded expectations. The expectation was that following his poor performance in the first debate (so...yes Romney fans, Romney squarely won the first debate, no argument), Obama had to come out and show energy, speak more from the heart, engage and challenge Romney. He did that, but I think he went a notch better to get in some really good, stinging points (47%, comparing Romney to Bush, women's health, taxes). Was it a Bill Clinton or Ronald Regan type performance? No. Was it effective? Yes.

Second, I think Romney - while doing fine on substance for his side - did not quite meet expectations for the second debate. He did so well in the first debate, his expectations were pretty high...he had to look just as good as the last debate and appear presidential. This is where he underachieved I think. Romney came off as a condescending bully towards Obama and the moderator through much of the debate. Plus, he said a couple stupid things - the most significant of which as his which "binders full of women" remark when trying to describe how he found qualified women to promote or put in positions of authority in his business (the point being, he didn't know qualified women because he himself had none of them at high positions and had to ask for binders containing info on women who might fit the bill for his plans). I'd also say his "I came up in small business" remark was so demonstrably not true as to be considered stupid. Anyway, I think Romney slightly underperformed in the expectations game with his demeanor and some of his answers. (Side note: the one thing that genuinely pissed me off was that Romeny, a Vietnam draft dodger and supporter of the false "find the weapons of mass destruction" Iraq war is using the tragic Libya situation as a political issue. Very, very hypocritical and shallow).

Will any of that matter when it comes to who wins? Not sure is the answer. Romney is probably ahead of Obama by a point or two in the overall voter preference polls this week, but here are some things to consider about that:

1) The popular vote tallies right now are within the margin of error. That means that if the election were held today, well, the numbers could go either way.

2) It ain't Nov. 5 yet. Debate performance impact on election results are difficult to judge. George W Bush was a horrible debater but won in 2004 (he didn't win in 2000, he was essentially appointed by the Supreme Court following the insanely close balloting in Florida and the lawsuits that followed). Reagan was a very good debater and won in 1980 and 1984. Probably the only real impact will be an aggregated one based on how undecided votes feel about either candidate after seeing each of the debates or at least hearing about them.

3) And finally, and most importantly, popular vote does not win you the presidency. The electoral college does. There, Obama has a lead and appears to have a lead in some very, very key states (PA, Mich, Ohio) that Romney would have to win to be the next President.

All of that to say, it was an interesting debate last night, I give a slight edge to Obama, but their performances only really matter at this point for either of them when it comes to key electoral college states. One more debate to go...then the election on Nov. 5. I think it's going to be really, really close but the electoral college will probably (probably) be in Obama's favor.

Ladies and Gentlemen...Bill Clinton

I thought Bill Clinton's speech last night at the Democratic Party's national nominating convention delivered the goods in terms of why a) the Romney Ryan ticket is clearly the wrong choice (the primary mission of his speech) and b) why Obama is the superior choice...which Obama himself will expound upon tonight.

In fact, I think it was the best articulation of the situation I've seen yet - done in human terms, in a folksy and engaging way - but cutting and effective on the issues that really matter. Also, I liked how Clinton (and therefore the Obama campaign and the Democratic Party) embraced the economy as the central issue in the campaign instead of running away from it or offering up other issues (foreign policy for example) as the key thing to focus on. No, Bill clearly wanted to engage and discuss the economy and squarely lay out what's worked, what hasn't and the differences between the two candidates and parties.

To my ear, the most effective lines of argument issued by Clinton were those painting the stark contrast between what the other party represents and would bring to the White House, regardless of what one things of Obama. Specifically, I heard Clinton say:

• Romney/Ryan are offering the exact same economic ideas that got us into the mess in the first place...massive tax cuts for the rich and corporations; major deregulation of finance, energy and other industries; deletion of healthcare reform laws and a big increases in defense spending all at the same time. This policy is a proven failure. It produced massive budget deficits and a major recession by the end of the 1980s and we all know what happened when the Rs enacted this policy when they ran the government in the 2000s. Why? The arithmetic simply does not - and never has - added up.
• Romney/Ryan literally represent the Republican "zero tolerance" political philosophy of obstruct, say no and do not compromise...and that's not only bad politics, but more importantly it's bad economic policy. Related, the cynical strategy the Rs adopted five minutes after Obama was inaugurated in 2009 was to pin their mess on him, refuse to cooperate with him and, ultimately, hope the American public would literally forget that they ran the county into the ground from 2001 to 2008.
• Romney/Ryan embody the immoral "I got mine, you're on your own...good luck" philosophy that isolates, divides and subjugates virtually everyone in society save the already rich and powerful.
• Romney/Ryan are less than honest on the campaign trail. More than most politicians (of both parties) who "fudge" the truth and spin for effect, R/R go out of their way to just make stuff up. For example, Clinton pointed out how R/R have taken Obama's response to the requests by a number of governors (mostly Republican) to waive certain Federal welfare policy requirements so that those governors could enact even more effective "back to work" programs and suddenly turned it into "Obama wants to give welfare money to people without requiring them to work." Just not true.  

While Bill brought up other ironies, bad ideas and dishonesty foisted by Romeny/Ryan, I think these were the key "anti-R/R" points he effectively made to anyone out there who may be undecided - dishonest, obstructionist lackeys for the super rich and big corporations who offer nothing more than the failed ideas of the past.

By comparison to that, I thought the other part of Clinton's speech was equally good in terms of setting up Obama as the guy to keep on the job:

• Obama inherited the worst economy since the Great Depression and has done a good job - despite Republican obstructions - to stem the bleeding and get the economy on at least a balanced footing.
• Obama - despite how the Rs have treated him - still is dedicated to true bipartisan solutions that work for most if not all Americans. Now, I personally think this is what cost Obama the 2010 mid-term elections as he did not understand that the Rs were not under any circumstances work with him...and therefore they could run (and win Congressional seats) on the assertion that Obama and the Ds were not leading us out of the poor economy. But in any case, in his appeal the center of American voters, Clinton did a good job in painting Obama as a fair guy wanting to work with anyone for solutions.
• Obama (and Democrats) belief in investing in education, infrastructure, corporate innovation and new forms of energy is a superior set of priorities that will pay dividends in the form of jobs and an expanding middle class.
• Obama's priorities and record are about opening up opportunity, not limiting them. This is in stark contrast with the Rs.

The summary points here, to me, seemed to be that yes, yes we are better off four years later under Obama than we where following the eight years of W. Sure, there's still work to do, but things are turning around and we should stay on this trajectory with Obama.

In all, the speech was a master work by a great orator. Clinton effectively attacked the Republicans and set the table for Obama himself to lay out his plans tonight. To me, it's a clear and obvious choice which way to vote this fall...and I did not need Bill Clinton's talk last night to convince me. But, to the degree there are some "likely voters" out there who are still undecided and who saw the speech...I say that Bill did a great job in trying to convince them what to do.

Welfare Issue Is Mostly About What's Not Said

Today I saw another chart online that seemed to so obviously point out one issue or problem, but...to me at least...just raised more questions.

The below chart published by The Weekly Standard purports to show how 100 million people living in the US now in some way rely on Federal "welfare" - broadly defined. And it shows how the numbers have ramped over the past 3.5 years (conveniently since Obama took office).

In parallel with this, one of the current "buzz debate" issues right now in the media is Mitt Romney's charge that Obama lifted requirements for Federal welfare recipients - such that all one needs to do is be poor and let the Federal money roll on in. No effort to find a job needed.

Both of these items center on welfare and the assertion that Obama is turning America into a bunch of people dependent on the government. That's the R message and I believe it's coordinated.

I also think it's total bullshit.

In fact, I think its such bullshit that I won't even argue with the number on the chart. Lets, for the sake of argument, just accept them as fact.

Having said that, there are big issues with what this chart and the underlying assertions made by Romney on Obama and welfare that are either misrepresented or conveniently omitted.

Lets start with the chart. OK, so more people in some way rely on the Federal government for some sort of "welfare." Why? Why would more people over the last four years need that? Is it some super secret plan enacted by a Communist-in-disguise (Obama) who wishes to make people dependent on the government because...????

OR, could it possibly be that since 2008 our economy has been in the royal shitter following 8-20 years of decay brought on by the prevalence of the conservative prescription for the economy (massive deregulation, massive tax cuts for the wealthy and corporations, big cuts in education, etc.)? Could that be it? Could it be that those very things caused the economy to crash and stay in the ditch? Outsourcing of jobs, financial sector meltdown, housing market in free fall, companies refusing to innovate to create new jobs in preference for sitting on cash, escalating costs for education...these are the problems created.

And in the aftermath of all that, guess what? People are hurting and need assistance in some way? I'd say yes, that's a MUCH more likely and logical reason for the increase shown in that chart. But it's not brought up.

Also, the nifty little chart does not include "corporate welfare" - the subsidies and tax breaks given to companies. You upset that 1/3 of people have some sort of welfare? How about US corporations who benefit from billions in payments, subsidies and tax breaks. That's right. Our government gives private companies...by some estimates...$2 trillion annually. That's far, far, faaaaaaaaaaaaaar more than it gives out in traditional welfare. Where's the outrage on that?

And finally on the chart...what if there were no welfare programs? How would people be getting along? Sure, there'll always be some element of society who wants to bilk us for a welfare check, but you know...even you conservatives in your hearts...that your average everyday American has too much pride and ambition to do that because they just want to. So, what if there weren't the programs? How would the unemployed, sick, old or disabled express their displeasure? Might not be too pretty.

OK, the other "Obama loves welfare" issue is Mitt Romney's advertisement in which he claims that Obama eliminated for states...such that now all anyone has to do is literally sit around and get a government check. Sounds pretty bad, right? But of course there's more to the story...the part they fail to tell you.

Turns out that states (in particular GOP led Nevada and Utah) asked the Federal government to waive certain Federal requirements if states themselves would implement more aggressive incentives and goals to get people off welfare. Get that? Obama and his team are willing to honor states' request to help them strengthen their ability to get people off welfare. Not exactly what Mitt is saying is it? Story HERE.

Even Newt Gingrich sees that this is all a stretch. And hey, if a guy as right wing and partisan as Newt can see it that plainly, well, you gotta realize Romney has gone far beyond playing fast and loose with the truth into pure fabrication (aka "lying").

This thing is SO Mitt Romney: sseize on some isolated element of something Obama said or did, take it out of context, tease out an angle that's really negative based on that snippet and then blow it up into issue. To some degree that's how political campaigns have operated for some time, but Romney is taking it to its extreme.

In the end, I think...through their desperate manipulation of facts and omission of vital information...these two "welfare" issues are desperate conservative attempt to sway undecided voters - in particular white males - with an issue they think will move them into their favor.

Last thought...I wonder how many people on welfare or assistance vote conservative?

Mitt's the Problem, Not the Answer

I think one of the most effective campaign themes the Obama team has come up with against Mitt Romney is the one where they say something along the lines up...

Mitt Romney is not the answer to our economic problems, he is the problem.

Romney is a living, breathing advertisement for how our system here in the U.S. is rigged to favor the extremely wealthy while the middle and lower class get squeezed tighter and tighter.

And that's why I think the Obama line of attack is dead on the money. Two primary reasons:

First, how Romney ran Bain Capital
While at Bain, a company he also owned, Romney was a key mover in the first wave of job outsourcing in the early 1990s that really depleted the U.S. of solid-paying jobs. Those same maneuvers also helped make Romney a lotta lotta money. So, he literally was making millions by outsourcing jobs at companies his firm bought. He did this by being a huge practitioner of "vulture capitalism" where his company, Bain, would get a loan to buy a functional company...pocket a nice percentage of that dough (cha-ching!)...then transfer responsibility for the debt of the loan to that company...then wring out all expenses at the purchased company (getting back to layoffs and outsourcing)...and then either the company thrived (another cha-ching) or more often it failed (but not a big deal to him because, well, see first cha-ching).

Nice for him and his buddies...not so nice for all the people he put out of work. Romney is literally running on the notion that he is a successful businessman and that because of that he is fit...and even more fit than Obama...to lead the country. It's just that his success was built on devastating the foundations of our economy.

None of this accrues to the character of a person serving as the President of the United States. Indeed, a President should be in favor of practices or programs that serve to stimulate job growth here. And that does not have to even be "protectionism" for manufacturing jobs in my opinion. Hey, outsourcing labor to cheaper international markets can work for everyone...but only if back home here there is a) innovation happening in the private sector (think back in history to things like the microchip, the Internet, computers, airplanes, automobiles, etc.) that creates jobs, and b) there's a strong educational system to create new generations of smart employees who can fill those new economy jobs.

But guess what? Corporate America has opted for the short term profit boosting by outsourcing without investing in new innovations...not really. Most companies are sitting on their profits and investing them for more profit...which rewards investors with dividends and executives with bonuses, but does not reward the vast majority of people wanting a job. And right along side that, we've not invested in education. The US is ranks pretty low compared to other major nations when it comes to education.

Anyway, all that is to say that Mitt Romney is the poster child for the exact type of capitalism that created our economic woes. Not the guy who should be the chief executive of our nation.

Second, how Romney has managed his money (as far as we can tell)
Romney has pulled all the classic tricks to shelter his money from taxation and obscure how much he really has. We're talking Swiss bank accounts, trusts set up in his wife's name and based in the Cayman Islands, packing his IRA to the tune of $100 million (by the way, how does he do that, the law limits contributions) and others.

Also, because he "makes" his current income off of investment dividends (must be nice), he only pays 15% income tax (must be really nice).

And finally, he has refused to release more than his current tax return - this, despite his own father's statement that...

"Release of the document (current year tax return), while it might serve a political purpose, would not prove very much. One year could be a fluke, perhaps done for show, and what mattered in personal finance was how a man conducted himself over the long haul."
Mitt might currently be upset at Senator Harry Reid for saying that he has not paid taxes in 10 years, but...hmmm...how could Mitt prove him wrong? How could he show that he did pay taxes? Oh, right...he'd have to disclose his tax returns over the last 10 years. That info might show he paid some amount of tax, but it might also show evidence of a lot of other shenanigans not fit for someone wanting to be president.

The big points here are that absent proof to the contrary found through disclosure of his tax returns: 1) Mitt appears to be pushing the boundaries of tax law, and 2) appears to be hiding something. Neither of these are character traits we need in a president.

Here is a man who will say with a straight face that the deficit is too big and budget cuts are what are needed (no doubt social programs and not the military) to make up the shortfall...yet he, through the way he managed his own money as only a mega-rich person can, is personally depriving the government of duly owed tax revenue. Further, disclosure of 10 years worth of tax returns might show that he indeed was on the payroll and active with Bain when they did some of their works deeds to the U.S. economy (see above) - not something voters would appreciate.

I'd say that if Mitt Romney wants to be a super rich guy...so be it. Go crazy. Push and stretch the law if you think you can get away with it. Hell, our government goes out of its way to give rich guys all the breaks. BUT, if you want to do that...don't also then try and run for president and get all pissy when people start asking questions. Either do what your father did - disclose 10 years worth of returns and show what a great guy you are - or deal with the heat. Or, better yet...just don't run.

The Sum Up
Mitt Romney seems to be a morally deficient person. I'm not saying he would kill anyone or commit violent crime..or that he's even a bad husband or father. No, what I am saying is that from within his super-rich-and-aloof bubble, he demonstratebly lacks the morality and character to understand and act on behalf of the American people. Indeed, far from being the answer to our economic problems, he is the precise and spectacular example of the cause of our problems.

Electoral College Map Will Tell the Story

As the Presidential election heats up this summer, rolls into the conventions and then heads down the home stretch in the fall you will see a lot of national polls saying Obama is at X%, Romney at Y% in the polls. And that'll be OK for what it is. And you'll hear plenty about those numbers.

But, as we all know from our civics class (and as was so dramatically brought home to us in the 2000 election) who gets the most overall votes is not necessarily the winner. In fact, that's not a measure of winning or losing at all in U.S. Presidential elections.

Nope. Let me re-introduce you to "the electoral college." While there are a lot of details to it, basically, each state counts for a certain amount of "electoral votes" based on the number of Congressional seats and Senatorial seats it has. So, a state like California has a lot of electoral votes while a state like North Dakota has very few.

Anyway, the way you win the Presidency is you win enough states to get you to a majority of the electoral college - 270 electoral votes.

This means that it's not really one big race the two Presidential candidates are running, but rather 50 separate races...focusing on whatever strategy and states they think will get them to the magical 270 vote electoral vote count.

All that to say...one way you can keep track of how things are going for real in the race is to look at an Electoral College Scoreboard map and track how things are going for your candidate over the next few months. There are quite a few out there. The one I'm currently looking at is HERE.

You can see that based on up-to-date polling in all the states that Obama would win more electoral votes than Romney at this point, but not enough to get 270 electoral votes. Not surprisingly, we see several key states with lots of electoral votes are in the "tossup" category. If one candidate were to win a few more of these than the other...that candidate will be the next President.

It's also kind of fun to see where each candidate has their strongest support. For example, check out the huge lead Obama has in California, NY and Washington State. Makes sense. Then look at Romney-land. Big leads in the South and rural states...also not surprising.

Here's to some interesting map watching.

Santorum Is Out...So What Does That Mean?

Rick's out. It's official as of today.

Not that he was going to win the nomination at this late date, but we are now spared his super right wing, religiously based platform as a threat to run the country. Good.

But, what does Santorum more realistically mean?

Well, for one thing, it shows that the Republican Party - for all of it's seeming dislike of Mr. Mitt "I have an elevator for my cars at my house" Romney - prefers the upper crusty, major rich wheeler dealer insider than it does the righteous (or self-righteous) "social issues" candidate. For all the social issue fervor of the primary candidates, the Rs are in the end casting their lot with the aloof flip-flopper who is connected at the hip to Wall Street and has "paid his dues" in the party.

This is actually probably the best for that party's chances in the fall. I'm not saying Mitt "corporations are people, my friend" Romney will win the presidency, but I think he'll have a better shot that would have Rick, Newt or Ron. After all, most Americans are not going to vote for the overt ultra conservative agenda that those other candidates would have made their primary issues.

Indeed, the Rs essentially stepped away from the fire and brimstone frenzy happening in their living room, slowly backed away, closed the door behind them and turned around to shake hands with their mega-rich uncle in the hallway.

Santorum bowing out also means that the Republicans are still fielding a candidate fully in favor of the exact policies that got us into the economic mess of the last decade. Yep, for all their differences on social issues, the leading Republican candidates for president all pretty much agreed on an economic policy that would:

• Reduce taxes on the wealth and corporations while adding to the tax burden of the middle class
• Major degregulation for the energy, housing, financial and environmental sectors of the economy
• Increase defense spending

Sound familiar? It should. That's the toxic recipe that led to where we are today.

And finally, no more Santorum in the race means Obama and Romney will now go directly after each other starting now and through November. You think you've had it with all the political talk and advertising since January? You ain't seen nothing yet! The 2012 election will be a record setter. Why?

For those of you unfamiliar, the Supreme Court decided in 2010 that corporations and unions are due the same free speech rights as human citizens and, therefore, the government cannot restrict how much they can spend on political expenditures. Yep. Your Supreme Court in action.

This will mean massive seas of money sloshing and rolling into both the Obama and Romney coffers. They will be able to fire away consistently and - no doubt - harshly at each other for more than six full months. By the time of the conventions, there will have been an unprecedented amount media coverage, advertising and general talk about the two candidates.

Super Bowl, Bailouts and Dirty Harry

I watched the Super Bowl last Sunday. I had no rooting interest, but I thought the game was pretty entertaining. I also thought the ads were pretty average with a few highlights - I mean, really, how much mileage can you get out of Bud Light, Betty White, and Star Wars year after year. I guess it's subjective, but I found the ads boring.

One that is getting some attention now is the Chrysler-sponsored Clint Eastwood spot that aired at halftime and talked about how Detroit automakers have rebounded and is back in fighting shape. Turns out, certain high profile conservatives found the ads in poor taste because they talked about the resurgence of the U.S. auto industry...the U.S. auto industry that taxpayers bailed out and now that has rebounded, paid off its debt to taxpayers and is again competitive and thriving. Ohhh...conservatives don't like giving credit to the bailout. No, no. It runs counter to everything they stand for.

So what do these displeased conservatives do? They don't go on record saying how they were against the (now proven successful) bailout and what they would have done differently. No. They instead say, "because auto companies owe a debt of gratitude to the Obama administration for the bailout, they are doing this advert...and essentially then Obama is parleying public funds into corporate advertising. Isn't that outrageous."

Setting aside that this is utter wank. Literally and figuratively false. And setting aside that U.S. automakers who received bailout funds have fully repaid them, below is an excerpt written by The Rude Pundit today on his blog that explains the irony, hypocrisy and downright maddening position from conservatives on this advertisement...

Speaking of conservatives being fucking crazy, the outrage on the right over the Clint Eastwood-narrated Chrysler ad is beyond bizarre. Yes, there was an image from the protests at the Wisconsin capital, but that was timed with the word "discord," not "freedom" or "heroic." Otherwise, the script is a locker room pep talk, one that is inclusive as can be. One part in particular seems to grate on the right: Detroit "almost lost everything. But we all pulled together, now Motor City is fighting again." At some point, someone needs to say to Republicans that it's okay to have been wrong about the auto bailout. Now let's move on.



But they can't. They just can't. Karl Rove pranced onto Fox "news" to announce his displeasure, saying that the ad was "a sign of what happens when you have Chicago-style politics, and the president of the United States and his political minions are, in essence, using our tax dollars to buy corporate advertising." The man who helped demonize a legless Vietnam vet said he was "offended."


What this reaction says is something deeper. See, Clint Eastwood, who voted for John McCain and opposed the bank and car bailouts, thinks the whole controversy is bullshit. He rewrote the script, and he's donating his pay to charity. What Rove and the rest of the right's negative reaction really means is that they are divorced from the nation as a whole. In the ad, Eastwood says that, during tough times, "we all rallied around what was right, and acted as one." We acted, in essence, like Americans.

Conservatives are saying that it's offensive to expect them to do so. And if Dirty Harry wants to wallow around with the dirty hippies, then fuck him, too.

Reactions to State of the Union and Response

A few reactions to the State of the Union address and the Republican response...

It was very informative to see the distinct Republican contingent sitting in stony silence when Obama talked about how Osama Bin Laden had been killed and when he spoke in favor of eliminating tax incentives for companies to offshore jobs to other countries.

The rest of the chamber was applauding, and I have to believe most Americans also are in favor of such radical notions of killing Bin Laden and eliminating tax breaks for companies to ship jobs overseas.

So, the Republicans sitting there by contrast in silence spoke volumes about their values. Think on that for a minute.

Then, in the Republican rebuttal they trundled out the supposed rational moderate of their party (notice he is not running for President, however) who proceeded to unpack the same old hypocritical, conservative BS where all of a sudden they are concerned about debt and "big government." People, while both parties are certainly owned by big business and certainly we all agree that huge debt is not good, the Republican Party presided over the crashing of our economy.

Quite literally, during their control of the House, Senate and Presidency, their prescription for the economy - low taxes for the rich and corporations, doubling down on oil as our energy source, and deregulation of most sectors - is the exact reason we're in our situation now. The Republicans are not credible....not. Dress it up as a "respectable" moderate all you want, but that guy is saying the same thing that Newt, Romney, Paul and Santorum are.

What they are credible on is the ability to take what they are guilty of and projecting it on their opponents. So, through them we get Obama as the debt creator, Obama the job killer, Obama the class warrior, Obama the creator of big government. Sure, Obama should have more balls, but these things are not true. But hey...just say it in your "rebuttal" and it starts being taken as truth.

In closing, I will repeat my questions...

• Who do you think will be the first and primary beneficiaries of a Republican presidency and Congressional control? Will it be the mother or father in a poor to middle class family who finally gets a job because somehow the magic of tax cuts for the rich unleashes a new wave of new jobs? 
• Will it be the elderly who will suddenly benefit from lower housing and drug costs because of the "unseen hand of the market" forces prices down following more deregulation? 
• Or, will it be the Wall Street bankers, energy companies and the upper class who suddenly get new tax breaks and less regulation on their businesses? 

I think we all know the answer. And we know this because WE JUST LIVED THROUGH IT over the past 10 years.

GOP SC Result Shows True Colors of Conservatives

Newt won the South Carolina GOP primary this past weekend, and did so by a lot of votes - sending one time front runner and presumed nominee Mitt "corporations are people my friend" Romney into scramble mode, and making the Republican race as up-for-grabs as it has ever been this time around.

But that's on the surface. What does Palmetto State win by Gingrich really say about conservative voters?

Well, we know that SC is a very, very conservative state. Hell, there is no such thing as left of center down there. The closest you'd get is a moderate Republican. So, we know that the voting populous there definitely represents a large number of conservatives, and presumably a good cross section of conservative beliefs on topics such as the economy, social issues, foreign affairs, etc. So, we know that South Carolina is a good test bed for taking measure of where conservatives are at.

Next, we know that the four main candidates - Romney, Newt, Santorum and Ron Paul - all represent different shades of conservatism and personality. All conservatives mind you, but different in some key ways:

• Mitt is the classic upper class "silk stocking" Republican that used to dominate the party before social conservatives took over in the 80s. On the upside for Republicans, he should represent the ultimate outcome of their preferred economic prescription for America. You an economic conservative? Mitt's your man. On the downside for the Rs, he's aloof, from Massachusetts and Mormon. That last one probably being the worst for a party run by evangelical Christians.
• Newt is an old hand in the Republican Party, having been the Speaker of the House in the 1990s. He's an authoritarian, combative and a good debater. On the up side for Republicans, he is seen as a fighter (a bully really) - as someone unafraid to take on Obama with the toughest rhetoric and stances. On the downside for them, he is a walking abomination in terms of their party's claims around support for "family values" and moral codes lifted from the Bible. Newt also has a clear track record of simply changing his stance on things so that he's always on the opposite side of his opponent and can argue with him/her. Oh, and he presided over an expanding Federal government he ground to a halt in the 1990s, lost his Speakership to ethics charges and is corporately indentured as heavily as anyone else running.
• Rick Santorum is THE MAN when it comes to religious conservatism. It doesn't get any more Christ-y than Rick. On the upside for Republicans, in Santorum they have a very clear, very obvious guy to vote for if their issue is moral and family values (as defined by the GOP and conservatives that is). On the downside, some may see him as unelectable against Obama and feel he is not as aggressive as Newt.

• Ron Paul is the libertarian in the group. He believes in virtually no Federal government at all. So, Republicans could see him as champion for one of their big causes, small government. On the downside for them, he also believes Marijuana should be legal, we shouldn't be the world's police and the government has no business in the lives of gay people.

So with the rock solid conservative credentials of the South Carolina people and the above lineup of candidates vying for their votes, what does a resounding win by Gingrich tell us about where the collective head of the conservative party is at?

My conclusion is that the SC results show that conservatives are quickly and conveniently willing forget their supposedly strong support for "family," "responsibility," and "fiscal conservatism," and "small government," in favor of a guy they thing will be able to verbally beat down Obama. Essentially, they will sell out their values for an authoritarian guy who they think will thug his way to the Presidency. This trumps other candidates and core beliefs. Truth, adherence to strong principles, small government, ethics, religion, family values...all that stuff can go out the window because conservatives like how Newt can verbally beat someone up.

How else can you explain it? If conservatives' primary objective is to "restore family values," then Santorum should have won the primary.

If they wanted to ensure the continuation of government support for the "supply side" economics they so love (government by and for the 1%), then Mitt should have come out on top.

And, if they wanted to really shake things up and get things back to more of a "state's rights" situation (ask South Carolinians about state's rights...they'll tell you that is why the North started the Civil War. Note: that wasn't the reason and the South started the war...but I digress), then Ron Paul should have won.

But they didn't. Newt did.

Typically, conservatives respond well to being told by a strong man (bully) what to do, how to think, how to vote and what to say about the opponent. No thinking, no critique...just do it. Nixon, Cheney, Haig, McCarthy, Rumsfeld, Limbaugh, Oliver North. Those are the types conservatives flock to, and so is Newt. He always has been.

Luckily, some other GOP primaries are taking place in less distilled conservative states so we may see some more moderation in the vote tallies for the candidates. But, I'll be watching to see if "tough guy" beats out "smart guy," "religious guy" and "live free or die guy."

Two Points to Consider When Watching Obama's Jobs Speech

As you watch President Obama's "jobs speech" Thursday, or perhaps if you torture yourself by tuning in as pundits tell you what you just heard, here are a few things to keep in mind, at least in my opinion...

Companies need to step up and get back in the game
While government action can and is sometimes necessary to stimulate the economy, the bottom line is that companies create jobs, not government. No, I haven't gone all "supply side" on you, but it is true that companies are the ones who make decisions on the vast majority of hiring - where, how much, for what and when. There's no getting around that. Obama can talk a good game about tax credits or incentives, but if companies don't want to hire...and rather want to sit on their cash...they won't do it.

This is all related to my assertion that, guess what? The jobs ain't coming back. Companies - especially big ones who tend to employ (or used to) a lot of people - have weathered the economic storm and are now getting by without having to hire back costly items such as employees. So they won't.

Nope. Old jobs are not coming back. Forget about it and move on. The hope would be that "something new" comes along to spur growth, offer clear investment and hiring opportunities for companies and help alleviate the unemployment rate...and thus many of our other economic ills.  This is actually the American spirit that has gotten us by in other times. Be it the automobile, the airplane, medical breakthroughs, the space race, computer chips, the Internet...something big has always come along to really boost our economy and usher in new good times. But this isn't happening now. The bubble burst and the ones left holding the money bags are not ready to invest in innovation and new sectors of the economy.

If government can help via stimulus, great. I am for it. But again, it is companies who hire. So, if you are ticked off that companies are not hiring...get mad at them.

We are in a "conservative economy" and have been for quite some time
Without a doubt, you will hear the Rs rebut Obama's recommendations as ineffective, too reliant on "big government," and wrong for the country. And no doubt, those same conservatives will say that what we really need is a big old helping of tax cuts, deregulation and "getting government off our backs" to free up the economy and get it moving again.

But here's the thing...we are already in that type of economy. Huge tax cuts for the wealthy and corporations were enacted 10 years ago and are still in effect. Aggressive deregulation of energy, financial, transportation, housing and other markets has been going on for 20+ years...and got a big boost over the last 10.

And Obama? He has repealed almost exactly none of that.

You think his "big government healthcare plan" is the problem. Nope. Virtually none of it goes into effect until 2014.

Think Obama is the guy responsible for the debt. Wrong again. Our historic and spectacular federal debt was hand delivered to America by Republicans in the short six years between 2001 and 2007 when they ran the White House and both houses of Congress - all on their watch, all in service of the same economic theories they're still talking about today and all while happily raising the debt ceiling without a peep of controversy.

So you see, we ARE IN a carefully and steadily constructed conservative economy. How you liking that?

Put another way, if tax cuts and deregulation are so good for the economy, where are the jobs?

Anyway, a couple things to ponder as you watch or hear about jobs over the next couple/few days.

How Long Until Conservatives Start Using the bin Laden Victory Against Obama?

Remember back in the 2004 Presidential election when conservative groups (with the tacit approval of the Bush campaign) spent big money on anti-John Kerry ad campaigns that turned the reality of Kerry's Vietnam War service and hero status into a liability?

You know, they "creatively" re-told his war service story in a way that questioned if he was even present at the scene of some of his most heroic actions, if he did what he said he did, whether he really merited the awards he won and even raising questions about whether or not he actually just shot some local Vietnamese in the back by mistake. While the messages came from several fronts, the primary identified group behind it was Swift Boat Veterans for the Truth.

Essentially, the incessant ad campaign run by those conservative groups re-painted Kerry's image as a war hero into a dishonest, wimp liar. It raised enough questions about his service to minimize or even eliminate his edge over Bush in terms of military service and command experience. It turned a Kerry strength into a weakness.

So I ask the question...

In the 2012 election, how long will it take these same type of conservative groups to start turning President Obama's bin Laden victory...and all of the positives that the results say about Mr. Obama's guts and leadership abilities...into a liability? I ask "how long" because I am 100% convinced they'll try.

You know...Obama didn't really authorize the mission because the military was already on it (and besides Bush had already set things in motion), Obama didn't really give the go-ahead for the mission, he was playing golf while the mission was going on, he took credit for the actions of the Seal team, he should have captured bin Laden alive and not "had him killed," Obama "lied" or "was less than honest" about the details of the raid, bin Laden isn't actually dead (or even if he is) and the mission was a ruse to boost Obama's military credentials, and on and on an on.

Basically, I see a series of ads questioning Obama's handling of the bin Laden mission that raises questions about his honesty and leadership abilities. The fact that bin Laden was hunted down and killed on Obama's watch and based on his orders will, of course, be ignored. Again, this will be an attempt to turn perhaps Obama's biggest strength and victory into something that is used against him to effect.

Also, as a reminder, the U.S. Supreme Court last year decided that companies have the same First Amendment rights of free speech as human beings. So, they can spend as much as they want on political advertising now...and they will. Which side do you think companies will mostly be on - Democrat or Republican?

Obama, Bush and bin Laden

Now that the news of bin Laden's death is all over the place and people have had a chance to embrace and digest it in their own way, here are a few related thoughts on who secured this outcome and who did not - as well as a question about how long it'll be until we see the "bin Laden not really dead" theories materialize and from whom...

The Bush/Obama Comparison

• Attack. BUSH: The worst attack on American soil by foreigners - an attack masterminded and led by Osama bin Laden - occurred on the watch of President George W. Bush. OBAMA: Directed, sanctioned and gave the go ahead for the operation that found and killed bin Laden. And, no successful terrorist attacks carried out on U.S. soil in his presidency so far.

• Mission Accomplished. BUSH: Proudly flew that now infamous banner bearing that phrase on an aircraft carrier in the early days of the Iraq war - a war by the way that had nothing to do with bin Laden or the 9-11 attacks. I think we can all agree that the banner was a tad premature. That's being kind. OBAMA: No banners, no gloating or landing on an aircraft carrier in a flight suit like Bush. Nope, just a short announcement to the nation on a Sunday evening that justice had been served and confirming the killing of bin Laden. "Mission Accomplished" ineed.

• Quotes. BUSH: On Bin Laden in 2002: "I don't know where bin Laden is. I have no idea and really don't care. It's not that important. It's not our priority." And: ""I am truly not that concerned about him." OBAMA: On Bin Laden in 2011: "Today, at my direction, the United States launched a targeted operation against that compound in Abbottabad, Pakistan. A small team of Americans carried out the operation with extraordinary courage and capability. No Americans were harmed. They took care to avoid civilian casualties. After a firefight, they killed Osama bin Laden and took custody of his body."

• Timing. BUSH: In office for eight years. No capture or killing of bin Laden. OBAMA: In office for just over two years and Bin Laden is dead. Those are the facts. My opinion is that the American people need to keep that in mind when judging Obama as a leader in the 2012 elections.

I think these facts and comparisons tell the tale quite well actually. Bush was a man who took his job lightly and coasted...to the degree that he ignored concrete evidence that an attack such as materialized on 9-11 was being planned. We know how that turned out. He then made a series of errors that not only did not kill bin Laden, but actually made our situation worse. Meanwhile, Obama is a man who apparently is on the ball and dead serious about fighting terrorism...to the degree that within two years of serving in office, bin Laden is dead.

Rumors and Conspiracy Theories
U.S. media is reporting that the body of bin Laden was burried at sea. So, as you read this post, the body of bin Laden resides in the cold, dark depths of the ocean. A fitting place for him for sure. But, no body to see means those who believe in him or his cause - or are against the U.S. or Obama - will be able to suggest that he is not really dead.

I think we'll see skeptism in two ways:

1. The Middle East. Indeed, the Middle East and Arab world thrive on ruomor and conspiracty theories. From listening to NPR today, I've heard this is already starting over there with people doubting the story of bin Ladens death.
2. Right wing conservatives in the U.S. There are those here who will not want to give credit to Obama for this action and will raise questions about whether bin Laden is really dead and/or that the whole thing was faked to make Obama look better going into the 2012 election cycle. Remember, there's a certain percentage (and a percentage who gets a lot of media attentions) who believe Obama was not born in the USA.

Obviously, for some people who don't want to believe it, no amout of disclosure will be enough to prove bin Laden is dead. In any caes, I will be quite interested to see if or how the U.S. proves to the world that bin Laden is indeed dead.

The Strategy Behind Blatant Republican Contradictions

Lets be clear here. Lets tell it like it is. Lets not kid ourselves and lets not be naive.

It does not matter what President Obama does or says on any issue - no mater what position he stakes out - the leadership of the Republican party takes an countering view, even when doing so is in direct contrast with their previous statements.

Perhaps the most obvious example is the situation in Libya.

Newt Gingrich criticized Obama for not taking action, not instituting a no-fly zone and even sending our military into action. Now that Obama has done all those things, Gingrich is criticizing these actions.

Not to be outdone, House Speaker Boehner is demanding a full and clear explanation of the objectives of the actions of the U.S. military in Libya. Mind you, this is a man who - like Gingrich - criticized Obama for not doing enough about Libya earlier this month, as well as criticized him over how he handled the Egyptian uprising.

In this instance and others, it seems the primary goal of the Rs is simply to weaken support for Obama by criticizing anything and everything he does - even if doing so is in direct contradiction to what they were saying just several weeks ago.

Hell, Obama could solve world hunger, cure cancer and balance the budget and his opposition would say he's using the U.S. taxpayer money to solve problems that our not ours, is purposefully condemning victims of other diseases to death and has undermined U.S. financial security by cutting budget and raising taxes to balance the budget. It just doesn't matter what he does or says.

Why would they do this? Electoral politics. They want to win the Presidency in 2012.

This is their short-term game plan to "soften up" the President before the election cycle. Sew doubt about him, generate an ongoing "buzz" of opposition that generally presents a question mark about Obama in the minds of the American public. The issue could be on the issue of Libya, could be the budget, could be - as we've seen - even down to taking issue with the First Lady's initiative to encourage children to eat healthy (how dare "the government" tell your child how to eat!"). It does not matter. What matters is criticize, criticize, criticize. Paint him on on CNN, Fox, MSNBC, ABC and all the networks as weak, indecisive and himself a flip-flopper. It's an ooooooooooooooooooold Republican battle tactic.

Well, OK...but won't these Republicans be easily called out and shamed for their obvious, blatant and ongoing contradictions and thin attacks. No, they will not. Why? When it comes to politics, economy and foreign relations, the American public has the attention span for details and facts of about an hour. Seriously. About an hour. Literally, most Americans don't remember what a politician says between one day to another and they certainly don't remember a politicians track record - contradictory or not. Now, you want to talk about a BJ given to the president by an intern? The American public wants to know about and track ALL the details on that!

No, what we all DO seem to remember is the general "feeling" or vague notions of whether we "like" someone or not. And that's what the Republicans are trying to do - errode Obama's likability by trying to make him out as wishy-washy and inconsistent with a sustained criticism campaign that puts a general negative buzz out there about him that reduces his "like factor."

Ironically, the "like factor" is why Clinton continued to get high approval ratings during his Lewinski scandal. It's also a factor in Obama's favor because most people "like" him and the R candidates tend to come off like bullies.

But in any case, make no mistake, what appear to be obvious contradictions from Republicans are about. It's part of the strategy they are pinning hopes on to win the Presidency and pick up seats in the Senate for a majority. And what an occassion that would be.

I think we all can remember the "glorious" eight years 2001 - 2008 when the Rs held the Congress and White House - economy in the tank, unemployment up, permitted worst attack on U.S. soil ever, financial and real estate market meltdown, creation of the worst Federal budget deficit in U.S. history, rising gas prices, blundered invasion of Iraq, and on and on...but hey, tax cut for the rich!

Get ready for some more of all that if the Rs are successful.

CPAC Features Republican Would-Bes

The annual convention of CPAC - a gathering of the nation's leading conservative politicians, activist and though leaders - is happening this week.

Often, who attends and who speaks is a preview of who will be running for President in the next election cycle. For 2012, many conservatives may think that Obama and the Ds are ripe for picking off...and they might be right. But, they'll only be correct if they run the right candidate. And that's where it gets difficult for the Rs. They really don't have anyone compelling enough, with new ideas and without significant personal baggage to beat out Obama - at least in my opinion.

For example, here are some leading conservatives thought to be pondering a run at the White House who are speaking at CPAC this week and why I think they couldn't beat Obama:

• Newt Gingrich - way too abrasive, not very good looking, draft dodger and TONS of personal baggage such as leaving his first wife while she had cancer for another woman (and that's just to get things started).
• Mitt Romney - rich, generally considered good looking, but wow...no new ideas, flip-flopper galore and to top it off he is a very boring speaker - not inspiring at all. Oh, and he's Mormon. A lot of Americans won't vote for him based on that alone.
• Ron Paul - perhaps his message more than any other will ring through in these "tea partying" days, but at some point people will realize that when he says "limit the Federal government," he's literally talking about doing away with services millions of Americans rely on daily...and I don't think that'll fly.
• Michelle Bachmann - she's a pandering, megalomaniacal right wing nut job who would be EASILY exposed as a dangerous fraud.
• Haley Barbour - fat, boring and ran the Republican party during the Clinton years...when they were beaten twice. I don't see it happening. Seriously, a fat white southern good-old-boy vs. Obama. Barbour might win that race if it were for Mississippi governor, but not the President of the U.S.A.
• John Bolton - a scary authoritarian who you may remember as the white-moustached, strange haircut guy Bush appointed as the U.S. ambassador to the UN. You think Cheney was not militant enough? You think Bush didn't spend enough on defense? You think Wall Street and big companies deserve bigger profits and less regulation? This is your man. And you will lose to Obama.
• Rick Santorum - nut job from Pennsylvania. Not electable.

Interestingly enough, Sara Palin declined to attend this year and a top speaking spot that would have been hers if she appeared. It was something about her not wanting to "sanction" CPAC participation of a gay Republican group by appearing and speaking. Nice. But any way you slice it, I just don't see Palin winning against Obama. To the contrary, I suspect the Obama people are openly cheering for Palin to run and get the nomination for the Republican Party.

Sure, there are some others who may run (Hukabee and Pawlenty for example)...and sure who knows what will unfold between now and election day 2012. But hey, from the clowns they have lined up so far, I just don't see it happening - no matter what you think of Obama at this point.

More Palin This Week - Stupid, Cynical or Both?

This week we witnessed another example how Sarah Palin can combine her stunning lack of knowledge about history with her brazen ambition and willingness to turn anything any competitor says into a talking point...

Palin says the USSR a) won the race to space, and b) failed as a government because of overspending on it.

Right. Sooooo many things wrong with that.

Lets take them one at a time:

The USSR did not win the space race. Quick review - the USSR did launch the first successful man-made satellite (Sputnik) and the first successful manned orbit of the earth. Perhaps this is what Palin means when she says the USSR won "the race to space." But, if true, she COMPLETELY misses the point and CLEARLY does not know history. Why? Because the USSR's early wins so thoroughly freaked out the U.S.A. that we went on a concerted mission to win the space race by being the first to go to the moon and back. This was done in less than nine years...from scratch. We did it. The USSR never did, nor has any other nation. We won. The end. And this was Obama's point in his State of the Union when invoking Sputnik - he was using it as an example of how the U.S. can pull together and win big time, and we need to do so now with the economy.

The government of the USSR did not fail because of its participation in the space race.
First, the USSR ended in 1991 - 22 years after the U.S. moon landings and 30 years after the USSR's early space victories. Pretty difficult to draw Palin's conclusions from that massive gap in time alone.

Second, while the USSR may have - and probably did - fail because of a spectacular and unbelievable amount of spending on defense without the economy to back it up (not to mention decades of running police state) the space race was, if anything, a minuscule component. Sure, the USSR maintained a space program, but spending on it was not the cause of their demise. No, if you can point to any one element of spending that contributed to their demise it is indeed on defense. Their efforts to keep up and/or surpass the West in terms of jets, submarines, missiles, army, navy, intelligence and - significantly - something to defend against or defeat the mythical U.S. "Star Wars" shield did them in. So, her argument is obviously ignorant.

And oh, by the way, guess where the U.S. government spends the largest portion of its annual budget? You guessed it, just like the USSR it is on defense. So, even if you stretch Palin's space race position to the extreme and somehow include USSR defense spending...she's still comes off as out-of-touch because she apparently is unaware that we spend HUGE on defense too. Not good for her argument.

Palin is playing fast and loose. That's clear. Her's is a cynical attempt to garner media coverage. Two easy-to-spot proof points:

1. Though her lame space race argument, she is attempting to equate "big government spending" with failure of a state - implying that the current economic and budget situation in the U.S. is headed in the same direction courtesy of Mr. Obama. And, she's clearly trying to tie the notion of "communism" to Obama.

2. Because she is so completely off base with her assessment, she's appears to be banking on people not knowing history and, therefore, not questioning her twisted logic.  This is the scary part. There were probably people out their who saw what she said, and though "yeah, we're going the way of the Soviet Union here with all this talk of Sputnik and big government spending and debt."

My only question is whether Palin consciously is doing this as a calculated political move or if she honestly believes what she is saying? Is she stupid, cynical or both? No matter the answer, she's getting air time and either way it's insidious and frightening.

"Repeal the President?" Really? So Says One Representative

Remember a while back when I predicted that the new Republican majority in the House would attempt to repeal the healthcare reform law AND attempt to impeach Obama? Also remember how I suggested that Republicans might work these two maneuvers hand-in-hand?

If you don't remember, my original post is HERE.

We now know that part one of my prediction is well under way given events in the House this week. The Republican majority indeed did vote to repeal the healthcare law. For a quick review of the big time B.S. arguments the Rs are using against the healthcare law, see this article from the Washington Post HERE. Meanwhile, the Democratically controlled Senate has said it will never bring repeal up, so it's likely to die right there as a symbolic vote by House Republicans. Or is it?

I ask because I find the following comments from Representative Bachmann (R-MN) this week from the floor of the House very interesting and a bit scary:

"This is not symbolic, this is why we were sent here and we will not stop until we repeal a president and put a president in the position of the White House who will repeal this bill, until we repeal the current Senate, put in a Senate that will listen to the American people and repeal this bill."

Article HERE.

"Repeal the president?" Put a president "in the position of the White House" who will repeal this bill? Really? What's she talking about? Is she talking about an extended campaign to elect Republican majorities into the Senate and the White House? Or, is she talking about something more aggressive?

Sure, Bachmann is a blow hard nut job. But, remember, the House is the body that can initiate and prosecute articles of impeachment against the president. They did it last time a Democrat was president (and he was in his second term...not even a threat to win re-election like Obama is now) and I don't think we should underestimate what they're capable of this time around.

All I'm saying is, hey, they DID vote to repeal the healthcare law and they DID impeach a Democratic president last time they had the opportunity. We may be seeing the beginnings of the later scenario playing out again. Something to think about.

What If You Threw A Super Majority And No One Showed Up?

I've been pondering the U.S. Senate seat win by Republican Scott Brown earlier this week. His victory means that Senate Democrats no longer have a filibuster proof, talk-to-the-hand "super majority" in that legislative body. This has, as I'm sure you've seen, caused quite a stir in the media about what this will mean for Obama's agenda and Congress generally.

I've been asking myself - what's surprising about this development? And, what does it mean?

To me, it's not surprising that the people of Massachusetts would elect a Republican - even to Kennedy's old seat. Despite the perception of it being a "liberal" state, the populous there has certainly elected Republican governors (remember Mitt Romney?) and Senators before.

No, that's not unusual.

And, it's not surprising that Brown seemed to get a cushy ride by the media desperate for an "upset" storyline to help them cover "a controversy." No, seen that before too.

What's surprising - and a growing concern to me - is how this win by Brown seems to reveal a backlash against Democratic party governance. The Ds are in the rare position of having the citizenry of the nation in 2008 vote them a large majority in the House, a super majority of 60 seats in the Senate and, oh by the way, the Presidency. These advantages were bestowed on them on the notion they would bring change to the nation in sore need of it after eight long years of rule by the other side. And, what have the Democats done with that? Not much. Here we are one year in and no legislation has been passed on healthcare reform, significant financial market reform, investment in job creation, substantial change in foreign policy, a new energy policy or other meaningful "change we can believe in."

And speaking of that phrase, I'm becoming a bit disappointed in President Obama. I know he was handed a horrible economy and overall situation courtesy of the Bush team, but given the set up in Congress, I'm not seeing the leadership I thought we'd have out of him. Certainly, he's a far better alternative than McCain would have been, but still. Call me impatient, but what do you think LBJ or FDR would do (and did) with Congressional majorities in their first year in office? Or, how about W (OK...Cheney) or Reagan with the Rs running Congress? Action. Good or bad, like it or not - action. That's what would happen.

So, seriously, I have to ask another question, "What if you threw a super majority and nobody showed up?"

What would that mean? Among the answers you might find are: a squandered opportunity, gains by the opposition (starting with what we saw this week) as the public gets fed up...and ultimately, inaction and a government and nation in stasis at the exact moment it should be changing. All of that seems to me to be the case now. It seems to be increasingly clear that if Obama and the Ds aren't going to get it done with all the advantages they have - even with 59 seats instead of 60 in the Senate - it isn't going to happen. Not with the parties and mindsets we have in DC now.

Why? There are probably any number of reasons. I don't claim to be an expert or know them all. But, one that seems so obvious to me...that explains why a party that talks change, runs on it, even wins big time on the premise that it will deliver it, but then does nothing to effect it...is that big business, finance, pharma and key special interests have locked up the Democrats just as they have the Republicans. That influence means action to better society generally is outweighed by action (or, more aptly inaction) that beneifts business and special interests.

Going slow or even turning the clock backwards suits the nature of most Republicans as they are mostly conservatives after all. That's their bread and butter. Conversely, most Democrats and/or liberals are supposedly "progressive," and seek to change things. This seems to have come to a trickle so their version of inaction sticks out like a sore thumb - or, perhaps, rings like an alarm bell.

Look, despite the biggest financial and jobs crisis since the Great Depression having been brought upon us by the religion of "free markets" and deregulation championed by conservatives, there has been no meaningful counterbalance to that crisis in my mind. Sure, banks and car makers were bailed out with tax dollars, but unemployment is still high and hindering recovery, and the middle class still shrinking. (I did see that Goldman Sachs recorded big revenue last quarter and is giving out bonuses that are 47% higher than last year, however.) And, despite healthcare costs skyrocketing and threatening the financial and actual well being of millions of Americans, we don't have a meaningful change in our system yet. We're still in Iraq, we're still lagging the modern world in education. I could go on, but I think you get it.

No, the super majority party thrown by the electorate in 2008 has been ill attended and therefore I fear the opportunities have been missed. 2010 election campaigns are upon us and that also does not bode well for action this year. Expect an ticked off public to elect more Republican such as we witnessed this week by Brown. But, on the other hand...what's the difference if that comes to pass given the inaction happening anyway?

In the end, I am prepared to be impressed. I am prepared to take back what I've said above. I am prepared to give credit where credit is due. I want action. I want to see us change. I want to write a blog post in January 2011 saying, "Boy, I really had it wrong back there in 2010. My bad...glad to see healthcare reform, job creation, a lower deficit, financial market reform, etc."

But, as of Jan. 22, 2010, count me as increasingly dubious that happening.

Hey, at least the goverment is hard at work to pass legislation to limit the volume of TV commercials. That may be what I need to settle for as change I can believe in.

Obama and the Nobel Peace Prize

As we all know by now, President Obama has won the Nobel Peace Prize - an award that has in the past been conferred upon such giants as Martin Luther King, Jr., Gandhi, Lech Walesa, Desmond Tutu, Nelson Mandela, Elie Wiesel, Linus Pauling, George Marshall, Woodrow Wilson, Teddy Roosevelt and other esteemed peacemakers.

This is a major honor and I'm glad an American has won this award again. Congratulations President Obama.

However, there are some questions about this one. The primary issue is, well, what has Obama actually accomplished to merit the honor? Where are the results? Which people or nations have ceased killing each other and now live peacefully as a result of Obama's actions? What has he invented or championed that has brought peace?

To his credit, Obama himself was surprised and even said that he felt that he did not deserve to be grouped with previous winners.

In any case, the Nobel organization cites Obama's election and foreign policy moves as having given the world new hope and improved the image of the US globally - both of which they believe are significant elements needed to seed and spread peace globally.

OK, well, that's nice, but I'm not too convinced by that. Yes, I'm an Obama supporter. Yes, I think he's doing things well. And yes, I think that if followed through, his foreign policies may indeed mean peace in war-torn areas and better relations internationally. But has that really come to pass yet? The US is still in Iraq, the Afghan war is heating up, and Israel and the Palestinians are still going at it just to mention a few big-time conflicts where the US is involved. Where's the peace there?

With this all being the case, one wonders why the Peace Prize committee decided to honor Obama so early in his tenure of president? The answer to this leads into another area of some controversy.

Specifically, the speculation that giving the prize to Obama is a slap at the previous Bush administration. While I certainly have no way of knowing, I'm going to say...yes, sure, but of COURSE it is a slap at W and the way he ran the US and impacted the world. Think about it. Under the leadership of Bush and the Republican Congress, we went from a respected nation in with a thriving economy, healthy federal budget (and therefore able to be more helpful around the world), peacemaker in the Balkans and engaged heavily in the Israel/Palestinians negotiations to a despised nation with a failing economy, massive budget deficit, contempt for the UN, pulled out of international global warming treaties, adopted a "go it alone" approach and, oh yeah, we decided to invade Iraq despite and against all evidence that we needed to or should. So yeah, I think there's something to the notion that giving the prize to Obama is a signal from international circles that they're glad we have new leadership.

Also, I think there may be something to the idea that the Nobel team gave the award to Obama exactly to elicit controversy and conversation about their organization and award. This would not be the first time they've done so. For example, the Nobel Peace Prize has in the past been granted to people whose credentials of "peacemaker" are highly questionable such as Henry Kissinger and Yasir Arafat.

Why do that? Well, it keeps the Nobel name out there, ensures conversation and helps keep the award in the forefront of media coverage. And that may be what we're looking at here today...certainly in a more positive light, but in principle the same thing.

At any rate, the prize came as a surprise. They're not taking it back and Obama will certainly collect it in December. Therefore, regardless of the reasons for the award, I think the best thing we can hope for is that Obama - inspired and buoyed internationally by the award - transacts and accomplishes the peace that the world sorely needs.