Maybe We Should Raise the Voting Age to 48

Newt ruined the whole thing, at least for me. I like to think I was an early endorser when he was still in the wilderness and everyone thought he was a loser.  Then this morning I wake find that Newt is polling in the teens in the latest CNN poll, down 19 points since a few days before Christmas. His support has basically shrunk in half. Wal-Mart t-shirts manage the washer cycle better than this. Mr. Positive has given up all pretense and now fights like a hyena for his scraps. I guess I, like millions of other fickle Republicans, will have to withdraw my support. Effective immediately.  

I would like to point out that that unlike the Republican electorate (with any of their leading candidates) I have been with Newt for almost three months. The repub voters have picked a new dance partner at every opportunity, I have not.  After the phony bus tour/ vacation they loved Sarah Palin (riding 19% in the polls in June), but she decided not to throw her head, ah… hat, in the ring. She said she felt she could be more influential on policy as something other than holder of the highest elected office and most powerful political figure in the world.  Also there’s the fair and balanced money thing. Before that when he was birther-ing it up they loved Trump. He actually led the polls in April. Then in May after Obama released his birth certificate Trump dropped out. Apparently that was his strongest issue.

Then Bachman won the Ames Straw poll and for a few weeks she ruled the conservative roost, until she (whoops) suggested vaccines caused mental retardation because a woman told her that at a rally. Since that neatly fit her the-government-is-the-greatest-danger-in-our-lives-bulls*** she ignorantly ran with it. Not quite ready for prime time, I guess. Then Perry burst on the scene. In August he led the polls. People will remember the list of three departments he wanted to eliminate—perhaps better than the candidate-but in truth he blew up before that. Lately he has been going after gays, grappling for the intolerant hateful Jesus vote. Good luck with that. Intolerance always works.

Cain was with us for far too short a time. Here again, people will remember most what perhaps is most unmemorable, the philandering, the harassment, and the absurd denials.  My favorite Cain moment I have to say is the pre-Libya meltdown at the health forum with Newt when we wiped his face, looked to the sky for an answer, and then finally turned to his opponent and said, “You go first, Newt.” Cain led the polls with nearly 40% before imploding.

Then we had Newt, and now we have a surging Santorum, peaking at the right moment with a puncher’s chance, and a classic Iowa ground game. Other than Romney, and Huntsman-- who has about as good a chance of pulling off an upset in Iowa as a reanimated Richard Nixon-- every candidate has had their shot. All the candidates are scurrying for the far right. This is because of the Tea Party and because Romney has a healthy lead with moderates and so called independents. The former Massachusetts governor has “soared” to a less than amazing 25% in the CNN poll, one point less than his 2008 total in 2008, when he lost to  Huckabee who was over 30%.

I keep thinking that the silly season is over, or nearly so, and then another sunrise brings the dawn of a new day and with it another wild gyration in the race for the Republican nomination. On the heels of the story of the sinking Newt, we also hear that Bachman’s Iowa campaign chairmen appeared with her at a rally in the morning. So far, so good. There he is looking on seriously at a rally. Then later the same day he defected to Ron Paul. Just to make it wonderful Bachman then held a press conference where she accused the defector, her senior political operative in Iowa, of having zero scruples and taking a large sum of money for the defection. 

CNN also reported that the American right gun crowd, driven by a fear of Obama’s hidden motives, is on a gun buying craze. This despite the fact that Obama has done bubkus on gun laws since being elected. There were 2.5 million applications for background checks in November and December alone, both months a record. Gun owners are the looniest of the loony right, especially those fixated on their second amendment rights. Such is the righteous rage of the extreme and growing right in this country that they see phantoms of Armageddon even in fields where wild daisies grow unnoticed and intended.  It’s not as nutty a situation as say, oh, Palestinian police breaking up a riot of broom wielding priests at the sight of the Nativity (true story), but the right wing gun nuts are mighty a scared and they ain’t waitin’ for the president to unilaterally throw out the second amendment and pry their guns from their gold dead hands bla, bla, bla. F***, some people are just so batsh** nuts it really discourages one any hope of political reconciliation.

So considering the childish attention spans, the schoolgirl adolescent drama over guns, death panels, and other fantasies, and frat boy realism brought to the issues healthcare for the uninsured and the death penalty in Texas and I have a modest proposal: Raise the voting age in the Republican primaries to something north of 50. AARP already reports that over 50% of the republican vote is north of 50, but it seems to me that the current crop of voters is just too immature to be weighed down with such a momentous decision as to who will be the next President.

The Case of Ron Paul

At the moment it appears Mr. Paul might win Iowa, Santorum notwithstanding. I like most Americans only “know” Mr. Paul from his two most recent Don Quixote-esque campaigns. Commentators regularly point out that the electorate has moved so much closer to Paul this election cycle where he has raised millions and is running a well-funded 50-state campaign which draws hordes of college kids anxious to be part of something special and groundbreaking.

Paul regularly points out the cost of America’s military commitment, not only in Iraq and Afghanistan, but in Japan, Korea and Germany. He is courageous enough to point up the folly of military adventurism. That is so rare on the right one has to take notice, even as you wince at the isolationist retreat in his posture especially vis-à-vis the nuclear confrontation in Iraq. He makes a sane case for excessive Government intervention in our lives, something most conservatives cannot comprehend. Score another point worthy of consideration.  No less a liberal scorecard then the Washington Post gave Paul it’s Pinocchio Test, something it does to fact check the candidates’ positions against their voting records, and pronounced Paul at least true to his rhetoric: “Paul has distinguished himself as the most consistent candidate in the GOP field. He votes according to his principles almost 100 percent of the time, establishing a reputation as an uncompromising representative. In short, voters know exactly what to expect from him -- which should make it easy to decide whether to vote for him.”

Well maybe that’s a bit simplistic. I read recently that Paul once sat out a race for the Republican nomination because a candidate he deeply admired had decided to run. That candidate was Pat Buchannan. That got me thinking.

Much has been made lately of the allegedly anti-gay, racist, anti-Semitic, newsletters which appeared under Paul’s name. The candidate has stiff-armed the press on the subject, and the relentlessly short main stream attention spans have largely backed off transfixed as they are by the horse race. The seminal article on the newsletters (with loads of links directly to the actual texts) can be found in the New Republic.

http://www.tnr.com/print/article/politics/98883/ron-paul-incendiary-newsletters-exclusive

Paul would have America believe that he did not write the lengthy and repeatedly racist paranoid rants, but the record is troubling and suggests that he is plainly lying about the authorship of the vile rhetoric. If Iowa gives this nut the nod for Republican nominee then the Caucuses there have no creditability.

A few basic facts… There are series of newsletters all published under Paul’s name, and frequently with “Copyright Ron Paul Associates” and Paul’s picture on the masthead. TNR turned up dozens of newsletters. They start as early as 1978 with wild conspiracy theories about the Panama Canal and the Trilateral Commission and run through 1996.

There is always a heavy dose of racial politics, which tends to run to the extraordinarily theories, so popular with survivalists and right wing militias, that whites under attack from hordes of minorities, gays, and immigrants. My favorite Jimmy the Greek style quote is, "If you have ever been robbed by a black teen-aged male, you know how unbelievably fleet-footed they can be." But there is no sunny ignorance here. The newsletter engages in hate speech again and again and for a news media that was obsessed with Reverend Jeremiah Wright, the silence is deafening though I doubt that will continue if Paul wins Iowa. 

Under Paul’s name, claims are made that Martin Luther King “beat his paramours” and “seduced underage girls and boys”. As Taylor Branch’s epic collection of King Biographies makes clear, King had extra-marital relations. To acknowledge that is merely to acknowledge the humanity and imperfection of the man. Making King out to be a saint serves no useful purpose I can see. As a man he was extraordinary enough. But these accusations, made into whole cloth, are spun from the racist imagination of a paranoid and hateful bigot. David Duke, The KKK leader who ran for senate in Louisiana found good company with the author of these newsletters. After Duke lost the race, although coming frightfully close, The Ron Paul Survival Report carried the following:  “Duke’s platform called for tax cuts, no quotas, no affirmative action, no welfare, and no busing... To many voters, this seems like just plain good sense…” Returning the favor Duke presents a vociferous defense of Ron Paul, as well as an attack on the Anti-Defamation League, on his website.

Paul’s fear of gays would put the homosexual sex obsessed Santorum to shame. According to TNR, “The September 1994 issue of the Ron Paul Survival Report states that ‘those who don’t commit sodomy, who don’t get blood a transfusion, and who don’t swap needles, are virtually assured of not getting AIDS unless they are deliberately infected by a malicious gay.’” Elsewhere Paul’s copyrighted newsletter suggests gays may be trying to poison blood supply in San Francisco and another post urges the readers to “bring back the closet” noting that “society [was]far better off when social pressure forced them to hide their activities." How quaintly conservative.

Paul makes the case the he had no role in writing the Klan friendly diatribes, but the record does not bear this out. In 1996 when questioned by a reporter for the Houston Chronicle, Paul was asked about a newsletter rant against Barbara Jordan, a congresswoman with an epic record in the women’s and civil rights struggle. Paul called the late Barbara Jordan a "fraud" and an "empress without clothes." After being confronted about the newsletter posts by a local Congressman, Lefty Morris, Paul told the Chronicle, "The causes she so strongly advocated were for more and more government, more and more regulations and more and more taxes.  My cause has been almost exactly the opposite, and I believe her positions to have been fundamentally wrong.  I've fought for less and less intrusive government, fewer regulations and lower taxes." He certainly did not seem to disavow his role in the newsletters then. I suppose running as Congressman in Texas there may have been some merit in letting a certain part of the electorate believe you were standing up to what they perceived to be an uppity black woman.

In another article in 1996 a paper called the Victoria advocate questioned Paul’s press secretary, Michael Sullivan. Asked about the quote on “fleet footed black teenagers” Sullivan said Paul’s words were of course, “taken out of context” and his comments about black males being fleet-footed and criminal were "sarcastic and aimed at the Washington, D.C. police force". He went on to talk about Paul's "writing style". Sullivan went on to say that the newsletters were a source of extra income for Dr. Paul. All of this seems a bit far from Paul’s comments to CNN last week that “he read the newsletters only ‘on occasion’ and ‘did not write them’” USA Today reports Paul made $900,000 from the newsletters in 1993 alone.

And we finish with the right wing paranoia. Paul as previously noted stood up to Newt to defend the Bill of Rights. The newsletter offers advice to advice to antigovernment militia members which should be quite helpful in the event Newt wins out: “Keep the group size down…Keep quiet and you’re harder to find…Leave no clues…Avoid the phone as much as possible” and finally and best “Don’t fire unless fired upon, but if they mean to have a war, let it begin here.”

That Paul has gotten is far is a testament to the media soaked drivel that passes for republican election politics in 2011. I saw CNN analyst Ron Brownstein make the case that the Republican election cycle is being driven so much by TV and the debates that the candidates have not been able to make connections to voters that would help them withstand the pressures of the campaign. He went on to suggest that this and the complete dissatisfaction with Romney by conservatives is the reason every candidate except Romney has risen, and only Santorum who just got here has yet to fall. That seems about right.

But if this is true the rise of Paul with the highly questionable and largely unreported background—for two election cycles no less—shows the absolute failure of the system and in my view the debilitating sickness that money brings to the process. He has achieved a remarkable place in the polls, received praise from media savvy icons like Jon Stewart, and yet he has an extensive record of despicable rhetoric. I doubt there is much danger that Paul will get much further than Iowa. If he were to be the victor in Iowa the press will dredge this stuff up and his opponents will rip him apart. Paul’s path is still instructive for good and bad. Much like the Koch brother’s candidate Cain, Paul is the Manchurian candidate for the moneyed class. In running and failing they teach lessons for candidate’s slightly more clever to follow. Given how little attention was paid to Cain’s fund raising and Paul’s past, what might we expect in 2016?

The (Almost) Last Waltz

Alright, so I was buzzing around the dial last night and happened to arrive at a station showing The Last Waltz, literally as the opening credits rolled. So I thought I’d hang for a bit. I have to say it was pretty disorienting.

The event held Thanksgiving day, 1976, was set up by the legendary Bill Graham. It was held at the Winterland ballroom in SF, and was attended by 5,000 lucky stiffs who-- according to what one reads-- in addition the  concert were fed a Thanksgiving feast that can’t be beat with turkey and trimmings.  

The Last Waltz movie came out in 1978. I remember watching it in a theatre in New York, and to this day have sort of a faint recollection of thinking back then how weary and worn the members of The Band looked. I had just arrived on the New York shores then, and  I was much younger than everyone on the screen, younger than Robbie Robertson, and crazy old Rick Danko, and judging by the movie the even nuttier Richard Manuel. From my spot melted into my recliner Garth Hudson looked suitably old I guess, and Levon Helm looked suitably timeless. He sounded fantastic even though he seems to be pulling on a cig every time you seem him offstage. But in 1978 from my seat in a Manhattan movie theatre they all looked hardened by the road.

Yet, watching last night I kept thinking how they all looked so young. That is a strange dynamic. The Last Waltz locks the members of the Band,  as well as Dylan, Eric Clapton, Neil Young and even Neil Diamond in a celluloid permanence that I am not protected by. When was Doctor John ever that young? Such a Night…While I once perceived The Last Waltz as a film capturing battle worn roadsters that never grew up, I now watched as someone who is a bit more nicked up by life himself.  You know I guess I don’t want to grow up either or at least don’t want to get any old(er), and so I found myself with my fist metaphorically raised, albeit reclining in my leather lounger.

As I watched the images on the TV screen I remembered the allure of the powder always just out of Scorsese’s camera shot, but obviously prevalent. It is rumored that the director himself had a problem with it. The smokey trails of hemp so much a part of my youth and so far in my rear view mirror now, seem in the movie at least to shade every corner.  Back when the movie was made, I used to love those summer nights when Up on Cripple Creek crashed through the Sear’s speakers across the oddly shaped yard to the Forrest Preserve beyond.  I don’t know what it is about the band that reminds of nothing so much as summer.

If the members of the band and the other male performers looked young to me, the women looked positively exquisite. Mavis Staples, Joni Mitchell, and especially Emmy Lou Harris were enthralling, all beautiful and at the peak of their artistic powers. I was happy with Morrison’s Caravan (… Turn up your radio…), and thrilled with a jumping Muddy Waters tearing Mannish Boy apart, but Joni and Emily Lou left me longing for more. Joni Mitchell is a pure artist in the mold of Neil Young, a challenging writer, a transcendent performer. As with Neil I could not follow Joni everywhere she has gone musically since the Last Waltz, but as the years flow by the more I am in awe at the scope of the artist and artistry. Coyote is just a great song. And though she also writes her own songs, to me Emmy Lou is in that great and rare categories of interpreters of the words and music of others. Like Sinatra, she sings a song and inhabits every emotional bend in the creation until there is not singer and song. There is just art that is almost shockingly beautiful.

So the Last Waltz goes on and one great Band song after another rolls across the screen.  It Makes No Difference, The Weight (with Pop Staples, as well as Mavis). Every Levon Helm song gets me. (Note to self: I have got to get up to one of those Midnight Rambles in Woodstock.)  But where I was always a Levon Helm guy first, last night I remembered how much I liked Rick Danko’s raw bluster. He leads on Stage Fright, but adds an edge to Cripple Creek and several others, as well as splendid howls to Mannish Boy. Didn’t give enough credit back then I guess. Robertson’s backing seems great though, though today I read he was singing into a mic that had been turned off. Whatever…

And then, and this is the best part, Devi my beautiful wife suggested we  go upstairs. It was getting late and she was getting tired. My blood was flowing so I thought the danger of missing anything to slumber was low. We switched rooms just before Dylan dropped his jewels on the night. Goddamn Forever Young always gets me. Loved it. But then, within minutes I was asleep. Devi tells me I turned off the cable, but left the TV monitor on so she had to get up out of bed, walk all the way around, an shut it off sometime after 1 in the morning. That is the beauty of me. It was a great Last Waltz, but I guess I am at the point that I don’t always stay for the last dance.

Sailors At Christmas

At this Chistmas season I am reminded of the fine program which allowed sailors from the Great Lakes Naval Station to visit our homes for a day. I recall going to the town hall to pick up one or two young men, often black or latino which in those days in Streamwwood one never saw. Then my mother fed them the finest of meals and my father and Ray, the guy down the block, got 'em good and liquored up before pouring them back on the bus. As Vietnam escalated we began to be aware of the heavy s*** some of them were heading towards. For years this was part of our Christmas celebration. Good times. One of them fellers bought me my first Rolling Stones Record, High Tides and Green Grass, at Monaco's. I still have it. The album was released in 1966. We can only hope it was in an oldies bin, or I must be getting really old. Merry Christmas.

Biden Talks Taliban, My Old Friend **** Talks Back

WELL VICE PRESIDENT JOE BITE-ME did it again, he said today that the Taliban is not an enemy of the United States -- WOW I am so confused? Does anyone remember whom we are and have been in a war with for the past 10 years in Afghanistan?

I am wondering if Joe and Barry might be the enemy?

Dear ****, just read the whole Biden Newsweek interview.

Biden can be a blowhard, but I am sure if you read the whole deal you know that he presented a pretty nuanced real-politick answer to how America might set the bar to leave Afghanistan. 

Your post seems to suggest that he just said the Taliban isn’t America's enemy as if he didn’t know that Al Qaeda and the Taliban were closely connected or have any other geo-political context, which it clearly did.  

On Al Qaeda Biden said that it was his estimation the Al Qaeda has had “serious damage done to their infrastructure in a way that the coherence of this thing called al Qaeda and their ability to metastasize has been severely damaged.” Further on he cautioned that the job was not done.

The question on the Taliban came later and your post suggests the remark was made on its own which seems pretty naïve. However, he prefaced the remark with, “We are in a position where if Afghanistan ceased and desisted from being a haven for people who do damage and have as a target the United States of America and their allies, that’s good enough. That’s good enough. We’re not there yet.

“Look, the Taliban per se is not our enemy. That’s critical. There is not a single statement that the president has ever made in any of our policy assertions that the Taliban is our enemy because it threatens U.S. interests. If, in fact, the Taliban is able to collapse the existing government, which is cooperating with us in keeping the bad guys from being able to do damage to us, then that becomes a problem for us. So there’s a dual track here.

“One, continue to keep the pressure on al Qaeda and continue to diminish them. Two, put the government in a position where they can be strong enough that they can negotiate with and not be overthrown by the Taliban. And at the same time try to get the Taliban to move in the direction to see to it that they, through reconciliation, commit not to be engaged with al Qaeda or any other organization that they would harbor to do damage to us and our allies.”

To the chagrin of many of us on the progressive left who view the current Afghan government as hopelessly corrupt and so would prefer a more expeditious withdrawal, Obama’s policy seems pretty close to where Bush was and would be. With domestic budget pressures and the war weariness of the American public I’m betting that Obama’s position is pretty much where McCain would be. A June Gallup poll showed 50% support among Republicans for withdrawal and 72% overall.

It seems that the opposite of Biden’s full statement is open ended commitment in Afghanistan with departure predicated on total defeat of the Taliban, and their total exit from Tora Bora. Is that where you want to go? Good luck with that.

Mike, The President has said that the Taliban was complicit in protecting Osama bin Laden while the United States spent most of the past 10 years looking for him. We never recognized the Taliban as a legitimate government. So if you protect our enemy then they are also our enemy.

So Mike tell me, are you in agreement that this President is absolutely trying to destroy our capitalistic system in order to install his Marxist version of government. And is that what you desire?

****,

You really want to get into this? No, I don't think Obama is a Marxist.

I am pretty sure I reside about as far on the left as you do on the right. Still I know we could talk 20 years ago, and I guess we’ll see if we can have a dialogue today. I understand that Biden's language infuriates you and others on the right, but no one in either party is willing to allow a continuation of an open ended continuation in Afghanistan. That ship has sailed. On Iraq lost soul Republicans like Krauthammer pitifully talk of Obama stealing failure from the “jaws of victory”, but that ship has really sailed with over 70% supporting withdrawal.

You and I might come to different conclusions for why it is that so many feel this way, but Americans are weary of war, especially these two wars, and that as they say is that. To acknowledge that is real politick, and no matter the fire from the right the candidate of each party is going to have to deal with the lack of American support for further military action. I believe the reasons for the anti-war sentiment has more to do with revulsion with the body count than democrat or repub politics, but in the real world the reasons don’t matter anymore. America wants these wars over with and that is what they are going to get.

In addition as you know both parties are extremely anxious to get their hands on the budget savings the war winddown would bring-- The Repubs for deeper tax cuts, the Dems to lessen the impact of spending cuts. Both want to show fiscal discipline on the budget and both want to use this money to speak narrowly to their own constituency about their core issue, while speaking to the independents about budget constraint. Each party is on a slippery slope there. But across the country the real issue is that everyone knows people in their community that were lost in either the Afghan war or the colossal cluster f*** that was the war in Iraq. These two wars will soon come to a close because that is what most Americans want.

Back to Biden’s remarks, the reality is that Al Qaeda is on the run and severely weakened and anger over 9-11 has dissipated, and so the time for fighting and killing is closing fast. Suggesting Obama and Biden are fellow travelers to the Taliban is sort of an absurd proposition considering their record of military strikes on Al Qaeda, and especially the extra-judicial drone execution of two American born terror suspects in Yemen, which I know you had issues with.

I believe Biden was pretty much signaling that the Afghan mission is about over. Within the administration Biden was always more militarily cautious than Obama who felt he had to prove his bonafides to the military right. It seems to me that Biden is trying to send two clear signals to people on my side of the ledger as well as political independents tired of war:

1)      We know you are impatient about the length of these wars but we have manageable goals in Afghanistan and we’re going to leave there too.

2)      Remember, those of you on the left that complain, we promised we would end the Iraq war and that is what we did. We know you liberal democrats are pissed, but we are telling you the end is near in Afghanistan. Since we kept our promise in Iraq, even though you’re pissed you should believe us we will keep our promise in Afghanistan.

I know you’ll find this hard to believe but there is a chance that Obama & Biden sort of believe they may not win your vote, or any votes from those on the right that seem them as Marxists. I doubt they’ll make much effort in that regard. But many on my side of the ledger are a little pissed and they’re worried we won’t show up next November. More importantly the country wants the US to pull back, this is one of the main reasons I think Ron Paul is as high in the polls as he is. Perhaps Biden wasn’t speaking to you, or rather he was, but he was trying to make a larger point and it may be that he really doesn’t care what you say or think about it.

BTW, I ain’t no Marxist communist either. Sorry to bust your carefully constructed bubble. I am a businessman, and have been since you and I met 30 years ago. I have made a good living, and less than a good living, but I have always been able to provide for my family, and I have always done that in the world of business.

Like you I am well read, and have an active mind and interest in political thought and current events. Like you I think half the country has been bamboozled. On that we are similar and also widely apart. I am a liberal progressive democrat. This year I have often been angry with my party and my president for being too timid to stand up to the republican right, who by the way pretty much ran the table until the payroll tax cut plan hit them in the face like a well- timed pie this December.

What a hoot! Just a few days before Christmas and a few weeks before Iowa, every repub candidate now has to answer where they stand on the republican house blockage of “middle class tax cuts”. I watched Romney squirm this morning when asked and enjoyed that quite a lot.   

Why you Republicans are so pissed considering how compliant this president has been baffles many of us on the democratic left. Obama has stood down on climate change and energy management choosing to do little or nothing. He has shut down some oil exploration outlets and displaying chicken on the pipeline, but as you know exploration mostly owing to the price of the stuff is way up. Obama passed health care but  instead of single payer government controlled which I happen to believe is the only way to hold down costs-- which by the way have gone from 8% GDP to 17% GDP in the last 30 years-- Obama authorized a giveaway to the insurance industry although with substantial strings on what they do. He completely caved on the debt talks. Wall Street income is back to where it was before the crash, Six banks are now unfettered enough that they control the baking industry. Half a dozen more were swallowed by the big six. Through the primaries only the liberal Huntsman proposes any solution to that. The criminals who pilloried Wall Street, the leaders of all the big banks, an early target of the Tea Party, are back to business as usual. To many of us it seems Obama’s rhetoric has been pretty anti-business but his policies have been anything but. We can believe this is true because despite the rhetoric Obama has raised more money on Wall Street than the entire Repub field combined. If Obama is a Marxist socialist then there are a lot of dumb f***ing bankers out there. Well, that may be true, but you get the point.

I believe that corporate influence has completely corrupted the political process. The two billion that will be spent on this election process—likely more than half of it flowing to Obama-- is a deeply corrupting influence for both parties. The Citizens United decision which equated unregulated corporate and union contributions with free speech was injurious to our political process and the public perception and integrity of both parties.  Romney had to squeeze through the eye of a needle on that this morning too, explaining his contorted policy on unregulated PAC money and the advertising it buys. Quite entertaining, really.

I do not believe the Tea Party can be considered a grass roots movement when the $15 Million in seed money to get started came from the billionaire Koch brothers. As you know, they run the largest privately held business in the US. In my view they run what is essentially a criminal enterprise that skirts federal and state worker safety and environmental laws by purchasing regulators and mouthpieces on the right such as Bachman, Cain, and Perry to carry their message. I did a substantial amount of research on their criminal and civil record of the Koch brothers and posted a lengthy piece on that on the blog.

http://faithnmagic.blogspot.com/2011/11/hvae-koch-and-frown.html

I believe that nothing gets done in Washington, not because the two parties can’t agree on anything, but because special interests are always lined up with substantial campaign cash to make sure things are not done for the American people.  More often than not these are business interests.

Because of the corruption of campaign cash, neither party can well make the case that they are fighting for the middle and working class. But here is where subtly seems not to have escaped the electorate, and where a lot of people have figured something out” There is a wash of corruption across the land. This is in my view the reason for the rise of the Tea Party and the Occupy movement and it may give rise yet to a third party candidate. By and large Americans by the tens of millions have lost faith in the two party system. Over 60%now believe the table is tilted in the direction of the rich. Blame it on the Marxist rhetoric of the President if you want, but when one reads that the six Walton heirs control more wealth through their inheritance than 100 million Americans and sees Cain call people lazy and stupid for their poverty, the message sort of sinks in. You’ve been f***ed! Now I know the right is pissed, but it is this essential and obvious inequality that is really driving the polls right now.

The parties are to put it simply buried under too much campaign corruption. I believe that the budget is out of control: Because 1) The Republicans are locked at the hip to Grover Norquist’s no tax pledge, and 2) because the Democrats are locked at the hip to the entitlement bureaucracy.

Most Americans know that taxes must rise back to something approaching the Clinton years, especially on the wealthy, and that the growth in entitlements must be restrained based on the demographic changes in America and across the globe, but neither party trusts America enough-- even their own supporters-- to tell them the truth.  On the other hand Romney proposals to cut funding for Public TV or Planned Parenthood are demagogic and cannot be taken seriously in any budget discussion. These are political postures parading as conservative budget management. Moreover, based on filibuster rules in the Senate they are unlikely to be enacted, and serve mainly for one candidate or another to prove his credentials to the party faithful, who—especially in Romney’s case—don’t trust him.

In my view the deficits are neither party’s fault in their totality. The blame I believe lies with the American voter, who divides its vote between tax cutters and spending protectors, and switches back and forth on that from election to election.  And as we know in Republican and democrat CD’s alike, budget hawks cut someone else’s program, and brag about bringing home the bacon to their own.

But in general if you endorse the tax cutters, while simultaneously supporting the government programs that you favor what you’ll get is budget deficits. That as we know is what we got. In an economic downturn when revenues are further reduced by softening economic activity you’ll get deficits to the 3^rd power, something like what we have.

Now voters are pissed off at a Congress-- extreme on both sides-- that does just what they elected them to do: Stand and fight.  Those low congressional approval ratings are laughable. So often the same voters that are pissed off at Congress love or like their extremist congressman.

That being said those that blame this all on one party and the last three years of governance have NO credibility, especially based on the profligate Bush years. Republicans conservatives act now as if Obama invented the economic down turn. 524,000 people were laid off in December of 2008, and in January of 2009 when Obama was inaugurated an additional 600,000 people were laid off. 1.1 million layoffs in two months. In all of 2008 the economy shed 2.6 million jobs. Memo to Bush: Nice job, d***head.

Politics is politics, and we can be the Democrats  would be all over McCain if he had similar results at this stage in his presidency, but Obama does not operate in a vacuum. The need for recovery can clearly be blamed on Bush, the lack of recovery, on Obama.

Where you see a Marxist threat hiding behind every corner, and people like me as well intentioned but ill-informed at best, or complete Marxist traitors at worst, I see middle and working class Americans voting for a well-funded Republican right for no rational reason that I can see. I see hard working and often fearful Americans vote against their economic interest for a Republican party that does not care about them economically. There are many on the left that see the political season social issue pandering as a cynical election  ploy, at least as old as Reagan and Nixon, icons of the right.

Conservatives believe the Republicans care about them because they have spoken to them in myriad other ways that convinces them that their party is on the same page as them. The right cynically goes after gays, civil rights, immigration and abortion—social issues in general. But the right moves the dial on these issues not at all, which further embitters the conservative base leading I believe to the freak show we have seen this election season. Every debate provides another opportunity to showcase the heartless left. Frat boys thugs boo a gay soldier, cheer 200+ executions in Texas and hoot “Let him die!” when a candidate is asked what to do with someone who becomes ill without health insurance.

But despite these thugs the fact is the record on social progress over the last few decades is toward a more liberal and tolerant society and a more isolated social conservative base, seemingly trapped in their poor southern states with decades of Republican leadership at the state level, with poor records of economic development,  and educational improvement. The Texas miracle under Perry is one of low wage jobs with no health insurance and poor educational performance. He won’t get nominated, but Perry would have never sold that pile of s*** in national elections. Obama’s billion dollar machine would have hollowed him out. Perry of course realizing this chose to unofficially suspend his campaign and proceed with villainizing gays. Smart move.

Though they have accomplished precious little social issue election strategies are effective weapons to hold, retain, or regain power. But Americans continue to push forward with every more and expanding civil rights.  Other than the increasingly isolated Evangelicals Americans after all-- while fiscally conservative-- are essentially socially liberal. Despite the money poured into the process to feed a perception of anger that would try to make it seem otherwise, they are most comfortable with a live and let live posture. Moreover, there are millions of Americans who essentially believe that the expansion of rights is a good and American quality, and the curtailment of rights is essentially un-American.

Bottom line is that on the social wars America is divided, at a near draw and leaning slightly towards progress, and the only valuable implement for social electioneering rom there is to fire up a fearful base and change the subject from the vast transfer of wealth from the poor and middle class to the rich and super rich. It is a cynical election strategy that for 30 years has separated a substantial and fearful block of Americans from voting their economic interests. Score one for your side.

But now the Republican right has painted itself into a corner from which the path to escape is winding and narrow.  Over 70% of Americans now believe the middle class is being hosed by the rich. Yet the House votes down the pitiful little payroll tax extension supported by the vast majority of Senate Republicans. On policy of course the two month extension is absurd, but politically the House has lined up once again in opposition to the middle class.

It’s going great.

And no, I do not believe our president is a Marxist.

Mike I just received your email and about ready to jump in bed. I’m leaving for TN for a few days in the morning but I did want to reply quickly but I must keep it short until later. I won’t be able to address much of the issues I would like.

Mike, I do believe Obama is a Marxist, his policies, his actions of bailing out wall street, banks, and auto companies are not centrist positions. Obama according to John Drew whom was a friend of Obama’s discussed his and Barry’s role as Marxist Activist in college.

Biden’s idea to solve the Iraq issue was to divide them into separate countries which we wouldn’t be declaring victory and bringing troops home had we followed Biden’s advice. Biden is an idiot and even though I don’t believe he wants to collapse Free enterprise, if it wasn’t for government service he probably would have been a pipe fitter.

As far as the Dems getting their hands on the savings from the war isn’t to lessen the impact of spending cuts, what spending cuts? The Republicans have been outmaneuvered each time on that issue. I would rather see that money used toward balancing the budget or deficit.

Obama can not run on his record of accomplishments, everything he’s done has made the economy and job situation worse.  All he can do is attack  the Republican candidate to drag him down to his level. Ron Paul is a whacko and hasn’t been attacked much by the other candidates. The RNC is afraid they will hurt his feelings and he  will mount a third party campaign. Wait until the right exposes his 10 year newsletter that was plain racist.

Mike I haven’t suggested you are Marxist, and I  count you as a friend. I see no indications that you are Marxist. I do believe you lean toward Socialism, I may be wrong and don’t mean it to be hateful in any way. This is just what I’ve observed from your writings. 

This Payroll tax cuts is a farce, I’m certainly not for these suppose cuts. This is the Social Security contributions that aren’t being withheld now. Social Security already  can’t meet their obligation for 2012 and now we aren’t collecting the contributions. Congress are fighting over 2 mos. or 1 year, I wrote my Senators and told them to vote against the payroll tax cuts.

Now you called me a Republican, I am a Conservative and not a Republican. I don’t think much more of the GOP than the Democrats. I’ve contributed to certain GOP candidates but never to the RNC or any Republican committee.

Obama has stood down on climate change because the Dems were against it. We could discuss Socialized medicine for hours. I don’t think any good democrat could be proud  of how this process came about  in congress being rammed down people’s throat. The government has never shown me they can run anything so why would I want them to be responsible for my health management?

Tea Party is  a grass roots, it has no leaders and is mostly local organizations. I’ve been around the movement and been to marches and meetings. I’m not in the Tea Party and nor do I want to be. The people I find in the Tea Party aren’t conservatives, they are mostly centrist and democrats that are very unhappy for supporting and voting for Obama. People and leaders in the Tea Party have no idea who the Koch Brothers are. All the talk about Koch Brothers and the Tea Party,  Mike,  is Talking points for liberals. I’ve met Herman Cain several times starting when he ran for Johnny Isakson senatorial seat. I asked Herman about two years ago about the Koch brothers and he had no idea what I was talking about.  So not a mouthpiece. Herman Cain is right, many Blacks were lazy in their choice to follow the Democrat party because of all the free entitlements Dems are handing out for their loyalty. My thinking on the Occupy movement are a bunch of thugs and their 15 min. of  fame is done.

I don’t have a problem with wealthy people, I’m not envious of them whether they inherited it or made it. Everyone has the opportunity to do this with hard work and big ideas and thinking outside the box.  If I had put some of my big ideas to work I would be among the wealthy. I had the opportunity once  and didn’t seize it, I  had a young family and was afraid of the risk and played it safe with Kinney’s. For most of my 23 year career with Kinney’s I was the fair haired boy that could take any store and blow it open.

As far as Republican locked at the hip to Norquist no tax pledge they should be. We don’t have a revenue problem we have a spending problem period. If you tax every person making over 100,000 a year at 100% you couldn’t run the country for more than 4 months. Then what? Forty seven percent of all households pay ZERO federal income taxes! The top five percent of tax earners pay  59% of all federal taxes, the top 1% pays 39%. Just how much more should we tax people?

As far as taxes on the wealthy during the Clinton years is  a fallacy, there were so many loopholes the wealthy then paid less than they do now.

I’m going to  need to wrap this up, the economy blamed on Bush should be equally given out to Chris and Barney for their part of the housing bubble bust. Bush was a big spending Republican and I was all over him in blogs. In the primaries in 2000 I  voted for Pat Buchanan. 

Mike I have so much more I  would love to comment on but I’ve got to get in bed my friend. Take care Mike, Merry Christmas.

The Poor, The Waltons and How One Pays to Change the Subject

CBS News Reports that Half of the US population is Poor or Low Income: "Since the housing bubble burst, nearly 4 million American homes have been lost to foreclosure. An estimated 1.6 million children will be homeless at some time during the year - 38 percent more than at the start of the recession.

Robert Rector, a senior research fellow at the conservative Heritage Foundation, questioned whether some people classified as poor or low-income actually suffer material hardship. He said that while safety-net programs have helped many Americans, they have gone too far, citing poor people who live in decent-size homes, drive cars and own wide-screen TVs."

In a pattern that always amazes Rush Limbaugh made precisely the same point using exactly the same metaphors about big screens TVs and what not earlier this week.

http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-201_162-57343397/census-data-half-of-u.s-poor-or-low-income/

Meanwhile, according to Forbes, the six children who inherited the vast fortune of Sam Walton-- who built his retail empire from the beginnings of single store in Northwest Arkansas-- have more wealth than the bottom 30% of Americans. Six trust fund managers with more wealth than 80,000,000 Americans combined.  That seems healthy.

http://www.forbes.com/sites/timworstall/2011/12/14/six-waltons-have-more-wealth-than-the-bottom-30-of-americans/

Finally, more data form the NBC New Wall Street Journal Poll:

Which of the following has been the most disappointing event of the past year for you personally?

The wealthiest one percent getting richer and the middle class declining: 31

The lack of economic recovery : 29

The failure of Congress to reach a compromise on the budget deficit : 27

These are not overlapping votes. This is a summary of what most concerns voters, with the three answers above comprising nearly 90% of what people said.

However, the issue that has preoccupied Congress this entire year is the budget deficit, so let see what the pollsters found when asking “What, if anything, most disappoints you about the current Congress?”

They have not gone far enough in cutting federal spending:  12

Another interesting question regards the growth of the two “grass roots” organizations.

The percentage of Americans that consider themselves supports of the Tea Party Movement:  25

The percentage of Americans that consider themselves supports of the Occupy Movement:  27

It may be illuminating to take a quick look at where the two organizations get funding before we rationalize that essentially “Same amount of Americans support both equation”. FreedomWorks and Americans for Prosperity are the two major organizations funding and organizing the Tea Party.

Both of these organizations were started by Koch Industries, the second largest privately owned business in the United States. Koch Industries have given $12 million to Citizens for a Sound Economy, the predecessor to FreedomWorks, and David Koch serves as a chairman to Americans for Prosperity.

According to Sourcewatch.org, Americans for Prosperity has received nearly $15 million from Koch Family Foundations, 84% of their total funding.

Occupy has no doubt drawn some funds from Soros, but with under a million raised to date, there is no single entity funding a self-interest promoting grass roots organization on the left as there is with the Tea Party on the right. In this case a statistical tie in support is not precisely a tie in real life.

The American Middle class understands that it’s getting hosed by the rich. They are spending millions to muddy the waters and change the subject.

Newt, The Political Everyman Fights the Washington Elite

The latest NBC News/ WSJ poll shows my candidate Newt Gingrich leading his opponent from Massachusetts by 40 to 23%. The same poll has half of all Republican voters saying they won’t vote for Newt in the general which is odd, but Newt has surged to a 10% deficit in the theoretical match up with the president. Go Newt! He's got 'em, just where he wants him. Newt did point out that Ronald Reagan- the patron saint of the right who in response to a tripling of the national debt actually raised taxes- did not catch Jimmy Carter until September of that election year. Newt has plenty of time. That’s true.  But on the facts that’s actually not true, I checked. Immediately after the primaries Reagan actually led Carter by eight points in the polls, only to find himself trailing at the end of October. It is widely believed that the Carter Reagan debate of Oct-28, 1980 turned the election for Reagan, who came across as positive and optimistic. Reagan trailed by several points until that debate, turned the tide then, and rode to an eight point victory.

But to Newt’s point Reagan did not engender nearly the level of negative sentiment in the electorate before the election. In the NBC News/ WSJ poll among independents the number of voters with a negative view of my candidate, Newt, is 48%. Yesterday el Rushbo suggested that the Republicans would do better focusing on their core. (Of course, el Rushbo also suggested that liberals are on the move to outlaw football, so take it with a grain of salt.) But considering the impact that doubling down with the extreme right would have on Newt’s already sky high negatives with independents that seems a totally winning strategy.  So I say go for it!

Newt is vigorously working the anti-elitist campaign trail. According to the New York Post just this week alone, Commander Zany attended a private holiday party for clients of his consulting firm in Washington, DC, while also squeezing in time to join the Kennedy Center Honors. His campaign has had extended periods of time away from both New Hampshire and Iowa. Hard telling there, I assume that is the same for all the candidates. But there is some concern that the arrogant bas*** is going to blow his lead due to his lack of effort, especially in Iowa where they expect you to show up and kiss their religious right tuchas. So that’s a problem. 

Newt is running is the most unusual of campaigns. He rails against the Washington elite often in speeches to the elites in in Washington.  By all appearances he continues to nurture his consulting business giving him something to fall back on in case he is crushed in the general. This would make him the third Republican candidate—after Palin and Cain—to utilize the presidential campaign primarily as a springboard to wealth which is certainly a bizarre development. During this election season, with the exception of Cain Newt, is clearly of all the candidates the one least focused on retail politics. Soon after his announcement to run Gingrich’s entire campaign staff quit after Newt and the wife headed for a two week cruise to the Greek aisles. What serious candidate does that?
Americans are expected to forget that he was speaker of the House and once famously got it a snit over a seat on Air Force One during the Clinton years. Counter intuitively Republican voters are asked to support Newt because of this lengthy and effective record of battling the evil left. As a campaign posture this is the primary weapon employed by Newt’s campaign to convince the right that he can be trusted.

Unfortunately (for me at least) Alan Simpson, former Republican senator from Wyoming and one of the co-chairs of Obama’s deficit reduction commission which went nowhere, was no help yesterday. Simpson was quoted yesterday as saying that Newt’s break with his party over the 1990 budget deal with Democrats under Bush ’41 was “the most hurtful and duplicitous thing I have ever seen”. He went on to say that Newt is “for himself before he is for anybody” Just screams independent minded outsider doesn’t it?

The deal Simpson was referring to was agreement for the 1990 Budget, where Bush the elder famously broke his “No New Taxes” pledge. Interestingly, the plan which was pushed in response to skyrocketing deficits started off with budget cuts and tax increases on gas and other increases in fees eventually settled on spending cuts and a surcharge on income taxes for the wealthy. So often “populist” uprisings in America over taxes come down to the wealthy protecting their wealth. One has to wonder if the proposed  gasoline and other tax increases in the original 1990 budget plan which Newt torpedoed that  would have affected the middle class much more and the wealthy much less would have engendered the anger from the right that income tax surcharge eventually did. It feels much the same way now. It is curious to watch the Republicans see so little merit in the payroll tax cut which would primarily benefit Middle America. Does anyone really believe they would be nearly as fiscally conservative if one of the tax cuts Republicans really want, say allowing corporations to repatriate trillions of overseas profits by lowering the corporate rate from 35% to 10% or 5% was on the table? 

Just yesterday more news came of how Newt is polishing his outsider image by repeatedly linking himself to the real everyman in the electorate, Donald Trump. Yesterday the USA Today reported that Gingrich “had made the cut and was now an official member of Trump National in the Washington suburbs of Northern Virginia”. Trump was quoted as saying, “I have a lot of respect for Newt. Newt's a member, so I love my members. I always love my members.” Of all the candidates it is quite clear than when Trump speaks of the candidate he desires, the one what would prevent him from throwing his hair, ah…hat, in the race, it’s Newt.

As much as I want to see Trump flying around one day, speaking to America from his gold gilded New York penthouse throne the next, I guess I have to choose preferences. Newt without Trump or Romney and Trump, but no Newt? I am all in with Newt, but that does make it tough.

The Bill of Rights, The Price We Pay for Freedom

The National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA) has now passed through committee and is working its way through both Houses of Congress towards the president’s desk.  S1867, the Senate version of the bill, raised serious civil liberties concerns that have yet to be adequately answered. Initially the President threatened a veto, but since the bill emerged from the House –Senate conference committee on Monday, the White House has yet to say whether the threat still holds. Several senators that raised civil liberties objections, including Diane Feinstein, D-CA, had a hand in the rewrite in committee. But in a pattern that continues to trouble neither the Obama Administration nor Congress has released the final language, so it is unclear how far Congress has gone to resolve the situation constitutionally. One should not hold their breath.

Previous to the conference committee report, two key provisions of the Senate Bill presented a direct attack on the privileges of American citizens contained in the Bill of Rights. According to the Huffington Post, “Sec. 1031 of the Senate bill would authorize indefinite military detention of suspected terrorists without protecting U.S. citizens' right to trial. Sec. 1032 of the Senate bill would require that suspected foreign terrorists be taken into custody by the military instead of civilian law enforcement authorities…” Of course it would matter little to those held indefinitely without charge or trial if they were held by the military or civilian authorities, but there can be little doubt that the military provision is specifically designed to create legal cover to bury suspected terrorists away from the press and civilian authorities. 

This is no small matter. In the years that followed 9-11, the record of American and other western powers in securing the rights of suspected terror subjects is lengthy and poor. In addition to waterboarding and other “enhanced” interrogation techniques, it has been well documented that certain detainees were shuttled from one overseas prison to another, as authorities tried to stay one step ahead of legal authorities across the globe. Under Clinton the CIA initiated the Rendition program. Through two terms a couple dozen people were captured and moved through the program. In an indication of what happens when protections promised by one Administration are passed to the next, after 9-11 the CIA moved more than 3,000 detainees through the program during the Bush years. Assurances on torture were requested, but according to a lengthy article in the Journal of Strategic Security (http://scholarcommons.usf.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1100&context=jss) “It was determined that in certain cases, the United States Government seized persons and transferred them to countries where torture was common in detention facilities, leading some to call extraordinary rendition policy ‘outsourcing torture’”. This is not to cast aspersions on all law enforcement or military personnel, but the protections encoded in the Constitution and Bill of Rights are there specifically to protect citizens from the power of government, not just sometimes, but all the time, and especially when the government feels under threat and is most likely to act undemocratically and precipitously.  

It should not be assumed that every prisoner caught up in the Rendition program was an innocent, Khalid Sheikh Mohammed for example. But with thousands of detainees in a program operated outside the view of American courts and the press, bad things happen. Khaled al Masri was one such case.  According to the JSS article, “Al Masri, a Lebanese-born German citizen, was captured while vacationing in Macedonia in 2003... Allegedly, in court documents filed by al Masri and his legal team, al Masri was detained and tortured for nearly six months by the United States in Afghanistan. He was released in 2004 without explanation, let alone any specific criminal charges… Al Masri has since returned to Germany and filed legal action against the United States for cruel, inhumane, and degrading treatment.”

Perhaps I read it wrong, but it seems holding US citizens without charges or trial would be problematic in the context of the 5^th and 6^th Amendments to the Constitution contained in the Bill of Rights. The 5^th Amendment says in part, “ No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia, when in actual service in time of War or public danger…” The 6^th goes on, “ In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury of the State and district wherein the crime shall have been committed, which district shall have been previously ascertained by law, and to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation; to be confronted with the witnesses against him; to have compulsory process for obtaining witnesses in his favor, and to have the Assistance of Counsel for his defence.” You know that whole jury of your peers deal. I printed the all of the language from the 5^th pertaining to being held without trial or charge because the framers did include language separating military cases from civilian ones.

I understand that there are those that would, and have, made the case that these are extraordinary circumstances with military-type attacks are carried out by civilians. But what is also extraordinary is the extent to which Constitutional law has been evaded, and rights guaranteed in the Bill of Rights have been ignored, and the extent to which all of this has been met by a collective yawn by the media and most politicians, save Ron Paul.   

The Patriot Act which Obama signed an extension of in May of this year, was ratified by the Senate 72-23 and the House 250-153. That is not a not a partisan cliff hanger. That is a 2/3-plus majority voting to allow the FBI to search email and phone records of American citizens by merely stating the subject is the target of a terrorist investigation.  In addition according to the ACLU, “the Patriot Act allows the FBI to force anyone at all - including doctors, libraries, bookstores, universities, and Internet service providers - to turn over records on their clients or customers”. The ACLU continues, “Judicial oversight of these new powers is essentially non-existent. The government must only certify to a judge - with no need for evidence or proof - that such a search meets the statute's broad criteria, and the judge does not even have the authority to reject the application.

Surveillance orders can be based in part on a person's First Amendment activities, such as the books they read, the Web sites they visit, or a letter to the editor they have written. 

A person or organization forced to turn over records is prohibited from disclosing the search to anyone. As a result of this gag order, the subjects of surveillance never even find out that their personal records have been examined by the government. That undercuts an important check and balance on this power: the ability of individuals to challenge illegitimate searches.” So there quickly and painlessly, the Patriot Act eviscerates the first amendment both for those on the right and the left. All Americans have rights, or none do.

In another area the FAA has authorized 266 licenses for civilian use of unmanned drones, much in demand by police forces across the country, over American soil. It is not hard to see what a small drone, monitored by local police, flying over your back yard at a height of 200 feet does to your 4^th amendment protection against illegal searches: “The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.”

In academia speech rights of both the left and right are attacked. Americans no longer seem to believe that speech is the appropriate response to hatred or bigotry, or just plain stupidity. I long for the days when Phil Donahue would invite skinheads to his show and let America decide. Both right and left argue for restricted speech and count on big brother, and their emissaries in the media to monitor and punish the opposition. Sharpton went after Don Imus in the same way that Glen Beck, O’Reilly and the rest of the yahoo chorus attacked the building of a Mosque near Ground Zero. Both barely slow down at the first amendment markers they crush on their way to righteous indignation. While I recognize both have the right to dissent loudly from their chosen enemies, I make the point here because both would choose to silence those they choose as enemies rather than debate positions or dialogue honestly. Neither party seems willing now to accept the maturity or sophistication of the public. Everyone assumes that they know better.  Right and left both claim to speak for all of America when they tell us what is funny or course or inappropriate.  Richard Pryor and George Carlin blazed a trail now paved with petty swearing and narrow-minded pedestrian hacks travelling safely down the middle of the road. Americans cannot be trusted after all to turn off that which we disapprove. The thought police will do it for us by applying freely permitted first amendment pressure on sponsors.

So I get confused sometimes when I ponder what American stands for, and what passes for rights in the United States at the beginning of the 21^st century. For some willful ignorance has become a platform on which they raise themselves. Being informed does not play well to the rabble or the thugs.  The ability to dialogue with nuance and thought is not a thing to value in any leader. We blame our leaders, but we accept the sock of lies. I raise the issue of blowhards in our political discourse often, but perhaps it is better to blow hard than to go quietly into that dark night.

Thoughts on Obama and Another Roosevelt

Obama has been a big disappointment. That being said I will vote on Nov-12, 20…—Oh, sorry that’s when Perry votes. I will vote on Nov-06, 2012 for the President. Suggesting that there are only shades of difference between Obama and a Republican chorus of thugs bent on advancing unfettered free market principles even if it means dispossessing 20 million more families of their homes is absurd.

In 1980, I was pretty hostile to Carter, believing him a simpleton, who much like Obama spent too much time kowtowing to a right wing that couldn’t stand him anyway.  I was enthused about much more liberal candidates in the primaries and sat out the general. Ronald Reagan was elected, and with his election an era of me-first government of the rich was ushered in. I don’t believe my vote made the difference. Reagan garnered 51% of the vote to Carter’s 41%, and wiped him out in the Electoral College. But what did wipe him out was the general trend of millions of progressive democrats sitting out the election, some drifting to the third party candidate out of their frustration with Carter specifically, and the political process in general.

20 Years later a small sliver of true believer progressives turned the election of 2000 for Bush in Florida and so the nation. The argument is often made that the election, with only 500 votes separating Bush and Gore, was decided by a partisan Supreme Court, and a vigilante brigade of republican operatives. In  reality the election was decided by the 97,488 Florida votes that went to Ralph Nader. I love Ralph, but that election swept in the worst administration the US has seen since Herbert Hoover.

We would do well to remember the economic circumstances under which Clinton departed (the launch site Bush had), and where Bush landed (the smoldering ruin from which Obama began). Steaming along with the explosion of the internet economy under Clinton the GDP grew at an annual rate of 3.6%, and created 23 million jobs, more than the beloved Reagan who created about 20 million. Through Sept 2008 Bush averaged a much more meager 2.3% in GDP growth, and a net increase of 3.5 million jobs, even after the biggest trickle down tax breaks in the nation’s history.  

As the poorly regulated housing and investment markets crashed in the fourth quarter of 2008 GDP shrank at a rate of 6.8%. In response the economy shed 2.6 million jobs, 700,000 in December of that year alone. After Clinton’s 23 million, Bush created six million jobs in the first 7-1/2 years of his administration, even with the massive tax cuts to the wealthy, a far cry from the previous democratic administration record. But then the economy shed the 2 million-plus jobs in 2008, which left Bush with a net increase of about 3.5 million jobs. In January and February of 2009 the economy shed another 1.3 million jobs before it starting to respond to stimulus spending and leveled off at 60,000 jobs lost on March of 2009. In the first quarter of Obama’s presidency, GDP shrunk at a rate of 4.9%. In total for the last twelve months of the Bush Presidency and the first six of Obama’s the economy shed four million jobs. The republicans would like America to forget but it was pretty grim.

The deficit in Federal spending was just $200 billion in FY 2000 and the government, Clinton’s last, was projecting surpluses in 2001 and beyond. Many then called for locking these savings way for a rainy day which it got on 9-11. However, Bush and the right enacted their tax plan by arguing that Americans had earned these savings and the money did not belong to the government. Like a kid with a buck, the money was burning a hole in our pocket and was gone. By 2008, Bush had pushed annual deficit spending to $500 billion. Much has been made of the negative effect 9-11 played on the economy and spending at the federal level, but in 2002 the federal debt stood at $6.2 trillion. It ballooned to $10 trillion at the end of Bush’s term. Currently that national debt stands at just over $15 trillion. Roughly  speaking Bush ran up the national debt by about $4 trillion in his second term and Obama spending his way out a of a recession will have run it up by an additional $6 trillion by the end of his first term.

Of course those are just numbers, evaluating the Bush Administration in terms of human lives presents a more stark picture of his failed Presidency, whether it be the missed signals before 9-11, the catastrophic failure with Katrina in New Orleans, or the execution of a war of choice in Iraq, a flawed waste of lives, treasure, and misguided national security priorities. And yet, every policy failure was dipped in a patina of arrogance. General Shinseki, who suggested in front of a committee of Congress before the war a far more robust presence in Iraq was dismissed by Rumsfeld. Eventually a parade of generals would step forward calling for Rumsfeld’s ouster. Thomas White, former Army secretary, said at the time, “Rumsfeld has been contemptuous of senior military officers since the day he walked in… It’s about time they got sick and tired.” But home grown citizens critical of the Patriot Act and the torture at Abu Ghraib and Gitmo were called naïve, unpatriotic, or both. Instead of being shamed by the faithless and despicable behavior arguments were made out of some distorted sense of national pride and necessity.

So where are we with President Obama?

Health care reform was passed. Far from a “government takeover” of 1/6^th of the economy, the plan steers millions towards the insurance industry. Health care spending which was under 14% of GDP in 2000 at the end of Clinton’s term was running at nearly 17% of GDP in 2008. In 1980 it was 9% of GDP. Netting out the cost of recession recovery, the explosion is this expense is the single biggest reason for the ballooning deficits into the future. I personally doubt that the cost containment is strong enough, something more progressive plans certainly would have addressed.

There are reforms that will benefits consumers such as the requirement that insurance companies cannot limit coverage for those with pre-existing conditions, allowing them to profitably cherry pick the healthy. Children get coverage on their parent’s policies. This has already resulted in millions being added to the roles of the insured. I now carry my daughter on my policy which saves me the cost for her insurance—about $2,300 her first year of college. Considering I pay that bill out of my after tax income that is a rather large savings. Millions of Americans want Obamacare to go away. But it is provisions like the following that bring the massive campaign donations from the insurance industry to overturn; Insurance companies are now required by law to spend 85% of revenues on healthcare coverage rather than marketing or advertising or whatever. Rules are being written now by the regulators to enforce this policy and at first glance at least it appears the administration is serious about enforcing the provision.

The same cannot be said for the regulations to enforce Dodd-Frank. Many of the regulations required to enforce the financial industry legislation remain unwritten under a firestorm of criticism from the right and campaign money and lobbying efforts from large financial institutions. There can be little doubt that initially some of this lobbying was funded at least indirectly in part with taxpayer provided TARP monies. The nomination to head the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau, has been held up by key GOP lawmakers who as the Washington Post reported earlier this week, “renewed their vow to block any nominee unless broad changes are made to the watchdog agency.” Republicans do not want a consumer advocate for the finance industry. Period. A well-financed political opposition has stymied financial regulatory reform. While I would be critical of the president on many levels on this one, I think he has pushed as hard as he can. The repubs will run out the clock, so only a second term will allow us to see whether any real reform is possible there.

On the economy the president has been a major disappointment. It is largely here that is disapproval level of sixty, equal portions of disaffected progressives, the hard right that literally hates him, and long term and hurting unemployed is consolidated. Growth has been anemic, the results of less than robust plans designed to garner the faith and support of the middle right which no longer exists. Yes, over 2 million private sector jobs have been created, but as everyone knows this has not resulted in acceptable GDP growth or substantially lowered unemployment.

As with healthcare the president has allowed the national conversation to be defined on the right. In the republican debates the dialogue mostly comes down to the dishonest desire for deficit control (see Bush 43), further tax cuts for the wealthy, and less regulation. The president leads from behind, because he was naive enough to think that once the Bush tax cuts were extended in the fall of 2010, the other party would play nice on the deficit and further stimulus. This was a HUGE miscalculation. The Republicans nearly let the country default, and there is NO movement on employment that would have immediate effect. Obama is crazy like a fox, maybe, but it appears more likely that he’s getting rolled by the Republican opposition. He seems to be winning the public relations war, but legislation is still stalled, and whatever emerges is likely to be so timid that it will not jolt the economy forward. The danger of a decade of Japan-style malaise is real. If we do see that, for progressives the argument that blames it all on the right will not hold up. Either lead, follow, or get out of the way.  While I personally would give the president a passing grade on the economy, barely, I would have to be honest and say that there is a substantial danger of a fail.

The right will no doubt make their foreign policy and security arguments. The I-can-see-Russia–from-my-house true believers and the religious right, always zealots of Israeli security, will buy it. Doubt anyone else will, though Iran is a great concern. A military involvement in Iran must be avoided, and all the other options seem sort of toothless. This doesn’t stop the time honored tradition in both parties of trying to make the toothless sound fierce, but IMHO I don’t see any clear solution there. But in the broader context I can’t imagine, especially compared to the unfettered disaster of the Bush years, Obama will score poorly there after the elimination of Bin Laden and Khadafy.

Energy policy is another area where decisive middle of the road inaction will cost him, and this has a great effect on national security.  While much was made of the Solyndra debacle, and there have been reasonable investments in green technology, the Chinese outspend us more than ten to one. They see green energy, high speed rail and other infrastructure projects as long term investments in the financial vitality of the country, and they are preparing for an economy not reliant on low cost labor. For America the sad truth is that after a decade of inaction on climate and energy under Bush, Obama has shown scant improvement and little leadership. Early on, this was a place to be bold.  Obama was not that. Now he has the right apoplectic because he has "locked up" our energy potential and the progressive left angry because he has moved forward so little. He would have taken a lot of heat early on for a bold policy, but if Americans could see results on the horizon, that would have passed. Instead both sides see weakness, another area where opposition from right and left combines to create a high unfavorable rating.

It could be a great day if the president finally figures out that a portion will hate him regardless and starts to lead. Perhaps Obama can take a page from FDR rather than Teddy. FDR spent a lot of time and expended considerable political capital trying to find compromise with a right that hated him. Thanks to Eleanor and his own progressive instincts FDR finally came to see there was little chance of compromise. Once he came to understand centers of power arrayed against him, FDR abandoned middle of the roadism became the great president he eventually was. If only…