ShrinkRap

"The times, they are a-changing . . . "

2012-01-29T12:48:00.004-05:00

Never thought I would see the day when:

1. Six states (MA, IA, CT, NH, VT, NY) and the city of Dictrict of Columbia have legalized same-sex marriage.   It's quite likely that soon WA, CA, NJ, DE, MD, and possibly ME will be added to the list.

2. The repeal of Don't Ask, Don't Tell was championed by the president and the top military chiefs, and the service branches have all said that it's working out fine without any big problems. And it happened in New York because Gov. Andrew Cuomo exerted vigorous leadership to make it happen -- and because several key Republicans rethought their positions and voted for the law.   One of them spoke eloquently about his prior opposition and changing his view after researching it as a lawyer and seeing that he could not come up with a single rational argument against marriage equality.

3. The president and his attorney general are refusing to mount a court defense of the Defense of Marriage Act in court, declaring that parts of it are unconstitutional. There is also serious talk in Congress of repeal.

4. The governor of Washington actually introduced a bill legalizing same-sex marriage in that state, and there are clear majorities in both houses favoring it. Gov. Gregorie says she wishes she had supported marriage equality earlier, but it has been a journey that she had to go through, especially in reconciling her Catholic teachings.

5. There are reportedly sufficient votes now to pass a law in the New Jersey legislature. Gov. Chris Christie says he will veto it, because it should be left up to the voters to decide, not the legislature.   Gov. Gregorie of Washington has criticized him for this position. We don't put human rights up for a popular vote.

6. The Secretary General of the United Nations, Ban Ki Mopon, has called on African nations to "stop treating homosexuals like second class citizens."

What comes through in most of these changes is that people are really thinking and changing their positions based on a re-examination of their past assumptions. It's not just a shift of political power, or the waning of right-wing and conservative religious opposition.

It's also partly the changing social mores, especially among the younger generation. Another major factor is that, more and more, people are coming out and giving others the opportunity of personally knowing a gay or lesbian person. For example:   Gen. Mullen, the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, who so obviously supported the repeal of DADT personally, has a gay son. It changes things when stereotypes are measured against real life people who do not fit those preconceptions.

Ralph

Who was Saul Alinksy?

2012-01-28T07:07:00.000-05:00

Newt Gingrich has tried to make Saul Alinsky the leftist boogeyman to scare people, linking Obama to him as a dangerous socialist. After winning the South Carolina primary, Gingrich said: “The centerpiece of this campaign, I believe, is American exceptionalism versus the radicalism of Saul Alinsky.”

This of course was his 'dog whistle' to conservatives who already suspect Obama as being un-American and anti-religious.   Newt is wrapping himself in the mantle of "American exceptionalism," while trying to tarnish Obama as the radical devote of the [wink, wink Communist] Alinsky.

So who was Saul Alinsky?    First, there is no question that, before going to law school, Obama worked as a community organizer in a project on Chicago's poor south side. The project had been inspired by Alinsky and his methods of "community organizing" to improve the living conditions of the urban poor living in slums.   In fact, Alinsky is considered the originator of the concept of "community organizers."

But any implication that Obama worked with Alinsky is absurd.   Alinsky died in 1971. Barack Obama was 10 years old and just leaving his mother and step-sister behind in Indonesia to return to Hawaii to live with his grandparents and attend school there.

Newt and other resentful conservatives try to paint Alinsky as a Marxist and dangerous trouble-maker and enemy of our way of life. In truth, he never joined any organization, much less the Communist Party, declaring on one occasion that "Dogma is the enemy of freedom." His was a practical approach to achieving social justice for the underprivileged through skillful organizing of community groups into functioning projects and action movements.

Newt, who trots out his credentials as a history professor, is either ignorant or is cynically just playing the demagogue by waving the red flag of leftist radicalism.   The truth is that Alinsky's work grew out of traditional grassroots democracy and institutional religion, especially Catholic social service groups. According to Michael Kazin, writing in the New Republic, Alinsky "frequently quoted Jefferson and Madison and had contempt for young leftists in the 1960s who disdained the American flag."

Two years before his death, Alinsky, a secular Jew, was awarded the Pacem in Terris Peace and Freedom Award by a Midwestern coalition of Catholic groups. Others who have won the award include: Martin Luther King, Jr., Bishop Desmond Tutu, and Mother Teresa -- the saintly community organizer of Calcutta.

What makes Newt's attempted smear of Obama even more ludicrous is that, according to Dan Savage, quoted by Andrew Sullivan in The Daily Beast:

Alinsky's advice -- "go home, organize, build power, [and] you be the delegates" -- is the strategy adopted by the American religious right and social conservatives of the 1980s."

They did just that and won majorities on local school boards and city councils -- and then began to get elected to state legislatures and Congress. All accomplished through the "radical" methods of "community organizing."

The lesson: Don't listen to Newt when he pretends to give you a history lesson. Freddie Mac paid $1.6 million, supposedly for Newt's "advice as a historian." It didn't seem to do them much good, either.

Ralph

Texans fuming

2012-01-27T11:34:00.006-05:00

Hey -- here's a blog that for a change does not mention ____ (you know, the one that Peggy Noonan described as "an angry little attack muffin").

This is about the dumb-ass one, not the smart-ass one.

Texans have already expressed their displeasure, via a poll, where 39% of Republicans said Rick Perry's campaign had had a negative effect on the image of Texas, while only 13% said it had been positive.

Now, injury has been added to insult. It cost the taxpayers of Texas $ 798,031 for the governor's security detail to travel with him on the campaign trail from September through November. And it will go higher as bills for December and January come in. Because security for the governor is a taxpayer expense, the taxpayers, not the campaign, pays for it.

As a taxpayer, I know I would resent hell out of having to pay for our Gov. Nathan Deal to run around making a fool of himself and our state on national TV.

Ralph

Newt explains it all away

2012-01-27T09:12:00.001-05:00

More on Newt's slippery evasion of responsibility for who he is and what he has done. He's been peddling this idea that, because he has confessed his "mistakes" to God, everybody should just overlook his past bad behavior. He has put it behind him. It's sad that not everyone else can, but unfortunately that's the price one has to pay when one offers himself as the savior of the nation. And Newt and Callista have decided they're willing to make this sacrifice for the good of the country and what they believe in.

Now he's even trying to turn his philandering into an asset. In an interview with the Christian Broadcasting Network, he said this:

". . . I have not hidden from the facts of my life. . . . I have had to go to God for forgiveness and for reconciliation.

“And I think most people can identify, either with themselves or with loved ones, that life has moments that are very sad, you wish wouldn’t have occurred. And you look back on them and you seek forgiveness for not having done everything you could have.

“So, I think in that sense, it may make me more normal than somebody who wanders around seeming perfect and maybe not understanding the human condition, and the challenges of life for normal people.”

Newt plays this part of the redeemed sinner beautifully, with just the right amount of humility and sorrow over his plight of having this burden. But look at the bright side: "it may make me more normal than [Romney] who wanders around seeming perfect and maybe not understanding the human condition, and the challenges of life for normal people."

But think about what he says: He's not really responsible for his bad behavior. "Life has moments that . . . you wish had not occurred" -- that's not taking responsibility. And "you seek forgiveness for not having done everything you could." That sounds like an overworked surgeon in the ER regretting he couldn't have done more to save the horribly injured accident victim. Newt isn't the surgeon; he's the guy who caused the wreck.

And then, the final audacity: Newt says his experience gives him a better understanding of life for "normal people." So what Newt did is just part of "normal" life?

But, even putting aside Newt's reprehensible behavior with his former wives, there are more than enough character flaws and unsuitabilities of temperament to render him unqualified for the office of president.

His one leadership role as Speaker of the House ended when his own party voted overwhelmingly to oust him. Similarly, his own campaign staff resigned en masse last summer. He has no leadership qualities, only the ability to arouse resentment. While that may appeal to a certain resentful base, as a nominee for president he would be a disaster.

So -- shall we hope the Republicans make the mistake of nominating Newt for president? I don't know. The prospect of some national tragedy or economic collapse happening during the next nine months -- sweeping Obama's opponent into the White House -- is just too scary to want to risk that possibility.

Ralph

Fidel responds

2012-01-26T14:36:00.004-05:00

At Monday night's Florida GOP debate, Romney, Gingrich, and Santorum tried to outdo each other in pandering to the Cuban exiles living in South Florida. Romney and Gingrich vied in their speculations about what will happen when Fidel Castro dies.

Romney said his response would be first to "Thank Heavens" that Fidel had "returned to his maker."   Gingrich jumped in with: "I don't think Fidel's going to meet his maker. I think he's going to go to the other place."

This was all larded with heaps and heaps of condemnation of Obama's "weakness" in easing restrictions and sanctions on this "communist" enclave just 90 miles from our shore. They would tighten them instead.   Gingrich said he would authorize increased covert actions to bring down their government

Only Paul showed any sense in this exchange.   He said "We ought to be talking to the Cubans instead of trying to kill them. . . . The Cold War is over."

So now the 85 year old Fidel Castro has responded:

"The selection of a Republican candidate for the presidency of this globalized and expansive empire is – and I mean this seriously – the greatest competition of idiocy and ignorance that has ever been."

Amen to that.

Ralph

Confronting Newt's lie

2012-01-26T11:57:00.003-05:00

In his vituperative response to the debate question about wife #2's claim he asked for an open marriage, Newt boomed out at moderator John King that he was "astounded that CNN would take trash like that and use it to open a presidential debate."

Continuing his bombastic counterattack, Newt effectively buried the question under a barrage of denunciation, saying he could hardly imagine a more despicable thing for the elite media to do just before an important primary.    And by the way, the story is completely false, and he has witnesses who will say so, Newt claimed. The partisan audience loved his response. Newt was standing up to the mean old media, and they rewarded him with a standing ovation. He handily won an upset victory in the South Carolina primary a few days later.

But the controversy over the question continued.   He talked about it at rallies and in another TV interview, claiming that "anyone who knew me" would testify that Marianne's charges weren't true.    Actually, the only thing that seems in question really is whether he used the term "open marriage" or whether he simply asked to have what amounts to an open marriage; i.e., that his wife would agree for him to have Callista as his mistress.

Newt claimed that his campaign had offered witnesses when Marianne's interview was first shown on ABC, and ABC was not interested and didn't call them.    Now, under continuing pressure to name names, his campaign has admitted that it was only Newt's two daughters from his first marriage (Marianne was their step-mother) who were offered as witnesses.   They had already been interviewed and had written about their father's marriage problems.

I'm not surprised at this lie. This tactic is Newt's trademark.   Create a tornado of indignation, toss out a barrage of counter-charges, paint himself as the victim of the powerful forces that he is challenging -- and the questions about his character get lost in the chaos. Newt, the Crusader for Truth and Good Government Leads the Nation into the Future.

The job for Romney -- and perhaps later Obama -- is to help voters see this as the tactic that it is and to see the truth about the dangerous man who uses it so effectively.

Ralph

Atlanta 4th most literate city

2012-01-25T09:22:00.012-05:00

I read it somewhat incredulously last year, and today comes a report that for another year, Atlanta has been named the fourth "most literate city."

This ranking is done by Central Connecticut State University President Jack Miller, who bases it on the number of bookstores, library resources, newspaper circulation and Internet resources. Atlanta ranks behind only Washington #1, DC, Seattle #2, and Minneapolis #3.

Imagine !! We are more literate -- supposedly meaning we read more or at least have more resources for reading -- than Boston #5 (with all its universities) and San Francisco #9. New York is not even in the top 10.

Miller's data suggest that "wealthier cites are no more likely to rank highly in literacy than poorer cities." Cleveland is second lowest in family income but rates as #13th most literate because of its library system and magazine and newpaper subscriptions. (I wonder if the National Inquirer and Pro Wrestling Illustrated count?)

On the other hand, Anchorage is #5 in median family income but only 61st in literacy. Perhaps it wasn't just a mental freeze-up when Sarah Palin couldn't answer Katie Couric's question about what magazines and news magazines she reads: "Oh, you know, all of them," she said; but then couldn't name any.

Anyway . . . Good for Atlanta.

Ralph

People power vs. big money power

2012-01-25T09:05:00.002-05:00

ActBlue is a fund-raising organization for liberal/progressive causes. For example, it's raising money for Elizabeth Warren. A fund-raising email from them today struck me as so defining of the way I think about the differences between the Dem and Repub parties that it's worth reprinting here.

"Money hidden away in the Cayman Islands? Swiss bank accounts? $5 million checks from casino moguls? 13.9% tax rates? The headlines from the GOP primaries just keep coming, and they paint a picture of a world that's very different from the one you and I know. Republicans practice a politics of deep pockets, where millionaire candidates make nice with billionaire donors, then tell America with a straight face that taxes on the ultra-rich are too high.

"At ActBlue, we're teaching Democrats a different way to do business. In a few short months, Elizabeth Warren has received 82,000 donations through ActBlue, totaling $4 million. Hundreds of thousands of people donated to last year's Wisconsin recall campaigns, and a million more have signed up to recall Republican Gov. Scott Walker in 2012. It's people power, plain and simple.

"And it's growing."

Let's keep it growing and expanding -- not just ActBlue but the whole egalitarian and compassionate spirit of the Democratic Party. Not that we don't also have a few wealthy fat cats and deep pockets of our own -- but all in all there's no doubt which is the party of the wealthy and which is the party of the people.

Ralph

Newt and the politics of resentment

2012-01-24T13:06:00.017-05:00

Howard Schweber, professor of American Studies, writes that
the embrace of Newt by the evangelicals and the Tea Party seems improbable only because conventional wisdom has been looking at the wrong factors.

Newt would seem a colossal misfit for evangelicals and their moral values because his life has violated so many of those values. We tend to forget how much they love a Bad Boy who repents and comes into the fold. And Newt has played that card beautifully -- simply stating it, not overdoing it.

[Of course, those of us who remember a couple of years ago when he went on TV with one of the evangelical gurus and confessed and got his blessing. It seemed cheap and tawdry, even while sounding pious. But in recent memory, Newt feigns humility -- a great act.]

He would also seem not to be a good fit for the Tea Party and their anti-Washington sentiment, given that Mitt has been the quintessential player, often crossing into territory that is anathema to the Tea Party crowd (health care, environment, lobbying, Freddie Mac, plus his wealth gained by capitalizing on his former governmental positions).

What is being overlooked, however, according to Schweber, is that Newt is putting forth a politics of resentment. Here in his words:

"So what is going on? Simple. Gingrich does not share the evangelical or the Tea Party voters' values -- he shares their resentments. He resents the media ("elites"), the rich (the leadership of his own party), the Democrats (educated people), people who live in big cities (liberals), and of course, Obama, just as they do.

"Gingrich and his supporters do not oppose Obama, they resent the fact of his existence. He will speak for his constituents by articulating their resentments in more strident, more combative, more articulate terms than they can themselves, which is why they find him brilliant. . . . but he does much more -- he tells them that their nastiest, darkest, angriest, most irrational self-indulgent justifications are 100%, absolutely right."

Beyond the resentment, there is a sense of paranoia that Gingrich captures:

"The worldview is Manichean: Obama's economic policies are not mistaken, he is deliberately trying to make Americans poorer. Obama's foreign policy is not misguided, he is deliberately trying to surrender America to foreign powers. And Obama is not merely not one of the people, he wants to destroy American culture. It is a perfect expression of what Richard Hofstadter called "the paranoid style" in American politics. . . .

"And that's why these voters don't care that Gingrich was a Washington insider, or has a record on family values that would give pause to one of the Borgia popes. It's why they don't really care that he contradicts himself, or says crazy things. They want crazy. They want to hear their anger and resentment made into a national platform. They are the victims of an evil conspiracy -- no one plays the victim better than Gingrich when cornered . . .

"They don't really care what Gingrich says he will do, or whether it makes sense, or even whether they would approve of his policies or benefit from them. They are filled with resentment . . . . [and] only Newt has captured the key emotive element that drives the Republican core this year: resentment. The hard right core of the Republican Party is filled with resentment, and they have found just the man to let us all know about it."

I'm afraid that I have been wrong on several counts about Newt and the possibility of his winning this thing. First, I under-estimated his new-found capacity to contain his more outrageous impulsiveness and his ability to sustain control of himself. Second, I missed this point that Schweber is making -- that the conservative base will overlook all of Newt's baggage in favor of the strong, demagogic leadership he is offering for their deep resentments.

Assuming that the drawn-out primaries will so damage both Romney and Gingrich that neither seems a viable candidate against Obama, then the question is this: Will the Republican establishment push for a brokered convention and try to bring in someone fresh, like Jeb Bush or Mitch Daniels or Chris Christie -- all of whom have been declining to run but might be drafted. (Please don't let it be Guiliani, though. I can't stand months of that grin.)

Ralph

A few good Republicans

2012-01-23T15:31:00.003-05:00

As if to remind us that there are still a few good, honorable Republicans left in this world, New Jersey Governor Chris Christie -- widely named as a possible VP nominee, second only to Marco Rubio in that speculation game -- has made two historic appointments to the New Jersey Supreme Court.

Bruce Harris is an openly gay, African American mayor of Chatham, NJ with 20 years experience as a lawyer. He would be the third African American and the first openly gay member of that court.

Phillip Kwon would be the first Asian American appointed to the N.J. Supreme Court. He is currently first assistant attorney general of NJ and a former deputy division chief of the U. S. attorney's office.

In addition to these, last August Christie made another diversity appointment when he nominated Sohail Mohammed, a Muslim American, to the State Superior Court. To critics who expressed fear that he would be influenced by Sharia law, Christie replied that he was "disgusted" by such comments from right wing critics.

"They are criticizing him because he is a Muslim American. This Sharia Law business is crap. It's just crazy, and I'm tired of dealing with the crazies. It's just unnecessary to be accusing this guy of things just because of his religious background."

This is the kind of man they should be putting forth as their presidential nominee.   He would be a formidable opponent, and we could have the kind of national debate about concepts of government that we need.   Not the crap these clowns have been dishing out.

I'm thinking more and more that behind all this hoopla about getting rid of Obama to save the nation is the Republicans' awareness of the stark reality that they are going to lose this election.   So the really good guys who are the hope of their party (Chris Christie, Mitch Daniels, Jeb Bush, Christine Todd Whitman) are sitting it out and waiting for 2016.

This does not mean that I am getting soft and leaning toward the Republicans.   But it's a nice reminder that there used to be a few of them who were honorable men with reasonable and thoughtful positions, worthy opponents -- even though we didn't agree on many things.

Ralph

Cain/Colbert in 5th place in S. C. primary

2012-01-22T00:36:00.003-05:00

Stephen Colbert is running this brilliant fake campaign for the Republican nomination. Or actually he insists that he is not yet running but simply exploring a run.

Last Sunday, I wrote this about it:

Now, however, comes Stephen Colbert's fake presidential campaign and his "Definitely Not Coordinating With Stephen Colbert Super PAC" ad. This one is brilliant satire.

It begins with an American flag waving, then a video of Romney saying, "Corporations are people." Then a picture of sides of beef being butchered and a voice-over saying that, as head of Bain, Romney took over corporations, carved them up, and got rid of parts he didn't want. "So, if corporations are people, then Romney is a serial killer !!!"

It's brilliant !!! It's funny, it uses Mittens' own language, and draws the logical conclusion to lampoon his position on corporations, vulture capitalism, job loss, and the 1%-er image.

This week, Colbert and Herman Cain "campaigned" together, suggesting to people that they vote for Cain (who is still on the ballot) as a way of showing support for Colbert. In a sense it's a protest vote, or a sort of None of the Above.

And tonight, the vote tallies show that Cain/Colbert got 5,937 votes or 1% of the total. That is more than double what Rick Perry got.

Public Policy Polling included him in a poll this week of a hypothetical third party race with Obama, Romney, and Colbert. Colbert was the choice of 13%, with 41% for Obama and 38% for Romney. Colbert's "favorability" rating was 36% -- higher than any of the Republican candidates.

Let's hope he doesn't actually run though. He pulls way more votes from Obama than he does from Romney. But it does lighten up this soap opera.

Ralph

Newt wins decisively in S.C.

2012-01-21T22:22:00.008-05:00

With 100% of South Carolina precincts reporting, the results are:

Gingrich . . . . . 40.4%

Romney . . . . . 27.8%

Santorum . . . .17.0%

Paul . . . . . . . .13.0%

Both Santorum and Paul say they will continue. How fast things change. Last week, Nate Silver's projections gave Romney some 80% chance of winning S.C. Even as late as yesterday morning, he was still giving Romney a 62% chance of winning -- but that changed dramatically as the day went on and the full effect of Newt's debate rant and general performance became clear.

Painting Romney as the "vulture capitalist" certainly hurt, and Mitt didn't do well at all with working class voters. That will continue to be his vulnerability.

There was nothing wrong with the statistics. The race was just that volatile.

Here's the explanation:

In exit polls, 53% of those voting said that they made up their minds "within the past few days." And 64% said that the debates were important in their decisions. In the last debate, Newt got standing ovations, while Mitt was booed.

So: (1) debates are important, at least the late ones; (2) the race is going to go on for a while -- some are predicting it won't be decided until the convention. Voters just aren't happy with any of the choices, and they kept going with the surge-of-the-week. Santorums' surge was perfectly timed for Iowa; Newt's peaked for South Carolina. They could even wind up with a brokered choice, with someone else being nominated at the convention if no one has a majority of pledged delegates: Jeb Bush, Chris Christie, even Tim Pawlenty could be resurrected; and (3) this is all good for the Democrats.

DNC Chair Debbie Wasserman Schultz lost no time in piling on, releasing a statement saying this shows the fallacy in Romney's candidacy: that he is completely out of touch with middle class, working Americans.

But would we be happy if Newt winds up being the nominee? Conventional wisdom is that he would be much easier for Obama to defeat. But I am leery of skating that close to the disaster a Gingrich presidency would be. Let's just suppose that the economy slides back into recession and that we have a major terrorist attack shortly before the election. We'd get Newt in a landslide. I'd rather have a little tougher time defeating Romney (which at this point seems eminently do-able) than to risk a President Gingrich.

Ralph

An American shame

2012-01-21T13:06:00.004-05:00

The level of ignorance among the candidates to be the Republican presidential nominee is a cause of shame for America.

The process has already dismissed the most egregious examples of this (Perry, Cain, Bachmann), but today Rick Santorum proved his credentials to join that club.

His ignorance and bigotry are appalling -- his whole nervous obsession with gay sex, for one, as well as his moralizing wish to control how other people live. But today he makes the ignorant claim about the source of the concept of equality in civic life, aired by ABC News:

"I get a kick out of folks who call for equality now, the people on the left. . . . It doesn't come from Islam. It doesn't come from the East and Eastern religions, where does it come from? It comes from the God of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob, that's where it comes from."

Santorum obviously knows a lot about his own (Catholic) religion, but for a would-be president of all the 300,000,000 people who make up this nation, he is woefully uninformed about the history of religions or the place of religion in our secular society.

Muslims worship the same God of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob -- only they call him Allah. They acknowledge Jesus as a prophet, though not divine, as do the Jews.

Islam is considered to stem from Abraham and to be "an Abrahamic religion," just as much as Christianity and the Jewish religion. They are all monotheistic religions, and Islam shares many of the same stories and prophets and moral teachings with Christians and Jews.

Nice try, Rick. But you're just not presidential material. Savor your making it to "the final four," as you said in the last debate. And then say goodbye and go home to your dying daughter. You've sacrificed your family long enough to this quixotic quest.

Ralph

Obama back in campaign mode

2012-01-21T01:15:00.003-05:00

I just finished watching the video clip of President Obama giving a speech at the Apollo Theater in Harlem -- obviously a very supportive audience. It's being billed as his preview of his State of the Union speech next Tuesday evening.

Whatever they conceived it to be -- it was a grand slam home run. He is back in campaign mode -- with grayer hair (he pointed out) but with all the soaring rhetoric, sounding all the right notes to rev up those who loved him before.

What made all the difference, in my opnion, was that he did not read a speech. He spoke, sometimes a bit haltingly, searching for a word -- but it felt spontaneous and real -- unlike the carefully worded speeches he reads.

To be candid -- it made the clowns we've been watching in the GOP debates for months look like just that, clowns.

It is worth watching the video. Here's the link. Anyone who has lost faith, please watch this.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/james-marshall-crotty/obama-sings-republicans-g_b_1219995.html?ref=politics

Ralph

More on Newt's helping Obama defeat Romney

2012-01-20T11:21:00.005-05:00

A few days ago, the big news in the Republican primary was the damaging documentary about Romney's role in Bain Capital, which painted him as the ultimate "corporate vulture." This was released by the PAC supporting Newt. He claims to have had nothing to do with it and has not even seen the film; but nobody believes that.

This of course outraged the GOP establishment -- Rudy Giuliani exclaimed on FoxNews: "What the hell are you doing, Newt?" -- because it focuses the whole income inequality, predatory Wall Street meme squarely on the leading candidate for the Republican nomination, namely Mittens himself. It didn't help that Romney was the same day forced to say something about his income tax and revealed that he paid about 15% in taxes. Romney's most potent vulnerablity for the general election -- "plutocrat, capitalist,
1 percenter" -- was stolen and used by a Republican candidate against another.

The Obama campaign must have been popping champagne corks. Unless they're concerned it will steal the issue and immunize it for their use later. That worry aside, it was Newt Gingrich at his most narcissistic, unpredictable, loose-cannon, cosmic egotism.

The conservative columnist Charles Krauthammer, wrote his January 20th article about it:

"Then came the most remarkable political surprise since the 2010 midterms. The struggling Democratic class-war narrative is suddenly given life and legitimacy by -- Republicans! Newt Gingrich and Rick Perry make the case that private equity as practiced by Romney's Bain Capital is nothing more than vulture capitalism looting companies and sucking them dry while casually destroying the lives of workers. . . .

"Michael Moore wonders aloud whether Gingrich has stolen his staff. The assault on Bain/Romney instantly turns Obama's class-war campaign from partisan attack into universal complaint.

"Suddenly Romney's wealth, practices and taxes take center stage. And why not? If leading Republicans are denouncing rapacious capitalism that enriches the 1 percent while impoverishing everyone else, should this not be the paramount issue in a campaign occuring at a time of economic distress? . .

"[I]n a stroke, the Republicans have succeeded in turning a Democratic talking point . . . into a a central focus of the nation's political discourse. . . . This is no mainstream media conspiracy. This is the GOP maneuvering itself right onto Obama terrain. . . . He could not have chosen more self-destructive adversaries."

Hear, hear !!! It couldn't have been better said by Krauthammer's liberal New York Times counterpart, columnist Paul Krugman.

Ralph

South Carolina primary tomorrow

2012-01-20T10:44:00.005-05:00

Summary of last night's final debate before the S.C. primary:

Going by audience reaction, Newt won it hands down. He got two standing ovations (for his angry tirade against the moderator's asking him about his ex-wife's revelations), while Romney got booed (for his vague answer about releasing his tax returns.)

Rick Santorum signalled he knew it was his swan song, saying he was honored to be standing here among the final four -- with a tone that said this is as far as he expects to get. He didn't say he would be dropping out, but he's polling in last place now that Perry has exited. Even the reversal that gave him the win in Iowa doesn't seem to have helped elsewhere.

And Ron Paul was . . . well, he was once again the entertaining, slightly wacky Ron Paul who will get a sizable chunk of votes but never rise to be a real threat to the other two.

Nate Silver still gives Romney the likely win in S.C. (by 62%, down from high 80s% last week before Newt's latest surge).   There was a brief time yesterday when he had Romney and Gingrich tied at 50% each chance of winning S.C.

Will Marianne's interview on ABC (aired last night after the debate) hurt Newt?   Not with the right wing, apparently.   They've already decided that his bad boy behavior can be tolerated -- rationalized by his declared repentance -- and they suddenly found his intelligence and the possibility that he could oust Romney even more compelling.

Unfortunately, they're playing Marianne's bombshell wrong, emphasizing his asking for an open marriage (which he denies). My guess is that he didn't use the term; he just asked for it, in effect, by asking her to stay married but allow him to continue having Callista as his mistress; but he can still claim that he didn't ask for an "open marriage."

For all his smearing Obama for adopting "European socialist" ideas, this is a very "French" view of marriage and political tolerance of infidelity in their leaders. And the right wing is accepting it; that's the amazing thing.   That's how bad they want to defeat Romney and Obama.

The real point, though, is one of Newt's character and integrity.   And in Marianne's interview with Esquire in 2010, she said that he has no integrity.   She also has damaging things to say about his inability to manage money, his spendthrift habits, his refusal to pay her temporary support during the divorce proceedings. They should make this the issue, not his bad behavior, for which he can repent.

He can't repent away his character.

Ralph

On children working as janitors

2012-01-19T22:19:00.004-05:00

Newt sticks to his wacky plan to fire school janitors and let kids do the work and get paid for it. They can use the money, and it will teach them the value of work and self-reliance. He even figured out that 30 kids could do the work of one janitor.

Like many of Newt's "big ideas," this one sounds good at first glance. But there are problems.

First, according to janitors who actually do this work, it's not a job for kids.   Maybe emptying waste baskets or sweeping and dusting.   But it also includes mixing chemicals of cleaning products, running heavy floor-polishing machines, maintaining the heating/air conditioning system, moving around huge containers of waste, as well as being responsible for the security of buildings when working after hours.

Second, Newt claims that unionized janitors "make an absurd amount of money." The Teamsters union, which represents janitors in New Hampshire where Newt was giving this speech, says salaries begin at $16.86 an hour or $28,324 a year.   That's only $500 a month above the official poverty level for a family of four.   Hardly "absurd." And the top wage for janitors in this union is $25.41 an hour.   Still not absurd. What's absurd is this critique from a man who made $1.6 million for giving what he called "advice as a historian" to Freddie Mac.

Third, the janitor you fire is now out of work, perhaps with a family to support with kids of his own. So you've increased joblessness and put another family on unemployment and perhaps food stamps.

Way to go, Newt.

Why not, instead, create a work-study program. Let the kids do work they are suited for as janitor's helpers, if they wish, or file clerks in the office; and get paid an appropriate amount out of a grant to teach these work values that Newt wants to foster?   Don't fire people in a time of high unemployment.   Think a little bigger, Newt.

Ralph

And then there were four . . .

2012-01-19T11:54:00.013-05:00

In my blog last night, ("Rick Perry's cowboy show bombs"), I offered the parting advice to Perry: "Go home, cowboy."

Then this morning came the surprise announcement that Perry is withdrawing from the race and endorsing Newt Gingrich.

What does this do to the race -- what with the other big news that the Iowa recount shows Santorum now with more votes than Romney and with Newt surging in the S. C. polls?

It will probably add a few votes to Newt's total, but Perry's voters will likely split between Newt and Santorum. Newt's own surge following the last debate (with another to go tonight) is likely a more significant factor.   Newt seems to keep coming back, like the cat with nine lives -- only to slide down again as people remember why they don't like him or he says something else outrageous.

But what if ABC does release the interview with Wife #2 before the primary?   Will that have much effect?   Leaks include her description of his asking her for an open marriage so he could continue his affair with Callista and remain married to Marianne. And we know from the interview she gave to Esquire in 2010 that she said he has no integrity and that he claimed that what he did in his private life had no bearing on his political message.

Newt has already countered all his bad behavior by playing the "repentant sinner" card; and we know how much the evangelical base love their leaders to be reformed bad boys.

Romney will probably still take S. C., but it's going to be much closer than it seemed just a few days ago. And it will probably allow Newt to keep going and prolong the primary. Then, assuming that Santorum drops out after this one, the anti-Romney vote will be split only with Ron Paul.

All of this is good news for the Democrats.   Newt and Mitt will have to keep attacking each other -- and every jab at the eventual nominee is just doing the work for Obama's team.   And the longer the internal battling goes on, the more money is absorbed in their primary and the more more roughed up the winner emerges.

Still, there is the upside for the Repubs -- airing all the dirty laundry now tends to immunize the issues for later; and it makes Romney a better competitor.

So . . . the fat lady hasn't sung yet.

Ralph

Rick Perry's cowboy show bombs

2012-01-18T11:53:00.002-05:00

Rick Perry doesn't seem to know that his 15 minutes of fame expired with "oops" a few debates back. Maybe this will convince him.

Public Policy Polling has just released results of a poll of Texas Republicans in which Perry now trails both Romney and Gingrich for third place in the presidential primary in his own state !!

That's quite a reversal from when he led Romney 49% to 10% in the same poll last September. Now in January, his standing is 3rd place among Texas Republicans:

Romney 24%
Gingrich 23%

Perry 18%

Further, 39% of Texas Republicans said that Rick Perry's campaign for president has hurt Texas' image. They must be pretty mad at the guy down their in pardner land.

Lest anyone still wonder why Perry's fortunes began to fall the minute he opened his mouth in the first debate, Perry obliged with another cringe moment. In the Monday night S.C. debate, he referred to Turkey as "being ruled by what many would perceive to be Islamic terrorists," and he questioned whether Turkey belonged in NATO.

The State Department was quick to distance itself. A spokesman said:

"We absolutely and fundamentally disagree with that assertion. Turkey is a strong partner in the region. We've seen it make a very courageous stand against what's going on in Syria, for example. It continues to play a very positive and constructive role in the region. And it is often cited as an example of a so-called Islamic democracy in action."

Is Perry simply ignorant about world affairs? Just too dumb for national exposure? Or is he willfully distorting the truth to rev up the ignorant base? Whatever, it isn't working for him, since he's now in last place in the South Carolina polls with 5%.

Go home, cowboy.

Ralph

Sarah sows confusion

2012-01-18T11:49:00.003-05:00

Sarah Palin told Sean Hannity:

If I were a South Carolinian -- and each one of these primaries and caucuses are different, Sean -- I want to see this thing continue because iron sharpens iron. Steel sharpens steel. These guys are getting better in their debates. ... If I had to vote in South Carolina, in order to keep this thing going, I'd vote for Newt. And I would want things to continue. More debates, more vetting of candidates. Because we know the mistake made in our country four years ago, with having a candidate that was not vetted to the degree he should have been.

"A candidate who was not vetted to the degree he should have been."

???

Who does she mean? McCain? Well, that's true that he was not vetted enough. But talk about the pot calling the kettle black. What about one who was not vetted to the degree SHE should have been ?

Ralph

". . .If only the idiots would get out of my way. . . " - Newt

2012-01-17T12:58:00.018-05:00

David Brooks wrote in his column today that Newt Gingrich's consistent theme is:

"The solutions to everything are obvious --
if only the idiots would get out of my way. "

So what does Newt, with his "cosmic ego," do? Seeing his chances slip away, he tries to destroy the person who has the best chance of defeating Obama.

And how does he do it? By lobbing the biggest bomb in the Democratic arsenal at Mitt Romney -- here, right now in the Republican primary.

Growing income inequality in a time of severe economic hardship for the middle class is the hottest, most emotionally charged issue that the Democrats can capitalize on against the Republicans and Mitt Romney in particular.

Every time Obama sounds this theme, his approval ratings go up and those of Congress go down. The Republican establishment also realizes that this is their greatest vulnerability, and they are desperately trying to get Gingrich and Perry to shut up about it.

As a New York Times editorial today points out,

"Republicans are indeed in growing trouble as more voters begin to realize how much the party's policies -- dismantling regulations, slashing taxes for the rich, weakening unions -- have contributed to inequality and the yawning distance between the middle class and the top end."

So Newt -- running as a Republican -- pulls this issue out to attack his fellow Republican with. I'm referring to Newt's SuperPAC ad about Mitt and his work at Bain that destroyed jobs.

Which prompted Rudy Guiliani to exclaim on Fox News:

"What the hell are you doing, Newt?"

There's nothing quite like having Newt throw your bombs for you before the general campaign even begins. The "country club Republicans," like Romney, are then left with not much defense except to accuse the Democrats who bring this up of "engaging in class warfare."

So what is their dear colleague, Newt Gingrich, engaging in? Utter gutter, dog-eat-dog politics, for sure. Pure, blind revenge of a wounded narcissist, I would add.

Ralph

Obama's critics are "simply -- empirically -- wrong."

2012-01-17T11:37:00.006-05:00

Andrew Sullivan is former editor of The New Republic and a conservative who is also "an unabashed supporter of Obama." He recently wrote the following in a cover story for Newsweek:

"It's not that I don't understand the critiques of Barack Obama from the enraged right and the demoralized left. It's that I don't even recognize their description of Obama's first term in any way. The attacks from both the right and the left on the man and his policies aren't out of bounds. They're simply -- empirically -- wrong. . . .

[He] "has delivered in a way that the unhinged right and purist left have yet to understand or absorb."

Then, in response to conservative critics of his article, Sullivan wrote on his blog:

Taking down Romney

2012-01-15T10:56:00.012-05:00

Nate Silver is predicting that Mitt Romney has a 76% chance of winning South Carolina and a 95% chance of winning Florida. With his tie +8 votes (a technical win) in Iowa and a decisive win in New Hampshire -- the demographic diversity of those four state wins makes him a shoo-in for the Republican nomination, barring some unforeseen cataclysm.

So how about Mittens as Obama's opponent? Well, he was long ago identified as the toughest for Obama to beat in this economy (unless Huntsman catches fire) -- but Gingrich's SuperPAC attack ads against the "job-killing" Bain capitalist Romney is like money from home for the Democrats.

Or is it? Does it bring up that issue too early and rob it of effectiveness later on, particularly considering it's tainted source?

Besides, it gives Romney the chance to hone his defense and be primed for it later. All in all, this primary fight -- ridiculous as it has been -- has made Romney a much much better debater and an improved campaigner.

So, all in all, it's probably a draw with a possible negative advantage. Think of the possibility of Dem ads running this stuff as "this is what Republicans were saying about Romney in the primary."

Now, however, comes Stephen Colbert's fake presidential campaign and his "Definitely Not Coordinating With Stephen Colbert Super PAC" ad. This one is brilliant satire.

It begins with an American flag waving, then a video of Mittens saying, "Corporations are people." Then a picture of sides of beef being butchered and a voice-over saying that, as head of Bain, Romney took over corporations, carved them up, and got rid of parts he didn't want. "So, if corporations are people, then Romney is a serial killer !!!"

It's brilliant !!! It's funny, it uses Mittens' own language, and draws the logical conclusion to lampoon his position on corporations, vulture capitalism, job loss, and the 1%-er image.

Personally, I believe that this will do more harm than all of Newt's vicious attacks. It will run viral on the internet -- and won't go away. It can easily be revived in the fall, and it won't cost a dime. For now, the Dems should just sit quietly by and let it happen.

Ralph

PS: On a side note, both Gingrich and Perry have attacked Romney on his "vulture capitalism," citing his plant closing role at Bain Capital, one being in Gaffney, S. C. And of course several of the Repub candidates are there campaigning in the S. C. primary.

The Times went to look into it. Nobody the reporter talked to there could even remember the closing many years ago. It was a small plant that made photo albums and employed 150 people. After it closed, another manufacturing plant opened in the same spot that employed 80 people. They looked through the newspaper archives and could not even find the plant closing mentioned in the local paper. Not that it didn't happen; it just wasn't regarded as very significant at the time.

So -- what makes a good political weapon isn't always related to its significance at the time.

"Myth" of the independent voter

2012-01-14T22:00:00.016-05:00

Registered membership in both Democratic and Republican parties has been on the decline, while registered Independent voters have increased. For a while the conventional wisdom had been that these independent voters were the ones who would decide close elections. This political theory led to both parties tending to track toward the middle for the general election.

However, more recently there has been talk of this actually being a myth -- independent voters, individually, tend to be pretty consistent in voting either Democratic or Republican for president. They are not more persuadable than registered voters; they just don't want to identify with the party.

Emory political scientist Alan Abromowitz studies voting patterns. He has found that: In the three elections since 1972 that were decided by a margin of less than 5%, the candidate backed by the independent voters lost. This includes 2004, when George Bush was backed by independent voters but lost the popular vote. He won the election, however, thanks to SCOTUS and then the electoral college. So that seems a bit of an outlier.

But at the least, you could say that in 2 of those 3 elections, the independent voters backed the loser.

Whatever . . . it seems to demolish the importance of the Independent Voters as a group to be courted. And it may explain why campaigns are putting more emphasis on firing up their bases rather than appealing to the independents. You can certainly say that's what the Repubs are doing. And there's some beginning evidence that Obama's campaign is aiming to shore up its liberal base.

But -- consider this -- in an election year, when one party is clearly chasing its base even further to the right, wouldn't that be a good time for the other party to pick off the middle?

I'd say the Dems should go for both the middle and the left. In fact, everything to the left of Barry Goldwater looks to be low hanging fruit at this point. Except for the economy, stupid.

It's worth watching how they handle it.

Ralph

Hiatus

2012-01-09T20:55:00.001-05:00

I'll be taking a few days away from ShrinkRap. Enjoy the silence of no political rantings. Not even about the New Hampshire primary.

Ralph

GOP debates de jour

2012-01-09T13:13:00.012-05:00

Two debates last weekend, not just one !!! In the first, the second tier fought each other rather than front-runner Romney. Then in the second, there were fireworks going off among several competitive combinations. Most blows directed at Romney.

The most interesting zinger of Saturday night was Ron Paul's. He and Gingrich were squabbling about who was the more patriotic for his military service (Paul) or for his father's service and his own consultative and teaching services for the military (Gingrich).

In response to Paul's chiding him for getting "4 or 5" draft deferments instead of going to war, Gingrich said, "I was married with a child at the time." Paul shot back: "I was opposed to the war; but when the call to serve my country came, I went. And I was also married and had two children at the time."

This left Newt sputtering as the moderators went on to other things. He was trying to say, as has been said before, that he actually was not eligible for the draft because of physical defects (flat feet, I think). But he wasn't heard above the clamoring. On the other hand, using that excuse means portraying himself as "unfit" to serve. Not such a good idea, which is probably why he didn't use it in the first place.

Then in the second debate on Sunday morning, the best line was from Huntsman. In response to Romney's attacking him for serving as ambassador to China under Obama, and carrying out the policies of a Democratic president, Huntsman said:

"I was criticized last night by Gov. Romney for putting my country first. He criticized me -- while he was out raising money -- for serving my country in China, yes under a Democrat. Like my two sons are doing in the U.S. Navy - they're not asking what political affiliation the president is. . . .I will always put my country first."

Romney responded: "I think we serve our country first by standing for people that believe in conservative principles. I just think... the person that should represent our party running against President Obama is not someone who called him a remarkable leader and went to be his ambassador in China."

And then Huntsman: "This nation is divided . . . because of attitudes like that. The American people are tired of the partisan division, they have had enough. There is no trust left among the American people and the institutions of power and among the American people and our elected officials."

There was enthusiastic applause in response to Huntsman's rather impassioned comeback: "This nation is divided because of attitudes like that. The American people are tired of the partisan division, they have had enough."

Huntsman's turn to surge has finally come. In New Hampshire he is now solidly in third place, ahead of Santorum and Gingrich -- and he's closing fast on Paul for second. But it may be too late for him to mount a serious challenge to Romney nationally -- unless the others coalesce behind him (unlikely) as the anti-Romney candidate. In many ways Huntsman is more of a moderate than Romney.

Ralph

Gay marriage coming to Washington state?

2012-01-09T03:53:00.003-05:00

Democratic governor Christine Gregoire has announced that next week she will introduce a bill to legalize same-sex marriage in the state of Washington. She said, ". . . it’s time, it’s the right thing to do, and I will introduce a bill to do it.”

Both legislative houses have strong Democratic majorities: Senate 38 to 18, House 65 to 33 -- although that does not guarantee passage.

Meanwhile, we await the decision of the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals on the lower court's declaration that Prop8 is unconstitutional, which could add California to the ranks of places gay people can marry: Massachusetts, Iowa, Connecticutt, New Hampshire, Vermont, New York, and the District of Columbia. In addition, it is legal in two Indian Tribe jurisdictions in the Pacific Northwest.

And in Maryland, things are looking up. A gay marriage bill passed the state Senate last term but was put on hold in the House when it appeared there were not enough votes to pass it. However, since then, it has picked up momentum again with the passage of a similar bill in New York, and it now has the support of the Maryland governor.

Voters in Maine have gathered enough signatures to put a same-sex marriage bill on the ballot for November. But North Carolina and Minnesota are currently considering state constitutional amendments to ban gay marriage, and in New Hampshire there is a move to repeal their marriage equality law.

And, lastly, you have the federal Defense of Marriage Act, which the Obama administration will no longer defend in the courts -- but John Boehner and his Repubs in the House are using half a million in tax money to defend it. Apparently it's legal, but deplorable IMHO.

That's where we stand at the start of 2012.

Ralph

U. S. Supreme Court and ethics of recusal

2012-01-08T00:24:00.002-05:00

There are very practical consequences to whether Clarence Thomas and Elena Kagan recuse themselves from the Court's decision about the constitutionality of the health care reform bill.

To me, it seems pretty clear cut that Thomas should recuse himself, because his wife has not only been a leading spokesperson in opposition to the whole concept, but she headed a non-profit group formed to oppose it -- and she drew a six-figure salary until the ethical questions for her husband were aired in the media. Thomas has not yet said whether he would step aside.

The Republicans' objection to Kagan is that she was Obama's Solicitor General and may have worked on the case. I don't know how much she had to do with it and whether it should be grounds for recusal.

Justice Stephen Breyer -- one of the liberal group -- made a cogent point that I had not considered before. While there are pretty strict guidelines for other federal judge to decide when to recuse, there are none for SCOTUS. Each Justice is left to decide for him/herself.

Well, of course, I've been thinking, the rules should be at least as strict for SCOTUS. But Breyer's point is that on the lower courts, if one judge recuses -- there are other judges to take his place. That is not true of the Supreme Court. If one recuses, then the decision is made by the other eight. And so the outcome is foremost in everyone's mind when the question is considered.

Breyer was not saying never recuse, then. He was saying that it's a much more significant decision and the justification has to be that much more carefully thought through.

If both Thomas and Kagan recuse, it probably won't change the outcome. In fact, that is probably why Republicans are insisting that Kagan do so -- to counter the greater probability that Thomas either will, or should.

Ralph

Newt's "Shop of Horrors"

2012-01-07T08:25:00.006-05:00

In a New York Times online piece, Timothy Egan, explains Newt's relationship to SuperPacs and to the Citizens United case that unleashed unlimited corporate campaign spending.

Not only did Newt tutor his colleagues in the House in negative campaign tactics, he was a big supporter of the Citizens United case, calling it "one of the best examples of a genuine strategy that I’ve seen in the years I’ve been in Washington,” and producing a video saying, "Please join Citizens United and me in our fight for the First Amendment rights of every American.”

Now the chickens have come home to roost; the shop of horrors has turned on it's creator. Newt got shellacked by SuperPacs in Iowa. Of course, I contend that the effect of all those negative ads was more devastating to Newt because it was all true.

But now Newt is playing the outraged victim to the hilt -- and he still doesn't seem to understand that he played any part in bringing it about. Narcissists never do. It's always the world that is out of step with them.

Egan ends with this memorable line, referring to the legacy of unlimited corporate campaign money unleashed by the Citizens United decision:

"Among the losers, Gingrich has the least credibility complaining of the effects. What happened to him in Iowa is not what he wished for, but it is certainly what he asked for."

Hear, hear !!

Ralph

NACP responds to Newt's insult

2012-01-06T19:26:00.007-05:00

A few days ago, Newt made one of his smarty-pants, misinformed, insulting comments, meant to tout his credentials as a job-creating, entitlement-deploring conservative. He said he would be willing to go before an NAACP audience and tell them

"[T]he African-American community should demand paychecks and not be satisfied with food stamps."

The NAACP has issued a response:

“It is a shame that the former Speaker feels that these types of inaccurate, divisive statements are in any way helpful to our country. The majority of people using food stamps are not African-American, and most people using food stamps have a job. . .

“We invited Speaker Gingrich to attend our annual convention several times when he was Speaker of the House, but he declined to join us. If he is invited again, I hope that he would come, with the intention to unite rather than divide.

“Gingrich's statement is problematic on several fronts, most importantly because he gets his facts wrong."

Point. Set. And Match. Good for the NAACP for taking the high road. Let Newt wallow alone in the mud of his own swill.

Ralph

Beware of such friends . . .

2012-01-06T14:14:00.002-05:00

It's well known here on ShrinkRap that I passionately dislike Newt Gingrich. The same went for John McCain in the last election, despite my limited admiration for him in years past. But something happened to him when Dubya slaughtered him in the 2000 S. C. primary with really really negative, untrue ads.

But he never recovered his balance, and he became an often incoherent, seemingly dishonest politician.

Romney seemed to think McCain's endorsement would be a good thing. But within one week of McCain's publicly giving that nod of approval, he has made two damaging gaffes. Perhaps they should take him off the campaign trail before he does some lasting damage.

A couple of days ago, McCain proclaimed his confidence that "President Obama" would turn the economy around -- then had to be corrected and lamely said, "Excuse me, President Romney."

Now this slipped out today at another rally in S. C.: "Earmarks are a gateway to corruption, and I can tell you that neither Mitt Romney nor Rick Santorum share that view."

Oops again. That's two strike, Old Man McNothing. Get the hook and pull him off stage.

On second thought, let him continue. Anything that diminishes Romney's ultimate standing is to Obama's advantage.

Ralph

NOT about politics . . .

2012-01-06T11:12:00.010-05:00

It just don't seem right.

Elizabeth Taylor's multiple husbands, most notably Richard Burton, showered her with fabulous jewels -- huge diamonds, emeralds, etc. -- in elaborate settings of rings and necklaces. Only a fabled beauty with Liz's style and grace could wear such huge, expensive baubles without looking cheapened by the excessive bling. She could pull it off and look fabulous, even as an old lady in a wheelchair.

Now that the jewels have been auctioned off by her estate, mere mortals are scarfing them up and wearing them -- and looking cheap in the process. It seems sacrilegious somehow.

Jill Zarin (never heard of her) of "Real Housewives of New York" was seen wearing one of Liz's rings. And the ubiquitous, manipulative, offensively shallow Kim Kardashian now owns another. Ughhh. Cheap. Tacky.

Elizabeth Taylor's style is not transferable with the price of a ring, even you pay millions for it.

She lived large and had her flaws, for sure. But she was real and had a heart of gold (an early friend of gay rights and major force in HIV research fund-raising) and was loyal to her friends (Rock Hudson, Montgomery Cliff, Michael Jackson).

For me, she will forever be the darling pre-teen of the 1944 "National Velvet" and the charming teen of the 1949 "Little Women;" the stunningly beautiful young lady of the 1951 "A Place in the Sun;" and the shrewish broad of the 1966 "Who's Afraid of Virginia Woolf?"

These cheap publicity hounds have no right to wear her jewels. That's what I think.

Ralph

Odds and ends you may/may not have heard

2012-01-05T22:38:00.004-05:00

1. A vote counter in Iowa says a clerical error gave Romney 20 votes too many. So Rick Santorum actually won the Iowa caucuses. State Republican officials have not yet ruled on this.

2. Newt Gingrich says he's willing to stand up before an NAACP audience and tell them that "the African-American community should demand paychecks and not be satisfied with food stamps." Paychecks from whom, Newt? Just demanding them doesn't solve the jobless problem.

3. Jon Hunstman won the endorsement of the Boston Globe for the Republican nomination. This is the major newspaper not only in Massachusetts but in New Hampshire as well. That's pretty significant, given that Romney is the former governor of MA, and Huntsman the former governor of Utah. The Globe's editorial said that Hunstman would be the better president; but, even if Romney wins, Hunstman's competition will make Romney a better candidate.

4. Analysis by the Tax Policy Group in Washington says that Mitt Romney's tax plan would increase taxes on low income families by 60%, while giving middle income families a slight tax cut and those with million dollar incomes a 15% tax cut. Further, it would add to the deficit. The Tax Policy Group is regularly asked to testify on their research before Congressional hearings on tax policy.

5. Speaking at a rally after endorsing Mitt Romney, Sen. John McCain said: "I am confident, with the leadership and the backing of the American people, President Obama will turn this country around." Oops. He quickly corrected himself, saying, "Excuse me, President Romney."

6. Joseph Kennedy III has formed an exploratory committee with the idea of running for the seat in Congress that Barney Frank is vacating. When Patrick Kennedy retired from his congressional seat in 2008, it was the first time in 64 years that there was no Kennedy in Congress.

Ralph

It's going to be a fierce fight . . . and expensive

2012-01-04T08:03:00.003-05:00

Round One is done. Whew !! Glad it's over, but NH, SC, and FL come fast and furious.

The bottom line is that Romney won by 8 votes, but he still got less than 25% of the vote (24.6%). He was followed by Santorum, also 24.6%, Paul 21.5%, Gingrich 13.3%, Peery 10.3%, and Bachmann 5.0%.

Here's the perspective, as framed in an email sent out from Jim Messina, Obama's campaign manager, this morning:

Who exactly leads the Republican race going forward isn't clear, but we do know two things:

1) The extremist Tea Party agenda won a clear victory. No matter who the Republicans nominate, we'll be running against someone who has embraced that agenda in order to win -- vowing to let Wall Street write its own rules, end Medicare as we know it, roll back gay rights, leave the troops in Iraq indefinitely, restrict a woman's right to choose, and gut Social Security to pay for more tax cuts for millionaires and corporations.

2) We'll be facing an onslaught of unprecedented spending from outside groups funded by corporations and anonymous donors. In Iowa alone, so-called "super PACs" spent $12.9 million on almost exclusively negative ads. These groups will turn their fire even more directly on us in the weeks ahead to prove that their candidate is the most anti-Obama.

Interestingly, this letter to Obama supporters did not ask for money. It was a call to volunteer to work on the campaign, saying we have to "out-organize them on the ground."

The race is on !! Re-read Messina's paragraph #1 above. Those dire prospects are real. We can't led this crowd take over our country.

Ralph

And some people actually believe him . . .

2012-01-04T00:30:00.000-05:00

Televangelist Pat Robertson says that God has told him who the next president of the United States is going to be . . . but he's not supposed to tell us.

He also says that God told him that the nation's downfall would be triggered by an economic collapse and that this would come about if Obama is elected to another term.

So, let's see if I have this straight: We will have economic collapse if Obama is re-elected. So people need to "pray overwhelmingly," presumably to keep Obama from winning. But Robertson already knows who will win. So what is the purpose of all this prayer, if it's already decided?

I don't get it. Why does anyone believe this man? What has he ever been right about?

Years ago, he said God was punishing Orlando with the forest fires that were headed straight for it. Why? Because the city had flown banners for Gay Day at Disneyland. But then the fires turned and went the other way and skipped Orlando. And later that same year, hurricanes hit Virginia Beach where Robertson's headquarters is located.

Has the IRS investigated him? He is demonstrably campaigning against Obama -- manipulating the emotions of ignorant and gullible people who believe his version of God, while raking in tax exempt money as a religion. That is illegal.

Ralph

Perspective

2012-01-03T14:19:00.005-05:00

Thanks to blogger Ryan Grim on Huffington Post, here's a little fact to put the whole Iowa caucus thing in perspective. They carry far more weight in the media frenzy than seems warranted from the numbers.

Expected turnout tonight for the Republican caucuses: 115,000.

Attendance at a single University of Michigan football game: 114,804.

The Associated Press reported that $13 million has been spent on political TV ads. That comes to $113 per vote. And that doesn't even count all the other expenses of running a campaign.

Ralph

Who sank Newt's boat?

2012-01-03T00:24:00.002-05:00

Pundits and media articles are blaming the negative ads for Newt's plunge in the Iowa polls. One source said that half of all the ads run in Iowa since December 1 were negative ads about Newt.

I'll grant that this was an unprecedented amount of TV attacks on Newt. But let's don't lose sight of the other fact, as said by one of the pundits on Sunday talk shows (I forget which):

Everything they said about Newt is true.

That is what distinguishes them from the usual attack ads, such as the lies told about John Kerry by the Swiftboat crowd. And like they're all saying about Obama.

You don't have to make stuff up about Newt. In fact, some of what he has said would be rejected as too extreme if you submitted it as a made-up story about him.

I stick by my earlier claim that Newt will defeat Newt.

He said as much himself -- although in his typical style, it was a bit grandiose. In an interview with Matt Bai in Sunday's New York Times Magazine, he said:

"I only exist because the country is in trouble. . . . The question is whether I can in fact help the country work its way out of trouble. If we had 4 percent unemployment and no foreign threat, I couldn't be a candidate. It would be absurd. There are 20 guys you could pick in peaceful, calm and pleasant times who would be adequate as president, none of whom would have my liabilities."

In other words, our country is in peril; and only Newt can save us, so we have to just overlook all his flaws and failings. And Matt Bai added:

"It was an unusual admission from a presidential candidate near the top of the national polls, but it was a candid assessment from a man who thinks of himself in the mold of Churchill or Reagan. The way Newt sees it, fate doesn't hinge on his being a perfect man. Only a great one."

And what if he isn't a great man?

Ralph

Last minute poll in Iowa

2012-01-02T11:59:00.004-05:00

Public Policy Polling has released its latest automated poll taken over the past two days, and it confirms that Rick Santorum is indeed having the last minute surge he predicted.

There is a virtual 3 way tie: Paul 20%, Romney 19%, Santorum 18% -- all within the margin of error. Trailing are: Gingrinch 14%, Perry 10%, Bachmann 8%.

Nate Silver's polling analysis is similar: Paul 21.6%, Romney, 21.3%, Santorum 19.5%.

InTrade shows who people are betting will win: Romney 44%, Paul, 27.5%, Santorum 26.0% -- and Gingrich a mere 1.5%.

Santorum clearly has the momentum of the moment. But will it last longer than the moment of Iowa? He has little chance in New Hampshire and is going on to South Carolina, where he hopes to repeat his Iowa surge. The difference, of course, is that his Iowa surge came too late for negative ads against him there; but you can bet they'll be out in force in S.C.

And then: Bye, bye, Rickie. And good riddance. Take your promise to "annual gay marriages" and shove it.

Ralph

Last minute over-reaching in Iowa

2012-01-02T11:47:00.010-05:00

I considered taking a vow of silence for these last 24 hours before the Iowa caucuses, knowing that everyone will be saying simply outrageous things -- trying for a few more votes.

Sorry, but I just can't stifle it -- even knowing that in the long run, what happens in Iowa is not really of such great importance as we make it to be. As Matthew Dowd said on TV yesterday, Iowa may not elect winners, but it does tend to eliminate losers. Here then are their final attempts to grab the attention of voters:

1. Rick Santorum flashed his commander-in-chief cojones by declaring that he would order the bombing of Iranian nuclear facilities if we get evidence they are making a bomb.

2. Ron Paul said the Civil Rights Act "undermined the concept of liberty" and "destroyed the principle of private property and private choices."

3. Mitt Romney did the unforgivable and used the "K" word when he said ". . . the gap between [Obama's] promises and his performance is the largest I’ve seen, well, since the Kardashian wedding and the promise of til death do we part." Arrrrggggghhhh !!!

4. Michele Bachmann claims to be "the new Margaret Thatcher . . . the American Iron Lady."

5. Rick Perry continues his pattern of unintentional outrageous comments. In describing the rough ride he's had these past few months, he referred to the "bumps and grinds" of the campaign -- and then repeated that "most campaigns have bumps and grinds."

Hmmm. What strip joints have you been hanging out at, Rick? "Bumps and grinds" -- is so old fashioned, isn't it? I thought pole dancing was the thing now.

6. The last thing I expected Newt to do was break down and cry. That's what he did, talking about his mother's mental decline and death. Well, tears worked for Hillary in New Hampshire, didn't they?

There you have it. It has been fascinating as political theater. It beats being obsessed with that family of K-people.

Ralph

What does it mean to lose a day?

2012-01-01T12:19:00.006-05:00

I was really worried about the poor people of Samoa, who went to bed Thursday night, December 29th and woke up on Saturday morning, December 31st. They just skipped Friday the 30th.

Not some science fiction plot but a rational decision based on Samoans' desire to be on the same calendar page as their trading parners in nearby New Zealand and Australia. So everyone agreed simply to move the date line so that Samoa was on the good morning side along with its neighbors, making it the first to welcome in 2012 instead of the last to bid farewell to 2011.

But what happens when you eliminate a day? Are you two days older instead of one? And what about wages for working people? Do they lose a day's pay? Does the government lose a day's worth of taxes?

Not to worry, really. The earth just keeps spinning on its axis, making sunrise and sunset without any concern for man's arbitrary beginning and ending of days. The cows don't care. Sea birds fly back and forth across the date line all the time without worrying.

But what of my more philosophical questions about being a day older or younger? It's the same as contemplating whether you get older or younger if you travel around the world in this direction or that one. Granted, Samoa didn't move, just the arbitrary date line. But we measure all kinds of actuarial data based on calendar day counts.

Actually there are no worries about this one either. It seems that 2012 is a leap year. February will have an extra day -- so it all balances out.

Except, it doesn't really. Because everybody worldwide will get the extra day. So, relatively, we're back to square one about the age of someone living in Samoa when they eliminated a day.

Trivia? Yes, but at least it changes the subject from what's happening in Iowa.

Ralph

Molly Ivins: "Please pay attention . . . "

2012-01-01T11:53:00.014-05:00

I leave it to Texans themselves to write Rick Perry's political obit.

Here, from an article in the Texas Tribune:

It’s been a long 12 months for Rick Perry. . .
He ends the year treading water. . . . Even if he pulls out of this, it’s been embarrassing for him and for his home state.
He took the family name out into the world and made a hash of it. Texas was still recovering, in some quarters, from George W. Bush's presidency . . .
Perry made a spectacle of himself in the debates, is spending millions in an effort to stay out of last place in Iowa and apparently wasn’t organized enough to get on the ballot in Virginia. . . .

If only my favorite Texan, the indominable Molly Ivins, were still here to verbally slay him as she did her former high school classmate, Dubya.

I heard her give the keynote speech for the annual ACLU dinner soon after he was (s)elected by the Supreme Court. She took the podium, surveyed the audience with mock seriousness, then reared back and declared: "My fellow Civil Libertarians. We are in deep shit."

And that was just the beginning. Of course she was right: the Bush tax cuts, two wars, Dick Cheney, torture, Abu Graib, two more conservative Supreme Court appointments, politicization of the Justice Department, economic collapse, and the assault on civil liberties in the name of "fighting terrorism." With Perry, we would only get more of the same . . . and worse.

Sadly, Molly Ivins died from breast cancer, so we'll have to make do with one of her choice observations from a couple of years into the Bush reign.

"People, when I tell you that someone from Texas should not be president of the United States, please pay attention."

Maybe this time, we are listening, Molly. . . .You'd have to be near stone deaf not to pay attention to the utter disaster Rick Perry is on the national stage, let alone giving him the power of the Oval Office.

He makes Bush look pretty good -- as do all the clowns on the GOP stage right now. Which is a measure of how low the expectations for a Republican candidate have sunk.

Ralph

2012

2012-01-01T00:05:00.004-05:00

Well, that's that. It feels like 2011 was a pretty bad year.

There were a few good things. Osama bin Laden is gone. The Arab Spring uprisings have brought major changes. The Occupy Wall Street 99% movement. It's only a beginning -- but a very important beginning.

We got rid of Don't Ask, Don't Tell. The Obama administration is no longer defending DOMA and will support positive legislation on marriage equality. Same-sex marriage became legal in New York -- and California awaits the court decision on ruling Prop8 unconstitutional.

And all of our troops are out of Iraq.

Voting starts in 2 days in Iowa. It looks like Romney is going to quickly capture the nomination. Then maybe all the craziness will quiet down as others drop out. Is it too much to hope that we could have a serious debate on the differing views between the two parties of the role of government? Perhaps some sanity and respect for science and reason could return to our public discourse.

Let's hope for better days ahead.

Ralph

Joke of the week

2011-12-31T08:32:00.003-05:00

Probably anyone reading this has as much Newt-fatigue as I do.

The obvious question then is: why don't I just stop writing about him? I don't really know. Maybe it's the same as Howard Fineman wrote yesterday: ". . . it is not enough for Gingrich to lose next Tuesday; they want to bury him and spread salt on his grave."

I admit to a bit of gloating at Newt's downfall, the glee of seeing a bully get his come-uppance. Of course, Newt being Newt, it's never his fault. His explanation to a group of Rotary Club members: "I can't do modern politics." Meaning that he can't bring himself to do the hardball, dirt-slinging attacks the others are doing; he's just too nice a guy who only likes to talk policy.

After I finished rolling on the floor with laughter, I read the rest of what Fineman wrote about that self-serving talk. Newt was contrasting the 2012 campaign with what he described as the "positive" [sic] campaign he waged with his "Contract with America" take-over of the House in 1994.

A generation ago, Gingrich was the master of media-based warfare. This year he was tossed about by the game: rocketed to the top and back to earth in one month. At the Rotary Club, he waxed nostalgic about the old days, recalling -- in a sanitized way -- how he had run a "positive" campaign to take over the House based on his "Contract with America."
"It was a positive, issue-oriented campaign that fall," he told the Rotarians. He said he had wanted to do the same in the presidential campaign but had been blindsided by how nasty and "cynical" the contest was. "We got off to a bad start," he said. "I can't do modern politics." A tired Gingrich suddenly looked the part of the college professor he once was.

The story line was self-serving, of course -- Gingrich is one of the nastiest politicians to ever approach a microphone -- but he did not figure out how to do on a mass scale in a presidential campaign what he had done as a congressional warrior 17 years ago. He could not industrialize himself.

Harrummmpppfff.

Fineman speaketh the truth. Not only did Newt perfect the black art of "modern politics" (meaning the negative, tear-down-your-opponent kind), he put out lists of negative words for all his GOP colleagues to use, instructing them how to practice the black art of negativity against the Democrats. Some have said that Newt is "the father of divisiveness" in Washington.

So, he may have failed in the 2012 version -- but actually what has defeated Newt is, as we all predicted, Newt himself. His "cosmic ego" and his lack of organization. The more people know about him the less they like him, AND he has no organization to do the necessary planning and tasks of "modern politics" -- because his staff all quit back in the summer.

Believe me, Newt's posturing as a positive campaigner was just that: posturing for political purposes. He knew he didn't have the money or the organization to win the other way. So he tried to turn that into an asset. He thought he could give the appearance of being above it all and get points that way. The trouble is: he isn't above it all. He's actually at the very bottom of it; he taught the others how to play dirty. And now they're turning it on him.

The truth is, they don't have to play dirty with Newt. Just remind voters of what there is to dislike about him by simply telling the truth. No distortions or exaggerations or lies. The truth about Newt is devastating enough.

Ralph

Volatile Iowa

2011-12-30T17:24:00.003-05:00

Three more days -- and we're acting as though it is really important. Well, it is . . . in that so much political momentum rides on expectations met, unmet, or exceeded in Iowa. In the long run though, as electoral votes, it's minor

But it's the only game in town right now (for those of us who don't watch football). So here goes with Nate Silver's projections as of today's latest polls (evaluated, adjusted, rated):

Romney 63%, Paul 20%, Santorum 11%, Gingrich 4%, Perry 2%, Bachmann 1%.

Compare with Dec. 18th: Paul 52%, Romney 28%, Gingrich 8%. So Paul's boomlet has had day. Now Satorum's having a slight surge, but Romney's surge is the big story.

That's how quickly these things can change in this early stage with so many candidates.

Oh, by the way, I didn't even know the Democrats were holding caucuses. But they are. And the Obama people have swooped into Iowa, hoping to ramp up their turnout -- hoping to surpass the Republican front-runner. That would be quite a feat of get-out-the-vote, given there is no competition and it's cold up there on a wintry night.

Ralph

And then there was Perry . . .

2011-12-30T15:06:00.010-05:00

I leave it to Texans themselves to write Rick Perry's political obit.

Here, from an article in the Texas Tribune:

It’s been a long 12 months for Rick Perry. The Texas governor started 2011 in triumph, at the peak of his political power, with a high gloss on his boots and a national audience of conservatives eager for just the tale he was telling.
He ends the year treading water. His boots — [which he named] “Freedom” and “Liberty” — might as well be named “Oops” and “Dang.” Even if he pulls out of this, it’s been embarrassing for him and for his home state.
He took the family name out into the world and made a hash of it. Texas was still recovering, in some quarters, from George W. Bush's presidency . . .
Perry made a spectacle of himself in the debates, is spending millions in an effort to stay out of last place in Iowa and apparently wasn’t organized enough to get on the ballot in Virginia. . . .
Texas likes to think of itself as a pretty tough proving ground for politicians . . .
Maybe we’ve been fooling ourselves. Maybe our preference in politicians is a regional taste that doesn’t translate to Iowa, or New Hampshire or, most importantly, to live television.

If only my favorite Texan, the indominable Molly Ivins, were still here to verbally slay him as she did her former high school classmate, Dubya. I heard her give the keynote speech for the annual ACLU dinner soon after he was (s)elected by the Supreme Court. She took the podium, surveyed the audience with mock seriousness, then reared back and declared: "My fellow Americans. We are in deep shit." And that was just the beginning.

Sadly, she died from breast cancer, so we'll have to make do with one of her choice observations from a couple of years into the Bush reign.

"People, when I tell you that someone from Texas shouldn't be president of the United States, please pay attention."

Maybe this time, we are listening, Molly. Only . . . I'm afraid you'd have to be near stone deaf not to pay attention to the utter disaster Rick Perry is on the national stage, let alone giving him the power of the Oval Office.

Ralph

In his now familiar gaffe-prone mode, he's done it again: When asked about the landmark Lawrence vs Texas decision by the U. S. Supreme Court, he seemed not to know what that was. He had no idea what the case was about and wound up talking about his opposition to big government spending. In fact, it was the case that made all state sodomy laws invalid. It was a suit against a law of the State of Texas, and it was struck down by SCOTUS while Perry was governor.

PS: Perry gets extra demerit points for his "Love the sinner, hate the sin" comment about gays. Can't people get it? It does not feel like compassion and love when you tell us our love is a sin. OK, so your holy book tells you that it is a sin. It also condones slavery and forbids you to eat shellfish. Do you follow those "words from God?" Spare us your "Christian love," please. No, we don't expect to lie about what you believe; we'll settle for you just shutting up about it.

Ralph

2012 VP

2011-12-30T01:28:00.002-05:00

Robert Reich, Bill Clinton's first Secretary of Labor, predicts on Huffington Post that Hillary Clinton and Joe Biden will swap places in 2012 for an Obama-Clinton ticket, with Biden moving over to Secretary of State.

He claims no inside knowledge, but here's Reich's reasoning:

1. Biden has always wanted to be Secretary of State.

2. A still struggling economy will be a negative factor, and an Obama-Clinton ticket would deflect attention from the economy and emphasize the foreign policy successes they have accomplished together.

3. Also, Hillary on the ticket would add some excitement and would shore up the progressive wing -- hopefully reuniting the fracture between Obama and Clinton supporters in 2008.

4. In would make Hillary the obvious candidate for 2016 and would give the Democrats the best chance to hold the White House for 16 years.

5. A recent Gallop Poll has Obama as the "most admired man" and Clinton as the "most admired woman." Hillary has topped the list 16 times since 1993, exceeding even Eleanor Roosevelt's 13 times.

Hillary has, I thought, been pretty convincing that she doesn't want any further political office; and I believed her. But this might just be an offer she couldn't refuse.

Ralph

Bachmann campaign implodes

2011-12-29T16:32:00.011-05:00

Michele Bachmann, the wonder woman -- "I am a tax attorney, and I understand how to fix the economy" -- can't seem to keep her own campaign staff.

She won the Iowa GOP straw poll last summer. But things went downhill from there, and she's now running last in her birth-state, except for Jon Huntsman who is not competing in Iowa.

Remember that Bachmann's chief campaign manager, Ed Rollins, quit her and went on to disparage her to the media. Then in October her New Hampshire staff resigned en masse. I understand she has had a near record number of turn-overs in her congressional staff. Is she a mean boss or do people on The Hill just not want to work for someone who embarrasses them?

A pro-Bachmann Super-PAC switched its allegiance the other day to Mitt Romney, which reminds me that a couple of weeks ago Bob Vander Plaats, head of one of the leading evangelical groups in Iowa, reportedly asked her to step aside. He then endorsed Rick Santorum.

And now her Iowa campaign chairman, state senator Kent Sorenson, has not only abruptly quit just days before the caucuses, but has very publicly gone to work for Ron Paul saying that Bachmann has no chance of winning Iowa.

If she doesn't bow out of the race following all this, then perhaps someone should contact hubby Marcus and help him arrange an intervention.

Meanwhile, Newt is trying to lower expectations (given that even Rick Santorum is polling ahead of him in Iowa) by saying his campaign can survive a 5th place finish. Since he has virtually no organization to get out the vote, he will probably be edged out by Perry for 4th place, with Michele bringing up 6th and non-competing Hunstman in 7th.

Romney is now in the lead, followed by Paul and Santorum, who is finally having his mini-surge. But the real last minute surge is none other than: Romney !!! Imagine that.

Ralph

Summing it up

2011-12-29T00:18:00.003-05:00

Here's the thing. If the anti-Romney forces could unite under one strong candidate, they would beat Romney, not only in Iowa but probably for the nomination. Romney has never polled anywhere near 50% of the Republicans and, with the exception of Jon Huntsman and Ron Paul, there isn't much difference among the others in terms of policies and positions.

The problem is that the non-Romney crowd does not have a viable candidate who can win. They either prove to be not presidential material (Palin, Bachmann, Perry, Santorum, Cain, Trump, Paul) or they have too much baggage (Gingrich) or they just don't catch fire with the voters (Huntsman, Romer, Johnson). Those who could have been The One (Daniels, Jeb Bush, Christie) decided not to run.

My conclusion here just prior to the start of voting is that it's Romney's to lose. Paul is leading in the Iowa polls and may win the caucuses. His base is loyal but too narrow to expand into winning numbers; and, if people start looking at his looney positions, his boomlet in Iowa will go the way of all others. Huntsman could possibly emerge as the reasonable, last man standing -- but only if Romney crashes, and that seems increasingly unlikely.

So, even though it has been a roller coaster of ups and downs, repeated four times, it's pretty simple in the end.

And that is a statement that begs to come back to haunt me. Please, just don't let it be Newt. Although Obama could easily beat him, I couldn't stand listening to his bloviating cosmic ego for another 10 months.

Ralph

Just curious . . .

2011-12-28T14:33:00.025-05:00

I just read a blurb that made me curious. And, no, this is not about the GOP presidential candidates -- but it also applies to them.

I really do wonder: What does it feel like to live in a fact-free world? A world where you can just make stuff up and never give a thought to whether it's true or not? Maybe it's a little like really immersing yourself in reading Alice in Wonderland.

There was a blurb about Donald Trump sending out the following Tweet: "What a convenient mistake: @BarackObama issued a statement for Kwanza but failed to issue one for Christmas."

I suppose this will be entered in the right-wing court of public misinformation as evidence of Obama's "War on Christmas." Listen for it tonight on FoxNews.

The pesky facts: In his weekly radio address to the nation, Obama and Michele wished everyone a Merry Christmas. And they attended church in Hawaii on Christmas Day. And that's not all. On display in the White House is the traditional, elaborately carved nativity scene. The Kwanza mention was a statement just like that issued by George W. Bush every year he was president.

So, The Donald, does it feel good to just say all that stuff? To know that you're feeding the paranoia of those who see Obama as the Devil? Do you really believe your blather about his birth certificate? Are there any limits to what you'll do to get attention?

Doesn't your hair get you enough attention? By the way -- has anyone ever told you that people are laughing at, not admiring, your god-awful "do?" Maybe if you got a haircut, that would get you a few more minutes of fame.

Ralph

Newt lies about first divorce

2011-12-28T00:06:00.004-05:00

Newt has been saying that it was his first wife, not he, who wanted the divorce in 1980.

Now a copy of the court file has been obtained by CNN, and it reveals that Newt is the one who filed for divorce and that his wife responded by asking the judge to reject his filing. In 1985 she told the Washington Post, "He can say that we had been talking about it for 10 years, but the truth is that it came as a complete surprise."

Further, Jackie had to petition the court to get him to pay temporary support for her and their two children, which he was refusing to do voluntarily. Her church held a food drive to provide food for them, and friends contributed to a fund to pay their utilities, according to Leonard Carter, a fellow history professor and treasurer of Newt's first political campaign.

Carter recently told CNN that he broke off his friendship with Newt because of the way he treated his wife in the divorce. And he quoted Newt as having said, when first telling him that he was divorcing Jackie: "You know and I know that she's not young enough or pretty enough to be the wife of a president."

This is CNN reporting this, not the tabloids. I believe it. In fact, I see no reason to doubt it, because it is so in character with the Newt we've watched all these years.

So here's my question to the family values Christians who support Newt: do you really believe this leopard has changed his spots? Or is he just clever enough to play the "redeemed sinner" card to gain your sympathy?

Here's another question: Does a truly reformed sinner, who is now a devout Catholic, spend millions at Tiffany's and give only paltry amounts to needy people? Newt talks a lot about his charities, but these are non-profit foundations that mainly promote Newt and his ideas; and serious allegations have been made about improper mixing of non-profit funds and political purposes. That's not charity in the Biblical sense, Newt.

Ralph

Sen. Ben Nelson (D-NE) to retire

2011-12-27T21:01:00.002-05:00

Nebraska's lone Democratic Congressman, Senator Ben Nelson, has announced that he will retire rather than seek re-election in 2012. I have mixed feelings about this.

He has been a thorn in the side of progressive legislation and has, in fact, sided with Republicans on many votes on bills having to do with stimulus spending, deficit recution, unemployment benefits, jobs creation, and regulation of power plant emissions. He voted against the final health care reform bill and against confirmation of Elena Kagan to the Supreme Court. His voting record is more conservative than that of several Republican senators.

Nevertheless, every Senate seat held by a Democrat is important to retain -- and there is no obvious Democrat in Nebraska who is likely to win in such a conservative state, unless former Senator Bob Keery would agree to make a come-back.

In a way, I say "good riddance" to a stubborn old man who thwarted many important votes. But I'd still rather have him keep the seat than let it go to a Republican.

Ralph

Bogus "war on Christmas"

2011-12-24T14:50:00.006-05:00

This doesn't rate as "something big breaking," but it's about Christmas; so I'm going to post it anyway.

Republican presidential candidates and right wing preachers and pundits have been ranting about Obama's "war on Christmas."

Thanks to an article on "Daily Kos" blog, here's a little perspective on that from a Public Policy Poll:

Question asked: "Do you believe that there's a war on Christmas?"
Answers broken down to identification as:

Liberal . . . . . . . . 21% yes, 68% no
Moderate . . . . . . 29% yes, 52% no
Conservative . . . . 61% yes, 21% no
Tea Party. . . . . . . 71% yes, 18% no

Nothing surprising here. What makes this article worth noting is the blogger's speculation that: It would be informative and probably hilarious to get a break-down, not according to ideology, but to FoxNews watchers vs the rest.

Remember the recent poll that showed FoxNews watchers actually were less well informed than even those who watch no news at all. Meaning that FoxNews watchers are blatantly misinformed by their news source. Meaning FoxNews lies.

And guess where you're most likely to hear about "Obama's war on Christmas!!" Right.

Ralph

Winding up the week . . .

2011-12-23T15:54:00.013-05:00

It's Friday afternoon. The House GOP leaders read the political tea leaves (or maybe it's more accurate to say they had the tea leaves flung in their faces) and engineered a vote to pass the 2 month extension of the tax cuts, postponing the real fight over how to fund a longer range extension. Obama has already signed it into law. Everybody is getting out of town for the holidays.

True to his odious form, Newt has criticized the bill that 2 days ago he said the House should pass. Meanwhile, his campaign coyly promises that they are just waiting "to unleash" Callista as a campaigner. I'm not sure that's such a good idea -- for Newt, that is. It will just remind everyone she was his mistress for years while he was still married to #2.

Romney has refused to release his income tax returns but has promised all college students that, if he is president, they will have a job when they graduate. With his wealth, he could afford to create the jobs, personally; but, in fact, he made his name in business by closing failing companies and eliminating jobs. And both his GOP opponents and the Obama campaign are going after him.

Ron Paul is in trouble for some newsletters that went out in his name in 1987 that have racist and anti-gay language. He has denied he wrote them or even read them, but evidence is coming out that he commented favorablty on the newsletter back then.

Rick Santorum received the endorsement from Bob Vander Plaats, the head of a prominent evangelical group in Iowa. Now there are allegations that Vander Plaats was shopping around the endorsement, supposedly asking for money to pay for publicizing the endorsement, if he gave it. The truth is probably somewhere between practical talk of how to publicize the endorsement and outright buying the endorsement. The facts are murky at this point; but it's said that he talked with more than one campaign about money, and one source's mention of $1 million as the asking price does seem excessive for stamps and tv spots in Iowa. And talking to several different ones about money before you announce your endorsement sounds suspicious.

[Added later: In all fairness, both Santorum and Vander Plaats say that there was no request for money. S. says VP did talk about needing money to publicize his endorsement, but there was no request for S. to raise the money. And there is also no clear evidence that any other campaigns were approached. So take the above with a few grains of NaCl.]

And Perry and Bachmann? They're soldiering on, with no prospects of winning. But Iowa is going to be between Romney and Paul, with Gingrich holding on in third.

Nate Silver's latest predictions of who will win Iowa: Paul 40% (down from 52% two days ago), Romney 38% (up from 28%), Gingrich 13% (same). So it's still volatile between Romney and Paul.

And that's the week that was. Unless something big breaks, I'll take a break for the Christmas weekend. Have a happy . . .

Ralph

House GOP really blew it

2011-12-22T11:17:00.012-05:00

Look what their own fellow conservatives are saying about the shameful political game the House GOP is playing with working class payroll tax cuts and with unemployment:

Sen. John McCain (R-AZ): "The Democrats are winning the debate. . . . It is harming the Republican party. . . . The payroll tax cut must remain in effect."

Sen. Scott Brown (R-MA): called it "irresponsible and wrong."

Sen. Bob Corker (R-TN): "Republicans are getting killed in the public opinion battle."

Karl Rove: "The Republican leadership lost the political battle."

Even Newt Gingrich called on them to go ahead and pass the 2 month extension. "Incumbent presidents have enormous advantages . . . What Republicans ought to do is what's right for America. They ought to do it calmly and pleasantly and happily."

The Wall Street Journal had a scathing editorial, "The GOP's Payroll Tax Fiasco."

GOP Senate leader Mitch McConnell famously said a year ago that his main task in the 112th Congress was to make sure that President Obama would not be re-elected. Given how he and House Speaker John Boehner have handled the payroll tax debate, we wonder if they might end up re-electing the President before the 2012 campaign even begins in earnest.
The GOP leaders have somehow managed the remarkable feat of being blamed for opposing a one-year extension of a tax holiday that they are surely going to pass. This is no easy double play.

Republicans have also achieved the small miracle of letting Mr. Obama position himself as an election-year tax cutter, although he's spent most of his Presidency promoting tax increases and he would hit the economy with one of the largest tax increases ever in 2013. This should be impossible.

And that is only the beginning of the opinion from this notoriously conservative editorial board. Further along, they refer to "the circular firing squad" and even warned against the possibility of "the return of all-Democratic rule."

Just a few weeks ago, they were still crowing about taking control of the Senate as well as increasing their margin in the House. That seems unlikely now. And voters can thank the Tea Party zealots in the House for that.

Both sides agree that the extension will get passed. For once, Obama and the Democrats stood firm. So this GOP power play -- for pure political points -- has already backfired and hurt the Republicans. Let's hope it hurts them very badly at the polls in November.

And let's hope the Democrats learn something from it.

It is possible to beat the Republicans.
Listen to the people, and we will win.

Ralph

Nate Silver's predictions for Iowa

2011-12-21T13:36:00.002-05:00

Remember Nate Silver's 538 blog during the 2008 campaign? He's the one who does amazing things with statistics, using poll averages weighted by various factors, to come up with predictions. He zoomed to the top of everyone's list of smart people in the numbers-crunching game.

He's now doing it for the New York Times, and his predictions about the Iowa caucuses are out. He not only gives standings but calculates the statistical chances of each person winning, using some kind of alchemy based on averages, trends, demographics, etc. For example, he gives Ron Paul a 25.7% share of the vote but a 52% chance of winning the caucuses.

That's right.

Nate Silver is predicting, based on current data, that Ron Paul has a 52% chance of winning the Iowa caucuses.

And who comes in next? Romney has a 21.3% vote and a 28% chance of winning, followed by Newt with 13.9% vote and 8% chance of winning, nip and tuck with Rick Perry at 14% of the vote and 7% chance of winning. Bachmann and Santorum trail at 2% chance of winning each.

Does it mean anything? Iowa is still particularly volatile -- but it's getting pretty close and this seems right with the trends.

New Hampshire: Romney has 75% chance of winning, with Paul at 12% and Gingrich at 10%.

For what it's worth -- at least it's fun for me; good soap opera.

Ralph

Meanwhile . . . .

2011-12-21T00:47:00.008-05:00

Just to keep things clipping along in the crazy world of the GOP primary:

1. Rick Santorum says, "I have no problem with income inequality." He says people who work hard and have good ideas and take risks should make more money.

2. Michele Bachmann, "I am not a politician. I am a real person. I don't even know how to be a politician." Uh huh. She's currently polling at 4% in Iowa, her "breakthrough" state. She likes to claim she's a real person. "I am 55 years old, and for 50 years I have been a real person." Wonder what she was the other 5?

3. Rick Perry is even dumber than I thought. In the last debate, he just tried to be cute, because he doesn't know enough to debate with the big boys, even these idiots. Yesterday, campaigning in Iowa, he said that his flat tax plan will eliminate standard deductions. Gov. Bobby Jindal, standing with him, stepped up to correct him, reminding him that his tax plan does indeed retain the standard deductions. Mind you, this is Perry's own plan, and he doesn't even know such basic facts. Remind me why former Rhodes Scholar Jindal is campaigning for him? Courting a VP nomination, perhaps? Sorry, Bobby, I don't think that opportunity is going to come along.

4. "Romney Contradicts Himself." That's the headline of a blurb on Huffington Post: Duh !! That's news?

5. Newt Gingrich accused Romney of being "purely dishonest." As opposed to being impurely dishonest . . . like you, Newt?

6. Sarah Palin stirred the pot, lest the faithful get complacent. "It's not too late for folks to jump in," she said. "Who knows what will happen in the future?" (wink, wink).

Just another exciting day in the race to the bottom.

Ralph

Just keep it up, GOP, and you're going to end up like Newt

2011-12-20T18:18:00.006-05:00

Newt went a step too far -- and caused such alarm in all the thinking people in the GOP (about 1%) that fellow Republicans are pouring money into negative TV ads against Newt. I think it was Newt's threatening to send the police to arrest judges that finally did him in. Yeah, the negative TV ads hurt -- but look at the stuff they throw at Obama, and he doesn't tank in the polls. With Newt, it's all true. You don't have to distort stuff. Just tell the truth about him.

Now the House Tea-Party besotted Republicans have (I hope) taken their own step too far in torpedoing the payroll tax cut extension bill.

Here is Republican Senator Scott Brown: "It angers me that House Republicans would rather continue playing politics than find solutions. Their actions will hurt American families and be detrimental to our fragile economy. We are Americans first; now is not the time for drawing lines in the sand."

President Obama used his strongest language yet in denouncing their failure to pass the bill: "I'm calling on the Speaker and the House Republican leadership to bring up the Senate bill for a vote. This is not poker, this is not a game. We have more important things to worry about than saving face, or figuring out internal caucus politics."

I must admit that my feelings are split on this. The payroll tax extension is badly needed. And I can't think of anything that will hurt the chances of those House Republicans for being re-elected as much as this.

Ralph

That didn't take long.

2011-12-19T13:16:00.022-05:00

Public Policy Polling reports: "Newt Gingrich's campaign is rapidly imploding and Gingrich has now seen a big drop in his Iowa standing two weeks in a row."

The Dec. 16-18 poll of likely Iowa caucus goers shows that Newt has now slipped back into 3rd place in Iowa at 14%, behind Paul at 23% and Romney at 20%.

Just two weeks ago, Newt was at 27%, then 22% last week, and now 14% this week. There's a margin of error of +/- 4% -- but we're looking at a trend in the same poll, so the error is less significant.

This plunge (it's more than a slide) is confirmed by an even more devastating plunge in his personal favorability rating. This is measured by the difference between those who have a positive view and those who have a negative view of the candidate.

Newt's Iowa favorability rating has slipped from +31% to +12% last week, and now to -1% this week. Yes, that's minus one.

So it looks like Newt's ride is following the same pathway as Bachmann, Perry, and Cain. The explanation seems be:

Going up: Newt's impressive performances in the last two debates, plus the voters' quest for anybody-but-Romney.

Going down: Focused scrutiny on his ugly past and his unsuitable character, plus the negative ads flooding Iowa, plus his lucrative lobbying for Freddie Mac, plus his own over-reaching -- especially his outrageous threats to take control of the judiciary.

A 32 point fall in favorability in just 2 weeks. He's dropping like a rock. Wow.

Exactly what he deserves.

Ralph

This may be it . . . Newt's over-reach and downfall

2011-12-18T12:34:00.010-05:00

On Face the Nation this morning, Newt doubled-down on his assault on judges who displease him with their decisions, those he has called "anti-American."

He's now saying he would be willing to arrest them "if they are out of line" and it becomes necessary, although he would prefer the impeachment process.

There is no question about it now:

What Newt is advocating is a violation of the Constitution and an affront to the separation of powers, a foundational tenet of our democracy.

In order to protect "an independent judiciary," federal judges are given life-time appointments and can be removed from office only by impeachment. They can of course be charged with crimes, as can any citizen.

Making decisions that displease a president is not a crime.

Seizing power over the judiciary is what fascistic dictators do. Even the power of impeachment is given to the congress, not the president.

An impeachment has traditionally been reserved, not for politically unpopular decisions, but for inappropriate behavior or malfeasance.

I've been waiting for Newt's megalomania to break out of his temporary self-restraint and bring him down. Of course, this may only increase his poll numbers among the ultra-conservative, Tea Party crowd. And he could wind up with the nomination, but this will kill his chances for being elected president.

If it doesn't, then our nation is in a more dire constitutional crisis than I realized.

Ralph

Can you stand one more about Newt?

2011-12-18T11:24:00.006-05:00

According to an article on Huffington Post based in part on an AP source, Newt was a popular young assistant professor at West Georgia College in Carrollton, GA before he ran for Congress.

But, much as he now touts himself as a history professor, it seems academia was not Newt's goal. Instead of climbing the academic ladder to achieve tenure and promotion to Associate Professor, he ran for Congress. Once he left for Congress in 1979, he never returned to an academic career. He had bigger and more lucrative things on his mind. Changing the world and becoming a historical personage needs a bigger stage than the West Georgia classrooms.

In fact, this article implies that he chose West Georgia College in part for the demographic makeup of Carrollton and its area, which he thought would be a good spot to try to end the Democrats' "century-long stranglehold on the 6th Congressional district.

This may or may not be true, but it fits with the patten we see over and over again with Newt. It's all about Newt's ambitions and grandizement, about his messiantic vision of himself as a transformative, historical figure.

A healthy amount of self-confidence and determined purpose is necessary to be a strong leader, but too much and you begin to see the kind of cosmic narcissism that reveals itself from time to time in Newt's character.

Rep. Mickey Edwards (R-OK), a colleague in the House, says of him: "I found him to be somebody who was primarily interested in his own advancement. ... Newt has had one primary interest for his entire public life, and that's Newt."

But it's really his tactics that are so odious. In a speech to college Republicans in 1978, when he was running for Congress for the third time and finally won, he said:

"One of the great problems we have in the Republican Party is that we don't encourage you to be nasty. We encourage you to be neat, obedient and loyal and faithful and all those Boy Scout words, which would be great around the campfire, but are lousy in politics."

He's infamous as Speaker for circulating a list of nasty words for his colleagues to use in their speeches and campaign rhetoric against the Democrats. Then he decided to get rid of then House Speaker, Democrat Jim Wright. He carefully plotted and for two years relentlessly pursued ethics charges against Wright until he finally got something to stick, and Wright was forced to resign for violating the rules about gifts and outside income (something to do with a book deal, if I remember right). In retrospect, the case against Wright pales in comparison with the ethcis case against Newt himself that finally brought him down and led to his resignation from Congress. And then there's his pursuit of impeachment of Clinton at the same time he was having his own affair with Callista -- whom he now wants us to accept as the First Lady of the Land.

Of course, we should keep in mind -- as Newt reminds us -- that he is a different person now that he has found true love and religion and has confessed and been forgiven for his past indiscretions. As he said in an AP interview this year: "I believe that I am a much more disciplined, much more mature person than I was 12 years ago."

Yes, but here's the rub. In 1985, he said much the same thing: "That was the old me – abrasive and confrontational. You'll see a change now."

Bah, humbug.

Don't trust someone who has to keep telling you
how much he has changed.

Ralph

A poll we can believe

2011-12-18T11:22:00.001-05:00

Here's one that is easy to accept:

A USA Today/Gallup poll taken last week asked: "Thinking about the 2012, which best describes you?"

Can't wait for it to begin . . . . 26%
Cant' wait for it to be over . . 70%

Me too.

Ralph

Dems Declare Victory on the Spending Bill

2011-12-17T12:26:00.008-05:00

The Senate vote of 67 to 32 passed the government spending bill, and the Democrats are calling it a victory. It seems that, at least on this one, they stood firm against most of the poison amendments the Republicans tried to attach.

According to Huffington Post's Michael McAuliff, here are some things about the final bill that got rid of things the Republicans tried to put in:

Prevents policy riders that would have restricted funding for Planned Parenthood and eliminated funding for Title X family planning programs, severely limiting women’s access to health care.
Prevents restrictions that would have reversed President Obama’s policy allowing family travel and money remittances to Cuba.
Saves 60,000 New Head Start slots created by the stimulus act and spends more than $550 million for the Race to the Top program.
Boosts the Student Aid Administration with nearly $50 million in new funding for loan servicing and collections.
Preserves the AmeriCorps program by stopping a GOP provision that would have cut the program.

Republicans are pointing to some things they got: delaying the phase-out of 100 watt incandescent light bulbs, putting some restrictions on funding for Obama's "czars," cutting the budget overall, and putting some restrictions on funding for the U.N.

These are not insignificant, but all considered it seems like a win for the Democrats.

On the other hand, concerning the separate bill on the payroll tax cut extension, the Republicans can claim a win in Obama's backing off his threat to veto the payroll tax cut extension if the Repubs insisted on forcing a decision on the XL Keystone pipeline approval. The final Senate bill on that extends the tax cut for 2 months and also forces a decision on the pipeline within 2 months. So it will all come back again in February.

The White House is spinning this as not a cave-in at all. It doesn't require the president to do anything that was not already planned -- it just shortens the time for the environmental review process. Of course, the unspoken thing is that the delay (in addition to their being a real concern about the environmental impact) would have taken it out of the presidential political process. Now it forces a decision during the campaign.

All in all, not as bad as I feared though.

Ralph

Newt's dangerous radicalism

2011-12-17T01:15:00.003-05:00

In Thursday night's debate, Newt Gingrich again brought up his plan to assault the courts that he deems "anti-American." He would subpoena and impeach judges and abolish courts for controversial decisions that he doesn't like. He received vigorous applause from the audience when he denounced the judiciary as "grotesquely dictatorial."

Only Ron Paul took issue with that, calling it "an affront to the separation of powers" and warning against letting the judicial system become a political football for partisan elected officials.

So is this just more of Newt's bombastic ideas? Not at all. We now learn that last year, through one of his non-profit foundations, Newt contributed $300,000 as start-up money to help build the movement that eventually resulted in recall of three of the judges in Iowa who voted to legalize gay marriage. It not only punished judges for a sound legal decision, but it politicized a judicial appointment system that was designed specifically to be based on merit and not politics.

Iowa has an admirable system: an independent panel selects potential judges based on merit, from which the governor makes his appointments. Then after a new judge has been in office for a specified period of time, there is a "retention vote" whereby a judge can be removed from office. It is intended to be used and, until this time, has been used, only to remove judges for corruption or malfeasance.

But in 2010, an organized effort by right-wing organizations -- sparked by Newt's help and including the hateful NOM --was successful in removing three courageous judges for a single decision that was unpopular enough with a conservative voting public. And they have vowed to get rid of the fourth judge next year when his retention vote comes up.

This is a serious erosion of our democratic government. Newt is a dangerous, totally unprincipled man. Don't let his facade of intelligence and plethora of knowledge fool you. The man is dangerous because he sounds so informed and so convincing.

Today over lunch a friend quoted what has got to be the most on-target description of Newt.

He's like a blender with the top off.

I think that needs qualifying though. It would not be just a mess of a fruit smoothy to be cleaned up. It's more like the blender is spewing forth toxic and corrosive chemicals that would cause great harm.

Ralph

"Newt Goes Off the Deep End"

2011-12-16T07:55:00.016-05:00

Huffington Post's headline about last nights' GOP debate: "Newt Goes Off the Deep End."

Yes, indeed, he did; but the crowd liked it, and nobody seemed outraged or challenged him. In full high dudgeon, Newt declared he would "get rid of the liberal, anti-American courts" (big applause). He claims that the Constitution's balance of powers does not, in fact, make the courts the arbiter of laws, so the Congress and the Executive must "take back the power" from the "anti-American courts." Specifically, he pledged to abolish the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals, to ignore some Supreme Court decisions, and to subpoena judges to come before Congress and explain their decisions when they displease him.

Since when does the president have the power to just abolish the court system because he doesn't like their decisions? Or to intimidate judges by grilling them in public hearings? This is the same Newt that a while back was likening Obama to a fascist. So now he wants to be a dictator himself?

Bachman countered Newt's saying she got her facts wrong (about his work for FreddieMac) by declaring that PolitiFact had said everything she said in the last debate was true (see Comment #1). Only problem: PolitiFact immediately sent out a tweet, saying it had said no such thing -- making her appear to be lying about not lying.

Huntsman said something refreshingly new: Illegal immigration is not the problem. In fact, the number of illegal immigrants is way down, which he says, is a sign of our terrible economy and Obama's fault. "There's nothing for them to come here for."

Romney attacked Obama for a weak foreign policy stance on Iran:
"A foreign policy based on 'pretty please'? You've got to be kidding."

It was quite a night.

Santorum wants to bomb Iran. Ron Paul: "We don't need another war."

Perry (trying to be cute since he can't be astute): "I hope I am the Tim Tebow of the Iowa caucuses."

Bachmann: "I'm 55 years old, and I spent 50 years as a real person."

Gingrich: "I'm very concerned about not appearing to be zany."
(This was actually a dig at Romney, who had called him zany.)

The only sane person on stage was Jon Huntsman: "I'm not going to sign those silly pledges. And you know what? I'm not going to show up at a Donald Trump debate."

Whew. At least Iowa will be over in 3 weeks.

Ralph

Newt's fall begins

2011-12-15T19:01:00.005-05:00

I agree with what you're thinking. I'm sick of hearing about Newt too. But for right now, I'm not able to suppress the necessity to blog about him. Especially when the news is good.

Two new polls out today, taken this week, show him falling from the lead in Iowa. In a Rasmussen poll taken on 12/13, he is in second place behind Romney (23% and 20%) -- which is quite a reversal from the same poll a month earlier, when Newt led Mitt by 32% to 19%.

That a pretty quick drop of 12% points -- sound familiar?

Significantly, his loss didn't help Romney. Paul got the most (up 8% to a solid third place at 18%). Bachmann and Perry also picked up some of the loss.

The Public Policy poll of Dec 11-13 has Newt neck and neck with Paul at 22% and 21% with Romney trailing at 16%. This also shows that Newt had dropped five point (27% to 22%) just in the past 10 days.

So it's still volatile. Which makes tonight's Fox News debate interesting (for those of us who like political drama, even when we don't like the candidates). It's the last one before the Iowa vote on Jan 3rd.

Ralph

Congress' bad polls results

2011-12-15T11:51:00.009-05:00

With approval ratings this fall ranging from 9% to 15% -- the lowest ever -- Congress members should be worried about re-election. Now comes more specific polling from the Pew Research Center.

"Do you want to see most members reelected?": Yes 20%, No 67%.
"Do you want to see your member reelected?": Yes 50%, No 33%.

"Which party:
. . . . is more extreme in its positions?": Rep 53%, Dem 33%.
. . . . is more willing to work with other side?": Rep 25%, Dem 51%.
. . . . can better manage gov't?": Rep 35%, Dem 41%
. . . . is more honest and ethical?": Rep 28%, Dem 45%

As a subgroup, Independents are even more dissatisfied: Only 15% want most reelected, while 73% say no; and regarding their own representative's reelection, only 37% say yes and 43% say no. That could be decisive in close races.

All incumbents should worry. Republicans should worry much more.

Ralph

Newt's "oops" moment

2011-12-15T10:29:00.003-05:00

Well, apparently it's not just big-mouth Newt himself that sometimes says outrageous things. His campaign staff has just made a big oops.

It seems that the Gingrich campaign web site posted an article from the Christian Broadcast Network News -- a puff piece about the wives of three candidates, Rick Perry, Jon Huntsman, and Newt Gingrich.

The only trouble was the headline: "A Tale of Three Wives."

On the Gingrich web site?

Oops !!

Ralph

WHY ? ? ?

2011-12-14T22:23:00.003-05:00

Once again, double headlines about Dems "caving" on one more issue -- and then another.

President Obama caved in and abandoned his threat to veto the Defense Appropriations bill because it contained language that would permanently enshrine the president's right to order indefinite retention of American citizens suspected of terrorism.

That's right: American citizens, arrested in the United States -- not in a war zone -- and held without trial . . forever, if the president so chooses. Since he threatened to veto it, Obama is not likely to use it, but what if Newt is elected president -- or any other one of the Republicans?

Our basic human rights (habeas corpus) should not be vulnerable to an unscrupulous, or panicked, human being, even if he was elected president. Look at the prospects the GOP is putting up right now !!!

And then, right on the heels of that cave-in came the announcement that the Senate Dems had caved in on the surtax on millionaires that was to balance the extension of the payroll tax extension.

WHY? WHY? WHY?

Because the Republicans did what they always do -- they just say no, and no again, and they just keep saying NO -- knowing the Dems will cave. It's blackmail, pure and simple.

In the case of the indefinite retention: no appropriations bill by Friday, and the government shuts down. Leave in the millionaires tax, that bill doesn't pass, and payroll taxes go up on working class people by $1000 next year.

But caving only increases the strength of the blackmailers the next time. I say: bite the bullet. Let the Republicans pay next November.

Ralph

Good news poll #2

2011-12-14T15:27:00.002-05:00

Add to the poll results I posted Monday, showing Obama leading both Romney and Gingrich in South Carolina and Florida, the following:

A Public Policy Poll in Virginia now shows Obama leading Romney 48% to 42% and ahead of Gingrich by 50% to 43%. Virginia went for Obama by 6% in 2008 but then elected a Republican governor in 2009.

It's too early for these to have a lot of reliability, but -- for what it's worth, things seem to be swinging in Obama's favor.

Ralph

Hate group member (naively) sports "Glee" t-shirt

2011-12-13T14:34:00.004-05:00

The Kansas-based Westboro Baptist Church seems to have little other purpose than trying to convince America that God is punishing us for accepting gay people.

They do this mainly by publicity stunts, like picketing funerals, holding signs: "God Hates Fags," "American is Doomed," and "Thank God for Dead Soldiers." Funerals they have picketed include those of: Matthew Sheppard, Elizabeth Edwards, Michael Jackson, those killed in the Tucson shooting, and several soldiers killed in Iraq. Any place they think will have photographers and TV cameras present.

This morning, one young woman showed up with her picket signs wearing a tee shirt from the hit show "Glee," arguably the most gay-friendly show on TV right now. HA !!

When asked by the photographer, she said she didn't know anything about "Glee," that it was just a tee shirt her sister had given her to wear this morning.

Not that it will change these people's mis-directed hatred, but it was a momentary lighter moment in one of the most tiresome bits of Americana. I have friends who live in Topeka, where the church is located and where -- for years -- they have had to endure their loud preaching and protesting from a down-town street corner on a daily basis.

Nor are they to be lightly dismissed. Last year they won their case at the U. S. Supreme Court, where they had been sued by the father of a fallen soldier whose funeral they had picketed. As most constitutional scholars agree, such protest is protected by the Right to Freedom of Speech.

It may be a right, but it ain't right. Isn't there also a right to privacy?

Ralph

Good news poll

2011-12-12T19:56:00.006-05:00

NBC-Marist polls, taken in South Carolina and Florida last week, have some good news for Obama. But, first, the Gingrich tide continues to roll three weeks before Iowa.

In South Carolina primary: Gingrich 42% - Romney 23%.
In Florida primary: Gingrich 44% - Romney 29%.

But here's the good news concerning the general election poll, pairing Obama one-to-one with each of them:

In South Carolina -- one of the most reliable Republican states:
. . . Obama 45%, Romney 42%
. . . Obama 46%, Gingrich 42%

In Florida -- a key battleground state:
. . . Obama 48%, Romney 41%
. . . Obama 51%, Gingrich 39%

Damn, that feels good.

Ralph

GOP nomination is now Newt's to lose

2011-12-11T09:34:00.009-05:00

I have some pride in my ability to read the political tea leaves. But I have to admit that I've been very wrong about Newt's chances of winning the nomination. I don't think I'm wrong about Newt and his character, his impulsivity, his narcissism and grandiosity, his divisiveness, and his often crazy ideas. But I have been wrong about his political and debating skills and specifically wrong about his ability to overcome all his baggage of affairs, divorces, and changing positions.

Last night, he more than held his own in the ABC debate in Iowa. Going in with all the guns aimed at him, he wound up scoring points rather than playing defense. He scored points by not dodging a single controversy he has created but by answering forthrightly, succinctly, and always staying on point. When others recited their talking points, Newt was like a laser, going directly to the core of each issue. I have to admit, he was impressive.

Conservatives who are looking for someone who knows how Washington works, who can stand up to the challenges, yet who speaks their language of ultra conservative views of government and can fire up the base -- this may be their man. At least for the time being.

In what should have been the most difficult moment for Newt, he triumphed. The question was posed to all the candidates: Should voters consider marital fidelity in making their choice for president? Each one was asked to respond in turn -- with Newt being the last called upon. The others all were somewhat cautious, answering along a spectrum some version of "yes, but it shouldn't be the only thing." Perry was at one end ("If you cheat on your spouse, you'll cheat on your business partner"); perhaps Mitt at the other end, simply talking about the importance of trust. Finally, Diane Sawyer turned to Gingrich and asked him to "close this out for us."

Gingrich's answer could not have been better (given the spot he was in). He first acknowledged that it is a real issue, that people have to feel this is someone they can trust, and that they have every right to ask questions about it and should. Then he acknowledged that he has made some mistakes in his life but said he is also now a 68 year old grandfather, and that he hoped people would look at who he is now and that he has been delighted at the way people are doing that.

I still detest the man but couldn't help admiring his skillful answers and his standing up with some grace under fire. That in itself gained him points.

Newt did nothing tonight to diminish his standing as leading by big margins in Iowa (and S.C. and Florida). He is not going to lose this nomination in the debates. With all his baggage, he still can give the impression of being the smartest and most mature one on stage. He has a talent for the zinger, delivered with the air of cool rationality. And he defends (with concise reasons) even the outrageous statements he has made -- e.g., his latest, saying Palestinians are "an invented people."

Probably the two most remembered lines of the debate will both be ones that hurt Romney. (1) In response to Mitt's painting Newt as a Washington insider, Newt waited his turn -- then calmly but with rapier-like thrust, simply turned to Mitt and said: "Let's be candid. The only reason you didn't become a career politician is because you lost to Ted Kennedy in 1994."

(2) Then, responding to Perry's misquoting from Mitt's book about health care mandates, Mitt said he was wrong and offered a $10,000 bet to settle it.

Which, of course, reinforces the image of Romney as part of the 1% and out of touch with most Americans. News commentators were quick to point out that $10,000 is 3 months income for the average Iowan.

Newt had a good night. I repeat: he will not lose the nomination in the debates. Will the establishment Republicans be able to stop him? Will his discipline and self-control be able to stay the course?

That remains to be seen. "President" Gingrich is terrifying. "GOP nominee" Gingrich should be a gift to the Democrats. I'm not so sure of that. He is a formidable opponent. And, further, the scary thing is that I'm not so sure we can still rely on him to self-destruct. He was certainly in masterful control of himself last night.

Ralph

David Brooks on Gingrich

2011-12-10T03:37:00.002-05:00

David Brooks is the moderately conservative pundit whom most liberals consider a reasonable man. He just happens to have a more conservative view of government than they do. So I was interested in his 12-09-11 column, "The Gingrich Tragedy," which he begins by saying that Gingrich comes closest to Brooks' own core political worldview of "using government in energetic but limited ways to increase growth, dynamism, and social mobility" as opposed to a conservative laissez-faire view that government should just get out of the way of private enterprise. This means that he would approve limited stimulus investments, some regulations, some government social services -- just not too much and preferably without setting up a bureaucracy.

He quotes some of Gingrich's past approvals and historical explanations: the Homestead Act that gave away land to people who would live on it and develop it; the railroad land grants that made possible the expansion of the U. S. railroad system; the public-private partnership that brought telephone service to rural areas.

Brooks further shows how, through the years, this enduring political philosophy has led Gingrich to support cap-and-trade energy legislation, universal health care coverage, efforts to combat poverty, and humane immigration reform. He is currently opposed to most of those, of course.

However, Brooks also recognizes Gingrich's faults as disqualifying. It's not so much his "shifting views and odd phrases" as it is his temperament and character.

From Gingrich's bombastic, rhetorical style to his temperament and character, Brooks faults him in comparison with Romney. Both are policy wonks and both have moved to the right as the party has moved to the right; but according to Brooks: Romney "seems to have walked straight out of the 1950s," while Gingrich "seems to have walked straight out of the 1960s."

"He has every negative character trait that conservatives associate with '60s excess: narcissism, self-righteousness, self-indulgence and intemperance. He just has those traits in Republican form. As nearly everyone who has ever worked with him knows, he would severely damage conservatism and the Republican party if nominated. . . . It's really too bad. We could have had a great debate about the progressive-conservative tradition. . . .

"But how you believe something is as important as what you believe. It doesn't matter if a person shares your overall philosophy. If that person doesn't have the right temperament and character, stay away."

That is a sober assessment from a careful thinker who would have liked to be able to support Gingrich -- but he can't. Just re-read Brooks' last paragraph. It says it all.

Ralph

The Silly Season continues

2011-12-09T15:59:00.013-05:00

More silliness and stupidity from the pack of clowns who would be president.

1. Rick Santorum, who famously insists that religion has a place in politics and in government, has now told the Des Moines Register that "science should get out of politics." Which prompted one blogger to recall the line from The Simpsons' School Superintendant Chalmers: "God has no place within these walls, just as facts don’t have a place within organized religion!” But do the American people really want a theocracy?

2. Newt Gingrich, who by his own admission makes millions of dollars giving advice "as a historian," has now mangled history by saying that the Palestinians are "an invented people" who have no right to have a state created for them. They are Arabs and could have gone many other places back when the State of Israel was created for the Jews who deserved the place, Gingrich said. And then he piled on, saying that President Obama's effort to treat the Palestinians the same as the Israelis is actually favoring the terrorists. Whew !! When Newt panders, he really does it big time. He was speaking on the Jewish TV Chanel.

Historian Gingrich needs to brush up on his history. Suffice it to say that the 1947 U. N. Resolution 147 did in fact recognize the Palestinians as a people and called for two independent states, one for Israel and one for the Palestinians.

3. Donald Trump is perplexed that 5 of the 7 GOP candidates turned down his invitation to a debate moderated by Himself -- despite his plan to endorse one of them following the debate and despite his claim that he may run against them as an Independent if the "right one" is not chosen by the voters. If there's someone with a more inflated cosmic ego than Gingrich, it is The Donald's. He seems to think of the debate as another episode of his TV show where he can "fire" contestants and choose the one he would hire.

4. Rick Perry's TV ad, in which he is dressed up like a wealthy rancher guy, in order to spew his anti-gay diatribe, has sort of backfired on him. First, it revealed the now much-publicized discord in his campaign staff, some of whom vehemently objected to the anti-gay text. But then it was shown that the jacket Perry wears in the ad looks almost identical to the jacket worn by Heath Ledger as one of the gay cowboys in "Brokeback Mountain." Nice touch (heh heh).

Perry gets a two-fer mention this week. He made another "oops !" In trying to explain his claim in this same ad that Obama is waging a "war on religion," he referred to the eight "unelected and unaccountable" Supreme Court Justices; and then he couldn't remember Justice Sotomayor's name.

5. Herman Cain -- can we still count him in our silly season? -- says he's considering suing those women who accused him. Careful, Herman. Let's hope you're just bluffing. You're not likely to win, and we might just hear more about your dallying.

6. Michele Bachmann? Is she still around? I'm sure she said some silly things this week. Frankly, I hardly even register her anymore. So I forgot what she said. I'm sure she'll provide me another chance next week.

Ralph

Income disparity

2011-12-09T00:19:00.007-05:00

We've heard the dry statistics about income of CEO's compared to their workers, about the growing gap between the 1% and the 99%, so much that it's all beginning to lose it's emotional punch. Yeah, yeah, what's new? It would be bad if we lose this opportunity to really do something about it.

So this blurb out today makes it a bit more personal.

The six heirs of the Walmart founders together have a net worth that is the same as the entire bottom 30% of Americans.

Yes, that is the way of capitalism. The wealthy benefit hugely from a system rigged in their favor. But is that what we want for out country? Is it even fair?

I'm with Elizabeth Warren:

"Nobody got rich in this country on their own. Nobody. You built a factory out there? Good for you. But I want to be clear. You moved your goods to market on roads that the rest of us paid for. You hired workers the rest of us paid to educate. You were safe in your factories because of police forces and fire forces that the rest of us paid for. . . .

Now look. You build a factory and it turned into something terrific, or a great idea. God bless. Keep a big hunk of it. But part of the underlying social contract is: you take a hunk of that and pay forward for the next kid that comes along."

They call her a socialist. First, that is not socialism. That is building a healthy nation. But what if it is socialism? It couldn't be worse than what we have now.

Ralph

Newt's Cynicism and Lies

2011-12-08T21:03:00.001-05:00

Pay attention, voters !!! Evidence is fast piling up of Newt's cynical lying and/or his cluelessness. I personally think it's a unique combination of the two: Sometimes Newt is just outright making up stuff and saying what he knows will excite his gullible crowd. At other times, he really doesn't know but has convinced himself at the moment that he does know and he does believe what he's saying.

A couple of examples:

1. The AJC's fact-check column gave him a "pants on fire" false rating for his claim about the food stamps program. He's right that more people are on the program than ever (isn't that what happens when people lose their jobs and their homes and have no money?). But he is dead wrong, and he's got to be cynically lying, when he says that people are given credit cards instead of stamps now and that some people redeem them for cash and take trips to Hawaii.

The truth is that instead of stamps or coupons, the program now issues a special debit card that can only be used for very specific food items, can't be used in restaurants, can't be used to buy alcohol, or even certain luxury foods. And no way can they get cash or go to Hawaii. That's just plain a lie. And Gingrich either knows it -- or he is just cynically repeating some outrageous claim from somebody's wild imagination.

2. Rachel Maddow skewered him for his retort to Nancy Pelosi in which he claimed that the sanctioning of him by the Ethics Committee back in 1995 was politically motivated. Just look at the House vote count that sanctioned him with a $300,000 fine: 395 to 28.

To be perfectly clear: 196 House Republicans voted to sanction Newt.

And this week conservative Rep. Peter King (R-NY) said that Gingrich is too erratic, too self-centered, and that he "does not have the discipline, does not have the capacity to control himself. . . . [If he is elected] the country and Congress would be going through one crisis after another."

This is a member of his own party who served under him when he was Speaker of the House. From the other side, Paul Begala wrote in Newsweek: "When I look at the economy, I think Obama can't win. When I look at the Republican field, I think Obama can't lose."

Newt is betting that the anti-Washington base he is pandering to won't be listening to either of these Washington insiders, however.

Just for safe measure, Newt made headlines of his own that swamped any such criticism by telling the Republican Jewish Coalition that he would appoint John Bolton as his Secretary of State. Now that is a headline grabber. And it did.

Ralph

PS: Liberal blogger Jason Linkins has perhaps the best, succinct words to describe Newt: "gaseous, grandiose, and divisive."

Etched in memory 70 years later

2011-12-07T14:09:00.013-05:00

Certain moments in history are so laden with emotional impact that not only the event itself, but also my circumstances and my exact location, remain etched in memory like an ancient insect preserved in amber. In retrospect, these all have to do with loss and fear.

September, 11, 2001. The twin World Trade Center towers were destroyed by terrorists flying airplanes into them. I was in my office waiting to see my first patient of the day, when I received an urgent and terrified call from home, telling me what was happening. It became imperative to get home and gather my family together for protection against the unknown enemy.

January 28, 1986. The Challenger Space Shuttle exploded 73 seconds after lift-off, killing the entire crew. I was standing on the 17th floor of my office building at Colony Square waiting for the elevator to go down to lunch when someone told me about it. Our mighty space program had flaws -- and suddenly we knew just how fragile human life is.

November 23, 1963. President John F. Kennedy was assassinated in Dallas. I was a second year psychiatry resident at Emory, sitting in a conference room in class with other residents, when the secretary interrupted to tell us that the president had been shot. A dream was shattered.

April 12, 1945. President Franklin Delano Roosevelt died from a brain hemorrhage. A large pecan tree had fallen in our backyard and was yet to be removed. It's wonderful leafy canopy, now horizontal, made the perfect "jungle" for the imaginative play of a 12 year old boy. I was there in my private jungle when I heard the news. In the South, FDR was credited not only with getting us out of the Depression but with almost god-like leadership through the fears and anguish of World War II. "The only thing we have to fear is fear itself." And now had had brought us within sight of victory, it seemed. His death revived all the fear we had experienced in those preceding years of war and worry, of loss and shared sacrifice on the part of everyone. Could we still win? Would we still be safe, without him? Was Truman up to the job?

December 7, 1941. A week before my 9th birthday. It was a Sunday afternoon, and I was visiting my cousins who lived out in the country eight miles from town. We were walking back toward their house along a sandy road, barefoot. That seems improbable in December, but I distinctly remember squishing my toes in the soft, warm sand. Or maybe I'm conflating a memory of another time, in summer. But we were definitely on that road when someone came running from the house, shouting what they had just heard on the radio: "The Japanese have bombed Pearl Harbor." What that meant wasn't immediately clear to a young boy -- but the urgent terror in that voice was etched in my memory and has lasted for 70 years . . . and counting.

Ralph

Krugman explains the GOP primary circus

2011-12-07T05:03:00.006-05:00

Paul Krugman, writing in the New York Times on Monday, stepped back from the details of the GOP primary circus to offer an explanation of what it's all about and why "Herman Cain was not an accident."

What he means by that quip is that Republicans have an almost impossible dilemma in choosing a presidential nominee. Despite the easy win that such tough economic times might ordinarily give the opposition party, they can't really seize the opportunity because their ideology demands exactly the wrong solutions for our time.

So, Krugman says, there are only two kinds of politicians who could make the cut in this situation: those who are totally cynical and those who are totally clueless.

Romney falls in the cynical category. He knows very well what needs to be done, but he knows that he cannot win the nomination if he takes that position.

"Mr. Romney's strategy, in short, is to pretend that he shares the ignorance and misconceptions of the Republican base. He isn't a stupid man -- but he seems to play one on TV.

"Unfortunately . . . his insincerity shines through. So the base still hungers for someone who really, truly believes what every candidate for the party's nomination must pretend to believe. Yet . . . the only way to actually believe the modern GOP catechism is to be completely clueless."

Krugman goes on:

"And that's why the Republican primary has taken the form it has, in which a candidate nobody likes and nobody trusts has faced a series of clueless challengers, each of whom has briefly soared before imploding under the pressure of his or her own cluelessness."

How to explain Newt Gingrich and his sudden surge? He actually is a hybrid of the cynical and the clueless. According to Krugman:

"He is by no means the deep thinker he imagines himself to be, but he's a glib speaker, even when he has no idea what he's talking about. And my sense is that he's very good at doublethink -- that even when he knows what he's saying isn't true, he manages to believe it while he's saying it. So he may not implode like his predecessors."

Krugman is recognizing what I've been saying about Newt. He has no core belief, no integrity. He's is a chameleon and totally unprincipled. AND he has the capacity to sound like he knows what he's talking about, even when he is just making it up. The difference is that he is able to convince naive listeners because he convinces himself, at that moment, that he believes what he's saying. This is what makes him dangerous, in my opinion. It is one of the hallmark traits of the sociopath.

Krugman wants to emphasize his larger point, however, which is that whoever gets the Republican nomination will be a deeply flawed candidate -- and could only be a deeply flawed candidate because:

". . . the fact that the party is committed to demonstrably false beliefs means that only fakers or the befuddled can get through the selection process."

And here's the really scary parting thought from Krugman:

"Of course, given the terrible economic picture and the tendency of voters to blame whoever holds the White House for bad times, even a deeply flawed GOP nominee might very well win the presidency. But then what?"

Well, my answer is: we have to make sure we don't find out "then what," and we can do that best by re-electing Obama.

Ralph

An easy solution

2011-12-06T22:37:00.003-05:00

A group of economists at the University of Massachusetts has reported that Corporate America is hoarding $3.6 trillion (yes trillion) in cash reserves. Since they are able to borrow the money from the Federal Reserve almost free, why not?

Of course, it's only prudent to keep a healthy level of cash reserves as a safety cushion. One of the problems in 2007 was that the reserves were only about $20 billion. These economists conclude that, even allowing for a massive safety cushion, at least $1.4 trillion could be quickly invested in loans that would stimulate jobs.

Here's their bottom line prediction:

By moving this excess into productive investments, 19 million jobs would be created over the next 3 years, bringing the unemployment down to 5%.

They say that getting the banks to do this would take both carrots and sticks from the government: a new round of government stimulus spending and a tax on the banks' excessive reserves. Neither is going to happen with the current stalemate in Congress.

To see such an obvious and easy solution at hand, and know that our dysfunctional political system precludes our doing it -- is very discouraging.

Ralph

The only poll that matters right now

2011-12-06T11:02:00.005-05:00

We're awash in early, probably meaningless, polls that change drastically week by week.

Here's the one that does have significance, here just 4 weeks from the Iowa caucuses (from TPM):

The latest poll of Iowa voters from the Des Moines Register shows that “More than 70 percent of likely caucusgoers are still up for grabs.” That means that despite Newt Gingrich’s lead, voters haven’t settled on a final candidate and the landscape could shift before the January 3 caucuses.

If 70% of those likely to go out on a cold January night in Iowa are still not decided, even despite their whirlwind romance with Newt, then anything could happen.

And, as we know from the past, more than in any other early voting contest, the organizational ground game -- who actually gets their supports to go out to the caucuses -- is what counts most in Iowa.

Callista might ought to hold off a while before she starts measuring for drapes in the White House.

Ralph

"Be careful, Nancy"

2011-12-05T15:17:00.005-05:00

Nancy Pelosi seems to be treading pretty close to an ethical boundary herself, in threatening to disclose confidential information from the House Ethics Committee. I want to caution her to be careful. At the same time, I'm eager to hear what she has to say, even if she shouldn't reveal it.

Here's what she has said thus far about Newt:

"One of these days we'll have a conversation about Newt Gingrich. . . . I know a lot about him. I served on the [Ethics] investigative committee that investigated him, four of us locked in a room in an undisclosed location for a year. A thousand pages of his stuff."

But isn't an ethics committee investigation supposed to be private? If she can really talk about it, or if it is subject to the Freedom of Information Act, why don't we already have it?

Pelosi further stated that, at one point in the investigation, it was so sensitive that she asked her husband to leave the bedroom at 3:00 am so she could talk privately on the telephone about it. She did tell the San Francisco Chronicle in 1997 that "he is such a hypocrit."

Gingrich was sanctioned by the House with a $300,000 fine for using tax-exempt money for political purposes; but Pelosi said she had wanted them to censure him.

Meanwhile, enjoy Barney Frank's comment:

"I did not think I had lived a good enough life to be rewarded by Newt Gingrich being the Republican nominee."

Let us hope that sentiment is not misguided. I don't even trust Newt to remain Newt and behave the way we have come to expect him to.

Ralph

Don't write Hunstman off yet

2011-12-05T10:57:00.006-05:00

Newt surges, Mitt's inevitability suffers -- and there are knives being sharpened to take Newt down. And, for those dissatisfied and still looking, there sits Jon Huntsman.

Despite his dismal poll standing (2%), there's other data. The website InTrade, where people actually "bet," not on who they like but on who they think will win. Huntsman is in third place at 6.2% -- a distant third, to be sure, behind Romney at 45,3% and Gingrich at 32.2%.

The far right think he's too liberal. He should be the moderate's second, if not first choice. But all Republicans want most of all to win. Huntsman should be that man. On paper, he would win hands down as best qualified, without Mitt's woodenness and objectionable flip-flops and without Newt's baggage and objectionable flip-flops.

But folks just don't warm up to Huntsman. He doesn't exude charisma or project the image of a bold leader, despite his success as a governor and as ambassador to China. Nor does he seem like a tough fighter capable of slaying dragons.

Maybe he knows it and is ramping up his feisty side.

Having made it known that he would not be participating in the debate run by The Donald, he added this line when questioned about it:

"I'm not going to kiss his ring . . . nor any other part of his anatomy."

Now that might get some attention from the crowd that loves a fight: David sling-shotting Goliath. And, for those still shopping, Huntman could be the man. And maybe the toughest opponent for Obama to beat.

Ralph

Least imaginative headline of the week

2011-12-04T16:51:00.004-05:00

The Huffington Post's headline writer seems to be suffering from Bachmann-fatigue and an exhaustion of creative ideas to catch our attention. Here's all he came up with today:

"Michele Bachmann Makes a Controversial Statement."

Perhaps we're to read that, not as vapid, but as ironic. Meaning something like: it would be news if any statement she made were not controversial.

Ralph

Newt surges in Iowa

2011-12-04T16:17:00.005-05:00

Newt Gingrich has surged ahead in the latest Iowa poll, which was conducted between November 27-30 -- after Herman Cain's drop in polls but before he announced he was suspending his campaign.

The results: Gingrich 25%, Paul 18%, Romney 16%, Bachmann and Cain tied at 8%, and Perry and Santorum tied at 6%.

Wise observers say it's still volatile, that the majority of voters are not that committed -- and we may see further changes. But frankly, I can easily see Gingrich winning the nomination now -- and I admit that I counted him out way too soon.

If he takes Iowa, especially if Paul knocks Romney into third place; and if he comes in a respectable second to Romney in New Hampshire; if he then wins South Carolina, as now seems likely; and add to that his strong lead in Florida at this point -- then the only way Newt fails to get the nomination is if Newt defeats Newt.

Maureen Dowd had this to say about him in today's New York Times:

"Newt Gingrich's mind is in love with itself. This is not a serious mind. Gingrich is not, to put it mildly, a systematic thinker. His mind is a jumble, an amateurish mess lacking impulse control. . . . Newt swims easily in a sea of duality and byzantine ideas that don't add up."

This was discussed on Christine Amanpour's "This Week" this morning. One of the panelists said that the problem with expecting Newt to defeat himself is that "he only has to be disciplined for about 8 weeks" to win the nomination. And Newt can probably do that. The implication being that his self-destruction would occur after he has sewed up the nomination.

Meanwhile, we'll have the appalling reality show of one flip-flopper trying to outdo the other flip-flopper.

But the most appalling thing of all is the prospect of yet another debate, this one to be moderated by none other than Donald Trump.

Jon Huntsman has declined to participate -- which gains him points in my book.

Ralph

Alternate Joke of the Week

2011-12-01T08:56:00.002-05:00

Herman Cain characterized the accusations of sexual harassment by three women, as well as a 13 year affair by another woman, as “a direct character assassination, pure and simple.”

Asked by the Fox News interviewer who he thought was behind this "character assassination," he replied that it must be the Democrats.

“I can only conjecture that maybe I'm the democrats worst nightmare.”

News flash to Mr. Cain: Get real, man. It's a toss-up whether you or Michele Bachmann would be the easiest opponent to guarantee the Democrats a landslide victory.

Ralph

Joke of the week

2011-12-01T08:54:00.001-05:00

Michele Bachmann:

"I'm happy to say I don't think that I've said anything inaccurate in any of the debates. . . . It's a high-profile stage and so I'm grateful that I don't think I've made a blunder."

When you stop laughing, consider this for Joke of the Year: Michele Bachmann ever being taken seriously as a presidential candidate.

Ralph

Newt: candor or calculation?

2011-11-30T11:36:00.026-05:00

I never trust anything that comes out of Newt's mouth.

However, he said something yesterday in South Carolina that made me wonder: are we seeing a new candor emerging, or is this just another phase of calculating what will impress voters?

I can see the wheels in that over-sized head turning: what people liked in Herman Cain was his seeming honesty and candor.

So now Newt will be honest and candid.

Here's what I'm referring to: He was asked to comment on some complex aspect of Obama's AIDS policy. Newt said that this was new to him and he didn't have enough information to answer her question.

"One of the real changes that comes when you start running for President -- as opposed to being an analyst on Fox -- is I have to actually know what I'm talking about."

People laughed, and he then added: "It's a severe limitation."

Woah, here, now. People speak truth in unguarded moments, especially to get a laugh. This may be one of those moments. That's a damning indictment not only of Fox but of his own role as a political talking head.

He's confessing to just making stuff up? -- as I have been saying for some time. It adds credence to the recent poll that showed people who watch Fox News are less well informed than those who don't watch any news at all.

But, you see, the thing about Newt is this: He wants you to accept him as he presents himself today, here and now, and to ignore what he may have been or said in the past. Forget his philandering and his divorces; he has confessed and received forgiveness from God. Who are we to judge? Past support for health care mandates? For bombing Libya? For a zillion other things that he now has a different take on?

Don't be petty. Accept the Newt in front of you now. That brilliant mind is way too busy to keep track of what he said in the past. He didn't really believe it then, so why should he remember it? And now? We're to believe him now -- just because it is now?

What a strange unhistorical position for a professional historian to take.

But it makes a sort of pathological sense when you realize that consistency and continuity require a cohesive self and some integrity. Newt has none.

As George Will would say: "Well, now . . . "

Ralph

The roller-coaster ride ain't over yet

2011-11-30T00:28:00.006-05:00

Consider this scenario over the next few months:

1. The cumulative weight of accusations by women proves too much for Cain's supporters, and they desert him. He drops out of the race, ostensibly to protect his family from further distress from all the publicity, which or course has no basis in fact, he says. Translated: his wife says "no way, you philandering SOB."

2. A majority of Cain's supporters go over to Gingrich, who is already leading by a big margin in Iowa in the latest poll. He swamps Romney, who comes in third behind Gingrich and Paul. Perry, Bachmann and Santorum come in at #4, 5, and 6. Bachmann and Santorum drop out. Perry has the money to continue, but everyone knows eventually his support will go to Gingrich too.

3. Romney and Gingrich duke it out in New Hampshire, with Romney winning by a slight edge, much less than he should have, so it's a defeat on expectations.

4. Gingrich beats Romney in South Carolina.

5. If Gingrich can survive the renewed scrutiny of his past, then he's on track for the nomination. There is growing reason to think he can survive it. Evangelicals like a bad boy who has repented and found religion. Confession and forgiveness -- as opposed to Cain's stout denials. They also give him a pass on the hypocrisy of impeaching Clinton -- because Clinton lied. But Gingrich confessed (years later, to be sure).

4. The anti-Romney crowd is desperate. The brainey Gingrich has captured the populist vote, but the insiders don't trust him and don't like him. They persuade Sarah Palin to jump in and try to capture the crown from Gingrich and defeat Romney.

What then? It could happen.

Ralph

Jon Stewart

2011-11-29T13:01:00.004-05:00

Jon Stewart had a good line, referring to the increasing use of pepper spray on crowds -- not only the police against the Occupy protesters but now California and North Carolina shoppers using it against fellow shoppers on Black Friday. Stewart's quip:

“We’ve suddenly become a people who use pepper spray to alleviate minor inconveniences.

"Pepper spray has become America’s new car horn.”

Clever. Says a lot with a few words.

Ral

It's going to be a very rough campaign

2011-11-29T00:06:00.016-05:00

Here we are, still 11 months from Election 2012, and already the Republicans have sunk pretty low in their TV ads.

Mitt Romney's first tv ad in New Hampshire has a video clip of Obama saying: "If we keep talking about the economy, we're going to lose."

The whole context of the ad is blaming Obama for the bad economy and for trying to avoid discussing it or fixing it. Now, we all know and have come to accept that it's going to be rough. I wouldn't be surprised if this had come from Bachmann or Perry. But Romney -- just out and out falsifying a direct quote? Where is his Morman morality?

Here's the full quotation from the 2008 campaign that they edited to reverse the meaning. Obama is quoting an aide to his opponent John McCain, and here's what he actually said:

"Senator McCain's campaign actually said, and I quote, 'if we keep talking about the economy, we're going to lose.'"

The ad attributes the statement to Obama -- and he is actually saying it -- but he is quoting his opponent's campaign in order to denounce it. With these same tactics and some diligent searching and splicing, you could probably create a clip of Obama saying: "Hitler is my hero."

The liberal media are exposing this -- but even the conservatives ought to be denouncing this kind of tactic. Distortions, hyperbole, ridicule -- of course. But intentional falsification? That is beneath contempt.

Ralph

New Hampshire primary

2011-11-27T11:06:00.012-05:00

It's been practically a foregone conclusion that Mitt Romney will win the New Hampshire Republican primary on January 10th. Second only to the Iowa caucuses on January 3rd, N.H.'s "first primary" state is always closely watched.

With Romney having been governor of next door Massachusetts, his presence is long-standing; and he is leading in polls 42% to 15% for Gingrich.

Nevertheless, today the Union Leader, N.H.'s leading newspaper, which always plays a big role in politics, has announced its endorsement of Newt Gingrich.

"We are in critical need of the innovative, forward-looking strategy and positive leadership that Gingrich has shown he is capable of providing. . . . We look for conservatives of courage and conviction who are independent-minded, grounded in their core beliefs about this nation and its people, and best equipped for the job. . .

"We don't have to agree with them on every issue. We would rather back someone with whom we may sometimes disagree than one who tells us what he thinks we want to hear."

But don't they know that Newt is just as big a pandering flip-flopper as Mitt? That everything Newt does is calculated? It's just that he's a lot smarter and his pandering often more subtle and couched in what sounds like superior knowledge. He's even clever enough to know, when he does flip on an issue, that it's better to just say "I was wrong, and here's why I changed," than to concoct bogus, obfuscating rationalizations for the old position and pretending that you haven't really changed your position.

He does know federal policy better than any of the other GOP hopefuls, and his mind is more clever and inventive. But he is often making stuff up or just outright lying. Doesn't the newspaper editorial board know that?

For example: today's Atlanta Journal-Constitution, which fact-checks politicians' statements, says that Newt's claim about the Dodd-Frank legislation was completely false.

Newt said that "Community banks are 12 percent of the banks right now and 40 percent of the loans to small businesses. And they are being destroyed by Dodd-Frank."

The AJC gives stats that show exactly the opposite. "Federal data show profitability has increased for community banks in the past 12 months. Community banks also have benefited from a reduction in fees paid to the FDIC as a result of Dodd-Frank."

That's the problem with Gingrich: he is so cock-sure and people think he knows what he's talking about. Throwing in those stats makes it sound authentic. But Newt has to know that he's lying.

If I were not a psychiatrist and therefore ethically bound to refrain from putting diagnostic labels on public figures I have not personally interviewed, I would say that he is a sociopath -- a very intelligent one, but a sociopath nonetheless. But I'm not supposed to say that, so I won't.

Ralph

A possible link?

2011-11-25T14:36:00.009-05:00

In the aftermath of a pleasant Turkey Day with family, I have just one brief thought to contribute here today. It was prompted by an article by economic columnist Edward Glaeser in the Nov. 20 New York Times Sunday Review.

Here's the fact Glaeser reported: Between 2007 and 2010, the number of working Americans over the age of 65 jumped by 16%.

Consider the difference between today’s extended work life and the average American work life during the mid-20th century in the midst of what was, in retrospect, a retirement boom. Again, the numbers present a vivid picture: from the ’40s to the ’80s, the percentage of men who were 65 and older in the labor force fell precipitously — from 47 percent in 1949 to 15.6 percent in 1993. By the 1980s, retirement at age 65 was nearly universal for American workers. Today, however, 36.5 percent of 65- to 69-year-old men are still part of America’s labor force. (The number of working women in this demographic is slightly lower.)

Another change: prior to 2001, most of those working past 65 had part-time jobs to supplement their retirement. Since then full-time work has been more common.

Here's my thought: It seems logical that this is a factor in the current unemployment rate for younger workers. If a person retires at 65 and a younger person gets that job, the retiring person does not go into the unemployed statistics. But, if the 65 year old decides to keep working until 68 and the job doesn't open up for a younger person, that younger person might wind up on the unemployed list.

So: why isn't this a factor in the rising unemployment rate and especially in the reported rate of joblessness? I don't mean the main factor, or maybe even a highly significant factor. But why isn't it ever talked about when discussing the job situation?

Glaeser discusses it briefly, only to dismiss the "lump of labor fallacy," in which there is a finite amount of work to be done and delayed retirement robs younger people of jobs. He says that instead older workers can afford to buy more things than retired workers, hence they increase market demand which leads to more jobs for younger people. Thus having more older workers actually increases jobs for younger workers -- so Glaeser says.

I can see that it might work that way in affluent times with low unemployment; but what about when we have a recession? Like now, when we have a shrinking market demand and high unemployment, because people don't have money or are afraid to spend? No market demand, no new jobs. So each job becomes more competitive.

Besides, it seems it would be different if (1) people delay retirement because they still feel like working and it will allow them to afford more luxuries, or (2) people delay retirement because they can't afford basic living expenses on their shrunken retirement fund and savings.

I'm a little hesitant to pit my "kitchen table economic reasoning" against the economic experts. But this makes sense to me.

Ralph

"What if it had been a 10-year old girl?"

2011-11-23T10:14:00.008-05:00

"What if it had been a 10-year old girl in the Penn State locker room that Friday night in 2002?"

That is the question that Daniel Mendelsohn asks in an Op-Ed article in the New York Times. Mendelsohn is an author and professor at Bard College whom I have long admired both for his fiction and his critical essays in the New York Review of Books.

Mendelsohn's writes:

"Does anyone believe that if a burly graduate student had walked in on a 58-year-old man raping a naked little girl in the shower, he would have left without calling the police and without trying to rescue the girl?"

"[T]he mind recoils at the grotesque failure to intervene more forcefully. How could a grown man have left the scene without taking the child with him?"

According to Mendelsohn, it's the underlying homophobia rampant in the sports world that leaves such a question "stubbornly undiscussed." When coaching assistant, Mike McQueary, came upon a senior coach raping a 10 year old boy in the locker room shower, he "left immediately," as he later described it, with his "brain racing" over the quick, tough decisions he had to make.

And the decision he made was to go home and talk to his Dad about it. The next day he told the head coach. It went up the university chain of authority: Head of the Athletic Department, University President. At some point, Sandusky, the retired assistant coach who still had gym privileges, was barred from future use of the gym. In others words: "Just don't do it here."

None of them called the police.

Of course, as Mendelsohn says, the difference is in the gender of the child.

Here's the way I see the underlying (non)thinking:

(1) To report a sexual assault on a little girl is to report a rapist.

(2) To report a sexual assault on a little boy is to accuse this senior coach of having sex with another male.

There's a subtle, but all-telling, shift in where the concern lies -- from the little girl in #1 to the senior coach's reputation in #2.

Or at least that's the emotional connection underlying the denial and cover-up. In fact, pedophilia is a separate phenomenon from homosexuality. The attraction in pedophiles is to a prepubescent child, more often girls than boys. That is what professional investigators have told us; but, at the emotional level, the mind recoils and we hear "male-male sex."

But does that make it less serious, less heinous, for a boy to be raped? Apparently the hierarchy in the athletic department and the university administration thought so. A previous charge against this same coach years before had been dismissed as "horsing around."

It's a terrible thing that happened, and the university failed miserably in handling it. But the very fame of the coach and the football team brings it into the spotlight of frank discussion that is long overdue.

Ralph

What Newt's surge means

2011-11-22T17:02:00.005-05:00

I have been so dismissive of Newt and have such an intense dislike of him that I have perhaps not recognized the real meaning of his surge in the polls, preferring instead to see it as just his turn to be flavor of the week.

Now he has edged ahead of Romney in four national polls. Careful analysis (by others) of the data shows that there may be some real substance to his rise. Whether this will overcome his very significant baggage remains to be seen.

Here are some sobering insights from the data:

1. His rise comes mainly from more conservative and Tea Party Republicans, while Romney's support comes from more moderate Republicans and Independents. In a Quinnipiac 1:1 pairing with Romney, Gingrich comes out 10 points ahead.

2. This suggests that if others (Bachmann, Cain, Perry, Santorum) drop out, Gingrich will be the main beneficiary. All of them divide the same voters that Newt is going after.

3. A major finding is that Gingrich comes out way ahead on questions about "knowledge" and "experience." On rating candidates as "most likely to understand complex issues," he leads Romney by 43% to 18%. And he leads Romney 36% to 20% as "most qualified to be Commander-in-Chief."'

4. All this suggests, to me anyway, that people are moving beyond the point where they like the "know-nothing," "say anything" bumblers. Maybe Cain's cluelessness about international relations was too much and made them realize that this is a complex world and the president needs to have some knowledge and experience. Gingrich seems to exude that, even when he is dead wrong.

This is getting scary. He could win the nomination. Aren't these the same people (conservatives and Tea Party-ers) for whom "social values" issues are most important? Of course, Newt has tailored his positions to appeal to this crowd (anti-abortion, anti-gay marriage, etc.) -- but REMEMBER, FOLKS, his personal life is anathema to your family values standards.

Here are the signs of hope:

1. The more people know about Newt, the less they like him. Curiously, as long as he's been around, I think he's going through something of the honeymoon period right now. Maybe his negatives will catch up with him again.

2. Newt's irrepressible excesses may do him in. As I wrote in a comment to my "Two Zingers" post yesterday, he's now proposing optional privitization of Social Security (which fell like a lead weight when Bush proposed it). And he's proclaimed that "child labor laws are stupid," and advocated firing the unionized school janitors and letting the kids do the work to earn money.

Think of Newt as a balloon (it's not too hard to imagine his figure floating above a Macy's parade) that gets over-inflated with his "cosmic egotism" to the point that it just explodes.

Ralph

The War of the Flip-Floppers

2011-11-22T10:35:00.003-05:00

Imagine that the Republican presidential nomination comes down to a final contest between Mitt Romney and Newt Gingrich (assuming Newt doesn't completely self-destruct through his excesses before then). We would then have a war between two men who outdo each other in changing their positions according to the expediency of the moment.

Both can be said to "have no core." The big difference, as I see it, is that Romney has an inner governor when it comes to rashness. Gingrich does not. He will say anything. I oppose many of Romney's conservative policies, but he would be steady and reliable. Gingrich would be a loose cannon.

His latest headline-grabber today: The Congressional Budget Office is "a reactionary socialist institution." Last week he said the CBO "actually constrains what people are allowed to think."

Compare this to 1995, when he was Speaker of the House and involved in budget negotiations. The L A Times reported at the time that he said the agreement to the use of CBO numbers is a significant step. At the time, he seemed to agree with the general acceptance of the CBO as a reliable source of facts and analysis. And that's when he was actually dealing with them directly as the Republican leader of the House.

In truth, the stated mission of the CBO is to provide Congress with "objective, nonpartisan, and timely analyses to aid in economic and budgetary decisions on the wide array of programs covered by the federal budget."

A former CBO Director, a Republican, called Gingrich's current claim ludicrous.

Then there is his claim that a health insurance mandate "leads to socialized medicine." In the past, he has advocated a mandate. Now he says, "I was wrong." But he doesn't exactly say what changed his thinking. So it's hard to draw any other conclusion than he's just adjusting his policy according to the voters he's trying to attract.

Ralph

Fox News makes you dumb

2011-11-21T18:21:00.005-05:00

A new poll released by Fairleigh Dickenson University has some really delicious findings:

"Sunday morning news shows do the most to help people learn about current events, while some outlets, especially Fox News, lead people to be even less informed than those who don't watch any news at all. . .

"For example, people who watch Fox News . . . are 18 points less likely to know that Egyptians overthrew their government than those who watch no news at all."

And that is after controlling for other news sources, partisanship, education and other demographic factors. The FDU political science professor who is the analyst for this poll confirms this clear finding:

"There is something about watching Fox News that leads people to do worse on these questions than those who don't watch any news at all."

Another interesting finding. On a domestic political question -- the political identity of the protestors in "Occupy Wall Street" -- the group with the highest percent of correct answers was those who watch Jon Stewart's Daily Show.

I love it !!!

Ralph

Two zingers

2011-11-21T12:36:00.004-05:00

OK, so it's been only 3 days since I backed off the fun of ridiculing individual GOP candidates. This one will be very brief. Just two zingers fired off on yesterday's tv news program "This Week With Christine Amanpour," referring to Newt Gingrich:

George Will: Responding to Newt's saying he only gave advice to Freddie Mac "as a historian," George Will (conservative pundit) snapped, "He's no historian !" And then he added that Gingrich is guilty of "absurd rhetorical grandiosity."

Paul Krugman (liberal pundit) was even more scathing: "Somebody said he's a stupid man's idea of what a smart man sounds like." Still, Krugman, conceded, he is more plausible than the other alternatives to Romney.

Ralph

Change the rules after the fact

2011-11-20T23:21:00.003-05:00

So, the Super Committee has thrown in the towel. They couldn't get the job done. The Republicans wouldn't give on increasing revenue and the Democrats wouldn't give enough to suit them on cutting entitlements.

According to the legislation establishing the Super Committee, that will result in automatic cuts totaling $1.2 trillion, half of which would come from defense and half from domestic programs, but leaving Social Security and Medicare out of it. It also means that the Bush tax cuts will expire, but that means all of them, not just for the wealthy. That was the agreement, that was the pressure that was supposed to make this work.

It didn't. And now Senator Jon Kyl (R-AZ) is wanting to change the rules. He says Congress will have to find a way to limit the cuts in the defense budget. He was one of the 12 chosen to be on this Super Committee.

No wonder it didn't work. They already knew they would just propose to change the rules. Both President Obama and Senator John Kerry (D-MA), another committee member, have strongly opposed that happening.

So nothing actually happened, and now we're back to square 1, with the triggered changes not going into effect until 2013 anyway.

Much can happen in this coming year. An election year.

Ralph

Clarence Thomas' ethical problems

2011-11-19T00:06:00.003-05:00

U. S. Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas is coming under increasing demands that he be investigated for failing to report his wife's income as required on the annual financial disclosure forms. In the past, Thomas has checked "none" in answer to sources of spousal income.

When questioned about it in light of his wife's well-publicized six-figure salary from the conservative foundation she started, as well as her tenure for several years at the Heritage Foundation, Thomas said that he had misunderstood the instructions for filling out the form.

U. S. Representative Louise Slaughter (D-NY) has written to Chief Justice John Roberts with additional information that seems incriminating that this could not have been an oversight or a lack of understanding of instructions.

It turns out that Thomas did report the sources of his wife's income from 1987 to 1997, first as head of the EEOC and then from 1991 through 1997 as a Supreme Court Justice. But since 1997 he has checked "none."

So how did he understand the instructions from 1987 to 1997, and then lose that understanding for the next 13 years? Could it have something to do with her political activities becoming more blatant and the fact that questions began to be raised about her husband's potential conflict of interests based on her work and her financial interests?

There are very important practical implications. Now that the Court has agreed to decide the constitutionality of Obama's health care reform, Thomas' vote on that case could be decisive. And one of the issues Virginia Thomas has been most involved in opposing is this very bill.

Not just opposing, as in expressing her opinion. She created a foundation dedicated to working against just such legislation, and was paid a six-figure salary by the foundation -- until the spotlight of publicity made that untenable and she stepped out of the nominal leadership position of the foundation. That does not remove the conflict of interest, in my opinion.

Clarence Thomas should voluntarily recuse himself on this case. If he does not, he should be investigated by the only group authorized to do so, the Judicial Conference of the U. S. The only other recourse would be impeachment.

Ralph

Don't mess with Barney

2011-11-18T00:05:00.003-05:00

Barney Frank has often been called the smartest man in Congress. I know at least that he has the fastest, most deliciously wicked wit. And Newt Gingrich has more than met his match.

A few weeks back, Newt bloviated about Barney 'helping to cause the mortgage crisis by failing to stop Freddie Mac from making all those bad loans.' He even went so far as to say that Barney Frank should be in jail for mishandling his responsibilities as a member of the House Finance Committee.

Now that we know that Newt Gingrich was actually paid $1.6 million as a consultant by this same Freddie Mac, he's got a few things to answer for. So far, he's having a hard time making people believe that he "merely gave Freddie Mac advice as a historian" and that he was not paid as a lobbyist.

Baryney let him have it today. In an interview with Chris Matthews, he said:

“Well, he’s just lying. It is, of course, lobbying. . . . He is clearly the highest paid historian in American history. People complain if you go into the humanities, you don’t make as much money, but this may do a lot for that career path."

Then, referring to Gingrich's defense that he didn't know the details of the amount he was paid, because it went to his consulting firm, The Gingrich Group, Barney added:

"Frankly, I thought the Gingrich Group were his wives."

OK, folks. I think that will satisfy my need to ridicule these clowns for a while. I'll try to think about some other things for my next few posts.

Ralph