Saturday, February 11, 2012

GOP surprises

Newt addressed the  Conservative Political Action Conference, trying to rouse up their support of him by saying, "We need to teach the Republican establishment a lesson."   Meaning, of course, thumb your nose at the GOP establishment and vote for me.

After Santorum's stunning 3 state victory on Tuesday, Newt's only hope left is to become the candidate of the conservative wing and the Tea Party crowd, amply represented here in the CPAC.

All the pundit talk has been about how Romney couldn't connect with this crowd, about his stumbling, no longer being front runner, etc.   Just this morning, Public Policy Polling released the results taken since Tuesday -- and Santorum has a sizable lead nationally, well ahead of Romney.  If there was anywhere you wouldn't expect Romney to do well, it is at CPAC, the more conservative wing of the party.

So, today the delegates at CPAC took a straw poll.  And the results are stunning.

Romney 38%
Santorum 31%
Gingrich 15%
Paul 12%

If Newt can't do better than third place with this crowd, I think he's finished -- unless his obsessive revenge keeps him going.

Former ally, Jack Abramoff, said of Newt this week:   "He has turned a second rate campaign into a first rate vendetta."

How to understand Romney winning the CPAC straw poll?   I guess they really, really want to win the election.

Ralph

Friday, February 10, 2012

Love it !!!

Callista Gingrich was qutoed as saying that "Newt golfs the way he does everything else."

Later, in an unrelated conversation, Newt said that he's "very bad at golf."

A little coordinating of message would be in order, methinks.

Ralph

The bishops vs Obama

There is good reason to believe that Obama would prevail in court over the Catholic bishops and the Republican conservatives who are using the controceptive controversy as a political weapon.

None other than Justice Antonin Scalia himself wrote the majority opinion in what legal scholars say would be the relevant precedent:  the 1990 Employment Division v. Smith.   This case involved a man who had been fired for smoking peyote, which was against Oregon law.   The man sued on the grounds that smoking peyote is part of his Native American religious practice.  The court found that religious liberty is insufficient grounds for being exempt from generally applicable laws.

Scalia's opinion stated:
“To permit this would be to make the professed doctrines of religious belief superior to the law of the land, and in effect to permit every citizen to become a law unto himself.”
The court later created a "ministerial exception" that exempts religious organizations from certain anti-discrimination laws in its hiring ministers.   Orthodox Jews would not be forced to hire women as rabbis;  Catholics would not be forced to hire gay priests.  But UCLA constitutional law professor Adam Winkler says this didn't change the precedent as it would apply to birth control.  “I don’t think there’s any real argument” about that, he added.

Obama might prevail in court -- but that is not the immediate concern.    How effective as a political weapon is this?   Can the Democrats reframe the issue and counter Republican demagoguery before it gets written in stone as evidence of Obama's "war on religious freedom?"   Will the majority of American people see it for what it is?

I'm not so sure about that.

Ralph

Thursday, February 9, 2012

An honest man

The opportunity doesn't come often, but every once in a while I welcome the chance to say something good about a Republican.  Today, it's Paul Ryan, the numbers crunching Chair of the House Budget Committee.

Speaking at the Conservative Political Action Committee convention today, he said this:
I know there are people in this town who are terrified at the prospect of an election with real alternative visions at stake. “Make it a referendum. Win by default," they say. "Just oppose – we can win that way. Don’t propose bold ideas – that’s too risky." 

I'll admit, the easy way is always tempting. But my friends, if that’s all we stand for, then what are we doing at here CPAC – the place where so many giants of our movement came to advance their boldest ideas? The next President will face fiscal and economic challenges that are huge, almost unprecedented. He can’t resolve these challenges if he wins by default. He needs a mandate – not just to displace Barack Obama, but to preserve and strengthen the very Idea of America.
That's brave to say to a group that seems to have staked out its position as simply to defeat Obama by making him fail -- not by proposing any ideas that are better than his.  Take note, Mitch McConnell and John Boehner.

So I admire Paul Ryan for saying this to this crowd.  It doesn't mean I agree with his ideas or would vote for him.  But think about it:   where we have come to if such a simple, straight-forward admonition is even controversial for a political party !!!

Ralph

Wednesday, February 8, 2012

This must be what happened . . .

So what happened to Mitt Romney yesterday?    How did the recently reannointed front runner stumble so badly that he was bested by Rick Santorum by 30% in Missouri, came in third behind Santorum and Paul in Minnesota at 17%, and lost Colorado by 5% after winning it by a huge margin in 2008?   Further, InTrade had predicted a 97% chance that Romney would win Colorado.

Well, I have solved the mystery.  Here's what happened:
Donald Trump endorsed Mitt Romney
That was on Thursday.  The following Tuesday, Romney lost big time to Rick Santorum.  It must have been Trump's endorsement that did it.   In people's minds, "Trump" equals "You're fired!!!"  So that's what they assumed was happening when Romney and Trump appeared together on TV.  The visual association was the kiss of death, never mind what The Donald actually said.

Ralph

The birth control brouhaha

The Obama administration has made it a requirement that employees of some Catholic owned institutions -- ones that are not primarily religious in their mission, like hospitals and schools -- must be provided with a birth control provision in their employee health insurance policies.  It has met with strong resistance from the Roman Catholic Church, as well as anti-regulation conservatives of other faiths -- and let's not forget the opportunistic politicians who just want another dart to throw at Obama.

Their point is best summed up by Cardinal Timothy Dolan, president of the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops.  "To force American citizens to choose between violating their consciences and forgoing their healthcare is literally unconscionable."

I strongly disagree with that characterization of the issue.  Cardinal Dolan is conflating apples and oranges.  No American, Catholic or otherwise, is being forced to USE birth control. 

In my opinion, the issue is utterly simple.  As we say, about another, similar issue:  "If you don't approve of gay marriage, don't marry a gay person."

They object because they say it violates their consciences to be forced to pay for others to have access.  I suppose they see it as forcing them to contribute to the sin of others.

Some religious groups have made the same argument about being required to serve same-sex couples in adoption agencies, and some agencies have shut down because of it.

They want to have it both ways.  They want to benefit from government grants that help them carry out their social service missions, and they want to be excused from the regulations that accompany financial support or that are legally imposed on everyone to benefit the general welfare.

Remember that they have already been exempted from such regulations for their institutions that are primarily religious in nature (churches, religious schools, for example).  We're talking here about teachers, administrators, nurses, pharmacists, dieticians, technicians, janitors, etc. in schools and hospitals.

Well, get over it, I say.  As a tax payer, I am forced to violate my conscience and my moral principles every time our government starts an unnecessary war, every time they execute a death row inmate, and when House Republicans use $1 million of taxpayer money in a politically-motivatesd sham to defend the moribund Defense of Marriage Act that the Department of Justice has declared unconstitutional -- all of which I oppose on grounds of my conscience and my moral beliefs.

Bah humbug !!

Ralph

PS:  Of course, the argument about birth control would become moot -- and many other problems solved as well -- if we eliminated employer-based health insurance and went to a single-payer, government-funded health care system, like Medicare-for-All.  Enough money would be saved in administrative costs alone to cover all the currently uninsured.

"Mittastrophe"

A "Mittastrophe" is how Huffington Post headlined the news of the Missouri, Minnesota, and Colorado primary events.    I might also add that the evening was also a Newtastrophe, although he was not expected to do well and wasn't even on the ballot in Missouri.

But Romney losing to Santorum by 30% in Missouri, by 5% in Colorado (where Mitt was expected to win easily), and coming in third in Minnesota with a dismal 16.9% is something of a disaster and stops the all-but-inevitable status he had returned to after Florida.   It's even more stunning because it was unanticipated.   There were few advance polls and no exit polling -- so when the results began to come in, the reality stung extra hard for the Romney campaign.

What does it mean?    The voters still aren't happy with Romney.   This week they flirted with Santorum, so they don't like Newt either.  Santorum would be a cake-walk for Obama.

I think what it means is that the chances that someone else will wind up as the nominee just went up astronomically.    Romney, Santorum, Gingrich, and Paul will continue and battle it out for the rest of the primary season.  In the end, perhaps no one will have enough delegates for the nomination, and they will have a brokered convention.   My prediction:   either Christie or Jeb Bush will be persuaded.   Or maybe someone else.   Daniels?   Pawlenty?   Jindal?   Petraeus?

Ralph