Herman Cain is the Clarence Thomas of Presidential candidates: a political embarrassment to his race, a really bad shaggy dog story that just won't end. Now, with the news that he has his own alleged sexual harassment story, the equivalent of his own Anita Hill, the analogy is complete.
Cheer up, Herman; Clarence passed through his klieg-lit trial of fire and got his big power gig, which he has managed to fill despite never making any public utterance for years, and so far is surviving a nasty piece of news about failing to disclose his wife's career as a paid lobbyist. He wouldn't seem to be anyone's idea of a brilliant Supreme Court Justice, except Herman Cain's.
I just don't think it's going to work for Cain to clam up this early in the process and shut out the media, which made him as a candidate.
Complete this series: Trump, Bachman, Perry, Cain....does the Anyone but Romney Right-wing Darling of the Month Club need to find a new flavor, can Cain survive after being banished East of Eden, or can one of the current flavors out there somewhere rise up from polltaking mediocrity? I would point out that Ron Paul is the unacknowledged heir to the title, as he is a solid third in every poll now (behind Cain and Romney). The difference is, Paul has staying power. The other differences are that Paul really represents something different, and that he is not considered a legitimate contender by most of the pros. His moment may finally be coming.
Monday, October 31, 2011
Friday, October 28, 2011
It Was Theirs To Lose, And They Did
I am reeling from the dramatic sixth game of the World Series played last night. The Texas Rangers had a 3-2 lead in games over the St. Louis Cardinals and the opportunity to win the series and gain their first baseball World Championship.
Playing on the road, the Rangers struck first, and, with the exception of a first-inning two-run homer by Lance Berkman, Rangers' starting pitcher Colby Lewis did well and gave his team a chance to win. Rangers' hitters produced repeatedly with big longballs and timely hits when presented the chance by Cardinal miscues, giving the team leads of 1-0, 3-2, 4-3, 7-4, and then finally, in extra innings, 9-7.
Somehow, the Rangers bullpen managed to blow all five of those leads. The worst was Rangers closer Neftali Feliz allowing the Cardinals to score two runs in the bottom of the ninth with two out to tie the score at 7. The indelible memory I will keep of the game was of Rangers outfielder Nelson Cruz drifting over, gloved arm outstretched for David Freese's long flyball, with the ball dropping a foot or two out of reach. Freese got a triple that scored the two tying runs, and the game went on.
When Josh Hamilton then hit a two-run homer in the tenth inning, it should have been over, but again the Rangers bullpen failed to seal the deal. This time it was less dramatic, with the balance of sloppy play now shifting to the Rangers' side, but once again the key hit came with two out and two strikes, this time a single from Berkman.
Finally, Freese put all of us out of our misery in the bottom of the 11th with a homer.
The word for the game is not "classic"--it was much too ugly for that--but something suggesting the manic excitement and sensation of risk of a roller coaster or a joyride in a stolen car. How about "cringeworthy"?
It is hard to imagine that the Rangers can put such a devastating loss behind them so quickly as to win the decisive Game 7 which will be played today. It would, however, fit with the improbable story line.
I should close by mentioning the most famous 10-9 baseball game prior to this one. It was Game 7 of the 1960 World Series between the Pirates and the Yankees, won by a walk-off homerun by Bill Mazeroski of the Pirates in the bottom of the ninth. I wasn't there, or barely cognizant, at the time, but the game appears to have had the same kind of topsy-turvy, back-and-forth dynamic (I don't know about the errors.) I'm not sure this will surpass it, because the truly decisive game is yet to be played, so in that regard it may be more like Game 6 of the Reds-Red Sox series won 7-6 by the BoSox by Carlton Fisk's homer, though I see that game as being more "classic" in terms of the quality of play.
Playing on the road, the Rangers struck first, and, with the exception of a first-inning two-run homer by Lance Berkman, Rangers' starting pitcher Colby Lewis did well and gave his team a chance to win. Rangers' hitters produced repeatedly with big longballs and timely hits when presented the chance by Cardinal miscues, giving the team leads of 1-0, 3-2, 4-3, 7-4, and then finally, in extra innings, 9-7.
Somehow, the Rangers bullpen managed to blow all five of those leads. The worst was Rangers closer Neftali Feliz allowing the Cardinals to score two runs in the bottom of the ninth with two out to tie the score at 7. The indelible memory I will keep of the game was of Rangers outfielder Nelson Cruz drifting over, gloved arm outstretched for David Freese's long flyball, with the ball dropping a foot or two out of reach. Freese got a triple that scored the two tying runs, and the game went on.
When Josh Hamilton then hit a two-run homer in the tenth inning, it should have been over, but again the Rangers bullpen failed to seal the deal. This time it was less dramatic, with the balance of sloppy play now shifting to the Rangers' side, but once again the key hit came with two out and two strikes, this time a single from Berkman.
Finally, Freese put all of us out of our misery in the bottom of the 11th with a homer.
The word for the game is not "classic"--it was much too ugly for that--but something suggesting the manic excitement and sensation of risk of a roller coaster or a joyride in a stolen car. How about "cringeworthy"?
It is hard to imagine that the Rangers can put such a devastating loss behind them so quickly as to win the decisive Game 7 which will be played today. It would, however, fit with the improbable story line.
I should close by mentioning the most famous 10-9 baseball game prior to this one. It was Game 7 of the 1960 World Series between the Pirates and the Yankees, won by a walk-off homerun by Bill Mazeroski of the Pirates in the bottom of the ninth. I wasn't there, or barely cognizant, at the time, but the game appears to have had the same kind of topsy-turvy, back-and-forth dynamic (I don't know about the errors.) I'm not sure this will surpass it, because the truly decisive game is yet to be played, so in that regard it may be more like Game 6 of the Reds-Red Sox series won 7-6 by the BoSox by Carlton Fisk's homer, though I see that game as being more "classic" in terms of the quality of play.
Monday, October 24, 2011
Two Sorts of Mideast Extrication
In a single week, the US' prospective global participation level dropped by a couple of messy Middle Eastern affairs. Former Libyan dictator Qadhafi was captured and killed near his home in Libya, effectively ending our military involvement there, and President Obama announced that the US will withdraw its military forces completely from Iraq by the end of the year.
At least for the time being, the events in Libya should mean an end to hostilities in the civil conflict. The NATO alliance had its most successful military engagement there, achieving its objectives with a minimum of fuss and casualties to the alliance's member forces. The future for the country is far from assured, but the result gives it a chance for self-government, and, after it reactivates its oil economy, it could gain a degree of prosperity.
In the case of Iraq, we didn't really have a choice in the outcome, though Obama was quick to accept the Iraqis' decision to request our military's complete departure, which allowed him to claim fulfillment of one of his campaign promises. There were discussions to change the 2008 agreement between the Iraqis' government at the time, more or less the same they have now, and the Bush Administration, which required this departure by year-end. The negotiations broke down on the issue of whether US military would be given immunity against prosecution for crimes against Iraqis. It's a very likely premise to wreck any such discussion, basically a fundamental requirement for us to occupy another country and an unthinkable notion for any self-respecting nation which has not just suffered the indignity of being conquered.
In other words, the only terms Iraq under which it could have kept significant US forces would have been a surrender of its sovereignty. Not surprisingly, getting our forces out was one thing all of Iraq's factions could agree upon. There are still real potential problems going forward, besides a clear possibility of a reopening of internal conflict: We will have a substantial number of CIA operatives and Blackwater-type consultants operating in the country, with risks both to those individuals and possibly to Iraqis, and the largest embassy in the world is an attractive target for terrorists. The powerful Shiite cleric Moqtada al-Sadr has threatened the embassy already, and there may still need to be a reckoning with him and his forces, if they destabilize the government or try to bring it too close to Iran's orbit of influence.
Although the circumstances and recent history are quite divergent, I'm struck by some of the similarities between Iraq's case and Libya's. Both countries' dictators were found hiding in holes and were rather brutally disposed of by their countrymen. Both countries are riven by tribal loyalties and breakaway tendencies from regions remote from the capital. Their national futures are cloudy but hopeful due to the potential oil revenues.
I'm beginning be to think there may some sort of Mideast multi-national political initiative in the offing, involving the nations recently liberated from their dictators (Egypt, Tunisia, Libya) and such possible partners as Iraq, Kuwait, Turkey, Jordan, and (if it can shake its bonds) Syria. Such an alliance could be a powerful counter-force against an intransigent Israel and could even pose a challenge to Europe, which has rather clearly chosen to draw a clear line to keep its predominantly Muslim neighbors at a distance. As always, the trick for the US is to provide influence in a positive direction to these nations, helping to lead them toward what they should want to do for themselves, without being seen too clearly as directing their behavior.
At least for the time being, the events in Libya should mean an end to hostilities in the civil conflict. The NATO alliance had its most successful military engagement there, achieving its objectives with a minimum of fuss and casualties to the alliance's member forces. The future for the country is far from assured, but the result gives it a chance for self-government, and, after it reactivates its oil economy, it could gain a degree of prosperity.
In the case of Iraq, we didn't really have a choice in the outcome, though Obama was quick to accept the Iraqis' decision to request our military's complete departure, which allowed him to claim fulfillment of one of his campaign promises. There were discussions to change the 2008 agreement between the Iraqis' government at the time, more or less the same they have now, and the Bush Administration, which required this departure by year-end. The negotiations broke down on the issue of whether US military would be given immunity against prosecution for crimes against Iraqis. It's a very likely premise to wreck any such discussion, basically a fundamental requirement for us to occupy another country and an unthinkable notion for any self-respecting nation which has not just suffered the indignity of being conquered.
In other words, the only terms Iraq under which it could have kept significant US forces would have been a surrender of its sovereignty. Not surprisingly, getting our forces out was one thing all of Iraq's factions could agree upon. There are still real potential problems going forward, besides a clear possibility of a reopening of internal conflict: We will have a substantial number of CIA operatives and Blackwater-type consultants operating in the country, with risks both to those individuals and possibly to Iraqis, and the largest embassy in the world is an attractive target for terrorists. The powerful Shiite cleric Moqtada al-Sadr has threatened the embassy already, and there may still need to be a reckoning with him and his forces, if they destabilize the government or try to bring it too close to Iran's orbit of influence.
Although the circumstances and recent history are quite divergent, I'm struck by some of the similarities between Iraq's case and Libya's. Both countries' dictators were found hiding in holes and were rather brutally disposed of by their countrymen. Both countries are riven by tribal loyalties and breakaway tendencies from regions remote from the capital. Their national futures are cloudy but hopeful due to the potential oil revenues.
I'm beginning be to think there may some sort of Mideast multi-national political initiative in the offing, involving the nations recently liberated from their dictators (Egypt, Tunisia, Libya) and such possible partners as Iraq, Kuwait, Turkey, Jordan, and (if it can shake its bonds) Syria. Such an alliance could be a powerful counter-force against an intransigent Israel and could even pose a challenge to Europe, which has rather clearly chosen to draw a clear line to keep its predominantly Muslim neighbors at a distance. As always, the trick for the US is to provide influence in a positive direction to these nations, helping to lead them toward what they should want to do for themselves, without being seen too clearly as directing their behavior.
Tuesday, October 18, 2011
Fruity Fisticuffs
I managed actually to watch the Republican debate tonight. There were plenty of potentially vomit-inducing statements, but also enough fireworks to keep my attention. The first set had to do with Herman Cain's controversial tax plan, where he dismissed concerns about his nine percent national sales tax being piled on top of existing state sales taxes by saying that was "mixing apples and oranges". Mitt Romney got him, though, by responding that "you get a fruit basket, with both apples and oranges, and Nevada doesn't want them". Cain's argument that low- and middle-class people would pay less under his plan "just won't fly", as Rick Perry said.
The real problems Cain faces were illustrated in that discussion. His program is simple and largely understandable, which makes it a problem: Cain can either disguise its regressive nature (which he's trying to do), or he can acknowledge it. He's a Republican, he may as well as admit it, and it is eventually going to come out that he is a former member of the Federal Reserve Board (it doesn't seem to have come up yet), and thus a card-carrying member of the moneyed elite--the group that would benefit most from his program.
The fisticuffs were between Romney and Perry; they were not thrown, but I'd bet a closeup would show they both had their fists clenched. Romney got slammed as a hypocrite by Perry for having had illegals mowing his lawn; Perry got back a dig about how he was just getting testy because he had "a couple of bad debates". Perry's look in response to that was purely feral; Romney got frustrated with Perry's willingness to get in his face and interrupt him.
Actually, though, the glove that did touch Romney was Rick Santorum's, with his accusation that Romney has no credibility in his attacks on "Obamacare", having been a principal in the development and legislation of a healthcare coverage law in Massachusetts that closely paralleled the Affordable Care Act. It put Romney in a difficult position of having to defend the success and popularity of his Massachusetts law while condemning Obama's very similar one. It will come back.
I was impressed with how lame all of the answers were for several of the questions: on foreign aid, on what to do about the foreclosures in Nevada, about the Occupy Wall Street movement, about what any of them possibly have to offer for Latino voters. But that was to be expected, I guess.
So, especially for those who couldn't stomach it, I must answer the simple question: who won, and who lost? Bachmann, whose answers were largely irrelevant except for a couple of appeals to emotional, conservative women, and Santorum, except for his jab at Romney, were further marginalized. Ron Paul got some good points in, but he is clearly not mainstreaam Republican. Jon Huntsman definitely lost by not showing up; his absence was hardly noticed.
Newt Gingrich showed that he is the best debater, but that it won't matter in the nomination battle--he probably did well enough to keep him in the race until the balloting starts in January. Rick Perry gained by keeping himself in the ring; he didn't make any friends, but his money will buy continued viability. Cain did enough to stay in the top three, but I still see his position as a losing one. Romney came in the leader and left as the leader, but he failed to knock Perry out, and he will be bruised in a long battle with him (more than if Cain is the surviving leader of the anti-Romney forces).
The winner, because his most plausible opponent's long-term position got weaker, was Barack Obama. Except for Bachmann, most of them were too busy attacking each other to say anything intelligent about Obama's shortcomings, and there will be more of this to come.
The real problems Cain faces were illustrated in that discussion. His program is simple and largely understandable, which makes it a problem: Cain can either disguise its regressive nature (which he's trying to do), or he can acknowledge it. He's a Republican, he may as well as admit it, and it is eventually going to come out that he is a former member of the Federal Reserve Board (it doesn't seem to have come up yet), and thus a card-carrying member of the moneyed elite--the group that would benefit most from his program.
The fisticuffs were between Romney and Perry; they were not thrown, but I'd bet a closeup would show they both had their fists clenched. Romney got slammed as a hypocrite by Perry for having had illegals mowing his lawn; Perry got back a dig about how he was just getting testy because he had "a couple of bad debates". Perry's look in response to that was purely feral; Romney got frustrated with Perry's willingness to get in his face and interrupt him.
Actually, though, the glove that did touch Romney was Rick Santorum's, with his accusation that Romney has no credibility in his attacks on "Obamacare", having been a principal in the development and legislation of a healthcare coverage law in Massachusetts that closely paralleled the Affordable Care Act. It put Romney in a difficult position of having to defend the success and popularity of his Massachusetts law while condemning Obama's very similar one. It will come back.
I was impressed with how lame all of the answers were for several of the questions: on foreign aid, on what to do about the foreclosures in Nevada, about the Occupy Wall Street movement, about what any of them possibly have to offer for Latino voters. But that was to be expected, I guess.
So, especially for those who couldn't stomach it, I must answer the simple question: who won, and who lost? Bachmann, whose answers were largely irrelevant except for a couple of appeals to emotional, conservative women, and Santorum, except for his jab at Romney, were further marginalized. Ron Paul got some good points in, but he is clearly not mainstreaam Republican. Jon Huntsman definitely lost by not showing up; his absence was hardly noticed.
Newt Gingrich showed that he is the best debater, but that it won't matter in the nomination battle--he probably did well enough to keep him in the race until the balloting starts in January. Rick Perry gained by keeping himself in the ring; he didn't make any friends, but his money will buy continued viability. Cain did enough to stay in the top three, but I still see his position as a losing one. Romney came in the leader and left as the leader, but he failed to knock Perry out, and he will be bruised in a long battle with him (more than if Cain is the surviving leader of the anti-Romney forces).
The winner, because his most plausible opponent's long-term position got weaker, was Barack Obama. Except for Bachmann, most of them were too busy attacking each other to say anything intelligent about Obama's shortcomings, and there will be more of this to come.
Man of Nor and Gold
My wife picked me up from work the other day very excited. "I found this great guy on the radio--he's a Socialist!" It turns out that it was my longtime friend, Norman Goldman, or as he gives his handle on his Talk Radio program "NOR-man GOLD-man".
For the record, Norm is not exactly a Socialist (not that there is anything anti-American about advocating some Socialism--it's not illegal anymore). His program, which is repeated frequently on the program and on his website, NormanGoldman.com, is a very simple, populist one:
1 Tax the Rich--Also
2 Stop Corporate Welfare
3 Downsize the Global Empire
4 Bring the Jobs Home
All pretty self-explanatory. He is a fervent backer of the new Occupy (fill in the blank) Movement. He castigates the "Republi-Cons"--a great coinage, "con" meaning not convict but "con men", and it's such a true description of the politicians of that party. I like it so much I'm going to use it as the label to identify my posts about the party's politics for the 2012 election--when I do, my tribute to his insight shown in that label will always be implicit.
You may be somewhat surprised, though, when you hear him light into the Democratic politicians, which he does just as often and almost as vehemently, because they are not true to their professed principles. He is looking for a New Politics, and he is trying to capture the 99%-ers' aims in his 4-point program.
When I met Norm, he was an intern in the City Planning Department of New York (I'm going to guess mid-80's); later, I knew him as a storefront lawyer struggling against the crooked lawyers representing the insurance and banking industries. He used to fill in for Ed Schultz sometimes in the days of Air America (have I got that right?), the attempt at Progressive Talk Radio that featured Al Franken for awhile. Some of the content, as you can see above, matches up well with Ed's, but his style is radically different: highly urban, educated, but also colloquial.
He's a big baseball fan (Cleveland Indians) and a great guy, a fine American, and I'm happy for him: he really sounds like he's having the time of his life. I wish him a long run, but we all should know he's up against some big opponents, taking on both parties as strongly as he does. Let's hope there remains a place for Norm on our air waves.
For the record, Norm is not exactly a Socialist (not that there is anything anti-American about advocating some Socialism--it's not illegal anymore). His program, which is repeated frequently on the program and on his website, NormanGoldman.com, is a very simple, populist one:
1 Tax the Rich--Also
2 Stop Corporate Welfare
3 Downsize the Global Empire
4 Bring the Jobs Home
All pretty self-explanatory. He is a fervent backer of the new Occupy (fill in the blank) Movement. He castigates the "Republi-Cons"--a great coinage, "con" meaning not convict but "con men", and it's such a true description of the politicians of that party. I like it so much I'm going to use it as the label to identify my posts about the party's politics for the 2012 election--when I do, my tribute to his insight shown in that label will always be implicit.
You may be somewhat surprised, though, when you hear him light into the Democratic politicians, which he does just as often and almost as vehemently, because they are not true to their professed principles. He is looking for a New Politics, and he is trying to capture the 99%-ers' aims in his 4-point program.
When I met Norm, he was an intern in the City Planning Department of New York (I'm going to guess mid-80's); later, I knew him as a storefront lawyer struggling against the crooked lawyers representing the insurance and banking industries. He used to fill in for Ed Schultz sometimes in the days of Air America (have I got that right?), the attempt at Progressive Talk Radio that featured Al Franken for awhile. Some of the content, as you can see above, matches up well with Ed's, but his style is radically different: highly urban, educated, but also colloquial.
He's a big baseball fan (Cleveland Indians) and a great guy, a fine American, and I'm happy for him: he really sounds like he's having the time of his life. I wish him a long run, but we all should know he's up against some big opponents, taking on both parties as strongly as he does. Let's hope there remains a place for Norm on our air waves.
Monday, October 17, 2011
Some Current Intrade Quotes
The wagerers at Intrade agree with my assessment that the rise of Herman Cain's candidacy (combined with the collapse of Rick Perry's) is the best news yet for Mitt Romney's candidacy. He had hovered in the 30-35% range on the probability of winning the Republican nomination until the last month; now he's given a 67% chance. Perry, who for a brief period was seen as having a better chance of winning the nod, still has second highest at 14%, Cain is at 8%, and the others are quoted at less than 5%.
In terms of the Presidency, President Obama's chances of winning the 2012 election are rated at 47%, while the Republican nominee, whoever it will be, is at 49.5%. Romney is granted a 34% chance of becoming the 45th President. Perry quotes at 7%, Cain at 4%, and none of the others are even close to that.
The betting is leaning heavily toward the view that each house of Congress will have a Republican majority: 77% for the House of Representatives, and 75% for the Senate. I am less convinced about this than the majority of Intrade wagerers seem to be, but more on this later. In what will surely be one of the highlighted races next year, Scott Brown's chances of holding his Massachusetts Senate seat for the Republicans next year has fallen sharply, from 65% to 35%, since the entry into the race of his nemesis, Democrat Elizabeth Warren.
Finally, on the Republican VP nominee, Marco Rubio leads the betting, but only at 27%--Cain is second at 8%. Rubio's chances are the only one of those I've named here that I'd actually bet on--even, from the point of gambling investment, Barack Obama's.
In terms of the Presidency, President Obama's chances of winning the 2012 election are rated at 47%, while the Republican nominee, whoever it will be, is at 49.5%. Romney is granted a 34% chance of becoming the 45th President. Perry quotes at 7%, Cain at 4%, and none of the others are even close to that.
The betting is leaning heavily toward the view that each house of Congress will have a Republican majority: 77% for the House of Representatives, and 75% for the Senate. I am less convinced about this than the majority of Intrade wagerers seem to be, but more on this later. In what will surely be one of the highlighted races next year, Scott Brown's chances of holding his Massachusetts Senate seat for the Republicans next year has fallen sharply, from 65% to 35%, since the entry into the race of his nemesis, Democrat Elizabeth Warren.
Finally, on the Republican VP nominee, Marco Rubio leads the betting, but only at 27%--Cain is second at 8%. Rubio's chances are the only one of those I've named here that I'd actually bet on--even, from the point of gambling investment, Barack Obama's.
Wednesday, October 12, 2011
This Month's Flavor Combination is Redneck, Black
If it seems like a contradiction in terms, it is. Herman Cain is surely the most outlandish idea for a Republican front-runner yet. He's never been elected to anything; his sole claim to fame was as the CEO of a mediocre pizza chain; his idea of a great Supreme Court justice (as he told David Gregory on Meet the Press this week) is Clarence Thomas; and his natural constituency is about as broad as Thomas's-the 5-10% of African-Americans (some 12% of the voting-eligible population) who like policies that are clearly directed against the interests of their own minority, and the people who think that our biggest problem is that we don't have a black President sufficiently willing to help the moneyed elite.
This blog will be coming up to its 666th post shortly; we will devote it to a review of the Republican field: the Devils we know, the ones we don't, and the other candidates for Antichrist; Cain's "9-9-9" will certainly figure into that discussion.
All I have to say right now is that Cain's ascendancy is a dream come true for Mitt Romney's candidacy. The one thing that would stop Romney is someone uniting the stop-Romney factions of libertarians, right-wing paranoids, and evangelicals (now broadly referred to now as the Tea Party faction of the party), currently split among the likes of Cain, Bachmann, Perry, Paul, and Santorum. If someone from that wing could emerge from the pack and pull together the various anti-Romney forces, he/she could pose a serious threat to what seems otherwise the most likely scenario: Romney's likely steady march through the primaries, competing and scoring respectably in all of them, drawing most of the support of the major party leaders, and winning big where the primary vote does not swing to the extreme right.
I absolutely cannot imagine those forces rallying around Cain. For one thing, if he somehow won the nomination, it would almost certainly provoke a split among the Republicans, ensuring their defeat, and even if it didn't, he'd get wiped out by Obama in a two-way race. I think Cain's best-case result is to win a couple of primaries, show up for a few more, and be in a position to take the second spot in the ticket if he throws his support to one of the other would-be Romney-stoppers. Even that seems unlikely: Cain's ego seems too big to accept the #2 spot, and I can't imagine any nominee, from any shade of the red spectrum, choosing anyone other than Marco Rubio as running mate (Florida being what it is, a huge swing state).
Unlike Perry, Bachmann, or even Romney, Cain communicates well, with forceful convictions, plentiful sound bites and ready formulaic answers, and with only occasional major gaffes. So it may not be easy to put his candidacy down, but it will assuredly happen--I'm guessing because he won't get the backing of the big money backers when the campaign shifts from retail politicking to expensive regional and national television.
In the debates, Bachmann, Perry, & Co. have a difficult task, as they must seek to undercut Cain's support but should avoid giving him the prestige of being the most prominent target. Attack on him for lack of public sector experience probably isn't going to work among this crowd. I would say Perry would have the best chance by showing how he's been able to manipulate Texas' legislature into giving him what he wants, and by having some semblance of a coherent national domestic and foreign policy. That's probably giving him too much credit, but surely his big bucks can get him some quality political advice, even if the Bushes and Roves of the party have turned him out. Much as I despise and fear Perry, I'm rooting for him to rebound and overtake Cain, as the best hope to stop Romney, whom I see as the only Republican candidate with a decent chance of beating Obama.
This blog will be coming up to its 666th post shortly; we will devote it to a review of the Republican field: the Devils we know, the ones we don't, and the other candidates for Antichrist; Cain's "9-9-9" will certainly figure into that discussion.
All I have to say right now is that Cain's ascendancy is a dream come true for Mitt Romney's candidacy. The one thing that would stop Romney is someone uniting the stop-Romney factions of libertarians, right-wing paranoids, and evangelicals (now broadly referred to now as the Tea Party faction of the party), currently split among the likes of Cain, Bachmann, Perry, Paul, and Santorum. If someone from that wing could emerge from the pack and pull together the various anti-Romney forces, he/she could pose a serious threat to what seems otherwise the most likely scenario: Romney's likely steady march through the primaries, competing and scoring respectably in all of them, drawing most of the support of the major party leaders, and winning big where the primary vote does not swing to the extreme right.
I absolutely cannot imagine those forces rallying around Cain. For one thing, if he somehow won the nomination, it would almost certainly provoke a split among the Republicans, ensuring their defeat, and even if it didn't, he'd get wiped out by Obama in a two-way race. I think Cain's best-case result is to win a couple of primaries, show up for a few more, and be in a position to take the second spot in the ticket if he throws his support to one of the other would-be Romney-stoppers. Even that seems unlikely: Cain's ego seems too big to accept the #2 spot, and I can't imagine any nominee, from any shade of the red spectrum, choosing anyone other than Marco Rubio as running mate (Florida being what it is, a huge swing state).
Unlike Perry, Bachmann, or even Romney, Cain communicates well, with forceful convictions, plentiful sound bites and ready formulaic answers, and with only occasional major gaffes. So it may not be easy to put his candidacy down, but it will assuredly happen--I'm guessing because he won't get the backing of the big money backers when the campaign shifts from retail politicking to expensive regional and national television.
In the debates, Bachmann, Perry, & Co. have a difficult task, as they must seek to undercut Cain's support but should avoid giving him the prestige of being the most prominent target. Attack on him for lack of public sector experience probably isn't going to work among this crowd. I would say Perry would have the best chance by showing how he's been able to manipulate Texas' legislature into giving him what he wants, and by having some semblance of a coherent national domestic and foreign policy. That's probably giving him too much credit, but surely his big bucks can get him some quality political advice, even if the Bushes and Roves of the party have turned him out. Much as I despise and fear Perry, I'm rooting for him to rebound and overtake Cain, as the best hope to stop Romney, whom I see as the only Republican candidate with a decent chance of beating Obama.
Sunday, October 09, 2011
Jobs, Jobs, Jobs
President Obama's American Jobs Act legislation failed to get close to the 60 votes it would need to move to debate on the floor. It will come back in pieces, and a few of them may eventually be passed. I'm thinking that the payroll tax cut (tax cuts are always welcomed by both parties), probably the portion for building and modernizing schools and hospitals, and perhaps the incentive for hiring will pass in some form resembling the one that Obama originally proposed. The revenue piece designed to offset this spending, raising increase in tax rates for the wealthiest, will not, of course.
I'm not sure that the result will achieve any of the objectives: most importantly, employment may be bumped up a notch or two (or a bump down may be offset), but it seems certain the official rate of those without will still be upwards of 8% on Election Day 2012. The record of the vote will be a mushy political weapon: many Senators, even many Democrats, had things they didn't like in such a multi-faceted piece of legislation, and a couple of Democrats even voted against it—others indicated they might have voted against it if it had reached the floor. Obama will certainly be able to claim that he has been hamstrung by a “do-nothing Congress”, a claim which may resonate but will not necessarily buy him, or his party, much in the way of political gain.
Following my general observance of the Talking Heads' Psycho-killer philosophy (“Say something once, why say it again?”) I will not go into too much detail, but I will refer you to one of my better posts, two years ago this month, in which I diagnosed and prescribed for this jobless recovery.
I will repeat and expand my suggestion that the Federal government provide sponsorship for community programs which would restore neighborhoods ravaged by foreclosure and abandonment. Banks should be required to provide support, in the form of contribution of some percentage of owned real estate properties to be turned over and sold for public benefit or conversion to public low-income housing, as well as wages for skilled and unskilled labor doing the restoring. In return, they should get CRA (Community Reinvestment Act) credit, improved value on neighboring properties to which they would retain ownership, and tax deductions for their expenses. It's the least they should be required to do, and it might improve the public's view of their utility and relieve the pressure on them (see below).
Occupy: Is it all about Occupation?
The Chicago Tribune posted me to this site, which lists the “demands” of the Occupy Chicago movement, as follows (I could not find on the site that these “proposed demands” were actually adopted, but I assume they were):
My comments. I really only oppose the last one, which is impracticable and basically an unconstitutional confiscation of legitimate debt (“only” some $900 billion, they say), and #8, which would excessively limit the right of employment for public servants. I would favor some limited version of that one, in which incoming public servants would agree not to work for certain specified companies or narrow industry code definitions for some period of time (like 5 years), and I would favor some legislated reduction of the debt burden for many student borrowers.
On the other hand, I strongly support #9, #7, #4, and #2, although they might require major legislation (thus, unlikely to happen anytime soon) and #9 or #4 might require a Constituional amendment. I strongly support #10 and #11, though I think they have no chance with either party. I support #1, though I think its importance is overstated; it was seriously considered for the Financial Reform legislation in 2010 but other areas were considered more critical, with good reason. #6, #5, and #3 are commendable in intent but too vague to have much meaning (except the Buffett rule, which I support).
What's missing is anything that would create any jobs, though I admit I'm not sanguine about the chances of any political argument claiming to do that on a lasting basis and large scale here. I think it's a fair criticism to suggest that the Occupy Chicago movement isn't really that interested in getting jobs for its participants (who, clearly, have none)—not that they have to seek them. It just might make the movement a bit more appealing to the working stiffs that make up a good portion of the 99% they suggest that they represent.
And Then There's Mr. Jobs Himself
It's time for me to pay my respects to the late Steve Jobs. First, I must express my sympathy for his family and friends, and my admiration for his determined efforts to carry on despite his debilitating and painful disease.
Respects is most of what I will pay, though; I'm excessively proud of the fact that I don't think I've ever directly paid for any of his products. I find them too expensive for what they do, most of which I don't need. I keep waiting for the price of his laptops to come into range, and they haven't followed the usual pattern. I got an iPod for one of my round-number birthdays from my sister: I said (and say) “thanks”, but I didn't use it much and eventually gave it to my daughter, who appreciates and needs it more. OK, I may buy an iPad before too long if the price comes into line (maybe that's more likely than their laptops' prices do).
What I did do, a few months ago, was buy a few shares. There's no doubt that Apple has the consuming public, and the investment market, too, in thraldom. Not even Jobs' demise could derail the stock, and that was what I was counting upon.
I may not be a big fan of Apple's products, but there's no denying the transformation he brought about, in this country and beyond. Is it healthy? I don't know, but it's certainly what we'd call “progress”, and that should be appealing to a progressive like me.
I haven't done a study of the jobs he's created, but there must be a lot (maybe even in the US). He's certainly created a lot of wealth here, and that shouldn't be a bad thing. Finally, let's salute his success--supposed by Fitzgerald to be rare in America--in performing a hugely successful second act--and third--for himself!
I'm not sure that the result will achieve any of the objectives: most importantly, employment may be bumped up a notch or two (or a bump down may be offset), but it seems certain the official rate of those without will still be upwards of 8% on Election Day 2012. The record of the vote will be a mushy political weapon: many Senators, even many Democrats, had things they didn't like in such a multi-faceted piece of legislation, and a couple of Democrats even voted against it—others indicated they might have voted against it if it had reached the floor. Obama will certainly be able to claim that he has been hamstrung by a “do-nothing Congress”, a claim which may resonate but will not necessarily buy him, or his party, much in the way of political gain.
Following my general observance of the Talking Heads' Psycho-killer philosophy (“Say something once, why say it again?”) I will not go into too much detail, but I will refer you to one of my better posts, two years ago this month, in which I diagnosed and prescribed for this jobless recovery.
I will repeat and expand my suggestion that the Federal government provide sponsorship for community programs which would restore neighborhoods ravaged by foreclosure and abandonment. Banks should be required to provide support, in the form of contribution of some percentage of owned real estate properties to be turned over and sold for public benefit or conversion to public low-income housing, as well as wages for skilled and unskilled labor doing the restoring. In return, they should get CRA (Community Reinvestment Act) credit, improved value on neighboring properties to which they would retain ownership, and tax deductions for their expenses. It's the least they should be required to do, and it might improve the public's view of their utility and relieve the pressure on them (see below).
Occupy: Is it all about Occupation?
The Chicago Tribune posted me to this site, which lists the “demands” of the Occupy Chicago movement, as follows (I could not find on the site that these “proposed demands” were actually adopted, but I assume they were):
1. Pass a bill to reinstate Glass-Steagall, a safeguard separating banks' commercial lending and investment operations. “Its repeal in 1999 is considerted the major cause of the global financial meltdown of 2008-09”, the group states.
2. Repeal Bush-era tax cuts.
3. Prosecute “the Wall Street criminals who clearly broke the law and helped cause the 2008 financial crisis.”
4. Overturn the Supreme Court decision allowing corporations “to contribute unlimited amounts of money to campaigns”.
5. Pass the Warren Buffett rule on fair taxation, close corporate tax loopholes, prohibit hiding funds offshore.
6. Give the Securities and Exchange Commission stricter regulatory power, strengthen the Consumer Protection bureau and help victims of predatory lending whose home loans have been foreclosed.
7. Take steps to limit the influence of lobbyists and eliminate the practice of lobbyists writing legislation.
8. Eliminate (the) right of former government regulators to work for the corporations or industries they once regulated.
9. Eliminate corporate personhood.
10. Insist the Federal Elections Commission “ensure that political candidates are given equal time for free at reasonable intervals during campaign season”.
11. Pass the Fair Elections Now Act.
12. Forgive student debt.
My comments. I really only oppose the last one, which is impracticable and basically an unconstitutional confiscation of legitimate debt (“only” some $900 billion, they say), and #8, which would excessively limit the right of employment for public servants. I would favor some limited version of that one, in which incoming public servants would agree not to work for certain specified companies or narrow industry code definitions for some period of time (like 5 years), and I would favor some legislated reduction of the debt burden for many student borrowers.
On the other hand, I strongly support #9, #7, #4, and #2, although they might require major legislation (thus, unlikely to happen anytime soon) and #9 or #4 might require a Constituional amendment. I strongly support #10 and #11, though I think they have no chance with either party. I support #1, though I think its importance is overstated; it was seriously considered for the Financial Reform legislation in 2010 but other areas were considered more critical, with good reason. #6, #5, and #3 are commendable in intent but too vague to have much meaning (except the Buffett rule, which I support).
What's missing is anything that would create any jobs, though I admit I'm not sanguine about the chances of any political argument claiming to do that on a lasting basis and large scale here. I think it's a fair criticism to suggest that the Occupy Chicago movement isn't really that interested in getting jobs for its participants (who, clearly, have none)—not that they have to seek them. It just might make the movement a bit more appealing to the working stiffs that make up a good portion of the 99% they suggest that they represent.
And Then There's Mr. Jobs Himself
It's time for me to pay my respects to the late Steve Jobs. First, I must express my sympathy for his family and friends, and my admiration for his determined efforts to carry on despite his debilitating and painful disease.
Respects is most of what I will pay, though; I'm excessively proud of the fact that I don't think I've ever directly paid for any of his products. I find them too expensive for what they do, most of which I don't need. I keep waiting for the price of his laptops to come into range, and they haven't followed the usual pattern. I got an iPod for one of my round-number birthdays from my sister: I said (and say) “thanks”, but I didn't use it much and eventually gave it to my daughter, who appreciates and needs it more. OK, I may buy an iPad before too long if the price comes into line (maybe that's more likely than their laptops' prices do).
What I did do, a few months ago, was buy a few shares. There's no doubt that Apple has the consuming public, and the investment market, too, in thraldom. Not even Jobs' demise could derail the stock, and that was what I was counting upon.
I may not be a big fan of Apple's products, but there's no denying the transformation he brought about, in this country and beyond. Is it healthy? I don't know, but it's certainly what we'd call “progress”, and that should be appealing to a progressive like me.
I haven't done a study of the jobs he's created, but there must be a lot (maybe even in the US). He's certainly created a lot of wealth here, and that shouldn't be a bad thing. Finally, let's salute his success--supposed by Fitzgerald to be rare in America--in performing a hugely successful second act--and third--for himself!
Friday, October 07, 2011
Redeeming the Promise of '08
I am hardly one of those who regret their 2008 support of President Obama based on his performance in the job, or who condition their support for 2012.
Some criticism is justified, and I will get to that, but first, some deserved praise. His conduct of the most important area under his control, the diplomatic/military sphere, has earned a solid A grade.
International Wins
Last week he called for the trigger to be pulled on Anwar al-Awlaki, who imagined that he could threaten his native land safely from a desert retreat. There are legal issues about signing a finding authorizing his death by covert means, but this is another case where the result was fully justified. The previous example, last month's stunning victory by the Libyan rebels vindicated his middle-ground strategy there: encouraged by the U.N. and the Arab League, he chose to provide critical, timely support, preventing general reprisals and massacres, allowing the rebels the time to develop a winning strategy and overthrowing a bloody dictator. Most importantly, he achieved that success with minimal risk to American lives.
Back on the military side, Obama's administration won the big prize in May with the successful raid into Pakistan which took out Osama Bin Laden. He has successfully wound down the Iraq occupation, and he is on a path to achieve a reasonably successful extraction from the other inherited counterinsurgency quagmire, Afghanistan.
Not everything has gone well. Diplomatically, his policy toward Iran has not yet worked, and the country still poses a major destabilizing threat. With the critical nation of Pakistan the results are mixed, at best: the civilian regime is an ally, but a weak one, unable to overcome the nation's historic tendencies toward insubordinate security forces and regional troublemaking. There has been no progress toward resolution of the Israel-Palestine mess, which means more steps backwards. Finally, the illegal prison in Guantanamo has not been closed; though that is more a domestic failing, in the eyes of the world it's clearly a black eye on our reputation he hasn't been able to heal.
All these areas would be better served, though, from a continuation of Obama/Clinton handling rather than any foreseeable alternative. Hillary Clinton has been an excellent Secretary of State, and if she can be persuaded to serve out a second term, could rank as one of the best ever in the position.
Domestic Woes
As good as the advice, strategy, and results have been for most of the foreign/military projects abroad, that's how bad most of the domestic initiatives have been. The first responses to the economic crisis--the Bank bailout (actually before his inauguration, though passage would've been very difficult if he'd opposed them), the auto industry assistance, the stimulus plan--these were reasonable compromises made because the urgency of the situation did not allow for prolonged consideration. Some of it--the bailouts--achieved their immediate aims, and the stimulus was not a failure--just not quite enough of a boost (though it's questionable any amount would've been sufficient, and certainly doubtful if much more could've passed Congress).
The accomodative pattern from those early, critical acts was very evident in the signature domestic legislation of his first Congress, the Affordable Care Act. Here I disagree with the notion that speed was essential, or even possible; they were in a big hurry and it still took a year or more to bring to law, not to mention the legal challenges which will take about two years to resolve.
The piece missing from the legislation, which may end up being required if, as I see being quite likely, the Supreme Court rules that the mandate to buy private health insurance is beyond Congress' authority (and thus unconstitutional) is the public option. Unfortunately, in his zeal to get a bill done, I think that Obama and his advisers made a bad deal with the private insurers--no private option, and the insurers lobby would not try to block it.
The Christmas deal to keep the tax cuts in place was one made under duress: the House was just about to be taken over by a heavily Tea-flavored Republican majority. The deal extended the tax reductions for the wealthy and for the middle class, basically an unacceptable compromise. Worse was to come with the next big deal under duress, for the debt ceiling; though the Administration rejected the confrontational approach of challenging the need for the ceiling--something which might not have worked, the deal may still produce something acceptable in the form of the desired combination of cuts and revenue enhancements, but I wouldn't count upon it. As I feared, the roster of the membership of the "Gang of 12" supercommittee seems designed to continue the partisan logjam. What that will mean, though, is a set of mandatory cuts in both domestic programs and military spending--a sharing of pain, no real gain.
Obama's tax policy lacks a coherent direction. His December, 2010 extension of the tax cuts for the rich broke a campaign promise, one he didn't so much betray as reveal that he couldn't deliver. With the backing of friendly billionaire Warren Buffett, he has come up with a modest proposal to create a new Alternative Minimum Tax for those with income over $1 million. More complication, little likelihood of success--the AMT we already have is a headache, little more, and this one will never pass through the current Congress (I can hear it now: "if the rich--excuse me, 'job creators'--knew they had to pay tax, it wouldn't be worth making a million a year".) Obama seems to welcome the idea of a revision of the tax code, but isn't providing the kind of push it would need, no doubt because he doesn't want this House anywhere near it.
The worst, for me, has been temporizing on Obama's moral and value-based position as the best protector of our greatest possession, our natural resources. He is blocking regulations of ozone and greenhouse gas emissions proposed by one of his best Cabinet members, EPA Administrator Lisa Jackson. He also seems to be greasing the way for oil exploration off the Arctic coast, and relaxing protection of endangered species. This sort of behavior, favoring the coal, gas, and oil interests, is less than I expected; Ohio and Pennsylvania may be important for his re-election (West Virginia, Louisiana, Texas, Wyoming, Alaska and Kentucky are not) but I am not convinced that the voters of any of these states want Obama to gain them prosperity through the sacrifice of their natural inheritance.
Obama has finally thrown down the gauntlet to this Congress with his Jobs Act. It won't pass, but the strategy of challenging the Republicans to do something about unemployment may work in the long run. While the weakness of the field of possible/likely Republican opponents for 2012 means that Obama is likely to eke out a win without taking forceful positions moving from a cautious, centrist approach, only a strong battling stance as leader of his party would give the Democrats a chance of regaining control of Congress for a second Obama term. And, without that, that second Obama term is never going to fulfill the promise his candidacy, and his inauguration, originally promised--something his first term has clearly not done.
My standard is moderately high: I expect him to be the best President we have seen in my lifetime. It's still there to be achieved--which means he has not yet done so.
Some criticism is justified, and I will get to that, but first, some deserved praise. His conduct of the most important area under his control, the diplomatic/military sphere, has earned a solid A grade.
International Wins
Last week he called for the trigger to be pulled on Anwar al-Awlaki, who imagined that he could threaten his native land safely from a desert retreat. There are legal issues about signing a finding authorizing his death by covert means, but this is another case where the result was fully justified. The previous example, last month's stunning victory by the Libyan rebels vindicated his middle-ground strategy there: encouraged by the U.N. and the Arab League, he chose to provide critical, timely support, preventing general reprisals and massacres, allowing the rebels the time to develop a winning strategy and overthrowing a bloody dictator. Most importantly, he achieved that success with minimal risk to American lives.
Back on the military side, Obama's administration won the big prize in May with the successful raid into Pakistan which took out Osama Bin Laden. He has successfully wound down the Iraq occupation, and he is on a path to achieve a reasonably successful extraction from the other inherited counterinsurgency quagmire, Afghanistan.
Not everything has gone well. Diplomatically, his policy toward Iran has not yet worked, and the country still poses a major destabilizing threat. With the critical nation of Pakistan the results are mixed, at best: the civilian regime is an ally, but a weak one, unable to overcome the nation's historic tendencies toward insubordinate security forces and regional troublemaking. There has been no progress toward resolution of the Israel-Palestine mess, which means more steps backwards. Finally, the illegal prison in Guantanamo has not been closed; though that is more a domestic failing, in the eyes of the world it's clearly a black eye on our reputation he hasn't been able to heal.
All these areas would be better served, though, from a continuation of Obama/Clinton handling rather than any foreseeable alternative. Hillary Clinton has been an excellent Secretary of State, and if she can be persuaded to serve out a second term, could rank as one of the best ever in the position.
Domestic Woes
As good as the advice, strategy, and results have been for most of the foreign/military projects abroad, that's how bad most of the domestic initiatives have been. The first responses to the economic crisis--the Bank bailout (actually before his inauguration, though passage would've been very difficult if he'd opposed them), the auto industry assistance, the stimulus plan--these were reasonable compromises made because the urgency of the situation did not allow for prolonged consideration. Some of it--the bailouts--achieved their immediate aims, and the stimulus was not a failure--just not quite enough of a boost (though it's questionable any amount would've been sufficient, and certainly doubtful if much more could've passed Congress).
The accomodative pattern from those early, critical acts was very evident in the signature domestic legislation of his first Congress, the Affordable Care Act. Here I disagree with the notion that speed was essential, or even possible; they were in a big hurry and it still took a year or more to bring to law, not to mention the legal challenges which will take about two years to resolve.
The piece missing from the legislation, which may end up being required if, as I see being quite likely, the Supreme Court rules that the mandate to buy private health insurance is beyond Congress' authority (and thus unconstitutional) is the public option. Unfortunately, in his zeal to get a bill done, I think that Obama and his advisers made a bad deal with the private insurers--no private option, and the insurers lobby would not try to block it.
The Christmas deal to keep the tax cuts in place was one made under duress: the House was just about to be taken over by a heavily Tea-flavored Republican majority. The deal extended the tax reductions for the wealthy and for the middle class, basically an unacceptable compromise. Worse was to come with the next big deal under duress, for the debt ceiling; though the Administration rejected the confrontational approach of challenging the need for the ceiling--something which might not have worked, the deal may still produce something acceptable in the form of the desired combination of cuts and revenue enhancements, but I wouldn't count upon it. As I feared, the roster of the membership of the "Gang of 12" supercommittee seems designed to continue the partisan logjam. What that will mean, though, is a set of mandatory cuts in both domestic programs and military spending--a sharing of pain, no real gain.
Obama's tax policy lacks a coherent direction. His December, 2010 extension of the tax cuts for the rich broke a campaign promise, one he didn't so much betray as reveal that he couldn't deliver. With the backing of friendly billionaire Warren Buffett, he has come up with a modest proposal to create a new Alternative Minimum Tax for those with income over $1 million. More complication, little likelihood of success--the AMT we already have is a headache, little more, and this one will never pass through the current Congress (I can hear it now: "if the rich--excuse me, 'job creators'--knew they had to pay tax, it wouldn't be worth making a million a year".) Obama seems to welcome the idea of a revision of the tax code, but isn't providing the kind of push it would need, no doubt because he doesn't want this House anywhere near it.
The worst, for me, has been temporizing on Obama's moral and value-based position as the best protector of our greatest possession, our natural resources. He is blocking regulations of ozone and greenhouse gas emissions proposed by one of his best Cabinet members, EPA Administrator Lisa Jackson. He also seems to be greasing the way for oil exploration off the Arctic coast, and relaxing protection of endangered species. This sort of behavior, favoring the coal, gas, and oil interests, is less than I expected; Ohio and Pennsylvania may be important for his re-election (West Virginia, Louisiana, Texas, Wyoming, Alaska and Kentucky are not) but I am not convinced that the voters of any of these states want Obama to gain them prosperity through the sacrifice of their natural inheritance.
Obama has finally thrown down the gauntlet to this Congress with his Jobs Act. It won't pass, but the strategy of challenging the Republicans to do something about unemployment may work in the long run. While the weakness of the field of possible/likely Republican opponents for 2012 means that Obama is likely to eke out a win without taking forceful positions moving from a cautious, centrist approach, only a strong battling stance as leader of his party would give the Democrats a chance of regaining control of Congress for a second Obama term. And, without that, that second Obama term is never going to fulfill the promise his candidacy, and his inauguration, originally promised--something his first term has clearly not done.
My standard is moderately high: I expect him to be the best President we have seen in my lifetime. It's still there to be achieved--which means he has not yet done so.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
