Ghost Busters

http://www.npr.org/2012/01/30/146101408/why-does-saul-alinsky-inspire-such-passion?sc=fb&cc=fp

I knew that Newt Gingrich was a techno nerd, but I did not know he was into Ghost Busters too.  It seems he has an affinity for worrying about ghosts that he obviously knows nothing about.  I dove deeper into this ghost that has got the Republican "Nomne" all in a fuss and found out a few things not mentioned in the article above.  What I learned just proves how little we need Newt Gingrich at the helm of this country and the fact Gingrich has mentioned him as much as he has brings several thinking points to mind

First.  Saul Alinsky was a community organizer that was primarily concerned with slums in Chicago....in the 1960's.  He wrote what is considered required reading for all would-be organizers (though for some reason I never read him at Emory in any of my classes..that I remember).  Alinsky's books have been read by everyone from President Obama to Dick Army.  His books have warranted book responses by the right, but even high ranking Tea Party leaders have been known to read the originals. Fortune 500 companies hand them out at corporate retreats on leadership and highlight his notions of taking negative attributes and making them positive ones.  Does someone who is as widely read really pose that much of a problem to the fiber of our country? I think Gingrich's worry about someone simply because of the title of their books is a bit misguided.

Saul Alinsky

Secondly, Gingrich has taken pages from the Alinsky play book.  Has he not been the belle of the debates when asked questions meant for him to dodge? I do recall him not wanting to delve into his married life, but he did anyway.  In doing so he earned a much needed standing ovation and a bump in the polls.  Has he not deflected his critics by bullying them, thus making he seem tough.  To me all this does is show how tough he can be on fluff ball matters, but apparently Republican voters like it.  We should give ole Newty boy the benefit of the doubt.  Maybe he has not read the books.  Maybe he is simply trying to use some of his old fashion home spun wisdom from down on the farm.  Ok I will lighten up on him.  I was taught not to pick on people who really don't know their Shinola from...well..shit. 

Finally, what the hell is a small government, Reganite, cut taxes, Tea Party Republican doing espousing the Federalist Papers?  Did he not think some people would notice that? Poli Sci 101 Newt, the Federalist wanted a strong central government,high taxes, and welfare programs.  They wanted the very type of government your party hates. Honestly, I just have to call BS on that one. All bets off for a second here.  If Newt Gingrich thinks that be invoking the Federalist Papers is going to make him seem smart, then he is simply dumber than he looks.  I know the man is educated, he does have  Ph.D. Surely in all of his time in school he would have put two and two together and said "Hmm I don't agree with the Federalist Papers because the promote the very things Republicans don't like." 

Newt Gingrich Espousing The Federalist Papers, or His Job Plan, or One Of His Other Plans

I'm sorry Newt, I really am, but you really just lost my vote.  Not because you are a dirt bag who cheated on not one but two wives. Not because your ideas are just crap, and not even really because your pretty much a racist. No, I am not voting for you because you thought that as a Republican the Federalist Papers were a good thing.  Oh and if you were to some how intellectually back up your statement about the Federalist Papers, I'm still not going to vote for you because you cheated on your (sick) wives, your ideas are crap, oh..your a bully, and you are pretty much a racist.  Good luck in Florida, Newt. I hope you lose


P.S. If Newt is taking on ghosts, who is next? Ayn Rand? Look out Adam Smith, he might be hunting you next. He ain't afraid of no ghost

Would Harry Truman Be A Democrat Today?

http://themoderatevoice.com/135533/would-ike-be-a-republican-today/

While not historically sound (you cannot ask question of "What if?" in serious history atleast), asking questions like these are fun, and can lead to serious political disucssion.  If you take what you know of the political party today, and hold it transparent to the President, you will see if they would be today a member of the party they were then. 

You have to understand that in doing so, Presidents of the past are going to look very much like the other party, because the party lines were solidly drawn, but moderates were more prevailent.  Office holders were more willing to compromise, and simply held more moderate stances on issues. Plus party lines have changed some of the years.  Teddy Roosevelt looks the Democrat when you look at him from the environmental standpoint, and the fact that he did all that trust busting which today would put him at home with the donkeys. 

So that brings us back to our orignial question: Would Harry Truman be a Democrat today?  I contend that he would.  He did support the reconition of Isreal, was a Conservative Christian, and took actions agianst the unions, he was still very much a Democrat.  Though he looks Conservative in the shadow of Franklin Roosevelt, he still signed the order to intigrate the military, raised taxes to keep the New Deal afloat longer, and limited excalation of the Conflict in Korea.  He favored the notion that the government was designed to help the people.  From his days as a county judge in Missouri, he took the idea that roads helped the farmer.  He reached notirrity as the chairman of the Senate Armed Services Committee during World War Two where argueed for more government oversight. Today that would land him favor with the Republicans, but Truman was following the Roosevelt policy of accurate government spending.  While many observers would see a Conservative in Liberals clothes, Truman held deeply rutted Democratic ideals. 

I would encourage you to look at your favorite President and see if they would fit in the party they were a member of.  Truman is one of those that on the surface would  switch parties, but if you look deep down you will see his true colors.  Write back and tell me what you think.  I'm interested in seeing what you have to say

What Is Wrong With This Picture?

I titled this blog, 'What's wrong with this picture?" to be asked as a good thing and a bad thing.  The negative context deals with Newt Ginrich on two accounts, the positive on Rick Santorum's debate comments about Iran last night.

What's wrong with this picture dealing with Newt issue number one.  Last week it was reported by CNN that Newt Ginrich's second wife left him because he asked for an open marriage.  Ginrich fired back some heated responses during last week's debate,as if that was enough.  To me, what is wrong with this picture is that Newt was surprised.  This shows an absolute under-estimating of the campaign process on his part.  Whether the comments are true or not, Ginrich's staff had to know that the ex-wives would be a problem.  If he misjudges something so blatant as ex-wives coming out against him, what else are they going to misjudge? What serious issue might he misjudge as President? 
I guess the only thing more wrong about the misjudging of wrongful accusations, would be the misjudgement of true accusations.

What's wrong with this picture dealing with Newt issue number two.  It was announced that Ginrich would no longer attend debates where the crowd would not be allowed to respond to remarks.  In the interview I heard, he stated that he felt it was a hindering of the First Amendment Freedom to Speech by the press.  What's wrong with this picture? Two things.  First we have a candidate refusing to participate in any debate that is not to his liking.  To many it might seem that he only wants to play by his rules, and if he cannot play by them, he will not play. Real Presidential Newt, real Presidential.  Secondly, how can one First Amendment right limit a second First Amendment right?  I thought, I teach, than none is more important than the other, that is why they are the FIRST in the Bill of Rights.  Gosh, if Newt fights so hard about his verbal speech being limited, imagine what he would be like if we tried to limit corporate speech. 

What's wrong with this picture dealing with Rick Santorum?  In last night's debate, Rick Santorum spoke out against attacking Iran, which is interesting rhetoric compared to previous statements made by Republican Candidates.  What wrong with this?  Nothing.  It shows that he is actually thinking about the implications of attacking Iran.  This show some forward thinking on his part.  Over the weekend I watched a BOOKNOTES on CSPAN with Chris Matthew in which he discussed his new book about John F. Kennedy.  In that interview he talked about Kennedy's talent in asking "What happens next?"  I see the level of caution exhibited by Santorum as a good thing, not bad one. Maybe, just maybe he asked "What would happen next if we invade Iran?"

It's DeJa Vu All Over Again

I have been reading FEAR AND LOATHING ON THE CAMPAIGN TRAIL '72 recently and it is starting to seem eerily real in what I am seeing in the Republican Campaign.  Then as now, there are candidates all over the place with different viewpoints(mostly in the extreme of the party), multiple winners in the primaries, people popping in and out of the race, and no clear front runner.

In watching the numbers come in tonight, you cannot help but notice that Herman Cain got 1% of the vote.  1% of the voters in South Carolina think that a man not even running is a better choice than those who are.  If that leaves you scratching your head, do understand that the 1% picked up by Cain most likely represents Stephen Colbert's votes as he was not officially on the ballot.  Colbert used his SUPERPAC to advertise that a vote for Cain would represent a vote for him.

This insurgent campaign from Colbert harkens back to1972, where Shirley Chisolm polled a very high in New Hampshire when she was not even in the race.  George "Segregation Now, Segregation Forever" Wallace got 17% of the ballot at the convention. The Vice Presidential candidate, Thomas Eagleton was receiving electroshock therapy during the entire race. Jimmy Carter was running around the convention floor trying to stop McGovern, yet actively seeking the Vice-Presidential slot.  All of this took place in a primary race that ultimately nominated George McGovern.  McGovern would end up wining only the Washington D.C and Massachusetts.  For those of you keeping score at home that is 17 electoral votes to Richard Nixon.  This was at a time when Richard Nixon had (Pre-Watergate) approval ratings in the teens. Such a defeat goes to show that even with someone with a record like George McGovern can be beat without a cohesive party behind him. 

What I foresee happening, and I have said this all along, is the Republicans going the same way.  Who only knows who they might tack on as the VP for Romney, but it has better be good or we are going to see another 1972 type general election.  They had better be looking at someone not in the field now.  There are simply too many opposing viewpoints,and too many hard feelings to get a cohesive ticket in the fall.  Might I suggest a Paul Ryan (even though you might well want to save him for 2016) or even Bob McDonald (please get him out of Virginia). 

What do you think? By all means write a comment here, or on Facebook.  I am as curious as always in what you have to say. 

Others Were Involved Too

http://racerelations.about.com/od/trailblazers/a/MartinLutherKingholiday.htm

As you may know on Monday of this week, we celebrated Martin Luther King Jr.'s birthday with a federal holiday. I, like many other Americans welcomed the day off, but as it wore on I started to think about the holiday itself.  Like most items that end up as fodder for my blog, real issues came about from this thinking. The first question to arise was:Why do we only celebrate Martin Luther King Jr? The second: Why do we close the very institutions Martin Luther King Jr would want open? And finally: What has become of this day?

I will tackle the last question first since it is an over-arching question.  What has become of the day?  Are more people aware of the impact of King?  Are they spending the day in observance of the work he did by reading books, watching movies, listening to lectures? Do non-profit organisations have to turn people away from projects to help the needy? Churches turn away worshipers? I would say no to all of these.  Martin Luther King Jr. Day has turned into yet another day for businesses to offer "Great Deals", not a day to gain a better understanding of the Civil Rights Movement of the 1960's.  MLK day has fallen by the way of Valentines Day, Columbus Day, and Presidents Day.  I would argue that if "Great Sales" are going to be the only way to mark these important days, we need to simply scrap them all together.  To me, the only thing worse that not celebrating a day is celebrating it incorrectly. 

As I perseverated on the meaning of the day, I was almost disturbed by the fact that Martin Luther King Jr. receives the bulk of attention when it comes to Civil Rights.  The day is after all Martin Luther King Jr. Day, but my thought quickly turned to the others involved in the Civil Rights Movement. Are they not important? Do they not deserve reconition? Yes, he was martyred for his leading the movement, but many others were wounded, and some killed for the same.  Yes, he was a profound orator, but many more took part in speeches and rallies.  Yes, he advocated non-violent protest, but many others were too, others more were less pacifistic in their approach. 

I contend that we need to re-focus the day to the bigger picture of the Civil Rights Movement(s) of the 1960's and 1970's.  We have a day that is celebrating a Civil Rights leader, but not the Civil Rights leaders that struggled along side him.  It would seem, that many Americans would benefit from a history lesson on a day like Martin Luther King Day about the people that were as influential.  Ask any American to list Civil Rights leaders beside MLK and it will be short.  Most can muster Rosa Parks and Jesse Jackson, few more can manage Malcom X but that is the extent.  We need to highlight ALL of the Civil Rights Leaders of that time.  Names like Medgar Evers, James Meredith, Bobby Seal, Stokely Carmichael, John Lewis, Harry Belafonte, The Little Rock Nine, The Greensboro Eight and even Malcom X (to some extent) have slipped from many text books and the public conscience when it comes to Civil Rights.  We need to celebrate these stalwarts in the Civil Rights Movement too, not just Martin Luther King Jr. 

Since I would argue for including ALL of the Civil Rights leaders from the Civil Rights Movement, I need to equally argue for the inclusion of ALL the Civil Right Movements.  To belabor the point of historical ignorance in our country, ask the common American to name a Civil Rights advocate that is not black. You will get a blank stare.  If the base knowledge of the Black Civil Rights Movement is lacking, then the base knowledge of other Civil Rights Movements in non-existent. There are so many equally interesting people in history who struggled from Civil Right of their own race, yet (like Lewis, Carmichael, and Evers) these names go un-noticed in the public mind. 

Finally I reached the conclusion that I wanted to read about these names and to have my own Civil Rights Day, but was met at every turn with signs that read CLOSED FROM MLK HOLIDAY.  Why is it that libraries, schools, and historical sites are all closed on a day celebrating a man who found them so critical? King would find it absurd to close the doors of a library to those who wanted to learn.  He, like many other Civil Rights leaders saw education as a way to battle poverty and ignorance that kept blacks in the conditions they were in.  It just seemed to me that on a day when we need people to be fired up about Civil Rights(and history in general), we shut down the very vessels that could fuel that fire. I must appauld the Museum of the New South in Charlotte for not only opening their doors but doing so for free.  This was however the expection, not the rule. 

What better way to grow the knowledge of Chicano, Japanese, Chinese, and even Irish Civil Rights Movements, than to add them all in to MLK Day?  I do not think Dr. King would mind this, or the idea of celebrating the other leaders in his own Civil Rights Movement. Please do not get me wrong, I think Martin Luther King Jr. Day is a wonderful holiday, but we need to re-examine it which is something I think Dr. King would encourage. 

Long Term Solutions Or More Short Term Problems

http://andrewsullivan.thedailybeast.com/2012/01/why-obama-should-be-reelected.html

I like this article for two reasons. Numnero uno is the fact that it actually provides some support for President Obama in a time when it goes a long way. The second fact is that it shows some understanding of the world in which we operate.

Since I have started this blog, I have made it a point to remain positive.  At times it has not worked, but one area that I know I have done a good job is in supporting President Obama.  I will admit that I did not vote for him, and was not a fan during the election.  In watching the policies of the administration, however, I have decided that in due time, President Obama will see success.   When I read this article, I was relieved to see that there are a few of us our will show support through rational thought and understanding of the complex nature of governing.

What many people forget is that President Obama inherited the economy left by President Bush.  That alone should be measure enough for some of the President's detractors to break camp and run.  Those left need to be reminded that our economy naturally fluctuate between expansion and contraction. If President Obama had been handed a perfect economy, would their be as many who oppose him? I contend, and will continue to do so, that the support from the public will do more in the line of repairing our country, then the continual tearing down of our leaders and their leadership. That does not mean we do not speak out if there is injustice, but support when needed.

The second thing I would like to highlight is how rational the support for President Obama is in this article.  The author understands that President Obama is looking at the long term picture rather than focusing on the short term problems. Economist will argue that it takes four to five years to recover from a economic recession, with a recession involving the housing market (like current recession) taking anywhere from nine to twelve years to mend. What we are asking of our leadership is to fix the economy yesterday, and this is not right.


If there is any doubt that recessions or depressions are not short term fixes, look at our very own Great Depression.  It was not concluded by one single action by President Roosevelt.  It took two New Deal packages, and World War Two to pull us completely out.  I am by no means advocating a world war, so I will be happy with the economic packages that President Obama purposes. What many Americans sadly forget is that America has edured far more, and far greater parels than we face today.  The only difference between the Civil War, Great Depression, and today is the willingness of Americans in those times to wait patiently until the problems are fully solved.  Today, we lack the resolve to see many things through, and not re-electing President Obama might just prove that point even further

Necessary Roughness

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/sophia-a-mcclennen/colbert-super-pac_b_1208772.html

Stephen Colbert is making a fool of the political process, and I LOVE IT.  What he is doing is good for several different reasons.  First he is showing, in plain form, how the system of SUPERPACS and 501C4s work. In addition to this, he is adding well needed volume to the "Corporations are people" argument that the American public needs to continue to debate.  Had Colbert not have taken up this cause, we the voting public would know very little about both. 

Colbert having formed a SUPERPAC on National television certainly changed my opinion about 501c4s and SUPERPACs.  I knew very little about the whole process, but since have learned a good deal more.  The whole system is wrought with corruption that has caused the Democratic process to be taken away from the American people.  We have money changing hands that, had it be done so for any other reason besides politics, would cause serious jail time to those involved. 

Colbert has not only shines a large spot light on the process, but allowed the ordinary person to get involved in the system.  Very few of us would know what PAC, SUPERPAC or 501c4 to donate to in order to support the candidate we want.  Yes, there are plenty out there but they are so shady, few people are sure they are giving to what.  Colbert's SUPERPAC makes it easy to know where your money is going.  To Stephen Colbert.  Initially, there was no specific place he was giving the donations, but now that he has launched his run for President of The United States of South Carolina, we know.  Even without a clear campaign, money poured into the Colbert PAC and Americans For A Better Tomorrow, Tomorrow SUPERPAC. I certainly had no problem sending him five bucks to get my name on the scroll line, even if it did not tell me where it was going. 

Finally, Colbert has blown the lid off the Corporate Speech/Speech Is Money argument, that I think needs serious debate amongst the American public.  Those who support the ruling by the Supreme Court argue that corporations are people and therefore must pay taxes. They have a fair point.  I certainly do not want corporations to not be taxed. I have a harder time swallowing the idea that speech equals money, er go corporation can speak freely.  Yes, if a corporation is a person, it is granted the freedom of speech, but does speech really equal money? Is there not a better way corporations can speak? I would think advertising would be a more effective way, but corporations do not want that blood on their hands.  How many people would stop eating at McDonald's if they found out it supported Richard Nixon, etc, etc.  Heaven forbid a corporation do something upfront and above the table in the realm of politics

I think it is clear that the time to throw the money changers out of the temple has come.  We Americans need to take back our Democracy and ensure that our politicians are not the puppets of big corporations.  What we have as human people that corporations as paper people do not have is a voice.  We can knock on doors, and make the process ours again.  The person taking the biggest step in the right direction is Stephen Colbert.

Wait A Minute! There Is A Bigger Problem

http://www.alternet.org/story/153782/on_mlk_day%3A_how_a_racist_criminal_justice_system_rolled_back_the_gains_of_the_civil_rights_era/?page=1

Understandably I am not a lawyer of any kind so I do not see these injustices first hand,but I would like to argue a different point. I think that it is simply not the legal system that is racist any more so than our economic. If we were to see massive overhauls in the economic system, fewer people would be in the legal.

Perhaps I have a overblow faith in our legal system,but I would think that we should have more faith in it that our economic system. The legal system is design, flaws and all, to provide equal and fair treatment over the course of history. Our economic system is basicaly a bunch of words on a piece of paper. There is not room left for the spirit of economics like there is from the law.  Lower paying jobs tend to go to people of color.  Those people of color are then more apt to be involved in the legal system.  Thus, we should not blame the legal system as it is the second stop on a bad train  ride. 

Now once those of color reach the legal system they face overtly racists penlities that pale in comparison to thos face by white who commit the same crime.  Take into consideration the deparity between sentencing for crack. Sentence for crack of the more expensive varity are less that those of the cheaper variety.  What do you think effects people of color more? The facts and figures given in this article are true, and people of color are more likely to face incarsation, but it remains my argument that it is the economic system that fails them first and then the legal system.  Both fail, but we need to look at keeping these people from ending up infront of a judge before we start blaming the judge

New Facebook Page

In a move to get readership up,I have created a Facebook page. Check it out. I will post stuff there that goes along with what I write about here.
http://www.facebook.com/pages/Fair-To-Partly-Moderate/364790690213698?sk=wall

A Better Way To Make Your Point?

r http://www.goupstate.com/article/20120112/articles/120119886?p=1&tc=pg
http://fairtopartlymoderate.blogspot.com/2012/01/and-we-need-to-listen-why.html


In a recent post (linked above) I argued that shutting your doors to political candidates is an improper way to handle your political opinions.  Such and action lessen the opportunities (canned or genuine) to meet with candidates and converse with them.  This story that broke from South Carolina shows, in my opinion, a better way of letting you political ideals be known.

I side with the gentlemen from South Carolina because he makes his statement with action.  Unlike the restaurant in New Hampshire that withdrew, I prefer people make a statement by actually making a statement.  Remaining silent in politics means that you will not be heard at all. There is a time and place for silence and silent protest. Politics, particularly American politics, is not one of them.  In order to even be considered you must yell to the top of your voice and join the chorus of yells.  There are not pillars of solitude in the American politics.  Think back over the course of American politics.  How many "silent" politicians can you think of?  How many have made their names for quietly making noise?  "Silent Cal" Coolidge is the only one that comes to mind and even he was overshadowed by most.  This is why, I would rather a person publicly pull their support from one person to another than shut their doors to all.

What is unfortunate about both instances is the highlighting of an truth in the American politics.  The almighty dollar is what speaks.  Would we have heard about either of these stories had they been about ethics? Morals? Political Idealism? I painfully doubt it.  While it is easy to bemoan the situation, I ask what can be done about it?  Is there something we, the voting public, can do to limit this money madness?  I think there is: volunteer.  Yes, get out there and pound doors, hand out information, educate the public and write letters to the editor. Make your point with action.

This is what has been lacking in politics for some time, and create the vacuum to be filled with money.  It used to be that a politician needed a good pair of shoes, a firm handshake, and warm smile to get votes.  By mobilizing massive amounts people around a candidate, political victories could be won with pithy amounts of cash. Yes there will be costs, buttons don't make themselves, flyers aren't printed automatically, and campaign buses don't run on hope, but all of these cost less that air time on major networks.  If people simply got off their backsides and away from their computers, we would not need advertisements on every commercial break.

It is possible, and dear we say it, more democratic.  If you have ever done any research about politics or history you have inevitable run across events attended by throngs of people.  The Republican Convention that nominated Abraham Lincoln comes to mind. William Jennings Bryan spoke to 100,000 people once in Topeka, Kansas.  These events are noteworthy because of the shear volume of people.  Records for political events will show instances with 2,000 in attendance for a Republican rally, and 2,000 for a Democratic rally the next day.  All of this would happen in a town with a population of 800.  How is this possible?  People cared! And people cared enough to come into town for a political event.  People were involved in politics far more than they are now.  They payed attention to the goings on.  Plus politics was more entertaining than it is now.  I would also make the case, because of instances like these, that politics was more Democratic.

I will close by saying get out and campaign.  It's better than sitting at home and hearing ALL of the campaign ads (if you campaign you get to hear what you agree).

Curious who I will campaign for?  I'm curious about who you will as well.  Write me and let me know.  Leave a comment here or even on my Facebook page.

Who Is The Ron Paul of 2016?

http://news.yahoo.com/blogs/ticket/ron-paul-n-h-crowd-dangerous-status-quo-132631014.html

As I have alluded in recent posts, I love a good third party type candidate who stretches the party out on the limbs.  Maybe it is just the way I am wired, maybe because I like to be different, or maybe because I don't know what I'm talking about, either way I love it.

Thankfully, 2012 has not proven to be a lack-luster year for that kind of candidate.  Ron Paul has taken on the big dogs of the Republican Party, and somehow or another been able to do well.  His race for the Republican bid has drawn good numbers, and his strong second place showings in Iowa and New Hampshire (both of which I contend do not really matter) are going to set him on pace for at least a Vice- President slot.  We can only hope for more out of the Republicans than that but such is the way the cookie will crumble.

In looking at Paul, I cannot help but get excited about who might fill his shoes in 2016.  By then Paul will be much too old to be in politics for the Republicans, so someone will need to step up to that plate. The best part of the 2016 election is that it will be a new slate for the Democrats too.  I already have my list of candidates the Democrats in the Primaries, complete with my Ron Paul of the 2016 election.  And the nominee is....Drum role please....Bernie Sanders.

Sanders, who will be 75 in 2016, will push the party on issues like campaign finance, organized labor and undoubtedly any foreign conflict we might be involved in by then.  He like Paul, will be willing to hit the _____ist cord for the Democrats.  Paul has the progressivist /Constitutionalists notes down pat, and Sanders will touch on the true socialist/progressivists movments that are awakening.  Young people, will flock to him because of his support in gay rights, and willingness to meet with people of various thought processes.  Everything about Sanders makes him a good candidate to move the platform away from this crazy, neo-liberal/socialist/moderate/free-market/whatever that President Obama has created (though I am very much a fan of it) and put it back on the plain of a populist/socialist/progressivist type platform that would make both Eugene Debs, and Cornel West happy.  It might even make me interested, but I am always up for a new flavor. 

Insofar as the Republicans, I'm not sure who they might have.  Rand Paul might pick up the mantel, though he will be tauted as inexperienced.  Eric Cantor might, but he might easily make too many enemies. Whom ever it is, they MUST be as good as Ron Paul is to get me fired up. 

The Bolt On Candidate

In recent posts I have written at great length about Mitt Romney and the need for him to nail up the nomination. Most the my thoughts have centered around the idea that Romney is too plain, and he just needs to win.  Once the nomination is in the bag, he needs to turn his attention to President Obama.  I had a very interesting conversation last night about the Republican Primary races and two major points came out of that conversation.  1) Mitt Romney is plain by design.  2) The other candidates for the Republican nod are simply trying out policy ideas for the Republican platform.  Now, maybe I am late to these conclusions, and if I am oh well.

1) Romney really does not need to come out strong for or against anything on the Republican platform just yet.  He needs to be as plain and vanilla as possible.  In the general election, anything he says during the primaries can and will be used against him.  Off the wall remarks (like his "I like to fire people." remarks from Monday) will land him in hot water not only with Republicans but with President Obama in the fall. The Obama machine is smart, and will use anything they can get their hands on to beat the Republican candidate.  By letting the other candidates sling the mud, he is able to stay relatively clean.  Mud also costs money, which, if left the other guys, leaves the war chests full until the general election that will undoubtedly be a moneyfest.  After reconsidering these factors, it seems as though Romney's wisely saving himself for the General Election is not a bad strategy at all.  

2) What do I mean by Romney needing to be the bolt on candidate? I mean that Romney needs to take the issues and stances most popular from the primaries and run with them as if they were his own.  Just like you bolt on parts to a stock car making it faster, the Republicans need to bolt on issues and opinions to someone in order to make them better.  No single candidate in the Republican stable leading up to this year's primaries was/is strong enough to beat President Obama, so they sent the herd out in order to get the best results.  Romney, being the stockest of the stock field, makes the best candidate for the race.

Look at the rest of the candidates.  Santorum is too religious, so he would need to tone down his homophobia to attract moderates.  Huntsman is too scientific, thus a need for a tone down to attract the religious base.  Ron Paul is almost too liberal on some issues and too conservative on others to decide which way he would need to go.  Newth Gingrich is not even worth mentioning, but he would need to tone down period.  Who does that leave?  Rick Perry is not electable simply because he is from Texas and talks remarkably similar to this other guy I know from Texas..that'd be George W. Bush in case you are wondering.

Romney's ability to play to the middle really is not a determent after all. He is smart enough to realize that the other candidates are hewing the planks for a perfect fit to the platform.  In looking back, I have been somewhat incorrect in pushing for him to hurry up and win.  He does need to make sure he reads the right polling numbers and takes the right stands on the right issues. In a sense his standing back and allowing the other guys to do his work is smart liked a fox.  Still my only concern is that every day spent fighting other Republicans (even if they are building a good platform) is a day wasted in the fight against President Obama.

What do you think?  Is this old news to you? Let me know.  Write a comment, leave a message on Facebook.  Let me know what you are thinking.  The purpose of this post, as all of my posts, is to get a discussion going.  I'm more than willing to hear what you have to say.

Republican Debate In New Hampshire Or Hey Look At What This Guy's Doing?

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2012/01/09/enjoying-big-lead-romney-seeks-to-withstand-collective-gop-assault-in-new/


I have to admit that I watched the debate somewhat skeptically.  As usual with Presidential Elections I have a person on both sides that I want to win in the primaries.  My first election (2004) it was Wesley Clark in the Democratic Primaries.  At one point when there was talk of John McCain spiting the ticket with Jim Webb, I was in love.  It seems that my primary picks never make it but I still liked to pick them.  This year is no different with Ron Paul, and Saturday's debate was proof enough for me to stay behind him and cheer him on. While the mud from his camp was a bit dry, it was the same mud he has slung, and his rhetoric was that from which he as espoused the entire campaign.  Most of what Paul says is nutty enough to keep him out of the White House but just palatable for people like me to step up and support him.  In my opinion his is Conservative enough in the right places to warrant some attention. 

The debate really seemed less like a really debate and more of a contest in diversion.  Paul would attack Rick Santorum, Santroum would lob a shot at Rick Perry, Perry would try to remember the shot he was going to lob at Jon Huntsman.  Huntsman focused a good bit on Mitt Romney, who in an effort to used the debate as a warm up for President Obama, kept changing the subject to Democrats. At times it was even confusing for the candidates as to who was shooting at whom.  I noticed that Ron Paul made a comment about "Rick" to which the camera operator panned to Rick Perry, who consequently had a confused looked on his face..or was that his normal look? I can't ever tell.  In reality it was Rick Santorum who Paul was referring.

Coming out of the debate and above the fray was Mitt Romney who did seem more Presidential than the others, though it is really not saying all that much.  While I do not particular applaud his tactics, he brought the Democrats in and focused his attention to them instead of those on the stage.  The more I think about this, the less I really like this tactic.  If all around you is falling down, would it not behoove you to worry about it and not the other side?   If Romney truly wants to be the leader of the Republican Party, then he needs to put his foot down and stop this infighting.  He needs to take the lead in the polls and keep it.  Once and for all (win or lose) he needs to take a stand on what he believes and roll the figurative dice.  In doing so it will stop this ankle biting and congeal the party.  This is the only hope for the Republicans against President Obama.  Every day they waste fighting each other is a day wasted fighting him.

And We Need To Listen Why?

http://www.npr.org/blogs/itsallpolitics/2012/01/08/144865218/days-before-primary-n-h-restaurant-bans-presidential-candidates

After reading this article I had two thoughts. 1) Shame on this restaurant for hindering democracy, and 2) If this is how they are going to respond, should we really be listening to these primaries, more especially New Hampshire?

1) I think it is ridiculous that a restaurant would close their doors to a candidate running for office.  In my opinion they might as well be closing the door on Democracy as we know it.  Forever and a day we hear about how we, the voting public, has no contact with our elected officials.  Now we have restaurant closing their doors and denying that opportunity when granted.  We get a General Election once every four years.  Why would this restaurant or it's owners bypass the opportunity to be a part of it.  Besides, for the past month or so all we have heard is how "The people of New Hampshire take their responsibility seriously." Is this kind of behavior taking a responsibility serious? If it is we need to reconsider what we are doing.  More so as well why would they deny the free publicity, and business they are getting.  I would, should I ever own a restaurant, welcome any candidate running for office, they are after all going to represent me as well. 

2) If this is how Granite Staters are going to react, do we need to be listening to what they say?  Why do Iowa and New Hampshire get all the attention anyway?  South Carolina has an earlier primary and it gets half as much coverage.  While Virginia should/could hardly be considered the stalwart of primary good behavior, it will only have 2 names on the ballot unless court cases are resolved before the day of the primary, but at least if the candidates wanted to interact with the public we would welcome them.  Virginia is though going to be a major state in the election. Democrats are worried here, with several taking losses in state battles, and facing challenges in local elections.  President Obama barely won in 2008, and from the landscape of the past months is in trouble again.  Should Republicans not be concerned about Virginia's primary? What about Tennessee's? Tennessee went for McCain in 2008, it has two Republican Senators and only one Democratic Representative to the House.  The governor is Republican also.  With a state as red as Tennessee, should their primary not count for something?  I for one think so.  I would welcome the change for Tennessee or Virginia to carry some importance in he primary season. Are Granite Staters more representative of the United States?  I think not. Not with their minority population so low, their needs for industry hard to see, and their lack of any kind of agriculture being any factor, why do we care so much about New Hampshire.  It's record, like Iowa is dismal when picking Presidents.  It's Electoral  College record is just slightly better. Not to beat a dead horse for Tennessee's Electoral College record is roughly 85% and the Commonwealth's is 90%.

Oh Dear God, And Man At Yale

http://www.booktv.org/Program/12964/Panel+discussion+of+William+F+Buckleys+God+Man+at+Yale.aspx


While I have slipped off to the left alittle of late, I decided to make a little foray back into the conservative mind set.  This is after all a blog about being moderate, or atleast faining so.  In my attempt to do so I came across this discussion about William F. Buckley's  GOD AND MAN AT YALE on BOOKTV over the weekend and watched it last night.  Here are some thoughts

Much of the discussion was about the Conservative movement here in America, that according to one panelist is on the rebound, and the role in academia it plays.  What the panelist discussed is true, and pertained as much to today's academic landscape as it did (according to them) to the Yale Buckley experienced in the 1950's.  For the most part education is a liberal profession, for the most part "liberal arts" has been a cover (if you will) for pressing a liberal agenda, and students (I would add young people) do have the tendency to be liberal.  One of the panelist talked about how upsetting it was to see a generation like the 1960's slide off the deep end into a selfish, liberal rant that still reverberates today.  Her main thought pattern was based on the experience she had of interviewing the first women to attend Yale University.  She discussed at length the women complaining of unfair treatment they had experienced all their lives, even though they were mostly from upper middle to upper elite class families, and never experienced true inequality.  In her mind, this was part of the liberalization of the 1960's, and cause for concern even in the 21st century.

Throughout the panel, Conservative stalwarts (like Buckley) were lifted on high as beacons for all pedagogist to guide their tiny ships to a Conservative harbor safe from a tumultuous sea of Liberal self decadence.  I cannot much fault the panel.  They are in fact a minority in education.  They need heroes, and those to pattern their own teaching after.  Everyone needs that. 

As I watched this I attempted to see their point of view, and did agree with the point made about "liberal arts" being a cover for a liberal agenda.  I have been guilty of take a more liberal view on some issues I teach.  Is this wrong? Maybe just a little, and it does play into the what the panel discussed.  Liberal arts does not by nature mean Liberal in the political sense.  From having watched this, I learned that I do need to be more mindful of taking a far left approach to things, even though I was overheard saying "We need to raise taxes" the other day.

Though out most of the program I found myself nodding along with some of what they were saying, disagreeing with some as well until the last question.  What appeared to be a very bright, attractive young lady stepped to the microphone and asked (I paraphrase) "How many people have you (the panelists) convert from liberalism to conservatism, and how do we replicate this wonderful conversion?" This is were I began to fade.  One of the panelist talked about how most people are liberal when they are young and become more Conservative when they are older.  Due primarily to their experiences they become less governed by their ideals and more by what they have seen with their own eyes.  After that, I was on my horse galloping into Disagreementville to warn the citizens that a blog was going to be posted about this panel.

As someone who has had their political opinions change over time, it is true that what I have seen is the key factor.  What would contradict the panelist's opinion is the fact that I have become more liberal with time primarily because of what I have seen. Ask my cohorts at Emory & Henry just how Conservative I was.  There is something about what I have seen since then that has changed my mental approach to a more liberal one. I am not wholly sure why that is, but I think a good bit of it is because the more I experience, the more I have in common with a broader group of people. The broader the group of people, the more open minded (I think) you need to be in order just to get along with each other.

Because I have moaned on for too long and am having a hard time wrapping this up, I will beg for your responses as a good way to finish this blog.  If you have any opinions, please oh please write me with them.  The main purpose of this blog is to talk politics, political theory and political opinion.  I want to hear what you think.  Let me know.  Comment on my blog, or on your own and let me know where you have.  I will comment on your blog if you are shy.

You Have To Give Conservatives Some Credit.

http://news.yahoo.com/blogs/ticket/michele-bachmann-rick-perry-compete-tim-tebow-vote-031316975.html


I have been particularly hard on Conservatives of late so I need to write something of credit to keep this blog a moderate as the title suggests. 

While I am not a Tim Tebow fan (mainly because he spent four year beating the dog piss out of Tennessee), there is no denying his popularity.  He has a best selling book, is possibly on he way to a Super Bowl, and in fewer seasons that Peyton Manning (who lost to Florida a few times), so who can blame Conservatives for seeking him out?  He is most likely conservative, a Christian, and popular.  The last item is perhaps hard to come by. 

Thinking more on the subject, the Conservative/ Christian movements does have several more figureheads that say the atheists or the liberal movements.  Tim Tebow does fit in more neatly to his Conservative Christian pigeon hole than say a Liberal Atheist (so few come to mind that even a Google search rendered only a few Non-Liberal Atheist) And are they wrong in looking to him because he does fit in nicely?

501C4s, PACs and Super PACs..Oh My!

http://news.yahoo.com/blogs/ticket/why-didn-t-2012-candidates-attack-mitt-romney-151802358.html
http://www.opensecrets.org/pacs/superpacs.php?cycle=2012

Since my previous two posts have been about PACs, 501C4s, and Super Pacs, I thought to sort out some of the mess.  Here a list of who funds who on the campaign trails. I will update this anytime I new lists.

Rick Perry

 Make Us Great Again
Texans for America's Future

Jobs for Florida
Jobs For Iowa
Jobs for South Carolina

Newt Ginrich
Winning Our Future

Rick Santorum
Leaders for Families
Red, White and Blue

Mitt Romney
Restore Our Future

Citizens for a Working America PAC

Ron Paul

Endorse Liberty

Revolution PAC

Jon Huntsman
Destiny PAC

Michelle Bachman
No Compromise

Why Does It Matter? A Continuation From Yesterday's Post

http://fairtopartlymoderate.blogspot.com/2012/01/starting-off-year-with-critism-and.html
http://m.roanoke.com/mapp/story.aspx?arcID=302972
http://www.opensecrets.org/politicians/contrib.php?cid=N00032029&cycle=2010

Yesterday I wrote about the shear lack of courtesy and political wherewithal exhibited by Representative Morgan Griffith of Virginia in not returning a endorsement granted him by Mitt Romney in Griffith's bid for the 9th District seat in 2010.  Griffith has stated that he was in a different place in 2010 as compared to now, thus he could not endorse Romney.  I, of course, see this as weakness in the Republican Party and predict that such weakness will propel President Obama to a second term.  As I think more about it there seems to be something wrong with the notion that the Governor of Massachusetts is concerned with who holds the  9th District of Virginia.  It would seem that the concern crosses not only state lines, but levels of government.  Romney is after at the state level, while Griffith was at the time at the state level seeking a national level position.  What could be the cause of such strange bedfellows?

I reread the quote from the article in my mind several times, then it dawned on me.  Money! Romney's PAC or 501c4 Organization helped to fund Griffith's campaign.  (This may not have been such a struggle for some of you, but this is my blog and I was building effect).  During the campaign, Griffith basically painted the district with smear tactics against Rick Boucher lumping Boucher in with President Obama and "liberal Democrats."  Living in an area serviced by media based in the district, I was overrun with Griffith media.  Even when I visited Tennessee, also within media range of the 9th district, ads were on constantly for Griffith.

We teach our students that media advertisements are the number one campaign cost for a politician seeking office.  Griffith easily had a thirty second ad on every radio break, and at least every other TV break on each Roanoke stations.  Along with the Bristol and Johnson City, Tennessee stations (both reach well into the 9th District) could and did really ad up. A close reading of Griffith's campaign financing report will show though that he had plenty of money in addition to Romney's. (I put a interesting website for Griffith's report at the top of the page..check out #12..pretty good for a family values Republican right?) During the campaign, financing came up several times in the debate and through the media.  Griffith accused Boucher of missuing campaign funds, while Boucher relied almost solely on his record in the House.  It seems a bit odd that someone who argued for campaign finance reform, had PACs and Governors of Massachusetts handing him money.

It is pretty easy to see that money was the root of Romney's concern with Griffith, but lets play something out here.  IF Griffith were to endorse Romney, which he may very well have to, and IF Romney were to win the election in 2012, who do you think would be right there voting along side the President then?  Certainly would not be Rich Boucher.

Starting Off The Year With A Criticis Of A Fellow Alumni And Belaboring A Point

http://m.roanoke.com/mapp/story.aspx?arcID=302972

This article was not written for the intent for which I am going to use it, but I (as usual) would like to capitalize on the opportunity.  At the close of this article I do something I rarely do (critic a fellow Emory & Henry grad) but first I would like to talk about the two points that jump out at me from the article.The first: Mitt Romney will get the Republican nod for President.  How can I deduce that? Because you have the less than subtlety left leaning Roanoke Times doing pieces on him when no other Republican candidate has very little coverage.  My point being, if liberals know and understand that Romney is going to get it, you can rest assured Republicans know.  In reality, I think Democrats want Romney.  He is after all Republican Light.  Which in a Republican party that pour more like Guinness, is a problem. 

The second is that it STILL does not matter.  Romney is going to walk away with the nomination, but short of Jesus Christ getting on the ticket President Obama is in office for four more years.  Why is it so obvious?

McBride's advocacy helped win a Romney endorsement in 2008 from then-Virginia House Majority Leader Morgan Griffith. When Griffith ran for Congress in 2010, Romney's Free and Strong America political action committee contributed $2,500 to his campaign. Griffith credits that contribution largely to McBride's influence.
"Dane had the bat-phone and called in for me," Griffith said.
Griffith hasn't endorsed a candidate for president this year, saying that he's in a different place than in 2008 and has to take "a more neutral position overall."

That is why it is so obvious.  When you have someone, like Griffith who rode the Tea Party wave into office over a House veteran like Rick Boucher, afraid to return an endorsement you have trouble brewing in your party.  Republicans are simply too disjointed to mount an formidable campaign against an incumbent.  With Donald Trump and now Ron Paul looming as potential candidates of a third and maybe fourth party, the Republicans had best be trying to muster Senate (a majority in both houses would stalemate President Obama) seats or trying to demystify a Paul/ Trump ticket (hmm that sounds like a good prediction.)

Allow me if you will to switch topics ever so slightly and return to the heart of the aforementioned quote to provide gris for my criticism.  It would seem to me that my fellow Emory & Henry alumni is in fact not playing by the rules and simply practicing bad politics.  To quote the old saying "You make the bed you lay in" and Representative Griffith is doing no such thing.  Should I be apart of the Republican leadership I would have Mr. Griffith removed come 2012 when he is up for re-election.

Unfortunately (or fortunately depending on your view) the Democrats do not have anyone who can really challenge him.  You simply cannot have people crossing each other within the party.  Yes, it happens, and yes it is politics, but simple put: it's bad for the party.  Griffith, without a doubt, gladly took Romney's endorsement in 2008 and 2010, why now is he afraid to return? Because he is just that "afraid" of not being reelected.  The book of politics that I read says "You don't bite the hand that feeds you. If you do, you had best find a new hand to get reelected."

That being said the Republican in me has just kicked in.  Perhaps Griffith has it right in not endorsing Romney with idea that in some freakish turn Perry or Bachman gets the nod, Griffith can gain stature within the Tea Party with his endorsement.  It would be one heck of a political bluff, but waiting until the river to hit a straight takes nerves.  In politics and particularly Republican politics, nerves are not always good.  Besides waiting that long to make the right endorsement might just lead to you looking for a job.