State of the Union Reaction: Almost Immediate and Unnecessarily Blunt

Count it.  It was a great speech. Was it epic? No. Will it be remembered forever? No. Will it be remembered in election season? Unlikely.

What makes me call it “great” is the fact that it measured, appropriate and honest.  It was better than good and fell short of “a moment.”  This President is an extremely practical president.  This speech reflected that.  This President is left on some issues, moderate on others and conservative on work ethic and responsibility.  This speech reflected that.  This President sees the government as both a tactical tool and long-term strategy solution without getting anywhere near socialism, communism or whatever other -ism is the critics’ flavor of the week.  This speech reflected that.

President Obama made several outstanding points:

1. Tax reforms can create jobs.
2. “Teachers matter.”
3. Some people need to be reminded to play by the rules. “A return to the American values of fair play and shared responsibility will help us protect our people and our economy.”
4. “…Washington is broken.” “Can you blame [most Americans] for feeling a little cynical?”
5. “deficit of trust” between Wall St. and Main St. (thanks to my wife, M, her comment got this one on the list)
6. Quoting Abraham Lincoln (like Sam Adams) is always a good decision.
7. “…the State of our Union will always be strong.” (And shame on Mitch Daniels for calling it “grave” and Obama dishonest – all in the same breath).

President Obama made several less-than-outstanding points*:

*Please note that I feel more compelled to defend my criticisms.  The other points seem to speak for themselves.

1. “This blueprint begins with American manufacturing.” Really?  I keep hearing this.  (Probably from brillant economists and I’m just the village idiot on this one).  Yet, this feels a bit like relying on the past and reverting to what worked 40 years ago instead of pushing forward to life after heavy industrialized manufacturing.  He didn’t say lets start manufacturing sophisticated electronics, biotech components or tools, or medical solutions; he mentioned cars, roads and bridges.  He did mention new energy solutions, so that counts.  And don’t get me wrong, I want to see I-84 in Connecticut improved as much as anyone.  But somehow this feels like bowing to the conventional wisdom of a previous generation.
2. Let’s “take on” illegal immigration and write a bill that allows illegal aliens who are currently getting an education to “earn” their citizenship.  Agreed. Sounds great.  From my perspective, that was the extent of the proposal.  It sounded great but did not go far enough in explaining a). what the President supports when it comes to immigration reform and b). what that legislation might look like.  Granted, Congress writes the law.  I get that.  But I still felt like bold statements that are clearly supposed to be a message to DREAM Act supporters did not explain his rationale or strategy to the rest of us.
3. “That’s why we need smart regulations to prevent irresponsible behavior.”  This one is a tough one for me.  A bit of a pickle, you might say.  Balancing the need for regulation with the free market approach to irresponsible actors has always been a conflict at the heart of our two-party system and cuts to the core of the need for a President and Congress who can work together.  This balancing act between regulation and free market principles IS the basic balancing act we’ve been asking the American government to master since the founding of the Republic.  I’m not expecting President Obama to solve it in one speech or even three years.  But quotes like this make my ears perk up.  Because, while yes, we need smart regulations to curb irresponsible, powerful private actors; we also need to let loses, bankruptcies and market corrections occur when those regulations fail or do not exist.  In the last ten years or so, we’ve had neither smart regulations nor the guts to let the results of bad regulations play out (Republicans and Democrats alike, see W. for TARP1).  So, I support President Obama’s themes around smart government and efficient regulation but I get wary when the President begins to act like we can predict where irresponsible behavior will strike next.  There aren’t enough regulations in the world…
4. “Do we want to keep these tax cuts for the wealthiest Americans? Or do we want to keep our investments in everything else— like education and medical research; a strong military and care for our veterans? Because if we’re serious about paying down our debt, we can’t do both.”  Rhetorically, I think this is an effective line.  In reality, I do not think either party is being honest about the so-called 1%.  Republican voters do not trust The Government to actually use the money from higher taxes effectively or to address anything other than pet projects.  Democratic voters think that if only The Government had more revenue or all the tax revenues their supposed to have, then programs would operate effectively.  Hogwash.
   1. The question is – do we want to add another tax bracket for earners above $379,000/year? If we do, add one and create a % higher than the current 35%.  If we don’t, then we’ve got some serious cuts to make.  The President is right about not being able to do both.  But perhaps arguing about people who make between $250,000/year and $379,000/year isn’t the best way to frame the argument?
   2. Framing it as Billionaire vs. Secretary isn’t bad but it ignores some giant implications about the capital gains vs. income tax rates.  (Perhaps he thinks Americans cannot handle that portion of the discussion yet?)
5. “They know that this generation’s success is only possible because past generations felt a responsibility to each other, and to their country’s future, and they know our way of life will only endure if we feel that same sense of shared responsibility. That’s how we’ll reduce our deficit. That’s an America built to last.”  A sense of shared responsibility is how we’ll reduce our deficit? Also, isn’t “Built to Last” the trademark of Chevy trucks or something? Did America buy it in the last bailout? (Sorry, cheap joke. Perhaps a bit better than tonight’s joke about spilled milk. Though he did save it in the end.)

Two quick side notes of interest:

1. “I’m directing my Administration to allow the development of clean energy on enough public land to power three million homes. And I’m proud to announce that the Department of Defense, the world’s largest consumer of energy, will make one of the largest commitments to clean energy in history – with the navy purchasing enough capacity to power a quarter of a million homes a year.”  Those I was watching the speech with tonight and I decided that this means wind power on public land and the first client will be the US Navy? I think I got that right but if someone else heard differently please let The Pickle know.
2. “That’s why I’m sending this Congress a plan that gives every responsible homeowner the chance to save about $3,000 a year on their mortgage, by refinancing at historically low interest rates.” M is becoming the voice of the people.  Her comment was “I wonder how he’ll define ‘responsible’?”  I agree.  I also wondered if this was a good thing.  Do we want a bunch of people refinancing?  I guess so, but wasn’t really sure why.

As I said, I support many of the themes and perspectives that the President trumpeted tonight.  Innovation.  Authenticity.  Good Ol’ Fashioned American gumption.  Combined with efficiency, incentives and progress.  Yes.  Did I sense hope during tonight’s speech? Yes.  But let’s not forget.  This is a practical President giving a practical speech.  It was just abstract enough to pull in the idealist dreamers out there and just realistic enough to make sense to open-minded, hard-working Americans.  Was it a campaign speech? Not exactly.  Was it a policy speech? Not exactly.  Was it a timeless speech for the ages? Not really.

In the end, it may have been just what the country needed.

Link to text of speech:  http://www.google.com/hostednews/ap/article/ALeqM5ipL6t6dU4L6bZEJqiSK3XI8VAQCQ?docId=4abd26d5a7de4d55b6b634ff37833b39

Giving Newt too much credit: Quick analysis by John Avlon

I found Newt’s victory last night in the South Carolina primary quite surprising.  Even after reports started coming in early in the day that Newt had strong support, I still didn’t believe it would make much of a difference.  Like CNN columnist, John Avlon, I assumed Mitt was inevitable and Newt is too risky and ultimately not realistic.  I still believe this, but I love that GOP voters are willing to make a statement and take a risk.  It’s nice to see voters willing to take a risk because it makes politics and life more interesting.  There’s no question Newt is risky – his personal character is an issue, his ability to harness his abstract policy ideas into practical solutions and his ability (physical and political) to go toe-to-toe with Obama in the general.  Mitt, once seen as the only real option, is now probably just the only option.  Not strong.

Avlon correctly notes: “This not only turns the Romney campaign’s electability narrative on its head, it’s got to be making the Obama camp in Chicago smile, looking at a long GOP nomination fight ahead.”

Although, I’m not sure I agree with Avlon on this: “The state of the race has fundamentally changed in the course of one dizzying week.”

Really?

I still think Romney is the strongest candidate and will probably weather this “late” storm to capture the nomination.  By March 1st, this race will look completely different and will be all but over.  Advantage Romney.  Yet Gingrich capitalized on the anti-rich fervor of the last week and stoked the fire with his own strategery calling Mitt a “Massachusetts Moderate.”  Always useful in a primary.

No question Newt has tactical skill and makes for great television.  Perhaps that’s why Avlon and others keep him in the headlines giving fodder to the 24/7 news cycle.  Or perhaps, as Avlon notes, he just wants to see more Republican voters have a chance to weigh in on the nominee.  Either way, Newt’s megaphone got bigger last night and the primary will remain competitive for at least another 30 days if not more.

I’m interesting in thinking more about a possible Gingrich campaign – how can he reach voters? how will he match up against Obama? who would be his VP choice?  He creates a visual contrast to Obama that is not flattering to GOP or Newt, but he’s a fascinating thinker, to be sure.

For a party that’s nervous about Obama’s ideology, it doesn’t get much more inside Washington than Gingrich.  That means the GOP leadership would be Gingrich, McConnell, and Boehner.  Combined that’s almost 250 years of Washington experience.  Republicans have always been much more comfortable playing politics and using purely political means to achieve their ends so perhaps the Old Guard doesn’t bother them, but it bothers me.  To have voters complaining about stalemates in Washington and uselessness of Congress, seems odd to support a man who embodies Congress.

If Gingrich gets the nomination, can we change the name to OGP? Old Guard Party.  I mean, Romney clearly doesn’t understand what its like to be a working class or middle class American, but at least he’s got the perspective of an entrepreneur and former governor.  A Republican governor of Massachusetts, no less.  So, he’s had to be a bit more practical than Gingrich, if nothing else.  But, I digress, I’ll save my analysis of Romney’s “everyman” problem for tomorrow.

Link: http://www.cnn.com/2012/01/21/opinion/avlon-romney-stumble/index.html?hpt=hp_c2

 

Perry Out. And there were…2

CNN broke the news that Rick Perry will be dropping out of the GOP Presidential primary.  Or as is now the custom “suspending” his campaign “indefinitely” (see, Michele Bachmann).  Classic.  For once, at least, it was breaking news.  Well, it is if you don’t count the fact that its been obvious for like two weeks.  No, but seriously, for the last 2 weeks who was the guy saying “He’s right in the mix here.” Perhaps only Perry’s campaign manager and I bet even he was skeptical after NH.

Slate then mistakenly reported “and then there were four.” Really? Don’t they mean 2.  Santorum? Paul? I mean, they are still running in as much as they are spending money, giving speeches and on the ballot.  But otherwise, any chance Perry wants to be Veep, negotiated his exit or has any political credibility left? Probably not.  Just throwing it out there.  You never know.

Ok. Fair enough.  Sometimes you do.

Another Pickle: What would Karen Santorum do?

Having 7 more minutes before my last first day of school, I decided to try to go 3 for 3 on posts over the last three days.  I thought about promising that it will be quick.  But let’s be honest, that term is relative.  Speaking of relativity…

I found another “pickle” and thought given my post two days ago about trying to dig a bit deeper for interesting stories, I’d at least throw it out there.  This pickle is the tension between wanting to see the government and its laws conform to one’s worldview and wanting the government to protect worldviews of all types.  In the latter view, the government acts more like a referee.   Instead of taking a position on a controversial moral choice like abortion or gay marriage, the government allows the practice(s) and leaves the choice up to the individual about whether to participate.  In the former view, the government decides what is acceptable in society and our elected officials craft legislation to reflect the values of the majority of the people thus outlawing practices the majority party finds unsavory and/or immoral.

I considered this dichotomy while reading two stories about Karen Santorum.  I have to be honest, before today, I did not know the name of Rick Santorum’s wife.  And I grew up in PA when he was our junior Senator.  Nevertheless, he’s running for President and his wife is “fair game.”  The first story in the Daily Beast/Newsweek chronicles Mrs. Santorum’s early life living within a much older abortion provider/doctor.  The second story was a comment by an author at Slate.com commenting on the Daily Beast piece.

Honestly, my initial reaction was ok? People aren’t allowed to change?  No big deal. The Slate piece addresses this directly:

“It’s a shame that such a fuss is being made over Karen Santorum’s past. In a sane world, we’d be allowed to have our private lives be private. But since the Santorums want to strip you of your right to sexual privacy in order to have the government micromanage your sex lives, it’s high time she be held to the standard she wants for you. After all, she’s benefitted long enough from the freedoms that she and her husband want to take away from everyone else.” Link: http://www.slate.com/blogs/xx_factor/2012/01/17/the_anti_fornication_anti_abortion_wife_of_rick_santorum_lived_very_differently_in_her_20s_.html 

Here’s the thing.  I get that.  It’s not fair to change your worldview and then begin holding people to standards you yourself was unable to live.  Also, it conforms to the second worldview I mentioned earlier.  The government is not meant to be a tool of oppression of one group’s moral code on another.  And yet, when isn’t the government wading into moral decisions? Only all the time.

So, here’s the pickle.  Do you fight for what you believe (believe in your heart, religious beliefs, rationally believe, etc.) and try to use every possible medium at your disposal including the legislature to get others live the same way?

OR

Do you allow for the possibility that other adults in a free society might want to live in a way that certain groups do not agree with?  In the case of Karen Santorum, should she work to change the law to match her religious beliefs however new or old they may be?

Why not? If you really, really believe something, aren’t you supposed to do everything in your power to do as much as possible to change the law?

My take is Karen Santorum would be far more effective focusing her energy on the individuals whom she’d like to live differently (i.e. women contemplating an abortion) rather than on politicians to change the law.  In this way, the system works.  The politicians protect those that don’t want to live by Karen Santorum’s worldview and want to make their own choices about their own lives.  Karen Santorum changes the hearts and minds of the people who have the choice.

The problem arises because there is always a line.  No matter how much we’d like to respect other’s choices and lifestyles, there’s always a line that needs to be drawn.  Legislatures and courts (the government) find that line.  The ultimate line  for abortion (legalizing) has been drawn even though some specifics (late term/partial birth abortions) are defined later on in the process.  The line for gay marriage is being drawn state-by-state as I write.

This is the understood resolution to this particular pickle.  As a moral choice or lifestyle gains participants and support in society, we re-examine the line in our governmental institutions.  So, while religious leaders talk about the notorious slippery slope, there’s no question the line moves quite slowly.  Yet, it means telling devout and passionate people NOT to fight to change the law.  Understandably, that is not an easy position for people who believe strongly about moral values.

For example, the Karen Santorums of the world see proponents of the right to chose and supporters of gay marriage as trying to do the same thing she is doing – change the law to conform to a worldview.  Karen Santorum sees making a practice like abortion legal as the legislature “approving” it.  She sees making abortion illegal as disapproving of it.  In order to make my point, please grant me a quick assumption about Amanda Marcotte, the author of the Slate piece above. She doesn’t see the legislature as “approving” or “endorsing” abortion.  She sees the legislature as simply allowing individuals to participate, or not.

This is a pickle.  When you believe that making a certain practice legal is the same as endorsing it, it muddles the whole argument.  When you believe that making a certain practice illegal is the equivalent of “forcing” your beliefs on someone, it cheapens the beliefs.  Suddenly, bloggers and authors see Karen Santorum as a hypocrite and moralist as opposed to a true believer and perhaps Karen Santorum sees the bloggers as liberal humanists who are “anti-God” or “anti-religion.”

The truth is a difference of opinion on the proper role of the law, the legislature and even the government.  Is there a resolution to this difference?  Is this a pickle we’ll ever get out of?  As Romney and Obama gear up for a national debate on the role of government and wealth in America, I can’t help thinking that there are some basic disagreements that might remain pickles no matter how much we discuss them.  The proper role of morality in making law is likely going to continue as long as I’m alive and observing politics.  So, Karen Santorum and the subsequent coverage of her life illuminates a pickle that’s likely to remain a pickle until the understood resolution I mentioned earlier (the law will continue to draw a line that is debated and fought over in the legislature and the judiciary) until we come up with something better.  But if that’s the case, aren’t the Karen Santorums incentivized to continue fighting that fight through government institutions?

Huh, that is a pickle.

Money, $, Money: Opportunity vs. Entitlement

Noting that this year’s Republican nomination process has drawn to a close (perhaps from reading The Pickle), The Detroit Opportunity Project responded to yesterday’s request to “go deeper” and find something “more interesting” to discuss.  Bradford Frost of the Detroit Opportunity Project has been endorsed on the Pickle before and took my challenge to heart.  Today he published a fascinating piece about the dichotomy forming in the upcoming Presidential elections.  The distinction between entitlements and opportunity cuts to the core of both candidates, both parties and all Americans.  Granted, “entitlement society” is the derogatory name Romney has given Obama’s vision.  Obama is likely to see his vision of government investment in equal opportunity as the “opportunity society” and to see Romney’s as the “advantaged society.”

You gotta have money to make money, right?

Well, turns out, not so much.  You can invent, create, innovate and even borrow in order to join the opportunity class at the top rungs of society.  So, what’s government’s role in that process?

Once again we encounter a “pickle.”

On one hand, we’re all raised with what Frost calls “the bootstrapping” ethic.  Every man, woman and child for themselves.  If you work harder and/or smarter, you’ll make your fortune.  It’s 2012 and we’re still somewhere between the free market and the wild west when it comes to personal responsibility over our own opportunities.

On the other hand, since at least the Great Depression and probably before that, the government has played a crucial role in quality of life.  Regardless of what political science majors and libertarian Presidential candidates believe, the government is part of almost every major industry and all aspects of our lives.  It’s here.  Romney argues “not for long.” Obama has more a change from within approach.  Government is involved and we have to decide whether we’re ok with that and if so, how much?

It’s a pickle.  The truth probably lies somewhere in the middle.  Especially as the party loyalists on both sides of the aisle become more ensconced in their worldviews.

According to Frost, we’re about to watch this debate play out on a national stage.  The Pickle says “it’s about time.”  But I’m also a little skeptical.  If this election will help decide how Americans view their government, we still have a participation problem.  First, will it be ok if only 60% of registered voters vote in this election?  Second, if so, then it’s likely that between 48-51% of the vote will be enough to win.  If that happens, then 30% of registered voters will have made a statement about the future of American opportunity and the American Dream.  Is that enough to mark a cultural or political shift?

It seems like the wealth gap between rich and poor which is implicated in this discussion regarding entitlement vs. opportunity is also joined by a widening gap between participants and non-participants in the political process.  Even as the government becomes more involved in our industries and tax returns, fewer Americans a). participate and b). believe in government/politicians/public policy. That’s a pickle that no election will solve.

Bottom line:  I agree with Frost’s “The Dream Is Burning” post that we’re in the midst of a critical debate on opportunity in America.  What does it mean to chase the American Dream?  What are we incentivizing and what are we subsidizing? Once we find out, then we must decide, do we agree? Romney says no.  Obama says “for the most part” and is prepared to take it to the next level.

We’re at a crossroads of ideology and we’re looking for a solution.  I’m ready to vote for a problem-solver.  In 2008, Obama was the clear “problem-solver.”  In 2012, we’re about to find out.

Please read “The Dream Is Burning” post at http://detroitopportunityproject.com/.  Let’s keep this discussion going and get to the bottom of Opportunity in American in the 21st Century.

GOP: A different sorta pickle

After Iowa but before New Hampshire, my computer crashed.  Thus, no posts about New Hampshire.  No posts about Jon Huntsman.  No posts about Mitt Romney.  Frankly, it was a convenient time to lost my computer.  Because…

THERE WAS NOTHING TO SAY.  Breaking news (with apologies to CNN, Fox News and MSNBC) – there’s still nothing to say.  Yet when you turn on cable news, there’s still an awful lot of “breaking news.”  Breaking news:  Romney stops for coffee shakes hand, seems semi-sincere.  Breaking news: Gingrich still snarky. Breaking news:  Rick Perry unlikely to say anything interesting anymore.

I get it. 2012 is an election year.  But come on.  Let’s take this opportunity to dive into more substantive issues.  Instead of covering the so-called “horse race” of winning delegates, that Romney has already won.  Let’s take this opportunity to understand the modern GOP.  Let’s look at what the wealth gap really means and who’s serious about addressing it.  Let’s see whether Democrats are paying any attention to politics yet.  I don’t know.  But to me, there’s a real opportunity here to use Romney’s comfortable lead to open up the discussion and coverage.

The two most interesting “story lines” for 2012 in politics aren’t the candidates, per se, but the changing way Americans interact with political and social questions.

1).  The more electoral of the two issues is the “pickle” that the GOP voters currently find themselves.  It’s a classic.  As long as there have been elections, and most especially since the rise of the two-party (only) system, Americans have had to balance principles with electability.  This year is no different.  And even though this is always the case in primaries, I still find it interesting.  My parents are solid social conservative voters.  The GOP would have to work incredibly hard to lose my parents’ votes.  Also, my parents are reasonably attentive to politics.  They are not active in the party or anything but they pay attention, watch the news and are above-average when it comes to being informed.

The other day they asked me – “What’s the deal with Ron Paul? How come he won so many votes in Iowa and New Hampshire?”

My response = The pickle!  Voters are in a pickle and when push came to shove especially in a primary where many voters were looking for an alternative to Romney, voters went with principle over practical.  Ron Paul is not a practical candidate.  He’s older.  He’s abstract.  He’s extreme in a few policy areas.

Yet, Ron Paul is right.

Granted, Ron Paul’s campaign is totally unrealistic and he isn’t electable.  At all.  But in terms of political theory.  He’s great.  He speaks an ideological language straight out of an undergraduate political science class.  He tells you the way many people wish the country functioned.  He forgets to mention the other 50%+ of the population who think they should have a say in how laws are made and policy is formed.  If given a clean slate and no opposition, would all his policies work? Would a Ron Paul experiment improve the American quality of life?  WHO KNOWS? But its interesting to think about.  And given the fact that Romney is quite comfortable in his role as anointed-nominee, many voters decided to send a message.  They voted for interesting over safe.

The best part is – this is just one, small example of the Party’s dilemma. Or trilemma.  The GOP has two or three warring factions, ideologically, and its becoming increasing difficult for them to “play nice.”  This is interesting to me.  I don’t have much more to say on the topic, unless we’re all ok with this post lasting 1500 words and taking up more of your time than you’ve already graciously offered me.  I’d like to believe we have a candidate or party strong enough to capture some of the nuances and dynamics of this facture in the party and strike out on their own.  I’ve shied away from rooting for a legitimate third party because it just seems so damned unlikely.  But something has to give.  The fact that Ron Paul, Jon Huntsman, Mitt Romney and Rick Santorum are all working the same votes under the same title is becoming increasingly unrealistic.

Enough of that.

2). There’s something going on with the gap between rich and poor in both parties.  Someone outta pay attention.  The funny thing is that it might not be what we originally thought.  The original storyline went something like this – the unemployed under 40 crowd is getting the poor, working class and middle class riled up over taxes and big business and the 1% are all super conservative, hoard their money and find loopholes everywhere to screw the rest of us.

According to an article in today’s New York Times, perhaps not.  This article explores the diversity of the 1% and paints a more understanding and agreeable picture (for the most part).  At the same time, politicians cannot see the big picture (as usual).  They need to start crafting a message and long-range plan to deal with these voters.

Not because there’s a strategic advantage to exploiting socio-economic classes for votes.  But because American is starting to represent and stand for values that aren’t in keeping with what we’ve always thought it meant to be American and we should make sure everyone’s ok with that.  Otherwise, we’re gonna wake up one day and be disfunction, scared and irrelevant.

Some might say that’s already happening.   I disagree.

But that’s doesn’t mean we don’t have serious question regarding capitalism, social welfare safety net and government intervention in every industry that need to be answered.   Between now and the two parties national conventions is the perfect time to start working on this.  Slate, NYT, WashPo, DailyBeast, New Yorker and columnists of substance combine forces and let’s dig into this!  What’s Friedman up to?  Can we get him back here looking into this?  If he needs help, David Brooks and someone like Joe Scarborough might be interesting too.

I’m not sure if the solution is political, economic or cultural but it feels like we’re headed down the wrong road and picking up steam.  Just me? I might be over-selling this particular topic but I think there’s more to say/write/discover and we need more real journalists looking into it.

Wow.  How’s that for a rambling opened ended post about all the work other people should do? I’m about to graduate law school in May, so if anyone wants to give me a job looking into these or any other political, legal or social issues – I’m all yours!  I just need enough to pay my loan payment and perhaps have a cup of coffee once or twice a day.

And please, in closing, let’s stop pretending like Romney might not be the nominee.  Barring a crazy scandal, this thing was over with his incredibly strong showing among social conservatives in Iowa.  He’ll lose with dignity and won’t concede a landslide.

There, now let’s get on to something more interesting.

 

Iowa.

Honestly, for a few weeks, I forgot Rick Santorum was running for the GOP nomination.  Growing up in Pennsylvania, I guess I have a tendency to dismiss Santorum.  Not because he wasn’t a good Senator or something like that, but rather because his message was not broadly received in PA and as a result, he lost to now Senator Casey.  When a candidate loses a Senate race in a state like PA, I assume that means the candidate also does not have the support necessarily to win a national election.  This is true of Santorum.

What I forgot was that a candidate like Santorum could still win in Iowa.

I was reminded by a close friend last night.  Winning Iowa doesn’t even matter, he texted around 8:30 PM.  He’s right.  Iowa can only hurt you (see, Michele Bachmann).

I’m not disparaging the Iowa caucuses, but I had forgotten some of the candidates who previously did well there.  Looking back tells us something about the importance of the first primary and the likelihood that Santorum lasts another two months.  George H.W. Bush beat Ronald Reagan there in 1980.  So, Romney (feeling like Reagan) isn’t worried.  Though I wonder if Santorum’s name is now on some list of Vice Presidential possibilities.  Bob Dole and Pat Robertson finished ahead of Bush Sr. in 1988.  Perhaps Pat Robertson and Rick Santorum are the best analogy I could find.  Lastly in 2008, Mike Huckabee won Iowa lasting until March 4th before ending his candidacy.

Ultimately, the only thing that happened to Santorum last night was that his candidacy has been extended before its inevitable end.  The only questions that remain are how long will it take before he withdraws and how serious is Santorum as a leader of part of the GOP going forward.  I do not think he’s a great VP candidate, but GOP candidates have surprised me in the past (see John McCain in 2008).

As for the other candidates, it is quick and easy.

Romney – probably sealed the nomination last night.  He’ll obviously have a strong showing in New Hampshire (his type of Republicans) and if you can show a strong finish in Iowa, he can do the same in South Carolina.  Not convincing victories but just enough to bring social conservatives and fiscal conservatives together and make him appear electable.  He’s probably not electable going one-on-one with Obama during a long campaign, but he’s probably the best the GOP can hope for.

Perry – out.

Paul – same as ever.

Gingrich – an average showing with a strong likelihood to finish stronger in NH but ultimately not enough to overcome Romney’s advantages (his height, $$$ and endorsements from GOP leaders).  He’s fun to watch and speculate about especially when he’s speaking off the cuff, but he’s too volatile to win the nomination (see Howard Dean in 2004).

Huntsman – out after NH.  It’s never a good sign when, over Christmas, I brought up Jon Huntsman and my parents who are solid GOP votes each election cycle were not familiar with him.  At the beginning, I thought he had some potential.  Former governor.  Obama’s choice for ambassador to China.  Could have argued understanding both sides of the aisle.  Just wasn’t his year.  Perhaps it’s just not his type of Party anymore.

We’ll see how NH and SC turn out, but it’s Romney’s to lose and he is showing no signs of weakness.

A “Quick” Note on Misguided Rhetoric

We’ve all been there.  Getting too caught up in an argument and suddenly realizing that the other person is right.  Defending an actor or musician who’s work is only average but the course of the conversation has you saying things like  ”____ is the most underrated actor of our time.”  Or, more specifically, the Baltimore Orioles or Boston Red Sox fan overreaching in a sports bar and getting caught trying to convince everyone that Derek Jeter is on steroids…for real.  Sometimes we lose perspective.  I get it.  I’m as competitive as the next guy.  Just ask anyone who I’ve played pick-up basketball against since age 8.   You get caught up in a moment and lose perspective.

Right now, the Republican Party is caught up in that moment.  The only difference between Newt Gingrich on Face the Nation or Meet the Press and me arrogantly declaring that Manny Ramirez is “the greatest right handed hitter of all time” is when I speak no one is listening and the implications are few.  When Gingrich, Perry and Bachmann speak, the country is listening and certain voters are having their misguided and potentially harmful views reinforced.

On Sunday, Gingrich let loose a few theories on “activist” federal judges and how to deal with him.  The idea is so ridiculous (having Capitol Police or Federal marshals bring them to Washington) that it barely requires addressing.  The bigger issue is that it has become acceptable and normal for GOP candidates to take shots at the federal judiciary.  It has become so common for these candidates to attack federal judges that Mr. Gingrich lost perspective and found himself making wild claims that have no basis in reality.  He’s making a losing argument and true conservatives should pay attention.

Look, I understand that conservatives feel like the law and judicial decisions only go in one direction – liberal/federal. What do I mean by that? Conservatives see the law loosening the original Bill of Rights to extend certain rights to more and more groups (homosexual couples, illegal aliens, etc.) in society while at the same time growing the power and jurisdiction of the federal government.   They see federal judges (and not advocate lawyers paid to make discrete analogies within the law) as the catalyst for these expansions.  Therefore, federal judges became the enemy.   Federal judges are not the enemy.

Sidenote:  This whole line of reasoning is quite easily responded too.  One of the best responses I’ve seen was written in the Los Angeles Times today by Erwin Chemerinsky.   Please read it.

First off, let me address the expansion of rights.  This is how the law works.  The Constitution or Congress provides a right.  Lawyers presented with new and different sets of facts from their clients take the law and draw analogies why their client given this new circumstances should  be covered by the law.  A judge determines whether the law was meant to apply to this new circumstance.  Lawyers make the arguments.  Lawyers make the analogies.  I’d guess that more often than not, the judge who is seen by some as an “activist” is merely deciding who had the better argument – which party had more of the the law on their side.  I’m sure some judges abuse this power, this discretion.  In fact, judges make bad decisions just like the rest of us.  Conservatives want to use the few bad decisions out there to create the impression that there are crazy judges making wild, inappropriate decisions everyday.  (It’s the next part of the argument that is even more of a stretch.)  That by voting for Gingrich, Perry, Bachmann or Santorum, the President can/will “rein in” the federal judiciary.

Not only is that not the case, intuitively, but Gingrich ends up making arguments that are flat out unconstitutional.  For so-called “textualists” and “originalists,” it’s unfortunate to see them attacking federal judges at the expense of the Constitution.  As Chemerinsky writes, “However, Article III, Section 1 of the Constitution provides that the justices of the Supreme Court and the lower federal courts have life tenure unless they are impeached and removed from office.” So, Gingrich calls for their removal from office despite the standard being “treason, bribery, and high crimes and misdemeanors.”

I’m sure there’s a member of the Tea Party out there saying, “Ok, but what these judges are doing is treason to the Constitution.”

My response – yeah, only not really.

In the age of political hyperbole, Gingrich and Perry are safe making wild claims about the existence of our constitutional republic and gravity of the “crimes” of federal judges, but it does not  bear out in the real world.  Judges are bound by precedent, procedure and the rule of the law.  Lawyers make analogies and distinctions in the hopes of using the power of argument and persuasion to convince judges and juries to find in their client’s favor.  In the end, the judges are not fulfilling some agenda but trying to do what’s best in each case, day in and day out.

To argue otherwise, demeans the federal judiciary, demeans the Constitution and demeans voters to think that this type of scare tactic will work.  I would ask Perry, Bachmann and Santorum to rise above this type of rhetoric but I think they’re not using political rhetoric.  I think they mistakenly believe that federal judges really are out to get them and their families.

Newt, on the other hand, is, or at least seems, better than that.  He knows the reality of the situation and yet he’s like me when I’m arguing about the Yankees or underrated Ben Affleck is, he’s caught in the battle of hyperbole and cannot stop himself.

Second, oh yeah, remember how 400 words ago, I wrote “First off, let me address the expansion of rights;” well, I know this is getting long and I’ll wrap it up at “Second.”

Second, it has been the fairly conservative Supreme Court in the last few years that has recognized free speech rights as extending to corporations, greatly expanded the President’s national security power and Article II military power, and declined to address environmental law issues implicating large corporations.

So, as the President has said “judicial restraint cuts both ways.”  Perhaps that’s all this is, the conservative justices and judges having the momentum of the law on their side to combat the ’60s and ’70s when liberal judges expanded individual rights and federal power.  But even if that’s the case, the rhetoric of “activist” judges does not hold up…unless it’s a hold over from years ago.  If so, let’s get some new voices and new ideas that do justice to the system, the Constitution and the voters.

Or perhaps doing justice is too activist.  And GOP candidates wouldn’t want to be associated with something like that.

Link: http://www.latimes.com/news/opinion/commentary/la-oe-chemerinsky-fedjudges-20111220,0,4776130.story

Didn’t I Just Write That…

Granted, I called it “whack-a-mole” and Alex Roarty at the National Journal has actual polling data but it’s basically the same thing, right? The Pickle is just ahead of the curve, I guess.  Just kidding.  Or maybe The Pickle has a wider readership than originally thought.  Doubtful.  Either way, looks like more than a few people are thinking the same thing about Newt and the GOP this year.

Link:  http://decoded.nationaljournal.com/2011/12/gingrich-falling-its-an-old-st.php

Someone is Playing Whack-a-mole

The question I’m asking is, who?

Today, Paul Krugman opened his column calling the GOP nomination process a “desperate search” for a candidate other than Mitt Romney.  I’m having trouble deciding if this is accurate.  I’ve made it clear on the Pickle before that I do not think Romney is a strong candidate.  I think he lives up to the politician stereotype and changes his message based on the group or constituency he may be speaking.  He has no real unifying purpose in running for President other than a personal desire to be President.  He cannot sufficiently answer the question – why should I vote for Mitt Romney? - as opposed to voting against Obama or instead of the other options.  You might think it is a matter of syntax but it is the subtext of every speech, sound byte and debate answer.

The media senses this subtext too.  In fact, they are trained to sniff it out and exploit it.

This is where my confusion comes in.  Is the GOP searching (almost methodically) for an alternative to Mitt Romney? Or is the media simply cycling through the GOP candidates, writing profiles, challenging Romney and identifying conflict in an effort to keep the cable news shows, blogs and homepage stories popular?  Please don’t misunderstand my point here, I’m not some conspiracy theorist who thinks the media has a grand, unifying agenda.  The media is driven by advertising sales, “hits”, “clicks”, readers and subscriptions.

Nevertheless, it has been kinda odd how the GOP opposition to Romney has been paraded out, seemingly one at a time, and removed from the race.  First, it was Bachmann.  She won the Ames Straw Poll in Iowa.  She appeared on Sunday morning talk shows.  She was profiled in The New Yorker and other news magazines.  We learned about her husband and her history in local politics.  And then Rick Perry announced his candidacy (sidenote – Could that look like a bigger mistake at this point? Doubtful.)

Rick Perry went toe-to-toe with Romney, briefly.  He was profiled as well.  We learned about his Dad.  We learned about Texas and the death penalty.  We learned about his hunting habits.  He stumbled, mumbled and bumbled his way into third or even fourth place.

Next, we were told that “true conservatives” (not Republicans mind you) had turned their attention to Herman Cain.  Inexplicably, Cain became a real contender.  Again I ask, whose doing was that?  Did he really make the gains in popularity or did he just receive a greater share of headlines and attention?  Cain proposed his 9-9-9 plan.  He “won” a debate.  He sang. He laughed.  We learned about his pizza company.  We learned about his childhood. We learned about his proclivities whether they be true or false.  We watched him “suspend” his campaign.  #2 no more.

Who was left?  Newt Gingrich, of course.  The man without the campaign staff was suddenly #1 in the polls.  Seemingly overnight, Gingrich was elevated to front-runner status, was positioned against Romney and was hypothetically put in debates with President Obama.  He was called smart, difficult, terrible, and finally zany.  It seems, as Krugman also noted today, the peak of the Gingrich campaign may have come and gone.

But good news.  Ron Paul has been moved out to the front of the pack.  Slowly we’ve started to see Ron Paul in Iowa stories.  ’What about Ron Paul?’ stories.   After months of being the outsider, hovering around 8-10% in national polls, it should come as no surprise that we’re going to start hearing about his rise in the polls and “legitimacy” as a candidate.  Get ready for about a week of Ron Paul hysteria.  I’d say more than week but with each challenger comes a shorter and shorter media cycle.

And with the news in Washington regarding the budget today, Paul Ryan is also making headlines.  Perhaps we’ll see someone float the idea of Ron Paul running with Paul Ryan.

Come to think of it, that’s perfect.  Ron Paul Ryan 2012.  Is it two people?  Is it one? It’s not so much a Presidential “ticket” as it is a Presidential “concept”.  If you want to vote for an economic theory in 2012 vote Ron Paul Ryan.

To be honest, I’m surprised a young, David Brooks wanna-be hasn’t “called” for Paul Ryan to run for President.  Never mind, that was so 4 months ago (to the day).

Frankly, I’m looking forward to getting to Jon Huntsman.  First, he is far less popular than he should be.  Second, I actually think he is one of the most reasonable voices I’ve heard (which explains his lack of popularity among so-called “conservatives”).  Last, he is the only one left.  After Huntsman, we might be stuck with Romney for real.

Wait, is Santorum still running?  Eh, who cares?

The bottom line is that Romney is going to be the nominee because the GOP is still taking this batch of candidates and the 2012 election seriously.  Despite the fact that no one has provided a sufficient answer to the country’s problems and no one has answered the question – why should I vote for you? Mitt “Default” Romney will tell you what you want to hear, lose comfortably* and the GOP can save its good candidates for 2016.

*For historical proof, check out the list of GOP candidates in the 1996 NH primary.  And in 2016, there almost certainly won’t be a sitting/incumbent Vice President in the race.  But there might be another Bush.  Save that for a future Pickle post.