To anyone outside America it is very difficult to follow the US judicial process. The current cause celebre is as a result of a neighborhood watch volunteer, a white Latino, George Zimmerman, shooting and killing, on February 26, an African American, Travyon Martin, whom he alleged was acting suspiciously. The police did not charge Zimmerman, presumably, accepting his story of self defense and or his right "to stand his ground" under attack. It appears common cause that an altercation took place between the two after Zimmerman had reported to the 911 dispatcher his sighting of the teenager. Zimmerman was reported to have injuries and grass burns on his clothing.
The fact that Zimmerman was not immediately arrested evoked a nationwide outcry including marches lead by African American activists such as the Reverend Al Sharpton and Jesse Jackson, head of the Rainbow Coalition. There were even accusations of a police cover up as Zimmerman had originally been photographed in handcuffs and the investigating officer, who had recommended that Zimmerman be charged with manslaughter, (culpable homicide) was apparently overruled.
UNDERLYING ISSUES.
There is a perception in the Black Community, often backed by fact, that they are profiled by law enforcement for arrest and prejudicial treatment. Studies have been done that show there are higher incarceration rates for similar offences, for example among black offenders.
Furthermore, this belief does not emerge in a historical vacuum. There is the history of slavery, legal segregation till about 60 years ago with the denial of voting rights and lynchings the last of which was in 1951. In recent times there have been celebrated instances of profiling with police being accused of excessive force and shooting suspects purely on the basis of race. The notorious Rodney King incident and the New York shooting of Amadou Diallo are but two recent examples of the tensions these interracial confrontations can evoke.
Invariably these confrontations are between a white authority and a non white "victim". African Americans maintain that this profiling is more the rule than the exception. In a study commissioned by the NYPD in 2006 in NY the raw data showed that 89% of those stopped for suspected criminal activity where African Americans. However, the researchers found little difference in the treatment of those stopped and made some recommendations to the NYPD as to police - pedestrian interactions. There also has been a concerted effort by some state authorities to come to grips with the problem. More than 20 states have passed legislation to outlaw profiling. So it is fair to say the problem has been recognized and to a certain extent addressed.
THE "VICTIM'S" FAMILY
The Martin family have been measured in their comments. (Another custom unique to America is where families appear, accompanied by their lawyers, in the media commenting on their tragedy and the behavior of the legal system). The Martin's have had one consistent refrain. Why,was a non law officer who shot and killed an unarmed teenager, whom he was told by the 911 dispatcher not to confront, not arrested? Had the races been reversed and the shooter been Black and the "victim" been white there is little doubt that the shooter would have been arrested, they maintain.
THE UNIQUE AMERICAN ROLE OF THE MEDIA
A media storm arose, as it so often does, in an incident that crystalizes an issue over which there has been so much tension and animosity. The dramatis personae take on the mantle of representing differing sides of public opinion of the issue rather than the merits of the particular incident per se. The Martin tragedy became the issue du jour with everyone and everybody weighing in. Bill Cosby said it had nothing to do with race but everything to do with guns. Mike Tyson maintained that vigilantes should have killed Zimmerman. Tempers flared from supporters of both sides of the political divide. Legal experts, activists, jurists and talk show hosts have gone on endlessly on about the merits of the case, "the stand your ground" legislation, which broadens the defense options in a case like this, and the action or inaction by the police. This discussion has gained momentum all the more now that Zimmerman has finally been charged.
Now none of this would be allowed in other first world countries where the sub judice rule applies. This rule allows no-one to comment on a legal case in progress lest it prejudice the outcome, and should apply all the more in America as nearly every trial is a jury trial and no-one can escape the bohaai. First Amendment rights of Freedom of Speech, trump however, the risk of influencing potential jurors.
THE FLORIDA JUSTICE SYSTEM
The first response to this public pressure was that on March 22, Florida Governor Scott stepped in and took the unusual step of replacing the State Attorney, Norm Wolfinger, who was the law officer responsible for deciding how the investigation was to proceed. Wolginger had decided to convene a Grand Jury, which is usually a lengthy procedure, to decide if there was any case against Zimmerman. Scott replaced Wolfinger with another prosecutor, Angela Corey, who was designated with the title of a special prosecutor.
On April 11, Angela Storey announced that Zimmerman would be charged with second degree murder that carried a maximum penalty of life imprisonment. This in contrast with the original State's Attorney's initial decision that there was not even enough evidence to charge Zimmerman with manslaughter, (culpable homicide).
DIFFERENCES CONTINUED.
Distinguished lawyer and jurist Alan Dershowitz weighed in on this course of events. He stated that the problem with the American judicial system is that state prosecutors and judges are elected by popular vote. He alleged that Angela Corey had acted irresponsibly and even unethically by charging Zimmerman with murder where intent had to be proved. He said the facts that she presented to do so were pathetically weak. She was just pandering to her electorate. She hoped to get a plea bargain, (in this environment), where Zimmerman would plea guilty to manslaughter. Probably the best know criminal defense attorney in America, Marc Geragos, agreed with Dershowitz, on the lack of merits of Corey's case for murder.
"STAND YOUR GROUND" LEGISLATION FLORIDA.
It is fair to say the "Stand Your Ground" law is controversial. It was pioneered by a Marion Hammer who has strong affiliations with the National Rifle Association. This law states that an individual may stand his ground and not retreat and use deadly force even in a public area. The grounds for using this force are very broad and are under the rubric of, if the perpetrator, "had reasonable belief of a threat, (my emphasis).
Since the Law has been introduced there have been three times as many "justifiable" homicides in Florida. (A total of twenty states have similar legislation on their books). The law was opposed by several police chiefs and prosecutors at the time. John Timoney who was the police chief of Miami stated called it "The License to Murder Law" and would turn Florida into the tropical Wild West.
"Trying to control shooting by members of a well-trained and disciplined police department is a daunting enough task," Timoney said at the time. "Laws like Stand Your Ground give citizens unfettered power and discretion with no accountability. It is a recipe for disaster."
Thus if the perpetrator can prove that there was "reasonable belief of a threat" then he has immunity from litigation. This could be the first item of business in this trial and if the defendant can prove this he has immunity from further prosecution and litigation in a civil court.
AT THE END OF THE DAY.
The one positive result of what has followed in the public domain, surrounding this tragic event, is that the set of circumstances that resulted in this killing will see the light of day. Justice cries out for an explanation as to how a teenager, who was on an errand, was shot dead by a self appointed neighborhood watchman, who had been told by authorities not to approach him regardless of his, as it turns out, misplaced suspicions.
Wednesday, April 18, 2012
Monday, April 9, 2012
THE ROBERTS SUPREME COURT AND OBAMACARE
The most contentious case to come before the Roberts Supreme Court, the Constitutionality of "Obamacare", has broad implications in several arenas. Besides the political fall out and impact on health care consideratons, another acrimonious narrowly divided opinion will exacerbate the public's perception of the Court as being merely "motivated by politics". A recent CNN poll revealed that over 50% of the public already feel that the decision will be based on the Supreme Court Judges' well known political affiliations rather than the merits of the issues.
SUPREME COURT ERAS AND THE HEALTH CARE PROTECTION AND AFFORDABLE ACT
Supreme Court eras are usually named after their Chief Justices - hence for example we have the Burger Court, the Warren Court, the Rehnquest Court and now the Roberts Court. It is an open secret that Justice Roberts aspires to be a consensus Chief Justice who is anxious to break away from the Rehnquest Court's legacy where 5- 4 opinions were the norm. (The most contentious, being regarded as the most political of them all, Bush versus Gore.)
Roberts has maintained that the court must attend to it's institutional stature with great care. He maintains that if the court is careless with its political capital it will loose it's credibility and legitimacy as an institution. - "The Justices must not only be principled and non partisan they must also appear that way to the nation".
So after 7 years of Robert's leadership, where the norm is still 5-4 decisions on perceived partisan lines, here comes the historic Health Care Act the likes of which Presidents since Truman have tried to enact. (The Clintons were the most recent failure). This act is the center piece of the Obama Presidency. It followed months of campaigning and Congress battles. If declared unconstitutional it would represent a major reversal by the judicial branch of government over the legislative branch. This is not a case, for example, where an individual is claiming that his constitutional rights were violated by a strip search. This is a case that involves a service that costs one sixth of the Gross National Product, (1 in every 6 dollars spent), and affects every American.
Not for 80 years has a Supreme Court invalidated a Congressional Law of this nature, let alone one of this significance. Yet the oral arguments indicate that the majority of Associate Justices may be willing to do so to this 2,700 page law on the basis of only one it's provisions.
Should this case, with it's enormous political ramifications, have yet another 5- 4 result the Robert's era, as he fears, is destined to be labelled "political". Thus it represents Chief Justice Roberts with his biggest challenge, to date, to get a "consensus" judgement.
OBAMA UPS THE ANTE
The likelyhood of the Supreme Court striking the law down has not been lost on the President. He forcefully reminded the Court that this law was Constitutional with ample precedents to back it's legality. It was not an abstract argument, he emphasized, maintaining that it was crucial to over 30 million Americans without Health Care and would effect the whole American population giving them protections they have not had to date. Obama concluded that he was confident that the Supreme Court would not take the unprecedented step of delegitimising this law.
He also attacked conservative commentators who were asking for the law to be repealed:
"I just remind conservative commentators that for years, what we've heard is, the biggest problem on the bench was judicial activism or a lack of judicial restraint, that an unelected group of people would somehow overturn a duly constituted and passed law," the president said.
THE CONSTITUTIONAL LEGAL ISSUES.
The crisp Constitutional point in this case is - has the Federal Government the right to mandate citizens to buy insurance or is this power only granted to the individual States. (This explains why Massachusetts's "Romneycare", which mandates it's citizens to do exactly what "Obamacare" does, has not yet been legally challenged). Those mandated under Obamacare would need to buy insurance as they do not qualify for governmental aid and nor do they have employee insurance.
To the average person this distinction between State and Federal Government is ridiculous and they are not even following the arcane legal arguments. They are just looking at the merits of Obamacare per se which includes endless provisions that inter alia do not allow insurance companies to refuse coverage if you have a preexisting condition and generally seek to provide affordable health care.
The constitutional provision that Congress passed this Act on was based on Article 1 Section 8 of the Constitution. This allows the Federal Government to regulate Commerce which crosses State lines. This includes services and the instruments needed to effect that service and any local activity that may impact on that commerce. There are several Supreme Court precedents from the New Deal era that approximate what is being asked for here.
THE CONSTITUTIONAL ARGUMENTS ON OBAMACARE
Very briefly the central argument of the complainants is that the Obama mandate does not represent a commercial transaction. The latter implies a willing buyer and a willing seller. The Act mandates that those who have not insurance from either their employees or do not qualify for government programs must buy their own. The complainants argue that someone who does not buy insurance is not a willing buyer. Thus the Act is not regulating commerce per se.
Most of the unwilling buyers would be young healthy people who feel they don't need any coverage. Also the complainants argue that medical insurance is generally covered by each state and not across state lines so that the Federal Congress did not have the authority to act.
By extension if this law is upheld the complainants extrapolate that the Federal Government could force people to do anything that the Federal Government wanted. The argument frequently came up that they could force people to eat broccoli!
The counter argument is that everybody needs medical care at one or another time and this can occur at any time. They then will go to an ER and everybody else ends up paying for those uninsured. Last year alone there was $43 billion of "free" care that had to be covered by the government or by increased insurance premiums. Also by your act of not purchasing health care insurance you thus harm others. The behavior of the non compliant will effect all across State lines.
THE ROBERT'S TASK.
From a legal world most legal pundits thought that the Supreme Court wouldn't even hear this case. One went as far as to say he would eat his hat if they did. Similarly from the legal world most believed that the government would have a large majority victory. This perception changed dramatically when the "conservative " judges launched into the lawyer representing the Government's case. They did so in a most disparaging fashion. Now the perception is this is going to be another 5-4 decision most likely in favor for repeal of the Health Care Act.
There are 5 votes that are immovable. These are the 4 "liberal" judges and Clarence Thomas. The latter is a strict constructionist and does not believe for one second that the Constitution is a "living organism". It is what it is for better or worse.
Justice Kennedy, the traditional swing vote, is the Associate Justice most likely to side with maintaining the law. Apparently Judges, Scalia, Alito and Roberts are to a lesser or greater extent said to be for "judicial restraint". The latter phrase includes avoiding to be seen to be too political in their judgements.
The oral argument leads one to believe that Kennedy and Roberts, while leaning to repeal the law, had some flexibility. That would create a 6 -3 result in favor of retention. If commentators are correct then Scalia and Alito can also be persuaded. Additional votes would create a consensus that would begin to help to remove the political label that has been given to the Roberts Court.
REACTION TO THE AGGRESSIVE BEHAVIOR OF THE CONSERVATIVE ASSOCIATE JUDGES
The above argument assumes that Justice Roberts indeed wants to change the perception of the Court. If this is so it will need skills and leadership that he has not shown to date. Besides the future of the Affordable Health and Protection Act the Roberts Court legacy is at a turning point. To use his own words the Court is in danger of loosing it's credibility as already indicated by the polls.
The criticism following the conservative Associate Justices' relentless drilling of the Government's attorney has been vitriolic. A piece by David Dow in the influential "The Daily Beast" called for the impeachment of the judges should they overturn the law. Bradley Joondeph, a former Clerk of Reagan appointed Sandra Day O' Conner, opined in a CNN blog that the Supreme Court is "playing with fire". He wrote that this was no ordinary case and the Judges must maintain the nation's faith that their decisions are grounded in legal principle rather than in partisan politics. Both Dow and Joondepth are legal scholars.
On the other hand there has been a sharp reaction by conservatives to Obama's pointed remarks. Obama's opponents have castigated him for bullying of the independent judiciary. Obama a constitutional legal scholar has maintained that he was giving his considered opinion. (Other Presidents have done so before him).
If anything it is the 5th Federal Circuit Court that have been accused of insulting Obama by demanding a writtern assurance that he accepts that the Federal Courts have the authority to interpret the Constitution.
AT THE END OF THE DAY.
At the end of the day those deprived of health care, or going bancrupt because of costs, for example, will not take the point that they could not get it because that the Law was found to be unconstitutional by 5 votes to 4. The cynics are further maintaining that this is, politically, a "win win" for Obama. If the Court upholds the law he moves on with his major legislation success intact. If they repeal it the Republicans will once again have to defend issues such as not ensuring health care insurance with those with pre existing illnesses, for example, with the argument that the market will sort it all out - a task that it has not achieved for over 80 years.
SUPREME COURT ERAS AND THE HEALTH CARE PROTECTION AND AFFORDABLE ACT
Supreme Court eras are usually named after their Chief Justices - hence for example we have the Burger Court, the Warren Court, the Rehnquest Court and now the Roberts Court. It is an open secret that Justice Roberts aspires to be a consensus Chief Justice who is anxious to break away from the Rehnquest Court's legacy where 5- 4 opinions were the norm. (The most contentious, being regarded as the most political of them all, Bush versus Gore.)
Roberts has maintained that the court must attend to it's institutional stature with great care. He maintains that if the court is careless with its political capital it will loose it's credibility and legitimacy as an institution. - "The Justices must not only be principled and non partisan they must also appear that way to the nation".
So after 7 years of Robert's leadership, where the norm is still 5-4 decisions on perceived partisan lines, here comes the historic Health Care Act the likes of which Presidents since Truman have tried to enact. (The Clintons were the most recent failure). This act is the center piece of the Obama Presidency. It followed months of campaigning and Congress battles. If declared unconstitutional it would represent a major reversal by the judicial branch of government over the legislative branch. This is not a case, for example, where an individual is claiming that his constitutional rights were violated by a strip search. This is a case that involves a service that costs one sixth of the Gross National Product, (1 in every 6 dollars spent), and affects every American.
Not for 80 years has a Supreme Court invalidated a Congressional Law of this nature, let alone one of this significance. Yet the oral arguments indicate that the majority of Associate Justices may be willing to do so to this 2,700 page law on the basis of only one it's provisions.
Should this case, with it's enormous political ramifications, have yet another 5- 4 result the Robert's era, as he fears, is destined to be labelled "political". Thus it represents Chief Justice Roberts with his biggest challenge, to date, to get a "consensus" judgement.
OBAMA UPS THE ANTE
The likelyhood of the Supreme Court striking the law down has not been lost on the President. He forcefully reminded the Court that this law was Constitutional with ample precedents to back it's legality. It was not an abstract argument, he emphasized, maintaining that it was crucial to over 30 million Americans without Health Care and would effect the whole American population giving them protections they have not had to date. Obama concluded that he was confident that the Supreme Court would not take the unprecedented step of delegitimising this law.
He also attacked conservative commentators who were asking for the law to be repealed:
"I just remind conservative commentators that for years, what we've heard is, the biggest problem on the bench was judicial activism or a lack of judicial restraint, that an unelected group of people would somehow overturn a duly constituted and passed law," the president said.
THE CONSTITUTIONAL LEGAL ISSUES.
The crisp Constitutional point in this case is - has the Federal Government the right to mandate citizens to buy insurance or is this power only granted to the individual States. (This explains why Massachusetts's "Romneycare", which mandates it's citizens to do exactly what "Obamacare" does, has not yet been legally challenged). Those mandated under Obamacare would need to buy insurance as they do not qualify for governmental aid and nor do they have employee insurance.
To the average person this distinction between State and Federal Government is ridiculous and they are not even following the arcane legal arguments. They are just looking at the merits of Obamacare per se which includes endless provisions that inter alia do not allow insurance companies to refuse coverage if you have a preexisting condition and generally seek to provide affordable health care.
The constitutional provision that Congress passed this Act on was based on Article 1 Section 8 of the Constitution. This allows the Federal Government to regulate Commerce which crosses State lines. This includes services and the instruments needed to effect that service and any local activity that may impact on that commerce. There are several Supreme Court precedents from the New Deal era that approximate what is being asked for here.
THE CONSTITUTIONAL ARGUMENTS ON OBAMACARE
Very briefly the central argument of the complainants is that the Obama mandate does not represent a commercial transaction. The latter implies a willing buyer and a willing seller. The Act mandates that those who have not insurance from either their employees or do not qualify for government programs must buy their own. The complainants argue that someone who does not buy insurance is not a willing buyer. Thus the Act is not regulating commerce per se.
Most of the unwilling buyers would be young healthy people who feel they don't need any coverage. Also the complainants argue that medical insurance is generally covered by each state and not across state lines so that the Federal Congress did not have the authority to act.
By extension if this law is upheld the complainants extrapolate that the Federal Government could force people to do anything that the Federal Government wanted. The argument frequently came up that they could force people to eat broccoli!
The counter argument is that everybody needs medical care at one or another time and this can occur at any time. They then will go to an ER and everybody else ends up paying for those uninsured. Last year alone there was $43 billion of "free" care that had to be covered by the government or by increased insurance premiums. Also by your act of not purchasing health care insurance you thus harm others. The behavior of the non compliant will effect all across State lines.
THE ROBERT'S TASK.
From a legal world most legal pundits thought that the Supreme Court wouldn't even hear this case. One went as far as to say he would eat his hat if they did. Similarly from the legal world most believed that the government would have a large majority victory. This perception changed dramatically when the "conservative " judges launched into the lawyer representing the Government's case. They did so in a most disparaging fashion. Now the perception is this is going to be another 5-4 decision most likely in favor for repeal of the Health Care Act.
There are 5 votes that are immovable. These are the 4 "liberal" judges and Clarence Thomas. The latter is a strict constructionist and does not believe for one second that the Constitution is a "living organism". It is what it is for better or worse.
Justice Kennedy, the traditional swing vote, is the Associate Justice most likely to side with maintaining the law. Apparently Judges, Scalia, Alito and Roberts are to a lesser or greater extent said to be for "judicial restraint". The latter phrase includes avoiding to be seen to be too political in their judgements.
The oral argument leads one to believe that Kennedy and Roberts, while leaning to repeal the law, had some flexibility. That would create a 6 -3 result in favor of retention. If commentators are correct then Scalia and Alito can also be persuaded. Additional votes would create a consensus that would begin to help to remove the political label that has been given to the Roberts Court.
REACTION TO THE AGGRESSIVE BEHAVIOR OF THE CONSERVATIVE ASSOCIATE JUDGES
The above argument assumes that Justice Roberts indeed wants to change the perception of the Court. If this is so it will need skills and leadership that he has not shown to date. Besides the future of the Affordable Health and Protection Act the Roberts Court legacy is at a turning point. To use his own words the Court is in danger of loosing it's credibility as already indicated by the polls.
The criticism following the conservative Associate Justices' relentless drilling of the Government's attorney has been vitriolic. A piece by David Dow in the influential "The Daily Beast" called for the impeachment of the judges should they overturn the law. Bradley Joondeph, a former Clerk of Reagan appointed Sandra Day O' Conner, opined in a CNN blog that the Supreme Court is "playing with fire". He wrote that this was no ordinary case and the Judges must maintain the nation's faith that their decisions are grounded in legal principle rather than in partisan politics. Both Dow and Joondepth are legal scholars.
On the other hand there has been a sharp reaction by conservatives to Obama's pointed remarks. Obama's opponents have castigated him for bullying of the independent judiciary. Obama a constitutional legal scholar has maintained that he was giving his considered opinion. (Other Presidents have done so before him).
If anything it is the 5th Federal Circuit Court that have been accused of insulting Obama by demanding a writtern assurance that he accepts that the Federal Courts have the authority to interpret the Constitution.
AT THE END OF THE DAY.
At the end of the day those deprived of health care, or going bancrupt because of costs, for example, will not take the point that they could not get it because that the Law was found to be unconstitutional by 5 votes to 4. The cynics are further maintaining that this is, politically, a "win win" for Obama. If the Court upholds the law he moves on with his major legislation success intact. If they repeal it the Republicans will once again have to defend issues such as not ensuring health care insurance with those with pre existing illnesses, for example, with the argument that the market will sort it all out - a task that it has not achieved for over 80 years.
Thursday, March 15, 2012
ROMNEY - THE GRAND OLD PARTY'S LAST HOORAH
There has never been any doubt in JAY H. ELL's mind that the GOP Establishment candidate, Romney, would be the Grand Old Party's, (GOP), nominee. The problem always has been how this weak candidate was going to clinch the deal, (See Blog, FOR SALE: REPUBLICAN PRESIDENTIAL NOMINATION), and what was going to be the manifesto of this acknowledged Establishment Republican candidate
There is little doubt that had the "Anyone but Romney" candidates not been split, had as much money as Romney, were better organized or just BETTER period, Romney could have been easily beaten. Even as things are this is going down to the wire. There still is a majority sentiment among the Republican base that Romney is not their man and they will keep this Primary process going to the bitter end. This bruising battle has turned fissures within the party into ravines. It is, in fact, the last hoorah of the Republican party as everyone knows it. The Tea Party have taken over. You will notice that the Tea Party do not hark back to the good old days of Reagan - that is left to the conservatives who still are part of the dying GOP. Reagan would be having it uphill in this Primary too.
In fact it is in this Primary that Romney's capitalism, the credo of the Grand Old Party, has been castigated not only by the Democrats but his Republican Primary opponents. (See Blog Romney is Wounded and Bleeding).
In case the Establishment has forgotten the Tea Party had plenty of criticism of Government, period, including George W. and the rest.
WHY NO VIABLE TEA PARTY PRESIDENT?
Other than Sarah Palin, who also has crippling deficiencies, there is no coherent spokesperson for this new Republican Party. A whole number have fallen by the wayside even in this Primary as they are simply not up to speed - Bachmann, Caine, to name but a few. Those still standing simply don't cut it due to personal and philosophical deficiencies. Gingrich's associations with the Tea Party are about as new as Romney's and he really is an old style Conservative - he cut deals with Clinton. Santorum, Romney's biggest challenger may have the social credentials but not the fiscal and vice versa for Paul.
Hence the GOP Establishment have an opportunity for a last hoorah with Mitt as their standard bearer.
WHY THE GOP DEMISE?
The American political struggle has always been between unregulated laissez affaire capitalism and a more equitable deal for the employees. In the process there have been always been a divide as to how to provide social services for the less fortunate, the sick and the hungry. Should it be the Central Government? Should it be the Employers, personal responsibility and/or other forms of Private Enterprise and "free market"?
In the heady days of American economic dominance the lack of consistent legislation for fairness and equality in social services was not the issue it is now. It was the massively wealthy corporations that took on the pension programs, the health care and the like. Their intrepid pioneers also took on the role of robber barons establishing Foundations with their wealth - Carnegie, Rockefeller, Kellogg, Pew, Pritzker to name a few endowing the Arts and Welfare, much like Gates and Buffet today. Trickle down economics worked in a fashion - sometimes spectacularly. It was also aided by Governmental social programs such as Medicare, Medicaid and Social Security.
CHANGING WORLD FOR CORPORATIONS
The world has changed and the American corporations are now globalized with global competition. The shareholders are paramount and if you can make it cheaper in China so be it - at the expense of American jobs and services. Health care and Pensions have become such a burden that have made the Corporations uncompetitive and even bankrupt. This means the Government has to pick up the slack one way or another. It is also harder to make the argument that these global companies not bring home their profits and their rich officers not pay their share of taxes, for example. Halliburton, Cheney's company, that virtually got every contract in the Iraq war, has established it's head office in Dubai and so it goes. So much for patriotism. One thing is for sure you can't have trickle down economics if the fountain is no where in sight.
UPSHOT OF FINANCIAL WORLD CHANGE.
The upshot of change is that, in the wake of the mortgage crises, financial collapse and the recession - all associated to a lesser extent with unregulated corporate greed - the Republican credo is having a hard time. Attacking Obama's bail out of the American auto companies which salvaged 1,000,000 jobs and tons of American pride as "government interference" just wrings hollow. Fighting extensions of tax relief for the "working class" and unemployment payments is just not sounding the right note. And refusing to raise the taxation of the really wealthy who have been shown, Romney included, to pay less than the average secretary has to be out of touch with reality. But on they go!
THIS IS NOT REALLY NEW.
The steady attack on Capitalism, as it was originally understood, has been going on for a long time. A little known Governor, Bill Clinton, if one remembers was supported by Iaccoca and several businessmen as he was going to introduce Health Care Reform. Iaccoca was famously quoted as saying "How can we compete with Japanese Automakers if every American car has to include $900 health care costs. Clinton also compromised on several "entitlement" programs for the unemployed as he sought to move to the middle.
To the Republican base's chagrin and a pivotal criticism of the Tea Party was Bush the younger's "passionate" Conservatism, his policy with Teddy Kennedy of "no child left behind" and his running up of the deficit - inter alia financing wars without finding money to pay for it.
So there has been an attack of the fiscal and social services policies of the GOP for sometime now both from within and without the Party - although often for differing reasons.
So rah rah rah for Romney. He is understandably dancing on eggs as he himself had made "adjustments" to Republican dogma in Massachusetts with Romneycare, for example. This is the selfsame policy of Obamacare that he is now so busily repudiating. Simply put changing circumstances do not give the GOP a coherent policy to run on - giving the somewhat challenged Romney little chance of winning.
Their only unified stance is "Out with Obama", which is resonating because of the economy, but can that be enough to win a Presidential election?
There is little doubt that had the "Anyone but Romney" candidates not been split, had as much money as Romney, were better organized or just BETTER period, Romney could have been easily beaten. Even as things are this is going down to the wire. There still is a majority sentiment among the Republican base that Romney is not their man and they will keep this Primary process going to the bitter end. This bruising battle has turned fissures within the party into ravines. It is, in fact, the last hoorah of the Republican party as everyone knows it. The Tea Party have taken over. You will notice that the Tea Party do not hark back to the good old days of Reagan - that is left to the conservatives who still are part of the dying GOP. Reagan would be having it uphill in this Primary too.
In fact it is in this Primary that Romney's capitalism, the credo of the Grand Old Party, has been castigated not only by the Democrats but his Republican Primary opponents. (See Blog Romney is Wounded and Bleeding).
In case the Establishment has forgotten the Tea Party had plenty of criticism of Government, period, including George W. and the rest.
WHY NO VIABLE TEA PARTY PRESIDENT?
Other than Sarah Palin, who also has crippling deficiencies, there is no coherent spokesperson for this new Republican Party. A whole number have fallen by the wayside even in this Primary as they are simply not up to speed - Bachmann, Caine, to name but a few. Those still standing simply don't cut it due to personal and philosophical deficiencies. Gingrich's associations with the Tea Party are about as new as Romney's and he really is an old style Conservative - he cut deals with Clinton. Santorum, Romney's biggest challenger may have the social credentials but not the fiscal and vice versa for Paul.
Hence the GOP Establishment have an opportunity for a last hoorah with Mitt as their standard bearer.
WHY THE GOP DEMISE?
The American political struggle has always been between unregulated laissez affaire capitalism and a more equitable deal for the employees. In the process there have been always been a divide as to how to provide social services for the less fortunate, the sick and the hungry. Should it be the Central Government? Should it be the Employers, personal responsibility and/or other forms of Private Enterprise and "free market"?
In the heady days of American economic dominance the lack of consistent legislation for fairness and equality in social services was not the issue it is now. It was the massively wealthy corporations that took on the pension programs, the health care and the like. Their intrepid pioneers also took on the role of robber barons establishing Foundations with their wealth - Carnegie, Rockefeller, Kellogg, Pew, Pritzker to name a few endowing the Arts and Welfare, much like Gates and Buffet today. Trickle down economics worked in a fashion - sometimes spectacularly. It was also aided by Governmental social programs such as Medicare, Medicaid and Social Security.
CHANGING WORLD FOR CORPORATIONS
The world has changed and the American corporations are now globalized with global competition. The shareholders are paramount and if you can make it cheaper in China so be it - at the expense of American jobs and services. Health care and Pensions have become such a burden that have made the Corporations uncompetitive and even bankrupt. This means the Government has to pick up the slack one way or another. It is also harder to make the argument that these global companies not bring home their profits and their rich officers not pay their share of taxes, for example. Halliburton, Cheney's company, that virtually got every contract in the Iraq war, has established it's head office in Dubai and so it goes. So much for patriotism. One thing is for sure you can't have trickle down economics if the fountain is no where in sight.
UPSHOT OF FINANCIAL WORLD CHANGE.
The upshot of change is that, in the wake of the mortgage crises, financial collapse and the recession - all associated to a lesser extent with unregulated corporate greed - the Republican credo is having a hard time. Attacking Obama's bail out of the American auto companies which salvaged 1,000,000 jobs and tons of American pride as "government interference" just wrings hollow. Fighting extensions of tax relief for the "working class" and unemployment payments is just not sounding the right note. And refusing to raise the taxation of the really wealthy who have been shown, Romney included, to pay less than the average secretary has to be out of touch with reality. But on they go!
THIS IS NOT REALLY NEW.
The steady attack on Capitalism, as it was originally understood, has been going on for a long time. A little known Governor, Bill Clinton, if one remembers was supported by Iaccoca and several businessmen as he was going to introduce Health Care Reform. Iaccoca was famously quoted as saying "How can we compete with Japanese Automakers if every American car has to include $900 health care costs. Clinton also compromised on several "entitlement" programs for the unemployed as he sought to move to the middle.
To the Republican base's chagrin and a pivotal criticism of the Tea Party was Bush the younger's "passionate" Conservatism, his policy with Teddy Kennedy of "no child left behind" and his running up of the deficit - inter alia financing wars without finding money to pay for it.
So there has been an attack of the fiscal and social services policies of the GOP for sometime now both from within and without the Party - although often for differing reasons.
So rah rah rah for Romney. He is understandably dancing on eggs as he himself had made "adjustments" to Republican dogma in Massachusetts with Romneycare, for example. This is the selfsame policy of Obamacare that he is now so busily repudiating. Simply put changing circumstances do not give the GOP a coherent policy to run on - giving the somewhat challenged Romney little chance of winning.
Their only unified stance is "Out with Obama", which is resonating because of the economy, but can that be enough to win a Presidential election?
Saturday, March 3, 2012
ROMNEYCIDE AND REPUBLICAN CHAOS
The whole Republican infrastructure seems hellbent on self - destruction. The anointed Romney blundered dramatically by changing his position on a foolhardy Republican Senate Amendment that would have, in effect, allowed employers to decide what medical coverage their employees could have. Pivotal to this amendment was whether contraceptive coverage for women would be included in insurance packages.
Simultaneously, the chief Republican media mouthpiece, Rush Limbaugh, released a sustained vitriolic attack on a female student that illustrated his position on contraception coverage. The Republican leadership barely responded to his diatribe. All of this adding up to the perception that the Republican thrust in this electoral cycle is on social issues - particularly contraception.
FOOLS RUSH IN
THE Republican radio mouthpiece, Rush Limbaugh, attacked a 30 year old female student, who gave evidence to a Congressional Committee. She maintained that a friend of hers had lost an ovary because the Georgetown University plan had failed to pay for her hormonal therapy - birth control pills. (Limbaugh's audience is 20 million on 600 radio stations). Limbaugh called her a slut and a prostitute. He ranted that, ".. she was having so much sex that she is going broke." In addition, he stated that if the taxpayer was to pay for her sex she should put it on the internet so this could be watched by all. He did not back down for 4 days repeating and elaborating on his bile till he finally apologized for his "choice of words". He had maintained that the issue had become an attempt by the left to shut him up.
Now nobody, who is anybody, in the Republican family attacks Rush. However, this was too bad to be true and House Speaker Boehner was forced to issue an insipid statement that the remarks were "inappropriate"! However everyone else was strangely muted on what has to be the most extreme outburst of grossly crude gutter sexism attributed to an acknowledged Republican Party or any Party standard bearer.
The responses of Romney and Santorum were banal and at best cowardly. If they really believe the trash they spoke - ".. not the words I would have used" - Romney and "... he is entertainer" -Santorum, there is really no hope. Better believe they are just cowards who are too scared to take Rush on than believe that they don't recognize that Limbaugh is a bigot that has no place in public discourse.
The student, Sandra Fluke, has become a poster child for opposition to the current Republican position on contraception and Women's Rights. Obama contacted her and has come to her defense and the Democrats have used the whole issue as a vehicle for raising money.
So Romney, once again, has missed an opportunity just to stick to his position on women's rights. In fact after reaffirming it, he one hour later changed it to the Party line. (All this recorded in back to back videos played and replayed on TV). To add to his problems he is now coupled with Limbaugh. Both of them, in sync, with the party line, thought the choice of Limbaugh's words were "inappropriate"
WHY OH WHY?
All of this begs the key question as to why the Republicans are focussing on social issues that have been dead in the water for 50 years? Every poll shows these issues to be loosers and the contraceptive debate heads the list. The only plausible explanation for this sustained lapse from sanity is they don't want to talk about anything else. They obviously prefer to focus on these issues rather than discuss their fiscal, job and tax policies. They caved in on the poll tax issue and would rather not be seen defending their position on not raising taxes for the rich. No - one in the Republican Party would rather take on Grover Norquist, to whom they pledged not to raise taxes, than defend outdated social issues.
Also the only really interested sector of the party in the Primary race are the Conservative base. Hence the frantic race to mobilize them. In the process, however, they are distancing themselves from main stream America and as the Primary Process goes on they look worse and worse.
FROM HERE TO ETERNITY
Meanwhile, back at the ranch, the primaries continue - ten of them on March 6th. Mitt has three in the bag - Virginia, Massachusetts and Vermont. Two caucuses are not really competitive as only Mitt and Paul have organization there - Idaho and N. Dakota. Three Southern States, Georgia, Tennessee and Oklahoma, where the Republicans are strongest, Romney is the weakest. He is rated without a chance. Nobody seems to recognize or care that in the States, which are regarded as the Republican base, Romney has no meaningful support.
Ohio, the midwest state, is regarded as the contest that the pundits are going to make all their prognostications on. One out of 8 people in Ohio earn their living from the motor car industry that Obama bailed out. Romney is more associated with attacking the bail out than Santorum. Only money seperated Romney and Santorum in Romney's home state of Michigan. So we are in for another nail biter in Ohio.
Whatever way you look at Super Tuesday, nothing can happen that can shorten the Republican Primary misery. The "anything but Romney" vote will still be above 50%. If Gingrich looses Georgia he may bow out and that is about it. Unless Romney wins some Southern states or Ohio is convincingly won by one or the other leading contender, there is no change. Sadly, this is not a battle for the heart and soul of the Republican Party. Romney has conceded that to the far right long ago. The battle is between two very mediocre politicians- one is so unashamedly ambitious that he will say anything to be the nominee and the other is so irrelevant and not respected that not one of his sitting Senate colleagues have endorsed him.
This is now the party of Rush Limbaugh, Grover Norquist, Donald Trump, Bill O' Reilly, Sarah Palin and the Koch Brothers. The line is, trust us - Obama sucks, is a Socialist and a disaster and the opposition wants us to pay for their fornication!
Unless something dramatic happens Romney will continue to lead but the "anything but Romney" candidates will have about 60% of the vote leaving the possibility open of a brokered Republican convention.
Simultaneously, the chief Republican media mouthpiece, Rush Limbaugh, released a sustained vitriolic attack on a female student that illustrated his position on contraception coverage. The Republican leadership barely responded to his diatribe. All of this adding up to the perception that the Republican thrust in this electoral cycle is on social issues - particularly contraception.
FOOLS RUSH IN
THE Republican radio mouthpiece, Rush Limbaugh, attacked a 30 year old female student, who gave evidence to a Congressional Committee. She maintained that a friend of hers had lost an ovary because the Georgetown University plan had failed to pay for her hormonal therapy - birth control pills. (Limbaugh's audience is 20 million on 600 radio stations). Limbaugh called her a slut and a prostitute. He ranted that, ".. she was having so much sex that she is going broke." In addition, he stated that if the taxpayer was to pay for her sex she should put it on the internet so this could be watched by all. He did not back down for 4 days repeating and elaborating on his bile till he finally apologized for his "choice of words". He had maintained that the issue had become an attempt by the left to shut him up.
Now nobody, who is anybody, in the Republican family attacks Rush. However, this was too bad to be true and House Speaker Boehner was forced to issue an insipid statement that the remarks were "inappropriate"! However everyone else was strangely muted on what has to be the most extreme outburst of grossly crude gutter sexism attributed to an acknowledged Republican Party or any Party standard bearer.
The responses of Romney and Santorum were banal and at best cowardly. If they really believe the trash they spoke - ".. not the words I would have used" - Romney and "... he is entertainer" -Santorum, there is really no hope. Better believe they are just cowards who are too scared to take Rush on than believe that they don't recognize that Limbaugh is a bigot that has no place in public discourse.
The student, Sandra Fluke, has become a poster child for opposition to the current Republican position on contraception and Women's Rights. Obama contacted her and has come to her defense and the Democrats have used the whole issue as a vehicle for raising money.
So Romney, once again, has missed an opportunity just to stick to his position on women's rights. In fact after reaffirming it, he one hour later changed it to the Party line. (All this recorded in back to back videos played and replayed on TV). To add to his problems he is now coupled with Limbaugh. Both of them, in sync, with the party line, thought the choice of Limbaugh's words were "inappropriate"
WHY OH WHY?
All of this begs the key question as to why the Republicans are focussing on social issues that have been dead in the water for 50 years? Every poll shows these issues to be loosers and the contraceptive debate heads the list. The only plausible explanation for this sustained lapse from sanity is they don't want to talk about anything else. They obviously prefer to focus on these issues rather than discuss their fiscal, job and tax policies. They caved in on the poll tax issue and would rather not be seen defending their position on not raising taxes for the rich. No - one in the Republican Party would rather take on Grover Norquist, to whom they pledged not to raise taxes, than defend outdated social issues.
Also the only really interested sector of the party in the Primary race are the Conservative base. Hence the frantic race to mobilize them. In the process, however, they are distancing themselves from main stream America and as the Primary Process goes on they look worse and worse.
FROM HERE TO ETERNITY
Meanwhile, back at the ranch, the primaries continue - ten of them on March 6th. Mitt has three in the bag - Virginia, Massachusetts and Vermont. Two caucuses are not really competitive as only Mitt and Paul have organization there - Idaho and N. Dakota. Three Southern States, Georgia, Tennessee and Oklahoma, where the Republicans are strongest, Romney is the weakest. He is rated without a chance. Nobody seems to recognize or care that in the States, which are regarded as the Republican base, Romney has no meaningful support.
Ohio, the midwest state, is regarded as the contest that the pundits are going to make all their prognostications on. One out of 8 people in Ohio earn their living from the motor car industry that Obama bailed out. Romney is more associated with attacking the bail out than Santorum. Only money seperated Romney and Santorum in Romney's home state of Michigan. So we are in for another nail biter in Ohio.
Whatever way you look at Super Tuesday, nothing can happen that can shorten the Republican Primary misery. The "anything but Romney" vote will still be above 50%. If Gingrich looses Georgia he may bow out and that is about it. Unless Romney wins some Southern states or Ohio is convincingly won by one or the other leading contender, there is no change. Sadly, this is not a battle for the heart and soul of the Republican Party. Romney has conceded that to the far right long ago. The battle is between two very mediocre politicians- one is so unashamedly ambitious that he will say anything to be the nominee and the other is so irrelevant and not respected that not one of his sitting Senate colleagues have endorsed him.
This is now the party of Rush Limbaugh, Grover Norquist, Donald Trump, Bill O' Reilly, Sarah Palin and the Koch Brothers. The line is, trust us - Obama sucks, is a Socialist and a disaster and the opposition wants us to pay for their fornication!
Unless something dramatic happens Romney will continue to lead but the "anything but Romney" candidates will have about 60% of the vote leaving the possibility open of a brokered Republican convention.
Thursday, February 23, 2012
FOR SALE: REPUBLICAN PRESIDENTIAL NOMINATION
BE CAREFUL WHAT YOU WISH FOR
The old saying, "Be careful what you wish for" has come to haunt the Republican establishment. Their mantra that undiluted capitalism is the answer to all ills is boomeranging with a vengeance. No taxation, no spending and no financial regulation - with the world awash with money and all this Country's problems will be solved.
The Republicans felt they were well on their way to achieving their goal of controlling Congress and the Presidency. There was a weak President saddled with a weak economy and low approval ratings, a favorable deck in the upcoming Senate elections and an invincible majority in the House of Representatives. The Supreme Court had effectively taken away the last restraints on pouring money to obtaining political objectives. Surely then those with money would throw much money at the candidates who believed that they should keep their money?
All the Republicans had to do was just tread water in the Congress passing nothing and blame Obama for the mess. His "socialist European" finance philosophy had not bailed us out and had just made matters worse.
ELECTORAL FINANCE CHANGE AND THE PRESIDENCY
First and foremost is that the Republican voters cannot decide who is to be their Presidential candidate. "Anyone but Obama" has been replaced by "Anyone but Romney". However it is looking increasingly more possible that the three "Anyone Buts" will, together, have a majority of delegates. In the good old days, after the establishment's candidate Romney's convincing victories in states like Florida and Nevada, the "Anything Buts" would have been blown out. Who could afford to take on the establishment infrastructure with their resources after those convincing wins in key swing states ?
However, thanks to the Supreme Court interpreting money as Free Speech, the "Anything Buts" are attracting their own patrons. What better way to spend $10 - 50 million or whatever than on your own Presidential candidate? - Certainly better than building a museum or being a patron to a Mozart. So Paul, Santorum and Gingrich are still very much around. (In fact Santorum, who is totally unelectable, is heading the polls for the moment). The only possibility of a drop out is the unpredictable Gingrich who says winning his home state of Georgia is crucial. (His patron has upped his anti to $10 million a throw). Paul is funded for his objectives for the long long haul and Santorum has now become a serious, relatively well funded, candidate.
So unlimited money with little regulation as to how it is spent has not produced a well heeled candidate to take on Obama, but chaos. Adding to the irony is that Obama, in spite of his philosophical opposition to unlimited funding for political candidates, has decided, "realistically", that he will have to take this money too and Democratic one percenters have only one person to give it to.
HOW IT MAY PLAY OUT
Much fuss is being made about whether Romney wins Michigan and/or whether Gingrich wins Georgia. In the good old days such a loss would be devastating psychologically and politically and establishment support and organization would desert the candidate who couldn't even win his own state. The defeated candidates would politely bow out. Now it won't really make a jot of difference as to who soldiers on as, who needs the establishment ? Romney has their support anyway and he won't let go as he has organization and infrastructure to go right till the end. Gingrich's main patron is from Vegas is reported to earn $37,000,000 an hour. Now people from Vegas don't like to loose bets so he will probably just double down. As for Santorum he is on a messianic mission and is funded enough not to stop even if he looses his home state of Pennsylvania. Paul is in it to collect delegates and make a point. He will never stop and has not ruled out a run as an Independent.
A BROKEN BROKERED CONFERENCE.
With this scenario it is really very difficult to see a clear victor emerge prior to the Republican Congress and garner the 1144 delegates needed to put a lock on the nomination. This outcome is even less likely as this time around most of the States do not have a winner take all the delegates outcome. Everyone gets some delegates proportional to their share of the vote. The last Primary is in Utah on June 26. So this is scheduled to go on forever.
That would mean a brokered nominee. Given the animosity between these candidates and the fact that Paul simply will not be interested it is hard to see how. Which of the three, for example, will "sell" his delegates, if they will agree, to become the Vice Presidential nominee? Will Romney be prepared to play second fiddle to Gingrich or Santorum - not bloody likely. Gingrich has better things to do than hang around and be told to shut up. Santorum will not dilute his message to join these half believers. He would be far better off waiting for 2016 and so it goes.
WHAT PRICE A DRAFT?
There is consistent muttering about a draft candidate. In the same breath the mutterers say how impractical and unlikely that this is likely to happen. For argument sake let us assume that there is an acceptable candidate should he or she enter the race now? This would put him or her at a tremendous disadvantage and he or she may well not get the 1144 delegates before the Convention - just adding to the mess.
No. The way to go would be to let him/her appear as a saviour at the Republican Convention itself when the stalemate becomes obvious. Now the Convention is three days long. Not much to get this act on the road. Anyone who knows anything about politics knows what wheeler - dealing would have to take place to get this finessed . Even more daunting is that this new candidate will have one month to campaign. The election is on November 6th and the Convention ends August 30th.
MEANTIME
As this all plays out Obama is getting stronger and stronger. The Republicans caved, without a whimper, on the issue of prolonging the pay roll tax cut for the middle class and extending unemployment benefits. They now face fighting against a 30% minimum income tax for those individuals earning a million a year and Obama's reforms on the Corporate Tax Structure.
... 2012 just doesn't seem to be the year for a Republican President. The best bet is that Romney gets to the magical number and then against all odds beats Obama
PS: JAY H. ELL'S guess is that Romney wins Arizona easily and Michigan not so easily.
The old saying, "Be careful what you wish for" has come to haunt the Republican establishment. Their mantra that undiluted capitalism is the answer to all ills is boomeranging with a vengeance. No taxation, no spending and no financial regulation - with the world awash with money and all this Country's problems will be solved.
The Republicans felt they were well on their way to achieving their goal of controlling Congress and the Presidency. There was a weak President saddled with a weak economy and low approval ratings, a favorable deck in the upcoming Senate elections and an invincible majority in the House of Representatives. The Supreme Court had effectively taken away the last restraints on pouring money to obtaining political objectives. Surely then those with money would throw much money at the candidates who believed that they should keep their money?
All the Republicans had to do was just tread water in the Congress passing nothing and blame Obama for the mess. His "socialist European" finance philosophy had not bailed us out and had just made matters worse.
ELECTORAL FINANCE CHANGE AND THE PRESIDENCY
What has upset this scenario? There are many factors but JAY H ELL will just look at one for the moment.
However, thanks to the Supreme Court interpreting money as Free Speech, the "Anything Buts" are attracting their own patrons. What better way to spend $10 - 50 million or whatever than on your own Presidential candidate? - Certainly better than building a museum or being a patron to a Mozart. So Paul, Santorum and Gingrich are still very much around. (In fact Santorum, who is totally unelectable, is heading the polls for the moment). The only possibility of a drop out is the unpredictable Gingrich who says winning his home state of Georgia is crucial. (His patron has upped his anti to $10 million a throw). Paul is funded for his objectives for the long long haul and Santorum has now become a serious, relatively well funded, candidate.
So unlimited money with little regulation as to how it is spent has not produced a well heeled candidate to take on Obama, but chaos. Adding to the irony is that Obama, in spite of his philosophical opposition to unlimited funding for political candidates, has decided, "realistically", that he will have to take this money too and Democratic one percenters have only one person to give it to.
HOW IT MAY PLAY OUT
Much fuss is being made about whether Romney wins Michigan and/or whether Gingrich wins Georgia. In the good old days such a loss would be devastating psychologically and politically and establishment support and organization would desert the candidate who couldn't even win his own state. The defeated candidates would politely bow out. Now it won't really make a jot of difference as to who soldiers on as, who needs the establishment ? Romney has their support anyway and he won't let go as he has organization and infrastructure to go right till the end. Gingrich's main patron is from Vegas is reported to earn $37,000,000 an hour. Now people from Vegas don't like to loose bets so he will probably just double down. As for Santorum he is on a messianic mission and is funded enough not to stop even if he looses his home state of Pennsylvania. Paul is in it to collect delegates and make a point. He will never stop and has not ruled out a run as an Independent.
A BROKEN BROKERED CONFERENCE.
With this scenario it is really very difficult to see a clear victor emerge prior to the Republican Congress and garner the 1144 delegates needed to put a lock on the nomination. This outcome is even less likely as this time around most of the States do not have a winner take all the delegates outcome. Everyone gets some delegates proportional to their share of the vote. The last Primary is in Utah on June 26. So this is scheduled to go on forever.
That would mean a brokered nominee. Given the animosity between these candidates and the fact that Paul simply will not be interested it is hard to see how. Which of the three, for example, will "sell" his delegates, if they will agree, to become the Vice Presidential nominee? Will Romney be prepared to play second fiddle to Gingrich or Santorum - not bloody likely. Gingrich has better things to do than hang around and be told to shut up. Santorum will not dilute his message to join these half believers. He would be far better off waiting for 2016 and so it goes.
WHAT PRICE A DRAFT?
There is consistent muttering about a draft candidate. In the same breath the mutterers say how impractical and unlikely that this is likely to happen. For argument sake let us assume that there is an acceptable candidate should he or she enter the race now? This would put him or her at a tremendous disadvantage and he or she may well not get the 1144 delegates before the Convention - just adding to the mess.
No. The way to go would be to let him/her appear as a saviour at the Republican Convention itself when the stalemate becomes obvious. Now the Convention is three days long. Not much to get this act on the road. Anyone who knows anything about politics knows what wheeler - dealing would have to take place to get this finessed . Even more daunting is that this new candidate will have one month to campaign. The election is on November 6th and the Convention ends August 30th.
MEANTIME
As this all plays out Obama is getting stronger and stronger. The Republicans caved, without a whimper, on the issue of prolonging the pay roll tax cut for the middle class and extending unemployment benefits. They now face fighting against a 30% minimum income tax for those individuals earning a million a year and Obama's reforms on the Corporate Tax Structure.
... 2012 just doesn't seem to be the year for a Republican President. The best bet is that Romney gets to the magical number and then against all odds beats Obama
PS: JAY H. ELL'S guess is that Romney wins Arizona easily and Michigan not so easily.
Thursday, February 9, 2012
STILL ANYONE BUT ROMNEY?
No sooner had the Republican Party Establishment heaved a massive collective sigh of Floridian relief that Mitt had finally shaken off all the "Anyone but Romney" candidates, up popped Santorum again. The latter won the Republican trifecta of Missouri, Colorado and Minnesota. This after the Conservative Republican stalwarts, Bush senior, Bob Dole, Donald Trump and Tom Delay had joined in and anointed Romney. The other "Anything but" candidates either had a good excuse - the sloppy Gingrich was not even on one of the ballots and the other - the immovable Ron Paul put in very credible performances even besting Romney in one of them. So at the end of the day the combined "Anything buts" still have more votes than the real thing - Romney.
WHAT IS GOOD FOR GENERAL MOTORS IS GOOD FOR AMERICA?
That there are panic stations is a masterpiece of understatement. This was reflected in THE Republican Godfather Karl, (as in Marx), Rove's rave against Clint Eastwood's advert for the Detroit Car Industry during the Super Bowl. Clint, a card carrying Republican, was patriotically extolling the dramatic come back of the Detroit car industry - ala never count America out. Karl said Clint was shilling for Obama who had bailed out the car industry and was claiming kudus for it. (In fact Obama is claiming saving a million and a half jobs by his action). Karl was made to look even more ridiculous when Clint - dryly, (how else?), reassured all that he was not for Obama but, one assumes, as the ad states, for America!
WHY NOW SANTORUM?
There are lot of reasons for Santorum's success. The chief one is that there is no enthusiasm for Romney. What there is, is related to his financial managerial skills. Those however have taken a sustained knock. Also his insensitivity is monumental - he is "not too worried about the poor". His penchant for firing does not ring well in the current climate etc etc. Also his chameleon like approach to key policies has never helped. Added to this the economy may be turning around and his whole campaign is really based on that it couldn't.
As Romney's cause was beginning to fade circumstances allowed Santorum to go to town on his issue - Social Conservatism. Just as the economic numbers looked better Obama got broadsided by the Catholic Church. The reason for this was the introduction of, as part of his Health Care Plan, The Institute of Medicine's recommendation that all Medical Insurance Companies include free contraceptive services for women. The new injunction did exempt the Churches but not their institutions such as Universities and Hospitals. So Santorum's people at least came out to support his and the Catholic Church's claim that this was gross interference in Religion.
NOUGHT FOR ANYONES COMFORT
However in these 3 Republican encounters won by Santorum, as there have been in all but one encounter to date, the number of Republicans voting was less than in 2008. This in spite of, the never before seen, media hype and the, never before seen, money that has been spent on these Republican run ups.
The Republican establishment is banking that at the end of the day that the electorate detest Obama as much as they do and that the Republicans and the Independents will, when push comes to shove, vote him out on Election day. To date the Republican Primaries have shown nothing to support their optimism.
The Establishment do recognize that their best bet to get this done is Romney. Santorum will really not win over too many independents let alone women with his philosophy. Paul is quaint and honest but he cannot get it done. The unstable Gingrich will be the Establishments' candidate, literally over their dead bodies. So it has to be Romney.
But if it is going to be Romney, which I believe it will be, it is going to take a long long time. This while the Republican contenders tear into each other. Also coming soon are the Southern Primaries where Gingrich has his best chance to shine thereby ensuring the prolonging of the agony. Romney of course will win Maine in the interim and so it goes.
CONGRESS
Added to the Republican woes is the fact that the Republican led Congress has a 10% approval rating. Up for a vote soon are extending the pay roll tax cut, that allows the middle class to save up to $1,500 a year and the Buffet plan that ensures that those earning a million a year pay at least 30% in taxes. If the last session of Congress is anything to go by acceptance of these will not come easily. Obama has already warned Congress not to "muck up" the economic recovery.
Romney, who earns $20 million a year pays 15% in taxes. It is a hard hard sell for him to campaign, convincingly, that if this tax increase is enacted it will be bad for job growth! But if that is the Republican congressional line, which in all probability it will be, it will have to be Romney's.
In all probability, however, the Republicans will support the pay roll tax cut but will want some cuts in Welfare programs in return. Even if they are right their actions will delay the process and have the effect of them appearing to be against the move.
The bottom line is that the Republican Congress has harmed every potential Republican Presidential Candidate. If the economy continues to improve there is a good chance that they too will be voted out.
IT AIN'T OVER TILL IT'S OVER
We still have another 8 months to go with probably billions more to be spent. Obama who personally collects more than anyone else has agreed to having Super Pacs where millions can be donated as opposed to the limited amounts that can be donated to candidates and Parties directly. He had hoped not to have to rely on the Super Pacs as he had opposed the concept. But now that the Supreme Court has legitimized them he maintains he has no alternative. The fact that he has decided to go down this pathway and not stick to the high road, that many Democrats think he should, means that he feels that anything can happen and he needs the additional potential billion dollar cushion.
So perhaps the Republicans can take some comfort that Obama is anxious that he has not this in the bag. And who knows the Economy could worsen and Romney could become the last white hope to save America. Also knowing Karl Rove the Repubicans will do what it ever it takes and the whole process will not be pretty.
To be continued.......
WHAT IS GOOD FOR GENERAL MOTORS IS GOOD FOR AMERICA?
That there are panic stations is a masterpiece of understatement. This was reflected in THE Republican Godfather Karl, (as in Marx), Rove's rave against Clint Eastwood's advert for the Detroit Car Industry during the Super Bowl. Clint, a card carrying Republican, was patriotically extolling the dramatic come back of the Detroit car industry - ala never count America out. Karl said Clint was shilling for Obama who had bailed out the car industry and was claiming kudus for it. (In fact Obama is claiming saving a million and a half jobs by his action). Karl was made to look even more ridiculous when Clint - dryly, (how else?), reassured all that he was not for Obama but, one assumes, as the ad states, for America!
WHY NOW SANTORUM?
There are lot of reasons for Santorum's success. The chief one is that there is no enthusiasm for Romney. What there is, is related to his financial managerial skills. Those however have taken a sustained knock. Also his insensitivity is monumental - he is "not too worried about the poor". His penchant for firing does not ring well in the current climate etc etc. Also his chameleon like approach to key policies has never helped. Added to this the economy may be turning around and his whole campaign is really based on that it couldn't.
As Romney's cause was beginning to fade circumstances allowed Santorum to go to town on his issue - Social Conservatism. Just as the economic numbers looked better Obama got broadsided by the Catholic Church. The reason for this was the introduction of, as part of his Health Care Plan, The Institute of Medicine's recommendation that all Medical Insurance Companies include free contraceptive services for women. The new injunction did exempt the Churches but not their institutions such as Universities and Hospitals. So Santorum's people at least came out to support his and the Catholic Church's claim that this was gross interference in Religion.
NOUGHT FOR ANYONES COMFORT
However in these 3 Republican encounters won by Santorum, as there have been in all but one encounter to date, the number of Republicans voting was less than in 2008. This in spite of, the never before seen, media hype and the, never before seen, money that has been spent on these Republican run ups.
The Republican establishment is banking that at the end of the day that the electorate detest Obama as much as they do and that the Republicans and the Independents will, when push comes to shove, vote him out on Election day. To date the Republican Primaries have shown nothing to support their optimism.
The Establishment do recognize that their best bet to get this done is Romney. Santorum will really not win over too many independents let alone women with his philosophy. Paul is quaint and honest but he cannot get it done. The unstable Gingrich will be the Establishments' candidate, literally over their dead bodies. So it has to be Romney.
But if it is going to be Romney, which I believe it will be, it is going to take a long long time. This while the Republican contenders tear into each other. Also coming soon are the Southern Primaries where Gingrich has his best chance to shine thereby ensuring the prolonging of the agony. Romney of course will win Maine in the interim and so it goes.
CONGRESS
Added to the Republican woes is the fact that the Republican led Congress has a 10% approval rating. Up for a vote soon are extending the pay roll tax cut, that allows the middle class to save up to $1,500 a year and the Buffet plan that ensures that those earning a million a year pay at least 30% in taxes. If the last session of Congress is anything to go by acceptance of these will not come easily. Obama has already warned Congress not to "muck up" the economic recovery.
Romney, who earns $20 million a year pays 15% in taxes. It is a hard hard sell for him to campaign, convincingly, that if this tax increase is enacted it will be bad for job growth! But if that is the Republican congressional line, which in all probability it will be, it will have to be Romney's.
In all probability, however, the Republicans will support the pay roll tax cut but will want some cuts in Welfare programs in return. Even if they are right their actions will delay the process and have the effect of them appearing to be against the move.
The bottom line is that the Republican Congress has harmed every potential Republican Presidential Candidate. If the economy continues to improve there is a good chance that they too will be voted out.
IT AIN'T OVER TILL IT'S OVER
We still have another 8 months to go with probably billions more to be spent. Obama who personally collects more than anyone else has agreed to having Super Pacs where millions can be donated as opposed to the limited amounts that can be donated to candidates and Parties directly. He had hoped not to have to rely on the Super Pacs as he had opposed the concept. But now that the Supreme Court has legitimized them he maintains he has no alternative. The fact that he has decided to go down this pathway and not stick to the high road, that many Democrats think he should, means that he feels that anything can happen and he needs the additional potential billion dollar cushion.
So perhaps the Republicans can take some comfort that Obama is anxious that he has not this in the bag. And who knows the Economy could worsen and Romney could become the last white hope to save America. Also knowing Karl Rove the Repubicans will do what it ever it takes and the whole process will not be pretty.
To be continued.......
Thursday, January 26, 2012
THE GINGRICH BUBBLE
Newt, riding on the boost given to him by his Political Action Committee's negative ads on Romney's business record, (See blog Romney Wounded and Bleeding), cruised into victory in the South Carolina's Republican Primary. In addition, his passionate anti media diatribe, delivered with his consumate debating skill and his nth renewal of his conservative family values, carried him to victory in this right wing State. Also he appears to have articulated Tea Party anger. This became more evident when the Tea Party Godmother, Sarah Palin, finally endorsed him. By his victory he has ensured a long protracted and destructive Republican Primary battle that must have the Obama camp rubbing their hands with glee.
WHAT'S NEW?
Other than the prolonged battle that this result portends what else does this outcome change? It certainly does not remove the weakened Romney as the current favourite. His establishment support in addition to his financial backing and his in organizational structure still makes him hard to outlast. However it is difficult to see him improve his image with his business and tax record unfolding. There cannot be any pretense that he is a Capitalist job creator and pays his fair share of taxes. Gingrich has thus served up Romney as the role model of everything that Obama is attacking in his tax policy.
One thing is for sure Romney can no longer afford the luxury of not attacking Newt directly. So we will see the pot calling the kettle black on flip flopping of positions and more focus on Newt's instability. This has already begun with a vengeance in the Florida campaign and in the debates.
Also the social issues, that have been red meat to the evangelical voter, appear to have lost traction. Newt's second wife's pre - election expose of Newt's unashamed infidelity and "immorality" seems to have had no impact on the outcome.
While this ensures a tighter race it is hard to imagine Gingrich actually winning a State like Florida. There are so many constituencies there and, believe it or not, Gingrich is outdoing Romney as being all things to all people.
WHATS NEW(T)?
Even though Santorum and Paul are soldiering on, Newt has to become the "Anyone but Romney" candidate. Unfortunately for him the former two will still be taking votes from him as they have clearly defined constituencies.
What is Newt offering to the debate other than a more passionate and eloquent anti Obama position than the rest? His economic policy is confused. He basically has brought down Romney on the same anti- crony capitalist agenda that Obama stands for - a fairer tax policy and being for the victimized employees. He epitomizes his job creating approach by maintaining that he will give out fewer food stamps and more pay checks! Other than say he will give young blacks the Janitor jobs at school he has outlined no real plans as how he will effect this. All this has done is outrage the African American voters.
He claims to be the Standard Bearer of Reagan Conservatism but he was a nonentity in that whole movement. Also Reagan is a moderate by current day conservatism. Reagan created a massive national debt and raised taxes on enumerable occasions. And so it goes.... . Gingrich identifying himself with Reagan saves a lot of explanation as to who and what he is but is sounding like just another one of his sound bites.
Some of Gingrich's viewpoints are almost quixotic and are indicative of him playing to whatever gallery is in front of him. Speaking to a NASA constituency he was in favor of the establishment of lunar colonies!
GINGRICH AND CLINTON'S ECONOMIC FEATS
As an aside, it is quite bizzare how Gingrich claims credit for the millions of jobs created in the Clinton administration, while he was the Speaker of the House of Representatives. In addition he claims he was the architect, with Clinton helping of course, of balancing the budget for four years and eliminating the national debt. He forgets that he was no partner of Clinton - he was leading the charge for Clinton's impeachment while he was dealing, unbeknown to all, with his own personal problems. All this rhetoric is all very well when unchallenged but it will be tough to elaborate on over the next few months.
Also he is totally dependent on his benefactors from Vegas who financed his South Carolina win and gave him another $5,000,000 for the Florida campaign. It is common cause that without this he would have been chopped liver after New Hampshire. So far there has been no rush from other 1 percenters to join in. Billionaires are not know for their largesse and at $5,000,000 a pop soon we will be talking real money.
So Gingrich is beginning to sound more like Presidential candidate Casey Gardener who was portrayed by Peter Sellers in his spoof on American politics, "Being There", screened about a half a century ago.
In addition, to almost outright middle of the road Republican Establishment antagonism, Gingrich's biggest problem is going to be from the real Republican right wing. Anne Coulter, who is right of Genghis Khan, is already screaming that a vote for Gingrich is a vote is a vote for Obama. Coulter's pronouncement must be a prelude for many others to join in. This eats away at his claim that he, rather than Romney, is the Conservative choice.
At the end of the day all Gingrich has done has weaken the Republican frontrunner. In the unlikely event that Gingrich becomes the nominee he will have to explain his rhetoric and somehow craft a coherent manifesto. Also he will have to explain his checkered ethical situation and how his "work" for Fanny Mac jives with his criticism for the company that many blame for the mortgage crises.
...... Only in America!
WHAT'S NEW?
Other than the prolonged battle that this result portends what else does this outcome change? It certainly does not remove the weakened Romney as the current favourite. His establishment support in addition to his financial backing and his in organizational structure still makes him hard to outlast. However it is difficult to see him improve his image with his business and tax record unfolding. There cannot be any pretense that he is a Capitalist job creator and pays his fair share of taxes. Gingrich has thus served up Romney as the role model of everything that Obama is attacking in his tax policy.
One thing is for sure Romney can no longer afford the luxury of not attacking Newt directly. So we will see the pot calling the kettle black on flip flopping of positions and more focus on Newt's instability. This has already begun with a vengeance in the Florida campaign and in the debates.
Also the social issues, that have been red meat to the evangelical voter, appear to have lost traction. Newt's second wife's pre - election expose of Newt's unashamed infidelity and "immorality" seems to have had no impact on the outcome.
While this ensures a tighter race it is hard to imagine Gingrich actually winning a State like Florida. There are so many constituencies there and, believe it or not, Gingrich is outdoing Romney as being all things to all people.
WHATS NEW(T)?
Even though Santorum and Paul are soldiering on, Newt has to become the "Anyone but Romney" candidate. Unfortunately for him the former two will still be taking votes from him as they have clearly defined constituencies.
What is Newt offering to the debate other than a more passionate and eloquent anti Obama position than the rest? His economic policy is confused. He basically has brought down Romney on the same anti- crony capitalist agenda that Obama stands for - a fairer tax policy and being for the victimized employees. He epitomizes his job creating approach by maintaining that he will give out fewer food stamps and more pay checks! Other than say he will give young blacks the Janitor jobs at school he has outlined no real plans as how he will effect this. All this has done is outrage the African American voters.
He claims to be the Standard Bearer of Reagan Conservatism but he was a nonentity in that whole movement. Also Reagan is a moderate by current day conservatism. Reagan created a massive national debt and raised taxes on enumerable occasions. And so it goes.... . Gingrich identifying himself with Reagan saves a lot of explanation as to who and what he is but is sounding like just another one of his sound bites.
Some of Gingrich's viewpoints are almost quixotic and are indicative of him playing to whatever gallery is in front of him. Speaking to a NASA constituency he was in favor of the establishment of lunar colonies!
GINGRICH AND CLINTON'S ECONOMIC FEATS
As an aside, it is quite bizzare how Gingrich claims credit for the millions of jobs created in the Clinton administration, while he was the Speaker of the House of Representatives. In addition he claims he was the architect, with Clinton helping of course, of balancing the budget for four years and eliminating the national debt. He forgets that he was no partner of Clinton - he was leading the charge for Clinton's impeachment while he was dealing, unbeknown to all, with his own personal problems. All this rhetoric is all very well when unchallenged but it will be tough to elaborate on over the next few months.
AT THE END OF THE DAY
In brief he almost totally relies on his eloquent sound bite "in your face" anti Obama Tea Party populist rhetoric to run on. And in effecting these devastating one liners he connects with the anger and pain of the Republican base. Gingrich is being marketed as an ideas man - a man of vision. But he has to connect the dots. For example, how does he get from having a "humanitarian" approach to illegal immigrants to a coherent immigration policy that fits in with being the biggest and best Conservative candidate in town?
Also he is totally dependent on his benefactors from Vegas who financed his South Carolina win and gave him another $5,000,000 for the Florida campaign. It is common cause that without this he would have been chopped liver after New Hampshire. So far there has been no rush from other 1 percenters to join in. Billionaires are not know for their largesse and at $5,000,000 a pop soon we will be talking real money.
So Gingrich is beginning to sound more like Presidential candidate Casey Gardener who was portrayed by Peter Sellers in his spoof on American politics, "Being There", screened about a half a century ago.
In addition, to almost outright middle of the road Republican Establishment antagonism, Gingrich's biggest problem is going to be from the real Republican right wing. Anne Coulter, who is right of Genghis Khan, is already screaming that a vote for Gingrich is a vote is a vote for Obama. Coulter's pronouncement must be a prelude for many others to join in. This eats away at his claim that he, rather than Romney, is the Conservative choice.
At the end of the day all Gingrich has done has weaken the Republican frontrunner. In the unlikely event that Gingrich becomes the nominee he will have to explain his rhetoric and somehow craft a coherent manifesto. Also he will have to explain his checkered ethical situation and how his "work" for Fanny Mac jives with his criticism for the company that many blame for the mortgage crises.
...... Only in America!
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)