Is it the end for Ron Paul?

You can always tell when Washington's political establishment feels threatened by the rise of someone new. In 2008, opponents of President Barack Obama pitched a certifiable fit over his alleged lack of citizenship in an attempt to disqualify him from the race. It was a debate that lingered until well into his presidency, when he finally produced a "long form" birth certificate and put the charges to rest. Just recently, Herman Cain, the former front-runner in this year's GOP field, was forced to bow out over charges that he made inappropriate sexual advances to several women while he was president of the National Restaurant Association. And now, there's the controversy surrounding another surprising contender, Texas Congressman Ron Paul.
Paul, a perennial presidential candidate and well-known libertarian, has enjoyed a surprisingly successful run this time around. As of Friday, he was actually leading in Iowa as that state's caucuses rapidly approach. Right on cue, there came allegations that Paul made racially inflammatory comments in newsletters published under his name during the 1980s and into the 1990s.
Granted, the comments highlighted in recent news reports are, to say the least, insensitive, if not outright racist. Among other things, a comment on the 1992 L.A. riots, said, in effect, that the violence would stop "when the blacks stopped to pick up their welfare checks." Another comment referenced a coming race war. But should those unfortunate comments be enough to knock Paul out of the race? I don't think so.
What makes this situation particularly distressing is Paul's surprisingly naive response, especially since he's such a veteran politician. In response to the allegations of racism, he has basically said that not only did he not write the comments, but he was unaware of them because he failed to read his own newsletter. Even worse, he failed to keep track of what was being written in his name. That seems almost inconceivable to me.
How can Paul, who has served honorably in Congress for more than a decade, be so tone-deaf to what his own people are writing in newsletters that are published under his name? Are we really to believe that he never reads his own newsletters?
If I were Paul, I would do much more than simply disavow the comments, as he did recently. The first thing he should do is find the people who made the comments. If they're still working for him, they should be fired. Lay down a rule that nothing is to go out in any newsletter with his name on it without explicit final approval from him. Then, call a news conference to address the comments directly. Let the media and the American people know exactly what his current stance is on race relations. Answer all questions directly. Then, it's time to move on.
Let me be very clear. I in no way like or support the kinds of comments being attributed to Paul in his newsletters. Personally, I think someone who holds such antiquated views has no place as the leader of the free world, or our richly diverse nation. But the comments aren't recent. They're all 20 years old or older. Even if he held those views at one time, there's no guarantee he still feels that way. People change, and Paul should be judged on who he is NOW, not who he was 20 years ago.
I don't believe Ron Paul will be our next president. I don't even believe he has a realistic shot to be the GOP nominee. But I do believe he is someone who has maintained consistent support among a sizable bloc of Americans over a long period of time. He is someone who, if you stop to listen to him, actually makes sense in a lot of what he says. He is a breath of fresh air in a field of largely stale, career politicians. And he deserves a chance to get his message out to the American people. It should be the voters, not the media, that should be the final judge of Ron Paul's 2012 campaign.

A day to remember

Today marks the 70th anniversary of the "day that will live in infamy," the Japanese attack on Pearl Harbor that brought the United States into World War II. While much has changed since that fateful day, I think it is important that we pause today to remember those who gave their lives on that Sunday morning and in the four years after. I think it is important to remember the lessons we should have learned from that world-altering experience.
The attack on Pearl Harbor brought the United States finally into the war that had gripped the world since Sept. 1, 1939, when Adolph Hitler overwhelmed Poland. At the end of that war, we had become the world's first nuclear power, and the undisputed superpower. It has been a position we have held ever since, though some would argue that we're beginning to slip from that lofty perch.
World War II is notable in that it is the last war we fought that was strictly constitutional and that was actually declared by Congress. We've had plenty of military engagements since then -- Korea, Vietnam, Grenada, Panama, Iraq (twice) and Afghanistan -- but World War II was the last war where we were attacked first, and that was completely justified.
World War II also was notable because it ushered in the age of nuclear warfare. For the first time, we had created a weapon so powerful that we finally had the ability to destroy ourselves. It put an end to America's previous policy of isolationism. And it firmly established us as the world's most powerful nation.
Since that "infamous" day and the end of World War II, we have used that unbridled power to prevent the spread of communism (Korea, Vietnam) and to help others (removing Manuel Noriega in Panama and the first Gulf War). We have, in effect, become the world's police force. Every time there's a perceived injustice, America swoops in to save the day. That has engendered a lot of goodwill for America in many parts of the world. But have we learned anything from being the world's undisputed No. 1 for the past seven decades? I can think of several lessons we should have learned by now:
1. Creating the nuclear bomb may have been the biggest mistake we ever made: Energy considerations aside, I think any humane person can agree that creating the world's first nuclear weapon was a mistake. Many World War II vets have argued with me over the years, saying that "the bomb" saved thousands, if not millions, of lives, by putting a quick end to the war. That may be true. But it's also true that hundreds of thousands of innocent people died in Hiroshima and Nagasaki. And the truth is, we could have won the war without ever dropping the first bomb.
At the time of the first bombing, Allied forces were engaged in a campaign of "island hopping," and were approaching Tokyo. Allied forces in Europe were on the verge of capturing Berlin. It might have taken longer, but we could have won the war without slaughtering all those innocent women and children.
And what has the "nuclear age" brought us, in the long term? It was inevitable that other nations would eventually decipher our nuclear secrets. Today, there are five confirmed nuclear states, and three more that are known or believed to possess the weapons. Two of those states -- India and Pakistan -- are sworn enemies. The other -- North Korea -- is led by a reclusive dictator who is widely considered to be unstable. Our world is actually less safe than we were at the end of World War II. We are sitting on a powder keg, and it wouldn't take much for one of our enemies to light the match.
2. With great power comes great responsibility: In large part, I think the United States has done a good job of using its power responsibly. It's hard to argue with fighting to prevent the spread of communism or removing a diabolical dictator from power. But I believe the past decade since 9/11 has shown us the flip side of that equation.
It's not enough to just flex our muscles and remove a leader we don't like. If we're going to play nation-builder, we need to think things through. We need to plan. What happens after the dictator is gone? Are we prepared to stay in that country long-term and rebuild all that we've destroyed? Are we willing to intervene if a civil war breaks out between opposing groups? And how do we decide which countries to go into and which leaders to depose? There are a lot of dastardly dictators in the world. Are we going to get rid of all of them?
The key here is to establish some kind of standard. I have no problem with helping out other countries that can't help themselves. But we don't have the blood or the treasure available to us to fix every country's problem, and we shouldn't try. We have our own problems here at home that need attention before we traipse around the world trying to fix everyone else's.
3. Our veterans are an invaluable untapped resource. They deserve to be taken care of, and we should do all we can to learn from them: One of the things that makes my blood boil is how this country treats its veterans. It seems like every time there's a budget crisis in this country, veterans' benefits are among the first thing to go on the chopping block. That's wrong.
Our veterans have fought and sacrificed to make it possible for us to enjoy the freedoms that we take for granted. Many, especially those from previous generations, were promised that if they would but serve their country, they would be taken care of with free medical care for the rest of their lives. That is a travesty. These brave men and women have earned the right to their benefits. They have sacrificed to take care of us. It is our obligation to take care of them.
I think it is incredibly important that we learn what we can from our veterans of past wars. Veterans are those who have stared death in the face and lived. They have seen the end result of the evil men do. Wouldn't it then benefit this current generation to learn from the mistakes of the past? I think today is a great day to sit down with our veterans and ask them to recount their experiences. And this is something that should be done every day. If we fail to take advantage of our veterans before they're gone. If we fail to learn the lessons they have to teach us, we are doomed to repeat the same mistakes. And that would be to everyone's detriment.

R.I.P. Herman Cain

It took a little longer than expected, but it should come as no surprise that former GOP front-runner Herman Cain bowed out of the presidential race last weekend. Cain was simply overwhelmed with the mounting allegations of sexual misconduct. And instead of dealing with them head-on, he continued to believe that by simply ignoring the charges, they would go away. That shows a shocking degree of naivete about how the national media and the national political scene works, and is just one reason Cain wasn't fit to occupy the White House. It's also a damning indicator of just how broken our current political system is.
I must admit, I watched with some fascination as Cain, the former Godfather's Pizza CEO, rose from near obscurity to the front of a crowded field of vastly more experienced candidates. And make no mistake. Cain brought a lot to the table. He was as close to a political outsider as we're ever likely to see anymore. He's been active in politics behind the scenes for awhile. But other than a lone Congressional run in his home state of Georgia, he had no big-time political experience. That makes what he managed to accomplish even more remarkable.
Cain had perhaps the best backstory of any of the candidates. He beat stage 4 liver and colon cancer. His "9-9-9" tax plan, which called for a 9 percent income tax, a 9 percent sales tax and a 9 percent corporate tax, was fatally flawed and hoplessly regressive, unfairly penalizing the poorest Americans. But for awhile, it managed to stimulate a much-needed discussion on the shortcomings of our current tax code.
I have said from the beginning that, while Cain wasn't quite ready for prime time, he would make a great Cabinet secretary for someone someday. I've even touted him as a potential dark horse pick to be vice president. Now, unfortunately, due to the merciless "chew'em up and spit'em out" nature of our political system, that is unlikely to happen. What a shame.
Our current political system is broken. Once, not so long ago, candidates were allowed to have private lives, outside the glare of public scrutiny. Today, thanks to the advent of the 24-hour news channels and the explosion of the Internet, that's no longer so. And our entire country suffers as a result.
I understand that when you declare your candidacy for political office, particularly the presidency, you give up a large part of your status as a private citizen. And some of that increased scrutiny is justified. This is particularly true in Cain's case, since he was largely unknown when he entered the race. Still, I think we've gone too far in our endless quest to get to "know" our candidates.
I've said it before, and I'll say it again here. I don't care who a candidate is sleeping with, or who he slept with in the past. If he's cheating on his spouse, it's really none of my business. That's a matter best left to be settled between a husband and a wife. It shouldn't be tried in the court of public opinion.
Likewise, if a candidate experimented with drugs or got a DUI when he was in college, so what? We all do stupid things we wish we hadn't in college. As long as the candidate is not currently addicted to drugs or alcohol, it shouldn't matter. What should matter to voters is who the candidate is NOW, not what he did 20 years ago.
With Cain's exit, we now are left with a field of professional politicians and Washington insiders. That's a shame. Cain was far from perfect. But he was a breath of fresh air in an otherwise stale political scene. He had vast potential. Unfortunately, our current political system chewed him up and spit him out. That's going to continue to happen, so long as a bloodthirsty, tabloid-crazed public continues to lust after every scrap of information -- relevant or not -- about our politicians. Unless we learn to rein in that instinct and establish some realistic boundaries about what we have a right to know, pretty soon, new candidates will simply decide not to run. And who can blame them? We'll be left with the same flawed candidates and the same stale ideas. We'll be left to hold our nose, pull the lever and cast a vote, not for the best candidate, but for the "lesser of two evils." And our entire country will suffer as a result.

Some thoughts on Occupy L.A.

On Tuesday night, the Los Angeles Police Department moved in and broke up the encampment of Occupy L.A. protesters that had been peacefully protesting at City Hall for the past two months. On Wednesday night, protesters were back, saying that even though they weren't allowed to camp out anymore, the movement was far from dead. The question of the day is, has the "Occupy" movement that has swept the country really accomplished anything?
Let me be the first to say, I am a HUGE proponent of the First Amendment. I believe that people should always have the right to gather en masse and protest those things they view as injustice. And in this case, in particular, protesters have every right to be angry.
The "Occupy" movement started on Wall Street, with protesters angry about what they perceived as mismanagement of this nation's financial systems. They're right. It's no secret that corporate CEOs have been gorging themselves for years, at the expense of the middle class and the poor. Heck, even when they get caught with their hand "in the cookie jar," they're still awarded with multimillion-dollar "golden parachutes" when they're fired. Only in the most egregious cases (such as Enron) do these greedy fat cats ever see prison time.
The "Occupy" movement has done a great job drawing attention to the inequities inherent in our financial system. The movement has done a great job of channeling justified citizen anger and changing the national dialogue to finally focus on the inequities that have plagued our country for decades. The question now is, what's next?
Obviously, protesters can't stage sit-ins forever. People have to work. And forcing the already slow-moving wheels of government to grind to a halt benefits no one in the long term. So what's next?
The first thing I would say is that protesters don't need to let this movement simply die out. Now is not the time to "just move on." Organizers have captured lightning in a bottle here. They have tapped into very real anger over very legitimate issues. Continued "occupations" aren't realistic. So keep the momentum going through the use of social media, such as Twitter and Facebook. The protests have been effective, so keep those going, too, just on a smaller scale. Make them less frequent, and people are more likely to pay attention when one occurs.
I also would encourage organizers to do their research. Identify some of the major offenders, then organize a series of nationwide boycotts. Sometimes words aren't enough. Sometimes, creating a media spectacle and simply drawing attention to the problem isn't enough. If organizers want to send a clear message to Wall Street and to corporate America, hit them squarely in the wallet. If enough people get on board, so that these companies' bottom line begins to be affected, watch how fast they'll sit up and take notice.
Finally, I would urge organizers of the "Occupy" movement to set up a series of "town hall" meetings across the country. Bring politicians together with regular folks. Let people vent their frustrations. And get politicians on record talking about how they would deal with people's concerns. Then, take the knowledge gained to the ballot box. Elect serious candidates who recognize the problem, and are focused on finding a solution. That's not a "quick fix." It could, in fact, take years. But I firmly believe that the power of each person's vote remains the best solution to fixing the problem for this, and future generations.

A small break from the norm

This is primarily a political blog about national and state political issues. Given the firestorm surrounding Penn State University and its legendary football coach, Joe Paterno, in recent days, however, I felt compelled to comment.
For those who have been living under a rock, or who don't watch TV, a quick recap: Joe Paterno has spent 62 years coaching at Penn State. He recently set the record for most wins by a major Division I coach with 409, breaking the record formerly held by the late, great Eddie Robinson. In 2002, he was alerted that his former defensive coordinator, Jerry Sandusky was being investigated after he was caught showering with a young boy, and, alledgedly, molesting him. While Paterno reported the incident to his superiors, he failed to contact the police. Now, Sandusky stands accused of more than 40 felony counts with eight boys over the years. Paterno was unceremoniously fired over the phone last week. The question is, should he have been?
This is not as easy a question as it appears on first glance. Paterno, by all accounts ran an exceedingly clean program. He donated a good deal of his own money to the school. Penn State's library is even named after him. He is beloved by many on campus and in his community.
On one hand, one could argue that Paterno should be allowed to go out on his own terms. He had already agreed to retire at season's end before he was fired. After everything he's done for his school, shouldn't he be allowed to go out on his own terms, with a shred of dignity?
Normally, I would say, "of course." At 84, having won more games than anyone else in history, he should be allowed to dictate his own exit. But the thing that bothers me most about this situation, that ultimately changes my mind, is that Paterno did nothing more than the bare minimum when he found out about the abuse a decade ago. Paterno should have done more than just report the incident to his superiors. He should have called the police. He should have used his considerable influence to put a stop to the abuse. Instead, he reported the incident to his superiors then went on with business as usual. That is deeply disturbing.
What's equally as disturbing is the media's treatment of the story. Most outlets I've seen have treated this primarily as a sports story, with focus primarily on Paterno and the football program. That's simply wrong. The real story isn't about Paterno, or about Penn State's football program. The real story is about Sandusky's alleged victims. What has happened to them? What does the future hold for them in the wake of this traumatic abuse?
I guess the lurid headlines about Paterno and the sex scandal are what sell papers and generate ratings for the network news programs. But I think it's a sad testimony on the state of our society that the victims in this story have been so easily forgotten.

"Cain-gate" nothing but an unnecessary distraction

In recent days, GOP presidential front-runner Herman Cain has come under increasing fire, not only for his fatally flawed "9-9-9" tax reform plan, but also because two former female employees are now claiming that Cain sexually harrassed them years ago while head of the National Restaurant Association. This should come as no surprise to anyone who has been following presidential politics for any length of time. Cain has enjoyed a meteoric rise from near obscurity to the front of a crowded field of presidential contenders, many with much more experience on the national stage. And Cain is hardly the first candidate who has had to deal with allegations of past misdeeds. The question is, should those allegations be enough to derail his campaign? I don't think so.
I understand that when someone is running for president, they should rightfully come under increased scrutiny, both by their opponents and the public. This is especially true in Cain's case, since he was largely unknown prior to this election cycle. People don't know him yet. And they have a right -- no an obligation -- to learn as much as possible about the man who might one day be the most powerful person on earth. But I have felt for a long time that there are certain areas of a candidate's private life that should remain off limits to the prying eyes of the media and the public. This is one of those areas.
Proponents of the "bare all" approach to modern campaigning claim that exposing alleged past misdeeds like this is a question of character. They argue that past mistakes offer a peek at the candidate's morality and how they will govern if elected. I don't buy it.
I don't care who a candidate is having an affair with. That is a matter that should be left private, between a husband and a wife, not opened up for public scrutiny and comment. Nor do I care if a candidate experimented with drugs in his early 20s. Everyone has made mistakes in their past, and unless the candidate is currently addicted to drugs, it is irrelevant. The question voters should ask themselves is, what is that candidate doing TODAY?
The problem I have with the current "cut-throat" style of campaigning is that it discourages good, well-qualified people from ever seeking public office. Why would anyone ever run if he or she knows that every mistake they've ever made is going to be exposed to the harsh glare of public scrutiny? In addition, red herrings such as "Cain-gate" only distract the public from the discussion of real issues.
Consider: Prior to Politico breaking this story, the GOP field and the public were engaged in a meaningful discussion about tax reform in America and the inequity of the current system. Now? No one's talking about "9-9-9." They're too busy trying to determine whether Cain is guilty and whether he'll stay in the race.
So, how should Cain handle this? If I were him, I would immediately call a press conference to deal with this issue head-on, before the story gets any bigger. If he's guilty, I simply would own up to his mistakes and offer a heartfelt apology. If not, I would still offer an apology for anything I might have said and done that could have been misconstrued. Then, I would answer reporters' questions as succinctly and honestly as possible. The worst thing Cain could do at this point is to simply ignore the story, hoping it will go away. That's not going to happen. And his silence will only feed public and media speculation that he's hiding something.
It's unfortunate that "Cain-gate" has garnered as many headlines as it has in recent days. Cain must deal with it now. Once he does, we can finally get back to dealing with issues that really matter.

Romney shines, Perry disappoints, Cain not quite ready for prime time

I sat and watched the eighth Republican presidential debate on Tuesday evening. While I thought it was highly entertaining television, I was disappointed that the debate did little to settle the question of who is the best person to oppose Obama in 2012. Let's take a look at the debate candidate by candidate:
1. Mitt Romney: Romney continues to be the class of the Republican field. He is the only candidate who has previous experience running, and in every debate I've seen, he has been by far the most prepared and looke the most presidential. Last night, I thought he did a very good job of fending off the charges leveled at him by his opponents. His explanations made sense. He still strikes me as the most moderate of the candidates. My major concern with him remains his Mormon faith. I'm still not convinced that he can win over the Religious Right that controls his party. Nor am I convinced that he can win over voters, many of whom have limited understanding of his Mormon faith. Still, another strong performance.
2. Rick Perry: The more of Perry I see, the more I don't like. Last night, he came across as a petulant child. Every time he was challenged, he attempted to talk over his challenger and refused to let them speak. Add to that his extreme positions (such as defunding the United Nations) and his refusal to formally apologize to Romney for one of his supporters calling Mormonism "a cult," and it seems clear that he is the GOP's worst nightmare and Obama's dream opponent in 2012. Perry has an extremely unlikable personality. If, by some miracle, he becomes the nominee, he would easily be marginalized as an extremist, and would almost guarantee another four years of Obama.
3. Herman Cain: Cain has enjoyed a meteoric rise in the polls in recent weeks, so last night, I was paying particular attention to what he said. What I saw didn't impress me.
Cain is, without a doubt, a true American success story. He is a hugely successful businessman with a great backstory, having beaten stage 4 liver and colon cancer. Americans have always loved an underdog. And Cain is impressive, but from what I saw, he's not quite ready for prime time ... yet.
Right off the bat, Cain was attacked for his "9-9-9" tax plan that calls for a 9 percent income tax, a 9 percent sales tax and a 9 percent corporate tax. This was a chance to set himself apart, to sell his plan directly to the American people. Yet, he failed to have a clear explanation for why his plan is better than the current system. Every time he was challenged on the plan, he responded that people were comparing "apples and oranges." He said his opponents, and Americans, simply didn't understand it. And he urged Americans to do their own math and to study his campaign's analysis. That's hardly the compelling sales pitch needed to convince Americans to scrap the current system.
Then there's his stance on negotiating with terrorists. In a classic Al Gore "flip-flop," he told Wolf Blitzer just hours before the debate that he would be open to the tactic. Then, at the debate, he backpedaled fiercely and said that he never said that, and that he was against the idea. Even when faced with video evidence of what he said after the debate, the best he could say was that he "misspoke" and "didn't understand the question." That's a rookie mistake by a rookie politician.
Personally, I think Cain would make a great Cabinet secretary. He might even make a formidable vice presidential pick. But what became clear last night is that he's not quite ready for the top job.
4. Michele Bachmann: Last night proved once and for all that Bachmann is not a serious candidate, and that her candidacy is little more than an exercise in ego. Bachmann spent a large part of the night fighting for camera time. Every time she was given a chance to speak, she either didn't answer the question directly or had little of substance to say. I guess this is hardly surprising, considering she has hardly distinguished herself after five years in the House. I doubt she makes the next debate.
5. Ron Paul: It's only too bad that Paul, a longtime Congressman from Texas, makes so much sense. It almost guarantees that he has no shot at winning the nomination. Paul wasn't given a lot of time to speak last night. When he did, I thought he made more sense than just about anyone up there except for Romney. Paul's problem is that he's a Libertarian. And while he enjoys a solid base of support, I don't think America is ready for her first Libertarian president. My prediction is that he'll be gone by next month's debate.
6. Rick Santorum: Santorum is a fringe candidate at best. He did have one brilliant moment last night in talking about whether people should judge candidates based on their religious beliefs. I totally agreed that it is fair to judge candidates on their morals, but not on their views about salvation. Other than that, it was a fairly quiet debate for Santorum, and I saw of little of substance.
7. Newt Gingrich: The former Speaker of the House had a fairly strong showing here. As one analyst said, he came across as "the elder statesman" of the group. I still think Gingrich is stuck in the past, circa 1994. He has never moved on from his glory days of 1994, when he engineered the Republican Revolution. He's still quoting Reagan and talking about a "21st Century Contract with America." I have heard very little new from Gingrich. Add to that his past ethics problems, and his affair that was exposed at the height of the Monica Lewinsky impeachment scandal, and I believe he is damaged goods. Gingrich makes for an interesting candidate, but Republicans would make a terrible mistake by making him their nominee.

Republicans, get ready for four more years of Obama

We're still well outside the primary season and more than a year from the next presidential election. But I daresay, it's already a done deal. Desperate Republicans, and the rest of America, should prepare themselves for a resounding victory by Barack Obama in 2012. You heard it here first.
How can I say that with such confidence? Well, if you look at the current crop of GOP contenders, it's easy to see that there's no one with a realistic chance of being the next president. Let's take a look at some of the top contenders.
1. Texas Gov. Rick Perry: "Gov. Goodhair" became an instant favorite when he jumped into the race. Still, his support has started to wane, even among his most diehard supporters. In the latest polls, he has fallen all the way to third. Why? Well, among his most auspicious moments, Perry has called for Texas to secede from the Union. He is a hard right-winger and a Tea Party favorite. Texas has a "weak governor" system. The real power in the state lies in the office of the lieutenant governor. That has kept him from doing too much harm in Texas, where he has been governor for more than a decade following the departure of George W. Bush for the White House. But does it really prepare him to be the CEO of the most powerful nation the world has ever known? I don't think so.
If Perry does somehow miraculously move to the middle following the primaries (a strategy that has worked for Republicans in past elections, but is highly doubtful in this case), I believe he would be easy pickings for Democrats, who simply would marginalize him as an extremist. In a way, he is the best hope Obama has for an easy re-election.
2. MittRomney: The second of the "Big Three" sitting atop the current national polls. Romney is a former governor of Massachussetts. He is a former presidential candidate (he ran in 2008). He is the first Mormon to openly seek the Republican nomination.
Looking at Romney, objectively, he has a lot going for him. He is a former governor, so he has that much-desired executive experience. He has done this before, so he knows what to expect from the grueling primary schedule. And compared to the others running, he seems more moderate than extreme.
That's the good news. The bad news is that he is seen by many in the power structure of his party as a Republican version of Obama himself, thanks to his healthcare reforms in Massachussetts, derisively dubbed RomneyCare. In short, he's not conservative enough to please the powers-that-be in the GOP.
Then, there's Romney's Mormon faith. Too many people don't understand Mormonism. Already, it has become an issue after flying mostly beneath the radar to this point. On Friday, the Rev. Robert Jeffress called Mormonism a "cult" and said Romney wasn't a Christian during a gathering of Christian evangelicals. While many mainline Christians may not affirm Jeffress' position, it remains to be seen whether Romney can win over the Religious Right that makes up a significant part of the Republican base. It also remains to be seen whether Romney can educate enough voters to counteract the misconceptions about his faith and have a chance against Obama should he ultimately become the nominee. It's the same problem that plagued another Massachussetts politician a half century ago -- John F. Kennedy -- the nation's first Catholic president.
3. Herman Cain: This is a surprising addition to the Big Three. What's even more surprising is that, according to the latest polls guaging support for the current GOP field, he has taken the lead over Perry, who has fallen to third, and Romney, who remains in second.
Cain is a relative newcomer to the political arena, though he has been around the edges for a long time. He served as senior economic adviser for the Dole-Kemp campaign in 1996. He has a U. S. Senate run to his credit in Georgia, and briefly ran for president in 2000. Still, even with all that, most voters have never heard of Herman Cain. To be taken as a serious contender, he will face a steep uphill battle for name recognition in a very crowded field.
To be fair, Cain's personal and professional life has been an unending string of successes. He ran both Burger King and Godfather's Pizza successfully. He has an inspiring backstory, having beaten stage 4 colon and liver cancer. Americans have always loved inspirational stories. They love to root for the underdog. But is that enough to beat Obama, when there are already a number of more experienced, high-profile candidates in the field? I don't think so.
4. Michele Bachmann: Bachmann's candidacy, to be frank, is little more than an exercise in ego. She can hardly be considered a serious candidate, even though she is one of the more vocal people in the Tea Party movement today.
Bachmann first came to prominence by helping found the Tea Party Caucus in the House and becoming its spokesman. Other than that, though, she has accomplished remarkably little during her time in Congress, never having successfully passed, or even cosponsored a bill. She represents the radical, hard-right wing of the GOP. As such, she has no chance against Obama. Like Perry, she would be impossible to take seriously as a centrist candidate and would be too easy to marginalize as an extremist.
5. Newt Gingrich: Gingrich is an intriguing prospect for the White House in 2012. He is undoubtedly a brilliant man and a formidable politician. He, more than anyone else, was credited as the architect of the Republican Revolution of 1994 that swept Republicans into control of Congress for the next 12 years.
Gingrich has years of experience in Congress. He ascended to the third most powerful position in this nation when he became Speaker of the House. He is intimately familiar with the Washington culture, and he knows how to get things done.
So why can't he beat Obama? Because, in addition to all his accomplishments in Congress, he is largely responsible for the poisonous partisan culture that exists there now. He also is largely responsible for many of the problems facing this nation. Listen to him talk, and you realize that he has progressed very little from his glory days of the early to mid-1990s. He's still talking about the "Contract With America." He's even talking about forging a new one if he's elected. In short, his ideas are stale and have failed to keep up with the times.
Add to that all his ethical problems. Gingrich is the only Speaker ever to have ethics violations lodged against him while holding that position. In all, he had a total of 84 charges brought against him, although only one stuck. He has a history of extramarital affairs, including one which occurred during the height of the Monica Lewinsky scandal, when he was calling for President Bill Clinton's resignation over the same behavior. Clearly, he is damaged goods. He's hardly the best representative for a party that claims to defend the public's morality.
The overall problem with the Republican field right now is that there isn't a single, transcendant figure that the party faithful can rally around. In 2008, the GOP fielded John McCain -- a bonafide war hero and longtime political maverick. He was so popular, he even managed to win a good number votes from political independents, even some Democrats. Who is this year's McCain? Who is this campaign's bright, shining star for the GOP? I don't see him or her yet in the current field. And unless Republicans can identify that person, they might as well write off the 2012 election and prepare for four more years of Obama.

Obama scores big with speech

In a move clearly made with an eye toward his re-election in 14 months, President Barack Obama addressed a joint session of Congress and the American people on Thursday to introduce his American Jobs Act. That's a rare and gutsy move, but I thought he delivered his 45-minute speech well and showed that, despite his critics, he is a master politician.
Obama started out sounding a little bit desperate. I lost count of how many times he said "You need to pass this bill right away," or some variation of the same. The more I listened, though, the more I was in awe of how skillfully he took the pressure off himself and put it squarely on the shoulders of Congress.
He did that first by playing squarely to the middle. Instead of coming across like a demagogue and the extreme leftist his critics like to portray him as, Obama took great pains to show that his proposals were embraced by many in the mainstream. He invoked both Big Labor and Big Business and demonstrated that they had both supported similar proposals in the past. Repeatedly, he pointed out that similar proposals had been tried successfully, and that they had gained bipartisan support. It was a shrewd move meant to undercut his most vocal critics.
The president also helped his case by appealing to America's pride, and dare I say, hubris. Obama challenged our nation's competitive spirit by pointing out that other countries-- China and South Korea -- were getting ahead of us and doing things that we -- the greatest country on earth -- should be doing first, doing better. He seemed to be asking Congress, "Are we going to let them beat us?" Genius. Pure genius.
Finally, I was impressed that Obama didn't duck his fiercest critics. Instead of ignoring the criticism that's been coming his way, even from those in his own party, the president acknowledged it. Instead of using his bully pulpit to score political points and take swipes at Republicans, he provided calm, rational answers, and made himself look presidential in the process.
Obama acknowledged that the American Jobs Act is not the "silver bullet" that many are looking for. But I believe it is a step in the right direction, and the first step in a long process of recovering America's economic might. Congress should pass it without delay.

Bachmann is scary, Tea Party not the answer, is Obama worst ever?

One of the scarier developments of this early presidential cycle has been the emergence of Minnesota Rep. Michele Bachmann as a leading contender for the GOP nomination in 2012. Bachman recently placed first in the influential straw poll in Iowa. While it doesn't necessarily predict the eventual nominee, it does help candidates guage their level of support among some of the party's most ardent supporters, and helps narrow the field. Already, it has claimed its first victim in former Minnesota Gov. Tim Pawlenty, who was the first candidate in, and is now the first to drop out. What makes Bachmann so worrisome is her adherence to the "Tea Party" brand of Republicanism. Despite having a largely uneventful tenure in Congress -- to date, she hasn't passed or cosponsored a single bill -- she was one of the first in the House to jump on the Tea Party bandwagon. She rose to prominence based largely on positioning herself as the spokesman for the movement in Congress and by founding the House Tea Party Caucus. The Tea Party is a relatively new political movement. It was founded in 2009. Still, it has quickly asserted itself within the mainstream of the Republican Party. Already the movement has helped elect several candidates to Congress and veteran politicans are actively seeking Tea Party endorsements. So does the Tea Party have what it takes to be a viable, long-term political movement, or even a third political party? From where I sit, I don't think so. In the first place, the Tea Party lacks a central organization. Instead, it is a loose-knit coalition of individual local and state groups. I have long advocated for the creation of a third major political party. That's because it seems to me that both of our existing parties have become almost indistinguishable from each other. Whereas Republicans once stood for being pro-business and for smaller government and lower taxes, and Democrats stood for the working class, these days, it seems both parties have forgotten their roots and what they stood for. The recent debt ceiling debate is proof of that. Instead of having well-defined ideologies, it seems to me that both parties are all about gaining and keeping power. Sure, they might play to their perceived base around election time, but the truth is, American voters don't really have a viable alternative anymore when it comes to electing our leaders. That being said, the Tea Party is not the answer. The truth is, the Tea Party is nothing more than a flash in the pan, a reaction to Republican anger over President Barack Obama's efforts at health care reform. And like most political fads -- anyone remember the Reform Party from the early 1990s? -- it will fade away once voters grow tired of the extreme rhetoric, or it will be replaced by something else. One final thought. It has been said that Barack Obama is the worst president in American history. To that, I say, what short memories we have. How soon we forget recent history. In my mind, the honor of "worst president" belongs to George W. Bush. In his two terms, he singlehandedly wrecked our economy, got us into two undeclared wars and tarnished our reputation worldwide through his unspoken endorsement of torture. While not everyone might agree with everything Obama has done during his first term, it pays to remember that he has spent a great deal of time trying to rectify Bush's mistakes. It also pays to remember that while not everything he has tried has worked as advertised, voters should at least give him credit for thinking outside the box and being willing to try new things. Contrast that with Republicans, who have spent the last three years complaining and trying to undermine the president instead of coming up with ideas of their own. It seems to me the logical thing if Republicans are so unhappy with what Obama is doing is to come up with viable alternatives to present to the American voters. Otherwise, they're just being obstructionist and they need to shut up and get on board.

Catching up on goings on in California

A couple of items caught my eye during the past week or so that I want to comment on.
First, the Governator.
It was reported recently that former Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger (how odd does THAT sound) had admitted to cheating on his wife of 25 years, Maria Shriver. Not only that, but the former action hero, champion bodybuilder and all around renaissance man had fathered a child with that mistress, the couple's former housekeeper. Watching the news out here, it was treated like the biggest story of the year so far. Camera crews were staked out in front of his offices in Santa Monica and his mistress' home in Bakersfield. My question is, why?
What makes this a newsworthy story? It's not as if Arnold being a philandering pig is a new revelation. Allegations of his womanizing first surfaced when he ran to replace Gray Davis in 2002. Back then, his poor wife stood by him, saying "You can either listen to the news reports, or you can listen to me."
And even if he is a former action hero and a former governor, so what? What makes the media think that people actually care about Arnold's wandering eyes? I know that some will say that the public has a right to know if their politicians are cheating louses. It reflects on their character, the argument goes.
It's true that politicians need to understand that once they throw their hat in the political arena, they give up their private lives. They are under the public's microscope, and they need to behave accordingly. But it's not as if Arnold were stealing from the state coffers or selling pardons to murderers or something else egregious. He cheated on his wife and had an out-of-wedlock child. The affair happened almost 15 years ago (the child is 14). Next?
Being in the public eye doesn't mean that EVERY aspect of a politican's life should be open for public inspection. People change over time. Mistakes that happened years ago should be left in the past, unless that mistake has some direct bearing on the person's performance today. End of story.
Next, on Monday, the U.S. Supreme Court ordered California to release as many as 46,000 prisoners to help relieve the state's prison overcrowding. Predictably, conservatives are already screaming about the new crime wave that will result. This is fear-mongering at its worst.
In the first place, it's highly unlikely that we will see all these prisoners freed and allowed to run the streets. Gov. Jerry Brown already has a plan in place to transfer the majority of them to local jails, assuming Sacramento funds the plan.
And we're not talking about letting out rapists and murderers. We're talking about letting out "minor" offenders, those serving time for drug possession and the like.
It seems to me that now is the time to renew our focus on rehabilitation programs. Sure prison is supposed to be about punishment. Being in prison shouldn't be equivalent to staying at Club Med. But prison also is supposed to be about rehabilitation, about taking people whose lives have gotten off track and giving them a second chance to be productive.
Fact is, the majority of the 142,000 inmates in California will one day be released back into society. It makes no sense, then, not to prepare them for that transition. It makes no sense to make sure they don't have at least a basic education and a chance to train in a skill.
If the "bleeding heart" argument doesn't move you, how about this one? Investing in rehabilitation programs could save the state up to half a billion dollars annually.
Cleaning out the prisons of minor offenders creates room for those who are real threats to society. That would allow lawmakers to do away with failed "three strikes" laws and instead pass a "truth in sentencing" law. People who have proven themselves to be sociopaths -- serial rapists, murderers and child molestors -- should be kept in prison until they no longer represent a threat, or until they are dead. Let's pass a law that says "life in prison" means exactly that. Let's make sure that a rapist sentenced to 25 years serves every day of that sentence. Let's do away with the silly idea of "time off for good behavior." Maybe then, if we make sentences mean what they say, criminals might think twice before threatening our social order.

Newt in 2012? Let's hope not

Here we are, a full 18 months out from the 2012 presidential election, and already the Republican candidates are lining up to challenge President Barack Obama. Yesterday, former House Speaker Newt Gingrich officially declared his candidacy after months of hinting at it. So the question is raised: Would Gingrich, a Republican from Georgia, make a good president? I don't think so.
Don't get me wrong. the former House speaker has a lot going for him. He's got nationwide name recognition, thanks to his previous stint in Congress. He's undoubtedly a brilliant man and a great politician. After all, he was the architect of the "Republican Revolution" of 1994 which swept the GOP into power for a dozen years. And he does have a real, in-depth knowledge of how Congress works. He already has established many important relationships that could be invaluable in helping him accomplish his agenda as president.
But even with all that, Gingrich would still be the wrong person to elect in 2012. As much as his previous experience on the national level is an asset, it's also a major liability.
Gingrich is, in reality, little more than a back-bench bomb thrower who got lucky. He's an intractable hard-right partisan more interested in power and in serving his party than the American people. He's an advocate of the "neo-con" political philosophy which has proven to be a failure. And perhaps worst of all, he's a hypocrite.
Gingrich was one of the driving forces behind the ill-fated decision to impeach former President Bill Clinton over an Oval Office blowjob. During that period, he preached loud and long about the need for greater morality in our elected leaders. Then, we found out that not only did he cheat on his own wife, but he presented her with divorce papers while she was in the hospital battling cancer. Is this really the kind of man we want as the most powerful leader in the free world?
With Gingrich in the White House, we would take a major step backwards. Much of the goodwill that Obama has managed to garner in the past couple of years would be wasted, as Gingrich, would undoubtedly resume the "you're either with us or against us" cowboy diplomacy of George W. Bush.
And let's not forget about the failed Republican economic policies of deregulation and tax cuts for the super-rich that landed us in the greatest recession since the Great Depression. Republicans are the ones who wrecked the economy after 12 years of almost complete control of our government. Do we really want to go there again?
Unfortunately, Gingrich may prove to be the cream of the Republican crop. There are going to be very few people who can match his combination of intelligence and experience. Here's hoping the American people are smart enough to learn from our past mistakes and keep someone like the former Speaker out of the White House.

A long time coming

OK, so I know this isn't exactly a political topic, but I still want to comment on the Presbyterian Church (USA)'s decision this week to finally allow the ordination of gay clergy within the 2-million member denomination. What took so long?
For the sake of full disclosure, I am currently a member of the United Methodist Church, and have been for a couple of years. But I was raised Presbyterian. I have been watching this debate unfold for many years. I'm glad it has finally gotten resolved.
I know the church's decision to allow gay clergy is a sensitive topic for many people. Many good, Christian people believe with all their might that homosexuality is wrong, that it is prohibited by the Bible. And even though society's stance has softened toward homosexuals in recent years, I have heard a convincing argument made that the church is supposed to be above society, to hold itself apart and separate. In most cases, I would agree. Except this one.
Critics of the church's move to allow homosexual clergy are simply wrong on a couple of points.
First, homosexuality is not a choice. It is hardwired. Think of it this way. What sane person would wake up one morning and say, "you know what? I think I'll be sexually attracted to my same sex today?" It just doesn't happen.
I have a multitude of gay friends. And in talking to them honestly about this, they have told me, to a man (or woman) that they have always known they were gay, that there's never been any doubt. What sane person would CHOOSE to be a part of a group that is so scorned by society?
Second, gays can be good Christians. Some of the most loving, accepting, Christian people I know are gay. If that's true, then why wouldn't God call gay people to serve him in the ministry? Does anyone really think God only calls straight people? That puts an unnecessary limitation on God.
God created gay people, just as he created straight people. They are simply a part of the breathtaking diversity in God's creation. Why, then, would he not call them to serve in the ministry? That doesn't make sense.
One of the things I have always enjoyed about the Presbyterian Church is its openness and its eye toward social justice. And whether we want to admit it or not, that's really what this is about. Just as slavery and Jim Crow racism in the South were wrong in the past (both of which were silently endorsed by the Christian church just a few generations ago), it is simply wrong to deny gay people with a sincere calling to the ministry the right to follow that calling.
The truth is, homophobia has been the last accepted form of bigotry in our society today, and it has been for awhile. Finally, the tide seems to be turning. I'm happy my church has seen the error of its ways and finally gotten on the right side of this issue.

A sensible decision

There has been quite a bit of debate over the past few days concerning President Barack Obama's decision not to release the death photos of former al-Qaida spiritual head Osama bin Laden. There are some people, apparently, who believe they have a right to see the gruesome photos of bin Laden after he was shot in the head, "just to make sure" he's really dead. There are even some, I've heard, who believe the whole thing is a hoax. These people are wrong. Bin Laden is undeniably dead. DNA tests confirm it. And President Obama is right to keep the death photos from public view.
In an interview with "60 Minutes" set to air Sunday, Obama explained that releasing the photos to the public would pose a serious national security risk to Americans stationed abroad. The administration, apparently, is afraid that releasing the photos would incite some in the Arab world to violence, that they would only be used as a recruiting tool for future terrorists. Given the fact that the simple act of drawing the prophet Mohammed in a political cartoon was enough to incite riots in the Middle East a few years ago, that's a supremely sensible decision.
One thing really stuck out to me in reading the transcript of the Obama interview. The president said something to the effect of "We don't need trophies. We don't need to spike the ball." There's the difference between Obama -- a mature, sensible adult -- and his predecessor, George W. "Baby" Bush. Bush staked his entire presidency on the "war" on terror he declared following the Sept. 11, 2001 attacks. His whole legacy rests on the search for bin Laden. Just like the rest of his ill-fated presidency, that was a failure. But is there any doubt that if Bush had been commander-in-chief when bin Laden was taken down, that he wouldn't have gloated about it to the rest of the world? Is there any doubt that he would have released the photos just to pump up his already overinflated ego and make himself look good? I don't doubt it. Hell, I could even see him flying onto an aircraft carrier, complete with a "Mission Accomplished" sign.
Bush was a cowboy. Obama is an adult, a deep thinker, someone who considers all the consequences of his actions before he acts. He is absolutely right that Americans don't have a "right" to the photos. Frankly, I'm relieved that we finally have a sensible adult back in charge in America.

Trump, the birther debate and other newsworthy events

OK, so I know this is a little late on some of these topics, but it's not every day the U.S. kills the world's No. 1 terrorist, and so I'm a little late in clearing my plate on these topics. Here we go.
Donald Trump is a joke. There, I've said it. The fact that he's flirting with a run for the White House in 2012 and is being taken seriously by those pundits supposedly in the know only highlights the dearth of serious candidates at this point on either side and shows how little real news there is to talk about.
Trump's flirtation with a presidential run reminds me of another billionaire outsider who thought he could be president: Ross Perot. Both have nationwide name recognition -- always a good start to a presidential run. Both are independently wealthy and are self-made men. If they wanted, they could finance an entire campaign without taking a lick of public financing. Neither has ever held elected office before. They are truly political outsiders and something novel, something new. But that's where the similarities end.
The difference between Perot and Trump is that Perot had been nibbling around the edge of politics for years before he decided to run in 1992. In his home state of Texas, he was called on by the governor at the time, Bill Clemens, to come up with a plan to fix the state's ailing education system. And he did. Many of his ideas are still being used today.
Perot also took advantage of the nation's ailing economy in 1992. He came out with serious ideas for fixing the economy, and when he spoke, his plain-spoken, straightforward manner appealed to a lot of people who were tired of the political double talk and aching for something different. In 1992, he garnered 19 percent of the vote -- best ever for an independent candidate. And he took that momentum and founded the Reform Party, which played a role in the next election in 1996.
Was Perot a little bit of a clown? Yes. His "my way or the highway" approach to politics would have gone over like a lead balloon in Washington. He was used to being in charge and having people ask "how high?" when he said jump. It wouldn't have worked in Washington.
Now compare Perot to Trump. There simply is no comparison. Trump is a self-absorbed, arrogant clown of the first order. He has no issues to hang his hat on except the thoroughly discredited "birther" debate. He's got no real ideas or vision for the future of our country. He's a self-centered little boy starving for the nation's attention. He's not worth it.
As for the "birther" debate, I was glad to see President Barack Obama finally take control of the debate recently and release his "long-form" birth certificate. The whole idea that we would have wasted more than two years debating whether the president was even a citizen is just ridiculous. It smacks of desperation by a party that has let itself be hijacked by its fringe elements and religious extremists. It only highlights the fact that the Republican Party that Ronald Reagan led 30 years ago is dead. Today's GOP is devoid of real leadership and has abandoned the ideas that made it great -- that of smaller government, lower taxes and fiscal responsibility. That's a real shame. Somewhere, "the Gipper" must be spinning in his grave.

A hollow victory?

Mark it down. May 1, 2011 is the day the United States finally got its man. It's the day Osama bin Laden was finally tracked down and killed by U.S. special forces.
The death of bin Laden is, without a doubt, a momentous day in the history of America. It marked the culmination of more than a decade of work by our intelligence community and our military in bringing down one of the world's most dangerous terrorists. But 24 hours later, the question remains. What have we accomplished really?
Yes, bin Laden is gone. It is a huge symbolic, and dare I say, moral victory for the United States. All the analysts are correct in saying that bin Laden's death sends a clear message that we will do whatever it takes to protect our homeland and our people. It sends the message that we will not allow ourselves to be distracted from the task of fighting terror wherever it may be found. But in the long run, what have we accomplished?
Bin Laden is dead. Good. He deserved to die. But the reality is, we haven't destroyed al-Qaida. We got rid of the symbolic head of the worldwide terror network, but rest assured, bin Laden had planned for his demise. He had someone ready to step in and take over after his death. In fact, we already know his name: Ayman al Zawahari. So again, I ask, what have we REALLY accomplished? I know one thing we've accomplished: We've made bin Laden a martyr for future generations of terrorists. It's not a matter of IF his followers retaliate. It's a matter of WHEN.
Now that bin Laden is dead, it is incumbent upon our leadership to ask the question, "what's next?" Is it going to be the foreign policy of the United States from here on out to fight the war on terror, to as former President George W. Bush envisioned, "make the world safe for democracy?" That is a beautiful dream, but a practical impossibility. For every terrorist we kill, there will always be someone standing ready to take his place. Just how much blood and treasure are we willing to commit to the effort?
If we truly want to make the world safe for democracy, here's a radical idea. Why not take a close, honest look at U.S. foreign policy over the past 100 years? Why not admit that our presence in certain parts of the world (specifically the Middle East) and our unilateral support of Israel has inflamed the passions of millions to the point that they're willing to die to attack us? By
making our presence felt in the Middle East, and by supporting Israel no matter what they do, we have given terrorists worldwide a moral high ground to stand on to justify their heinous acts.
Let me be very clear. I am in no way advocating terrorism. Senseless violence, such as the 9/11 attacks, and targeting innocent people (military or otherwise) is ALWAYS wrong. But I think it is past time that we admitted that we share some of the burden in helping create the situation we now face. And it's past time that we asked the honest question of what we can, and should, do about it.

Here we go again

It seems no matter who's in the White House, we just can't avoid using our power to influence world affairs.
Recently, we partnered with France and Great Britain to get involved in the unrest in Libya. Remember when Barack Obama ran for president in 2008 and won by promising to get us out of our ill-advised war of choice in Iraq? Now, here we go again sticking our nose in another country's civil war which, frankly, is none of our business.
The difference, of course, is the motivation behind our most recent military action. While Operation Iraqi Freedom was all about getting rid of Saddam Hussein as part of a Bush family vendetta, protecting our oil interests -- Iraq does control 20 percent of the world's oil supply -- and "planting the seeds of democracy in the Middle East," our purpose for being in Libya isn't nation-building, but keeping Libyan strongman Muammar Ghadafi from murdering his own people. Much like we did in Kosovo under former President Bill Clinton, this is a humanitarian mission. Another big difference between this operation and Iraqi Freedom is that we have the support of the United Nations and the rest of the world. We're not out there on our own. Still, I have to ask, do we really need to be involved in what is essentially a civil war?
Humanitarian mission aside, I can't help but think that if we're going to make it our business to take out every evil despot in the world -- and there's no doubt that Ghadafi fits the bill -- then we're going to busy for a long time and our military is going to be stretched awfully thin. Also, is it really necessary for us to be involved? Look what happened when the people of Egypt decided to get rid of their longtime president, Hosni Mubarak. They managed to put an end to a 30-year dictatorship without firing a single shot just by organizing on Facebook. If it can happen in Egypt, why not elsewhere in the Middle East, without U.S. military intervention?
I'm not suggesting that we shut the rest of the world out and ignore the problems in the world. Obviously, as the world's sole remaining military superpower, we can't afford to do that. But I am suggesting that we should be very careful about where and for what reason we commit our military. And no matter what's happening in Libya, it's not somewhere we should make a long-term commitment.