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.