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.
Wednesday, November 30, 2011
Tuesday, November 15, 2011
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.
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.
Monday, November 7, 2011
"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.
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.
Wednesday, October 19, 2011
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.
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.
Wednesday, October 12, 2011
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.
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.
Thursday, September 8, 2011
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.
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.
Wednesday, August 17, 2011
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.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)