Winners and Losers

Badly does an enemy treat his enemy, a foeman his foe: worse is the havoc wrought by a misdirected mind (Buddha)

 President Obama appears, as of today, the winner of the 2012 election a year from now. Republican bigwigs committed a terrible faux-pas that surely will haunt them long past Halloween. At the beginning, they berated, insulted, ridiculed, scolded, and belittled the OWS movement (Occupy Wall Street). Some right-wingers accused the crowds of being communists, imagine that! Anybody who is against Wall Street bankers and financiers, the ones responsible for the financial meltdown, must be a closet Socialist, hell-bent on nationalizing the largest corporations. For these Republicans, there is nothing in between; it is black or it is white, no grays allowed!

The protesters simply want justice; the manipulators of toxic instruments must be tried and go to jail. The laws have to be changed to prevent banks from speculating on Wall Street with their customers' resources. Big corporations and millionaires must pay their fair share of taxes. Calling this "class warfare" is simply stupid or simple-minded (Right, Mr Cantor?). Yet some Republicans fail to see the danger to their cause, including the main White House candidates such as Mitt Romney, Rick Perry, and Herman Cain. Ms. Bachmann is already out of contention, even though she has tried to re-direct the OWS movement toward the White House, a clumsy effort that exhibit the limited thinking process in the Minnesotan Representative.


In all the brouhaha caused by the accusations of sexual harassment against Mr. Cain, the umpteenth flip-flop by Mitt Romney, the bumbling performance in New Hampshire by Rick Perry (they even asked him if he was under the influence of pain killers), President Obama is emerging as the clear winner of the first rounds in this heavyweight fight. He also picked up a lot of points during his trip to the key voting states by showing up Republicans as denying jobless Americans much needed help from the federal government. He kept harping on the fact that his opponents reject his proposal of increasing taxes on millionaires as class warfare, and yet..

In one of the recent polls, most Americans support taxing millionaires more: "The Elon University poll found that two-thirds of the people polled support raising taxes on Americans with incomes over $1 million per year, an idea Democrats have floated to pay for job stimulus and debt reduction."

Even though I would like to see Mr. Huntsman win the primaries, his numbers are still very low compared to, for example, Ron Paul and Newton Gingrich. The former Speaker of the House under Clinton has surged recently both in preferences and money, a fact that may convert Mr. Gingrich into a severe threat for Mitt Romney and Cain. He is a brilliant orator, a quick witted debater, and possesses a great analytical mind. He is however handicapped by his past relations with women while still married. The religious right wouldn't like it one bit.

At the end, the populist manifestations against Wall Street have lasted longer than anybody had suspected. Just like the Tea Party, these protesters will exert a strong influence on next year's elections; whether this will help the Democrats or their opponents remains to be seen. But I suspect that given the present improvement in the economy, however slight it may be, voters will conclude that Mr. Obama can perform better than anybody else until 2016.

A Shining Example From the Past

"Let civilian voices argue the merits or demerits of our processes of government. Whether our strength is being sapped by deficit financing indulged in too long, by federal paternalism grown too mighty, by power groups grown too arrogant, by politics grown too corrupt, by crime grown too rampant, by morals grown too low, by taxes grown too high, by extremists grown too violent; whether our personal liberties are as firm and complete as they should be."

May, 1962 at West Point, Gen. MacArthur in his Farewell Address to cadets.

Right when the Vietnam War was beginning to heat up, the old general who died 2 years later, gave these future Army officers a vision that endures till today. His uncanny remarks about the federal deficit (where have we heard that before), his accusations of big government, excessive crime (no change), and loose morals (if he could only see today's society, he would probably have a heart attack). He even questioned violent extremists and personal liberties, a topic of heated discussions among libertarians. The man was a veritable oracle, even though Truman had to sack him to avoid a nuclear confrontation with China during the Korean War.

Charismatic leaders like MacArthur cannot be found nowadays; the ex-generals who now work as consultants for public and private news organizations are drab and boring when they express their expert opinion on modern politics. The old warriors have taken arms in a different world where they can fight new battles for all eternity. Nothing like hearing bullets flying around you to make you see life with new eyes and develop a true sense of mortality. Military experience, the real kind, not just flying airplanes or buffering leather seats in a fancy office, is a scarce commodity among Republican presidential candidates.

Gov. Perry, like Bush, was a pilot in the National Guard and was able to avoid going to Vietnam. Ron Paul was in the Air Force for 5 years. The other candidates have no military background. Is it necessary to have served in order to become President? Of course not; look at Obama. He has absolutely no history to have served before becoming Commander-in-Chief. Does that make him unfit to manage two wars? Our best commanders-in-chiefs were FDR, Lincoln and Truman, and all three performed brilliantly in that capacity without an iota of battle smoke in their nostrils.

What we look for in a leader like MacArthur and Truman is the strength of their convictions; in the present group of candidates to the White House, only Ron Paul seems to fit the bill. He never wavers from his basic tenets on how to fix the United States of America. Is he right? That's another matter, but let's remember other Presidents who got us in hot water: Kennedy with the Bay of Pigs, a botched attempt to invade Cuba that almost turned ugly for us. Jimmy Carter and the disastrous attack on Iran. Lyndon Johnson who got us in the Vietnam mess with a lie. Bush Jr. who got us in a war on Iraq with another big lie. So even though Paul is convinced that his proposals are right, at least he is not suggesting getting us involved in another conflict; on the contrary, he wants us out of 150 countries where we have military presence. None of the other candidates supported him in his position; a shame, because he is totally right. We are wasting billions that could be applied to our pressing problems here in the good USA.

Am I recommending Ron Paul for President? No, not even for VP. He has other controversial views that cannot be accepted by the general public. And..he is too old, way too old. We don't want to risk another Ronald Reagan in his last 2 years in power, controlled by the visions of his wife's astrologer.


We need however a President with strong convictions who is willing to fight for them, as long as these beliefs do not cause our great country more irreparable harm. No warmonger, and no peace-at-any-cost either. The ideal executive head of our nation must be able to compromise, yes, but without seeming weak. He must be able to negotiate with anybody, yes, but without seeming cowardly. He must be respected by his opponents, unlike the present administration. The Republican leaders do not respect President Obama; their actions clearly show it. They say no to whatever he is proposing and that did not happen with Clinton's second term, when Republicans controlled Congress. The reason behind it is a matter for historians to debate 20 years from now.


Obama has faltered on many occasions; I remember in particular the extension of Bush's tax rebates for rich people. He had control of Congress, a lame duck Congress for sure, but he still had the power to act and he blinked..It is true that he showed courage with the bin Laden Affair. He also showed restraint and wisdom in the Libyan conflict, and has been vindicated with the violent death of Qaddafi. But does Obama have the vision for future America, a country that still can recover its greatness? Does he have the steely resolve of a John F. Kennedy who faced the Russian Bear?


That is the bet that voters will make next November 2012 when they cast their ballots. They will not vote for a Republican; they will vote for or against Obama.

  

Heavyweight Fighters

The main bout seems to take shape; in the left corner, the current national champion, who has not convinced in his last fights against second-rated opponents that he is ready to keep his crown. In the right corner, two heavy weight contenders who will soon meet to determine who is more qualified to meet the champ. The current odds are almost even, with a slight advantage for either opponents of the title holder.

                                                                           

The blue corner is trying desperately to convince their followers that they should bet in his favor; the red corner, though divided on who the better man might be, throws caution to the wind as they use unorthodox training strategies to rattle the champion. One thing is certain: There will be no knock-out! The promoters are expecting 40 million fans to place their bets next year during the first days of November, and maybe 200 million more spectators will watch the fight till the the wee hours of the morning.

In reality none of the three deserves the crown; Obama, Romney and Perry all have serious weaknesses that will certainly result in a poor showing of the electorate. None has that "leader" aura, that irresistible charisma shared by John Kennedy, FDR, Lincoln, Churchill, and more recently, the great charmer Ronald Reagan. They are all wafflers, following what they think is the current popular wind. Romney doesn't convince anybody when he tries to defend his "Obamacare" in Massachusetts; Rick Perry first approved of gay marriage but changed his mind when the religious right pressured him. President Obama showed uncertainty and lack of firmness when he agreed to extend the tax cuts for the rich even though he had the majority in both houses.

True, it is hard to imagine any politician resisting big lobbyists' pressure to push legislation that  favors their cause. Governor Perry was accused by his own colleagues in the Republican party to promote a certain vaccine and take campaign money from the pharmaceutical company making that product. Obama's campaign promise to get rid of powerful lobbies was just that, a populist commitment to get votes. Romney suffered in his first presidential campaign when he hired lobbyists who represented important industries asking for the demise of the EPA.  Under the present system, it is impossible for a candidate to obtain sizable contributions without making promises that favor the donors. Why else would they forgo so much money? Stupid they are not. They even hedge their bets by giving to both sides..just in case. It's called legalized corruption, and until we change the electoral system - getting rid for example of the now inane and obsolete electoral college, unsavory actions will remain the norm.



Let's make it clear; all three men are good citizens and successful professionals, good fathers and husbands, with the qualities and weaknesses that compose a typical human being. They are all strong patriots, college graduates, intelligent, and the only one that has served his country in the military is Rick Perry; strangely enough, he, just like Bush, was a reserve pilot in the National Guard. Romney has an extensive experience in the private sector and represents the perfect candidate for Wall Street. Both he and Perry have been governors, a useful background for anybody wanting to be president. Perry is, right now, the candidate of choice for the religious right. Obama, of course, is supported by unions, and by centrist left voters.

This next presidential election could very well end up in court, just like the 2000 contest between Bush and Al Gore. That's why each candidate is touring the country 24/7 trying to convince independents like me to vote for them.

I don't know, lots of time left. What do you think?

A REPUBLICAN FIESTA

One candidate stood out amongst the Iowa's debate participants: Ron Paul. As usual, he deviated from the Republican policy in foreign wars, advocating a new type of Isolationism. He was the target of Santorum's acid criticism laced with a strong dose of sarcasm. Ron Paul shouted the most, knowing full well that, in spite of a decent poll number, he has no chance to win the primary. Bachman rarely showed the usual passion, except when she vigorously defended her role in Congress: "I was against raising the debt ceiling." Mitt Romney, as the present favorite to win the primary, maintained his distance from everybody else to avoid a verbal confrontation; he of course hasn't shown that he has the skills to fight in the trenches. His perpetual sardonic half smile doesn't serve him well, as if he were making fun of his colleagues.




So much for the most active debaters; in their shadow, Pawlenty seemed a little more animated, but as usual he keeps the title of the Prince of Monotony. If you can't sleep, there is the cure for you; tape his speeches and play them back in a loop at night. Hermann Cain showed poise, common sense, and self-assurance: He gets the nomination for Mr. Sense & Wisdom. Newton Gingrich, by far the most experienced and astute participant, let his tongue get the better of him as usual, bashing the Fox News hosts even though he once worked with them. He gets the nomination as Mr. Ungrateful. Huntsman, our ex-ambassador, well, the less said the better. He clearly deserves the title of Mr. Disappointment.

The real winners are the candidates who were not at the debate, but whose invisible presence dominated the event: Sarah Palin and Rick Perry, the Texas governor. Even though Mitt Romney kept a straight face when asked about Perry's entry into the fray, his response welcoming the fact betrayed his inner turmoil: His worst nightmare has just proven true. Perry is a serious contender, much more than any of the other candidates and he knows it. Romney firmly believes that it is his turn after losing to McCain three years ago and Perry, more so than Palin, represents the dark horse in the race to the White House. I nominate Romney as Mr. Déja Vu.

Michele Bachman is intense, no doubt about it; she is a real "damn the torpedoes" warrior, unlike Romney and that's what makes her a formidable and dangerous opponent. As a de facto leader of the Tea Party, she represents the extreme right views of the Republican Party, which, in my opinion, disqualifies her as a winner of the primary. Few independents will vote for her. Her followers are not afraid to elbow CNN anchors out of the way, which leads me to name her Miss Get Out Of My Way.

Rick Perry took his time to declare his candidacy to the White House, hoping to emulate his predecessor in the Texas Governorship. He acted wisely in not jumping into the race early; he wanted to see what the others had to say before deciding. He apparently feels that the competition is not that strong and that he has a good chance to prevail. Governor since the year 2000 (when Bush was elected the first time), he surprisingly began his political career as a Democrat and switched in 1990. As the longest serving governor in Texas, Perry is known among the locals as a man who follows the political trends as long as they favor his personal goals. This factor may hurt him when his opponents look for ammunition to attack him in the campaign. He is therefore my favorite for the title of Mr. Ride With The Wind.

Who will attempt to defeat Barack Obama? If you know the answer, please let me know!!

WHO WOULD MAKE A BETTER PRESIDENT?

No, it's not about the 2012 election, when surely a new President will be elected. It is a mere and futile exercise in hindsight regarding the 2008 election. The present thesis asks the following question: "Would Hillary Clinton have made a better president?" The vote was very close; Hillary got within 50,000 votes of Obama when the final numbers were crunched in the Democratic primary. Could she have beaten McCain? Of course, the senator from Arizona lacked the passion and charisma to win the presidency.



We all know and agree that Mrs. Clinton has made an excellent Secretary of State, certainly much better than Madeleine Albright who occupied the post under her husband. She is infinitely better than "Condo" Rice who apparently botched the early warnings of 9/11 made by an FBI agent. A very smart and cultured professor, Rice was simply out of her element at the White House. George Bush III should never have picked her for such a delicate position, when he had at his disposal plenty of experienced and capable candidates. But again, Mr. Bush will not go down in history as an effective President, not even when he saw Putin's soul in the Russian President's eyes (Sarcasm, OK?)

Ever since Mrs. Clinton married Bill when they were both young ambitious lawyers, she has proven to be a driving force behind her husband's success. He is of course a brilliant mind in his own right having won the prestigious Fullbright scholarship. The only question about Bill is his set of values; forget the embarrassing incident with Monica, that does not affect the nation. But one has a right to ask why Bill pardoned a fugitive felon on his last day in office. The answer to that question never came through. And this is just the tip of the iceberg, as we will perhaps never know about other presidential decisions that were not quite ethical.

Hillary was hurt, deeply hurt, by her husband's infidelities; she stood stoically by him anyway, having apparently decided that the good in him far outweighs the bad. She is a tough lady, no doubt about it, though she created some resentment when she criticized Obama very harshly during the primaries in 2008. She reminds me in many ways of another tough lady: Margaret Thatcher of England, who had a successful run as Prime Minister. I feel confident that Mrs. Clinton is equally capable of making critical decisions, even if they eventually affect her reelection chances.

President Obama, on the other hand, has shown time and time again that he hasn't fully assimilated the need to act as the nation's top executive when our welfare is at stake. Except for the bin Laden raid, the current President has shown that he is unwilling to be forceful and decisive when facing opposition.

That is why I believe, in hindsight, that Hillary Clinton would have made a much better President.

NEWT GINGRICH

Newton Leroy Gingrich is a fascinating character. He is currently a candidate for the Presidency, even though he knows quite well that his chances of success equal those of the Cubs going to the World Series. Extremely intelligent, a college professor and historian, the former Speaker of the House (why do journalists keep addressing him as Mr. Speaker?), entered the fray for two reasons: First, he knows that this is his last chance at his age; he just turned 68 on June 17th. Whatever the odds, he feels that the slimmest possibility of success still gives him a sense of entitlement. In his mind, his political experience gives him the right to become President and go away in a blaze of glory like Reagan. But the real reason, in my learned opinion, is his secret hope that he will be chosen as Vice-President and then, who knows, anything can happen.




He has written more than 17 non-fiction books since 1982, most of them covering politics and U.S. History. Gingrich without a doubt dominates all the other candidates in intelligence and political experience. His main problem however is that he has become famous for his gaffes when speaking publicly; he is also known for his interest in other women even while married. Given the present forgiving mood of most of the electorate nowadays,  the former Speaker believes that his peccadilloes will not affect his chances of becoming Vice-President or, at the very least, of occupying a large role in the new Cabinet of 2013. Assuming of course that Obama is defeated, which is by no means certain.



Mr. Gingrich possesses the usual disdain for those who do not share his brilliant intellect; he of course tries to hide that feeling in public, although, as stated above, he sometimes lets his tongue get the better of him. When his staff resigned en masse on June 9, 2011, he vowed to continue the campaign: “I am committed to running the substantive, solutions-oriented campaign I set out to run earlier this spring,” he wrote a few days later. It appears that again his intellectual prowess convinced him that he knew better than anybody else how to run his candidacy. Again, there is little doubt that the fireworks inside Gingrich's team must have spooked his helpers to the point of convincing them that Newt would never listen to reason.

Again, the ex-Speaker understands all that and probably regrets that his impetuous character has left him to fight the campaign alone or with whomever is willing to put up with him. Why does he continue? Because he is a superb debater and because his real goal is not to win the Republican primaries. He believes that by the end of the process, his name and face will be so well-known that the victor (Mr. Romney?) will have no choice but to select him as his running mate.