Jon Huntsman Is the Man

Let the wise man guard his mind, incomprehensible, subtle, and capricious though it is. Blessed is the guarded mind (Buddha)

Huntsman is still the guy for me, even though he doesn't shine in the polls. Unlike Perry, he speaks his mind easily and guardedly. Unlike Perry, he doesn't stumble, hesitate, mumble, equivocate, backtrack, or confuse. His message is concise and clear. Yes, he was ambassador under Obama, so what! That gives him a clear advantage when it comes to dealing with China, and China is the main adversary and partner at this time. None of the other candidate has the presence, the charm, and the easy going manner that makes him a perfect candidate for the White House.


Yes, he is a Mormon and yes, he was born rich, two qualities or two handicaps, depending on whether you are a sophisticated human being or a simple-minded citizen. Did we all become Catholics under John F. Kennedy, another rich guy who faced religious bigotry? Jon is a polished diplomat; he worked for Reagan, Bush I and Bush II, and was the governor of (gasp) Utah, where he obtained a lot of support from Independents and Democrats in the last election (2008). Is there another qualified candidate on the Republican side, more qualified than Huntsman?

Some of his opponents accuse him of being a moderate Republican; I say, bring it on! Do you want somebody who get things done in a bipartisan way? Or do you want an ineffective President, such as Obama in the last year, who hits his head against an unbreakable political wall? Since when is being moderate a political sin? Do we really want an extreme right or left in the White House and, for that matter, in Congress?

Jon Huntsman has a few black areas in his past; for example, he dropped out of high school to try and become a rock star. His signature is almost illegible in a cursive way, though there is a big loop at the beginning that could indicate excessive ambition. But the package as a whole is very pleasant and very convincing. I still believe that despite his low poll numbers he has a chance to be the chosen candidate after Romney and Perry self-destruct through their infighting.

His major obstacles are both the low name recognition and the lack of so-called "purity" in the Republican ideology. The first can be fixed easily and he is doing it through an active campaign in the key states. The second is so subjective that no speech or baby-kissing will remediate. Purity of thought was first approached by George Orwell in his famous novel 1984. Big Brother was watching what you said, what you read, and even what you dreamed about. Another famous era of purity occurred with the Soviets under Stalin; any criticism of the government sent you to the frozen tundra for the rest of your life. Those extreme-right Republicans who expect purity in their candidates would do well to study History again.

It's a shame that only registered Republicans will select (elect) their presidential candidate. If independents had a voice in that vote, Huntsman would win by a landslide. Alas, it is not to be and President Obama's team is watching and smiling, thinking that Jon Huntsman does not have a chance. He is the only candidate they really fear!

Where is the Savior?

Be not concerned with other men's evil words or deeds or neglect of good: look rather to thine own sins and negligence (Buddha)

Quite a few times in history, the right man (or woman) has appeared during national crisis to save the day; Winston Churchill comes to mind immediately. A great orator and motivator, he faced the Nazi threat with bravery or maybe bravado, considering that the only factor that saved England was the Channel and the famed British navy. JFK appears next as the handsome President who in all probability saved this country from WWIII by calling Kruschev's bluff. The relatively unappreciated Truman took over from a very sick FDR and had the guts to order the nuclear bombing of Japan, a valiant decision that shortened the war with the Nippon empire and saved untold thousands of GI lives. He then found the strength after the war to recall General MacArthur from his position in Korea when the immensely popular old soldier criticized Washington for not using the A-bomb against China. General Marshall proposed the Plan that bears his name and will always be remembered as the man who saved Western Europe, including our former enemy, Germany.

 Nikita Kruschev

Let us not forget the great men who founded this nation and defied the mighty British Empire. Nowadays, however, the United States is searching in vain for the man (or woman) who will put order in this confused and bickering nation. Our present politicians in Washington cause both hilarity and furor through their childish behavior and lack of vision. It is indeed a tragicomic situation that affects millions of Americans looking for a job and trying to save their home and their health plans. Savings are disappearing and retirements are postponed indefinitely. 

The present batch of Republican contenders, as I have said before (and I know whereof I speak ), does not satisfy their own party. The two leaders, Romney and Perry, exchange insults instead of offering concrete plans to improve our economy (By the way, Mr. Romney should get rid of the sardonic smile he seems to exhibit permanently. One gets the impression that he is mocking his opponents on a permanent basis. Does he have image advisers?). Mr. Cain won Florida, a deciding state in many elections. Does that mean anything? Yes, it means that he is the only one who seems to maintain his composure and avoid personal attacks. Does he have a chance? No, of course not.

Some Republican honchos are getting so desperate that they have asked, apparently, Gov. Christie of New Jersey to jump into the fray. He says no with the look of a cat that just caught the mouse. He feigns modesty, not one of his better qualities, and affirms that he is not ready, yet. Note the pause before "yet." His message is clear:" I am the man the country needs, even if I take the police helicopter to go to my son's game at taxpayer's expense." Do we know who he is really? No, he hasn't done enough to satisfy us. Strong personality? Yes, but can he stand the intense scrutiny of a presidential campaign? Only he knows.

While this immensely rich country can afford to spend $2 billion dollars PER WEEK in Afghanistan, the financial crisis worsens. The infrastructure weakens; bridges, schools, highways, dams, are all at risk of causing a major catastrophe. Do you think we could do a lot of rebuilding with $104 billion, the amount we spent this year on corrupt Kabul?  Why is it that not one of these Republican candidates, with the exception of Ron Paul, has suggested getting out quickly from Iraq and Afghanistan, thus reducing the deficit WITHOUT increasing taxes? We have military bases in 150 countries including Germany and Japan, two rich countries. Why has not one leading Republican candidate suggested we bring these troops home and save a ton of money?

Could it be because a Republican President started the whole mess? 

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?

To Be or Not To Be

Honestly and without bias, with no party preferences, whether male or female, conservative or liberal or moderate, using only your objective senses, who, among the presidential candidates, has the best profile to occupy the White House? Whom would you like to see as commander-in-chief, as exalted leader of this powerful nation in January of 2013?

I bet you have never heard of Roger Gary, of Stewart Alexander, Gary Johnson, or of Fred Karger; yet, all of them have the absolute right to compete in the 2012 election, even though none of them has the slightest chance of winning the coveted position. There are quite a few more names but it would be tedious to name them all since the national media will not waste any air time on them. I will therefore stick to those whose names appear daily in newspapers and television programs.

1. Mitt Romney

Admittedly, Mr. Romney does have the presence and intelligence to become President. He speaks well in public and has a certain charm that appeals to ladies. Against him: his religion, which the more popular Protestant churches view with suspicion. Also against him: his constant changes of position on crucial issues, including of course his Obamacare-type of health insurance in Massachusetts which he now says cannot be applied to every state.

2. Rick Perry

Another male candidate with physical presence and good masculine looks, the way we imagine our President must look like compared to other heads of state (of course, it could well be a lady with a strong personality). In his favor, a relatively low unemployment rate in Texas, ten years as chief executive which means he is quite electable, a strong Christian with conservative values and an avowed enemy of big government. Against him: some of his more extreme views (Social Security as a Ponzi scheme, term limits for the Supreme Court judges) may alienate quite a few more moderate voters.

3. Ron Paul

Extreme ideas as a libertarian and much too old to be elected (he is 75), Mr. Paul knows he can't win;
 he only wants his suggestions to have a large audience, hoping that some of them will be taken up by the winning candidate.

4. Sarah Palin

Even though she has the best name recognition in the country and though she hasn't thrown her hat into the ring yet, Ms. Palin is the subject of some national polls. Strangely enough, she fared the worst when compared with President Obama. Mitt Romney and Rick Perry on the other hand stood neck and neck with the Chief Executive among probable voters. It doesn't seem possible for her to overcome the leading Republicans and get the nomination of her party.

5. Michele Bachmann

Another lady who has struck hard in the preference of tea party members, Ms. Bachmann apparently only attracts the more extreme voters. She won't get the nomination because she fails to attract moderates, but her influence in the campaign will certainly be felt. Vice-President??

6. Newton Gingrich

A fighter and a strong debater, Mr. Gingrich, just like Ms. Bachmann, seems set on earning a position on the winning ticket, whether as Secretary of State or chief of staff in the White House. He won't become president, but his intelligence and wide experience could be exploited by whoever ends up on top.

7. Jon Huntsman

If you read my article on Mr. Huntsman published a few days ago, you'll know that he is my favorite by far as a future leader of this country. He is smart, good looking, and has the credentials in the Far East to deal with any crisis that may emerge from China. He may not win because he is too nice, too polite toward his opponents. If we compared him to a boxer, I would say that he doesn't have the killer instinct. He doesn't debate well and speaking in public requires firing up the crowd, a skill he does not possess. Yet I am convinced that he would make the best President.

I now ask you, my occasional readers, to given your opinion in this very informal poll. Thank you!

EXCHANGING FAVORS

When the first government was created in the first nation formed on earth - probably in today's China, a new political tradition also appeared: the exchange of favors between members of the ruling class and their supporters. The bigger the favor, read the bigger the contribution to the politician's favorite causes, the bigger the payoff, pardon, the quid pro quo. And now that the Supreme Court has opened the floodgates of financial contributions to candidates who seek a public position, so will the rewards increase for the generous donors: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Citizens_United_v._Federal_Election_Commission.



Naming ambassadors has almost always been a political plum given to "friends", ie, largest contributors. That nefarious practice has had negative consequences as many of the favored candidates had absolutely no diplomatic skills. Another way to reward supporters has been the last minute pardon given by the sitting president on his last day in office. President Clinton famously or rather infamously pardoned fugitive financier Marc Rich whose only merits were his financial donations to Clinton's war chest. No explanation was ever given by the White House.

Now that we have several governors or ex-governors seeking their party's nomination in the presidential campaign, a magnifying glass is and will be applied to their quid pro quo gestures for big political supporters. The first one to hit the national media is none other than the NY Times which features a series of accusations toward Governor Rick Perry of Texas: "The exchange of campaign contributions for government contracts, favors or positions is all too common in Washington and around the country." http://www.nytimes.com/2011/08/25/opinion/gov-rick-perrys-cash-machine.html

Why select Perry in particular who denies the allegations that he was returning favors? "Mr. Perry has long maintained there is no connection between his appointments and their contributions, but the evidence is clear on board after board." Let's be realistic; 99.9% of Congress has engaged in this practice, including the President and his cabinet. The infamous "pork" added to proposed bills has been a mainstay of senators and representatives alike who engaged in the hallowed ritual of planting the seeds of reelection. The NY Times has obviously published this article to target a candidate who has a real chance to end up in the White House. And so the battle begins with broadsides being fired on both sides.

While I feel there is something morally and ethically wrong with the quid pro quo policy, there is nothing illegal about it unless of course it results in harm to the country and its citizens. Creating an agency for the sole purpose of rewarding a friend is clearly an example of this, as the millions involved come from our taxes and the times are difficult enough without creating additional waste. There is a fine line between corruption and rewarding cronies. Political contributions are not bribes as they are perfectly within the law; their aim is to help the candidate defray his or her expenses during a campaign. Humans being human, they will fall prey to the understandable desire to say "thank you" to their friends and supporters in a tangible way.

Somebody said once that lobbying is organized corruption; I beg to differ: Influencing the decisions of politicians is quite legitimate. It has always been that way. I can send emails to my senators and representatives to express my opinion. Whether they pay heed or not is another matter. The political system will not and cannot change, simply because they (the politicians) would have to approve it. The only change they approve regularly is to increase their own salaries. I wish I could do the same!

Rick Perry

The 61 year-old Rick Perry is at the perfect age to launch a bid for the White House. He sees himself as the new Ronald Reagan heir serving the country as Commander-in-Chief and retiring at the feisty age of 70. Who could ask for better timing? There are of course a few obstacles he must overcome before fulfilling his dream: Winning the Republican primary and defeating Barack Obama. Can he do it? Does he have what it takes to emulate his predecessor in the governorship of Texas? Perry is after all the longest serving governor in Longhorn territory, a fact that speaks well of his ability to raise funds and control the political world in his native state.

When he defeated Sen. Kay Bailey Hutchison in 2010, who by the way was supported by the George Bush family, he sent a clear message to the Republican Party that he was a political force to be reckoned with. He probably strengthened the idea at that time that he had a shot at the Presidency.

 Rick Perry as an Air Force Captain

In 1988, as a democrat who chaired Al Gore's presidential bid in Texas, Rick Perry, at that time, wasn't going to get a Christmas card from the Bush family. However, he later became Lieutenant Governor of Texas as a Republican in 1998, serving under George Bush II and taking over the position after the 2000 infamous elections. Talk about good timing!

Perry has the right credentials as a candidate for the highest position in the land of Lincoln. Honorable military service, Christian Evangelical in good standing, long experience in an executive position, no known scandals, sexual or otherwise, presidential looks (unlike George W.), an attractive figure for female voters, and a relatively good public speaker. He doesn't have the charisma of a Ronald Reagan, or the intellect of a Barack Obama, but he compensates these factors with unparalleled ambition and energy.

Perry initiated his campaign by dropping political bombs to shock the electorate into paying attention to his candidacy. Unlike the suave and polished Mitt Romney, who was content with remaining above the fray as befits a veteran of presidential runs, the Texas governor quickly accused Obama's monetary policy of being "almost treasonous" (excessive printing of money) and soon thereafter presented his new proposal to amend the constitution, or rather to eliminate some amendments. He clearly wants to remain on the front page with controversial statements, though these tactics may well backfire on him. His remarks about Social Security being a Ponzi scheme will endear him to older voters, a fact that he quickly sought to clarify without much success.

Controversy and close vetting are an essential part of any political campaign; as they say in my native country: "If you don't like the heat, stay out of the kitchen."

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!!