Narcissistic- And Defeated


In retrospect (hindsight always being 20/20) it shouldn't have been a surprise.

The primary in New Hampshire, though it won't redound much to Mitt Romney's benefit in South Carolina, was a significant victory for the front runner.      Not only did he coast to victory but was rewarded by the voters who gave Ron Paul a second-place finish.

Paul, despised by the establishment of the GOP, finished ahead of Jon Huntsman, who is not despised by the party establishment- and probably, aside from Romney, would be its top choice.

But Huntsman was not the top choice, or even the second choice, of New Hampshire voters despite spending more time in the state in the past few months than any other candidate, as graphically depicted (immediately below) by Talking Points Memo.

And that, despite the far-right field and this earlier post of mine, probably speaks well of the individuals who went to the polls last Tuesday.          For no other candidate in a presidential debate of either party has regaled us with the Mandarin version of "He doesn't seem to understand the situation" (embedding of    video disabled by request).

We get it, Jon.   You're the smartest guy on the stage.     Not only can you speak a language foreign to the vast majority of Americans but in so demonstrating, you were able to charge that your rival doesn't "understand the situation."

Not wrong- and not, as is quite likely, insincerely exploiting the justified fears of Americans about the growing power and threat of Mainland China- but not aware of what Huntsman is aware.       Apparently unbeknownst to the former Utah governor and ambassador to China, getting elected President involves far more than demonstrating that you are the best educated and most traveled candidate of  them all, notwithstanding Barack Obama's ascension to the office.

Currency manipulation, prohibitive tariffs on some U.S. goods, cyber spying, rapid militarization, and threats to Taiwan all are of concern to this nation.     And to our people, even these pale in significance to the jobs that are being lost to the Mainland.      These, significantly, have been greatest as a share of total employment in- wait for it- New Hampshire.       The Economic Policy Institute (their map, immediately below) notes that from 2001 to 2008, 16,300 jobs (2.35% of total state employment) were ripped away from Granite State residents.      And that was as a result of trade imbalance, irrespective of Third World Chinese labor practices.

Into this, and in a nation still mired in a serious economic slump, the slow disintegration of the middle class, and declining mobility, steps Jon Huntsman and his impressive facility with Mandarin Chinese.       It was, admittedly, a fine slap in the face but nothing that qualifies him for the presidency.       To the 83% of New Hampshire voters who rejected the most worldly of candidates, congratulations; to that candidate himself, goodbye- and please don't come back in four years.  

Into this, and in a nation still mired in a serious economic slump and beset by the slow disintegration of the middle class and declining mobility, steps Jon Huntsman and his impressive facility with Mandarin Chinese.       It was, admittedly, a fine slap in the face but nothing that qualifies him for the presidency.       To the 83% of New Hampshire voters who rejected the most worldly of candidates, congratulations; to that candidate himself, goodbye- and please don't come back in four years.  




Share |

First, Second, Third (Or Not), And Outta Here


Bold!  Bold!    Governor Terry Branstad (sarcasm alert) goes out on the limb with his prediction of the outcome of tonight's Iowa caucuses.       The GOP chief executive, emboldened by polls showing Mitt Romney, Rick Santorum, and Ron Paul in a virtual dead-heat, has predicted that either Romney or Santorum will come in first but "you can't rule out Congressman Ron Paul."

He can't, but this blogger, who expected a Romney v. Clinton race last time around, will.

Paul has some money and a strong organization.      But his advantage in possessing rabidly enthusiastic supporters will be somewhat limited in the face of the fairly unusual January weather expected as the curtain rises at 7:00 p.m.(central time) in the overrated caucuses.     Further, in a survey conducted Tuesday through Friday of last week, fully 41% of likely participants said they still might change their minds.     They may vote for the surging Santorum, eventual nominee Romney, or even Winnie the Pooh (not permitted, actually) but they are not going to vote for Ron Paul, the second choice of virtually no Republican voter anywhere in the world.

If weather.com proves accurate, temperatures in the ten largest municipalities in Iowa will range from a low of 27 degrees in the eastern city of Davenport (population 99,685) and the northeastern city of Dubuque (population 57,637) to a high of 38 degrees in the western city of Council Bluffs.        While the average monthly temperature in January in Des Moines, capital of Iowa and its largest municipality, is 20.4 degrees, it is expected to be 35 degrees at 7:00 p.m. tonight.     No precipitation of any sort is expected in the ten locations and wind, projected to be high during the day, is expected to subside by evening.

This unseasonably good weather in all likelihood will benefit Mitt Romney, who is particularly popular among the elderly.     It will disproportionately harm Ron Paul, a hero among many college students, who are attracted by his isolationist tendencies and opposition to the federal drug law and are less put off by the ludicrousness of Paul's libertarianism of convenience.    They would have been the most likely to show up in any kind of weather.

Santorum, who clearly has momentum, should be slightly benefited by the good weather, given that it will enhance turnout with some individuals lured by the idea of going with the hot hand (sports metaphor).     In a poll recently (apparently in the past week, but difficult to determine exactly when) conducted by CNN of what it describes as 64 "business and conservative interest group leaders, veterans of previous caucus campaigns, and a variety of other party activists," 40 predicted a victory by Romney- and none by Santorum.     Further,   Romney has expressed confidence in winning, magnifying the risk in even a close second place finish.  

As someone who thought the St. Louis Cardinals would have a down year in 2011, I believe Rick Santorum will come in a very strong second to Mitt Romney tonight, with Ron Paul a relatively distant third.     And in a blow to political entertainment, say goodbye to Michelle Bachmann, who will hold off on making an endorsement.








Share |

Paul Danger



There are a lot of reasons to oppose Ron Paul, chief among them that he's an adherent of the naive and dangerous theory of libertarianism.         Ed Brayton has found a new one.

Representatives Paul and Ted Poe (R-NC) have sponsored the We the People Act, which requires that the U.S. Supreme Court and each federal court

(1) shall not adjudicate– (A) any claim involving the laws, regulations, or policies of any State or unit of local government relating to the free exercise or establishment of religion; (B) any claim based upon the right of privacy, including any such claim related to any issue of sexual practices, orientation, or reproduction; or (C) 


any claim based upon equal protection of the laws to the extent such claim is based upon the right to marry without regard to sex or sexual orientation; and (2) shall not rely on any judicial decision involving any issue referred to in paragraph (1)

Section 7 of the bill stipulates "Any decision of a Federal court, to the extent that the decision relates to an issue removed from Federal jurisdiction under section 3, is not binding precedent on any State court."    

Brayton concludes, therefore,

This would reverse not only Roe v Wade but Griswold v Connecticut and Lawrence v Texas and every other ruling related to a right to privacy as well. That means the states could once again outlaw homosexuality and the use of contraception (and if you don’t think there are powerful political interests that favor doing both of those things, you haven’t been paying attention). It erases virtually every single church/state ruling in the last century, allowing public schools to once again force students to read the Bible aloud and to recite state-composed and mandated prayers.

The Court's 1965 ruling in Griswold v. Connecticut overturned a state law which criminalized the encouragement or use of contraception and established and determined that a state's prohibition on the use of contraceptives violated the right to marital privacy.      But new initiatives are under way.       Included are "personhood amendments," one of which was Measure 26, thankfully defeated in November by Mississippi voters, which would have amended the state's constitution to read "The term 'person' or 'persons' shall include every human being from the moment of fertilization, cloning or the functional equivalent thereof." This initiative shall not require any additional revenue for implementation."      

Nevertheless, similar measures are being readied for ballot approval next November in Florida, Montana, Ohio, and Oregon.        Prior to the vote in Mississippi, Personhood amendment Walter Hoye conceded to NPR's Diane Rehm the chilling affect passage would have had on use of birth control:

HOYE: Any birth control that ends the life of a human being will be impacted by this measure.


REHM: So that would then include the IUD [intra-uterine device]. What about the birth control pill?


HOYE: If that falls into the same category, yes.


REHM: So you’re saying that the birth control pill could be considered as taking the life of a human being?


HOYE: I’m saying that once the egg and the oocyte come together and you have that single-celled embryo, at that point you have human life, you’ve got a human being and we’re taking the life of a human being with some forms of birth control and if birth control falls into that category, yes I am.

Ron Paul has been a member of the U.S. House of Representatives approximately 23 years (1977-1984; 1996-present) and thus ought to be taken seriously as a presidential candidate. And though the GOP establishment would rise up to prevent his nomination if it appeared a realistic possibility, polls in Iowa confirm that he might well win that caucus.       He should, then, be treated very seriously as apresidential contender.        And if his extremist views and their implications were well known, perhaps even Republican voters will realize just how much a radical he is.







Share |

Iran, Iraq And Bachmann

Watching the last GOP debate (transcript here), held in Sioux City, Iowa, the sober viewer was reminded how popular "beer muscles" are among the Repub aspirants. While Ron Paul wants to avoid war at almost all costs, the other candidates generally vie to prove how tough they are, especially compared to President Obama. The most explicit, Rick Santorum, declared "we should be planning a strike against their facilities and say, if you do not open up those facilities and not close them down, we will close them down for you." Mitt Romney charged Obama with "thinking somehow if we appease or accommodate the tyrants of the world, that the world will be safer." Michele Obama was certain Iran will develop a nuclear weapon and "will use it to wipe our ally, Israel, off the face of the map, and they've stated they will use it against the United States of America. Look no further than the Iranian constitution, which states unequivocally that their admission -- their mission is to extend jihad across the world and eventually to set up a worldwide caliphate. We would be fools and knaves to ignore their purpose and their plan."

But that was the more logical portion of the Minnesota congresswoman's critique of the Paul approach to the Persian Gulf. Lost in the translation was Bachmann's statement

Well, I think clearly the biggest mistake that President Obama has made -- and there are many when it comes to foreign policy -- has been the decision that he made regarding Iraq. He was essentially given on a silver platter victory in Iraq, and he's choosing intentionally to lose the peace.

And we all know what's going to happen. We know that Iran is going to be the hegemon and try to come into Iraq and have the dominant influence. And then Iraq will essentially have dominance from the Persian Gulf all the way to the Mediterranean through its ally, Syria.

I'm not referring to the idiotic allegation that the President is "choosing intentionally to lose the peace," which would be tantamount to treason, were the United States legally involved in a 'war' against Iraq, rather than merely carrying on yet another police action. Rather, it is the cognitive dissonance embodied in stating "he was essentially given a silver platter victory in Iraq" and "we know that Iran is going to be the hegemon and try to come into Iraq and have the dominant influence" which, presumably, displeases Bachmann.

Sadaam Hussein's Iraq had no "weapon of mass destruction." Nor did it have chemical or biological weapons (which, truth be told, are not weapons of mass destruction). Nor was it aiding Al Qaeda and our involvement in the war probably strengthened the hand of terrorists in the region.

Any "silver platter victory in Iraq," for those paying attention, would be regime change. A genocidal dictator was replaced by a government elected somewhat democratically and whose head, Nouri al-Maliki, is not the authoritarian Hussein was.

But al-Maliki, a Shiite Muslim, traditionally has been pro-Teheran. If Bachmann is as exorcised (should she be exorcised? Oh, never mind.) that Iran will "come into Iraq and have the dominant influence" there, it is curious that she would perceive some "silver platter victory in Iraq."

A realist ought to be skeptical of such certitude about the danger presented by the current government in Iran. But the threat is significantly greater than that acknowledged by Ron Paul. The degree of threat posed by Teheran (which remains unclear) should give Michele Bachmann, and the other conservatives who continue to defend Gulf War II, considerable pause.

Share|

Motivation Misunderstood

Michele Bachmann doesn't matter anymore. Oh, sure, she proves entertaining at debates, serving as a human laugh track, and she cannily referred repeatedly to "NewtRomney" at Saturday night's soiree in Des Moines, effectively identifying the two leading GOP candidates to their earlier support of a health care debate.

And for the fifteen minutes Bachmann was a factor, we on the left had her all wrong. Oh, she makes her mistakes, such as when she told New Hampshire Republicans "You're the state where the shot was heard around the world in Lexington and Concord," though Lexington and Concord are in Massachusetts and not New Hampshire.

Still, she is not ill-informed. When the issue turned (at 21:14:07 of the Chicago Sun-Times transcript) to Social Security, Bachmann, Santorum, Paul, and Romney had a go at it. While Romney (acting as if he is still the front-runner) said little, Santorum (wrongly identified in the transcript as the other Rick) claimed Obama is "the one defunding the Social Security system."

Santorum, contrary to the former House Speaker currently leading the pack, does know a little about foreign policy. Economic policy, however, is not his strong suit and, as the tired cliche has it, would have trouble getting a clue if you spotted him the "l," "u," and "e."

President Obama, who wants to extend and increase the cut in the payroll tax paid by the employee and extend the same rate to some employers, is not "defunding the Social Security system." Not in the least. Money from the general fund is being transferred to the Social Security trust fund in an amount equal to the loss of revenue from reduction in the tax. In turn, pursuant to the plan of President Obama and Senate Democrats, the general fund would be replenished by a surtax on millionaires.

Santorum, clearly, is wrong. So, too, is Ron Paul, who repeated the old, very convenient line, "the trust fund is gone." Not the trust fund is declining or failed to pay full benefits last year because of the economic slump. Dean Baker notes that only in the last few years has the fund begun "drawing on the interest on the government bonds it held. That is exactly what the law dictates, when Social Security needs more money than it collects in taxes, it is supposed to draw on the bonds that were purchased with Social Security taxes in the past. This means it is self-financing." According to the latest report from the Social Security Trustees, full benefits ought to be able to be made from annual revenues until approximately 2037, at which time 78% of benefits can be paid from annual revenues with no change made at all to the funding mechanism.

One can only speculate whether Santorum and Paul are lying or merely misinformed. But one does not have to speculate, but merely look at the totality of the statement, to know that Representative Michele Bachmann is less misinformed than dishonest. She stated (beginning at 21:15:13 of the transcript)

The reason why this is so detrimental to the economy as well is that this blew a hole, in other words, it took away $111 billion away from the Social Security Trust Fund. This is a very real issue for senior citizens, because we have to pay the Social Security checks that are going out.

I'm completely different from b-- Barack Obama on this issue. I don't agree with Barack Obama. We have candidates on this stage that are standing with Barack Obama on this issue. But this year alone, it-- this will also cost the Social Security Trust Fund another $112 billion. And we don't have enough money this year in the Social Security Trust Fund to put out those checks.

Which means, we have to go to the General Treasury to get the money. And trust me, when you open the door to the General Treasury.....

Like Santorum, who maintains the President is "defunding the Social Security system," Bachmann initially contends the payroll tax cut "blew a hole" when" it took away $111 billion away from the Social Security Trust Fund." Of course, it blew no hole because the revenue was replenished. But a moment later, it became evident that Bachmann knows this because she recognized "we have to go to the General Treasury to get the money."

There has been an underlying suspicion, perhaps because Michele Bachmann is an evangelical Christian, that she is earnest, though confused, ignorant, ill-informed, or simplistic. But she is none of the latter. But if her words are carefully considered, the politician sufficiently cagey to continue to refer to "NewtRomney" is really quite clever or, as another cliche has it, crazy like a fox.

Share|

Against Bailouts, Rhetorically

Yep, they're all against "bailouts." Ron Paul decries the "benefits" from "all the bailouts due to the monetary system." Jon Huntsman, the only candidate on the stage last night at Oakland University (debate transcript, here) in Rochester, Michigan who did not flunk Economics 101, is worried that the continuance of 'too big to fail' might lead to another bailout.

Michele Bachmann criticized the requests of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac for billions in a "bailout," blissfully unaware that when a public corporation run entirely by the government prior to 1969, the two agencies were effective and efficient. Mitt Romney- in Michigan!- said the auto bailout "was the wrong way to go." Saving American jobs does not win favor with the man who made part of his fortune at Bain Capital eliminating them.

Rick Perry, who has run Texas state government as a pay to play operation, vowed that he is "not going to pick winners and losers." Rick Santorum reminded his colleagues "time and time again, Wall Street, the Wall Street bailout, five of the eight people on this panel supported a Wall Street bailout. I didn't." Unfortunately, Santorum's preference for ending "government intervention in the marketplace" would encourage a reprise.

Even one of the debate hosts got into the act, with CNBC's personal finance correspondent Sharon Epperson worrying about "student loan debt becoming the next bailout."

If you believe these Republicans consider prevention of avoiding the temptation of another bailout a high priority, I have some prime Greek debt to sell you (cheap shot there; go, Athens!). Tax cuts for the wealthy have been joined by ridicule of the Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act as tenets of GOP gospel. The best rehearsed line of the night may have been from Herman Cain when he maintained there are three things wrong with Dodd-Frank, mentioning one, then quipping "the two other biggest problems with Dodd/Frank: Dodd and Frank."

Everyone laughed, including the 80% of the audience which doesn't know what was in the legislation, and the remaining 20%, which doesn't understand it.

Though weakened by an onslaught of lobbying by Wall Street, the financial reform which culminated in Dodd-Frank makes the dreaded "bailout" less, rather than more, likely. In late September, CNNMoney reported

When Moody's downgraded three banks on Wednesday, it gave a big thumbs up to the Dodd-Frank Wall Street reforms that aim to ensure there won't be any more big bank bailouts.

Moody's made clear it believes that the U.S. government is less likely to step in to save a troubled bank,and downgraded Bank of America, Wells Farg oand Citigroup.

It is more likely now than during the financial crisis to allow a large bank to fail should it become financially troubled, as the risks of contagion become less acute," Moody's wrote in its downgrade note of Wells Fargo's stock.

Perry was not being presumptuous when last night he maintained "Everybody on this stage understands it's the regulatory world that is killing America."

"Everybody on this stage" (except, it would appear, Huntsman) is living on a different planet than both defenders and skeptics of the federal government's efforts to prevent another bailout.

At a meeting of the House Oversight Committee in January, the acting assistant secretary for financial stability at the Treasury Department maintained "Dodd-Frank gives us the tools to regulate any financial institution, regardless of its size, that poses systemic risks, and it gives us the tools to shut down such financial institutions." Demurring, Special Inspector General for TARP Neil Barofsky warned that federal officials "need to have the regulatory will and the political will to rein in the size of these banks." In his view, the Dodd-Frank Republicans imply is strangling businesses is not strong enough.

Six of the seven pretenders on stage in Michigan act as if they've slept through the last several years. If sincere, they are unaware, as Matt Taibbi has noted

We've just witnessed an episode of industry-wide financial mismanagement that surely has no parallel in history. From Lehman Brothers to AIG to Goldman and Morgan Stanley (which in 2008 needed the unprecedented emergency granting of a commercial bank charter to avoid bankruptcy) to Citigroup (which needed a $25 billion bailout and $300 billion in federal guarantees to survive) to Bear Stearns (dead) and Merrill Lynch (dead) and so on, virtually every single one of America's leading financial institutions from the last decade is either already out of business or functionally insolvent and living off government life support and cheap cash from the Fed.

And the GOP candidates have one solution, and one solution only: get government out of the way. The only hope is that they realize they're just making it up.

Share|

Hoisted By Their Own Petard


Don't blame Ron Paul, who is a mere member of the U.S. House of Representatives with as much chance of being the next GOP presidential nominee as you or I have. Better to call out Charles Krauthammer, Rush Limbaugh, the Wall Street Journal editorial page, and the other influential conservative Republicans who don't want to acknowledge the role of Wall Street in precipitating the Great Recession.

But it was Paul who on Monday said (beginning at approximately 1:00 of video, part 2) on Jon Stewart's The Daily Show federal regulators "had a big bubble and they made a lot of money because we wanted to make sure that everybody had a house."

Uh, no. In September, 2008 Aaron Pressman explained

The Community Reinvestment Act, passed in 1977, requires banks to lend in the low-income neighborhoods where they take deposits. Just the idea that a lending crisis created from 2004 to 2007 was caused by a 1977 law is silly. But it’s even more ridiculous when you consider that most subprime loans were made by firms that aren’t subject to the CRA. University of Michigan law professor Michael Barr testified back in February before the House Committee on Financial Servicesthat 50% of subprime loans were made by mortgage service companies not subject comprehensive federal supervision and another 30% were made by affiliates of banks or thrifts which are not subject to routine supervision or examinations. As former Fed Governor Ned Gramlich said in an August, 2007, speech shortly before he passed away: “In the subprime market where we badly need supervision, a majority of loans are made with very little supervision. It is like a city with a murder law, but no cops on the beat.”

Not surprisingly given the higher degree of supervision, loans made under the CRA program were made in a more responsible way than other subprime loans. CRA loans carried lower rates than other subprime loans and were less likely to end up securitized into the mortgage-backed securities that have caused so many losses, according to a recent study by the law firm Traiger & Hinckley (PDF file here).

Finally, keep in mind that the Bush administration has been weakening CRA enforcement and the law’s reach since the day it took office. The CRA was at its strongest in the 1990s, under the Clinton administration, a period when subprime loans performed quite well. It was only after the Bush administration cut back on CRA enforcement that problems arose, a timing issue which should stop those blaming the law dead in their tracks. The Federal Reserve, too, did nothing but encourage the wild west of lending in recent years. It wasn’t until the middle of 2007 that the Fed decided it was time to crack down on abusive pratices in the subprime lending market. Oops.

Many Republicans complain that President Obama and other Democrats blame George W. Bush for everything. It is, of course, easy to do because Americans are more prone to attribute the economic crisis to President Bush than to President Obama. But that probably wouldn't be the case if the GOP (with little pushback from the Democratic Party and less from the mainstream media) hadn't built a wall around corporate America, shielding it from blame while fingering the federal government. Somebody was responsible. It was primarily the titans of Wall Street- but if the GOP wishes to absolve any part of their base (corporate, ultimately) of responsibility, the American people will blame a President. In their wisdom, more have chosen GWB than BHO.

The Daily Show With Jon Stewart	Mon - Thurs 11p / 10c
Ron Paul Pt. 1
www.thedailyshow.com
Daily Show Full Episodes Political Humor & Satire Blog The Daily Show on Facebook

The Daily Show With Jon Stewart	Mon - Thurs 11p / 10c
Ron Paul Pt. 2
www.thedailyshow.com
Daily Show Full Episodes Political Humor & Satire Blog The Daily Show on Facebook

Share|

Ron Paul Snubbed

Politico's Roger "Don't Call Me Paul" Simon has noticed what few others have. U.S. House of Representatives member Michelle Bachman barely edged out Ron Paul in what Simon has recognized as the "organized bribery" of the Iowa straw poll. As his reward, he has received: silence.

To Jill Lawrence of The Daily Beast/Newsweek, Simon points out, it is "the new top tier of Bachmann, Perry and Romney." The Washington Post reported "A Republican presidential campaign that has been slow to take shape suddenly snapped into focus Sunday, with an unlikely three-person top tier of former Massachusetts governor Mitt Romney, Rep. Michele Bachmann (Minn.) and the newest entry, Texas Gov. Rick Perry." The Associated Press calls it "a three- way race" among the three. CNN sums up "Conventional wisdom is that Perry joins former Massachusetts Gov. Mitt Romney, who's making his second bid for the GOP nomination, and Rep. Michele Bachmann of Minnesota, as the top tier in the Republican fight. “ Repub pols and pundits have joined in the conventional wisdom.

There is one clue to the disregard shown the Ames second-place finisher in the breezy dismissal of the Texas congressman noted by Simon. "Libertarian Ron Paul," the editors commented (within parentheses, even), " who has no chance to win the nomination, finished a close second."

The Wall Street Journal editorial page, unlike the news departments of AP, the Washington Post, and others, has a motive for relegating Paul to the ranks of also-rans. Responding to Mitt Romney's recent remark "corporations are people," Paul the following day had told Center for American Progress writer Scott Keyes

People are individuals, they’re not groups and they’re not companies. Individuals have rights, they’re not collective. You can’t duck that. So individuals should be responsible for corporations, but they shouldn’t be a new creature, so to speak. Rights and obligations should be always back to the individual.

Yikes. A year and a half after the landmark Citizens United decision decreeing corporate personhood, Ron Paul does not stray from the reservation, but rides off into the sunset Asked what he would "make of Mitt Romney’s statement that 'corporations are people' yesterday," Paul replies "obviously they're not."

The Texas congressman holds extremely conservative views and couches his opposition to Romney's statement in the rights and responsibilities of the individual, a traditional conservative stance (though not extending to the responsibilities of the individual to the community). But this is not Eisenhower's GOP or even Reagan's GOP. Heck, it's not even the GOP of Newt Gingrich, the darling of the 1994 Republican revolution, who in March slammed Paul Ryan's effort to rescind Medicare as "social engineering." Gingrich, as his words made clear, preferred to eliminate it gradually, through the back door. Not good enough for Nikki Haley, governor of the most important state in a GOP presidential race, nor for The Wall Street Journal.

This Repub Party embraces social engineering (though, disingenuously, not the term) and recognizes the Citizens United ruling as a boon for it, as well as a boondoggle for Democrats. It will not abide by the likes of a presidential candidate who believes corporations are not people, anathema to a party which, with all its cries and complaints, ultimately voted to raise the debt ceiling as demanded by its corporate base.

Share|

Out Now


No, not from Iraq, Afghanistan, or Libya, which is another issue altogether.

The participants in last night's GOP presidential debate all come with their reputations: Herman Cain, the businessman; Newt Gingrich, the thrice-married policy wonk; Michelle Bachmann, strident, weak on American geography and darling of the tea party; Ron Paul, gadfly and libertarian; Tim Pawlenty, pro-life and colorless; Mitt Romney, button-down and liberal, conservative, moderate, or whatever.

If there is someone who can be characterized- or smeared- as a theocrat, it would be former Pennsylvania senator Rick Santorum. Or would have been Rick Santorum.

A question from a male in the audience "I'm just wondering what your definition of the separation of church and state is and how it will affect your decision-making" inspired three ludicrous responses and two quite sensible ones. Not surprisingly, each candidate who responded avoided the more important part of the question/comment- how it would "affect your decision-making." But we still heard Pawlenty attributing American liberty to God; Paul claiming the U.S. Constitution "says no theocracy"; Cain confirming that he believes a presidential adviser's religious affiliation is more important than merit; Gingrich expressing fear that an administration official might turn out to be a bomb maker.

Mitt Romney's response was reasonable, if a little vanilla. But.... Rick Santorum? Checked and confirmed. It was Rick Santorum who in part commented

I think the key to the success of this country, how we all live together, because we are a very diverse country -- Madison called it the perfect remedy -- which was to allow everybody, people of faith and no faith, to come in and make their claims in the public square, to be heard, have those arguments, and not to say because you're not a person of faith, you need to stay out, because you have strong faith convictions, your opinion is invalid. Just the opposite -- we get along because we know that we -- all of our ideas are allowed in and tolerated. That's what makes America work.

A diverse country? A candidate in the Republican nomination process endorsing diversity? That is truly wondrous, but no more than calling into "the public square" all individuals "to be heard." And even less extraordinary than Santorum welcoming "everybody, people of faith and no faith...." to express his or her opinion.

Forget the GOP (where an expression "of no faith" would instantly disqualify someone from public office) but consider that the American people at large are wary of a candidate for public office who professes little or no faith. A Pew Research Center survey taken late last month found that 61% of the electorate would be "less likely to vote" for a presidential candidate if that individual "does not believe in God." There is a reason that President Obama often ends speeches with "God bless the United States"- and it's not because the Almighty takes orders from Barack Obama or any other politician.

So Rick Santorum should drop out of the presidential race immediately. He was a very long short, anyway, and now has committed ideological heresy. There is no room in a Repub race (and, sadly, perhaps not in a Democratic race) for someone who asserts we must not "say because you're not a person of faith, you need to stay out, because you have strong faith convictions, your opinion is invalid." Rick Santorum, a staunch conservative, is wrong about almost everything and passionately so about a few things. But he was boldly, naively right about free expression in a democratic society.

Share|

Reflections on the Debate (Myrtle Beach, South Carolina)- No. 5

I have been unfairly ridiculing John McCain as "Saint McCain." As we all knew even before the 1/10/08 Repub Presidential debate, among fiscal, cultural, or foreign policy, conservatives, there is only one true saint. Read the candidates' own words of reverence about this individual for whom they have undying devotion.

Rudolph Giuliani: " I would do that the way I did as mayor of New York City, the way Ronald Reagan did it as president of the United States."

John McCain: "I'm proud to have been a member of the Reagan revolution, a foot soldier."

Mike Huckabee: "Well, I'm not sure anybody said we're not running for a Reagan term.... All of those things were a part of that Reagan coalition. I was a part of it in 1979 and a lot of the evangelicals who became a part of helping Ronald Reagan to be elected."

John McCain (again): "the Reagan revolution that brought about a new dawn of a new day in America and helped us immeasurably in bringing down the iron curtain."

Mitt Romney:

But let me come back to your other question about Ronald Reagan. Look, the only way we're going to win the White House is by appealing to the coalition that brought together the great strength that Ronald Reagan brought to America.
What's happened in America is that Washington has moved away from the Reagan coalition. The Re-publican Party, in some cases, has moved away from the Reagan principles.
But the principles that Ronald Reagan espoused are what will allow us not only to win the White House, but to keep America strong. Ronald Reagan was the ultimate optimist. He was a person who had confi-dence in America and brought back that spirit that we rely upon to be the strongest nation on Earth.
Ronald Reagan said we're going to have such a strong military, we'll out-compete the Soviets, and he did. He said we're going to have such strong families that the values of Americans will shine as an example of a shining city on a hill for the entire world to see, and he did that.

Fred Thompson: "On the one hand, you have the Reagan revolution. You have the Reagan coalition of limited government and strong national security.... (But Huckabee's platform is) .... not the model of the Reagan coalition, that's the model of the Democratic Party."

Rudolph Giuliani (again): "I'm a conservative because I believe in a strong national defense, the way Ronald Reagan did. I think peace through strength that Ronald Reagan proposed to deal with the Cold War is similar to what we have to do now in dealing with this terrorist war against us."

Ron Paul: (didn't get the memo).


And here is the funny thing. All these guys assume Ronald Reagan was a conservative Republican while they are posing, accurately or otherwise, as authentic conservatives. But as Jonathan Chait notes in "The Big Con: The True Story of How Washington Got Hoodwinked and Hijacked by Crackpot Economics," Reagan was a moderate Republican by today's party standards. Sure, Reagan ran up the federal deficit and attacked the labor movement (such as by firing air traffic controllers), heady, exciting stuff for a middle class- hating Republican. But he also signed an arms control agreement with the Soviet Union in 1987; appointed Sandra Day O'Connor and Anthony Kennedy (who have turned out to be swing voters) to the Supreme Court; enacted the largest tax increase in American history in 1982 and raised income taxes again in 1983; and in 1986 signed the Tax Reform Act, which Chait concludes "raised the proportion of taxes paid by the rich and reduced the proportion paid by the poor."

Still, the Repubs must comfort themselves by maintaining the fiction that Ronald Reagan was a true conservative and that George W. Bush is somehow a heretic. And besides- Christianity has Jesus Christ and Islam has Muhammad. We should allow Republicanism to have Ronald Wilson Reagan.

Reflections on the Debate (Myrtle Beach, South Carolina)- No. 2

From Senator John McCain (whom the media have anointed as "the adult" in the GOP race), in the Repub Presidential debate of 1/10/08:

"Could I just make a comment? I'm not interested in trading with Al Qaida. All they want to trade is burkas....."

This was not a response to a question about trade, Al Qaida, or Middle East apparel. This was a response to the following question about the Israeli and Arab Palestininans:
Congressman Paul, can we go back to the Middle East? You have said the United States should not be trying to broker peace between the Israelis and Palestinians. Should the president even be there today, sir?

Fill in the blank yourselves: "This cheap shot would have been condemned as bigotry if....." Here are my favorites: This remark would have been identified as bigotry if it hadn't been uttered by Saint McCain; or, perhaps if it had been made by a Democrat. And, by the way, where are those Democrats who have condemned questionable comments by Hillary Clinton or her supporters such as Andrew Cuomo and Bill Clinton? This was not questionable. It was obvious.

Reflections on the Debate (Johnston, Iowa)- No. 2


The third question of the Repub Presidential debate of December 12, 2007 came on the issue of taxes, arguably the GOP's favorite issue to demagogue. Des Moines Register vice president and editor Carolyn Washburn asked:

Who in this country is paying more than a fair share of taxes relative to everyone else: the wealthy, the middle class, the poor or corporations? (This is, as worded, actually a very good question).

Back to the pander scale, with 0 being straightforward and honest, 5 being top-notch pander. In reverse alphabetical order:


Thompson: "Five percent of Americans pay over half the income taxes in this country. 40 percent of Americans pay no income taxes at all. I think we need to concentrate on preserving the tax cuts of '01 and '03."

Translation: Let's cut everybody's taxes- especially those of the upper class. ("Five percdent of Americans pay over half the income taxes.) Pander: 4.

Tancredo: " Everyone that is presently paying tax, you could be -- you can make a case that they're paying too much. The reality is, of course, you need a different system entirely. We do need to move away from this archaic -- a system that taxes productivity, which is what we do, to a system that allows for a fair tax. I believe in that."

Translation: I want to cut everyone's taxes, and who can argue with something called a "fair" tax? Pander: 4.

Romney: "I don't stay awake at night worrying about the taxes that rich people are paying, to tell you the truth. I'm concerned about the taxes that middle class families are paying. They're under a lot of pressure. Gasoline's expensive. Home heating oil, particularly in the Northeast, is very difficult for folks. Health care costs are going through the roof. Education costs and higher education are overwhelming. And as a result, we need to reduce the burden on middle-income families in this country."

Translation: I care about the middle class. (No one loses a vote supporting the middle class, but where did he say the progressive middle tax should be cut?) Pander: 1.

Paul: "The most sinister of all taxes is the inflation tax and it is the most regressive. It hits the poor and the middle class. When you destroy a currency by creating money out of thin air to pay the bills, the value of the dollar goes down, and people get hit with a higher cost of living. It's the middle class that's being wiped out. It is most evil of all taxes."

Translation: See Romney. Pander: See Romney.

McCain: "I know that I'm happy to say low-income Americans, except for payroll taxes, don't pay taxes, but we've got to reform the tax code. Nobody understands it. Nobody trusts it. Nobody believes in it. And we have to fix it. And we can't raise taxes as our Democrat friends want."

Translation: I'm not really going to commit myself to anything except "reform." But in case you heard that I believe in working across the aisle, don't you believe it. That's why I'm using the noun "Democrat" as an adjective, to let you know I understand they're the enemy. Pander: 2.

Keyes: "who have spent overboard into deficits after promising us on the Republican side that they would limit the government, and then produced the highest budget deficits in the history of our country."

Translation: These politicans are just making me sick. Pander: 0 (not so wise to criticize Repubs in a Repub debate by implying, accurately, that they're even worse than the Democrats).

Hunter: "The tax that we're all paying that doesn't help anything -- it doesn't go to defense, it doesn't go to the roads, it doesn't go to medical care -- is the $250 billion-plus that we pay each year not to the federal government, to the Treasury, but to prepare our taxes, defend our taxes, and for the massive cost of the IRS. That's all overhead -- 250 billion-plus dollars. What we ought to do is have a system -- the fair tax system is a good one, or a flatter tax or a simpler tax, because that young couple that pays 1,450 bucks in taxes may pay $450 to their tax preparer. That's a second tax."

Translation: Huckabee advocates a "fair" tax but I can promise you it won't be progressive, so all those people of modest means, who generally don't vote for us, anyway (or do, because we throw a hot button cultural issue at them at election time)
will pay as much as the more affluent. Pander: 4.

Huckabee: "Over 80 percent of the American people know that the tax code is irreparably broken. I would lead one to a fair tax, and that means that the rich people aren't going to be made poor, but maybe the poor people could be made rich."

Translation: Under my system, the poor get rich, and the richer get richer! Everybody wins! It's Christmas every day! Not as complete a pander as Giuliani's response on the debt, but stated more succintly. Pander: 5.

Giuliani: "A flatter tax, a simpler tax that you could file on a one page, as an option, would be a good idea. Reducing the corporate tax, as I suggested. Reducing income tax rates across the board, which would mostly benefit the middle class. That's where the focus should be. But we've got to reduce taxes across the board, and we should give the death penalty to the death tax. It really is a very unfair tax."

Translation: You keep asking me about economics, I'll stay on message and give you the same answer each time. Reduce all taxes, especially for that guy who inherits property worth a few million dollars, which I'm going to continue to call the "death tax" until one of you cowards in the media has the guts to correct me. Good pandering, made all the better when he misleadingly claims "reducing tax rates across the board, which would mostly benefit the middle class." (Well, yeah, because there are a lot more middle class than upper class persons, but a wealthy individual makes out a lot better than the middle class person when the progressive income tax is cut.) Pander: 5.

Mitt Romney won't make this mistake again. A Republican debate, and he says "I don't stay awake at night worrying about the taxes that rich people are paying, to tell you the truth." A pretty radical suggestion for a Republican, it seems to me.

Reflections on the Debate (Johnston, Iowa)- No. 1

In the Repub Presidential debate of 12/12/07 sponsored by the Des Moines Register, the fair, if particularly colorless, moderator, Carolyn Washburn, began by two interrelated questions: The first I've quoted directly, below, and the second asked the candidates what kind of sacrifice they would ask of the Americn people to tackle the debt.

The comptroller general has said the U.S. faces a tsunami of debt that is a great threat to our national security. Do you agree our country's financial situation creates a security risk, and why are why not?
Let's see how each candidate fared on the "pander meter." The scale is from 0 (not far from where non-candidate Al Gore currently is) to 5, sort of the Laffer/Kemp standard, the giants of pander in modern American politics. We'll take these guys in reverse alphabetical order:


Thompson: "That's why I put out a specific Social Security plan that'll save Social Security while saving the government $4 trillion. It's all in entitlements. We've got to spend more for the military, as a matter of fact. But we've got to look at Social Security and Medicare and do some things now that won't hurt anybody badly but will save it for the next generation.The thing about it is that we can do it now without hurting those programs with -- actually strengthening those programs so that our kids and grandkids have -- I don't think we as American people are so selfish that we're going to put this off the table, kick the can down the road and let everybody else solve that problem, you know, when our grandkids get to be working age. That's not America; that's not what makes us strong.
And specifically, as far as Medicare is concerned, we need to tell people that are in Warren Buffet's category we're not going to take care of all your Medicare in the future; we can't afford it.

Translation: Let's consider entitlements and cut Social Security and Medicare because we care more about our children than ourselves. Bad reasoning, bad policy, weak pandering- 0.

Tancredo: "Don't ask the government for womb-to-tomb protection for your life, to build a bubble around you because all of that will cause a humongous amount of money and money that we don't have."

Translation: You're on your own, buddy. Don't expect anyone to help you. Bad policy, weak pandering- 0.

Romney: "The best answer for our economic woes is to make sure we have good jobs for our citizens, good schools for our kids, good health care for everyone, and that we have policies that promote the growth of the nation. We can have a little playing field around the world, get ourselves off of foreign oil, reduce the excessive spending in Washington, and have a bright future for our kids. This, again, is based upon the strength of the American people. If you want to see a strong America, you don't look to Washington; you look to ways to strengthen the American people.... "and the sacrifice we need from the American people, it's this: it's saying let the programs that don't work go."

Translation: We can do it all (good jobs, good schools, health care, bright future). But government ("Washington") is the enemy. And still I'll cut the programs you, the voter, don't like. Contradictory, nonsensical, but excellent politics and pandering- 4.

Paul: "We have to live within our means. If we're going to spend money, we ought to spend it at home, and that is why we have to change this foreign policy. We can't afford it to do what we're doing today because it will destroy our dollar.... (But) I think it's absolutely unnecessary to sacrifice. We want to give people more freedom, more chance to spend their own money. It's unnecessary."

Translation: Let's cut our bases, and there will be no need for personal sacrifice because, as a libertarian, I care about the individual and the community can go to h_ _ _. Pander score: 3.

McCain: not asked to respond

Keyes: "....you cut off the spigot that funds the political ambition of our leaders by abolishing the income tax and restoring control of 100 percent of their income to the American worker. That means you replace it with a fair tax system that puts the American people in control of their money."

Translation: I don't want the affluent to pay more than the middle class and I would tell you more, but my rant is almost done. Pander score: 3.

Hunter: "We should stop China from cheating on trade, bring back a lot of those high-paying manufacturing jobs to this country that we pushed off-shore. That means bigger paychecks. That means more money going into the Federal Treasury and to Social Security and to Medicare, eliminate those twin deficits, and we'll be on the right track."

Translation: Deal with mainland China. (The entitlement issue really isn't germane to my campaign.) Not really enough about cutting taxes for the red-meat audience. Pander score: 1.

Huckabee: " A lot of the federal budget goes to health care. We need to
do what most American companies are finding works in reducing health care cost. That's moving from the intervention-based health care model to a prevention-based" (sic).

Translation: I used to be fat but slimmed down with a regimen of diet and exercise, and in the process learned the importance of prevention. With this answer, the media will love me- they will actually think I'm in favor of a government role in health care.... and I didn't even say anything about sacrifice! Pander: 2.

Giuliani: "And we have to do it by imposing spending caps on the civilian agencies in governments -- 5 percent, 10 percent, maybe 15 percent. We have to say that we're not going to rehire half of the civilian employees that come up for retirement.... And then we have to reduce taxes. Right now we should reduce the corporate tax. We should reduce it from 35 percent to 25 percent. We should get rid of death tax and a whole group of others, but the first one should be the corporate tax. Restrain the central government, give people more choice, more money to spend, we're going to see our economy booming."

Translation: How many taxes which cut into the power of the wealthy can I advocate cutting in such a short period of time? Sure, it's irresponsible (I won't even mention that cutting government employment will cut government accountability and service to the public), but when has that ever lost votes in a Repub primary? Pander: 5. With this answer, Giuliani may have retired the pander trophy- no, there still is time left in the campaign to convince the Repub voters that he may be a libertine but will do more than anyone else to concentrate power in the hands of the powerful.

Reflections on the Debate (St. Petersburg)- No. 10

Does any Repub believe in the pro-life cause? Or is this just political correctness, Republican style?

At their presidential debate of 11/18/07 sponsored by CNN/YouTube, Ron Paul and Fred Thompson fielded the following questions from a woman from Texas named Journey:


In the event that abortion becomes illegal and a woman obtains an abortion anyway, what should she be charged with, and what should her punishment be? What about the doctor who performs the abortion?

Paul responded in part "but I really think it's the person who commits the crime. And I think that is the abortionist." Thompson similarly stated "it goes to the doctor performing the abortion, not the girl, or the young girl, or her parents, whoever it might be."

Unfortunately, host Anderson Cooper did not ask the other candidates if they agreed with the two respondents that an individual initiating, pursuing, and paying for, the murder of another individual (which would be the case if abortion were prohibited) should not in any circumstance be charged with a crime. (I suspect all would concur.) No Repub (or any other politician or public official of whom I'm aware) has questioned the legitimacy of the contract killing he or she would be condoning.... which is a strange position for an operation which used to pretend (and still does, to a lesser extent) that it is the "law and order" party.

Reflections on the Debate (St. Petersburg)- No. 3

Grover Norquist, head of the Americans for the Truly Wealthy, AKA Americans for Tax Reform, asked this question at the 11/28/07 Repub Presidential debate:


President Bush made a commitment when he ran for president in 2000 an 2004 that he would oppose and veto any tax increase that Congress sent him. My question to each of the candidates is: Would you promise to the people watching this right now, that you will oppose and veto any efforts to raise taxes as long as you're president?

In full pander mode, Tancredo, Huckabee, Romney, and Giuliani all said they would. Thompson, McCain, Paul (the libertarian!) refused to take this foolish pledge. Even the arch right-winger Duncan Hunter refused. Imagine this: no matter the economic health of the country; no matter whether we are involved in a foreign war; no matter the possibility of a natural disaster or terrorist attack- four Repub contenders, three of whom are considered serious contenders by the media, have pledged not to raise taxes for (at least) four years. Completely, thoroughly, irresponsible.

Debate Wrap-Up:

As pulled from nytimes.com which in turn credited Congressional Quarterly's transcript, these are the highlights (in chronological order) of the Repub Presidential debate held in Orlando, Florida on October 21, 2007 (skip to the end if you'd like):


Anything For A Buck Fred:
WALLACE: Senator -- Senator Thompson, have these two guys convinced you that you're wrong and that, in fact, they are both consistent conservatives?

THOMPSON: Well, we've got an hour and a half.

Maybe they can work on it.

(LAUGHTER)

But, they...

(APPLAUSE)

Actually, Mitt, I didn't know there was any room to the left of Ted Kennedy, but maybe there...

(LAUGHTER)

In fact, I didn't know there was any room to the right of him, either, but maybe...

(LAUGHTER)



Rudolph Giuliani:
He voted against $250,000 caps on damages, which they have in Texas. He voted against almost anything that would make our legal system fairer: loser pays rules, things that would prevent lawsuits like that $54 million lawsuit by that guy who lost his pants -- you know?

I did 210 weddings when I was mayor of New York City. So I have experience doing this. They were all men and women.

(LAUGHTER)

I hope.

(LAUGHTER)

(APPLAUSE)


GIULIANI: You got to give me a little slack here. It was New York City, you know, but it's not just a religious institution.
(LAUGHTER)


Mike Huckabee:
HUCKABEE: Let me begin by saying, for the first time in about nine debates, I'm kind of glad I wasn't in on the first few minutes because it was all about these guys fighting each other.

(LAUGHTER)

And I am more than content to let you let them fight all they want tonight, shed each other's blood and then I'll be ready to run for president because...

(LAUGHTER)


Duncan Hunter:
HUNTER: It's got to have, for example, fertility coverage. Well, what if you're 90 years old? We may appreciate Governor Romney's optimism...

(LAUGHTER)

Mike Huckabee:
And we've got a situation with 10,000 baby boomers a day signing up for Social Security, going into the Medicare system. And I just want to remind everybody when all the old hippies find out that they get free drugs, just wait until what that's going to cost out there.

(LAUGHTER) (APPLAUSE)


Tom Tancredo:
We should actually be debating that specific point, not what kind of government program. You know, Michael Moore went to Cuba not too long ago, and wrote this documentary about the greatness of the system, how wonderful it was to be in Cuba and have a socialized medical system.

You notice, however, that Michael Moore came back to the United States.

(LAUGHTER)


Mitt Romney:
... when Clinton hears about private sector, she thinks that that's a new recruit in the Army.

(LAUGHTER)



Rudolph Giuliani:
Governor Romney says the Republicans aren't going to beat Hillary Clinton by acting like Hillary Clinton. And the point seems to be that on a lot of the social issues, like abortion and gay rights and gun control, that there's not much difference between you and Clinton. Is there?

GIULIANI: You got to be kidding.

(LAUGHTER)

You have got to be kidding.

Wait a second. There is -- there are two things I agree with Hillary Clinton on. First of all, we're both Yankee fans.

(LAUGHTER)

Well, wait a second. I became a Yankee fan growing up in New York. She became a Yankee fan growing up in Chicago.

(LAUGHTER)

Do you believe that?

(LAUGHTER)

Second, she made a statement last week -- and I've been very critical of her, but I want to tell her I agree with this one. Quote, Hillary Clinton, I have a million ideas; America cannot afford them all.

(LAUGHTER)


Rudolph Giuliani:
If those polls are correct, we’d have Al Gore here to – I don’t know, it might be a little colder, I’m not sure. But I’m not sure we’d be any better off. Right, we’d be in a lot worse shape with Al Gore.

Thank, thank you Florida.

(LAUGHTER) (APPLAUSE)

GIULIANI: Thank you.

(APPLAUSE)

You saved us in 2000. That was a big one.

(LAUGHTER)


John McCain:
In case you missed it, a few days ago, Senator Clinton tried to spend $1 million on the Woodstock Concert Museum. Now, my friends, I wasn't there. I'm sure it was a cultural and pharmaceutical event.

(LAUGHTER)

I was tied up at the time.

(LAUGHTER)



Mike Huckabee:
You know, it's interesting, the most, I guess, wonderful reaction we've had in this entire room is when Hillary's name is mentioned. It gets louder than an Aerosmith concert.

(LAUGHTER)



Mitt Romney:
And, you know, Democrats also love America. As Ronald Reagan used to say, it's not that liberals are ignorant. It's just that what they know is wrong.

(LAUGHTER)


Mike Huckabee:
Because the problem is the actuarial tables were designed so that people would retire at 65 and die at 67.

(LAUGHTER)

Well, I'm sorry, but folks aren't dying that early. And short of taking them out, which is not a good idea...

(LAUGHTER)


John McCain:
HUME: Senator McCain, you've grappled with this issue as long as anybody here. You've heard all the proposals and you heard what Senator Thompson offered.

Your thoughts?

MCCAIN: First of all, I'm glad they're not dying at 67, Governor.

(LAUGHTER)


Tom Tancredo:
But let me add one more thing, and Mr. Mayor quipped something to me during the break, and here's my chance, Mr. Mayor, to do what you were saying.

(LAUGHTER)



John McCain:
Vladimir Putin has announced just in the last 24 hours that he plans a new, quote, grandiose, nuclear weapons program to counter the U.S. missile defense system. President Bush just recently described President Putin as wily.

(LAUGHTER)

Are we headed back to a new Cold War, or has the Bush administration been naive in dealing with Mr. Putin?

MCCAIN: I don't know about naive, but I do know that when I looked into Mr. Putin's eyes, I saw three letters: a K, a G and a B.

(LAUGHTER) (APPLAUSE)


Anything For A Buck Fred:
The week after, though -- you took a week off after the last debate. Speech yesterday was about five minutes long. Some people say you're lazy, sir.

How do you deal with that?

(LAUGHTER)

THOMPSON: Well -- no, it's OK. Let me answer that.

I was a father at the age of 17 and a husband at the age of 17. I got started working in a factory. I borrowed and worked my way through. My folks did what they could to help. They were country folks -- came in off the farm.

I was able to be an assistant U.S. attorney when I was 28, prosecuting most of the major federal crimes in middle Tennessee -- most of the major ones.

THOMPSON: Howard Baker selected me to go to Washington and be his counsel on the Watergate Committee at the age of 30.

I came back, took on a corrupt state administration, and won against them. I went to the United States Senate, got elected twice by 20 points in a state that Bill Clinton carried twice.

Condoleezza Rice called upon me to head up an international security advisory board to advise her on international security matters. President Bush called me to help shepherd Chief Justice -- now-Chief Justice John Roberts' nomination through the Judiciary Committee.

If a man can do all that and be lazy, I recommend it to everybody.

(LAUGHTER) (APPLAUSE)


For those keeping score at home, that's Huckabee 4; McCain 3; Giuliani, Romney, Tancredo, and Thompson 2; Hunter 1; Paul 0. Huckabee was the winner of the debate.

But to consider only quantity, and not also quality, of the humor is superficial. In last place, other than the serious Paul and Hunter, obviously would be Tom Tancredo. He muffed one of his jokes- I don't think he meant to say "...and here's my chance, Mr. Mayor, to do what you're saying," rather "...and here's your chance, Mr. Mayor, to do what you're saying." Romney's lines were clearly scripted, and he appeared a little ill at ease going for the laughs. Thompson was passable, and making light of the girth of someone (Ted Kennedy) should work well with Repub activists.

But McCain, Huckabee, and Giuliani could quit their day jobs. I recall consider laughter at McCain's joke about Woodstock- a twofer, ridiculing both Hillary Clinton, and Woodstock as "a cultural phenomenon," sparking excitement among the high rollers and politicians present, most of whom probably no longer use pharmaceuticals, except those prescribed by their obliging doctors.

Huckabee's delivery was best- this guy is at ease with himself and actually looks like he made up these jokes himself, on the spot.


Giuliani's material was brilliant: "I became a Yankee fan growing up in New York. She became a Yankee fan growing up in Chicago" (I'm just an average guy, love sports; and by the way, Clinton is disloyal.). "You got to give me a little slack here. It was New York City..." (Otherwise, I wouldn't have dressed in drag.). And by reminding Florida that it was their votes (o.k., the votes from blacks that were ruthlessly discouraged, the votes from Jews that erroneously went to Pat Buchanan, and the votes that weren't counted) that determined the 2000 election, he flattered (always a good thing to do) his (Floridian) audience and strongly implied to a Repub audience that election of George W. Bush wasn't the unmitigated national and international disaster it has proven to be.

All in all, a pretty good night for a few of the contenders. And if I seem to be taking this debate as lightly as did some of the candidates, consider this: they were preaching to the Repub electorate, the same group that (almost) elected George W. Bush President in 2000 and elected him in 2004. And that was not comical, but a serious mistake.