Tea Party - Hijacked Movement

Hitch your political wagon to the Tea Party and you're assured a place in infamy.  This post is based on observation from reading various publications without reference to fact or figures.  After all, it's how most of us get our news these days anyway.  Even Obama's spokesperson thinks we get it from programs like Entertainment Tonight. How I hope she is wrong!

I do admire that a group of citizens fed up with out of control spending was able to cobble together a movement that is known as the Tea Party. There lack of cohesive leadership, however, has been detrimental to their cause and most certainly the Republican party.  Candidates who otherwise would not have had a chance to be elected were savvy enough to latch on to the Tea Party mantra thereby garnering their support.  Too many of them have been losers and good people have been turned out of office or kept in office because of them.  Sharron Angle losing to Harry Reid was probably the worst.  There was Christine O'Donnell who was odd to say the least. There are others. They all wear the Christian Conservative badge.  Now we're saddled with Todd Akin who seems to think the most important election of our time revolves around his being forgiven for a statement for which he obviously is not sorry. He is a Tea Partier.

If the Tea Party wants to maintain influence without a formal organization they're barking up the wrong tree.  They're going to have to vet candidates who claim to sympathize with them or we will continue to have a divided Republican party with moderates on one side and nut cases and obstructionists on the other and a Tea Party losing it's steam.

Granted, and I've said it often, a lot of the old war horses should be turned out to pasture but be sure it's for the right reason.  Willingness to work with the few Democrats who are also willing is not it.

Romney is a weak candidate.  I'd hoped he'd learned from his last run what he did wrong and make an effort to make corrections but that doesn't seem like it is to be.  When the VP candidate is more popular than the presidential candidate you've got a problem.  It's deja vu all over again!  McCain/Palin.  At least this time the VP candidate has some substance whether or not you agree with his positions.

Meanwhile,  as I often say, Syria continues to be a blood bath, our soldiers continue to be killed in Afghanistan and Iran is getting ever closer to a nuclear bomb.  Can we afford to turn a blind eye to the Akins of our political world hoping they'll miraculously 'get it' before it's too late?  I'd say the Tea Party has a part to play in this.  The ball is in their court. Tell Mr. Akin he must go.

Cavemen In Congress

 Picture the caveman dragging a woman by her hair with one hand and wielding his club with the other.  How often have you see that caricature?  Don't you wish that's all it was?  A caricature? Don't you wish we didn't have any such caricatures in Congress?

But we do.  This time it's Representative Todd Akin, Republican from Missouri.  He's anti-abortion.  No matter the circumstances which might have caused a pregnancy - like rape.  After all, he tells us, he understands from doctors that pregnancy resulting from rape is really rare and that if it's a 'legitimate' rape a woman's body can sense it and halt the pregnancy.

I'm not going to get into the breast beating about the horrors of rape and how demeaning this is to women.  Enough others are handling that.  What I wonder is how a grown man, regardless of his occupation, can be so ill informed this day and age!  What's worse is that he actually seems to believe it!  Whew!

I'll be generous and assume he misunderstood the doctors with whom he spoke.  If I weren't being generous I'd assume he spoke to no one, what's more a doctor, because this is what he wants to believe for what ever reason. Apparently it doesn't have to be based on fact, but then politicians have trouble with facts all the time.

He even supported rewording circumstances for federally funded programs to provide abortions only for  cases of  'forcible' rape versus 'ordinary' (my word) rape such as statutory rape.  I don't blame women for being upset.  I don't blame every one who is upset for being upset.  And I fully support every one who is calling for him to step down from the senatorial race against Claire McCaskill.  He should step down from office, period.

What apalls me most though is that he is a congressman in the first place.  He helps make the laws we live with.  I've often complained that too many in congress are totally ignorant of the subject matter and blind to the potential unintended consequences of the legislation they write and pass.

There is no better example of ignorance than this.  Yet he resists stepping down.  He is either monumentally stupid, monumentally arrogant or both. This affront to intellect has no party boundaries.  Both sides have members of an equal level.  It's just that Akin is the most recent to put his foot in it.  Don't accept the apology.  He doesn't mean it.

Don't reward him with any more time in office.  He doesn't deserve it.  And we can't afford him or any more like him.

Come Out, Come Out Where Ever You Are!

Have you noticed nothing is working this silly season?  The vitriolic ads coming from the Democratic side are so fast, furious, mean spirited and inaccurate people are beginning to get disgusted with them.  Even with untold numbers of fund raisers, their results are lagging behind Romney's.  Time for a new strategy.  Get out the vote in key states.

That's a pretty good idea and probably less expensive than what they're doing now.  They're spending millions of dollars to defeat an invisible candidate!

Yesterday I had reason to spend hours in the car.  I listened to talk radio.  Ingraham and  Limbaugh who of course are conservative stalwarts to Jerry Doyle and Michael Savage who have yet to find a politician of either party they'd give the time of day to.  My kind of talk shows - equal opportunity bashers!

To a man, and a woman, they were all asking the same question.  Where the heck is Romney and the Republicans?  It's bad enough the candidate himself is missing in action but so is his entire party!  When Garry Trudeau does a rendition of Romney I expect it will be an enigmatic smile and nothing else.

If he were British I might understand his stiff upper lip doggedness,  gentlemanly don't you know, against everything being thrown at him.  But he's not British.  He's American and running for President.  I'd expect at least some vocal indignity from being accused of not paying his taxes, being a felon and causing the death of a woman to cancer!  But no.  Just that smile.

To take it a step further, where are the leaders of his party?  Mitch McConnell and John Boehner.  I haven't heard a word from either! And darn little from anyone else except the conservative pundits.  Flash to Romney,  they can't carry it for you.

My friends over at the Picket Project are advocating group collaboration as a tool to make a difference in our political climate.  Maybe it's time to collaborate on an Om Mantra to penetrate Romney's brain and inner circle and convince him he's got to answer back! Say something!  Last I heard they're considering a new strategy.  Get out the vote in key states.

That's the flavor of the day.  Who knows what it will be next week.  I have a feeling, however, that by November Ommmm will change to Zzzzzz and the only thing we'll be getting out is snow shovels.

Me, Myself And I

This will be my last post until after the first of April.  It's time to recharge before spring gets here in full force.

I thought I'd just sum up my feelings about the candidates knowing full well an awful lot can happen in  a couple of weeks.

A quick look at Obama.  He's doing everything in his power to enhance his ratings. Things that go against his grain, things he doesn't want but knows the voters do.  So he's ever so grudgingly doing what he must to keep those ratings from falling further.  Of course if he really cared about the country he'd have been doing these things over the past three years in the first place.

But it isn't all about Obama wanting his way is it?  It's about what all the candidates want versus what we want.  Paul is easiest to deal with.  He's just out there doing his thing what ever that may be.  The press has declared him inconsequential so we hear nothing.

Next comes Newt.  He isn't used to rejection and isn't taking it well.  He doesn't seem to understand that he's not going to get the nomination under any circumstance.  Being able to out debate Obama isn't the way to get there. Besides, debating ability doesn't equate with the ability to govern and too many who know him well and have worked with him agree. If he cared for the country more than he hates Mitt Romney, he'd drop out.  Whether he'll be able to live off the land after Sheldon Adelson, his PAC's super benefactor, quits dropping $5million chunks into it remains to be seen.  My guess is Callista won't let him bankrupt them.  If FOX quits giving him air time he's done.

Rick Santorum.  It hasn't yet dawned on him that there are a lot of Republicans who don't necessarily want a "real conservative" for President.  A moderate Republican would be just fine.  Unlike Gingrich and Romney he's not a wealthy man plus he has a large family with special needs.  The lack of money flowing into his campaign is one sign that the necessary support just isn't there.  Ditto for Gingrich.

The fact that neither of these men has been able to put together an efficient campaign organization nor stockpile money makes me question their leadership ability. Some conservatives, oh what an illusive term, are beginning to grumble about Santorum been too conservative for their taste,  after all we're not electing the Pope.

In some respects Santorum is as guilty as the Democrats when it comes to promoting how he thinks we all should live our lives.  I expect he'll win in Louisiana but maybe not by the margins he expects.  People are tired of the name calling and whining and party in fighting. As Romney said in his victory speech last night for an entirely different reason, "Enough!"

Romney just keeps rolling along.  Mr. Excitement he isn't.  He still needs to learn how to articulate a vision for the country with some passion.  Never-the-less, doubters are beginning to lean his way because he's the most likely to get the nomination anyway.  I'd hope he'd be a better President than he is a campaigner.

I don't know if the Republicans could have mucked up this primary season more than they already have or not. It's hard to imagine.  They've already nearly snatched defeat from the jaws of victory!

I'd like to think the intrigue will be over by the time I return, but with the April primaries looming I doubt that will be the case.  For now I'll just wait to see if my analysis pans out and that sanity and unselfishness will prevail.

Right. And that's why I'm taking some time off!

Romney/Paul Paul ~ Brilliant!

It started with Gingrich I think.  When he accused Romney and Paul of ganging up on him.  Not so according to Paul.  He just doesn't like him.  You can't get more clear than that!

Then there were rumblings about the possibility of Rand being the number two on the ticket.  Now it's Ron himself.  Wow.  The Republicans have been looking for something to spice up the race.  I can't think of anything better!

Paul has money.  He has thousands of loyal followers. He has positions that are popular with an awful lot of people.  It's those few that are at odds with mainstream thinking that keep voters away from him.  And maybe his age.  But as VP?  Hey!

We don't need him to be a shadow President like Cheney was.  We certainly we don't need him to be the foot in the mouth Vice President that Biden is.  He could be given the responsibility of riding herd on a couple of his pet peeves like getting rid of the Fed or eliminating the Department of Homeland Security. He would certainly add some personality to a team which is incurably boring. He's family oriented.  And squeaky clean.  What's not to like?

If Ron is a step too far, take another look at Rand.  He is a younger version of his Dad which may be more appealing to those who worry about age though as Vice President it isn't nearly as important as President.  He'd still bring with him the Paulites and the men would temper each other.

There could still be a place for Ron in the administration.  With his views on financial responsibility he'd make a great treasury secretary.

The more I think about it the more I like it. Why should the Vice Presidency go to one of the hot shots that didn't have the guts to step forward and run when they were sorely needed?

Yeah, I know.  It's likely not to happen but if you're looking for a bold idea from someone other than Gingrich, this would be as good as any. I dare say Newt would have a hard time topping it!

The Enigma That Is Ron Paul

A Young Ron Paul

If ever there was a human equivalent of the Energizer Bunny it certainly must be Ron Paul.  It seems like he has been around forever.

Nearly.  Close to 77, he's been around even longer than me!  For a man who has no chance of winning the Presidency, I find him intriguing.  I wonder if he looked more like himself during his Air Force days he'd be doing even better than he is.

I also find it interesting that I don't hear age as an issue nearly as much as I did with McCain.  Perhaps it's because he doesn't seem to reflect his age as did McCain. I was curious as to the ages of his most ardent supporters.  In 2008, which was all I could find, those 18 to 24 were by far the strongest demographic group followed by 35-44, 45-54 and over 65.  While the others fell below the median, not that far.

Next I went to his campaign website and had a good look at his stand on the issues.  In truth, I think he represents that for which a lot of us have been looking.  I don't agree with him on everything, I don't think he can accomplish a lot that he'd like because he has a legislature  with which to contend.  In general, however, his desire for less intrusive government, more frugal government, a reasonable tax structure and health care system, immigration and border security favoring legals rather than the illegals,  a military strong enough to insure our safety yet go to war if necessary, fewer if any wars to have to go to, investing our wealth in our country rather than the rest of the world and my favorite, reigning in and eventually eliminating the TSA, all have broad appeal.

Consider the young people who follow him.  No wars. How great would that be?  No matter how patriotic, no man or woman goes off to war wanting to die. Especially for causes as murky as some of our more recent ventures.

His view on tax reform certainly appeals to the next two demographic groups, those of an age to be starting up businesses or trying to make the ones they have succeed.

As for we who are his peers or close to it, want just to be left alone to live out our lives as freely and comfortably as possible.  We'd like to be able to sell our home and downsize without taking a huge financial hit.  We'd like to know that medical attention will be available when we need it without middle men deciding whether or not our ailments are worthy.

I could go on and on but see I've already done so.  I'll sum up by saying I think of all the candidates running,  Ron Paul best fits the "anyone but Mitt" role.  The others seem too sanctimonious, too ill tempered, mean spirited and short on substance.  Not that Paul hasn't had his moments to be sure.

He may not articulate some of his stands as clearly as he should, like his view on Iran, but dig a bit deeper and you see what he's saying.  Unfortunately that isn't good enough.

I expect he will continue to make a respectable showing in the primaries.  A vote for him is a statement saying we're sick of all of you.  Whether he can win or not, those who cast a vote for Ron Paul are acknowledging a man who cares deeply not only for America, but Americans and adds a pretty good dose of Constitutional common sense to the mix.

Jon Huntsman Is Right, You Know...

At least some people have come to their senses and are looking at Jon Huntsman.  At least enough to have him polling third in New Hampshire.  Now if only...

The pundits seem to enjoy telling us how this rough and tumble that's called primary season is good because the candidates get vetted.  Do they?  The only one who is focusing on policy is Huntsman.  The rest, including Romney, are focusing on destroying one another and in the process their party.

Take Gingrich.  Again.  Now that an angel has come out of Las Vegas with cash in hand for his super PAC he's doing his best to distort venture capitalism.  A venture capitalist, Romney, is not a corporate raider.  Actually their aim is to fix troubled companies.  As with any business venture, they are not always successful.  To do this, the capital for the venture (get it? venture capital) comes from investors who get a return on that investment only if the turn around is successful.  One hardly goes into it with the intent to kill business.  But then Newt marches to his own dictionary.

My issues with Paul remain the same.  His foreign policy is not realistic considering the conditions we face.  At least he had the good grace to ask that an ad by his PAC be withdrawn - one that called Huntsman a Manchurian candidate, focusing on his adopted daughters - one Chinese and one East Indian.

I don't care for Santorum's views on gays or abortion and, say what you will, the story of he and his wife taking their dead child home for their children to familiarize themselves with is unsettling.

Perry?  I haven't a clue what he's about.

I understand why people just can't get excited about Romney.  His policies aren't particularly innovative.  Too much like big government Republicanism versus big government Democratism.  He has devolved to the level of the others.  Demeaning Huntsman because he served as ambassador to China in the Obama administration is fool hardy.

Huntsman's claim that when one is called upon to serve by the President, it's not easy to refuse rings true.  He chose to do so for his country.  He cited as an example his two sons currently serving in the Navy.  It matters not to which party the commander-in-chief belongs, they are serving their country.

What ever happened to the idea that our goals for the nation, regardless of party,  should be the same.  The difference comes as to how to accomplish those goals.  The ideas can vary greatly and of course that's where compromise enters.  Or at least where it's supposed to enter.

For the moment I'm pretty disgusted with the way all of the candidates are conducting themselves, including the President.  It seems to me all the nation building going on is outside our borders instead of within.   Within it's ego building supported with delusion and falsehoods.  That isn't vetting by my definition. If it is to be the standard by which we choose, none deserve the job.

Speaking Of Compromise

With Rick Perry now in the race for the Republican nomination and Tim Pawlenty gone, I'm wondering just what it is we want in our next President, assuming we don't want to re-elect Obama, and what are we are willing to compromise on to get him or her.

So far I've heard mostly negatives on everyone.  So what is it?  Do we want another empty suit?  Someone who so stuns us with personality that we look no further?  I don't.

Someone who espouses social issues above all else?  Like gay marriage and abortion?  No.  Abortion at the moment is the law of the land and I have no problem with gay marriage though civil unions seem sensible  in states willing to accept it as an alternative to something labeled 'marriage'.

Someone who has business experience and no governmental experience?  Someone who has governmental experience yet no foreign policy experience?  I could go on and on with likely combinations depending on the candidate.  Somewhere along the line we're going to have to decide among ourselves just which issues are the most important to us and look for who is strongest in those area.  None of the candidates can be all things to all people.

What I will be watching closely, something I didn't do enough of with Obama,  are the positions on the issues and the strategy for solving them.

I do know one thing.  To be against our present President, his policies, his leadership, the direction in which the country is going,  it seems to me to be a cop out to say we'd not vote for any of the opposing candidates.  To think the present is the better choice negates everything the other candidates have to offer.

In a rare show of optimism,  I'm positive that if  I compromise on the qualifications for the perfect candidate I will find one who is more than acceptable.  Congress is being asked to compromise in order to get the country moving.  If part of that equation is to include new leadership, we too are going to have to compromise.  We just need to be seriously well informed on who we choose.