Here we are on January 4 and finally, the long awaited Iowa caucuses are over. Michelle Bachmann has ended her campaign. I am disappointed. Rick Perry gives indications that he may pull out of the race. This does not disappoint me.
As we look forward to New Hampshire and South Carolina, who are the true contenders?
Iowa says Romney, Santorum, and Paul are the big guns right now. New Hampshire will likely give Mitt Romney an additional lift. South Carolina will likely say the opposite. The strategy for some time has been for Mitt Romney to run against multiple conservatives who will logically split the vote among each other. The elimination of Bachmann from the campaign helps the other conservatives. If Perry will withdraw, it will help even further.
Newt Gingrich and Rick Santorum seem to be the two who will work to earn the opportunity to challenge Romney for this eventual nomination. Paul remains in the race but Paul is no more able to expand his base than is Romney. I do not believe either man is able to grow beyond a small minority of the Republican population. Magnify the differences between Romney and the remainder of the candidates and the telling argument is that Romney will likely draw no more Republican votes because of a crowd that does not regard Romney as sufficiently conservative. As a member of the Tea Party count me among those who will not support Romney in the primaries but who would find him acceptable in a general election against Barack Obama. To me, Obama is no better than Mussolini was. I understand that Mussolini at least made the trains run on time.
Paul is unlikely to gain much support beyond 20 or 25% of the Republican population because of his Libertarian policies, particularly his very dangerous foreign policy. I regard Paul as being almost as dangerous as another four years of Obama. The only difference is that I could support Paul's fiscal policies and Paul would restrict himself to remain within the confines of his Constitutional powers. I have yet to support any policy of Obama. Obama continues to ignore our Constitution in favor of expediency. One might ask why Congress allows him to get away with this but then the problem is not only Barack Obama, it is Harry Reid as well.
All indications are that Newt Gingrich may concentrate on the destruction of Mitt Romney. Some regard this as a problem. I do not. As long as Rick Santorum remains unscathed by such attacks, I worry not that Newt Gingrich might take his case against Mitt Romney to the GOP electorate.
So, who can still be nominated? I see Santorum as sitting in the best seat with Gingrich as a strong possibility as well. Something that makes this incredible is the manner in which Santorum was ignored by the media in countless debates. He had minimal exposure yet he demonstrated an ability to work Iowa and get the support he needed for a first place tie. I will look forward to future movements in other states. I expect Romney to do well in New Hampshire. This is to be expected, as New Hampshire is his back yard. I also expect Santorum and Gingrich to do well in South Carolina. We will have to assess what remains after that.
As for Huntsman, he should have dropped out weeks ago.
Yes, I have been missing from the battlefield for the last six weeks. I must extend my apologies to those who have enjoyed reading my blog. I will reluctantly admit that I will have future absences as well. I have taken a foreign assignment that is in a remote location without reliable Internet reception. I will return to that assignment next week. In the meantime, I think it necessary to evaluate what has happened with the GOP candidates who were in the race at the time of my November departure.
Herman Cain - I was tremendously disappointed to see Herman Cain remove himself from the race. In my opinion, this demonstrates the worst traits of American politics. It is not until someone becomes prominent that suddenly people come from the woodwork and claim the candidate committed human atrocities. The news is all too eager to concentrate on the accusations regardless of available proof or even demonstrations of something greater than he said- she said statements. It is the accusation of wrongdoing that is important, not whether there is proof that it actually occurred. There were multiple accusations, not just one. Similarly, there were multiple accusations trumpeted against William Jefferson Clinton. The only difference was that in the case of Clinton, there was evidence, there was substantiating testimony from people like Arkansas troopers and Linda Tripp but somehow the press chose not to trumpet that evidence and it wasn't until the stained blue dress was submitted that any of the evidence of Clinton's dalliances with one Monica Lewinsky were accepted as fact. Contrast this to a prominent GOP candidate who has had apparently multiple women come forward and talk about his advances and flirtations. Suddenly Herman Cain was among the most evil men in the world. He had flirted with a woman. No, we cannot have that. Suddenly Cain's message, 9 - 9 - 9 was lost forever to the remaining candidates in the GOP debates.
Newt Gingrich - From all indications, Republicans are savaging Newt Gingrich. From the beginning, Newt entered the race with a philosophy of fighting fair. It is his ideas that are resonating with the Republicans and Independents of America. All evidence remains that he is a brilliant man, entirely capable of becoming President of the United States. His personal life has included some infidelity and acts that Gingrich admits he is not proud of. Whose life doesn't include circumstances we would rather no one ever remember? I continue to regard Gingrich a viable candidate that I can easily support however I am not yet willing to endorse.
Mitt Romney - Mitt has been solid, almost stoic in his rise to 25%. Could I accept him as President of the United States? Yes. As a conservative, tea party activist, I could accept Mitt Romney. I care not about Romneycare because he supported this in Massachusetts and he recognizes Obamacare as an unauthorized intrusion against the civil liberties of all Americans. I care not about his Mormon faith. I would certainly trust the LDS Church over the church of Jeremiah Wright that swings so far to the left that they have made Communism a faith. Mitt's demonstrated leadership in the Salt Lake Olympics and his success in other business ventures indicate he would be friendly to the business world, remove onerous regulations, and return this economy to work and remove the disease that now plagues Washington D.C.
Michele Bachmann - I was sad to see that Michele Bachmann has not done well since the Iowa Straw Poll. I largely blame the entry of Rick Perry into the race for this failure to gain momentum. I regard Michele as high among the candidates I am still considering.
Rick Perry - Perry disappointed me too many times before I went on assignment and it appears he has not regained any of the strength he had when he initially entered the race. I did not like his early cheap shots against other candidates. I will not vote for Perry in the primary. Of course, I would vote for him if the choice were he or Obama.
Ron Paul - He apparently can boast of recent gains in the polls in Iowa as others like me seek a more conservative alternative to the constantly hailed front-runner, Romney. I do not regard him as a viable candidate. No matter how much I love his domestic and fiscal policies, his foreign policy would deal a crippling blow to national security. I would vote for him over Obama only because my choice would be Obama who is bad on foreign and domestic policy and worse on fiscal policy versus Paul who is bad on foreign policy but good on domestic policy and fiscal affairs.
Rick Santorum - I am pleased to see Santorum is finally showing some strength in the polls. I do not know yet that he has the horsepower to gain the nomination but I could easily support Rick Santorum.
John Huntsman - I cannot take Huntsman seriously. Any person who would endorse Cap and Trade legislation or who regards Global Warming as a legitimate science simply has no credibility with me.
As we look forward to the Iowa caucuses, I hope we can all keep our eye on the ball. Although I continue to believe that more than one of these candidates, perhaps all except Ron Paul could defeat Obama in a national election as citizens we cannot let our guards down. If you live in Iowa or one of the early primary states like New Hampshire or South Carolina, work to get just one more person to the poll who believes in conservatism. Remember, Democrats win elections the old-fashioned way, by cheating. Democrats oppose Voter Identification initiatives for one reason only; Voter ID Laws make it harder for them to cheat. ACORN did not send hundreds of its minions out in the world to create voter registration cards that would never be used. Registering the Dallas Cowboys and Donald Duck was a ruse in my opinion. When people find these kinds of names, they eliminate them as they should eliminate them from the voter rolls. However, what about Mary Smith or John Carpenter? Henry Farmer or John Doe? How many fake names that do not immediately draw the eye were hiding behind those obvious fakes that went unnoticed and then actually voted? This is my concern, this and the ability that some states still provide their citizens to cross over and vote in a party primary that is not theirs? Therefore, it is important. If you are an Iowa citizen, do not simply sit in front of the TV, watch the caucus reports, and scream how they did not get it right. If you want this to be done right, go to your caucus. Give up one evening out of 365 and be involved in this election. Involve yourself and involve a neighbor. Ask your neighbor to ask a friend and get yourself and your neighbors to the caucuses and to the polls.
For a time I was excited at the thought of Herman Cain becoming President. I was not encouraged because he is black but because he spent his life building a business career from nothing to CEO. I watched Greta Van Susteren interview his wife, Gloria, on November 15 and we were able to meet his family. They demonstrate a level of class that has been absent for the last three years in the White House. I have nothing against the President’s daughters but Michelle Obama on the other hand has for more than three years appeared to me as an angry and very bitter woman who disrespects the values of the majority of her fellow citizens. She is extravagant with other people’s money while in the middle of a deep recession and she is a demonstration of narcissism at its worst. Gloria Cain seems to be a wonderful, dignified woman who loves her husband and nurtures her family. The entire Cain family appears to be the opposite of the Obamas.
Despite this, upon watching the tapes of the interview of Herman Cain by the Milwaukee Journal I see no reason for Mr. Cain to continue his candidacy. Mr. Cain made two serious errors as he sought my vote. He then compounded these errors in what seemed a stressful interview as he grasped for a thought and tried to recall from memory what his position was on foreign policy subjects.
Mr. Cain struggled with whether he agreed with President Obama and his strategy related to Libya. President Obama provided support for an incursion to oust one of the world’s greatest terrorists. No person who enjoys peace can regret the loss of Qaddafi. This was not the problem. The problem was the complete lack of concern regarding whom Obama was supporting. A sound strategy would have included recognition of who the replacement for Qaddafi would be. Were we supporting the muslim brotherhood? Were we supporting al qaeda? No one knew who controlled the rebels and no American dollars should have gone to overthrow Qaddafi without knowing whom it was we were supporting. Will it be someone worse than Qaddafi? No one truly knows. That is insane. Does Herman Cain not know this?
Mr. Cain also stumbled on the issue of collective bargaining by federal employees. The answer is no. In one of his first acts as President, John F. Kennedy issued an Executive Order that allowed federal employees to organize. Even Franklin D. Roosevelt warned against federal employees organizing to bargain collectively. He is the icon of the labor movement yet Kennedy ignored his warnings. There is a conflict of interest between those unions and those who aspire for Congress. Can you imagine the price of Kleenex if the union elected the executives of Kimberley Clark?
I have defended Herman Cain from the claims of sexual harassment because I do not believe this kind of character attack is morally acceptable in the middle of a political campaign. If a woman has a problem regarding an unwanted and persistent approach by any man, she must bring that charge right away. If valid, Cain's detractors could have and should have charged Cain with harassment fourteen years ago, not today. It is far more important that a Presidential candidate be aware of both domestic and foreign issues they logically may be required to deal with during their term in office. Libya and labor unions will logically be issues that a President Cain would need to prepare for and I believe these were fair questions as posed by the Journal.
To some this debate may have been uneventful but candidates provided a tremendous amount of insight into their values and how they would manage the presidency if elected to that office. As I continue to follow many of these debates I am constantly reminded of the fact that all of them would be superior to the current occupant of the office but others are week by week helping me to define who I believe to be the superior choice for 2012. Moderators included Scott Pelley and Major Garrett.
Newt Gingrich provided his standard excellent performance as he once again had to explain the facts of life to the CBS moderator, Scott Pelley. The subject was Torture and the question surrounded whether President Obama had the power or the authority to target another American for assassination as he did with the terrorist, Anwar al-Awlaki. Pelley had called al-Awlaki a terrorist suspect and Gingrich hopefully set him straight. Al-Awlaki was not a suspect. He pointed to the fact that there was no relevant rule of law as it might pertain to an American waging war against the United States. Such a person waging war against the US has none of the civil liberties of the US. Newt also took a hard line on Iran gaining a nuclear weapon and completely satisfied me with his position on both Water Boarding and Torture. Water Boarding is not Torture.
John Huntsman disagreed with Gingrich and described Water Boarding to be torture. He also told us he would bring the troops home from Afghanistan immediately and that he would not favor challenging China on its currency manipulation.
Ron Paul also disagreed with Gingrich and he also described Water Boarding as torture. He indicated an unwillingness to use military power to prevent Iran from getting a nuclear weapon.
Michele Bachman agreed with Newt Gingrich. She does not believe Water Boarding is Torture and she emphatically stated that she would reinstitute the method as a necessary interrogation method.
Herman Cain also agreed with Gingrich. He does not believe Water Boarding is torture. Cain was not in his element in this debate. I agree with Herman that a good President will surround himself with good people, listen to all points of view and make a decision but I believe we need more in these debates than a process. I want to also know his position and what goals he will set for the good people he will hire.
Mitt Romney seemed at home discussing foreign policy. After exhausting every peaceful method he would use military force to prevent Iran from getting a nuclear weapon. He was solid in his criticism of the methods China has used to compete in the world economy. At present he said, “We have a president who thinks America is just another nation.” Romney believes the opposite and would work to protect Americans and our world interests.
Rick Perry helped himself tremendously by the manner in which he referenced his failure to remember the Energy Department in the last debate. He did so with humor and self deprecation. Despite a weak answer concerning the ground situation in Afghanistan and a horrible transition he made from a conversation about the status of Afghanistan to foreign aid, his points on foreign aid were well made and this was Perry’s best debate.
Rick Santorum demanded equal time in this debate and gave good answers demonstrating his prowess in the area of foreign policy. He demonstrated strength and accuracy in his analysis of both Iraq and Afghanistan. I might also add that despite his demand, he did not get equal time.
A word about Torture: We all have our own definitions of this word and this is a problem. We cannot continue to debate the subject of Water Boarding with some considering this a method of torture and others not. There are obvious differences between Water Boarding and those methods I consider torture. My point of view is that torture involves extreme physical pain. It includes breaking of bones, breaking of skin, stretching, injuring an individual physically, so much so that often irreparable physical or mental damage is done to the victim. Water Boarding is not among these methods. While using Water Boarding as a means of enhanced interrogation the victim is merely deceived. The victim is made to believe he may drown. No permanent physical or mental damage is involved and no extreme pain or physical abuse is involved. I understand this settles nothing as far as Huntsman or Paul followers are concerned however I would also like to say the following. The President of the United States must accept responsibility for the safety of over 300 million Americans. If the President knows that an individual possesses information that might save the lives of multiple hundreds, thousands or millions of these Americans then he should not only be willing to Water Board but he should be willing to use any method, including torture to obtain that information. For the President to do anything else would be immoral. Were I President, I would not want to tell the families of millions of victims that I might have saved the lives of their loved ones but I chose instead to stand on principle and not pursue that information that might have saved those lives. So, when John Huntsman speaks of diminishing our values by torturing under any circumstance, it matters little to me whether he is including Water Boarding in that definition or not. I would expect him to get that information using any means that might be at his disposal.
First let me discuss the moderators. A successful format would make them inconsequential but unfortunately this debate was not a successful debate from the perspective of the concentration of attention. I believe CNBC failed miserably. Two primary moderators, John Harwood, Maria Bartiromo, asked questions and they periodically called in reinforcements. Jim Cramer was totally obnoxious in the way he asked every question as though he could only talk at the highest level decibel and emotionally shout questions that required no such emphasis. Even the friendliest question sounded like the response to an argument. The other periodic visitors to ask questions included Steve Liesman, Rick Santelli and Sharon Epperson. I admit to having heard of Rick Santelli prior to this debate but I had no idea who the other personalities were. I didn’t find any of them particularly impressive.
Too many questions were posed as an attempt to suggest a moral answer. Would you allow this industry to fail? Would you allow student loans to be pulled out from under young men and women? Would you allow people to lose their homes? This type of leading question is unfortunate in a serious debate. No one wants to see someone lose their home or experience hard times as a result of a program ending but we have to look at this from a completely different perspective as we seek a the long term solution to the problems of this country. The solution as with all solutions will involve pain and some will feel that pain more than others. I have confidence from statements already made that even Ron Paul who accurately cites the lack of federal authority to do many of those things it currently does would transition programs out and try to cause the least pain for everyone.
Other questions are best described as cheap shots. Issues on their own will divide candidates where there is a disagreement. There is no need for the moderator to try to create that controversy. There is no need for the moderator to try to get one candidate to call another candidate a name or accuse the other candidate of “pandering” for votes. There is no need for one candidate to be asked to judge another candidate. I find this unprofessional from people I must depend upon to gain insight to the mind of each candidate.
Santorum drew one of the short straws. As usual, Santorum was asked fewer questions. He did answer most questions well but Santorum has not yet caught on. One might ask whether the reason Santorum isn’t doing any better might be because he is not being given the opportunity but one must recognize that he isn’t getting more opportunity because he isn’t doing well. The only thing that will apparently make Santorum a candidate will be if he does well in Iowa. The questions he did answer, he answered well. Most significant perhaps was his response to the call for government to help N. Dakota ramp up their energy industry to help them access and retrieve the energy located below the ground. Santorum said he would not involve government in this. Let the market work.
He also defended his position that manufacturing needs to be lured back to America by zero tax rates. More significantly perhaps was that he pointed to his level of involvement in the legislative achievements that dealt with issues now being discussed. He wrote the bill that provided for Health Savings Accounts. He reformed Welfare. He suggested block grants to states for Medicaid. The list is impressive. I don’t believe there is any doubt about it. Santorum has spent many years on the right side of economic and fiscal issues.
I can’t help it. Beat me up for making this “sexist statement” but I do not consider it a slight to Congresswoman Bachmann for me to say she really looked great tonight. She was a definite rose among a lot of thorns on that stage. Now that I have said that let me also say that Michele Bachmann also demonstrated herself to be a strong, intelligent and able woman equal to any of the men on that stage. Can she not be that and be pleasantly attractive too?
Michele also drew a short straw and didn’t seem to get as many questions as did Romney, Cain, Perry and Gingrich. She hit the nail on the head many times despite this. Capital is fluid. When the government over- regulates and over-taxes capital will move to other more friendly markets. She emphasized the need to lower taxes, reduce the regulatory burden, repeal Obamacare and Dodd-Frank, and once again legalize American energy. She also emphasized the need to control immigration.
She accused Obama of going to “General Axelrod” for ideas of how to cure the economy when he should be going to the Job Creators of America. She wants to make the tax code more fair and one of her means of doing this would be to return everyone to the tax rolls. Every adult in this country has a responsibility to participate in financing this government. I agree.
Her comments on Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac were accurate and also to the point. Fannie and Freddie have collectively asked for another $13 billion in bailout money from the treasury yet in this environment the company is paying $13 million in bonuses to its top executives. How does one justify this from a GSE (Government Sponsored Enterprise)? I agree with Congresswoman Bachmann. This is not only ridiculous but in this economy it is an unconscionable slap in the face to every taxpayer. This is as Michele described crony capitalism at its worst.
In the area of healthcare Michele described how Obamacare made the cost of healthcare even more expensive. Its goal was cost containment but from the beginning she knew as did many others among us, including myself, that Obamacare adds an artificial stimulus to the market and simply will not work. Congresswoman Bachmann also called for Medical Malpractice reform. She didn’t have time to go more deeply into this but this could come in the form of tort reform, especially a loser pays rule in the court system.
When the conversation moved to China she talked of national security issues. Apparently we allowed the Chinese to dump computer chips into our market that provide potential for hurting our weapons systems. Why on earth would the DOD purchase equipment to be used in sensitive military assets from the Chinese? Perhaps of greatest significance is that our interest costs will be enough to soon finance the Chinese Army. I find this appalling and I emphatically agree with Mrs. Bachmann that we must stop the madness and stop borrowing from the Chinese. We must retire this debt as soon as practically possible.
I really can’t say anything more about Newt than I have already said in prior columns. He is the brightest light on that stage.
His first sentence on question one about the economy was his call to fire Bernanke. He called for an audit of the Federal Reserve and he asked to see the Decision Documents for 2009 and 2010. We need to see who the Federal Reserve has bailed out, who they refused to bail out and why. He pointed to the fact that the reason for the tax policies promoted by Republicans is to get industry working again recognizing this will create a greater likelihood of someone earning a paycheck and thus cause welfare to be left behind.
In Newt’s characteristic way he once again slammed the media. At one point the moderator, Maria Bartiromo took umbrage. He asked why it is that most of the media and certainly the Wall Street Occupiers do not try to understand history. He asked the media to ask those Wall Street Occupiers the simple question, “Who will pay for this park if you cause these businesses to fail?” He pointed to Henry Ford and Bill Gates. Neither began as wealthy people but both developed ideas into huge employers and profit generators. It is because of profits and the desire for more profits that jobs are created. When the job has value a person will be hired. He emphasized that a growing economy produces both profits and jobs, something that still seemed lost on Maria Bartiromo.
Newt agreed with Romney regarding the need to allow the market to play itself out and eliminate the foreclosures. Until this happens, the housing market will not be able to recover and the values of existing homes will not rise. Newt called for the repeal of Dodd-Frank as did others this evening. It kills small banks and small businesses. Because of Dodd-Frank, banks profit more from foreclosures than they do from short sales. In direct response to the questioner as to how to save the housing market, Newt said that when jobs come back, the housing market will come back.
One moderator attempted to catch Newt in a Gotcha Moment. He pointed out that Newt was paid a sum of money by Freddie and Fannie and he was asked what he did for that money. Newt immediately responded that he was not a lobbyist. That he was hired as a historian. He gave them advice and they did the opposite.
When all the participants were asked to respond in thirty seconds as to what they would do upon repealing Obamacare, Newt told the moderator, it was Maria again, that the question itself was absurd. She was asking that he provide a response in thirty seconds as to what he would do with 18% of the country’s GDP. He pointed to his suggestion for Lincoln-Douglas style debates with Barack Obama. He suggests seven of them. As to the general answer Gingrich favors restoring the Doctor-Patient relationship. Send Medicaid back to the states with block grants. Focus on brain science and fix healthcare rather than fixing the bureaucracy.
Gingrich provided some history on Social Security. He pointed to 1968 when Lyndon Johnson put the Social Security Trust Fund into the General Fund. It was an advantage in that it hid his huge deficits. Now, more than forty years later it is no longer an advantage to have that Social Security Trust be a part of the General Fund. He wants to separate it and deal with the trust as a separate issue. The country should pay back what it has taken from this fund. I might add, with interest!
Everyone was asked what to do about the high student loan debt. Gingrich told us this began as a $15 million program by Lyndon Johnson and the unintended consequences include the likelihood that students will stay in college longer. Detachment from the immediate monetary obligation has allowed students to tolerate tuition increases they would not tolerate otherwise. He emphasized that students need to go to class, study, graduate, and emerge from college debt free. He spoke of a program that allows students to do this without incurring debt.
On the issue as to why Governor Schwarzenegger of California contracted with a Chinese firm to build a bridge, Newt asked the $64,000 question. What is it about American regulations that make it cheaper for the State of California to go to China to build a bridge than to build it here in the United States? He favors raising the pain level when the Chinese steal technology but he also admitted that no one on that stage really has yet identified the best way to do this.
One of the first questions of the evening went to Romney and it concerned the cause for a drop in the Stock Market today; Italy is in dire financial trouble. Should the US help? What can it do to avoid this impacting the US? Romney’s answer was to allow Europe to take care of its own problems. We cannot support a TARP for Europe.
While there in Michigan Romney pointed to the damage CAFÉ standards have done to the auto industry. Those in Michigan should already know but Romney reminded them anyway that government gave GM to the UAW and gave Chrysler to FIAT. What should have happened is that these companies should have proceeded normally through the bankruptcy process. We have laws that deal with these issues that the Obama Administration chose to ignore.
Romney was asked whether he would keep a CEO burdened by the charges against Herman Cain. It was a cheap shot and totally inappropriate. Romney demonstrated his poise by deflecting the question as not belonging to him.
With regard to the conflict that the CNBC moderators tried to create between profits and jobs Romney tried to teach the moderators that profits allow businesses to grow and then hire people. Obama doesn’t like business. Romney wants to see business expand and be profitable.
On China Romney said China is cheating. They are stealing intellectual property. They are manipulating their currency to hold down the price of their goods. He would label them a currency manipulator and if necessary he would apply tariffs on goods they sell us. Romney emphasized his love for free trade. Predatory pricing is no good. The strategy is to drive others out of business with the plan that at some later date when competitors are gone they will increase those prices. Currencies should be allowed to float.
Herman Cain had a strong evening. His first question was about character issues and sadly about the accusations that have surrounded this last week and wasted all our time. Cain responded that the American people deserve better than someone being tried in the court of public opinion based on unfounded accusations. Cain values his character and integrity. This was a good, strong answer!
With regard to 9-9-9, Cain indicated this is more fair than the current structure. As to how this would not become 19-19-19 he responded that tax codes do not raise taxes, politicians do. People will hold their feet to the fire because all the taxes will be seen and no longer hidden within the prices of goods they purchase.
With regard to Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, Cain would privatize all GSEs. He wants to unload these two organizations to allow the market to determine the future of the housing market. Another good strong solution!
With regard to Obamacare and what Cain would do if the GOP was successful in its repeal, Cain pointed to HR3000 as already written. It allows decisions to be with the doctors and the patients.
On the question of whether the government should stop Boeing from opening its plant in South Carolina Cain emphatically said open the plant. Government has no role in this controversy.
One humorous note on overregulation was his reference to the need to repeal Dodd-Frank. The other two things wrong with Dodd-Frank are Dodd and Frank.
Rick Perry failed again in this debate. His largest gaff was his failure to remember the names of all three departments he would eliminate after telling us there were three. We all have been caught in moments like this and as such I was embarrassed for him. At the same time, Perry was on a stage debating other competitors for the GOP Nomination for President.
Another of the foolish questions was asked of Perry. Do you believe businesses can be profitable and still hire people? This was probably the most ridiculous questions asked all evening. Face it, this was a stupid question. Perry’s response was, “Better be.” I really don’t know what more he could have said to anyone who would ask that kind of question.
In an attempt to have the horse push the cart Perry was asked whether a housing recovery wouldn’t create jobs. Perry said, pull back the regulations, and get people into jobs and then the demand for housing will return.
Perry had one of his more effective moments when he responded to a question via video from the CEO of Caterpillar. There is a reason why Caterpillar moved two of its divisions to Texas. It had nothing to do with their being Republicans or Democrats, job creators wanted an environment in which they would be able to keep more of what they create. But then he stepped into a hole by saying his tax plan among all those presented by candidates on that stage was the only one that would work. Then he told us he would eliminate three departments and couldn’t name all three. He did later tell us the third he could not remember was the Department of Energy and he had previously named the Department of Education and the Department of Commerce.
Perry emphasized, as all need to remember to do, that when discussing Social Security, no one currently dependent or soon to be dependent upon their entitlement would be affected. Other candidates would do well to remind themselves to always remind seniors this is true.
Had I never heard Ron Paul before I would be a supporter because of this debate. He shines on economic issues and the impact of government involvement in markets. It isn’t that Paul wants to hurt people by allowing foreclosure to take their home. It is simply that he recognizes that until the government gets out of the way the market cannot correct itself by weeding the bad loans from the banks’ portfolios. The market must determine what this paper is worth, not the government.
Paul said the disease is spending. In year one he would cut $1 Trillion from five departments. He would get rid of the price fixing done on interest rates by the Federal Reserve. He pointed to M1 being up 30% and he warned of coming inflation. Love him or hate him, Paul is right.
In response to that question as to what he would do after he repealed Obamacare, Paul said he simply wanted government out of the healthcare business. Republicans have this natural propensity to replace something they don’t want with a program that addresses the same issue but in a different way. Wouldn’t it be nice if they would simply say, “Nothing, nothing at all?” At the same time Paul said he would transition Medicaid away from government and not simply allow those dependent on it today to fall.
Paul favors elimination of the Department of Education (as do I). How would he make education more affordable? Paul tried to teach the moderator something about economics. The reason these costs are so high right now is that government is involved. The current situation couldn’t do a better job of demonstrating the failure of current policy. There is no authority in the Constitution for the federal government to loan people money. Students would pay for education the same way they pay for cell phones or computers. The price of college will decrease when government gets out.
There was another example of cheap shots from the moderators when Paul was asked whether he believed Perry was guilty of crony capitalism as governor in Texas. Paul deflected the question. I would have liked it better had he simply told the moderator that the question was inappropriate.
Huntsman responded to a question regarding the structure of the economy and the belief some have that the rewards of capitalism are not shared more equally between the top one percent and the bottom ninety-nine percent. His response was that he wanted to be president of the ninety-nine percent and the one percent. He pointed to how Obama is working to divide the country and he wants to bring it together. People are tired of seeing their money go toward bailouts.
He demonstrated empathy in that candidates have lost sight of the fact that there are people who tuned into tonight’s debate who are upside down on their homes and will suffer as a result of any potential solution. He favored a means of right-sizing Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac and removing the risk from the taxpayers and placing the risk back on the banks.
Huntsman favors repeal of Obamacare as does everyone else. He would like to address questions of cost containment with fifty governors and do a better job of harmonizing medical records and close the gap on the uninsured with affordable insurance.
With regard to the flat tax Huntsman pointed out that everyone on the stage was a theoretician but he instituted a flat tax in Utah and this makes him a practitioner.
In a last desperate gasp the moderator tried to get Huntsman to accuse Romney of pandering for votes. I do not object when controversial issues cause candidates to expose differences in opinion but I do object to a moderator who would overtly try to create controversy on their own.
All candidates get good grades for tonight’s debate. If I were to pick winners I would say Gingrich, Romney, Paul and Cain get A’s but no candidate gets less than a B. CNBC gets a D- for their part this evening.
Is Justice in Politics possible? How is it possible within the confines of America today?
How does one prove a negative? How do I prove that I was not where someone wants to place me or that I did not do that of which I am accused? When I am not in that location where I am accused of being, I do not leave evidence that I was not there.
Why are we so quick to believe the premise? Herman Cain denies having harassed this woman at this conference fourteen years ago. She has him upgrading her room. She has him with her in his car. She has him sliding his hand up her skirt and pulling her head to his crotch. The immediate question is not,”Were you in the car?" It is, "What really happened in the car?" How is Mr. Cain supposed to answer that if he was never in the car?
Premises:
Why do we so often forget that second premise but we never fail to forget the first?
How many have warned that this political campaign was going to be dirty and ugly? The president must deflect attention from his abysmal record and the only way to do this will be through negative attacks on the candidates. If we know this, why at the first sign of mudslinging are we prepared to dismiss a candidate? If anything this proves to me that Cain has become too much of a possible competitor. Obama cannot levy charges of racism against a candidate like Cain. Cain is more of an authentic black according to the NAACP than Obama. Cain was the descendent of slaves. Cain was the son of a man burdened by the irrational hatred of Jim Crow America. Obama was neither.
This really needs to stop. How can the public assure honest elections when the media jumps on an accusation and treats it as a certain truth? I do not care that Gloria Allred has found a woman who is willing to step forward and accuse Herman Cain of assaulting her because 1) I do not trust Gloria Allred and 2) the introduction of this woman and her story is what I predicted in my earlier article on the relevance of what were once anonymous accusations. If the grievance was real, the woman should have brought charges of assault against Cain when it happened. The insertion of these comments now only serves to cloud a political campaign with a "he said - she said" barrage of charges. People, as you review all the "what if's," do not lose track of the "what if" Cain may be telling us the truth. If this is true, those of you who supported him or could have supported him before but who now may not support him are being manipulated by people whose motivations are contrary to yours. It is just as possible that Gloria Allred is trying to play you for suckers.
Too many pundits and too many citizens are prepared to write Cain off because of these charges. Why? We did not know this woman before November 7. We have no idea whether she is credible or not. We have no idea whether Cain is guilty of these charges or not. Yet, we are prepared to call Cain a cad because of the mere accusation of impropriety. Would we be as willing to call this woman a whore? Probably not. However, if not, why not? Is it not possible that she is receiving some windfall from her new celebrity status or some political payoff? Could she not be said to be whoring herself for political advantage? Yet we probably wouldn't say that would we? Despite the fact that Herman Cain heretofore has had an unblemished record and no evidence has surfaced prior to a political campaign that would impugn his character many are prepared to accept the charges this woman has levied against him as accurate.
She is only one person. There is no one person whom I know that I would allow having that much power over my political decisions. Why would I allow some woman I do not know to have this same power?
Republicans cry "foul" when Democrats manipulate the system, use ACORN to register Donald Duck and circle the wagons around candidates to protect them from legitimate questionable circumstances surrounding their own candidates. Why then do we not also circle the wagons and demand proof when charges are levied against Republican candidates? Why are we always so quick to throw a candidate under the bus for the mere presence of an allegation that is years old and for which there is no proof? We had proof about Barack Obama's association with Bill Ayers, Jeremiah Wright, Frank Marshall Davies, etc. Some cried for proof of Obama's collegiate records and even his birth certificate questioning his eligibility to serve as president. In all these instances, Obama was protected. Yet, levy an unprovable and inconsequential allegation against Herman Cain and suddenly some treat him like bad meat. This is ridiculous. It is small wonder so few are willing to run for political office.
America, let’s get a grip.
Look at our priorities. Our country is nearly $15 trillion in debt; our economy has been in a deep recession for 3 years; 9.1% of us are unemployed; we have men and women of our military in harm’s way in Afghanistan; foreclosures are up; the stock market is down; oil prices are up; middle income is down; fear is up; confidence in our future is down. Then we have a president who at best is incompetent and at worst has malevolent motivations based upon racial hatred for the oppression he believes was laid upon “his people” despite the fact that his mother was white and his father was from Kenya and had no ancestors who were themselves slaves.
Relative to all these circumstances, what dominates the news this week? It is whether Herman Cain more than one dozen years ago made some woman feel “uncomfortable.” What man didn’t make some woman feel uncomfortable a dozen years ago? Men were only just beginning to understand the boundaries that were just then being set. When does a compliment become a remark that makes a woman uncomfortable? What is the difference between sexual harassment and a man simply being flirtatious? Remarks that women laughed at in 1970 were cause for complaint in 1990 but this all depended upon the woman and her regard for the man making the remark. Talk about subjectivity! Men successfully able to navigate around the waters of the hostile work environment deserve medals. Either they were extremely good looking and women found them desirable, or they were able to leave all their previously taught behavior at home and kept their remarks and in some instances, their masculinity out of the workplace.
What it all came down to ultimately was whether one individual woman might be offended. It didn’t matter who she was. It didn’t matter if the same remark that offended her had not offended fifteen others on that same day. What mattered was that one woman was offended. This ended the careers of some males and had a sad effect on the camaraderie of the workforce.
We made a mistake when we allowed this to happen. No woman should have to endure a truly hostile work environment but neither should any woman have a right to define what this means all by herself. When any woman by a mere accusation can place a man’s career in jeopardy, we have gone too far.
Is this what is now happening to Herman Cain? The circumstances are old. There are no other previously documented situations where women cried harassment against Cain, regardless of where he worked. Oh, we can expect because of the political consequences that women will now step forward but these cries must be discounted as a matter of politics. It is Herman Cain who is likely being harassed.
I don’t know the facts in this situation and because of the lack of significance of these charges when compared to those matters listed earlier, I place the fact that some woman in the last century was made to feel uncomfortable on one occasion by a man who had not reportedly made any other woman uncomfortable in his lifetime holds little consequence in the overall scheme of things.
Unless some woman can come forward with others who can corroborate her story as a witness at the time of her alleged victimhood, I have to regard it as of no consequence. To Herman Cain’s detractors I say, prove it. Prove that some woman was groped; prove that Herman Cain dropped his pants and told his subordinate to “kiss it;” prove that some woman had been raped; find a woman with a stained blue dress who had been dragged through the mud by Herman Cain’s people. Then we’ll talk, and only then. Unless this occurs, I still regard Herman Cain as viable. I haven’t made a selection yet but Cain remains among those who I highly regard as a possible candidate.The political party or political candidate who benefits from the president's participation shall fully fund presidential campaign visits.
Historically, every President of the United States has made campaign visits to communities to assist himself or herself or another candidate. It is always difficult to prove whether the visit to that city was a matter consistent with the President's duties as POTUS or more simply, a campaign stop.
The POTUS deserves to travel on Air Force One with full Secret Service Protection.
The POTUS must be completely secure whenever and wherever he or she travels. The country benefits from this protection.
Every presidential visit with the public, every rally, convention, or visit with a candidate seeking state or federal office, every fundraiser (including charitable events), shall be considered a campaign visit. The US Treasury shall recover the full cost of Air Force One, other direct transportation costs, and all costs of secret service protection. This shall include all related travel expenses including advance trips by Secret Service personnel. The election campaign of the individual candidate or the President's political party shall reimburse the US Treasury for all costs incurred and enumerated herein. Money shall first be recovered from the individual campaign coffers of the candidate, including the President himself or herself. If the campaign lacks the ability to reimburse the government, the President's political party shall reimburse the Treasury. Approvals shall be made in advance. Alternatively, the President shall not attend.
If the POTUS attends a dinner those sponsoring that dinner shall be required to reimburse the US Treasury.
If the POTUS attends a State Fair, a Convention, or any other public activity, the political party of the President shall reimburse the US Treasury.
If the POTUS attends an event in New York, San Francisco, Los Angeles or any other domestic venue en route to or from an international summit or state visit, the government shall prorate the cost with the President's political party. At no time shall the charge to the party be less than one day of the cost of Air Force One including normal round trip transportation using Air Force One standards to estimate the cost from Washington to that destination and back. Economies of combining trips shall accrue to the benefit of the taxpayer, not the politician.
Our current president exacerbates a continuing problem by traveling around the country to attend campaign events and push for his Jobs Bill. I can certainly make a case for his promotion of legislation as being in the normal course of business for the POTUS, however it is also apparent to even the most casual observer and supporter that Obama is pandering to crowds to gain support for his reelection. This legislation would remove the subjectivity in making such a judgment. The very fact that he is attending a public event or attending a $7,500 per plate event to raise campaign funds is evidence enough to interpret the trips as having a political purpose and to require the Democrat Party or the Campaign to Reelect the President to be responsible for all costs incurred.
Why Men Are in Trouble by William J Bennett
This Bill Bennett article is thought provoking. As I read it I thought about how the feminist movement began when I was coming of age and thank God not before. Many women asked and many others demanded things from men that caused me to scratch my head in wonder.
I searched for reasons why women began to celebrate stars like Leonardo Dicaprio, Mathew McConaughey, Johnny Depp, and Brad Pitt. These men were not masculine. They were pretty. What might a woman today see in pretty men when their prior generation was attracted to handsome, masculine men like Clark Gable, Cary Grant, John Wayne, Gary Cooper, and Jimmy Stewart?
I also tried to understand why women stopped asking men to be gentlemen. I am certain I am not the only man who was sneered at by a woman for opening a door for her or for otherwise treating her like a lady. One woman demanded that I not refer to her as a lady. She insisted that I had no way of knowing whether she was a lady or not. I asked her, "Wouldn't you like the benefit of the doubt?" However, she was adamant. She considered it improper etiquette for a man to refer to a woman as a lady. Whose etiquette? Hers perhaps but not mine.
I watched as some women denigrated other women for choosing to marry and stay at home to raise children over joining the corporate world or a profession. Somehow, the existence of women who nurtured and cherished their families when they could be furthering a movement to break through the corporate glass ceiling threatened feminists.
Many women attempted to do both. They married. They had children. They had a career. Their children were raised by nannies or placed in day care. Where then was the loving hand to nurture these children as they matured? I understand not all of this was by choice, that it was sometimes a matter of circumstance. However, all women were not in the workforce as a matter of necessity. Many were there for reasons that were more selfish.
I watched as women and many authors encouraged men to get in touch with their feminine side. I have no doubt but that many young men were confused and worse, emasculated trying to be what some women wanted them to be in order to gain their favor.
I watched in awe as a television character portrayed by Candace Bergen encouraged young women to have babies without a husband. I watched her belittle the Vice President of the United States because of his clarion warning that statistically women who raise children alone were far more likely to live in poverty and destine their children for the same.
I watched as women entered relationships with men that required no commitment. Living together and worse, living together while having children with no formal commitment between the partners denied their children the security of a strong family and an emotionally secure home. The motivation appeared to be selfishness on the part of the women and as for the men; they were given the key to the candy store without any need to accept even a modicum of responsibility.
Bill Bennett's article speaks well of the outcome of all this. He speaks of boys who have not matured into men. He speaks of men who have not been taught to accept responsibility. He speaks of men who have dropped out or at the very least have been robbed of their ambition. In the end, I have to wonder what those original feminists believe they might have gained from all of this. As a man taught the virtues of life as a dominant male I have to say nothing at all of value has come from this and I am aware of many women who believe this as well.
The Tea Party supports the Employee Rights Act as authored by Senator Orrin Hatch and Representative Tim Scott.
Argument
The Employee Rights Act
Note: Co-authored by Rep. Tim Scott
America's laws have long recognized the need to protect workers from abuse. In 1935, Congress passed the National Labor Relations Act (NLRA), which ensured that employees would have the right join a union or to refrain from doing so -- free of harassment or intimidation.