So, what really, really, really happened? Post-Mortem on 2012 Election

After Hurricane Sandy - AND I JUST GOT POWER BACK TODAY TEN DAYS LATER - somehow the presidential election feels a little anti-climatic. Despite hoping Romney won for the sake of the country, I am not an insane partisan and realized a while back (along with many others) that this was probably going to be Obama's race, because Romney had to win everything he was supposed to plus some swing states like Florida, Ohio and Va. He lost Ohio and Va. and Florida is still too close to call the next day (but, who cares?) So, he really didn't get all that close. He is credited with making a really nice concession speech. Big deal.

After weeks of reading and listening to right wing bloggers and hosts saying how the polls have it all wrong and Romney was way up, there was a part of me that wanted them slapped - then again, if that happened - it meant Obama won. So, now, even though I'm disappointed (and a little worried - Obama is trouble for the economy unless he pulls a Bill Clinton) I do feel a little smirky that they were so wrong. I don't mean Dick Morris. He's virtually always wrong. I mean an awful lot of so called pundits. As I am fond of saying, partisanship makes everyone crazy - and it made the droolers among the far right crazy in the same way the lunatic left was made crazy when they nominated Kerry, one of the few men in the country almost guaranteed to lose to Bush.

Even Jonah Goldberg, one of the more rational of the right's pundit core published a column today mocking the incredibly accurate Nate Silver of the New York Times. Silver was dead accurate again, state by state and Goldberg, if he wants to have credibility with me, has to say, he knows his stuff a lot better than I do, or, I was crazed by partisanship and saw rainbows in the dark. Silver actually called a 2 point Obama victory in September before the first debate unless certain things happened (and they didn't).

I haven't done a review yet of how the leading pollsters did, but suffice to say, in general, they were as a group pretty accurate and all that "malarkey" from the right about how they were deliberately oversampling Democrats (apparently even Fox News, if they were consistent, though they never said that) wrong.

I listened to Rush Limbaugh today. He made me laugh. He didn't have a real explanation yet, but said that Romney was a fine man who would have made a really good president. He forgets, of course, that not so long ago he said that Romney was done for in the primaries based on one position. Sean Hannity was busy saying how Obama's team should be ashamed of themselves the way they carried on the campaign, talking about Big Bird, binders full of women, accusing Romney of killing someone and Ryan of pushing Granny off the cliff, etc. Well, all true, and I do think that Romney ran a fairer campaign, although, they were dishonest about a number of things too. But for Sean Hannity, who had Donald Trump on his show without calling him a polite word for an idiot, and frequently Newt Gingrich and Dick Morris, well, sorry, but what goes around comes around.

Which brings me to another thing I always like to say - Democrats and Republicans, liberals and conservatives, all deserve each other. Unfortunately, the rest of us don't, but we get the short end of the stick too because they control everything.

So, what really, really, really happened? Why did Romney lose. Here are my reasons, not in order of importance.

* It is really hard to explain libertarian principles to a nation that knows almost nothing about it anymore, that has been raised on quasi-socialist principles for everyone's lifetime (except my Aunt Tess, who turns 100 - I think - at New Years), likes the nanny state and really doesn't care so much about freedom as libertarians do.

* Romney ran a decent campaign. He was patient and calm, did a great job in the Republican primary debates and killed in the first presidential debates. But, he did not follow through in the next two debates and let Obama get away with saying a lot of things that were completely untrue, let him off the hook on Libya (it was all but forgotten after Sandy anyway) and did not repeat enough how big the deficit has grown under Obama and how his spending policies have failed.

* The antipathy of many independents who lean a little left to Bush is understated. They hate him and a little brushed off, unfairly, on Romney.

* Political disasters for the right like Donald Trump and Newt Gingrich sabotaged Romney with their - I hate to use these words for specific people - crazy ridiculous maybe even moronic nonsense about birth certificates and vulture capitalism.

* Most of all, it was the cultural stuff that sunk the Republicans. Too many people have said to me that they did not want Obama, but they couldn't stand the Republican obsession (my word) with gays, atheists and American Muslims. They will continue to lose presidential elections if this continues to be the case. I've written about gay marriage before, so I will just say, one more time, the country is changing culturally, and if Republicans don't get off this reactionary notion soon, they are really going to damage themselves, just as they did when they continued to pounce all over Martin Luther King, Jr. Enough. See the light. You are wrong and it really bothers people.

Well, I've said a lot of this before and I don't want to go on and on about it, so I will leave it at this - I am disappointed and worried that Obama won. No, I don't think it is the end of everything, but it is a big sign that our country needs a re-education (no, not in camps, in school) about economics and liberty values. At some point anyone who educates himself about what has happened with our spending and borrowing should know - it is over one day. It is now recognized that it is probably not our children and grandchildren who will feel the noose around their neck, but us.  We don't know when, but we know that it is going to happen, as Greeks and Spaniards can testify about. The re-election of the progenitor of the stimulus package and Obamacare shows that we haven't learned anything. And, not that Romney would have been all that different - but a little better.

Last thing I like to say over and over - we don't like to fix things in this country until they are broken but good - like economic disasters, for example. And, that is probably going to happen some day. Many are still going through the drain of being without power for a week and half already. It is tiring and though we've handled it quite well, you can see tempers fraying and it wearing people out. Imagine this happening because of a snowballing disastrous economy. How will we handle it then?

I don't know. Maybe I'm just feeling blue because the wrong guy won in my opinion. But, nothing I've seen or read gives me confidence that this isn't bad news.

But, most of all, the Republicans



 

Certainty

There is something just so uncomfortable about our presidential elections. Other than Kelly Ripa there are few things that make me cringe as much as a presidential candidate with certainty (unless, of course, it is end zone or sack dancing). Unfortunately, a candidate's certainty may be a personality trait as necessary to getting elected as evincing their belief in God.  I suppose the dream candidate I would admire who who would say "I don't know" a lot, admit there are policy issues which are too complex or he isn't up to speed about and that he hasn't reached a firm conclusion about everything, would not get very far in an election, if he could possibly win a nomination. But, I can't help myself. I just generally prefer people who say "I don't know" about things they don't know about or aren't certain about everything. And, I can dream.

I'm going to hedge on this right away. That doesn't mean when we think we are right, we shouldn't say so, even with a certain degree of confidence, particularly about a fact of which we are certain. It is fine to have a political, scientific, historical opinion too and feel strongly about it.  You can call me a bozo for insisting that presidents usually win another term when we are in a war (a fact I had to once insist upon against virulent opposition), but, though we can't be absolutely certain about anything, I can reasonably have a far greater sense of certainty about it than I can about a theological point or quantum physics.  False humility or hedging isn't so attractive either, particularly in an argument, and I would not ask for it. Simply put, as obvious a point as this should be, the more speculative a subject, the less certain we can be. Why do I bother then to write about it? Because all too often we find that people are more certain in areas they should be less so, and less certain where they should be. The certainty of presidential candidates of what they will attain if elected falls into the earlier class, particularly when there is not an overwhelmingly supportive congress behind them. I note with a grimace that I just heard Mitt Romney say on tv that he is going to win (with implied certainty) without any protest from his interviewer, but get heat for not saying exactly what all of his plans are, because he acknowledges he is going to have to work them out with others. It should be precisely the opposite.

When I was a wee laddie, my mother told me that the smartest man who ever lived was Socrates, because he knew that he knew nothing. I was always attracted to the idea even though that is really not quite what he said. Later on, I actually read the Plato dialogue,  The Apology, where Socrates discusses his lack of wisdom in defending his life. Apology there means a defense and not an expression of regret. Socrates wasn't sorry at all for what he had done (or not done).

The Athenians had just spent decades fighting the Peloponnesian War and thanks to the democracy's own hubris and designs of empire, Sparta eventually garnered some powerful allies, not to mention a kick ass navy which vanquished Athens' highly trained fleet and defeated them. But, they let Athens, which had survived some near crushing disasters and plague during the war, survive yet again, although they tore down her long walls and put the city under a hated oligarchy.  The tyranny didn't last long. The Athenians soon wrested back control and regained their democracy for a while.  Their Periclean golden age was past already and it could be a dangerous place for self proclaimed gadflies like Socrates. He found himself charged with certain moral crimes but the underlying problem was his association with two former students, one the leading oligarch (also, Plato's cousin) who had only been recently turned out, not to mention killed  and another who was a leading citizen but became a traitor during the long war.

Socrates defended himself but unconventionally challenged the jury, almost dared them to convict him.  And, they did. Then they sentenced him to death, the knucklehead. And then he didn't take the opportunity to escape offered him and drank the Hemlock. This led, centuries later to one of my favorite paintings by one of my favorite 18th century painters, Baroque, Jean-Jacques David, which I only mention here as an excuse to prettify my blog.  His death also led to a lot of regret among Athenians, who put up a bronze statue of him not too long after they put him to death. 

 
During the trial, Socrates had to defend his teachings and his character. Doing so, he denied that he thought of himself as the wisest man.  “This one of you, O human beings, is wisest, whosoever, like Socrates, perceives that he is in truth of no value to wisdom,” he quoted an oracle, with great self-effacement. It is harder to say what that exactly means, but I think what my mother taught me, which is the conventional English translation, is close enough.

I've tried some cases in my days as a lawyer. One thing I could have assured Socrates, without ever needing to test it, is that it would not be a good idea for me to tell the jury that I was the wisest of men even if I qualified it that it because I knew I knew nothing. But, this post is not about arguing to a jury. it is about knowledge.

And, there is no doubt in my mind that this much Socrates (or to be scrupulous - perhaps it was Plato) rightly understood - that we know so little and can be sure of almost nothing. I have much to criticize Socrates/Plato about, but not in this. It is an easy enough concept in the abstract, but very difficult to apply in real life, especially as it seems from our everyday experience. Certainly Socrates was not the first or only one to recognize it.  How apt a description of Socrates' own style of questioning is Chapter 3 of the Tao te ching (we think, but can't be sure, that the Tao, which tradition says was written in the 6th century, B.C., is the older of the two as the earliest records scholars have of it appear to be from the 4th century, B.C.; that is, about the time Plato was writing his dialogues and after Socrates' death):

The Master leads
by emptying people's minds
and filling their cores,
by weakening their ambition
and toughening their resolve.
He helps people lose everything
they know, everything they desire,
and creates confusion
in those who think that they know."

How similar in concept this is to Socrates' self evaluation, if different in style:

". . . For I am not clear-headed myself when I make others puzzled, but I am as puzzled as puzzled can be, and thus I make others puzzled too. So now, what virtue is I do not know; but you knew, perhaps, before you touched me, although now you resemble one who does not know. All the same, I wish to investigate, with your help, that we may both try to find out what it is."

You could also make an argument that the same point was understood by the author(s) of The Old Testament when God banned Adam and Eve from eating from the tree of knowledge. You might even argue that in even more primitive terms The Epic of Gilgamesh concerns itself with the uncertainty of knowledge, perhaps the limitations of immortality, although hidden in Gilgmesh's attempt to learn the secret of immortality.

Even now, fully one fourth the age of Lincoln (no, seriously, I am), I spend a lot of time thinking about the limitations of knowledge. I've learned some people find this negative or at least, not positive. I couldn't disagree more.  My own interests in this area is so acute, that I find myself immediately drawn to any recognition of the subjects by writers throughout history, and the rest of this post simply speaks about some recent sightings in my studies.

Recently I have become interested in Jacobus Acontius Tridentius a/k/a Giacomo Contio Acontius, a relatively unknown 16th century Protestant writer.  Arguing against the tyrannical religious oppression of Jean Calvin, who is near impossible for Westerners to appreciate these days, except for his obvious intellect, as a result of his somewhat successful attempt to squash any sense of religious freedom beneath the homicidal power of the state, Acontius was deeply affected by the burning of the saintly yet insistent  Michael Servetus, who merely asked for a more theological rationality and a little less dogma. In Acontius' Satan's Strategies there is included this epistemological gem where you didn't expect to find it:

"When a man is convinced of anything, he cannot but be astonished that there should be anyone who cannot what he sees; and unless, as soon as he has indicated his reasons, his opposite succumb to them, he falls into a passion, as though it were evident that this refusal to be convinced came of mere perverseness and obstinacy; and so it is odds that he fall to reproach and railing."

How relevant are these century's old words today with visions of Middle Eastern riots dancing in our heads.  But, you can't help but notice, the ever certain Calvin has been, at least superficially, far more successful than  Acontius, even if, put to the question, few modern Westerners would deny, at least in the abstract, Acontius' sentiment. Why isn't Acontius better known?  Or his predecessor Castellio, who pointed out that men had been arguing about theology for centuries and clearly weren't capable of knowing the truth for certain, and who has been very influential among Protestant theologians, or even Servetus himself, better known than Calvin? I would say part of the reason is that mankind is almost hypnotically attracted to certainty and the more unknowable the subject, the more they want it. Someone who is willling to give it to them will be more persuasive and appreciated.

It occurred to me long ago that many people are much more sensitive about a-rational beliefs than they are their rational ones.

I came across the following paragraphs one day in The Black Swan by Nassim Nicholas Taleb, a "philosophy" book I read slowly and carefully, and with which I find that I agree with almost all of  "points,"  but find lots to criticize in his emphasis, style and overstatement (and which I've covered on other posts). He appreciates the same philosophers and social commentators I do - Hume, Popper and Hayek in the main, but others to, from whom I could find endless quotes to burnish this post. But, most modern folk would much rather read the breezy Talib, who claims writers should not quote famous philosopher's much except to disagree or mock him (although he quotes as freely as anyone). He writes:

"Someone with a low degree of epistemic arrogance is not too visible, like a shy person at a cocktail party. We are not predisposed to respect humble people, those who try to suspend judgment. Now contemplate epistemic humility. Think of someone heavily introspective, tortured by the awareness of his own ignorance. He lacks the courage of the idiot, yet has the rare guts to say "I don't know." He does not mind looking like a fool or, worse, an ignoramus. He hesitates, he will not commit, and he agonizes over the consequences of being wrong. He introspects, introspects, and introspects until he reaches physical and nervous exhaustion.

This does not necessarily mean that he lacks confidence, only that he holds his own knowledge to be suspect. I will call such a person an epistemocrat; the province where the laws are structured with this kind of human fallibility in mind I will call an epistemocracy."

. . .

Everyone has an idea of utopia. For many it means equality, universal justice, freedom from oppression, freedom from work (for some it may be the more modest, though no more attainable, society with commuter trains free of lawyers on cell phones). To me utopia is an epistemocracy, a society in which anyone of rank is an epistemocrat, and where epistemocrats manage to be elected. It would be a society governed from the basis of the awareness of ignorance, not knowledge.

Alas, one cannot assert authority by accepting one's own fallibility. Simply, people need to be blinded by knowledge--we are made to follow leaders who can gather people together because the advantages of being in groups trump the disadvantages of being alone. It has been more profitable for us to bind together in the wrong direction than to be alone in the right one. Those who have followed the assertive idiot rather than the introspective wise person have passed us some of their genes. this is apparent from a social pathology: psychopaths rally followers.

Once in a while you encounter members of the human species with so much intellectual superiority that they can change their minds effortlessly."

I have to say, I am not certain at all whether that last line is meant to be sarcastic or not. But, I will end with it . But, next week, I intend to return to my initial rant on presidential politics with a thought to applying in part the principle stated here coupled with my deep desire for a third party in America more to my way of thinking.

 

 

Political update for September, 2012

It took me two weeks to write this post, and I think I know why. Yes, a little busy the past two weeks but really, I didn't like what I was concluding here, but feel driven to write. The financial scenario we face is far more dangerous than any war we've fought, the great depression, any recession we've faced so far. Probably only the explosion of a nuclear weapon in the continental United States or one of our allies would be comparable. It is not that Mr. Bernanke or David Walker (Bush's comptroller general), Alan Greenspan or any other so called expert tells us this. It is patently obvious to anyone whohas ever paid their bills that you just can't spend that much more than you have or will have without their being a vast reckoning. And, our debt is far, far worse than the 16 trillion we routinely talk about as "the debt." The uncounted and unfunded numbers are the truly staggering ones. The real debt is so large that we would have to be idiots not to realize what is going to happen. Yet, on we go. Us and the rest of the world.

With that in mind, I am disappointed, though not at all surprised, that I don't have confidence that Romney is going to succeed. Not that he is a messiah (the usual conservative slur on Obama followers) by any stretch of the imagination. Yet, it is important. Though I also believe we will survive and prevail, someday, no matter what our financial stupidity leads us to.  But, it will be much darker and more difficult, and, we best find a way to like it.

But, nevertheless, this bleak preface being done, here's my sense of what has happened and what will happen.

Thank GOD they are over

Okay, the conventions are over. Now, seriously, is there anyone who isn't dependent upon them or makes money off them in some way, who actually enjoys them? They are worse than the Oscars, the gold standard for productions which should be fun, but are stultifying, and which at least have the benefit of celebrity watching and the occasional few seconds when something actually happens, like a celeb we like gets to take home a statue and make a speech.

But, I learned something from the little watching of these conventions that I did and I can't say it makes me happy. Obama is, unless something drastic happens, likely to win, much as I would prefer he wouldn't. What was the highlight of the Republican convention? Clint Eastwood, right? Not that he was really all that good. His shtick was derived from old Morey Amsterdam and Woody Allen routines and was neither smoothly delivered or original. Even the media didn't seem as hyped up as they were four years ago. In the end, the broohaha over Eastwood is largely irrelevant because it really had nothing to do with anything except his own opinion.

And, how much can you remember from the Romney or Ryan speeches? I thought that John McCain gave the best speech of either convention, but, I'm partial to him and still think he should have been president in 2008. And, isn't that really what it comes down to? If you like someone, you often think more of their speech? Did any liberals really like Eastwood's speech, or Romney's or Ryan's? Any conservatives really like Clinton's, Obama's or Biden's? I guess there must be some somewhere who would say so, but you will have to work to find them as they keep it quiet. Moderate independents may seem to have a little more leeway, but instead, they often find themselves disappointed by just about everyone.

What was the highlight of the Democratic convention? A sad spectacle with none of Eastwood's charm. The Democrats vote on their platform concerning the inclusion of God and calling for recognition of Jerusalem as the capital of Israel was perhaps the most brazen piece of political chicanery and shamelessness since the passage of the health care act. It was the equivalent of a Potemkin Village. Some might think my feeling is based on bias because I support Romney (at least over Obama - I will likely vote for Gary Johnson) but then you would have to explain why so many at the convention booed the ruling on the vote so heavily. It's not because as some on the right have conjectured, that they were booing God, but instead they were booing both the craven and undemocratic nature of it and mostly, getting robbed. Ultimately (my word for the day), it doesn’t matter much more than the Eastwood speech, as it was an internal matter that has nothing to do with any meaningful issue between the parties. Are we to pick our leaders based on whether they want God mentioned in their platform? Some would say yes, but I think they are a minority. The Jerusalem question is an actual policy issue, but, realistically speaking, both parties have treated the question the same. G. W. Bush issued the same waivers to the Jerusalem Embassy Act of 1995 that Clinton did and now Obama has. I find it hard to believe that Romney would act much differently, whatever he may say as a candidate. All three previous presidents have claimed that act as a congressional usurpation of presidential powers. I disagree, but history is history.

My feeling during the conventions - both of them - was that ordinary people who vote, but do not spend much time thinking about it (the non-political class) just didn't care much and that was certainly borne out by the ratings.

But, if they are meaningless and boring tripe, for the most part, when the conventions are over, we can often have a better sense of who is going to win. Look at the polls. While you can't take any poll too seriously, and a trend can swing in a single day, for a long time Obama has been winning in most of the battleground or swing states. That is what matters most. Few things are as unimportant as national polls, even if that is primarily what the simple minded media focuses on (and Obama has been consistently up in those too). Take a look at The New York Times or even Fox New's websites, particularly the electoral college maps. That, much more than national polls, tells the story of the election. Around the same time last year, it gave me the bad feeling that Obama was going to win and they do again. I know, anything can happen. But, I feel Romney is already trapped in the narrative of his campaign and it is not getting any traction.

Half right Republicans are too late with too little

Paul Ryan tells us that Obama is taking us down "a path of decline." He’s half right. Obama believes if you redistribute income, and there is nothing else to call what he says is “paying your fair share” in reality, but he did not do this alone, of course. The suggestion that he did for political purposes excites his base but makes some independents made. Obama is doubling down on policies that haven't worked for one hundred years. For example, more recently, some of our financial "geniuses" tried to create a system where by selling mortgages in bulk, the ones likely to fail were hidden in the huge numbers. Perhaps they believed the bad would be watered down by the good. Perhaps that no one would ever  notice. They actually had impossibly complicated and very wrong formulas to prove their theory.  It failed, as all such experiments must fail. But, Obama did not start that system or the welfare state or the endless borrowing. You could argue we’ve been on this path from many points in history, but in some sense it started in the early 1900s, with increased meddling of the government in the economy – things like the income tax and the central bank, the first supposed to create a system where a little bit of our income (no longer little) was hoped to be used to make everyone’s lives a little better and the second to enable the government to fund enormous projects, including, of course, war, and flatten out economic downturns. Both seem, in retrospect, foolish. It was like riding a tiger by its tail. Not only could they not control the economy, but the ability to spend more money just increased congress's fervor to spend yet more.   

It doesn't work because it can't. Picking winners and losers is a terrible development for our country. Can we not see the difference between using tax dollars to build a highway system and giving the same tax dollars to a specific company or industry. Both parties know they are guilty of this. But, we will not stop. Until we do, we cannot expect long term success.

Romney, in my view, would be better than Obama, or Bush for that matter, because I do believe that he means what he says to some degree - that he will at least marginally try to stem the debt, reduce the budget, get rid of business-crushing regulations (some few, anyway) and try and get government out of the way as best as he can. Obama will not do this at all. Instead, he will likely continue to try and take more money from business and taxpayers (now and in the future) to redistribute, but, I believe, harming them. We all know that this doesn't work. We need to slowly change our system (even Ron Paul says slowly) so that we have safety nets, and insurance, not huge entitlement programs. The notion of entitlement, other than to equal rights under the law, has to leave our system of government, except perhaps for those who can neither care for themselves nor are capable of getting the help from friends or even charity. Our economy has not kept pace with the change in our culture that people do not want to share living quarters, or live with their families, or keep granny in the house when grand pa dies. And, all this costs money. Plus, people who are sick, or failing or old are much less likely to die and that costs money. And, we have become the policemen of the world and that costs money. Not least, technology continues to make many jobs unnecessary, or, at least, less valuable. And that is a problem for job seekers.

I may be the only one in the country who thinks the scheduled automatic cuts might be good (I mean, other than John Stossel), but I think they will if allowed to happen. Don't believe Leon Panetta. This is not going to gut our military for generations if anyone there has a brain in their head up in the military, this will make it leaner and smarter. But, only if they are willing to root out corruption and waste.

But, we could go on and on about the economy, and I've covered that before many times. Let's talk politics.

The actual reasons

Why are the Republicans probably going to lose? These are my beliefs.

The Republican Party is much like the Democrats of the 1950s-60s or the Whigs of the 1840s-1850s, split politically and culturally. The split can be seen in a macrocosm at the tea party rallies (Are their tea party rallies anymore? I haven't even heard of one lately.)

One aspect is the libertarian, fiscally conservative, deficit/debt reduction, smaller government, less regulation side.

The other aspect is the pro-religion, pro-life, anti-gay rights (they would say religious freedom) side. I include something specific like gay rights along with the more general religious aspect because it looms so large in our public discourse.

I would hazard a guess that most Republicans feel relatively strongly about both aspects, certainly relative to Democrats and liberals. But, relative to each other, they do not. It seems to me that the economic aspect is more generally felt among Republicans, but that the religious side is more passionately and pro-actively felt. This is the reason that the Republican candidates were able to keep making runs at Romney, but ultimately, either self-destructed or could not satisfy enough fiscal conservatives to succeed. They had economic plans too, but they campaigned on religion. Gingrich said in a debate that people who don't pray have no judgment. Perry said he wanted to bring religion back in the White House. Santorum announced in the first debate that this is what it was all about. Let's face it - "anyone but Romney" was not because conservatives did not believe Romney was a capitalist or fiscally conservative enough, but because they do not believe he is really dedicated to their social values. For my part, I've backed him, but one reason is because I believe he gives the more religious notions of his party lip service and will make them as small a part of his administration as he can make it while not completely pissing off his base.

But, the policy schism of Republicans is not just an in-house affair. It is of the deepest importance to the election because, as I keep reminding anyone who will listen (and, I think even Rush Limbaugh has figured this out now), independents will decide the election. More so, the independents in about a fifth of the states will decide it. I would even guess that most independents have made up their mind already. So, it is really just the super-independents now who matter most, or, those who can still be swung.*

[*I've written previously on what I think being an independent means and don't want to go into it here, but, especially in an election year, the number of independents seems to me to include people who call themselves that, but will almost certainly vote for the party with whom they have always been most comfortable for any number or real or imagined reasons. And, though I don't fully understand why, it also seems to me that many liberals are not as comfortable with their ideological affiliation as conservatives and relatively more of them call themselves independents, but are not. I could not guess at the numbers. But, if I am correct, it is important, as it gives the Democrats a small hidden advantage in the election. And a small advantage with "independents" is all any candidate needs.]

It is impossible to tell, of course, what will tilt enough independents to swing the election. That's what makes them independents. It might be the candidates looks or height, but also temperament. It might also be a feeling that one party is more competent than another or that they share one side's values more.

I am troubled by the example of a young man I know who was very liberal, but has moved more and more over to the fiscally conservative side. But he refuses to vote for Republicans because he believes too many in that party despise him because he is gay. I could, if so inclined, say an analogous thing.  Right now and for a long time, I have more in common in terms of economic theory with Republicans than Democrats. But I am well aware that many conservatives look down on atheists, or, at least stand by quietly while their compatriots disparage them or call for measures that I believe violate the first amendment religion clauses in significant ways. Unlike the young man I know, I deal with it, because, overall, we live in such a tolerant society, the intolerance towards atheists by conservatives, is almost always harmless. I spent 4 1/2 years living in the Bible Belt. There was some discomfort by some friends/acquaintances of mine when they learned I was not a believer. But, they were certainly not violent nor did it end up affecting our personal relationships in any significant way. If anything, it just made them feel bad for me and be curious. Frankly, my personal views on a host of seemingly less controversial matters cause people much more discomfort. There is occasional violence against gays and it is horrible, but it is really rare. And, the ban on their serving openly in the military is now gone. Gay marriage is becoming legal in more and more states and I believe in a generation - say 20 to 25 years - will be to a large degree a non-issue. Similarly, I believe, even if we continue in the endless war with radical Islam, the bias against American-Muslims is relatively mild and will disappear in time. I am not saying there is no important discrimination (it is always more painful when you are the subject of it) but that it is not sufficient now for me to vote Democratic in the presidential election. Times could change that. I have voted for Democrats before and might in the future.

But, that's me. It's not everyone. And I believe there are sufficient numbers of true independents, not liberals thinking they are independents, who are disgusted by conservative social positions and will not vote for them. There was a time that I voted based on those same issues, so it is difficult for me to be too critical of those who still do, but, I think they are making a mistake.  It doesn't mean conservatives need to give up their values, but they do have to live with the consequences.

Neither life nor politics is particularly(or think we are). Two politicians might bang away at each other but one may get beaten up by the media for it and the other not. Two politicians might make gaffes and one gets the reputation as a flubber and the other not. I thought that both Al Gore and George Bush said relatively equal amounts of dumb things in the 2000 election. Yet Al Gore was mocked mercilessly for it and Bush, not so much (then, later on the media tortured him for the same reason). In 2008, I counted three bone-headed statements by Joe Biden (as, apparently, is his wont) in the Veep debate with Sarah Palin and only one by her. But, despite the fact that he was considered the pro and she the newbie, outside of Fox and talk radio, the media and I think independents gave him the nod (not that I think it was a major factor in the election). That's the way it goes. Right now, most of the television and news media is clearly and demonstrably for Obama. They are not fair to Romney on a number of fronts (though he does little to help himself and much to hurt). Obama and his supporters are dreadful with him. And, he and his followers are dreadful about Obama. This much is to be expected. I only concern myself with independents. My impression is that the Romney attacks on Obama are not viewed well by many of them , while they shrug at the unfair attacks by Obama on Romney. It may be that more independents are liberals than I think. It might also be that people just like the usually loose Obama more than the stiff and easy to caricature Romney.

But one reason that criticisms about Obama are falling on deaf ears is that conservatives have for the longest time criticized Obama about everything. The attacks on Reagan were fierce. The first Bush, though he didn't get a second term, seemed to avoid it. But, revenge by the conservatives was taken on Clinton, and then by liberals on Bush, each time increasing in tone and mockery. But, the attacks on Obama have been as great or even greater in my view. Some of them are plain foolish and others too personally disparaging. I include online comments by ordinary readers because other people read them.  It is part of the reason I will blame the far right if Obama wins. This kind of stuff just pisses people off who aren't inclined to hate the president already. The birther claims were completely bogus. Even Sean Hannity knew enough to say he didn't believe it. There were birth notices in two Hawaiian papers, for crying out loud, and don't tell me they knew he'd be running for president some day and were covering. I personally know conservatives who still swear that he is a secret Muslim (and, for some, at the same time, a Black Liberation Church Christian) and an enemy of America. They can't explain how they also criticize him for doubling down on the popular war, Afghanistan, at the same time, continues his drone assassinations and made the call on bin Laden, while he was supposedly secretly hoping for an al Qaeda victory. Please. And, while easy to criticize on domestic policies, he is much less so on foreign affairs. Yet, nothing he does seems in the world seems above criticism to conservatives with the single caveat that many of them grudgingly acknowledge that he gets some credit for at least giving the go ahead to take out bin Laden. Very grudgingly.

To the contrary, while, like all presidents Obama makes foreign policy errors and is tossed about by the things out of his control, Romney's attacks on Obama's foreign affairs all come out as contrived and simply to criticize him. Obama, who went into the presidency naive and a complete foreign affairs beginner, is now - sorry conservatives - much more experienced than Romney. I just say that the economy is so important right now, that foreign affairs just doesn't matter so much. Without a sound economy, we will have no foreign affairs worth discussing except to mourn our loss of prestige and power.

The foreign affairs criticisms may be the best example of why Romney, who should be only talking about the economy and explaining in the simplest terms why socialist or social democratic or progressive economics is a disaster, and never say a word about foreign affairs except that he will learn on the job or general platitudes, is fumbling it big time. He continues to make statements trying to look knowledgeable, yet looks foolish, be it about Russia, China, Israel, the embassy attacks and so on.

It's not that Obama does not have foreign affair faults. He is naive about the Middle East.  He thought he could pacify the jihadist strain of the Islamic world by telling them they are great and just different than us. His rhetoric in this manner exceeded Bush's. His apology tour, though not as bad as claimed by his antagonists, was in fact an apology tour. His vaunted speech in Cairo, though also not as bad as his antagonists claim, sent the wrong message. You can't just talk nicely to everyone. We share many things in common with Islamic countries, but there is a large strain that accepts violence as the solution to disagreement and we cannot reason with them. This is evident by his handling of the embassy crisis ongoing, particularly in the speech of his secretary of state, who pretty much said that free speech is debatable, and their system just a different view, while, of course, condemning the violence. I was also disgusted by our giving billions of our money to Gaza early in his administration, thereby helping Hamas, after Israel justly defended herself against them. And I thought his actions against Libya, while well intentioned, was impeachable and an usurpation of congresses authority that is a signal to future presidents and maybe himself, that congress is irrelevant when it comes to war.

But, unless I am leaving something out that just hasn't occurred to me, that is it. The rest is not so bad and occasionally good. He did get us out of Iraq carefully. He has not abandoned Afghanistan allies, who now understandably depend on us, despite tremendous provocation from their own idiots, and I despair that any president could handle it better without also finding himself somehow on the losing end. Afghanistan is among the most difficult of foreign affair pickles affairs we face, and no good can come of any solution. Despite the impeachable offense of attacking Libya from whom we faced no threat without the permission of congress, he handled it well. No American lives were lost, and though, naturally, it took much longer than he claimed, one of Americas oldest nemeses. Conservatives can mock leading from behind"" all they want. I like it. What we did militarily was exactly what we should be doing more of if we are going to fight a war. Use our technological advantage and spare American military families more suffering. Let others carry the torch. We've done enough as a nation militarily and we all know, even our enemies, that if push ever comes to shove in the world again, all will look to us again.

There is not much he can do with Russia or China. I find nothing he did that some criticize more than carping. They are formidable opponents who are too experienced and self-sufficient to be bullied by us. Ronald Reagan was himself criticized with great fervor by Republicans for being soft on the Soviet Union, particulary when they shot down KAL007. He rightly asked, short of war, what would they have me do? Romney's pre-election aggression towards both those countries is preposterous. He will eat crow for it if elected. They are not our allies, and sometimes cause us grief, but they work with us on many issues. Russia takes our astronauts into space, for crying out loud, and we trade with China as if they were a 51st state. We do oppose them on human rights and they do oppose us when we try to stop their client states or preferred trading partners from committing atrocities, but, we are not going to war with them any time soon (I admit, there are times I have qualms that one day we will wake up and China will be in Taiwan, though they have kept their promise not to do so.)

As for Israel and Palestine, it is another intractable problem that no president has been able to settle. But, I like the way he has handled it better than Bush. First, Israel is not always right and our presidents have always quarreled with them. To use Reagan a second time, no conservative I know with the exception of Ron Paul will even acknowledge that Ronald Reagan had his U.N. Secretary vote to condemn them. CONDEMN THEM. He regularly bickered with them as have both Bushes and Clinton. None of this is secret history (though I like to dwell on these things, I don't have room today.) Bush publicly called for a two state solution at the BEHEST OF SAUDI ARABIA and Obama's suggestion on the borders barely differs from his predecessor's.

With respect to Iran, this is another very thorny problem no one seems to be able to solve. Bush was not equal to it and neither is Obama. Any conservative who wants to criticize Obama for not resolving the dispute has to explain why Bush was helpless to solve it or North Korea either. I certainly would not be surprised that Iran is moving towards a nuclear device, but, I know when I am biased, and there is no smoking gun. We've already done Iraq without evidence and cannot do that again. It is quite possible that we've already taken actions with Israel in killing Iranian scientists and attacking their nuclear industry that are not only despicable, but international crimes, if in fact they are not making a weapon. I say this while despising Iran's government. Israel's own former Mossad chief, Meir Dagan has been outspoken in saying that there are years to go before they have a bomb and we have some time. Ironically, he was on 60 Minutes tonight (I didn't watch, as I have no faith in the show in having even relatively unbiased journalists - but he has spoken elsewhere on it.) What Netanyahu and Romney claim they want is premature. WWII taught us many lessons, but they are not the only lessons. It is not appeasement to refrain from attacking a country when there is not substantial proof they are doing anything wrong. That might be because Iran is very good at hiding it. But, this is a risk we take in the nuclear world. I doubt we will ever outright attack any powerful nation who can harm us because they want or have a nuclear weapon.

I can't be comprehensive, but look at the latest crisis. As I said above, I don't like Obama's verbal response to it. He criticized the message from the Egyptian embassy staffer prior to the outbreak of violence, but after that Clinton's speech was worse and sent the same message. But, let's not pretend that there is anything he can really do other than send warships over there to rattle sabers, threaten financial consequences (and I believe Obama did so to get Morsi and Egypt more in line). He may have done a good job with Egypt, but it is hard to say yet. The governments in the countries where the violence is going on are mostly on our side, at least outwardly. We work with them on terrorism every day. We trade extensively. These countries do not want to become persona non grata in the banking world, which is probably the strongest tool in our belt.

Let me use Reagan, the icon of the right, as another great example. When enough Marines were killed in Lebanon (and mass bombings happened twice in 1983, not just once as is sometimes thought) Reagan had us retreat off shore. Certainly many conservatives cringed when we did but they did not act as if Reagan was incompetent or too willing to accomodate.

The world started changing after WWII. People understood that they could not hope to defeat those so much more powerful than them. Government are more inclined to cooperate, but others are not. So, they found another way. The greatest threats to peace are not just governments, but non-governmental organizations like al-Qaeda and Hizbollah. The only change that will make any long term difference will be internal to the Muslim world, a rejection of violence in response to perceived deviance and an acceptance of what I call the enlightenment values. Short of a modern crusade coupled with genocide, which I do not expect in any way, the war between the cultures will be long and hard fought. No one really knows how to fight it. We just know we have to kill the bad guys and hope to kill as few good guys while we can as we do it, because it is really hard to tell the difference. We will almost always screw up in this manner. No one can claim that Obama has not tried to kill as many "bad guys"as he reasonably could.

But, while considering internal change, let me finish this post with the question - what will happen to the Republican Party internally if Romney loses? The Limbaughs and Gingriches, etc., will claim that it is because they did not go with a true conservative and insist the next candidate be of that mind. By that they will mean, among other things, that they want someone who is against gay marriage, any abortion (for some excepting the situations involving the health of the mother, or rape and incest), wants to prevent Muslims from building mosques in America and establish prayer in school and religious symbolism (mostly Christian) in our government institutions. If they are successful, I believe they will fail in the general election again, and then there will be no defense to the economic policies of the liberals in the Democratic Party.

Another Republican group will claim that the Limbaughs and Gingriches (I use them merely as examples) are the problem. I tend to agree with that, but if that group is successful and right wing third parties may result in the most energetic part of the party ensuring liberal success just the same.

The only resolutions I see that I can at least stomach right now are a Romney victory or, in the event he loses, the unlikely advent of a true middle ground third party, more right than left in economy and law, and more left than right in the religious aspects.  Good luck to me on that one. But, the Republican Party was itself a third party that eclipsed the Whigs. So, you never know.

There is always hope.  

And then there were six

Going to try not to use the word "wobbly" this post.

Iowa is over and Michele Bachmann made the courageous, but only realistic decision. She quit. It was a move she should have made months ago, as despite her one time surge, she never had a chance. I've said before I like her personally. I've listened to a half dozen speeches or public interviews with her. At least in public, she comes across sweet, happy and motherly. None of those are qualifications for president. She indicated a number of times that despite a predilection to sprinkle speeches with American history, she doesn't know very much about it. Not a problem, as I rarely ever come across a politician who does. But, most of them try not to be so obvious about it.

Governor Perry has decided to stay in after one day of soul searching. That's a mistake, I think. One thing we learned from his and Bachmann's poor performances is that even in relatively evangelistic states, it doesn't really sell unless you have something else religious voters want. But, religion was, at least hypothetically, a selling point for Perry. He held a public prayer meeting before joining the fray and has run commercials advertising his Christianity and that he intends to bring it into the White House with him. That's enough to scrub him for me, but he's not a bad guy, from what I can tell, at least. But, he peaked early and could not even begin to hold onto it. Could he improve his debating skills? Sure. Spend his money better? Of course. Improve his policy arguments and make people believe he understands it? Maybe next time.  But, you still are who you are. I'm not saying at some point he might not do all of those things. Romney sure did over the course of the last 3 years. But, I don't see Perry doing it this time around, even with his many years in politics.

Gingrich did not disappoint me. He lashed out on the last day at Romney, obviously thrown by the negative attacks on him. Where Romney was cool, said he liked Gingrich and his wife, who he referred to by her first name, Gingrich was not. He called Romney a liar (which, if accurate, come on - how many times has Gingrich lied?)  And then he has called Romney unelectable. In other words, now that he has been crushed, out the window does the whole do no harm to other Republicans. It also, was typical Gingrich stupidity. No one thinks Romney is unelectable; even those who don't like him. But, when did not making sense ever stop Gingrich?

Ron Paul looks like he couldn't be happier after his third place finish. It is hard to tell what he is thinking, but it may very well be that he just keeps telling the truth. It is liberating. Whereas everyone else has to pretend to be someone they may not quite be, he seems to go against the usual rule. Maybe he has other reasons to be happy. Santorum probably does not have legs, though he will do well in the south. Paul might end up being Romney's only real competition and he could take it all the way to the convention if he wants. Most states divvy up the votes according to the votes your received and Paul might be able to pull it off that far. Is there any chance he could be nominated? Well, if Romney pulls a Cain and turns out to have done missionary work in France than we know of, maybe. But, that's too much to hope for by all but the loopiest libertarian. But, look at some of the stats below and they too might indicate a reason he feels happy, and I will return to it when later.

And Romney? I am really impressed. Iowa was by no means a lock for him. He had a very small staff there and only really put an effort into it in the last week. I do not particularly admire him for any quality he possesses other than the remarkable poise he has maintained, even when being pummeled by both Gingrich and the media (who all seem to find him guilty, guilty, guilty when it comes to being involved in targeting Gingrich through a Super-Pac). But, he knows his policy issues; he never stumbled in the debates even when taking heat from almost everyone else, and he does look like a president out of central casting. You can never say anything is inevitable, but I don't think he has far to go. Right now, I'm glad I stuck with him all the while the Queens for the day took their turns.

One last thing. There was a pretty interesting chart on The New York Times website (http://elections.nytimes.com/2012/primaries/states/iowa/exit-polls) detailing the results of a poll of voters entering the caucuses. Here are some of the results:

Ron Paul got more votes from men (marginal) than either Romney or Santorum (24%, 23%, 23%, respectively) but the reason he did worse than them in total was that women did not like him as much, where as the other two slightly improved (19%, 25%, 27%). Being a woman did not help Michele Bachmann at all. She received only 5% of their vote.

Rick Santorum received the lion's share of the evangelical vote, 32%, with Paul the next best at only 19%. Perry and Gingrich, for all their praying, did no better than the Mormon Romney with them - 14% each. Michele Bachmann, poor soul, could only manage 6%. It is interesting though that of non-evangelicals, Romney did better even better than Santorum did with evangelicals - 38%. But Paul again came in second in this category - 26% - far better than anyone else.

Santorum also did the best with tea partiers - 29%, ten percent better than Paul's and Romney, but Romney did substantially better than anyone else with those who said they were opposed to the tea party (43%) and that bodes well for him; the tea party is now, according to at least one poll, the most unpopular political group in the country. His 32% was also by far the tops with neutrals. Paul again was second in both those categories.

Santorum did by far the best with those who considered themselves "very conservative" (35%; Paul next at 15% - ironically, in response to the question of whether the candidate was a "true conservative," Paul beat out Santorum 37% to 36%)). Yet, with those who considered themselves "somewhat conservative," Romney did even better (38%; Paul next at 21%) and with "moderates" (38%; Paul next at 34%). Not surprisingly, Paul did by far the best with independents at 43%. The only one who topped that in any category was whether they thought the candidate could win the general election, in which case, Romney scored 48%.

Which brings me back to Paul. Of course he is happy. If Santorum turns out to be a flash in the pan and Romney has enough momentum in New Hampshire to actually do well in South Carolina (the downfall of many a candidate and the king maker of some), it is not unlikely every one else will drop out after it. Too soon to tell, of course. But, even if Santorum stayed in, it might bode well for Paul, who does well, if not best (except with independents), in almost all categories except, arguably, women. That's not bad. Romney's weaknesses will appear greatest if he is one on one with someone who can focus all the attention on his former liberal views. Of course, Paul would be equally, if not more vulnerable with respect to foreign affairs questions, not to mention those that make people scrunch up their faces when listening to libertarians.

If Santorum wins the nomination - and I just don't see it, then the Republicans will have done what the Democrats did in 2004, nominated someone they wanted for cultural reasons, but who wasn't going to win. If they nominated Paul, also very unlikely, they have done the same.

What if Paul went third party, as he has hinted he might? That's an interesting possibility. I am not a believer that a third party cannot win. I think Ross Perot could have won in the 90s if he hadn't self destructed. And, I think Paul could by pulling all of the independents and some liberals and conservatives. But, it might require another economic disaster to inspire him and voters. There are always intangibles in politics and there is only so much you can speculate on without knowing all the facts (which is pretty much impossible).

For their own sake, they better push the tea partiers to the side and nominate Romney.

Pawlenty drops out

Tim Pawlenty bowed to reality today, reality which the rest of us understood for a long time. He had no shot from the beginning. Actually, there is no rational reason he is not at the head of the polls or at least near it. But, presidential campaigns are not any more rational than the stock market.

The last time we elected a president who looked really prepared in terms of experience (forget policy, because half of the people are going to disagree) was George Herbert Walker Bush. And before him Nixon. Governors don't have federal experience and Senators don't have executive experience. Depending on his experience, a VP might have less experience than either. But, I've always said, experience means something when you are in office - although there is more than one kind of experience, and it can be a factor in presidential elections, but it doesn't mean so much. What I really care about is - does this candidate agree with me and do I like him? (Yes, or her. So tedious)

Pawlenty has some executive experience - enough to pass the test for most people. But, he is not particularly likeable. I don't mean he is a bad guy, and he might be a great neighbor or friend. But, he does not have any charisma. He shouldn't feel bad, because Huntsman has less than he has and Paul (who I favor of those with even a 100 to1 shot) and Gingrich might come off as eggheads or sourpusses to some. Not surprisingly, I'd rather listen to a speech by either of them than anyone else on the stage the other night or most other politicians.

Pawlenty had to hit a home run this past Thursday, and he tried. He tried to be funny, which, for almost everyone is a bad idea in a debate. He tried to show he was tough. He went after Romney's wealth. It was a joke, but I thought it was a poor one and made me sympathize with Romney. He went after Bachmann's record and ended up looking like a complainer and a bully. He tried to show he was passionate and he should never do that. He's awful at it.

I know it is very hard to do what they do. I would not want to do it in a million years and would blow it on the first question (because, of course, I'd be honest). That's why so few people are good at it. I've seen Herman Cain interviewed on C-Span (and have heard him on the radio) and he is actually quite personable, but you'd barely know it from the debate. I've seen Rick Santorum on C-Span and I not only really liked him, but felt he was a very compassionate guy. In the debate none of that came out. Newt can be really interesting, but he came across as tempermental and wonkish.

And, I know T-Paw really wanted it. I felt that with him more than the others, but Romney may just hide it marginally better. That part of it makes me feel bad for him, because I am a sentimental old sop.

Let's see what I've written about him before this month:

June, 2010: "Who is out there with the personality and the support to drub Obama? Right now, guys like Bobby Jindal and Tim Pawlenty just don’t seem to have it – personality I mean."

December, 2010: "Pawlenty is still thinking about it, but he just doesn’t have the juice."

February, 2011: "Tim Pawlenty is busy trying to get anyone to notice him, but he hasn’t announced."

March, 2011: "Tim Pawlenty, who may have the best nickname, this time around, T-Paw, is still testing the water, but he won’t even get into his bathing suit yet. . .Gov. Pawlenty is practicing his anti-gay rhetoric to help him win them over. It rather disgusts me, but he seems to believe it will help. In the meantime, I have some advice for him – never, ever give another stem-winding speech. He’s just not good at it and it doesn’t come out as sincere."

May, 2011: "Pawlenty – A strong possibility but he would not last past Iowa, if he gets that far. Why do I feel a little sorry for this guy? Maybe it’s because he seems to want it so much."

May (later), 2011: "Tim Pawlenty I feel sorry for, as he is desperately trying to whip up some support from the conservative base, but he has done it by jumping on the easy red meat issues. Supporting (or, I guess, not to be opposed) to the Ground Zero Mosque was unpatriotic, he said. Ironically, he had previously set up a Shariah compliant mortgage program (which just really means something to do with interest – Orthodox Jews have also found a legal end round to interest on loans) in Minnesota, and then realizing it was political death in the Republican primaries, cancelled it. I’m not even sure if I’m for the program because I don’t know enough about it, but, cancelling it for political purposes was a craven act if there ever was one. He came out heavily against the repeal of don’t ask/don’t tell as if had been a repeal of the declaration of war against Germany and Japan (okay, okay, that's hyperbole) and said he would repeal it. He also vetoed a gay marriage bill. He recently said “The Constitution was designed to protect people of faith from government, not to protect government from people of faith.” He should read his James Madison. It was both. June, 2011: "Pawlenty I thought a strong possibility and he went in too. He wants to be president even more than Romney, I think, but has little chance. He is a Republican Mike Dukakis."

July, 2011: "T-Paw is fighting like crazy, with the only Iowa tv ad out, an Ames Poll website, door to door canvassing and so on.

If Pawlenty wants to stay in, of course, he has to do something, but how much does his precious Ames Poll even mean? How much does Iowa even mean?"

I was kind of rough on him, now that I look back. Who wants to be called the Mike Dukakis of the Republicans? But, it was accurate. Not that I'm overly proud of it. It was a pretty easy prediction for anyone who isn't in the media or a pundit. At risk of denting the reputation (of which only I appear to be aware) I did see that way back in June, 2010, the first time I focused on that, I praised Pawlenty along with Christie and Daniels as the grown ups in the group, but all too boring. I really have to take that back about Christie. Now I'll never be a pundit.

You know what is even sadder for Tim? No one will even care about getting his endorsement.

Just for fun, with no hope of success - who's out next? This is much harder than guessing who is getting into the race. Huntsman, Santorum, Gingrich and maybe Cain. No telling when reality sets in for them.

Ames debate

I'll copy my own comment to a NY Times article here:

In terms of performance and audience reaction, not my politics: 1) Ron Paul 2) Michelle Bachmann 3) Newt Gingrich 4/5) Mitt Romney/Herman Cain 6) Rick Santorum 7)Tim Pawlenty 8) Jon Huntsman

Of course, no one really cares about this debate except Fox, the debators and their tiny audience. Gingrich, Santorum, Pawlenty and Huntsman should do themselves a favor and just go home and hope to be picked VP. Cain can hang out a little while but unless everyone folds except Romney he has no chance. Michelle Bachmann should wait and see what happens. Although she handles herself well, better than she used to, Pawlenty did point out that she hasn't accomplished much herself. But, that shouldn't be the "decider" as she is definately an outsider. Ron Paul doesn't have a lot of accomplishments either, if you just count legislation with his name on it, but I think he has moved the political world. Since Gary Johnson can't even get on the stage, he is my personal choice for president too. However, the applause he received, more than anyone else, as in '08, doesn't translate into votes. What affect will Rick Perry have on all this. I really don't know. Is he another Fred Thompson? I watched Perry's debates last time and frankly, Kinky Friedman was a lot more fun.

Unfortunately, I am not a super-Paulist either. While I find him more honest than most other politicians, more real, more in line with my republican, democratic and libertarian notions (small "R," small "D," small "L"), I am not sure his return to the gold standard, his desire to end the fed (even slowly, as he said last night) and to forego all foreign intervention are right either in this complex world. But, I do like him better politically than anyone else on the stage and I loved it when he was asked if he could get his proposals through congress and he stuttered. What happened was that he realized that his answer - that it would be really hard to do so - goes against the make believe super-confidence that Americans seem to want to hear from their politicians.  But, in the end, Paul gave the honest answer. He also was a little less than straight on Santorum's question to him about whether polygamy would be okay in a state. His libertarian and constitutional philosophy says - there's nothing anyone can do about it. But, he hedged and didn't really answer the question. But, as Horace noted, even Homer nodded off sometimes.

Why won't people back Paul for president? Because his beliefs are not what we were taught in high school. He wants us to face reality and we are not ready. I'm afraid we need our teeth kicked in first.

A few more comments about the candidates. Bachmann is really short. I wonder if the problem short people have running for president in the television age will affect her or if there will be a pass for women on it. My advice to her. Stop pretending you have accomplishments. Acknowledge it. But, you can credibly say it is because you are on the outside looking in and you are fighting for something. Ron Paul acknowledges it like that. Also, stop trying to pretend you know anything about history. Go study for a while. But, you are photogenic and personally likeable to those who don't hate you for political reasons (of course, I find most politicians likeable, with some exceptions). You have a good story, but it can't be all you have. Nor can bashing Obama. What do you think you are going to show Obama at the Ames Poll? It has nothing to do with him. Stop saying it. You handled the questions well at the debate, particularly that ridiculous one about submitting to your husband. A good sense of humor is the best defense against insanity.

Huntsman - Maybe Utah is a little different than the rest of America. But, while I'm sure you are a good person (I think, anyway), you come off as pompous, above it all and not particularly gregarious. I'm glad to see you have some independent positions, but, I think you should go back to the business world.

Romney - I still think you have the best chance to win, but that is based on the polls, not your politics or personality. I can't say what affect Perry will have on you either, but I tend to think he will cut into Bachmann's voters more than yours. People who like you want a Republican who won't frighten independents as opposed to the Limbaughites who would rather go down in flames than surrender a point. I still don't trust you. While I thought that the whole flip flop thing about John Kerry was just a good political campaign (although I personally and politically do not like him), I think it is more true of you. I saw a list the other day of flip flops by you and they were fair criticisms. Many of them you deny or try to explain away. Own up to most of them. Yes, I believed that then, but not any more. And I did not buy your reasoning why marriage should be federal. If you are concerned because it is a status that has affect in other states if you move, then just enforce the constitution, which requires states to honor the decrees of other states.

I understand you have to run to the right now, but, you can't tie yourself in such knots that at the end of the day, independents like myself will not vote for you. Leave gays, atheists and American Muslims alone. You've already stated some opinions, and they are not as bad as some others have made, but, I would keep out of it. I don't really believe you are antagonistic against them in your heart.

Cain - I thought you did well for your audience last night. And your exuberance and folksiness would play off well against Romney if it were just the two of you. But, it's not and you are lost out there. The whole stupid Shariah thing you've gotten yourself into also plays well into the conservative base, but it makes independents cringe. Let me explain it one more time - there is no threat of Shariah in America. You sound like someone warning of the yellow peril. Stop already. Feel free to point out that there is a terrorist threat. I agree. And we - including American Muslims, have to be conscious and vigilant about it. But stop with the Shariah nonsense. Sean Hannity and Newt Gingrich will think it's great, but you are making a fool of yourself.

Gingrich - As you usually do, you impressed me last night. You are smart, you didn't go with soundbites as asked (Bachmann and Romney did, right off the bat) and you showed that only Paul was in your league in discussing the issues. However, even though the audience loved you bucking the media like that - it doesn't play well to independents. To me, it appeared like you were picking a fight rather with Chris Wallace rather than face your own failures. I've said it before - you should not have run. Don't be angry when the media picks up on your negatives. At least he didn't mention your wife. Besides, Wallace is well liked at Fox. If you have them mad at you - who will be on your side? By the way - is that a trick of the lense or do you really need to go on a diet?

Santorum - really, even conservatives aren't buying your I'm more anti-abortion than you bit. I appreciate it. I've always said, it is illogical to be against abortion on moral grounds but believe it is okay if the fetus is a product of rape or incest. Your comparison of the rapist who can't be executed under the law, but his baby can, was actually quite good. But, hate to tell you this - no one much cares. From what I can tell of the difficult to read polls, Americans are against abortion on demand, but believe early term is okay, and even when they are against it, they want it for cases of rape or incest (and the mother's health). But, these are generally rare, so it doesn't have a big impact on people. Seriously, you and Huntsman in particular have no possible chance. Forget it. Go home.

T-Paw - This was your big shot and you did not win. You can't. You probably would be a good president and I like most things about you except your religious issues, but, you seemed petulant and childish arguing with Bachmann, and I thought she came off much better than you did. Sorry, but you need to go home too. I would say the same thing even if you win the straw poll.

That should do it. I wish the Dems had a contest too. I love this stuff.