GOP Field Analysis

Last night’s debate was enlightening.  Everyone’s campaign got the memo this week, with Herman Cain’s rise in the polls, that the electorate is very volatile right now, and that this debate would matter.  So everyone came out to try and make an impact.  Most of them just fell all over their own faces trying to do so.

Here’s my analysis of this week’s candidates:

Still in the lead, still making all the right decisions, and still too good to be true for the party is Mitt Romney.  He had a very refreshing response when responding when religion was brought up, and handled it far better than he ever has to date, though in my opinion he went too far in patting Gov Perry on the shoulder telling him his lukewarm apology for Jefferds remarks was “OK”.  I’m not sure if it made him look incredibly magnanimous (almost to the point of push-over) or made him look like he was in too much of a hurry to let Perry off the hook and get back to the economy.  Other than that, solid performance by Romney, and I was particularly impressed that he won every shouting match with another candidate trying to horn in on his reponse time.  I didn’t think Mitt had it in him.

As this week’s insurgent, Herman Cain got much of the focus with everyone decimating his 9-9-9 plan.  I really don’t like it either for all of the reasons that Stallion Cornell outlined yesterday – but mostly because it would be a huge tax increase for me as a citizen, a consumer, and a micro-business owner.  I’m just not sure where he gets off by saying we should look at his people’s scoring and his data.  I went to his website and the data is SKETCHY!  The truth is that the “fair” tax is a huge tax break for the wealthy and a huge tax increase on the poor and middle class.  Period.  End of sentence.

Michelle Bachmann’s best moment was when she trumped everyone else’s fence proposal by pointing out that her fence would be a double fence with a security zone in between.  I thought she was going to go one step further and explain how the security zone would be constantly patrolled by the 82nd airborne.  Hallelujah border security gods!

Sadly, Rick Perry was the only one who made a lick of sense about the border, denying the absurd idea that we need a fence or that a fence would deter illegal immigration.  I say sadly, because he was a hot mess the rest of the night.  He even merited a boo from the audience when he repeatedly called Romney a hypocrite for employing a lawn care company who hired illegals.  He’s trying harder, but not really getting better results.  I’m not sure if it’s because he’s that stupid or because he is surrounded with people who are that stupid.  I’m thinking it’s a bit of both.

Newt Gingrich continues to come out with reasonable ideas – like calling the super committee a stupid idea – but his time is sadly past.  He still subscribes to Reagan-style Republicanism that most of the candidates have abandoned for Tea Party style Republicanism.  (Clearly Reagan’s 11th commandment “Thou shalt not speak ill of another Republican” was thrown out the window last night)  Newt shows he has the even-keeled-ness to be a good party mover and shaker again, but I dont’ know anyone who really wants him to be their President.

When it comes to talking about things no one wants to talk about, I give the victory to Rick Santorum.  He has found a way to make himself the ‘values’ candidate for the approximately 1% of voters who care about social issues right now.  His most interesting allegation was against Ron Paul, asserting that the family was the center of our society rather than the individual, to which Paul replied something like, “I’ve given birth to thousands of babies and they call come one at a time.”  To which everyone rolled their eyes.   You can always count on Paul to say something completely sensible but that you completely disagree with the more you think about it.

Jon Huntsman did what no GOP candidate would, in their right mind, do at this point in their race: decline to be on TV.  I suppose he thought the high school cafeteria in New Hampshire would be more integral to his presidential bid; and he might be right.  If his strategy is to focus on New Hampshire, threaten to boycott any caucus that occurs before the NH primary, and try to come in 2nd or 3rd in New Hampshire, it’s the right strategy.  It’s really all he has left.  He’s gotta be running low on money and low on will to try and make himself look appealing as a moderate in this crowd of Tea Party panderers.  I know I would be.

After the debate, I watched NBC’s The Sing Off, which I had recorded from the day before.  and pictured all the candidates in an acapella group together…

Very Interesting Weekend for Mitt

It was a very interesting press weekend for Mitt.  First, the NY Times wrote a very interesting (and in my opinion, fair) article on Mitt’s various responsibilities in the LDS Church over the last few decades.  Non-Mormons (and the electorate at large) has no idea that while also building and running a super-successful business, Mitt was also spending whatever “free” time he had overseeing and running multiple congregations of LDS adherents.

As I suspected, the stories in this article represent both sides – both the joy and the difficulty –  of working as an ecclesiastical leader.  The young man’s story of wise counsel setting his life on a better path is just one of thousands that likely occured during Mitt’s tenure as Bishop and Stake President.  Those are the easy ones to talk about.  One the other hand, I would advise the world to reserve judgement about Mitt’s counsel to families making difficult decisions.  Sometimes an ecclesiastical leader will feel moved to counsel two different people about the same issue two different ways.  Though Bishops are instructed not to specifically counsel couples for or against divorce as a resolution to their marital difficulties, I’ve known instances where the leader was relieved by a divorce and instances where they were saddened by a divorce.  Context makes a world of difference, and no newspaper article could ever provide the full context for any such exchange between priest and congregant.

Also, my friend McKay Coppins posted an interesting (but unsurprising) article about leaked emails from the Perry campaign’s religious advisors have reacted and plotted in regards to Mitt’s religion, and their hopes of sinking his candidacy through its marginalization.

It appears that the inseparable siamese twins, religion and politics, are just heating up for the GOP primary.

Do you think it gets worse before it gets better?

Any of my non-LDS readers have a problem with Mitt’s religion or past as a lay leader of the religion?

I’m a Member…

Yes, I’m an official member of the Colbert SuperPAC.

If you want more information about the awesome Colbert SuperPAC, I suggest you watch a few clips of the Colbert Report.

Announcing his PAC, but Viacom says he can’t have one…

The Colbert Report Mon – Thurs 11:30pm / 10:30c
Viacom Ruins Stephen’s PAC Dream
www.colbertnation.com
Colbert Report Full Episodes Political Humor & Satire Blog Video
Archive

Stephen exploits a loophole created by the Supreme Court to create a SUPER PAC instead!

The Colbert Report Mon – Thurs 11:30pm / 10:30c
Corp Constituency
www.colbertnation.com
Colbert Report Full Episodes Political Humor & Satire Blog Video Archive

Files FEC papers…

The Colbert Report Mon – Thurs 11:30pm / 10:30c
Colbert Super PAC – Stephen Addresses Colbert Super Nation
www.colbertnation.com
Colbert Report Full Episodes Political Humor & Satire Blog Video Archive

What is it for? It’s for the children…

The Colbert Report Mon – Thurs 11:30pm / 10:30c
Colbert Super PAC – For the Children
www.colbertnation.com
Colbert Report Full Episodes Political Humor & Satire Blog Video Archive

Stephen Colbert created the SuperPAC in response to SarahPAC’s abbreviated bus tour in which she spent fundraiser money to wrap a huge motorhome and take a family vacation to important historical sites (botching the founding story all along the way and being tailed by a coup of ravenous reporters).  Oh yeah, she contributed to political campaigns and candidates as well.

Basically, Stephen’s PAC is committed to raising huge sums of money from nameless donors to support an arbitrary cause.

The real cause, obviously, is to point out the absurdity of the PAC itself – that in America we can give unlimited amounts of money anonymously to engage in subversive and ethically questionable political activities in order to get people elected.  In this case, even though the Supreme Court ruled that money is speech, Stephen happens to think (as do I) that they are wrong.  (Case in point: we are all born with 1 mouth, but we are not all born with $100 in our pockets)

The PAC itself is tending to be super absurd in itself, including the introductory FORM email I got from them:

Ohh… I just love it.  Keep it up Colbert!!!

If I Were Mitt’s Political Strategist…

Many of my friends and family are Mitt supporters.  If you’ve followed my blog a long time, you’ll know I was really bullish on Mitt in ’08 as well.  I still think he would have been a better candidate in the general election than McCain.

My wife asked me the other day – if you a Romney’s strategist, what would you tell him?  And here it is…

Continue reading If I Were Mitt’s Political Strategist…

The Secret of Good Government

A while back, I watched a 60 minutes episode and was really impressed with two of the pieces.

First, the piece on John Boehner turned him from a stoic, orange, minority leading, whiner, into a real human being. I have to say, I was really impressed with his story of truly coming up from nothing and becoming 3rd in line to being the President of the US. The blubbering got a little distracting – but I can empathize with a man who wears his emotions on his sleeve. It really is impressive to see someone who worked his way through college cleaning toilets become Speaker of the House. That is the story of America: anyone can become anything with enough work and luck.

I was a little turned off by his refusal to say the word “compromise.” Leslie Stahl really tried hard to get him to say the word, and finally he basically said that his new constituents have assigned the word a negative connotation. That is the definition of the sad state of politics in our nation, it’s not popular to compromise. You have to WIN. It has to be YOUR WAY or the HIGHWAY – or just stall long enough until you can pin enough negative things on the majority party and get back into power so they can then pull the same crappy tricks on you.

But — the most surprising tidbit of good advice for politicians everywhere actually came from a later interview in the same program with Presidente Lula of Brazil. He was first elected when I was in Brazil in 2000 on my mission, and he was a wildly successful politician and president. He said something that was most memorable in this broadcast:

It’s about 5:19.

“Success of an elected official is the art of doing the obvious. It is doing what everyone knows need to be done.”

I wish our politicians would subscribe to this statement a bit more. Rather than being power brokers, money grubbers, yarn spinners, and issue chameleons, why can’t we just get together and do the obvious stuff. We can solve fiscal problems by cutting spending and raising taxes. We can become more energy independent by drilling for oil here at home AND investing heavily in researching alternative fuels. Etc etc etc. Our solutions are in front of us, and we just need someone to be more comfortable with doing the obvious rather than who is up and who is down, who won last and what you can get for your vote.

Is an opinion “patriotic”?

I kind of got into it with a complete stranger on Facebook.  I guess I just need to get rid of all my Utah facebook friends, so I don’t get sucked into political discussions online – but this one is a little more generic, so I’ll throw it out here for the 3 of you who actually read my blog…

To give you background, in Utah, an old lady is running a negative ad against Jim Matheson (the democrat incumbent) and for the challenger republican (Morgan Philpot).  One of my Facebook friends works actively for his campaign, so it was no surprise when she posted the ad.  The ad itself isn’t disturbing or anything; it’s your run-of-the-mill negative ad, casting Matheson as a Pelosi cronie.  No big deal.  Let me emphasize, this isn’t about one candidate over another, I could care less who wins the election.

Here’s my issue… the title/subtitle of the ad: “Personal Patriotism” and “Random Acts of Patriotism”

Here is the exchange I had…

Now, here’s my question… Am I way off base here?

Does having a personal political opinion and buying up scobs of air time to express it count as a real “act of patriotism”?  Especially when you’re only using your first name which isn’t the same first name you actually go by in real life?

I didn’t even learn a stinking thing from her ad, not about Morgan Philpot anyways. What a waste.  Negative campaigning is the norm in politics today, but it doesn’t change the fact that it’s still tasteless.  If these guys don’t have enough virtues to get elected on their own merits, then I don’t want them in office anyways.

Acceptable Discrimination

I noticed something at our first OBGYN visit.  This particular OBGYN’s office was called “Associated Women’s Healthcare”.  After going, though, it should be called “Healthcare Administered by Associated Women.”

We arrived and all of the front desk people were women.  We went back and both nurses we saw were women.  The phlebotomist was a woman.  The sonographer was a woman.  The billing and insurance person was a woman.  Last but not least, the doctor was a woman.  There wasn’t a single man in the entire office, except the fathers-to-be.

There were women of all sizes, shapes, ethnicity, and background, but there was not a single man to be found.

I hesitate to believe that there just wasn’t a single qualified male doctor, nurse, phlebotomist, sonographer, or administrative assistant out there…

So why is it OK for this office to clearly discriminate against men in their hiring practices?

One of my favorite programs is NPR’s Planet Money.  They have a twice weekly podcast as well as a blog they keep up.  They regularly do stories for one of my other favorite programs, This American Life.  They have this incredible way of making economics relevant and interesting to people who aren’t economists.  It’s an incredible feat.

Here’s the deal though… just check out the names:

  • Adam Davidson, Correspondent
  • David Kestenbaum, Correspondent
  • Chana Joffe-Walt. Correspondent
  • Jacob Goldstein, Correspondent
  • Alex Blumberg, Contributing Editor

This is a list of some of the most Jewish names I’ve ever encountered. Now, certainly they have scores of staffers and interns who don’t have Jewish heritage, but it appears you have to have a very pronounced Jewish heritage to be an on-air personality for this show.

Look, I don’t have anything against women or Jews. I’m just saying, can you really so blatantly get away with stacking the cards with one class of individual without incurring the wrath of the government? Or do those anti-discrimination laws only apply to workplaces that are white, upper-middle-class, and male-dominated?

Just wondering…

Government Spending

When my father in law was here last, we had a good conversation about government spending.  A few days after, as I drove home from school, I threw on one of the recent NPR Planet Money Podcasts which told me that they were now going to devote a lot of time and attention in future podcasts to the topic of government spending, and would be looking to listeners to come up with ways to cut the federal budget.

Continue reading Government Spending