Bailing on Bain Capital

The Pension Benefit Guaranty Corporation (PBGC) is a Unites States Government Agency that protects the retirement incomes of retirees in the private-sector. It is financed by insurance premiums that it collects from companies that have defined benefit pension plans. Of course, it has investment income and assets from pension plans entrusted to it, as well as recoveries from the companies formerly responsible for the plans. You can think of it as an FDIC for pension funds.

Suppose you are a company that is struggling to stay alive, say, because you manufacture buggy-whips, and your business plan is out of date. One thing you can do is close up shop, and sell your assets. With the proceeds, you can pay off your debts, and purchase annuities to pay for the retirement of your employees. Then you can walk away with your head held high.

Another way out of the situation is to find a white knight to rescue your company. The white knight could be a company like Bain Capital. Bain could give your company an infusion of capital with which to upgrade your product line. Let’s say their consultants suggest that you get out of buggy whips and into remote starters for automobiles, and change your name from Acme Buggy-Whips to Detroit Autostart. With the new capital, you can borrow a ton of money, and buy some robots to make remote starters. The gains in efficiency allow you to cut costs by firing workers. The cost savings allow you to pay a nice consulting fee to those Bain Capital consultants who had the wisdom and insight to see the problems of the buggy whip business.

When I say a nice consulting fee, I mean a fee that is so generous that it sucks all of the liquid capital out of your company. Uh-oh. Where are you going to get the money to pay off those debts? Here’s an idea: screw the debtors. The bankruptcy courts are at your beck and call. And, as Mitt Romney famously said, “Let Detroit go bankrupt.”

Shed no tears for the creditors who sold you robots to make auto-starters. They knew what they were doing. They looked at your books and decided that your company had a place in their portfolio. They assessed the risks, and charged an interest rate that was commensurate with those risks. If they made 500 loans like the one to you, and yours is the only one to go south, they will be okay.

The employees are another story. They actually earned those benefits with their labor. They went to work on the assumption that you would fund their retirements. They can’t hedge with 500 other pensions, and that’s why the PBGC exists. The government will pick up the pension liability and the worker’s will not have to live out their retirements in poverty and despair.

When you made obscene amounts of money on “consulting fees,” laid off a bunch of workers, and skipped out on their retirements, you really can’t walk away with your head held high. After all, insurance – which is what the PBGC is – usually doesn’t insure against losses that the insured causes. So some shame is appropriate. Unless you have no conscience, in which case, you can get the Republican nomination for the Presidency of the United States of America. After all, it’s the United States of America who sucked up your obligations to your workers.

One question remains. How much did the United States government pay to bail out the companies that Bain Capital led into bankruptcy?

“…and tell ’em Big Mitch sent ya!”

Mitt Romney’s religion

Originally Appeared FRIDAY, MAY 11, 2007

Mitt Romney’s religion

According to Time Magazine, 29% of American voters say they would not vote for a Mormon presidential candidate. Back in November, a Rasmussen poll, had 43% saying they would never consider voting for a Mormon and only 38% said they would even consider casting such a vote. Nineteen per cent were not sure.

This is disgusting in a country founded on religious liberty and bound together by a Constitution which states “no religious Test shall ever be required as a Qualification to any Office or public Trust under the United States.”

Growing up in New York, I had never met a Mormon, until I happened to sit next to one on the bus from my upstate college town to New York City. I continued in ignorance of what the LDS church believes and practices for many years, and it was not until the mid-1970’s that I got to count a member of the church among my friends.

When Jimmy Carter became President, there was a sudden upsurge of interest in the Southern Baptist church, which theretofore had been vaguely foreign to most northerners like me. Perhaps we will see a similar spurt of interest in the Church of Jesus Christ of the Latter-day Saints with the ascendancy of Mitt Romney and Senate Majority leader Harry Reid. For example, the Frontline/American Experience shows on PBS aired a four-hour series on The Mormons.

There is much to be admired in the culture of the Mormons, and plenty that is troubling in the history of this uniquely American church. (In the latter category consider the Mountain Meadows massacre and polygamy.)

But let us focus on that which is to be praised. One cannot learn about the Mormons and not be impressed with their devotion to the family. Consider the advertisements that the Mormons run on TV. The tagline is, “Family: isn’t it about time?” It is a Mormon practice to set aside Monday evenings for family home activities. The Mormon attitude to family is also reflected in the practice of genealogy and posthumous baptism. Mormons don’t get married “until death do us part,” but rather, for all eternity.

I am all in favor of family values and I love my family. But when I watched the Frontline series on The Mormons I realized that they have a different appreciation of the role of family. If I may be forgiven my presumptuousness, I would say that Mormons believe that the family provides for the individual and the individual should look primarily to the family to have his or her material and spiritual needs met.

It is insulting to Mitt Romney to acknowledge that he is a Mormon but deny that he is moved by the basic values of Mormonism. In any event, he gives us no reason to doubt that he is guided by his faith. For example, on his website he states: Americans are “a purpose-driven people founded on the family unit.” (Union Leader, March 19, 2006)

As I say, this may be laudable in a person’s personal life. Clearly, family is a great source of strength to the members of the LDS church. But what does it mean for a candidate for the office of the presidency?

It means that government doesn’t need to help people: that’s what families are for.

It means that government doesn’t need to provide a safety net for individuals because they can and should rely on their families when life deals them a harsh hand.

It means that government doesn’t need to create opportunity for individuals because people have unlimited opportunities in the context of their families.

It means that people who don’t share in the values of the conventional family don’t share in the values our national government, and therefore, it is not the role of government to protect their civil rights.

Mitt Romney is a conservative and as that term has come to be understood in the 21st century that means he is openly hostile to the institutions of government. Of course, he won’t come out and say that in so many words. He would like to see the role of government reduced as far as possible. And the way he sells this idea is to propose that the functions of government be performed by “the family.”

I take a back seat to no one when it comes to love of my family. But we are part of a greater society. Which is why I would never vote for Mitt Romney, or for that matter any of the buffoons I saw standing on the podium at the Reagan Library last week.

“… and tell ’em Big Mitch sent ya!”

Two and a half dollars worth of gaseous bloviating

In July of 2008, the President was George W. Bush and the average price for a gallon of gas was $4.12. Today, it is $3.87 cents. Why, then, are Republicans continually telling us that prices for gas doubled because of the policies of President Barack Obama? How can they tell a lie like that?

Let’s answer the second question first. These liars have incredible chutzpah. Second, they have no conscience. Third, they are highly motivated because not only does the lie improve the chances of an electoral victory, but it also serves the interests of Big Oil, the god to whom Republicans pray.

Like all good lies, there is a kernel of truth in the utterance. Under G. W. Bush, America was thrown into a deep recession, which might have turned into a second Great Depression, but for the heroic acts of Barack Obama.  By the fall of 2008, the economy had deteriorated to such an extent that Republican candidate John McCain talked about suspending his campaign to deal with the urgent problems, President Bush supported bailouts for the financial sector, and the mess that laissez-faire economics had created was spreading chaos throughout the world.  As a result, demand for gas fell off a cliff, and the cost of a gallon of gas sunk like a stone to an average of around a buck seventy five.

Next time you hear a Republican say that gas prices doubled under President Obama, remember this: The Republican plan for lowering gas prices is to create the worst recession since the Great Depression. Give credit where credit is due: it worked.

One buffoon says that if he is elected President, he will lower gas prices to $2.50. He proposes to do this by increasing production. As stated earlier, such an assertion requires chutzpah and psychological pathology, and Newt Gingrich has more than most. Let’s just take a look at why this lie is so egregious.

If increased oil production could lower gas prices, then Obama would be the king of gas price lowering. The U.S. was pumping 6.7 million barrels a day in December ’08 and it rose to 8.2 Mb/day in Dec. ’11, an increase of 23%. That's the biggest three-year increase since 1970. Oil production dropped every year from 1985 until the trend reversed in 2009, when President Obama was inaugurated.  The United States in now a net exporter of oil.

Of course, we know that supply is only one part of the equation. What about demand? In broad strokes, the Obama administration has been recovering from a catastrophic recession for four years now. As we saw above, a recession like the one that Republican policies produced in 2008 causes demand to go down, and as a result prices fall. However, there is another way to reduce demand, a way that saves the environment and actually produces jobs, viz., improving fuel efficiency. In 2011, total consumption of gas fell by about 1.7% compared to 2008. This was in the midst of an economic recovery, which normally is accompanied by an increase in petroleum consumption.

The U.S. automotive industry is producing more and better cars, including hybrids and all-electric models, and whatever the Chevy Volt is, thereby reducing demand for gas. The U.S. automotive industry also owes its life to the bailouts that Republicans are now railing against Obama for implementing. As Joe Biden puts it, “Bin Laden is dead and G.M. is alive thanks to Barack Obama.”

Let’s go back to Newt Gingrich. He has said that $2.50 is the max that people would pay for gas, if they follow a simple step by step outline of how to do it, and the plan is posted on newt.org. His plan is short on concrete solutions, unless you include changing the name of the Environmental Protection Agency to the Environmental Solutions Agency as a concrete step.

He does propose new taxes on oil and gas producers to fund research, but how he reconciles that with his free market doxology is beyond me, except for the fact that he calls the new taxes “royalties.”  Consistency has not always been Gingrich’s strong suit, so it is not surprising that while he is railing against blossoming deficits, he is also saying we can afford to “Give coastal states federal royalty revenue sharing to give them an incentive to allow offshore development.”

The most concrete thing that he proposes is that we should “End the ban on oil shale development in the American West, where we have three times the amount of oil as Saudi Arabia.” It’s a permutation on “drill, baby, drill,” and as a sound-bite it shares the same virtue, i.e., simplicity. But will it work? Of course, not. Here’s why.

Basically, to get to $2.50 a gallon gas, the price of oil has to go down to $63.00 a barrel, about half of the present cost.  Even the dramatic increase in production under President Obama didn’t prevent oil from going to $108/bbl in December of 2011. Lifting the ban on production of shale oil won’t lower the price of a barrel of oil to $63.00 for one simple reason: at that price, it is not profitable. Over the next several years, the world price of oil is likely to average over $100/barrel, and if the ban on shale oil is lifted, the oil companies will sell it at World Market prices and reap huge profits. At best, there might be a slightly lower cost of oil for the world market – down ever so little from $120 a barrel, certainly not enough to justify the environmental costs. But you know what they say, “What’s good for Big Oil, is good for Republicans.”

Well, maybe they don’t say that yet. But we can all hope that the scales will fall away from the eyes of voters before  the next election.

“… and tell ’em Big Mitch sent ya!”

The Real Attack on Religious Freedom

Birth control is of interest to women and the men who love them. The Republicans are dumber than mud if they think they can gain a single vote in America by trying to make it more difficult to get birth control. They could lose twenty million votes on this issue alone, and a party that is so good at winning elections knows this.

Republicans are unscrupulous, disingenuous, dishonest, and greedy, but the leadership must know by now that birth control is a huge loser for them. Santorium has his own theology, by which I mean, theology, and it is opposed to birth control, but even he has backed off of considering it as a prescription for governance.

So what gives with the Issa horse and pony show?

Here’s the scoop. Originally HHS proposed a rule that required that every employer who is obliged by the Affordable Care Act to provide insurance shall also provide reproductive health care coverage. It’s not a controversial issue: indeed, it’s the law in over twenty states now. And, it is the practice of a number of Catholic institutions including the DePaul university, the largest Catholic university in the nation, and the largest private institution in the President’s hometown of Chicago.

But somehow the Bishops decided that they needed to get involved in politics, and they attacked President Obama, declaring that they were offended by a requirement that they claimed to object to on grounds of conscience. Many Catholics, including Democrats rallied around the church which they had been told was under attack. Nevermind, that the vast majority of them have used birth control. The prospect of harming Obama, and maybe even helping Santorium was just too tempting.

Obama was quick to act. He produced a compromise that required the insurers to pick up the tab for reproductive health care services for any institution that had moral objections to paying for it. The Catholic Hospital Association signed on to the deal, and the initial reaction of the bishops was favorable, too.

But the Republicans sensed weakness. They quickly realized that there were people who had moral objections to doing anything that Obama proposed. They argued that they, too, should have a conscientious objector’s pass on Obama care. This, said they, was a matter of First Amendment religious freedom.

You can usually count on the Republicans to overplay their hand, and this is a perfect example. Republican talking heads are trying desperately to continue to frame this as a freedom of conscience issue, but they won’t be able to keep it up for much longer.

Rick Santorium is a culture warrior, especially on the subject of abortion. As this plays out, he is likely to pay a price. It will be for future historians to determine how much the issue cost him in Michigan where is currently favored to win the primary. I think his chances are not as good as the polling suggests. Nate Silver has him with a 57% chance of winning, and intrade.com has him at 59.2 per cent.

Now here’s what got Big Mitch ticked off. These buffoons are messing with the First Amendment. When they get slapped down, it will be a major instance of scum-bags trying to claim religious freedom for nefarious purposes. It may work for Scientology but that’s because we tend to be willing to error on the side of religious liberty. But the scam caught up with Synanon. And it will catch up with the Republican bastards, too. And when it does, it will cast suspicion on anyone who has a legitimate claim under the First Amendment.

Well, what do you expect from the people who allow white supremacists like Peter Brimelow to give an address at the CPAC convention? Do you think they care about religious freedom?

“… and tell ’em Big Mitch sent ya!”

A New World Record -- for Hypocrisy

Here’s what Mitt Romney said to CPAC today.

“This is a moment when our country needs serious change and dramatic reform. So let me tell you exactly what kind of president I will be. To get America back on track, and to get Americans back to work we need bold and sweeping reforms. These aren’t managerial issues of changing this department or that agency. To change Washington we are going to have to change the very relationship between the government and the citizen. And these are moral choices that will define our nation and define us for generations to come. Let me mention a few of them. Today, as you know we borrow 40 cents of every dollar we spend. That’s unconscionable; it is unsustainable; it is reckless; it is immoral. And it will end under my presidency.”

Let’s examine the world class hypocrisy of this statement.

Romney is able to compete, not because he is popular, but rather because he is so fabulously wealthy that he can outspend any competitor, and crush them. Even still, he lost every county in Minnesota, every county is Missouri, and Colorado, to the incredibly underfunded campaign of Rick Santorium.

I wouldn’t normally be concerned about how another person made his or her money, although when a guy has Swiss bank accounts, and money stashed in other off-shore tax havens, I admit my curiosity is piqued. But what makes Romney’s wealth acquisition the subject of my interest is the fact that he is running for President. He made his money in business, and the idea that he is promoting is that what he did for the companies that he did not cannibalize, he can do for the country.

So bear with me for a moment while we talk about leveraged buyouts.

A leveraged buyout (LBO) is a way that one company takes over another. Let’s call the company doing the hostile takeover Bain Capital. And let’s call the other company Victims’R’Us. What Bain does is put some of its money at risk, and tries to buy the entire company. But it doesn’t want to spend too much of its money because, you see, it’s not really that committed to the long term success of the Victims’R’Us. 

So, what to do? Bain borrows the money to buy the rest of Victims’R’Us, and secures it with the assets of the target company. As the founder of the Republican party said, “It may seem strange that any men should dare to ask a just God’s assistance in wringing their bread from the sweat of other men’s faces, but let us judge not, that we be not judged.” And so, in that spirit, let us forebear to judge those who wring corporations from the sweat of their owner’s brow.

Except that Mitt Romney won’t forebear to judge. He tells us that to borrow 40% of what you spend is immoral, and, I call that judgmental. But I will accept his judgment.

Here’s a little fun-fact: In a typical LBO, the ratio of debt to equity is 9:1. That means that 90% of the assets are paid for with borrowed money. And, depending on the company’s financial health, it will usually be financing spending by much more than 100%. Much more.

Now, this is what Romney did. This is the record that he is running on. This is the raison d’être for his candidacy, and its entire rationale. It may seem strange that Romney would call it unconscionable, unsustainable, reckless, and immoral. But let us judge not, that we be not judged.

And here’s another fun-fact: a lot of what Victims’R’Us spend money on is consulting fees for Bain Capital. I mean a lot of money! They are not just wringing their bread from the sweat of Victims’R’Us. They are wringing the neck of Victims’R’Us. But due to a little catch in the Tax Code, the paycheck that they get as consultants, is not taxed as if it were a paycheck. Instead, it is called “carried interest,” That’s why Mitt Romney pays less that 15% on the 21.6 million dollars of income that he admitted to on his 2010 tax return.

It’s good work if you can get it.

“… and tell ’em Big Mitch sent ya!”

What did Hillary Clinton say, and when did she say it?

Recently, the enemies of Obama, for their own reasons, have reacted with horror to something that Hillary Clinton said. Oh, dear! What could it have been?

Some say that she compared Israel to Iran. Of course, people who say this can’t possibly believe it, since Mrs. Clinton has re-affirmed the deep and abiding alliance between the United States and Israel, and at this very moment, the Department of Defense is drawing up war plans against Iran.

Perhaps we will never know what she said, since whatever it was it was allegedly said at the Saban Center  for Mid-East Policy of the Brookings Institute. The comments were off the record. Israeli media reported that Secretary of State Hillary Clinton derided “anti-Democratic” measures in Israel that target liberal non-governmental organizations and women.

Let’s take a look at the accusation that the treatment of women in Israel is, lehavdil, to be compared to Iran.

The gist of this complaint revolves around treatment of women by certain Jews who consider themselves to be extremely religious. They’re not, of course. What they are is extremely crazy. Thus, for example, they thought it was okay to spit on a young girl because she was dressed immodestly according to their standards. It should be noted that she wore the prim and proper attire of an 8 year old Orthodox Jewish girl, which is what she was, but this did not stop the despicable conduct that included calling her a prostitute. You can find the reaction of a mainstream Orthodox organization here.  Money quote: “Your actions are diametrically opposed to Judaism.” Chabad was unstinting in its denunciation: “Violent behaviors of individuals or groups who abuse, intimidate and insult others are a flagrant offense to Torah, and deserve to be unequivocally condemned.” Read the entire statement here.

The story first gained attention when it made the evening news in Israel. The story, which can be seen here, shows an Orthodox woman comparing the zealous lunatics to Iran. Indeed, the backlash which was both welcome and inevitable, has adopted as a slogan, “Don’t turn Israel into Iran.” Is Hillary Clinton to be criticized for saying essentially the same thing?

By the way, the growing influence of the lunatic fringe has manifested in other unfortunate incidents. In one incident, a meshugana physically prevented a public bus from moving because a female passenger refused to move to the back of the bus. Anybody who knows anything about America’s shameful history of segregation and the bravery of Rosa Parks can’t help but have a visceral reaction to this event. That would include Mrs. Clinton. Many lovers of Zion hear of this and feel that the image of Israel as an egalitarian democracy that is a homeland to all Jews, including secular Jews, is being tarnished. That, too, would include Mrs. Clinton. All honor to those who think that it is disrespectful of women to sit behind them, but I can not support their right to set the standards for public transportation for all of Israel. 

In another incident, a few soldiers, drafted from the ranks of the Haredi (religious), walked out of a military event because a female soldier sang, and listening to a female voice is against their view of proper conduct. It would not have been a big deal because the IDF rebuked the company commanders and instructed them to show sensitivity to the religious choices of their troops. Again, I respect the religious choices of the troops, though they are certainly not the ones I would make. And more power to these troops for defying the norms of their community to serve their country. If the matter had ended there we would not be talking about it here. However, in what is was surely an attempt to be provocative, one of the rabbis said that his followers should “face a firing squad” rather than obey an order which required them to hear a woman sing. This rabbi surely would not approve of his followers being in the army of a Zionist state. It is reasonable to think that this religious leader is trying to undermine the secular nature of Israel, and I can understand why any American Secretary of State would find it a matter of concern.

So, enough said about Hillary Clinton’s criticism of the religious extremists who are gaining influence in Israel. I join in those criticisms, and echo the sentiment of many Orthodox Jews, that these zealots are threatening to turn Israel from a democracy into a theocracy. We have enough theocracies, of which Iran is a despicable example.

The tougher issue concerns some anti-Democratic measures that are being legislated in Israel, most notorious of which is the so-called NGO bill. The Forward wrote about it in the December 23, 2011 issue under the headline Orwell Would Love Israel's Anti-NGO Bill with the sub-head “Move to Limit Funding Runs Counter to Global U.S. Policy”

The bill has three parts: First, it outlaws all foreign government funding of certain types of non-governmental organizations (NGOs) that are deemed threatening to the state. It also taxes their domestic Israeli donations at 45%. Second, it slaps a 45% tax on foreign donations to “political” NGOs such as Peace Now and B’Tselem (which monitors human rights violations of Israeli law in the territories) and the Israeli equivalent of the ACLU. Third, it creates a Knesset (not judicial or administrative) panel to hear appeals by organizations seeking exemption. The Forward’s article concludes, “The more you look at it, the more it becomes clear that the effect of the bill — its main intent, in fact — is to restrict or outlaw the advocacy of observing the laws of the state. Orwell would have loved it.”

You can read the Forward article to see why many Americans of good will believe this bill is bad news, even, anti-Democratic. Does Hillary Clinton have the right to such an opinion? Of course! But should she publicly criticize America’s closest ally? You be the judge, but remember, please, that Secretary Clinton’s comments were behind closed doors at the Saban Center.

A word or two about the kind of NGOs that Mrs. Clinton may or may not have criticized Israel for attacking. NGOs were in the news when another mid-Eastern country cracked down on them. You can read about it on the Huffington Post: Egypt Pro-Democracy, Human Rights Offices Stormed By Soldiers.

The Obama administration demanded Egyptian authorities immediately halt the raids on NGOs, saying they are “inconsistent” with long-standing U.S-Egypt cooperation.

The U.S. State Department called on the Egyptian government “to immediately end the harassment of NGO staff, return all property and resolve this issue.” Department spokeswoman Victoria Nuland said the U.S. ambassador to Egypt and the top U.S. diplomat for the Middle East have spoken to Egyptian officials about the situation and “made very clear that this issue needs immediate attention.”  Senator Patrick Leahy (D-Vt) threatened to cut off the $1.5 billion aid to the Egyptian Supreme Counsel of the Armed Forces (SCAF). As a result, Egyptian ministers are scurrying around to announce that they were shocked, shocked, to learn of the raids.

Contrast this to the mild rebuke of Israel, offered privately as one friend to another.

You don’t have to be a high level CIA analyst to figure out that these NGOs do more than just offer civics lessons to community organizers. Let’s take a look at the ones that were targeted by SCAF.

One of the pro-democracy/human rights offices was the International Republican Institute (IRI) an organizati­on funded by the United States government that conducts international political programs, sometimes labeled “democrati­zation programs.” Sen. John McCain is the chairman. 

Another was the National Democratic Institute for Internatio­nal Affairs (NDIIA or NDI), an organizati­on created by the United States government by way of the National Endowment for Democracy (NED) to channel grants for furthering democracy in developing nations. Taxpayer funding is provided by the Federal Government­, both directly from the United States Agency for Internatio­nal Developmen­t and the Department of State and indirectly through the National Endowment for Democracy. Additional funds are raised through voluntary donations from foreign governments. It is headquarte­red in Washington­ D.C. 

Freedom House was another group targeted by the Egyptian military. Freedom House’s website states “American leadership in internatio­nal affairs is essential to the cause of human rights and freedom” and that this can primarily be achieved through the group's “analysis, advocacy, and action” 

I am going to go out on a limb here and suggest that maybe having these types of NGOs operating next door to Egypt might help that country transition to a real democracy rather than one which comes to power through elections but then imposes an Islamist, Muslim Brotherhood agenda.

If so, I can understand why our Secretary of State might reprove the Israeli government for actions that seem to target these NGOs. As supporters of Israel, we can only hope that she does it privately and quietly. You know, like at the Saban Center. 

“… and tell ’em Big Mitch sent ya!”

Yesterday's big news

When the history of the 2012 Presidential election is written, few will note that November 28, 2011 was the day when it became unassailably obvious that Barak Obama would be re-elected.

What was the news break? Was it Manchester Union-Leader’s endorsement of Newt Gingrich? Or was it when Ginger White revealed her long and recent affair with Herman Cain?

None of the above.

Newt Gingrich was the soup de jour on the Any-But-Romney buffet. But New Hampshire is near Massachusetts, and the editorial board of the Union-Leader was familiar with Romney. Familiarity had the predictable multiplier effect on contempt, and nobody was surprised when the paper gave Mitt the back if its hand. That Gingrich would be the beneficiary, may have been an unforeseen godsend to the President. After all, Alex Wagner, hostess of the MSNBC morning news show, Now, actually uttered this sentence: “‘Loathsome’ is a word often used in connection with Newt Gingrich.” And yet, there are those who believe that Gingrich can actually win the election.

Herman Cain had no chance of being President for reasons too numerous to catalogue here. It could be argued that his demise as a candidate helps the Republican party because it shakes up the field and may advance the day when a real competitor will be sifted out.

The real news that was an answer to my question and to the President’s prayers came on the Rachel Maddow show, when guest Buddy Roemer announced that if he didn’t win the Republican nomination, he would run on the America Votes ticket.

Buddy Who? Roemer was a member of Congress before he became the governor of Louisiana. He was the CEO of a private company and made his fortune there. Legislative experience, executive experience in government and private enterprise – call it the tri-fecta. He has been an advocate for election reform for many years and he has limited contributions to his campaign to under $100. As a result, he has not been invited to any of the Republican debates because those who sponsor the debates only invite viable candidates and hold that any candidate who has not raised a certain amount of money is not viable. It has been said of Roemer, that he is “a dynamic orator who could light up an audience with his first two sentences. When he got wound up it was truly evangelical and, he made sense. His wiry, five foot seven, one-hundred thirty-five pound frame would seem to uncoil and grow as he outlined his vision as a fighter against crime, corruption and waste in government, poor education, taxes and industrial pollution.”

As governor, Roemer called a special session of the legislature to push an ambitious tax and fiscal reform program for state and local governments. He vowed to slash spending, abolish programs, and close state-run institutions. Voters ultimately rejected his proposals, but times have changed, and what he served up is just what the Republicans are hungry for. Roemer vetoed an anti-abortion law, on grounds that it was unconstitutional. His veto was over-ridden, but in the end, he was vindicated because the law was, in fact, ruled unconstitutional. Though he is twice divorced, and thrice married, his personal life does not have the baggage connected with the salacious details and hypocrisy of Newt Gingrich.

In short, he is a perfect match for America Votes.

America who? America Votes is a grass roots organization that seeks to change the way that we select Presidential candidates. It intends to have a national internet primary. It promises the victor 50 state ballot access. Given Roehmer’s go-go (good government) credentials, he seems like a prohibitive odds-on favorite to win the internet primary.

What does it mean? It means that in every state, Republicans who are disenchanted with their candidate will have a choice other than voting for the President or staying home. It is obvious that a lot of Republicans who don’t like Romney will hold their nose and vote for him. But a good two or three percent of Republicans are either too bigoted to vote for a Mormon, or just simply feel, as I do, that Romney doesn’t care about people like me. A one or two point decline in support for Romney in key states is all it takes to deliver them to Obama.

Gingrich’s road is an uphill, long shot battle as is, but if one or two percent of his hoped-for voters defect to Roemer, he can wave goodbye to any hope of being elected. Thanks, Buddy!

“… and tell ’em Big Mitch sent ya!”

If you are a one issue voter, and your one issue is Israel

A friend of mine, whom I respect greatly, recently said that any one of the Republican hopefuls is preferable to Barack Obama. Maybe this is because she thinks that Obama is not a staunch enough supporter of Israel.

I was thinking of this while watching the Sunday talk shows today. This week, the Defense Minister and former Prime Minister of Israel, Ehud Barak appeared on the Sunday morning talk show, Fareed Zakaria GPS. The host is editor-at-large and a columnist for TIME magazine, and a columnist for The Washington Post.

 I found this exchange particularly interesting:

ZAKARIA: You know that there are people in the United States who've criticized President Obama for not supporting Israel strongly enough. Do you believe that President Obama is a very strong supporter of Israel?   

BARAK: He is extremely strong supporter of Israel in regard to - to its security. Traditionally, the president will support in Israel in keeping its collective military edge and taking care of its security needs. But this administration is excelling in this. And it could not have happened without the immediate direct support of the president. So I don't think that anyone can raise any question mark about the devotion of this president to the security of Israel.  

It doesn't mean that we cannot have difference of opinion at this or that point about this or that other aspect of what happens around us, Middle East or the peace process. I would love to see the American president agree to everything that comes from  our government, but I think that's too - kind of idealistic. 

 What does Ehud Barack know, that my friend does not?

It should be recalled that President Obama has successfully fought off Palestinian membership in the General Assembly, and is the first President to explicitly recognize that Israel is a “Jewish State,” (i.e. no right of return for Palestinians.)

To help insure the safety and security of Israel, the Obama administration has realized unprecedented levels of military cooperation with the state of Israel. The administration’s request for $2.775 billion to aid in Israel in fiscal year 2010 was the largest request in history. In F.Y. 2011, the administration requested even more: $3 billion.

“We’re talking about the realization of the Iron Dome missile defense system that will be funded out of this money and it will be saving Israeli lives from rockets, wherever they come from. That is real-that is not just a number, folks, that is a real live tangible impact on Israelis’ lives," according to Jarrod Bernstein, the President's Jewish community laison.

The President is winning the diplomatic war over Iran’s nuclear program. “On Iran, the president has spent more time trying to block Iran’s nuclear ambitions than any other foreign policy issue,” Bernstein said. “And it’s something that he raises every single time he’s in a room with a foreign world leader, about what more we can be doing.”

 “He’s also galvanized the international community to impose the toughest set of sanctions on Iran to date. In fact, he made the Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad acknowledge in the Iranian parliament how hard of a time he’s having because of the American sanctions. And that is not something you hear very often in Iran, folks,” said Bernstein.

Finally, President Obama called for a “non-militarized” Palestinian state. No President has ever taken such a pro-Israel stance, and it is remarkable that this position has not drawn more attention. What has drawn attention is his call for a return to pre-1967 borders, with agreed upon swaps. This is essentially the same as  President G.W. Bush's demand outlined in a press release dated January 10, 2008 in which he referred to the Israeli presence in all of Jerusalem as an  “occupation.”

“The point of departure for a permanent status negotiations to realize this vision seems clear: There should be an end to the occupation that began in 1967. ... While territory is an issue for both parties to decide, I believe that any peace agreement between them will require mutually agreed adjustments to the armistice lines of 1949 to reflect current realities and to ensure that the Palestinian state is viable and contiguous.”

And of course, this is the position of the Israeli government, too.

 Well, maybe my friend thinks that there is a Republican who is a better candidate than Obama on Israel or some other issue. So let’s take a look: For some time now the Republican presidential hopefuls have been campaigning and debating in hopes of being the last man or woman standing at the end of the nominating process. Mitt Romney has never been able to attract a following of more than 25% which is not surprising when one considers he is the spiritual godfather of individual mandates in healthcare reform.

Tim Pawlenty was seen as a reasonable alternative, except for the small problem that no body wanted to hear from him, much less give him money. So, after a flirtation with birther Donald Trump, the search for an alternative began in earnest.

 First up was Michelle Bachman, who, as I pointed out in these precincts wants to raise taxes on the poor in spite of her signature on a Grover Norquist pledge. She’s hoping for a second look now, but during her first pass, she could not think of anything to say other than “Make Obama a one-term President,” and repeal health care reform.

 The Republicans called out for another candidate and they got Rick Perry. The Texas governor who accused Romney of being a magnet for illegal aliens gives in-state tuition to illegal aliens attending college in his own state, and called anyone who disagreed with him “heartless.”

His pathetic debate performances highlighted the fact that he is not ready for prime time. A main ingredient in his stump speech, and, indeed, in his philosophy of government is that it should be streamlined by cutting out three government departments. On the test question, “Can you name them?” he got 67% right.

As if the comedian’s-full-employment-act had suddenly been signed into law, up popped Herman Cain, who clearly didn't know what is meant by “Palestinian right of return,” when asked about it.  Long before Cain was running for president and getting attention for his “bold 9-9-9 plan,” the residents of SimCity 4 -- which was released in 2003 -- were living under a system where the default tax rate was 9 percent for commercial taxes, 9 percent for industrial taxes and 9 percent for residential taxes.

During a debate in Iowa, the former CEO of Godfather’s Pizza recited his favorite inspirational quote: “A poet once said, ‘life can be a challenge, life can seem impossible, but it’s never easy when there’s so much on the line.’”

 The poet? It’s from the theme of Pokémon: The Movie 2000, sung by the great disco queen Donna Summers.

Then came the sexual scandals, which, bad enough though they were, were not the worst of it. That would be his disastrous handling of the accusations which included thinly veiled threats aimed at other women inclined to come forward, and statements to the effect that there were thousands of women who he did not sexually harass.

The shameless invocation of Justice Thomas’s memorable phrase “high tech lynching,” was especially offensive because (1) I believe Anita Hill, (2) Our attitudes and understanding about sexual harassment has evolved since then, thanks, in part to Dr. Hill's bravery, (3)Thomas should not have been confirmed, and should in fact be impeached, and, (4) Cain was pretty darn quick to play the race card when it suited him.

What seemed like it must be the final stake through his heart was his gaffe in which he responded to a question about Libya with no apparent idea if he was talking about a country in Africa, in which President Obama had masterfully overseen the ousting of a vicious dictator/terrorist, or the tattooed lady made famous by Groucho Marx:  

You might think that was the end of Cain, but as it happens he managed to go downhill from there. Recall, if you will that Cain had once campaigned on a promise that all bills would be required to be no longer than three pages. Jon Stewart did an impersonation of Cain and then threw up a mock billboard that read: “HERMAN CAIN 2012 - I DON'T LIKE TO READ.”




Frankly, I thought it was hilarious. But in the immortal words of Ron Popiel, “Wait! There’s more!”

Cain tried to explain away his Libya gaffe by saying that the American people want “a leader, not a reader.” As goofy as the notion that Americans don’t want an informed President is, he trumped that, too! It turns out that the line was stolen from – wait for it – The Simpson’s Movie!



Next up is Newt Gingrich. The former lobbyist for Freddy Mac is hoping that he can get the nomination for President by vilifying his former client who paid him millions of dollars. This is the same Newt who said in September of 2008, “I think Senator McCain should have turned and said, ‘Senator Obama, are you prepared to give back all the money that Freddie Mac & Fannie Mae gave to you?’”

Things aren’t going well for Newt when Jack Abramoff accuses him of “engaging in the exact kind of corruption that America disdains.” Gingrich who has worked with Al Sharpton and Hillary Clinton also worked for the Heritage Foundation from whence Mitt Romney got the idea for individual mandates.

Gingrich has got more baggage than an airport carousel, but he has tried to excuse his serial philandering by saying that it was partly because of his “passion for this country.”  I can understand that excuse: I’ve seen Calista and I understand the joke to which the punch-line is “Do it for Old Glory." But what was Calista’s reasoning?

Maybe she is drawn to men with power – he was the Speaker of the House at the time that they began their affair. Maybe she just likes a guy with a million dollar line of credit at Tiffany’s, but that’s not the point. The point is the brazen hypocrisy of carrying on an affair while impeaching the President for – well, we all know what for.

I could go on for hours about Newt Gingrich’s personal failings but why bother? The guy is a pathetic liar, but that’s not why the Republicans will reject him. His real problem is that he is trying to court the religious right, most of whom are devout Southern Baptists. That’s the faith that he rejected when he converted to Roman Catholicism, a church which many Southern Baptists believe is headed by the anti-Christ.

 To me, they’re all gentiles, which I suppose is another thing I have in common with Jon Huntsman, besides the fact that neither one of us can get more than 3% support within the Republican party.

Luckily for Ron Paul, the media refuses to take him seriously, because if he ever gets the spotlight, his ugly association with his racist followers will pull the scab off an oozing wound on the Republican body politic.

Rick Santorum is the only guy I haven’t mentioned, and perhaps by the time you read this he will have run out of money. After all, he seems to be trying to be too conservative for the Tea Party, and his steadfast opposition to abortion and equality for gays is so extreme that even they realize that he is unelectable. The next President will probably have to win Pennsylvania, and Perry has already lost in state-wide election there.

So, what does it all add up to?

First, if you would be honest, you must admit that Obama is a staunch and able ally of Israel.

Second, he is going to be re-elected because there is no Republican who can win, and darn few that can be considered serious candidates.

Third, if you want to be a friend of Israel, give your support to Obama, so that he will continue to honor the opinions of “Lovers of Zion,” like myself and the friend I referenced above.

 “… and tell ‘em Big Mitch sent ya!”

The State of Palestinian Governance

In August 2005, Israel unilaterally withdrew from the Gaza Strip, and forcibly evicted Jewish settlers. Israel was criticized for this by Jews and Arabs alike.

In June 2007, elections were held in the Gaza, and Hamas won, although the legitimacy of the election is disputed. Be that as it may, the terrorist organization, Hamas promptly evicted the vanquished Palestinian Authority to the disputed territories of Judea and Sumaria, more commonly known as the West Bank. It is more accurate to say that Hamas won a civil war in Gaza than to credit with an electoral win. In no way, can the so-called election be considered a victory for democracy.

The Palestinian Authority, dominated by the terrorist organization formerly known as the PLO, are the same people who invented airplane hijacking and who ripped off their constituents to make Yassar Arafat fabulously wealthy.

Since the Hamas takeover of the Gaza, rockets have rained down on Israel from Gaza continuously. Hamas does not dispute that its goal is to destroy Israel, and any peace treaty that may be arrived at is seen by them as a first step towards that goal.

Meanwhile, the Palestinian Authority held elections and Mahmoud Abbas of the Fatah party became President. However, his term has expired and there is no legitimate leader of the Palestinian Authority, which has re-named itself the Palestinian National Authority. Abbas clings to power by the conceit of refusing to convene Palestinian Legislative Council on the transparent pretense that there are not enough people to constitute a legislative body.

In April 2011, Fatah and Hamas came to an agreement which allowed Hamas to join in the Palestinian Liberation Organization, and calling for elections within a year. If the coalition of Fatah and Hamas can hold together until the elections they will surely have a majority in the Palestinian Legislative Council. In other words, the proposed Palestinian state will be governed for a coalition that includes members who make no secret of their desire to destroy a member state of the U.N.

To review: Abbas is not the legitimate leader of the Palestinian National Authority, and the Palestinian National Authority is not the legitimate representatives of the Palestinians living in the disputed territories of the Gaza strip and the West Bank. The application to the United Nations for recognition as a state does not refer to recognized boarders but does include a government committed to the destruction of Israel. Of course, the application should be rejected.

Love or Obama or hate him, but give him credit for standing up for Israel at the United Nations and for opposing the idea of rewarding Palestinian intransigence with a state.

“… and tell ’em Big Mitch sent ya!”

Bachmann wants to RAISE taxes!

In South Carolina today, candidate Michelle Bachmann held a town hall meeting at Myrtle Beach. She took a question about taxes. Here's her response:

“The question ‘What will I do to bring in the 50% of people who don’t pay taxes?’ It is unbelievable that today, the latest statistics we have, is that 53% of American’s pay taxes, 47% do not. It may even be worse than that this year. This is incomprehensible. Because every person in this county – I don’t care who you are – you have a stake in the success of the United States of America. Every single person should pay something!”

There you have it, folks. Michele Bachmann is in favor of raising taxes as nearly half of all Americans.

Let us not forget that Ms. Bachmann also promised to get gas prices down to under $2.00 per gallon. Everyone knows that the only way to get that is to have a serious recession. So, at least we know where she stands: raising taxes on half of the population of the United States and causing economic havoc.

Sure, we know she was a little bat-shit crazy before this. But that has been mostly on social conservatism issues, like cure-the-gay, and submissive wives. There is a dash of anti-intellectualism that spices up her views on global warming and evolution. But she presents as a serious woman when it comes to her tax bona fides. That was then, and this is now, and now she is running to out crazy a guy who wants to be the President of the country he wants to secede from.

And yet, people are still betting on Obama to lose the election.

“... and tell ’em Big Mitch sent ya!”

“Give ’em hell, Barry!” Part 2

The Republican controlled Congress has brought the country to the brink of disaster. In Part 1, of this post, I argued that the clear path to victory for Barak Obama is to ignore the Republican nominee and run against Congress the way Harry S Truman did in 1948, earning for himself a second term and a place in history as one of the greatest upset victors in history.

As usual, the President does not seem to be taking my advice. I would not find this surprising in and of itself, but for the fact that Obama is such a smart man that I would have figured him to come to this on his own.

Instead, the President is said to be preparing a campaign that capitalizes on Romney’s shortcomings. People think Romney is weird. His business experience consists of buying companies, firing employees and selling the companies in parts – hardly the resume you want if the country is clamoring for jobs creation. Romney-care was the template for Obama-care, et cetera, ad nauseum.

Will it work? People hate negative campaigning but the fact is that it works, especially if the candidate isn’t perceived as the first one to go negative. But in the case of Obama there are special circumstances. First, as an incumbent, negative campaigning may be perceived as infra dig. Second, it is so counter to the President’s persona, as we have come to know it, that it may appear to be desperation. Beyond that, given Obama’s personality, whether or not he could pull it off is a fair question. Finally, there will be plenty of surrogates available to remind the public of why we don’t like Romney, and the question is what should the President do. What I have proposed is not inimical to surrogates attacking Romney.

But what would it look like if the President followed the advice of Big Mitch, and patterned his campaign after the 1948 campaign of President Truman? Let's take a look.

Harry Truman called a special session of Congress known as the Turnip Day session during his 1948 presidential campaign. The Research Division of the Democratic National Committee came up with the idea as a way to dramatize the differences between the Republican platform and the performance of the Republican Congress. The special session of Congress, which began on the day known as “Turnip Day” in Missouri, proved to be an effective strategy in Truman's campaign.

Batt, William L., Jr., Origin of the 1948 Turnip Day Session of Congress (Presidential Studies Quarterly, Vol 29 No 1 March 1999)

Today, in Michigan the President addressed factory workers. Here’s some of what he said:

You know, in the aftermath of this whole debt ceiling debacle, and when the markets going up and down like they are, there’s been a lot of talk in Washington right now that I should call Congress back early. The last thing we need is Congress spending more time arguing in D.C. (Applause.) What I figure is, they need to spend more time out here listening to you and hearing how fed up you are. (Applause.) That’s why I’m here. That’s why I’ll be traveling to a lot of communities like this one over the next week. That’s what Congress should be doing -- go back home, listen to people’s frustrations with all the gridlock. Listen to how frustrated folks are with the constant bickering and the unwillingness to compromise and the desire to score points, even if it’s at the expense of our country. And if they’re listening hard enough, maybe they’ll come back to Washington ready to compromise and ready to create jobs and ready to reduce our deficit -- ready to do what you sent them there to do.

Maybe he is just ignoring my advice. Or maybe he is laying the ground work for a call to convene Congress next summer. You know what they say in Missouri,

On the twenty-fifth of July, Sow your turnips, wet or dry...

“… and tell ’em Big Mitch sent ya!”

Romney is weird, but why mention it now?

Soon, I will post an addition to my previous post, “Give ’em hell!” But I want to quickly respond to the leaked news that Obama is planning to run a negative campaign against Romney. Look, this news didn’t leak out because of a slip of the tongue. Someone in the Obama corner planted it in the press for a reason. And what would that be?

Off the top of my head, they wanted to boost Romney’s chances of getting the nomination.

Here’s how it would work. Negative campaigning is perceived as a desperate tactic. Letting the story get out creates the impression that Romney is the only one that Obama is afraid of. That has to be good for Mitt.

Why would the President’s political team want to boost Romney’s chances of being nominated? They know any easy mark when they see one. They have been concerned about Huntsman for years, which accounts for why they sent him to the other side of the world. Gingrich is a capable orator, and he could damage the President even if he can’t win the election. After a little more exposure to wild-eyed craziness, a la Bachmann, Paul, and Cain, boring might start to look good, to the benefit of Pawlenty.

I didn’t mention Perry, because his craziness is of the squinty-eyed variety, redolent of George W. Bush. Suffice it to say of Perry, that the Bush people say he is “more interested in sound bites, than drilling down into the issues.” If you are too shallow for George W. Bush acolytes, you might as well have “No diving” tattooed on your forehead.

Of the three real potential candidates– Romney, Gingrich, and Pawlenty – Romney is easiest to beat.

Want an example? On the stump today in Arizona, Romney got laughed at for saying “Corporations are people.” Really, Mitt? Doesn't that mean that any corporation with a net income of more than $379,150 should be taxed at a marginal rate of 35%?*

Here’s another example: Tonight Faux News aired a debate in Iowa, in advance of the straw poll coming up this Saturday. Here’s Romney talking about withdrawing from Afghanistan:

Sometime within the next two years, we are going to draw down our troop strength and reach a point where the Afghan military is able to preserve the sovereignty of their own nation from the tyranny of the Taliban. That has to happen. It's time for the troops of Afghanistan to take on that responsibility, according to -- as I said in the last debate -- according to the timetable established and communicated by the generals in the field.

Those generals recommended to President Obama we should not start drawing our troops down until after the fighting season in 2012. He took a political decision to draw them down faster than that. That is wrong. We should follow the recommendation of the generals, and we should now look for the people of Afghanistan to pick up their fight and preserve that liberty that has been so dearly won.

Spoken like a real Commander-in-chief, Mitsy. You should just come out and say, “I will do whatever the Generals tell me to do, because I don’t know shit.” I realize that you can’t help to criticizing whatever the President does, but really, do you want to court the “we need to stay in Afghanistan longer” vote?

Good luck with that …

“ … and tell ‘em Big Mitch sent ya!”

* Tip o' the hat to my pride and joy.

Give ’em hell!

You could say that the midterm elections resulted in a shellacking. I’m talking about the 1946 midterm election which resulted in a Republican pick up of 55 seats in the House, giving them a majority. Democrats had controlled the house for 14 years. In the Senate, Republicans gained 12 seats and also took over the majority. The election was seen as a referendum on President Truman.

Two years later, Democrats regained control of congress and Truman, who had ascended to the presidency when FDR died, was returned to office. How did it happen, and what lessons does the 1948 election hold for us today?

In 1948, the Republican nominee was Thomas Dewey, popular governor of the largest state, New York. The easterner was chosen after a contentious convention rather than Senator Robert Taft of Ohio, who campaigned for the nomination as an isolationist. Harold Stassen, the wonder boy from Minnesota, who had knocked out any hopes of Douglas MacArthur’s supporters, could not extend his popularity beyond his Midwest base. When Stassen lost the Ohio primary to Taft, and then lost the first ever nationally broadcast debate to Dewey in advance of the Oregon primary, it was all over but the shouting.

Basically, Dewey’s success was as an eastern establishment Republican. He prevailed against challengers who wanted to abolish many of the New Deal social welfare programs that had been created in the 1930s, which they regarded as too expensive and harmful to business interests. Dewey had previous experience, having been the Republican nominee against Roosevelt in 1944, but he was unpopular with Republicans who considered him cold, stiff and calculating. He was compared to “the little man on the wedding cake,” by Teddy Roosevelt’s socialite daughter.

As you might expect, an incumbent President was the odds-on favorite to win the nomination of his party. However, Truman was not without detractors. Liberals were not enthusiastic supporters of Truman – the Progressive party had their own nominee, former Vice-president (under FDR) Henry Wallace. Nor was the Democratic Party popular in what had been called the solid south. Because of Truman’s support of civil rights, the southern Democrats peeled off and formed the States Rights Democratic Party, aka the Dixiecrats. They nominated Strom Thurmond.

Given the three way split in the Democratic party, and the fact that the Republicans had taken control of both houses of the United States Congress as well as a majority of state governorships during the 1946 midterm elections by running against Truman, it came as no surprise that public-opinion polls showed Truman trailing Republican nominee Dewey, sometimes by double digits, after the Democratic convention.

Interestingly, the conventional wisdom had it that the front-runner after the conventions would be the eventual winner. Accordingly, little attention was paid to polling in the run-up to the election, with the result that the 1948 election is remembered as one of the greatest upsets in the history of electoral politics.

Today, the talking heads are saying that Obama’s most likely opponent is Mitt Romney and that the President is a slight underdog. As of this writing, Intrade, the on-line betting site, calculates only a 54.8% chance of Obama winning.

The comparison between Romney and Dewey is obvious. Both are not beloved of the Republican Party. While Dewey was considered “calculating,” Mitt Romney’s flip-flopping is legendary. Basically, he will say whatever he expects his audience wants to hear. Although Romney never received his party’s nomination, he does have the experience considered necessary to get it this time. To do so, Romney will have to prevail over the most conservative elements in his party including crazies from Minnesota, who want to turn back the clock on the New Deal.

Moreover, in the general election, Dewey was so sure of victory that his strategy was basically “take no chances and don’t blow a good thing.” In its execution it amounted to speeches filled with mealy-mouthed assertions of the obvious, including the now infamous quote “You know that your future is still ahead of you.” Although Romney has made more aggressive statements about his putative opponent, he has a history of back-tracking and flip-flopping that leaves his words with no more gravitas than Dewey’s. Consider how long it has taken him to come up with a snappy retort to the fact that Obama-care was patterned after his program in Massachusetts. Has he yet?

And what of the comparison between Harry S-for-nothing Truman, and President Obama, who has been accused of standing for nothing? Truman was an unelected incumbent, while Obama – who won decisively in 2008 – has never been considered fully legitimate by certain elements in the country. It is foolish to discount the existence of racism in the Old South, but suffice to say, the old Dixiecrats are now Republicans.

It is widely reported that Obama faces a serious enthusiasm gap, but it is hard to imagine that it is any worse than the abandonment by the left that Truman experienced. Truman’s Democratic base in the solid south split off from the party. It is hard to think of Dems similarly walking away from Obama, especially since many in Obama’s camp are Black, and he remains overwhelmingly popular with them. Someone is sure to remind the African-American community that not too long ago—in Romney’s lifetime—the Mormon Church openly discriminated against those whom they regard as bearing “the mark of Cain.” Furthermore, many bigoted voters in the South have as much of a problem with Romney, whom they regard as un-Christian, as they do with Obama.

But Obama may have a problem that Truman didn’t. It’s the economy. Unemployment is at 9%, the credit worthiness of the United States has been downgraded. The deficit is large and recent kerfuffle regarding the debt ceiling has made lots of folk antsy for lots of reasons. As I write these words, investors are awaiting with dread the opening of the market on Monday morning.

Congress is so dysfunctional that Sen. Dick Durban (D-IL) commenting on the 14% approval rating said he was surprised that congressmen had so many relatives. And herein lies the reason the Obama should follow Truman’s example.

The key element of Truman’s re-election campaign was to run against that 80th Congress, whom he described as “do nothing, and good-for-nothing.” Truman’s attack was caustic and unrelenting. He toured the country and everywhere he went, enthusiastic crowds shouted, “Give ’em hell, Harry!” Although there were no debates in those days, nor even television, American movie theaters agreed to play two newsreel-like campaign films in support of the Republican and the Democratic nominee. Truman was strapped for campaign funds and so he relied upon public-domain and newsreel footage of him taking part in major world events and signing important legislation. For undecided voters, the Truman film reinforced the image or the President as being engaged and decisive.

Truman simply ignored the fact that Dewey's policies were considerably more liberal than most of his fellow Republicans, and instead he concentrated his fire against what he characterized as the conservative, obstructionist tendencies of the unpopular 80th Congress. If you think Romney will not move back to the center after his flirtation with the extremist elements in his party, you’re naïve. But if you are right, Obama is a shoe-in.

The problem with this advice is the same problem that condemns all good advice. To be useful, it must be heeded. Obama came to national prominence as an orator who extolled the fact that there is “not a blue America, or a red America, but only a United States of America.” He has tried to be the great compromiser, and this tendency may have been his undoing in the recent debt ceiling negotiations. He has tried to appease the right, appeal to the center and hold on to the left.

President Obama believes in the basic goodness of the American people, and he wants to govern from the middle of the road. But as Dan Rather in his inimitable way, pointed out today, “The only thing in the middle of the road is yellow stripes and dead armadillos.” So Mr. President, stand up and fight for what Americans believe in.

Give ’em hell, Barry! And remember what President Truman said: “I never did give anybody hell. I just told the truth and they thought it was hell.”

“… and tell ’em Big Mitch sent ya!”

Knowing Republicans (in the Biblical sense)

We read in Genesis 41 that Pharaoh had two dreams that his advisers could not interpret for him. In one, seven fat, healthy cows are devoured by seven meager and ugly cows. In the other, seven healthy ears of corn are consumed by seven sickly ears of corn. Joseph is called upon to explain the meaning of these dreams to Pharaoh:

25. And Joseph said to Pharaoh, Pharaoh's dream is one; what God is doing He has told Pharaoh.

26. The seven good cows are seven years, and the seven good ears of grain are seven years; it is one dream.

27. And the seven meager and ugly cows coming up after them are seven years, and the seven empty ears of grain, beaten by the east wind, will be seven years of famine.

28. It is this matter that I have spoken to Pharaoh; what God is about to do He has shown Pharaoh.

29. Behold, seven years are coming, great plenty throughout all the land of Egypt.

30. And seven years of famine will arise after them, and all the plenty will be forgotten in the land of Egypt, and the famine will destroy the land.

31. And the plenty will not be known because of that famine to follow, for it [will be] very severe.

32. And concerning the repetition of the dream to Pharaoh twice that is because the matter is ready [to emanate] from God, and God is hastening to execute it.

33. So now, let Pharaoh seek out an understanding and wise man and appoint him over the land of Egypt.

34. Let Pharaoh do [this] and appoint officials over the land and prepare the land of Egypt during the seven years of plenty.

35. And let them collect all the food of these coming seven good years, and let them gather the grain under Pharaoh's hand, food in the cities, and keep it.

36. Thus the food will remain as a reserve for the land for the seven years of famine which will be in the land of Egypt, so that the land will not be destroyed by the famine."

37. The matter pleased Pharaoh and all his servants.

You bet it pleased Pharaoh. If it weren’t for Joseph, his nation would have been plunged into famine that would have killed millions. Pharaoh had billed himself out as a god, and a famine that kills the majority of his nation is bad for the brand. Joseph’s plan offered a way out of this problem. The plan worked out so well that Joseph was elevated to the position of viceroy, and the nation of Egypt survives to this day.

But it didn’t have to be that way. Imagine if Joseph’s plan had to also account for political realities that included a Republican House of Representatives intent upon toppling the regime. What would that look like?

38. But lo! There were those among his advisers who were not loyal to the Pharaoh. They huddled together and said, Who has made Pharaoh to be a god above us? Are we not fit to rule the empire as is he?

39. They looked upon his alabaster palaces, his monuments, and even unto the jewels with which he was bedecked. And they thought of the many who would face famine, while Pharaoh lived amid such magnificence and splendor.

40. And they had another thought. Thus said they, We, too, want to live in splendor and magnificence, for surely we have merited it. Were not our fathers men of stature?

41. God’s word to Joseph was fulfilled. Verily, the land produced a great abundance and a surplus of all manner of grains, such that the Egyptians needed to build great storehouses as Joseph directed, so that they could store the grain for the seven years of famine.

42. Now, the advisors who were not loyal to Pharaoh huddled together again. They looked upon the vast storehouses of grain, and they thought of the many who would face famine. And they said, We, too, want vast storehouses of grain, for surely we merit it. Were not our fathers men of stature?

43. So, they went abroad in the land and they spoke to the multitudes. Thus, said they: Our fathers were men of stature, so surely we know whereof we speak. Look you upon the wealth of our kingdom. Do you see starvation?

44. And the multitudes answered as one, There is no starvation in this land.

45. And they said, Are there not great surpluses, and storehouses of wealth, and gold and jewels in the Pharaoh’s alabaster palaces? And the multitudes answered as one, Yea, verily, it is so.

46. The disloyal advisors continued further. Does the Pharoah need more gold? Why then does he demand that we bring him grain?

47. The multitudes were confounded. And they said, we have been taxed too much, for surely, the Pharaoh has grain and gold and jewels. And lo! They believed it for they saw with their own eyes that the storehouses were overflowing with grain. So, they stopped bringing grain to the storehouses, and thus they departed from the plan that had been revealed to them by Joseph.

48. Now the disloyal advisors were wealthy men, for their fathers had been men of stature. And they built great storehouses for their own grain, for the land continued to produce more than they could use. And the multitudes could not store their grain, for they had not the wherewithal to build great storehouses. And vermin seized the grain that the multitudes could not consume.

49. But the men of substance said to the multitudes, give us your grain, and we will store it in the great storehouses. And you will pay us to store the grain, that you may have it in your time of need.

50. And it was well with the multitudes. Verily, they had enough to eat, and lo, they had savings with which to protect themselves against famine if ever it should arise.

51. And they forgot that the seven years of plenty were the work of God. And they believed that they, in their wisdom, had made the grain to grow. And they thought they could do no wrong.

52. Now the men of substance said, For storing your grain in our storehouses, and because we are wise men of substance, whose fathers were men of stature, you must pay us to use our storehouses one half of one half of one half of your grain each year that you shall use our storehouses.

53. And the multitudes readily agreed, for verily there was no want in the land. And so it was that after 7 years, there was but little grain in the storehouses for the multitudes, for the men of substance had earned it all by storing it in the storehouses that they had seen fit to build.

54. And so it was that the mighty Pharaoh had to borrow wealth from his neighbors so that the masses could be fed. For he had learned, that during seven fat years, it is wise to do as God had foretold to him through Joseph, and save for lean years.

55. And so, he borrowed from his neighbors to the east.

56. And the famine became hard on the multitudes, for lo, the grain that they had stored in the storehouses of the men of substance was lost to them for now it belonged to the men of substance.

57. But Pharaoh’s heart was not yet hardened, and his saw the misery of the people. So he borrowed more from his neighbors to the east. And he promised to them, that upon his oath, they would be paid back when good times returned, and he pledged to them the good reputation of the men of substance and of his entire kingdom.

58. For, surely, he said, the men of substance will pay their fair share, as they have benefitted the most and indeed, it was their cunning that had caused his nation to foreswear saving in the kingdom’s storehouses.

59. When the cunning men of substance heard that they would be expected to help the nation pay the neighbors to the east, they recoiled in horror. Said they, We did not cause this famine. We have saved for ourselves in our own great storehouses. And so, they forbade the Pharaoh to borrow any further.

60. And there was great starvation in the land.

61. And the neighbors to the east said, You have made a pledge to us. Will thou not uphold the honor of your nation? And thus Pharoah came to understand the words of Joseph regarding “the seven empty ears of grain, beaten by the east wind.”

62. Thus, did Pharaoh implore the men of substance: If it pleases you, and if your heart has been moved by the suffering of the people whom you did lead astray, and if you value your honor, then I beseech you to let me borrow from the neighbors to the east.

63. But the men of substance said, What will you do for us, if we allow you to do this thing for youself?

64. And the Pharaoh responded, What is it you demand of me?

65. And the men of substance replied as one, You must promise to us that we will never again save for lean years, but rather that which you spend shall be neither more nor less than what you collect from the multitudes. And you enshrine into law this promise, so that it will be a covenant for all time.

66. And so it was that Pharaoh enacted a law that forbade him to save grain during fat years, and thus, he was unable to feed the multitudes in the lean years. And his nation became impoverished. And there was a great suffering in the land, for the people had been persuaded by the men of substance to disobey God’s plan which was to care for all the people He had created.

“ … and tell ’em Big Mitch sent ya!”

If not now, when?

President Obama summed up the need for a comprehensive budget deal with these memorable words: “If not now, when?” Many may have presumed that the President was trying to appease right-wingers by quoting their patron saint, Ronald Reagan, who used the same quote without attribution in his second inaugural address.

Actually, the author is Rabbi Hillel, who lived from 30 BCE to 9 CE and is recognized as one of the very greatest Jewish scholars in history. The full quote is, “If I am not for myself, then who will be for me? And if I am only for myself, then what am I? And if not now, when?”

The President would do well to remember the entire quote. The President was elected because he is a man of the people. If he doesn’t stick up for his core constituencies, who will be for him? If he wants to serve the country he loves, he needs to get reelected. I hear talk that his reelection is not a sure thing. If he buckles on social security, on medicare, on tax breaks for millionaires, then I guess one has to wonder from whom his passionate support will come.

And what of these people whose greed is so out of control and so over the top that they have the nerve to say that they need more tax cuts? They are only for themselves, and the President doesn’t need to lower himself to their level. Indeed, he needs to oppose these kleptocrats.

By the way, if President Obama wants to pay homage to St. Ronny, he should remind the Republicans that during Reagan’s term the debt ceiling was raised 17 times, taxes were raised in 7 of 8 years, and tax rates were higher than they are now.

“… and tell ’em Big Mitch set ya!”

Calling out Justice Roberts

Campaign Finance Law Strikes Out

“Every judge I appoint,” said President George W. Bush, “will be a person who clearly understands the role of a judge is to interpret the law, not to legislate from the bench.” He appointed John Roberts, the current Chief Justice of the United States Supreme Court.

Sounds good, eh? Who wants activist judges passing legislation? Besides the fact that it is impossible, it is just not democratic. But one thing that courts can do is repeal legislation. It’s not any more democratic, but at least judges can be activists to further an agenda if that’s the kind of judges they are.

And that’s the kind of judge John Roberts is. You bet he has an agenda. What’s his game? It’s serving up softballs to the rich and mighty. Arizona Free Enterprise v. Bennett is a perfect example.

The State of Arizona through the democratic process of citizen referendum, enacted a law that was intended to “level the playing field” of electoral politics by eliminating the advantage that money bestows upon thems that got it. The system was a model of simplicity. You could get funding for your campaign if you promised not to spend any money of your own. If your opponent started to spend his own money on a campaign, the state would match it up to a limit. Note that your opponent could spend as much of his money as he likes: there’s no limit. The Supreme Court, in Citizens United, held that money is speech and so, ipso facto, the law in no way restricts free speech.

Let’s take a look at the curve-ball Roberts court threw the citizens of Arizona. As the income curve in the United States begins to resemble a bell curve less and the grin of a Cheshire Cat more, up go the barrier to entry in diverse fields like, say, politics. Of course, anyone can beg for money to run for political office. But that means that in order to become elected, you have to become, if not indebted, at least beholden to the moneyed class. By a strange coincidence, the opinion in AZ Free Enterprise v. Bennett came down on the same day that the jury handed up a verdict in United States vs. Blagojevich.

Before John Roberts was confirmed he made his pitch to the Senate Judiciary Committee. “I have no agenda, but I do have a commitment. … And I will remember that it’s my job to call balls and strikes and not to pitch or bat.” As it turns out, he threw a knock down pitch at the body politic when he authored a judicial repeal of the Arizona law enacted to prevent corruption and level the playing field.

As Justice Roberts wrote in the majority opinion of AZ Free Enterprise v. Bennett, “‘Leveling the playing field’ can sound like a good thing. But in a democracy, campaigning for office is not a game.”

The funny thing is that I don’t much care for a level playing field, either. I prefer a mound 10 inches high, 18 feet in diameter, with the front edge 50 feet, 6 inches from home plate. I guess that makes me more like an umpire than John Roberts is.

And speaking of baseball, here's what Justice Elana Kagan, the woman who saved the National Pastime, said in her dissenting opinion:

“Less corruption, more speech. Robust campaigns leading to the election of representatives not beholden to the few, but accountable to the many. The people of Arizona might have expected a decent respect for those objectives. Today, they do not get it.... Truly, democracy is not a game.”

Richard L. Hasen, an election law expert at the UC Irvine School of Law, put it this way: “Campaign finance laws have now gone 0 for 5 in the Roberts Court.”

“… and tell ’em Big Mitch sent ya!”