Innovations Are Great, But the Jobs are in China
I was reading a magazine article the other day on Chinese manufacturing giant Foxconn. You may know Foxconn as the company that manufactures the iPhone, as well as many other high tech electronic devices. You may also know Foxconn as a place that famously had a rash of worker suicides last year, that prompted reforms in pay and work practices. Or you may never have heard of them. I don't have a view on Foxconn as a company one way or another, but the article struck a cord with me for a different reason. It mentioned, in passing, that number of people that Foxconn employs.
Think about this - Apple and Foxconn are approximately the same size as measured by revenues or profits. Apple develops unbelievable innovations - iPods and iPads, smart phones, computers, etc. It is a crown jewel that politicians talk about when the mention American ingenuity and the innovation economy. Foxconn is nobody's idea of an innovator, it's simply a manufacturing firm that leverages cheap labor in China at a lower cost than competitors in other countries can.
Here is the problem...Apple employs 30,000 people, Foxconn employs 1,000,000. Granted, the 30,000 people at Apple by and large do very well. Senior management has made themselves very rich. Even middle management and the programmers that build the innovation make excellent livings and get great benefits. It's a heck of a lot better to work at Apple than Foxconn, no doubt. But only 30,000 people get to live an Apple-sponsored lifestyle.
It's hard to build a middle class economy this way. Apple is a giant technology company. At 30,000 per company, you'd 493 new Apples to employ all the unemployed in this country. Never mind the fact that most of the unemployed would be vastly unqualified for a job at Apple.
My point is that we need to be more than an "innovation economy" to be sustainable. Innovation is great, but if we export the manufacturing to China and the customer service to India, then a small group of people in the US will get rich on the innovation, but the rest of the country won't benefit.
We would be wise to steal a page from Germany's playbook and invest in some real industrial policy. Germany has done an outstanding job growing high-dollar manufacturing jobs by investing in its industry and its trade education. Alas, I fear in the current Washington gridlock, that ideas like this are a complete non-starter.
Would you like fries with that?
The Entitlement Drag
If we spend all our money on Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid and Unemployment Benefits, how will we ever invest in the infrastructure and the education needed to build a full employment economy?
Our mass transit systems are far inferior to Europe and much of Asia. Our air traffic control system is from the 1950s. Our power grid is still largely powered by coal plants built 100 years ago. Funding for education at all levels is being cut.
We used to find ways to invest in big things - the Apollo missions, the Eisenhower Interstate system, the precursor to the internet. Now, I fear, we are spending too much money just on social programs which have no long term payback. No, I don't favor slashing and burning the social safety net - it's part of the values of a modern society. I'm just saying we need some balance. And probably some higher taxes to pay for it. Another non-starter these days.
Sunday, June 19, 2011
Monday, June 13, 2011
Romney Owns
Short reaction to the first GOP debate (yes I know, it's technically the second one, but the first one where the field showed up): I don't see a credible threat to Mitt Romney for the GOP nomination. He was funny, engaging, well-spoken and gave smart, concise answers even when dealing with thorny issues, such as Romneycare and his flip-flop on abortion. He looked and sounded Presidential. No one else on the stage was even close.
Jon Huntsman? Rick Perry? The field is wide open. You just have to beat the Mitt.
Jon Huntsman? Rick Perry? The field is wide open. You just have to beat the Mitt.
Sunday, June 12, 2011
Gingrich Falls, Weiner Tweets, The Economy Sputters
Just to Reiterate, Newt Doesn't Have a Chance
Last week, I had him third in a very weak field of declared candidates, a distant third to the close-to-insurmountable Mitt Romney and the far behind but highly credible Tim Pawlenty. Apparently his closest advisers agree that things are not going particularly well for the one-time Speaker of the House in his bid to become the GOP nominee as 7 of his top guys all resigned on the same day this week. A few are presumed to be going to work for Tim Pawlenty, a few others are rumored to be in talks with Rick Perry if he decides to mount a run. Either way, those closest to the Gingrich campaign appear to want nothing to do with it. And why should they? In national polls, Gingrich is not only getting trounced by declared-candidate Romney, he's getting trounced by unannounced candidates Palin and Guliani, and even getting beat by sideshows Herman Cain and Ron Paul. Gingrich will likely not win a single nominating contest and should be gone after South Carolina, if he doesn't pitch in the towel sooner.
Anthony Weiner, The Sad Clown
Call it the curse of technology. Call it the oldest fault in men since time began. Either way, once well-respected Rep. Anthony Weiner (D-NY) is now a sideshow. His sexting with at least 6 women over the past 3 years, including sending explicit photos has everybody and their brother calling for his resignation, including virtually all high profile Republicans and high profile Democrats such as House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi (D-NY.)
What Weiner did was incredibly stupid. I always say that the internet is written in ink and you'd best not do anything on there that you wouldn't want your mother to see. Pictures of your erection certainly qualify there. Having said that, I'm not sure I'm on board with the Weiner resignation brigade.
It is not clear to me that Weiner has done anything even remotely illegal. It does not appear that he used government resources in his sexcapades. So at the end of the day, if all he did was send dirty photos, are his actions really so much worse than what the likes of Bill Clinton, Newt Gingrich, and a whole host of other politicians did, who actually had sex with women while in office and stuck around? And how exactly does this effect if Weiner is a good congressman?
I guess we still have a strong puritan streak in this country.
Unemployment and Slow Growth - Not a Good Recipe for Obama
The President has to be fearful about the economic news of late. 1.8% GDP growth last quarter. Unemployment at a virtual flatline for the last several months right around the 9% line (9.1% last month, according to the BLS), nearly 2x what a healthy economy would be. Even the stock market, which had been the bright spot, has started to sputter with all the bad news.
If the election is going to come down to the economy, as I firmly believe it will, President Obama is going to need for things to be better a year from now than they are today, or he may find himself designing a Presidential library in Chicago.
Last week, I had him third in a very weak field of declared candidates, a distant third to the close-to-insurmountable Mitt Romney and the far behind but highly credible Tim Pawlenty. Apparently his closest advisers agree that things are not going particularly well for the one-time Speaker of the House in his bid to become the GOP nominee as 7 of his top guys all resigned on the same day this week. A few are presumed to be going to work for Tim Pawlenty, a few others are rumored to be in talks with Rick Perry if he decides to mount a run. Either way, those closest to the Gingrich campaign appear to want nothing to do with it. And why should they? In national polls, Gingrich is not only getting trounced by declared-candidate Romney, he's getting trounced by unannounced candidates Palin and Guliani, and even getting beat by sideshows Herman Cain and Ron Paul. Gingrich will likely not win a single nominating contest and should be gone after South Carolina, if he doesn't pitch in the towel sooner.
Anthony Weiner, The Sad Clown
Call it the curse of technology. Call it the oldest fault in men since time began. Either way, once well-respected Rep. Anthony Weiner (D-NY) is now a sideshow. His sexting with at least 6 women over the past 3 years, including sending explicit photos has everybody and their brother calling for his resignation, including virtually all high profile Republicans and high profile Democrats such as House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi (D-NY.)
What Weiner did was incredibly stupid. I always say that the internet is written in ink and you'd best not do anything on there that you wouldn't want your mother to see. Pictures of your erection certainly qualify there. Having said that, I'm not sure I'm on board with the Weiner resignation brigade.
It is not clear to me that Weiner has done anything even remotely illegal. It does not appear that he used government resources in his sexcapades. So at the end of the day, if all he did was send dirty photos, are his actions really so much worse than what the likes of Bill Clinton, Newt Gingrich, and a whole host of other politicians did, who actually had sex with women while in office and stuck around? And how exactly does this effect if Weiner is a good congressman?
I guess we still have a strong puritan streak in this country.
Unemployment and Slow Growth - Not a Good Recipe for Obama
The President has to be fearful about the economic news of late. 1.8% GDP growth last quarter. Unemployment at a virtual flatline for the last several months right around the 9% line (9.1% last month, according to the BLS), nearly 2x what a healthy economy would be. Even the stock market, which had been the bright spot, has started to sputter with all the bad news.
If the election is going to come down to the economy, as I firmly believe it will, President Obama is going to need for things to be better a year from now than they are today, or he may find himself designing a Presidential library in Chicago.
Sunday, June 5, 2011
Meet Your GOP Field, Debt Ceiling Chicken, Some Easy Predictions
The GOP Field is Set, Sort Of, Maybe
We have gained a lot of clarity over the course of the past few weeks about who is in and who is out in the race for the GOP 2012 Presidential nomination. The Huck isn't running. Neither is Trump (read back to my earlier posts when he first started making noise if you don't already understand why.) Daniels is sitting this one out. It's actually a pretty thin field as it stands. There are five meaningful players who have not made decisions yet. Accordingly, here are my power rankings of the "in" and the "maybe" candidates.
The "in" candidates:
1. Mitt Romney - the clear and undisputed front-runner. Yes, he used to be a pro-universal health care, pro-choice, pro-gay rights, Massachusetts moderate. But, let's face it - an attractive face with business experience and a strong governing record is a pretty good place to start for a party that actually wants to win.
2. Tim Pawlenty - if Romney stumbles or health care becomes too much of an issue, Pawlenty is the other "legit" candidate. He has gubernatorial experience, he is liked both within the party and popular in his home state. Pawlenty's biggest problems are a. that he backed cap-and-trade at one point, b. that few outside the mid-west and the party loyalists know him and c. he isn't particularly charismatic. He's going to have to count on a Romney slip-up to get seriously in the game.
3. Newt Gingrich - the highly intelligent but deeply flawed Gingrich is clearly qualified as former Speaker of the House. He is also a pretty famous jerk, both personally and professionally. His personal life will dog him in the GOP primaries including his two failed marriages, his cheating and his overall lack of personal morals. He is also not very inspirational and highly confrontational. I can't seem him winning, but outside of Romney and Pawlenty, he's pretty much the only other credible candidate.
4. Ron Paul - the ever-entertaining libertarian is running again. He will make some noise, raise some money and even get some votes (heck, he could finish 2nd in libertarian-leaning New Hampshire!), but he can't get the nod - he would be a disaster for the GOP if he did.
5. Herman Cain - Cain is a great speaker and lit up the first debate, but he's hard to take seriously as a candidate. No experience governing and if you peel back the brilliant surface rhetoric, he's not particularly insightful. He'll be fun to watch, like Paul, but will be a sideshow.
6. Gary Johnson - if you took Ron Paul and subtracted the wit and charisma, you'd have Gary Johnson. Another devoted libertarian, Johnson will create havoc for some of the front-runners, but will get few votes, thanks to the much better known and far more entertaining Ron Paul.
The "maybe" candidates:
1. Rudy Guliani - shockingly, the 2008 electoral disaster hasn't kept Guliani from polling near the front of the 2012 field. He could be a real player, but I'm left with the following question: if the GOP didn't like him in 2008 and he hasn't done much since, why will they like him now?
2. Michelle Bachman - the darling of the tea-party could make some noise. The tea-party has shown its muscle over and over again in GOP primaries. Bachman winning the nomination would be a disaster for the GOP, however, as she would likely get absolutely torched in the general.
3. Jon Huntsman - the erstwhile Obama Administration Ambassador to China is actually just the sort of general election candidate the GOP should want. He's a center-right candidate who works extremely well across the aisle and has a proven ability to govern. But can you imagine the GOP nominating a former Obama Administration official who is a social moderate? Me neither.
4. Rick Perry - the conservative Texas Governor is one candidate I've had my eyes on for a while. He's the perfect intersection for the GOP of a candidate with conservative enough chops to be appealing to the tea party while being mainstream enough to not freak out the general public. Still - nobody knows Perry and it isn't totally clear he is even interested.
5. Sarah Palin - her star has faded fast. I admit to being wrong about her - I warned not to underestimate her in 2008, but she has been a paper tiger with frequent gaffes and no depth. Besides, she's making too much money at Fox to run.
6. Rick Santorum - he's a complete afterthought. His far-right social views may appeal to some on the fringe, but other candidates will have that space well covered and Santorum couldn't even run competitively for re-election in Pennsylvania. He shouldn't waste his time. And don't Google his name unless you have strong intestinal fortitude.
The GOP is Playing Chicken - And It May Work
The US Government has hit its debt ceiling, but Congress seems in no hurry to act. Tim Geithner has given an approximate "real" deadline of August 2nd, which the government can get to by stopping payments to pension funds and deferring other short-term payments. The bottom line is that the debt limit will have to be raised as no one has proposed anything approaching a budget that is balanced for this year -- even the most conservative proposal for the Fiscal 2011 budget called for about a $1.4T deficit and the one enacted was slightly more moderate than that. But Republicans are staging grand theater, holding symbolic no votes on a ceiling increase with no spending decreases attached and demand major reform to everything except taxes.
So what do we make of all of this? The GOP isn't trying to destroy the country, I don't think and will therefore make sure that the debt ceiling is increased prior to August 2nd. A compromise that allows all sides to save face will likely occur, which will likely involve big planned defense reductions, big reductions in domestic discretionary spending, token changes to Medicare and no change in tax policy. This is the middle ground that both sides can probably live with, although it will likely leave the two biggest problems with the budget - taxes and entitlements, mostly unchanged.
Be prepared for action to come at the very last minute, so expect at least another month and a half of wrangling before we throw together a short-term fix.
Some Easy Predictions
Allow me to stick my neck out. Write me later when I'm proven to be an idiot:
(1) Mitt Romney will win the GOP nomination -- why? There is nobody credible enough to beat him. Besides, he's the "next guy in line" (read my posts from 2008 to understand how important this is to GOP nominations.)
(2) The debt ceiling will be raised prior to August 2nd. See above.
(3) The Democrats will not retake the House and will lose the Senate in 2012. Read my prior posts - the map is just awful for them.
(4) The Presidential race will be within 5% and the key states will be Virginia, Colorado and Ohio, not Florida and Pennsylvania.
(5) Sarah Palin won't run for President.
If you like this site, tell your friends.
We have gained a lot of clarity over the course of the past few weeks about who is in and who is out in the race for the GOP 2012 Presidential nomination. The Huck isn't running. Neither is Trump (read back to my earlier posts when he first started making noise if you don't already understand why.) Daniels is sitting this one out. It's actually a pretty thin field as it stands. There are five meaningful players who have not made decisions yet. Accordingly, here are my power rankings of the "in" and the "maybe" candidates.
The "in" candidates:
1. Mitt Romney - the clear and undisputed front-runner. Yes, he used to be a pro-universal health care, pro-choice, pro-gay rights, Massachusetts moderate. But, let's face it - an attractive face with business experience and a strong governing record is a pretty good place to start for a party that actually wants to win.
2. Tim Pawlenty - if Romney stumbles or health care becomes too much of an issue, Pawlenty is the other "legit" candidate. He has gubernatorial experience, he is liked both within the party and popular in his home state. Pawlenty's biggest problems are a. that he backed cap-and-trade at one point, b. that few outside the mid-west and the party loyalists know him and c. he isn't particularly charismatic. He's going to have to count on a Romney slip-up to get seriously in the game.
3. Newt Gingrich - the highly intelligent but deeply flawed Gingrich is clearly qualified as former Speaker of the House. He is also a pretty famous jerk, both personally and professionally. His personal life will dog him in the GOP primaries including his two failed marriages, his cheating and his overall lack of personal morals. He is also not very inspirational and highly confrontational. I can't seem him winning, but outside of Romney and Pawlenty, he's pretty much the only other credible candidate.
4. Ron Paul - the ever-entertaining libertarian is running again. He will make some noise, raise some money and even get some votes (heck, he could finish 2nd in libertarian-leaning New Hampshire!), but he can't get the nod - he would be a disaster for the GOP if he did.
5. Herman Cain - Cain is a great speaker and lit up the first debate, but he's hard to take seriously as a candidate. No experience governing and if you peel back the brilliant surface rhetoric, he's not particularly insightful. He'll be fun to watch, like Paul, but will be a sideshow.
6. Gary Johnson - if you took Ron Paul and subtracted the wit and charisma, you'd have Gary Johnson. Another devoted libertarian, Johnson will create havoc for some of the front-runners, but will get few votes, thanks to the much better known and far more entertaining Ron Paul.
The "maybe" candidates:
1. Rudy Guliani - shockingly, the 2008 electoral disaster hasn't kept Guliani from polling near the front of the 2012 field. He could be a real player, but I'm left with the following question: if the GOP didn't like him in 2008 and he hasn't done much since, why will they like him now?
2. Michelle Bachman - the darling of the tea-party could make some noise. The tea-party has shown its muscle over and over again in GOP primaries. Bachman winning the nomination would be a disaster for the GOP, however, as she would likely get absolutely torched in the general.
3. Jon Huntsman - the erstwhile Obama Administration Ambassador to China is actually just the sort of general election candidate the GOP should want. He's a center-right candidate who works extremely well across the aisle and has a proven ability to govern. But can you imagine the GOP nominating a former Obama Administration official who is a social moderate? Me neither.
4. Rick Perry - the conservative Texas Governor is one candidate I've had my eyes on for a while. He's the perfect intersection for the GOP of a candidate with conservative enough chops to be appealing to the tea party while being mainstream enough to not freak out the general public. Still - nobody knows Perry and it isn't totally clear he is even interested.
5. Sarah Palin - her star has faded fast. I admit to being wrong about her - I warned not to underestimate her in 2008, but she has been a paper tiger with frequent gaffes and no depth. Besides, she's making too much money at Fox to run.
6. Rick Santorum - he's a complete afterthought. His far-right social views may appeal to some on the fringe, but other candidates will have that space well covered and Santorum couldn't even run competitively for re-election in Pennsylvania. He shouldn't waste his time. And don't Google his name unless you have strong intestinal fortitude.
The GOP is Playing Chicken - And It May Work
The US Government has hit its debt ceiling, but Congress seems in no hurry to act. Tim Geithner has given an approximate "real" deadline of August 2nd, which the government can get to by stopping payments to pension funds and deferring other short-term payments. The bottom line is that the debt limit will have to be raised as no one has proposed anything approaching a budget that is balanced for this year -- even the most conservative proposal for the Fiscal 2011 budget called for about a $1.4T deficit and the one enacted was slightly more moderate than that. But Republicans are staging grand theater, holding symbolic no votes on a ceiling increase with no spending decreases attached and demand major reform to everything except taxes.
So what do we make of all of this? The GOP isn't trying to destroy the country, I don't think and will therefore make sure that the debt ceiling is increased prior to August 2nd. A compromise that allows all sides to save face will likely occur, which will likely involve big planned defense reductions, big reductions in domestic discretionary spending, token changes to Medicare and no change in tax policy. This is the middle ground that both sides can probably live with, although it will likely leave the two biggest problems with the budget - taxes and entitlements, mostly unchanged.
Be prepared for action to come at the very last minute, so expect at least another month and a half of wrangling before we throw together a short-term fix.
Some Easy Predictions
Allow me to stick my neck out. Write me later when I'm proven to be an idiot:
(1) Mitt Romney will win the GOP nomination -- why? There is nobody credible enough to beat him. Besides, he's the "next guy in line" (read my posts from 2008 to understand how important this is to GOP nominations.)
(2) The debt ceiling will be raised prior to August 2nd. See above.
(3) The Democrats will not retake the House and will lose the Senate in 2012. Read my prior posts - the map is just awful for them.
(4) The Presidential race will be within 5% and the key states will be Virginia, Colorado and Ohio, not Florida and Pennsylvania.
(5) Sarah Palin won't run for President.
If you like this site, tell your friends.
Sunday, May 15, 2011
2012 - Who Is In and Who Is Out
With Mike Huckabee's announcement last night that he will not seek the GOP nomination in 2012, the shape of the field is becoming a lot more clear. Huckabee's decision makes a lot of sense personally - he has come into a great deal of wealth since the 2008 campaign as a national personality on Fox News and a Presidential bid would have taken a significant toll both personally and financially. His non-presence in the race shakes things up a bit, since he was certainly one of two defacto front-runners for the nomination (the other being former Massachusetts Governor Mitt Romney.)
So let's take stock of who's in, who's out and who may be in for the GOP for 2012.
Definitely In (Have Declared)
Newt Gingrich - the former Speaker of the House and so-called GOP "idea man" is definitely having a go. He has national name recognition, but that's part of his problem - people don't particularly like Newt. He's a serious candidate, but I certainly don't see him as a favorite to either win the nomination or the general election.
Ron Paul - the perennial Libertarian Republican draws huge crowds and big fundraising everywhere he goes. But his brand of extreme defense of individual liberties doesn't resonate well outside of a small group in the GOP. Most of the Christian Conservatives that show up on primary day don't want legal drugs, recognition of gay marriage or a halving of the military. Still, Paul will make some noise and be a lot of fun. But no chance he wins the nomination.
Gary Johnson - the former Governor of New Mexico could actually split the Libertarian wing, as he is very similar in his politics to Paul. Sometimes more articulate on stage, although not as charismatic, Johnson will be fun to watch, but is not a serious player for the same reasons that Paul isn't.
Probably In (Have Formed Exploratory Committees)
Tim Pawlenty - the former two-term Governor of Minnesota used to be a moderate, a guy who favored cap-and-trade, moderate views on social issues and common-sense bi-partisanship. To win the GOP nomination, he is trying to walk back some of those views and appeal to the GOP base. Pawlenty is not the greatest speech-giver in the world, but he is a serious candidate and was a very respected governor. With Huckabee out and the field wide open, Pawlenty could be a player for the nomination.
Mitt Romney - the former Massachusetts Governor is almost certainly the prohibitive front-runner with the Huck out. Similar to Pawlenty, he has his own moderate demons. Interestingly, he was able to successfully walk back prior support for abortion rights and gay rights with ease in 2008, but is having a hard time explaining his support for a health care package in his home state that is very similar to the national reform enacted by the Democrats. Still, an attractive former businessman with loads of political experience and keen intellectual skills is a rare enough commodity, if I were placing a bet today on the GOP nod, it would be Romney.
Rick Santorum - the stridently socially conservative former Senator from Pennsylvania will attract some support from die-hards, but mainstream GOP members realize that he is as unelectable as they come in a general election race. I think Santorum will probably fade quickly after poor showings in Iowa and New Hampshire.
Herman Cain - the former CEO of Godfather's Pizza and talk-radio host lit up the other candidates in the first Presidential debate. An excellent speaker and debater, Cain will be fun to watch, but nobody expects a political newbie to be in serious contention for the White House.
Could Be Running
Mitch Daniels - the exit of Huckabee from the stage certainly opens up a door to the well-respected conservative Indiana Governor. Daniels is beloved among the party faithful, although not particularly charismatic for a guy hoping to tame a national stage. He will struggle with name recognition initially (he is virtually unknown outside of political circles and his home state), but I expect him to be a contender if he runs.
Donald Trump - America's favorite blow-hard real estate mogul has already jumped the shark in my opinion. If I were betting, I don't think Donald will run, I the he just likes the attention. And when it comes right down to it, it's hard even for conservatives to take this guy seriously.
Sarah Palin - her star is fading fast as legitimate, in-office politicians like Michelle Bachman and Rand Paul take up the tea-party mantle. She is also pretty well hated outside of the GOP. I can't see why she would want to run and suspend her lucrative media empire.
Michelle Bachman - the darling of the Tea Party movement gets a lot of love from a small cross-section of the GOP. She may run to make a point, but she isn't a serious contender.
Not Running
Basically, every other Republican in the US. Huckabee passed. So did Bobby Jindal. Rising stars Chris Christie and Marco Rubio have both declined as well. So did Mississippi Governor Haley Barbour.
The field is starting to take form. There are a dozen or so debates to take place over the summer, fall and winter, which should help some of the lesser-knowns level the playing field with the better-known candidates. It will be a fun ride.
So let's take stock of who's in, who's out and who may be in for the GOP for 2012.
Definitely In (Have Declared)
Newt Gingrich - the former Speaker of the House and so-called GOP "idea man" is definitely having a go. He has national name recognition, but that's part of his problem - people don't particularly like Newt. He's a serious candidate, but I certainly don't see him as a favorite to either win the nomination or the general election.
Ron Paul - the perennial Libertarian Republican draws huge crowds and big fundraising everywhere he goes. But his brand of extreme defense of individual liberties doesn't resonate well outside of a small group in the GOP. Most of the Christian Conservatives that show up on primary day don't want legal drugs, recognition of gay marriage or a halving of the military. Still, Paul will make some noise and be a lot of fun. But no chance he wins the nomination.
Gary Johnson - the former Governor of New Mexico could actually split the Libertarian wing, as he is very similar in his politics to Paul. Sometimes more articulate on stage, although not as charismatic, Johnson will be fun to watch, but is not a serious player for the same reasons that Paul isn't.
Probably In (Have Formed Exploratory Committees)
Tim Pawlenty - the former two-term Governor of Minnesota used to be a moderate, a guy who favored cap-and-trade, moderate views on social issues and common-sense bi-partisanship. To win the GOP nomination, he is trying to walk back some of those views and appeal to the GOP base. Pawlenty is not the greatest speech-giver in the world, but he is a serious candidate and was a very respected governor. With Huckabee out and the field wide open, Pawlenty could be a player for the nomination.
Mitt Romney - the former Massachusetts Governor is almost certainly the prohibitive front-runner with the Huck out. Similar to Pawlenty, he has his own moderate demons. Interestingly, he was able to successfully walk back prior support for abortion rights and gay rights with ease in 2008, but is having a hard time explaining his support for a health care package in his home state that is very similar to the national reform enacted by the Democrats. Still, an attractive former businessman with loads of political experience and keen intellectual skills is a rare enough commodity, if I were placing a bet today on the GOP nod, it would be Romney.
Rick Santorum - the stridently socially conservative former Senator from Pennsylvania will attract some support from die-hards, but mainstream GOP members realize that he is as unelectable as they come in a general election race. I think Santorum will probably fade quickly after poor showings in Iowa and New Hampshire.
Herman Cain - the former CEO of Godfather's Pizza and talk-radio host lit up the other candidates in the first Presidential debate. An excellent speaker and debater, Cain will be fun to watch, but nobody expects a political newbie to be in serious contention for the White House.
Could Be Running
Mitch Daniels - the exit of Huckabee from the stage certainly opens up a door to the well-respected conservative Indiana Governor. Daniels is beloved among the party faithful, although not particularly charismatic for a guy hoping to tame a national stage. He will struggle with name recognition initially (he is virtually unknown outside of political circles and his home state), but I expect him to be a contender if he runs.
Donald Trump - America's favorite blow-hard real estate mogul has already jumped the shark in my opinion. If I were betting, I don't think Donald will run, I the he just likes the attention. And when it comes right down to it, it's hard even for conservatives to take this guy seriously.
Sarah Palin - her star is fading fast as legitimate, in-office politicians like Michelle Bachman and Rand Paul take up the tea-party mantle. She is also pretty well hated outside of the GOP. I can't see why she would want to run and suspend her lucrative media empire.
Michelle Bachman - the darling of the Tea Party movement gets a lot of love from a small cross-section of the GOP. She may run to make a point, but she isn't a serious contender.
Not Running
Basically, every other Republican in the US. Huckabee passed. So did Bobby Jindal. Rising stars Chris Christie and Marco Rubio have both declined as well. So did Mississippi Governor Haley Barbour.
The field is starting to take form. There are a dozen or so debates to take place over the summer, fall and winter, which should help some of the lesser-knowns level the playing field with the better-known candidates. It will be a fun ride.
Saturday, May 7, 2011
Death Comes to the Most Evil Man on the Planet, A Blow to the Fringe, Presidential Resurgence (At Least for Now)
Code Name: Geronimo, Status: Dead
It was a long-delayed catharsis for those of us who have the awful day of September 11, 2001 etched into our memories, which is pretty much every American over the age of 10.
After 10 long years of at least two wars (three if you count Libya), countless American soldiers lost, trillions of dollars spent and stunning intrusions into our civil liberties, the man who started it all, undoubtedly the most hated and evil man on the planet, terrorist Osama Bin Laden is dead.
Bin Laden was nothing he claimed to be. He portrayed himself to be a man of the Arab people. But he was no revolutionary. Part of the reason he was located was that he was not, as many expected, hold up in some remote cave, but living a lavish life in a mansion outside of Abadabad, Pakistan.
He was no courageous warrior. By all accounts, his last minutes were filled with cowardice, not bravery.
He was no true believer, even in the distorted principles of the radical sect of Islam to which he belongs. A true believer would have welcomed the chance to enter the afterlife a martyr and join his harem of virgins. But Bin Laden resisted like a man who, rather than being a religious man, was a deceitful, cynical man, who used religion to gather the poor and the downtrodden to his evil cause.
The political punditry have already begun the debates -- who gets the credit - George W. Bush or Barack Obama? Should the photos be released? What does this mean for 2012? I will talk about all these things in the months ahead. Politics is an important part of preserving our democracy. I wouldn't spend so much of my time writing about it if I believed otherwise.
But before you read the next two sections, which rejoin the political discussion, take a moment, or an hour, or a week and savor the vast improvement that human race has undergone by no longer having Osama Bin Laden within its ranks. He was a disgrace to Islam and the Arab world, but most importantly to humanity. I am not a religious person, but today, I hope gravely that I am wrong, so that there is a hell for Osama Bin Laden to burn in.
I'm also not a believe in the death penalty, but I can't think of a better exception to the rule than the most evil man on the planet.
Good riddance, Osama. Congratulations, Navy Seals.
Conspiracy Theories That Are Dead
It's been a rough couple of weeks if you are a wing nut conspiracy theorist. If you were one of the so-called "birthers", the release of the President's original birth certificate struck a blow to your cause. In fact, a new CNN poll reveals that a mere 3% of the population believes the birther nonsense, down dramatically from earlier polls that had the numbers well into the double digits.
If you are one of the so called "truthers", those who believe that the government was complicit, or even behind, the events of September 11th, your theory took a pretty hard blow with the surgical killing of the man who really did it.
In a Democracy, there will always be wing nuts. Some wing nut theories are harmless, like the fascination with Area 51. Some are vicious and evil, like the Ku Klux Klan. And some are just plain stupid. Birthers and truthers fit somewhere between the second and the third.
Surges Aren't What They Used to Be
I had mentioned in my last post that the President's numbers had been sagging. This, of course, was prior to the successful killing of Osama Bin Laden. Prior to the killing, the President's approve minus disapprove had slumped to the range of -2, which, while not the absolute lowest of his Presidency, basically meant that the entire "lame duck bump" that he got following the success of the lame duck session of the last congress, combined with improving economic conditions, had entirely faded. Very predictably, the President, got a bump from the killing of Bin Laden. His daily numbers since my last report are below.
With the killing occurring right at the beginning of May, you see exactly the same pattern in his monthly numbers.
What is interesting is that while the President certainly got a bump from getting Bin Laden, it is nowhere near the bumps that past Presidents have seen in uniting moments like this for the country. George Hebert-Walker Bush saw his approval rating climb to over 90% in some polls following the success of the first Persian Gulf War. The same was true for George Walker Bush following the immediate aftermath of September 11th. By that standard, Obama's poll bump seems pretty modest.
But times are different. For one thing, we've been at war for 10 years, so the unifying effects of a military operation have been significantly muted. For another, the economic is still very tough for a great many people. Unemployment, while well down off its high, is still a painful 9.0%, a full 1.5% higher than the worst it got during H.W. Bush's administration, when his approval sank as low as the 20s. Thirdly, we are clearly more polarized -- the days of a President having 90%+ approval may be gone for good. And finally, and this is a good thing, voters actually seem to be viewing this through a sophisticated lens. The President's approval on foreign policy matters has jumped to multi-year highs as has his approval on the war on terror. In other words, people give the President credit for a job well done getting Bin Laden, some just don't approve of him overall because of our economic and budgetary troubles. That is a completely fair, well-reasoned point of view.
As I say just about every week now, election 2012 is all about the economy. Killing Bin Laden is a crowning achievement for President Barack Obama's legacy. But the things that build legacies are not necessarily the ones that win elections.
If you like this site, tell your friends.
It was a long-delayed catharsis for those of us who have the awful day of September 11, 2001 etched into our memories, which is pretty much every American over the age of 10.
After 10 long years of at least two wars (three if you count Libya), countless American soldiers lost, trillions of dollars spent and stunning intrusions into our civil liberties, the man who started it all, undoubtedly the most hated and evil man on the planet, terrorist Osama Bin Laden is dead.
Bin Laden was nothing he claimed to be. He portrayed himself to be a man of the Arab people. But he was no revolutionary. Part of the reason he was located was that he was not, as many expected, hold up in some remote cave, but living a lavish life in a mansion outside of Abadabad, Pakistan.
He was no courageous warrior. By all accounts, his last minutes were filled with cowardice, not bravery.
He was no true believer, even in the distorted principles of the radical sect of Islam to which he belongs. A true believer would have welcomed the chance to enter the afterlife a martyr and join his harem of virgins. But Bin Laden resisted like a man who, rather than being a religious man, was a deceitful, cynical man, who used religion to gather the poor and the downtrodden to his evil cause.
The political punditry have already begun the debates -- who gets the credit - George W. Bush or Barack Obama? Should the photos be released? What does this mean for 2012? I will talk about all these things in the months ahead. Politics is an important part of preserving our democracy. I wouldn't spend so much of my time writing about it if I believed otherwise.
But before you read the next two sections, which rejoin the political discussion, take a moment, or an hour, or a week and savor the vast improvement that human race has undergone by no longer having Osama Bin Laden within its ranks. He was a disgrace to Islam and the Arab world, but most importantly to humanity. I am not a religious person, but today, I hope gravely that I am wrong, so that there is a hell for Osama Bin Laden to burn in.
I'm also not a believe in the death penalty, but I can't think of a better exception to the rule than the most evil man on the planet.
Good riddance, Osama. Congratulations, Navy Seals.
Conspiracy Theories That Are Dead
It's been a rough couple of weeks if you are a wing nut conspiracy theorist. If you were one of the so-called "birthers", the release of the President's original birth certificate struck a blow to your cause. In fact, a new CNN poll reveals that a mere 3% of the population believes the birther nonsense, down dramatically from earlier polls that had the numbers well into the double digits.
If you are one of the so called "truthers", those who believe that the government was complicit, or even behind, the events of September 11th, your theory took a pretty hard blow with the surgical killing of the man who really did it.
In a Democracy, there will always be wing nuts. Some wing nut theories are harmless, like the fascination with Area 51. Some are vicious and evil, like the Ku Klux Klan. And some are just plain stupid. Birthers and truthers fit somewhere between the second and the third.
Surges Aren't What They Used to Be
I had mentioned in my last post that the President's numbers had been sagging. This, of course, was prior to the successful killing of Osama Bin Laden. Prior to the killing, the President's approve minus disapprove had slumped to the range of -2, which, while not the absolute lowest of his Presidency, basically meant that the entire "lame duck bump" that he got following the success of the lame duck session of the last congress, combined with improving economic conditions, had entirely faded. Very predictably, the President, got a bump from the killing of Bin Laden. His daily numbers since my last report are below.
With the killing occurring right at the beginning of May, you see exactly the same pattern in his monthly numbers.
What is interesting is that while the President certainly got a bump from getting Bin Laden, it is nowhere near the bumps that past Presidents have seen in uniting moments like this for the country. George Hebert-Walker Bush saw his approval rating climb to over 90% in some polls following the success of the first Persian Gulf War. The same was true for George Walker Bush following the immediate aftermath of September 11th. By that standard, Obama's poll bump seems pretty modest.
But times are different. For one thing, we've been at war for 10 years, so the unifying effects of a military operation have been significantly muted. For another, the economic is still very tough for a great many people. Unemployment, while well down off its high, is still a painful 9.0%, a full 1.5% higher than the worst it got during H.W. Bush's administration, when his approval sank as low as the 20s. Thirdly, we are clearly more polarized -- the days of a President having 90%+ approval may be gone for good. And finally, and this is a good thing, voters actually seem to be viewing this through a sophisticated lens. The President's approval on foreign policy matters has jumped to multi-year highs as has his approval on the war on terror. In other words, people give the President credit for a job well done getting Bin Laden, some just don't approve of him overall because of our economic and budgetary troubles. That is a completely fair, well-reasoned point of view.
As I say just about every week now, election 2012 is all about the economy. Killing Bin Laden is a crowning achievement for President Barack Obama's legacy. But the things that build legacies are not necessarily the ones that win elections.
If you like this site, tell your friends.
Sunday, May 1, 2011
I Demand to See Donald Trump's Birth Certificate, Hoping for the Gang of Six, A Presidency in Crisis?
Birthers Are Racist Idiots
Barring some kind of dramatic event unfolding, my sincere hope is that this is the last time I have to write about this topic. I've spilled enough virtual ink on this nonsensical topic. Let me try one more time to rehash things:
In 2008, when then-Senator Barack Obama was running for President, rumors from the conservative blogosphere emerged that he had not, in fact, been born in Hawaii, but had been born in Kenya. In response, his campaign released a "Certificate of Live Birth", the current legal copy of a birth certificate issued in Hawaii, which should have put the issue to bed. But there is no convincing idiots with logic, and the rumors have persisted, buoyed in recent days by the incoherent ramblings of one Donald Trump.
Let me review the facts one more time:
* The "Certificate of Live Birth" is the current legal standard for birth certificate copies in Hawaii, it is accepted as proof of birth in all 50 states and by the U.S. State Department for the issuance in passports.
* Microfiche evidences proves positively that the birth of Barack Obama in Hawaii was reported by the hospital in two papers the day after it occurred.
* Several news organizations including factcheck.org and CNN had viewed the original of his birth certificate in Honolulu and reported that fact.
* Even if one were to ignore the obvious facts as to the location of his birth and choose to continue to believe he was born in Kenya, President Obama would likely have been eligible anyhow as he was entitled to U.S. citizenship at birth based on the citizenship of his mother. This is no different from Senator John McCain, who was born in Panama while his father was serving in the military.
But, the President relented this past week and was able to convince the State of Hawaii to release his birth certificate. This was a poor move in my opinion -- there was absolutely zero credible evidence to counter from the birthers and frankly, if the right-wing of the GOP wants to behave like a bunch of braying jackasses, I'd be happy to let them. Karl Rove commented extensively on how this issue was hurting the credibility of the President's opponents, as had Bill O'Reilly and they were both 100% correct. But, in his continuing spirit of "ever backing down", the President conceded ground to the wing nuts and convinced the State of Hawaii to release his original.
So why do I think birthers are racist? Ask yourself a question. Has Donald Trump released a copy of his birth certificate? How about Mitt Romney? Michelle Bachman? Have any of the GOP candidates?
And why is no one asking?
You could say that it is because there is no credible reason to believe that any of them were born outside the United States and you'd be right. There is equally zero credible evidence that Barack Obama was born outside the US. Simply put, if you choose to believe that the President was born in Kenya, against all facts, then you are simply buying into the Muslim-Kenyan-Tribal image of our first black President. And you are doing so without evidence. And that is racism, period.
If you've been hawking this issue, get a life. I'm talking to you, Mr. Trump.
Will the Gang of Six Crack the Deficit Code?
We are a long way from a deal on long-term deficit reduction. It's a very strong possibility that, as has happened so many times in the past, all the talk will lead to very little action. There have only been a few times in my lifetime that the parties have come together to effectively address the deficit. The Gramm-Rudman deficit reduction act of 1985, which closed tax loopholes and implemented the original version of "pay as you go" comes to mind. So does the tax deal that President George Herbert Walker Bush struck with congressional Democrats in 1991, which was wildly unpopular with his party but set-up for the surpluses of the late 90s. But it doesn't happen much.
But I AM very encouraged with the bipartisan negotiations that are taking place between the so-called "Gang of Six" which include 1 liberal Democrat (Dick Durbin-IL), two moderate Democrats (Kent Conrad-ND and Mark Warner-VA) and three conservative Republicans (Saxby Chambliss-GA, Mike Crapo-ID and Tom Coburn-OK.) Using the deficit reduction commissions plan as a baseline, they are working towards a deal and making some progress. Coburn has even defended tax changes that would increase revenue (also known as tax increases) so long as the revenue-enhancement is achieved through closing loopholes and not through raising marginal rates (which is what the deficit panel had proposed.) I wish we'd gained alignment at the outset for an up-or-down vote on the panel's findings, but thanks the partisan flip-flopping of Senator John McCain and others, we didn't get that chance. But if these six Senators, who come from across the ideological spectrum, can agree on a plan, then I believe that a bipartisan bill can pass. And they are doing it the right way, putting things on the table, negotiating in good faith. We all should root for their success.
How Much Trouble is Barack Obama In?
I've been writing for a while that President Obama was an odds-on favorite for a second term. My theory has always been that the timing of economic recovery would create favorable conditions for an incumbent, regardless of any policy squabbles. But the economic recovery has become significantly less robust, with economic growth slowing to 1.8% in the first quarter of this year and inflation jumping up significantly, particularly on commodities such as oil and food. Incoming growth above the "mendoza line" of 1.5% (the line on linear regression analysis that generally correlates to the incumbent President's party receiving 50% of the Presidential vote) is not assured and the President's poll numbers, after a bump at the end of last year and the beginning of this year, have sagged again (a full update on those numbers next week.)
But the President is still polling favorable against would-be GOPers. Here is a quick average of his performance against possible GOP candidates:
Versus Mike Huckabee: Obama +2.5%
Versus Mitt Romney: Obama +2.4%
Versus Jon Huntsman: Obama +11.0%
Versus Michelle Bachman: Obama +12.0%
Versus Mitch Daniels: Obama +13.0%
Versus Tim Pawlenty: Obama +13.5%
Versus Newt Gingrich: Obama +14.3%
Versus Donald Trump: Obama +15.4%
Versus Sarah Palin: Obama +17.9%
Of course, these polls are not very predictive of final outcomes at this stage of the race - Jon Stewart did a great comedy piece on this on the Daily Show last week which relived the news reports of Hillary Clinton being a lock in 2008, Joe Lieberman being the front-runner in 2004 and Bill Clinton being in 7th in the Democrat running order in 1992. But they do give us some clues.
Clearly Huntsman, Daniels and Pawlenty are suffering from the fact that few people really know very much about them yet. And Gingrich, Trump and Palin are likely suffering from the fact that people DO know a lot about them. Romney and Huckabee are the two established, credible candidates that the public knows, and they poll pretty close to President Obama. Either one of the lesser-knowns will break out of the pack or those two, who have to be considered the front-runners at this point (regardless of Donald Trump polling well in some polls at this point), would run a very close, competitive race with the President next November.
So how much trouble is the President in? I've said it before and I'll say it again -- it's all about the economy.
If you like this site, tell your friends.
Barring some kind of dramatic event unfolding, my sincere hope is that this is the last time I have to write about this topic. I've spilled enough virtual ink on this nonsensical topic. Let me try one more time to rehash things:
In 2008, when then-Senator Barack Obama was running for President, rumors from the conservative blogosphere emerged that he had not, in fact, been born in Hawaii, but had been born in Kenya. In response, his campaign released a "Certificate of Live Birth", the current legal copy of a birth certificate issued in Hawaii, which should have put the issue to bed. But there is no convincing idiots with logic, and the rumors have persisted, buoyed in recent days by the incoherent ramblings of one Donald Trump.
Let me review the facts one more time:
* The "Certificate of Live Birth" is the current legal standard for birth certificate copies in Hawaii, it is accepted as proof of birth in all 50 states and by the U.S. State Department for the issuance in passports.
* Microfiche evidences proves positively that the birth of Barack Obama in Hawaii was reported by the hospital in two papers the day after it occurred.
* Several news organizations including factcheck.org and CNN had viewed the original of his birth certificate in Honolulu and reported that fact.
* Even if one were to ignore the obvious facts as to the location of his birth and choose to continue to believe he was born in Kenya, President Obama would likely have been eligible anyhow as he was entitled to U.S. citizenship at birth based on the citizenship of his mother. This is no different from Senator John McCain, who was born in Panama while his father was serving in the military.
But, the President relented this past week and was able to convince the State of Hawaii to release his birth certificate. This was a poor move in my opinion -- there was absolutely zero credible evidence to counter from the birthers and frankly, if the right-wing of the GOP wants to behave like a bunch of braying jackasses, I'd be happy to let them. Karl Rove commented extensively on how this issue was hurting the credibility of the President's opponents, as had Bill O'Reilly and they were both 100% correct. But, in his continuing spirit of "ever backing down", the President conceded ground to the wing nuts and convinced the State of Hawaii to release his original.
So why do I think birthers are racist? Ask yourself a question. Has Donald Trump released a copy of his birth certificate? How about Mitt Romney? Michelle Bachman? Have any of the GOP candidates?
And why is no one asking?
You could say that it is because there is no credible reason to believe that any of them were born outside the United States and you'd be right. There is equally zero credible evidence that Barack Obama was born outside the US. Simply put, if you choose to believe that the President was born in Kenya, against all facts, then you are simply buying into the Muslim-Kenyan-Tribal image of our first black President. And you are doing so without evidence. And that is racism, period.
If you've been hawking this issue, get a life. I'm talking to you, Mr. Trump.
Will the Gang of Six Crack the Deficit Code?
We are a long way from a deal on long-term deficit reduction. It's a very strong possibility that, as has happened so many times in the past, all the talk will lead to very little action. There have only been a few times in my lifetime that the parties have come together to effectively address the deficit. The Gramm-Rudman deficit reduction act of 1985, which closed tax loopholes and implemented the original version of "pay as you go" comes to mind. So does the tax deal that President George Herbert Walker Bush struck with congressional Democrats in 1991, which was wildly unpopular with his party but set-up for the surpluses of the late 90s. But it doesn't happen much.
But I AM very encouraged with the bipartisan negotiations that are taking place between the so-called "Gang of Six" which include 1 liberal Democrat (Dick Durbin-IL), two moderate Democrats (Kent Conrad-ND and Mark Warner-VA) and three conservative Republicans (Saxby Chambliss-GA, Mike Crapo-ID and Tom Coburn-OK.) Using the deficit reduction commissions plan as a baseline, they are working towards a deal and making some progress. Coburn has even defended tax changes that would increase revenue (also known as tax increases) so long as the revenue-enhancement is achieved through closing loopholes and not through raising marginal rates (which is what the deficit panel had proposed.) I wish we'd gained alignment at the outset for an up-or-down vote on the panel's findings, but thanks the partisan flip-flopping of Senator John McCain and others, we didn't get that chance. But if these six Senators, who come from across the ideological spectrum, can agree on a plan, then I believe that a bipartisan bill can pass. And they are doing it the right way, putting things on the table, negotiating in good faith. We all should root for their success.
How Much Trouble is Barack Obama In?
I've been writing for a while that President Obama was an odds-on favorite for a second term. My theory has always been that the timing of economic recovery would create favorable conditions for an incumbent, regardless of any policy squabbles. But the economic recovery has become significantly less robust, with economic growth slowing to 1.8% in the first quarter of this year and inflation jumping up significantly, particularly on commodities such as oil and food. Incoming growth above the "mendoza line" of 1.5% (the line on linear regression analysis that generally correlates to the incumbent President's party receiving 50% of the Presidential vote) is not assured and the President's poll numbers, after a bump at the end of last year and the beginning of this year, have sagged again (a full update on those numbers next week.)
But the President is still polling favorable against would-be GOPers. Here is a quick average of his performance against possible GOP candidates:
Versus Mike Huckabee: Obama +2.5%
Versus Mitt Romney: Obama +2.4%
Versus Jon Huntsman: Obama +11.0%
Versus Michelle Bachman: Obama +12.0%
Versus Mitch Daniels: Obama +13.0%
Versus Tim Pawlenty: Obama +13.5%
Versus Newt Gingrich: Obama +14.3%
Versus Donald Trump: Obama +15.4%
Versus Sarah Palin: Obama +17.9%
Of course, these polls are not very predictive of final outcomes at this stage of the race - Jon Stewart did a great comedy piece on this on the Daily Show last week which relived the news reports of Hillary Clinton being a lock in 2008, Joe Lieberman being the front-runner in 2004 and Bill Clinton being in 7th in the Democrat running order in 1992. But they do give us some clues.
Clearly Huntsman, Daniels and Pawlenty are suffering from the fact that few people really know very much about them yet. And Gingrich, Trump and Palin are likely suffering from the fact that people DO know a lot about them. Romney and Huckabee are the two established, credible candidates that the public knows, and they poll pretty close to President Obama. Either one of the lesser-knowns will break out of the pack or those two, who have to be considered the front-runners at this point (regardless of Donald Trump polling well in some polls at this point), would run a very close, competitive race with the President next November.
So how much trouble is the President in? I've said it before and I'll say it again -- it's all about the economy.
If you like this site, tell your friends.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
