This took me awhile, but after Mitt Romney's recent cookie flap in Pittsburgh, I've finally come to an understanding about the former Massachusetts governor. Mitt Romney is an asshole. Now, I don't say that as a criticism, but rather as a description of the man. Romney is the kinda guy who's friends tell other people, "Oh, that's just Mitt being Mitt." And in general, Romney doesn't mean to be an asshole, he just is. To his credit, I think Romney knows that he's an asshole, and takes steps to keep his assholedness in check. That's why he becomes the RomneyBot, and does weird things like comment on the height of trees.
By the way, I don't necessarily think that the asshole thing is a disqualifier for becoming President of the United States (being a rank opportunist, though, is). In fact, some of my favorite politicians are complete assholes. The fact that Romney is aware of the problem indicates a level of personal awareness well above Bush.
What does this mean for the campaign? Well, somewhere between a little and a lot. The Obama campaign is all about building up Obama while also letting Obama connect with voters - he's genuinely a nice guy, loves his family, and a huge sports fan (huuge). So, in many ways, the Obama campaign in the past has suffered by waiting on the President to make his case.
Romney's campaign won't have that problem. If I worked for Romney, I'd keep him as far away from voters as possible. At best, I'm getting the RomneyBot, and at worst, Romney's pure asshole comes out. (his Seamus story, where he strapped the dog to the roof of his car on a family trip, is a great example of asshole Romney - he actually thought it was a good story to put in his book). Along with his troubles with the conservative base, being unable to build a cult of personality means that Romney will never have a Sister Souljah moment. Every crazy ass thing that the Republican base wants, he has to deliver because he has no credibility with the base.
Now, if I worked for Obama, here's how I would use this to my advantage - I would run ads highlighting every ridiculous thing Romney said to pander to the right wing in this year's primary. And I mean everything. Paint Romney as being "severely" conservative - so "severely" conservative that he is literally poison to moderate voters. Again, because his base is not secure, Romney will not be able to challenge those attacks. If he does, Romney faces a backlash from his base.
Romney, by contrast, has to focus everything he has on Obama and on the economy. Now, here's where things get tricky - the base believes that Obama was never fully "vetted" and that he is a secret Kenyan, Muslim, anti-colonial, Hitler-type person, who wants to enslave us all. Oh, and that he's also stupid. Of course, all of that is complete nonsense - not only was Obama vetted (through one of the hardest primaries in recent memory), but faced constant attacks throughout the 2008 campaign. A lot of the attacks never stuck because outside of the base, no one believed the attacks. Romney knows this, and wants to focus his attacks on the economy. If he does, I expect to see a SuperPac stepping up to sling pure mud. Oh, and the Veep choice will be a bedrock conservative (Mark Rubio).
If, God forbid, Romney does get elected, he will still have to protect his right flank, and so he's going to govern as a bedrock conservative. If he shows any moderation, it will be in his second term (if he gets one).
Friday, April 20, 2012
Thursday, March 29, 2012
On the Trayvon Martin Shooting
For the past several weeks, I have looked on, with some degree of horror, at the investigation of the shooting death of Trayvon Martin, and all the circus that this tragedy has become.
And let's say very, very clearly, that this whole episode is a tragedy, first and foremost. Whatever the circumstances of what happened that night, let's be clear on one thing - there was no reason whatsoever for Trayvon Martin to die. He was walking home from a convenience store, armed with an iced tea in one hand, and a bag of Skiddles in the other, and spent at least some time talking on his cellphone with his girlfriend.
Now, it is the circumstances of his death, and how they came about, that drives this whole event. We do know that the shooter, George Zimmerman, took it upon himself to be the neighborhood watch (even though there was a neighborhood watch in place, and that Zimmerman was not a member of that group, and that neighborhood watch members don't carry guns). We know that Zimmerman thought that Trayvon Martin looked suspicious, and that, despite explicit instructions from the 9-11 dispatcher, Zimmerman followed Trayvon Martin. We also know that Zimmerman called 9-11 quite often about suspicious-looking characters in his neighborhood (not surprising given that he was acting as a neighborhood watchman), and that more than a few of said suspicious-looking individuals reported by Zimmerman were African-American. These "suspicious-looking" individuals included a 7-9 year old boy.
Here's what we don't know - we don't know how the shooting happened. Did Zimmerman stalk down and kill Trayvon Martin? Or, did Trayvon Martin, filled with testosterone-laden confidence of a 17 year old, confront and/or attack Zimmerman for following him? Zimmerman, of course, says that he was attacked by Trayvon Martin, and that he used his pistol in self-defense. A video of Zimmerman made shortly after the Trayvon Martin's death doesn't appear to show any wounds. But, of course, Zimmerman could have cleaned himself up in the intervening minutes between the shooting and the video. At the same time, Trayvon Martin never had a history of violence, and Zimmerman outweighed Martin by over a hundred pounds (Zimmerman is 250 lbs, to Martin's 140 lbs.). So if there was a fight, Zimmerman should have been able to overpower Martin.
Unfortunately, this means that the scenarios for this case are: 1) Zimmerman murdered Trayvon Martin in cold blood; 2) Trayvon Martin, reacting to what he perceived to be threatening behavior, confronted Zimmerman, and Zimmerman shot Martin during a heated argument/fight; or 3) Martin, reacting to what he perceived to be threatening behavior, sucker-punched Zimmerman, and in self-defense, Zimmerman shot Martin. Of the three, the second, which would result in Zimmerman committing manslaughter, seems the most likely.
Now, with that said, the behavior of the people outside of this incident has been pretty crappy. It appears that several elements of the Sanford Police Department took Zimmerman's side from the beginning (although the lead investigator apparently did not), and the State's Attorney refused to prosecute despite the recommendation of the lead investigator. Then there are the idiots - conservative blogs like the Daily Caller who are currently smearing Trayvon Martin as a thug, the New Black Panthers putting a bounty on George Zimmerman, Spike Lee retweeting what he thought was George Zimmerman's address (and it wasn't), Geraldo Rivera (a long-time resident of the idiot list) blaming Martin's sweatshirt, and on and on.
So, for the idiots out there - stop it. Please, please stop it. Yes, there was a time when it appeared that the Sanford Police Department (or the State's Attorney) was going to find a reason to not arrest George Zimmerman - a time that has passed. And certainly, railroading Zimmerman (if he really was attacked by Martin) would be a bad thing too. But neither is likely to now happen. So please shut up. Stop hacking Trayvon Martin's email account, stop stalking George Zimmerman, stop all of it.
And let's say very, very clearly, that this whole episode is a tragedy, first and foremost. Whatever the circumstances of what happened that night, let's be clear on one thing - there was no reason whatsoever for Trayvon Martin to die. He was walking home from a convenience store, armed with an iced tea in one hand, and a bag of Skiddles in the other, and spent at least some time talking on his cellphone with his girlfriend.
Now, it is the circumstances of his death, and how they came about, that drives this whole event. We do know that the shooter, George Zimmerman, took it upon himself to be the neighborhood watch (even though there was a neighborhood watch in place, and that Zimmerman was not a member of that group, and that neighborhood watch members don't carry guns). We know that Zimmerman thought that Trayvon Martin looked suspicious, and that, despite explicit instructions from the 9-11 dispatcher, Zimmerman followed Trayvon Martin. We also know that Zimmerman called 9-11 quite often about suspicious-looking characters in his neighborhood (not surprising given that he was acting as a neighborhood watchman), and that more than a few of said suspicious-looking individuals reported by Zimmerman were African-American. These "suspicious-looking" individuals included a 7-9 year old boy.
Here's what we don't know - we don't know how the shooting happened. Did Zimmerman stalk down and kill Trayvon Martin? Or, did Trayvon Martin, filled with testosterone-laden confidence of a 17 year old, confront and/or attack Zimmerman for following him? Zimmerman, of course, says that he was attacked by Trayvon Martin, and that he used his pistol in self-defense. A video of Zimmerman made shortly after the Trayvon Martin's death doesn't appear to show any wounds. But, of course, Zimmerman could have cleaned himself up in the intervening minutes between the shooting and the video. At the same time, Trayvon Martin never had a history of violence, and Zimmerman outweighed Martin by over a hundred pounds (Zimmerman is 250 lbs, to Martin's 140 lbs.). So if there was a fight, Zimmerman should have been able to overpower Martin.
Unfortunately, this means that the scenarios for this case are: 1) Zimmerman murdered Trayvon Martin in cold blood; 2) Trayvon Martin, reacting to what he perceived to be threatening behavior, confronted Zimmerman, and Zimmerman shot Martin during a heated argument/fight; or 3) Martin, reacting to what he perceived to be threatening behavior, sucker-punched Zimmerman, and in self-defense, Zimmerman shot Martin. Of the three, the second, which would result in Zimmerman committing manslaughter, seems the most likely.
Now, with that said, the behavior of the people outside of this incident has been pretty crappy. It appears that several elements of the Sanford Police Department took Zimmerman's side from the beginning (although the lead investigator apparently did not), and the State's Attorney refused to prosecute despite the recommendation of the lead investigator. Then there are the idiots - conservative blogs like the Daily Caller who are currently smearing Trayvon Martin as a thug, the New Black Panthers putting a bounty on George Zimmerman, Spike Lee retweeting what he thought was George Zimmerman's address (and it wasn't), Geraldo Rivera (a long-time resident of the idiot list) blaming Martin's sweatshirt, and on and on.
So, for the idiots out there - stop it. Please, please stop it. Yes, there was a time when it appeared that the Sanford Police Department (or the State's Attorney) was going to find a reason to not arrest George Zimmerman - a time that has passed. And certainly, railroading Zimmerman (if he really was attacked by Martin) would be a bad thing too. But neither is likely to now happen. So please shut up. Stop hacking Trayvon Martin's email account, stop stalking George Zimmerman, stop all of it.
Wednesday, March 21, 2012
Assorted Thoughts Blogging
Its been awhile since I've addressed more than one topic in a blog post, and today was as good as a day as ever. If you follow sports and politics (like me), you have to comment on a few of the following:
The NFL blows out the Saints: In the past few weeks, it was discovered that the Saints had a coach-run bounty program, whereby defensive players were paid extra money to take out and injure opposing offensive players. In response, the NFL suspended the defensive coach (who started the bounty program) indefinitely, the head coach of the Saints for a year, the GM for half a season, fined the Saints and the GM $500K each, and took away two 2nd round draft picks.
There are a lot of issues at play here. For one, the NFL is currently under the gun on player concussions. As it turns out, playing in the NFL is, most likely, really, really bad for a player's brain. Like Alzheimers bad. And former players (and their families) are suing the NFL for not doing enough to prevent concussions. So, having a coach-run bounty program where players are encouraged by their organizations to give other players concussions (and probably getting concussed themselves) is exactly what the NFL does not need.
Additionally, the amount of money on the line for the players who are hurt (and the franchises who employ them) is huge - multimillion dollar huge. And if the NFL can't police behavior, then an organization like the Cardinals, who lost millions of dollars when the Saints purposefully injured Kurt Warner (and ended his career, btw), may take other recourse, like suing the Saints. The only way to keep those sort of lawsuits at bay was for the NFL to come down so hard that the victims of this bounty program feel they got their pound of flesh. And it looks like they have done so.
The Continuing GOP Primary: You know, every time it looks like Romney has wrapped this thing up, either he, or someone from his campaign, does something to screw up. The latest gaffe, where one of Romney's campaign advisor states that Romney will take an "etch-a-sketch" to his policy positions once the nomination is won, confirmed the worst suspicions of conservatives. Now, it might be too late for Santorum and Gingrich to overtake Romney, but they could still get enough delegates to prevent Romney from getting the nomination outright. And if that happens, Romney has himself to blame.
Seriously, the number of unforced errors by the Romney camp is nothing short of ridiculous. Santorum and Gingrich are not A-listers by any stretch of the imagination - both are literally GOP castaways. In fact, the only A-list opponents that Romney faced - John Huntsman, Tim Pawlenty and Rick Perry - were either too boring or too unprepared to make Romney sweat. With Romney's money advantage, he should have locked up this nomination a long, long time ago.
Even when he does lock up the nomination, Romney is going to have problems. For one, and as Santorum clearly notes, the voters who make up Romney's base are Republican voters who live in Democratic areas (in cities and in the Northeast). If Romney is going to beat Obama, he has to perform better in the Red/purple States than McCain did in 2008. If the South isn't sure of Romney (and they aren't), they'll stay home.
Tebow to the Jets, Manning to the Broncos: As a Chargers fan, I am not entirely pleased with Peyton Manning joining the Denver Broncos. Now, that's not necessarily because I fear Peyton Manning (though I respect his work), but because getting Manning was the right thing for Denver to do. That means that John Elway is a much, much more competent personnel guy than Josh McDaniels, and so the Broncos have a shot a being good again. Nuts.
As far as Tebow going to New York. . .I'm a bit confused. That's all I can say.
The NFL blows out the Saints: In the past few weeks, it was discovered that the Saints had a coach-run bounty program, whereby defensive players were paid extra money to take out and injure opposing offensive players. In response, the NFL suspended the defensive coach (who started the bounty program) indefinitely, the head coach of the Saints for a year, the GM for half a season, fined the Saints and the GM $500K each, and took away two 2nd round draft picks.
There are a lot of issues at play here. For one, the NFL is currently under the gun on player concussions. As it turns out, playing in the NFL is, most likely, really, really bad for a player's brain. Like Alzheimers bad. And former players (and their families) are suing the NFL for not doing enough to prevent concussions. So, having a coach-run bounty program where players are encouraged by their organizations to give other players concussions (and probably getting concussed themselves) is exactly what the NFL does not need.
Additionally, the amount of money on the line for the players who are hurt (and the franchises who employ them) is huge - multimillion dollar huge. And if the NFL can't police behavior, then an organization like the Cardinals, who lost millions of dollars when the Saints purposefully injured Kurt Warner (and ended his career, btw), may take other recourse, like suing the Saints. The only way to keep those sort of lawsuits at bay was for the NFL to come down so hard that the victims of this bounty program feel they got their pound of flesh. And it looks like they have done so.
The Continuing GOP Primary: You know, every time it looks like Romney has wrapped this thing up, either he, or someone from his campaign, does something to screw up. The latest gaffe, where one of Romney's campaign advisor states that Romney will take an "etch-a-sketch" to his policy positions once the nomination is won, confirmed the worst suspicions of conservatives. Now, it might be too late for Santorum and Gingrich to overtake Romney, but they could still get enough delegates to prevent Romney from getting the nomination outright. And if that happens, Romney has himself to blame.
Seriously, the number of unforced errors by the Romney camp is nothing short of ridiculous. Santorum and Gingrich are not A-listers by any stretch of the imagination - both are literally GOP castaways. In fact, the only A-list opponents that Romney faced - John Huntsman, Tim Pawlenty and Rick Perry - were either too boring or too unprepared to make Romney sweat. With Romney's money advantage, he should have locked up this nomination a long, long time ago.
Even when he does lock up the nomination, Romney is going to have problems. For one, and as Santorum clearly notes, the voters who make up Romney's base are Republican voters who live in Democratic areas (in cities and in the Northeast). If Romney is going to beat Obama, he has to perform better in the Red/purple States than McCain did in 2008. If the South isn't sure of Romney (and they aren't), they'll stay home.
Tebow to the Jets, Manning to the Broncos: As a Chargers fan, I am not entirely pleased with Peyton Manning joining the Denver Broncos. Now, that's not necessarily because I fear Peyton Manning (though I respect his work), but because getting Manning was the right thing for Denver to do. That means that John Elway is a much, much more competent personnel guy than Josh McDaniels, and so the Broncos have a shot a being good again. Nuts.
As far as Tebow going to New York. . .I'm a bit confused. That's all I can say.
Monday, March 12, 2012
Thoughts on "Game Change"
After thinking I had avoided the HBO Movie "Game Change," about the 2008 Presidential Election (and particularly the aftermath of Sarah Palin's entry into the race), I was flipping through the channels on Sunday got sucked into the replay. Damn.
Now, for those of you who aren't political or TV junkies, the story of "Game Change" is thus - desperate McCain and his staff pick Sarah Palin as McCain's running mate, and Palin is such a disaster that even McCain's high level staffers won't vote for the ticket (for fear of putting the former Alaska Governor anywhere near the White House). McCain loses to Obama.
As far as a movie goes, I think some of the criticisms of the writing and the character development are fair - few if any of the characters show any development movie-wise. That said, some of the performances were dead-on. Julianne Moore's portrayal of Sarah Palin felt much deeper than Tina Fey's impersonation (obviously), and I was left somewhat understanding why so many people were (and still are) absolutely entralled with the Governor, despite her obvious foibles.
That said, and I hate to defend Sarah Palin (who's acceptance speech at the GOP National Convention inspired me to give money to the Obama campaign), but the movie does her some disservice. As horrific as a VP choice as she was, the selection of Sarah Palin was not the reason John McCain lost the Presidency. Rather, her selection, and the ensuing aftermath, were symptomatic of McCain's dysfunctional campaign.
Look, every campaign, no matter what level, is about a core message, the central campaign narrative. It can be as simple as "Vote for Me!" or, it can be a dominant theme or themes. Think of Obama's 2008 campaign, and one word comes to mind - Change. All presidential campaigns need some kind of narrative, but McCain could never find out what his narrative should be. First he attacked Obama's lack of experience (probably the most dangerous attack, as Obama had to put Biden on the ticket), and then undermined his attack when he picked Sarah Palin (who had less experience than Obama and is about half as smart). Then McCain practically worshipped "Joe the Plumber" (who is neither a plumber, nor named Joe), and then suspended his campaign to deal with the economic crisis, and lurched one way to another, and another, trying to find some kind of talisman to defeat Obama.
Now, the McCain campaign dysfunction may have been partially the result of Obama's stunning rise. After all, few DC insiders thought Obama had a shot at winning the nomination. And so, McCain's strategy was largely designed around running against Hillary Clinton. Who better to be McCain's running mate than the first Democrat to condemn Bill Clinton for the Lewinsky matter? When Obama took the nomination instead, McCain and his campaign had no idea how to beat him.
Sarah Palin's selection was a symptom of that desperation. Not only did her selection completely tank a very strong attack on Obama, but the campaign never looked into her background, and never spent the time preparing her for the role. As a result, everything was done haphazardly on the fly. Of course, the campaign had no idea that Palin needed the level of hand-holding that she did, but that was something they should have known well before selecting her. To their detriment, they also had no idea that she would be as good as she was on the stump either. If Palin wasn't as charismatic, McCain would've lost by an even larger margin.
I also see reverberations of the 2008 campaign in the 2012 campaign. Like 2008, Republicans and conservatives tend to be utterly focused on Obama's strangeness - he's an African American with a Muslim-sounding name - to stick with Palin's "paling around with terrorists" line. The other weird attack is something about teleprompters - as if a guy who graduated at the top of his class from Harvard Law School is an idiot. Those attacks are complete duds.
No, if I was the GOP nominee, I wouldn't attack Obama's intelligence (really, really high), or his strangeness, but I would attack his normalcy. He's a 50 year old man who's obsessed with sports (probably more so than any other recent President), plays poker, and loves to golf. In other words, he is completely and utterly normal. That is where I would attack - because he is so normal, he is infected with the conventional way of doing things, and failed to go hard enough against the banks, or cut taxes or whatever. Attack him for failing to think outside the box. Luckily, I don't see any Republican, save maybe Newt Gingrich, being able to pull off this attack.
And, I think if you look at the last few Presidents - Obama, Clinton and Bush - you see the opponents going for the obvious attack rather than the best attack. This was especially true with Democrats and Bush - we kept pushing the Bush-as-idiot line when we should have pushed the Bush-is-an-uncaring-asshole line. Anyway, when you look at the story of "Game Change," yes, Sarah Palin was a disaster of a VP candidate, but she probably helped McCain more than she hurt him.
Friday, March 2, 2012
There Is No Big Dog In the GOP Anymore
I've been thinking about the obnoxious filth that Rush Limbaugh has been spreading lately, and wondering if this sort of thing would've gone down during the Bush Administration. . .
And, I don't think it would. If Rush had decided to smear a woman (who, by the way, was testifying about a friend's experience in needing birth control for something other than contraception), someone from the Bush Administration would have, ever so politely, told Rush to shut thefuck up front door. And then Cheney would get on the phone with Rush, and his producers and would tell them that 1) Rush needs to "apologize" (the infamous, "I'm sorry if I offended you with my totally reasonable remarks" apology), and 2) Rush would shut the fuck up front door about any woman in the future. And Rush and his producers would politely thank Cheney for informing them of what to do, and then do it. And Bush would get away with this because he (and Cheney) were the unquestioned leaders of the GOP.
The current debate over birth control is a clear example of the lack of a big dog. Oral contraceptive, or the pill, is popular, and has been in constant use since 1960. Think about it - that's 52 years. So, if women started using the pill at around twenty, then virtually every woman under the age of 72 has used the pill. Throw in women who started taking the pill in their thirties during the 1960's, their daughters, sisters, friends, cousins, etc., and virtually every woman in the country knows multiple women who take, or who have taken the pill. Throw in the fact that the pill is not just used as a contraceptive, but used as hormone therapy for women in their 20's to their 50's, and we're talking about something that is common to American life.
So, when the Obama Administration mandated that all employers cover the pill, most women probably thought, "about time." The only way, and I mean the only way, for the GOP to win this issue is to couch the fight in terms of religious liberty, and not in terms of anti-woman. If the Bush Administration had been running things, you would've seen a lineup in Congress of all religious women, constant talk about religious liberty, and maybe (and just maybe) you would hear a woman like Laura Ingraham or Michelle Malkin slam feminists as sluts.
What you would not have is an all-male lineup at a Congressional hearing. You would not have Rush Limbaugh attacking a witness - who was going to testify about the use of the pill for hormone therapy, not contraception - as a slut. Now, its pretty clear that the GOP isn't defending religious liberty, but attacking women's rights. But since the Bush Administration more or less decimated the legitimacy of the GOP leadership, no one controls the message.
The other interesting thing is that there are four candidates for President on the GOP side right now, and about 10-15 other guys who think they could run for President, and yet, the only person to denounce Rush's comments was Boehner, who did it weakly. If any one of the Presidentials (candidates for 2012, or presumed candidates in 2016) came out and strongly denounced Rush's remarks, the press would be very, very favorable. But they don't because Rush is as close to the big dog as it gets.
And, I don't think it would. If Rush had decided to smear a woman (who, by the way, was testifying about a friend's experience in needing birth control for something other than contraception), someone from the Bush Administration would have, ever so politely, told Rush to shut the
The current debate over birth control is a clear example of the lack of a big dog. Oral contraceptive, or the pill, is popular, and has been in constant use since 1960. Think about it - that's 52 years. So, if women started using the pill at around twenty, then virtually every woman under the age of 72 has used the pill. Throw in women who started taking the pill in their thirties during the 1960's, their daughters, sisters, friends, cousins, etc., and virtually every woman in the country knows multiple women who take, or who have taken the pill. Throw in the fact that the pill is not just used as a contraceptive, but used as hormone therapy for women in their 20's to their 50's, and we're talking about something that is common to American life.
So, when the Obama Administration mandated that all employers cover the pill, most women probably thought, "about time." The only way, and I mean the only way, for the GOP to win this issue is to couch the fight in terms of religious liberty, and not in terms of anti-woman. If the Bush Administration had been running things, you would've seen a lineup in Congress of all religious women, constant talk about religious liberty, and maybe (and just maybe) you would hear a woman like Laura Ingraham or Michelle Malkin slam feminists as sluts.
What you would not have is an all-male lineup at a Congressional hearing. You would not have Rush Limbaugh attacking a witness - who was going to testify about the use of the pill for hormone therapy, not contraception - as a slut. Now, its pretty clear that the GOP isn't defending religious liberty, but attacking women's rights. But since the Bush Administration more or less decimated the legitimacy of the GOP leadership, no one controls the message.
The other interesting thing is that there are four candidates for President on the GOP side right now, and about 10-15 other guys who think they could run for President, and yet, the only person to denounce Rush's comments was Boehner, who did it weakly. If any one of the Presidentials (candidates for 2012, or presumed candidates in 2016) came out and strongly denounced Rush's remarks, the press would be very, very favorable. But they don't because Rush is as close to the big dog as it gets.
Tuesday, February 28, 2012
What Happens if Romney Loses Michigan?
Looking over the past several months of the 2012 GOP Presidential Primary, I've learned a few things, had a few laughs, and generally bored the hell out of my readership. But as we look into the crystal ball for the future, here are a few things I expect to happen:
1) If Mitt Romney Loses Michigan: Romney's father not only was the former Governor of Michigan, but used Michigan as the base of operations for his failed 1968 Presidential Bid. In other words, losing Michigan is going to hurt. Now, it won't hurt Romney as bad as losing Massachusetts or Utah, but it will hurt. Romney's biggest and best argument for the nomination is the electability issue - that he's the best match-up to Obama. If he loses Michigan, along with his losses in Missouri, Wisconsin, South Carolina and Colorado, Romney shows real weakness in the Midwest and in the South, two areas a GOP nominee has to carry to win.
Now, does this mean that Romney will drop out if he loses Michigan? Nope. Romney has a ton of money, has organizational resources, and has been running for President since 2007. If he doesn't grab the nomination now, he never will. I expect him to fully napalm the entire GOP field, except for Ron Paul (more on that below). Oh, and if there's a brokered convention, Romney will do his damnedest to blow the whole thing up. He literally has nothing to lose.
Santorum, on the other hand, further gains momentum if he wins Michigan. For a guy who has to rely on contributions, momentum is key. Big funders are more likely to send money to Santorum, or his Super PAC, and because he's a contender, he gets more free press time than he knows what to do with. For Newt, he stays in until Super Tuesday to see if his win in South Carolina is indicative of his strength in the South.
For Ron Paul, the status of the race doesn't matter whatsoever. Paul is sort of like Dennis Kuchinch in 2008 - he's there for his own reasons. Those reasons, by the way, have nothing to do with libertarian ideology. Ron Paul may be an ideologue, but he's also practical. He knows that he has no chance at getting the nomination, but he also knows that, by virtue of running, he's building an organization outside the GOP. And the only reason to build that kind of operation is to run for President and win. My guess, is that Paul is laying the groundwork for his son, Senator Rand Paul, to run for President in the future. In this light, even Paul's reluctance to attack Romney makes sense - why make enemies with the GOP leadership?
Interestingly, that makes Paul the one guy in the room with something to lose. Think about it - neither Romney, nor Santorum, nor Gingrich, have anything to lose. They do not have jobs. They have few, if any ties to the current GOP leadership, and in the case of Gingrich and Santorum, they know that they have one guy in their corner who will give them employment post-election. Given that reality, no one will drop out, and no one will go easy on the other candidates (again, except for Paul). This is going to be a bloodbath.
1) If Mitt Romney Loses Michigan: Romney's father not only was the former Governor of Michigan, but used Michigan as the base of operations for his failed 1968 Presidential Bid. In other words, losing Michigan is going to hurt. Now, it won't hurt Romney as bad as losing Massachusetts or Utah, but it will hurt. Romney's biggest and best argument for the nomination is the electability issue - that he's the best match-up to Obama. If he loses Michigan, along with his losses in Missouri, Wisconsin, South Carolina and Colorado, Romney shows real weakness in the Midwest and in the South, two areas a GOP nominee has to carry to win.
Now, does this mean that Romney will drop out if he loses Michigan? Nope. Romney has a ton of money, has organizational resources, and has been running for President since 2007. If he doesn't grab the nomination now, he never will. I expect him to fully napalm the entire GOP field, except for Ron Paul (more on that below). Oh, and if there's a brokered convention, Romney will do his damnedest to blow the whole thing up. He literally has nothing to lose.
Santorum, on the other hand, further gains momentum if he wins Michigan. For a guy who has to rely on contributions, momentum is key. Big funders are more likely to send money to Santorum, or his Super PAC, and because he's a contender, he gets more free press time than he knows what to do with. For Newt, he stays in until Super Tuesday to see if his win in South Carolina is indicative of his strength in the South.
For Ron Paul, the status of the race doesn't matter whatsoever. Paul is sort of like Dennis Kuchinch in 2008 - he's there for his own reasons. Those reasons, by the way, have nothing to do with libertarian ideology. Ron Paul may be an ideologue, but he's also practical. He knows that he has no chance at getting the nomination, but he also knows that, by virtue of running, he's building an organization outside the GOP. And the only reason to build that kind of operation is to run for President and win. My guess, is that Paul is laying the groundwork for his son, Senator Rand Paul, to run for President in the future. In this light, even Paul's reluctance to attack Romney makes sense - why make enemies with the GOP leadership?
Interestingly, that makes Paul the one guy in the room with something to lose. Think about it - neither Romney, nor Santorum, nor Gingrich, have anything to lose. They do not have jobs. They have few, if any ties to the current GOP leadership, and in the case of Gingrich and Santorum, they know that they have one guy in their corner who will give them employment post-election. Given that reality, no one will drop out, and no one will go easy on the other candidates (again, except for Paul). This is going to be a bloodbath.
Wednesday, February 22, 2012
What to do about Iran. . .
As the drumbeat for war against Iran continues, I figured that I would add my two cents. Now, by any stretch of the imagination, I am no expert in Iran. I know some of the main players, I am aware of some of the history, but Juan Cole I am not. But I have a pretty good understanding of history and politics, and it is my blog, so. . .
I think bombing Iran is just about the dumbest thing ever. Now, don't get me wrong - the Iranian government is atrocious. It horrifically tortures its people, it brutally suppresses freedoms, and it sponsors terror groups. The Supreme Leader Khamenei is an awful, awful person, who hopefully will burn in Hell for his crimes against his people. Also, notice I don't mention Ahmadinejad? Yeah, that's because he has almost no power whatsoever. An Iranian regime with nuclear weapons would be terrible.
But, and this is a big but, Iran would never, ever use nuclear weapons against anyone. Ever. The reason is simple - using nuclear weapons is an automatic death sentence. Israel, the U.S., Great Britain, China, and Russia all have the capability to wipe Iran from the map. And while some front-line soldiers might be willing to martyr themselves, the powers that be in Iran would never be willing to join in the martyrdom. Nor would they be particularly interested in having their families join them in the martyrdom. No, the reality of nuclear weapons is that they are used as a defensive weapon to protect against invasion. So, if the Iranian regime were to acquire nukes, it wouldn't use them to destroy other countries (like Israel), but would use them to prop up their own power.
The other big reason to not bomb Iran is more subtle. Every regime in power rules through both coercion and through social networks. The American Constitution, for example, gives the government the right to use force, while at the same time, gives special interest groups the right to influence the government's behaviors. And every government has that balancing of the use of force and allowing its policies to be shaped by its people - and this varies by both the amount of force the government is willing to use, and the power of the various special interest groups. When one interest group dominates, as it is in Iran, more force is needed for control. But if you diminish the power of the lead group, without diminishing the power of the other factions, you get a change in regime, which is what we want here.
Now, the problem with bombing, and with a potential invasion, is that the bombing is not guaranteed to hit the faction you want. In fact, more likely than not, bombing will hit the factions that you'd want to support - the democratic elements in Iran. Bomb Iran, and you take away their capacity to topple Khamenei, which is precisely what you want. Worse yet, that kind of attack would encourage patriotism, and bolster the regime.
However, if you can draw the regime into a conflict that would not involve the killing of democratic elements - say fight over the Straits of Hormuz - you can both embarrass the regime, and sap its military prowess, perhaps enough to a new faction to take over. This is exactly what happened to the Argentine junta in the 1980's. Like Iran, the junta had no qualms about killing and torturing its people. Then, it got drawn into a conflict with the U.K. over the Falklands, lost the war, and the junta was overthrown. Similarly, you could engage Iran in a type of cold war, and slowly strangle its means of production and its economy - a la the Soviet Union. In this scenario, you'd want to compel Iran to overspend on its military to bankrupt its economy. That way the economic elites would step in and topple the regime.
I think bombing Iran is just about the dumbest thing ever. Now, don't get me wrong - the Iranian government is atrocious. It horrifically tortures its people, it brutally suppresses freedoms, and it sponsors terror groups. The Supreme Leader Khamenei is an awful, awful person, who hopefully will burn in Hell for his crimes against his people. Also, notice I don't mention Ahmadinejad? Yeah, that's because he has almost no power whatsoever. An Iranian regime with nuclear weapons would be terrible.
But, and this is a big but, Iran would never, ever use nuclear weapons against anyone. Ever. The reason is simple - using nuclear weapons is an automatic death sentence. Israel, the U.S., Great Britain, China, and Russia all have the capability to wipe Iran from the map. And while some front-line soldiers might be willing to martyr themselves, the powers that be in Iran would never be willing to join in the martyrdom. Nor would they be particularly interested in having their families join them in the martyrdom. No, the reality of nuclear weapons is that they are used as a defensive weapon to protect against invasion. So, if the Iranian regime were to acquire nukes, it wouldn't use them to destroy other countries (like Israel), but would use them to prop up their own power.
The other big reason to not bomb Iran is more subtle. Every regime in power rules through both coercion and through social networks. The American Constitution, for example, gives the government the right to use force, while at the same time, gives special interest groups the right to influence the government's behaviors. And every government has that balancing of the use of force and allowing its policies to be shaped by its people - and this varies by both the amount of force the government is willing to use, and the power of the various special interest groups. When one interest group dominates, as it is in Iran, more force is needed for control. But if you diminish the power of the lead group, without diminishing the power of the other factions, you get a change in regime, which is what we want here.
Now, the problem with bombing, and with a potential invasion, is that the bombing is not guaranteed to hit the faction you want. In fact, more likely than not, bombing will hit the factions that you'd want to support - the democratic elements in Iran. Bomb Iran, and you take away their capacity to topple Khamenei, which is precisely what you want. Worse yet, that kind of attack would encourage patriotism, and bolster the regime.
However, if you can draw the regime into a conflict that would not involve the killing of democratic elements - say fight over the Straits of Hormuz - you can both embarrass the regime, and sap its military prowess, perhaps enough to a new faction to take over. This is exactly what happened to the Argentine junta in the 1980's. Like Iran, the junta had no qualms about killing and torturing its people. Then, it got drawn into a conflict with the U.K. over the Falklands, lost the war, and the junta was overthrown. Similarly, you could engage Iran in a type of cold war, and slowly strangle its means of production and its economy - a la the Soviet Union. In this scenario, you'd want to compel Iran to overspend on its military to bankrupt its economy. That way the economic elites would step in and topple the regime.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)