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.
Wednesday, February 22, 2012
Thursday, February 16, 2012
Whitney, Santorum, Birth Control and More: Random Thoughts Blogging
Well, its been awhile since I last posted, and great googly-moogly, Santorum is up huge. Santorum is spreading everywhere, much to everyone's dismay. Well, it light of the current frothiness, I have a few thoughts that I probably post before the dynamics of the GOP nomination race pops up again (along with a few other thoughts).
Whitney Houston's Passing: Like everyone else, I was shocked to hear that Whitney Houston had passed last Saturday. . .actually, not really that shocked, more like shock-ished. After all, Ms. Houston's drug problems were well documented, and that sort of thing isn't very healthy. Still, it was a sad event, even for someone like me who despised all that Whitney Houston wannabes that she spawned. Seriously, how many "American Idol" contestants sang "I believe the children are our future?" (Yes, I know that's not the name of the song). What is also sad is that someone like Whitney, who's mother and aunt worked in the recording industry, fell prey to the worst excesses of fame. Very sad indeed.
Santorum's Surge: My last post noted the inherent weaknesses of Mitt Romney (he matches up to his own caricatures too well), and the last few weeks have demonstrated this problem all to well. Up to this point, Romney's campaign strategy wasn't to convince GOP voters to vote for him, so much as to convince GOP voters to not vote for anyone else. He's engaged in mudslinging with Gingrich, Perry, Bachmann, etc., and his favorability ratings are in the tank for it. Santorum, who despite winning in Iowa, was under the radar, has managed to take advantage of this strategy.
Now we all know that negative campaigning works. But here's the thing, negative campaigning is a bit like chemotherapy - you hope the negative ads hurt your opponent (the cancer in this analogy), than it hurts you. Now, this works in a 2 person race because one candidate has to win, but in a primary, where there are more than 2 candidates, this gets real tricky. And there are numerous examples of candidates who ended up winning a primary because two well-financed candidates went purely negative - Gray Davis, for one, was elected Governor, after Al Checchi and Jane Harman duked it out in the primary - and Santorum definitely fits that mold.
The other thing that's going on here is that Santorum's views on social issues are probably closer to the average GOP voter than Mitt Romney's views. Where Romney can be all over the place, Santorum is consistent. And although Romney may, on paper, be a better match-up to Obama in the General Election, he has some real weaknesses in the Midwest and the South, both key areas for the GOP. With Romney's key arguments being a job creator (side-tracked by the Bain experience), and electability (being sidetracked by his own unpopularity), he doesn't have much to offer the GOP. Santorum does at this point.
Birth Control: When referring to Obama's policies, Andrew Sullivan has written that Obama's greatest strength is getting his opponents to overreach. Never has that been more true than with the birth control decision. Somehow, he's managed to paint the Congressional GOP into the anti-contraceptive corner, and now Darrel Issa is holding Congressional hearings on the issue, but not allowing any woman to testify about the Pill. Um. . .problematic much? The more this goes on, the worse it gets for the GOP. People may be ambivalent about abortion because they don't know anyone who's had an abortion, but everyone knows someone who's either on the Pill right now, or has used the Pill in the past.
Linsanity: Okay people, let's get this straight - Jeremy Lin is NOT TIM TEBOW. Lin was an undrafted 2nd year player who bounced around and found a great situation with the Knicks. Not only that, but the kid is playing at a high level every single game. Oh, and he makes almost no money in NBA terms, and has to sleep on his friend's couch. Tim Tebow was a highly touted college quarterback who was drafted in the first round, got a big contract, and has managed to win multiple games in the NFL despite not being accurate on short and intermediate throws (but is freakishly accurate on deep passes). There's a big difference here. Also, the holes in Lin's game (not able to go left, too careless with the ball) are the kinds of holes that NBA rookies have, whereas the holes in Tebow's game (not being accurate with his throws unless he goes deep), are the kind of holes that end someone's career. With any luck, Lin will end up as a poor man's Steve Nash, and good for him.
Whitney Houston's Passing: Like everyone else, I was shocked to hear that Whitney Houston had passed last Saturday. . .actually, not really that shocked, more like shock-ished. After all, Ms. Houston's drug problems were well documented, and that sort of thing isn't very healthy. Still, it was a sad event, even for someone like me who despised all that Whitney Houston wannabes that she spawned. Seriously, how many "American Idol" contestants sang "I believe the children are our future?" (Yes, I know that's not the name of the song). What is also sad is that someone like Whitney, who's mother and aunt worked in the recording industry, fell prey to the worst excesses of fame. Very sad indeed.
Santorum's Surge: My last post noted the inherent weaknesses of Mitt Romney (he matches up to his own caricatures too well), and the last few weeks have demonstrated this problem all to well. Up to this point, Romney's campaign strategy wasn't to convince GOP voters to vote for him, so much as to convince GOP voters to not vote for anyone else. He's engaged in mudslinging with Gingrich, Perry, Bachmann, etc., and his favorability ratings are in the tank for it. Santorum, who despite winning in Iowa, was under the radar, has managed to take advantage of this strategy.
Now we all know that negative campaigning works. But here's the thing, negative campaigning is a bit like chemotherapy - you hope the negative ads hurt your opponent (the cancer in this analogy), than it hurts you. Now, this works in a 2 person race because one candidate has to win, but in a primary, where there are more than 2 candidates, this gets real tricky. And there are numerous examples of candidates who ended up winning a primary because two well-financed candidates went purely negative - Gray Davis, for one, was elected Governor, after Al Checchi and Jane Harman duked it out in the primary - and Santorum definitely fits that mold.
The other thing that's going on here is that Santorum's views on social issues are probably closer to the average GOP voter than Mitt Romney's views. Where Romney can be all over the place, Santorum is consistent. And although Romney may, on paper, be a better match-up to Obama in the General Election, he has some real weaknesses in the Midwest and the South, both key areas for the GOP. With Romney's key arguments being a job creator (side-tracked by the Bain experience), and electability (being sidetracked by his own unpopularity), he doesn't have much to offer the GOP. Santorum does at this point.
Birth Control: When referring to Obama's policies, Andrew Sullivan has written that Obama's greatest strength is getting his opponents to overreach. Never has that been more true than with the birth control decision. Somehow, he's managed to paint the Congressional GOP into the anti-contraceptive corner, and now Darrel Issa is holding Congressional hearings on the issue, but not allowing any woman to testify about the Pill. Um. . .problematic much? The more this goes on, the worse it gets for the GOP. People may be ambivalent about abortion because they don't know anyone who's had an abortion, but everyone knows someone who's either on the Pill right now, or has used the Pill in the past.
Linsanity: Okay people, let's get this straight - Jeremy Lin is NOT TIM TEBOW. Lin was an undrafted 2nd year player who bounced around and found a great situation with the Knicks. Not only that, but the kid is playing at a high level every single game. Oh, and he makes almost no money in NBA terms, and has to sleep on his friend's couch. Tim Tebow was a highly touted college quarterback who was drafted in the first round, got a big contract, and has managed to win multiple games in the NFL despite not being accurate on short and intermediate throws (but is freakishly accurate on deep passes). There's a big difference here. Also, the holes in Lin's game (not able to go left, too careless with the ball) are the kinds of holes that NBA rookies have, whereas the holes in Tebow's game (not being accurate with his throws unless he goes deep), are the kind of holes that end someone's career. With any luck, Lin will end up as a poor man's Steve Nash, and good for him.
Wednesday, February 1, 2012
Grading the Should-Be Nominah:
After apparently kicking ass in the last two debates (especially Newt's ass), and then winning Florida by 15-20 points, Romney looks like he will be the nominee. Of course, he promptly followed up that huge victory by declaring, "I'm not concerned with the very poor." To which, most of America responded by saying "No shit. . ."
Anyway, the point of this post is a look at Mitt Romney, presumptive GOP nominee. I remember watching Mitt Romney back in 2007, and was immediately terrified - he's telegenic, has a crooning anchorman voice, was a successful Governor of Massachusetts, and had few skeletons in his closet. But after watching Romney in the past two elections, I have to say, the more I look at him, the less I'm scared of him. But if you've been reading this blog, you know that - I've often said that Romney is weird.
But what has been painfully obvious lately is that Romney has painted himself into the "rich guy who's out of touch" corner. Now, every Democratic campaign since I can remember has had some element of painting the Republican as the out-of-touch rich guy. And, for the most part, every candidate has been able to avoid that label. Nixon grew up poor, Gerald Ford was the football star, Reagan was the man with the humble touch, Bush I in 1988 tied himself to Reagan (then lost in 1992 when he appeared like the out-of-touch-rich-guy), Dole was the war hero, Bush II had the commoner's touch, and McCain was a war hero. Romney just doesn't have it.
Here's where I find myself in agreement with Newt Gingrich and Rush Limbaugh - Romney doesn't have the lock on electability. He seemingly can't go a single day without a major gaffe - seriously, today's news should have been entirely about Gingrich's ass-kicking in Florida - and his opponents can use a perfectly reasonable caricature of him that he seems to reinforce at every turn. And that doesn't include his flip-flopping.
Now bear with me on this, in the 2000 campaign, the attack on Bush was on his intelligence. To many people, myself included, Bush was too stupid to be President. But, as it turns out, Bush is not an idiot - he has some intelligence, and uses his brain when he wants to. So, all he had to do was show he wasn't a complete moron, and boom, the attack loses steam. Similarly, in 2008, Obama was attacked for being a foreigner, and all he had to show was that he was pretty normal and the attack lost credibility to everyone who didn't believe it already. In contrast, in 2004, Kerry was attacked for being a flip-flopper, and then went ahead and said "I actually voted for it before I voted against it." Kerry's rep was cemented from that moment.
In other words, a campaign is all about caricatures, both positive and negative. Positive caricatures, of course, are put forth by the candidate; negative caricatures are put forward by the opposing campaign. When a candidate plays into these negative caricatures, the caricature becomes more than just a caricature, it becomes a narrative. Right now, the narrative on Romney is that he's an out-of-touch-rich-guy, which wasn't the hit on Romney until this campaign. It used to be that Romney was called a flip-flopper (and there's plenty of evidence to prove that).
Moreover, and again, I agree with Newt and Rush on this*, Romney will also have problems arguing against Obama's health care reforms because those reforms are based on Romney's health care plan (the only difference is that Romney's health care plan pays for abortions). All this makes Romney beatable.
Anyway, the point of this post is a look at Mitt Romney, presumptive GOP nominee. I remember watching Mitt Romney back in 2007, and was immediately terrified - he's telegenic, has a crooning anchorman voice, was a successful Governor of Massachusetts, and had few skeletons in his closet. But after watching Romney in the past two elections, I have to say, the more I look at him, the less I'm scared of him. But if you've been reading this blog, you know that - I've often said that Romney is weird.
But what has been painfully obvious lately is that Romney has painted himself into the "rich guy who's out of touch" corner. Now, every Democratic campaign since I can remember has had some element of painting the Republican as the out-of-touch rich guy. And, for the most part, every candidate has been able to avoid that label. Nixon grew up poor, Gerald Ford was the football star, Reagan was the man with the humble touch, Bush I in 1988 tied himself to Reagan (then lost in 1992 when he appeared like the out-of-touch-rich-guy), Dole was the war hero, Bush II had the commoner's touch, and McCain was a war hero. Romney just doesn't have it.
Here's where I find myself in agreement with Newt Gingrich and Rush Limbaugh - Romney doesn't have the lock on electability. He seemingly can't go a single day without a major gaffe - seriously, today's news should have been entirely about Gingrich's ass-kicking in Florida - and his opponents can use a perfectly reasonable caricature of him that he seems to reinforce at every turn. And that doesn't include his flip-flopping.
Now bear with me on this, in the 2000 campaign, the attack on Bush was on his intelligence. To many people, myself included, Bush was too stupid to be President. But, as it turns out, Bush is not an idiot - he has some intelligence, and uses his brain when he wants to. So, all he had to do was show he wasn't a complete moron, and boom, the attack loses steam. Similarly, in 2008, Obama was attacked for being a foreigner, and all he had to show was that he was pretty normal and the attack lost credibility to everyone who didn't believe it already. In contrast, in 2004, Kerry was attacked for being a flip-flopper, and then went ahead and said "I actually voted for it before I voted against it." Kerry's rep was cemented from that moment.
In other words, a campaign is all about caricatures, both positive and negative. Positive caricatures, of course, are put forth by the candidate; negative caricatures are put forward by the opposing campaign. When a candidate plays into these negative caricatures, the caricature becomes more than just a caricature, it becomes a narrative. Right now, the narrative on Romney is that he's an out-of-touch-rich-guy, which wasn't the hit on Romney until this campaign. It used to be that Romney was called a flip-flopper (and there's plenty of evidence to prove that).
Moreover, and again, I agree with Newt and Rush on this*, Romney will also have problems arguing against Obama's health care reforms because those reforms are based on Romney's health care plan (the only difference is that Romney's health care plan pays for abortions). All this makes Romney beatable.
Friday, January 20, 2012
Grading the Contendahs: 2012 GOP Pres Candidates (Part 457)
And then there were four - Gingrich, Romney, Paul and Santorum. To be honest, I'm pretty shocked to not see Perry in that list. On paper, Perry was really scary - served in the Air Force (not sure if in Vietnam or not), two time governor of Texas, seemed to be a true believer - but that was before he was exposed as an idiot at the debates. Anyway, without further ado, here are my thoughts on the last four remaining candidates:
Mitt Romney: As I've said, Romney's frontrunner status has defined the race - there has been a constant search for the anti-Romney leading to very strange frontrunners during the race. But what I didn't know is how much of a glass jaw Romney has. In a Republican primary, being a bruising capitalist for a company like Bain should be a net positive, and yet, Romney is still getting stung by the attacks. Yesterday, he said that he doesn't want to release his tax returns because the Obama campaign would have a field day (um, not the way to go, Mittens). And I still haven't heard about the attack ad to kill all attack ads being used against Romney. If anyone connected with the Gingrich or Santorum campaigns reads this, feel free to use this commercial:
Fade to black - show a grainy picture of Obama, with the caption "We all know that Obamacare is a socialist/marxist/Kenyan scam. But did you know that Obamacare is based on Mitt Romney's health care plan for Massachusetts." Then show a grainy picture of Mittens looking pissed. "You know what the difference between Mitt Romney's plan and Obama's plan? Mitt Romney's plan pays for abortions." Then cut to a picture of an aborted fetus, and finish with the line, "We need someone in Washington we can trust on our issues. Someone like _____." End commercial.
That would end Romney's candidacy in record time, IMHO. That said, Romney has money, he has connections, and he has institutional support. Against Obama, he has a decent shot. But he is really vulnerable right now. If anything, the last few weeks shows that if you catch Romney unprepared, he stumbles. And weirdly, you can catch him unprepared a lot. If he doesn't sew up South Carolina, then he will have a fight for the nomination that he may not be prepared for. I'd put his odds of winning at 1:1.
Newt Gingrich: Its amazing to say that a guy with a 59% unfavorability rating has a shot at the nomination, but Gingrich's place makes sense. He can legitimately associate himself with the 1994 conservative revolution, the Clinton boom of the late 1990's, and at the same time, separate himself from the Bush Administration's blunders. And with the possible exception of Tom Delay, Newt Gingrich can lay claim to the title of the leader of the modern conservative movement.
Those are the pros. The cons, of course, are his volatile personal life, his lobbying history, his ethical violations, and the fact that the overwhelming majority of the American people do not like him. But here's the thing, unlike Romney, most of Gingrich's blemishes are public and well-known. The ABC News interview with his second ex-wife was shocking, but not surprising. Everyone knows Gingrich is an asshole - he divorced his first wife after cancer surgery*. The best hits on him on the GOP side are those that connect him to the Bush Administration and Fannie Mae. The other good hit, the electability argument, isn't that much of a hit anymore either, because Romney ain't looking so good right now. In boxing terms, Gingrich is a puncher/brawler against a guy with a glass chin (Romney). Yeah, Romney should outbox him, but Gingrich has a puncher's chance. Odds of winning: 5:1
Rick Santorum: On the plus side for the frothy one, the Evangelical community has picked him as their appointed candidate. On the minus side, they waited until now to do so. Santorum might be able to gain some more steam coming out of South Carolina and into Florida. But, if I wanted to hit Santorum in the GOP primary, I'd hit him for his connection to the Bush Administration and earmarks. Plus, he doesn't really light up a crowd. Still a longshot, but if Romney keeps looking weak, and if Gingrich goes, well, Gingrich, then he's got a shot. 10:1.
Ron Paul: A non-factor, but a significant non-factor. Paul has his 15% of the vote, and he's going to keep churning out his 15% all the way to the convention. His foreign policy views limit his appeal to the GOP, and the newsletters he used to publish (and which included a lot of racist stuff) limits his appeal to independents and Democrats. On the other hand, he is setting up his son nicely for a run for President in the future. 100:1.
*Truth be told, Gingrich's first wife was kinda creepy - she was his high school math teacher, and they started dating when Gingrich was either 16 or 18. Either way, its pretty creepy on her part. So, he may be a sociopath, but he was a sociopath who was arguably molested as a teenager by someone in a position of authority over him. At the same time, he divorced his first wife after she had cancer, and his second wife after she got MS, which kinda says all you need to know about Gingrich.
Mitt Romney: As I've said, Romney's frontrunner status has defined the race - there has been a constant search for the anti-Romney leading to very strange frontrunners during the race. But what I didn't know is how much of a glass jaw Romney has. In a Republican primary, being a bruising capitalist for a company like Bain should be a net positive, and yet, Romney is still getting stung by the attacks. Yesterday, he said that he doesn't want to release his tax returns because the Obama campaign would have a field day (um, not the way to go, Mittens). And I still haven't heard about the attack ad to kill all attack ads being used against Romney. If anyone connected with the Gingrich or Santorum campaigns reads this, feel free to use this commercial:
Fade to black - show a grainy picture of Obama, with the caption "We all know that Obamacare is a socialist/marxist/Kenyan scam. But did you know that Obamacare is based on Mitt Romney's health care plan for Massachusetts." Then show a grainy picture of Mittens looking pissed. "You know what the difference between Mitt Romney's plan and Obama's plan? Mitt Romney's plan pays for abortions." Then cut to a picture of an aborted fetus, and finish with the line, "We need someone in Washington we can trust on our issues. Someone like _____." End commercial.
That would end Romney's candidacy in record time, IMHO. That said, Romney has money, he has connections, and he has institutional support. Against Obama, he has a decent shot. But he is really vulnerable right now. If anything, the last few weeks shows that if you catch Romney unprepared, he stumbles. And weirdly, you can catch him unprepared a lot. If he doesn't sew up South Carolina, then he will have a fight for the nomination that he may not be prepared for. I'd put his odds of winning at 1:1.
Newt Gingrich: Its amazing to say that a guy with a 59% unfavorability rating has a shot at the nomination, but Gingrich's place makes sense. He can legitimately associate himself with the 1994 conservative revolution, the Clinton boom of the late 1990's, and at the same time, separate himself from the Bush Administration's blunders. And with the possible exception of Tom Delay, Newt Gingrich can lay claim to the title of the leader of the modern conservative movement.
Those are the pros. The cons, of course, are his volatile personal life, his lobbying history, his ethical violations, and the fact that the overwhelming majority of the American people do not like him. But here's the thing, unlike Romney, most of Gingrich's blemishes are public and well-known. The ABC News interview with his second ex-wife was shocking, but not surprising. Everyone knows Gingrich is an asshole - he divorced his first wife after cancer surgery*. The best hits on him on the GOP side are those that connect him to the Bush Administration and Fannie Mae. The other good hit, the electability argument, isn't that much of a hit anymore either, because Romney ain't looking so good right now. In boxing terms, Gingrich is a puncher/brawler against a guy with a glass chin (Romney). Yeah, Romney should outbox him, but Gingrich has a puncher's chance. Odds of winning: 5:1
Rick Santorum: On the plus side for the frothy one, the Evangelical community has picked him as their appointed candidate. On the minus side, they waited until now to do so. Santorum might be able to gain some more steam coming out of South Carolina and into Florida. But, if I wanted to hit Santorum in the GOP primary, I'd hit him for his connection to the Bush Administration and earmarks. Plus, he doesn't really light up a crowd. Still a longshot, but if Romney keeps looking weak, and if Gingrich goes, well, Gingrich, then he's got a shot. 10:1.
Ron Paul: A non-factor, but a significant non-factor. Paul has his 15% of the vote, and he's going to keep churning out his 15% all the way to the convention. His foreign policy views limit his appeal to the GOP, and the newsletters he used to publish (and which included a lot of racist stuff) limits his appeal to independents and Democrats. On the other hand, he is setting up his son nicely for a run for President in the future. 100:1.
*Truth be told, Gingrich's first wife was kinda creepy - she was his high school math teacher, and they started dating when Gingrich was either 16 or 18. Either way, its pretty creepy on her part. So, he may be a sociopath, but he was a sociopath who was arguably molested as a teenager by someone in a position of authority over him. At the same time, he divorced his first wife after she had cancer, and his second wife after she got MS, which kinda says all you need to know about Gingrich.
Wednesday, January 4, 2012
Quick Thoughts on Iowa, Obama, and the Chargers
During the holidays, I've been a bit lax completely lazy about posting. So, without further ado, here are a few of my thoughts with regard to recent events:
Had to do that in caps because Iowa was what news junkies were gunning for. Anyway, yesterday's results: Romney, Santorum, Paul, and then everyone else. Not to pat myself on the back, but I did predict that Santorum would be designated the official anti-Romney. The question remains, though, whether Santorum will have the money or the resources to run a campaign in New Hampshire or South Carolina. My guess, and what I'd tell Santorum is to skip New Hampshire, and go for South Carolina with gusto.
But, it appears that the race's other Rick, Rick Perry, isn't dropping out, but will campaign on in South Carolina. This is not a bad idea for two reasons: 1) With Bachmann out, Perry just has to contend with Santorum for the anti-Romney label; and 2) what the hell else is Perry going to do with the campaign literature and funds he has on hand? Yeah, he could get killed, but why not give it the ole' college try.
Romney remains the ever-unpopular establishment choice. After all, the vast majority of Iowans voted against Romney. That said, being the Establishment candidate has its perks, such as being able to compete for the long haul. But in the General Election, being an unpopular front-runner is a bad thing because independents tend to be swung by the general enthusiasm of one side or the other. Paul, on the other hand, remains popular among his 10-20%. My bet is that Rand Paul will probably be a Presidential player in the future because of his father.
IOWA
Had to do that in caps because Iowa was what news junkies were gunning for. Anyway, yesterday's results: Romney, Santorum, Paul, and then everyone else. Not to pat myself on the back, but I did predict that Santorum would be designated the official anti-Romney. The question remains, though, whether Santorum will have the money or the resources to run a campaign in New Hampshire or South Carolina. My guess, and what I'd tell Santorum is to skip New Hampshire, and go for South Carolina with gusto.
But, it appears that the race's other Rick, Rick Perry, isn't dropping out, but will campaign on in South Carolina. This is not a bad idea for two reasons: 1) With Bachmann out, Perry just has to contend with Santorum for the anti-Romney label; and 2) what the hell else is Perry going to do with the campaign literature and funds he has on hand? Yeah, he could get killed, but why not give it the ole' college try.
Romney remains the ever-unpopular establishment choice. After all, the vast majority of Iowans voted against Romney. That said, being the Establishment candidate has its perks, such as being able to compete for the long haul. But in the General Election, being an unpopular front-runner is a bad thing because independents tend to be swung by the general enthusiasm of one side or the other. Paul, on the other hand, remains popular among his 10-20%. My bet is that Rand Paul will probably be a Presidential player in the future because of his father.
Obama Throwing Elbows
After three years of trying to work with the GOP, Obama's current strategy seems to be "fuck those guys." Case in point, today he used his recess appointment power to appoint a guy to the Consumer Protection Agency and three guys to the NLRB, all of which were held up by filibustering GOP Senators. Now, Obama has the right to do this, and all recent Presidents have done so lots of times. The Constitution allows the President to appoint people to positions when Congress is not in session. Had he used the recess appointment power yesterday, there would be no issue. But today, Congress had a pro forma session - a guy showed up, called the Congress into order and then adjourned - specifically to prevent Obama from using his recess appointment powers. Now, its not entirely clear if Congress can legally do this, and by choosing to make recess appointments today, as opposed to yesterday, Obama is purposefully picking a fight with Congressional Republicans on this issue.* That's an interesting change, and a change that is long overdue.
Chargers Retain Norv Turner and A.J. Smith
San Diego's long nightmare continues - on Tuesday, Dean Spanos decided not to fire Norv Turner and A.J. Smith, the head coach and general manager of the San Diego Chargers. Ugh. What's interesting about this is the dynamic in the days leading up to the rehiring - the rumor was that Smith would stay, and Turner would be fired. The players, who can't stand Smith, all immediately stood up for Turner and pushed for him to stay. Turner, in the meantime, more or less openly attacked Smith, and Smith told Spanos that he could deliver Jon Gruden, an exceptional head coach, if Spanos didn't fire him. By keeping both, Spanos insures that this will be an interesting off-season for the Chargers.
Monday, December 19, 2011
Congratulations Dwayne Crenshaw!!!
Over ten years ago, I got my second real gig in politics - after working for a political consultant in the 1998 elections, I finally was hired to manage a campaign for State Assembly starring an unknown candidate in Dwayne Crenshaw. At the time, our only opponent was Steve Padilla, a well-liked city councilman from Chula Vista. Within a few months, Juan Vargas entered the race, and while we ran a great campaign, Dwayne lost.*
A few years later, Dwayne ran again for City Council, and came so close to winning that the campaign that his opponent, the late Charles Lewis, started drank more alcohol to deal with the stress, and since Kaiser neglected to tell him that Mr. Lewis had liver disease (despite multiple tests showing that he had major liver issues), Mr. Lewis died.** Finally, in the 2nd race for City Council (post-Lewis) Dwayne's secret - that he's gay - finally came out.
Now, in some ways, this was a good thing. Dwayne got to finally be himself, and stopped having to hide who he is. At the same time, Dwayne was subjected to the same homophobia that he long feared. He lost his race for City Council, and his political career was over. Now, keep in mind, he didn't enter into some sham marriage, or engage in rampant homophobia, but simply tried to keep his sexual orientation from the public realm. But that was enough to end his political career.
Thereafter, Dwayne worked in the nonprofit world, and rose to the heights of Executive Director for a nonprofit not-to-be-named. Still, homophobia rose its ugly head (allegedly), and Dwayne was fired. Like most people, post-politics***, Dwayne went to law school. And I was happy for him then, and I'm happy for him now.
In the following years, Dwayne has become the Executive Director for San Diego Pride, and as of today, Dwayne is a law school graduate. I couldn't be prouder. What caught me most of all is Dwayne's speech today at his graduation celebration (old habits die hard). His focus of thought on civil rights, from marriage equality to equal treatment for all children in school, to ending the death penalty, and all things in between, represented all my hopes for Dwayne the first time I heard him speak all those years ago. I am proud of my friend, and San Diego Pride couldn't have found a better leader.
Anyway, Dwayne, if you're reading this, and I hope you are, congratulations. I'm proud of you.
*I actually blame myself for that - Dwayne thought about dropping out, and I told Dwayne to stay in. My theory being, "what the hell else are we going to do with all this campaign literature?" In retrospect, I'm not that proud of my advice.
**Weirdly enough, my boss represented Charles Lewis' family in the medical malpractice action against Kaiser. According to the arbitrator's decision, Kaiser knew that Lewis had serious liver problems, but never told him. Now, if this was any random person, it would be scary enough, but Lewis was a City Councilman from San Diego and could've cancelled Kaiser's contract with the City of San Diego.
***Myself included.
A few years later, Dwayne ran again for City Council, and came so close to winning that the campaign that his opponent, the late Charles Lewis, started drank more alcohol to deal with the stress, and since Kaiser neglected to tell him that Mr. Lewis had liver disease (despite multiple tests showing that he had major liver issues), Mr. Lewis died.** Finally, in the 2nd race for City Council (post-Lewis) Dwayne's secret - that he's gay - finally came out.
Now, in some ways, this was a good thing. Dwayne got to finally be himself, and stopped having to hide who he is. At the same time, Dwayne was subjected to the same homophobia that he long feared. He lost his race for City Council, and his political career was over. Now, keep in mind, he didn't enter into some sham marriage, or engage in rampant homophobia, but simply tried to keep his sexual orientation from the public realm. But that was enough to end his political career.
Thereafter, Dwayne worked in the nonprofit world, and rose to the heights of Executive Director for a nonprofit not-to-be-named. Still, homophobia rose its ugly head (allegedly), and Dwayne was fired. Like most people, post-politics***, Dwayne went to law school. And I was happy for him then, and I'm happy for him now.
In the following years, Dwayne has become the Executive Director for San Diego Pride, and as of today, Dwayne is a law school graduate. I couldn't be prouder. What caught me most of all is Dwayne's speech today at his graduation celebration (old habits die hard). His focus of thought on civil rights, from marriage equality to equal treatment for all children in school, to ending the death penalty, and all things in between, represented all my hopes for Dwayne the first time I heard him speak all those years ago. I am proud of my friend, and San Diego Pride couldn't have found a better leader.
Anyway, Dwayne, if you're reading this, and I hope you are, congratulations. I'm proud of you.
*I actually blame myself for that - Dwayne thought about dropping out, and I told Dwayne to stay in. My theory being, "what the hell else are we going to do with all this campaign literature?" In retrospect, I'm not that proud of my advice.
**Weirdly enough, my boss represented Charles Lewis' family in the medical malpractice action against Kaiser. According to the arbitrator's decision, Kaiser knew that Lewis had serious liver problems, but never told him. Now, if this was any random person, it would be scary enough, but Lewis was a City Councilman from San Diego and could've cancelled Kaiser's contract with the City of San Diego.
***Myself included.
Monday, December 5, 2011
A Slight Snag in My Bold Prediction
A few weeks ago, I predicted on Twitter that Rick Santorum, he of the ugliest and most deserving google bomb ever, would take the GOP nomination. My theory, still sound, IMHO, is this:
Given the nature of the frontloaded primaries, the candidate with the most momentum going into January will sweep Iowa and New Hampshire, and then take the nomination. Now, the process of who that person is, the Anti-Romney, has gone from one candidate rising from obscurity, then not being able to take the harsh glare, and falling back down to Earth. This is what happened to Bachmann, Perry, and now Herman Cain. Newt Gingrich appears to be the latest Anti-Romney to rise. Of course, Gingrich is an asshole to the highest magnitude, so I figured he would fall back down to Earth. Then, Santorum would rise.
Of course, what I forgot about the whole thing is that EVERYONE KNOWS WHO GINGRICH IS. He was Speaker of the House, for crying out loud. They know he dumped his first wife while she was having cancer surgery, that he was cheating on his second wife while attacking Bill Clinton for cheating on Hillary, and that he is an obnoxious blowhard. So, being presented with more evidence that Gingrich is an obnoxious blowhard isn't going to change their minds.
But, if they do, these voters are not going to vote for Mitt Romney. Sorry Mittens, no nomination for you.
Given the nature of the frontloaded primaries, the candidate with the most momentum going into January will sweep Iowa and New Hampshire, and then take the nomination. Now, the process of who that person is, the Anti-Romney, has gone from one candidate rising from obscurity, then not being able to take the harsh glare, and falling back down to Earth. This is what happened to Bachmann, Perry, and now Herman Cain. Newt Gingrich appears to be the latest Anti-Romney to rise. Of course, Gingrich is an asshole to the highest magnitude, so I figured he would fall back down to Earth. Then, Santorum would rise.
Of course, what I forgot about the whole thing is that EVERYONE KNOWS WHO GINGRICH IS. He was Speaker of the House, for crying out loud. They know he dumped his first wife while she was having cancer surgery, that he was cheating on his second wife while attacking Bill Clinton for cheating on Hillary, and that he is an obnoxious blowhard. So, being presented with more evidence that Gingrich is an obnoxious blowhard isn't going to change their minds.
But, if they do, these voters are not going to vote for Mitt Romney. Sorry Mittens, no nomination for you.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)