THE IRRELEVANT IOWA CAUCUS AND THE MEDIA CIRCUS

The frenzy leading up to the Republican Presidential Iowa Caucuses is mind boggling. As Shakespeare might have argued the Caucuses, "Are much ado about nothing". At the end of the day, whoever may be anointed is the decision of a 120,000 Republicans who take the trouble to pitch up to a voting event.  Thus organization, money and exposure are paramount.  Exposure is critical but is useless if your supporters don't get to the caucus meeting places. So the media hysteria and their multiple daily polls are not terribly relevant as the 120,000, that go to the caucuses are not necessarily representative of the sample of the 3 million polled Iowians. Even more significantly Iowa is not terribly relevant in the grand scheme of the prolonged labour that involves the election of the Presidential nominee. As an aside the Iowa caucuses have not been terribly successful in predicting the ultimate Republican presidential candidate. 


MEDIA BLITZ


All this does not stop the media giving us a repetitious blow by blow commentary of the fortunes and fluctuations of the Republican nonentities involved in this year's Presidential nomination fight. For practical purposes there are two candidates for the nomination - Romney and the "Anyone but Romney Candidate - du jour". Everyone marvels how one by one the latter candidate has risen and then fallen. There was Bachman, Perry, Caine, Gingrich and now coming to you live is Santorum. Each candidate is promoted by the media and then slaughtered by the selfsame media to create an ongoing meaningless story. Santorum, in case you missed it has moved up, today, December 29, from about 6% to 16% approval to be a potential third placed candidate in the Iowa caucuses!


AND THE WINNER IS...


For those who are really interested in reality there are really two serious candidates in the Iowa caucuses race. The two are Romney and Paul. Both have extensive organizational infrastructures. Whoever wins is not very relevant. Romney will be very happy with second place as he is going to win New Hampshire and a win for Paul will translate into ziltch. Gingrich, who was top of the pops a short week ago, has said if he comes fourth that is just fine as he is going to win South Carolina. If Santorum wins, a very long shot - so what. He will be very happy to emerge from the shadows to come third. Whatever happens he has not the money, the organization and the backing to go anywhere. Huntsman is not even competing in Iowa as he is going to win New Hampshire! And so it goes......


MEDIA CIRCUS


This will not stop the media commenting and interpreting the Iowa caucuses up the ying yang. Jay H. Ell cannot wait for January 3 evening TV programs where there will be banks of learned panels interpreting, projecting and forecasting on the deliberations of the hardy that have pitched up to the caucuses.  As they say in the computer world - garbage in garbage out. One almost wishes for a sex scandal to refocus the media onto something else.


COMES DOWN TO REALITY.


Even if Math is not one's strong point the Romney candidate is running at about 25% consistently. The "Anything but Romney candidates", in aggregate are running at 75%. The Romney candidate is the favorite of the Establishment and he has money and organization. In all probability the "Anything But" candidate will be the even more flawed Gingrich. The nomination process will go on for a long time. The media need this because, believe it or not, the ratings are higher on this than anything else for the moment - oh for a war!


ANYTHING GOES?


Whoever the "Anything But" candidate turn out to be he or she has a potential 75% constituency to work with. Notwithstanding this it is hard to see the "Anything But", beating Romney. The Republicans, for whatever reason, have a tradition in nominating an old warrior. The Romney candidate then has to persuade the "Anything Buts", to join in to get rid of Obama. This is going to be a hard hard sell. 


If the sale does go through, Romney has got to decide what he is going to run on and how. The key issues are jobs, taxation and government programs. The 75%, "Anything Buts", are heavily into gays, marriage and other social issues that the crucial independants are not remotely interested in. 


So it is a pity that have to go through with the meaningless rituals of Iowa and even New Hampshire and South Carolina, because only when these are over can one really define the debate. And before we can define the debate the Republicans, if they are still one party, need to define what their argument is going to be against Obama. 


The whole nomination process needs to be rethought. Every state should have the election on the same day. If the winner does not get 50% the a run off between him/her and the second placed should occur. Then of course money and PACS should be removed from this and the Presidential election and we will be on the road to some sort of sanity. But meantime Santorum has gone from 6% to 16% in the polls.....

HOW CAN OBAMA LOOSE?

The Republican Party Presidential aspirations have sunk even lower than reported in recent blogs,  - The Republican Presidential No Hopers and The Republican Nomination Fight - What it Really Means? The nomination process which was scheduled to be a battle for the heart and soul of the Party has no credible torchbearers in the fight. Romney is the retreaded Center Right establishment candidate, and, Gingrich, as the last Conservative upright, has become the Sarah Palin stand in for the Tea Party candidates. Neither flawed candidate, in JAY H ELL'S opinion has much of a chance of beating Obama next year.


THE AMAZED NEWT GINGRICH - THE ANYONE ONE BUT ROMNEY CANDIDATE.


The fact that Newt finds himself as front runner must come as a shock to him. The fact that he is highly articulate, a shrewd debater, savvy and intelligent has never been in dispute.  However, even by his own behavior he was never ever a serious candidate. His initial campaign committee walked out on him as they said he wasn't serious and that he was using his candidacy as a means to sell his and his wife's DVD's and Books. His Presidential campaign website was plastered with adverts for the latter. 


This behavior was no surprise as it was a continuation of the reinvention of his persona. Since being thrown out by his own party as Speaker in 1998 he has earned $55 million in speaking, media and quasi lobbying ventures. Besides the fact that he has more excess baggage than any airline could carry he has nil establishment support. Already the attack adverts are coming out from former Republican colleagues who at, kindest, regard him as unstable. (I have little doubt that the Obama operatives are archiving them to run in the Presidential election should it be necessary).


One just hardly knows where to begin as to Newt's handicaps. Firstly, he has to retain the Conservative base that obviously has rejected Romney. He has not been involved in the Tea Party struggle per se and the current rationalization as to why they may actually come out and vote for him is that the Fundamentalist Family Values faction, just simply love a redemption story - three wives, public affairs,  religious conversions from Lutherism, to Southern Baptists to Catholicism, is going to be a stretch. There are signs of this happening in the blogosphere and by the poll numbers.


Also can the Republican Party give Newt resources after his wholesale axing and the whole House of Representatives found him guilty of ethical violations?  In addition Newt has nil organizational infrastructure of his own, little campaign money and only Donald Trump spouting his cause.


 ROMNEY


 Romney has no credibility with the Party base and the independents.  He can't really reinvent himself again as he has reinvented himself so many times that his video clips are fodder for every show in town. He has however got the reluctant support of the establishment. The crisp point is that although he has been designated the front runner he always been second to someone else in the Polls. He cannot muster 25% of the Republicans so how on earth can he win 50% of the electorate?


The only smear that either Gingrich or Romney can't level at each other is flip flopping. They have both been on all sides of most issues except marriage.


So on the one hand you have a candidate with reluctant establishment support and on the other with reluctant party base support. One of whom will have to unite both factions.


OBAMA


Organizationally he has no peer and he is back at it again. Although  his original supporters have to be suffering from a "let down effect", the demographics are still in his favor. There are more youth, more Hispanics and African - American voters, all who favor him by a wide margin. He already has close on $700 million, having hardly spent a penny while the Republican Candidates butcher one another. He is beginning to find his voice, pounding the stump, berating Congress and putting forward initiatives especially in relation to job creation and taxation. 


For practical purposes The Occupy Wall Street protestors are ad idem with him. Their principal fight is against the disparity of wealth in the country and how the system favors the 1% which just happens to be one of Obama's present foci. They are regularly in the news and have now have an organizational structure with full time workers in offices. They are receiving donations by the ton. Also, as mentioned in JAY H. ELL'S November blog, they have a vast potential constituency besides students - the unemployed, the labor unions, the teachers, the police..... 


HOW ON EARTH?


So why have the Republican Party not a slew of capable candidates to beat an incumbent that is operating in the worst economic recession since the Great Depression? An incumbent that up till now appeared to be aloof from the political process - leaving it up to the Congress.  An incumbent that received, in his own words, a shellacking in the Midterm elections. An incumbent that promised change but ended up with the same old same old....


The reason is simple - what has a decent opposition candidate got to run on? The Republican establishment has no real policy other than to deny Obama a second term. This principal objective was outlined by the Republican Senate Leader, Mitch McConnell, way back. Also the establishment are at a loss as to what to do with the Tea Party who have hijacked the Party. The latter seem to have a stranglehold over the Republican Congress nominating process. The Tea Party are so focussed that their candidates appear to know nothing about the real world and cannot hd the electorate's attention for any length of time. 


DOMINANT REPUBLICAN INFLUENCES 


NORQUIST 


The dominant personalities of the Republican Party seem to be on the fringe. Grover Norquist, who does not really believe in the Federal Government - he even believes that Defence should be outsourced to Private Firms - has a stranglehold on the Republican Congress members. Two hundred and thirty eight Republican members of the House of Representatives and 41 members of the Senate have signed his pledge not to raise any taxes whatsoever. 


The Republicans are thus made to look ridiculous not to renew a middle class cut of $1500 a year and pay for it by increasing the taxes, by a few percent, of those that earn more than a $ 1,000,000 a year. Also looming is the renewal of the Bush tax cuts. Obama's proposal is not to renew the cuts of those earning more than $500,000 a year. Then also Obama has proposed the Roosevelt solution to rebuild the ailing infrastructure thus providing jobs and stimulate the economy. This needs bigger Federal Government and taxing the rich.


Who can defend this position of protecting the 1% millionaire earners when 70% of the polls support Obama on this? Apparently not Governors Daniels, Christie and Jed Bush.  Nor is Governor Huckabee in evidence after running a credible second, way ahead of Romney, in the 2008 Republican Primaries.


So on the one hand you have the Tea Party focussing on social issues that have not grabbed the electorate's imagination in this economic crisis and on the other you have the Establishment that is petrified to move against the Tea Party. The only thing they have in common is to remove Obama - hardly a sustainable platform for 24 hour news coverage for two years.


TRUMP AND THE REST.


The other dominant force in Republican politics is Donald Trump. To say that he is intellectually bankrupt is an overstatement. Trump's  major contribution to this Presidential cycle was to claim that his investigators had uncovered extensive information that Obama was not born in America - reopening the long dead birther issue. He challenged Obama to produce his long birth certificate to disprove him. When Obama did just that he trumpeted that America owed him, Trump,  a big debt as he, alone, forced Obama to produce his long birth certificate!  


He is a master at manipulating the media. Initially he, was a viable Presidential candidate and now he is calling the shots from the side. He has breakfast with Michelle Bachmann and Newt has a much publicized visit with him. Romney has a telephone conversation with him saying how he, Romney, highly respects him. Perry calls him for his opinion and everyone awaits to be anointed. Trump invites them all to debate on his TV show as the world awaits Trump's decision. He also promises to run as a third party candidate if he thinks no-one is up to speed!


In all of this the likes of the Bushs' shut up as do the official establishment other than to echo what a disaster Obama has been. Even Sarah Palin has been mute for months. She obviously wants no part of the mess she spearheaded.


So what price a Republican President? You can get 4 to 1 from the oddsmakers. Not a bad price for what will be a two horse race! But remember, in this day and age of endless types of continuos media, including this blog, anything can happen - Ron Paul by the way has an extensive infrastructure in Iowa!

DEMOCRACY, CAPITALISM AND OCCUPY WALL STREET.

 WHAT'S IN A NAME?

In present day political discourse, the terms democracy, capitalism are used to label policies, candidates, issues and societies, in order, to either support or condemn all of the aforementioned. Labels are either convenient rally cries or condemnatory statements on anything, anybody and everything. The assumption is that we all know what these terms are and what they mean. These are not any old terms - these terms represent the very basis of what we believe should be the way our lives and our living should be based upon.

These labels also have an immediate historical perspective. Democracy / Capitalism triumphed over Totalitarianism  / Socialism and Communism and therefore is the triumph of good over evil, right over wrong and what works and what does not work. (This so particularly in the USA where if you can, for example, successfully attach the label of socialist to Obama's healthcare proposal, then that is that).

THINGS DON'T MEAN WHAT THEY USED TO.


Firstly, although Communism failed in Russia and Capitalism took over the regime is still totalitarian. Similarly, in China where Capitalism has been embraced, totalitarianism reigns supreme. So unhappily the linkage no longer applies.

Secondly, in America, although Capitalism still reigns supreme there is an ever-increasing belief that Democracy has taken a big hit. The argument is that the immensely wealthy, together with their corporations, Political Action Committees and their lobbyists have taken control of the system making the process of Democracy meaningless. 


While, there is no doubt that Capitalism has lead to a higher standard of living for literally 100's of millions in America, never before has the disparity in the mean wage between a CEO and an employee been as great - nearly 450 times. Also the 1% are earning 40% of the total USA income. Whereas in prior times, as a result of checks and balances, everyone was a winner now the rich are literally getting richer and the poor poorer. Also the perception is that the institutions of the rich gamed the system to create the financial mess and that the political infrastructure favor the 1%. This in a time of the severest economic circumstances since World War 11. 

Nowhere was this more clearly articulated, when Michael Moore joining the Occupy Wall Street movement, opined, that Capitalism had lost it's way and that just because we can vote for someone does not mean we have a Democracy. He opined further that the reason they were occupying Wall Street and not Capitol Hill was that Congress was the servant of the 1% that Wall Street symbolically represented. The protest had to be with the paymasters not their servants - Congress.

THE 99 PERCENTERS AND THE POLITICAL SYSTEM.

Thus the" Occupy Wall Street" essentially maintain that 1% control the future of America. (See Blog- The American Future - May the Best 1% win). Politicians have been caught of guard by this movement. The Left have not fully embraced it and the right "understand it". Even Ben Benanke, the Chairman of the Federal Reserve - the very guardian of capitalism as we understand it - recognizes the group's "frustration". Both Pelosi, more vigorously, and Boehner, more guardedly, have recognized their "concerns" So the protest group, which under normal circumstances, would be called the left wing lunatic fringe on the one hand, and the social conscience of the nation on the other, is garnering half - baked support all round. At present they are peripheral to mainstream politics and are not the center of the media's attention. Previously, the movement could have not have grown without media support but they don't need it anymore - they have the social media.

THE MOVEMENT'S POTENTIAL

The protestors are amorphous, unfocussed and leaderless but they have only being going a few months. While students are thought to be the majority of this debate there are other groups that are either participants or potential participants - "the workers", the unemployed - all 5 million of them, the homeless, the environmentalists, the foreclosed and those home owners that are under water, not to mention more than a smattering of 1 percenters.... Thus this is not similar to a predominantly student based protest with narrow objectives such as the anti draft Vietnam War protests. Nor can they be compared, as often as they are, to The Tea Party. The latter have a strict political agenda and definite political objectives. They wanted smaller government, minimal taxation and had a social agenda and their modus operandi was to take over the Republican Party.

Thus this group is out there gaining momentum. The movement is growing and growing in all sorts of states and locations. As many as 600 different communities are said to be involved. Recently, they scored a major success by closing down one of America's largest harbors, Oakland, for a day. 

There is another more powerful example of the impact of this movement. Bank of America, the largest bank in the USA, introduced a $5 per month charge on debit cards. The latter are used instead of checks and are regarded as cash. Normally, this would have been accepted with a moan and as a fact of life. Other major banks followed. However, the outcry was spontaneous and devastating. Bank of America withdrew their charge but not before large numbers of their clients withdrew their business. In no time the social media was awash with exhortations to join local small banks and credit unions. A Bank Transfer Month was announced on the Internet and the Credit Unions added 650,000 members and $4.5 Billion in new deposits in a month. That was 50,000 more new accounts in one month than the whole of 2010. In every local newspaper in the US the Credit Unions are advertising, as are the local banks. The impact on the major institutions should this continue could be paradigm changing especially if insurance companies, for example, are similarly hit.

THE ANATOMY OF A PROTEST MOVEMENT

At the end of the day no one can predict where this is all going other than it is snowballing. This type of movement is difficult to stop, especially with the social media it won't fizzle out. The movement consists of many heads and is undisciplined. It is hard to keep it non violent like the Civil Rights Movement or the Indian Independence movement. There is no King or Gandhi or central focus. The "trouble makers" among them either provoke violence or the undisciplined amongst the police or politicians resort to violence. Then there are protests about the violence of the law enforcers, which inevitably provokes more violence, arrests, injuries, court appearances and more momentum. The violence increases the public interest but never the cause unless it is blatantly suppressive as we have seen in the Arab Spring. 

A natural mobilization of this energy would be for Obama to say, "What you are saying I am trying to enact". He cannot do it because the movement is directionless and leaderless and what happens if an unacceptable agenda gels or the movement gets destructive and he is identified with chaos? Likewise the movement is not going to identify with Obama because he promised to change "politics as usual" and look where we are 4 years later.

At the moment the spokesperson has to be Michael Moore who has already expressed his disappointment with Obama. However Moore may be a celebrity but he is no politician. He is, unashamedly, a bull in a China Shop. So some one has to step up to the plate and channel this frustration and anger at the current system. History has a knack of producing someone who might lead this growing mass of malcontents into a cohesive political force and policy focus. 

If and when this happens one can begin to measure their impact. For example, what if a charismatic leader said it was time to change the constitution so that  financial political contributions are not defined as free speech? Or that the articulated focus be that all elections no matter where or what could not have any contributions at all and should be centrally financed? With the social media and some of the 1 percenters money what would have been a pipe dream 10 years ago could become a reality.

THE REPUBLICAN NOMINATION FIGHT - WHAT IT REALLY MEANS

Out of nowhere and in the space of a few weeks a new Presidential Republican front runner has emerged - Herman Cain. Articulate, intelligent,witty, likeable, religious, highly successful in business and backed by the Koch brothers, (the Republican number one, one percenter),  he has become the Tea Party candidate du jour. As Perry recedes, Bachmann evaporates and Paul fades into the sunset as he has done Presidential election after Presidential election, so Cain emerges. He is not well enough known to be rejected as a flat earther and in many ways he is refreshingly forthcoming.  In some ways even to be taking this much notice of him is risky as tomorrow he maybe just a memory as Perry and Bachmann appear to be and Romney will take his rightful place as the Republican nominee. But let's take chance and Google Cain with the best of them.

CAIN THE REAL DEAL?

To quote him, he is a "real" African American, not the ersatz Obama variety. He has not been around long enough to be called a total sellout by the Sharptons and the Jacksons of this world but he is already under attack by saying "some people" use racism as an excuse for non advancement. He also maintains that the African Americans have been brainwashed into supporting the Democrats.  He has made gaffe after gaffe - on abortion, on a farcical tax plan, on negotiating with terrorists, on electrifying the fence between Mexico and USA, snubbing donors and his unashamed lack of knowledge on Foreign Affairs. Yet he remains top of the pops. His sustained position as the Republican front runner must have surprised even him and he is regrouping in order to make a meaningful run at the nomination. By every parameter he should have imploded but remember they said the same about Obama this time 4 years ago. Herman has ignored the strategically important Iowa caucus but he is polling number 1 there. There is little doubt that will change and he will charm the fundamendalist base who are starved for a viable candidate. If he wins Iowa he can win South Carolina and then who knows.....

He could not be doing this entirely on is own as JAY H ELL has indicated in his last blog. Why are the Tea Party supporters favoring him over the dismissed Perry, Bachman and Paul and the ignored Santorum and Gingrich? For the obvious reasons that they consider the latter with no chance against Obama.  Also he is African American and just might be the ideal candidate to run against another African American. He is not a Washington "insider" in a grossly anti - establishment environment. While

all the other Republican hopefuls look like yesterday's memories, he projects a fresh image and if he get's his line straight as the unashamed conservative candidate the Tea Party will live with him.

IS THIS ALL FOR REAL?

But can all this be for real! Is it really just a reflection of the parlous state that the Republican Party find themselves in to find a viable candidate? How can you really compare him to the articulate. knowledgble,  highly organized and financed Obama candidacy? After all Obama beat out Hilary Clinton. His was not an election by default but rather a conscious choice over the favourite. Also are the Republican establishment going to stand by and let this happen? In the final analysis, in the crucible of an actual Presidential race, Herman can only get worse. What this really all means, on the one hand, is that the Tea Party have not yet got a viable candidate. Even if Herman falls of the horse before he reaches the finish line of the Republican race one of the other Tea Party no - hopers would become their champion by default.

WHAT IS FOR REAL

At the end of the day the fight for the Republican Presidential nomination is a referendum on what philosophy will take control of the Republican Party- the ultraconservative Tea Party or the Centre Right Establishment . The champions of each faction, regardless of who they are, will be backed to kingdom come n the Primaries. 

Thus, the Republican establishment are slowly but surely recognizing that they have to live with the jaded Romney. The latter is the only candidate that hasn't bounced around in the polls. He has 25% support come rain or shine. Put another way 75% of the Republican party have steadfastly looked for other candidates.  But, historically, the Establishment in the Republican party have nominated a Romney type. They have a tradition of sticking to the Party faithful - the Nixons, the Reagans, the Doles, the Bushes, (by the ton), and the McCains.

Whether both factions will rally round whoever is finally nominated will yet another test as to whether the Republican Party can bind together to become a force for 2016 when a Christie, a Mitchell and a Jed Bush might be ready for a run...

THIS BLOG CORRECTS THE ONE BELOW 

THE AMERICAN FUTURE - MAY THE BEST 1% WIN.

THE PRESIDENTIAL RACE

On the surface there is total disconnect between the President and Congress on the one hand and the electorate on the other. In a political climate where the  President is running at a less than 40% approval rate and no Republican contender has more than 25% support there seems to be no saviour in sight. Although Obama should be a dead duck, the three leading Republican challengers are the political chameleon, Romney, the moderate, and the Palin stand ins, - Herman Cain, the new conservative tea party frontrunner, and Governor Perry. The more the Governor opens his mouth the lower his ratings fall. Cain, who sounds like an evangelical preacher, has never held any political office at any level and whose claim to fame is as a CEO of a pizza chain called the Godfather. Romney runs into trouble from every direction - his now disavowed moderate stance as Massachusetts Governor and his faith as a Mormon make the likelyhood of getting the Republican Conservative vote, in any election, very slim.

The fact that these three represent the philosophical factions of the Republican party is really close to conceding the Presidency to Obama. The Republican establishment have placed their hopes that, at the end of the day, all factions will rally round their stated number one priority - the desire to get the "socialist" Obama out.  One really cannot see the conservatives coming out for Romney nor the middle of the road Republicans and the swing vote Independants coming out for the Tea Party stand ins. Obama is thus on track to win the presidency by default. Obama has a simple response to his own sluggish base, "Don't expect the Almighty just look at the alternatives to me".

CONGRESS AND THE ELECTORATE

Added to the lackluster Presidential choices and disinterest is the fact that Congress has a 10% approval rating, The "do nothing" Congress is furthering no-one's agenda. The electorate are really not interested in the blame game. Obama has angered his base by seemingly pandering to the Republicans in an effort to show the cynical electorate that he wants bipartisanship and progress. He is not winning any converts for his efforts. The Republicans on the other hand are winning no friends either by steadfastly maintaining that the rich are the job creators in the teeth of polls that want to tax the rich. So everyone is getting nowhere fast. Cliffhanger situations threatening to close the government just irritate the electorate further as the politicians seem to be making obtuse points only relevant to them.

It is fair commentary to maintain that the American electorate is totally disillusioned with government in any shape or form. They feel impotent, ignored and angry. Their earlier knee-jerk response to throw out whichever Party that was in power in each two year election cycle does not help. Nobody seems to get the message.

THE ECONOMIC MILEU

And all this taking place in the worst economic times since the Great Depression - nearly 10% unemployment figures, housing foreclosures are forecast in 2011 to be more than the 3.8 million in 2010, at least 1 in 5 homes are "underwater", the term used to designate the situation when a home is worth less on the market than the amount owed on the mortgage, student loans are at record highs as Colleges charge more and more for an education that is not producing employment, the systematic weakening of "worker rights" by the courts and the States and in the current financial abyss the withering away of social safety nets - to mentions some of the woes.

Central to the financial mess is unemployment. The raw figures do not tell the whole story.  They do not include the underemployed, those no longer bothering to try to obtain a job and those forced into early retirement. Also there are imbalances with far higher unemployment among the minorities, the poor and the recently graduated Colleges students.

WALL STREET AND THE CORPORATION "JOB CREATORS"

Juxtaoposed to the parlous state of the electorate are the American Corporations.  Generally speaking, they are in fine shape. They have fine trimmed their operations for the economic situation. This has often included large lay offs. There are many that are multinational and who do not bring their profits back to the US and therefore these are not taxed. They are said to have nearly 3 trillion dollars in reserve that they are not investing in plant or jobs till times are better. What is good for GE is no longer necessarily good for America!

In addition there are those corporations involved in banking, investing and hedge funds that nearly brought down the economy, some of whom were bailed out by the government, who still persist in paying astronomical salaries to their executives and employees. It is the banks and financial institutions, in general, that are the principal targets of public anger. The "Occupy Wall Street" protesters proclaim "The Banks got bailed out and We got sold out".

So in the midst of this all are companies financial or otherwise that are still paying good dividends to their shareholders and exorbitant salaries to their executives.

THE FUTURE DIRECTION

In order to resolve this situation two opposing political philosophies have emerged to finance the American future. One believes in increasing taxation of the wealthy to finance the shortfall and stimulate the economy and the other believes that taxation of wealthy will merely curtail job creation and is counterproductive and wasteful and inefficient. Obviously there are rationalizations, variations and qualifications to that theme, but essentially that is what the fight is about.

ELECTORATE RESPONSE TO THE ECONOMIC CRISIS.

Amidst the general apathy, populist movements have arisen. Foremost is the Tea Party, on the right, who have had a major impact in changing the Republican Party. More recently from the left we have had the "Occupy Wall Street" movement. Initially, ignored by the media it has grown and grown and grown. It has become a national movement and are now is impossible to ignore. It is in the forefront of attacking "Corporate Greed". Their slogan, "We are the 99%" as opposed to the 1% who have have disproportionate wealth and control the economic destinies of all, has resonated. In fact this movement has now become international.

The future of this movement which is leaderless and amorphous remains to be seen. Ironically to gain traction they are going to have to capture the imagination of some of the 1%. It is no secret that in order to become a significant agent for change the Tea Party received decisive financial support from billionaires, like the Koch brothers, who up there with 1.0%.

THE 1% - your 1% or my 1%

With the removal of virtually all restrictions on political donations the power of the 1% and corporations has become immense. The way American politics works is that there is almost a direct correlation with the amount of money raised and political power. So all the policy directions are irrelevant without financial backing from the 1%. The fight is not totally imbalanced and, as things currently stand it just so happens that each side of the divide has it's own one percenters.  In addition to the right wing magnates there are the Soross' and the Buffets' to counterbalance their influence.

But surely this is not what the Founding Fathers envisioned - for LIfe, Liberty and Happiness - to be defined by a few.

The irony is that if the 1% do get taxed  an extra 5.5% over every $1,000,000 they earn each year they will still retain the power they have. This has been vested to them by the Supreme Court, (5 votes to 4), who have interpreted Free Speech in the Constitution to spend as much money as you like to influence the outcome of the political destiny of the country.

All one can say is - may there always be one percenters on both side of divide and may the best one percenters win!

THE REPUBLICAN PARTY AND IT'S PRESIDENTIAL NOHOPERS

By all the parameters, that usually portend the political future, the Republicans should achieve their four year primary objective and remove President Obama from office. The economy is in the doldrums and Obama's approval rate is around about 30%. Even, Jimmy Carter, who was routed by Reagan, had higher ratings at this stage of the game. On top of this the Democratic base are luke warm about Obama.......

There just appears to be two problems: who or what is the Republican Party? - and once that is sorted out, is there any candidate out there that they could all get behind.

The answer as to who the Republican are is simple - The Tea Party have highjacked the Republican Party and in fact, as things stand, are the Republican Party. JAY. H. ELL has written about this ad nauseam. So far the Tea Party's biggest weapon has been winning  Republican Party nominations. This they did this with great success in 2010 and in the anti incumbent climate many of their nominees got elected, giving the Republicans the House of Representatives and, as predicted, a massive headache. Since then the Tea Party, really the extreme Republican base, have evolved from the tail that was wagging the dog, to the dog itself. If this statement needs any further proof just take one look at the Republican candidates for the Republican nomination for Presidency.

REPUBLICAN AGENDA

Before moving onto the candidates let us look at the agenda the Republican Presidential Candidate, is going to have to run on. Essentially this election is going to be all about job creation with the crushing deficit as a backdrop. The Republican candidates' solution thus far is very simple - get rid of taxing the rich and the latter will be able to create jobs. In fact in the debates on this issue they call them the "job creators" as opposed to the rich. This position flies in the teeth of public opinion - who overwhelmingly believe in reinstating the old tax code where the rich pay more. The "job creators" have had 10 years to create jobs and have not done so.

Without going in to too much detail as to the Republican's policies on a decreased spending agenda just examine their policy on Medicare.(The governmental medical coverage plan for senior citizens). The current Republican policy is to ditch Medicare. (Ironically, one of their successful arguments in the 2010 election was Obama wanted to reduce Medicare expenditure by $500,000,000!) On this subject they are even further behind the public opinion curve.

So let us go onto foreign policy. Obama is officially ahead of the game here. Obama got Osama. He is leaving Iraq and beginning to leave Afghanistan. He told NATO and the Europeans that Libya was their responsibility not primarily America's and Libya fell. The Republicans are all over the place in their criticism on Foreign Relations, so much so that they won't be them raising the issue in 2012.

REPUBLICAN CANDIDATES

For practical purposes they are the Tea Party.

Current leader of the pack is Governor Perry of Texas. Besides the above solutions his contribution is that Ben Benanke, Head of the Federal Reserve, (and incidentally a Republican), should be tried for treason. He also wants to get rid of Social Security.

Michelle Bachmann, besides supporting the Republican fiscal agenda, adds to her resume that she will bring to the price of gasoline down to 2 dollars a gallon.

Ron Paul, who has been around forever and besides believing in virtually no taxes or Federal Government opines that we should get rid of the Federal Emergency Management Agency. The agency that manages inter alia the Irene and Katrina disasters

Besides some other Tea Party lesser lights there is Mitt Romney. In his mind, the last white hope for sanity. A former Governor of Massachusetts who introduced Obamacare there, hopes by being all things to all people, he will get the nomination. What Mitt wants to say but can't is the following:

"Republican Primary voters none of your Tea Party candidates has a ghost of winning against Obama so trust me I will carry out your agenda  if only you nominate me. In the meantime I have to look somewhat sane so that in the Presidential race I can appear the voice of moderation against that socialist Obama."

He is using the same tactic he used against McCain in the last Republican Presidential run off and there he didn't even come second.

THE REPUBLICAN ESTABLISHMENT.

It is fair to say that there is no real establishment candidate. John Huntsman recently announced and he has no name recognition as yet. The fact that he is a Mormon like Romney cannot help. There is not a George Bush, (incidentally disavowed by the Tea Party candidates as a big spending liberal). Jed Bush is not remotely interested and is the first of the establishment to support Huntsman. Chris Christie, Governor of New Jersey issues a denial a day that he is not running.

The Republican establishment keep hanging around waiting for Godot and he/she is not appearing. It looks like the inbreeding of the establishment has finally produced sterility.

Not that they aren't to blame for this mess. In effect they created the Tea Party. Karl Rove mobilized them for the unpopular Bush by announcing all types of social agendas such as abortions, traditional marriage etc that Bush never got around to carrying out. Now the Tea Party candidates brush him aside.

ON THE HORIZON.

There is thus not much to look forward to. Sarah Palin is deciding whether to make a grand entrance. Each day she waits will be harder for her to get back the oxygen she helped create for the current tea party runners. Still at the end of the day she has some quasi respectability in so far that, lest we forget, she has already been a Vice Presidential candidate. It is hard to imagine that she will let this opportunity run by.

Then there is the incumbent President himself. He is due to announce a major jobs policy on Labor Day in early September. It is difficult to hold one's breath and imagine a Franklin Roosevelt like product and it is more likely to be the same old same old. He however will continue to be assisted by the fiscal Republicans who are now saying we need spending cuts to pay for the disaster aid!

It is really very difficult to imagine how the Republicans can run on their current legislative behavior. Although the Public are unimpressed with Obama's lack luster performance they are more dismissive of Congress that has a 12% approval rating. Now Congress are the Republicans mainly and also they are perceived to the greater stumbling blocks to bipartisanship. The latter being a big priority amongst the electorate at present. Obama keeps reminding the Republicans to go back to their constituencies and tell them what they want to do.

THE ELECTORATE

They have been a few pointers as to the way the electorate feel. The NY 26th Electoral Bye Election that JAY H. ELL wrote about earlier is one. Here was a Republican loss in a traditional Republican seat.
Also in Wisconsin the Republican Governor is under siege and the Republicans lost two seats in recall elections thereby narrowing their majority down to one in the State Assembly.

There is never an equal pox on both houses and it seems that Obama for the moment feels he has more to gain by just let the Republicans noisily do their thing. On the Presidential front his biggest dream has come true. He will other run against Sarah Palin or a Sarah Palin clone. It is difficult enough for the Republican establishment to get behind one of them let alone the so-called independents. So he really has to be the favorite at the moment. In a two horse race only one can win.

As for the Republican Party, there is no reason to believe that the dominant Tea Party won't control the nominating process again and it remains to be seen whether they will ever regain their status as the loyal opposition or the responsible government.

NY 26TH SPECIAL ELECTION AND PALIN'S TEA PARTY

FOREPLAY

A nondescript special election in the NY 26th District has turned the political world on it's head. When discussing an isolated election such as this all pundits preface their opinions by, "All politics are local and one cannot read to much into....". They then proceed to read "too much", always with the qualifier that, "This election assumes a special significance however, because......". This election is no exception and allows wide eyed pundits to extrapolate up the ying yang.

To recap, the special election was precipitated by a married incumbent, (male), appearing bare chested on some or other dating site. Now is not the time to reflect as to what that man was thinking or what continent he thought he was on. One thing is for sure his name is not being bandied about as a potential savior Republican candidate for the Presidency. It is time, however, to reflect on the opportunity this special election result has given down to earth bloggers, like me, not prone to hyperbole, to discuss the impact it might have on the world and more specifically on the political landscape of the US, which in fact is the world.

The NY 26th District has been a safe seat for the Republicans for decades. It is rural. It is conservative. The last Republican incumbent won 70% of the electoral vote. So it is not one of those results you normally wait up till 4. 00 am to see who has retained or lost the House of Representatives. In a Westminster Parliamentary System seats such as these are usually "unopposed" by the opposition. Valuable resources are not wasted on lost causes. However, as we all know, politics in the US is the number one non contact sport. America as I have opined previously is in "status electionus". TV Channels provide 24 hour coverage. There are nearly as many political blogger sites as porn sites on the internet. So it stands to reason that, at this particular point in time, this election took on a "special significance".

THE ISSUES AND RESULT

The central issue in this election was a referendum on the Republican Solution to the crippling deficit problem, as articulated by Paul Ryan and supported by 235 Republican Congressmen.  Simplistically, the Republicans believe that the problem can be resolved, predominantly, by cutting Government spending and simplistically, the Democrats,  predominantly believe that increased taxation of the rich is the answer. It is not unfair to state that this "national" issue dominated this special election. Specifically, the Democrats focused on Medicare - the "entitlement" program that funds senior health care that is eating up increasing amounts of taxpayer money. Republican Paul Ryan and his 234 colleagues in Congress had voted to eliminate that program as it is currently funded. The differing economic philosophies of the two parties were brought sharply into focus with this reality. Medicare has been generally highly valued by the seniors and potential seniors. There was no way that they would risk changing the status quo for vouchers that contribute to their healthcare cost, the Republican solution, that might leave them with large sums to pay.

The upshot of all this was that Democrat, Kathy Hocul, garnered 48% of the vote and the Republican, Jane Corwin, obtained  42% and the Tea Party candidate 9%. Whichever way one looks at it, and believe you me it is being looked at in several ways, this represents a well over 20% swing to the Democratic Party. If this swing was replicated in 2012 then the Democrats would easily retake the House of Representatives and hold onto the Senate. Also the voter turnout was as high as an ordinary election. In addition, the amount of money spent in this election, much by "interest" groups far exceeded expectations and at the very least saw to it that every viewpoint was presented and or attacked. Also the issues central to the debate were not local but national.

MY VIEWS


The results were not entirely unexpected. Polls had pointed to them and the Republican pollsters had warned that there was a general disenchantment to the Ryan plan throughout the country. So what does this mean in political terms?

The Democrats were quick to focus on this as a key issue to fight the 2012 elections. Harry Reid, the Senate Democratic majority leader, immediately brought the Ryan plan to the Senate floor to get the Republican Senators on record on this issue. Five of the Republicans thought that discretion was the better part of valor and voted against the plan and the rest have to live with it together with their 235 Republican colleagues. So first and foremost it portends to a rejection of the Republican financial solution resulting in a return to a Democratic Congress

Besides the fact that the Republican plan is sure loser to me there is a more significant development in this election. Namely the fact that the Tea Party got nearly 10% of the vote. So had they not been there, on the face of it, the Republican could have scraped home.The Tea Party candidate was mediocre and a former Democrat to boot who got virtually no support from the Tea Party establishment. (Sarah didn't even bother to not endorse him). He was smeared of the face of the earth by the well funded Republican machine. This brought his numbers down from 20% to 10% as he hung in there. This was in New York so the social issues that the Tea Party embrace are not so resonant as they are in the "Bible Belt.  Extrapolated into the grand scheme of things the Tea Party element becomes more and crucial to the Republican party's future.  (See blog - The Tea Party - The New GOP). As things stand it will be increasingly hard to win a Republican Primary without their support.
The Tea Party supporters are purists . Their representatives that get elected are monitored by the Tea Party establishment to see that the toe the party line. (See earlier blogs especially The Tea Party, The New Congress and Palin - All You Ever Needed To Know).

Again and again the Tea Party have shown they don't give a hoot about what the Republican Party and what it's doyens have to say. They are not susceptible to the argument  that their position is likely to help the common enemy - the Democrats. To date they have been strongest in the Republican Primaries electing nominees that have no chance rather than compromise to the Republican establishment. Their de facto leader is Sarah Palin who is on the road again. Whether or not she chooses to run for the Republican nomination and or chooses to be King Maker in the next election, she has never been more powerful and well funded.

SHORT TERM IMPACT

This election changes the whole dynamic of a potential bipartisan solution to address the economic woes of the country. The urgency the Democrats may have seen earlier on has now vanished. Hang in till 2012 - 2013 and they can have their own solution. In some ways this is pretty destructive because they also buying into scenario that an organized 20% of the American electorate can control one side of the debate. They need to continue the bipartisan discussions. President Clinton has reminded them of the urgency. This  notwithstanding their apparent politcal advantage in just running agianst the Ryan plan that the Republicans are suicidally hanging onto.

The Republicans for their part need to tell the Tea Party where to get off. If they don't, they face the reality of them hijacking the party of Lincoln.  The Tea Party want nothing more that not to have to become an official third party. The latter have had no success in the US. The plan is to take over the GOP. The fascinating observation is that they are making no bones about it and the GOP establishment, need to take them on. They have nothing to loose because if they carry on, as they are doing now, pretending that this is all really part of a spectrum they are going to loose out anyway

OSAMA OBAMA - REALLY AN AMERICAN?

To an objective observer, the never ending debate swirling around President Obama's persona and credibility has to be incomprehensible. The invective against him and the belief, for example, that he is a closet non American born Muslim, if not agent, whirls around the internet and in e-mails in a non stop staggering fashion. The public manifestation of this debate, until recently, manifested in the "birther" movement. This group, (20 - 25% of most surveys), believed that Obama was born in Kenya. The proof that they were right was that Obama's long birth certificate had not been produced. Donald Trump launched his Presidential bid as an aggressive "birther. (See Blogs, The Tea Party - The New GOP and Donald Trumps Palin).  From no where Trump became a leading candidate in the Republican race on the basis of his forcefully arguing that Obama had not proved that he was an American and therefore Constitutionally entitled to be President.

BIRTHERS' THINKING?

If one analyzes  the "birther' conspiracy theory it would appear that way the "birthers" have to be thinking is as follows:

On or about, August 4, 1961, the day of Obama's birth, Obama's daddy, having married and impregnated a white American lady, and Obama's granny, got together and decided that they would hatch a plot that would get a non American Muslim  president of America. Instead of allowing the American lady to have her baby where she was they would schlep her to Kenya to have the baby. The purpose was then to get the most powerful nation in the world to get a non American born Muslim to sell out to the Muslim fundamentalists about 47 years later. At that time there were not too many openly  militant Muslim Fundamentalists but it was well known that Obama's daddy, by Obama's own admission - he wrote a book about it - was an exceptionally bright chap. (To this day it is uncertain as to why Barack had to be non American born but these Africans are pretty devious).  Now the American mommy lady, obviously, was pretty influential and  bought into this whole conspiracy so she got the Hawaii Authorities to say she delivered the baby in Hawaii and even got them to put a fake announcement in the newspaper. From then on it gets a bit murky but who cares, Obama, who has a bad memory of his birth, couldn't prove otherwise.

THE BIRTHERS' PROOF

The birthers, rather stupidly I think, maintained that the key proof of their argument was the failure of Obama to produce his long birth certificate. (I would have hung in with the granny and resurrected  her and brought her onto every TV channel, but we all make mistakes). Obama then produced his long birth certificate and of course Trump declared victory, maintaining that all his investigators, who could prove that Obama was hiding the truth, had forced Obama to show that he, Obama, in fact, was telling the truth. This of course resulted in confusion among the birthers. Trump rallied and said he would now move on to the question of how the subsequent editor of The Harvard  Law Journal could have had the qualifications to go to an Ivy League College in the first place.

So the attack was on Obama not really being American and or that he is a fraud.


DEATHERS TAKE OVER FROM BIRTHERS

But the birthers were not to be thwarted because of the following event:

Obama, seemingly out of the blue, acted, courageously, boldly and decisively - not on taxes or on jobs or the socialization of America - but on national security. After a successful effort to locate Osama Bin Laden, he ordered the elite Navy Seals to raid America's enemy number one's lair. They killed Osama, photographed him, collected DNA, buried him according, as we might expect, according to Muslim law. In the process of this daring raid a mass of intelligence was obtained. Objectively, this was a massive coupe - 9/11 had finally been avenged. Osama's wives said he was dead, El Qaeda threatened to avenge Osama's death and the Seals said they killed him. But the problem was that Obama decided not to release the photos of the dead Osama so as not to turn him into a martyr. ( If he had we all know it would have been a photo shop job anyway).  So with no photographs who could believe this President?

So the birthers became the deathers.

A facebook page "Osama Bin Laden Not Dead" has been created. Fox news analyst Judge Andrew Napolitano wanted to see a photograph. Alex Jones, a Texas based radio host, boasted 24 million hits on his You Tube Channel, claimed that Bin Laden's death was a hoax. Kevin Lane, a well known blogger, denied that Obama was dead and maintained that this was a distraction from Obama's birth certificate bollux and on and on and on.

The Republican contenders in the first Presidential  debate maintained that Obama "got  lucky" in this instance and that generally he had screwed up American foreign policy. They wanted, as so many others did, to see photographs to "prove" it was Osama. Many gave the credit to President Bush. Some said that the best they could say for Obama was that he had carried on President Bush's policies.  No-one was prepared to  give him unconditional credit for a collection of gutsy decisions that had got rid of public enemy number one.

WHY?

At the end of the day why has this President's been so hammered?  His credibility to be the American President was always being attacked, by this group, in one way or another rather than his policies. ( In fairness this is not the line of the Republican establishment but their control over the party is in doubt - see Blog - The tea Party the New GOP.) This has to be code for you are not accepted as being American. Apparently it sticks in the crawl to acknowledge him as the personification of America, as American Presidents are, and the Commander in Chief to boot. It is almost as if he is considered an alien that somehow by a strange set of circumstances put him, a non Anglo - Saxon, in the White House. The fact that he represents the American melting pot and everything America purports to represent, appears not to resonate with a sizable but very influential minority of the electorate.

OBAMA'S PEDIGREE

His early upbringing was non American - in fact Asian. He like many others today is of mixed parentage but was in effect brought up by the white half. His white mother was way ahead of her time and obviously gave his white conventional grandparents, who were the major influence in his upbringing, grey hairs. He hankered for Africa and "The Dreams of His Father". He is regarded as African American but is more racially blind than most. His is a classical story of the American dream - from log cabin to President. He also, like so many other presidents attended an Ivy League College. His cabinet is representative of all groups. He is a strong advocate of feminism, already having appointed half the number of the women that have ever served on the Supreme Court. He has pushed for Latinos and has their support. So in it's face what could be more American?

Well the plain truth is that he just is different. And the difference is more than color. He has   experience of many many cultures.  As all these "Birthers" and "Deathers" have maintained, in Code, he just isn't American and should not be President. For example, even if he was born in Hawaii, is Hawaii really America?  And it doesn't take a Freud to work out why they believe this.

DEFINING MOMENT


However  this may all pan out, the Osama raid will turn out to be the defining moment In Obama's Presidency.  Maybe he "got lucky". Maybe El Quada were already passe in Muslim countries as all the revolutions were not for Osama but rather for freedom. The bottom line is that he destroyed the American nemesis and the myth of Osama's invincibility and allowed Americans to hold their heads up high. So whatever the Birthers or Deathers may say - not too bad an achievement for someone they do not regard as American!

THE TEA PARTY - THE NEW GOP?

The  current state of political denial cannot continue. The GOP does not resemble the GOP of 2008 or even 2010. The party has moved profoundly to the right and the Tea Party are remodeling it to their own vision. This is more than a shift of emphasis, it is a shift of philosophy.  Enough has been blogged here about the genesis of this phenomenon. (See blogs -The Tea Party, The New Congress and Palin, The GOP the Presidency and Palin and Donald Trumps Palin). The Tea Party for the largest part have made good their promise to hold their newly elected members feet to the fire. They are not a rag bag motley disparate bunch they are a vast organized operation that at the very least, control, many of the GP Primaries and therefore the GOP candidates and therefore the GOP. The GOP Speaker, Boehner, has been threatened, either toe the line or you will face a Primary Challenge.

REVOLUTIONARIES

In many ways the Tea Party are revolutionaries. There is open talk of not passing a higher debt ceiling let alone their acceptance of shutting down the Government  - regardless of the consequences. The hint of not raising the debt ceiling is already sending shivers throughout the financial world. Interest rates would rocket and America would be on it's way to defaulting on it's foreign debt. The Tea Party may only represent 10% of the total electorate, and therefore 20% of those that bother to vote, but that is all that it takes. David Gergen, the respected and balanced GOP political commentator and advisor to 4 Presidents, just shook his head in disbelief and disgust when the Tea Party obsession on ending funding Planned Parenthood, was considered important enough to shut down the government.

WEATHERVANE DONALD.

"The do whatever it takes", Donald Trump's possible Presidential challenge is indicative of the way the wind is blowing. In his past Presidential flirtations he was in favor of a 14.5% Tax on Estates over $10,000,000 to boost Social Security and Medicare and Universal Health Care. Now he is first and foremost, a birther pandering to the 20%. A position so counter productive to the American electorate in general, that the Republican establishment have officially nixed it and even the Republican Governor of Arizona has vetoed a bill that would not allow Obama on the ballot unless he produced his "long" birth certificate. This was a brave move from an otherwise right wing Republican Governor, hopefully serving notice that the Tea Party does not control the agenda.

The GOP Presidential hopeful list also tells it all. Other than Haley Barbour, a rank outsider, there is no establishment candidate. The front runners are all non establishment members.  Gone are the insiders that have been the postwar establishment Republican nominees -  Dole, Bushes, Reagan, Nixon, Eisenhower, Dewey.... even the maverick McCain is no longer a maverick. Instead there is a whole bunch of Tea Party supporters among the frontrunners for the GOP nomination - Trump being the most recent.

THE NEW POLITIK

The recent bipartisan vote to extend the Federal Budget has to be a harbinger of many bipartisan deals that are needed to rescue the American economy.  Boehner could not have delivered the deal he made with Obama and Reid without the support from the Democrats. Too many of his caucus just would not go along with the more than impressive concessions he extracted from Obama. My guess is that in the next few months it is all going to become more and more tense.

It could be argued that the Democrats have the same problems. Nancy Pelosi angrily voted against the Boehner, Reid and Obama deal. However she was not involved in the process. She was left out of the negotiations. It could also be argued that that was tactical. Reid represented the Democrats and the issue between Nancy and Obama is really one of degree not philosophy. The issue between the Tea Party and the Republican establishment is far deeper. The former appear quite prepared to pull down the whole pack of cards, while the GOP establishment would read that as the economic destruction of America.

So the question facing the Republican establishment is, how far do they go in meeting the Tea Party? At the end of the day they have to take them on for the battle for the heart and sole of the Republican party. If they don't the Tea Party will be the Republican Party. If they take them on the co operation needed from the Democrats, to "save" the country would be unprecedented in current times.

DONALD TRUMPS PALIN?

For those who think Donald Trump is not for real as a Presidential candidate - think again. For those who think that his inane questioning of Obama's birthplace, after the issue has been declared dead and buried, put paid to any credence that he was running for the Presidency - really, really, think again. In the current topsy turvy world of politics, where nothing seems to make much sense,  he has many of the necessary credentials. To prove the latter point his persistent ranting as a "birther", suddenly shot him up in the polls as a Republican candidate. This even after the top Fox Republican TV host, Bill O'Reilly had told him to get serious. The official Republican party line has been that this line of attack is counterproductive but then the line that Trump toes is his own.

CREDENTIALS

Well what are his credentials? He has massive public exposure. His show, the Apprentice, has high, high ratings that went even higher following his announcement that he was a "birther". He is on finance shows, talk shows and political shows. He was a regular on Larry King's show. In fact other than his colossal ego he was considered pretty middle of the road. He has unashamedly touted his financial success. He told an interviewer that one of the reasons he would be a good president was because he was so rich!

He has an opinion on everything. When the Libyan war broke out his boastful contribution to the debate was that he had gyped Gadhaffi by hopelessly overcharging him rent when the latter visited the USA. He shows a rare mixture of charm, bravado, ruthlessness and empathy that seems to resonate with the viewers. His trade mark is barking out, "Your are fired". This he does with sadistic glee as he eliminates the contenders one by one on his show, "The Apprentice". He is thus a member of the elite, an icon  - a status that can be gained in no time by wealth and entertainment skills in this environment.

His private life is not all that marvelous but then he has no pretensions to having led a monastic life. He runs the Miss Universe competition, among other things, and has been involved in controversies relating to the lives and behavior of the beauties. Gingrich has claims to respectability so he cannot glibly skip the issue. Newt Gingrich is just too compromised to survive the primaries let alone a Presidential race.

THE COMPETITION

So he has even more name recognition than Sarah. Suddenly the conservative base are taking note of him because he is a birther, a cause that even Sarah and the other Sarah wannabees, such as Michele Bachmann and Huckabee, have abandoned. His birther move is thus unashamedly calculated to get him recognition among the voter base that is needed in the Republican Primaries. When push comes to shove he will know exactly how to get out of his rave, once nominated.

His financial qualifications are a big, big plus in a situation where everyone acknowledges that America is in deep deep financial trouble - "We need a financial manager to get us out of this mess". The other financial candidate, Romney, is responsible for Obamacare in Massachusetts and as a Mormon is not going to get the bible belt votes.

His independence is another plus. He can hardly be called a Washington insider. You are dealing with a disillusioned electorate where last time the independent voters opted for Obama in the hope that he would be "different". That is not the current perception of Obama and as politicians go Trump is certainly "different".

Then there are a collection of barely known Republican Governors who have no money and no name recognition that, barring a miracle,  really cannot really be serious contenders. So we are beginning to be left with Donald. I think I better stop because I am beginning to convince myself that Donald is about to move into the White House toting one of those mattresses that he so convincingly advertises......

However, hopefully, he may just let this one go by because there may have been 43 Presidents but there has only been one Donald Trump.

OBAMA - LIBYA AND THE NEW WORLD ORDER

INTRODUCTION

Just a day before the "coalition" met in London together with Libyan opposition members, President Obama addressed the American nation, (and of course the world), to "explain" his rationale and foreign policy, particularly as it relates to the New World Order. It is obvious that in this New World Order, ( See blogs - Egypt and the New Future and the Middle East Domino Effect), this unstable situation can repeat itself again and again. The most important fact to remember is that neither the USA nor anyone else has started these revolts against the established order - these are all home grown.

Up till Obama's address, there had been only two, apparently contradictory, messages from his administration - "Gahdafi must go" and support of maintaining a no - fly zone that would not involve putting any American military boots on Libyan soil. This  uncertain state of affairs led to a Pew survey result, prior to his speech, finding that only 47% agreed with the President's no fly decision and 36% disagreed. This is a very rare outcome for an American intervention when the whole country traditionally rallies around the President.  Other than the above two policy decisions, Obama had been strangely quiet on the Libyan issue. In the last month, he had held a major policy address on the gas situation and spent a week in Brazil in the heat of decision - making time.


BROAD SPREAD CRITICISM.

This lead all and sundry having a field day attacking him from every possible direction. In fact this has proved beneficial to Obama as the opposition was all over the show and demonstrated about as much coherence as his own policies ostensibly did.

The Republicans were in the biggest quandary as they traditionally support American dominance and intervention. (Those that went to Iraq, boots and all, could hardly shun this exercise). However, Ron Paul, presumably speaking on behalf of the Tea Party, joined other Republicans and a few Democrats, who wanted nothing to do with Libya in any shape or form.  John Boehner  wrote that Congress "just wanted to be informed" and made a very big play about it. McCain believed we should go "all the way". John Sessons made it quite clear that the USA did not need to accept direction from the United Nations or anyone else and also focussed on the bypassing of Congress. Dick Luger, inter alia, wanted to know the cost of it all. John Bolton said that we should go in and assassinate Gadhafi. Newt Gingrich echoed what many Republicans did - advise the opposite of what Obama was doing - On March 3rd he said that Obama should support a no - fly zone and on March 22 he criticized him for doing so.

The Democrats were also at sixes and sevens. Mostly they remained silent. Jay Rockefeller expressed his reservations prominently. Dennis Kucinich believed Obama should be impeached for not getting Congress's permission for going to war.

The pundits as well, as politicians from both sides of the aisle, questioned the decision for the no - fly zone commitment, and the "extras" that came with it. They questioned the consequences if it failed to remove Gadhafi or if the Rebels turned out to be worse than Gadhafi? Or even worse, supported El Quaeda. How did we know that we wouldn't have to go in to salvage our honor and or the cause we claimed to support? Also looming large was the question as to the precedent this decision sets - do we intervene in all situations where humanitarian aid is the issue? And if we did what about the Ivory Coast or Rwanda for example? Not to mention all that was about to happen or is happening in Syria, Bahrain, Yemen, Saudi Arabia, Jordan and the rest.

OBAMA'S RESPONSES.


On Intervention

Obama made an unassailable case for his interventional decision. All the ducks were in a row. Gadhafi had threatened a house by house extermination of all in Bengazi. Further more, the Arab league, UN and NATO were all idem on the no fly zone.

"We knew that if we waited one more day, Benghazi – a city nearly the size of Charlotte – could suffer a massacre that would have reverberated across the region and stained the conscience of the world. It was not in our national interest to let that happen. I refused to let that happen."


On Consistency and Principle


However, this did not answer the criticisms of the precedent he was creating and the double standard that was patently obvious of when and when not the US should intervene.  Obama's response was unashamedly frank.


"It is true that America cannot use our military wherever repression occurs. And given the costs and risks of intervention, we must always measure our interests against the need for action. But that cannot be an argument for never acting on behalf of what’s right. …."


So there it is. It is political realism. (Come back Kissinger all is forgiven). "Our interests" is a code word, for example for oil or whether allies are involved -  no way are we likely to make Bahrain, Jordan or Saudi Arabia "no fly zones" as simply as we did the odious Gadhafi regime.  


It is also very difficult to argue against the dictum that every situation is different and not withstanding our desire to save the world we can only really act on behalf of "what is right" when our interests so dictate. We have officially compromised on the moral imperative. The USA de facto foreign policy has become de jure. For practical purposes that nixes any need to defend any future decision solely on the basis of morality. This may well upset some of Obama's base but c'est la vie.


On what happens if things go wrong.


No guarantee was given by Obama that Gadhafi would be gone as a result of these actions. The only guarantee was that no American soldiers would be involved. Implicit in Obama's statement is "so what if things go wrong"! We can only do what we can do. (That incidentally includes bombing the bejesus out of Gadhafi's ground forces).  And of course there is a precedent for such a policy. The Cosovo intervention had exactly the same rationale. Not only did this policy stop the genocide it did so in spite of the fact that Milosovic remained in power for another two years.  Also included "in only doing what we can do" is arming the rebels. Although the precedent for that is not so persuasive!


 So you cannot frighten Obama with the failure to produce an outcome that he did not promise. All he promised was to keep American boots off the ground and to look at every situation "measuring our interests against the need for action."So while Obama's opponents think that there is ample room to keep their options open before going ballistic about what he did or didn't do right in Libya, the criticism may not  fly because Obama needn't take the bait. He has little policy capital invested in the outcome. 


In fact the whole hulabaloo has died down to such an extent that Obama could move onto a major policy speech on energy  just two days later.


THE NEW WORLD ORDER.


All this is taking place in a New World Order. The Arab world is topsy turvy. (See earlier blogs). The citizenry have had enough. The rebellions are far spread and spontaneous and it is obvious that Obama is going to manage each situation on it's merits. Tunisia did it all on their own. With Egypt, Obama hung around till it was obvious that his "ally" Mubarak was history. The Egyptian scene required a very, very delicate balance because Obama had made a widely acclaimed speech there on freedom. All the other Middle East dominos are about to fall and Obama's campaign rhetoric and altruism will have to give way to "our interests".


The other component of the New Order is consensus. The world is getting flatter and although Obama has stated he will act unilaterally in American interests, it is obvious that he is consensus builder. He is only too happy not to be the principal and only arbiter of international order.  He is foregoing the arena where America is still number one by far - military power. This has far reaching consequences - at the very least he is officially serving notice that America is not going to be the policeman of the world. This is also something that the American right will not feel comfortable about but it sets the stage for defense expenditure reductions in an economy that is in deep trouble.


There is no doubt that challenges lie ahead as the variables are many. One fact is for certain that Obama or no Obama the Arab citizenry are taking matters into their own hands. The motivation is not theocracy but basic human and civil rights, which the West have espoused.  All the West can do is react to these uprisings. The waters are muddied in so far that Russia and China, at least, have other "interests" in the outcome. All this in a world where there is financial stress and unemployment everywhere..... .




To be continued.