Right in San Francisco

The Lame Duck

    Barack Obama has never seemed to be interested in or good at governing - sometimes to the detriment of the nation, and sometimes to our benefit. The paramount question four months into his second term is who will guide the ship of state through 2016. A few points in evidence:

    - Exhibit number one is the failed effort to do something - anything - after the Newtown Connecticut school shootings. First he outsourced the effort to Joe Biden; then the NRA (perhaps the most vilified lobbying group in Washington) called for no compromise and armed guards in schools; then Senator Feinstein took the lead in the Senate; then the options peeled off one by one - no registry; no assault weapons ban; no size limit on ammunition clips; and finally, no background checks for gun show or Internet sales. Obama's contribution - a campaign-style tour with parents of kids who were killed. His result - even four Democrats voted against him on the key vote in the Senate, fearing Wayne LaPierre of the NRA more than the president.

    - Exhibit number two is the immigration reform initiative. Republicans are poised to accept the inevitable, hoping to make the path to citizenship longer than the political careers of the legislators. Leadership rests with a bipartisan group of eight Senators. Having defaulted on his commitments to Latino leaders in Term One, he gives an occasional speech about how important it is to solve the problem of 11 million "undocumented immigrants" (the new politically correct term) but few know or care what he thinks about the details - or what anybody in his cabinet thinks. As a result, the Republicans will get more secure borders, a more "what's in it for business and farmers" criteria for visas, and the ability to take this political pox off of the table.

    - Exhibit number three is the implementation of Obamacare. Having loudly declared that "nobody will have to give up their insurance plan or their doctor", we now see that he missed by a few million folks as employers drop their insurance plans, reduce work hours, or limit the number of employees to avoid the federally-required gold-plated plans. And lamenting the refusal of many Republican governors to set up "insurance exchanges" where companies and individuals can buy insurance, the feds will now need to manage half of the states and HHS Secretary Sebelius  is requesting $1 billion for an education campaign and has delayed to 2015 the availability of options for small companies due to "operational difficulties."  There was no mention of Obamacare in the president's budget speech.

    - Exhibit number four is the ongoing budget / debt limit / sequestration theater. Most agree that Obama overplayed his hand with his impending doom description of the impact of 2% budget cuts, and misjudged the Republicans' willingness to accept the defense component. So he now has a budget proposal which accepts some entitlement reductions, but asks for another large tax increase. Too little, too late; nobody expects this to be the structure of an agreement. When the next debt limit discussion comes around this summer, look to John Boehner to set the agenda.

   In domestic terms, this is probably as good as Republicans could have hoped for, having lost the presidency and the Senate. In foreign policy terms the abandonment of Benghazi and the disaster in Syria show the downside of not having a president who can lead. But that is a subject for another day.

                                                    -----

    This week's video is Barney Frank's use of the Boston bombing to call for greater government spending and blame the sequester. The Democrats' answer to Todd "legitimate rape" Akin.

bill bowen - 4/19/2013

 

Immigration: Policy and Politics

    We will have comprehensive immigration reform within the next few months. The Republicans need it to survive. The Democrats cannot again stiff the demographic which gave Obama a plurality of 6 million votes in his 3 million vote victory.  

    The policy is simple. In a brief moment of bipartisan wisdom, eight Senators worked out the framework - Schumer, Menendez, Bennet, and Durbin for the Dems (mostly Northerners); and McCain, Rubio, Graham, and Flake for the Republicans (all Southern/Border folks).

The program:

    1. A path to citizenship with secure borders and visa management.

    2. An improved legal immigrant system which attracts the world's best and brightest.

    3. Strong employment verification.

    4. A guest worker program and protection of employee rights.

    The final bill will jiggle a bit, but this is about it. We will move a bit more toward the Canadian model which admits immigrants based on what skills and attributes they bring to us. Let the beacon attract people who can make us greater - and pay for our Social Security.

The politics:

    1. Republicans cannot withstand a 70% Democratic vote among the rapidly expanding 23 million Hispanics who can vote (about half do), but worse would be to add another 11 million who would vote Democratic in even greater percentages. Long term residency (without the vote) works, as do lots of hurdles and an 8 plus year delay in elegibility for citizenship - until after today's political leaders are out of Dodge.

    2. Obama's role in this is fun to watch. In his first two years when Democrats controlled Congress he did nothing. Maybe because his African American supporters do not want to give up their status as the preferred minority. Maybe because his union supporters do not want to increase competition for scarce jobs. Maybe because he was clever enough to preserve Hispanic anger with Republicans. Those with longer memories recall the junior senator from Illinois torpedoing the Bush / McCain efforts in 2007 - for the same reasons.

    Now that comprehensive reform will be one of the few high points of his second term he wants it to be his accomplishment - prominence in the State of the Union; speeches around the country; a highlight of his Organizing for America perpetual campaign. But the Group of Eight has been smart enough to say "no thanks" -  you can position your thoughts as a backup plan, but we've got this one.

    3. On the Republican side it is the first round of interviews for 2016. People like a name on important legislation: Taft-Hartley; Dodd-Frank; Hart-Scott-Rodino. Eight names is too many, and Menendez-Rubio would have had a nice ring to it - until Menendez, the only Democratic Hispanic Senator got in trouble for jaunts on a donor's jet to meet up with hookers in the Dominican Republic. On this issue -one of the most critical to Republican success - there is a temptation to make it the Rubio Plan. He is the rightful leader, has been working on the effort for years and his name ends in a vowel.  

    Meanwhile, somewhere down in the bowels of the Hillary campaign the staffers are figuring how to take down Rubio if he gets credit for leading this charge, and the fair and balanced New York Times has raised the level of discourse by explaining why his taking a drink of water during his Republican response to Obama's State of the Union speech is an obvious disqualifier.

    Whatever. We will have reform and it will be good.

                                                  -----

    This week's bonus is a presentation that Harmeet Dhillon, the Chair of the San Francisco Republican Party made to the Central Committee in San Diego as part of her campaign for the state Republican Party Vice Chair. The good news for the GOP everywhere is that even in California the opportunity and liberty messages resonate.   

bill bowen - 2/22/13    

 

Karl Rove RIP

    OK, so Karl Rove can raise millions more to start another PAC to:

    Option A. Develop databases, software, and field offices to match Barack Obama's vaunted permanent campaign organization which has morphed into Organizing for Action, a PAC funded by friendly corporations and George Soros and dedicated to supporting the Left's agenda; or

   Option B. Focus the new Orwellian-named  Conservative Victory Project on the pointed objective of preventing the nomination of conservatives for the Senate.

   Surprise. He chose Option B. So sad.

       There was hope that we had gotten over the intramural Senate suicide when Jerry Moran of Kansas replaced John Cornyn of Texas as chair of the Republican Senatorial Campaign Committee,  and Jim DeMint of South Carolina retired to lead the Heritage Foundation rather than foster insurgencies against inadequately conservative incumbent Republicans. Apparently not so for the Republicans who again have a reasonable chance of capturing the Senate in 2014, needing to pick up 6 seats with 23 of the 33 available now held by Democrats.

      The headline trumpeted by Rove and the ecstatic media is that bad nominees in the last two cycles cost the Republicans at least four easy seats - in 2010 Sharon Angle in Nevada and Christine O'Donnell in Delaware; in 2012 Todd Akin in Missouri and Richard Mourdock in Indiana. Everyone gets it. Bobby Jindal gets it. The New York Times gushes over Bobby Jindal getting it.

     For a good discussion of the conservative grass roots battles in 2010 and 2012, see Erick Erickson's editorial on Red State. Certainly the comments of Akin and Mourdock cost them winnable seats and provided brand-damaging talking points in other campaigns, but there is a broader picture. Upset victors over Republican-establishment moderates have included Marco Rubio in Florida (Charlie Crist), Mike Lee in Utah (Bob Bennet), Pat Toomey in Pennsylvania (Arlen Specter), Rand Paul in Kentucky (Trey Grayson), and Ted Cruz in Texas (David Dewhurst). Of these, at least Rubio and Cruz have legitimate presidential potential. This is the vitality of the Party.

    And there have been too many others of the style sought by Rove who snatched defeat out of the jaws of victory without the "aid" of the Tea Party - Tommy Thompson (Wisconsin); Rick Berg (North Dakota); Denny Rehberg (Montana), George Allen (Virginia), Heather Wilson (New Mexico), Linda Lingle (Hawaii). Elections are won by good candidates running good campaigns in the right environment.

    But back to the beginning. Hopefully Sheldon Adelson, the Koch brothers, or someone else will support Option A. And, as Howard Fineman of the Huffington Post writes (with a somewhat different slant), the era of Karl Rove is over.

                                          -----           

  This week's video is a clip of the funniest commercials from the "lights out" Super Bowl. Some here in San Francisco are questioning the play-calling of our leader in the final moments of the contest, but we Republicans have recently had a similar experience on a more important national stage.

bbowen - 2/8/2013

The Queen of Benghazi

     Surprise newsflash: The consensus Democratic frontrunner for president in 2016, Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, who graciously protected President Obama from blame for security failures at Benghazi in October, and allowed ambitious subordinate Susan Rice to be the administration's prime source of disinformation, misses key congressional hearings (due to a virus or a concussion or whatever), while the official administration report on State's failures focuses on subordinates and she embraces all 29 recommended changes, and she hopes that firing four subordinates cauterizes the wouund.  

    Hillary has clearly learned from her husband that lying under oath is a bigger risk than any misdeeds of omission or comission. But maybe, just maybe, the House Republicans and a few reporters beyond Fox will stick with it until the questions get answered.

Before the attack:

    1. Were you pesonally aware of the deteriorating security situation in Benghazi, including the April and June bombing of the consulate and the June attempt on the British ambassador's life?

    2. Were you personally aware of the department's security measures in Benghazi - the inadequate design of the consulate facility; the removal of the Libyan embassy's 16 member Site Security Team and three small emergency response teams; the removal of a quick-response transport aircraft; the absence of Marine guards and reliance on a Libyan militia for external security? Were you involved in any of these decisions?

  3. If money is tight, why did you spend $750,000,000 to build a new embassy in Baghdad with a staff of 15,000?  

During the September 11 attack:

    1. What was the command structure for monitoring activity and directing responses during the seven-hour attack? Who were the senior officials involved from the White House, State, Defense, and the CIA? Did you have access to video from the on-site drone and ground surveillance cameras, telephone communications with the Ambassador and consular and CIA staff, and radio intercepts of the attackers?

   2. Who determined the Rules of Engagement and what were they? Why did we not deploy the special operations team located in Italy? Was there a delay in authorizing the CIA contractors at the annex to assist in the defense of the consulate?

   3. Did the desire to maintain a light footprint in the face of ongoing violent demonstrations across the region result in a decision to deny available assistance to the consulate?

After the attack:

    1. With the breadth of information available during and immediately after the attack, why did the administration continue for a week to insist that the attack was a response to a video? Who was involved in the creation of this story?

    2. Why was the investigation of the attack itself so leisurely pursued - a cursory on-site inspection of the consulate several weeks after the attack; no interrogation of an attack leader from Tunisia who was captured in Turkey; no effort to capture an attack leader openly living in Benghazi?

    The media has largely given Barack Obama a free ride because they hated Bush and loved him. With media attitudes toward Hillary being more mixed, perhaps a reporter or two will even ask these questions of the woman who once challenged Barack Obama's competence to respond to a 3 AM phone call. Or maybe Congressional Democrats will call her back to testify ... if everybody promises to not ask where President Obama was.  

                                                                    -----

    This week's video is a seasonally-appropriate flashmob from the City of Brotherly Love where baseball fans boo the Seventh Inning Stretch.  

bill bowen - 12/21/2012 

 

Post (Election) Traumatic Stress Disorder: Final Chapter

    A month after the election I am still in the "what the ****  happened?" mode - beyond denial, anger, and bargaining but not yet through depression to acceptance. Elections are about the candidates, the campaigns, and the policies. The first two of these are about somebody else and in the past - not a personal problem; it is the third that challenges one's view of the world and will play out again in the future. A few comments on each:

The candidates:

      Mitt Romney could have made a great president - smart, personally successful, great work ethic, good governor, able to assemble a great team. Conservative on most levels. Unfortunately, that did not make him a great candidate.

    Conversely, Obama was a very good candidate - loves to give speeches and is very good at it; nice family; able to play the pliant media. For better or worse, he doesn't have Romney's executive abilities, but he was foregiven his sins, generally without his needing to ask.  

The campaigns:

    By all measures Obama ran a better campaign. Three dimensions:

        1. He targeted demographics (women; African Americans; Hispanics; kids) while Romney targeted ideas (fiscal responsibility; small government; assertive foreign policy). As the incumbent, Obama was brilliant in using executive orders to energize his target groups - free contraceptives; cheap school loans; parents' insurance coverage; protection for illegal immigrant children. An interestingly vapid campaign - no touting of achievements; no vision for the future - just demonizing the opponent.

       2. There was no comparison in the Get Out The Vote effort. Obama kept much of his 2008 structure in place - field offices; the data base - and did a superb job of contacting potential voters right through election day. Some 99 % of the people on his e-mail list apparently voted. (If they voted for him, they probably also voted Democratic on the down ballot races. See Results, Senate. ) Romney started late, had fewer field offices and fewer volunteers, relied much more heavily on television ads (which paid his consultants large commissions), and his data base crashed on election day. Lets dream: The Republican National Committee and a few SuperPAC donors will find a legal way to build an organization that the 2016 candidate can slip into.

     3. Romney got pushed too far to the right in the unwieldly primary debates, did not defend himself against Democratic attacks (as he might have by doing rounds of talk shows), was able to refute the Democrats' caricature of him in the first presidential debate, then decided to run out the clock by not drawing a distinction with the president on anything.

The policies.

    Could a majority of Americans really be so far gone as to embrace Obama's policies?

     1. Free stuff for the 98%. Romney's "47%" gaffe was fatal, particularly for a patrician. To win, a Republican will have to believe (or be a good actor) that Kennedy's "Ask not what your country can do for you" still resonates with Americans. It probably does - at least for most, most of the time.

    2. Politics of envy. Growing inequality needs to be addressed beyond the tax code; but better yet, Republicans need to again champion the land of limitless opportunity.

    3. Financial responsibility. More voters trusted Romney on financial matters and it would be a serious mistake to not have this be the central issue of the party, with Paul Ryan as the chief spokesman. Beyond politics, the country needs adult leadership to head off the looming debt implosion.  

    4. An international "light footprint". People probably do want a bit of neo-isolationism after the draining Iraq and Afghan wars. Obama's posture seems to be popular - forget Benghazi; let Egypt go; let Syria go; let the jihadists have Mali; let the central Africans kill a few million more of each other; let the world adjust to a nuclear Iran and North Korea. This attitude will probably prevail until the world comes back to our doorstep - militarily or economically.

   5. Demographic politics. Romney got to 27% of the Hispanic vote by advocating for "self deporting" of illegals - Republican consensus for a better policy is certain. The "war on women" was a sham, but the demagoguery worked, and the Republicans need to articulate a pro-life/pro-women posture in issues of health and employment.  

    With Obama being a superior candidate running a superior campaign largely devoid of policy discussion, it would be a mistake to think that a significant change of policies is needed or that Obama has a mandate to continue trillion dollar deficits with federal spending at the accelerated 24% of GDP. For the moment the party's fate is in John Boehner's hands. Pray for him.

                                                -----

Fed Chair Ben Bernanke discusses the fiscal cliff in this week's video - shortly after he announced that he will increase his printing of new money from $45 billion to $85 billion per month and keep interest rates at nil until unemployment drops below 6.5% or inflation rises above 2.5%. It gets more ugly for those living on bond dividends or fixed pensions.   

bill bowen - 12/14/12         

The Fiscal Cliff: Negotiating Lessons

    Several years ago, along life's wonderous journey, I had the responsibility for buying stuff - bottles, flour, spices, filling equipment, transportation services, and the like -for a couple of large corporations.  In the process I learned some universal truths about negotiation- some obvious; some not  - and tried to pass on some of the difficult lessons to my junior purchasing agents. In politics some is different, but most is not. Would that John Boehner had been in the class.

Lesson Number One: You have to be sure that the guy you are negotiation with has the capability and inclination to deliver on an agreement.

         -  Boehner gets this. By sending a letter signed by Eric Cantor and Paul Ryan outlining his demands, he has the House on record that increased tax revenues are OK, not only with him (as per his 2011 effort), but also with the fiscal hawks. 

        -  Obama is less clear. By sending lame duck Treasury Secretary Tim Geithner to deliver his absurd opening position ($1.6 trillion tax increase; another round of stimulus spending; elimination of the concept of a debt ceiling) he missed the chance to empower a credible deal maker. Last time Obama walked away from an agreed deal - presumably after getting push back from other Democrats. Somewhere it would be good to get a signal that Obama will deliver the Pelosi/ Reid cohort this time.  

Lesson Number Two: You have to know what is most important to your adversary.

        -  For Boehner it is comprehensive agreements that will rein in budget deficits and make entitlement programs sustainable. Comprehensive revision of the tax code is important, primarily to make it more efficient. The end of the year matters less than the entire package.

        -  Obama is simpler. He wants higher tax rates for the rich as a legacy. Forget that the same result could be obtained by limiting deductions.  He has been campaigning for a year on a platform of taxing the rich (and not much else), and needs to nail that pelt to the wall with symbolic rates, not just eliminated deductions. Forget the other 90% of the budget problem - that is all negotiable as long as you don't touch the heart of Obamacare.  

Lesson Number Three: You have to be clear with yourself about who you need to please.

        - In the corporate world it is the boss, the users of the supply or service you are buying, and the top finance guy. Here's where politics is a bit different.

        -  Boehner has the more serious calculation. On the one hand he has a lot of members in his caucus who really believe (and have constituents who really believe) that trillion dollar deficits and insolvent entitlement programs are a big problem. Republicans also lost a presidential election because of their steadfast support for the 2% of the voters who already pay most of the bill and create most of the jobs. Boehner understands that Romney and company made the case and lost. Grover Norquist, who Democrats love to demonize, is not to be feared. Conservatives have been purged from key House committees.  Deficit hawks matter; tax hawks not so much.

        -  Obama would like to please his father, his early mentors, and his friends on the Left by leveling the field. Nobody knows how to deal with the root causes of growing inequality - globalization and technology - but taxes are pretty easy to understand - and popular with the 98% who are not being asked to pay more. Yet.  

Lesson Number Four: You need a flexible plan, including clear objectives, a timetable, priorities, and a communication strategy. Recognize that in America "fairness" generally results in meeting about half way.

        -  Both sides recognize that this is a multi-step process. A comprehensive agreement on taxes, entitlements, budget cuts, and the debt limit will require the buy-in of many constituencies and will not happen in 2012, but a year-end patch is necessary to head off pre-ordained calamity. One hopes that the staffs are working behind the scenes on the patch.  

        -  By agreeing to a revenue increase on the day after the election and offering a comprehensive plan starting about where the last negotiations broke off in 2011, Boehner ceded much ground for nothing in return. That may sound fair to the media and the public, but it adds pressure on House Republicans to not give much more.

        - By being so focused on a tax rate increase, Obama leaves much to give on entitlements and budget cuts- once he realizes that Boehner's first offer is serious and near his limit. (It is, isn't it? We'll know if Boehner cedes tax rates or a large debt ceiling increase as part of the year end patch.)        

Lesson Number Five: You have to be willing to walk away. Alternatively stated, it is "the principle of least interest" - the party who cares less about reaching an agreement has the most leverage.

        - For Boehner there is the ghost of Newt Gingrich who shut down the government in 1995, thus helping to drive Bill Clinton's budget surpluses and a public residue of ill-will toward Republicans. Boehner has to be ready to take the lion's share of the blame from Democrats, the pliant media, and even some Republicans if everybody's tax rates go up and everybody's favorite government program gets cut - even if temporarily. 

        -  Obama? In four years the "leading from behind" president has rarely done the hard work of governing. By nature or calculation he has rarely taken a courageous position on contentious issues (immigration reform and gay marriage as well as the Arab Spring and budget deficits) and is unlikely to risk a recession which he cannot blame on Bush if he gets his tax rate for the rich. And it is just possible that he does not want to be remembered for a second four year term with the lowest growth and highest unemployment since the 30s - and realizes that Boehner can help him avoid this distinction.   

       By agreeing to revenue increases and the framework of the Simpson-Bowles proposals Boehner has made a strong case for putting the blame for failure at the feet of Obama. The irony will be if - after a year-end patch and comprehensive 2013 negotiations - Boehner stands strong (but throws in a small rate increase as a deal clincher), our financial deficits start to heal, and the credit goes to the incumbent. That wouldn't be all bad.     

                                                -----

    This week's video reminds us that there are more important things than getting a political win.   

bill bowen - 12/7/12

It's Romney's to Win (It Really Is ! )

  This was written Wednesday afternoon. It is doubly true after the first debate.    

    Those of us who obsess over a second Obama presidency need to stop offering unsolicited advice to our chosen candidate and realize that this is not his first rodeo. It might be useful to instead reflect on the broader shape of the election and the advantages that Romney has.

    First, I will stipulate that Obama Is leading by low single digits, a bit more in the battleground states than in the country in general. Time is short and he has slipped a bit in the past month, but the next phase involves an intense exposure of the candidates directly to the electorate.

    A year ago, the premise of many was that in an election involving an incumbent the voters first look at the incumbent's record. If it is OK, game over. If not, they look at the challenger to see if he/she is OK.  Beginning with the Republican primaries, the Obama strategy has been to debunk Romney rather than to defend Obama's record or to offer strategies for short or long term  economic recovery. That leaves a major opening for Team Romney.

    1. The Romney campaign does not need to exert much energy pointing out that Obama's economic stewardship has failed. Even the most passionate liberal understands that 23 million unemployed and $16 trillion of debt reflects an ongoing misery. Heck, even Joe Biden is ranting about "the middle class that has been buried the past four years". Ditto foreign policy where our troops are dying as we skulk out of Afghanistan and the State Department's incompetence and cover-up in Benghazi reflect a naive belief that weakness will bring peace to our friends - governments and individuals - in the Middle East. The 15%  of the electorate who still need to be convinced understand the state of the nation.

   2. Likewise, there is no question about Romney's competence and experience - his education, in business, as governor, in the Olympics. With the millions of dollars of personal attacks, virtually none have been about competence. That's not nothing.

  3. So the challenge for Romney - in the debates, in pesonal appearances, in advertising -  is to demonstrate that his experience and success in business and government are relevant to the country's problems. This has two parts:

        -  He is a data-driven numbers guy. He doesn't really need to teach the electorate about the relation of marginal corporate tax rates to deficits. He just needs to demonstrate that he understands and cares.  Less is more.

        -  He needs to demonstrate that he is a decent guy who is concerned about all of the people. Notwithstanding his 47% gaffe, his performance as governor and in his personal life demonstrate the reality. 

    Pundits will dwell on a phrase or the details of an answer in the October 3 debate, but it will take a few days to determine what the public really saw. The good news for the Romney camp is that at this point the election is about Romney. With three unfiltered shots at 50 million viewers, he has the controls.

                                                                    -----

   This week's video is an Illinois legislative candidate's reprise of a famous cartoon.  

bill bowen - 10/4/12 

Fair and Balanced Gaffes

   Definition of "gaffe" - when a politician tells the truth.

   Actually, there are several kinds of gaffes:

    1. Joe Biden gaffes. Joe is a buffoon; everybody knows that Joe is a buffoon; he gets a pass.

    2. Intentional gaffes - or at least ones where the gaffer knowingly applies over the top spin with the expectation that the media will give him / her a pass. Example: the assaults on US embassies and consulates from Morocco to Jakarta, with mobs burning American flags, chanting "Death to America", and hanging President Obama in effigy do not reflect an anti-American attitude or criticism of Obama's policies. After all, he gave a great speech and has a big advantage over Romney on foreign policy.

    3. Gaffes when speaking among friends (or assumed friends) which reflect a politically incorrect point of view.

        -  Mitt Romney's comment that voters who pay no federal income taxes or are dependent on the government for free stuff are unlikely to vote for him. The error was probably in using a 47% figure since it is more complex than that. Mitt's "bad" - and a damaging one.  

        -  President Obama's comment on Univision that he can't change Washington from the inside - as an excuse for why he hasn't even tried to live up to his promises on immigration reform.  What? He is the president isn't he? And he had both houses of Congress for two years didn't he?  

        -  Obama's earlier comment that small business owners didn't build their businesses. It is a fair point that government helps create the enabling environment, but does he really have so little respect for the efforts and contributions of individuals?

    There are some obvious lessons here:

    1. In the age of iPhones and Twitter there is no "friendly audience". All is public.

    2. The mainstream media is not going to treat Democratic and Republican comments equally.  This Sunday's talk shows were full of Romney's 47% comment with nary a comment on Obama's Benghazi mess or his criticism in the Univision interview which included a surprising Hispanic sensitivity to the Fast and Furious scandal as well as his failure on immigration reform.

    3. Gaffes hurt most when they reinforce a negative image that has been established by opposition advertising - Romney the heartless plutocrat; Obama the anti-business socialist.

    4. It is essential that the Romney campaign be about the issues, and not let the Democrats make the discussion be all about Romney's failings or the horse race.  Other Republicans have been complicit in their public criticism of the campaign - if they have complaints, an in-house phone call would do a lot more good for the campaign, if not for the commentator's public profile. For those who think that supporters should support during the peak of the battle, remember Peggy Noonan et al.

    The upcoming debates will provide a great opportunity for Romney to speak directly to 50 million people without the filter of the media. There will be some room for nuance in what he says. There is some fear that the moderators - Jim Lehrer of PBS; Candy Crowley of CNN; and Bob Scheiffer of CBS - will tilt the stage, but Mitt will have the microphone.  For those of us who believe that his policies and demonstrated capabilities are more in line with what the American people want (and if you doubt it, read this Politico polling), this will be the moment.

                                                            -----

   This week's video is Mitt Romney's stunningly good presentation at this week's Clinton Global Initiative Conference. It is a bit long (22 minutes), but shows a great depth of thought about foreign policy and the opportunity for the government and private companies to jointly foster middle class prosperity in emerging countries.  Send it to your "undecided" friends.

bill bowen - 9/28/12  

(Democratic) Conventional Thinking

     If presidential elections were only about giving great speeches - and arguably 2008 was - President Obama would be in a lot better shape. To the uncritical neutral observer Michelle Obama was as great as Ann Romney as a witness for hubby's "likeability"; San Antonio Mayor Julian Castro was as good as Marco Rubio in telling his family story; Bill Clinton burnished his credentials as the economic genius of the 90s - without any mention of his central role in deregulating the banks; and Barack explained that change is difficult and will actually take 8 years. Good speechwriters, and good presenters all. So, what is the confirmed cynic to think?

    First, what was not discussed: the real 23 million under or unemployed; the $16 trillion in debt; the declining income and net worth of American families; the deliberate reduction in American influence in the world - Syria, Egypt, Iran, North Korea, Eastern Europe, Latin America; individual responsibility.

   Second, who was not there: Hillary; the 65,000 "fans" who were to be bused in from all over the Mid-Atlantic states to fill the stadium for Obama's speech; the many Congress members from Red states who do not want their names attached to the president; the many union leaders who didn't like the non-union venue; any realistic presidential candidates for 2016 (if it is to be O'Malley, bring it on.)

  Third, there is a lot of anger and victimhood in the Democratic base. It helped to watch the president of NARAL, the abortion-rights group, with the sound muted. The gestures and facial impressions could not have been more angry and threatening. (I was reminded of Dinesh D'Souza's insight in 2016: Obama's America that a key to Obama's success was his likeability in contrast to the anger of prior African-American political leaders.) The strategy was quite clear - red meat for the base for most presentations, peace and harmony during the network prime time hour. The message for the smaller audience from speakers such as Nancy Pelosi, Harry Reid, Richard Trumka of the AFL-CIO, and Elizabeth Warren is that the oppressed groups - women, African Americans, Hispanics - need the government to help them, and the evil Romney ticket wants, as Joe Biden put it, to "put them back in chains."

    And then there's the "Forward" thing. A tribute to Jimmy Carter? A tribute to Teddy Kennedy, including an inconclusive clip from a debate with a youthful Mitt Romney? A slot for John Kerry? A headline speech by a president from the last century?  All that was missing was a video riff of George W. Bush creating all of the problems that Barack has been so effectively overcoming.

    Perhaps most importantly, a campaign can be about four things - the incumbent's record (avoided); the villainy of the opponent (emphasized); plans for the future (none); and vision. As Erick
Erickson has pointed out, the Democrats are victims of their media-supported delusion that the public wants what the left wing of the Democratic Party wants. Thus the opening video that we are all part of the government, the heavy focus on free abortion without limits, some mention of Obamacare, and the platform gaffes of removing God and downgrading support for Israel. In playing to the base within the auditorium, the Democrats moved far to the left and provided hours of Republican advertisement material for the real middle class - a mistake not made by the Republicans in Tampa.

    And Obama's final speech demeaning the Romney/Ryan lack of foreign policy experience - as if he had any in 2008 and it wasn't Hillary who did all of that work. Between that and the Bill Clinton speech there must be quite a few voters disappointed that there isn't a Clinton on the ballot.

                                                                -----  

This week's video, perhaps already seen by many, is the fiasco of the Democratic Party's dispute about whether the platform should include a reference to God and the status of Jerusalem.  It is a good thing that the small attendance projection caused a rescheduling of Obama's acceptance speech away from the lightning-prone Bank of America Stadium.

bill bowen - 9/7/2012

(Republican) Conventional Thinking

     So, was it an inflection point? 

     The common political wisdom is that voters re-elect an incumbent without much thought if things are going OK, that folks will take a look at the alternative if the economy is awful, that the Obama campaign has made a large early effort to paint Mitt Romney as a heartless extremist, and at this point the race is a toss-up. The Tampa convention was the first great opportunity to demolish the Democrats' greatest (only?) story line. How'd it go?

    First, do no harm.

        -  The libertarian wing was kept within the tent. There was some huffing and puffing about rules for delegate selection, but the 190 Ron Paul delegates (out of 2286 total) behaved. Gary Johnson will carry the Libertarian Party banner in the election, but Romney will have the vast majority of their votes.

        -  The social conservatives had their moments with Rick Santorum's and Mike Huckabee's speeches and the platform carried the traditional broad injunction against abortion, but few outside of the Left will see this as significant.

         -  The protestors were kept at bay and Joe Biden thought better of his initial plan to cause mischief by campaigning in Tampa. No Chicago 1968.

    The big stuff.

        -  Romey's speech can best be summarized in his phrase that Obama promised to make the oceans recede and to heal the planet; Romney would do everything that he could for people and their families.  He had the right level of detail, the right tone on the nation having hoped for Obama's success, and a high degree of American exceptionalism. The very telling stories about his ministering to church members and his support for women as governor of Massachusetts deserve media coverage, but will probably need to be made a subject of campaign advertisements.   

        -   Ann Romney was magnificent. Peggy Noonan's observation that more specific vignettes, "show, don't tell" in literary terms, has merit, but her most poignant stories are about Mitt's reaction to her cancer and MS and she shares Mitt's discomfort in talking about herself. Her comment that he views helping others as a privilege and not a political talking point leaves the filling in of examples to others.

        -  The Republicans offered a serious discussion to a serious public. Chris Christie's claim that the public will appreciate a party that tells the truth will be tested - particularly on entitlements. With Paul Ryan's presentation of the Romney economic agenda - including the "bring on the Medicare fight" challenge -  there could not be a better salesman for the medicine that is needed. It is fortunate that the Republicans could offer a string of governors - Christie, Walker, Kasich, Haley, Martinez, Fortuno, McDonnell  - to demonstrate that the application of conservative principles can balance budgets, lower taxes, and grow employment.   

        -  Neither Romney nor Ryan has solid foreign policy credentials. It is a shame that Condi Rice - who shares the intellectual leadership of the party - will not be a fixture in a Romney administration. The party has obviously moved beyond the other foreign policy speaker, John McCain.  

        -  All of the speakers got the memo to keep it positive. The media ignores the difference between Republicans attacking policies and results and Democrats attacking people, but the speakers were consistent on the prior. Let's see what Charlotte holds next week.  

    And the nuances.

        -  The significance of 42 year old policy wonk, Tea Party favorite, "Young Gun" Paul Ryan is compelling. Like Bill Buckley in the 60s, he legitimizes the intellectual argument for small government. Whether the Republican Party has coopted the Tea Party or vice versa is unclear, but the party has clearly moved beyond the "big government conservatism" of the Bush era - a message emphasized by his absence.      

        -  Beyond Ryan, one has to be impressed by the number of 35 to 50 year old rising stars, the number of legitimate women and minority speakers, and the number of swing states with Republican governors. The Democratic convention will provide an interesting contrast. Perhaps it is inherent that the incumbent president will suck up all of the money and publicity, but the second tier of Biden, Pelosi, and Reid should give Democrats pause.

    Now begins the 10 week sprint to the finish line. Obama is stuck with the economy and sees his best chance as continued vilification of Romney and Ryan. With a few hundred million dollars and three presidential debates, Romney should be able to demonstrate that he is not only experienced and competent, but also a reasonably nice guy. He has a lot of material to work with, and Tampa was a big step in that direction. Confidence grows.

                                                            -----   

    This week's video is Obama-endorser turned Republican Artur Davis' speech - one of the best of the convention - aimed at the millions of 2008 Obama voters with buyers remorse.  

bill bowen - 8/30/12  

Digesting Paul Ryan

    The central point for those few Republicans who wanted a more cautious choice for Vice President: the highly successful CEO has hired a brilliant Sales Vice President. Consider:

     1. Mitt Romey has solved the problem of boring people by getting bogged down in the details of budgets. If he is going to win, somebody has to explain entitlement reform, tax reform, and the economic folly of Obamacare. Romney needs to project a vision, not be forced to argue with reporters and the Obama campaign about budget offsets and 10 year projections. Ryan can make that stuff interesting, and few will challenge his assertions.

   2. For the majority who think that the economy is the number one issue, we now have a team of Mister Inside (Paul Ryan who is as knowledgeable as anyone in the country on federal spending) and Mister Outside (Mitt Romney who is as knowldegeable as anyone in the country on what makes the private sector work.) These are different, and both bases are covered by stellar performers.

   3. The public's perception of Ryan before his selection was 39 % positive; 25 % negative. The optimistic Ryan pitches growth rather than austerity - enough to easily carry him in a Democratic Wisconsin district. As a Catholic from a working class background, he will have personal resonance  with "Reagan Democrats" from Pittsburgh to St. Louis.  The national Democrats will attack him as pro-life, pro-gun, and pro conventional marriage - but a majority of Americans agree with all of these positions.

   4. The youthful and intelligent Ryan affords an opportunity to draw a sharp contrast with the 70 year old, bumbling Joe Biden. Key dates: September 3, effectively the last date by which Biden could be replaced on the ticket, and October 11 , the Vice Presidential debate.  It ain't Gingrich - Obama, but it should still be quite entertaining.  

   5. And for those who want bipartisan cooperation in Washington, Ryan has developed his most recent Medicare reform proposal in conjunction with Democratic Senator Ron Wyden of Oregon and has been "endorsed" by former Clinton Chief of Staff Erskine Bowles as "...amazing. He is honest, he is straightforward, he is sincere. And the budget that he came forward with is just like Paul Ryan. It is a sensible, straightforward, serious budget and it cut the budget deficit just like we did, by $4 trillion."  This while he remains a Tea Party favorite who solidifies the likelihoood of the Republicans enjoying a significant enthusiasm / turnout advantage.

     Sometimes things seem so obvious on the morning after.

                                                                    -----  

    This week's video is a tribute to Joe Biden's twin brother, Leslie Nielsen.

bill bowen - 8/17/2012

 

 

Veepstakes - Condi

    On the great parlor game of VP prognostication I am an outlier, along with Bill Kristol. Like many, I am looking for clues and rationale, but I don't come up with the conventional wisdom,

    As for clues:

       -  Ann Romney's comment that a woman was in the VP mix was not some off-handed throw-away. In the one discussion that I have had with her, Mrs. Romney was adamant that she could not call Rick Perry's wife to offer some human support when Anita Perry was pilloried for making a religious comment. Political wives understand that anything they say will be attacked, and that everything must be orchestrated.

       -  Mitt Romney's comment that Russia is our "number one geopolitical foe" plays to Condi's core expertise as a Russian scholar. It preceeded her presentation to the major donor June 23-24 gathering at Park City Utah at which Condi gave a tour de force evaluation of the world stage, which was, by all accounts breathtaking. She knows the history, the proclivities of our friends and adversaries, and most of the world leaders.

   And the rationale:

       -  Romney wants somebody with whom he is compatible. No superstars who might upstage him - Chris Cristie; Marco Rubio; Paul Ryan. Like Romney, Rice is quiet, reserved, thoughtful, analytical, not a career politician- and she is a consumate team player.

       -  Despite Romney's strengths - Bain Capital, Massachusetts governor, Salt Lake Olympics - he has no real international experience, nor do any of the other frontrunners. He understands that international events can unexpectedly take center stage - 9/11 for George W. - and that his agenda will be significantly impacted by China, Europe, and the Middle East. It will be necessary to move from the Obama "leading from behind" Doctrine to reestablishing the United States as the leader on the world stage.

      -  Some of the politics are obvious - woman; African American; unquestioned academic and government experience. The political downside is also obvious - "a return to the policies of the past that got us into this mess". One substantive debate with Joe Biden should put that to rest.

   The real problem is that she has seemed sincere in saying that she is not interested, and her real aspiration is to follow Bud Selig as the commissioner of baseball. When Babe Ruth was criticized for making more money than Herbert Hoover, he observed that he had a better year. The same could be said for the Portland Sea Dogs backup centerfielder. Here's hoping that Condi realizes it is more important to replace Obama than Selig.

                                                                    -----

     This week's videos (one and two) are part of a noble effortby President Obama to bring us all together and stamp out racism in America. 

bill bowen - 7/13/2012

Cooperation - Washington Style

   Let's make this simple. The American public wants political leaders who work across the aisle to get things done. Barack Obama has not shown a proclivity to work with Congress, even when it was controlled by Democrats. To the dismay of some conservatives, Mitt Romney governed Massachusetts as a joint venture with the dominant Democrats.

    The polling numbers would vary by specific subject but, in general, the public believes that more compromise is needed in Washington. Congressional approval ratings - 20% among Democrats; 17% among Republicans; 16% among Independents - reflects both those who are upset that their point of view isn't prevailing and those who abhor the impasse. This isn't about the Republicans controlling the House and demanding fiscal restraint; polling was little better in 2009-10 when the Democrats ran both houses of Congress and spent their time on the Stimulus Plan and Obamacare. The 84% of independents who do not approve would like to see more cooperation within the Congress (House and Senate) and between the Congress and the White House.

    So how did Mitt Romney do between 2003 and 2007 when he was governor of Massachusetts?  There will be lots of claims and counter-claims about job creation, and he did veto some 800 spending measures from the Democratic legislature to balance the budget without increasing income or sales taxes; however, there is no doubt that he worked closely with Democratic leadership in crafting Romneycare at a point when many Massachusetts Democrats wanted a state-run health care program. Appointment of judges was also instructive; with a Democratic-dominated Governor's Council having a veto over his selections, he created a "partisan-blind" nomination process which resulted in appointments which were about one third Republican, one third Democratic, and one third independent. He gets dinged by Democrats and the media for having been a "CEO Governor" who did not trade jobs and capital projects for votes, but he did meet regularly with the Democratic leaders and surrounded himself with competent staff.   

   And President Obama? The recent decision to not enforce immigration laws for young illegals is instructive. (A similar "executive order" approach has been taken on EPA regulation against coal-fired electical generation, non-enforcement of the Defense of Marriage Act or medical marijuana laws, and allowing  internet gambling.) If the objective had been to help young immigrants, Obama could have marshalled  Senator Marco Rubio (who had been working on a bill similar to Obama's proclamation), Senator Dick Durbin (author of the failed DREAM Act), and perhaps Senator John McCain (who has long favored comprehensive immigration reform) to generate a Durbin-Rubio Immigration Reform Act. But then, that was neither his style nor his objective. It is particularly fitting and symbolic that Daryl Issa's House Oversight and Government Reform Committee has found Obama's Attorney General in contempt of Congress for stonewalling an investigation into a botched gun sales sting.  

   All pundits agree that this presidential election will be won in the middle - among the soccer moms, in the suburbs of Cleveland, with the Reagan Democrats. Up with the pragmatists; down with the idealogues. With the Republicans heavily favored to retain the House, the best that an Obama election would offer is four more years of impasse. Romney offers cooperation with a Republican House and a Senate which will represent a check on extreme positions - whether it is marginally led by Mitch McConnell or Harry Reid. For those who really do want cooperation in Washington, that's a distinction with a big difference.

                                                              -----

    This week's video is a unique political ad by Roger Williams, a conservative candidate for Congress from central Texas.

bill bowen - 6/22/12 

 

Vindicating Joe 'You Lie' Wilson

    When Congressman Joe Wilson cried out "You Lie", during President Obama's health-care address to Congress in 2009, he violated the Congressional rules of decorum, but did raise a question that gets more pertinent as Obama ramps up his electoral rhetoric. Is it OK to say things as fact that are really opinions? What about stretching data to fit your narrative? What if you know it is false, but others will believe you? What if everybody knows it is false, but it would be really, really nice if it were true?   

   Actually, in the past couple of months President Obama has made at least three statements which were so divorced from obvious reality that one has to wonder what he thinks and what he thinks the public thinks.

      1. In early April, Obama - flanked by the uncomfortable Felipe Calderon of Mexico and Stephen Harper of Canada - railed preemptively against the potential "activist" Supreme Court which might strike down Obamacare,"a law that was passed by a strong majority of a democratically-elected Congress."  In 2009, Obamacare passed the House 219 to 212 with all Republicans and 34 Democrats voting "no";  it passed the Senate 60 to 39, with no Republican votes. The stench of the deals needed to obtain its passage contributed greatly to the rise of the Tea Party and the Democrats major electoral losses in 2010. Today the public wants it repealed by 50% to 40%. Maybe his base likes it; maybe it is a legacy that will grow in popularity over the years; maybe it was a tribute to Nancy Pelosi and Harry Reid's legislative skills; but a mandate in Congress?  It would be interesting to know if he believes that.

    2. In May Obama called Mitt Romney's criticism of Obama's spending and debt as a "cowpie of distortion", requiring the hapless Jay Carney to claim that under Obama spending has increased at the slowest rate since Eisenhower. Well, if you take the level of Bush spending (No Child Left Behind; Medicare Part B; Iraq; Afghanistan) as a base, add the TARP and the Stimulus to create a "Revised Bush Base", and accept the limitations later placed by a Republican Congress, a cross-eyed statistician might be able to ignore the fact that Obama has run up $5.5 trillion of debt and consistently had federal spending over 24% of GDP for the first time since World War II. It would be interesting to know if Obama believes that he has exercised fiscal restraint - or if he thinks the public will believe it.

   3. Now, President Obama has done what what even Paul Krugman has called "bungled the line" by claiming that the private economy "is doing fine". One can accept his real point that public sector employment is being reduced while private sector employment is growing slowly, but we are still down 5 million jobs from the pre-recession peak, household incomes are shrinking and household wealth is down 40% in three years, foreclosures are unabated, and there is broad public economic fear for the short term - and the long term. It would be interesting to know what Obama thinks the private economy is - Wall Street? Small businesses? The 80 + % of workers not employed by the government?  Even offering the most gracious interpretation, what thought came to Obama's teleprompter-less mind to make him say this?

   Maybe Congressman Wilson was just a bit prescient. Even the Washington Post gave the President three pinnochios for the "fiscal restraint" claim, and the "doin' fine" comment will be grist for thousands of American Crossroads commercials. (I would offer it to Howard Dean who feels that Obama would be OK if he could just find a good slogan.)  Perhaps we don't need to wait until November for Hans Christian Anderson's young child to make his observation about the emperor's sartorial deficiencies.

                                                             -----

   This week's video is of Senator Diane Feinstein (D - CA) complaining about recent intelligence leaks - some from the top of the administration - which have compromised work with Israel against the Iranian nuclear program, the work of a Pakistani doctor who helped verify Osama bin Laden's location, infiltration of al Queda in Yemen, Obama's personal weekly approval of a terrorist "kill list", and other sensitive operations.  At least we can take comfort from President Obama's position that politically-motivated leaks would be offensive.

 

bill bowen -6/15/12 

The Other VEEP Choice: Hillary

Lots of ink is being spilled over Romney's VP choice - the alternatives, the criteria, the process being managed by long-time trusted lieutenant Beth Myers - but the decision which may have a greater impact on the November outcome may actually be on the Democratic side. The conventional wisdom is that Biden is a repeat, Hillary retires for awhile, and Mario Cuomo joins the two of them in competing for the 2016 presidential nomination. But maybe not.

The premise: Most observers anticipate a close election with likely voters now saying we are on the "wrong track" by a two to one margin, placing the economy as the most important issue by a double digit margin, and favoring Romney on the economy by a similar amount. Romney will want to focus on the current malaise and Obama's lack of any long term solutions while Obama will want to focus on income inequality and anything else. Even the "I Man" must know that he needs help.

From Hillary's perspective, assuming that she still wants the presidency when she turns 69 in 2016 (admittedly a big assumption), there are four possibilities: sit it out and compete to replace a President Romney (worst chance); sit it out and compete to succeed a reelected President Obama; be the loyal VP candidate and compete to replace a President Romney; or be a loyal VP and compete to follow a reelected President Obama (best chance; least work). She would, of course, have to be asked.

From David Axelrod's perspective, Hillary's labor support would have a strong chance to solidify key industrial swing states which are likely wins anyway (Pennsylvania; Michigan), a few that are true toss-ups (Wisconsin), and a few that are more tenuous, but on a "must have" list for Romney (Ohio). Ironically, in this fifth decade of feminism, the list of leading Democratic women is very short - Nancy Pelosi (nope), Debbie Wasserman-Schultz (nope), Maxine Waters (nope). Bad luck,former Governor Jennifer Granholm of Michigan was born in Canada. Even with a reach, there is no Sarah Palin, Michele Bachmann, Nikki Haley, or Susana Martinez. And if Romney owns the economic issues, maybe it would be better to play up Hillary's international experience.

Those who read the tea leaves make something of the apparent exclusion of Joe Biden from Obama's weekly campaign meetings - although there are undoubtedly scratches on the outside of the door. Biden's pushing of Obama into supporting gay marriage could have some impact on their relationship, and the former chair of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee might graciously accept a swap of roles. And if not Biden, who? The silence is deafening.

So, assuming that the Romney campaign is not asleep, what do you do about this woman who has rehabilitated herself to the point that Bush carry-over Secretary of Defense Robert Gates has described her as "Tough. Indefatigable. Patient. Smart. Knowledgeable. Superior political instincts. Funny. Loyal team player. Finds opportunities in crises and challenges. Skilled global advocate for American interests and American values." All of this has room for debate - and criticism of the handling of the Chen Guangcheng incident is aimed at Hillary as much as at Obama.

Who'd have thought that the Republicans would be hoping for another turn with Joe Biden?

-----

And in the spirit of providing equal time, this week's video is a speech by Joe Biden praising Jon Corzine as the smartest financial person he knows - just before Corzine bankrupted MF Global by betting on European bonds and inappropriately transferred $1.6 billion in client funds in a futile effort to cover his losses. At long last, somebody - Congressman Michael Grimm - is calling for Eric Holder to turn the investigation of $500,000 Obama bundler Corzine over to an independent counsel.

bill bowen - 5/11/12

Catholic Justice(s)

Let me push this envelope a bit further than most pundits are willing to go. I don't believe that the Court's decision on ObamaCare will reflect any belated reaction to the President's unprecedented snub of the Court at his 2010 State of the Union presentation to Congress. I also don't think that the justices will be intimidated by his inappropriate and erroneous demagoging of the Courts rights and obligations - or that they will over-react in the opposite direction. (Do read Leon Wolf's posting on Red State.) But I do believe that the members are not blank sheets upon which Truth is projected.

Background item I. The March 27-29 hearing on ObamaCare in which Justices Roberts, Scalia, and Kennedy unsuccessfully sought to find, under the administration's theory, if there were any limits on the power of the federal government relative to the individual if the individual mandate were allowed to stand. Even many liberals were disappointed by Solicitor General Verrilli's inability to provide an answer. A theoretical question? Perhaps not.

Background item II. The January pronouncement by HHS Secretary Sebelius that the mandatory insurance to be provided by all employers must include "free" contraceptives, sterilization, and morning after (abortion) pills. If we are to have mandatory insurance, we need clear definitions of what must be covered. If the administration's decision to re-neg on commitments to Congressman Stupak and others to exclude abortion from the legislation results in a mandate which offends Catholic employers - or any employer for that matter - they need to get over it.

And who are these members of the Supreme Court in this center-right country where the most visible religious group are the Protestant evangelicals? Three Jews (Ginsberg; Breyer; Kagan) and six Catholics (Roberts; Scalia; Kennedy; Thomas; Alito; and Sotomayor.) Coincidence? Not really. Presidents Reagan (Scalia; Kennedy), HW Bush (Thomas), and GW Bush (Roberts; Alito) have chosen to not re-fight Roe v Wade in their Senate confirmation hearings. Observant Catholics were equally conservative and more acceptable than observant Protestants, and - in the eyes of Republican presidents - less controversial.

So President Obama finds himself arguing to expand the power of the state, overriding both the conservative view of the constitution's importance and the Catholic Church's moral objections. And he gets a Supreme Court full of Catholics. This is not to say that the majority of the Court agrees with the Catholic Church's teachings on abortion or any other matter. It is to say that they understand more personally and profoundly than most the significance of allowing the federal government to force individuals as well as institutions to compromise their moral beliefs.

This didn't come about by accident, and the political implications may favor Obama. He may well lose the guts of his major legislative accomplishment, but he seems to have outmaneuvered the Republicans (with the help of Rush Limbaugh) by letting the issue of Sibelius' regulations be viewed as an assault on women rather than the unnecessary imposition of offensive requirements on those with religious or ethical objections. He is now setting the stage for an election theme that Republican control of the presidency and the Senate will result in locking in a disasterous conservative Supreme Court. It is ironic that Rick Santorum is not the candidate who would be using the prospect of overturning Roe v Wade in the 2012 election - Obama will be.

-----

Here's a quick take of a recent House vote on a 2013 budget proposal - not Paul Ryan's which passed 228-191, but President Obama's which failed 409 to 0. I would offer a comparison with the Senate vote, but once again there is none.

bill bowen - 4/6/12

Romney's Campaign SWOT

A Democratic lawyer friend whose mind has been trained to think in a certain way recently (before the Santorum surge) asked me how Mitt Romney, the buttoned-down business consultant, would think about the campaign. My answer, having dealt with Bain consultants and their ilk:

First, as evidenced by his "care about the poor" comment, business folks think first about how to solve the problem; politicians think first about what people will think. Each must do both, but they have different starting points. The corollary is that Obama and Romney are opposites - Obama loves to campaign and doesn't govern; Romney likes to govern and sees campaigning as a necessary evil.

One of the tools undoubtedly in heavy use by the Romney camp is a Strengths, Weaknesses, Opportunities,Threats (SWOT) matrix.

- Strengths (to maximize): Executive experience - public sector/private sector; business experience - consultant/CEO; campaign experience - senate/governor/president; intelligence/education - Harvard MBA/Harvard law; extensive contacts - money/endorsements/advice; empty closet - no skeletons; physical appearance and energy. Quite a list.

-Weaknesses (to minimize): Romneycare; epithet of "Massachusetts liberal" in a party with an active conservative base; reputation for shifting positions; low Hispanic support; Mormon identity; little foreign policy experience. Also: a thorough "opposition research" dossier available to competitors and the media.

- Opportunities (to be exploited): Intense party/conservative desire to beat Obama; fund-raising capability to match Obama; national fear of long term American economic decline. (No opportunity to demonstrate ability to work with opponents - in the campaign or in the general election.)

- Threats (to be guarded against): In the primary: unified conservative opposition within party; Mormon religion. In the general: improving economy; foreign attack.

The mission: Become president. While this seems obvious, clarity is important. Don't seek the nomination in a way that will impede the general election campaign. If necessary, take positions that might impede performance as president. Meanwhile, don't appear to be cynical.

The strategy: In the primaries - try to keep the conservative alternatives divided; play the front-runner by focusing on Obama; maximize your advantages - organization in all 50 states, money for media in big states, endorsements; publish a comprehensive, if undistinguished, agenda. Do what it takes to win key states - New Hampshire, Florida, Michigan, New York, Ohio, California. In the general - roll out a series of specific proposals (tax; energy; education; R&D; entitlements; regulation) drawing on business background to address America's short term and long term economic problems; pick a VP (Marco Rubio?) who brings a swing state, youth, Latinos, and the Tea Party; align with Paul Ryan; position Obama as "a nice guy in over his head" (no personal attacks.) Be the turnaround guy in a worried country.

The time-line: Hold back as much powder as possible for the general election. Become "inevitable" by March. If that doesn't work, accumulate the 1144 necessary delegates (98 to date) by competing everywhere and carrying the big, more liberal states of New York (95) and California (172). Until March it is about winning states for image; after that it is about accumulating delegates in states where they are usually awarded proportionally. (Santorum is not on the ballot in Indiana -46- or Virginia -49.) After the August 27-30 convention, take a day off and refine arguments based on the state of the economy in late summer.

Intrade, the leading betting website, currently gives Romney a 73% chance on the nomination and the best chance to beat Obama who has a 60% chance of being reelected. With the president controlling the agenda - like creating a social values firestorm among the conservatives - the "smart money" (?) is on Obama, but once the Republicans unite behind a single voice the dynamic will change greatly. Now if his handlers could just get Mitt to have the innate reactions of a politician...

------

For those tracking the delegate accumulation, this summary at RealClearPolitics.com offers a concise view of a very complex subject.

bill bowen - 2/17/12

Assessing Bain

I'll start with the punchline: with 70% of the voters thinking that the country is on the wrong track, and most thinking that our best days are in the past, we need a turnaround expert.

I'm in the small camp that thinks that Newt Gingrich's "King of Bain" video (well, technically his "independent" PAC's video) is a good thing. It was easily discredited as blatantly distorted, even by the Washington Post which gave it four pinnochios; the attack on capitalism rallied Republicans around Romney; and, it started an education process which will be needed to defeat President Obama's primary campaign theme of income inequality and class warfare.

Back in my corporate days I lived the video's story. I was a senior operations guy for a national brewery and then a major food company, going through numerous acquisitions and figuring out what plants to keep and close, what staff to keep and let go, which suppliers to standardize on and which to terminate. I myself was "made redundant" when the brewery was acquired. Some learnings:

- There are four classes of "private equity" companies:

1. Venture capitalists who build things from the ground up. Today these are mostly in technology and come in all sizes; Bain's focus from 1984 to 1989 was venture and included Staples, DoubleClick.com, and Shopping.com among many others.

2. Leveraged buyouts and growth capital which are heavy in restructuring both finances and operations of sick companies. Particularly in the 80's and 90's there was a wave of capitalism's "creative destruction", largely engineered by a shifting consortium of firms - Kohlberg, Kravits, & Roberts; the Blackstone Group; Goldman Sachs; Bain; and others who aim to grow their businesses. Among Bain's couple hundred deals (many after Romney left in 1999 to turn around the Salt Lake Olympics and enter politics) were Burger King, Dunkin' Donuts, the Hospital Corporation of America, and many mundane manufacturers. Mitt Romney's contribution included a beneficial restructuring of Bain itself and a rigorous analytical process (The Bain Way) for analyzing companies and markets. Many individuals got hurt; more prospered.

3. Scavengers who can extract value from a dying brand, decaying facilities, over-funded pension plans, and the like - Rick Perry's "vulture capitalists". Names like Carl Icahn , Victor Posner, Nelson Peltz ,and Paul Kalmanovitz come to mind, as do hostile takeovers and extreme financial leverage. Bain did not play on this field.

4. Purely financial alchemists which don't have much to do with facilities, markets, and people who make real companies go. Think Michael Milken, and Ivan Boesky, and the Wall Street investment banks, not Bain.

- Sometimes the "how" is as important as the "what". Some consolidators provide severance, honor pensions, provide outplacement, encourage retraining, and offer relocation. Others don't. (My last official act at the brewery was to gather up the artwork that the company owned to send it to the acquirer's home - "scorched earth". On the other hand, the food company helped employees at a closed plant obtain financing to begin operations as an independent company.) Displaced people need to be encouraged to relocate, get retrained, and accept (at least temporarily) lesser jobs. Objective stories from Bain - if there can be such a thing - may tell something about Romney.

In any case, Romney does know business and he knows turnarounds. He's not a Herman Cain who was successful in a couple of related businesses - he has been successful over 70% of the time across a broad range of industries, across a broad geography. His first few years at Bain were as a management consultant. He understands finance, operations, marketing, and personnel - and what makes companies successful.

And perhaps equally importantly, he has the analytical ability and personal fortitude necessary to undertake the restructuring and downsizing that the federal government requires. All of the Republican candidates talk about getting back to "small government". Romney is the only candidate to have demonstrated the executive experience and temperament to do it.

-----

This week's video is an advertisement by one of the Political Action Committees vying in South Carolina - Americans for a Better Tomorrow, Tomorrow - Steven Colbert's creation.

bill bowen - 1/19/2112

The Message of Ron Paul

If you have a favorite candidate it is easy to dismiss alternatives, particularly when they have significant flaws. But, as Jim DeMint has said, it is important that conservatives pay attention to why Ron Paul got 23% of the vote in New Hampshire.

First let's get past some of the obvious:

- Paul would be 84 at the end of his second term - a bit long in the tooth for the leader of the Free World;

- His racist 1980s newsletters could not be explained away in a presidential campaign;

- His 35 year Congressional record contains a bunch of other unacceptable trash, particularly on foreign policy, with little accomplishment.

Then the areas where his voice resonates, often better than any of the other Republican candidates:

- Small government. He really does want to eliminate the departments of Education, Energy, Commerce, Interior, and Housing and Urban Development. Perry might start down that road, but history does not suggest that Romney, Gingrich, or Santorum would really push to get federal spending back under its historic 19% of GDP from its current 24% (35% with state and local.) Instead, the leadership will need to come from the Congress - and it likely will, assuming the Republicans hold the House and take over the Senate.

- Individual liberty. We really are at a precipice, with Obama signing legislation to allow indefinite detention of anybody thought to be affiliated with terrorist groups at a time when technology allows ubiquitous surveillance on line and in the concrete world. Romney and Gingrich have trumpeted an "individual mandate" on health care. The federal government wants to regulate how much dust farmers can generate. DeMint calls for an alignment of conservatives and libertarians - Amen.

- Government corruption. Paul's libertarians are in tune with the Tea Party and Occupy Wall Street revulsion against the bailouts, the stimulus corruption (Solyndra et al), the military-industrial complex, the Wall Street-Washington complex, the exemption of Congress from laws like the prohibition of insider trading, earmarks, and the power of big donors. Gingrich and Santorum, as former legislators, played the game and peddled their influence. Perry has his "pay to play" issues in Texas. Romney and Huntsman did not have as much temptation in their state capitals, but none have been pursuasive in their promises to clean up the mess. Advantage Paul.

- Foreign policy. Congress raised hardly a peep when Obama ignored the War Powers Act to wage war in Libya. Paul appears naive as a neo-isolationist who is not concerned about a nuclear Iran, but there is something to be said for an affordable military posture and a less imperial presidency.

Fortunately for the Republicans, Paul has a son in the Senate and would not want to trash that career by running on a third party ticket that gave the election to Obama. No way. But it would be prudent for Romney or any successful candidate to reflect deeply on the youthful enthusiastic support of the Paulistas, and incorporate some of the libertarian views in their platforms - not just to win an election, but to restore a nation.

-----

This week's video is an interview by Rudy Giuliani with Fox reporters who clearly do not understand capitalism. More about this "teachable moment" next week.

bill bowen - 1/13/12

Newt: Judge This

Hearing that Iowa has recently recalled three judges for approving same sex marriage, the Newtster has apparently decided that the civil libertarian caucus goers will vote for Ron Paul anyway and he should swing for the fences with the evangelicals who are on the warpath about the courts. His Waterloo.

The "historian" presidential candidate has determined that the Founding Fathers were wrong in establishing three co-equal branches of government, that U.S. Marshall's should be used to force federal judges to explain their rulings to Congress, and that President Gingrich would ignore Supreme Court decisions that he didn't like. Shades of "It Can't Happen Here."

Like many conservatives, I am conflicted when it comes to civil liberties in an age of terrorism and technology.

- The Patriot Act, passed shortly after 9/11, increased the government's ability to conduct secret searches of property, conduct wiretaps, access third party data bases, and trace internet communications. Maybe an understandable response in a time of war (after all, Gingrich argues, Lincoln suspended the right to a trial during the Civil War), but uncomfortable in a free society.

- In September Anwar al-Awlaki was killed by a drone-fired missile in Yemen, the first time since 9/11 that an American-born citizen was deliberately targeted and killed by American forces. OK by me as an act of war - assuming proper controls over identification and authorization.

- This very month Congress has passed and the president will sign a bill specifically authorizing indefinite detention of anyone (foreign or American; captured in the United States or abroad) who "substantially supports" groups such as Al Queda or "associated forces." No duration; no guaranteed trial.

- Medical record systems are being rapidly expanded to improve quality and reduce cost. Privacy controls are included, but ...

- Massive data bases, public and private, contain detailed purchase and banking records, internet viewing histories, e-mail histories, and on and on. Cameras on every corner in some cities. Amazon knows enough about you to recommend books; Apple can recommend music; Yelp can recommend restaurants. Good luck with privacy there.

So, who is going to protect a semblance of habeus corpus and the right to privacy if not the court system? Citibank? The CIA? Congress? President Gingrich? We all know that we'd be safe with him, but what about the next guy or gal?

I really don't know the answers to the privacy and civil liberties questions, but I do rely on an independent judiciary to help the country stay on track. And, as alarmist as it may sound, I do know that folks like Hitler, Stalin, and Mao have sounded the same notes that Newt is using on the courts.

-----

This week's video provides a bit of levity for those not particularly interested in Hanukkah, Quanza, or Muharram. Merry Christmas!!!

bill bowen - 12/23/11

Occupy Corzine

So, the folks out here on the Left Coast have largely been evicted from their encampments and, in looking for something to keep their faces on the front page, have decided to take on the shipping industry for no particular reason other than that they can. I've got a better suggestion. The centerpoint of the movement which has broad resonance is the web of greed and corruption that connects Wall Street and the political system. John Corzine of MF Global is a holiday season gift, putting a face on the crime.

For those who have been vacationing in Mongolia, Corzine was the chairman of MF Global, a commodities brokerage which made a losing $6.3 billion bet on European government bonds and, as they were going bankrupt, "borrowed" and lost some $1.2 billion from customer accounts. As the story unfolds, MF Global's chief risk officer resigned in March as Corzine bullied the board into approving his European bond strategy; Corzine, his Chief Operating Officer, and his Chief Financial Officer have testified under oath that he did not authorize any inappropriate transfers and they do not know what happened to the client's money; and an officer of the exchange where MF Global operated has testified that Corzine was at least aware of some of the transfers. As they say in the mainstream media, numerous investigations are under way, but as yet no indictments have been issued.

For a moment, the broader context: Commodities, unlike stocks, are regulated by the Commodities Futures Trading Commission rather than the Securities and Exchange Commission. The Commission's chair is a former employee of Corzine's at Goldman Sachs. Regulations allow commodity brokerage firms to use cash in customer accounts as collateral for government bond purchases made on company accounts. (Yes, you read that right - specifically CFTC Regulation 1.25.) When Corzine testified that he had not authorized any "inappropriate transfers", the Senators were not sharp enough to ask what he considered to be an "appropriate transfer". Corzine has successfully lobbied for these looser regulations. Many of the injured parties are farmers and ranchers who use commodity futures as conservative hedges; others are speculators.

And the political context: Corzine was a Democratic Senator and Governor of New Jersey. (Chris Cristie has been cleaning up some of the mess that he left.) More importantly, he has been a major bundler for Barack Obama, raising some $500,000 in this election cycle. And the icing on the cake - as the assets of MF Global have been quickly disposed of in bankruptcy, enough have gone to George Soros (the funder of uber-liberal Media Matters and MoveOn.org, which have been big supporters of Occupy Wall
Street) to give him a $130 million overnight paper profit. Consider it recycling.

Enough? If the scandals of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac were not enough; if the generous bailouts of the politically-connected banks under TARP were not enough; if the sweetheart deals in the Stimulus Plan were not enough; if the zero prosecutions for the 2008 fiasco were not enough; if the scandal of Solyndra was not enough; perhaps this is enough to convince the Occupy protesters - who largely support Obama - that the messiah's administration is the most financially corrupt in a century.

-----

This week's brief video is the Gingrich interview which helped turn many leading conservatives against him: his attack on Mitt Romney's success in free market capitalism - as compared to Gingrich's success in Washington lobbying.

bill bowen - 12/16/11

The Newt Question(s)

Newt is different. The first three anti-Romney's started with little name recognition and, fighting for attention in a crowded field, were perhaps unfairly painted as one or two dimensional: Bachmann (woman; social issues); Cain (pizza man; 999); Perry (Texas governor; lousy debater). Under the media's glare one or two missteps could be fatal. In contrast Newt has a long history with the media and older voters and fills the room; the debate format of the election cycle has been perfect for him; in response to any criticism there is the "but what about..." reaction. I like Romney, but find myself asking:

1. Would Newt be a good president? Is he smart enough? Check. Does he understand how Washington works? Check. Could he assemble a financial team to address our short term and long term financial problems? Check. Would he project confidence internationally? Check. Would he address the big issues affecting the future of the nation? Check.

2. What about his policy positions? Would he bring fresh thinking to large problems - health-care; immigration? Check. Would he be the House Speaker Gingrich of the 90s with his Contract with America leading the fight for balanced budgets and government reform? Or would he be the private citizen gadfly of the Bush era, advocating for the health-care individual mandate, Medicare Part D, sweeping immigration reform, and housing largesse? Criticism of Paul Ryan's 2010 budget proposal as "right wing social engineering? - perhaps a plaintive cry for attention; maybe a disqualifying true reflection of orientation. Count on big ideas - liberal or conservative.

3. What about his personal problems? Lobbying for Freddie Mac? - ugh, definitely an "inside the beltway" profiteer, but at least he's not a banker. Serial matrimonial unfaithfulness? - a problem with the Christian conservatives and women. Americans are not as forgiving as the Italians (Berlusconi) or the French (Strauss-Kahn) unless you are a Democrat (Clinton or Kennedy or Kennedy.) Perhaps his eleven-year marriage to Callista constitutes adequate atonement.

4. Could he win the election? This is really question number one for most Republicans. (For the Democrats who hope that the Tea Party wave has crested, Sorry.) Public polls, as reflected by Real Clear Politics, generally show Romney running stronger by low single digits against Obama nationally and in key states, but there are outlier polls and Gingrich is definitely surging. Expert pundits disagree who would be stronger. Given the Obama campaign's focus on Romney, it would seem that the White House's internal polling shows Romney to be stronger opponent and that they would like to help defeat him in the primaries.

With the Iowa caucuses on January 3 and the New Hampshire primary on January 10, the contest will move from Gingrich's forte of debates to a phase where Romney's superior fund-raising and ground organization will hold the advantage. For one, I would love to see a series of Gingrich-Obama debates, but not enough roll the dice. The good news is that either would be a fine president.

And a piece of advice for "Newt 3.0" if he feels a need to break out - "True Financial Reform" is a popular cause looking for a courageous champion.

------

This week's bonus is comments on Newt by two well-regarded conservative commentators - George Will and Charles Krauthammer .

bill bowen - 12/2/11

Rick Perry - A Perspective

For Republicans the inevitable has happened. We now have a Class A conservative competing with a Class A moderate to face a vulnerable liberal incumbent Democrat in 2012. Both Perry and Romney have significant records of success (Romney in business; Perry in government); both have national networks (Romney from his 2008 run; Perry from his chairmanship of the Republican Governors Association); both are prodigious fund raisers; both have been governors; both appear to have unblemished personal histories. A welterweight or two may remain in the hunt, but these are heavyweights.

By chance I have met Governor Perry twice - once at the Red State Gathering in Austin in 2010; once at a Northern California Lincoln Club seminar in 2011. A fews observations:

1. Perry is legitimately "down home." In Austin his schtick included hosting a Texas-style BBQ for several hundred conference participants, casual western dress, and an afternoon at a rifle range for a few VIPs. He mingles well, has a lot of Texas small talk, and is a gracious host. His roots, life story, and politics are all transparent.

2. He enjoys being "in your face." With the more moderate California group containing many potential donors he enjoyed explaining that his primary reason for being in California was to recruit businesses interested in moving to Texas. The style plays well in Texas and is OK with core Republicans. With others, not so much.

3. He also enjoys discussing policy and economic development. A primary talking point is tort reform which resulted in an increase in doctors moving to Texas, particularly to poor areas. On taxes, regulation, and appreciation for business he justifiably relishes the position of being the anti-Obama.

One has to have some sympathy for the liberal media. Perry can fairly be criticized for the Texas's low ranking in public education funding and health care; he has offered many exploitable quotations on secession, social security, Medicare, and the Federal Reserve; his speech cadences even sound like George W. Bush. Liberal minions like Paul Krugman will make laughable efforts to show that Texas' leadership in producing jobs in the past decade is an illusion. Serious students of politics might read "Fed Up", Perry's 2010 book about his "unwavering belief in the goodness of America", unencumbered by big federal government.

The difference between Perry and Romney is real - with President Perry (and the likely Republican House and Senate) you would get a balanced budget amendment, a major downsizing of the federal government, and socially conservative judges. In Newtonian terms, the liberal "action" of the past decade would result in an "equal and opposite reaction". With Perry the reaction would be by brute force. With Romney it would be done withiin the system and would be less complete. (For example - Wall Street reform would be vastly different.)

It will take a month or more for the polls and the frenetic media to settle down; meanwhile Romney ramains the frontrunner, even to knowledgeable conservative observers. The scheduling of Republican primaries (beginning in February with the convention in late August) favors a conservative early, but a moderate later. Romney's strategy will apparently be to remain focused on Obama and his 26% approval rating on the economy; Perry will apparently speak loudly about whatever is on his mind and may well wander into many meaningless minefields. In the end most Republicans and conservatives will vote for ABO.

The Democratic quandry is how much to attack the easily-attacked Tea Party favorite, thus increasing the odds for Romney who would be a much more formidable candidate among swing voters. This choice will undoubtedly occupy President Obama between rounds of golf and his laser-like focus on jobs during his 10 day Matha's Vineyard vacation.

------

This week's video, for those in low exposure TV markets, is Perry's first presidential campaign ad. A few more may follow.

bill bowen - 8/19/11

also visit www.BillBowenAuthor.com.

 

If - Revisited

Rudyard Kipling, the great storyteller of British imperialism, in 1895 wrote a compelling poem of advice for a son in a hostile world - "If". Some of the wisdom is pertinent for today's American leaders.

" If you can keep your head when all about you

Are losing theirs and blaming it on you"

So the Tea Party is at fault for pointing out that mounting deficits and government spending are unsustainable; and S&P is at fault for doing their job with an obvious downgrade.

"Or being lied about, don't deal in lies

Or being hated, don't give way to hating."

So the vice president calls political opponents "terrorists" and the vitriol aimed by the media and the Democrats against George Bush, and then Sarah Palin, and then the Tea Party will soon pivot to the 2012 Republican presidential candidate - with a $1 billion dollar war chest and a "kill Romney" campaign under development. The Republicans should continue to resist the temptation to respond in kind.

"If you can bear to hear the truth you've spoken

Twisted by knaves to make a trap for fools"

So Paul Ryan presents a budget which would reform the tax code and start to address entitlements and it gets demagogued as an attack on Seniors.

"If you can talk with crowds and keep your virtue,

Or walk with Kings - nor lose the common touch"

Inability of the president to relate to Joe the Plumber or the Cambridge police is bad enough, but a total lack of relationships with foreign leaders is an unreported problem. George Bush had a personal connection with Vicente Fox of Mexico, Angela Merkel of Gemany, and King Abdullah of Saudi Arabia. For Obama - David Cameron of the UK? Nope. Stephen Harper of Canada? Nope. Felipe Caldedron of Mexico? Nope. Benjamin Netanyahu of Israel? Nope. Nicholas Sarkozy of France? Nope. Naoto Kan of Japan? Nope. Pick a country - China; Russia; Brazil; india; Pakistan; Egypt; Kenya; Indonesia. All Nope's.

Kipling wrote around 1900, shortly before the British Empire passed the torch to America. Lets hope that we can put new leaders in place who understand his wisdom before we drop it.

-----

This week's video is a short perspective by Mark Rubio. He is definitely one of the top "new generation" stars of the GOP.

bill bowen - 8/12/11

P. S. Last week's blog, "Machiavelli's Obama" had the highest number of hits on any RightinSanfrancisco posting to date. If you forwarded it - by Facebook, Twitter, e-mail, or some other way - thanks. If not, you might consider doing so.

Machiavelli's Obama

In his brilliant political advice to the leader of Florence in 1512, "The Prince", Niccolo Machiavelli offered four choices:

A. Be honest; Appear to be honest

B. Be dishonest, Appear to be dishonest.

C. Be honest, Appear to be dishonest.

D. Be dishonest; Appear to be honest.

Most American poliiticians follow the advice of the Secretary to the Second Chancery of the Signoria, pursuing Plan D. After hearing President Obama twice claim that he was putting "domestic discretionary spending" on a path to be the lowest since the Eisenhower administration, I figured it was worth a look on some fact checking sites - PolitiFact (relatively liberal) and FactCheck.org.(relatively moderate) It couldn't just be a lie could it?

My first reaction is to revert to Bill Buckley's great put-down: "Sir, I am not going to insult your intelligence by pretending that you believe what you just said." But maybe our president does! And maybe the media does too. This isn't a question of where John Wayne was born which got Michelle Bachmann much attention, it gets at the centerpiece of the liberal philosophy.

Like much of Washington budgeting it is all about timing and definitions. Forget the fact that intervening administrations have created a Department of Education and a Department of Energy. Forget Bush's Medicare prescription drug benefit and No Child Left Behind. Hell, forget all of Lyndon Johnson Great Society. The President said it so it must be true. Right?

Well, a few caveats:

1. We'll be on a path. The basic calculation is that Ike's number was 2.2% of GDP and Obama's vision will get us to 2.1% in 2015. Forget the fact that his 2012 budget (that was defeated 97 - 0 in the Senate) put discretionary non-security spending at 3.4% of GDP. If future Congresses and the next President follow his vision we'll get there.

2. Fortuitously for politicians, definitions have changed over the past half century and even the fact checkers cannot connect all of the dots. (Obama's categorization changes from non-defense to non-security.) What they do know is that things like the highway system have become "non-discretionary" as have Pell grants for college tuition. It helps to eliminate from the discussion Medicare, Medicaid, Social Security, and Obamacare as "non-discretionary". And "security", that's a bigger category that gobbles up a lot of stuff that previously would not have been considered "defense" - well, get rid of the Department of Homeland Security stuff for example.

Somewhere on the staff of David Axelrod or David Plouffe there's got to be a junior intern looking up what the Secretary to the Second Chancery had to say about how to maintain the appearance of honesty in the face of deliberate distortions that are obviously false on their face. Perhaps she'll send a tweet.

-----

This week's video is a brief clip of the glorious victories by our Libyan allies four and a half months into the non-hostilities which have conservatively cost over a half billion dollars thus far.

Note: This blog had the greatest number of hits of any RightinSanFrancisco to date. If you forwarded it - via Facebook, Twitter, e-mail, or any other way - thanks.

 

visit www.BillBowenAuthor.com

Why Michelle Bachmann?

    A sincere, knowledgeable San Francisco Democrat (there are a few) recently asked me to explain Michelle Bachmann. My response was defensive and a bit snarky.  This is what I should have said.

    First, one needs to understand that there is a large swath from Idaho to Georgia where most people, particularly those outside of the large cities, without embarrassment or political calculation believe in God, the sanctity of life, traditional marriage, and American exceptionalism.  Bachmann entered politics in tune with these convictions - the mother of five natural children and 23 foster children, concerned primarily about the local education system. She did some home schooling, helped start a struggling religiously-oriented charter school, and was defeated for the local school board, but attracted enough attention and support to get elected to the state senate and then to the House of Representatives from the moderate exurban swing district north of of the Twin Cities with solid majorities.  

    Bachmann, an international tax attorney with degrees from Winona State, Oral Roberts, and William & Mary Law School, spent three terms in Congress as a fiery speaker with no real accomplishments except founding the Tea Party Caucus and leading House fundraising with $13.5 million in 2010.  But in 2011 she has hired a top-tier campaign manager, Ed Rollins (Reagan's campaign manager in 1984; Huckabee's in 2007), moderated her speech, and given a sterling performance in the June 13 New Hampshire debates, announcing her candidacy while everybody was looking at Mitt Romney and Tim Pawlenty. When Pawlenty wimped out in not attacking "Obamneycare", the door for an anti-Romney conservative swung wide open.

    This is an inflection point in the Republican campaign. Mitt Romney has become the generally acknowledged front runner. With the falling away or non-candidacy of potential rivals for the large evangelical and Tea Party constituencies - Palin; Huckabee; Santorum; Cain and Pawlenty - there is an outside chance that Rick Perry may enter, but it looks as if Bachmann has burst out of the pack. Her candidacy checks the boxes for gender diversity, Blue State diversity, and party loyalty. (When the party failed to include her in the new House leadership in 2010, she saluted.)

    Predictably, the media has made a faltering effort at  the "Palinization" of an attractive pro-Life conservative who does not fit the required profile of NOW. George Stephanopoulos has warned her that her 23 foster children would be investigated for scandals;  alert reporters have jumped on her error in claiming that John Wayne was from her home town of Waterloo, Iowa hen he really was born 150 miles away;  even Fox' Chris Wallace felt license to ask if she were a "flake". Liberals have objected to subsidies received for a farm owned by her family; others have complained about her husband's comments against gay marriage. Back from the Juneau Alaska e-mail chase, the media will ramp up their brilliant investigative reporting. Copy for hours of political attack is available with a couple of internet clicks. Most will be benign, if intemperate.

    There are some legitimate big negatives: she has served only three terms in Congress, has no public or private sector executive experience, has very limited business experience, and has no foreign policy experience. In 2008 the Democrats had a candidate with a similar resume.  Most Republicans and independents, not to mention the 24 million unemployed or underemployed, do not think that worked out too well.  

    An apparent ability to get the economy going and move toward balanced budgets will be the strong card for the Republicans in 2012. Those are Romney's strengths, and more than anything the Republicans want a winner. Would Bachmann add much as vice-president on a Romney ticket?  Would she do it? You betcha'.

                                                            -----

    This week's video is Michelle Bachmann's Tea Party sponsored response to President Obama's 2011 State of the Union speech. At the time she received some criticism for upstaging Paul Ryan's Republican response.

     7/8/11

    

Romney: Part II

    Last week's premise - the Republican/conservative objective for 2012 is to win the presidency; the key issue is jobs; Mitt Romney is most able to make credible arguments across a broad range of jobs-related subjects - brought an unusual level of criticism from the Left and the Right.  I'll address the major arguments.

    From the Left: It's George Bush's fault. President Obama's policies have been pro-recovery.

Response: Based on past recessions and recoveries, almost two years into the recovery the US economy should be growing at 5 to 8%; the actual rate in the first quarter was 1.8%, barely enough to hold the unemployment rate at 9% despite a hugely accommodative Federal Reserve and massive deficits.  Many other countries are doing much better - China, Brazil, Turkey, Germany, Canada, France, etc. etc. And many are taking on the longer term problem of huge deficits - the United Kingdom for example. Our Democrats have not even bothered to produce budgets. If one needs specific examples of job-killing policies, you can start with the oil and gas industry in the Gulf states where the extended moratorium on drilling (with a "boot on the neck" of the oil drillers)  has cost tens of thousands of jobs - while supporting the Brazilian oil industry.

    From the Right:

    1. What about Herman Cain who announced on Sunday?

Response: I met Cain at the 2010 Red State Gathering and liked him a lot. He has a proven business track record at Pillsbury and at Godfather's Pizza. He is a great speaker and has a responsible conservative following. It would be great to support an articulate conservative African American. But... he has little name recognition, money, or experienced staff. His business experience is narrow and perhaps not strategic. He has never held elective office. And his knowledge gaps will be exposed by an eager press - as in his recent comments about the Israel/Palestine conflict. He is basing his campaign on the Iowa caucuses (as Mike Huckaby did in 2008) - if he wins there he may become viable.

    2. What about Romneycare in Massachusetts?

Response: This will take a full post at a future date, but for starters:

        -  He is standing by a belief in significantly expanded access to health care. Most Americans would agree with the premise, although from there it can get ugly. Conservatives such as Jim Demint are willing to look beyond the headlines at Romney's details.

        -  Obama expanded coverage but did nothing to control costs. Romney would be uniquely situated to apply market mechanisms in the inevitable "Health care 2.0". 

        -  His support for an "individual mandate" in Massachusetts is a big problem for individual liberty advocates - and quite likely for the Supreme Court eventually. That is a big negative.

    3. John Galt is an inapt analogy.

Response: Right. Romney is neither a libertarian nor an outsider. I do, however, believe that he has the ability to foster a rebirth of American economic prominence based on free market principles.

    So, why support Romney?  For the next year the weight of media coverage will be about the shortcomings of Republican candidates and the unbeatable messiah. There is more to Romney than just being the next in line for the Republican establishment - much more.  He understands jobs and he can win.

                                                                -----

     For those who believe that Hollywood has no political aspirations as they pursue artistic excellence and try to make a buck, here is a video about the "sacrilegious, profane, and hilarious" Book of Mormon which is gobbling up outstanding reviews and awards on Broadway. So much for tolerance, diversity, and mutual respect - and subtle political agendas. 

bill bowen - 5/27/11

2012: Gaining Focus

    The objective is winning the presidency. The issue is jobs. The question is which Republican candidate can best convince the electorate that they can energize the economy after the twin disasters of the 2008 financial system meltdown and the Obama administration's mismanagement. The field is not that big.

    -  Mike Huckaby is a good guy. He has some good experience as a governor and he has name recognition. He has strong credibility as an ecumenical. There is room to argue about his domestic and international views, but none of this gets at the central point. His campaign would not have been about jobs.

    -  Newt's decision to enter the fray by attacking Paul Ryan's budget - which all but four Republican House members voted for - was a quick reminder of his 1998 implosion.  He may appeal to those interested in government processes but has nothing credible to say about jobs.  

    -  Deficit reduction is a central issue for conservatives and has broad appeal. But it takes a large extra step to translate dealing with budget deficits into a near term formula to create jobs. In fact, the Democrats argue the opposite. Fortunately we have Paul Ryan and many other serious governors and Congressional  members to carry the fiscal sanity banner whether it is politically attractive or not (as in Medicare reform). An argument about whether austerity (Ryan) or more stimulus spending (Obama) will create jobs is a tough sell for the voter who has been out of work for a year. The kids and grand kids are important, but talk to me about jobs.

    -  The growth of local, state, and national government and public employee labor unions is an important issue for conservatives.  Mitch Daniels, Chris Cristie, Scott Walker and others are doing good work - but their appeal is not in job creation. The argument that they are creating a better business climate that will generate future jobs requires a sell - and an appeal to take jobs from other states may not work at the national level.

    -  So, who can speak most convincingly about his alternatives to President Obama's policies that are killing jobs - in the energy industry; in small business; in foreign trade; in taxation; in health care; in banking; in housing; in Environmental Protection Agency regulations; in National Labor Relations Board decisions? Is there anybody with name recognition and government experience who has demonstrated success in this area? Anybody who can articulate a vision of a reinvogorated and broadly prosperous America?

    I believe that John Galt just raised $10.5 million in a one day telethon. There is hope.

                                                                -----

    This week's video is an assessment of the Republican candidates by Jon Stewart who actually has good things to say (by his standards) about Mitt Romney and Plan B, Tim Pawlenty.

 

bill bowen - 5/20/11   

2012: Trumping Trump

    This is my first and last posting about Donald Trump. It will be short. It is important.

    Donald Trump has none of the skills and experiences necessary to be president of the United States. He does understand bankruptcies (three times), use of low quality loans to finance risky real estate transactions, and use of bullying to appeal to the public's baser instincts. He exceeds Barack Obama in self promotion. He has never been elected to anything.

    There are two reasons that his name is in any political discussions.

    1. Trump understands that there is a core of 10 to 20 % of voters who are upset that reasonable questions about Barack Obama's origins have never been answered. Obama's campaign and the media were virulent in defending Obama and making mincemeat of anybody who asked challenging questions about his polygamous Kenyan father, his anti-American mother, his anti-colonialist Indonesian stepfather, or his actual birth location. At some point the historians will consider his birthplace to be fair game, but Obama was successful in putting it off limits for serious political discussion. That said, in a fractured political field it gives the Donald a small opening for his moment in the sun at a time when many in the Republican base are itching for a fight.

    2. More importantly, the liberal media needs something to talk about and what is better than a notorious celebrity adding to the story line that the Republican party is made up of out of the mainstream conspiracy theorists. (In fact , before Trump, most discussion about "birthers" came from liberals who found a microphone to complain that some conservative somewhere didn't get it.) Sarah Palin is so yesterday; the Tea Party hasn't offered the much sought evidence of bigotry and ignorance; the Republican House of Representatives has largely kept its focus on the horrendous Obama deficits. Here's another briar patch to try.  

    Peggy Noonan recently had a great column in which she predicted Republican presidential victory in 2012 if the party could remain serious and avoid the "antics" candidates. Lets prove her right.

                                                                    -----

   This week's video is Treasury Secretary Geithner's response to S & P's warning of a potential downgrade of our AAA debt rating. Blah, ba blah, ba blah. 

bill bowen - 11/22/11 

Paul Ryan's Leadership Lesson

     Paul Ryan has presented a vision of a fiscally sound America with the federal government consuming the historic 20% of Gross Domestic Product.  Barack Obama has presented a vision of an America where federal spending continues at his accelerated 25% of GDP and accumulated debt exceeds that of the weakest countries in Europe.  This is the beginning of a long negotiation - the Democrats will add increased taxes and mount a vigorous defense of Obamacare; the president will be challenged to add Social Security reform to the mix.

    Ryan has been preparing for this moment for a long time: he was the minority leader on the budget committee when Nancy Pelosi ran the House; he presented a "Roadmap for America"; he served on Obama's Budget Deficit Commission; he developed the controversial Medicare/Medicaid  portion of his budget proposal in conjunction with prominent Democrats including Alice Rivlin who was President Clinton's budget director.  He knows his numbers, believes in his policies, and presents them with passion and charm knowing that he will be vilified and distorted by Democrats and the media.

    Contrast that with Obama's demonstrated leadership failures just this week.

    1. He sent out Eric Holder to announce retreat on his "firm, principled commitment" to close Guantanamo and prevent trial of terrorists by military commissions. This had been the subject of much campaign rhetoric, but not much administrative or political effort by Obama at several opportunities over two years.

    2. Al Jazeera has attributed Obama's "ambiguous and half hearted" efforts in Libya to his aversion to anything resembling George Bush's push for democracy in the Middle East or Bill Clinton's ignoring the slaughter of 800,000 Tutsis in Rwanda.  Meanwhile Obama called for the removal of President Saleh in Yemen with no idea what that would do to the home of Al Queda in the Arabian Peninsula.  Saudi Arabia has made known its discomfort with Obama's tepid support. Most Americans do not know what our policy is or who we are protecting in Libya.

    3. Rep Louis Guiterrez (D - Ill) began a 20 city tour to protest Obama's abandonment of his immigration promises from the 2008 campaign.  Unable to appease the Hispanics who want comprehensive reform and organized labor which wants protection from a wave of low cost competition, he has given speeches but done nothing.

    4. Obama sycophant Ezra Klein of the Washington Post has criticized his messiah for "whiffing" on his 2012 budget and the State of the Union, allowing Ryan to set the budget conversation on his own.

    5.  After posturing about the need for everybody to do whatever it takes to get a 2011 budget agreement, Obama went off to political meetings in Philadelphia and New York - the Democratic calculation apparently being that the Republicans will suffer more from a government shut down.

    With Obama moving on to his reelection campaign and Ryan able to focus on the country's economic future, it is ironic that Ryan's success may actually be Obama's salvation. 

                                                                ----- 

    This week's video(s): a parody of the president's first reelection commercial which received more hits than the blah, blah, blah  real thing.  

bill bowen - 4/8/11

Presidential Leadership

   President Obama's "What Me Worry?" State of the Union address brings into focus the question of leadership. For reference I look to John Kotter's Harvard Business School opus, Leading Change. Steps include: establishing a sense of urgency; creating a guiding coalition; developing a vision and strategy; communicating the change vision; and generating short term wins. Lets look beyond the speeches to Obama's first two years.

    Important subjects of potential bipartisan support:

         1. TARP. Began as $700 billion fund to buy or guarantee toxic assets (real estate derivatives.) Passed under Bush.  Restructured by Hank Paulson. Used creatively to save the auto and banking industries. Geithner/Obama didn't screw it up.

        2. Stimulus. Deferred to Nancy Pelosi who made it a $787 billion grab bag of pork and earmarks. Perhaps give a pass to the rookie president.

        3. Healthcare. Deferred to Nancy Pelosi and Harry Reid to design and pass.  Gave lots of speeches. Corruption of Reid's process to buy votes inflamed the Tea Party. A signature achievement of the administration.

        4. Afghanistan. Dithered for a year before deciding to get in and get out ... or not.

        5. Middle East. No pressure on Israel / Palestinians to settle the core problem. Let Hillary, Biden, and Gibbs comment on protests engulfing the Middle East. No support for allies; no statement of principles beyond 2009 Cairo speech which was less forceful than Condi Rice's 2005 Cairo speech.

    Important subjects to the Liberal base:

        1. Don't Ask, Don't Tell. Somehow got passed by the lame duck Senate. Obama AWOL.

        2. Cap and Trade. Passed by Pelosi; ignored by Reid. Guerrilla war being engaged by the EPA through regulations.

       3. Gun control. Golden opportunity after the Tuscon murders, the way that the Brady Bill was passed after Reagan assassination attempt.  Nary a word.

       4. Card Check. Abandonment of signature union objective to ease union organization.

       5. Closing Gitmo. Let Holder try to move cases to New York. Eventually moved back to Bush's military commissions. Indefinite detention in Cuba for the hard core.

      6.  Immigration. Let the DREAM Act languish in Congress. Attacked Arizona without proposing actionable alternative.

   And now the subject of primary national importance, getting finances in order.

      1. Not a peep when Pelosi's House doesnt' even propose a budget.

      2. Appoints a Deficit Reduction Commission with a promise that it is not just another Washington effort ot sweep a problem under the rug. Commission makes specific comprehensive recommendations. Obama ignores.

       3. Gives a State of the Union address which ignores $1.5 trillion deficit in current budget, $14 trillion debt, real 17% unemployment, and financial meltdowns in other countries. Notes "Sputnik moment"; calls for solar panels and trains. Bashes "earmarks" after approving thousands and Republicans commit that there will be no more.

       4. Waiting for Paul Ryan to present Republican budget, healthcare proposals, and propositions for reforming entitlement programs. Assumes that public will respond negatively to  "meanspirited" Republican attack on popular government programs.  Refocuses staff on 2012 election. Republicans decide to trust the good sense of the American people and carry the financial responsibility mantle.

     Scroll back up to the first paragraph to review Prof. Kotter's definition, and see if there is a single subject on which President Obama has exhibited leadership. Instead, the style is to let his wishes be known, then let the various forces driving action go their own ways. My favorite quotation is from Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr:

     "The ultimate measure of a man is not where he stands in times of comfort and convenience, but where he stands in times of challenge and controversy." How refreshing that would be.

                                                                 -----

    This week's video is an Egyptian television interpretation of a January 29 interview with Robert Gibbs. One can imagine being a pro-American leader of Yemen, Columbia, Jordan, or Poland and wondering about the implications of America's financial bankruptrcy, the Wikileaks-induced inability to have a confidential discussion with the US ambassador, and the likely support that you would get from President Obama in a crisis.  It would be nice if one believed that Obama were having conversations with a legion of our allies.

   

Republican Presidential Candidates: Surveying the Field

    For the next decade at least 100 Republicans will be introduced at Lincoln Day dinners and 4th of July parades as "Former Presidential Candidate .....".  Armies of them are sidling up to newbies Governor Terry Branstad of Iowa, Senator Kelly Ayotte of New Hampshire, and Governor Nikki Haley of South Carolina, hoping for an influential friend in an early caucus or primary state. Within the next several months the reality of recruiting top campaign staff and donors will start to thin the herd, but like in baseball, January is the season of unchallenged optimism.  Some thoughts on who will survive when the grim reaper starts his work.

    1. Republicans, favoring order, have usually had an established "candidate in waiting" who was owed their turn - Nixon, Bob Dole, The Gipper, George H.W., John McCain.  The closest this cycle are Sarah Palin and Mitt Romney. More on them later.   

    2. The election of 2010 was a rout, with the victors being the focused advocates of fiscal responsibility and small government. While new factors may rise in national importance, this will remain Barack Obama's greatest weakness and the greatest attraction for the middle class.  Financial management credibility is the sine qua non. Nice guy, social issue folks like Mike Huckabee are at a disadvantage. Governors with business experience need apply.  

   3. Obama's flaccid foreign policy could become a factor by the fall of 2012, but he is positioned to keep it off of the table: war without end in Afghanistan; Bush policies on Gitmo; accommodation with Russia; maybe approval of Bush's free trade agreements; a back-bench position in South America and the crumbling Middle East.  One dark horse - the relationship with China could deteriorate to the point where the country saw a need for some expertise and strength. Enter Jon Huntsman, son of a billionaire, former governor of Utah and current ambassador to Beijing.  

   4.  Any successful candidate must be acceptable to both the Establishment wing and the energized Populist wing of the party.  Not a favorite of, just acceptable. Palin probably misses the Establishment.

    5. Diversity would be a plus, but there won't be any at the head of the ticket.  In his day Colin Powell would have had a good chance and Condi Rice might have as well. Candidates like Herman Cain do not have the resume and Marco Rubio does not have the whiskers.  While there are many young women future potentials, the divisive Michele Bachmann is perhaps the best known.  Republicans will not elevate an inexperienced junior legislator - even if he/she did have the most conservative voting record in the House or Senate.  (The opposition did make that mistake not too long ago.) Look to another VP or 2016.

    6. Some people are out because they would not be able to survive the liberal mainstream media onslaught: Haley Barbour; perhaps Rick Perry.   With a chance to win why re-fight the Civil War.  Likewise one would imagine the NY Times fulminations if the GOP decided to forgive and forget the opportunity that Newt Gingerich blew nearly two decades ago - smart he is, but so are others.  

    7. As for picking somebody who could carry a big, important state - California; New York; Ohio; Illinois; Florida; Texas - forget it. The Red State/Blue State division is really about regions.  

     The nomination is Mitt Romney's to lose, assuming that Round Two of health care finds an accommodation by the end of the year, soothing his biggest negative.  Premise: Obama probably wants a compromise which keeps expanded coverage and avoids the inevitable Supreme Court decision on mandatory individual purchase; the Republican House led by Paul Ryan (do watch this video) is smart enought to find it. If Romney and Huntsman split the always-influential Mormon vote, Plan B is a Hoosier, Congressman Mike Pence or Governor Mitch Daniels.   Plan C?  Draft Chris Cristie. You heard it here.

    Update 1/22/11:  Readers have noted the absence of Tim Pawlenty, Rick Santorum, and John Thune from the above discussion. All have a following and a story line about why they deserve a shot. To me, the test is who can beat Obama if the economy continues to mend. That answer requires financial vision which I do not see in these three. IMHO.

                                                            -----

       This week's video is President Obama's introduction of Jon Huntsman as ambassador to China. 

Bill Bowen - 1/21/11

Obama's 2011 Opportunity

    By this time next year we will know whether the Republicans have been able to pull Barrack Obama's chestnuts out of the fire.

    For the record we should note that when the Republicans take control of the House in another week the Democrats have no budget for the current fiscal year, no appropriation bills, no plan to reduce the trillion dollar budget deficit, no chief presidential financial advisor, and nobody with business experience in the president's inner circle.  To be fair, we do have modest 2 to 3% economic growth - low for this point in an economic cycle and well below the world's developing economies, but stable growth none-the-less. To be more critical, the financial system stabilization program (TARP) was passed by George Bush and Hank Paulson while the Obama Stimulus Plan has been of much more questionable value and unemployment is stuck at a number that would virtually guarantee a Republican president in 2013. Obama must know that he needs help.

    But there is a happy convergence in 2011: propelled by the Tea Party movement and before we get into the contention of a presidential election year the Republicans come ready to take the heat for a general roll back in spending to 2008 levels, an apparent willingness to take on entitlements, and in Paul Ryan a lead spokesman who actually has the draft of a plan for financial stability.  Amid the howling of the Paul Krugman's and the Huffington Post there is a chance - I believe a real chance - that Obama understands that financial medicine is badly needed, that the Left will never prescribe it, that he can get a fair share of the credit for having appointed the Debt Reduction Commission, and that he will be able to work with the House leadership.

    The biggest obstacle remains Health Care Reform II where a bit of kabuki is required. The Republicans are compelled to attempt repeal which will be defeated in the Senate or vetoed by Obama. For his legacy Obama must retain the expanded scope of coverage in a system where the cost of insurance coverage is split between employers (for most) and the government (for the poor and older voters.) The risk of the Supreme Court eventually declaring the enrollment mandate unconstitutional and the continuing escalating costs of coverage (what, we can't cover 30 million more people and reduce the total cost?) provide an incentive to compromise and Obama would probably like a way out of the cost containment deals that he made with the hospitals, doctors, nurses, drug companies, trial lawyers, insurance companies, and equipment manufacturers. A few people in a closed room without lobbyists could probably figure out how both sides can win.

    So, 2011 can be the Year of the Grand Deal.  It certainly doesn't escape notice that Newt Gingrich's Contract With America in 1994 brought financial discipline after Bill Clinton's first two years, that the Republicans overreached, and that Clinton would be broadly acclaimed for his economic management - even if the Republican House forced it upon him and he benefited from Al Gore's invention of the Internet.

                                        -----    

   In the spirit of filling a void in knowing about important politicians, this week's video is a 2008 commercial for Congressman Mike Pence of Indiana who is running for president as a doctrinaire social, fiscal, and national defense conservative. He is in the "all others" category in terms of polling, but sets the standard for the Right.     

bill bowen - 12/31/10

In Search of Leadership

    When Nancy hands John the keys to the House in January there is a real question as to where national leadership will come from. Like it or not, she has done the heavy lifting for much of what the Democrats have accomplished (inflicted?) with the specifics rarely coming from the White House - the Stimulus; Health Care; Cap and Trade (at least through the House); Ask/Tell; and much more. Her fund raising and political skills have made her an unusually powerful Speaker for the past four years, but that was then. While she will remain Minority leader, the "mandate of Heaven" has passed - but to whom?

    Logically, the President is the leader of the nation and the party and the loyalist press is pivoting from liberal criticism for his abandoning their causes to praise for his leadership in moving to the middle on taxes, getting a treaty with Russia, and the Senate repealing Don't Ask/Don't Tell. . But there is little reason to expect Obama to move beyond expressing his wishes to actually leading:

        - His 129 "present" votes in the Illinois Senate have long ago been forgotten, but they were a good measure of the man.

        -  Domestically, he has deferred to Pelosi and Reid to write the important legislation and do the arm twisting. Even with large majorities in both houses he has shied from confrontation on card check, immigration, and Guantanamo, leaving the feckless strategy for dealing with the trials of terrorists to Eric Holder. There is no plan to deal with the deficit and Ben Bernanke has been left to be the global spokesman for the economy. It is not that Obama hasn't generally made his wishes known, it is just that he hasn't had the leadership skills to make Congress care.

        -  Internationally it is worse. Campaign positioning against Bush's "war of choice" in Iraq has led him to drift through a non-committal commitment in Afghanistan; nobody cares what he thinks about Israel; North Korea is left to the Chinese; Eastern Europe to the Russians; and Iran to the Iranian mullahs. At least Obama's pronouncements on global warming (Copenhagen and Cancun) have been as ineffective as his efforts to attract the 2016 Olympics and the 2022 soccer World Cup.

    The Majority Leader of "the world's greatest deliberative body", Harry Reid has suffered from a set of rules that allow 40 votes to block most anything - although many liberals would like for him to make the Republicans actually mount filibusters and take unpopular votes. He'd rather focus on the camaraderie and decorum of the chamber so long as nobody talks about the nuclear waste site at Yucca Mountain. In the last few days fear among Democrats and Republicans about the pending rightward shift of the chamber has led to several middle ground compromises. But for Harry going forward, no votes for Time's "Man of the Year" here.

    So, with power abhoring a vacuum and the voices of 85 new Republican members (63 gain; 22 turnover) echoing in the halls John Boehner is the logical choice - but what does that mean?  The Republicans (including Boehner) will not tolerate a strong centralized style after the experience of Newt Gingerich, Denny Hastert, Tom Delay, and especially Nancy Pelosi. Boehner's history and pronouncements indicate that he will rely more heavily on his committee chairs, allow debate and amendments on the House floor, and be more willing to work across party lines than some of the new members may like. In an environment where leadership depends on the subject, and everybody agrees that the subject is jobs and debt, Paul Ryan as the chair of the Budget Committee may rise to the top rung.

    And in a more diffused world, look to some of the dozen new Republican governors who come with Tea Party backing, a perceived mandate to stop Obamacare, a need to deal forthrightly with budget deficits, and - in some cases - presidential aspirations. Both the House and the governors will want to reverse the flow of power to Washington.

    A confusing mix indeed for those who like order and predictability.  But we are at an inflection point where our financial realities will drive policy, a good argument can be made that the public spoke for austerity in the last election (after looking at Greece and their grand-children's debt), and neither the administration nor the Senate has shown any understanding of what needs to be done. The field is clear for the likes of Paul Ryan, New Jersey Governor Chris Cristie, and Virginia Governor Bob McDonnell.  Lets hope that their leadership proves equal to the challenge.

                                          -----  

    This week's video is a new take on a timely old story. Merry Christmas.

bill bowen - 12/24/10

    

         

       

New Faces

    The return of the new Congress must be like the first day of school in the Fall - nostalgic to see old friends; reminiscences about the departed; a sense of maturity about moving up a grade; and anticipation about the new kids - perhaps a speedy running back for the football team or a cute girl to help with your English homework. Lets talk about the new kids.

    All of the attention given to Christine O'Donnell and Sharon Angle by the Democrats and the media obscure the fact that there will be about 20% new faces in the House, 10% in the Senate, and 30 % in statehouses. Most will be nationally unknown, and Republican. The 2008 presidential election should have made the point that running a good campaign has little to do with an ability to govern, and nobody knows how this crop will work out, but there is reason for optimism:

        -  The Tea party movement will bring more people with "real world" experience - business people; veterans; non-politicians. Wisconsin businessman/accountant Ron Johnson has a good point that with jobs and budget problems being the central issues, it would be good to have at least one manufacturer and accountant in the Senate rather than a 57th lawyer. (Would that President Obama would heed the message.)

        -  The tricky "racist" Republicans have a growing number of minority leaders in Congress and governorships: Hispanics (Marco Rubio in Florida; Brian Sandoval in Nevada; Susana Martinez in New Mexico); Indians (Nikki Haley in South Carolina to join Bobby Jindal in Louisiana); and competitive Vietnamese (Joseph Cao in New Orleans; Van Tran in Orange County.) While there are a few competitive African American Republicans (Allen West in Florida; Tim Scott in South Carolina), they remain outliers in the age of Obama.  In the Senate and governorships, the Republicans are demonstrably more diverse than the Democrats.

    It will take awhile to see who John Boozman of Arkansas, John Hoeven of North Dakota, Pat Toomey of Pennsylvania, and their scores of compatriots really are. Most will be average. But just a couple of years ago, nobody knew Paul Ryan of Wisconsin or Chris Cristie of New Jersey. The younger generation of political leadership is tilting decidedly Republican.

                                            -----

    This week's video is an ad which Marco Rubio - my favorite of all the newcomers - is using to close the deal in Florida. Reaganesque with better credentials.

                                            -----

    Here's an interview on NPR in Milwaukee promoting my new "philosophical thriller", The Target, available at Amazon.com and by order at most book stores.

bill bowen - 10/29/10

Red State Gathering

    The Wall Street Journal's recent scoring of the 2010 political primary season had its winners (the conservative Club for Growth; Senator Jim DeMint; and Erick Erickson's RedState.com) and losers (politicians who had changed parties; TARP supporters; the Republican Senatorial Campaign Committee; and liberal Democrats.)  By good fortune, I spent the past weekend at a gathering of the Red State community in Austin, and have some observations about this driving force of conservative activists.

    1. This is the year of the conservative woman. About half of the attendees were women; Nikki Haley of South Carolina was perhaps the speaker with the greatest political upside; a centerpiece video, "Fire From the Heartland", featured female leaders from Margaret Thatcher to Michelle Bachman and several leaders of the Tea Party movement.

        -  My premise: Sarah Palin has legitimized pro-life conservative women. Diversity has come to feminism.

        -  With over 50% of voters being women this is a critical demographic, with younger single women who tend liberal outweighing older married women who tend conservative. But, there are plenty of conservatives.  

    2. Red State leader (and now CNN contributor) Erick Erickson's  success in identifying and being an early supporter of viable conservative anti-establishment candidates is astounding - Marco Rubio (Florida); Nikki Haley (South Carolina); Rand Paul (Kentucky); Ken Buck (Colorado); Mike Lee (Utah); Joe Miller (Alaska). Also in the cohort, if perhaps less electable, are Sharon Angle (Nevada), and Christine O'Donnell (Delaware.) Thus the Wall Street Journal recognition.

    3. The ideology was simple across all Red State speakers - rolling back the scope of the federal government to its constitutional place (as required by the 10th Amendment) and fiscal responsibility. These energized activists did not spend much time on immigration, abortion, terrorism, or anything else that would distract from the central message of this election cycle.  There was equal criticism of Bush administration transgressions - the expansion of Medicare, the federal role in education, and earmarks.       

    4. To liberals, Red State is a real threat - median age perhaps 40; very proficient technically with blogs, videos, Twitter, Facebook, and precinct mapping.  Whatever Howard Dean and Barack Obama's subsequent Organizing for America might have brought technically, these folks have it - along with "citizen expert commentators" on subjects as diverse as the Gulf oil industry, union organizing legislation, and myriad other subjects.

   If you haven't yet, you should attend a Tea Party event to witness the gap between the mainstream media's depiction of the participants in this movement and the reality. 

                                            -----

    With three of Obama's top four economic team resigning, here's a video of the fourth, Treasury Secretary Tim Geithner, expressing an openness to a Chinese suggestion to replace the dollar as the world's reserve currency.  

                                          -----

   And another plug for my nuclear terrorism novel, The Target, available at Amazon.com (paperback and Kindle), and by order from most bookstores.

 

Leadership - California Style

Last week, in a conversation about the absence of Tea Party activism in California, a number of my liberal friends got to talking about California's leadership of the country. I recalled an old lesson about leadership from my Air Force Academy days - every now and then the leader needs to look back to see if anybody is following. A few observations about the current state of California politics:

  1. The governor and senate races are toss-ups - an accomplishment for Republicans in a state that is 45% Democrat, 31% Republican, and 20 % Independent/other - but Tea Party activists are nowhere to be seen. Steve Poizner (the more conservative Republican) got crushed by Meg Whitman's money in the primary; Chuck Devore (who had national support from some Tea Party leaders) came in a distant third to Carly Fiorina in the senate primary.

  2. Of the 53 congressional seats, the split will likely remain 34 Democrat and 19 Republican - the result of extreme gerrymandering to create safe districts for all incumbents. The national tsunami stops at the Nevada border.

 3. While the Republicans stand to pick up at least eight governorships nationally, California's accidental Republican governor, Arnold Schwartznegger, may well pass the mantle to a Democrat.

 4. While the Republicans stand to pick up control of at least ten state legislative bodies, California's house and senate will remain firmly in Democratic hands.

  5. A few of the down ticket races are also instructive:

   -  Democrat San Francisco Mayor Gavin Newsom of gay marriage and personal infidelity fame is leading in his race against Abel Moldonato for lieutenant governor, despite his association with a "sanctuary city", hundreds of "medicinal marijuana" outlets, and local purchasing rules which violate state laws against preferences for minorities. Rock on.

    -  Early Obama supporter Democrat San Francisco DA Kamila Harris is competitive for the state AG role (down single digits to Los Angeles DA Steve Cooley), despite total opposition to the death penalty, the lowest conviction rate of any DA in the state, and a series of amateurish scandals in the medical examiner's office.

    -  And a bit further down the card, Republican Damon Dunn - African American, born dirt poor, Stanford grad, NFL player, dynamic speaker - is still likely to lose the Secretary of State race to Debra Bowen (no relation.)

   Interlaced through these campaigns are a relative indifference to public employee pension problems (Democratic governor candidate Jerry Brown's campaign has been led by the unions); a continued desire to lead the country in environmental restrictions; quiet refusal to accept teacher accountability in a feeble Race to the Top application (despite the current bottom-of-the barrel education results); and near-uniform condemnation of Arizona's efforts to curb illegal immigration. With 55% approval ratings, President Obama can continue to enjoy visits to his California ATM. 

 It would be interesting if national polling data were presented with and without "national leader" California's 38 million "steady as she goes" voters.  Fortunately for the nation, nobody is following. I can still hear my old drill sergeant's voice ... "To the rear, ... haarch!"

   -----

  This week's You Tube is the first presidential endorsement ad of 2012 - running in New Orleans for Hillary. Thank Chicago dentist William DeJean.

-----

And a reminder about my new nuclear terrorism thriller, The Target, available in paperback or Kindle formats at Amazon.com and by order from most book stores.  

The New Republican Congress

Despite Tom DeLay's admonition against overconfidence, I will go with the polls showing a "generic" Republican preference of about 5%, and offer some conjecture about a Republican 2011 House of Representatives. (See the electoral map.)

We've been here before and screwed it up. Lesser lights were the worst offenders: Congressman Duke Cunningham - guilty of taking millions in bribes; lobbyist Jack Abramoff - guilty of defrauding Indian tribe clients and official corruption along with a dozen other White House and congressional aides; Rep Mark Foley - guilty of soliciting a young male page.  While not convicted of crimes, a considerable stink hung over leaders Newt Gingrich (reprimanded in 1997 and fined by the House for ethics violations), Tom Delay (charged in 2005 with violating state campaign finance laws and money laundering), and Dennis Hastert (shady real estate deals.)  Those looking for reasons why Democrats outnumber Republicans 4 to 3 while voters self-identify as conservative over liberal 2:1 should start with the Republican House's decade of corruption. 

This time it is high unemployment and generation-punishing budget deficits that are giving Republicans a chance, and they will be the focus of the 112th Congress.

-- John Boehner, was a junior reformer in the 90's, helped write the Contract with America in 1994, and became minority leader in 2006, following Tom DeLay's resignation. Under his leadership (and with Nancy Pelosi seeking no Republican input), he has been able to hold his caucus to a virtual 100% voting record. He promises to be a solid majority leader.

-- Paul Ryan of Road Map fame will presumably be the Chair of the House Budget Committee.  Wisdom and courage will be required.

--  Ryan is also on the Bowles/Simpson Deficit Reduction Commission which will report in December on recommendations to close the $1.4 trillion dollar budget deficit, giving the administration and the Congress a beginning point for negotiations. Democrat Bowles has indicated that he favors 3/4 spending cuts and 1/4 tax increases, rolling back the recent expansion of government spending from 21 to 24 % of GDP.  Options such as a Value Added Tax will probably not get the 14 of 18 votes necessary for recommendation, but they will receive attention none-the-less.

--  Fortunately, the new Congress should be encouraged by several recent examples of new leaders receiving early credit for slashing spending - Governor Chris Cristie in New Jersey; Governor Bob McDonnell in Virginia; Prime Minister David Cameron in the United Kingdom. Look for the House's "power of the purse" to run into the Community Organizer in Chief's desire to spread the wealth. Obama is smart enough to know - even after the resignations of Budget Director Peter Orszag and chief economic adviser Christine Romer - that wealth has to be created before it can be redistributed.

-- In the short run, voters favor job creation over deficit reduction, suggesting a series of Republican proposals to help the creators of jobs - extension of the Bush tax cuts; a shift of focus on health care from extension of coverage to cost reduction (repeal is not possible with Obama's veto); movement toward real energy independence; a challenge to regulatory expansion; and most importantly, a plan to return to budget sanity.   

--  One concern of the White House will be Darrell Issa, the Republicans' biggest investigator of the administration's alleged abuses, as chair of House Oversight and Government Reform Committee - with subpoena power. Move over Henry Waxman.

-- Finally, it will be interesting to see what happens to the Blue Dog Democrats - or what is left of them - once they are out from under the thumb of Ms Pelosi. With a liberal Democratic president and a Tea Party-energized Republican House, they will remain in "no man's land".

This all assumes that the Republicans' campaign message remains on track, not getting distracted by popular, but less important, issues such as immigration, Muslim mosques, and the corruption of Charlie Rangel. I believe that the Republican leaders get it.

-----  

This week's video is a largely unreported welcome of returning soldiers by President George W. Bush at Dallas/Fort Worth. Whatever his other shortcomings, this is his element.

-----

And, a plug for my nuclear terrorism novel, The Target, available in paperback and Kindle at Amazon and by request at most book stores.

The Year of DeMint

   Special Ad: Nuclear terrorism thriller, The Target by Bill Bowen, now available (see below)

-----

    I have this vision of Senator Jim DeMint, chairman of the Senate Conservatives Fund PAC, sitting on the veranda on a plantation house somewhere outside of Charleston, surrounded by campaign aides and his hunting dog, mint julep in hand. This has been a good year indeed for the 58 year-old junior senator from South Carolina who forms the most senior link between elected Republicans and the Tea Party. 

    The top of the "good news" list has to be Alvin Greene winning the Democratic primary to run against him in November - virtually unknown; unemployed; no campaign organization; indicted for sex crimes. The first law of politics is "get elected". Check!

    The last year has been unusually prominent for South Carolina politicians - Joe Wilson got a House rebuke for his "You Lie" outburst at Obama's September 2009 healthcare speech to Congress - but quickly raised over $1,000,000 while becoming a prime 2010 target for national liberal groups; moderate SC Republican Senator Lindsay Graham lost some ground after his friend John McCain's presidential defeat, increasing DeMint's standing in the state hierarchy; conservative Indian Nikki Haley is the presumptive next governor. The home state is secure and of some national significance. Check!

    Of most importance to those outside of the Palmetto State, his candidates are doing well nationally. His endorsements, (often in opposition to the National Republican Senate Campaign Committee) are winning primaries against establishment Republicans - Pat Toomey in Pennsylvania; Marco Rubio in Florida; Rand Paul in Kentucky; Sharon Angle in Nevada; Mike Lee in Utah; Ken Buck in Colorado. Whether or not the Republicans gain the necessary 10 seats to take back the Senate (with 5 to 8 being likely), DeMint will have a set of Tea Party conservative colleagues who will owe him some loyalty. If the Democrats hold on by a seat or two because the insurgents don't have broad enough appeal, well ... he has famously declared that he'd rather have 30 Republicans in the Senate who believed in limited government and free markets than 60 who had no principles ... and there is always 2012 when Republicans will almost certainly take over the Senate with 23 Democratic and 10 Republican seats up for grabs. 

-----  

This week's You Tube is a cute Jon Stewart skit about the race card.

-----

    My first novel, The Target, is available at Amazon (paperback and Kindle) and by request at most book stores. Some novels have a purpose. Mine, in which a group of average Americans become nuclear terrorists, is to demonstrate that it is in everybody's interest - Muslim as well as Western - to prevent the proliferation of nuclear weapons. For readers who like intelligent thrillers, plotter Mike Curran, moderate Arab Aisha al-Rashid, and blogger "Barbara from Berkeley" offer both suspense and memorable lessons. 

bill bowen - 8/23/10

Republican Ideas

    Three events this week tie together nicely - Paul Krugman's blather about Paul Ryan's Roadmap for America's Future, Ryan's polite and forceful response, and another Obama fundraising speech about the Republicans' (if elected) returning to the failed policies of George Bush - who got us into this mess, in case you hadn't heard. 

    First, Krugman. For the past two years he has used his position as lead op-ed writer for the New York Times to champion the position that deficits don't matter, a quantum increase in stimulus spending is what is needed, and Obama needs more courage to move to the Left in his economic and social policies. For the liberals on the left, the Nobel-winning Krugman is "the man." One doesn't know the communication paths, but he certainly is an early recipient (or sender?) of the Pelosi/Reid/Obama talking points. So, when Krugman calls Ryan a charletan, flim flam artist, and a fraud who "adds nothing to the discussion of fiscal responsibility", there is an unusual urgency in his purpose. 

    Krugman's problem is that Paul Ryan and his "Roadmap" offer a comprehensive set of proposals to get out of our fiscal quagmaire. To a conservative it is marvelous to have a clear thinking spokesman with a plan; to a liberal, it is anathema.

    As an aside, it is worth noting that the prior week's Washington Post wrote a prominent, generally positive article on the Roadmap, which focused on Ryan's proposal to cut Social Security and allow partial private accounts - neglecting to say that older citizens would not be included (they want to keep what they have) and younger citizens would be the focus (they generally accept the need to address the shortfall.) Obviously, an innocent omission for the "fair and balanced" newspaper.

    So, what's with Obama's comments about a Republican congressional victory meaning a return to Bush's policies with no legitimate new thoughts in the GOP? (In a January discussion with Ryan, Obama called the Roadmap a set of "entirely legitimate proposals.") With the Congress' approval at 21% and Obama's at 45%  - and both sinking rapidly - there are two campaign themes. Republicans are racists and they have no ideas other than to return to Bush's failed policies. The first is wearing out from over use. The second is pretty hollow if Ryan and others are allowed to be heard. Thus Krugman's attempted put-down and Obama's change of course. 

    There is a big strategy question about how specific to be before an election where things are going your way. In 2008 Obama was vague "Hope and Change". In 1994, the Republicans were Gingerich's specific  "Contract with America." Both worked. In 2010 there are a number of Republicans working toward a set of promises to be revealed in September - wanting to move beyond the "Party of No" criticism.  But it will be difficult to improve on Ryan's economics-focused Roadmap - and the Democratic leadership understands that.  Let it be heard throughout the land. 

----- 

    This week's You Tube is a clear statement of intent by Maxine Waters about a government takeover of the oil industry - well before the BP disaster and her House trial for corruption. If anybody is wondering what California liberals really think, here it is. 

-----

    As a result of last week's posting, the always thoughtful Dick Spotswood has asked for my recommendations on Afghanistan. Here they are:

    1. Look at Afghanistan as a question of how to protect the Pakistani nukes. e.g. do not push the Taliban into Pakistan and escalate violence there. Work with the Pakistani government. 

    2. Reverse Obama's escalation and return to Bush's policy of "benign neglect."

    3. Let the CIA and Special Forces work with friendly tribes to take out the Al Queda remnants.

    4. As an added feature because of what we have done, relocate people who have befriended us from hostile to friendly territory. 

    5. Don't worry about poppies and schools for girls. These are good things, but we cannot do everything for everybody.  

   bill bowen - 8/13/10

Media Integrity

   A friend recently asked me to write about the lack of integrity on the part of some bloggers - Andrew Breitbart in particular. In the spirit of "fair and balanced", I thought that I'd broaden the political spectrum and the discussion a bit. 

   First, obtaining an objective opinion requires work. My reading ranges from the Huffington Post on the left to the equally ideological Drudge Report on the right, with several other sources in between such as the New York Times and the Wall Street Journal. I regularly watch MSNBC and Fox. The most noteworthy difference is what is not covered - on the left you wouldn't know much about the Justice Department's alleged policy of not pursuing discrimination complaints (such as those against the New Black Panther Party) on behalf of white clients; on the right you would have missed the latest dozen scandals in Sarah Palin's family. 

   As to Breitbart's edited video of Shirley Sherrod's NAACP speech, the difference has been in emphasis. There has been virtually no defense since he misled everybody; however, the Left has taken a delayed pound of flesh for his earlier exposure of Acorn and offers of rewards if anyone could prove claims of Tea Party racism, while the Right has preferred to focus on The White House's latest personnel ineptitude, completing the cycle from shoddy background investigations, to delayed hiring, to knee-jerk firing.  

   A more troubling media event has been much less reported (except by Rush Limbaugh and Fox) - the exposure of JournoList, a group of some 400 liberal "journalists" started by Washington Post reporter Ezra Klein, who share e-mails about talking points to protect Obama and attack conservatives - including encouragement to fabricate stories of racism on the part of Fred Barnes, Karl Rove, or whoever. Being paranoid doesn't mean that they aren't after you. (For those who doubt, read the Fred Barnes article.)  At least Breitbart was acting alone. 

   Even the "fact checking" sites can contain a bias. Snopes.com leans to the left; Factcheck.org is more to the center. Try both to see which Truth you prefer. 

   Finally, some advice as to integrity in widely divergent polls, most of which serve an ideological audience. The results become more conservative as one moves from "adults" to "eligible voters" to "likely voters." The whole range is available at www.RealClearPolitics.com, along with averages. Rasmussen (likely voters) has historically been among the most accurate. 

   But, it doesn't have to be that hard; for those seeking objective interpretation of the week's events without doing the work, there is always www.RightinSanFrancisco.com. 

                         -----

   In keeping with today's theme, here's Charlie Rangel offended that an MSNBC reporter (Tim Russert's son) would ask him real questions.  With any luck for the Republicans, the country will get to spend a good piece of the campaign season watching Nancy's swamp get drained. 

bill bowen - 7/29/10

(Ayn) Rand Paul

Rand Paul is an opportunity and a trap - an opportunity because the country would benefit greatly from a nuanced discussion of the boundaries of big government; a trap because for the Republicans to win in November, the discussion must remain focused on the economy.

First, on the discussion. The forum will have to be the intellectual Charlie Rose show, not Rachel Maddow where Paul initially announced his candidacy and naively thought that he would get a friendly congratulations on his May 18 nomination victory.  Despite numerous statements of support for the totality of the 1964 Civil Rights Act and denunciations of racism, his desire to talk about support for property rights became the story. The media and the Democrats will go for the jugular on snippets that can be made politically incorrect, one for ratings (where MSNBC is fighting for a quarter of Fox's audience) and the other for political gain.  Republican Senate whip Jon Kyle was correct that the 2 am college dormitory debates don't translate to Washington; on the other hand, that is part of the problem.  

For decades we have not been able to have a discussion about the trade-offs between two desirable, but conflicting objectives without advocacy for one being vilified as opposition to the other. In this case, Paul would have liked a discussion of the importance of property rights as well as the civil rights of minorities. In other discussions: the sanctity of life and a woman's personal freedom of choice; the right to privacy and the need for intelligent national security; national financial responsibility and military defense capabilities; support for student achievement and protection of teachers; constrained resources and Social Security commitments. If we are to find wise solutions to difficult problems, we cannot just complain about politicians who can't compromise, we need to be able to discuss the intersection of conflicting legitimate objectives.   

The Left's reaction to Rand Paul is reminiscent of Sarah Palin's reception. Certainly Paul's intellectual, libertarian strain of the Tea Party movement must be discredited and stamped out (by Democratic and Republican leaders alike) before the millions of likely supporters for smaller government get to hear what he is saying. But, somebody is reading the 500,000 copies of Ayn Rand's 1957 classic, Atlas Shrugged, that were sold last year.

As for the Republicans' 2010 focus, it must remain on the economy. The day belongs to the people with economic answers, like Congressman Paul Ryan of Wisconsin and, hopefully, Tom Campbell of California. Things like Rand Paul's libertarian ideology and the Arizona illegal immigrant controversy are important, but they give the Democrats a chance and to take the focus off of 10% unemployment, Obama's trillion dollar deficits and Greek-like $13,000,000,000,000 national debt, and the government's economic cluelessness - while riling up the African-American base and turning Hispanics toward the Democrats.  

Lets hope that Rand's advisers hold the discussion until December - and that he comes fully prepared.  

-----

This week's video is Joe Sestak's admission that he was offered a job in the Obama administration to withdraw from his ultimately successful Pennsylvania Democratic primary campaign against Arlen Specter. Don't hold your breath waiting for Eric Holder's justice department to investigate the illegal quid-pro-quo offer.

And Arizona's latest cute and substantive commercial about the illegal immigration law. The incompetents in this administration make such easy targets that it is almost unfair.

bill bowen - 5/28/10

Next Week: Obama's Katrina ?

Paul Ryan's Answers

    Harry Cat - a thoughtful, left-of-center reader from Maine - has asked for an opinion on the proposals by Paul Ryan, the ranking Republican on the House Budget Committee, for fixing the massive federal deficits. The boyish, geekish Wisconsinite gained national attention at the February health care summit by showing that the Republicans have plenty of ideas to reduce costs and that the Democrats' "budget neutral" claim for their proposed coverage expansion is a fraud. But, Ryan's "Roadmap for America's Future", delivered in late January as a counter to Obama's budget, covers the whole waterfront - using figures from the Congressional Budget Office, the conservative Heritage Foundation, and the liberal Brookings Institution to document the implications of current and projected unsustainable spending. He talks eloquently of a tipping point toward a culture of dependency and decline, and lays out a set of specific, quantified recommendations. 

    On Health care - use specific tax code and Medicare changes to move to a system where the individual (rather than the employer or government) has an account to contract for services as they see fit. (To me, this is the essence of the health care solution - an informed consumer making choices that he helps pay for.)

    On Social Security - establish partial personal investment accounts for people under 55; gradually extend the retirement age until 70. (Agree on the latter; some reservations about the first.)

    On tax policy - radically simplify the personal tax code with two levels and few deductions; eliminate the Alternative Minimum Tax, capital gains tax, and dividend taxes; change businesses to a "value added" form of taxation. (Agree, except that I would keep the capital gains and dividends taxes.)  

    On job training - consolidate government programs. (No opinion.)

    On the budget process - add meaningful focus on large entitlement programs; create a binding cap on total spending as a per cent of GDP; require a three-fifths House and Senate vote to increase taxes. (Agree that we need to build a national consensus on limits, and they are the only saving grace in California. However, acceptance is unlikely.) 

    This is "hope and change" with the specifics. Some (the job training section) seems like platitudes, some (binding budget constraints) is politically not possible, and Ryan avoids talk of realistic tax increases (such as extending the Social Security tax to all income). But he does add an intellectual, quantified, credible voice for restraint of government spending and growth to complement the populist man-on-the-street wisdom of the Tea Party crowd. And for Republican candidates looking for ideas to run on, he offers a banquet. 

    In a wide-open Republican party, Ryan is a breath of fresh air - kind of a Mitt Romney without the baggage (Massachusetts health care; tough venture capital background; Mormon religion). At 41 he lacks experience, and will undoubtedly be the target of a legion of private investigators - but some form of his ideas will be prominent in the country's efforts to recover from the Obama hangover.  

-----

    This week's video is a short clip of Congressman Ryan asking Secretary of the Treasury Tim Geithner why the president's budget includes unending trillion dollar deficits and punts the problem to a powerless Fiscal Commission. 

bill bowen - 3/19/2010  

    

Tea Parties - In Context

With Middle America afraid of losing their jobs, houses, retirement savings, and children's education; with the Republican brand remaining at a low ebb; with the country describing itself as "center-right"; and with an administration governing from the far left, there is plenty of room for new players in American politics, and they are arriving in droves. The annual establishment Conservative Political Action Conference expanded to 10,000 participants this month, had a majority of participants under 25 and displayed a distinct libertarian fervor. But the real new kid on the block is the Tea Party movement of middle aged, middle class folks who are "mad as hell and not going to take it anymore" from either the Democrats or the Republicans.

The Tea Party movement is young and rambunctious, taking its name from a rant in February of 2009 by CNBC's Rick Santelli. (I'd love to see his personnel file at NBC.) Subsequent events, largely promoted by Fox News, included hundreds of protests on April 15 (Tax Day), and July 4, a Washington D.C.-focused rally on September 12, and a Tea Party Convention in Nashville on February 4-6. Las Vegas follows in March, and Boston in April. Much of the energy of the movement is driven by the Obama administration's financial excesses, but the health care debate - and particularly Congress' lack of response to angry voters at Town Hall meetings throughout the summer has provoked a reaction to the point that only 21% of the public now think that government has the consent of the governed. That is way beyond "not listening".  

 Some comments on the players:

1.  Glenn Beck has been an active advocate, promoting the events, publishing a set of "9-12 principles and values", acting as a Paul Revere, and headlining the CPAC conference. Criticism from the White House hasn't hurt.

2. Sarah Palin was pitch perfect in her speech at the party convention, while insisting that the movement was best without a designated leader.

3. Several groups are trying to bring organization: Dick Armey's FreedomWorks, the low tax/limited government advocates that managed the Nashville convention and supports a new "Contract from America"; Jenny Beth Martin's Tea Party Patriots, an umbrella group which claims 1000 chapters; American Majority, dedicated to training local candidates and activists; and Americans for Prosperity, limited government advocates with chapters in 26 states.

4. Key bloggers include Erik Erikson of Red State, who was among the first to advocate for conservative candidates in several state elections and Andrew Breitbart, who nurtured the Acorn expose.  

Most of the leaders in the Tea Party movement are conscious of several risks:

1. The focus is generally on fiscal responsibility and good government with almost no component of social issues, and little on national defense which could divide libertarians and other conservatives. Somewhat like Newt Gingrich's 1994  "Contract with America" and Bill Buckley's 1960 "Sharon Statement", most conservative movement leaders have recently signed a "Mount Vernon Statement" of founding constitutional principles which they hope to guide them through the 2010 elections and beyond.

2. Without central leadership, such a prominent group can attract crazies from the right. Recently, the New York Times has emphasized connections to the John Birch Society, Lyndon LaRouche, and militia organizers. Secretary of Homeland Security Janet Napolitano has stirred the pot by warning of the danger of returning military veterans and Tea Party activists. Check your guns at the door please.

3. Both parties have sinned, and on fiscal matters it is important to criticize Republicans as well as Democrats. The Tea Party activists are more vocal on this than the establishment-types who organize CPAC, and they are more likely to target moderate Republicans in primaries - Charlie Crist in Florida; Bob Bennet in Utah. And most don't regret intervention in a New York special election which gave the former Republican seat to a Democrat. But, most participants recognize that the history of third party candidates for president - Teddy Roosevelt; Ross Perot; Ralph Nader - shows that they only serve to draw votes from the preferred major party candidate. Erik Erikson's mantra is "support conservatives in the primaries and Republicans in the general." Democrats hope otherwise.  

These are Nixon's "Silent Majority" who later became "Reagan Democrats" and Ross Perot's foot soldiers. The Republicans will try to incorporate them, but this time they are their own force, they understand communication, and they are getting organized. They may not survive beyond an election cycle or two, but 2010 is their year.   

-----  

    This week's video is a short excerpt from an interview with Charlie Cook, one of the most highly respected neutral followers of national politics. Republican optimism abounds.

And I wouldn't normally want to give Keith Olbermann any face time, but this is too good to pass up.

bill bowen - 2/26/10

Obama's Gergen

   A diverse group of presidents - Nixon, Ford, Reagan, Clinton - relied on the advice of David Gergen.  While he had something to say on substance from his broad background in academia and journalism, his real value was that he could say "Mr. President, I believe that there is a perspective that you have not considered."  It is a shame for Obama and the country that the inner circle of Biden, Axelrod, Emanuel, Jarrett, and Michelle does not seem to have room for such a voice.

   As great an orator as Obama is, he missed the class on leadership where they talked about the wisdom of seeking advice which conflicts with your own preconceptions. One result has been the tin ear of the staff sycophants with ideas such as gathering e-mails from opponents of Obama's health care policies, distributing lesson plans for students to write how they could help the president, and plans for a National Endowment of the Arts search for projects to praise the president. Dear Leader , indeed!!  Another has been the appointment process which initially was tone deaf relative to tax cheats, and later with such bomb-throwers as Van Jones. On health care, it would have helped greatly if somebody had told him that the public wouldn't buy the Big Lie - that we can insure 45 million people and pay for it by taking "waste and fraud" out of Medicare/Medicaid, his model for the ultimate "single payer" system.  And with the government owning General Motors, Chrysler, AIG, Fannie Mae, Freddie Mac, and a bunch of bank warrants, it would be great if somebody were whispering in his ear who had actually worked in the private sector. The central problem - from Management 401 - is thinking that you are smart enough to understand not just the facts, but also the point of view that drives conflicting opinions.   

   President Obama began his recent speech to the Wall Street leaders about the need for regulatory reform with the notion that the economy has been stabilized, thanks to the leadership of Tim Geithner, Larry Summers, and Christina Romer, and, after a pause to insert something not in the prepared text, "and others".  Someone should have suggested that he slip into his credits the three people who were most responsible for pulling us back from the brink - Hank Paulson, Ben Bernanke, and Sheila Bair - the latter two Republican carry-overs from the Bush administration.  That would have been credible statesmanship rather than the traditional Washington gamesmanship which he so frequently derides.  If the objective is progress, he should have been reminded of the old saw that it is amazing how much a group can get done when it doesn't matter who gets the credit.  Not if he hasn't transitioned from the candidate of the Democrats to the president of all of the people.  

   Going forward, there are big issues on which Obama would benefit from listening to contrary views - nuclear energy if we really want to be green; a Pakistan-centric view of South Asia if we wish to manage the priority threats; a real effort to curb deficits as we emerge from the recession.  If he is not as arrogant as he often appears, he will learn a lesson from the aggressive public push back on health care, and recognize that public opinion, basic economics, or world events will eventually punish him for allowing only Nancy Pelosi and his Leftist political inner circle to shape his policies before he gives his lecture to the masses.  And he will realize that the people know that Joe Wilson was right.

   David Gergen is still available.

-----

This week's You Tube is presented with apologies to Tennessee Ernie Ford.

bill bowen - 9/18/09

Favorites: 
    1. Mitt Romney's "Free and Strong America" PAC web site. 
    2. Tom Campbell's California governor campaign web site.

Dropping Obama's Veil

    Those of us who believe in the greatness of the America system and the inherent wisdom of the American people should not be surprised by the record decline in the president's approval ratings, to a level below that of George W. Bush pre-9/11.  While Obama's vague call for "Hope and Change" met fertile ground in the aftermath of the financial system meltdown and weariness with Bush's financial irresponsibility and aggressive foreign policy, there is a growing awareness that, as David Brooks notes,  if Obama proposes it, it must involve "big spending, big government, and a fundamental departure from the traditional American approach."  This should not be a surprise.

    As stated in a recent letter by a former senior executive at Proctor and Gamble, Obama departs radically from American traditions in terms of his attitude toward the military (see today's You Tube), his attitude toward business, his apologies for America abroad, his concept of role of the government and private sectors,  and his demonizing of opposing perspectives. It should have been clear from Obama's autobiography - Dreams from My father, A Story of Race and Inheritance - that the abandonment by his parents and his experiences in Indonesia and Kenya created a world view far from that of mainstream America.  Add to that his associations with the likes of Reverend Wright and Bill Ayers. What is amazing is that, for a time, the voters (and the media) did not care.

    Many will trace the decline in Obama's approval ratings to his proposed government take-over of health care, with its trillion dollar price tag, deferral to Nancy Pelosi to write the legislation, and unbelievable claims that it would not increase costs, force people to change their insurance plans, or raise middle class taxes. I think that the problem is broader.

    When he gets off script, the real Obama comes through. During the campaign the veil came down a bit with his admonition to Joe the Plummer to "spread his wealth around". With his criticism of the Cambridge police for "acting stupidly" in briefly arresting his Harvard friend, Professor Gates, it came down further as he demonstrated that he sees things through a racial prism. He was right that it was a "teachable moment", but the lesson should have been to praise the behavior of Sgt. Crowley who followed procedures and demonstrated the personal restraint that police must exhibit when faced with offensive citizens in situations that can get dangerously out of control.  Glenn Beck had it right - Obama acted as a racist, and that is what the public, if not the media, saw. 

    The swamp of Guantanamo and CIA interrogations offers another insight.  What is clear is that the "enhanced interrogation techniques" worked to help prevent at least a few additional attacks and to break up al Queda's command structure - despite the Left's efforts to obfuscate the facts contained in the CIA Inspector General's report. Faced with unpalatable choices, difficult decisons were made and the agents tried hard to work within the guidelines that they were given.  Despite his professed desire to look forward and his commitment to not prosecute agents, Obama is now deferring to the Left and giving maximum attention to borderline decisions of the past at the risk of degrading the capabilities of the intelligence community.  

    Less reported is Obama's decision to appoint an Ayers-type radical to the White House Council on Environmental Quality where he is an "Advisor to the President".   As recently as the 90's,  Van Jones was a founder of Standing Together to Organinize a Revolutionary Movement - STORM (manifesto attached), an organization with a "fundamental commitment to the ideas of Marxism-Leninism." With a nod to the debunkers and the conspiracy theorists, some of the original discussion of Jones has been taken off of the Internet, and there is no discussion yet of Van Jones or STORM on either Snopes.com or FactCheck.org. Skeptics can look up Van Jones on Google, or go to Glenn Beck.org and search under "Van Jones" for recent videos. (Examples: "green energy" should be linked to reparations for Native Americans; the "Whites" have deliberately poured toxins into the communities of "People of Color"; and, repeatedly, Republicans are a*holes".) Watch the videos, then tell a friend.  

    To a guy who grew up in the middle class in a small New England town, and spent some years in the military and a career in business, this is definitely not "change that I can believe in."

                                                            -----

    This week's You Tube comes from loyal reader Bill McCormick, and captures the attitude of the military toward two presidents.

bill bowen - 9/4/09

     Favorites: 
    1. Mitt Romney's "Free and Strong America" PAC web site. 
    2. Tom Campbell's California governor campaign web site.

Hillary's Crowded Platform

    Back in the early days of the personal computer, there was a highly successful international spy-chasing game named "Where in the World is Carmen Sandiego?"  Several recent headlines have made me ask "Where in the World is Hillary Clinton?"  

    First, as the health care debate geared up President Obama found it prudent to send Joe Biden off to Georgia (the ex-Soviet state, that is) and the Ukraine where he could do little harm. So, on the heels of a diplomatic initiative by President Obama and Hillary Clinton to "open a new era of mutual respect and improved relations" with Russia, Biden offered the following "The reality is, the Russians are where they are. They have a shrinking population base, they have a withering economy, they have a banking sector and structure that is not likely to be able to withstand the next 15 years. They're in a situation where the world is changing before them and they're clinging to something in the past that is not sustainable." Understandably, the Kremlin was moved to ask "Who is shaping U.S. foreign policy?"   Where in the world is Hillary Clinton?

    Next, Secretary of Defense Gates is sent off to assure Israel that Obama's mild acceptance of Iran's crackdown on internal democratic opposition and apparent acceptance of continuing nuclear aspirations should not be taken as a concern to Israel. So we have the Secretary of Defense and the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff saying that any strike by Israel against Iran's nuclear facilities would be “profoundly destabilizing”, while Joe Biden is saying that the United States “cannot dictate” to Israel. Where in the World is Hillary Clinton?

    Third, we have Secretary of the Treasury Timothy Geithner joining Obama on the series of G-20, G-8, and G-2 discussions about the international financial crisis, and providing assurances about our fiscal responsibility as part of the ongoing discussion about China's proposal for a new global currency to replace the dollar. While Treasury must be involved in these discussions, it is only part of our China agenda, and Hillary has recently muscled in to meetings with Chinese leaders to add  North Korea's nuclear program to the agenda.  

    In American history it is not unknown for a president to tap a political rival as our chief foreign emissary, and in the age before the telegraph it was a quite effective technique. Perhaps Peggy Noonan was correct that Hillary "got rolled" when she agreed to become Obama's Secretary of State, and he then appointed special emissaries to handle Afghanistan/Pakistan (Holbrooke) , and the Middle East (Mitchell).  But then, perhaps there is some significance to the fact that she maintains a campaign staff of eight and is adding to a $3,000,000 campaign war chest. 

                                                                     -----

    For those of you concerned about the depth of thought and attention to detail exhibited by our Congressional leaders, this week's You Tube is a brief comment by John Conyers, the chair of the House Finance Committee. Six months to name a dog; a few weeks to overhaul health care.

bill bowen - 7/31/2009

    Favorites: 
    1. Mitt Romney's "Free and Strong America" PAC web site. 
    2. Tom Campbell's California governor campaign web site.

Why Sarah Palin?

I am amazed by the continuing disdain for Sarah Palin shown by the media (two op-ed's and a lead story by the NYTimes in the past few days; two critical articles daily in the Huffington Post), and by the liberals who assume that if you support her you are either stupid, immoral, or "uninformed".  Two perspectives:

I. Why I like Sarah Palin:

1. In her brief government career she has made a major effort to clean up (Republican) corruption in Alaska. I am tired of Jack Abramoff, Charlie Rangel, and earmarks. "Good government"  was a hallmark of John McCain/Sarah Palin, and a forgotten campaign promise of Barack Obama. 

2. I like the executive experience of a governor over the speech-making experience of a senator. She has hired and fired, prioritized items to balance a budget, and commanded the Alaska National Guard. Obama began poorly in finding cabinet officials without tax problems, and still doesn't seem to get the concept of budget constraints. Joe Biden, her actual opponent for VP - well, Joe is Joe. 

3. She has an "outside the beltway" perspective. Alaska's proximity to Canada and Russia broadens one's horizons - and brought ridicule for her comments about the different view.  She understands small towns and real people. 

4. She demands respect for a conservative view of social issues.  About one third of the country would agree with her, their perspective has been marginalized, and in a country which claims to welcome diversity there should be some room for the hunters, pro-lifer's, and evangelicals.  

5. She shares the fresh, positive, pro-American attitude that Ronald Reagan projected. I'll take Norman Rockwell over the NY Times editorial page writers.  

6. She is a woman. Some portion of the support for Obama came because he's an African-American; some portion of the support for Hillary Clinton came because she is a woman. Politically and culturally, I think it beneficial to have a strong Republican woman politician - even though she doesn't fit the approved model of the "modern progressive woman."  

II. Why the ongoing vitriol from the Left:

1. In the broadest sense, it is a Red State/Blue State thing. (Actually, it is more "big city/smaller town" thing. Even in New York, California, and Illinois that are dominated by their big cities, the out-state population is much more conservative.) In the big coastal cities there is a definite lack of respect for social, fiscal, and national security conservatives and the reactions are automatic. 

2. In terms of political tactics,  middle class conservatives are the group that carried Ronald Reagan to victory, and serve as a necessary base for the current Republican Party. Anybody who can galvanize them for the Republicans needs to be marginalized. 

3. Some amount of gloating is probably in order. As much as Red Sox fans enjoy the recent futility of the Yankees despite their $170,000,000 in salaries, the Liberals enjoy their success in gaining control of the Presidency, the House, and the Senate, and have transferred the pinata status of George Bush to the next politician foolish enough to confront them. 

As to what this means for the future of Sarah Palin ... who knows?  The Weekly Standard has an excellent detailed article on what led to her resignation and her future plans. Many who wish her well would hope that she will spend the next couple of years campaigning for Republicans, tending to her family, and making a few bucks. After that, she's young enough to see a few political and economic cycles. 

-----

   This week's You Tube is of the April fly-by of Air Force 1 and an interceptor passing over the Goldman Sachs tower in lower Manhattan. Based on this week's announcement of a first quarter profit of $3.4 billion and projected average annual compensation of about $900,000 for the 29,000 employees, they must have been shoveling money out. This after $10 billion of TARP money, full compensation for bad bets with AIG, and large federal loan guarantees.  Can you imagine the outrage if any of this happened under a Bush presidency ?  Is Obama's team over matched, or in collusion? 

-----

Corrections: In last week's blog, I attributed "The Art of War" to Lao Tse. The military theory classic was actually written by Sun Tzu in about 600 B.C. Thanks to those who wrote me a note on the error, and my apologies to the author. 

bill bowen - 07/17/2009

Favorites: 
    1. Mitt Romney's "Free and Strong America" PAC web site. 
    2. Tom Campbell's California governor campaign web site. 

The Wrong Funeral

It is perhaps one more indicator that I am out of step with the masses. I did not cry at Elvis' funeral, or John Lennon's, and I skipped Michael Jackson's. No, I think that the important funeral of the week was Robert McNamara's. 

For those whose memories have failed, or are too young to have the memory, McNamara was the chief architect of the Vietnam War. A compelling case can be made for our engagement - we were committed to the protection of Japan, the Philippines, and other legacies of World War II which ended in 1945; Mao had taken over China in 1949; the war with China and North Korea lasted from 1950 to 1953; a major Chinese-inspired insurrection in Indonesia cost perhaps 500,000 lives in 1965 and 1966. When the French were driven out of Indo-China in 1954, we were called in by the leaders in the South. With hindsight, a different choice could have been made, but President Eisenhower began the effort to erect a barricade. 

Enter President John F. Kennedy and his Secretary of Defense, Robert S. McNamara - previously the President of Ford Motors. It was an age of optimism about the ability of the intellectuals (McNamara's Whiz Kids) to manage these messy things better than the generals could. Prominent among the tragic theories was micro-escalation - the premise that in war it was inefficient and immoral to  use more force than minimally necessary to achieve an objective. What the theory missed was that it gave the enemy an opportunity to grow and adapt as General Westmoreland called for a few thousand more and a few thousand more troops until we had a total of 540,000, but were always precluded from taking any decisive action in North Vietnam. 

Colin Powell understood the alternative, and applied it in the First Gulf War. Actually, Lao Tse had explained it clearly in "The Art of War" in 600 B.C. - have a profound understanding of your enemy; maneuver so as to make combat unnecessary; if it is necessary, bring overwhelming force. George W. Bush missed it at the beginning of the Second Gulf War, but the "surge" advocated by John McCain rectified the error. Ironically, the milestone of turning over all of the cities to the Iraqis occurred in the week that McNamara died. 

One must wonder whether President Obama and his coterie understand this principle. The eradication of al Queda and the protection of the nuclear-equipped Pakistani government are certainly legitimate objectives - perhaps imperatives. But whether Obama's White House has profound understanding and whether they will follow the ineffective incremental path of McNamara or that of Lao Tse is to be determined.

    From my perspective, that would call for a change of perspective, if not actions. Sending another 20,000 troops to Afghanistan to secure the Helmund Valley feels a lot like putting another Division into the Central Highlands around Pleiku, when the real objective should be to ensure that Islamic militants do not gain access to Pakistan's nukes. That may involve many of the same actions, and hopefully all of the negotiations and deployments are not in the New York Times, but one hopes that Obama has his eye on the proper ball, and that he will bring whatever force is necessary.

-----

    For those who missed the whole Michael Jackson thing, this week's You Tube is a rather lengthy rendition of his breakout Thriller video.

bill bowen - 7/10/2009

Favorites:
    1. Mitt Romney's "Free and Strong America" PAC web site.
    2. Tom Campbell's California governor campaign web site.

Bernanke's Character Test

  Some time ago a friend gave me a framed quote from Rev. Martin Luther King, Jr:

        The ultimate measure of a man is not where he stands in moments of comfort and convenience, but where he stands at times of challenge  and controversy.

    I couldn't get this reflection out of my mind as I listened to Bank of America CEO Ken Lewis' Congressional testimony about his late 2008 conversations with Federal Reserve Chairman Ben Bernanke and Treasury Secretary Hank Paulson. In summary, with only a little reading between the lines:

        -  Capping a long successful stretch of building Bank of America, Lewis used the financial crisis to acquire Countrywide (the country's preeminent mortgage lender) and Merrill Lynch (the country's preeminent retail broker.)  When he realized the risk of bad real estate securities at Merrill, he planned to exercise a contract clause allowing B of A to opt out in the event of a "material adverse change" at Merrill.  

        - In discussions led by Paulson and agreed to by Bernanke, it was made clear that a failure of B of A to follow through on the Merrill deal would be very detrimental to the financial system which had just seen the calamitous failure of Lehman Brothers, that Treasury would engineer the removal of Lewis and his board if they reneged on their Merrill deal, and (here is the legally murky piece) that Lewis should not tell his stockholders how bad Merrill's exposure was before they voted to approve the acquisition. At MLK's moment of crisis they did what they had to do, the banking system was being stabilized, and B of A was one of the banks given multi-billion dollar TARP loans as the essence of that $700 billion program changed from buying toxic assets to supporting banks. None of this had anything to do with the Treasury and the Fed's legal authority, Congress's intent in passing the TARP, or the rights of B of A stockholders. MLK might have approved.

    Fast forward to the new administration and the massive efforts to stimulate the economy and institute Obama's broad and expensive agenda.  The confab of Brazil, Russia, India, and China getting together to discuss the demise of the dollar as the global reserve currency, comes amid much discussion from the Fed about being prepared to remove the massive liquidity that has been injected into the US financial system, and which will inevitably lead to high inflation and the decline of the dollar.  The challenge for the theoretically non-political Fed will be to raise interest rates and stop supporting government debt in the elusive moment once the economy has healed, but before inflation takes over. (That positioning assumes that inflation would be due to the various stimulus efforts, rather than ongoing trillion dollar deficits.)  There will be no supporters in the White House, the Congress, or the liberal press.

    So, how to incent Mr. Bernanke to properly balance the Fed's two charter imperatives - (politically popular) full employment and a (politically painful) stable dollar.  For a carrot, the administration and Congress will expand the role and authority of the Fed in regulating the financial industry- what bureaucrat doesn't want more power. (In the mix, Congress will probably reduce the Fed's consumer protection role, and may grab greater control over the appointment of regional governors.) For the stick, it is noted that Bernanke's term expires in February and his reappointment depends on Obama and the Democratic Congress. Let's hope that Ben Bernanke is more like Reverend King, and less like Ken Lewis, as the need to protect the dollar runs into Obama's free-spending agenda.  

                                                                    -----

    This week's You Tube wouldn't be appropriate unless it were from a classy late night stand up comedian, making his final host appearance on the Tonight Show. Unfortunately, the other jerk got all of the week's publicity.

                                                                    -----

   And here is an unusually clear article about China by Graham Summers on Seeking Alpha.

    bill bowen - 6/19/09