Stop Defending Roberts

I’m not a constitutional scholar. There’s your disclaimer. But, the idea that Chief Justice John Roberts has helped the conservative/libertarian/constitutional cause by limiting Congress’ Commerce Clause power by making the Affordable Care Act’s (ACA) individual mandate constitutional under the taxing power is getting silly. Many conservative pundits have tried to calm the waters among grassroots conservatives and libertarians by saying that, although the ruling was a blow to our expectations, there is a silver lining. To say that the “police” powers of the Commerce Clause were staunched and all we have to do, thankfully and almost easily in their minds, is to fight these taxing powers at the ballot box. This makes me think that “experts” really don’t know, nor understand, what it’s like to be a “non-expert”.

If one is to remark about the broad police powers of the government, what should and often does come to mind? Taxation. The taxing power of the government is one of the most onerous, awesome and frightening powers the government has. Think about it: the massive combined federal, state, and local governments command us to pay a certain amount of money to them to support their operation (I’m not going to argue about the Social Contract or other fundamental things). This is usually based on what you and I do. If you work, you pay an income tax. If you invest, you pay taxes on profits and/or losses. Hell, even when you die, your family pays a tax on your estate (dying is doing something). What is this command to pay backed by? Violence. Guns. Threats. Loss of Freedom. Loss of property. The various levels of government have untold resources to compel its citizens to pay their share. How much more powerful of a policing power can there be?

Just because Roberts did not use the Commerce Clause to uphold the ACA, does not mean we’re any better off. The taxing power seems just as, if not more, scary to me. 

Mandate = Tax

Well. There you have it. The "Affordable" Care Act has been found (for the most part) constitutional. Chief Justice John Roberts massaged his opinion to say that the individual mandate was unconstitutional under the Commerce Clause, but constitutional under Congress' taxing power. So, the federal government can tax us into oblivion in order to force us to buy something we may not want. Great precedent huh?

Here's a link to the 193-page opinion.

Intrigue in Egypt

Ouch. The Egyptian people have chosen the Muslim Brotherhood candidate, Mohammed Morsi, as their new president. But are we actually seeing a "transition to democracy" in Egypt? Well...

The Supreme Council of the Armed Forces (SCAF) had recently suspended the powers of the presidency to control the military and inserted broad powers for itself. The country's highest court had thrown out legislative election results and the new constitution. The SCAF was the true guiding hand in Egypt for the past year, so why did the Brotherhood candidate win over the man who seemed to be the natural fit for the military, Ahmed Safik?

Safik was a former prime minister for Hosni Mubarak. He was seen as the status quo, "old guard" candidate. The Brotherhood had been banned from political activities under Mubarak. So many questions come out of this: 

Does the Brotherhood have more influence in the military than most think? 

What type of constitution will come out of a Brotherhood-dominated legislature, assuming there is one (though it seems clear that's the path the people are headed down)?

What of relations with Israel and the United States, as well as the broader Middle East region (specifically Turkey, Syria and Iran)?

Will the fundamentalist Brotherhood be able to contain itself from onerous religious laws after the celebrations in Tahrir Square die down? 

Was there a deal cut between the Brotherhood and SCAF (obviously, yes)? How extensive was it (besides the military's suspension of basic democratic controls). Closely connected to this is: 

Was this result a fait accompli as the military and the Brotherhood negotiated "power sharing" roles? (In order to win the presidency, the Brotherhood had to agree to give up power over the military and the military would support Morsi).

Politics is politics wherever you go and politics is about power (getting it, holding it, maintaining it, expanding it, etc.). So all of the great chants about democracy and freedom will often be a mask to cover naked power grabs. If the Egyptian military is/was more concerned about power, than national security, then this result is not surprising. Same goes for the Brotherhood; give up some powers in the hopes of gaining others they may find more important (religious, social control). Heck, if the Brotherhood plays their cards right, they may be able to get the upper hand on the military over time. Come to think of it, both sides are probably thinking the same thing (make the deal, wait out the clock, maneuver incessantly and take total control). 

The thought of a large and powerful military, working along side a known religious fundamentalist group in a (soon-to-be formerly) secular and open society should give our government and many of the freedom and liberty-loving people around the world pause. No need to get hysterical just yet, but watch and wait. I don't see much good coming out of this development...

Extremely Rare Endorsements

This is probably the first time in American political history where all of the living former Presidents of the United States (from opposing parties) have, in one way or another, endorsed the challenger to the incumbent executive.

President George H.W. Bush has formerly endorsed Mitt Romney for President. George W. Bush has done the same (“I’m for Mitt Romney!”). Those two endorsements from Republican former presidents would be expected. The following endorsements? Not so much:

Bill Clinton, on several different occasions, has defended Mitt Romney’s qualifications (as governor) and his “sterling business career”. He has also given us a timeline for when we can expect the economy to improve and who to hold accountable. Two years ago (September 2010), speaking at the Cuyahoga Community College in Cleveland, Ohio, Clinton said that if the Democrats don’t have this mess straightened out, the voters should “vote them out”. Well, it is two years later and there is an election coming up, so…

I’m now standing by to hear what Jimmy Carter has to say about President Obama. Oops, wait a second. In an interview with MSNBC this past April, former President Carter said Romney had been “fairly competent” as governor of Massachusetts and that Carter would be “comfortable” with Romney as president (though he did try to pin the “right-wing extremist” tag on Romney later in the interview). Not a ringing endorsement, but close enough coming from Carter.

Geez, with friends like these…

The last endorsement (though indirect) of Romney (or whoever the Republican nominee would be) comes from none other than: President Barack Obama himself! During the 2008 campaign, Obama said that if he didn’t have the economic situation worked out by the end of his first term, then it would be a “one-term proposition’ for him. Well, we’re coming up on the end of his first term, so…

Prelude to Transformation

At the start of the presidential primaries, I supported Texas Governor Rick Perry. I thought that he had the best record to go up against President Obama. Unfortunately, he was not able to parlay his executive experience into a successful primary win. Former Massachusetts Governor Mitt Romney has gone on to win the Republican nomination (officially, this past Tuesday in Texas) and has, to my surprise, stormed out of the gates with a solid campaign and fundraising operation.

This, along with the atrocious performance of the Obama campaign, has led me to believe the potential of two things happening come November:

1. The polls (I know, it’s REALLY early) are showing Romney close, tied or in the lead among various demographic groups and individual battleground states. The lack of mistakes (so far) from his campaign should give Republicans confidence as we go into the summer months. This all could lead to the possibility of a not-so-close election, culminating in Romney winning a healthy number of electoral votes (not to mention popular votes). I would not be surprised with a  mid-50% share for Romney, and a mid 40% share for Obama (honestly, if we didn’t live in Bizarro world, it wouldn’t be close at all).

2. The second thing that I see happening is that we could be on the verge of another transformational political election on the order of 1994 and 2010. This won’t just happen at the federal level either. Governorships, state legislatures and local governments will see more conservatives/Republicans/libertarians taking office in 2013 (especially as we see more Democrats switching parties; Arthur Davis the most prominent). This would have the most profound effect on our country and its future. I'm not so naive to think that just because a Republican is in office that everything will be rosy, but at least there will be the chance for a devolution of federal power back to where it belongs: in the hands of the people.

Now, there are a million caveats that could be attached to this, but politics is not just a science, it’s an art. Gut feelings come into play on top of all the hard work that campaign operatives and candidates put into the various races. My gut is telling me that the Romney campaign is exhibiting a level of skill that we didn’t see from the McCain campaign in 2008. So far, it seems to have the same organizational flexibility and tactical awareness of the 2004 Bush campaign (and depending on how things go, that of the 2008 Obama campaign). Would it be possible for the Romney operation to outmaneuver the Obama campaign? Well, they seem to have done it today with the dual press conferences at Solyndra headquarters and the Massachusetts State House! Not to mention the failed Obama attacks on Bain, the ridiculous "War on Women", the fight against the Catholic Church and his own surrogates (Governor Deval Patrick and Mayor Cory Booker among them) shooting the campaign in the foot. 

The funny thing about all this is that the 2008 campaign was about the transformational nature of Barack Obama. His voters loaded him up with their dreams and hopes and carried him to the Oval Office. In 2012, is the country looking for the same thing? No. This year, we are looking for steady administration, quiet confidence, success and experience. There won’t be many fainting youngsters at Romney rallies or God-like images of Mitt on posters, but there will be internal relief among many conservatives, independents, and even liberals, that here’s a guy who can get things done.

After eight years of President Bush-a steady, confident leader-who was dogged by constant media and Democratic assaults on his policies and character, the country wanted something diametrically opposed to him. They got that with a vengeance. Now, the country has seen what the lack of gravitas and experience can do to the economy and our national standing in the world. They want steady back. 

The Best Defense...

Follow my logic on this one:

Conservatives generally believe that "progressives"/liberals will do whatever it takes to win an election. They will claw, scratch, bite, lie, cheat and/or steal to gain power. If you listen to any liberal politician or strategist, they will say anything to advance their goals (gaining power) no matter how outrageous or twisted. Ok.

Mitt Romney, as governor of Massachusetts, and in previous campaigns for U.S. Senate, described himself and acted in a "progressive"/liberal manner. Many conservatives have a problem with him because of this. Also, many people believe, at heart, he is nothing more than a Massachusetts liberal masquerading as a conservative to win an election. Ok.

So, would it be a stretch of the imagination to say that Romney may do better against Obama (strictly in a tough campaigning sense) than we think? Judging by the way he has attacked every Republican candidate since Iowa (which is fine with me, I don't have a problem with "negative" campaigning), the charge that he will be too nice or milquetoast to go toe-to-toe with Obama may prove to be baseless.

His political DNA is coded to be "progressive"/liberal, so maybe he will pull out all the stops (unlike McCain) and really take it to Obama. It's not like there isn't enough fodder to hit him on (Fast and Furious, the economy, jobs, national security, Russia, Syria, Iraq, Iran, his "son" Trayvon, the "Beer Summit", "fundamentally transforming America", 57 states, ObamaCare, the war on Catholics, Solyndra, foreign donors, Israel, the national debt, spending, golf, lack of leadership on ANYTHING, taxes...whew!).

Being aggressive is an important part in this election. There is no way that Obama will be defeated if the Republican is not aggressive. Even though any sane person can see that BHO is a friggin' train wreck of a President, it will still take hard, aggressive, take-no-prisoners campaigning to beat him. Since it seems that Romney will be the last man standing (ugh), I just hope he isn't afraid to use Obama's middle name.

What Do They Believe In?

Thinking about the remaining Republican candidates for president, it's important to ask a fundamental question about them: What do they believe in? This doesn't have to be a far-ranging though experiment, but could be done by simply filling in the following sentence. Here's an example right off the top of my head:

Ronald Reagan was a man who believed in ______________.

My first thought on this (not being an expert on every aspect of him) is: Ronald Reagan was a man who believed in smaller government, less regulation and a strong national defense. Yes it's broad and simple, but that's the point. The fundamental beliefs of a candidate should be clear and easy to discern. Let's try another one:

Barack Obama is a man who believes in...a powerful central government and programs and policies that will fundamentally change America. No commentary, just the narrative that I see coming from his time as president.

The problem with this is that can anyone do the same for Mitt Romney or Newt Gingrich? I could probably come up with ones for Ron Paul (less government intrusion, efficient monetary policy, less global intervention) and Rick Santorum (strong national defense, the importance of faith and family in government policy), but what about the two top candidates? They are bashing each other's brains in for tonight's Florida primary and will continue to do so for the foreseeable future, but what do they believe in? It shouldn't be hard this difficult to figure out. Each campaign's messaging has been a hodge-podge of negative ads and temper tantrums, but no overarching philosophical belief system that conservatives, independents (and even liberals) could recall in response to a question from a curious friend or colleague.

This is a problem. Particularly when the general election begins. There has to be a basis for support outside of the specific policy issues that will be fleshed out during the campaign. Both of these candidates (Gingrich and Romney) have run in campaigns before and should know this. Now that Governor Perry is out of the race, I'm inclined to support Gingrich, but I need to know how to complete this sentence:

Newt Gingrich is a man who believes in ________________.

Watch Out: Romney's Coming to Town!

Holy crap. The 28-minute long "When Mitt Romney Came to Town" video hits all the emotional points that your everyday leftist would hit. Granted I don't mind any Romney hit piece, but geez, this is just over the top. You have pregnant women, a toy store closing, husbands and wives getting laid off, tear-jerking music, lost Christmases and pissed off Vietnam Vets. Winning Our Future certainly pulled out all the stops for this one.

Watch the video (linked above) and have a box of tissues handy...

Oh, and for Newt's SuperPAC to be involved in this, is pretty shameful. It's like the Occupy Wall Street people wrote and directed this. Again, I'm no Romney fan, but this is a bit much...

I do love one clip however: Romney is sitting in a chair on the tarmac (don't know why). There's a plane in the background and someone (no idea who) is wiping Romney's shoes off (or polishing them). This is the weirdest image I've ever seen...

It’s Friggin’ Over (I guess)

I’m thinking way ahead with some of this, but since the Iowa caucus is over, I think it’s appropriate. First though, the final result of the caucus probably caught a lot of people by surprise. I was one of them. I really thought Santorum and Paul would run away with it considering Romney didn’t spend too much time there and didn’t seem too interested. That may have been because he was content in letting the conservative candidates beat each other up over the social/religious voters. He did, however, spend a lot of money, but the grassroots-style of campaigning needed in Iowa, I thought, would make it more competitive for Paul, Gingrich, Santorum, Perry and Bachmann. The fact that Romney only won by 8 votes, yes, VOTES, showed (1) the conservatism of the state and (2) that Republican voters are still not wholly satisfied with Romney as the frontrunner (surprise!).

Moving on from Iowa, Romney will probably crush everyone in New Hampshire. Santorum shouldn’t even waste any time there and make a stand in South Carolina (with an eye on Nevada and Florida as well). Perry will make his stand in SC, Bachmann is out and Gingrich will be working the state hard as well. Paul will keep going due to the fact that his young libertarian base on college campuses will continue to energize him.

Unfortunately, all of this strategic planning and horserace analysis will mean nothing. Romney will be the nominee. He has been methodically “campaigning”, not saying anything controversial and hoping the conservative vote will split itself at every turn (which it is and will). He has access to great sums of campaign cash and looks like a presidential character from central casting. He’s got some policy baggage, but that won’t matter. He’s the nominee. So, looking ahead, who should he pick for VP?

Because of the geographical importance of politics (even when governors pick running mates), Romney needs to look south and/or west. In addition to geography, what Obama does will (and should) play a role in Romney’s selection. If Obama dumps Joe Biden and places Hillary Clinton on the ticket, that will be the definition of a “game changer”. Without looking at any polling data, I would say that Obama would get a 5 – 7% bounce in his numbers after the announcement and Hillary would probably be good for 2 – 3% on Election Day. The leftist base would be fired up, Biden would get his dream job (Secretary of State), Hillary would be one step closer to the presidency and Bill Clinton would be able to be in the news even more often. It’s a no-brainer for Obama to do this. Sure, Biden may have his feelings hurt for a while, but he can spin it into being a “hero for the party”, blah, blah, blah.

With respect to geography (along with experience, appeal and electoral success) and Romney’s choice for VP, there are three potential running mates who would help balance Mitt’s Moderation:

• Florida Senator Marco Rubio. Young, attractive, conservative Tea Party favorite. May not necessarily be “ready” to be president, but wasn’t there a young senator from Illinois of whom we said the same?

• New Mexico Governor Susanna Martinez. First woman governor of New Mexico (a democrat state in the southwest). Again, not too much experience, but executive experience none the less.

And last, but not least, my choice would be:

• Louisiana Governor Bobby Jindal. Conservative. Re-elected in a landslide. Southern state. Extremely capable and popular. He endorsed Rick Perry (who should also get a mention for VP) because they are neighbors, but would balance out the ticket perfectly and, in my view, is ready and able to be President of the United States*.

If Obama makes the switch, Romney and the Republican Party have to inject some drama and excitement of their own. They must show a burning desire to lead and offer the country a capable combination while also satisfying conservative voters who have been known to cut of their noses to spite their faces when not happy with a candidate. The speculation about the switch has been going on for some time, but I think we will know if/when it’s going to happen: watch for the signage, bumper stickers and buttons the Obama campaign is using. If it just says “Obama 2012”, look out Joe!

(*Don’t think that I’m looking at ethnicity here either. I hate that. I’m looking at position and ability).

"il" to "Un" in a Day

It's happened. North Korea's Kim Jong-il is dead and the future of the country is, once again, in question. The "Great Successor", Kim Jong-Un is poised to lead the prison camp of a country, so what will he do?

Of course, no one could possibly predict with certainty what will happen there, but it's safe to say that North Korea will probably do something crazy to get people to pay attention to it. Wait, they just fired some short-range missiles into the sea. So there you have it. Now what's next?

Un's uncle, Jang Song Thaek, will be his consigliere and, hopefully, will guide the young prince/dictator/general into a place of stability (doubt it). Because this is a familial succession and Un is in his late 20s, there will be some palace intrigue and scary times ahead in the near term. Is a twenty-something prepared to lead a country of 24 million people with nuclear weapons? Will the military assert itself to maintain stability? Will Un just follow his father's feckless "diplomatic" policies (as was seen with the missile launch)?

Or, could there be hope that this young man, who may have been exposed to events and technologies from the outside world, will have a different view about North Korea's place? It's been reported that his father liked the finer things in life (like most dictators), so maybe Un had access to computers and international news. Maybe Un saw what has been going on in the Middle East. Maybe Un knows his way around Facebook, Twitter, Reddit and YouTube. Maybe, just maybe, his youth could be an advantage to the country. If he has the self-confidence to control the military and the party, it could be possible (but not likely) that Un could liberalize things (beginning with feeding his own people) and possibly open up channels with South Korea, Japan (??) and other Asian countries with an eye towards normalization with the West. Naive? Probably, but one can dream...