Just a Regular Willard

Mitt Romney has tried hard to identify with the average guy.  He really has.  From his claim that the $350,000+ he earned from giving speeches in 2010 wasn't 'much money' to his statement that he isn't concerned about the 'very poor' or the 'rich', Willard 'Mitt' Romney has tried to portray himself as just a regular guy named Willard.  Therein lies a lot of the reason he's still running for the Republican nomination instead of having already secured it.  He keeps trying to portray himself as something other than what he is.  He is a man of wealth from a family of wealth and has lived in world of wealth his whole life.  There is nothing wrong with that.  In America, we celebrate and want to emulate those who are successful and wealthy.  It is very rare when one of them tries to make the claim that he is just one of the guys.  Some wealthy folks might be able to pull that off.  Warren Buffett comes to mind.  While I've never met him, the interviews I've seen with him make him seem very down to earth and able to identify with the day to day struggles of the middle class.  Not so for the GOP's regular Willard.  Take this statement from his 'major economic speech' in which he promoted a plan that will raise taxes on poor people and those with college age kids yesterday in Detroit:

“I love this country. I actually love this state. This feels good being back in Michigan. Um, you know the trees are the right height. The, uh, the streets are just right. I like the fact that most of the cars I see are Detroit-made automobiles. I drive a Mustang and a Chevy pickup truck. Ann drives a couple of Cadillacs, actually.”

The trees are the right height?  Huh?  Do average people walk around looking at the trees and commenting on their height?  Or the style of the streets?  Do they have four cars for two people, including two Cadillacs?  I don't and I suspect that most regular folk don't either.  This isn't the first time Willard Romney has commented about the height of the trees in Michigan.  He mentioned it in a stump speech a week ago prompting Larry Sabato to muse whether Romney would comment on the proper height of cacti if he wins the Arizona primary on Tuesday.  Perhaps he lost Iowa because he failed to appreciate the proper height of the corn stalks.

Romney will likely win the Michigan primary on Tuesday as he should.  He is the best candidate remaining among a very weak (and weird) Republican field.  Personally, I would have preferred Jon Huntsman, an intelligent, reasonable conservative who was unwilling to pander to the lunatics on the right but he had the audacity to serve his country faithfully under THIS Democratic president, which is tantamount to treason.  A Republican member of Congress who visited my class recently told me this privately and Huntsman said it himself on Morning Joe last week.

Visit msnbc.com for breaking news, world news, and news about the economy

While I believe Romney will win Michigan and Arizona, it will likely be a result of outspending his opponents.  Rather, because his Super PAC outspent his opponents in advertising.  Michigan is still likely to be close, though, as the spending differences are much less than in Florida.  As of February 24, Romney groups have spent about twice as much as Santorum groups.  

Whatever the outcome, Willard Romney is not your average Joe.  He should stop pretending to be.

Is Rick Santorum Actually Insane?

I've tried to like Rick Santorum, I really have.  I actually agree with him on many of the moral issues he espouses, though that doesn't mean I believe they should be the focus of public policy, especially since I am a firm believer in the separation of church and state.  But now I am beginning to think he has actually gone crazy.  And not in a good way.  In a previous post I mentioned his incoherent and inaccurate rant about euthanasia in the Netherlands.  Now, it seems, Santorum sees demonic forces at work in encouraging kids to get a college education.  He says,

“I understand why Barack Obama wants to send every kid to college, because of their indoctrination mills, absolutely … The indoctrination that is going on at the university level is a harm to our country.”  He claimed that “62 percent of kids who go into college with a faith commitment leave without it,” but declined to cite a source for the figure. And he floated the idea of requiring that universities that receive public funds have “intellectual diversity” on campus.

Terrific.  Affirmative action for conservatives!   Oh wait, there already exists a great deal of 'intellectual diversity' on college campuses.  I think he means that science departments should hire faculty who bury their heads in the sand and deny global warming instead of following the evidence.  Religion departments should hire only those who believe the Bible to be the inspired Word of God.  Political Science departments should hire nothing but fiscal and social conservatives.  And so on.  

Granted, many universities are populated largely by liberals, though I think, and research tends to support the idea, that much of that is a result of self-selection rather than academic bias.  Basically, conservatives choose more lucrative careers.  Most university faculty don't make a lot of money, particularly in the first six years.  Of course, there is wide variation from state to state and between disciplines.  A full professor in liberal arts might top out at $80k after a dozen years or so while business or science faculty could do significantly better.  But I digress.

As a faculty member at an R1 research institution for the past 3+ years I have yet to see any evidence of the so-called 'indoctrination' or war on student faith that Senator Santorum seems to think exists.  Apart from the fact that Santorum provides no documentation for his claim I would argue that if kids are losing their faith in college that isn't the college's fault, it is the parents and the church's fault.  I've run into many students of faith and I have seen their faith become stronger, not weaker, during their years in college.  I myself went to college as an agnostic and left as a Christian.  That's not to say that education won't challenge what one believes.  If it doesn't, it isn't worth pursuing.  What good is an education system that simply confirms what someone already believes is true?  That isn't education, it's a confirmation.  You can go to church for that.  And you should.

But if you want a brighter future then you should go to college, get a solid education, and enter society as a productive, taxpaying, well-educated citizen.  It has been proven time and time again that there is NO substitute for a good education to help people move out of the ranks of the impoverished and into the ranks of the productive.  It also shows that students who come in with conservative values leave with conservative values and vice-versa.  Apparently the 'indoctrination mills' are doing a terrible job indoctrinating kids.  Perhaps conservatives think universities function as 'indoctrination mills' because many conservatives believe the goal of pedagogy IS to indoctrinate kids into a conservative worldview, not simply provide them with the tools to be able to think for themselves.  If so, they should just tune into the Rush Limbaugh show and stay out of the classroom.

Why Rick Santorum MUST Win the GOP Nomination

The time has come once and for all to drag all the dirty, rotting, decayed skeletons out of the closet of the new conservative movement.  It is comprised of lots and lots of crazy people who believe an awful lot of crazy things.  From accusing Barack Obama being a manchurian candidate ineligible to serve as president to being a secret muslim who has declared war on religious freedom to being a right-wing Nazi, movement conservatives have literally lost their minds.  Remember Michele Bachmann? The former candidate for the Republican nomination who famously attributed mental retardation to vaccinating children against deadly diseases?  Movement conservative.  Newt Gingrich, current candidate for the GOP nomination, who famously declared that you can't understand Barack Obama until you understand his 'Kenyan anti-colonial mentality'?  Movement conservative.  Or how about the group in Kentucky with the creation museum featuring dinosaurs with saddles on their backs?  Clearly Adam and Eve rode those behemoths to get around.  Movement conservatives.

That brings me to the latest and greatest movement conservative, GOP frontrunner Rick Santorum.  At a speech before the Missouri primary in February he said,

"In the Netherlands, people wear different bracelets if they are elderly. And the bracelet is: ‘Do not euthanize me.’ Because they have voluntary euthanasia in the Netherlands but half of the people who are euthanized — ten percent of all deaths in the Netherlands — half of those people are euthanized involuntarily at hospitals because they are older and sick. And so elderly people in the Netherlands don’t go to the hospital. They go to another country, because they are afraid, because of budget purposes, they will not come out of that hospital if they go in there with sickness."

The only problem with Santorum's statement?  It isn't even remotely true according to this research.  Nevertheless, crazy people salivate and applaud when he (or any other movement conservative) repeats this kind of nonsense.  The Republican Party used to be a party comprised of sane, rational people who simply had a different vision of how to make America great.  It was the party of Lincoln and the party of Theodore Roosevelt.  It was the party of Dwight D. Eisenhower.  No longer.  Those great men would have nothing to with today's GOP and its movement conservatives.   Of course, they'd likely have nothing to do with those Republicans In Name Only (RINOs) either.  That's not to say all conservatives are crazy or all Republicans either (there is a difference, the two are not synonymous), just that the GOP tolerates and encourages the extremely crazy ones in a way that no other party does.  Democrats, with the possible exception of Maxine Waters, disavow the left-wing nuts openly.  The GOP caters to them through Fox News and talk radio.  It gives them op-ed space in the Wall Street Journal.  So it's about time they actually nominate one of them.  Let the fruit of the poisonous tree be displayed in the bright sunlight for all of America to see.   The mainstream media has to expose this movement for all Americans to see what it actually is.  Truly insane.

Newt Gingrich, the Conservative Media Elite, and the Romney Express

It seems sort of surreal, like a classic episode of the old game show "What's My Line?" where contestants listen to people trying to convince them that they are a well known person by answering questions about the person.  In this case, however, we can all see that the person is Newt Gingrich, former Speaker of the House and conservative icon in the mid 1990's until his precipitous fall from grace after the 1998 midterm elections, which resulted in a net gain of 5 seats for Bill Clinton's Democrats, something that hadn't happened since 1934.  That Newt Gingrich was a fiery orator who fiercely defended the Republican majority and attacked President Clinton whenever and wherever possible, endearing him to the conservative flock.  By the end of 1998, Newt's speakership was in jeopardy, he resigned as Speaker knowing he couldn't muster the votes for another term and then abruptly resigned from Congress altogether.  He spent much of the next decade peddling access to a former Speaker, meeting with members of Congress, writing (or ghostwriting) books, consulting for Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, promoting climate change initiatives (with Nancy Pelosi), arguing in favor of the Heritage Foundation's individual mandate (THE key component of the Affordable Care Act, AKA Obamacare), and pontificating on conservative issues for the American Enterprise Institute.  After toying with a run for president in 2008, Newt decided to take the plunge in 2012, ostensibly to retake the nation from the current president with the Kenyan, anti-colonial mentality, Barack Obama.  To do so, Newt has had to rewrite the past in many ways.

First, Speaker Gingrich would have the faithful believe he is the candidate most like Ronald Reagan in the field of four remaining Republicans.  In some ways, it is true.  Reagan was a pragmatic leader who knew when to stand his ground and when to compromise.  Newt has shown similar qualities, particularly after losing the battle with Bill Clinton over the budget in 1995-96 that resulted in two government shutdowns and a huge boost in Clinton's favorability ratings.  But Newt is not Reagan and, in fact, often criticized Reagan's foreign and domestic policy choices.  The conservative media have recognized this and begun a concerted effort to ensure that Newt Gingrich is never the Republican nominee.  For example, the conservative Washington publication National Review Online runs a story by Elliott Abrams in which the author points out that not only did Gingrich not help Reagan defeat the Soviet Union but referred to Reagan's summit with Mikhail Gorbachev as "...the most dangerous summit for the West since Adolf Hitler met with Neville Chamberlain in 1938 in Munich."  Ouch!  Gingrich is also quoted as saying that President Reagan has "failed" on both domestic and foreign policy.  This in the spring of 1983 when unemployment was still over 10% in the longest such stretch since the Great Depression.  In contrast, unemployment hit 10% under President Obama for just a single month, October of 2009.  Using his Reagan standard, Newt should be singing the praises of President Obama for stopping the rise of unemployment as quickly as he did.

Second, even conservative blowhard Ann Coulter, famous for her defense of the late Senator Eugene McCarthy and McCarthyism, has gone on the attack against the former speaker.  Speaking about his 'doodles' during the House ethics investigation into Gingrich in the '90's she says that Newt saw himself at the "...center of the universe" and "...the designer of civilization."  She also called him "pompous and boring" when participating in debates without cheering audiences.

Meanwhile, over at the American Spectator, Emmett Tyrrell, Jr. calls Newt Gingrich the conservative version of Bill Clinton without the charm.  Other attacks from the conservative media elite have come from the editors of National Review, Glenn Beck, and even Rush Limbaugh.  For his part, Limbaugh urged the Speaker to lay off the media saying it will play well with conservatives, who have bought the lie of a liberal media hook, line, and sinker, but it will alienate moderates whom the GOP will need to attract if it hopes to defeat President Obama in November.

Why has the conservative media elite turned on Newt Gingrich so ferociously?  Simply put, Newt's upset win in South Carolina has scared the hell out of them.  They understand that Newt Gingrich is a loose cannon, extremely arrogant, and more than likely unelectable.  Though they're not in love with Mitt Romney, they're not even in like with Newt Gingrich.  In fact, many see him as a grave danger to the conservative movement and someone that could do the kind of damage that Barry Goldwater did to the party in 1964 (ensuring Republicans would be a minority in the House for another 30 years).  It's not that Republicans couldn't recover from a disastrous flameout and landslide to win the presidency in 2016.  They certainly could since Americans rarely award either party more than three consecutive terms (and that hasn't happened since 1988, before that 1932-52).  No, the reason conservatives are so nervous about Newt Gingrich is many realize that this election is the only chance they will have to stop the forward progress put in motion by President Obama.  If they do not win the White House the Affordable Care Act will be fully implemented by 2014, barring an activist decision by the conservative wing of the Court to override the will of the people and their elected representatives.  Further, as the economy continues to recover from the ditch it plunged into in 2008 President Obama, not the GOP, will get credit for the growth.  That means 2016 would favor the Democratic candidate, though only slightly as evidenced by the 2000 election and the defeat of Al Gore in spite of a record of economic growth from 1996-2000.  Once a law or program is fully implemented and the people come to like it, the possibility of repeal diminishes rapidly.  Just ask the Republicans who oppose Social Security and Medicare.

What we are witnessing is a coalescense of the conservative establishment around Mitt Romney and against Newt Gingrich.  Some argue that there is no conservative establishment.  I disagree.  I think there are two wings to the establishment, however.  There are the party insiders, who have mostly been pushing Mitt Romney for the past year or so, contributing to his campaign, helping his ground organization in Iowa (it's why he finished a close second while spending very little time in Iowa), and so on.  Then there is the conservative media elite, the 'echo chamber' of Fox News, Rush Limbaugh (and other conservative talk radio hosts), and the Wall Street Journal.  The media wing has been all over the board, searching for the one 'true conservative' heir to their idol, Ronald Reagan (the myth, not the actual Reagan).  That's why we heard speculation about Haley Barbour, Mitch Daniels, Paul Ryan, Chris Christie, and others.  It's why Gov. Rick Perry was going to 'change everything' if he got into the race.  He did, but not in the way they expected.  He made the insider choice the most palatable of what by most accounts has been a very weak Republican field this year.  And now the elite conservative media have begun to climb aboard the Mitt Romney express.  No, they'll never fall in love with Mitt Romney.  No, he'll never be the next Ronald Reagan (there will never be another Ronald Reagan).  He'll just be Willard Mitt Romney.  And if he's lucky enough to get elected in November, the conservative media will tolerate him. It's what conservatives do.  Liberals grumble at their presidents for not being liberal enough.  Conservatives embrace and defend theirs, even if privately their hearts pine for a true conservative hero.

In just 5 days, voters in Florida will either choose the Republican nominee or throw the GOP race into chaos.  If Mitt wins, there won't be much in his way to stop his coronation by Super Tuesday (March 6th).  If Newt wins, chaos ensues and the likelihood of a lengthy nomination fight increases.  Why is Florida so important?  Simply because Florida is the first winner-take-all state.  The winner gets all 50 delegates to the National Convention.  That's 49 fewer than Florida is supposed to have because the state violated RNC rules by holding it's primary before March 1st and leapfrogged Nevada, which was supposed to be 4th.  Nevertheless, 50 delegates is a little less than 5% of what is needed to secure the nomination (1144).  Who will win on January 31st?  Watching the two wings of the conservative establishment coming together over the past week, my money's on Mitt Romney.  If so, the party will do just as it always does...nominate the guy whose turn it is.

Blogging the State of the Union address

The president arrived right on time and began with some compliments to the Rmed services, pointed out that Osama bin Laden is no longer a threat to the United States, and that for the first time in 9 years American soldiers are not fighting in Iraq. Moving on to the economy, the president speaks about job growth in the private sector, obstruction by Republicans, and a promise to fight any return to the failed economic policies of the (Bush Administration). Tepid applause from Speaker Boehner and a standing ovation from the Democrats. President moves on to vindicate the bailout of GM as a positive and points out that GM is once again profitable and the largest automaker in the world. Hundreds of thousands of new jobs created in the industry and over 3 million in the private sector in last two years. President urges cut in the corporate tax rate and rewarding companies for bringing jobs back to America. Rah, rah, America is great, America is the best. Our union is getting stronger. (Presidents are obligated to say something like that). Proposes a new trade investigation board to look into unfair practices in China and other trading partners. Urges Congress to help train 2 million people for new jobs, turn the unemployment system into a reemployment system that puts people to work (bipartisan applause). Moving on to education...president talks about race to the top, great teachers who make a difference in people's lives, proposes incentives for good teachers, stop teaching to the tests. (teachers unions won't like this). Asks states to mandate students remain in school until age 18 or graduation. HS dropouts are highest level of unemployed and in poverty. Turning to colleges, urges costs be kept down, Congress prevent interest rates on student loans from increasing. Turns to comprehensive immigration reform and talks about increased law enforcement, decreased illegal border crossings, and urges Congress to pass a bill allowing students brought here through no fault of their own to embark on a path to citizenship. Asks Congress to stop sitting on its hands and help create a prosperous society. Talks about the millions of acres of oil resource areas opened to new exploration and announces plans to open up to 75% of America's potential resources. Urges development lof natural gas resources, reminds Republicans that government expenditures helped develop the technology to mine these resources. Promises to stand by clean energy and support companies committed to develop those resources. President issues directive to allow clean energy development on public lands to power 3 million homes. Defense department commits to purchase enough to power 3/4 of a million homes. Talking about infrastructure investment, rural broadband development, invokes the great projects of the past such as the Hoover Dam, the Golden Gate Bridge, and other projects. Urges Congress to devote half the savings from the end of Iraq war to rebuild our infrastructure and the other half to pay down debt. Oops, a new 'fee' on bailed out banks...that won't fly. Republicans will obstruct any attempt to use the funds to allow homeowners to refinance at lowest rates. Hits Republicans on regulations and says he has approved fewer regulations in first three years than President Bush did. Tells joke about milk being classified as an oil and a rule that required farmers to prove they could contain a spill and says if milk is an oil then maybe it's worth crying over spilt milk. Rumble of laughter. Recognizes head of consumer finance protection bureau, Richard Cordray. Most pressing priority is stopping a tax hike on 160 million working Americans next month. President says we can't afford extending tax cuts on the wealthiest Americans and funding medical research, education, and rebuilding our nfrastructure. Calls on Congress to do what the American people have said is right and raise tax rates on those making over $250,000 a year. Moves on to talk about how Washington is out of touch with the rest of the country. Urges a ban on insider trading by members of Congress. Calls for an end to obstructionist tactics in the Senate and require an up or down vote within 90 days for all nominations. Requests authority to consolidate bureaucracy to improve government. Calls for an end to hyper partisanship and gets applause for invoking Lincoln's mantra about government only doing what people cannot do for themselves. Calls on Congress to put aside partisan differences and work together to achieve all that we can. Appeals to our better angels (SOTU addresses are required to end on hopeful, high notes). Hawks applaud president's committment to prevent Iran from acquiring a nuclear weapon. Says all options are on the table. Hits Republicans in the gut about all their America in decline nonsense. Back to the beginning and praise for the military for defending our freedom. Standing ovation from all in attendance. Urges companies to hire vets as they return from serving the nation. Eloquently calls on Americans to get each others backs. America was built not by Republicans or Democrats but by the greatest people in the world embarking on a common mission to ensure the state of our nion is always strong.

South Carolina...They Pick Presidents...

...or so they like to say.  The reality is that Iowa and New Hampshire have usually chased away all the underfunded klingons suffering from delusions of grandeur about someday occupying the Oval Office by the time the genteel people of South Carolina get a chance to vote.  Not so this year, although Michelle 'Snow White' Bachmann and Jon 'Doc' Huntsman have already exited the race after less than stellar performances in the early states.  This year there are still five presidential contenders as the Mitt Romney Express rolls into the Palmetto State (is that for the tree or the bug or both?)  South Carolinians will have their say this coming Saturday (January 21st) and though it is all but certain a majority of them will vote against the presumed nominee it is likely that Gov. Romney will carry a plurality of voters in the state.  Even after the votes have been counted and the circus train has moved on to Florida for the January 31st primary, it is likely three of Romney's challengers will continue their campaigns.  Odds are that the candidate to be dismissed will be Gov. Rick 'Dopey' Perry come Sunday or Monday.  Yet, Newt Gingrich, Ron Paul, and perhaps Rick Santorum are liable to continue the fight into the southern states, a region not quite so fond of the 'Massachusetts Moderate.'  Newt 'Happy' Gingrich will just go on running oblivious of the fact that his campaign is broke...unless he pulls the upset in SC and gets a new surge of cash donations. Ron 'Sleepy' Paul can count on his band of supporters to launch another money bomb soon that will fund him through February (he's really running so he can have a say in the party platform).  Rick 'Sneezy' Santorum will need a better than expected 2nd or very close 3rd in SC to continue his insurgent campaign.  SC is a socially conservative state and should do better here than in NH, but the Romney Express may have already left the station.

What is it about a nomination system that places the choice of a party nominee with so few voters?  After SC the total number of votes cast in the first three states will still be less than the number of votes that will be cast in Florida alone.  The process deliberately places emphasis on the ability to create a ground organization that turns out supporters.  Only Romney and Paul have been effective in that regard.  Barring an upset win by 'Happy' Gingrich, Mitt 'Bashful' Romney ought to be crowned with the GOP nod Saturday evening.  If Newt does pull off the upset then all bets are off as the south is much more favorable to Gingrich/Santorum than to Romney or Paul.  So go ahead SC, pick a president, or at least a nominee.  America is watching.

I Saw An Angel Falling From Heaven...

...or at least that's what the precipitous decline of GOP candidate Herman Cain's fortunes have resembled over the past month.  Cain has gone from the anti-Romney, Tea-Party darling of the GOP to an absolute train wreck in a short time.  Riding a wave of popularity, largely due to his catchy 9-9-9 slogan, Cain crested at around the same percentage (25%) in many national polls that GOP frontrunner Mitt Romney has captured almost since beginning his presidential campaign 4 1/2 years ago.  Cain even held the lead in several early voting state polls like Iowa and South Carolina.  The Cain campaign has been undone primarily by three events.

1)  Allegations of sexual harassment against Cain while he was the head of the National Restaurant Association.  Even though the campaign was given a 10 day advance notice by the media investigating the story it failed to respond in a coherent manner when the story broke, instead preferring to compare Cain to Clarence Thomas and claim it was a left-wing 'high tech lynching.'  Eventually, the campaign had to admit there was some substance to the allegations of at least two of the women who had received cash settlements from the NRA in the late 1990's.  That in itself was not enough to bring down the campaign, however.

2)  Libya...uh, yeah, Libya.  At a meeting with a journalist in Wisconsin (what was he doing in Wisconsin when they don't vote until March?) Cain was asked whether he supported President Obama's policy on Libya...and he looked dumbfounded and couldn't even remember what that policy was.  It was sort of similar to Sarah Palin and the Bush Doctrine moment from her 2008 interview with Charlie Gibson.  At least Cain didn't say he could see Canada from Wisconsin!

3)  The latest allegation is that Cain had a long running affair with Ginger White.  She claims it lasted 13 years while he says they were 'just friends.'  It appears they were friends with benefits, if she turns out to be credible.  Ms. White said she had Cain's personal cell phone number and gave it to a reporter who texted him from her phone and Cain called right away.  Oops.

What does any of this mean?  Nothing really.  Herman Cain was never really running for president and never stood a serious chance of winning.  Everybody with the slightest inkling of political knowledge understood that his campaign was about selling books and enriching himself further.  To that end, it has worked marvelously.  But if the most recent allegations are true, it may cost him his marriage of 43 years.  That's a huge price to pay for selling a few meaningless books.

Since at least the early 90's America's elite political class has focused on playing the 'politics of personal destruction' as a way to avoid substantive debates on substantive issues.  The media fuels the fire by seeking sensationalist stories devoid of substance and intelligence.  Both approaches serve to disengage the mass public and ensure we pay as little attention to politics as possible.  Both lead Americans to distrust their government and, in some cases, dislike it.  Case in point...recent polls have Congress' approval rating at a mere 9% with the general public.  Many Americans believe our governmental institutions have failed.  Apart from a commitment to reverse recent trends, it is only a matter of time before they become irrelevant and our democracy is endangered.  People who don't trust their government are prone to abolish it.  Will the next revolution be called the American Spring?

Thanksgiving Update

It's been a while since I've posted, largely due to a busy travel schedule and end of the semester preparations.  Most of November was spent preparing for a conference presentation in Philadelphia, wrapping up some assessment work at MSU, and getting my classes to the finish line, which is now in sight.  Classes end on December 2nd and finals end on December 9th.  My students have no finals, just papers.  So I'll be busy reading those once they come in before taking a much needed break until the 10th of January.

So what has transpired over the past month in the world of American politics?  Several important events to be sure...and I'm sure I'll miss some along the way.

1)  The remarkable rise of Herman Cain as the GOP's anti-Romney seems to have come full circle as his poll numbers have shrunk after a series of missteps, including his campaign's unorthodox handling of the sexual harassment allegations against Mr. Cain.  The allegations, some apparently well-documented, others blowing in the breeze, didn't hurt Mr. Cain as much as his unclear and occasionally contradictory refutations of them did.  Following the allegations Mr. Cain's weakness on foreign policy and national security issues was exposed in consecutive Republican debates, fumbled answers to direct questions at a sit down interview with a Wisconsin reporter, seeming not to understand that Cubans speak Spanish, and so on.  Some will argue that this is evidence of a conspiratorial left-wing media out to destroy a viable GOP candidate.  I think, rather, it is evidence of a candidate not yet ready for primetime.

2)  Dovetailing with the fall of Cain from grace has been the meteoric rise of Newt Gingrich.  Newt has gone from the high single digits in most pre-November polls to the lead in several early primary states as the GOP desperately seeks anybody but Romney to be their standard bearer, even if this means nominating a man who has been divorced three times, suffers from foot in mouth disease, and thinks it might be a good idea for grade school children to work evenings as janitors cleaning up their schools.  Newt is nothing if not an idea man...in many ways the right-wing version of a policy wonk like Bill Clinton was for centrist Democrats.  There is no doubt about Gingrich's talents and abilities but the practical implications of his policy preferences are as yet unknown.  Can he hold on until Iowa and snag a few early victories?  Probably because he is really the only other candidate in the race qualified to be president apart from the two Mormons, Romney and Huntsman.

3)  The Super Committee failed spectacularly at cutting $1.2 trillion from future deficits, largely because the GOP was adamant about not raising taxes on the 1% to offset some of the cuts in benefits and services they proposed on the 99%.

4)  The Occupy Wall Street movement gained some traction and got plenty of good press over the past few weeks along with some not so good news as they were evicted from their camps in many cities.  I had the chance to visit one of these camps in Philadelphia last week and while I share many of their concerns I have my own qualms about their methods.  On the one hand, ensuring that a sector of society that is usually invisible is noticed is a good thing.  On the other, failing to police their encampments and ensure sanitary conditions is not.  While in Philly, OWS marched down Market Street and seemed to be well received by those gathering on the sidewalks as they passed by.  The demonstrations there were peaceful and well ordered as the police department cleared pathways for the demonstrators and ensured public safety.  Kudos to the Philly PD for a great job.

I'm sure there is plenty I missed over the past few weeks as well.  If there's anything you'd like to see posted here just drop me an email or make a comment.  Hope everyone had a wonderful Thanksgiving.

Coming to a city near you, Occupy Anytown, USA

It's been a couple of weeks since the last post here, primarily due to a very busy couple of weeks in the office and classroom.  Grading exams and papers, preparing lectures, and writing a paper for presentation in Philadelphia in November has left me with little time for blogging.  But enough about that.  Something seems to be afoot and the Obama Administration is paying attention.  In the past week the president has announced executive initiatives to make it easier for those with 'underwater' mortgages to refinance their homes and for individuals with low incomes to reduce their student loan payments and have their unpaid balances forgiven after 20 years instead of the current 25 years.  Both are steps in the right direction.  The Occupy Wall Street movement deserves, at least in my humble opinion, a little bit of credit for that.  Yesterday, I spent a half an hour talking with a reporter for the Jackson Clarion-Ledger about the movement and its message.

Occupy Wall Street, hereafter OWS, began nearly two months ago as a protest in New York City aimed largely at the 'fat cats' on Wall Street who have done exceptionally well over the previous three decades while much of the rest of America has ostensibly been left behind.  The top 1% has prospered while the bottom 99% has floundered, or so the argument goes.  The OWS movement has a lot of solid ground upon which to base their argument, such as a report by the Congressional Budget Office showing that the top 1% of earners enjoyed real, after-tax income growth of 275% between 1979 and 2007.  The next 19% saw their incomes grow by 65% over that period, while those in the 21st to 79th percentile saw income grow by an average of 40%.  The bottom 20% saw average income grow only 18% over the 28 year period.  The full CBO report can be found here.  To many in the OWS movement this is indicative of greed on the part of Wall Street and other wealthy interests.  I think they are partially correct because greed drives markets in general, but I also think they may be barking up the wrong tree.  The question, what has enabled the tremendous growth of income for the top 1%, is a good one.  The answer, I think, is far more complex than OWS protesters recognize or want to admit.

The real answer lies in the capture of government by corporate special interests.  Over the past 50 years Washington D.C. has been inundated by special interest groups taking up residence on K Street and clamoring for policy makers to protect their constituents (or provide them subsidies).  They've argued against regulations and worked to roll back tax rates on the wealthy, some of which reached 90% during the Eisenhower Administration.  The devil has been in the details, as the old adage goes.  Recently, political scientists Paul Pierson and Jacob Hacker tackled the question of why the distribution of wealth and income in America has been much less equal since the 1980's than it was between 1946 and 1979, when incomes grew at a good pace for nearly everybody.  In their book, "Winner Take All Politics: How Washington Made the Rich Richer--and Turned its Back on the Middle Class" they take on some of the classic arguments about technology, globalization, and just plain working harder.  Each is found to be lacking when it comes to explaining the increase in inequality over the past three decades.  While not pointing a finger at either party in Congress, Pierson and Hacker argue that the culprit is public policies that have been designed by elites for elites.  As a result, the top 1% of Americans have gone from controlling about 9% of the wealth in 1980 to 24% in 2007.  This is not the result of simply working harder or smarter.  If it were, I'd be perfectly fine with it since I support the idea the of reaping the fruits of one's labor.  It is the result of deliberate choices made by our elected representatives.

I think OWS has a significant message to get out to the American people but I fear they are targeting the wrong people.  Most Americans are not aware of the income distribution inequality in the country and are often shocked when they realize just how skewed it is.  In large part, I think, it is because we have segregated ourselves into like-minded groups sharing the same socio-economic status.  Millionaires are not hanging out with people earning $10 an hour who find it difficult to fill their gas tanks with gasoline at $3.50 a gallon.  The people who shop at Wal-Mart are not the same people who frequent Neiman-Marcus or Sak's Fifth Avenue.  There is a divide in America today between not only the rich and the poor but between the lower middle class and the upper middle class.  OWS has at the very least made more Americans aware of this.  Sadly, some have taken to lawbreaking to get the message out, which only serves to reduce its effectiveness.  Fortunately, this appears to be a very tiny percentage of the protesters who are engaged in unlawful activity.  Instead of occupying Wall Street, perhaps they ought to be occupying K Street in Washington, D.C.?

It Cain't be, Cain it?

I've spent a lot of time in this space talking about polls lately and today I'm going to continue that theme.  In the past week we've had yet another sparsely watched GOP debate, a slew of new polls, a few high ranking endorsements, and much more news about the Boston Red Sox than we ever need to know!  For you Sox fans, you know what I mean. 

The Republican Debate Tuesday at Dartmouth College in New Hampshire was interesting if only for the format itself.  The 'perceived' eight genuine candidates were seated around a conference table facing three moderators asking questions.  The group was led by Charlie Rose, who did a good job overall.  The questions centered on the economy and economic policy, which really played to Mitt Romney's strength.  It also led to lots of opportunities for Herman Cain to say 'nine-nine-nine.'  So many, in fact, that he is now leading the GOP field in several national polls.  Huh?  Whazzat, you say?  Exactly. 

Who is Herman Cain?  Where did he come from?  Are his polling numbers for real?  Slow down, Betsy, we'll get there.  For now I'll just say 'Who knows, Who cares, and Nope.'  The question everyone ought to be asking is not who is he or where did he come from but why is he doing so well in the polls? The answer to that one, dear reader, is actually pretty easy.  I'll get there soon enough as well. 

First off, who is Herman Cain?  Nearly everybody knows he is the former CEO of Godfather's Pizza (a truly awful pizza, in my humble opinion).  Less well known is that he served in various capacities on the Federal Reserve Bank of Kansas City in the early 1990's.  He's also a Baptist minister and has run for the GOP nomination for senator from Georgia (lost in the primaries).  By all accounts he has been remarkably successful in both the private and public sectors. 

Where did he come from?  Proverbially speaking, out of the blue!  He's been a candidate longer than anyone in the field except Mitt Romney, who's been running since 2007 pretty much non-stop.  Cain announced his exploratory committee in January 2011...beating now President Barack Obama's 2007 announcement by more than a month.  He officially entered the race in May and struggled to make headway until the Florida GOP debates, after which time he took off in the polls. 

So, are his numbers for real?  I don't think so.  That's not to say he can't win a few states and give some members of the GOP establishment heartburn (and present southern conservatives with an interesting choice between an African-American conservative and a Mormon pseudo-conservative).  Just as Mike Huckabee did in 2008 when he won the Iowa Caucuses, so, too, could Cain.  But that would likely be the end of his amazing rise.  One thing is for sure though, win or lose, Cain will come out of this race better off than he went in. 

On to the main question...why has Cain suddenly taken off in the polls?  The quick and dirty answer is that 'he ain't Mitt Romney.'  The conservative base, led by the demagoguery of Rush Limbaugh and Sean Hannity, despises Mitt Romney, largely because he represents a wing of the Republican Party they've been trying to kill off for more than a decade.  Romney is a centrist, pragmatic, northeastern moderate with a center-right philosophy of governing.  He is, in other words, a part of the GOP establishment.  He's not a fanatical 'true believer' in rolling back the New Deal, shrinking government so it 'can be drowned in the bathtub', as Grover Norquist has intoned.  Mitt Romney understands that doing those things would bring America to her knees and make all of us worse off, not better.  And that's why Cain has risen so rapidly.  The previous GOP savior and true believer, Texas Governor Rick Perry, turned out to be all too human.  Gasp!  He...compromised?  He cared about the children of illegal immigrants and whether they would become productive members of the Texas economy?  Heaven forbid!  He tried to do something that might save thousands of women from dying of cancer needlessly?  Off with his head, they cried!

Before the rise of Herman Cain it was Michelle Bachmann, winner of the Iowa Straw Poll.  Darling of the right wing media and the Tea Party.  An empty suit with an empty head who confused where Lexington and Concord are (MA, not NH) and where the Revolutionary War began, failed to distinguish between the birthplace of notorious serial killer John Wayne Gacy and American screen legend John Wayne.  A woman who claimed to have adopted 23 children...until someone discovered that she actually was a foster care provider (a good thing, IMHO) and that some of the children were only in her care for a month.  Her fall from grace was as precipitous as Governor Perry's and may be unrivaled by anything in history other than Lucifer's fall from heaven.

The others in the field have never really been able to gain any traction but I wouldn't be surprised if between now and the Iowa Caucuses on January 3rd to see another of the candidates rise spectacularly to the top.  If I had to bet on one of them, it would be Newt Gingrich.  But it would be a bet I would not be too confident about.  I also think Ron Paul could make a daring move to the top before imploding.  Make no mistake, the rise of Herman Cain has everything to do with anti-Romney sentiment and nothing to do with Herman Cain.  Just as it did with Perry and Bachmann before him, the tide will turn, and Cain, too, will not be able to knock Mitt Romney off his perch.  And that is just as it ought to be.