Political Football

Waiting for the Hail Mary

The GOP is split into four overlapping factions: the libertarians, fundamentalist theocrats, pragmatic Republicans and the Tea Party. It would be ideal that a leader would emerge that would unite the factions, but that will be unlikely. What is more likely is that Obama will unite these factions like only a common enemy could.

Newt, who filmed a global warming ad with Nancy Pelosi and bashed  Mitt for being a capitalist is deemed the truer conservative than the man with experience in the private and public sector who actually got elected and governed as a GOP in a dominantly Democratic state.  Men with records have something to shoot at. Both men have made attractive targets.

In a game of football you achieve points by moving the ball down the field.  If you move it at least ten yards you get to keep moving.  If you don’t move it ten yards you either hand the ball to the other side or kick it to them. You can  go for the Hail Mary Pass, a desperate measure in the final minutes of the game, but if a desperate measure is a part of your early strategy you will not likely win.

Mitt is playing traditional football, moving the ball to the goal, one play at a time.  Mitt understands a critical factor that the Tea Party seems to miss; there is opposition in the political game.  It is easy to pontificate opinions as I do in this blog.  It is quite another to govern; to pass bills and make changes when there is opposition.

Mitch Daniels referred to RIMOs (Republicans In Mouth Only). These were Republicans who could talk a conservative pitch but were clueless to the realities of governing. He often found that when he tried to move the ball toward a more conservative goal, his biggest opposition was from fellow Republicans who complained that he was not moving the ball far enough down the field.  Due to the opposition from his own party he sometimes failed to move the ball the ten yards toward the goal and ended up fumbling any progress.

The Tea Party keeps Twittering and Facebooking to their choir and have become blind to the political realities.   We need candidates who can consistently move the ball ten yards at a time.  In the NFL Roger Staubach (a Roman Catholic) said, “I closed my eyes and said a Hail Mary.” It may have worked for the Vikings in a 1975 playoff, but it will not win the White House.



Going Newt

Newt may be intelligent, but he is not smart. His recent attack on Romney’s tenure at Bain capital is an embarrassment to his party.

A survey at conservative National Review shows 80% of the readers thought Newt’s attack was disgraceful.  It either shows no understanding of market realities or the eager willingness to torch one’s principles for political gain.  It is particularly foolish to not consider how the conservative base would react. Could he have possibly believed that this tactic would have improved his chances? Is he getting campaign advice from Michael Moore?  Worse yet, is he taking it?

From Ross Kaminski at American Spectator, Anti-Romney — Or Anti-Capitalism? (1/10/12):

First, who is Newt Gingrich, whose entire life has been in politics, academia, and self-promotion, to offer judgment on how businesses are or should be run? Gingrich’s qualifications in this area are little better than Barack Obama’s, but at least Gingrich’s self-promotion was done a few times through for-profit companies which appear, in total, to have hired a few dozen people — and fired some of them when Gingrich Communications was shut down last year when Newt announced his campaign. I don’t buy into the idea that a business decision is better if it helps others more than it helps you, but at least Romney’s job firings were done to protect the jobs of others as well as the investments of those who trusted Romney. Newt fired people just so he could run for office. What’s good for the goose, Newt?

And by the way, Newt, what “style of investment” do you want to recommend as comporting with your holier-than-thou approach to business ethics — one that perhaps does not require trading on political influence and connections the rest of us don’t have, and which were not the foundation of Mitt Romney’s financial success (quite different from, for example, collecting $1.6 million from Freddie Mac for “advice as a historian”)?

from Kim Strassel at The Wall Street Journal, Romney Derangement Syndrome, 1/10/12:

There’s something more wrong, at least for many conservative voters, with demonstrating a poor grasp of the fundamentals of the free market. Bain cut jobs. It also created jobs. It made money. It also lost money. This is what happens in business, and there is no version of it that is warm and fuzzy, and where everyone wins. To beat on Bain — and its business of taking big risks, restructuring firms, making bets — is to beat on every other investment firm, private-equity group, and hedge fund in America. The voters understand this, too, which is why Mr. Gingrich reaped a backlash in December, the first time he took a shot at Mr. Romney’s business record. He found out then how difficult it is to hit Mr. Romney on this issue without also leaving voters with doubts as to his own beliefs in the basics of capitalism.

Also in The Wall Street Journal, The Bain Capital Bonfire, 1/11/12:

A Wall Street Journal news story this week reported that Bain in the Romney era differed from many equity firms in buying more young and thus riskier companies. This contributed to a higher rate of bankruptcy or closure—22%—for companies held by Bain after eight years.

Bain disputes the Journal’s calculations, but one test of overall success is whether investors keep entrusting a firm with their money. Mr. Romney and his colleagues raised $37 million for their first fund in 1984. Today, Bain Capital manages roughly $66 billion. Its investors include college endowments and public pension funds that have increased their investments in private equity to get larger returns than stocks and bonds provide. The people who benefit from those returns thus include average workers.

Bain’s turnaround hits include Sports Authority and tech-research outfit Gartner Inc., which was once a small division of an advertising firm and is now a public company worth more than $3 billion. Another success was Steel Dynamics, which used Bain money to build a new steel factory and now employs 6,000 people.

Also read Newt Goes Kamikaze in Powerline. 1/11/12:

Is it really possible that Newt failed to recognize the likely temporary nature of his fortune as the non-Romney of the week? I’m afraid it is. One thing we’ve learned over the past few days is that there isn’t much Newt believes in more than himself.

HKO:

Newt has no one to blame for his rapid drop in the polls than himself.  His willingness to sacrifice principles for political gain and his utter lack of grace make him unfit for the office, no matter how intelligent he sounds.



Political Notes 2012 01 09

I still contend that merely ‘going negative’ does not work.  Newt is not dropping because Mitt went negative; he is dropping because of his own comments that sound extreme.  Cain did not drop because of his accusations of sexual misconduct; he dropped because he exposed his ignorance on foreign affairs.  Not only did he admit he did not know, he suggested it was not even important that he should know.

Calling Mitt a liar repeatedly will not help Newt in the polls, nor will Rick Perry saying Mitt likes to fire people.  This is just juvenile noise.  There is good negative and bad negative. They need to learn the difference.  Blasting a person’s positions is good negative, blasting them on irrelevant trivialities is bad negative.

Mitt looks like the runaway. He looks like a president selected out of Hollywood casting. However I don’t think he wins because he is that good, but because the rest are that bad.

Paul Ryan

I heard Paul Ryan on the radio.  He referred to the fact that this administration has turned the safety net into a hammock.  What a great metaphor.  He referred to the policies such as Dodd- Frank as ‘managed decline’, another great original phrase.  He is smart and clear.  What a great candidate he would make.

Former Georgia Congressman Jim Marshall spoke at our Rotary today on health care.  A moderate Democrat, he lost, in my opinion,  due to the Pelosi backlash.  Marshall had a lot of Republican support before, but I met more and more voters who were so appalled at the performance of the  Democrats when they controlled both houses that they could not pull the lever for any Democrat.

Jim asserted that while the population is centrist that few centrists survive in Congress because the more extreme members are entrenched through districting and seniority.

Though a Democrat, Jim voted against Obama Care, and has written about more free market reforms.  His most noted article Real Health-Care Reform, was published in The National Review in 2010.  It is worth a read.

An excerpt from his article:

Blaming our runaway health-care costs on insurers, drug manufacturers, lawyers, and medical providers distracts us from focusing on the principal culprit: our excessive dependence on a third-party-payer system. That’s what truly drives our cost dilemma. And that’s what Americans must focus on if we have any hope of overcoming the entrenched habits and interests that maintain this utterly wasteful and costly status quo.

We should slowly migrate away from the current system. Absent some acceptable alternative, third-party payers could continue offering comprehensive service to those who cannot effectively manage health care on their own. Most Americans, however, should participate in a sufficiently robust private market for health-care services, a market that settles on a price and also sets the expected standard of care. Today, there is no such market for health care, nor is there one for most military goods and services. The Pentagon tackles this price-for-quality problem with thousands of “acquisition specialists” only because it has no market option. Health care has a market option.

Jim Marshall

Jim also proposed medical care providers making their best price for cash payment at time of delivery.  He supported HSAs but only for catastrophic coverage not high deductible plans. To provide true market incentives he wants more users paying without sending anything through a third party.  Otherwise, he contends, only the healthiest will participate in HSAs and will adversely affect the risk pool.

Good ideas.  It is hard to envision Congress getting their head out of their asses long enough to even consider such logical ideas and his party certainly does not seem ready to embrace his free market approach.  But he made a very worthy presentation.



Primary Volatility

For a smart businessman Donald Trump is a horrible politician. His campaign flamed out quickly because it was foolishly focused on the citizenship issue and was easily dispensed.  He has never held political office. He is all show and ego and has no acceptable political credibility.

Herman Cain, also a business man with no experience in elected office, also proved politically inept.  He not only showed poor knowledge of political issues but saw no need to gain any.  He is just far more likable and humble than Trump.

Newt flamed out quickly in his early entry, but has had a re-emergence that appears to be quickly running out of steam.  Newt has political experience and has thought and written much about political issues.  But Newt has tragic flaws. He thinks out loud, which is a severe liability when you have the bully pulpit.  He has some great ideas and he has some bad ideas, and he floats them all.  He flamed out early by attacking Paul Ryan.  He claimed he was quoted out of context and I believe that was true, but Newt is always being taken out of context because he talks too much. Yes he is bright and clever and great on the debate stump.  Ideas however are a dime a dozen. Getting better laws passed in the face of stiff opposition is a unique skill. While he has displayed this in the past I think those days are gone.

Bill Bennett made an observation of Newt that he has a need to be the smartest guy in the room.  He throws out more ideas in a day than most do in a year.  Both of these observations are lethal in a president.  His latest in a string of idea grenades is to strong arm judges who he judges to offer unfit opinions and rulings.

Newt is opposed by the editorial board of the arch conservative National Review and by conservatives such as Ann Coulter.  Newt tosses so many idea grenades that one was likely to go off in his hand.  I think that the last idea about controlling judges was that grenade.

Ron Paul should not be taken as a serious candidate. His rise is temporary and likely the result of a strong effort focused in Iowa that cannot be repeated nationwide.   His views on foreign policy and the Federal Reserve are just too far out there.  While we have certainly made more than our share of blunders in foreign affairs, that does not mean that we should avoid it to the extent he suggests.  And while he finds fault with the Fed he should remember that the Fed was started because of previous recessions.  With Ron Paul I am reminded that even in the face of irrefutable evidence you can still reach the wrong conclusion.

Paul had a history of associations with elements that cause concern.  In The Company Ron Paul Keeps in The Weekly Standard , 12/26/11, James Kirchick writes:

While Paul’s views on Israel certainly place him outside the American, never mind Republican, mainstream, there is an even more elementary reason the RJC  (Republican Jewish Colaition) was right to exclude him from its event. It is Paul’s lucrative and decades-long promotion of bigotry and conspiracy theories, for which he has yet to account fully, and his continuing espousal of extremist views, that should make him unwelcome at any respectable forum, not only those hosted by Jewish organizations.

All of these candidate rose and fell in public opinion. I think that the Tea Party is new to the political game and quick to fall for anything that appears to be different from whatever we currently have. But they haven’t matured enough to know what they do want nor how to obtain it in the real world of political opposition. When they do mature, and I do believe it is happening as I write, they will be an awesome force to be reckoned with.

They may not like Mitt Romney for sound reasons, but he is the only one with government and private sector experience and unlike all the rest he has maintained a stable position while the rest rise and flame out, some more than once.

The only thing I think that will unseat Mitt is some dark horse candidate.  Mitt may not be perfect by a long shot, but with a solid VP (spelled Condoleeza Rice) he has the opportunity to not just defeat Obama, but to do it with a margin big enough to justify a mandate to undo the disasters this administration has unleashed.



Political Amateur Hour

On the road today I listened to Donald Trump on Cavuto.  He said that HE would decide if the Republicans chose the right candidate, and if they did not that he may enter the race as a third party candidate.  He is an arrogant ass for such a comment.  He ran a stupid campaign based on the birther issue and was promptly made a fool and dropped out.  Ross Perot ran a similar campaign, and made some ridiculous assertions about why he entered the race, dropped out and then re-entered.  It was stunning then how large a vote he got with such erratic behavior.  Trump appears to be following in his footsteps, and there still seems to be plenty of fools ready to follow him.

While private sector experience is a plus, the mere attainment of substantial wealth does not translate into a suitable candidate.  Politics requires persuasion and compromise and is antithetical to control freak entrepreneurs like Perot and Trump.

Herman Cain has never held elected office.  Politics is a profession and it is a bit presumptuous to assume business success will translate to political success.  He was both naïve and ignorant of the political process, and the requirements of the office.  He had thought little or poorly about important issues facing the highest office.

Newt likes to be bombastic.  He likes to throw controversial opinions like water balloons at a picnic.  This may be acceptable behavior as a writer or a pundit, but it is very unpresidential.  To suggest that the Palestinians are a “made up people” may have some elements of truth to it, but it a ridiculous to make such a statement if you wish to have any positive impact on Middle East Negotiations.  He has a litany of such statements including his explanation years ago that women should not be in combat because they get “infections” regularly.

One pundit noted that Newt likes the ideas that occupy the books at the airport, suggesting that his intellect is shallow.  Perhaps.  My problem is not that he is not widely read and knowledgeable about a lot of topics a president should know;  my problem is that he is capable of rationalizing just about any action he chooses, even if it is the opposite of the one he floated last week.  I do not begrudge that a candidate can change his opinion over time.

But there are two kinds of Republicans: those who think that government should be smaller and those that think big government is ok as long as the GOP controls the reigns.  Newt seems clearly to be the latter.   He has adapted his line of thinking to the Tea Party and that is good if we can depend on him to follow through.

The Tea Party is beginning to remind me of the cancer patient, shocked to reality  by the diagnosis and trying desperately  to become more informed than the treating oncologist with three decades of experience and ten years of medical school.

The Tea Party and many independents were shocked by the Great Recession and the huge growth in government and debt, both under Bush and made worse by Obama’s administration. Before they were happy hosting cook outs, going to high school football games and playing golf.  Now they have to get involved- dammit!

Being president requires more than business success, sexy debating skills, clever phrases and trying to play gotcha.  Political skills do not just fall in your lap because you are smart. It takes study and experience like any other profession.  It also takes extraordinary commitment, careful deliberation, and an acute sense of clarity.  Ideas in DC are a dime a dozen; making effective legislation happen in a hostile and partisan environment  is not a task for amateurs.

The Democrats do not represent a majority, but they have the advantage of solidarity.  It will be a tragic disappointment if the GOP cannot mange to solidify around a candidate to unseat the worst president in a half century.