The upcoming Republican caucuses in Colorado and Minnesota, along with the non-binding primary in Missouri should determine once and for all who will be anointed as the front-running, “non-Romney” candidate in the GOP.  This is not a small issue among the ultra-conservative “Tea Party” wing, who view Romney as a betrayer of  core Republican values, and an opportunist that is  willing to compromise with the Democrats when politically expedient.  The dilemma for the Tea Party  has always been whom to choose among the rather pathetic group of  conservative presidential aspirants.  Michelle Bachmann bombed out early due to her obvious lack of knowledge and experience; Rick Perry headed for the door after making a fool of himself during the Republican debates; Herman Cain slithered out the back  after several accusations of sleazy affairs, and Jon Huntsman bowed out after realizing that the Republicans were not really interested in another Romney alternative.  This leaves the Tea Party wing of the GOP with two proven losers to choose from: Newt Gingrich, who was booted out of Congress for ethics violations, and Rick Santorum, who lost his re-election bid by the widest margin in Pennsylvania history.

Since  scoring impressive gains in the 2010 mid-term elections, many conservative Republicans have been  salivating over  the thought of seeing one of their own capture the presidency in 2012.  Conservative prophets, such as Rush Limbaugh and Karl Rove, gloried in the victories of conservatism, and exhorted the party faithful to deny the President (and the people of the United States) any legislative victories.  All new initiatives were to be voted down, and all judges and presidential appointments were to be filibustered.  The Republican game plan was clear; forget the business of governing, and concentrate all efforts on denying Obama a second term.  To a great extent, the Republicans have managed to get their own way by becoming the “Party of no”.  After subjecting the American public to two years of legislative stone-walling, what conservative, Tea-Party leaning candidates have the Republicans come up with? Newt Gingrich and Rick Santorum and it is almost beyond belief that Gingrich and Santorum are the best the Tea Party has to offer.

On the eve of the latest round of caucuses and primaries, it appears that Rick Santorum has become the latest “flavor of the month”, Tea Party candidate.   This can be evidenced by the fact that the Romney campaign has largely given up on attacking Newt Gingrich, and concentrated its efforts on portraying Santorum as being part of the big spending establishment in Congress, and of an influence peddling while being in the Senate.  Clearly, Santorum’s star in on the rise, and Newt’s star is about ready to be snuffed out forever.  To a certain extent, this would be a good thing for the Republican Party, since  much time and effort has been wasted on determining who will wear the “non-Romney” crown.

Although the right wing of the GOP may have finally found their candidate for 2012, Santorum will never muster up enough support to derail the more moderate Mitt Romney, nor would he have a ghost of a chance of beating Obama in the General Election.   In the final analysis, the Tea Party movement will fail to impact the American political landscape in any permanent or significant way,  and this will amount to a victory for the American people.

Rich

As a young Navy man, serving duty aboard the U.S.S. Ticonderoga off the coast of Viet Nam in 1969, I’ll never forget the  feelings of pride and awe I experienced when told about the landing of two American astronauts on the surface of the Moon.  At that time, very few of us questioned why our nation would so feverishly pursue such an expensive and dangerous endeavor.  We simply knew that America had to beat the Soviets to the Moon in order to prove the superiority of American technology and  capitalism, and the inferiority of the Communist-inspired, Soviet  system of government.  By the time Armstrong and Aldrin walked on the Moon, it was already well established that our closest neighbor in space was nothing more than a sterile and inhospitable rock, with little or no commercial value, and almost no hope of ever being capable of supporting human life.  None-the-less, the victory of the Americans over the Soviets in the race to the Moon seemed worth it at the time, and provided a great (albeit temporary) lift to the national “esprit de corp”.  The historic flight of Apollo 11 was followed by another half dozen or so trips to the Moon before the American public finally shut down the manned space flight program due to a reluctance to pay the exorbitant costs that it entailed.

It’s been over thirty years now since the last trip to the Moon, although manned space flight has been continued by both the Americans and Russians through the use of   re-usable space shuttles and rockets that have delivered astronauts to various versions of space stations in low Earth orbit.  During this time it has become increasingly obvious that human beings are far too fragile to endure the rigors of extended space travel, and that the life support systems necessary to prolong human life are too cumbersome to supply and maintain life  for any length of time.  In short, manned space exploration doesn’t make sense, especially when unmanned vehicles and machines can do the job much more cheaply and infinitely more efficiently.  There is little doubt that NASA recognized this reality when the aging fleet of U.S. Space Shuttles were retired, and no provision was made for replacements.   From now on, any trips to the International Space Station, which is the only remaining place to go in near space these days, will have to be made aboard a foreign made launch vehicle.  Like so many other industries, the delivery of U.S. astronauts  to the I.S.S. has been (at least temporarily) outsourced.

In a recent campaign speech to partisan residents of Eastern Florida, Newt Gingrich proposed a mega-billion dollar joint effort between government and the private sector to return Americans to the Moon by 2020.  Not only did Gingrich propose returning to the Moon, but he also suggested establishing a permanent Moon colony.  The idea of spending hundreds of billions of dollars in taxpayer money for such a foolish and wasteful endeavor, especially at a time when the U.S. National debt is over $15.0 trillion and millions of Americans are struggling to find employment, is just another  indication of Gingrich’s political extremism.  According to Newt, hundreds of billions of dollars should be spent for a colony on the Moon, but not a cent more should be spent on extending unemployment benefits, or for providing health care benefits to the uninsured, or for early education programs for the poor.  In essence, Gingrich is proposing tax cuts for the rich and a Moon base for the rest of us.  Perhaps Gingrich has lobbied Freddie MAC to underwrite the Moon Base mortgage?  Hmmmm, now it’s beginning to make sense!

Rich

Earlier this week President Obama delivered his third State of The Union address to Congress  since becoming President  in 2009.   To his credit, the President’s speech was an upbeat assessment of how much conditions have improved in America since the waning days of the Bush Administration; when the U.S. economy was losing 500,000 jobs per month, and the country was teetering on the precipice of total collapse.  Obama reminded his listeners that the U.S. economy has shown increases in employment for the last twenty-two months in a row, that the banking and auto industries were saved from impending bankruptcy, and that U.S. troops have been brought home from Iraq.  Although acknowledging that unemployment was still too high, and that the economic recovery was still gaining steam, Mr. Obama painted a very realistic and optimistic picture that things were  heading in the right direction in America.  Within the Obama Administration, and certainly within the population in general, there seems to be a renewed feeling of optimism in the air.

A feeling of optimism, of course, is the last thing that many Republicans want to happen during an election year.  Senator Mitch McConnell summed up the Republican Party‘s  number one priority quite well when he stated that defeating Barack Obama in 2012 was more important than anything else, even more important than serving the interests of the very people that sent him to Congress in the first place.  For McConnell, a decrease in unemployment, a turn-around in the residential housing market, and a steady increase in the value of Americans’ retirement funds spells nothing but political disaster.  In fact, even before the ink had dried on President Obama’s State of The Union speech, Mitt Romney and Newt Gingrich took to the campaign trail to tell the American people how horrible things were across the country, and how badly the Obama Administration had failed.  Unfortunately, the “truth-impaired”  Republican presidential candidates came across as desperate politicians, hell bent on doing and saying everything possible to convince the American people that the whole country would go down the tubes without the enlightened benevolence of conservative political thinking.  As the year 2012 presses on, and as the economic recovery continues to gain momentum, the Republicans no longer be able to deny the successes of the Obama Administration, and will see their “platform of dissent” melt slowly away.

There are few Americans who would deny that the last three years have been a time of unprecedented political gridlock in our county.  As a result of constant Republican obstructionism and the indiscriminate use of the power of the filibuster, the Obama Administration and the Democrats have been considerably slowed down in their efforts to improve the lives of middle class Americans.  In spite of Republican efforts to the contrary, however, the Obama Administration has guided America into a new age of prosperity, which lies just over the horizon.  There is little doubt that the radical voices of ultra right-wing conservatism will be shown the door in November, and that the progressive age of American politics will once again more forward under the leadership of Barack Obama.

Rich

After watching the four Republican presidential candidates “duke it out” on stage last night in Tampa, I finally came to the conclusion that a vote for “none of the above” was probably the best course of action.  I realize, of course, that primary voters will not really be given the option of selecting “none of the above” on their ballots, but perhaps they should.  How else can the Republican Party get the message that none of the four remaining  candidates are presidential material, and that none of the candidates have the leadership skills or strength of character to guide America through  the stormy waters that lie ahead.  In retrospect, the debate was more like a family squabble between Romney and Gingrich than it was a political forum where the candidates explained their positions on the issues.  Although it has been asked many times over the last six months, the question still remains “Is this really the best the Republican Party has to offer the American people?”

The presumptive front-runner, Mitt Romney, who has spent the last six years running for President,  has consistently failed to excite the electorate.  His political positions constantly change, depending on who he is talking to, and his business experience as a venture capitalist made him an expert in eliminating jobs rather than creating them.  Mitt is certainly not adverse to spreading lies and half-truths about his Republican competitors, and even more “truth-impaired” when it comes to President Obama‘s record.  The un-Romney candidate, Newt Gingrich, is even worse.  Gingrich, who is know far and wide as a bad-tempered and intolerant bully, got himself thrown out of Congress over a decade ago for ethics violations, left a trail of ex-wives who had lost their usefulness to him, and spent the last five years influence peddling for quasi-government organizations at the expense of taxpayers.  He was much reviled when he was Speaker of The House, and continues to be much reviled by those who know him the best.  It is beyond sad that the top two Republican candidates for the Presidency of the United States of America would be so totally unworthy of that high office.

The remaining two Republican presidential candidates, Rick Santorum and Ron Paul, are so completely out of the mainstream political thought in America that they barely deserve mention.  The first one, Santorum, sees birth control pills as a threat to America’s freedom, and the second one, Paul, sees Medicare and Social Security as the ultimate downfall of American society.  Neither one gives a tinkers damn about the plight of the middle class, and both see the major role of the federal government as getting out of the way of laisez-faire capitalists.

Unfortunately for the Republicans, the cast of characters for the 2012 presidential elections has been set in cement.  There is no way that a decent, or even half-decent, character (or candidate) could be added to the slate at so late a time.   As time goes by, the writing on the wall is becoming clearer and clearer; President Obama will be elected in November to lead our country for another four years.

Rich

As the first few days of 2012 slide by, there is very little indication that the new year will bring much relief from the political tensions and turmoils that embroil humanity from one side of the globe to the other.   The simmering tensions between the religious sects in Iraq continue to  heat up, the war between the Taliban and the government forces in Afghanistan and Pakistan continue to be  more explosive and destructive than ever, the much sought-after political reforms in Egypt, Libya and Bahrain continue to be elusive, and the Palestinians and Israelis continue to be hell-bent on following a path toward  another war.  Although 2012 will definitely be a year of simmering tensions across the Middle East and North Africa, the most dangerous potential conflict for the new year will most likely be between the United States and Iran.  In fact, things have already started out badly with Iran’s threat to block the shipping lanes in the Straights of Hormuz.

Over the last few years, the international community under the leadership of the United States, has imposed increasingly harsh sanctions against Iran, which have taken a significant toll on Iran’s ability to grow its economy and provide a higher standard of living to its citizens.  Although the sanctions are intended to motivate the Iranian government to halt the development of nuclear weapons, they have done little to slow Iran’s nuclear development efforts, and have  greatly increased the level of hatred among the Iranian people toward the United States.  There is little doubt that the imposition of even harsher sanctions against Iran will eventually cause them to push back with provocative actions such as closing the Straights of Hormuz, or even attacking Israel.  Once the “bullets begin to fly”, there will be no chance of turning back. The United States will once again be involved in a dangerous and bloody foreign war.

At the current time, President Obama has chosen to focus U.S. efforts on finding a diplomatic solution to the “Iranian Problem,” and he has combined diplomatic efforts with economic sanctions.  The United States’ policy has been to work with the U.N. and the community of nations to convince Iran that the development and deployment of nuclear weapons is not in its best interests, and certainly not in the best interests of the rest of the world.  This seems to be the right approach.  If, in fact, the Iranians should take a unilateral military action by closing off the Straights of Hormuz, then the U.S. should become part of a coalition of world powers to force Iran to back down.  Under no circumstances should the United States engage in direct, unilateral military action against the Iranian Naval forces.  Since the  blocking of the Straights of Hormuz would adversely affect powerful countries throughout the world, and since such a blockade would shut down the economic engine of many of Iran’s Arab neighbors, there is no reason why the United States should be the only country actively engaging in hostilities.  Similar to the coalition that helped to liberate Libya from the iron-fisted rule of Gaddafi,  let a similar coalition rid the Middle East of Iranian military aggression.

The public positions taken by the six remaining, Republican presidential candidates (with the exception of Ron Paul) regarding relations with Iran  call for aggressive and unilateral military actions on the part of the U.S. military.  This would undoubtedly result in another long and bloody conflict.  A conflict that America can ill afford.

Rich

“There is one state in which at least weak beginnings toward a better conception are noticeable. Of course, it is not our model German Republic, but the United States.” ~Adolf Hitler, Mein Kampf.

The other evening I sat down and turned on the TV to catch up on the latest in politics. What I saw instead was a riveting interview by CNN correspondent Anderson Cooper with professor and author, Paul A. Lombardo, who discussed his 2008 book, Three Generations: No Imbeciles. While I make no claims to being an intellectual, I have a college degree and have done some post-graduate work. Not once had I read, nor been instructed in my classes about the practice of eugenics or social engineering in America and its subsequent influence on practices of the Hitler regime.

Paul A. Lombardo stated in the interview that forced sterilization was practiced in the United States from 1907 to well into the 1970’s. Appalled and aghast, I had to find more information. Has this been another chapter in American history books that has been conveniently tossed aside along with details of our internment of Japanese Americans, true accounts of slave and child labor, or a novel such as The Catcher in the Rye? What I will give you here is a cursory glimpse into the accounting of Paul A. Lombardo from his book. My hope is that it will spur you, as it did me, to read more of this horrific time.

According to Lombardo, legally-mandated sterilization was supported by a eugenics movement in the United States. The impetus behind this was to approve sterilization of the “socially inadequate.” Lombardo states, “Indiana enacted the first law allowing sterilization on eugenic grounds in 1907, with Connecticut following soon after. Despite these early statutes, sterilization did not gain widespread popular approval until the late 1920’s.” It then spread to at least thirty states. From what I have read so far, the grounds were rather arbitrary and were to be adopted as a cost-saving strategy “to relieve the tax burden in states where public facilities for the insane and feebleminded had experienced rapid growth.”

The criteria for involuntary sterilization included, “feebleminded, insane, criminalistic, epileptic, inebriate, diseased, blind, deaf, deformed, dependent—including orphans, ne’er-do-wells, tramps, the homeless and paupers.” By 1924 almost “3,000 people had been involuntarily sterilized in America; the vast majority (2500) in California.”

The laws in Virginia, according to Lombardo, “asserted that heredity plays an important part in the transmission of insanity, idiocy, imbecility, epilepsy and crime. It focused on defective persons whose reproduction represented a menace to society.”

It is not a stretch, then, to see how Hitler latched onto this movement in his quest for an Aryan Nation. Hitler wrote, “I have studied with great interest the laws of several American states concerning prevention of reproduction by people whose progeny would, in all probability, be of no value or be injurious to the racial stock.” As we know, Hitler then proceeded to mass extermination. And the impetus began here, in the United States of America.

There is a plethora of information on this topic. Have we truly learned from history, or are certain aspects left for us to delve on our own so that indeed, we do not repeat these horrific events? By the end of 1941 there was no safety from Hitler. Those people who did not possess what was deemed to be correct social genetics, or who did not conform to Hitler’s mandated ideals were sentenced to death or work camps, most especially the Jews.

Lawsuits are now in the courts for reparations for this destruction of our own people who were victimized. It is my hope that they will succeed and bring to light the necessity of shackling science for the betterment of society and not its destruction.

I had turned on the TV to listen to current political rhetoric, and instead I gained a lesson in American history. I can assure you, however, that I will be listening closely to all political rhetoric. There have been times when I have heard vague murmurs and underpinnings of the very movement which began a bleak time in this country, and spread to heinous, historic depths. And I think of a line by Holden Caulfield in The Catcher in the Rye, “People never notice anything.”

—cher

There is little doubt that the year 2011 will be remembered by most people as a fairly wretched  year in American history.  The country, along with the  whole rest of the world, seemed to be in constant turmoil.  Beset with chronic unemployment, falling real estate values, higher medical costs  and eroding pensions, Americans didn’t have too much to cheer about in 2011.  Making things worse, the U.S.  system of governance became tied up in knots, and was unable to provide direction or leadership or relief to a battered nation that looked to its politicians for answers.  With all of its problems America did, however, push through another year of weak economic performance, and disappointments to hold on to its resolve to become a better nation.  In fact, a well-known research firm, The Conference Board, recently released figures that showed a surprising high level of optimism among American consumers.

Last week, The Conference Board reported that the overall confidence index jumped up by over 9% in December, after recording a 14% increase in November.  The consumer confidence rate currently stands at a level of 64.5%, after recording the biggest two-month increase since March of 1991 (i.e. 20 years ago).  In a very real sense, the jump in consumer confidence is truly remarkable, given the less-than-stellar year that will soon be coming to an end.  Even more remarkable is the fact that more consumers now think that their incomes will rise over the next six months, rather than show decreases.  In a nutshell, The Conference Board reported that in  just about every category of measuring consumer  confidence, Americans were more optimistic about 2012 than they had been about the preceding three years.  This certainly bodes well for Americans, and perhaps may signal the end to a very painful and drawn-out period of tough economic times.

As an individual trained in the science of economics, I tend to look more at empirical data and leading economic indicators before postulating about economic trends.  Because of this training, I was taken by surprise by The Conference Board’s rosy reports of increasing consumer confidence.  What in the world is there to be optimistic about?  The U.S. political system is still locked in a semi-permanent state of gridlock, the unemployment numbers are still doggedly stuck around 9%, and the specter of runaway inflation fueled by  burgeoning government debt still looms over us like the Sword of Damocles.  In addition to America’s own  economic woes,  the troubles in Europe and China and elsewhere seem to only be getting worse.  What is it then that gives Americans such a new-found sense of optimism?

The answer to that question is really quite simple.  Americans are optimistic about 2012 because they truly believe the worst is over.  They believe that their home values will drop no more, that the unemployment rate has stopped rising, and that the value of their retirement accounts  have again begun to rise.  They realize that America can still survive, even thrive, without a functioning government getting in the way, and they understand more than ever that opportunities still exist that can propel them to a higher standard of living for themselves and for their children.  In a sense, Americans are entering 2012 with the defiant  attitude;  they will make things get better, with or without the help of government.  I think The Conference Board just might be right.  2012 is going to be a very good year?

Rich

In 2010 the Supreme Court of  The United States  reached a landmark decision that  profoundly affected the way American office-seekers could conduct their political campaigns.  Simply put, the Supreme Court green-lighted the activities of so-called Super PAC’s, effectively allowing them to legally raise and spend unlimited amounts of money.  In essence, any individual or corporation can set up its own political action committee, apart from a particular candidate’s individual political action committee, and be totally exempt from the $2,500 contribution limit.  The idea was that Super PAC’s should be allowed to operate separately  from individual political campaigns, and should not be restricted from spending whatever they liked to say whatever message they felt was appropriate.  The predominantly conservative  Supreme Court ruled that anything less than the total removal of spending limits on Super PAC’s would be an infringement of Constitutionally guaranteed  “free speech”.  Although the court’s ruling looked good on paper, in reality it gave free access to super-rich individual and corporate donors to “buy” politicians, and effect the outcome of elections.

For many, many years it has been  no secret that money has a corrupting effect on political campaigns.  In order to limit the ability of deep-pocket donors from gaining unfair access to political decision-makers, Congress wisely passed legislation many years ago (before being out-maneuvered by the Supreme Court) that limited donations to $2,500.  The campaign contribution limits worked well for President Obama in 2008, allowing him to raise hundreds of millions of dollars by accepting small donations from a broad base of support.  As a result of this, Obama was not politically indebted to, or unduly influenced by, any single interest group.  Because of the Supreme Court ruling, those times are over!  The new age of the Super PAC’s has arrived, and the  battle for political power and influence will be determined by which candidate is backed by the most money.  It’s “titan versus titan”, and the politician willing to sell his soul to the highest bidder will wear the victor’s crown.

The power of the Super PAC is already being experienced in Iowa, with the emergence of the pro- Mitt Romney group, Restore Our Future.  This Super PAC , run by former Romney political operatives, is funded by Romney’s prior investment firm, Bain Capital, and has poured mega-bucks into ads smearing the record of  Newt Gingrich.  In the meantime, Mitt Romney has claimed no responsibility for Restore America’s media blitz, and has defended their right to speak freely on behalf of his campaign.  A similar Super PAC, operating without donation limits or restraints, has also engaged in a major smear campaign in Iowa on behalf of Texas Governor Rick Perry.  When it comes to Super PAC’s, the “fun” has only just begun, and woe be to any office-seeker who has not lined up the monied, special interests to support his campaign.

It is no wonder that politicians in America are so universally disdained by the general public, and that Congressional approval ratings are at an all-time low.  The vast majority of middle-class voters across the country know full well that regardless of political party, their own Congressman or Senator has probably been unduly influenced by the special interests that funded their campaigns.  If they weren’t willing to take money from special interest groups and Super PAC’s, they would not have had the funds to wage an effective campaign against rivals who were willing to sell their souls to the highest bidder.  Unfortunately, the citizens of America are now more than ever going to get the best government money can buy, and this bodes very badly for our country’s beleaguered middle class.

Rich

Over the last week the U.S. military officially pulled out of Iraq after almost ten years of war and occupation.  The last of the remaining combat troops and equipment were moved across the border to Kuwait, and loaded on board vessels for the trip home to America.  There were no triumphant  speeches from American politicians, nor were there jubilant celebrations by the military for their great sacrifices and accomplishments.   However, in a dusty corner of a soon-to-be abandoned air base, the U.S. Secretary of Defense, along with a few Generals and a couple of hundred soldiers, simply rolled up the American flag, uttered a few words of encouragement,  and “got out of Dodge”.   The war in Iraq ended for the American military with a whimper.  In the meantime, not one Iraqi politician, nor a single Iraqi citizen or local newspaper praised America for sacrificing almost five thousand American lives and around $1.0 trillion in taxpayer funds for its “war of liberation”. The Iraqis simply wanted the American out of their country and out of their lives.

In a very real sense, this week marks a sad milestone in American history.  The lofty goals of bringing democracy to Iraq,  freeing them from  terrorism, and making the country a bastion  free enterprise in the Middle East never panned out.  In fact, the terrorism perpetrated between the ethnic groups in Iraq, which was largely kept in check by the regime of Saddam Hussein, was loosened to run rampant after Saddam’s demise.  Rather than freeing a nation from tyranny, the American military occupation only fanned the flames of deep-seated hatreds, and unleashed a new wave of violence.  During the ten years of occupation the Iraqi infrastructure was destroyed, the Iraqi economy was  ruined, and individual liberties were trampled upon by a new, U.S.-sponsored  dictatorship.  It is no wonder that the “victory march” out of Iraq by the U.S. military was not accompanied by the playing of brass bands.  In essence, the awesome power and might of the richest, most militarily sophisticated  country in the world was used to crush into submission a small, desert nation over ten long years. In the end, nothing of substance was accomplished.

With the war in Iraq finally over, the time has come for Americans to recognize that military actions taken against countries that pose no direct threat to American interests can create unexpected, and undesirable consequences.  For example, the military forays into both Iraq and Afghanistan have done nothing but push these nations further under the influence of Iran.  There is little doubt that the future will be rife with many opportunities and justifications for engaging in other military actions  in other far-off locations.   The strength and character of the United States as a world leader will not be measured in the future by the power of our military, but rather by our willingness to refrain from using military action to accomplish political objectives.  We must be ever-vigilant against becoming entangled in future conflicts that could lead to escalating violence and the threat of another world war.  It’s not too late.

Rich

Only six months ago, who would have ever thought that eleven-term Congressman Ron Paul would have had a ghost of a chance in winning the Iowa caucuses, or even placing among the top three candidates in New Hampshire.  Well, it looks like the unthinkable just might happen.   It’s true that Paul has a very strong grass-roots organization in both Iowa and New Hampshire, but the Texas Congressman’s new-found popularity among conservative Republicans is about more than simply being well organized.  In fact, the best thing that Ron Paul has going for his presidential candidacy is not his strongly Libertarian political leanings, but that he is not Mitt Romney or Newt Gingrich.  Republican strategist and CNN commentator Alex Castellanos hit the nail on the head when he said  “One thing we know about Republicans this year  (is that) they are disenchanted with their entire field of candidates”.  Mr. Castellanos’ assessment of the situation is certainly correct, and even more certainly a giant understatement.  Republican voters are more than just disenchanted with the second-rate field of political misfits and rejects, they are desperate to find a candidate with conservative credentials, that could excite the electorate and win over the all-important bloc of independent voters.  It looks like Ron Paul’s turn may have finally arrived.

One thing that is absolutely true about Ron Paul is that he never wavers from his political positions on the issues.  Unlike Romney and Gingrich, he refrains from pandering to various constituencies and interest groups in order to gain their political support.  In essence, Ron Paul says exactly what he means, and he means exactly what he says.  Of course, in the arena of American politics,  honesty will usually get a candidate absolutely nowhere, which is why Congressman Paul’s slow rise to near the top of the Republican pack is so interesting.  Unfortunately for the Republicans and for the rest of the country, Ron Paul may be an honest man, but his ultra-conservative brand of Libertarianism is completely out of step with the political views of most Americans.  Although most people recognize that the cost of the federal government has ballooned to unsustainable levels,  very few are willing to cut ten government departments and do away with Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid and unemployment compensation.   Sure, America has its economic and political problems, but turning back the hands of time by sixty or seventy years is definitely not the answer.

Similar to many of my fellow countrymen,  I kind of like Ron Paul as a basically decent guy, who is working hard and trying to do the right thing for America.  However, the idea of Ron Paul actually becoming the next President of the United States scares me to death.  There is no candidate, either Republican or Democrat, that would destroy the very fabric of the American way of life, and alienate America from the rest of the world, faster than Ron Paul.  He is, by any stretch of the imagination, the wrong man for the job and America knows it.  Paul may do well in the Iowa caucuses and maybe even in New Hampshire, but there is little doubt that the Republicans will throw him under the bus long before the convention.

Rich

After the 2010 Congressional elections, when  Republican Party candidates scored impressive victories against their Democratic  rivals, the GOP developed a devious political strategy to win back the White House in 2012.  This strategy was pretty well summed up by Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell when he stated that Republicans would abandon all attempts to serve the American people and instead, concentrate on whatever political ploys were necessary to defeat Barack Obama in the next election.  History has shown that McConnell and his Republican cronies have been true to their word. 

Since the mid-term elections the Republicans have voted against or filibustered just about every single legislative initiative proposed by the Obama Administration, and worked hard to ensure that the vast majority of middle class Americans would endure the maximum possible economic hardship.  There is little doubt that the Republican’s strategy to defeat Barack Obama has resulted in an all out war against the middle class.  After two years of standing in the way of job-creating initiatives, extensions in unemployment compensation benefits, and health care insurance reforms, the latest Republican “flavor of the month”, Newt Gingrich, had the gall to call President Obama the “food stamp” president.  Fortunately, the American people have seen through the GOP’s insidious attempts to bring economic ruin to their fellow countrymen, solely for the purpose of winning the next Presidential election.

Given the extent of the “punishment” that the Republican Party has inflicted on Americans over the last few years, it is no surprise that the slate of GOP presidential candidates has been less than inspiring.  In fact, many Americans, both Republican and Democratic, have not been too surprised that the Republican Party looked no further than the “bottom of the barrel”  for their next standard bearer.   The first Republican candidate to get thrown in the waste basket was Donald Trump, who advocated a military attack on Libya to steal all their oil.  The next candidate at the bottom of the barrel was Michelle Bachmann, who advocated letting the U.S. government default on its sovereign debt as a way to balance the budget.  After Bachmann, came good ole boy Rick Perry, who couldn’t quite remember all of the vital government agencies he would eliminate from the American landscape.  After Rick Perry, came businessman Herman Cain, who wasn’t quite sure whether China had nuclear weapons, and who was somewhat “zipper-impaired” when it came to the ladies.  After witnessing most of their “bottom of the barrel” front-runners crash and burn, the Republicans have now scraped the residue from the cracks at the very bottom, and come up with their new front-runner, Newt Gingrich.

Some people would say that it is beyond belief that the Republicans would have to dredge up their disgraced old work-horse, Newt Gingrich, to be the new face of the Republican Party.  After all, Newt has more baggage than US Air, and his arrogant, smarter-than-thou attitude, plus his truth-impaired rhetoric never fails to rub people the wrong way.  Yet here he is; scoring 15% higher than  Mitt Romney atop the latest Iowa polls.  The fact is that it is not beyond belief that Gingrich is the latest Republican front-runner.  He is, in fact, the best that the Party of No has to offer in a year where Republicans need a sacrificial lamb to pay the political price for  years of war against the American middle class.  I only wish that  it was Mitch McConnell being sacrificed for the misguided policies of the Republican Party, rather than a pathetic old has-been like Newt Gingrich.

Rich

For anybody wondering how the approval rating of Congress (more like the dis-approval rating) could possibly get any lower than its current  9%, the question has finally been answered.  Today the so-called Super Committee, comprised of six Republicans and six Democrats, announced that they had failed to come to an agreement on how to remove $1.2 trillion in spending from the federal budget over a period of ten years. Although the Super Committee utterly failed to come up with a sensible plan for deficit reduction, the $1.2 trillion will still be cut from the federal budget according to a somewhat arbitrary formula worked out during the “debt limit” negotiations last August.  Since future spending cuts will occur anyway, the Super Committee has proven to be  a waste of time, and nothing more than a reminder that America is deeply divided over how to solve its financial problems.

To make things even worse, the two sides in Congress are now gathering along partisan lines to overturn  parts of the August agreement (or all of the August agreement) that doesn’t suit their particular way of thinking.  The Republicans are unwilling to accept the $600 billion that is to be cut from the defense budget, and the Democrats are unwilling to accept similar cuts to Medicare and other non-defense programs.  In other words, Congress is totally deadlocked on a course of action, and quite willing to let the country careen down a path toward almost certain financial disaster.  If Congress cannot agree on the relatively modest budget cuts of $1.2 trillion, how can we ever expect it to come up with a plan to reduce spending by the $3 or $4 trillion, needed to stop the growth in the national debt?

Congress’  failure to come up with a plan for deficit reduction will have an immediate impact on the American people and the U.S. economy.  The first impact, which is already being felt today, will be a huge sell-off by investors in the stock  market.  These investors, which represent the majority of 401K investments for average Americans, will lose confidence that American companies can continue to operate profitably in such a poisoned political environment.  In turn, American companies will refuse to hire new employees or to invest in new plant and equipment until a more stable and predictable business environment can be established.  The poisoned, partisan political environment in Washington will all but ensure that nothing will be done over the next year that will in any way relieve the suffering of millions of unemployed Americans.

The battle between the deeply divided political parties in America has become like a ten-round bout between heavyweight fighters.  Neither side is willing to give in to the other, and both sides are willing to take as many punches as necessary to win the bout.  Unfortunately, this fight is far from over, and may go on well beyond the elections of 2012.  The longer the fight goes on, the further America will travel down the road to ultimate destruction.  Our fate is in the hands of our elected officials, and they have chosen to “fiddle while Rome burns.”

Rich

The presidential campaign of Michelle Bachmann, the one-time favorite of the Republican Tea Party faction, seems to be unraveling at a rapid pace.  Meanwhile, the Bachmann campaign is moaning and complaining that their candidate is being disrespected by the media, and being unfairly  dismissed as “irrelevant.” The truth of the matter is that Bachmann is, in fact, being disrespected by the media and has in fact, become irrelevant but for good reason. Her ultra-conservative political views and her total disregard for the plight of America’s middle class has made her a perfect target for the Occupy Wall Street Movement, and a poster child for all that is wrong with the Tea Party’s message.

Campaigning in South Carolina, two days prior to the latest Republican debate, Bachmann was interrupted by protesters for referring to the Occupy Wall Street Movement as “unpatriotic socialists.” Rather than explaining why she chose such a disparaging term to describe the growing frustration of middle class America, she simply stormed off the stage until order could be restored. Not only was Bachmann unwilling to defend her own outrageous statements, but she chose to disrespect the protesters by walking out on their concerns. Again on Friday during a speech on board a U.S. Navy ship, Mrs. Bachmann referred to the protesters as “ignorant and disrespectful.” Evidently the sagging Bachmann campaign has decided to adopt Rodney Dangerfield‘s mantra, “I just can’t get no respect”.

As most followers of American presidential politics can attest, the campaign trail is no place for a candidate who is too thin skinned to take the heat from the opposition, and certainly no place for a candidate who cannot defend her extreme, ultra-conservative positions. In fact, on Saturday following the Republican debate, a humorless Bachmann abandoned her “I just can’t get no respect” mantra for a new strategy of blaming the media for bias against her. She did everything but sing the words to the old children’s’ song, “Nobody likes me, everybody hates me, I might as well eat worms.” Apparently Mrs. Bachmann was incensed over an email between CBS News (the sponsor of the debate) and CNN News Director, John Dickerson.  The email implied that the Bachmann was unworthy of a post-debate interview due to her lack of public appeal and low poll ratings and that CNN should hold out for an interview with a better candidate.  Whether they think it is a “lack of respect” or whether they think it is  media bias, the Bachmann campaign is clearly in deep trouble.

Of all of the Republican candidates that are looking for their party’s presidential nomination, Michelle Bachmann is undoubtedly the weakest.  Her views on almost every domestic issue are extremist and anti- middle class, such as her insistence on government shut down over increasing the debt limit ceiling. Her views on foreign policy matters are no less extreme, as she advocates an unprovoked U.S. military strike on Iran.  Clearly, it’s time for the Bachmann campaign to close its doors and go home to Minnesota.  They can have her!

Rich

“ask not for whom the bell tolls; it tolls for thee…”—-John Donne

Yesterday Rich and I visited my daughter and her family on Ohio. They are young couple in their early thirties; they have two beautiful young daughters, and bought a home five years ago. My daughter and her husband are college graduates, and both are doing quite well in their respective careers. They have done everything right, according to the American Dream. But they have questions and more than a little trepidation about what the future holds for them. And this is truly where the political bell tolls. Our children have done all we had suggested during their formative years, but the impact of decisions forming or not forming in the political spectrum will bode most strongly for their futures.

© Frank Kehren

During and after dinner, we discussed many of their political concerns. All were valid. My son-in-law had met with a financial adviser about his pension plan. He was assured that he had made the right decisions to insure stability of his pension funds. My daughter, on the other hand, pays into a deferred compensation plan and stated that while she gets quarterly statements, they are confusing to read and interpret. She has little faith in what they are doing with her money. How does she know she will not be another victim in a Ponzi scheme? The conversation went on from there to answering questions about the Occupy movement vs the Tea Party and the crux of the entire issue came down to one thing. They see no leaders in this country. I could not argue that point.

Obama has been thwarted in every attempt by an implacable Congress to move this country forward on his promises of  “Hope and Change.” And our children see none of this coming to fruition. Close friends of theirs who had union jobs recently were laid off and may lose their homes.  Social Security is nothing more than a question mark of nervous laughter and health care is a frail and ailing system. So where are the leaders?

One may look to the Republican Party, but after so doing you say, “Is this the best they can do?” We look to our President and wonder why we are still embroiled in warfare that takes the lives of our children on the back end of taxes we pay? Many promises have been made to our children as long as they do well in school, go to college and maintain their value systems. Where, then, is the value system in our political spectrum? The bell is indeed tolling and it tolls most harshly for our youth.

—cher

There seems to be little doubt that the sexual assault allegations that have slammed the Herman Cain campaign will eventually doom any chances he may have had to capture the Republican presidential nomination.   Although Cain was doing well in the latest polls, few people within his party really believed he had a ghost of a chance of beating out Mitt Romney anyway.  In fact, it is not the implosion of the Cain campaign that is particularly newsworthy, but rather the fact that Herman Cain has blamed his recent troubles on Curt Anderson, a top Perry campaign operative.   If  Curt Anderson is proven to be the source of the information leak to Politico , the Perry campaign will become a pariah among its peers, and most certainly will push Rick Perry even further down in the polls.  In a nutshell, the sexual allegations against Herman Cain will be his undoing.

In addition to the irreparable damage done to the Cain campaign, and the sleazy involvement in the whole mess by the Perry campaign, most of the other candidates are likely to drop out of the race anyway  due to lack of popular appeal, those being Santorum, Bachmann, Huntsman and Paul.  This leaves Newt Gingrich, who the only candidate that will actually benefit from the Cain scandal in a significant way.   Ironically, Newt Gingrich was the candidate that wallowed for months at the bottom of the popularity polls, intensely disliked by most Republicans, and  viewed by many as corrupt and unelectable.    How times have changed!  Due primarily to his good performances during the  debates, and due to the gross incompetence of the other Republican candidates,  Gingrich has shown a slow but steady rise in the polls.

The Herman Cain scandal may have just helped to accomplish what no one in America would have believed possible six months ago and that is that the race for the Republican nomination would come down to a choice between Mitt Romney and Newt Gingrich.  Although the Tea Party adherents tried as hard a they possibly could to win the nomination with any ultra-conservative but Newt Gingrich, it looks like they will have to eventually hold their noses and get on board with the Newt.   For Democrats and many independent voters, the possibility of  Newt Gingrich, who is perhaps the most despised ex-politician in America, carrying the Republican banner into November 2012 is pure music to the ears.  With Gingrich at the top of the ticket, the chant of  “four more years” will echo across the American landscape as voters flock back to the Obama campaign by the millions.  Perhaps Mr. Gingrich will be the  negative motivation to end the Tea Party madness, and to bring a much-needed Democratic majority back to the House of Representatives. Hope springs eternal!

Rich

Image by Getty Images via @daylife

As we all can so clearly recall, a disgraceful show of Republican partisanship and recalcitrance last August  nearly brought the country to the point of  financial default.  A last minute deal was reached between moderate Republicans  and Democrats that forced the Obama Administration to agree to deep cuts in domestic spending with no increases in revenues.  At that time  a large contingent of Congressional Tea Party adherents voted against any increase at all in the debt limit ceiling, preferring the near-total collapse of America’s social safety net to a higher level of government borrowing or tax increases on the rich.  The undisputed leader of the “screw the middle class” movement was (and still is) Michelle Bachmann.

Part of the agreement between the parties was the formation of the so-called  bi-partisan Super Committee.  It was the job of the Super Committee to come up with proposals to reduce the national debt by $1.2 trillion over a decade, which is  rather modest considering that the national debt will be around $15.0 trillion by the end of 2011.  If the Super Committee fails to come to an agreement on what specific programs will be cut, and what (if any) steps will be taken to enhance revenues, then draconian across-the-board measures will be required by law.  These measures would cut funds for infra-structure projects, higher education, state and local governments, the military and many other areas of discretionary spending.  The detrimental effect of spending cuts could be significantly reduced by changing the U.S. tax code to eliminate special clauses that benefit only the richest 5% of taxpayers.

The sad reality of the situation is that the Democrats and Republicans on the  Super Committee are sharply divided over whether to raise taxes and where to cut spending.   The Republicans remain adamantly opposed to any increases in tax revenues, and the Democrats remain adamantly opposed to deep cuts in entitlement spending, such as Social security and Medicare.  In a very real sense, absolutely no progress in coming to an agreement has been made by America’s lawmakers since the August “debt limit increase” debacle.  There is little doubt that the Super Committee will fail the America people, just like the full Congress failed the American people last August.  Across-the-board spending cuts are almost sure to occur, and the suffering of middle class Americans is almost sure to continue.  With a little over one year to go before Presidential and Congressional elections, continued government gridlock is a pretty good bet.  The only way that America will be able to move forward with reasonable, bi-partisan solutions to its long term problems  is to avoid electing into office those politicians, both Republicans and Democrats, that eschew radical viewpoints.   This may be asking too much from a country that has become deeply divided along class lines.

Rich

Image by Abode of Chaos via Flickr

Today, October 20, 2011,  the world can join together with all Libyans in celebrating the demise of Moammar Gadhafi.  After a long and bloody struggle, the liberation forces announced that Gadhafi was killed while attempting to escape from the town of Sirte, located in his tribal homeland.  Libya‘s Interim Prime Minister, Mahmoud Jibril,  also announced that Gadhafi’s sons, Mutassim and Saif al-Islam were  killed along with their father,  although reports of the deaths of Gadhafi’s sons have not yet been verified.   There is little doubt that the people of Libya have much to celebrate, after withstanding over four decades of oppression and impoverishment.

At this point, both the NATO forces and the Libyan Revolutionary forces are claiming credit for killing Gadhafi.  NATO claims to have killed Gadhafi with an air attack on his convoy, which was attempting to flee the town of Sirte;  whereas the Libyan revolutionary forces are claiming that Gadhafi was killed by a ground assault on his compound.  The truth of the matter will soon emerge.   Regardless of how Gadhafi was actually killed,  it is clear that the Libyan Revolutionary forces could not have defeated Gadhafi’s powerful military without the ongoing assistance of NATO.  In fact, the revolution would have been crushed by Gadhafi’s army and air force shortly after the revolution began in Benghazi,  if NATO would not have quickly enforced a no-fly zone, and if NATO would not have repelled the initial onslaught of Libyan artillery and infantry.   The success of the revolution was, therefore, only possible  with help from “the West”, combined with the dogged tenacity of Libya’s freedom fighters.    Americans should all remember that the success of the American revolution was also only possible with help from the French, combined with the dogged tenacity of  the American freedom fighters.

The actions taken by the Obama Administration to support NATO operations in Libya, and to invest heavily in the necessary military assets, has proven to be a wise decision with, perhaps, far-reaching implications.   Those U.S. politicians, both Republicans and Democrats, who criticized President Obama for his support of the Libyan freedom fighters  should give the president credit for using American power and influence in a correct and prudent manner.  By acting in concert with NATO forces, and by strategically using military technology to gain the advantage, President Obama showed clearly that limited military actions can be every bit as effective as U.S. boots on the ground.  Perhaps this lesson can be learned by the “hawks” in Congress who are ever-anxious to send American troops to places like Iraq and Afghanistan.

Rich

Image by US Army Africa via Flickr

Many football fans  (especially those who live in the Cleveland area)  may recall that  fateful evening, not so long ago, when Art Modell, the owner of the Cleveland Browns, packed up his equipment in the middle of the night and moved the team to Baltimore.   Although Modell had the legal right to move the team to another city, he also had the moral obligation to tell the millions of Browns’ fans why he was abandoning them for greener pastures, and when he was planning to leave.  In an analogous  situation, President Obama recently decided to move one hundred military personnel to the central African region.  The decision was made by the Obama Administration without Congressional approval or discussion, and without allowing any kind of public debate over the merits of putting American soldiers in harm’s way.   This unilateral action, similar to the actions ordered by President Bush regarding Iraq and Afghanistan, and similar to the action ordered by President Clinton regarding Somalia, may have far-reaching implications in the future.

The official explanation for the dispatching of troops (albeit a small number) is to give aid to local governments in hunting down and removing (i.e. killing) the head of a terrorist movement called The Lord’s Resistance Army, or LRA.  The head of the LRA, Joseph Kony, is indisputably a very bad guy, and has been accused of the murder, rape and kidnappings of thousands of innocent Africans in The Central African Republic, The Democratic Republic of the Congo and South Sudan.  Exactly why the military forces of these republics need the help of a mere one hundred U.S. combatants in order to eliminate the head of a terrorist organization operating in their own neighborhoods is a question that cannot be avoided.   According to the Obama administration, the U.S. combatants will  simply be advisers to the local military commanders, and will only take aggressive actions in self-defense.

The truth of the matter is, most likely,  that the governments of the central African region lack the sophisticated techniques and sufficient resources needed to hunt down and eliminate terrorist organizations.   As a quid pro quo for supporting U.S. goals in Africa, those countries within the region will receive not only the help of military advisers, but the infusion of millions of dollars in military hardware, including drones.  The problem is that the American government is planting yet another “seed” of U.S. military presence in yet another part of the world.  As Americans have learned many times over, those actions which begins as relatively benign military assistance moves, can quickly turn into full-fledged military engagements. The region of Central Africa is a very unstable and volatile part of the world, misunderstood by most Americans, and rife with deep-seated secular conflicts; many of which go back for decades.

The decision of the Obama Administration to dispatch troops to central Africa without the proper Congressional consideration, and without the input from the American public is extremely ill-considered.  We should all hope and pray that this latest military foray does not escalate into another failed attempt to spread American influence, similar to the embarrassing and short-lived mission in Somalia in the 1990′s.

Rich

Image by sergio m. mahugo via Flickr

The recently uncovered plot by Iranian government operatives to assassinate the Saudi Arabian Ambassador to the United States should not come as a surprise to anyone in Washington.  It should also come as no surprise that the Iranian government is vehemently denying  their involvement,  accusing the United States of making the whole thing up.Although caught “red-handed” by American intelligence agents,  and although the Iranian perpetrator has freely admitted his culpability,  the government in Tehran insists that their country is  innocent of any misdeeds.   The Iranian government, which is significantly “truth impaired,” also denied that the Holocaust ever happened, that they are developing nuclear weapons capabilities, and that they are not the biggest sponsor of terrorist organizations throughout the entire globe.   There should be little doubt  by  nations of the world that Iran continues to relish its role as the “international bad boy”,  and has no intention of changing its behavior.  The question is what does Iran expect to accomplish by thumbing its nose at its powerful neighbors to the North (Russia), to the West (the U.S. and Europe),  to the East (China), and to the South (Saudi Arabia)?

The simplified answer to this question is that Iran is not so much concerned with other world powers, rather it is primarily concerned with the political and military domination of its own Middle-Eastern neighborhood.   A major strategy  in accomplishing this  domination is to foment revolution within the much smaller,  unstable nations within the region.  In Iraq, Bahrain and many other places throughout the Middle East, Iran has pitted Sunni Muslim sects against Shiite Muslim Sects, providing military hardware and intelligence wherever needed.  In other places, such as Syria and Palestine, Iran has helped to prop up  unpopular rulers that have shown a willingness to support Iranian objectives.   In a nutshell, the regime in Tehran think that Iranian (i.e. Shiite) domination of the region is only a matter of time.   The attempted assassination of the Saudi Arabian Ambassador was seen as a way to shorten the time-table, by further driving a wedge between Sunnis and Shiites.

The regime in Tehran knows that an arsenal of nuclear weapons will not be needed to obtain dominance in the Middle East, and they also know that the use of nuclear weapons against their arch-enemy, Israel, would only result in mutually assured annihilation.   Nuclear weapons capabilities will only be necessary to ensure that other super-powers in the world will not interfere with Iran’s plans for regional dominance.  In essence, Tehran will have a free reign to impose its will on its neighbors, and to effectively control the majority of the world’s oil supply.  As the twenty-first century presses on, it is becoming more and more likely that the next major “world conflict” will be centered not in the Israeli town of Armageddon, but in the Iranian capitol of Tehran.

Rich

Image via Wikipedia

Over the last ten years, or more, the United States has been fighting against radical, Islamic fundamentalist groups throughout the world.  In several places, such as Iraq, Pakistan, Afghanistan and Somalia the U.S. has actually sent American soldiers to fight and die on foreign soil in  vain attempts to somehow make America safe from terrorist attacks advocated by the religious fundamentalists;  or at least the brand of religious fundamentalism practiced in the Muslim world.   America, with its roots clearly imbedded in Protestant, Christian theology since its founding, has never felt truly comfortable with the theologies of other religions, although we like to think of ourselves as a tolerant society.   Ironically, the history of America is filled with numerous examples of religious intolerance against almost every denomination or faith imaginable.  It was not until 1960 that Americans were  willing to accept a Roman Catholic President, and 1980 before the country could elect a president that had been divorced.  Although the American constitution protects the freedom of religious thoughts and practices, the reality of American life is that the brand of religion a person practices (or chooses not to practice) matters, especially if that religion is not Christian.

The recent statement by  Pastor Robert Jeffress, a Christian fundamentalist preacher from Dallas, Texas  has once again shown the bigoted side of American religion.  In a stunning statement made to the media  following the meeting of the Values Vote  Summit, Pastor Jeffress announced that presidential candidate Mitt Romney was not a Christian.  He further said that Romney’s belief in the Mormon faith made him the follower of a “cult”, no different than a person who practices beliefs in Islam, Hinduism or Buddhism.   By implication, Mr. Romney is unworthy of the votes of  “real” Christians, such as Rick Perry, and should not be given further consideration.  Interestingly enough, Pastor Jeffress made no mention of Rick Santorum, a Roman Catholic,  as being the follower of a “cult” that believes the Pope is infallible, and that the Virgin Mary is the Queen of Heaven.   I suppose that Jeffress considers Roman Catholicism close enough to the real truth (i.e. his truth) that it can narrowly avoid being classified as a cult.

Bigoted statements, such as those made by Pastor Jeffress,  regarding whether or not another person’s faith qualifies them for office should be strongly condemned by all Americans.  However, rather than condemning Jefferess’ words of intolerance, Michelle Bachman and Herman Cain have refused to comment on the issue, obviously hoping that Jeffress’ remarks would weaken the Romney campaign and strengthen theirs.  There is little doubt that both Bachmann and Cain have shown their own  political weakness  by showing a lack of “moral” backbone by refusing to speak out against what is wrong and reprehensible.   If accusing Romney of belonging to a cult because he is a practicing Mormon is the only way the Tea Party and the “religious right” can score points against political moderation, then the Republicans are going to be in big trouble with independent voters next November and deservedly so!

Rich