The Romney Campaign: Chaos Revisited?

Something is amiss in the G.O.P. the last few weeks and it begs the question as to what may be going on behind the scenes. I can't help but notice that the Romney campaign is stumbling off-message, and at a point in the race you would expect the Republican Party old-line to be coalescing behind their candidate there are appearing cracks. In a word this is "startling".

 From the outset of Romney's candidacy in the Republican primaries it was properly noted by political experts that he was the most likely nominee in that he had a highly organized team of "boots on the ground" staff with extensive campaign experience. The one thing you could say about Mitt was that he possessed an uncanny ability and discipline to stay on message. Ultimately it was this consistency that helped him prevail against the onslaught of ultra-conservative and libertarian candidates. After the Palin debacle of 2008 there was nothing party regulars wanted more than "careful and deliberate".

 Which makes the events of the past several weeks even more curious. With less than 100 days until the election your candidate is doing reasonably well in the polls, you're outspending your opponent two to one with ads that seem to be effective and are winning the fund-raising battle, and your party convention is right around the corner with all the free news coverage you could ever hope for. And what happens? Your candidate makes what proves to be a disastrous trip to Europe and Israel spreading gaffes like confetti everywhere he stops. Who advised Mitt to take THIS trip at THIS time anyway? Uncharacteristic of Romney or his organization. It would be bad enough if this were just an isolated mistake. But it's not. These gaffes are starting to look like a snowball gaining momentum, beginning with the "retroactive retirement" statement, one of the most ludicrous explanations I've ever heard.

 I suppose a case could be made that these current troubles all began with Romney's refusal to release more tax returns. I would have expected some of the new Tea Party types to hurl some criticism. But Chuck Grassley? Haley Barbour? Doesn't make sense. Why would old-line Republican party regulars join the Democrats hail-storm of demands for transparancy at this time? Similarly I would not have expected the cutting commentary from pens of conservative journalists Billy Kristol and George Will. They could have easily just kept their mouths shut. But they didn't.

 I believe there are some serious unknowns here. Could it be that Romney received the government amnesty in 2009 for his now closed Swiss bank account? If he did, there are legal questions as to whether a person can hold high office if he received amnesty for what would have been a felony. Or could it be that he really did lie to the SEC about his involvement with Bain Capital? Or did he pay no taxes at all in 2009? Someone out there knows the answers to these questions. Are Republican regulars aware of this person that could potentially let the cat out of the bag? Will we see a melt-down at the Republican Convention?

 Stay tuned.......

Is Romney paying these kooks?

As a youngster my grandmother advised me that having silly ideas was
permissable as long as you kept them to yourself. At this point in the
calvalcade of amateurish stars being rolled out onto the Republican stage you would guess that the RNC chairperson is dishing out this same advice, at least behind closed doors. Herman Cain's dalliances aside, the statements he made alone were enough to see him not make it out of the traing camp debates. Rick Perry opened his mouth one too many times, even for the nerves of some of his most loyal followers. And after a series of commercial breaks funded by conservative PACs, Gingrich's weekend surge to the front collapsed, followed by a none-too-smart and none-too-researched comment regarding blacks, jobs, and food stamps (a comment he is sticking to). To his credit, Ron Paul doesn't need to make any new comments to qualify with the fringe right (or fringe left I'm afraid to add). He and his now senator son have made a whole YouTube channel's worth in the past. If there is one ray of sunshine to come out of the dark abyss of the Iowa primary it is the retirement of Michelle Bachmann from this boorish contest. And I just don't have the stomach to recount her yearlong diatribe of foolish statements and faux pas.

Just when I thought it couldn't possibly get any worse along comes one more, a self-proclaimed "Jesus Candidate", with comments that would make campaign advisors of ANY party cringe. Rick Santorum. The following are a few of the statements I've heard from him in the last three days. You just can't make this stuff up.

Rick Santorum statements (already):

1. Gay marriage is like polygamy and beastiality.
2. Social Security benefits should be cut immediately.
3. Gay soldiers are bad for the Army.
4. People with pre-existing conditions like cancer should be charged more for health inurance.
5. Contraception is the same as abortion.
6. He will immediately bomb Iran.
7. As President he would abolish federal courts he didn't agree with. (Okay. He stole this one from Gingrich)
8. Better to have a father in jail than two mothers.

I don't believe Mitt Romney has anything to worry about at this point. Do
you?

Largest Contributors to 2008 Presidential Campaign

These are the top contributors to both candidates last presidential election. As you can see, the banks lobby both sides of the aisle. So do the oil companies. It is important to note these are all legal contributions, and in and of itself do not prove any malfeasance. However I would not think these organizations would give these amounts if they did not expect to receive some sort of preferential treatment by the successful candidate. I would also point out that UBS AG and Credit Suisse Group are American subsidiaries of foreign corporations.


The organizations themselves did not donate , rather the money came from the organization's PAC, its individual members or employees or owners, and those individuals' immediate families. The information below is a matter of public information available to anyone. That is, to anyone who cares to look.



Barack Obama - Largest Contributors to 2008 campaign:

University of California $1,648,685
Goldman Sachs $1,013,091
Harvard University $864,654
Microsoft Corp $852,167
Google Inc $814,540
JPMorgan Chase & Co $808,799
Citigroup Inc $736,771
Time Warner $624,618
Sidley Austin LLP $600,298
Stanford University $595,716
National Amusements Inc $563,798
Wilmerhale Llp $550,168
Skadden, Arps et al $543,539
Columbia University $541,002
UBS AG $532,674
IBM Corp $532,372
General Electric $529,855
US Government $517,908
Morgan Stanley $512,232
Latham & Watkins $503,295


John McCain - Largest contributors to 2008 campaign:


Merrill Lynch $375,895
JPMorgan Chase & Co $343,505
Citigroup Inc $338,202
Morgan Stanley $271,902
Goldman Sachs $240,295
US Government $202,929
AT&T Inc $201,938
Wachovia Corp $199,663
UBS AG $187,493
Credit Suisse Group $184,153
PricewaterhouseCoopers $169,400
US Army $169,020
Bank of America $167,826
Gibson, Dunn & Crutcher $160,346
Blank Rome LLP $155,226
Greenberg Traurig LLP $147,437
US Dept of Defense $146,356
FedEx Corp $131,974
Lehman Brothers $126,557
Ernst & Young $114,506

There is NO association between "OccupyWallStreet" and the hacker group 'Anonymous'

Let it be known that there is a group known simply as 'Anonymous' that according to YouTube postings is planning a DNS (denial of service) hacking attack on Wall Street computers some time in the next few weeks. They are asking that you download a hacking program so that your computer can be used in this illegal action. I wish to make it clear that although I have associated myself with the "Occupy" movement, I in no way condone any of the activities of the 'Anonymous' group whatsoever. My position is that beyond being illegal, such action flies in the face of the 1st Amendment, is a form of defacto censorship, is a bastardization of the term "civil disobedience", and is counter-productive to the cause of the "Occupy" movement. "Anonymous" has publicly supported the "Occupy" movement. So have other political groups, unions, politicians. However, the "Occupy" movement does not endorse, promote, or associate itself with any of these groups or approve of any of their actions. Nor do the words or actions of any individual member of the movement garner such endorsement. The purpose and goals of "Occupy" are clearly stated in their official releases, and only after a consensus of their General Assemblies held daily.

Benjamin Franklin's Final Speech to the Constitutional Convention

On occasion when trying to make a point  a writer finds that there already exists such a masterful writing that reference to it is the only necessary course. Considering the current state of our political climate the words of Benjamin Franklin are not only appropriate but prescient. 
Monday, September 17, 1787, was the final day of the Constitutional Convention in Philadelphia. Pennsylvania delegate Benjamin Franklin wanted to give a short speech to the Convention prior to the signing of the final draft of the Constitution. Too weak to actually give the speech himself, he had fellow Pennsylvanian James Wilson deliver the speech.  Considered a masterpiece, it alludes to the many differences between the delegates, the imperfect nature of the document, and surprisingly, a rather cynical view as to its potential for success over the long term. What follows is a word for word transcription taken from James Madison's notes:
 
"Mr. President

I confess that there are several parts of this constitution which I do not at present approve, but I am not sure I shall never approve them: For having lived long, I have experienced many instances of being obliged by better information, or fuller consideration, to change opinions even on important subjects, which I once thought right, but found to be otherwise. It is therefore that the older I grow, the more apt I am to doubt my own judgment, and to pay more respect to the judgment of others. Most men indeed as well as most sects in Religion, think themselves in possession of all truth, and that wherever others differ from them it is so far error. Steele a Protestant in a Dedication tells the Pope, that the only difference between our Churches in their opinions of the certainty of their doctrines is, the Church of Rome is infallible and the Church of England is never in the wrong. But though many private persons think almost as highly of their own infallibility as of that of their sect, few express it so naturally as a certain french lady, who in a dispute with her sister, said "I don't know how it happens, Sister but I meet with no body but myself, that's always in the right — Il n'y a que moi qui a toujours raison."

In these sentiments, Sir, I agree to this Constitution with all its faults, if they are such; because I think a general Government necessary for us, and there is no form of Government but what may be a blessing to the people if well administered, and believe farther that this is likely to be well administered for a course of years, and can only end in Despotism, as other forms have done before it, when the people shall become so corrupted as to need despotic Government, being incapable of any other. I doubt too whether any other Convention we can obtain, may be able to make a better Constitution. For when you assemble a number of men to have the advantage of their joint wisdom, you inevitably assemble with those men, all their prejudices, their passions, their errors of opinion, their local interests, and their selfish views. From such an assembly can a perfect production be expected? It therefore astonishes me, Sir, to find this system approaching so near to perfection as it does; and I think it will astonish our enemies, who are waiting with confidence to hear that our councils are confounded like those of the Builders of Babel; and that our States are on the point of separation, only to meet hereafter for the purpose of cutting one another's throats. Thus I consent, Sir, to this Constitution because I expect no better, and because I am not sure, that it is not the best. The opinions I have had of its errors, I sacrifice to the public good. I have never whispered a syllable of them abroad. Within these walls they were born, and here they shall die. If every one of us in returning to our Constituents were to report the objections he has had to it, and endeavor to gain partizans in support of them, we might prevent its being generally received, and thereby lose all the salutary effects & great advantages resulting naturally in our favor among foreign Nations as well as among ourselves, from our real or apparent unanimity. Much of the strength & efficiency of any Government in procuring and securing happiness to the people, depends, on opinion, on the general opinion of the goodness of the Government, as well as of the wisdom and integrity of its Governors. I hope therefore that for our own sakes as a part of the people, and for the sake of posterity, we shall act heartily and unanimously in recommending this Constitution (if approved by Congress & confirmed by the Conventions) wherever our influence may extend, and turn our future thoughts & endeavors to the means of having it well administred.

On the whole, Sir, I can not help expressing a wish that every member of the Convention who may still have objections to it, would with me, on this occasion doubt a little of his own infallibility, and to make manifest our unanimity, put his name to this instrument."

Trading on the Environment: A liberal argues against "cap & trade"

Well, by now it's fairly clear that Wall Street and its overpaid hucksters were the guilty party in the development and subsequent crash of the housing bubble. They, with government implied consent and minimal regulation or oversight, were able to create a myriad of slight of hand financial instruments that few could understand, sell them to banks and fund managers, and pocket huge fees in the process. All went well as long as the market was rising. But as was the case in the dotcom crash, ultimately the lack of value of the underlying asset comes back to haunt.

We allowed Wall Street be entrusted with our housing market and were burnt. Not only did we suffer direct losses to our pension plans and 401k's, we let the financial market shift the risk to taxpayers through government bailouts and loan guarantees. The failed housing market and its lack of recovery is the most likely culprit of our inability to solve the unemployment problem and pull ourselves out of recession. And the correlating drop in GDP growth and increasing evidence of stagflation only worsens our sovereign debt situation.

So now what? Not for us. In that regard the answer is painfully clear. We're in danger of seeing a "lost decade" the likes of which haven't been seen since the 1930's. But what's next for Wall Street?

How about carbon trading? Yes, the sacred cow of the liberal establishment. We have endeared ourselves to the notion proposed by figures like Al Gore that we can cut emissions of greenhouse gasses by essentially granting licenses to pollute, capping emission levels, and trading these new financial instruments called "carbon credits".

The custodians of Wall Street have been uncharacteristically quiet during the ongoing debate over "cap and trade". Carbon trading happens to meet many of the requirements for a highly profitable Wall Street model, and in some ways is even more attractive to traders than the aforementioned housing market. An asset of inherently subjective value, carbon credits would be a market of artificially created short supply, and by its very nature subject to market manipulation and government lobbies. Not unlike the housing and mortgage markets, few individual investors will understand the complexity of carbon markets or of the underlying asset, the definition of which will be contained in a maze of government regulations. Wall Street will waste no time in developing carbon "futures" trading and other exotic financial instrumentation. I'm thinking the speculators over at the NYMEX have probably already developed a sophisticated computer model to take advantage of the potential profits available to them in yet another fictitious market. Will any of us understand a "carbon default swap"?

Let me be clear to my liberal friends and associates. I am not a climate change denier. I concur that if our planet, or even our economy in the shorter term, is to survive there is an urgent requirement to reduce carbon emissions. I'll be the first to champion the idea that the costs to humanity associated with burning fossil fuels have not been accounted for by the free market. I just have trouble believing that "cap and trade" is the answer. Is this concept not playing right into the ideology of conservatives? Do we really want to monetize and marketize our environment, essentially selling it to the highest bidder? And do we turn our most precious commodity over to the same people who so nobly handled our housing market?

Collective Denial: The Bane of Humanity

“Someone should have seen this coming.” A familiar refrain. Calamity and catastrophe initially engender fear, horror, and a sense of helplessness. We become all too cognizant of mans’ fragile existence on a small planet fraught with hazard and uncertainty. Initially, wether it’s a part of our genetic makeup to insure survival of the species or a moral propensity for human compassion, we come together in extraordinary displays of community to offer aid and comfort to the victims. But in the days, weeks and months that ensue, our initial response often turns into anger. The general sense is that the devastating event could have been avoided, that the response plans weren’t adequate, or that there was some sort of malfeasance, ineptitude or even fraud involved. Our unease cries for a scapegoat. We need someone to blame.

But in a large number of calamitous events, if blame is truly in order, we need only look at ourselves. In such cases there are normally a good number of experts who have in fact “seen it coming”. From climatological disasters like Katrina, droughts, tsunamis and floods, technological meltdowns like Fukushima and interruptions to the electrical grid, to breakdowns in financial markets and economies, the possibilities of disaster have been forewarned to us all.

Collective denial is a force more powerful than reason. It plays to our selfish egocentric sense of invincibility. Reason requires one to consider all information that may be available, even that which we find uncomfortable or displeasing. We all have the tendency to only accept information that reinforces a preconceived notion, one that falls in line with our own individual needs and desires. Therein lies the root of our inability to preempt or effectively deal with possible disasters.

We continue our love/hate relationship with science, maintaining an unrealistic faith that it will somehow save us from peril despite our own destructive behavior, while at the same time ignoring or dismissing its well defined warnings. Our on again, off again relationship with the stewards of education serves as a stark display of our need to learn only that which we find supportive of our current course and policies. Today’s heroes become tomorrow’s villains and vise versa. We only approve of solutions to complex problems that require no personal sacrifice or infringement on our lifestyle, much preferring a miracle in the eleventh hour to well-thought progress. What’s more, living in this culture of scarcity we have come to accept that there are the unfortunates who will not survive, a defacto admission on our part that we DO live on a planet with limited resource. This point is all too glaring in the face of the estimated 24,000 children who will not survive the famine in Somalia. It’s just much easier to change the channel than to face the predictions of scientists that there aren’t enough resources to go around and that almost half of human beings don’t have the basic necessities. We exonerate ourselves of responsibility for their plight by vilifying their governments, or worse yet, by laying the blame on the deity by saying that it must be “gods’ will”. We refuse to accept that the “haves” play any role in the condition of the “have nots”, nor have we seemed to draw the connection between most wars and poverty. The war on poverty has, for most of the world, been a dismal failure by any measure and the now global system of capital economies has proven it has no moral compass. While many moral individuals give charitably and deserve thanks, the much more difficult task of effecting long term positive change is remorsefully lacking.

Our globe faces a good number of crises. In the short run many will effect our way of life in fairly substantial ways, and in the longer term perhaps even our survival. But there is hope for us all if we can get past our denial and use reason as a basis for our choices rather than self serving ideas that only forestall the inevitable. A realization that we live on a finite planet with finite resources would be a good place to start. A crisis could and should be recognized as an opportunity in disguise. We should begin to realize that a world based on unbridled consumerism is very likely a broken model. Will more “stuff” really make us happier? Perhaps we should find better ways to quantify the progress of man than GDP growth figures.

To be clear, I’m not saying that we should abandon our economic model or the core principles of humanity and democracy. On the contrary it is time to assert them. Much of what we do does work and works well. But I think some adjustments are in order. We need to take a closer look and give a fair hearing to those knowledgeable persons who may have ideas with which we are uncomfortable. We need to stop alternately putting scientists, researchers and educators on pedestals and then demonizing them when their data disturbs us. A fair and honest measurement of our condition and our response to it can only improve the outcome for us all. Let’s do more of the things we do well, and less of the things that we don’t. And consider that we are all citizens of the same planet. The fate of one ultimately affects us all.