Politics Plus

For the last couple of weeks  the race between Republicans to win the Iowa caucuses has dominated the news.  Millions od dollars have been spent.  Pundits have agonized over the unpredictability of the race, and it’s impossible to turn on news without seeing a talking head drone on about the subject.  So I asked myself if the Iowa Caucuses are important enough to justify all the attention.

Here are the latest standings, according to the Chicago Sun Times.

24 percent Mitt Romney

22 percent Ron Paul

15 percent Rick Santorum

12 percent Newt Gingrich

11 percent Rick Perry

7 percent Michele Bachmann

The Republican Party is not really representative of Iowa.  Obama won the state by a 10 point margin.

In addition, the Iowa caucuses are not really representative of Iowa Republicans.  Only the most dedicated activists attend. According to the New York Times, the 2008 caucuses set an attendance record, but attracted only 118,192 voters.

Now, let’s assume that both that they equal their record, and that one of the above losers wins 51% of the vote, absurd though that may be.  51% of 118,192 votes equals 60,278 votes for the winner.

Moving along, I live in Portland OR, home of 583,876 people.  60,278 would represent 10.3% od Portland’s population.  If I were to say to you,  “10.3% of Portlanders like Mitt Romney,” you might say, “So what?”

Lets look at this another way.  There are approximately 169,000,000 registered voters in the US.  60,278 would represent .036%.  That’s 3.6 one hundredths of one percent, an insignificant number.  Seen in that light the Iowa caucuses hardly matter at all.

What we have been experiencing here is pure media hype, and it gives a small handful of activists a lot more influence  than they warrant.

Last night I sacrificed myself for your benefit.  I watched the Republican debate from beginning to end, save a brief interlude to empty three barf bags, my trash can, my pocket and my shoe.  The subject of the debate was the economy.  The Republicans had nothing new to offer, and ignored the subject of jobs, but two of the candidates gave the worst performances I have ever seen in a Presidential Debate.  Let’s go over the candidates and then get Michael Moore’s take on the debate.

In my opinion, the debate was poorly moderated.  There were few hardball questions, but at least they stock with the questions when the Republicans tried to duck.  Not all the candidates got to answer all the questions.

Rick Santorum:

To fix the economy Santorum favors no tax on manufacturers, and allowing corporations to repatriate funds without paying taxes.  He thinks energy should not be subsidized or regulated.  He favors health savings accounts and Medicaid block grants for states.  He would not negotiate with Democrats on revenue.

Michelle Bachmann:

To fix the economy Bachmann favors lower corporate taxes, less corporate regulations, repealing “Obamacare” and Dodd-Frank, and building the Mexican border fence.  She would raise taxes on the poor.  She blamed Obama for TARP.  She would allow health insurance across state lines and outlaw malpractice suits.  She would not renew the payroll tax cuts.  To solve the trade problem with China, she would stop borrowing from China.

Newt Gingrich:

To fix the economy, Gingrich would fire Bernanke, audit the Fed, lowered taxes and cut regulations.  He lied when asked if his firm had represented Fannie and Freddie.  He proposed seven Lincoln-Douglas style debates between himself and Obama.  He would extend the payroll tax cut, privatize Social Security for younger workers, end student loans.  He said that the trade problem with China is all because of US taxes and regulations.

Mitt Romney:

Romney would ignore the Italian debt crisis.  He was on both sides of the auto industry bailout, but finished against it.  He refused to answer a question about Cain’s character.  He said he would preserve Bush tax rates, but later said he would make taxes flatter.  He would convert Medicaid to a voucher program.  He said first that states should manage health care (flip) and then that individuals should (flop).  He would extend payroll tax cuts, cut entitlements and fire 10% of the federal work force.  On trade issues with China, he would accuse them of currency manipulation at the WTO and impose tariffs.

Herman Cain:

Cain would ignore the Italian debt crisis.  He claimed the charges against him are unfounded, saying that thousands of women have not charged him with harassment.  He called Nancy Pelosi “Princess Nancy”.  To fix the economy, he would 9-9-9.  Instead of union rights, he said 9-9-9.  To deal with Fanny and Freddie, he would 9-9-9.  To deal with the trade problem with China, he suggested 9-9-9.  And to deal with speculation and insider trading in the stock marked, he proposed 9-9-9.

Rick Perry: To fix the economy, Perry would let the free market make the decisions.  He proposed a 20% flat tax.  He would change Medicaid to a voucher program for states.  He would eliminate the the Departments od Commerce, Education and Energy, but could not remember Energy until much later.  What a meltdown!  The would privatize Social Security for younger workers.  He would eliminate student loans.  To deal with insider trading a speculation, he would enforce the law.

Ron Paul: Paul would let Italy fail, regardless of consequences to the US.  He would abolish the Fed, replace Medicare with medical savings accounts.  He would eliminate Medicaid (over time), the Department of Education and student loans.  He said students can pay for college the way they pay for cell phones.  To deal with insider trading and speculation, he would get the government out of the markets’ way.

Jon Huntsman:

Huntsman blamed TBTF banks for the Italian debt crisis, and said that the 99% and the 1% are on the same side.  He opposes the auto industry bailout.  Instead of breaking up the TBTF banks, he would “right-size” them, whatever that means.  On healthcare, he would let the market bring everyone in.  He would remove all deductions and loopholes from the tax code.  He would not take China on, because the US manipulates our currency too.

That’s my take.  Here’s Lawrence O’Donnell with Michael Moore.

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

As anticipated, we agree.

If I had to pick a winner, I’d call it a three way tie between Gingrich, Romney and Huntsman, but there were no winners here, because the Republican Party has nothing to offer that will benefit the American people.

However checkered you consider Obama’s record, this cacophony of clowns are eight excellent reasons to reelect him.

Ten years ago this morning, the first airliner hit the tower, as I was about to leave for work.  When I arrived, I learned about the second hit.  My duties that day were to contact top executives of Fortune 500 companies headquartered in New York on behalf of our client, a major developer of computer operating systems, to arrange site visits and one-on-one executive interviews for our client’s research team.  What timing!  I felt uncomfortable calling, but the account exec’s assistant, an airhead and a Republican, ordered me to go to work.  Many of my executive contacts were in the Twin Towers.  I got on the telephone.  Nobody was answering, and many of the lines were out of order.  I did get through and spoke to a man in one of the towers above the fire, who knew he would not survive.  He said he couldn’t dial out and gave me his home number.  He asked me to call his wife and tell her he loved her.  I did.  She was pretty hysterical.  Who could blame her. That shook me up so much that I went to the account executive’s office, and told him I was done for the day.  He asked me what idiot had told me to call into New York under these circumstances.  Because of that experience, I cannot think of 9/11 without my heart going out to the people who lost loved ones that tragic day, and I consider it imperative to do whatever we can, within reason, to prevent a reoccurrence.  One failing, in that regard, is that we often ask who and how, but all too seldom, ask why.  So as we remember the events of 9/11/2001, perhaps it may help if we consider the other 9/11, 9/11/1973.

Twenty eight years earlier, the roles were reversed.  Instead of being attacked, the US had arranged and was assisting an attack to overthrow the democratically elected government of Chile, and the installation of one of the most infamous dictators of the twentieth century, Augusto Pinochet.  An article by Peter Kornblug from August 2003 describes and explains those events.

On September 14, 1970, a deputy to then-National Security Adviser Henry Kissinger wrote him a memo, classified SECRET/SENSITIVE, arguing against covert operations to block the duly elected Chilean socialist Salvador Allende from assuming the presidency. "What we propose is patently a violation of our own principles and policy tenets," noted Viron Vaky. "If these principles have any meaning, we normally depart from them only to meet the gravest threat to us., e.g. to our survival. Is Allende a mortal threat to the U.S.?" Vaky asked. "It is hard to argue this."

Kissinger ignored this advice. The next day he participated in a now-famous meeting where President Nixon instructed CIA Director Richard Helms to "save Chile" by secretly fomenting a coup to prevent Allende’s inauguration. When those covert operations failed, Kissinger goaded Nixon into instructing the entire national security bureaucracy "on opposing Allende" and destabilizing his government. "Election of Allende as president of Chile poses one of [the] most serious challenges ever faced in this hemisphere," says a newly declassified briefing paper Kissinger gave to Nixon two days after Allende’s inauguration. "Your decision as to what to do may be most historic and difficult foreign affairs decision you will have to make this year…. If all concerned do not understand that you want Allende opposed as strongly as we can, result will be steady draft toward modus vivendi approach."

Had Washington adopted a "modus vivendi approach," it is possible that Chileans, indeed citizens around the world, would not be solemnly commemorating the thirtieth anniversary of the coup that brought Gen. Augusto Pinochet to power. In the United States, the meaning of this anniversary is, understandably, overshadowed by the shock and tragedy of our own 9/11. But Chile reminds us that the topics of debate on US foreign policy today–pre-emptive strikes, regime change, the arrogance of unilateral intervention, unchecked covert action and secrecy and dishonesty in government–are not new. From the thousands of formerly classified US documents released over the past several years, the picture that emerges strikes some haunting parallels with the news of the day.

Chile, it must be recalled, constitutes a classic example of a pre-emptive strike–a set of operations launched well before Salvador Allende set foot in office. Nixon ordered the CIA on September 15, 1970, to "make the economy scream" and to foment a military move to block Allende from being inaugurated six weeks later, in November; the Chilean leader had yet to formulate or authorize a single policy detrimental to US interests. "What happens over [the] next 6-10 months will have ramifications far beyond US-Ch[ilean] relations," Kissinger predicted in a dire warning to Nixon only forty-eight hours after Allende actually took office. "Will have effect on what happens in rest of LA and developing world; our future position in hemisphere; on larger world picture…even effect our own conception of what our role in the world is."

As in the distorted threat assessment on Iraq, this was sheer speculation–unsupported, indeed contradicted, by US intelligence. In August 1970 CIA, State and Defense Department analysts had determined that "the US has no vital national interests within Chile," and that the world "military balance of power would not be significantly altered" if Allende came to power… [emphasis added]

Inserted from <The Nation>

For many years, the United States has treated the rest of the world, particularly third world nations, as the private reserve of an American economic empire, repeatedly using force, usually covertly, any time a nation had the audacity to suggest that their resources should benefit their own people, not US corporations.  Neither party is blameless, but the majority and most heinous of such actions occurred  during Republican administrations.  In the twentieth century, the United States overthrew more democratically elected governments and installed more dictators than any other nation ever has.  No nation can stand toe-to-toe against the US on the battlefield, so guerilla tactics are the only option available to nations who would oppose us.

We should also remember that there would be no such thing as Al Qaeda, had not Republicans under Reagan financed it’s formation to perform terrorist attacks against the USSR.

I do not hate this country.  I love the USA enough to insist that we return to practicing the principles we claim to profess.  These are the lessons we need to learn to prevent future terrorists attacks against the US. If we practice oppression, we guarantee resistance.  If we practice partnership, we will get cooperation.  We need to stop trying to control other countries by force,  To forestall terrorism, we must stop participating in and supporting terrorism ourselves.

For the last lesson, let’s return to the story with which I began.  Shortly after the account executive agreed that I was done for the day, the company shut down for the rest of the day too.  Several of us gathered around the TV in the lunch room.  Knowing that I am politically involved, coworkers asked me what was going to happen.  I told them that I thought Bush would use the attack as an excuse to do two things: to invade Iraq and to curtail civil liberates guaranteed under our Constitution.  The last lesson is this.  If we adopt the tactics of evil to oppose evil, we become no different than the evil we oppose.

Even if we do all that, we must still be vigilant.  Sadly there are forces in pseudo-Islam that pursue hatred against America, just as there are forces in pseudo-Christianity that pursue hatred against Muslims, both for their own respective right-wing political agendas.  Both are equally dangerous.

There’s been much ado of late about who is to blame for our national debt.  To hear Republicans talk, Obama is at fault for every penny, while Democrats, less forcefully, blame it on Republicans.  Of course, I knew that both parties were responsible and believed that Republicans were to a much greater extent than Democrats.  Yesterday I was listening to the Fred and Jed Show and heard Margaret Meyer express the same view.  So I decided to do a little digging and prepared a spreadsheet on how much each administration in my lifetime increased the national debt.  Here are those numbers.

Increase in National Debt
Republicans			Democrats
President	$Trillions		President	$Trillions
Eisenhower	$0.01		Kennedy/Johnson	$0.03
Eisenhower	$0.02		Johnson	$0.04
Nixon	$0.10		Carter	$0.29
Nixon/Ford	$0.24		Clinton	$1.02
Reagan	$0.82		Clinton	$0.40
Reagan	$1.05		Obama	$1.65
GHW Bush	$1.48
GW Bush	$2.14
GW Bush	$3.97
Total	$9.83			$3.43
Avg/Term	$1.09			$0.57

Data source: CBO

This is raw data, not indexed or adjusted.  Unlike Republican, the numbers do not lie.  They apportion the blame fairly.