Politics of personal destruction: target Romney

Romney has achieved something nobody except incumbent presidents have managed for decades: winning bot the Iowa and New Hampshire primaries. The main (lame) street media cannot not bring itself to acknowledge the fact.
Newt Gingrich has shown himself to be a callow opportunist, using attacks on Romney's economics record which are going to be picked up and quoted by the Dems in the general election.

In 2008 media handed the victory to Obama by not vetting him. They allowed 'hopey, changey' rhetoric to go unchallenged, and ignored Obama's record of long-term associations with radicals like his pastor of 20-years Wright("G-d damn America!"), and the man who started Obama's political career in his living room - Bill Ayers.

What does this have to do with Romney? We're about the see the most expensive and disgusting politics of personal destruction. Dems are going to try to annihilate Romney as a viable candidate, because the Obama administration doesn't have a record to stand on.

Media has grown disaffected with Obama, but what can they do - vote Republican? They are still rooting for him. Now that Obama has a record (unlike in 2008) the only way for him to win is to attack his opponents not of a political, but more of a personal level. Most of these attacks will be performed gratis by the media.

Expect a return of the fairness doctrine, which is a nice euphemism for shutting down forums for conservatives (e.g. Rush Limbaugh radio, Fox). It is becoming increasingly necessary as the media is slowly losing popular support/viewers. Fox is already watched by as many people as the rest of the networks combined, but neither this rejection by the viewers, not dropping profits have dissuaded these shameless propagandists from their biased programming. They can and will operate at a loss and some, like NY Times, have been doing that for years. The elitists need to brainwash people is so great, profits are a secondary concern. Besides, these folks never had much faith in capitalism.

I'm going to make a prediction: the media (ABC, CBS, CNN, and MSNBC) are going to embarrass themselves with vitriolic, gratuitous attacks on Romney. This prediction is based on my assessment of these TV networks being run by corrupt apparatchiks, more interested in political dominance than in intellectual honesty, or professionalism.

It's time to not only ditch Obama, but turn off these media outlets: expose their propaganda and utterly unprofessional behavior (how much flak did CBS suffer from Dan Rather's insistence of veracity of obviously fake document about G.W.Bush?). This country cannot function with the 'fourth estate' (media relative to 3 branches of government) behaving like a 'fifth column'(traitors to journalistic professionalism and, therefore, the country).

Iowa chooses relevance

Iowa caucuses are less than two weeks away, and Romney is finally pulling ahead of perennial candidate Ron Paul.  Iowa: Romney 25% Paul 20% Gingrich 17% Is this reflecting shifting opinions of the primary voters, or concern that Iowa could lose its clout by nominating Paul, who has no chance to win enough states to clinch the GOP nomination.

Paul has a very small, but dedicated following, and has done well in IA caucuses in the past. Ron Paul could play the role of a spoiler for the GOP nomination, so it would be very useful to minimize his impact in the only state where he has a shot.  A number of commentators have expressed concern what his win would mean for Iowa's coveted first primary. First, Fox News pundit Chris Wallace’s suggested that the Iowa result “won’t count” if Ron Paul wins.

"Mortal” is how Doug Gross, a leading Republican lawyer and Branstad adviser, characterized the severity of the wound of Paul win would for Iowa's role in the primaries.

Even the Iowa governor said If Ron Paul Wins, Ignore It And Look At Who Finishes Second.

Regardless, of the cause for Paul's slide in Iowa's polls, it's is good news for the Republicans. Ron Paul has some great ideas, but he also also has some inane, and zany ideas. He makes a great contribution to opposition whichever party is in charge of the government. No reason to mess up a good thing.

Riding out the perfect storm of 2012

To weater the gathering perfect storm US needs to keep to minds its business, and avoid adventures into the turbulent waters abroad.

In the ocean, rogue waves form where strong ocean currents intersect, but they can travel too. In the air, collision of highly mobile weather systems over weather can produce perfect storms. These are less regular than ocean currents, but the presence of several intense systems is good indication of trouble.

Economic and political trends going into 2012, show a similar presence of multiple intense 'systems':
Europe is likely to undergo protracted political and economic slide, and will be very needy and self-centered.

Middle East has given rise to the Arab spring, with hopes are being replaced by harsh realities. In most countries where new situation is possible: Tunisia, Lybia, Egypt the democratic forces are weaker than either Islamic factions or the military. Terrible pictures from this weekend in Egypt prove, among other things, that the interests of military are not identical with those of the democratic forces, or the public at large. During Lybia's civil war there a wave of refugees set of for Europe. In fact, the whole point of US military intervention was to help Europe manage a military and immigration situation on it's periphery. Europe will be less able to provide US assistance with continuing trouble in the Middle East as their intense economic difficulties.

In Asia there are new realities that spell trouble. A newly assertive China has recently launched a refurbished Russian aircraft carrier. Even Vietnam turned to US recently asking to help safeguards it's rights in the South China Sea, which China's first step to re-establishing itself as a maritime superpower centuries after their great exploration came a sudden stop. We could expect the same from the new China, as the old:
In 1405, the emperor Zhu Di who recently usurped the dragon throne needed to legitimize his rule and sent out a great maritime expedition led by his talented slave who became a navigator: “Zheng He has been sent overseas with gifts to declare my will. It is forbidden to bully small and weak nations”.
Officially, the maritime expeditions sought peace and friendship, but in reality achieved economic and political domination wherever they passes. “The Chinese simply arranged to replace unfriendly leaders in countries where they encountered difficulties with someone willing to trade on their terms”, summarized Louise Levathes in her book 'When China ruled the seas'.

North Korea's old leader Kim Jung Il finally died today of a heart attack. He's been replaced by his unknown play-boy son. Recently, South Koreans expressed their fears that passing of the old leader could lead to instability. North Korea is one of the most repressive nations on earth, John Bolton correctly called it 'a horrible nightmare', and this is one of the few instances when some change in that horrible situation is possible. Forgive me, if I don't pine to status quo with any zeal. Of course, destruction of the nepotistic Stalinist regime could be a very, very painful process.

Russia is in revolutionary throes. The most likely outcome appears to be increasing modern, non-lethal repression and victory of Putin in March's elections. His angry and provocative disrespect of demonstrators is increasing the scepticism of the weary public beyond thresholds which even the stout Russian soul can tolerate. It likely outcome, is a restive populace fighting modern surveillance and repression through demonstrations, and civil disobedience. The opposition to Putin is committed to non-violent means, but the question remains can they make it impossible for him to govern?

Iran has delivered a public humiliation to Barack Obama and his administration by belittling his pleas to get RQ-170 spy plane back. Given the relationship between the countries, and the spying on Iran the drone was likely involved in, there was absolutely no reason for US to subject itself to this humiliation. On top of an intelligence and technology fiasco, it gave the perception of impotence which is very dangerous in the region. Besides, do we need to give mullahs any more confidence, while they defying the world to build nuclear weapons? Iranians have recently flaunted on of their cards by holding an exercise to close the straits of Hormuz, through which a thirds of the worlds oil is shipped.

Israel is surrounded by Hizbollah, Hamas and it's ally Palestian Authority, an increasingly hostile Egypt while threats Iran makes periodic threats of annihilation. If Israel is forced to acts against Iran without direct involvement by US things would be very ugly.

United States will have to deal with a lot even before elections in presidential elections on November 2012. We can expect no leadership from Obama. I foresee a sole exception: Obama may allow an Israeli strike on Iran in the late summer of 2012, not to help Israel, but to score political points. The Supreme Court is going to rule on Obamacare in the summer, in the heat of the political battles. Things are getting hot. And we need a cool-headed leader. Recently, I wrote an article explaining why think that Romney is be the best candidate in 2012 GOP field. Romney has strong credentials and interest in domestic politics. He is relatively weak and disinterested in foreign relations.

Considering the gathering perfect storm of 2012 I see Romney more favorably because of this limitation.

With the exception of Iranian crisis, the best strategy for the US is to get its own house in order and away from the world's troubles. The world will long for the good old days of 'US hegemony', when it tried too hard to solve the worlds problems. The war in Iraq is a sad example. For the cost of hundreds of billions and several thousand lives of US armed forces, what have we achieved?
We removed a major counter-weight to Iran, and replaced it with a democracy which is already under Iranian influence.

Syria. There little motivation for US to get involved with Syria. After all US got involved in Lybia's conflict to help Europe (primarily Italy) secure its borders against refugee flux, not Lybia's quest for self-determination. I am not suggesting any military involvement in Syria, but taking a clear moral stand. Even the dictator's club of Arab league has denounced Assad more strongly that US under Obama. Obama's term was very expensive for the US, and abroad; nobody can afford another.

To weather the coming perfect storm US needs to forgo invasive foreign policy and simply get its economy in order. Meanwhile, we should express outrage against violence in Egypt, and ballot stuffing in Russia, etc. but limit ourselves to the right words, even if the world burns around us.

SEC charges ex-Fannie and Freddie chiefs, with a curious exception

The great mortgage securities crisis in late 2008 was in large part the responsibility of Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae, which helped politicians push banks towards risky lending by providing a guaranteed secondary market for home loans.

The loans were bundled, and sliced like salami, ensuring that the risk an evaluation of these slices would defy understanding in the future. George W. Bush, to his credit, tried to push through a reform in 2005-2006, but was stymied by Barney Franks who repeatedly claimed these 'government sponsored enterprises' were sound. Moreover, anyone questioning them was on a political witch hunt.

Several years later, the old chiefs of Fannie and Freddie are being held responsible responsible for misleading investors, the public and Congress.

Robert Khuzami, SEC enforcement director, said Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac executives told the world that their subprime exposure was substantially smaller than it really was.” The misrepresentations allegedly misled the market about the risk held on the company’s books “during a time of acute investor interest in financial institutions’ exposure to subprime loans”.

Franklin Raines was Chairman and CEO of Fannie for several years, but was forced to retire uner investigations for irregular accounting discovered by audits. Rains got a golden parachute valued at about $240 million. The Bush government did sue Raines, and in 2006 a court ordered him to return $50 million from bonuses for mis-stated deals.

In 2008 McCain campaign tried to cast Raines as an advisor to the Obama campaign based on a Washington Post article from July 16 of that year where Rains said he had "taken calls from Barack Obama's presidential campaign seeking his advice on mortgage and housing policy matters".
The connection is flimsy. Still, I would expect Franklin Raines to head the list of convicted heads of Fannie and Freddy. Could his relationship with Obama have anything to do with Raines getting away scott free, while smaller fish are made to fry?

Interesting trend in popularity of articles on Russia and US

The website is four days old, although it's growth is full of spits and spurts.
What really caught my attention was the popularity of the story about the Russian spring and US election. The latter, I thought was rather timely, because the next day after I wrote a blog Center is the new Right arguing for GOP nomination of Romney by the GOP, Ann Coulter came out for Romney as well as Washington Examiner. The next day I wrote an article about Putin's low regard for demonstrators of Russian spring, and various methods of suppression of dissent.
The later article about Russia, had a shorter life, but managed to accumulate more that double the number of page views for the Romney blog. I wonder why this is? Is it my unique knowledge of Russia and ability to offers interesting insights outweighing the interest in local politics. I thought the two articles were roughly comparable, and wonder why the one about Russia proved so popular with American (where majority of the readers are from, see second picture).  Was the 'smiling bear' smiling bear more unique content, or simple better written?

If you're one of the readers who saw both articles, I would be interested in your impression and preferences.

I have written another pair of articles (earlier) about the Russian spring, a shorter one about a new demonstration scheduled for Saturday (tomorrow, 12/17/11) as well as a longer one, Russian spring in the swamp, which  more in depth, and the funniest of the three. If you enjoyed the 'smiling bear' story
  try the longs story about the Bolotnaya (Swamp Square).

Suspending the Bill of Rights of American Citizens

Abandon all hope ye, who enter here. Where's here? In terms of the space-time continuous, United States, "Bill of Rights" day in Decemeber 2011. Here is also a major red line in terms in the balance between protection of rights and life.

The reason for the quote and the puns is that yesterday the House approved the rule for the 2012 National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA). That means today, the 'Bill of Rights' day could see Obama sign the 'Indefinite Detention' bill into law that will allow nothing less than suspension of the Bill of Rights for Americans deemed to be 'terrorists'.

I am quite hawkish about fighting terrorism, but we're about to cross a major line here. Where are the brakes that will stop the government from declaring terrorists of tomorrow? How about enablers of terrorists, surely they could be a dangerous fifth column? Do conservative bloggers who use harsh language against liberals qualify? Well, that depends on who sets the rules. Now, I'm willing to forego demands to push for jailing of people like Arianna Huffington, for the sake of ensuring the freedom of speech for everybody.

What is very odd about this law is that while the law, sponsored by Senators Levin and McCain, did not originally cover American citizens, but the Obama administration insisted and the broader law was approved by the House yesterday.

Senator Grahm provided a clear example of the new law, as applicable to a terrorist. However, the same message would receive by an innocent person persecuted by an over-empowered government:

“And when they say, ‘I want my lawyer,’ you tell them, ‘Shut up. You don’t get a lawyer."

Weren’t these the same people who cried that Bush took away our civil liberties? I'm worried about the medium and longer-term implications of this. This is one of those rules that can only be safeguarded by never making exceptions.

Democrats for Newt Gingrich

Still hoping for my blog to be properly indexed by Google, I came across an article on Tampa Bay website  that echoes my blog about Gingrich's suitability for the VP, but not the presidency.

The author of the article described the potential nomination of Gingrich for the presidency by the GOP as a 'suicide pact':

"Democrats laugh, as if the GOP has lost its collective mind and entered a political suicide pact. The GOP establishment is having a conniption."

The same article quoted the former Florida congressman Joe Scarborough from last week on his Morning Joe when he said of Gingrich: "He will destroy our party. He will re-elect Barack Obama and we'll be ruined." I agree. What makes it difficult, is that I like Newt Gingrich a lot, but not for a GOP nominee in 2012. Liking Newt Gingrich is not inconsistent with rejecting him for the top of the GOP ticket - that's why I wrote the blog 'Center is the new Right' - to analyze and ultimately to reject emotional response to the coming decisive election.

David Axelrod reveals his quality once again

At briefing for reporters, Axelrod said regarding Gingrich: "The higher a monkey climbs on the pole the more you can see his butt."

Read more: http://thepage.time.com/2011/12/13/axelrod-sets-sights-on-gingrich/#ixzz1gUcNnTOc

This reinforces several characteristics of my image of Axelrod: he is vulgar and hateful deep down, as well as a man who has bought into his own hubris. Axelrod is known for being 'on message', a political disciplinarian, but he should have held his tongue.

Can you imagine the outcry if somebody has said those exact words about Obama?!

No amount of evidence of Obama's failures or misrepresentations would suffice to choke off the liberal outcry of indignation. Reversing this criticism reveals the hypocrisy of Axelrod, who doesn't seem to realize he is casting stones from inside a glass house. The main-stream media is to blame; it has not challenged these double-standards.

Center is the new Right: GOP should nominate Romney

The ideological and radical Obama administration has become a common nightmare, sadly, in line with my expectations. The evidence was there before the election, but I couldn't even convince my retired parents that in addition to economic malaise Obama would impose while Congress is controlled entirely by the Democrats, but social programs, such as Medicare, on which they rely, would actually get cut not strengthened. Enlarging the nanny state Obama administration would certainly mean 'more' social entitlements, but for those who had difficulty imagining why 'more means worse' for social programs the administration spent two years pushing through Obamacare to demonstrate.  
It is time for Americans to stop being dupes, and question leadership that pulls bait-and-switch tactics. Obama decried in one TV interview that it is easy to be cynical about the government, suggesting we should elevate ourselves above such prejudice to succeed. It is difficult to imagine administration more cynical than Obama's with its 'subversive' leadership style.

Obama got a huge surge of popularity during the 2008 bank crisis in US, was seen as a better steward of the economy than McCain. Obama promised to make the economy a priority, then pushed through Obamacare, and sold it a key structural reform for the economy, although major implementation of occurs only during 2013-14. And over 2000 organizations that supported Obama have received waivers from Obamacare. 

There are only two explanations for the disparity between immediacy of economic pain and its tenuous long-term solution through reform of health-care - 15% of annual GPD of US. Either the brilliant salesman Obama assembled a team to equal his inexperience and incompetence, and failed to comprehend that healthcare reform could not have any positive effect - economically or politically during his first term. Or did the Obama administration decide to cash in during two years of total controlled of the administrative and executive branches and pulled a bait-and-switch to push through a pipe-dream from the top of the radical liberal agenda? During this time the British government-sponsored universal that was finally admitted as failure (no mean feat, which took a long time and cost a lot of live) and was being abandoned the only explanation for this behavior is radical ideology.

Charles Krauthammer, a talented syndicated columnist who writes for Washington Post and is known for his insightful, if mildly phrased descriptions, characterzed Obama's administrative style as 'subversive'. Subversive, is an apt description, but it is also a euphemism for 'based on lies and misrepresentations', although it has the benefit of brevity.

I remember watching the town-hall meeting with candidate McCain in 2008 when a middle-aged black man got a microphone and pleaded with McCain to challenge Obama's vague, collectivist program of reform: "Take it to him", the man said impassionedly.

We are in need of someone who can take Obama to task for his assumptions, actions and results. I felt obliged to provide a strong example of Obama's duplicity before asserting the obvious truth - that the administration it is a travesty and needs to be challenged most strongly. The corruption of government and society under this administration will take a long time to repair, and many of the people who perpetrated this 'social experiment' on the American people need to be questioned. Recently, Eric Holder has been shown to have misled Congress about his knowledge of the infamous ATF's 'Fast and Furious' gun-running operation, but is getting away with it.

Corruption flourishes it it is not prosecuted.

On Bill Clinton's last day in office assistant attorney general, Eric Holder, issued over 150 pardons including one for a convicted financier Mark Rich, whose wife made a very generous donation to Clinton's reelection campaign in 1996. George W. Bush clearly had great regard for the office of the presidency, and possibly because of that respect he did not investigate Eric Holder. Clearly, that was a mistake, because of Holder's amorality thinly disguised by boring legalese.

Despite merits of holding the Obama administration to account to the full extent of the law, the way of confrontation may not be in the best interest of US. The economic problems are more pressing, than those of political corruption. Both short- and long-term goals can be fulfilled by an administration that restores the economy and faith in public officials through honest governance. The exposure and trial of perpetrators should not be neglected, but should remain secondary goals.

Excessive zeal in repealing Obamacare, and reversing all the policies of the Obama administration, could contribute to an ideological divide separating the country. By unilaterally implementing a reckless, radical agenda and seeking to redistribute ('spreading') the wealth the Obama administration opened up deep divisions. Reversing these policies could exacerbate the political polarization, and make compromise less, not more likely.

Newt Gingrich has a lot of positive traits and accomplishments, which I respect, however tempting he is as a counterweight to Obama, and he could well become a very polarizing influence. 'Contract with America' is a fine example of transparent, accountable government that we need and want. In addition to Newt's accomplishments as a conservative politician he is thoughtful man - a historian - who learns from past experience, rather than gambling that he can overcome historical precedents through sheer power of personal charisma, as the Obama administration has done. Nevertheless, Newt is not well suited for the top of the GOP ticket. For all his brilliance, he can be erratic, and undisciplined. Historically, he reminds me of Erich Ludendorff, whose brilliant tactics drove back the demoralized Russians in 1917, but was known to be temperamental and cracked under the pressure of the last German offensives on the Western front in 1918. That was why it was good he had a stable, if unimaginative superior, von Hindenburg. Ludendorff’s breakdown was the reason his unimaginably dull superior was elected chancellor.

Newt Gingrich is an 'idea' mean, and would make a fine VP. Nominating him for the top of the GOP ticket could result in an erratic, polarizing presidency that spends too much time on rectification of old wrongs, or simply on politics, and neglects to fix the economy, which requires short-term measures, in addition to long-term reduction of regulatory burden, abolishing Obamacare, etc.

The alternative is to nominate a centrist, and an outsider with financial acumen - Mitt Romney.

Romney was the last person I wanted to see nominated before the alternatives were clear. In light of the remaining contenders for GOP nomination, he is the best way forward. Mitt Romney has flimsy conservative credentials, but Obama's radical left-wing policies can be effectively countered by a centrist. After the pendulum of government swung so far to the left, it is natural for it to rebound with equal force in the opposite direction; however it is neither necessary nor desirable to push so violently for a reversal. If GOP could demonstrate itself capable of competent centrist governance, it would entrench its political prominence by bringing the center under the big tent, and benefit the party more than more a more radical change of direction.

Despite Gingrich's success in working with Democrats in the past, dismantling Obamacare without emotional prejudice may be beyond him, after over 30 years in Washington, D.C. Romney appears to stand a chance of bringing the two sides together.

While Romney was the governor of Massachusetts he installed a state-wide program that is very similar in spirit to Obamacare. There are cogent distinctions to be made between mandatory imposition of healthcare coverage at the Federal and State levels, however, the opposition appears to be more interested in 'total war' on the Obama administration and its radical ideology. I sympathize; vengeance is a joy to the soul, and jailing some of officials who doled out the 'Stimulus' cash to their buddies would really help to discourage corruption in the future. We need long prison sentences though, because the Chicago apparatchiks that are running the show are notoriously bold, and it takes a lot to discourage their corruption. The 6.5-year prison sentence of George Ryan, the governor of Illinois who preceded Blagojevich, did not discourage the latter from trying to sell his executive power to appoint a successor for Senate seat vacated by Obama. After denying any wrong-doing, and claiming to be a victim of political witch-hunt for years, Blago pleaded mercy at the sentencing after being convicted on 18 counts. The judge gave Blago 14 years - let us hope would-be governors of Illinois are impressed by that number.

Outcomes such as sentencing of Blago are very healthy for a democracy, however, the president must focus on the economy first, and justice second. Romney is likely to focus the economy and be less polarizing than Newt while still dismantling Obamacare.