IN THE END LIBERALISM WINS (Republished from December 31, 2009)

[Last March I republished a piece called Snake Bit  because the URL didn't work.(https://stopcontinentaldrift.blogspot.com/2018/03/snake-bit_8.html)  This reprint was more popular than the original so I thought it might be fun to look at a few other posts.  On December 31, 2009, at the end of my first  (partial) year of publishing this blog, I published a piece called In The End, Liberalism Wins so here it is and I warn you that it is rather long, however, once you start it may grab your attention.  Right now, liberalism is under attack and America is taking some steps backward, but, with any luck, it will make a comeback, exactly when is not known.]

IN THE END, LIBERALISM WINS

(August 16, 2003) Lots of people (well, two) have wondered why I'm not bombarding them with e-mails anymore. So here 'tis. At least in this country, in the end, liberalism wins, though it certainly takes awhile. The reason I take pen to paper (or more accurately fingers to keyboard) regards Rick Santorum, a Senator [now former] from Pennsylvania. You remember him, he is the one who became famous for intemperate comments about all laws regarding morality were off because of a Supreme Court decision that Gays have a right to privacy in their own homes and which struck down a Texas law. Less noticed in his speech was that he said this followed from an earlier Connecticut law, also struck down by the Supreme Court, in which it was against the law for married people to use contraceptives!

Well, now Santorum leads a charge accusing the Democrats of playing an anti-Catholic card to prevent a couple judges, who happen to be Roman Catholic, from promotions to be judges on higher courts (I suspect that once he is away from cameras and reporters, he laughs his head off.). Lost in all this is that President Kennedy was a Roman Catholic, and also, as it happens, a Democrat to boot. If you are old enough, you may recall that the Republicans opposed him on the grounds that he would be taking orders from the Pope, a charge that Kennedy vehemently opposed. Well, time moves on, and now we have Republicans wanting to appoint Roman Catholic judges to high court positions (even if they won't nominate one for President). If the Democrats have charged that they would be taking orders from the Pope, I haven't heard it. Boys and girls, this is a real advance. You also may recall that one knock on Adlai Stevenson, when he ran for President, was that he was divorced. By the time Republican Ronald Reagan, who also was a divorcee, ran for President, it was a non-issue. As to pot (Marihuana), it was a big issue when Clinton was running for president, but George "Dubya" Bush got let off by simply saying he had done some things when he was younger that he wasn't proud of. Whether I agree or disagree with what these people are doing or saying, liberalism is winning.

We now have in a Republican administration, a Black Secretary of State and a Black woman, of all things, as the Presidential security advisor. I mention the woman partly because it was just a few Republican administrations ago that a prominent official, male, of course, said that women don't understand things like throw weights (for rockets). I can hardly believe my eyes and ears. There are Republicans who grouse about such appointments, to be sure, and can hardly wait to get Secretary Powell out of there, but it looks like he will stay a whole term. For good measure, I believe we have an Asian-American woman as Secretary of Labor and an Asian-American man as Secretary of HUD. We also have a Republican Governor, Jeb Bush, married to a Hispanic American and former Senator Gramm married to an Asian woman. Ditto for a ''conservative" columnist (George Will, in case you can't guess).

Well, I grew up in a pretty conservative Republican neighborhood, and I can tell you people would have been shocked if I had come home with a Black, Asian, or Hispanic girlfriend. I also might mention that had I come home with a Roman Catholic girlfriend, it would have created a strained situation with my parents who would have at least gotten a lot of sympathy from the neighbors. It used to be said by the more liberal members about any of these groups that "They are nice people, but I wouldn't want my child to marry one!" I'll bet many of you remember this phrase. Yes, liberalism is winning.

While I am at it, I might mention that some aspects of liberalism have been adopted by Republicans that probably shouldn't be. The neighborhood I grew up in was fiscally very conservative, not to the point that they wouldn't take out a loan to buy a house and maybe an automobile, but they thought Federal deficits were immoral. I recall one neighbor telling me in the late 1940s that these Federal deficits would destroy the economy though he admitted he didn't know exactly when. So what I have in mind here is the adoption by Republicans of the liberal notion that the bigger the Federal deficit the better. But then, after all, it was President Nixon who said that we are all Keynesians now (though Keynes actually said we should pay back deficits in economically good times).

I might add that then, as now, you heard about the evils of handing Federal deficits on to our children. Well, here I am one of the children paying off for the Federal deficits from our parent's age and handing on even bigger ones to the current children. Make no mistake, I believe this is a serious matter. The deficit for the current fiscal year is estimated to be $450 billion. That is just about the sum of all the discretionary spending in the Federal budget (All the departments such as Interior, HUD, Treasury, Energy, Health (excluding Social Security and Medicare which are not discretionary because they are supported by special taxes.), Education, Veterans Affairs, etc.). So you would have to wipe all these out to just balance the budget, and, incidentally, you would probably run up a deficit next fiscal year which is expected to be bigger than this year. There still are a few fiscally conservative Republicans, but they seem to get rolled.

Well, if the Democrats want to get into our wallets, the Republicans want to get into our bedrooms. Santorum isn't alone in feeling frustrated that the Supreme court won't let him (so far). Antonin Scalia, a Supreme Court justice, by the way, wrote that the verdict of privacy for Gays would destroy lots of state laws controlling morals, among which he mentioned masturbation (!). It would be kind of fun to see him take a lie detector test on whether he had disobeyed that law.

An update added November 8, 2008: We have just witnessed Sen. Barack Obama - a black man and a Democrat - being elected president of the United States on November 4, 2008, and the Republicans ran Sen. John McCain - Roman Catholic - against him. Walter "Fritz" Mondale selected Democrat Rep. Geraldine Ferraro of New York as his Vice-Presidential nominee in the 1984 election, the first woman nominated in that position. Ferraro was eventually followed by Gov. Sarah Palin of Alaska, who was selected by John McCain as his running mate in 2008. Although neither candidate became vice-president, it is now all right for women to be selected as presidential running mates. William Clinton had Madeleine Albright as the first woman Secretary of State. In the first term of George "Dubya" Bush, Gen. Colin Powell was the first Black Secretary of State who was followed by Condoleezza Rice -a Black woman. In the end, liberalism still wins in these United States.

An update added October 4, 2009: Now with Sonia Sotomayor, six of the nine Supreme Court justices are Roman Catholics, two are Jewish, and one is Protestant.

An update added December 31, 2009: There is lots more that could have been said about liberalism winning in the long run. Women and minorities being able to enter any university and graduate schools of any university is certainly not a minor advance. Getting rid of legalized Jim Crow was certainly another major advance. The Voting Rights Act of 1964 was another major advance, in this case, put over the top by Republicans (This was before the solid south of the Democrats became the Southern Strategy of the Republicans.). Today you will even see women and minorities as CEOs of major corporations. And Hillary Clinton certainly put a whole lot of cracks in the glass ceiling of a woman running for president of these United States.


Original reference for this article is: https://stopcontinentaldrift.blogspot.com/2009/12/in-end-liberalism-wins.html

REPUBLICAN CANDIDATES FOR PRESIDENT IN 2012 - MY TAKE

Jon Huntsman: I admire his patriotism in accepting the position of Ambassador to China in a Democratic administration even though he is a Republican. He was splendidly qualified to be the ambassador to this strategic country right down to his speaking the language - Mandarin. By all accounts, he was a successful fiscally-conservative twice-elected governor of Utah and cut the state budget by $400 million while maintaining a budget surplus. As a result, the Pew Research Center named Utah "The Best managed State in America." He was a White House staff assistant to Ronald Reagan, Deputy Assistant Secretary of Commerce to George H.W. Bush, and was Ambassador to Singapore. Interesting fact: Jon Huntsman nominated Sarah Palin at the 2008 Republican convention (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jAc1I--I8Os). I view John Huntsman to be by far the most qualified Republican to run for President, though he may be hurt by his Mormon religion and, shortsightedly, by his accepting the Ambassadorship in a Democratic administration.

Mitt Romney: After earning a BA from Brigham Young University, Mitt Romney received a joint JD/BBA from Harvard. He has considerable business experience in which he was remarkably successful, having worked for Boston consulting Group and Bain & Company. He is credited to helping such companies as Monsanto and Corning to become profitable again. He progressed to doing venture capital operations, one of which was Staples as head of Bain Capital. He became CEO of Bain & Company in 1991 and is credited with saving the company. He is credited with saving the 2002 Salt Lake City Winter Olympics and leading it to success. Romney became a one-term governor of Massachusetts in 2003 where through a series of spending cuts, increased fees, and fixing tax loophole, he turned the state from a deficit to a large surplus. All was not well, however, as there were silent increases elsewhere. His cutting of state aid to higher education resulted in large tuition increases (63%) in the following years. Because of his cuts in the state budget, town and city property taxes also had had to be raised. And his raising of fees for drivers and marriage licenses and a two cent retailer fee on gasoline was a hardship on the poor and lower classes. But the total tax burden in Massachusetts remained below the national average. Interesting fact: Romney did do his Mormon missionary work and tithes to his church.

He then championed near-universal health care funded by a payroll tax for Massachusetts on the basis that the uninsured still received expensive health care anyway, and there was a threat of a cut in Federal Medicaid aid if the state did not decrease the number of uninsured. He has been roundly criticized for this by many out-of-state Republicans, but he has said that what he did was appropriate for the state but not for the Federal government. Among the many things many Republicans don't like in the healthcare bill is the individual mandate that Romany pushed through for Massachusetts. As of mid-year in 2011, Romney has raised the most money by far of any Republican candidate. All in all, Romney might make a good president and probably would largely decrease the Federal deficit (but with quiet increases elsewhere); however his waffling on many issues such as abortion (http://www.ontheissues.org/governor/Mitt_Romney_Abortion.htm) in trying to get support from his fellow Republicans make in doubt his success in getting the Republican nomination for president.

Michelle Bachman: Michelle Bachman is prone to making outrageous comments,*** that I call her evil twin. She has hired some top level handlers for her campaign, and, if she can keep her evil twin at bay, she could be dangerous. She is a former state Senator, a three-time elected Representative from Minnesota, a member of the Religious Right and the Tea Party, has five children, and took care of 23 foster girls up to three at a time. She has not only a JD from Oral Roberts University, but also has a LLM (Master of Law) from William & Mary Law School and has worked as a tax attorney for the IRS. She and her husband did receive daily reimbursement for the foster children from the state of Minnesota. They also run a Christian counseling practice and receive money from the Federal government for this. Originally a Democrat, she worked for the first Carter election though she switched to Ronald Reagan for Carter's reelection bid. She is a very active opponent to Gay Marriage. She opposed the College Cost Reduction Act and Access Act signed into law by President Bush. Curious fact: she once worked on a Kibbutz (http://www.worthychristianforums.com/index.php?/topic/140802-michelle-bachman-once-lived-on-a-kibbutz-in-israel/).

Perhaps Bachman's most famous bill was to oppose a law to eliminate incandescent light bulbs unless they could be made as efficient as a compact florescent lights (CFL), which Bachman interpreted as outlawing incandescent lights (http://stopcontinentaldrift.blogspot.com/2011/05/will-incandescent-light-bulbs-be-banned.html). A complex matter involves mercury contained in CFLs; however, " Bob Collins of Minnesota Public Radio commented on the debate, noting a Popular Mechanics article which concluded that over the average life span of a CFL, an incandescent bulb could result in the emission of more mercury than an equivalent CFL, even if the CFL was broken, assuming power was generated by "a coal-fired power plant" (which produce about half the electricity the US consumes)." (See Wikipedia article below). Actually, incandescent lights will probably be improved to compete with CFLs.

Note added 07-11): Michelle Bachman signed a pledge that included a clause that black children were better off under slavery (http://www.rawstory.com/rs/2011/07/11/bachmann-denies-marriage-pledge-was-about-slavery/). She says she did not read the pledge carefully enough though this suggests she is careless.

Tim Pawlenty: Pawlenty started politics early having been elected to the Eagan city council at he age of 28. Served in the Minnesota House of Representative where he was majority leader for two terms. He served as the two term governor of Minnesota from 2003-2011, winning by narrow margins. He has a BA in political science and a JD from the University of Minnesota. He solved Minnesota's deficit problem through spending cuts (including on health care) and borrowing heavily from earmarked funds (e.g. the tobacco settle supposed to be for health care and the K-12 education, and the Health Care fund for low income families). He did support raising of fees (like Romney) and government reorganization to cut the deficit. His anti-healthcare leanings cause him to reject Federal funds from the Patient Protection and Affordable Health Care Act. He has served as president of the National Governor's Association. He did promote pubic works projects that included the North Star Commuter rail line and, also, a major league baseball field (which included an increase in the county sales tax). He did support the scandalous corn-based ethanol subsidy for farmers by mandated gasoline in the state carry 20% ethanol, in spite of ethanol having little benefit to carbon dioxide reduction. When there was a budget surplus he favored tax reduction over education funding.

He has made much of his humble beginnings as his father was a milk truck driver. He is of Polish (father) and German (mother) heritage. His wife is a judge and they have two daughters. He converted from Roman Catholicism to evangelicalism, his wife's faith. He first worked as a labor lawyer and later a s vice president of Wizmo, Inc. He is a social conservative and a member of the Christian Right and opposed to both gay marriage and civil unions. Although he surprisingly is for private sector unions (perhaps from his humble origins), he is opposed to public sector unions. He is leaving behind a huge budget deficit as a result of his short-term solutions. Former Republican Governor Anne Carlson is reported to have said that she thinks that no governor has left behind a worse financial mess than Pawlenty. He has not been a popular governor of Minnesota and in spite of all his campaigning, has low name recognition.

I feel Pawlenty has no chance of being nominated, but, because there are better informed people than I who think differently, I include him in the list. His poor record in balancing the state budget, and short-term solutions of using borrowing from designated funds was sure to come back to haunt him and he has left the state with a $5 billion deficit. I feel that his record is undeserving of being President. His opposition to any government run health care may appeal to some Republicans but not to me. I don't know the Republican view of raising fees, but they could view them as increased taxes (If so, Romney has the same problem.) He has campaigned a long time in Iowa and doesn't seem to have gotten any traction. Michelle Bachman will probably take the religious right vote in Iowa and is currently thought to be the leading candidate to win in Iowa.

At least right now, the above seem to be the most viable candidates. Newt Gringrich has been caught telling the truth which is always dangerous for a politician (http://stopcontinentaldrift.blogspot.com/2011/05/truth-is-dangerous-for-politicians.html). There are two currently undeclared politicians , however, that need to be considered:

James (Rick) Perry: Parry apparently is seriously considering entering the Republican presidential race at the urgings of his wife and other supporters after repeatedly saying he was not interested. He attended college at Texas A&M. He served in the air force, retired as a Captain, and returned to helping his father grow cotton. As lieutenant governor, he became governor of Texas when George W. Bush resigned to become president, but, since then, he has been reelected three times.# He is the longest serving governor of Texas and is currently Chairman of the Republican Governor's Association. His wife Anita is a nurse who has been active in a number health issues and has formed the Anita Thigpen Endowment at the U. Texas Health Science Center, San Antonio. Originally, Perry was elected to the state house as a fiscally conservative Democrat and was Chairman of the Al Gore campaign in Texas. Interesting fact: he worked for awhile as a book salesman.

Perry joined the Republican party in 1989. He was Agricultural commissioner for two terms. He narrowly was elected Lieutenant Governor in 1998, the first Republican to hold the position since Reconstruction, and he became governor in 2000. He was reelected by a plurality of less than 40%. In a campaign financing scandal, Perry ended up paying Chris Bell, a competitor $426,000 to settle the suit. Though he was initially a strong proponent of health care, he has subsequently tapered back his interest resulting in refusal of Federal government matching funds. Like Romney and Pawlenty, Perry raised fees. He also borrowed from the Federal Unemployment Trust Fund to help balance the budget. He was reelected on a promise to reduce property taxes, which he did. He has also set the Texas record in use of his veto authority. He has opposed gambling and increasing cigarette taxes. He has made 23 foreign trips with the state covering only 1% of his costs, but the security detail costs have totaled more than a million dollars. Perry strongly opposed the 16th amendment that authorizes Federal income tax. He subscribes as nearly as I can tell to all the tenants of the religious right: he supports the death penalty and is pro-life, opposes all legal recognition of same sex marriages, restricts abortions, doesn't believe in anthropogenic caused global warming, and supports the teaching of Intelligent Design along side of Evolution. He promoted a Day of Prayer and Fasting and more recently Days of Prayer for Rain in Texas. Parry has been a strong advocate of education, refusing to cut teachers salaries, text books, etc. He did break with the Christian Right by mandating Texas girls receive HPV vaccine for papilloma virus. He has strongly promoted improved transportation in Texas through use of management and partial funding by private industry. Texas is considered to have maybe the best transportation system.

Though he never actually said that Texas should secede from the Union, he did mention (falsely) that Texas has the right to secede if she wants to. Though I grant him his right of free speech to say such things, I view it as un-patriotic and unworthy of a President of the United States. His biggest support for a nomination run comes from the extraordinary jobs increase in Texas during his reign. Unfortunately, the Texas tax base is so low, that the state faces a very large deficit problem (with estimates as high as $27 billion) that could hurt him if he were to run for the Republican nomination.#

Sarah Palin: The mother of five children (including one that she knew had Downs syndrome), was the youngest and first woman governor of Alaska when she was chosen by John McCain to be his vice-presidential running mate. Barack Obama won the election, however, and Palin resigned the governorship under a cloud of ethics violations and law suits.## This allowed her to cash in on her celebrity or "higher calling." She has a large and worshipful following and is said to "take the air out of the room" from anyone else present. She is a member of the Religious Right and even led the Fellowship of Christian Athletes in high school where she played basketball and ran cross-country. She was co-captain of her high school basketball team that won the state championship in 1982. Her family moved often, and she attended various colleges, eventually graduating from the Univ. of Idaho with a BA in communications with an emphasis on journalism. Interesting fact: She worked for awhile as a sportscaster and sports reporter. Her political career started in 1992 when she was elected to be a member of the City Council of Wasilla, a position she held for two years. Then she was elected Mayor of Wasilla where she served for the limit of two three-year terms.

She used the income from a 2% sales tax to cut personal property taxes by 75% and eliminate personal property and business inventory taxes that is credited to bringing big-box stores to Wasilla. She raised the sales tax by half a percent and floated a bond issue to build a municipal sports center. She increased the cities debt from $1 million to $25 million because of bond issues for the sports complex, street improvements and water improvements. She joined other communities to hire a lobbyist which resulted in earmarks for her city government, youth shelter, a transportation hub, and sewer repairs. She became the chair of the Alaska Oil and Gas commission and began her ethics attacks against fellow Republicans that resulted in two resignations (The head of the Alaska Republican Party and the Attorney General). Palin was elected governor in 2006, promoted oil and gas development and continued her ethics emphasis. By all accounts she was a popular governor. She has been criticized for taking per diem of $58/day and reimbursement for family traveling with her on trips while she was governor. She did try to decrease Alaska's dependence on Federal funding, the largest per capita in the nation. In the famous "Bridge To Nowhere" debacle, though initially she was in favor of the bridge (that was to the airport), Pain cancelled the bridge project but did not return the $442 million of Federal funding. Her awarding a large contract to TransCanada Pipelines to study a natural gas pipeline to bring natural gas from the north slopes to the lower 48 is may be her biggest achievement. Like Michelle Bachman, Sarah Palin has been the source of much unintended humor.##

Palin is a member of the religious right and opposes same sex marriage, abortion (including cases of rape and incest), embryonic stem cell research, Obamacare, bans on semi-automatic assault weapons, cap and trade for carbon dioxide (cap and trade for sulfur emissions has been in effect since 1990). She does support sex education involving abstinence and contraception, parental consent in cases of abortion for teen aged girls, teaching of creationism alongside evolution, gun safety training of youth, and capital punishment. She also supports off-shore drilling and exploration in the Alaskan National Wildlife Refuge (ANWR).## She supported the Iraq military adventure (with some reservations) and the surge. Her putting Rep. "Gabby" Giffords in her crosshairs prior to Gifford's attempted assassination has been roundly criticized.

In addition to the increases in sales taxes mentioned above, Palin put through a major tax increase on oil companies in Alaska that raised $6 billion the first year (http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/localnews/2008103325_alaskatax07.html); however, Palin followers seem to forgive her for anything including a charge of poor parenting because of one daughter's out of wedlock baby. Though Palin has not declared to run for the Republican nomination she has not shut the door to it either. It seems to me, however, that her time to have declared has passed with Michelle Backman officially in the race as they appeal to the same people, but Palin's outstanding celebrity might put her in good stead. If Palin were to run, her increasing sales taxes and a major increase in tax on the oil companies in Alaska might come back to hurt her. So far as I know, the take by Palin handicappers is that she will not run.

*http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jon_Huntsman,_Jr.

** http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mitt_Romney

In turning around companies, usually lots of people get laid off; however, if the company isn't turned around and the company fails, everybody gets laid off. So turnarounds are the better of the two choices.

*** http://www.buzzfeed.com/mjs538/the-10-craziest-michele-bachmann-quotes; http://www.alternet.org/story/151439/psycho_talk%3A_the_32_craziest_things_gop_presidential_contender_michele_bachmann_has_said?akid=7203.290103.OJPh0B&rd=1&t=3

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Michele_Bachmann

**** http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tim_Pawlenty

# http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rick_Perry

http://www.reuters.com/article/2011/02/04/us-usa-deficits-states-idUSTRE71314420110204

##http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sarah_Palin

http://www.sodahead.com/united-states/why-sarah-palin-resigned---the-real-story/question-1845233/

Note: I also support oil exploration in ANWR.

http://politicalhumor.about.com/od/sarahpalin/a/palinisms.htm

"AFTER YOU ALPHONSE*

No, after you Gaston."* The president has recommended small but substantial cuts to the Federal Budget on an amount totaling only about $500 billion of the Federal Budget (Freeze the budgets of these agencies at 2011 levels. Freeze Federal Employee's salaries for two years.). Note that the $500 billion of agencies being considered for cuts (Commerce, Interior, DOD, DOE, EPA, HUD, Agriculture, etc.) is only about 40% of the Federal deficit so you could eliminate them completely and not come close to balancing the budget. The congressional opposition says he punted.

What they want is the president to propose substantial cuts in entitlements (Social Security-23% and Medicare-12%) which, along with payments on the Federal debt(11%), are a substantial part of the budget - 46% in 2003, for example.** This is the "After you Alphonse." But the president was the Republicans to propose the cuts first which is the "No, after you Gaston." Certainly, you cannot approach a balanced budget without substantial cutting of Social Security and Medicare and perhaps other entitlements (Medicaid-7%, means tested entitlements-6%, and mandatory payments such as pensions-6%).

So far Republicans have refused to approve any increased taxes, particularly on the wealthy, which must be another part of the equation toward a balanced budget.

So this is what I think may happen. The president will continue to offer small but substantial cuts to the Federal budget. Eventually there will be a horse trade with the president approving some cuts to Social Security and Medicare as well as core agencies and departments with Republicans agreeing to some increases in income tax on the wealthy and oil companies. It must be done together.

What kind of cuts? For details of the presidents proposals for 2012, see: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/02/13/obama-budget-proposal-cut_n_822689.html (Scroll down to see cuts to Departments and Agencies. Note that some agencies are recommended for massive budget increases: Dept. Education - 38.5%!)

But to really get to a balanced budget, we need a rapidly growing economy with significantly increasing employment. After all, the Federal revenues as a share of the nation's economy are near a 60 year low: http://www.suntimes.com/business/3706985-420/taxes-too-high-theyre-actually-at-60-year-low.html.

Something that should be seriously considered is to let corporations repatriate foreign profits at a 5% tax rate. This might generate something like $50 billion that could be applied to the deficit, another small step but a significant one. And the repatriated funds might also add to the economy, even if they were distributed as special dividends by the corporations (but not purchase of existing stock). Although this has been mentioned, I don't know if anyone in congress or the president has actually proposed it.

* http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alphonse_and_Gaston

**http://wiki.answers.com/Q/What_percentage_of_the_U.S._federal_budget_is_spent_on_entitlements

THE AMERICAN SOUTH AND WAR

The American South has a tendency to be very war-like. They not only were eager to start the Civil War, but, when the political Solid South was a part of the Democratic party, it was the Democratic Party that was the war party (WW-I, WW-II, Korea, early Vietnam). The Republican Party had an isolationist bent, and there were those who even opposed America’s involvement in WW-II. Then the Republicans adopted their Southern Strategy and lured the Solid South into the Republican Party, after which the Republican Party has become the war party (escalation of Vietnam, Lybia bombing, Panama, Afghanistan, Iraq; I do not count Reagan’s Granada War as it was a joke. At least Reagan found someone we could beat.).


Now it seems there may be the beginnings of a rift in the Republican Party and an isolationist group of mainly northern Republicans seems to be raising their heads: Pat Buchanan has been an isolationist for a long time and George Will has opposed the Afghanistan war beginning with the last presidential election. Some others seemingly against the Afghanistan War are: Michael Steele, Michelle Bachman, Liz Cheney, and Ann Coulter, though one or more may really be in favor of the Afghanistan war (e.g. especially Michael Steele according to some) and are just using public opposition to the war as an election ploy to be used against the Obama regime and congressional Democrats. But they also seem to be adopting a conservative opposition to big government which has been missing for a long, long time in the Republican Party. Reagan never came close to balancing a budget, nor did Bush-41 or Bush 43. In fact if they could get tax cuts, primarily for the wealthy, they seemed to be happy with any resulting Federal deficits. After all Republicans pushed though two wars that they never tried to pay for, massive tax cuts primarily for the wealthy that they never paid for, and an increase in the large drugs benefit package that they never paid for. In fact, Bush-43 urged people to go out an shop after the disaster of 9-11-2001.

Personally, I have no opposition to these Republican’s claim that Afghanistan has become Obama’s war. It is very nice that several Republicans have come out and said that it is America’s war. But the Obama administration’s major escalation of the Afghanistan War shifts the "ownership" of the war to him. There is no sign the Democratic base favors this escalation, quite the contrary. But if the Afghanistan War should be successful and Afghanistan become a stable country that doesn’t harbor terrorists, then Obama also will deserve the credit

CORPORATIONS ARE POLITICAL ENTITIES

There has been a good deal of discussion lately about Federal govenrment bailouts of industries. The AIG bailout may be the largest, but it is hardly unique. Some of us may recall that in 1979, Jimmy Carter bailed out Chrysler which actually paid off the loan early. Also a duty was put on Japanese imported automobiles which raised their cost by about $2,000 to make the U.S. automakers more competitive but hurt American consumers.

There was also a railroad bailout, in 1959 of the Great Northern Northern RR. In a recent article in the WSJ (06-10-2010), the headline reads Bernanke Expects "AIG To Repay Aid." And in a hearing, the CEO of AIG Robert Benmosche "...said taxpayers are 'going to get your money back plus a profit.'" So eventually this may turn out all right.

I think that there is a great misunderstanding about what corporations are. They are political organizations that are supposed to play by the rules set out by the government. Of course, they develop a life of their own and do their best to get around the rules all they can. One of the biggest political aspects of corporations are that stock holders are not liable for losses sustained by a corporation. We like to fantasize that there is some macho aspect to corporations that they are tough guys who live or fall by their own merits. Actually they are political organizations that go to the government whenever they are in trouble and continually try to skew the laws in their favor.

More common are indirect bailouts, such a tariffs. Just within the last decade, tariffs were put on imported steel and Canadian lumber to bail out the American steel and lumber companies. And of course, an infamous one is the tariff put on imported sugar cane ethanol, mainly from Brazil, to make such importation uneconomic so that the American corn ethanol agribusiness is profitable but again at a cost to the consumer.

IN THE END, LIBERALISM WINS

(August 16, 2003) Lots of people (well, two) have wondered why I'm not bombarding them with e-mails anymore. So here 'tis. At least in this country, in the end liberalism wins, though it certainly takes awhile. The reason I take pen to paper (or more accurately fingers to keyboard) regards Rick Santorum, a Senator [now former] from Pennsylvania. You remember him, he is the one who became famous for intemperate comments about all laws regarding morality were off because of a Supreme Court decision that Gays have a right to privacy in their own homes and which struck down a Texas law. Less noticed in his speech was that he said this followed from an earlier Connecticut law, also struck down by the Supreme Court, in which it was against the law for married people to use contraceptives!

Well, now Santorum leads a charge accusing the Democrats of playing an anti-Catholic card to prevent a couple judges, who happen to be Roman Catholic, from promotions to be judges on higher courts (I suspect that once he is away from cameras and reporters, he laughs his head off.). Lost in all this is that President Kennedy was a Roman Catholic, and also, as it happens, a Democrat to boot. If you are old enough, you may recall that the Republicans opposed him on the grounds that he would be taking orders from the Pope, a charge that Kennedy vehemently opposed. Well, time moves on, and now we have Republicans wanting to appoint Roman Catholic judges to high court positions (even if they won't nominate one for President). If the Democrats have charged that they would be taking orders from the Pope, I haven't heard it. Boys and girls, this is a real advance. You also may recall that one knock on Adlai Stevenson, when he ran for President, was that he was divorced. By the time Republican Ronald Reagan, who also was a divorcee, ran for President, it was a non issue. As to pot (Marihuana), it was a big issue when Clinton was running for president, but George "Dubya" Bush got let off by simply saying he had done some things when he was younger that he wasn't proud of. Whether I agree or disagree with what these people are doing or saying, liberalism is winning.

We now have in a Republican administration, a Black Secretary of State and a Black woman, of all things, as the Presidential security advisor. I mention the woman part because it was just a few Republican administrations ago that a prominent official, male of course, said that women don't understand things like throw weights (for rockets). I can hardly believe my eyes, and ears. There are Republicans who grouse about such appointments, to be sure, and can hardly wait to get Secretary Powell out of there, but it looks like he will stay a whole term. For good measure, I believe we have an Asian-American woman as Secretary of Labor and an Asian-American man as Secretary of HUD. We also have a Republican Governor, Jeb Bush, married to a Hispanic American and former Senator Gramm married to an Asian woman. Ditto for a ''conservative" columnist (George Will, in case you can't guess).

Well, I grew up in a pretty conservative Republican neighborhood, and I can tell you people would have been shocked if I had come home with a Black, Asian, or Hispanic girl friend. I also might mention that had I come home with a Roman Catholic girlfriend, it would have created a strained situation with my parents who would have at least gotten a lot of sympathy from the neighbors. It used to be said by the more liberal members about any of these groups that "They are nice people, but I wouldn't want my child to marry one!" I'll bet many of you remember this phrase. Yes, liberalism is winning.

While I am at it, I might mention that some aspects of liberalism have been adopted by Republicans that probably shouldn't be. The neighborhood I grew up in was fiscally very conservative, not to the point that they wouldn't take out a loan to buy a house and maybe an automobile, but they thought Federal deficits were immoral. I recall one neighbor telling me in the late 1940s that these Federal deficits would destroy the economy though he admitted he didn't know exactly when. So what I have in mind here is the adoption by Republicans of the liberal notion that the bigger the Federal deficit the better. But then, after all, it was President Nixon who said that we are all Keynesians now (though Keynes actually said we should pay back deficits in economically good times).

I might add that then, as now, you heard about the evils of handing Federal deficits on to our children. Well, here I am one of the children paying off for the Federal deficits from our parents age and handing on even bigger ones to the current children. Make no mistake, I believe this is a serious matter. The deficit for the current fiscal year is estimated to be $450 billion. That is just about the sum of all the discretionary spending in the Federal budget (All the departments such as Interior, HUD, Treasury, Energy, Health (excluding Social Security and Medicare which are not discretionary because they are supported by special taxes.), Education, Veterans Affairs, etc.). So you would have to wipe all these out to just balance the budget, and, incidentally, you would probably run up a deficit next fiscal year which is expected to be bigger than this year. There still are a few fiscally conservative Republicans, but they seem to get rolled.

Well, if the Democrats want to get into our wallets, the Republicans want to get into our bedrooms. Santorum isn't alone in feeling frustrated that the Supreme court won't let him (so far). Antonin Scalia, a Supreme Court justice by the way, wrote that the verdict of privacy for Gays would destroy lots of state laws controlling morals, among which he mentioned masturbation (!). It would be kind of fun to see him take a lie detector test on whether he had disobeyed that law.

An update added November 8, 2008: We have just witnessed Sen. Barack Obama - a black man and a Democrat - being elected president of the United States on November 4, 2008, and the Republicans ran Sen. John McCain - Roman Catholic - against him. Walter "Fritz" Mondale selected Democrat Rep. Geraldine Ferraro of New York as his Vice-Presidential nominee in the 1984 election, the first woman nominated in that position. Ferraro was eventually followed by Gov. Sarah Palin of Alaska, who was selected by John McCain as his running mate in 2008. Although neither candidate became vice-president, it is now all right for women to be selected as presidential running mates. William Clinton had Madeleine Albright as the first woman Secretary of State. In the first term of George "Dubya" Bush, Gen. Colin Powell was the first Black Secretary of State who was followed by Condoleezza Rice -a Black woman. In the end, liberalism still wins in these United States.

An update added October 4, 2009: Now with Sonia Sotomeyer, six of the nine Supreme Court justices are Roman Catholics, two are Jewish, and one is Protestant.

An update added December 31, 2009: There is lots more that could have been said about liberalism winning in the long run. Women and minorities being able to enter any university and graduate schools of any university is certainly not a minor advance. Getting rid of legalized Jim Crow was certainly another major advance. The Voting Rights Act of 1964 was another major advance, in this case put over the top by Republicans (This was before the solid south of the Democrats became the Southern Strategy of the Republicans.). Today you will even see women and minorities as CEOs of major corporations. And Hillary Clinton certainly put a whole lot of cracks in the glass ceiling of a woman running for president of these United States.

VIETNAM: WIN OR LOSE?

The usual consensus is that we lost in Vietnam, but, if you consider the avowed reason we went into the war, it looks like we may have lost the battle but won the war. We were told that the reason we had to go to war in Vietnam was the Domino Effect, .i.e. If south Vietnam fell to Communism, Laos and Cambodia would soon follow, then Thailand, and finally the Big Kahuna - Indonesia, one of the world's most populous nations. Well, south Vietnam did fall, but they seem to be Communism lite. Laos is Communist, but they are one of the poorest, if not the poorest, countries in the world and certainly are no threat to us. Though things looked bad for Cambodia for some years, they now seem to have righted themselves. Their biggest money maker is tourism (Incidentally, Laos is trying to increase their tourism as well.). Thailand has flirted with Democracy, though it is currently under military rule, but is not Communist. Indonesia is a Democracy. Some Indonesians even say they are a better Democracy than the U.S.

Vietnam is an increasingly important trading power, and we have had an ambassador there since 1995 (currently Michael W. Michalak). President George W. Bush (Bush-43), visited Vietnam twice and tried to sign a trade agreement with them, but the Senate wouldn't approve it. But if you believe the Domino Effect was the real fear that drove to war in Vietnam, it surely looks like we won. The important point is that Vietnam is well accepted by the U.S. government and has been for some years.

VIETNAM AS A POLITICAL ISSUE

During my paid career, I had little time for movies, maybe saw one every other year. Since I have retired, I have been catching up during the last four years. I saw Platoon and Apocalypse a few years ago. Awhile back I got around to seeing Deer Hunter. It occurred to me while watching this movie that Vietnam as a political issue was over. Oh, I'm sure there are those around my age who will carry the hurt of Vietnam the rest of their lives. To them it will be an issue, but to the bulk of the voters, it is no longer one.

During the 2008 election, a lot of effort was made to try to tie Barack Obama to Bill Ayers, a founder of the Weather Underground back in the 1960s, which could be labeled a terrorist organization. It was true that they did know of each other and served on a panel together, but, to say that Barack Obama knew Bill Ayers (who after all is a professor of education now at the University of Illinois at Chicago) and thus was not qualified to be president was a stretch, and voters, in general, rejected it.

Actually, no Vietnam veteran has been able to become president. For reasons I don't understand Vietnam War veterans do not support Vietnam veterans for president. The time for John McCain was in the 2000 election, but perhaps as a result of some dirty campaigning, could not even get the Republican nomination for president. Though McCain was to be accepted as a Vietnam War hero in the 2008 election, that was not the case in the 2000 election. Thus the Vietnam War hero was a two time loser. Admittedly, I probably would not have voted for John McCain in 2000, but I wouldn't have felt badly had he won. Alas, in 2008, he was over the hill and the surprise was how close he came to being elected.

I had several experiences of being in Senate hearings and other meetings with Al Gore and found him most impressive. I thought he couldn't become president, however because of his academic way of speaking. I didn't bother me, but I thought it would with most voters. Actually, he came closer than I ever thought he would. Like McCain, Gore was a Vietnam veteran, but the knock was that he was not involved enough in the battle. As the son of a long-time representative and senator, you can imagine that Gore's commanding officer sweated bullets the whole time Gore was in Vietnam.

And then there was John Kerry who had two tours in Vietnam and was a decorated veteran. Of course, a group was formed that became known as the Swift Boaters (on whom Kerry had served) who did their best to destroy the meaning of military medals in the eyes of the public. I do understand that these veterans were hurt by Kerry eventually turning against the Vietnam war.

Briefly, Bob Kerrey, former senator from Nebraska, and an injured Vietnam War veteran made a run for the presidency, but it turned out he was unacceptable because, well, he was too involved in the Vietnam war.

I suppose it is still possible for a Vietnam veteran to be elected president, but, so far as I know, none of the leading Republican or Democratic hopefuls are. And past history shows that even if one of them were, Vietnam veterans probably would not support them. Perhaps the most attractive Republican candidate who is a veteran is Senator Lindsey Graham of South Carolina, but he is not a Vietnam War veteran, though he has served briefly in both Iraq and Afghanistan in non-combatant roles. One assumes at this time, that President Barack Obama, not a veteran, will run for reelection.