Mitt Romney continues to be headed for a comfortable win in New Hampshire.  PPP’s final poll there finds him with 35% to 18% for Ron Paul, 16% for Jon Huntsman, 12% for Newt Gingrich, 11% for Rick Santorum, 3% for Buddy Roemer, and 1% for Rick Perry.

When you add in that:

Huntsman’s favorability (55/30) is far better than Paul’s (43/51) and 13% of voters list Huntsman as their 2nd choice compared to only 5% for Paul.

Tuesday could get interesting with a possible Huntsman second place because:

40% or more of the electorate on Tuesday will be non-Republican and Huntsman’s greatest strength is with Obama voters, among whom he gets 35% to 25% for Paul and 19% for Romney. The problem for him is there won’t likely be another primary where 25% of the voters chose Obama in 2008.

Here’s a little perspective from UNH/WMUR New Hampshire poll completed just before this weekend’s debates.  Who did New Hampshire respondents think will win the Republican primary?

From wmur.com:

The poll show 77 percent of likely Republican primary voters think Romney will win the primary, while 6 percent think Paul will win, 2 percent think Gingrich will win, 2 percent think Santorum will win and 1 percent think Huntsman will win.

Sounds like a run away win for Romney.  Okay.  But what about the confidence vote?  How many New Hampshire supporters think their guy will win?

From wmur.com:

While nearly all (92 percent) of Romney supporters think he will win, so do most Gingrich supporters (57 percent), most Huntsman supporters (75 percent), most Santorum supporters (83 percent) and most Paul supporters (58 percent).

Again a clear win for Romney.  But what does it say about Paul supports that only 58% think he will win?  Are the other candidate’s supporters wearing rose colored glasses and Ron Paul’s wearing reality glasses?  Or could it be that Paul supporters kind of like (maybe even prefer) their outsider role?

Do you think this New Hampshire polls reflect the rest of American voters? And how do you think the polls will change following these last two debates?

Share your thoughts!

###

And since Buddy Roemer didn’t get a chance to speak at the debates, here he is on Morning Joe on Friday having his say.

“President Obama is a hypocrite. He talks how he is against Citizen United. He hasn’t made a single suggestion to improve the politics of America. Let me say, I hate American politics, but I love America. And a President aught to stand up and change it.”

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

###

]]> http://www.noquarterusa.net/blog/64126/in-the-eyes-of-the-new-hampshire-voters-debate-open-thread/feed/ 53 http://www.noquarterusa.net/blog/64068/counting-coup-on-romney-with-liberty-twitter-obama-and-delegates/ http://www.noquarterusa.net/blog/64068/counting-coup-on-romney-with-liberty-twitter-obama-and-delegates/#comments Wed, 04 Jan 2012 23:03:03 +0000 Linda Anselmi http://www.noquarterusa.net/blog/?p=64068 While Mitt Romney managed to eke out a tiny win of 8 votes in the Iowa Caucuses, it created a mighty big target for others to begin counting coup. And some unlikely candidates for President are feeling lucky!

Rejecting the Republican pack, Gary Johnson goes full Libertarian while scoring highest on civil liberties and adherence to the constitution over all Republicans candidates and President Obama, who just signed the National Defense Authorization Act which authorizes the military to detain even US citizens without trial (Greenwald debunks the myths on the NDAA):

Former New Mexico Governor and presidential candidate Gary Johnson ranks highest of all major presidential candidates in a “Liberty Watch” report card just released by the American Civil Liberties Union. The ACLU report ranked candidates according to their positions on issues of civil liberties and adherence to the Constitution.

Johnson ranked higher than both President Obama and Texas Congressman Ron Paul in the ACLU Liberty Watch ratings. The report card included candidates’ positions on issues ranging from immigration to gay rights to a woman’s right to choose…

Michele Bachmann, Mitt Romney and Rick Santorum — didn’t earn a single torch in any of the seven major categories.”

With no SuperPac and only $100 donations behind him, Buddy Roemer still manages to generate twitter #Roementum for his candidacy and his cause – getting the money out of politics:

BuddyRoemer Gov. Buddy Roemer
FACT: For every $1 spent lobbying, a Corp receives between $6 and $20 in tax breaks, earmarks, subsidies, tax credits. #GetMoneyOut #J17 3 hours ago

————

BuddyRoemer Gov. Buddy Roemer
The #GOP race shouldn’t be about “beating Obama.” It should be about reforming a broken system, fixing the economy, and rebuilding a nation. 3 hours ago

————

BuddyRoemer Gov. Buddy Roemer
94% of candidates that win have the most $. Congratulations, Mitt, for having largest pool of corporate sponsors. #SuperPAC@margbrennan 4 hours ago

————

BuddyRoemer Gov. Buddy Roemer
Bailed out banks spent $77M lobbying, $37M on federal campaign contributions. Return on investment? 258,449%!! emergent-culture.com/lobbying-pays-… #J17

————-

BuddyRoemer Gov. Buddy Roemer
If Congressmen spend 30-70% of their time fundraising for re-election $, what are we paying them $174,000 (on average) a year for? #J17 3 Jan

————

Before a Romney stampede can awaken, Huntsman tries to scatter the still grazing supporters with charges that when it comes to banks, Romney is the next Obama [emphasis mine]:

“It is not necessarily about the history of his involvement on Wall Street,” Huntsman said, shortly after addressing a room full of doctors and other medical employees at Dartmouth Medical Center in Lebanon, N.H.

“It is the fact that he has raised so much money from the large banks, the banks that need to be right-sized. If you are the largest recipient of funds from Wall Street, and in particular the large banks, you are not going to be inclined to want to change that model. Because those who run those banks want no change, they profit off the status quo and clearly they are not going to be inclined to want to bring about any change.”

…Huntsman, by contrast, has argued for banks to be reduced in size, and for stricter limits to be placed on the type of financial activities they can undertake.

“I want those banks to be down where they were in the 1990s, where if they screw up, if they get sick, they can fail. They won’t bring all of us down with them,” he explained to the crowd of medical professionals. “We need a president, ladies and gentlemen, who is going to take on the banking sector.”

And while Ron Paul came out third in Iowa, he’s still winning when he;s able to gather up dedicated non-binding Iowa delegates:

That’s because Paul’s massive organizational push in Iowa focused on both winning votes, and also on making sure that Paul supporters stuck around after the vote to make sure they were selected as county delegates — the first step towards being elected as a delegate to the Republican National Convention.

That’s because Iowa’s Republican caucuses are non-binding — they are technically just a straw poll, so once selected, delegates are free to vote for whichever presidential candidate they choose.

Seems like there are still viable choices for the American people to explore.  So this could be a very interesting race between now and fall… Share your thoughts!

###

The MSM likes to depict any election as a horse race, but the more I watch the 2012 presidential nomination process and particularly the debates, the more it feels like I’m watching the waning days of a Wild West Show.  See what you think…

Posters have been up all over town for weeks, but budgets are tight.  Audience members had to forego a few things to get here tonight and there is no extra money for souvenirs or buffalo wings. The mood doesn’t gets any more friendly as it feeds on overpriced popcorn and stale cheetos waiting for the show to begin.

The star of the show is the first to ride into the arena.  (It’s in his contract to be first.)  Seated confidently upon his expensively dressed and trained show horse, Dressage Rider Gingrich does a victory lap in a high prancing side-step, worthy of an Olympian “10″ for its beautifully arched neck and tail alone.  He shows his star power by throwing in a few loud snorts and head tosses. Suddenly the spot light shines on the center ring and a hush falls over the crowd.  Horse and rider move as one to execute a series of wild and dramatic kicks to straw man dummies set up in a circle. With a bow to the audience, horse and rider resume the high prancing side-step as they leave the ring.

Following at a respectable distance behind the wild kicking show horse is Wagon Master Romney.  He sits astride his horse looking tired and dusty.  As wagon master he usually leads the show, but for the first time he’s lost ranking to a star performer.   Standing up in the stirrups he looks back over the wagon train.  Sure he likes to throw a bet down now and then, who doesn’t.  And he’s made some unpopular decisions, who hasn’t.  But, he’s a caring man. With a tip of the hat to the audience, he sits back in the saddle and trots off to catch up with the lead wagon.

Fast on the heels of the wagon train come the rodeo cowboys.  Their energy is infectious and the crowd responds in kind.  Riding in every direction at once, they whoop and holler and do riding tricks in rapid succession.  Everyone’s eyes are so busy they don’t immediately see the lanky Texan who lumbers in atop a massive Brahma called “El Fed”.   Bull-rider Paul looks the seasoned professional he is — weathered, tough and fearless.  No one doubts his tenacity or the dangerousness of El Fed, with his fiercely long horns and an iron nose ring.  Everyone keeps a respectful distance as bull and rider plod across the arena.

Taking a break from shooting a Marlboro commercial (he keeps forgetting his lines), Sheriff Perry ambles in leading his pony.  He polishes his badge and ask the audience to join his posse in protecting the christians and the military.  With a last drag on his cigarette, he flicks it into the sawdust before mounting his pony.  He rears his horse in true Lone Ranger style and, with a wave of his hat to the cheering crowd, wheels around, kicking up dust that only adds to the spreading fire.  Without a look back, he gallops off in search of the lawbreakers of Brokeback Mountain.

There’s an awkward pause in the show as a General orders a ragtag band of soldiers put out the fire and set up the barrel race.  This used to be when Chieftain Cain raced in with his band of Tea Tribe Indians to do some trick bareback riding and bow and arrow demonstrations before heading after the wagon train with a war-whoop.  At which point General Santorum and his troops would ride to the rescue of the wagon train and reenact the battle of Little Bighorn.  But the Chief left the show after being unseated by the appearance of one too many wayward fillies.   A traveling man at heart, the Chief traded in his teepee for a buckboard, bed roll and the open road where he can sell his books and preach his 999 medicine to new converts while working on a contract to become a media Fox.

Barrel Racer Bachmann gallops in and executes her turns with speed and precision and even an occasional flourish, but the audience response is tepid.   She can hear the comparisons to the previous barrel racers who were champions with bigger names and bigger personalities.  She started out with the Tea Tribe before Chief Cain joined up, but that all went south.  Determined to move out of the shadows, she decides to audition for leader of  the Tea Tribe as soon as she can find a Pocahontas outfit.

Suddenly a bugle sounds in the distance and a rider thunders into the arena astride a rainbow-colored pony. Could it be… Yes, its Rough Rider Obama and his Unicorn pony, Hope.  As the bugle continues to sound, man and pony charge up and down a series of fake hills.  The stirring imagery is only slightly marred by the Rough Riders death grip on the saddle horn.  As they topped the largest hills, a ring of  TOTUS’ drop down.  One smashes Hope’s uni-horn.  Deciding it was the last straw, a broken horned Hope tries to bucks off a suddenly tenacious Rough Rider Obama before galloping off in search of her long-lost twin, Change.

The grand finale parade begins to file in, but the audience looks confused and begins to mumble.  Could this really be all there is to the show? They paid good money and ate stale popcorn to see these second-rate acts?  What ever happened to that bear wrestler Marijuana Johnson and  No PAC Preacher Roemer?   At least the last town got to see that Huntsman guy with his singing daughters…

Can this presidential wild west show be saved?  What will it take?  And who can they get at this late date to join the show?

Stay tuned.

I believe that the Occupy movement and the Tea Party movement come — their genesis– is from the same feeling, which is an anger that government can’t get things done… They look at Washington D.C. and they look at a president who is a bystander in the Oval Office…

You know, I was angry this weekend, listening to the spin coming out of the administration about the failure of the Super committee.

And that the President knew that it was doomed for failure so he didn’t get involved. Well then what the hell are we paying you for? It’s doomed for failure so I’m not getting involved? Well, what have you been doing exactly? I mean, I will tell you that I think both parties deserve blame for what’s going on in Washington D.C., both parties do. They’re spending more time talking at each other than talking with each other. ..

Why the President of the United States refuses to do this is astonishing to me. I mean, you know, if he wanted to run for Senate again and just be 1 of 100, I’m sure he could have gotten reelected over and over again in Illinois…

Here is President Obama explaining how “I stand ready and willing to work with anybody that’s ready to engage in that effort  to create a balanced plan for deficit reduction.”

It was just a few short months ago that Christie claimed he wasn’t ready yet in his heart to run for President.

Is anyone wondering if Christie’s heart could get ready faster?

The Iowa State poll of likely caucus-goers has Herman Cain leading at 25%, Ron Paul running a hard second with 20% and Mitt Romney trailing respectably in third with 16%. But the surprise dark horse coming out of the Iowa cornfields is “Can’t Decide” in fourth place beating out “outsider” Rick Perry and straw poll winner Michele Bachmann.  From GlobeGazette’s Poll: GOP race up for grabs in Iowa

“Can’t decide” polled 8.1 percent — more than Texas Gov. Rick Perry (7.9 percent), Minnesota Rep. Michele Bachman (7.6 percent), former House Speaker Newt Gingrich (4.8 percent) and former Pennsylvania Sen. Rick Santorum (4.7 percent). Former Utah Gov. Jon Huntsman, who has not campaigned in Iowa, received no support. “Other” polled 5.8 percent.

But with 44 days to go until the Iowa caucus, the race horses are showing the strain…

The now camera-shy and newly protected by Secret Service leader, Cain, seemed off stride and distracted by a higher calling at the Holy Land Experience in Florida on Friday.

“This feels like a pulpit, and I am a preacher,” Cain said from his spot on the auditorium stage. “It’s just a natural thing when I get in this setting.”

Holding strong in second place, Ron Paul’s mild mannered midnight ride warning of “The Fed” and the debt has won him a loyal following, but it has yet to liberate him from the obscuring fly on the MSM’s lens.

Third placed Mitt Romney, who has been hugging the rails fearful that the careful jockeying of his epic run for the White House may yet slip on the blank pages of his records as governor, slid on Mitt/ObamaCare, or stumble on his unpardonable compassion as a careful leader, has now decided to make a bold play for a strong finish in Iowa by focusing on … the economy.

But smart money is betting on a “Can’t Decide” surge in Iowa, after all ”Can’t Decide” is now running in fourth and is the fallback choice of 22% .

But hard on the hoofs of the Iowa caucus is the New Hampshire primary.  There the race has Romney (29%) and Gingrich (27%) in a dead heat.   But Gingrich seems to be struggling to push past Romney’s well-groomed canter.  Could it be the extra weight of “non-lobbyist” consulting fees for health care and Freddie Mac in his saddlebag?   Not willing to fade away, Gingrich is “Setting the Record Straight” on 16 issues and distinguishing himself as the anti-Clinton candidate (an adulterer, without the perjury).  From Answering the Attacks | Newt Gingrich 2012 :

“he [Gingrich] had admitted to having an extramarital affair during the impeachment of President Bill Clinton.  What these accusers are ignoring is that the impeachment proceedings against President Clinton were due to the fact that the president committed perjury in front of a sitting federal judge, which is a felony.”

The end of the primary race is 8 months away.  Plenty of time for anything and everything to happen.

Will Gingrich continue to rise?  Or will he come up lame like Bachmann, Perry and Cain before him?  Can a long shot still breakaway from the back of the pack?  Will social conservatism be enough to move Rick Santorum ahead?  Has Romney captured too much of the well-groomed Mormon politician vote for Huntsman to become a front runner or even catch up with main pack?  Will Roemer and Johnson ever get the racing officials to open the gates and the media to remove their blinders?  Or will they switch fields to run among the Independents and  Libertarians?

Officially President Obama runs alone in the Democratic primary race, but his PAC funding is down.

Earlier this year, Bill Burton left the White House to help create a pro-Obama fund-raising group with a goal of raising $100 million, aiming to mimic the success of recent Republican efforts.

So far, he’s falling short.

Many of the Democratic Party’s biggest donors aren’t planning to support his organization, either because they’re unhappy with Mr. Obama or disillusioned with politics in general. There’s also this fund-raising fact of life: Wealthy donors are more likely to open up their wallets to defeat a sitting president than to protect one.

Anyone else see the shadow racer, “Don’t Want”, flanking both Obama and the Republican pack?  And could “Don’t Want” take the lead in both parties and hold it?

What does it say about our society and the people within it, when the measure of a man (or woman) is his success at achieving the maximum in money and power with the minimum morality required by the law or his job.  What about the minimum required for humanity?  Shouldn’t that be a part of our measure of success?

Hearing and reading about the Penn State horrors (h/t C. Della Penna) and then reading the “minimum legal requirement” defense of Paterno made me sick to my stomach and seeing red… How can so many apparently smart “successful” people so utterly fail to get it.  Blogger/writer John Scalzi gives a simple explanation of the minimum requirements for humanity in this instant.  From his post Omelas State University:

These things should be simple:

1. When, as an adult, you come come across another adult raping a small child, you should a) do everything in your power to rescue that child from the rapist, b) call the police the moment it is practicable.

2. If your adult son calls you to tell you that he just saw another adult raping a small child, but then left that small child with the rapist, and then asks you what he should do, you should a) tell him to get off the phone with you and call the police immediately, b) call the police yourself and make a report, c) at the appropriate time in the future ask your adult son why the fuck he did not try to save that kid.

3. If your underling comes to you to report that he saw another man, also your underling, raping a small child, but then left that small child with the rapist, you should a) call the police immediately, b) alert your own superiors, c) immediately suspend the alleged rapist underling from his job responsibilities pending a full investigation, d) at the appropriate time in the future ask that first underling why the fuck he did not try to save that kid.

4. When, as the officials of an organization, you are approached by an underling who tells you that one of his people saw another of his people raping a small child at the organization, in organization property, you should a) call the police immediately, b) immediately suspend the alleged rapist from his job responsibilities if the immediate supervisor has not already done so, c) when called to a grand jury to testify on the matter, avoid perjuring yourself. At no time should you decide that the best way to handle the situation is to simply tell the alleged rapist not to bring small children onto organization property anymore.

It really is that simple.  Like it or not.  Convenient or not.  Costly or not.  Risky or not.  Putting aside the whole issue that with greater power comes greater responsibility, as members of society we owe each other more than the institutionalized morality of the minimum required by law.   We need to stop pretending we don’t see what is right in front of us and start taking responsibility for it.

“The trouble is that once you see it, you can’t unsee it. And once you’ve seen it, keeping quiet, saying nothing, becomes as political an act as speaking out. There’s no innocence. Either way, you’re accountable.”~~ Arundhati Roy

This isn’t about what we want as a society, but what we need.  Morality is the basis of every society.  When we fail to demand this of each other we lose our humanity and we lose our bonds as a community.  Look beyond Penn State, the rape and abandonment of those boys, and the powerful men who sold their morality for success  –  our societal bonds are unraveling at the speed of light.  We need to reclaim them.

The atlantic has a short list of What to Watch For in tonight’s Republican foreign policy debate in South Carolina.

Here’s my list:

• Will Gingrich be the next front runner?  And will he take the spotlight tonight?
• Will Perry continue to hold top honors for most memorable performance?
• Will Cain hold his own with the likes of Huntsman on foreign policy?
• Will anyone in the media remember Bachmann is there?
• Will anyone listen to Paul?

What are you watching for?  Share your thoughts!

This post is about the American people’s right to be the deciders.  It is also about a candidates equal opportunity to be heard.  And it is about the absurdity of the entertainment (MSM) industry running our debates and doing a grave disservice to the nation by interjecting their need for profits and placing their goals for providing entertainment above the American people’s need to debate ideas and choose the direction of their country, and their right to select a president.

I’m an Independent, not a Republican.  But with only “The One” corporatist candidate being offered from the Democratic party so far (hint, hint), I’m left to watch the Republican Presidential line up with more than a passing interest.  That is the reality of a two party political system.

The wealth of Republican choices (hint again to the Dems) is to be applauded.  So too is its representational diversity – a woman, an African American, a Mormon, a Texan …

As the media spotlight made the rounds over the last few months highlighting and vetting the declared (Perry, Romney, Bachmann, Gingrich, Paul, Cain, Huntsman, Santorum, McCotter) and undeclared (Christy, Giuliani and Palin) Republican candidates, I watched and waited for them to get around to Gary Johnson former governor of New Mexico (1995-2003).

Johnson was one of the first to declare his 2012 candidacy for President of the United States.  And he has some of the best political ads no one has seen (and yeah, that is him in the ad):

Click here to view the embedded video.

__

Click here to view the embedded video.

So what happened?  How come no one is talking about him?

We live in the entertainment age.  We want showmen.  We also live in the profit age.  The debate sponsors and hosts want viewers and ad dollars.  We live in the media age.  The MSM decided it was of greater benefit to them to invest their time, energy and money in the big name and the greater reader/viewership potentials of Perry, Gingrich, Palin and Christie rather than many actual candidates who put themselves on the line to run.

When CNN’s decided to exclude Johnson in their first debate in June, it effectively shut the door on most media coverage for Johnson.  And yet he still managed to tie with Cain and do better than Huntsman in the late August polls.

Here are CNN poll numbers for their fictional “may be running” 2012 GOP national primary line up without Giuliani or Palin for August 24-25. The trend lines () are from August 5-7, the last week before Perry got into the race.  (pdf)

Rick Perry – 32% (+14)
Mitt Romney – 18% (-5)
Michele Bachmann – 12% (+3)
Newt Gingrich – 7% (-1)
Ron Paul – 6% (-8)
Herman Cain – 2% (-3)
Gary Johnson – 2% (+2)
Jon Huntsman – 1% (-4)
Rick Santorum – 1% (-2)
Thaddeus McCotter – 1% (+1)

Okay.  That was then.  What about now?

According to CNN’s Political Ticker the Criteria for the CNN Western Republican Presidential Debate on October 18^th is as follows:

Participants need to meet the threshold outlined below to receive an invitation to this debate:

A person must receive an average of at least 2.00 percent in at least three national polls released between September 1st and October 16th that were conducted by the following organization: ABC, AP, Bloomberg, CBS News/New York Times, CNN, FOX, Gallup, Los Angeles Times, Marist, McClatchy, NBC, Newsweek, Pew, Quinnipiac, Reuters, USA Today and Time.

Sounds reasonable and fair.  Right?

Now, keep in mind that Palin was never a candidate and yesterday she confirmed that she will not run in 2012 and Thaddus McCotter dropped out last month.

So what did David Weigel in The Gary Johnson Rule: It Lives! find so interesting in last week’s CNN release of its new, post-Fox News debate poll:

Notice any name of those actually running for President in 2012 missing?  Yep.  You got it.  Gary Johnson.  Gee.  Fair much?  The American people deserve better than this.  And we should demand it.  Agree with Johnson or not on the issues, he is a registered candidate and deserves to be a part of our debate — until the American people say otherwise.

You can learn more on Republican/Libertarian candidate Gary Johnson here or with these in-depth articles:

Gary Johnson, Republican Presidential Candidate – Politics: GQ

Gary Johnson 2012: Who Is He, and What Is His Platform? – International Business Times

Share your thoughts!

###

As regular readers know, the writers under Larry Johnson’s No Quarter banner came together in passionate support of Hillary Clinton during the 2008 presidential election — and NEVER joined the “Hope and Change” bandwagon.  We come from a variety of backgrounds and have strong opinions on issues inside and outside of politics that are very much our own.  Over the years our various opinions, political and otherwise, have evolved which makes for some interesting dynamics and conversations on our writers group — and I think, some interesting reading.

So here is a slightly edited version of a recent email conversation (with the permission of all authors involved):

Writer 1:

Was reading Ani’s excellent Now They Wish They Had Hillary…? post and the great discussion by the commenters when a series of links lead me to Crazy scenario in which Jon Huntsman actually makes sense by Johnwsmart.  I have to say I don’t know enough about Huntsman to really comment on the analysis.  I just started reading Huntsman’s book – Winners Never Cheat.  (I give Huntsman kudos for a title with mass appeal, but a foreward by Glenn Beck – not so much.)

Have to say the idea of a cross party ticket, since we still lack a third party, is very intriguing to me on several levels.

Here is the red meat of Crazy scenario:

So go with me for a minute. Newspapers, big blogs, labor, even Dick Cheney are now nudging Hillary. Let’s say a Clinton run becomes real. Again, if Obama’s latest speech doesn’t zoom his numbers up then he’s almost out of gas. I suspect lots of powerful people cannot stomach the idea of a 2nd Obama term or a 1st Perry term. Romney is nominally acceptable to the Acela Corridor Crew, but no one loves him. So Obama or Perry/Romney. Very unappetizing. At some point this Fall connected Democrats give Obama the heave. It’s not as crazy as it sounds. “Mr. President, exit stage left or it all comes out.” If Perry stays on track a large portion of GOP power players (Rove is their front man) also start rattling behind the scenes. Perry isn’t liked by much, if any,  of the GOP establishment. W brought the Eastern establishment, with a smattering of Texas. Perry just brings Texas.

Who is the last person standing in this scenario? Okay, last 2 people standing…Romney or Clinton. The problems are Perry and Obama. Only one person takes out both. Clinton. She’s become more than acceptable to much of the ‘elite’, who now see her as a powerful, competent statesman. And what’s the go to word for 2012? Competence.

Now, add Huntsman. I know. It’s crazy. But our politics are crazy right now. And it’s not as if Huntsman’s shown any true fidelity to the GOP. It puts Clinton above the entire broken system as a post partisan leader. Huntsman adds two elements Clinton lacks, domestic executive experience and the media loves the guy. It’s competence up and down the ticket.

Any thoughts?

Writer 2:

I love it.  But, while I love the idea and approve of it, I cannot ever see it happening.  The powerful in the two parties wouldn’t let it happen.  Labor would go ALL out to destroy it.

Brief note re Glenn Beck:  He and the Huntsman family have strong connections.  Huntsman Sr. was a guest on Beck’s show for the full hour once. It was riveting television.  Huntsman Sr. is a brilliant, fascinating man.  How do I describe this next observation?  Let me see … Senior has what Junior lacks (superficially) … Senior projects a strong, tough core that Junior doesn’t.  I am sure you can find a YouTube of the entire hour, so go look sometime if you’re curious.  [ed. - Apparently the Huntsman video is now private.]

Re Obama:  I am certain that the author is correct, and that Democratic leadership would love to dump Obama.  They know they’ve got a huge problem with him and that the stunning prospect of a Perry presidency is actually possible, totally because of Obama’s utter lack of qualifications and leadership skills as well as the fact that even the hardcore lefty base has given up on Obama.  But.  Obama has one card to play that may make him inevitable — the hardcore, vicious Chicago political machine.  That machine will do ANYTHING to win, and they will pull out all the stops to destroy anyone who tries to dump Obama.  Can they succeed no matter what?  I don’t know.

Lyndon Johnson, rest his soul, was enough of a pragmatic political realist to know that his prospects for reelection were severely hampered by the series of catastrophic failures in Vietnam as well as widespread animosity throughout the Democratic party.  But Obama has NONE of Johnson’s ability to realistically assess his chances.  Obama is such a narcissist that he is incapable of rational assessment of his 2012 predicament.

Just some thoughts …

Writer 3:

Hillary / Huntsman would be a strong and interesting ticket, but I think it will never happen.

Hillary is the problem as she was in ’08.  There is/was no stronger Hill supporter than I yet I know her biggest fault, the one that stops her from grabbing the reigns.   She is a Democrat first.  For Hillary, party trumps ideals and issues.

Writer 2:

Writer 3 is correct.  Hillary would never venture into such a risky, previously unheard-of adventure.

Writer 4:

I’d go for that [Hillary/Huntsman] in a minute, in fact I’d go for any combo that has HRC at the top of the ticket – we desperately need clear-eyed competence and there’s no other electable candidate in either party who has a clue.

Writer 1:

I really think the idea of cross party and particularly the pairing of Clinton and Huntsman is interesting and provocative.  If I am remembering our history right, we didn’t originally have designated parties and the Pres and VP were from different camps – at least once?  So it is not unheard of… And these are no ordinary times.

You say Hillary would not go against party?  But what if Huntsman change to a Dem or Indy?  What would be the practicalities and/or legalities of a cross party ticket today?

Btw – from  Crazy scenario on Huntsman:

Not only does Jon Huntsman talk like a moderate Democrat, he seems at times to be signaling independent minded Democrats overtly, “I’m with you”.  Setting himself up. He defended climate change science on stage…at the Reagan library…in a debate…with a conservative audience that applauded the mention of 200 or so executions in Texas…What Republican who wants to win the 2012 GOP nod does that?  Every time he spoke I swear I was suddenly watching a tan version of Evan Bayh at a Democratic debate. He’s entirely “reasonable.” Other than saying “sound conservative economic principles” a lot he’s almost Democratic Leadership Council material.

Writer 5:

Actually, in the original Constitution, the candidate with the second-most votes was made Vice President. They didn’t have the “running mate” thing back then. If five people were running for President, the top vote-getter was Prez, second place was VP.

In the election of 1800, Jefferson, as second-place vote getter, was elected VP under Adams. He then ran against Adams again in the following election, beating him.

In 1804, the Twelfth Amendment changed the constitution to require the Electors to vote for Vice President separately. Part of the logic used for this change was that the original system may have tempted a VP who had run unsuccessfully for President and ended up having to serve his rival may be tempted into a coup d’etat, eliminating his rival so he could succeed to President.

Besides Adams and Jefferson, there were only two other cases where the Vice President was not of the same party as the President. Andrew Jackson had to accept John C. Calhoun, who had been VP to Benjamin Harrison at the time of the election, but Calhoun had become a man without a party by that time, effectively an independent.

The last time there was a VP of a different party, it was by choice. Abraham Lincoln, a Republican, chose Andrew Johnson, a southern Democrat, as his VP running mate in order to win votes from the south. It was a compromise ticket prior to the Civil War breaking out.

Writer 6:

I LOVE it, even if just a fantasy.

Writer 7:

Any ticket with Hillary on top of it has my vote.  I distinctly remember a NJ Republican having to work with Hillary on legislation when she was a NY Senator and he had nothing but great things to say about her.  That she was forceful, showed up, but also respectful in her debate and made it easy to get something accomplished.  As far as Huntsman rounding out the ticket is concerned, however, I think George Will nailed it when he said that Huntman is a good Republican choice “for people who don’t like Republicans” — so while that is a very palatable idea, I think this might not be considered a real “cross party” ticket because Huntsman is not viewed as a conservative.

##

Okay your turn:

Would a Hillary/Huntsman ticket be good for the country?

Would a Hillary/Huntsman ticket be your fantasy ticket?

Or do you have a different fantasy cross party ticket?

Share your thoughts.

Change is a fact of life.  It routinely happens without our knowledge.  And it frequently happens without our consent. We can only hope to not be caught totally unaware and that the timing at least manages to work in our favor.

Which is why, I am sure, Malcolm Gladwell’s book The Tipping Point continues to be so popular.  It helps explain how the little things that slip by unnoticed can act like a virus spreading and infecting other change agents until change becomes an epidemic that suddenly consume everything in its path.

…the Tipping Point is a place where the unexpected becomes expected, where radical change is more than a possibility.  It is — contrary to all expectations — a certainty.

Fortunately, or unfortunately, affecting change is not an exact science.  People, business, industries and governments spend vast amounts of money trying to create the change they want — but with mostly limited success.  There are just too many variables to realistically control.  And timing is everything.

Take, for instance, President Obama’s televised speech to a joint session of Congress on Thursday night.

It was billed as a speech to introduce the American Jobs Act — Obama’s (estimated) $450 billion plan for putting Americans back to work through a combination of tax credits, job training and school renovations.  The speech, of course, wasn’t just about jobs for the American people.  With the 2012 presidential election only 14 months away, it was also about Obama’s own job and his future job as president.

But here’s the thing, no matter how well Obama spoke or what strategy or theme he used to rebrand or better position himself for the presidential race ahead and regardless of the talking points coming from the either the right or left in analyzing his speech, Obama’s real fight was and is against the messages and images of him that are already out there.

These are images the American people have had three years to develop and accept.  And these are messages that are now being sung by an ever-widening bipartisan choir.  So when these images and messages are being echoed by his own party members and his most vociferous supporters, it seems reasonable to assume that these images and messages will continue to resonate as truth to the American people.

So what are the Obama messages and images that are now stuck in the hearts and minds of average Americans?

Google helpfully supplied the first clue when I typed in the word Obama the day before his latest jobs speech.  Google search suggested “Obama approval rating” (not good, see below), then “Obama jokes”.  This is rather telling. If the second most popular search on Obama is for jokes about him, then the American people are no longer seeing him as the serious, trusted and capable leader they were led to believe he was in 2008.

If you have any doubt just look at the images and messages being painted by a round-up of polls and articles over just this last week.

From the Pained and Disbelieving:

Obama and Jobs: Why I Don’t Believe Him Anymore (Matt Taibbi/ Rolling Stone Politics):

So it was either sit underneath a full-volume broadcast of our fearless president [Obama] bellowing out his latest hollow promises, or the hellish alternative: retreat to gates full of screaming five year-old children, all of them jacked up on sugar and bawling their eyes out because it was the end of Labor Day weekend and their cruel parents were dragging them home from Disneyworld.

I ended up choosing the screaming children…

I just don’t believe this guy anymore, and it’s become almost painful to listen to him.

From the Far Less Confident:

The incredible shrinking Obama (Glenn Trush and Carrie Budoff Brown/ Politico)

…voters are far less confident than early months of his administration that Obama possesses the “right set of characteristics” or policy goals to be president, according to the NBC News/ Wall Street Journal Survey.

More than 60 percent of those surveyed say they disapprove of the way the president is handling the economy, according to a third poll – this one by the Washington Post and ABC News – that came out Tuesday.

“The question isn’t what will the speech say. The question is what does he do after the speech is over,” asks a Democratic aide.

From the Strongly Disapproving and Disenchanted:

Obama’s base grows disenchanted (The Fix/ The Washington Post):

On his overall job approval rating, those who strongly disapprove outnumber those strongly approving 36 percent to 23 percent, including 37 percent to 14 percent among independents.

The poll also shows 45 percent of people strongly disapprove of his handling of the economy, including 48 percent of independents.

Another interesting number from the Resurgent Republic poll: 60 percent of people said Obama turned out to be a weaker president than they thought he would be.

From the No Longer Confident:

Only 18% Say U.S. Heading In Right Direction (Rasmussen Report 9/7/11):

Since the third week in July, the number of voters who are confident in the nation’s current course has resembled levels measured in the final months of the Bush administration… 14% to 18%.

Seventy-six percent (76%) of voters say the country is heading down the wrong track…

(Apparently it is hard to keep hope alive when having changed party and presidential leadership from the Republican Bush 43, the American people still find themselves on the wrong track.)

From the No Longer Approving:

Obama Approval Sinks to New Lows in August Among Whites, Hispanics

President Barack Obama earned the lowest monthly job approval rating of his presidency to date in August, with 41% of U.S. adults approving of his overall job performance, down from 44% in July. He also received term-low monthly job approval ratings from both Hispanics (48%) and whites (33%) and tied his lowest rating from blacks (84%).

From the Scared and Hopeless:

Cut to the chase on jobs, Mr. President (The Washington Post):

Right now, there is no light at the end of this collapsing economic tunnel, and we need a president who can at least bring a ray of hope inside the tunnel with us.

“I don’t know about you, but I’m not scared of tough times,” Obama said in Detroit.

That’s a pretty dim ray, Mr. President.

Of course you’re not scared of tough times. What’s to be scared of when you’re fresh from a $50,000-a-week vacation on Martha’s Vineyard? Going to an oceanside villa last month while millions are losing their homes and jobs suggests you don’t know much about these tough times. And stop trying to sound like a Baptist preacher when you say, “I don’t know about you,” least people start to take it literally.

From the Disillusioned and No Longer Defending:

It’s no longer Obama-land in the Hamptons (Post Partisan/The Washington Post)

The Hamptons is where the Democratic energy, money and intellectual firepower of Manhattan goes for R&R. It’s just not another beach.

Over the Labor Day weekend, I went to a number of events in the Hamptons. At all of them, Obama was discussed. At none of them — that’s none — was he defended. That was remarkable. After all, sitting around various lunch and dinner tables were mostly Democrats. Not only that, some of them had been vociferous Obama supporters, giving time and money to his election effort. They were all disillusioned.

Let me call the roll. I am talking about are writers and editors, lawyers and shrinks, Wall Street tycoons and freelance photographers, hedge funders and academics, run-of-the-mill Democrats and Democratic activists. They were all politically sophisticated, and just a year ago some of them were still vociferous Obama supporters. No more.

From the Environmentally Disappointed:

Al’s Journal : Confronting Disappointment (Al Gore):

On Friday afternoon, as brave and committed activists continued their non-violent civil disobedience outside the White House in protest of the tar sands pipeline that would lead to a massive increase in global warming pollution, President Obama ordered the EPA to abandon its pursuit of new curbs on emissions that worsens disease-causing smog in US cities. Earlier this year, the EPA’s administrator, Lisa Jackson, wrote that the levels of pollution now permitted — put in place by the Bush-Cheney administration– are “not legally defensible.” Those very same rules have now been embraced by the Obama White House.

Notice how Gore neatly contrasts and compares the “brave and committed activists” with the (by implication) not-so brave and committed Obama.  Ouch!

From the No Longer Watching:

NBC picks Packers over Obama in Milwaukee:

The NBC affiliate in Milwaukee, Wisconsin, WTMJ TV announced yesterday they will not be airing Obama’s jobs speech at 7 PM EST Thursday night.  instead they are opting for their own pre-game coverage of the Packers Saints game scheduled to kick off at 8 PM. Green Bay’s NBC affiliate, NBC 26, will also go with the Packers pre-game show over Obama.

From the Amused and Unenthused:

The irrelevancy of the Obama presidency ( Dana Milbank/Washington Post).

President Obama gave one of the most impassioned speeches of his presidency when he addressed a joint session of Congress Thursday night. Too bad so many in the audience thought it was a big, fat joke…

The lawmakers weren’t particularly hostile toward the president – they just regarded the increasingly unpopular Obama as irrelevant. And the inclination not to take the 43-percent president seriously wasn’t entirely limited to the Republicans…

In fact, the empty seats were on the Democratic side. Democrats lumbered to their feet to give the president several standing ovations, but they struggled at times to demonstrate enthusiasm. When Obama proposed payroll tax cuts for small businesses, three Democrats stood to applaud. Summer jobs for disadvantaged youth brought six Democrats to their feet, and a tax credit for hiring the long-term unemployed produced 11 standees.

From the Substantively Underwhelmed:

The President’s Speech Impediment ( Bill McGurn/WSJ)

In music there’s a saying about a performance that was “too small for the house.” That’s becoming true of the president. There was a day when Mr. Obama’s taste for the marvelous—a campaign address in Berlin, the faux presidential seal, the Greek columns that surrounded him during his speech accepting the Democratic nomination—all seemed to herald something exciting and historic.

Even inside the Beltway, however, substance ultimately tells. Three years into his presidency, the grander the stage the smaller Mr. Obama comes across.

How can any speech move a country to action, when people no longer believe the promises or are even willing to listen to the speaker?  How can a President lead the country in the right direction, when the people no longer agree with his policies and his actions?

How can the Democratic party elites expect the American voters to turn back to a President they no longer trust as the lone beacon for the left — when said beacon has already proven itself to be a sure-fire way to run aground?

It is far too late for Obama to turn our ship of state around.   The tidal wave for change is already in motion.

The Democratic party owes the American people a real choice for America’s president in 2012!

Share your thoughts.

The movie Wizard of Oz is 72 years old.

Today, if Dorothy were to encounter Men
with no brains, no hearts, and no courage
She wouldn’t be in Oz …

She’d be in Congress!

I immediately wanted to add “Or in the White house!”

Dorothy would just as easily find men without brains, hearts and courage in there.  But then I caught myself.  Dorothy may be qualified to be in the White House, but the American people have yet to elect a woman to our highest public office, so poor Dorothy would have to settle for being a visitor for the day.

And, I have to say, as I thought about that visitor status it kind of stuck in my craw.  How can we be the most democratic republic in the world and still manage to not inaugurate a Madam President in our 235 year history.  As a country, we flaunt our equal rights around the globe.  Yet, in a 2008 Pew Poll, the major reason given for women not being elected as leaders of our nation was that the American people were not ready yet.

Seriously?  What is there to ready?

We are historically decades behind the record makers when it comes to women leaders worldwide:

In 1960 Sirivamo Bandaranaike of Sri Lanka became the world’s first female elected Premier Minister and in 1974 Isabel Perón of Argentina became the first woman President

1999 Sweden became the first country to have more female ministers than male … and in 2007 the Finish government had 60% women.

Currently there are 30 female leaders in 29 different countries including:

The 12 female Presidents are in Argentina, Brazil, Costa Rica, Finland, India, Ireland, Kosovo, Kyrgyzstan, Liberia, Lithuania, San Marino and Switzerland.

And 12 woman Prime Ministers; in Australia, Bangladesh, Croatia, Germany, Iceland, Mali, Slovakia, Thailand, and Trinidad and Tobago and in the self-governing territories of Bermuda, Sint Maartin and the Åland Islands.

So how could a woman president still seem too radical a concept for the US, the most advance country in the world, to accept?

It just doesn’t hold water.

Even The Wonderful Wizard of Oz, the book on which the movie was based, was written over a hundred and eleven years ago.  Apparently, back then, the idea of a young spunky girl leading a band of misfit men and a dog on a successful mission was not only accepted but celebrated enough to become a beloved classic, and cherished enough by the many generations that followed to become immortalized in a movie.

Just to show how seriously feeble “Not ready” is as an excuse.  Those same 2008 Pew Poll respondents, who perceived Americans were not yet ready for a woman president also perceived that women’s leadership traits met or exceeded men’s leadership traits in seven out of eight categories and women absolutely blew away men in the two most important leadership traits — Honesty and Intelligence.

And still in February 2008 as Hillary Clinton battled Barack Obama for the Democratic presidential nomination only 71% of likely voters said they were willing to vote for a woman president.

So here we are, more than three years later, with a lot of water under the bridge.  Last month, a Rasmussen Reports national telephone survey found that 82% of Likely U.S. Voters say they are willing to vote for a woman president.

Sounds like progress.

Except, that once again we are facing a presidential election with only one woman in the running against a legion of men.  How can that be?  Women have moved into every area of management and executive leadership positions in the US and throughout the world.  The US has one of the highest, if not the highest, educated female population on the planet.

And still we can only produce one female presidential candidate at a time?

For all practical purposes this makes optimists out of the Nearly three-out-of-four voters (73%) now think it’s at least somewhat likely that a woman will be elected president in the next 10 years, although that includes just 26% who say it is Very Likely.

All of this seemed depressing enough for anyone middle-aged that is hoping to see a woman president in their life time.  But the worst was yet to come.  I caught an interview of Dr. Nassir Ghaemi on the Dylan Ratigan show.  Dr. Ghaemi, author of  “A First-Rate Madness” researched the connection between mental health and great leaders and what leadership characteristics were historically needed in times of crisis.  His conclusion?  The greatest crisis leaders had mental health issues and it was their illness that made them great crisis leaders.

From A First-Rate Madness:

… the theme of this book can be stated this way: “The best crisis leaders are mentally ill or mentally abnormal; the worst crisis leaders are mentally normal.”

Why?  Because mental illness made these leaders more realistic, empathetic, creative, and resilient.

I don’t claim depression invariably leads to realism, nor that mania always enhances creativity, nor that depression on every occasion increases empathy, nor that hyperthymiainevitably promotes resilience.  Rather, I argue that, on the whole, more often than not, those mental illnesses enhance or promote those qualities more frequently than is the case in the absence of those mental illnesses.

Without blinking an eye, the panel on the Ratigan show (including one woman) then proceeded to discuss how someone with mental health issues could realistically navigate the political process.  Not one person bothered to point out that if the leadership characteristics that are most needed in times of crisis are those listed above, wouldn’t it seem reasonable to look to see who else in the general population has those characteristics without the baggage and complexities involved with mental illness.  Because it seems to me the answer is glaringly obvious.

Look again at that leadership traits chart above.  Men barely registered while women soared on honesty, compassion and creativity.

Or go back through history and read not just the standard male based text books, but the likes of Resilience and Courage: Women, Men, and the Holocaust by Nechama Tec and Making do: women, family, and home in Montreal during the Great Depression by Denyse Baillargeon and Yvonne Klein.  When you look at each of these moments of great crisis — the Great Depression, the Holocaust, World War I and II — the group in the affected population that best met the tests of those times with the most realism, empathy, creativity and resilience was –

WOMEN!!

And yet, which segment of the population has been mostly excluded from leadership positions?

WOMEN!!

And yet, now we are willing to seriously consider insane men over sane women to lead our country?

Even Dr. Ghaemi points out in his book:

Some people with manic-depressive illness are unrealistic (even psychotic), unempathic, and unresilient.  We shouldn’t romanticize this condition; in its most extreme forms, it is highly disabling and dangerous.

We are truly living in the land of Oz.

Better start looking for a pair of ruby slippers!

***

Throughout our history, it took a strong leader, a bold plan, and a unified American people to get us through our toughest times and enabled us to build an even brighter future.  And yet here we are once again facing the abyss, without any of the three.

Where is our strong leader (Washington, Lincoln, Roosevelt) able to put aside politics for governance.  A visionary able to see beyond our individual constituencies to seek our common good and unite us in our common goals.

Where is our bold plan that is not left, right, or center — but Main Street American.  A plan that demands and encourages work and innovation.  One that gives us back our American dreams and aspirations.  One that creates the foundation for strong productive lives.  One that launches our best and brightest future.

Where is our unified “we the people” that individually and collectively form the roots of the mighty oak we call our Republic.  A people that are more than their individual constituencies.  Ones that share common goals for a strong and healthy future.  Ones that share common aspirations and dreams for productive lives.   Ones that know that in our unity, we become the trunk of that mighty oak we call the United States of America.

Back in early 2009, I wrote a post on Suggestions for The President:

Personally, I’m just a little frustrated that the American people are not being enlisted as builders of our own future. It’s as if we were the fourth leg on that three-legged stool everyone keeps trying to construct. Only we got thrown out with the packaging materials and the instructions!

I even wrote a little ditty about it:

Waiting Americans
by Linda Anselmi

We can awaken our courage,
And uncover our grit.
We can strap on responsibilities,
No matter the split.

But frustrations are growing,
Despite readying all that we can.
Because we see no real future,
And nary a plan

Those stools don’t need mending,
We can no longer afford such a sit.
America is waiting, Mr. President,
To see where our citizens will fit.

Two and half years later, the American people have read the tea leaves (each in our own way) and gotten the message on our dysfunctional government system.  The latest ABC/Washington Post poll:

Nearly three-quarters of Americans polled said they have little or no confidence in Washington to repair the economy. Confidence is down 21 percentage points from October 2010 and is less than half its 2002 levels. Roughly four in 10 have no confidence at all in the federal government when it comes to dealing with the economy…

Nearly eight in 10 of Americans polled were dissatisfied with the way the political system is working, up dramatically from late 2009. The unhappiness is intense, with 45 percent saying they are very dissatisfied. That feeling is shared widely across party lines.

Right, left or middle, we have stopped waiting and suggesting and started demanding loudly for a leader and a plan.  Small business owner Amilya Antonetti, CEO of AMA Productions, gave a passionate summation of where we are and what we lack in a recent interview with Cavuto on Fox:

Click here to view the embedded video.

I would say that until we get true leadership into this country, true leadership, which means we build a plan that we rely on, the definition of confidence means: “I can rely, right?” I can’t rely on anything, everything so far has been a myriad of lies and manipulation and none of it been true. And this is what the business community has been saying for over a year, over a year, saying we don’t have leadership. There – there isn’t – the information coming from us is – this is what you tell me today and your gonna do something for me different tomorrow…

He [Obama] did [inherit a mess]. It doesn’t matter; I inherit a mess every day as the CEO of my company. Every day I inherit a mess. That is my job title; to fix problems. To get people to work in harmony for one common goal. He can’t get the people in the White House.  I don’t care if you are a red or blue, your job is to make people work together in harmony for one common goal. The common goal is that this country is a safe, secure country to come to; this is the ‘American Dream’. WHAT ARE YOU DOING TO OUR COUNTRY? Get these people together, not vacation, and get them around the table, and come up with a plan; understand how you build a plan, what is the plan, what are the steps, how are we going to get there. Why can’t you put together a plan?

Yes, we want a leader and a plan to deal with unemployment, the economy, the housing crisis etc.  But is that enough?

Dylan Ratigan makes an impassioned demand for dealing with the larger issue of “the money extractors” first.  Because no matter how bold the plan or how brilliant the idea, nothing will happen so long as the extractors still control the stings of politicians.

Visit msnbc.com for breaking news, world news, and news about the economy (video h/t  C. Della Penna)

“Tens of trillions of dollars are being extracted from the United States of America. Democrats aren’t doing it, Republicans are not doing it, an entire integrated system, financial system, trading system, taxing system, that was created by both parties over a period of two decades is at work on our entire country right now,” said Ratigan. “We’re sitting here arguing about whether we should do the $4 trillion plan that kicks the can down the road for the president for 2017, or burn the place to the ground, both of which are reckless, irresponsible and stupid.

[snip]

It is about one guy.  I would like him [the President] to go to the people of the United States of America and say, “People of the United States of America, your Congress is bought, your Congress is incapable of making legislation on healthcare, banking, trade, or taxes because if they do it, they will lose their political funding and they won’t do it. But I’m the President of the United States, and I won’t have a country that is run by a bought Congress. So I’m not going to work with a bought Congress and try to be Mr. Big Guy … I’m going to abandon the bought Congress like Teddy Roosevelt did, and I’m going to go to the people of the United States get rid of the bought Congress.”

Of course, Dylan’s plan would only work if that “one guy” wasn’t being funded by that same extraction system.

It seems a consensus is forming that Obama is not the leader we were looking for.  Con Carroll of theWashington Examiner points to this telling piece of polling news.

Buried deep in the internals of The Washington Post’s latest poll… troubling news for President Obama’s reelction prospects. Fourty-four percent of American adults, and 46 percent of registered voters, told The Post they definitely will not vote for Obama’s reelection. Only 20 percent of respondents said they deifinitely will vote for Obama in 2012. Thirty percent said they would consider it.

But the 2012 election is coming fast.  Will a leader emerge that is strong enough to put governance over politics?

Will we get a plan that is bold enough to launch our future?

And will ‘we the people’ move beyond party long enough to fight together for our shared future?

Share your thoughts!

If, since 2009, you’ve wondered why President Obama has been such an inept negotiator for the American people?

Why his administration keeps bailing out Wall Street and feeding the military industrial complex or any industry — health care, insurance, auto, mortgage — that comes along with a need or a demand for the taxpayer’s dime, but somehow never manages to bail out the average taxpayer?  Why a President who is a legally trained scholar would continue and even further so many of the Bush policies that undermined and subjugated the civil liberties and personal property rights of the American people?

If, since 2008, you’ve wondered — why Obama?

Why an inexperienced “present” voter was made president during a time of financial crisis?  Why Obama’s records were never vetted?  Why the Democratic party broke their own rules to mow down Hillary Clinton, the best qualified presidential candidate for our country and the times?

Then, I’d like to introduce you to Professor Michael Hudson, a financial economist, historian and Distinguished Research Professor of Economics at the University of Missouri-Kansas City.  He may have an explanation for not only why Obama was elected, but why Obama is working so hard to make the economy worse for the American people.

According to Professor Hudson the why of Obama is really quite simple.  Wall Street and global financiers have a plan they want to implement.  And that plan needs a depression.

And Obama just happens to be the poser/puppet that will make that planned depression happen.

“The economy is seeking because investors realize that his [Obama's] deflationary attempt to cut public spending looks like a done deal. Trying to run a budget surplus will push the economy deeper into depression. When Clinton ran a budget surplus, the banks provided the increase in credit to keep the economy going. But now they have pulled back, as there is little surplus that has not already been pledged to pay the banks. So Mr. Obama’s advisors have convinced him to do what European political front men also are doing. A depression is deemed necessary to cut living standards and labor by about 30 percent. Mr. Obama’s aim is to lower American wage levels.

To do this, he needs an excuse, a cover story. The reality is that a depression will make the budget deficit even larger. Just as the plans to invade Iraq were written up before 9/11 provided a crisis atmosphere that became the opportunity to introduce them, so the response to the federal budget deficit is already outlined: Social Security and other “entitlements” will be cut back, as well as revenue sharing with the states and cities. So governments at the local level will have to sell of land, roads and whatever is in the public domain. The American government will look just like Greece and Ireland – so you may want to look at them as dress rehearsals.

Cutbacks in federal spending mean that the states can’t cover their own budgets – and their constitutions prevent many from running deficits. It looks like there will be little federal revenue to share with Minnesota or Wisconsin or the city of Chicago. They’re going to have to sell their roads and streets, sell their infrastructure and their public utilities, sell off whatever business enterprises they have that can bring in credit. These assets themselves will be sold on credit, to buyers who then will “expense” their profits as tax-deductible interest. So governments will not get the potential user fees that result from putting up parking meters on their sidewalks, tollbooths on their roads and other rent extraction facilities on their other assets. The financial sector will take all this.

…

It looks like he [Obama] will go down in history as a Herbert Hoover, being blamed for the depression that was not necessary and that the Republicans could not have gotten away with intensifying. Only a Democrat posing as a left-winger could support the anti-labor, anti-wage, pro-Wall Street policies that his advisors have been putting into his hands. This is what came out in the New York Times interview with Sheila Bair.”

Excerpt: Wall Street’s Euthanasia of Industry” transcript (or listen to his whole interview), Guns and Butter interview with Dr. Michael Hudson:

It might be tempting to write off Professor Hudson’s interview as the wild rantings of one man, if it wasn’t for the fact that 25 million Americans are unemployed or can’t find full time work, real compensation is at a 50 year low, and U.S. homeownership rate fell to the lowest level since 1998.

Or, if state and federal governments hadn’t been selling off assets for years.  A Cato Institute paper advocates Privatization by selling off post offices, toll roads, and utilities.   And here are links to reports of recent lease/sales of the Indiana Toll Road, Chicago parking meters and Arizona state capital building to name just a few.  Reading through the details of these deals, it is hard to believe these sales are really in the public’s long-term interest, and yet the pace is quickening and now local governments are joining the sell-off party too.  Of course the government asset fire sales aren’t limited to the US or even Greece and Ireland.   The UK tried to sell Sherwood Forest until citizens stopped it by taking to the streets.

Maybe Professor Hudson’s analysis seems like a belated attempt by the progressive left to join the “birthers” with an anti-Obama conspiracy theory of their own.  Especially, when the likes of Mat Taibbi in his recent Rolling Stone article Debt Ceiling Deal: The Democrats Take a Dive is calling democratic politicians ”…a bunch of hired stooges put in office to lend an air of democratic legitimacy to what has essentially become a bureaucratic-oligarchic state…”

He then goes on to explain:

“The Democrats aren’t failing to stand up to Republicans and failing to enact sensible reforms that benefit the middle class because they genuinely believe there’s political hay to be made moving to the right. They’re doing it because they do not represent any actual voters. I know I’ve said this before, but they are not a progressive political party, not even secretly, deep inside. They just play one on television.

…Who spends hundreds of millions of dollars for what looks, on the outside, like rank incompetence?

It strains the imagination to think that the country’s smartest businessmen keep paying top dollar for such lousy performance. Is it possible that by “surrendering” at the 11th hour and signing off on a deal that presages deep cuts in spending for the middle class, but avoids tax increases for the rich, Obama is doing exactly what was expected of him?”

And Dylan Ratigan in The Real Debt Deal makes the plea that:

American homeowners shouldn’t be under siege by creditor predator banks, and millions of us shouldn’t be unemployed as debt-holders forced into a Survivor-like fight with each other over scraps. We cannot allow giant creditors to turn fights over debt into currency wars, and then into real wars.

But a new world order takeover is not just a theory of the progressive left.  Back in the fall of 2009, Alex Jones released a documentary film called the Fall of the Republic, The Presidency of Barack Obama. It makes many of the same points as Professor Hudson through extensive talks with criminologists, economists, political analysts and the like, but Jones’ movie is considered to be right-winged by many.

At the very least, the idea that anyone would actually plan an economic depression seems too crazy to even imagine.  Main Street America is too busy running the rat race to spend its leisure planning for global events 10, 20, even 30 years in advance.  But then not everyone is busy running with us.  Ever hear of the Bilderberg Group or the Trilateral Commission?

Whether it is truth or just a conspiracy theory that President Obama was the poser/puppet needed to bring about a planned economic depression and a new world order, only time will tell. But if we do get a new economic world order out of a planned depression — I can’t help wondering which of us will be left and who will we be serving and how?

If what Franklin D. Roosevelt said was true that “Presidents are selected, not elected,” then wouldn’t it make sense that the presidential selection would be influenced by both parties?  And if there was a conspiracy to put a particular president in office, why would we ever assume the conspiracy ends at one party’s edge?

Share your thoughts!

Click here to view the embedded video.

Our republic doesn’t just need equal branches of government, it needs the full weight of a responsible, active, law honoring, and educated citizenry overseeing its representatives and holding them to account for their actions and their ability to uphold the rule of law.

As with all forms of government, a Republic has its limitations.

A Republic can’t secure individual rights and liberties — without the governed securing its individual responsibility.

A Republic can’t maintain a representative government — without the governed maintaining its personal participation.

A Republic can’t enforce the rule of law — without the governed honoring those laws and hold their representatives accountable to those laws.

A Republic can’t have the informed consent of the governed — without the governed educating themselves and providing sound judgement.

When we collectively fail to do our part for our republic, we open the door to the Oligarchs.  And they aren’t worried about petty party loyalties.  They have the money to pay both sides to get what they want.

How else do you explain, that in 2008 federal prosecutors officially adopted new guidelines and a “softer” approach to corporate crime that is still in effect today.   Which, not incidentally, is why there have been no real prosecutions of the endemic fraud in both the financial and mortgage industries.

As Wall St. Polices Itself, Prosecutors Use Softer Approach
by Gretchen Morgenson and Louise Story
NYTImes

“Though little noticed outside legal circles, the guidelines were welcomed by firms representing banks. The Justice Department’s directive, involving a process known as deferred prosecutions, signaled “an important step away from the more aggressive prosecutorial practices seen in some cases under their predecessors,” Sullivan & Cromwell, a prominent Wall Street law firm, told clients in a memo that September.

The guidelines left open a possibility other than guilty or not guilty, giving leniency often if companies investigated and reported their own wrongdoing. In return, the government could enter into agreements to delay or cancel the prosecution if the companies promised to change their behavior.“

And the SEC got an early start on the “soft” approach back in 2005, but didn’t make it official until last year.  No wonder Harry Markopolos couldn’t get the SEC to investigate Bernie Madoff for ten years.  They were waiting for Madoff to report himself!

More from Prosecutors Use Softer Approach:

The Securities and Exchange Commission also added deferred prosecution as a tool last year and has embraced another alternative to litigation — reports that chronicle wrongdoing at institutions like Moody’s Investors Service, often without punishing anyone. The financial crisis cases brought by the S.E.C. — like a recent settlement with JPMorgan Chase for selling a mortgage security that soured — have rarely named executives as defendants.

Defending the department’s approach, Alisa Finelli, a spokeswoman, said deferred prosecution agreements require that corporations pay penalties and restitution, correct criminal conduct and “achieve these results without causing the loss of jobs, the loss of pensions and other significant negative consequences to innocent parties who played no role in the criminal conduct, were unaware of it or were unable to prevent it.”

The department began pulling back from a more aggressive pursuit of white-collar crime around 2005, say defense lawyers and former prosecutors, after the Supreme Court overturned a conviction it won against the accounting firm Arthur Andersen. That ended an era of brass-knuckle prosecutions related to fraud at companies like Enron.”

So it is our government’s official policy, under both Bush and Obama, to save corporate brass from the loss of jobs, pensions or other negative consequences. At the very same time “our” government, under both parties, has done nothing to save millions of jobs and homes for average Americans, and now wants to cut “entitlements” for those same average Americans.

Seriously, can it get any clearer as to whom our government and both parties considers the boss?

Is it too late for average Americans to reclaim our Republic?

Or have the Oligarchs become too powerful?

From Mark’s Quotes:

Republics are created by the virtue, public spirit, and intelligence of the citizens. They fall, when the wise are banished from the public councils, because they dare to be honest, and the profligate are rewarded, because they flatter the people, in order to betray them.  – Joseph Story, Commentaries on the Constitution, 1833

Share your thoughts!