Readers of this column know that The Prairie Editor said right after
it filled with hot air that the poll bubble of Rick Santorum would not last
long. Nevertheless, the former senator from Pennsylvania has enjoyed
several heady days of leading in many state and national polls, and of
shaking up the Republican establishment which had anticipated Mitt
Romney winning his party's nomination for president. As the last of
more than six or seven persons mentioned for the top GOP spot on the
2012 ticket, and to have "bubbles" showing them briefly ahead of the
long-time frontrunner, it was probably inevitable that Mr. Santorum
would have his moment in the political sun. But there was a reason he
did not emerge earlier, and had to wait until everyone else had their
turn in the spotlight.
That reason was telegraphed in 2006 when Mr. Santorum, after two
terms in the U.S. house and two in the U.S. senate, was defeated by 18
points for re-election in Pennsylvania. Although Mr. Santorum worked
hard and persistently in Iowa to gain attention and votes, and ultimately
did win the Iowa caucus, he was not vetted until very late in the process.
That vetting has revealed someone who held contrary views on social
issues when he entered politics to the ones he now so passionately
espouses, and who behaved as a typical politician throughout most of his
time in the nation's capital. In regard to the views he now holds, many of
them are expressed in such absolutist terms that, while they may please
some in the Republican "anybody-but-Romney" base, they are almost
certain to turn away most in the political center that is the vital component
of victory every U.S. presidential election.
Predictions are always a risky endeavor in politics, but it now appears that
Mr Santorum's bubble is bursting in advance of the Arizona and Michigan
primaries, and Mr. Romney will win both. If this happens, the media, so
sensitive to its own opportunities to create melodramatic news environments,
will proclaim Mr. Romney "back on track" until Super Tuesday when, like
a "ghost of Christmas past," Newt Gingrich will likely arise one more time
from the media-created political ashes to be that "last" obstacle to Mr.
Romney's nomination in Tampa.
In fact, Charles Dickens could have not written a better script for this cycle
of the presidential election. Mr. Obama says it is "the best of times," and
the Republicans contend it is "the worst of times." The Prairie Editor does
not have to labor with difficulty to suggest that the latter argument will
likely prevail in voters' minds on election day.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Copyright (c) 2012 by Barry Casselman
All rights reserved.
Friday, February 24, 2012
Tuesday, February 21, 2012
Greek Ruins
The latest "bail out" of the Greek economy should fool no one.
The agreement is a band aid on top of a band aid, and only delays
an eventual collapse of the Greek situation and further deterioration
of the whole European economic crisis.
The seeds of this financial disaster in Athens were sown at the very
beginning of the European unity experiment when, soon after World
War II, the visionary dream of Jean Monnet and others was to create
an economic structure that would be followed by a political structure,
each step that would unify the continent and eliminate a millenium of
violent conflicts between the nations originally created by the various
barbarian tribes which lived in the region.
As Euroskeptics have warned throughout the many decades of the
development of the European Common Market to the present
European Union, the strategy at the outset, however well-meaning,
was flawed. It was understandable that, after two unspeakably violent
and murderous wars in the 20th century, following countless brutal
conflicts over many centuries in the region, there was a desire to
restructure the continent so that instead of jealousy and revenge,
religious persecution and totalitarianism in many forms, there would
be commercial cooperation, tolerance, mutual respect and democracy.
M. Monnet and his colleagues, however, proceeded to construct a
top-down structure of the New Europe. Perhaps knowing that modern
democratic forms were mostly unknown to the populations of the
various surviving nations of Europe, they did not have confidence in the
European masses, and assumed a paternalistic attitude of recreating the
region without building what we Americans call "grass roots" support.
It is probably true that the only major European nation which resisted
this, and only gradually found its way fully into the Union (minus
accepting the Euro, the new currency of most of the continent) was Great
Britain which had been the mother (albeit a reluctant one) of the
American democracy. (Most Americans, for whatever shortcomings U.S.
democratic structures have, would find the political process which Europe
has taken to be unthinkable and unworkable.)
I am not suggesting that Mr. Monnet's impulse and goals were not good
ones, even necessary ones. After so much human slaughter and suffering,
there had to be a better way to conduct the affairs of this large and
important part of the world. Democratic capitalism, a child of the
Industrial Revolution of the 18th and 19th centuries, in fact was born in
the cities of northern Europe. But another child of Europe, socialism,
had greater influence on the new nations of the continent, and a new
form, the social welfare state, emerged as the dominant economic
model. In this model, the needs of the populace were relegated more and
more to the central government of each national state, particularly in
providing unemployment insurance, education, health care, industrial
controls, taxation, old age pensions, etc. Prominent economic theories in
this period asserted that these costs and services could be provided
indefinitely by postponing growing debt resulting from them into the
future. (The same theories were temporarily put in practice on the other
side of the Atlantic, but soon after the Viet Nam War were primarily
rejected as destructive to an ongoing healthy economy.)
In Europe, however, the economic model was increasingly imposed on
the intranational structure that was becoming more and more political
as well as financial. But two main factors were working against this
process. First, of course, the economic model was fundamentally
flawed. At some point, the accumulated national debts would be
confronted by the "Piper" who would demand to be paid. The notion
that debt could be put off indefinitely was a fantasy. Second, although
it was an obvious improvement to eliminate passports, tariffs and other
impediments to free trade and passage between the European nations,
the top-down structure did not accommodate over time the different
languages, traditions and customs, and self-interests of each component
of the New Europe, the former nations developed over centuries from
the original barbarian tribes. One major reason this happened, I have
suggested, was that the "visionaries" who created the New Europe had
done so without building and receiving a slow and careful approval from
the populations of each nation. As long as the New Europe was bringing
apparent prosperity, of course, objections were relatively few and isolated.
But as the original group of nations, most of them recovering nicely from
the catastrophes of world wars (thanks in part to long-term economic and
military aid from the U.S.), were expanded to poorer nations, economic
crisis became inevitable. Large waves of immigration from outside Europe
to provide labor for the post-war European boom profoundly has
complicated this crisis, as Europe evolved from its traditional Catholic and
Protestant constituencies to much more secular ones whose traditions were
challenged by the immigrants.
In short, there is now an economic and political crisis in Europe which
cannot be resolved by "bail outs" and other economic sleights of hand.
The problems are not only endemic in the newer "Euro" nations of Greece,
Portugal and Spain, they now reach farther and farther into Germany,
France and The Netherlands, some of the more successful economies,
as well as Italy, chronically one of the financial and political "trouble
spots" of Europe.
Whether now or at some "postponed" date, the "Piper" will have to be
paid. Those who will have to pay include most of the citizens of Europe,
i.e., the pensioners, the shareholders, the small businesses and those
dependent on public welfare. These are most of the voters in Europe,
and thus we understand why the politicians continue to delay resolving
the crisis.
The United States is not immune from many of these problems, nor
more immediately, would it be unaffected by a worsening of the
European crisis. Americans hold European debt and American
business depend on European trade. This is why the Obama
administration acts in ways that resemble European administrations.
Behind the "bail outs" is a massive deception, that is, that everything
will turn out all right if only we can postpone dealing with the Piper
who wants to be paid. Greece is the focus of today, but the crisis
will emigrate quickly wherever it can, like a river exceeding its banks,
like a volcano emitting merciless lava in all directions.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Copyright (c) 2012 by Barry Casselman
All rights reserved.
The agreement is a band aid on top of a band aid, and only delays
an eventual collapse of the Greek situation and further deterioration
of the whole European economic crisis.
The seeds of this financial disaster in Athens were sown at the very
beginning of the European unity experiment when, soon after World
War II, the visionary dream of Jean Monnet and others was to create
an economic structure that would be followed by a political structure,
each step that would unify the continent and eliminate a millenium of
violent conflicts between the nations originally created by the various
barbarian tribes which lived in the region.
As Euroskeptics have warned throughout the many decades of the
development of the European Common Market to the present
European Union, the strategy at the outset, however well-meaning,
was flawed. It was understandable that, after two unspeakably violent
and murderous wars in the 20th century, following countless brutal
conflicts over many centuries in the region, there was a desire to
restructure the continent so that instead of jealousy and revenge,
religious persecution and totalitarianism in many forms, there would
be commercial cooperation, tolerance, mutual respect and democracy.
M. Monnet and his colleagues, however, proceeded to construct a
top-down structure of the New Europe. Perhaps knowing that modern
democratic forms were mostly unknown to the populations of the
various surviving nations of Europe, they did not have confidence in the
European masses, and assumed a paternalistic attitude of recreating the
region without building what we Americans call "grass roots" support.
It is probably true that the only major European nation which resisted
this, and only gradually found its way fully into the Union (minus
accepting the Euro, the new currency of most of the continent) was Great
Britain which had been the mother (albeit a reluctant one) of the
American democracy. (Most Americans, for whatever shortcomings U.S.
democratic structures have, would find the political process which Europe
has taken to be unthinkable and unworkable.)
I am not suggesting that Mr. Monnet's impulse and goals were not good
ones, even necessary ones. After so much human slaughter and suffering,
there had to be a better way to conduct the affairs of this large and
important part of the world. Democratic capitalism, a child of the
Industrial Revolution of the 18th and 19th centuries, in fact was born in
the cities of northern Europe. But another child of Europe, socialism,
had greater influence on the new nations of the continent, and a new
form, the social welfare state, emerged as the dominant economic
model. In this model, the needs of the populace were relegated more and
more to the central government of each national state, particularly in
providing unemployment insurance, education, health care, industrial
controls, taxation, old age pensions, etc. Prominent economic theories in
this period asserted that these costs and services could be provided
indefinitely by postponing growing debt resulting from them into the
future. (The same theories were temporarily put in practice on the other
side of the Atlantic, but soon after the Viet Nam War were primarily
rejected as destructive to an ongoing healthy economy.)
In Europe, however, the economic model was increasingly imposed on
the intranational structure that was becoming more and more political
as well as financial. But two main factors were working against this
process. First, of course, the economic model was fundamentally
flawed. At some point, the accumulated national debts would be
confronted by the "Piper" who would demand to be paid. The notion
that debt could be put off indefinitely was a fantasy. Second, although
it was an obvious improvement to eliminate passports, tariffs and other
impediments to free trade and passage between the European nations,
the top-down structure did not accommodate over time the different
languages, traditions and customs, and self-interests of each component
of the New Europe, the former nations developed over centuries from
the original barbarian tribes. One major reason this happened, I have
suggested, was that the "visionaries" who created the New Europe had
done so without building and receiving a slow and careful approval from
the populations of each nation. As long as the New Europe was bringing
apparent prosperity, of course, objections were relatively few and isolated.
But as the original group of nations, most of them recovering nicely from
the catastrophes of world wars (thanks in part to long-term economic and
military aid from the U.S.), were expanded to poorer nations, economic
crisis became inevitable. Large waves of immigration from outside Europe
to provide labor for the post-war European boom profoundly has
complicated this crisis, as Europe evolved from its traditional Catholic and
Protestant constituencies to much more secular ones whose traditions were
challenged by the immigrants.
In short, there is now an economic and political crisis in Europe which
cannot be resolved by "bail outs" and other economic sleights of hand.
The problems are not only endemic in the newer "Euro" nations of Greece,
Portugal and Spain, they now reach farther and farther into Germany,
France and The Netherlands, some of the more successful economies,
as well as Italy, chronically one of the financial and political "trouble
spots" of Europe.
Whether now or at some "postponed" date, the "Piper" will have to be
paid. Those who will have to pay include most of the citizens of Europe,
i.e., the pensioners, the shareholders, the small businesses and those
dependent on public welfare. These are most of the voters in Europe,
and thus we understand why the politicians continue to delay resolving
the crisis.
The United States is not immune from many of these problems, nor
more immediately, would it be unaffected by a worsening of the
European crisis. Americans hold European debt and American
business depend on European trade. This is why the Obama
administration acts in ways that resemble European administrations.
Behind the "bail outs" is a massive deception, that is, that everything
will turn out all right if only we can postpone dealing with the Piper
who wants to be paid. Greece is the focus of today, but the crisis
will emigrate quickly wherever it can, like a river exceeding its banks,
like a volcano emitting merciless lava in all directions.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Copyright (c) 2012 by Barry Casselman
All rights reserved.
Saturday, February 18, 2012
Romney's Problem, Romney's Opportunity
If Mitt Romney has what it takes to be president, and I suspect he does,
he will use his present predicament to overcome his greatest vulnerability
in the presidential contest for his party’s nomination, that is, his failure
so far to connect emotionally with voters.
That does not mean that the former governor of Massachusetts will
suddenly say he “feels our pain,” or that he will make teenage girls and
grown men swoon with incendiary rhetoric. Mr Romney’s personality
is not naturally outwardly warm or empathetic; that is not going to change
overnight or suddenly, as if by a political consultant’s wand. But where is it
written in American political history that the nation’s chief executive is
supposed to be the First Therapist or the National Teddy Bear?
In fact, few presidents have been like Bill Clinton. Yet most presidents did
have the knack to relate to voters, that is, voters have found them ultimately
likable. Mitt Romney is a rich man, but he is a self-made rich man. He is
a problem-solving businessman. His greatest problem now is restoring his
campaign for president, subjected for months to “bubble” assaults in the
polls from rivals. He has recuperated from each of these, but the
Republican nomination is now in its decisive stage, i.e. , delegates are
being chosen, voters are finally making up their minds.
Although I have written for months, without endorsing him, that I
thought that Romney would ultimately win his party’s nomination,
nowhere have I suggested that his victory was absolutely inevitable.
In politics, nothing is absolutely inevitable.
What is Mr. Romney’s problem? It is a lack of connection. It is not that
voters cannot “like” him, but they are having difficulty “connecting” to
him. His remoteness is the distance he appears to place (intentional or
not) between himself and voters. Does it come from his personality, his
wealth, his upbringing, and his political circumstances? Yes, all of these.
He can’t change his wealth, nor his upbringing, and his political
circumstances have been thrust on him. But he can share with voters his
obvious dilemma, and invite them to help him solve his problem.
This probably cannot be done alone with massive political advertising by
his own campaign (nor by the SuperPac he does not control), nor by
pretending he does not have a problem. It cannot be solved alone by
superior organization. It cannot be solved simply with his resume.
Mitt Romney needs to get a large number voters to be part of solving
his political problem, and that begins with a simple heartfelt appeal directly
to voters. Voters, I have observed over many presidential cycles, are not
looking for perfect candidates. They look for candidates who agree with
them, but they also like candidates who can admit mistakes, who ask
forgiveness for their personal shortcomings, and most of all, voters
in America like candidates who acknowledge, simply and humbly, that
they, the politicians, ultimately need them, the voters.
I do not presume to say what Mr. Romney should say, and how he should
say it, to accomplish this, but at some point he will, if he is to prevail, have
to do this. If he does not, Mr. Gingrich may yet overcome his own problems
and win this nomination. If neither of them do it, there may yet be a
so-called “brokered” convention, and no one now in the contest may
suddenly emerge.
This election is bigger than personalities, and someone who can do the
job, even if he or she is not now on the ballot, will contend to be
commander-in-chief this November. Mr. Romney earned his fortune,
as they say, ”the old-fashioned way.” If he is to be president, he must
find his way to do this again.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Copyright (c) 2012 by Barry Casselman
All rights reserved.
he will use his present predicament to overcome his greatest vulnerability
in the presidential contest for his party’s nomination, that is, his failure
so far to connect emotionally with voters.
That does not mean that the former governor of Massachusetts will
suddenly say he “feels our pain,” or that he will make teenage girls and
grown men swoon with incendiary rhetoric. Mr Romney’s personality
is not naturally outwardly warm or empathetic; that is not going to change
overnight or suddenly, as if by a political consultant’s wand. But where is it
written in American political history that the nation’s chief executive is
supposed to be the First Therapist or the National Teddy Bear?
In fact, few presidents have been like Bill Clinton. Yet most presidents did
have the knack to relate to voters, that is, voters have found them ultimately
likable. Mitt Romney is a rich man, but he is a self-made rich man. He is
a problem-solving businessman. His greatest problem now is restoring his
campaign for president, subjected for months to “bubble” assaults in the
polls from rivals. He has recuperated from each of these, but the
Republican nomination is now in its decisive stage, i.e. , delegates are
being chosen, voters are finally making up their minds.
Although I have written for months, without endorsing him, that I
thought that Romney would ultimately win his party’s nomination,
nowhere have I suggested that his victory was absolutely inevitable.
In politics, nothing is absolutely inevitable.
What is Mr. Romney’s problem? It is a lack of connection. It is not that
voters cannot “like” him, but they are having difficulty “connecting” to
him. His remoteness is the distance he appears to place (intentional or
not) between himself and voters. Does it come from his personality, his
wealth, his upbringing, and his political circumstances? Yes, all of these.
He can’t change his wealth, nor his upbringing, and his political
circumstances have been thrust on him. But he can share with voters his
obvious dilemma, and invite them to help him solve his problem.
This probably cannot be done alone with massive political advertising by
his own campaign (nor by the SuperPac he does not control), nor by
pretending he does not have a problem. It cannot be solved alone by
superior organization. It cannot be solved simply with his resume.
Mitt Romney needs to get a large number voters to be part of solving
his political problem, and that begins with a simple heartfelt appeal directly
to voters. Voters, I have observed over many presidential cycles, are not
looking for perfect candidates. They look for candidates who agree with
them, but they also like candidates who can admit mistakes, who ask
forgiveness for their personal shortcomings, and most of all, voters
in America like candidates who acknowledge, simply and humbly, that
they, the politicians, ultimately need them, the voters.
I do not presume to say what Mr. Romney should say, and how he should
say it, to accomplish this, but at some point he will, if he is to prevail, have
to do this. If he does not, Mr. Gingrich may yet overcome his own problems
and win this nomination. If neither of them do it, there may yet be a
so-called “brokered” convention, and no one now in the contest may
suddenly emerge.
This election is bigger than personalities, and someone who can do the
job, even if he or she is not now on the ballot, will contend to be
commander-in-chief this November. Mr. Romney earned his fortune,
as they say, ”the old-fashioned way.” If he is to be president, he must
find his way to do this again.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Copyright (c) 2012 by Barry Casselman
All rights reserved.
Wednesday, February 15, 2012
Mood Swings
Poll numbers in the Republican presidential nomination contest
have become no more than mood swings of conservatives who have
allowed political emotion to supercede political common sense.
How else to explain the huge swings in poll numbers in the form of
"bubbles" that have now culminated in a surge for the weakest possible
candidate to oppose President Obama in November?
Let me remind anyone who is interested in the outcome of this year's
presidential election that the vote in November when an incumbent
is running for a second term is always a judgment by the voters on the
record of the incumbent. The only time that is not true is when the
opposition party nominates someone so weak and inappropriate that
he or she becomes the focus of the election, and the incumbent's
campaign can successfully transform their own candidate's weakness
to voter alarm over the challenger.
As the vetting of Rick Santorum's legislative record is now revealing,
this record does not resemble the persona that he has put forward in
his presidential campaign. His voting record is replete with
inconsistencies, from the conservative point of view. His justification
so far is that, hey, he was a senator from Pennsylvania and he was only
representing his constituents. But wait a minute, conservatives, haven't
you already rejected that alibi from Mitt Romney who has argued that
his apparent past moderate record was because he was governor of
Massachusetts, arguably the most liberal state? At least, Mr. Romney
has a valid point, Massachusetts IS the most liberal state. I'm originally
from Pennsylvania, and I can testify to the fact that the Keystone State
is one of the least liberal in the eastern U.S. If Mr. Santorum's alibi had
any validity, how can he explain losing he 2006 re-election by 18 points?
There was a reason that Mr Santorum was so lightly regarded at the
outset on the 2012 campaign, He had been in Washington, DC for almost
two decades, and was known as a political lightweight who took extreme
views on controversial subjects.
I would agree to the point, made by many, that some of the best GOP
candidates this cycle (including Mitch Daniels, Chris Christie, Bobby
Jindal, Jeb Bush, et al) chose not to run. But that point is moot now.
There are only four candidates for the GOP nomination left. One of them,
Ron Paul, is totally unelectable. Mitt Romney and Newt Gingrich have
each political warts and shortcomings. But they at least have both
the stature and a political history which makes them serious candidates
for president.
To his credit, Rick Santorum has worked hard, and unlike some of his
2012 colleagues, did not abandon the race because his poll numbers were
low. Unfortunately his current political personality does not resemble his
own record, a fact that would make him a mortally weak opponent to
Mr. Obama who would easily make Mr. Santorum the issue in November,
especially to independent voters, the ones who ALWAYS make the difference
in a presidential election.
Unless they are suddenly suicidal and timid, the campaigns of Mr. Romney
and Mr. Gingrich will not fail to point our Mr. Santorum's huge
vulnerabilities. Mr. Paul has already said "it is time to take the cover off"
the former senator from Pennsylvania. If he is nothing else, Mr. Paul is a
man of his word.
As I have pointed out time and again in the past year, no bubble against Mr.
Romney has lasted for than a few days. Far more substantive candidates
than Mr. Santorum learned this the hard way. Both the liberal and the
conservative media have lots of motives to promote this latest bubble.
But I remember when Mr. Cain, Mr. Perry and Mr. Gingrich were each
ahead of Mr. Romney suddenly by double digits, and everyone seemed to
ooh and ah over this remarkable circumstance.
Lest they become intoxicated by this phenomenon one more time, may I
suggest to those who read this that we are now only days away from when
the calendar will produce large numbers of actual delegates for one
candidate or another. Like anyone being wooed, voters understandably
are subject to wild mood swings just before they have to make a decision.
But the time comes when a decision must be made.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Copyright (c) 2012 by Barry Casselman
All rights reserved.
have become no more than mood swings of conservatives who have
allowed political emotion to supercede political common sense.
How else to explain the huge swings in poll numbers in the form of
"bubbles" that have now culminated in a surge for the weakest possible
candidate to oppose President Obama in November?
Let me remind anyone who is interested in the outcome of this year's
presidential election that the vote in November when an incumbent
is running for a second term is always a judgment by the voters on the
record of the incumbent. The only time that is not true is when the
opposition party nominates someone so weak and inappropriate that
he or she becomes the focus of the election, and the incumbent's
campaign can successfully transform their own candidate's weakness
to voter alarm over the challenger.
As the vetting of Rick Santorum's legislative record is now revealing,
this record does not resemble the persona that he has put forward in
his presidential campaign. His voting record is replete with
inconsistencies, from the conservative point of view. His justification
so far is that, hey, he was a senator from Pennsylvania and he was only
representing his constituents. But wait a minute, conservatives, haven't
you already rejected that alibi from Mitt Romney who has argued that
his apparent past moderate record was because he was governor of
Massachusetts, arguably the most liberal state? At least, Mr. Romney
has a valid point, Massachusetts IS the most liberal state. I'm originally
from Pennsylvania, and I can testify to the fact that the Keystone State
is one of the least liberal in the eastern U.S. If Mr. Santorum's alibi had
any validity, how can he explain losing he 2006 re-election by 18 points?
There was a reason that Mr Santorum was so lightly regarded at the
outset on the 2012 campaign, He had been in Washington, DC for almost
two decades, and was known as a political lightweight who took extreme
views on controversial subjects.
I would agree to the point, made by many, that some of the best GOP
candidates this cycle (including Mitch Daniels, Chris Christie, Bobby
Jindal, Jeb Bush, et al) chose not to run. But that point is moot now.
There are only four candidates for the GOP nomination left. One of them,
Ron Paul, is totally unelectable. Mitt Romney and Newt Gingrich have
each political warts and shortcomings. But they at least have both
the stature and a political history which makes them serious candidates
for president.
To his credit, Rick Santorum has worked hard, and unlike some of his
2012 colleagues, did not abandon the race because his poll numbers were
low. Unfortunately his current political personality does not resemble his
own record, a fact that would make him a mortally weak opponent to
Mr. Obama who would easily make Mr. Santorum the issue in November,
especially to independent voters, the ones who ALWAYS make the difference
in a presidential election.
Unless they are suddenly suicidal and timid, the campaigns of Mr. Romney
and Mr. Gingrich will not fail to point our Mr. Santorum's huge
vulnerabilities. Mr. Paul has already said "it is time to take the cover off"
the former senator from Pennsylvania. If he is nothing else, Mr. Paul is a
man of his word.
As I have pointed out time and again in the past year, no bubble against Mr.
Romney has lasted for than a few days. Far more substantive candidates
than Mr. Santorum learned this the hard way. Both the liberal and the
conservative media have lots of motives to promote this latest bubble.
But I remember when Mr. Cain, Mr. Perry and Mr. Gingrich were each
ahead of Mr. Romney suddenly by double digits, and everyone seemed to
ooh and ah over this remarkable circumstance.
Lest they become intoxicated by this phenomenon one more time, may I
suggest to those who read this that we are now only days away from when
the calendar will produce large numbers of actual delegates for one
candidate or another. Like anyone being wooed, voters understandably
are subject to wild mood swings just before they have to make a decision.
But the time comes when a decision must be made.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Copyright (c) 2012 by Barry Casselman
All rights reserved.
Sunday, February 12, 2012
Sticks And Stones
When I was a little boy, and we heard either erroneous or
cruel comments made by one child to another, we were told to
respond "Sticks and stones may break my bones, but words
will never hurt me." It was a simple nursery rhyme device, but
it contained an important basic truth.
In the current presidential race, as in previous ones, competing
candidates hurl tough charges against each other. Some are
valid, many are false, most are only partially true and taken out
of context. In today's age of the internet, text messages,
as well as the usual print and broadcast media, direct attacks
by candidates and their political advertising, or the relatively new
phenomenon of "SuperPacs" which are not controlled by the
candidates themselves but which work on a candidate's behalf,
there are brutal verbals attacks 24/7 seemingly everywhere,
especially in those states which are conducting primaries or
caucuses in the near future.
Many folks decry these tactics, although they are as old as the
Republic itself, and few can quickly determine whether or not
they are true or false. The SuperPacs particularly seem to be an
unfair innovation in the presidential election cycle, and probably
should be eliminated in new election reforms in the future, but
for now, they are part of the election cycle.
As candidates have learned one more time in the 2012 election
cycle, negative ads can indeed hurt. Mr. Gingrich and Mr. Romney
have experienced this personally, and now that Mr. Santorum is
enjoying some recent success, he will no doubt experience this, too.
But the basic insight of "sticks and stones......" remains fundamentally
true as well because voters pay a lot of attention to how a candidate
responds to verbal attacks. Mr. Gingrich began the campaign calling
for the "Reagan rule" of no attacks, and he put this into practice by
praising his rivals while calling for them to debate the issues. As his
political fortunes soon soared, he was predictably attacked by most of his
competitors, particularly Mr. Romney and Mr. Paul. After these attacks
seemed to work in Iowa, and Mr. Gingrich fell behind, he promised to
respond in kind, and he did. This did not seem to help him anywhere
but South Carolina, and Mr. Gingrich's standing steadily declined in the
polls. It may seem unfair that Mr. Romney, for example, does not seem
to be criticized for his attacks, but part of this may be accounted for by
the fact that Mr. Romney stays carefully on his message. Mr. Gingrich,
on the other hand, seems to take the attacks so personally that they
distract him from his message.
With about three weeks to Super Tuesday, Mr. Gingrich has one more
major opportunity to stage another political comeback. He continues to
be attacked in ads by both Mr. Romney and now Mr. Santorum (who
understandably tries to claim he is now the alternative to Mr. Romney).
Mr. Gingrich has been one of the most interesting candidates in this
cycle, has staged two dramatic comebacks, and through the debates and
some of his proposals, helped greatly make the Republican contest more
interesting to voters nationwide. His suggestion of a colony on the moon,
initially ridiculed by his opponents and some in the media, may turn out
to be the most original and lasting idea presented in the 2012 election.
But he still seems to be hypersensitive to the attacks made against him
and the tactics of his opponents. I would suggest that presidential
politics is as "hardball" as it gets. and that allowing the tactics and words
of others to keep a candidate from pursuing his best course is a grievous
mistake and a formula for defeat.
I have repeatedly said that Mr. Romney remains the favorite to win his
party's nomination, but there is plenty of hard evidence that the nomination
contest is not over. Mr. Santorum continues to enjoy his latest "bubble"
(although there are indications that he is already beginning to fade), and one
more time, Mr. Gingrich has been written off by his rivals and the pundits.
Super Tuesday lies ahead, and after that the delegate-rich states of Texas,
Pennsylvania, New York, California and most of the midwest. If Mr.
Gingrich cannot return to his original plan, and show his strengths to
voters, including his mastery of the issues, his new ideas, his fearless
populism, the voters, too, will write him off. From that, unlike the opinions
of the punditocracy and the spinmeisters, there can be no recovery.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Copyright (c) 2012 by Barry Casselman
All rights reserved.
cruel comments made by one child to another, we were told to
respond "Sticks and stones may break my bones, but words
will never hurt me." It was a simple nursery rhyme device, but
it contained an important basic truth.
In the current presidential race, as in previous ones, competing
candidates hurl tough charges against each other. Some are
valid, many are false, most are only partially true and taken out
of context. In today's age of the internet, text messages,
as well as the usual print and broadcast media, direct attacks
by candidates and their political advertising, or the relatively new
phenomenon of "SuperPacs" which are not controlled by the
candidates themselves but which work on a candidate's behalf,
there are brutal verbals attacks 24/7 seemingly everywhere,
especially in those states which are conducting primaries or
caucuses in the near future.
Many folks decry these tactics, although they are as old as the
Republic itself, and few can quickly determine whether or not
they are true or false. The SuperPacs particularly seem to be an
unfair innovation in the presidential election cycle, and probably
should be eliminated in new election reforms in the future, but
for now, they are part of the election cycle.
As candidates have learned one more time in the 2012 election
cycle, negative ads can indeed hurt. Mr. Gingrich and Mr. Romney
have experienced this personally, and now that Mr. Santorum is
enjoying some recent success, he will no doubt experience this, too.
But the basic insight of "sticks and stones......" remains fundamentally
true as well because voters pay a lot of attention to how a candidate
responds to verbal attacks. Mr. Gingrich began the campaign calling
for the "Reagan rule" of no attacks, and he put this into practice by
praising his rivals while calling for them to debate the issues. As his
political fortunes soon soared, he was predictably attacked by most of his
competitors, particularly Mr. Romney and Mr. Paul. After these attacks
seemed to work in Iowa, and Mr. Gingrich fell behind, he promised to
respond in kind, and he did. This did not seem to help him anywhere
but South Carolina, and Mr. Gingrich's standing steadily declined in the
polls. It may seem unfair that Mr. Romney, for example, does not seem
to be criticized for his attacks, but part of this may be accounted for by
the fact that Mr. Romney stays carefully on his message. Mr. Gingrich,
on the other hand, seems to take the attacks so personally that they
distract him from his message.
With about three weeks to Super Tuesday, Mr. Gingrich has one more
major opportunity to stage another political comeback. He continues to
be attacked in ads by both Mr. Romney and now Mr. Santorum (who
understandably tries to claim he is now the alternative to Mr. Romney).
Mr. Gingrich has been one of the most interesting candidates in this
cycle, has staged two dramatic comebacks, and through the debates and
some of his proposals, helped greatly make the Republican contest more
interesting to voters nationwide. His suggestion of a colony on the moon,
initially ridiculed by his opponents and some in the media, may turn out
to be the most original and lasting idea presented in the 2012 election.
But he still seems to be hypersensitive to the attacks made against him
and the tactics of his opponents. I would suggest that presidential
politics is as "hardball" as it gets. and that allowing the tactics and words
of others to keep a candidate from pursuing his best course is a grievous
mistake and a formula for defeat.
I have repeatedly said that Mr. Romney remains the favorite to win his
party's nomination, but there is plenty of hard evidence that the nomination
contest is not over. Mr. Santorum continues to enjoy his latest "bubble"
(although there are indications that he is already beginning to fade), and one
more time, Mr. Gingrich has been written off by his rivals and the pundits.
Super Tuesday lies ahead, and after that the delegate-rich states of Texas,
Pennsylvania, New York, California and most of the midwest. If Mr.
Gingrich cannot return to his original plan, and show his strengths to
voters, including his mastery of the issues, his new ideas, his fearless
populism, the voters, too, will write him off. From that, unlike the opinions
of the punditocracy and the spinmeisters, there can be no recovery.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Copyright (c) 2012 by Barry Casselman
All rights reserved.
Saturday, February 11, 2012
SPECIAL SUBSCRIBER ADVISORY
[Subscribers to The Prairie Editor should check
their e-mails for a new SUBSCRIBER-ONLY ADVISORY
following the announcement of results from the
CPAC straw poll and the Maine caucus.}
(Readers who would like to receive and read The Prairie
Editor's subscriber advisories, special bulletins and
other subscriber-only features should consult the
information on how to subscribe elsewhere on this website.)
their e-mails for a new SUBSCRIBER-ONLY ADVISORY
following the announcement of results from the
CPAC straw poll and the Maine caucus.}
(Readers who would like to receive and read The Prairie
Editor's subscriber advisories, special bulletins and
other subscriber-only features should consult the
information on how to subscribe elsewhere on this website.)
Thursday, February 9, 2012
Three Weeks To Change The World
The contest for the 2012 Republican nomination for president
has entered a curious interval. The basic conditions of the race
are unchanged, that is, Mitt Romney is the frontrunner and the now
reduced number of his challengers are still chasing his lead. This past
Tuesday's results in which a hitherto minor candidate won two
caucuses and a non-binding primary did not change this fundamental
condition, although media coverage has attempted to suggest that it
did.
Super Tuesday, at which a large number of delegates will be chosen
for the first time, is about three weeks away, and will begin a series
of primaries in large states that will choose delegates on a
winner-take-all basis. This will soon lead either to the presumptive
nomination of Mr. Romney, or should he fail then, it will lead to an
open convention in Tampa (at which recently withdrawn candidates
might resume their candidacies, and even new candidates might enter
the race).
The latter scenario would be the first truly open convention in more
than 50 years, and the outcome, from the view of the present point in
time, would be uncertain. The former scenario, the nomination of Mr.
Romney is more likely, but of course anything can happen in a political
cycle such as this one.
Notwithstanding all of the most recent events, the "significance" of
which I have been suggesting is overstated and overwroght, it is very
difficult to see anyone but Mr Romney or Mr Gingrich accumulating
enough delegates to assure victory in Tampa. Mr. Santorum's "bubble"
of successful fundraising and rising poll numbers should continue for
several days now. If Super Tuesday were next Tuesday (February 14),
he might indeed supercede Mr. Gingrich. But it is Ron Paul who is
likely to be Mr. Romney's principal challenger in Maine, and Mr.
Romney now has the money and time to recover in Arizona and
Michigan, two primary states that precede Super Tuesday. For now,
Mr. Santorum has some mini-momentum in some of the Super
Tuesday states, but the overriding pattern of the 2012 primary cycle
is that no challenger to Mr Romney can sustain his or her "bubble" in
the polls. Mr. Gingrich is not likely to turn suddenly into a political
marshmallow as he faces his last serious opportunity to win his
party's nomination before Tampa. Moreover, Mr. Santorum will now
be "vetted" as he has not been before, and his 12 year-record in the
U.S. senate will be measured against his claims of success in that time.
Voters will also be able to assess why Mr. Santorum, with two senate
terms behind him, was able to lose his re-election in Pennsylvania by
an astonishing 18 points in 2006.
On the other hand, Mr. Romney, with all his organization and available
campaign funding, cannot fail to pull his campaign together as he has
not done before, address his communication problems with doubters in
his own party, and assert himself as the nominee. Mr. Gingrich has
finally adopted a more appealing tone to his campaign, and a less brittle
response to the steady stream of criticism from his rivals. But is it in time,
and enough to give him a third comeback? Can he win in Georgia,
Alabama, Tennessee and Oklahoma (states where he is expected to do
well), and then surprise in Ohio (where Mr. Romney or Mr. Santorum
might be expected to beat him)?
The next three weeks will have few voting events, and will be the final
"slow" time before many primaries will take place in rapid succession.
But the course of the 2012 Republican nomination contest may well be
determined by what happens in this interval below the surface and
behind the scenes.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Copyright (c) 2012 by Barry Casselman
All rights reserved.
has entered a curious interval. The basic conditions of the race
are unchanged, that is, Mitt Romney is the frontrunner and the now
reduced number of his challengers are still chasing his lead. This past
Tuesday's results in which a hitherto minor candidate won two
caucuses and a non-binding primary did not change this fundamental
condition, although media coverage has attempted to suggest that it
did.
Super Tuesday, at which a large number of delegates will be chosen
for the first time, is about three weeks away, and will begin a series
of primaries in large states that will choose delegates on a
winner-take-all basis. This will soon lead either to the presumptive
nomination of Mr. Romney, or should he fail then, it will lead to an
open convention in Tampa (at which recently withdrawn candidates
might resume their candidacies, and even new candidates might enter
the race).
The latter scenario would be the first truly open convention in more
than 50 years, and the outcome, from the view of the present point in
time, would be uncertain. The former scenario, the nomination of Mr.
Romney is more likely, but of course anything can happen in a political
cycle such as this one.
Notwithstanding all of the most recent events, the "significance" of
which I have been suggesting is overstated and overwroght, it is very
difficult to see anyone but Mr Romney or Mr Gingrich accumulating
enough delegates to assure victory in Tampa. Mr. Santorum's "bubble"
of successful fundraising and rising poll numbers should continue for
several days now. If Super Tuesday were next Tuesday (February 14),
he might indeed supercede Mr. Gingrich. But it is Ron Paul who is
likely to be Mr. Romney's principal challenger in Maine, and Mr.
Romney now has the money and time to recover in Arizona and
Michigan, two primary states that precede Super Tuesday. For now,
Mr. Santorum has some mini-momentum in some of the Super
Tuesday states, but the overriding pattern of the 2012 primary cycle
is that no challenger to Mr Romney can sustain his or her "bubble" in
the polls. Mr. Gingrich is not likely to turn suddenly into a political
marshmallow as he faces his last serious opportunity to win his
party's nomination before Tampa. Moreover, Mr. Santorum will now
be "vetted" as he has not been before, and his 12 year-record in the
U.S. senate will be measured against his claims of success in that time.
Voters will also be able to assess why Mr. Santorum, with two senate
terms behind him, was able to lose his re-election in Pennsylvania by
an astonishing 18 points in 2006.
On the other hand, Mr. Romney, with all his organization and available
campaign funding, cannot fail to pull his campaign together as he has
not done before, address his communication problems with doubters in
his own party, and assert himself as the nominee. Mr. Gingrich has
finally adopted a more appealing tone to his campaign, and a less brittle
response to the steady stream of criticism from his rivals. But is it in time,
and enough to give him a third comeback? Can he win in Georgia,
Alabama, Tennessee and Oklahoma (states where he is expected to do
well), and then surprise in Ohio (where Mr. Romney or Mr. Santorum
might be expected to beat him)?
The next three weeks will have few voting events, and will be the final
"slow" time before many primaries will take place in rapid succession.
But the course of the 2012 Republican nomination contest may well be
determined by what happens in this interval below the surface and
behind the scenes.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Copyright (c) 2012 by Barry Casselman
All rights reserved.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)