Posted by: Andrew | January 24, 2012

Audience Needed for Newt’s Nastiness

Newt Gingrich: Brian Williams ‘Wrong’ To Silence GOP Debate Crowd (VIDEO).

This says something very important and troubling about Newt Gingrich.  Okay, there’s a lot that’s troubling about Gingrich, but this stand that he’s taking provides a real insight into the man and his outlook. 

He made headlines in South Carolina by getting the GOP debate crowd fired up with his attack on Fox News’ commentator Juan Williams for having the nerve to point out that his statements equating African Americans with the poor have racist overtones (to put it mildly).  He got the crowd, which one would believe to be made up of self-identified Christians,  into a frenzy with the as un-Christian-as-you-can-get call to kill our enemies.  Time and again, Gingirch has gained support by feeding the misplaced anger of the crowd, drawing on their response, and feeding more of the same back to them in a feedback loop of anger, ignorance, fear, and bigotry. 

He’s not alone.  Such outbursts have been the hallmark of the GOP debates this election cycle.  From cheering the prospect of death for getting sick without insurance , to elation over Rick Perry’s murderous record of executions in Texas  to booing a gay soldier while he was deployed in a combat zone the debate audiences have borne less resemblance to citizens trying to make an informed political decision than to a crazed mob. 

This atmosphere has served Gingrich well, making  his applause lines the story and catapulting him to a prominence in the race that would not be possible  save for the the absence of reasoned discourse.  That’s why he’s so upset about debate moderator Brian Williams insisting on decorum and, well, moderation in last night’s debate. 

By bringing the mob mentality under control, Williams creates space for discussion and thought, even among as absurd a group of candidates as was on the stage.  And Gingrich does not like that. 

Rational thought does not lead one to support someone like Gingrich, and he knows it.  He knows that to gain support he needs to stoke the fires of fear and prejudice, to feed on and direct the righteous anger of good people, not at the corporations and the individuals that have crashed the economy, outsourced their jobs and plundered the treasury for their own enrichment, but at their fellow citizens who may be a different color or religion or who may speak a different language or be in love with someone who does not meet  with the approval of the audience, or who may look just like them but dare to speak up for prioritizing human need over wealth and greed.

Gingrich doesn’t have ideas to help ordinary people.  (Fire janitors and replace them with poor kids?  Really?) He has ploys and gambits to manipulate their pain and frustration and desperation for his own ends and those of the monied interests he serves (as do Romney and Santorum and, yes, too many Democrats).   Given time to listen and think, ordinary people will realize this, and that’s what Gingrich fears. That’s why Gingrich wants, no needs, the raucous mob.  Without them, he’d skulk back to his rubber room alongside Palin and Huckabee and the rest of the residents of Rupert and Roger’s Republican Retirement Home.

Simply put, I’ve never been very good at relating the twists and turns of soap operas.

But, I did engage in punditry about New Hampshire, so I should follow up.

Where to start? Well, I maintain that there are three key factions in the GOP.  First, there’s the libertarian faction, represented by Ron Paul.  Paul finished second in New Hampshire with about 22% of the vote.  That’s on par with his performance in Iowa, although in the Hawkeye State, he came in third behind Rick Santorum and Mitt Romney.  He’s polling around 15% in South Carolina, site of the next contest on Saturday.  That’s probably what we will continue to see nationally.  He’s not viable, but his supporters are dedicated.  Honestly, unless something changes, I’m probably going to leave him out of future analyses.

Then there was the fate of John Huntsman, the sane (and therefore doomed) conservative in this race.  After staking his whole campaign in New Hampshire and drawing a 17% third place result, he quit and endorsed Romney.  

Paul and Huntsman represented the easy part of this analysis. 

My analysis of New Hampshire focused on the state of the “anti-Romney” forces of conservative evangelicals.  This has been the wing of Perry, Bachmann, Cain, Gingrich and Santorum.  Well, Bachmann and Cain have been gone, although Stephen Colbert’s SuperPAC has endorsed Cain…apparently photoshopping his picture over Cain’s.  I’d say this is comic relief in this saga, but at the rate things have been going it could actually wind up generating delegates for Cain.

That leaves Gingrich, Santorum and Perry.  Gingrich outpolled Santorum in New Hampshire.  This seems to have put him back in the driver’s seat of the anti-Romney movement.  Since then, a couple of things have happened.  First, an influential group of evangelical leaders, unable to accept a Mormon, have concentrated their support and thrown it behind Santorum, apparently not quite having let  Gingrich off the hook for his personal baggage.  Of course, among the GOP electorate in South Carolina, such a principled (?) stand does not seem to have held up in the face of Gingrich’s race-baiting, dog whistle language and naked fury in a recent debate.  Since then, Gingrich seems to have pulled ahead in the polls.

Pretty straight forward stuff, huh? 

That was before today. 

Event 1:  It turns out that Santorum won Iowa.  Well, the final count shows Santorum up by 32 votes…except they’re not sure about that because 8 precincts are unaccounted for. Does this change anything?  Well…it’s hard to say.  Keep reading.

Event 2: Perry dropped out of the race today and endorsed Gingrich.  Yawn. 

Event 3: Under pressure from Gingrich to release his tax returns, word is emerging that Romney (who says that his effective tax rage is 15%) has millions of dollars in offshore tax shelters.  This really shouldn’t move the needle much among GOP voters unless they are looking at how it will play in the general.

Event 4:  Apparently Gingrich’s second wife (the one he served his cancer-stricken wife divorce papers in the hospital to be with) has given a tell-all interview to ABC news that aired tonight where she claimed that Gingrich asked her for an open marriage so he could countinue his affair with his now-third wife (while he was impeaching Clinton for having an affair). Most analysts seem to think that his is coming too late to influence South Carolina’s voting on Saturday.  Still, it plays directly into the criticism of the evangelicals backing Santorum.

So where does this leave us.  Well, South Carolina is considered a bellweather for the GOP.  Where Iowa and New Hampshire serve to legitimize candidates and winnow the herd, South Carolina’s winner tends to be the nominee.  Conventional wisdom would suggest that a Romney victory here, outside his native “establishment Republican” territory, would have that very result. 

I’m not so sure. 

Neither Gingrich nor Santorum are the type to give up easily, and of course Paul isn’t going anywhere unless he tries a third party run.  Meanwhile, there is only so long Romney could withstand the full fury of an enraged Gingrich  without taking damage.  But there still seems to be the question of who gets to keep the mantel of anti-Romney. 

A Gingrich victory on Saturday will increase the pressure on Santorum to leave the race.  If I were him, I’d be looking to poll high enough on Saturday to justify my continued presence in the race, at least long enough to see if the evangelical support and the entry into the record of Gingrich’s personal baggage (Romney’s sure to jump on that bandwagon.) would be enough to sink Gingrich.  If that doesn’t happen, Santorum will need to make a quick exit to force the social conservatives to unite going into the Bible Belt.  Likewise, should Gingrich severely underperform, he would find himself in the same position.

So, where does this leave us for Saturday?

Here’s what to watch for:

1) Who wins?  If Romney wins, the pressure will be on for others to vacate the race. The campaign has been nasty enough that the damage to the nominee would outweight the benefits of building a national campaign by organizing throughout the primary season.  If Gingrich wins, then the notion of Romney’s inevitablity will be severely compromised.  If Paul or Santorum wins…well then heads start to explode.   Let’s not go there.

2)  What happens farther back in the pack?  Let’s assume a close 1-2 finish for Romney and Gingrich.  Then we need to look at Santorum’s performance. He’s currently polling at 11-14%, behind Paul’s 15%.  If he shows significant improvment, say finishing ahead of Paul, particularly at the expense of Gingrich, it would indicate that Gingrich’s personal baggage is weighing him down and justifies Santorum’s bid to represent the social conservatives farther into the South.  If Santorum underperforms, we need to assume that he will be leaving the race soon.

Or I could be completly wrong.

Posted by: Andrew | January 17, 2012

Stop SOPA

Posted by: Andrew | January 15, 2012

The Mountain Top

There have been a lot of quotes from Dr. King floating around Facebook today, at leat on my feed.  Many of them went beyond the familiar quotes on race in an attempt to seize the legacy of King’s work on economic justice.  I found myself looking for a speech to quote that seizes on King’s success on racial justice in service to the larger cause of economic justice.  I decided to take a look at the text of the Mountain Top speech. Knowing that this speech was given the night before his assassination, I’ve always found the closing “mountain top” sequence as haunting a piece of rhetoric as any I’ve ever heard. 

Tonight, I read the text in full, an I was a bit floored by the applicability of the words nearly 44 years after they were spoken.  I present them here for you to judge for yourself.

 

Rev. Dr. Martin Luther King , Jr.

 

Thank you very kindly, my friends. As I listened to Ralph Abernathy in his eloquent and generous introduction and then thought about myself, I wondered who he was talking about. It’s always good to have your closest friend and associate say something good about you. And Ralph is the best friend that I have in the world.

I’m delighted to see each of you here tonight in spite of a storm warning. You reveal that you are determined to go on anyhow. Something is happening in Memphis, something is happening in our world.

As you know, if I were standing at the beginning of time, with the possibility of general and panoramic view of the whole human history up to now, and the Almighty said to me, “Martin Luther King, which age would you like to live in?” — I would take my mental flight by Egypt through, or rather across the Red Sea, through the wilderness on toward the promised land. And in spite of its magnificence, I wouldn’t stop there. I would move on by Greece, and take my mind to Mount Olympus. And I would see Plato, Aristotle, Socrates, Euripides and Aristophanes assembled around the Parthenon as they discussed the great and eternal issues of reality.

But I wouldn’t stop there. I would go on, even to the great heyday of the Roman Empire. And I would see developments around there, through various emperors and leaders. But I wouldn’t stop there. I would even come up to the day of the Renaissance, and get a quick picture of all that the Renaissance did for the cultural and esthetic life of man. But I wouldn’t stop there. I would even go by the way that the man for whom I’m named had his habitat. And I would watch Martin Luther as he tacked his ninety-five theses on the door at the church in Wittenberg.

But I wouldn’t stop there. I would come on up even to 1863, and watch a vacillating president by the name of Abraham Lincoln finally come to the conclusion that he had to sign the Emancipation Proclamation. But I wouldn’t stop there. I would even come up to the early thirties, and see a man grappling with the problems of the bankruptcy of his nation. And come with an eloquent cry that we have nothing to fear but fear itself.

But I wouldn’t stop there. Strangely enough, I would turn to the Almighty, and say, “If you allow me to live just a few years in the second half of the twentieth century, I will be happy.” Now that’s a strange statement to make, because the world is all messed up. The nation is sick. Trouble is in the land. Confusion all around. That’s a strange statement. But I know, somehow, that only when it is dark enough, can you see the stars. And I see God working in this period of the twentieth century in a away that men, in some strange way, are responding — something is happening in our world. The masses of people are rising up. And wherever they are assembled today, whether they are in Johannesburg, South Africa; Nairobi, Kenya; Accra, Ghana; New York City; Atlanta, Georgia; Jackson, Mississippi; or Memphis, Tennessee — the cry is always the same — “We want to be free.”

And another reason that I’m happy to live in this period is that we have been forced to a point where we’re going to have to grapple with the problems that men have been trying to grapple with through history, but the demand didn’t force them to do it. Survival demands that we grapple with them. Men, for years now, have been talking about war and peace. But now, no longer can they just talk about it. It is no longer a choice between violence and nonviolence in this world; it’s nonviolence or nonexistence.

That is where we are today. And also in the human rights revolution, if something isn’t done, and in a hurry, to bring the colored peoples of the world out of their long years of poverty, their long years of hurt and neglect, the whole world is doomed. Now, I’m just happy that God has allowed me to live in this period, to see what is unfolding. And I’m happy that He’s allowed me to be in Memphis.

I can remember, I can remember when Negroes were just going around as Ralph has said, so often, scratching where they didn’t itch, and laughing when they were not tickled. But that day is all over. We mean business now, and we are determined to gain our rightful place in God’s world.

And that’s all this whole thing is about. We aren’t engaged in any negative protest and in any negative arguments with anybody. We are saying that we are determined to be men. We are determined to be people. We are saying that we are God’s children. And that we don’t have to live like we are forced to live.

Now, what does all of this mean in this great period of history? It means that we’ve got to stay together. We’ve got to stay together and maintain unity. You know, whenever Pharaoh wanted to prolong the period of slavery in Egypt, he had a favorite, favorite formula for doing it. What was that? He kept the slaves fighting among themselves. But whenever the slaves get together, something happens in Pharaoh’s court, and he cannot hold the slaves in slavery. When the slaves get together, that’s the beginning of getting out of slavery. Now let us maintain unity.

Secondly, let us keep the issues where they are. The issue is injustice. The issue is the refusal of Memphis to be fair and honest in its dealings with its public servants, who happen to be sanitation workers. Now, we’ve got to keep attention on that. That’s always the problem with a little violence. You know what happened the other day, and the press dealt only with the window-breaking. I read the articles. They very seldom got around to mentioning the fact that one thousand, three hundred sanitation workers were on strike, and that Memphis is not being fair to them, and that Mayor Loeb is in dire need of a doctor. They didn’t get around to that.

Now we’re going to march again, and we’ve got to march again, in order to put the issue where it is supposed to be. And force everybody to see that there are thirteen hundred of God’s children here suffering, sometimes going hungry, going through dark and dreary nights wondering how this thing is going to come out. That’s the issue. And we’ve got to say to the nation: we know it’s coming out. For when people get caught up with that which is right and they are willing to sacrifice for it, there is no stopping point short of victory.

We aren’t going to let any mace stop us. We are masters in our nonviolent movement in disarming police forces; they don’t know what to do, I’ve seen them so often. I remember in Birmingham, Alabama, when we were in that majestic struggle there we would move out of the 16th Street Baptist Church day after day; by the hundreds we would move out. And Bull Connor would tell them to send the dogs forth and they did come; but we just went before the dogs singing, “Ain’t gonna let nobody turn me round.” Bull Connor next would say, “Turn the fire hoses on.” And as I said to you the other night, Bull Connor didn’t know history. He knew a kind of physics that somehow didn’t relate to the transphysics that we knew about. And that was the fact that there was a certain kind of fire that no water could put out. And we went before the fire hoses; we had known water. If we were Baptist or some other denomination, we had been immersed. If we were Methodist, and some others, we had been sprinkled, but we knew water.

That couldn’t stop us. And we just went on before the dogs and we would look at them; and we’d go on before the water hoses and we would look at it, and we’d just go on singing “Over my head I see freedom in the air.” And then we would be thrown in the paddy wagons, and sometimes we were stacked in there like sardines in a can. And they would throw us in, and old Bull would say, “Take them off,” and they did; and we would just go in the paddy wagon singing, “We Shall Overcome.” And every now and then we’d get in the jail, and we’d see the jailers looking through the windows being moved by our prayers, and being moved by our words and our songs. And there was a power there which Bull Connor couldn’t adjust to; and so we ended up transforming Bull into a steer, and we won our struggle in Birmingham.

Now we’ve got to go on to Memphis just like that. I call upon you to be with us Monday. Now about injunctions: We have an injunction and we’re going into court tomorrow morning to fight this illegal, unconstitutional injunction. All we say to America is, “Be true to what you said on paper.” If I lived in China or even Russia, or any totalitarian country, maybe I could understand the denial of certain basic First Amendment privileges, because they hadn’t committed themselves to that over there. But somewhere I read of the freedom of assembly. Somewhere I read of the freedom of speech. Somewhere I read of the freedom of the press. Somewhere I read that the greatness of America is the right to protest for right. And so just as I say, we aren’t going to let any injunction turn us around. We are going on.

We need all of you. And you know what’s beautiful tome, is to see all of these ministers of the Gospel. It’s a marvelous picture. Who is it that is supposed to articulate the longings and aspirations of the people more than the preacher? Somehow the preacher must be an Amos, and say, “Let justice roll down like waters and righteousness like a mighty stream.” Somehow, the preacher must say with Jesus, “The spirit of the Lord is upon me, because he hath anointed me to deal with the problems of the poor.”

And I want to commend the preachers, under the leadership of these noble men: James Lawson, one who has been in this struggle for many years; he’s been to jail for struggling; but he’s still going on, fighting for the rights of his people. Rev. Ralph Jackson, Billy Kiles; I could just go right on down the list, but time will not permit. But I want to thank them all. And I want you to thank them, because so often, preachers aren’t concerned about anything but themselves. And I’m always happy to see a relevant ministry.

It’s all right to talk about “long white robes over yonder,” in all of its symbolism. But ultimately people want some suits and dresses and shoes to wear down here. It’s all right to talk about “streets flowing with milk and honey,” but God has commanded us to be concerned about the slums down here, and his children who can’t eat three square meals a day. It’s all right to talk about the new Jerusalem, but one day, God’s preachers must talk about the New York, the new Atlanta, the new Philadelphia, the new Los Angeles, the new Memphis, Tennessee. This is what we have to do.

Now the other thing we’ll have to do is this: Always anchor our external direct action with the power of economic withdrawal. Now, we are poor people, individually, we are poor when you compare us with white society in America. We are poor. Never stop and forget that collectively, that means all of us together, collectively we are richer than all the nations in the world, with the exception of nine. Did you ever think about that? After you leave the United States, Soviet Russia, Great Britain, West Germany, France, and I could name the others, the Negro collectively is richer than most nations of the world. We have an annual income of more than thirty billion dollars a year, which is more than all of the exports of the United States, and more than the national budget of Canada. Did you know that? That’s power right there, if we know how to pool it.

We don’t have to argue with anybody. We don’t have to curse and go around acting bad with our words. We don’t need any bricks and bottles, we don’t need any Molotov cocktails, we just need to go around to these stores, and to these massive industries in our country, and say, “God sent us by here, to say to you that you’re not treating his children right. And we’ve come by here to ask you to make the first item on your agenda fair treatment, where God’s children are concerned. Now, if you are not prepared to do that, we do have an agenda that we must follow. And our agenda calls for withdrawing economic support from you.”

And so, as a result of this, we are asking you tonight, to go out and tell your neighbors not to buy Coca-Cola in Memphis. Go by and tell them not to buy Sealtest milk. Tell them not to buy—what is the other bread?—Wonder Bread. And what is the other bread company, Jesse? Tell them not to buy Hart’s bread. As Jesse Jackson has said, up to now, only the garbage men have been feeling pain; now we must kind of redistribute the pain. We are choosing these companies because they haven’t been fair in their hiring policies; and we are choosing them because they can begin the process of saying, they are going to support the needs and the rights of these men who are on strike. And then they can move on downtown and tell Mayor Loeb to do what is right.

But not only that, we’ve got to strengthen black institutions. I call upon you to take your money out of the banks downtown and deposit your money in Tri-State Bank—we want a “bank-in” movement in Memphis. So go by the savings and loan association. I’m not asking you something we don’t do ourselves at SCLC. Judge Hooks and others will tell you that we have an account here in the savings and loan association from the Southern Christian Leadership Conference. We’re just telling you to follow what we’re doing. Put your money there. You have six or seven black insurance companies in Memphis. Take out your insurance there. We want to have an “insurance-in.”

Now these are some practical things we can do. We begin the process of building a greater economic base. And at the same time, we are putting pressure where it really hurts. I ask you to follow through here.

Now, let me say as I move to my conclusion that we’ve got to give ourselves to this struggle until the end. Nothing would be more tragic than to stop at this point, in Memphis. We’ve got to see it through. And when we have our march, you need to be there. Be concerned about your brother. You may not be on strike. But either we go up together, or we go down together.

Let us develop a kind of dangerous unselfishness. One day a man came to Jesus; and he wanted to raise some questions about some vital matters in life. At points, he wanted to trick Jesus, and show him that he knew a little more than Jesus knew, and through this, throw him off base. Now that question could have easily ended up in a philosophical and theological debate. But Jesus immediately pulled that question from mid-air, and placed it on a dangerous curve between Jerusalem and Jericho. And he talked about a certain man, who fell among thieves. You remember that a Levite and a priest passed by on the other side. They didn’t stop to help him. And finally a man of another race came by. He got down from his beast, decided not to be compassionate by proxy. But with him, administering first aid, and helped the man in need. Jesus ended up saying, this was the good man, this was the great man, because he had the capacity to project the “I” into the “thou,” and to be concerned about his brother. Now you know, we use our imagination a great deal to try to determine why the priest and the Levite didn’t stop. At times we say they were busy going to church meetings—an ecclesiastical gathering—and they had to get on down to Jerusalem so they wouldn’t be late for their meeting. At other times we would speculate that there was a religious law that “One who was engaged in religious ceremonials was not to touch a human body twenty-four hours before the ceremony.” And every now and then we begin to wonder whether maybe they were not going down to Jerusalem, or down to Jericho, rather to organize a “Jericho Road Improvement Association.” That’s a possibility. Maybe they felt that it was better to deal with the problem from the causal root, rather than to get bogged down with an individual effort.

But I’m going to tell you what my imagination tells me. It’s possible that these men were afraid. You see, the Jericho road is a dangerous road. I remember when Mrs. King and I were first in Jerusalem. We rented a car and drove from Jerusalem down to Jericho. And as soon as we got on that road, I said to my wife, “I can see why Jesus used this as a setting for his parable.” It’s a winding, meandering road. It’s really conducive for ambushing. You start out in Jerusalem, which is about 1200 miles, or rather 1200 feet above sea level. And by the time you get down to Jericho, fifteen or twenty minutes later, you’re about 2200 feet below sea level. That’s a dangerous road. In the days of Jesus it came to be known as the “Bloody Pass.” And you know, it’s possible that the priest and the Levite looked over that man on the ground and wondered if the robbers were still around. Or it’s possible that they felt that the man on the ground was merely faking. And he was acting like he had been robbed and hurt, in order to seize them over there, lure them there for quick and easy seizure. And so the first question that the Levite asked was, “If I stop to help this man, what will happen to me?” But then the Good Samaritan came by. And he reversed the question: “If I do not stop to help this man, what will happen to him?”

That’s the question before you tonight. Not, “If I stop to help the sanitation workers, what will happen to all of the hours that I usually spend in my office every day and every week as a pastor?” The question is not, “If I stop to help this man in need, what will happen to me?” “If I do not stop to help the sanitation workers, what will happen to them?” That’s the question.

Let us rise up tonight with a greater readiness. Let us stand with a greater determination. And let us move on in these powerful days, these days of challenge to make America what it ought to be. We have an opportunity to make America a better nation. And I want to thank God, once more, for allowing me to be here with you.

You know, several years ago, I was in New York City autographing the first book that I had written. And while sitting there autographing books, a demented black woman came up. The only question I heard from her was, “Are you Martin Luther King?”

And I was looking down writing, and I said yes. And the next minute I felt something beating on my chest. Before I knew it I had been stabbed by this demented woman. I was rushed to Harlem Hospital. It was a dark Saturday afternoon. And that blade had gone through, and the X-rays revealed that the tip of the blade was on the edge of my aorta, the main artery. And once that’s punctured, you drown in your own blood—that’s the end of you.

It came out in the New York Times the next morning, that if I had sneezed, I would have died. Well, about four days later, they allowed me, after the operation, after my chest had been opened, and the blade had been taken out, to move around in the wheel chair in the hospital. They allowed me to read some of the mail that came in, and from all over the states, and the world, kind letters came in. I read a few, but one of them I will never forget. I had received one from the President and the Vice-President. I’ve forgotten what those telegrams said. I’d received a visit and a letter from the Governor of New York, but I’ve forgotten what the letter said. But there was another letter that came from a little girl, a young girl who was a student at the White Plains High School. And I looked at that letter, and I’ll never forget it. It said simply, “Dear Dr. King: I am a ninth-grade student at the White Plains High School.” She said, “While it should not matter, I would like to mention that I am a white girl. I read in the paper of your misfortune, and of your suffering. And I read that if you had sneezed, you would have died. And I’m simply writing you to say that I’m so happy that you didn’t sneeze.”

And I want to say tonight, I want to say that I am happy that I didn’t sneeze. Because if I had sneezed, I wouldn’t have been around here in 1960, when students all over the South started sitting-in at lunch counters. And I knew that as they were sitting in, they were really standing up for the best in the American dream. And taking the whole nation back to those great wells of democracy which were dug deep by the Founding Fathers in the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution. If I had sneezed, I wouldn’t have been around in 1962, when Negroes in Albany, Georgia, decided to straighten their backs up. And whenever men and women straighten their backs up, they are going somewhere, because a man can’t ride your back unless it is bent. If I had sneezed, I wouldn’t have been here in 1963, when the black people of Birmingham, Alabama, aroused the conscience of this nation, and brought into being the Civil Rights Bill. If I had sneezed, I wouldn’t have had a chance later that year, in August, to try to tell America about a dream that I had had. If I had sneezed, I wouldn’t have been down in Selma, Alabama, been in Memphis to see the community rally around those brothers and sisters who are suffering. I’m so happy that I didn’t sneeze.

And they were telling me, now it doesn’t matter now. It really doesn’t matter what happens now. I left Atlanta this morning, and as we got started on the plane, there were six of us, the pilot said over the public address system, “We are sorry for the delay, but we have Dr. Martin Luther King on the plane. And to be sure that all of the bags were checked, and to be sure that nothing would be wrong with the plane, we had to check out everything carefully. And we’ve had the plane protected and guarded all night.”

And then I got to Memphis. And some began to say the threats, or talk about the threats that were out. What would happen to me from some of our sick white brothers?

Well, I don’t know what will happen now. We’ve got some difficult days ahead. But it doesn’t matter with me now. Because I’ve been to the mountaintop. And I don’t mind. Like anybody, I would like to live a long life. Longevity has its place. But I’m not concerned about that now. I just want to do God’s will. And He’s allowed me to go up to the mountain. And I’ve looked over. And I’ve seen the promised land. I may not get there with you. But I want you to know tonight, that we, as a people, will get to the promised land. And I’m happy, tonight. I’m not worried about anything. I’m not fearing any man. Mine eyes have seen the glory of the coming of the Lord.

 
Posted by: Andrew | January 13, 2012

Sunset Today

Here’s what I was greeted with as I left my office today. 

 

 

 

 

Posted by: Andrew | January 11, 2012

Poetry Contest

So, I kind of did this on a lark, but I’ve entered a poetry contest.  If you’re interested in doing so, please check out and rate my entry on this facebook page.    Needless to say, my selection was political in nature.  If I can get enought “likes”, I can submit another poem.  I think.

Posted by: Andrew | January 9, 2012

What to Watch for in The Granite State

Let me start right of by saying that a scenario in which I would vote for Rick Santorum would have to be as farfetched as to place me in a world where the paranoid ramblings of the right wing echo chamber had a basis in reality. If that wording is puzzling to you, please consider it my bow to the instruction to the wise never to say never.  

But I’m not a Republican primary voter, and Santorum, whose candidacy for president was classified in the same category as Al Sharpton’s or Mike Gravel’s as recently as a month ago, is seeking the approval of Republican primary voters, and he’s no longer a lower tier candidate.  Whether he returns to that status will be determined in the next two weeks. 

Tomorrow is the New Hampshire Primary, and Romney is going to get the most votes and delegates.  The real question is what happens farther back in the pack.  New Hampshire is not natural territory for Santorum, so he doesn’t really need to finish second to “win”.  All he needs to do is overperform.  An over performance by Santorum could indicate a coalescence of the support of the “anti-Romney” forces.  (This does not include Paul.  He gets his own category as he’s the only true libertarian in the field. Nor does it include Huntsman as the only establishment figure opposing Romney, and he’s likely to be gone Wednesday anyway. New Hampshire is his firewall.)  That would come at the expense of Gingrich and Perry who seem to have conceded New Hampshire as they spent Monday in South Carolina.  It’s unlikely that either would exit the race before it turns south to the Palmetto State, but if Santorum is building support from conservative evangelicals at their expense, the writing is on the wall.  Gingrich, in particular, would not be getting those voters back with his personal history. 

From Romney’s standpoint, that’s the better “Santorum Surge” scenario.  If Santorum over performs at the expense of Romney, then Romney’s in deep yogurt (to use a technical term) even with a “win”. 

Romney needs to maintain the sense of inevitability to survive the South.  He needs to stay above 35% in New Hampshire to do that.  (I haven’t been watching polls closely, but after Iowa, he was at 43% and last night I saw a 39%.) If he falls below 35% and those voters move en masse to Santorum, Mitt’s in trouble and will have to take on Santorum.

Now, that’s an interesting exercise for a Republican.  For a Democrat, it’s easy.  Santorum is on the extreme right on abortion and homosexuality.  That’s where you start and then you walk through a political record that is akin to an orchard of trees laden with low hanging fruit.  For a Democrat trying to win independent and moderate voters, Santorum’s a cake walk.

But how do you go after him if you’re a Republican, particularly one that is widely believed to be moderate dressed in conservative’s clothing?  That’s a very different prospect, isn’t it? 

Romney can’t touch him on abortion of homosexuality.   Santorum’s positions on these issues are the consistent with the GOP platform from 2008, and the party has moved to the right since then.  For Romney to criticize him as too extreme is to criticize the party and a significant number of primary voters for the same thing; there’s no help there for Romney. 

What else is there?

Well, Santorum is a former US Senator.  Legislators have a hard time running for president against non-legislators because it’s easy to pick apart a voting record and distort it.  “I voted for it before I voted against it.”  John Kerry phrased this badly, but what really happened is that he voted to fund the Iraq War by raising taxes on the wealthy.  That motion failed. He voted against the version that put the war on the national credit card, but he was characterized as being against the troops as a result.   You could also vote to allow a vote to take place (cloture) and then vote no.  Or you could vote against your own bill to allow the option of reconsidering it after it loses.  These are strategic and tactical votes that legislators of both parties take all the time, and they are ample fodder for anyone wanting to attack and distort a legislative record.

Another knock on Santorum is that he engaged in the practice of earmarking appropriations bills to fund projects in his district.  While this plays well, especially in GOP circles, the fact is that he was doing his job to make sure that the taxpayers in his state got their share of tax dollars back in the form of federal funding for projects.   So that may get some applause, but it’s not going to be enough to beat Santorum.  When it comes down to it, a substantive examination of Santorum’s record will probably reveal a high level of consistency on core issues and some standard horse trading on side issues.

What about inconsistency or hypocrisy?  Now, this is an interesting one.  There is a part of Santorum’s paste that could potentially be in conflict with his stated policy positions.  However, it is a personal family tragedy and should be off limits to any opponent, Democrat or Republican.  I’m not going to say what it is, but it’s no secret.  It’s something that he’s spoken about on the record.  Any attack along that line is likely to do more damage to the attacker than to Santorum, and it should.  I think there are political operatives out there who would use an attack on the issue in question if it would work, but they are also smart enough to know that it would alienate voters, driving them to defend Santorum.

Again, I’m no fan of Rick Santorum, and there are plenty of fair lines of attack against his candidacy.  The problem is that they tend to fall along the lines of his extremism on core elements of Republican orthodoxy.  That’s a great line of attack from the Democrats, but a problematic one from a Republican.    The fact is that Romney’s biggest selling point is his electability, but to argue electability against Santorum is to argue electability against the deeply held values of the Republican base.  Basically, Romney is going to have to rely on his organization to pull him through and hope that it’s enough of a force multiplier to hold off Santorum in the Bible Belt.    It’s not a foregone conclusion.

Santorum, on the other hand needs a top three finish in New Hampshire  with an upward trend in the polls.  If he can make that happen, he could, against all analysis from a month ago, find himself as the standard bearer of the religious right.  That’s a powerful position to hold going into the Bible Belt, particularly if Gingrich and Perry start to fall away. 

So that’s my analysis.  We’ll see what happens soon enough.

Posted by: Andrew | January 8, 2012

Iowa and New Hampshire: Post Mortem and Predictions

Okay, third  fourth  fifth time’s a charm.  I am going to get this post on Iowa out. 

Throughout the pre-primary season, the GOP field has been running against the inevitability of Mitt Romney as the standard bearer.  Romney is well-funded, has name recognition, has experience running for president, and value from the standpoint of an electoral strategy with ties to swing-state Michigan (his father was once Governor) and a history of being governor of the liberal bastion of Massachusetts. (The likelihood of The Bay State actually being in play is low, but Romney, could force Obama to devote resources to defending it.  Or Obama could ride Elizabeth Warren’s coattails.)

He’s had two problems, however.  First, no one likes him because he has a demeanor akin to a cartoon depiction of a politician.  Second, he’s Mormon, something that significant elements of the GOP base are less than comfortable with.  And so began the revolving flavor of the week.  Each of Romney’s opponents rose to the top before flaming out quite spectacularly. From Cain’s marital problems to Bachmann’s nuttery to Gingrich’s…well everything about him, to Perry’s blithering idiocy,  each individual was fatally flawed and fell by the wayside.  Even Ron Paul started a climb to prominence before someone dug out his racist newsletters.  To quote Perry, “Oops.”

Gingrich was the last flavor of the week for collapse under the weight of his political and personal past and an onslaught of negative advertising from Romney’s SuperPAC (Thanks  for that SCOTUS.) leaving room for the someone else to assume that role going into Iowa.  That someone was Rick Santorum.  (If you’re innocent enough to not know about his Google problem, please do not Google him. I cannot supply enough mind bleach to counter the effect and I assume no responsibility for the consequences.)

Until a few weeks ago, Santorum was a lowest tier candidate with no change of winning the nomination.  Then Gingrich happened.  Willing to forgive but not trust, a coalition of pastors rallied behind Santorum as an alternative to Gingrich. Read that as “a hard core conservative who is not a serial adulterer.” 

Well, we all know what happened.  Romney won Iowa by just 8 votes over Rick Santorum with Paul rounding out the top three.  Of course, the big question is what this turn of events, if it is a turn of events, means going forward.

Well, the answer to that question lies in New Hampshire on Tuesday as Granite State voters head to the polls in the first primary contest of the 2012 Presidential Election.  So what can we look for?  First, Romney is going to “win”.  That is he’s going to come away with the most votes and the most delegates.  If he doesn’t he’s done and the GOP Primary will be thrown into chaos.  (Believe it or not, is has not been in chaos yet.  It’s been dynamic, but there’s been structure to the dynamic. )  At that point, all bets are off. 

But that’s not going to happen.  New Hampshire is Romney’s firewall.  He’s the former governor of neighboring Massachusetts, and he’s got appeal as the establishment Republican and the relative moderation that entails.  Of course, that moderation is what hurts him further along the primary calendar. 

That’s why New Hampshire is critical to his success.  Iowa can be a throw away event.  The caucus system does not draw the greatest breadth of the electorate, not like a primary.  A caucus is very much about organization and passion.  That’s why Ron Paul does well.  He’s got passionate followers, and the caucuses allow him to leverage that passion.  That’s the conventional wisdom, at any rate.  The fact is, his libertarianism could appeal to independently minded New Hampshirites, so don’t be shocked to see him do all right on Tuesday.  A strong finish in the top 3 or 4 should not make headlines for him.

So who do we watch?  I think Gingrich is done.  However, he seems to be ready to go all out to destroy Romney, and when Gingrich unleashes his venon, it’s a pretty formidable thing.  Another question is where the Bachmann voters go, now that she’s out.  The logical choice would be Santorum.  We’ll get to him in a moment.  For that matter, what about former Gingrich voters?  Or Cain supporters?  As far as I can tell, Santorum, Bachmann, Cain, Perry and Gingrich made up the “anti-Romney” core of the field.  With Bachman and Cain gone and Perry running for VP, that leaves Gingrich and Santorum.  So, do those voters split between Gingrich and Santorum?  Will they gravitate toward one or the other, or throw theirs support elsewhere? 

Elsewhere is one of three candidates at this point, Romney, Paul and Huntsman.  Obviously, a move toward Romney expands on the inevitability factor.  Huntsman, also a Mormon will run into the same distrust among evangelicals as Romney, although he doesn’t have the history of tailoring his positions to his audience that Romney does.  He didn’t abandon that moderate sanity to run to the primary base like Romney did.  He didn’t compete in Iowa and has been camped out in New Hampshire.  Will it pay off? Maybe for a week or two, but he’ll be gone by Super Tuesday, and that’s being generous.  It’s too bad, too.  A Huntsman/Obama race would probably amount to a great dialogue about our nation.   

Then there’s Ron Paul.  He’s got the small government thing down, but he’s got it too small when it comes to things like marijuana, and he freaks out Wall Street.  When it comes down to it, Paul is a libertarian extremist, and that may appeal to voters for a while, but if he gets serious coverage, his extremism will destroy him.

That leave’s Rick Santorum.  I’ll get to him tomorrow, because he’s the one to watch.

Posted by: Andrew | January 5, 2012

2011 in review

The WordPress.com stats helper monkeys prepared a 2011 annual report for this blog.

Here’s an excerpt:

The concert hall at the Sydney Opera House holds 2,700 people. This blog was viewed about 9,000 times in 2011. If it were a concert at Sydney Opera House, it would take about 3 sold-out performances for that many people to see it.

Click here to see the complete report.

Posted by: Andrew | January 3, 2012

The Possible

I’m back.  I’ll save my thoughts on the Iowa Caucuses for tomorrow, after all the results are in.  Instead, let’s ease into the new year with a little poetry.

The Possible

A new dawn,

Possibilities Abound

Daunting in glorious freedomm

Paralyzing in potential.

Such is the nature of opportunity.

Unfettered by commitments of the past,

The time has come to shake off the paralysis,

To step forward, undaunted,

Arms thrown wide to embrace the fresh season.

The Pure

The Perfect

The possible.

 

Older Posts »

Categories

Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 117 other followers