pawatercooler.com

You’ve done your required reading, right?

I could probably write ten thousand words about the pair of NYT articles I’ve begged people to read, but I’ll keep my response to a few select points.

Digital Divide

Overall I find little fault with the article’s take on this issue. One simple graph makes that apparent. The first step to recovery is admitting you have a problem.

Demographics

From what I can gather from various reports about the Romney strategy, there really was no messaging strategy. They decided to make one last go at the white-majority strategy, with catastrophic results. As pollster Kristen Anderson was quoted in the NYT piece, “Did you not see the census? Because there was one! And it had some pretty big news — like that America’s biggest growing population is the Latino community! Surprise, surprise! How have we not grasped that this is going to be really important?”

We’ve known about the diminishing white majority for some time. We didn’t just wake up one morning to a bunch of Latin-American immigrants and their children.

The excuse of the bad polling model not is a very good one. Not because it was impossible to have gotten that wrong, but because the strategy they decided to implement was a narrow, skin-of-your-teeth strategy that required every last thing to go right with no margin of error, even if they did manage to get the demographic weighting right, which they didn’t. There was no room in the Romney strategy for expansion. No room to persuade anybody, and the results show it.

Issues and Deal Breakers

Issues have some importance, though not all issues are created equal. The evidence that people really don’t vote exclusively on issues keeps piling up. I might even be persuaded to argue that issues are not even of primary importance. There are certain issues though –the deal-breakers– that deserve some attention.

In my opinion, abortion and the entirely fabricated birth control issue should not be deal breakers for most swing voters. (For the sake of brevity, I’ll leave it at that.) Same-sex marriage may for some folks be a deal-breaker, though I can’t imagine it’s too terribly many since Obama ran in 2008 on a tepidly anti-SSM position. At the very least SSM combines with abortion and birth control to create a social super-issue. I really don’t have a good answer to this, though I would like to point out something that rubbed me the wrong way. The above-mentioned Kristen Anderson was said to identify herself as “socially tolerant” rather than “moderate”, as “moderate” is something like “Satanic” to base conservatives. I object to this supposedly improved designation on the grounds that everybody else must be “intolerant” if they object to gay marriage. I suggest reworking this, perhaps to “libertarian”.

Immigration reform is a deal-breaker for Hispanics. No, it is not going to mean Hispanics will suddenly wake up to Republicanism. It means we get an opportunity to make our case. And yes, as the article suggests, Rubio qua Rubio will not save us.

Nobody Ever Gets Fired

Eric Telford:

“I think there’s a very incestuous community of consultants who profit off certain tactics, and that creates bias and inhibits innovation.”

I’ve been complaining about this for a long time. If major changes don’t occur in the wake of 2012, the GOP should just pack up shop.

More than Tech – The Tin Ear problem

Of course, the problem is much greater than just the internet and social media. (I think most of the subjects interviewed in the article would agree to that general proposition.)

A major component of the techie complaint is that the Romney team ran an old-style TV and traditional media campaign. This is true, but I would also argue that even on traditional grounds the Romney camp exhibited a lackluster showing. They seem to have regressed from the Bush-era campaigns. “Applebee’s America” was published in 2006, so long ago that its antiquated title sells short the wisdom within its pages. Democratic campaign operations have taken this wisdom and expanded upon it. It seems to be a remedial reading recommendation for the Romney campaign.

Something the NYT article doesn’t directly address is what I’ll call the “tin ear” problem. Do Republicans not understand how they sound?

How many times lately have you heard the term “balanced approach”? How many times have you heard a Republican competently respond to that phrase? Even Deval Patrick and Harold Ford Jr recently talked about “economic growth” on Sunday morning talk shows. Most astonishing to me is the jujitsu reversal Obama has managed on closing tax loopholes. This is a Republican issue! Yet somehow Obama has made Congressional Republicans defenders of everything that is wrong with the tax code.

Do they not understand how badly they are being beaten? The more I see this pattern of behavior, the more I am convinced that they really don’t get it.

Forget “rapid response”, there’s not even a competent slow-response team.

Sometimes I think our problem is so enormous it would be easier to teach chimpanzees to fly F-16s.

From, of all sources, the New York Times.

Yes, I know.  But they’re good.

“Can the Republicans Be Saved From Obsolescence?”
“Behind the Cover Story: Robert Draper on Why the G.O.P. Is So Slow to Adapt to the Digital World”

I plan on eventually commenting on these as I don’t quite agree with everything, and think a few things were overlooked.

And yes, these are absolutely required readings.  There will be a quiz afterward.

It’s been said that the GOP will get serious about spending reductions when the debt ceiling comes to a vote. Supposedly we have more leverage on that issue.

I’m thinking not. The GOP has less leverage on that issue.

The basic structure of the debt ceiling vote is similar to the fiscal cliff vote. Republicans have the ability to block something the President wants, with a painful consequence if a deal is not struck.

However, with the debt ceiling, the overall breakdown value is worse than it was with the fiscal cliff vote, and is far worse for Republicans than Democrats. If the fiscal cliff had broken down, there would have been some negative economic consequences, public pressure, and if it dragged on long enough, perhaps some electoral pain. Had we gone off the cliff in a meaningful way, we might have even eventually worked out a better deal. But Congress was unable to bear the pain.

The debt ceiling is worse for Republicans in several ways. Firstly, the overall consequences of a breakdown are worse in the sense that a sovereign default would almost guarantee a severe and long-lasting depression that would make the Great Recession look like a walk in the park. Secondly, knowing that this consequence is unbearable to Obama as well, we should anticipate his actions. Who doubts that Obama would invoke the 14th Amendment, or perhaps pull out the old platinum coin trick? The breakdown value of the debt ceiling negotiation could be a massive unconstitutional power grab by the executive. Huzzah!

If we try to play hardball with the debt ceiling, we’d get a repeat of the fiscal cliff vote, and we’d walk away with out pants around our ankles.

Does anybody think that a Congress unable to explode the daisy-cutter they were sitting on will have the intestinal fortitude to explode the debt ceiling nuclear device? I thought not.

No. Pass the debt ceiling, relatively cleanly. I mean, sure, try to get some cuts, but when push comes to shove, just pass the thing.

Then shut down the government – Gingrich style. Don’t pass another spending bill. Save for defense and homeland security, don’t so much as appropriate toilet paper for government lavatories. Not one dime.

Deprive Obama of something he wants. The relative pain of the breakdown values should be reversed. Obama loves government. So do Republicans, but less so than Obama. Take it from him. Perhaps for months.

And if you think a prolonged total government shut-down is too harsh, you really didn’t have the stomach for the debt ceiling vote in the first place.

(“Plan B” is looking pretty sweet right now, ain’t it? Remember that.)

Of course the constructive thing to do is take a deep breath and soldier on, … swinging pendulum or whatever.  The darker part of my psyche thinks that with this election we’re going to start seeing some of those irreparable consequences folks have been talking about, and that even if things swing back our way in four years there might not be much left for us to work with.

As for learning our lessons, I’m not holding my breath.  You’d have thought we would have learned something from Christine O’Donnell and Sharron Angle, but no.  And that’s not to pick on the Tea Party, because the Establishment ran losers too (-most notably, Mitt Romney).  Candidate quality is of utmost importance.

Since every other pundit in the universe has spun this election to fit his or her own pet Theory of Everything, I might as well too….

The winning formula that I have discussed at great length is to find a high quality conservative candidate who knows how to translate conservative ideas to non-ideological/moderate/middle voters.  We had pretty much the opposite of that in Mitt Romney, a mediocre candidate with a wobbly conservative history who had no chance of conveying conservative thoughts to moderate voters because he really didn’t understand them himself.  (This would be why I was for Pawlenty, self-professed “Sam’s Club Republican”.)

Agreed, Fred, we should entirely reject the notion that we must become Democrat-lite and either abandon or moderate every conservative position under the sun.  Everybody say it with me now — swing voters don’t vote on ideology.

The one policy exception I see is immigration.  I don’t like to play this card too often, but I’ll BLAME BUSH for screwing up the immigration issue.  The “comprehensive piece of sh*t” he cooked up was so bad that even notable immigration softie Bill Kristol didn’t like the bill.  That fight brought out the worst of people on both sides of the argument, and the real loser was the GOP –even after we nominated John McCain, king of comprehensive immigration reform.  Now Obama will get to be the guy who claims credit for delivering immigration reform — ironically after avoiding the issue in his first term, and while following a bizarre gun policy wherein a key element was that there would be a bunch of dead Mexicans.

Going forward, I’ll try to be as positive as possible.  Just understand that privately I’ll be shopping for miscellaneous firearms and lingering at Cabela’s.  And I am definitely interested in Fredistan.

Even France Does It Better With Their Debates

 

 

Any time we look to France for anything, we’re in trouble.

 

But that’s exactly what we should do for our Presidential debates.  In France, candidates immediately take off the gloves, aggressively sparring with each other from start to finish. Their sharp exchanges clearly illustrate differences, giving voters a true insight into their prospective leaders.  Unlike our completely scripted affairs in which candidates simply regurgitate tired talking points, a free-ranging debate provides an in-depth look into personalities, style, knowledge of issues, and, most important, how candidates perform under intense pressure. There is little wiggle room because each participant has the ability to directly question — indeed, cross-examine — his opponent, putting him on the spot, live, in front of millions.

 

Whether or not the French like their candidates, they absolutely know where they stand.  We don’t.

 

The modern-era debates in America are restrictive, timid affairs with a ridiculously short time allotment for answers (usually sixty seconds), and even less time for “rebuttals” (thirty seconds) —barely enough time to take a breath let alone discuss solutions for the most pressing issues in the world.  Each candidate directs his answer to the moderator — not the opponent who made a charge or accusation.  And if, God forbid, two participants do engage each other, discussion is usually cut off immediately.

 

Part of the problem is that too many moderators think of themselves as celebrities, wanting to stamp their imprimatur on the event and placing themselves on the same level as the politicians.  They’re forgetting that their purpose is to report the news — not make it, and that people tune in to see their leaders, not those asking questions.  This is akin to a referee who feels it necessary to become such an integral part of the game that he affects its outcome.

 

We all remember certain moments of recent debates: George H.W. Bush’s looking at his watch as if he had someplace better to be; Al Gore invading George W. Bush’s personal space and deeply sighing during Bush’s answers; and Ross Perot just being Ross Perot.  But these things would have barely mattered had the candidates been able to directly engage each other.

 

When fireworks do erupt, the result is always positive. Take a 2008 Republican primary debate in New Hampshire. The only meaningful exchange came between Congressman Ron Paul and Governor Mike Huckabee, with each unleashing a passionate discourse on the Iraq war strategy and whether to bring the troops home. FOX News did the right thing by allowing the two candidates to question and rebut each other, even after time expired, and both men’s responses were met with loud applause.  For the first time in that debate series, both sides of this contentious issue were truly represented, and any viewer who couldn’t discern the candidates’ positions should have been subject to a literacy test at the polls.

 

Yet that productive and respectful discussion was completely lost on both networks and sponsors, with formats not changing to encourage such clashes. Also lost is what virtually every focus group says after every debate: “We were disappointed in all the candidates because they were short on specifics and skirted around the tough questions…we don’t really know where they stand.”

 

Maybe that’s because we’re asking candidates seeking the most important job in the world to solve vexing problems in one minute, while contending with more colors than the Department of Homeland Security’s Threat Level (with moderators usually flashing green, yellow and red to show the remaining time, followed by a bell).

 

And it you’re expecting a moderator to expose a candidate’s political two-step, keep dreaming.  Most simply aren’t that capable.

 

In truth, the candidates and their Parties are most guilty for the lack of spirited debates for one simple reason: they don’t want them.  Why? Fear. Fear that their candidate will make a mistake when talking off-the-cuff.  Afraid to deviate from a decades-old playbook that, in reality, never worked very well. And sadly, scared to take the risks necessary for a candidate to become a great leader.

 

The biggest irony is that Americans are desperately seeking a candidate of core and conviction to step forward and boldly challenge the status quo, one not afraid to flub a line or actually have the guts to say, “I don’t know” to a question. Voters will forgive a gaffe or an awkward moment so long as they believe the candidate was genuine in his answer. Speaking from the heart, while imperfect, trumps a calculated, memorized answer every single time. Guaranteed. After all, if a candidate is too scared to talk directly to his own people, how can he effectively face world leaders in time of crisis?

 

The next President will preside over one of the most tumultuous and dangerous periods in all of human history. Don’t we owe it to ourselves to demand that these candidates really debate each other?

 

To that question, there should be no rebuttal.

 

Philadelphia Magazine Philly Post link:

http://blogs.phillymag.com/the_philly_post/2012/10/03/presidential-candidates-debate-french-model/

 

 

 

 

Chris Freind is an independent columnist, television/radio commentator, and investigative reporter who operates his own news bureau, www.FreindlyFireZone.com  His self-syndicated model has earned him the largest cumulative media voice in Pennsylvania. He can be reached at CF@FreindlyFireZone.com

 

 

 

 

 

Pop Quiz:

 

Are the Euro-technocrats (and their America backers) who orchestrated the bailouts of Greece, Portugal, Ireland, Spain (and soon Italy):

 

A) Hell-bent on world domination by propping up the Euro to create a one-world currency (to complement a one-world government, of course);

 

B) Closely connected to the banks and governments receiving the billions being doled out so cavalierly — and who are undoubtedly being “taken care of” for their services;

 

C) Good-hearted souls who truly believe that there is no such thing as perfect men, just perfect intentions — leaders who hold that the “more-debt-solves-everything” economic philosophy, while not perfect, is the only salvation for a continent near collapse;

 

D) Cowards who know damn well what they’re doing won’t work, but are kicking the can down the road (again) so that the implosion won’t happen on their watch; or

 

E) Just plain morons. And that’s not meant as a mean-spirited personal attack, but merely a point-of-fact description.

 

Answer:

 

All of the above.

 

The brain trust across the pond is trying to prop up the Euro or, more accurately, save it from extinction. But let’s be honest: since they can’t identify what their problems are, let alone how to solve them, anything beyond keeping their heads above water is wishful thinking.

 

Will people financially benefit from the bailouts? Absolutely. Any time incomprehensibly large amounts of money change hands, insiders make out like bandits (because often times they are). Some of that corruption is illegal (but difficult to prosecute since those at the top are often in on the deal), but there is also widespread institutional corruption, where many of these financial transactions are immoral, unethical, and “criminal,” just not illegal.

 

So while the corporate hacks and pols “get theirs,” the people get shafted. Why would anyone expect change, since there is no incentive to rock the boat? Those who stand up are often kicked out of the “club,” and the European march towards oblivion continues.

 

Are there some European leaders who believe that one bailout after another is the best policy to right the ship? Absolutely.  They live in a bubble of naiveté borne from never holding private sector jobs. To them, free enterprise is a hindrance, not a solution, so they cannot relate to the obstacles businesses must navigate to survive. And thus can’t understand why so many companies are shutting down.

 

They never had to meet a payroll, never dreaded issuing a pink slip, never worried about how to pay skyrocketing health insurance. They never had to compete while handicapped with needlessly high energy costs, and never cursed up a storm because of crushing taxes and ridiculous, job-killing regulations.  More important, they never experienced competition and all that striving to be the best brings out in people.

 

Bureaucrats thrive in a spread-the-wealth environment where mediocrity is the norm, and aspiring to greatness is ridiculed.  Sadly, they have never been imbued with the vision that complacency is the enemy, and that the constant drive to develop better products and services, and how to most innovatively bring them to market, is the only tide capable of lifting all boats.

 

Instead, they believe government solutions are the only answer.

 

The problem with bailouts is that there is no such thing as “government” money. In a democracy, it is always the people’s money, sent to the government with the reasonable expectation that it will be spent with restraint and wisdom. In Europe’s case, as in America, that train has jumped the tracks.

 

Instead, spending has increased so exponentially that entire nations are effectively bankrupt. “Government” money has been made so easily available to all people for all things that the sense of entitlement has wiped out any incentive to work harder and be more productive. Europe has become a continent of sloths, content to siesta and a take a lavish pension at 45.  That’s a whole lot easier than putting in the work necessary to make one’s life, and his children’s future, better.

 

Now it’s time to pay the piper. We no longer live in a world where problems will just work themselves out. Instead, they will be with us until people face the truth. But unless that hard look in the mirror occurs, Europe’s deterioration will only accelerate.

 

Nothing the Europeans are proposing will solve the problem, since they are simply robbing Peter to pay Paul. Spain is paralyzed by debt whose unemployment rate is 25 percent. Yet the “solution” is to take on even more debt! That’s like buying a $40,000 Ford with zero in the bank and claiming a “savings” of $60,000 because you didn’t get the $100,000 Mercedes. Earth to Europe: Have we met?

 

Like Greece, the bailout will change nothing in Spain.  The Spanish will riot rather than tolerate cuts in pensions and services. Leaders may discuss austerity measures, but will cave. And why not? They just suckered Europe (mostly Germany) and the United States into giving them $125 billion to do as they please. Instead of implementing reforms, it will be Business As Usual with Other People’s Money. Layoffs will continue, defaults will increase, and more companies will close because nothing will change.

 

But the good news for Spain is that soon it will be a distant memory as Italy, whose financial crisis is even larger, teeters on collapse.  All the money in the European Central Bank won’t be enough to save it, so the printing presses will keep cranking out worthless Euros.  And the madness continues.

 

Will the last one to leave Europe please turn out the lights?

 

An accredited member of the media, Chris Freind is an independent columnist, television/radio commentator, and investigative reporter who operates his own news bureau, www.FreindlyFireZone.com. He can be reached at CF@FreindlyFireZone.com

 

 

 

 

Don’t get me wrong – I like Tim Burns. He seems like a great guy, and has a lot of positive qualities as a candidate. If you look back at what I wrote on this blog when he was running for Congress, you’d have to say I was pretty darned supportive. If he ends up being the nominee, I’m behind him 100%. But he’s my second choice. I think Steve Welch is better equipped to communicate the reasons why Bobby Casey should be fired.

I’m not sure Burns can effectively keep the debate centered on Casey’s ultra-liberal voting record and away from some of the problems that cropped up in Burns’ campaign for Congress. All the Democrats have to do is re-run the old DCCC ads from 2010 regarding Tim Burns’ support of the Fair Tax:

Is this a fair ad? Absolutely not. Will they run something almost identical to this? You can bet your bottom dollar that they will.

It took a while for the Burns folks to respond when he was running for Congress, but eventually they got around to it:

The problem with this, apart from whether the Fair Tax plan is workable or not, is that Burns is immediately playing defense right out of the gate. The focus of the debate will be on whether a consumption tax is a good idea, and just what that might mean for average voters. The focus of the debate won’t be on Casey’s horrible legislative record.

No, we’ll have a harder time breaking through on Obamacare, on Casey’s crucial vote to include abortion funding in Obamacare, on Casey’s efforts to regulate the natural gas boom in Pennsylvania into oblivion, his introduction of a taxpayer funded bailout of union pensions, his vote to continue funding for ACORN even after its criminality was exposed, and his all-around agreement with the Obama-Reid positions on pretty much anything and everything.

Instead, we’ll be talking about made-up stories about 23% sales tax increases on grandma’s prescription medicine, and they’ll probably bring out that old chestnut about Social Security as well.

Though Burns and Welch both have track records as job-creating businessmen, I think Welch has a leg up on Burns in this as well. Burns will be unfairly attacked for selling his business, putting the jobs of his employees in the hands of less caring entities, just as he was attacked in 2010. Welch, on the other hand, has a marvelous story to tell about his work at DreamIt Ventures, where he has helped shepherd other upstart entrepreneurs through the minefields of the small business world.

When the number one issue facing the the electorate is job-creation, do we want to be discussing the nuances of tax policy and playing defense, or do we want to go on offense and talk about how jobs and wealth really get created in a free economy, and how Casey and Obama have been undermining the genesis of small business formation?

I know what my answer is.

Get a hit just one out of three times, and you’re in the Hall of Fame. Get nine out of ten problems right on a math test and you’re a star student. Nail one of the biggest political dirtbags in Pennsylvania history with 100 percent success — gaining convictions on every one of 137 federal counts —  and you’re the bad guy.  You’re the one who gets roundly reamed out in very public fashion.  You’re the one criticized for disregarding the law.

In becoming the new poster boy in the “What the F&*# was he thinking?!” category, United States District Judge Ronald Buckwalter did the unthinkable — again — by giving former State Senator Vince Fumo a Get Out Of Jail (Almost) Free card.

Convicted of charges in 2009, ranging from public corruption to tax offenses, and from fraud to obstruction of justice, Fumo received the appallingly light sentence of just 4 ½ years.  People routinely get sentenced to a whole lot more for a whole lot less.

But this Judge, who before the trial was viewed as somewhat competent, made a series of mistakes after conviction, including incorrectly reading the sentencing guidelines. So he was forced by an appeals court to re-sentence Fumo.

Despite the fact that:

A) Every one of the convictions still stood,

B) Federal sentencing guidelines called for 17 to 22 years,

C) The public and legal community had been outraged at the original lenient punishment, and

D) Fumo showed absolutely no remorse — none —, which the Judge acknowledged,

E) Buckwalter gave Fumo six more months.  That’s not a typo.  Not six more years, which itself would have been woefully inadequate, but six short months.

Just writing that is enough to make you vomit.

Ronald Buckwalter is an absolute disgrace to the federal bench, and his flagrant disregard for justice calls into the question the very nature of lifetime judicial appointments.  There is simply no rational explanation for his pig-headed decisions regarding Fumo, but making the sin mortal was chastising the U.S. Attorney’s Office. 

That’s like a parent blaming the teacher because his child bombed the test.

The investigation, which started under then-U.S. Attorney Pat Meehan, was thorough and professional, without so much as a single black mark. The investigators brought what they believed to be an iron-clad case against Fumo, and a jury of Fumo’s peers obviously agreed.

In appealing Buckwalter’s original sentence, the Office again acted responsibly, correctly noting Buckwalter’s mistakes, and seeking the only thing that everyone but Fumo and his dwindling posse wanted: justice.

*****

An appropriate punishment at the original sentencing should have ended the Fumo saga, but like the referee who feels compelled to upstage the players and become the center of attention, Buckwalter seemed to want the headlines for himself.

Mission accomplished Judge.  But at what price?

His disparagement of the U.S. Attorney’s office without a doubt provided ammunition for future defendants to argue that they too are the victims of overzealous, politically-motivated prosecutors. Wittingly or not, Judge Buckwalter opened a Pandora’s Box that will be very difficult to close.

In calling the prosecution excessive, Buckwalter stated that Fumo should not have been charged with so many counts, when in reality, he could have been charged with more. He even went so far as to label the prosecution’s efforts “unfair.”

Unfair?

No, the prosecution was more than fair.  They didn’t commit the crimes.  Vince Fumo did.  What’s patently unfair is letting him off easy because he was an “effective” legislator (which, by the way, is one of the biggest myths in all of Harrisburg, but that’s another story.) and because he was involved in charitable works.

Excuse us, Judge, but what does that have to do with anything?

You do the crime, you do the time.  It’s that simple.  And for the other factors that may have played a role in leniency, they too should have been irrelevant.

If, because of poor health, Fumo would have died in prison if given a longer sentence, so be it. If, because he would have been a very old man getting out of prison had he gotten the lengthy punishment he deserved, that’s his problem.  No one held a gun to Fumo’s head to embark on a life of crime.

To give Fumo what is perceived by most to be special treatment is, in some respects, the biggest crime of all.  Not illegal, of course, as sentencing is at Buckwalter’s discretion, but criminal in the sense that justice was not adequately served.

Perhaps more than any other city, Philadelphia has a reputation for rampant, institutionalized corruption. For decades, the bad guys always seemed to operate with impunity.  From rigged elections to pols illegally living it up on the taxpayers’ dime, the perception, rightly so, was that the politically-connected could operate above the law, and the average Joe got the shaft.

But then a funny thing happened. After witnessing numerous convictions at the city, county and state levels, most notable in the Bonusgate scandal, the public started to believe again.  Hope was renewed.  Turns out that the people, through their honest, hard working prosecutors, were fighting City Hall — and winning.

Faith in truth, justice and the American way, now restored, hit its pinnacle when Vince Fumo, once untouchable, was brought back down to Earth, led away in handcuffs. But when the original sentence was announced, the collective breath of our society was forcibly expelled, the result of an immense kick to the gut.

Yet hope remained, if by a delicate thread.  It wasn’t over.  Maybe, just maybe, things would be made right, and Vince Fumo would finally “get his” at the re-sentencing. But as before, the people were left devastated, angry, and dumbfounded. Somehow, Fumo escaped the fate he deserved.

And with that, all the goodwill and hope that had been cautiously accumulating evaporated in a heartbeat. Fool me once, shame on you.  Fool me twice, shame on me.

The bitter hardness that is Philadelphia’s attitude just got stiffer.  As a direct result of the Fumo travesty, no longer do folks believe in fairness, but instead have reverted back to the “they’re all corrupt, they’re all in it together” mentality. And who can blame them?

No matter how you slice it, the bad guys came away with the better hand, and the good guys finished last.  Thank you, Judge Buckwalter.

There is no worse death that the end of hope. And more than anything, that’s why Philadelphia is dying.

Case closed.

Chris Freind is an independent columnist, television/radio commentator, and investigative reporter who operates his own news bureau, www.FreindlyFireZone.com  His self-syndicated model has earned him the largest cumulative media voice in Pennsylvania. He can be reached at CF@FreindlyFireZone.com

 

 

 

 He is Republican, pro-defense and hawkish on the War.  He is also an unabashed Christian, although his particular sect is viewed with suspicion and prejudice.  Oh, and he’s running for President.

Based on the recent firestorm that erupted when a pastor called a presidential candidate’s religion a “cult,”   it seems clear that we’re talking about Mitt Romney and his Mormon faith.  But we’re not.  The above description referred to none other than Dwight D. Eisenhower — a Jehovah’s Witness for most of his life.

Eight years later, it was John F. Kennedy defending his Catholicism.

Now, it’s Romney’s turn.  But he is taking a “leap of faith” by deliberately avoiding discussion about how his Mormonism influences his values, and how he views the relationship between religion and government.

During the last presidential campaign, Romney made a strategic mistake on the religion issue.  It wasn’t that he didn’t address his Mormonism, because he did.  The problem was his timing. And he seems about to make the same mistake 

An Act of Desperation in 2007

In the run-up to the 2008 primaries, there was an intense battle inside Romney’s camp over whether Mitt should address the Mormon issue head-on.  That the debate even took place demonstrated political naiveté on Romney’s part, as well as a lack of historical knowledge.

Romney and some of his advisers actually thought they could avoid discussing his Mormonism. Since he was the frontrunner, how could they have believed that the “Mormon issue” would disappear? 

Yes, Romney finally made his Mormon speech, but it was too late. Had it been delivered three months prior, he would have been ahead of the curve, proactively talking about Mormonism on his terms.  But that didn’t happen.

Instead, it looked like an act of desperation.

Romney, who had been leading in the early states (in both money and polls) suddenly found himself trailing the surging Mike Huckabee in Iowa, who was also breathing down his neck in New Hampshire and South Carolina.  It was only after losing momentum that Mitt decided to address the questions that had long been swirling about his faith.  The result was that he looked desperate and disorganized.

Apparently, Romney’s folks thought they could put the issue to rest by emulating Kennedy’s famous Texas speech to Protestant ministers, where he adamantly stated that he would not be taking orders from the Pope.  That was a miscalculation on several counts. First, common perception is that Kennedy ended concerns about his Catholicism after that speech.  Wrong.  JFK felt obliged to address the issue on several other occasions. 

More importantly, Catholicism was the largest single religion in the nation, and Catholics made up a substantial and powerful voting bloc in many key states.  Conversely, Mormons make up just a fraction of the electorate, and a significant number of voters, especially evangelical Christians, view Mormonism as a non-Christian “cult.”

Romney’s unexpected slip in the polls four years ago was his first major crisis, and how he reacted—some say over-reacted— led to questions about the candidate.  Were people put off by a potential Commander-in-Chief who seemed to panic at the first sign of trouble?  Could America afford ….

Read the rest, Facebook and post a comment at Philadelphia Magazine’s Philly Post:

http://blogs.phillymag.com/the_philly_post/2011/10/14/romney-address-mormonism/

 

Chris Freind is an independent columnist, television/radio commentator, and investigative reporter who operates his own news bureau, www.FreindlyFireZone.com  His self-syndicated model has earned him the largest cumulative media voice in Pennsylvania.

Freind’s column, “Freindly Fire,” appears nationally in Newsmax and regionally in Philadelphia Magazine’s Philly Post.  It is also published regularly in a number of the state’s largest newspapers, including The Delaware County Daily Times, Chester County Daily Local, Norristown Times Herald, Pottstown Mercury and Bucks County Courier Post. Readers of his column, “Freindly Fire,” hail from six continents, thirty countries and all fifty states.

His work has been referenced in numerous other publications including The Wall Street Journal, National Review Online, foreign newspapers, and in Dick Morris’ bestseller “Catastrophe.”

 

The background: H/T to Lisa Mossie for sharing a Ross Douthat NYT column in which he describes the inability of the populist/Tea Party faction(s) to produce an effective insurgent Presidential candidate.

I don’t want to sound like I’m co-signing Douthat’s piece here, but his point about the populists having legitimate gripes with the party ring true to me.  And yet, as Douthat points out, the solutions and candidates offered by the populists are often found wanting.  I find myself less distressed about the possibility of a Romney candidacy than I once was.

The 2012 US Senate race: Like the Presidential race, I think there are a few people who could potentially win, though none of them has really knocked it out of the park for me.  Every candidate I’ve examined has notable flaws.

I wonder how much “the establishment” really thinks we could beat Casey.  I think we have a good shot at it, provided that the political stars align.  That’s to say, I think it matters who we choose, and it matters that we get behind that person, and with the right national environment it’s a do-able race.  The idea that we might not take the 2012 Senate race seriously reminds me of the adage, “He who fails to plan, plans to fail”.

If you don’t think we can beat Casey, just roll over and die already. Please.

Tea Party at the RSC Fall Meeting:  I’ve been more than apologetic for the Tea Party since its formation.  I’ve argued that it doesn’t fall neatly into the right-left spectrum that many people imagine exists.  I’ve argued that (high overall quality) candidates can win while espousing Tea Party values. And I still believe those things.  But the Tea Party folks should be disappointed with the displays put on at the PAGOP fall meeting.

First off, if you are a committee member, it is generally bad form to wear t-shirts to official meetings proclaiming your wish to remove three incumbent “RINO” Congressmen.  The RINOs in question? Gerlach, Dent, and Platts.

Don’t get me wrong, I think each of these three men has less than stellar conservative voting records. But understand that Gerlach and Dent represent D+4 and D+2 districts, respectively.  I’m willing to cut those guys some slack and let the voters in their districts make that decision.  Platts’ lifetime ACU score of 72.74 could and should be better considering that he represents an R+12 district, but that’s nowhere near “RINO” level.  To hear some people talk, you’d think Platts was Arlen Specter crossed with Linc Chafee.

And I know that some of you folks think the people who spoke up at the meeting were heroic, but to most of the rest of us they just looked foolish.  Please understand the difference between a fundraiser (that costs money to attend) and official meetings (which are free to attend, provided you can get yourself to the meeting). Understand that not following Robert’s Rules of Order actually forces the Chairman to shut you down.

The sorts of displays put on at the RSC meeting did not reflect well upon the Tea Party, and only served to distance the committee membership from their cause.  And that’s a damned shame, because I truly believe the Tea Party has something to offer the Republican Party.

The Party:  I know that the straw poll didn’t really count for anything, but I thought it was sort of silly that they pushed Rick Santorum.  Given that the poll will only be taken seriously insofar as a serious candidate wins it, I thought it was a wasted opportunity to give an honest impression of how the committee members felt.  Perhaps we might have had some infinitesimally small influence over the process had we chosen either Romney or Perry.  Later that evening I asked a party official what the committee really accomplished by voting for Santorum.  He answered that we raised a bunch of money, which I suppose is at least a legitimate answer, but I still feel it was a silly thing to do.

The party actually pushed through some fairly hard-core conservative resolutions. Had anybody in the “populist” backbenches actually bothered to read them they might have liked them.

But to come full circle back to Ross Douthat’s column, the populist critique of the GOP is probably more about the style and manner in which the party leaders conduct business than it is about purely ideological matters.