Casting a Paul on the Republicans

VN:F [1.9.12_1141]
Please rate this article (No need to sign up)
Rating: 0.0/7 (0 votes cast)

Capital Flag
By Gerald S Glazer
I predict that Rep. Ron Paul of Texas, who is now seeking the Republican presidential nomination, will run on a third-party ticket next November. Here is why:

1. He is out of step with other Republicans.
Like all Republican presidential candidates, Paul wants to cut federal spending and taxes. But he would go much further than any of the others: Paul would cut a trillion dollars in the first year alone! He would also abolish the Federal Reserve System (established in 1913), which controls the U.S. money supply, issues currency and regulates banking. If his ideas were implemented, we could face a 1930s-style Depression.

Unlike other Republicans, he considers the war in Iraq a mistake, and opposes any efforts to keep Iran from going nuclear. He opposes all foreign aid and military assistance.

Other GOP candidates know all this, but don’t bother attacking him because they believe he has no chance of being nominated anyway.

2. A new group could provide nationwide ballot access.
AmericansElect (http://americanselect.org/) plans to select an independent presidential candidate via the Internet in June of 2012. Ron Paul’s young supporters have the tech-savvy to win this contest.

AmericansElect are now gathering signatures to place their ticket on the ballots of all 50 states. Each potential nominee will select his own running-mate, who must not be a member of the same political party.

3. He has done this before.
In 1988 Ron Paul was the presidential nominee of the Libertarian Party, so running on a third ticket does not scare him. He has repeatedly refused to rule-out doing so in 2012. At his age (76), Rep. Paul is not worried about blowing his chances for a future Republican nomination. (However, his son Senator Rand Paul of Kentucky would lose some credibility as a loyal Republican if he supported his father.)

Although numerous polls show that many (if not most) Americans are dissatisfied with the two-party system and would consider voting for an independent ticket, I doubt that Ron Paul would carry even one state. But all his votes would come from conservatives, so he might draw enough votes away from the Republican ticket to swing some states to the Democrats. That could be enough to re-elect President Obama.

I predict that Rep. Ron Paul of Texas, who is now seeking the Republican presidential nomination, will run on a third-party ticket next November. Here is why:

1. He is out of step with other Republicans.
Like all Republican presidential candidates, Paul wants to cut federal spending and taxes. But he would go much further than any of the others: Paul would cut a trillion dollars in the first year alone! He would also abolish the Federal Reserve System (established in 1913), which controls the U.S. money supply, issues currency and regulates banking. If his ideas were implemented, we could face a 1930s-style Depression.

Unlike other Republicans, he considers the war in Iraq a mistake, and opposes any efforts to keep Iran from going nuclear. He opposes all foreign aid and military assistance.

Other GOP candidates know all this, but don’t bother attacking him because they believe he has no chance of being nominated anyway.

2. A new group could provide nationwide ballot access.
AmericansElect (http://americanselect.org/) plans to select an independent presidential candidate via the Internet in June of 2012. Ron Paul’s young supporters have the tech-savvy to win this contest.

AmericansElect are now gathering signatures to place their ticket on the ballots of all 50 states. Each potential nominee will select his own running-mate, who must not be a member of the same political party.

3. He has done this before.
In 1988 Ron Paul was the presidential nominee of the Libertarian Party, so running on a third ticket does not scare him. He has repeatedly refused to rule-out doing so in 2012. At his age (76), Rep. Paul is not worried about blowing his chances for a future Republican nomination. (However, his son Senator Rand Paul of Kentucky would lose some credibility as a loyal Republican if he supported his father.)

Although numerous polls show that many (if not most) Americans are dissatisfied with the two-party system and would consider voting for an independent ticket, I doubt that Ron Paul would carry even one state. But all his votes would come from conservatives, so he might draw enough votes away from the Republican ticket to swing some states to the Democrats. That could be enough to re-elect President Obama.

Gerald S Glazer
_____________________________________________________

DISCLAIMER: The opinions expressed in this guest post do not necessarily reflect the views and opinions of Publictrough.com, its staff, its advertisers, and/or its partners, agents/assigns. Any guest post content appearing on Publictrough.com has not been checked for factual accuracy, and any photos/videos uploaded have not been verified to be copyright-free. It is the user’s/guest poster’s responsibility to post text and/or photos that belong to that user/guest poster and do not violate any copyright or intellectual property laws.

VN:F [1.9.12_1141]
Please rate this article (No need to sign up)
Rating: 0.0/7 (0 votes cast)

Gingrich: The Ultimate Partisan

VN:F [1.9.12_1141]
Please rate this article (No need to sign up)
Rating: 0.0/7 (0 votes cast)

Newt Gingrich image
“Everybody on this stage would make a better Commander-in-Chief than Barack Obama!” Newt Gingrich at Republican candidate forum, Nov. 12, 2011

The former Speaker of the House of Representatives, apparently Mr. November in the GOP presidential sweepstakes, has been faulted for accepting about $1.6 million in consulting fees from the failed government-backed mortgage investor Freddie Mac. (1) But it is common for big time politicians to cash in on their savvy and connections after leaving public office, so that is not scandalous. (I would have taken the money myself, had it been offered, and I am pure as the driven snow.) Apparently, Newt has no problem with profligate spending by quasi-public entities such as Freddie Mac, as long as the money is spent on him.

As a contender for the Republican presidential nomination, he would be expected to guarantee his support for the 2012 GOP ticket. (2) But the statement quoted above goes way beyond that: he declared that every other Republican candidate (including those who have no chance of winning the nomination) is preferable to President Barack Obama, which implies that partisanship trumps all other considerations in evaluating candidates.

All the Republican candidates are for a smaller federal government and lower taxes. But aside from that Republican orthodoxy, some differ from each other as much as they differ from President Obama. For example, Jon Hunstman represented Obama’s China policies in Beijing with no problem for nearly three years, while Mitt Romney advocates punishing China for its predatory currency and trade practices. Since Gingrich considers both preferable to Obama, how to deal with China is no big deal to him.

Newt Gingrich considers himself a friend of Israel, and supported aid to Israel while in Congress, yet would rather have Rep. Ron Paul in charge of US Middle East policy than Barack Obama. Obama has been justly criticized for his opposition to Israeli settlements in Jerusalem, but the President has supported over $3 billion in aid to the Jewish state every year of his presidency and gave Israel the $200 million “Iron Dome” missile defense system. In sharp contrast, Rep. Paul has consistently voted against all foreign aid (of which Israel is the largest recipient) and cast one of only 5 votes in the entire House of Representatives (3) against supporting Israel’s Operation Cast Lead in Gaza. Paul has long been rightly labeled one of the most anti-Israel members of the House, which Gingrich certainly knows, yet he would still prefer him over Obama! Apparently Gingrich’s love for Israel is overwhelmed by his love for the Republican Party.

Herman Cain’s 9% sales tax? No problem! Rick Perry’s desire to abolish the Department of Energy (which includes the Nuclear Regulatory Commission, the watchdog over possible radioactive contamination) plus other agencies to named later? No problem! Michelle Bachmann’s hope to eliminate all federal taxes, so the government would have to close down permanently (not just a few days)? No problem! They are all Republicans, so they would all be better than Obama!

Newt Gingrich has a checkered past, including two (out of three, so far) failed marriages, shutting down the US government in 1995, impeachment of President Clinton, a $300,000 fine for an ethics violation while Speaker and his resignation from Congress (4). He has wisely refrained from lambasting his fellow Republican presidential candidates, which will help him pick up the support of those who fall by the wayside. But if he is nominated, his obsessive partisanship and cantankerous personality will probably sink the GOP ticket.

Gerald S Glazer

———————————————————————————-

(1) “Gingrich defends Freddie Mac pay” Milwaukee Journal Sentinel, Nov. 17, 2011, page 7A. “Freddie Mac” is a popular nickname for FHLMC, the Federal Home Loan Mortgage Corporation, which was taken over by the US Government in 2008 to prevent collapse.

(2) After Eugene McCarthy refused to promise to support the 1968 Democratic presidential ticket, he never won another election.

(3)The others were Maxine Waters, Dennis Kucinich, Nick Rahall and our own Gwen Moore.

(4) Wikipedia biography.

———————————————————————–

DISCLAIMER: The opinions expressed in this guest post do not necessarily reflect the views and opinions of Publictrough.com, its staff, its advertisers, and/or its partners, agents/assigns. Any guest post content appearing on Publictrough.com has not been checked for factual accuracy, and any photos/videos uploaded have not been verified to be copyright-free. It is the user’s/guest poster’s responsibility to post text and/or photos that belong to that user/guest poster and do not violate any copyright or intellectual property laws.

VioSoftware.com

VN:F [1.9.12_1141]
Please rate this article (No need to sign up)
Rating: 0.0/7 (0 votes cast)

The Cain Scrutiny

VN:F [1.9.12_1141]
Please rate this article (No need to sign up)
Rating: 0.0/7 (0 votes cast)

herman-cain2
Herman Cain, who has risen to the top of GOP presidential contenders with his popular “Soak the Poor” proposal for a 9% federal sales tax, has now been accused by three unidentified women ( hereinafter noted as A,B and C) of sexual harrassment while Cain was head of the National Restaurant Association in the late 1990′s.

Last Sunday Politico.com revealed that A and B had filed complaints against the candidate, which were settled by 5-figure cash payments by the Association. (The NY Times reported Nov. 2 that Ms A had been paid $35,000 (1)) Although both women had signed confidentiality agreements as part of the settlements, at least one of them is now seeking to be released from it. It is a sure bet that tabloids and reporters will offer big pay-offs for both of their stories.

Now Ms C has come forward, also anonymously, and claimed that Cain harrassed her too, but she did not file a complaint. C said that Cain “made sexually suggestive remarks or gestures” to her and invited to her to his apartment. (2)

At first Cain denied any recollection of the complaints and how they were settled, but later admitted that he remembered that he was totally innocent, and that “agreements” (not “settlements”) were made with the complaining women. (If his memory is really so bad that he cannot recall events like this in his own life only about 15 years ago, he certainly should not become president!)

Columnist Cal Thomas, writing in the tradition of the late Attorney Johnny Cochran, claimed that “This story..has a noxious odor of racism about it. (3)” Baloney! A candidate for president must assume that the media will examine his life with a microscope (if not a proctoscope). White Democrats such as John Edwards, Bill Clinton, Ted Kennedy and Anthony Weiner got this treatment, and Herman Cain should not have expected anything else. Either Cain is innocent and three women have lied about him, or he lied when he denied the allegations.

This is not over. Before too long, A, B and C will be identified and interviewed. (Considering the small number of female employees of the Restaurant Association during the years Cain led the group, and the cash incentives that will be offered, none of them will be anonymous for long.) Once they speak publicly, Cain will be dogged by this story for the rest of his campaign, which I do not expect to culminate in victory in the Electoral College.

Bill Clinton was impeached (though not convicted) because of the Paula Jones sexual harrassment suit, and John Edwards faces a federal trial for his effort to cover-up his marital infidelity. Some will echo Justice Clarence Thomas and label the probes into the Cain cases as another “high tech lynching.” I just call it “Hermaneutics.”

Gerald S Glazer

——————————————————————————————————-

(1) “An all-too-familiar scandal” by Maureen Dowd in the Milwaukee Journal Sentinel, Nov. 3, 2011, page 11A.

(2) Associated Press, same day.

(3) “Herman Cain held to different standards” by Cal Thomas, same page as (1).

DISCLAIMER: The opinions expressed in this guest post do not necessarily reflect the views and opinions of Publictrough.com, its staff, its advertisers, and/or its partners, agents/assigns. Any guest post content appearing on Publictrough.com has not been checked for factual accuracy, and any photos/videos uploaded have not been verified to be copyright-free. It is the user’s/guest poster’s responsibility to post text and/or photos that belong to that user/guest poster and do not violate any copyright or intellectual property laws.

VN:F [1.9.12_1141]
Please rate this article (No need to sign up)
Rating: 0.0/7 (0 votes cast)