Iowa Primary Results...But...Why should I care?

The first “shot over the bow” has been taken in the 2012 presidential campaign. Mitt Romney scored a landslide victory over Rick Santorum to win the caucus. Well, landslide is a little strong, but 8 votes are 8 votes and nothing to sneeze at.

Ron Paul finished third, living up (or down) to my prediction. Newt Gingrich finished a distant fourth, due in part to the attack ads against him in the final weeks. Gingrich also had the best concession speech as he took the opportunity to attack the attack ads.

Bringing up the rear were Rick Perry, Michele Bachmann, and Jon Huntsman. Perry was so disheartened by his 10% that he decided to go to Texas and re-evaluate his campaign. (More on him later) After finishing in the mid-single digits, Bachmann’s concession speech was exceptionally Bachmannesque, all over the place and leaving logic at the door. (More on her later) Finally Huntsman, by his choice, didn’t contest Iowa.

What will New Hampshire and the rest of America have to say about the Republicans? I don’t really care and this will probably be my last post specifically about them, however, I do want to know a little about the candidate they end up with.

Mitt Romney- A failure in 2008, that came back to be the establishment choice in 2012. Romney never really stopped running for president after 2008. During this three year period he attempted to juice his resume with right wing politics and policies with questionable results. Among the teabaggers he is considered a moderate and will continue to be haunted by his actions as governor of Massachusetts. He has flip-flopped on just about all of their deal breaking issues.

Because his positions seem to be constantly “evolving”, it’s hard to know where his presidency would take America. Most of his actions give every indication that he would be a slightly more intelligent George Dubbya, willing to go along to get along, and rubber stamping whatever off the wall proposal the establishment puts in front of him.

If the teabaggers unify behind one candidate, Romney could be in danger of losing the nomination despite the support of the establishment. However, if teabaggers divide their support between Santorum and Perry, with Paul and Gingrich stealing a few establishment conservatives, the wing-nuts may actually help Romney.

Rick Santorum- He became the “flavor of the month” at just the right time. It really doesn’t matter what the teabaggers and ultra conservatives think about Santorum, without destroying any chance of beating Romney, his opponents on the right must avoid tearing him down.

Santorum’s politics reflect the most disgusting policies of the teabaggers who support him. Deregulation of business and finance, cutting environmental protections, the ultimate end to Social Security and Medicare as we know it, blind support of Israel at the expense of the Palestinians, and the desire to use military might to enforce his vision of world affairs.

Even Santorum’s “humanitarian” issues have ulterior motives. For instance, He supports the US expenditure of billions to help with health and education in Africa. What is generally not known is that he supports this aid to prevent China and Islamic Republics from gaining a foothold in the region.

In the end, Santorum’s only chance for the nomination is a united tea party to get behind him. This is unlikely, and may not be enough anyway due to the GOP establishments divide and conquer strategy. Even teabagger favorite, Gov. Nikki Haley (SC) has endorsed the “moderate” Romney. 

Ron Paul- Paul finished in third which is not really surprising in this race. Aside from Huntsman the others behind Paul share Santorum’s extreme positions. This left Paul as the only viable candidate in Iowa that was not from the establishment or supported by the teabaggers.

Paul’s economic policies are bizarre. He is a firm believer in the “Austrian School” of economics. Basically it breaks down to “free markets” left totally alone, would solve all economic problems. Also, statistics, trends, models, and history are nearly irrelevant. Paul (and the Austrians) believes that “human nature” would dictate wise economic decisions. When he takes off his rose tinted glasses he might see that corporate CEO’s get paid well to do one thing, maximize profit in any legal way possible, often leaving logic at the door.

His non-economic issues are what “ronpaulians” or “PaulBots” use as the reason Democrats and others on the left should support him. Although there are several issues the left can agree with him on, anti-war, drug policy, repeal of the Patriot Act, etc… most of Paul’s domestic agenda is to return to the first half of the 20^th century and “states rights”. This of course would lead to an end of progressive laws, and an increase in “morality laws”, in many conservative states. A Democrat or other member of the left with a functioning brain cell should see the stupidity of supporting Ron Paul.

Paul has no chance of winning the nomination, as establishment Republicans marginalize him, and teabaggers don’t support his non-economic policies. His “travelling” band of volunteers gives the illusion of unstoppable power, but it is just that, an illusion. Also, on just about any blog or other internet media or networking site, you find his supporters, but it lacks credibility in a room of 50 for there to be one ronpaulian claiming he is going to win the White House. Paul does have a chance at third, but it will depend on how the teabaggers break down.

Newt Gingrich- A 4^th place finish with about 13% of the vote was a bit of a letdown after floating near the top of the group a month ago. His public and personal life gave ample fodder for negative ads his opponents could use, and they did.

His policies are typical Republican mumbo-jumbo, with a twist, as he is painting himself as the true conservative in the field. He began his campaign seeming more intent on selling books than becoming president, and at times still falls into “marketing speak”.

Newt has no chance of the nomination as many establishment republicans don’t like him, and many teabaggers don’t trust him. He will probably drop out after the first big week of multiple primaries.

Rick Perry- A 5^th place finish with 10% of the vote left Perry at the end of the night sounding ready to withdraw. Quite a drop from the beginning of his campaign that saw him start as the front runner, and has seen him go into a steadily decline.

Perry’s agenda is typical right-wing rhetoric, and he is enough of a wing-nut to attract the teabaggers. One positive in his campaign is the comedic relief he has brought to the debates. It is fun watching for his next “oops” moment, and he never failed to provide one.

When the Iowa results came in Perry announced he was returning to Texas to re-evaluate his campaign, and the following day announced he was staying in the hunt. What should be questioned is not should he have stayed in the race, but rather, why he is staying in the race.

With Perry still in the running, he is sure to gain some traction in the south among the ultra-conservatives and teabaggers. This will come at the expense of Santorum and to a lesser degree Gingrich. A splintering of these votes will all but guarantee Romney the nomination. The questions that should be asked are, did Romney or establishment Republicans “offer” future considerations if he stayed in the race? One example is that Perry would help Romney as a VP choice in the south and with the teabaggers. If Romney wins the nomination and/or presidency, time will tell how these questions are answered.

Michele Bachmann- Bachmann had her “time in the sun” early on as a teabagger favorite and winner of an Iowa straw poll in August. Then, she opened her mouth. Bachmann is the one candidate in the field that makes Rick Perry sound like an intellectual titan.

Her policy proposals are far-right, bizarre, and if enacted would lead the US into a theocracy. The best (or worst) example of her decision making ability is her support of the “pray the gay away” method of “curing” homosexuality.

After seeing her results, 5% in the state of her birth, she quit. Enough said.

Jon Huntsman- He finished Iowa in 7^th place with 1% of the vote, but it could have just as easily been 0%, as he didn’t seriously challenge in the state.

Huntsman has been called a moderate by most Republicans, and as laughable that is, in this field it is fairly accurate. He does go against the GOP grain on a few key issues, but at the same time supports hard right proposals on many social issues.  He is also the only candidate to fully support the “Ryan Plan” for our economy. This plan guts or eliminates just about every social safety net in the US.

He has zero chance of the nomination, and his participation in the primaries does little but draw a few votes away from Romney. His support of the “Ryan Plan” proves he is not qualified to be president, and that he should stick to living in Asia as ambassador to some developing country until he retires and starts drawing SSI. A program he would like to eliminate as it is known today.

There are other candidates that will appear on primary ballots around the country. Some are active, and others have withdrawn, but they are non-factors and there is no need to mention them.

Iowa is done, and it appears there are six candidates going forward with a legitimate chance of the Republican nomination. While another candidate could enter, it is unlikely, and in some states impossible at this late date. So, what now? We still have 49 states, 5 colonies, and 1 occupied area (DC) yet to vote, so anything can happen!

Happy New Year!!

An old year ends, a new one begins, and I feel compelled to say something... something... to mark the occasion. Well, here goes nothing.

2011 marked the beginnings of what could easily be the biggest era that labor, the working class, environmentalists and other liberally minded people have seen since the 1930's. Democracy got a jump start across the Middle East and Northern Africa, after a bizarre election the people of Wisconsin stood up for labor rights, and the year closed with the Occupy Movement taking to the streets, courthouses and statehouses across the country. Occupiers in SC stared down the governor (and won) and Occupiers on the West Coast shut down or disrupted ports in support of labor rights.

Yes, there were a lot of victories for the Left in 2011, far more than the right or the 1% thought could be achieved. This string of victories can continue in 2012, but only if it is remembered that you can't lose the "fire" and that change is a process. It took right-wing nuts 40 years to get the US to the point we are today, so the correction will not happen in one or two years, but the seeds can be planted, and if they are nurtured, America can become a country of the people again.

So in 2012 if you like what happened in the past year get involved! Join a protest...hell...start a protest, write letters to the editor, get involved with a political campaign, run for office if you don't like the choices start a blog, start a website, start an Internet radio show...Do Something!

2012 can only be as good as we make it...and I know some of the activists in SC so I know it can be REAL good.

A new year brings new enthusiasm, new opportunities, and a clean slate. Do your part to fill that slate before "the powers that be" have the opportunity.

HAPPY NEW YEAR!!!

Stein for Prez 2012!!!

Occupy: On a Road to Ruin?

I am writing this post in a little different style than usual. I will ask questions and bring up concerns about the Occupy Movement, and will give my opinions and observations on these issues.

This post may anger some Occupy supporters, this is not my intent. I am attempting to look at these issues objectively, and encourage anyone with differing opinions to comment. It is my hope that this post, along with articles and videos of others, will spark debate and in the end make the Occupy Movement stronger.

Organization-

The Occupation Movement has taken great pains to establish itself as a leaderless, grassroots movement. There is no national group and except for loose associations nothing at the state level. This of course means no need for a "chain-of-command", nor individual or small group of leaders.

Local groups are the life blood of the Occupy Movement. Most of these groups are organized similar to the Occupy Wall Street group. Decisions are made in General Assemblies using consensus methods. These GA's allow for universal participation and gives everyone a voice in the process.

Opinion- By defining itself as a leaderless grassroots organization, Occupiers have disarmed opponents, critics, and even the government of their most valuable weapon. It is impossible to paint locals in a negative light due to decisions made by "higher authority", or engage in personal attacks on a local leader.

As with everything there are also negatives to the Occupy structure. With no national or state oversight, autonomous locals are in a position to do great harm to the movement as a whole. This is especially true with vandalism and violence. Being human animals, violence can erupt when someone is injured or the victim of violence, which is just nature. But when violence is anticipated, planned for, and sometimes initiated by a protest group, what do you think the police reaction will be? If Occupiers know that violence will result in a police "crack down" and will give police a precedent to use around the country to shut down Occupy, why make violent plans in the first place?

Vandalism is another form of violence in the sense that people can get hurt, and personal property is destroyed. Unbelievably some see vandalism as a legitimate form of protest. Most often they are anarchists or their supporters, and the property destroyed belongs to the very people they are "fighting for". Try telling a shop owner who just put every penny he/she had and could borrow, into the business that you just destroyed, that they should join you. The vandal just sent them into bankruptcy and now the shop owner, their family, friends, church, schools etc..  are supposed to have a positive opinion of  "your" movement? Just as an aside, it is impossible to distinguish these "protesters" from the "troubled teens" who just took some of mommies Ativan and is out having some fun.

The leaderless aspect also opens the door to several other problems. One of the more notable situations involved Michael Moore. Most Occupiers were glad to have his celebrity on board; however, they questioned some of his message and were upset by the media portraying him as having significant influence on the OWS group.

It's not Moore's fault. Media will invariably gravitate to a "known" person, or a controversial viewpoint to report a story. Keeping this in mind, you add the only guidelines are consensus based decisions, and the fact you have Socialists, Anarchists, Unionists, LGBT communities, Anti-War groups, Women's Rights groups, supporters of a Palestinian homeland etc... each with their own spin, each with their own priorities, and each with their own definition of what Occupy really is, the press can write any story, from any angle, and be correct is someone’s opinion.

When regional or national media seeks a big picture report they typically go to the leadership or designated spokesperson, in OWS these jobs do not exist. This gives reporters the entire spectrum of Occupy sub-groups to choose from to create a story that their advertisers will find appealing, or that fits their own bias.

Platform/Program-

After Occupy Wall Street began on September 17th, it was about two weeks when they distributed their first press release. This release put forward over twenty points/grievances they wanted to address and were aimed exclusively at corporations, including banks and financial institutions. These grievances covered topics ranging from Weapons of Mass Destruction to generic drugs, from torture to recalling faulty products.

The reader of these grievances will note they are generic statements, showing the obvious intent of attracting support across all political ideologies. It is not irrational to believe that members of all political parties could abide by, or live with, each of these general statements. But the devil is in the details, hence the question the OWS must face: What solutions are proposed, how will these proposals be put into action, and what issues may be added in the future?

Opinion- The answer to Occupy's platform or program of action is a difficult one:

Labor Unions should be seen as a natural ally; however in states such as SC, NC, or GA, such an alliance will alienate many within the 99%. The working-class of the south has a long history of indoctrination believing the lies corporations have spewed regarding Labor Unions. It will take years of education and change to see the south alter generations of ingrained belief.

Anti-War groups are another group found in most Occupy encampments, but most Occupiers and their supporters seem hesitant to include "anti-war" language officially into the movement. The reasons I have been given are that it might cause the loss of support from some Republicans who see the wars as necessary and possibly a deal breaker.

In order to bring an end to corporate discrimination toward the LGBT community, Occupy will have to support equality and equal rights for everybody, not just everybody who is straight. This is going to cost them the support of the far right, and even some moderates who consider the issue a deal-breaker.

Occupy brings up the death penalty, referring to it as murder. It is a good start, but this is an issue that the government must change within itself, the corporations participation is only that which the government allows. It is the judicial system, not the corporations that continues to send (sometimes innocent) men and women to the gallows. It should stop, Occupy should take a stand, and again will lose some right wingers in the process.

Occupy raises the concern that corporations 'block alternative forms of energy', and later mentions environmental concerns being tossed aside for profit. The only way to address both of these questions is for government to support/subsidize on the positive side, and regulate on the negative side. The solution will not be palatable to Republicans and there will be a loss of more support. Also, if the government actions get the right spin, a huge number of Americans will fight against these changes because it will cause some price increases, at least in the short term.

This is a small sample of the grievances, and as I pointed out taking a stand on the issues would cost Occupy supporters from right-leaning Democrats, to far-right Republicans, from Tea Party christians to Libertarians. One group I intentionally left out of the platform section are the Anarchists. The reason being there seems to be as many sub-groups as there are Anarchists. Those who I have known are free market/libertarian theorists, others I have read online range the spectrum all the way to Socialist/Communist theorists. Not being able to get a true definition, and one that won't change with the person giving it, I would say Occupy will gain or lose support of individual Anarchists according to the issue and the proposed solution.

The Future of the Occupy Movement?-

One reason I took up this topic is due to a video that made the rounds, 'The OWS will fail-Here's why'. The videographer made a few excellent points, but not enough to convince me that OWS would fail. After spending time on the subject I can't suggest doom, but there are some gloomy days ahead.

1- The lack of organization will cost them. There is no larger organization to support "sputtering" local groups, no clearinghouse for ideas, resources, speakers, etc... In other words a grassroots organization with no chance and no intention of filling out into a yard.

2- Decision making at some point, will need to be addressed. Consensus building works well in smaller groups, but if Occupy grows or there is unification of several smaller groups, another system should be in place and in practice.

If Occupy eventually narrows its primary activities to one day protests, there will be a necessity for leadership and a spokesperson. I realize this suggestion will get a hostile reaction, but, if there is no longer a physical occupation it's naive to believe a representative number of people for every GA. It is also naive to believe a journalist is going to "track down" a spokesperson. Every group should have someone available to act for the group, speak for the group, and send announcements in support of the group. It is vital to stay ahead of the curve.

3- The video referenced at the start of this section cautioned Occupy to limit their platform to as few as three items, with one of those, being the somewhat divisive anti-war plank. I see Occupy's future begin with acceptance.

Occupy must embrace the fact their agenda is not only liberal, it is liberal left. Their primary supporters come from the left. To implement even the generic agenda published by OWS, there will have to be extensive government regulation and intervention. To think "conservatives", "tea party folks" or even moderate Republicans will accept, much less support, these measures is illogical.

If the Occupy Movement is to continue and succeed they must set their agenda, they must frame the discussion, they must internally distribute their talking points, they must take the initiative and the lead when joining actions with other groups, and they must be aggressive when negotiating with anyone.

4- From day one, the Occupy Movement began the fight to keep itself non-partisan, fearing takeover attempts by the Democratic Party and their allies. The Occupiers (depending on the local) excluded or frowned upon other political parties as well. With this, is Occupy making a fatal mistake?

The distance they put between themselves and the Democrats is a necessity; however, by discounting all electoral politics and reform measures they may bring, they have greatly limited their options. This attitude will resonate with the Anarchists and others who feel politics will only let us down again, the masses of America are waiting for proposed solutions, and steps to achieve them even if they are incremental.

There are two political parties which Occupy could align with and would not have to sacrifice principles, nor make concessions to, the Green Party and the Socialist Party. An alliance with one or both would provide Occupy with a political arm to seek reform while continuing direct action.

5- The Occupy Movement does face some opposition. The media, after the initial stories, largely ignore the local groups unless something "newsworthy" occurs, and generally this will portray Occupy in a negative light. But it is primarily opposition by omission. At the regional and national level it is generally better coverage from the Occupiers standpoint, but it does little good if local folks are not told that they too have an encampment they could visit or support.

Another opponent of Occupy is attrition. How long is someone willing to camp out in the cold, rain, ice and snow? When individuals cause a situation, or when a faction of people rebel against the majority of the group, how strong is the group that is left? When you have been protesting for months and have seen no tangible change, a large part of America are not aware you are still there, and even less can tell what your objectives are, how high can the groups morale be?

Finally the main opponent of Occupy, the government and their agents, the police. Ultimately their actions could be terminal for the Movement. Several encampments have been destroyed and others have cleared, while at the same time, numerous cities and states around the country are debating laws that limit the actions of an Occupy group, including where and for how long tents can be set up.

Police action, depending on the state or region, has been on occasion heavy handed and in some cases brutal. There is little doubt that as time marches on, nerves will become frayed and frustration will set in, and as that happens police crackdowns will begin in earnest. In this case confrontations will increase, and police methods will escalate meaning more confrontations etc...etc... As the threat of violence and/or arrest increases older people, people with youngsters, and people who can't afford arrest for whatever reason will curtail their participation. As the crowd thins, police tactics will become more aggressive, as there will be little risk of "collateral damage", and everyone on site will be seen as an arrest target.

Will the Occupy Movement Fail?

Sadly I believe it will fail as it exists today. It's participants and supporters seem to believe change can happen overnight, it doesn't. It took the right wing nuts 40 years to get us where we are today; Occupy has been going for about 4 months. No, there is a lot of work to do that will take dedication, action, perseverance, and most important the Will that comes from knowing your mission is just.

Teabaggers removed the stigma

Through partisan charged "hate speech" Republicans and Teabaggers have brought Socialism back into the main stream. Starting in January 2009, Republicans began labeling Obama and his policies "socialist". The Teabaggers took it to the next level with signs, t-shirts, etc... However, by over-use and miss-use, the average American no longer "fears" the word socialism.

Any rational person looking at the facts knows Obama is no socialist, and in fact leans to the right. Perhaps no program Obama supported demonstrates his position better than health care. This one program sent Teabaggers off the deep end, and kick started the "Obama is a socialist" rhetoric.

A true progressive program, universal single payer health care was never placed on the table by Obama or the Democrats. The best they were hoping for was a public option, but even this was removed with no real fight and very little protest. What was left was a watered down program that still provided some consumer protections, and this was deemed socialist by the Teabaggers.

The irony of calling Obama's health care "socialist" is that it is nothing more than a national version of the state plan signed by Republican Mitt Romney. The same can be said of the "Eco-socialist" cap and trade bill, which was originally a program supported by McCain and Palin in '08, and the "takeover" resulting from bail outs, the first at the urging of Republican president George W. Bush.

Other "anti-socialist" stands Obama takes is an increase in the Afghan war, continuing the Iraqi occupation, keeping Guantanamo opened, folding on tax increases for the wealthy, etc...

Despite this lack of socialist sympathy, Republicans, Teabaggers, and conservative media pushes the idea that "Obama is a socialist". And this is where their rhetoric is pushing back against them.

Most Americans have been helped, or will be helped, by the health care changes. They have a positive feeling toward the changes, and they are increasingly asking themselves 'is this socialism?'.

Most Americans agree with energy independence, conservation, and environmental issues. After listening to conservatives they are asking themselves 'does this make me a socialist?'.

Americans like Social Security and Medicare, they support universal health care, they want bridges, roads, parks, schools, and public safety. And because of conservatives they have to ask themselves, 'does this make me a socialist?'.

In the United States Senate Bernie Sanders representing Vermont is a self-identified Democratic-Socialist. Sixty years ago he would have faced Congressional hearings and possibly jail. Ten years ago he was a frequently ignored member of the House. Today he is considered as the leader of Senate progressives.

Lawrence O'Donnell, who hosts the show "Last Word" on MSNBC, has stated that he is a Socialist. Just a few years ago this would have resulted in his termination, now it sparks debate. Other leftist and moderate anchors and commentators are also discussing Socialism as just another form of political expression. This stands in stark contrast to the "demon socialist agenda" conservatives attempt to portray.

At a time when the economy is in the tank, unemployment is reaching depression numbers, poverty is increasing, and the middle class is disappearing, the conservatives picked the wrong time to bring Socialism into the mainstream.

There is almost no chance of a "Socialist resurgence" in 2012, however, Socialism and the Socialist platform will be a part of the debate in the years to come.

Because of Republican and Teabagger hatred of Obama, Socialists have their best chance in seventy years to make an inroad into mainstream politics.

Economic Guidelines in Cuba

In May, 2011, the Communist Party of Cuba enacted guidelines which will reform the economic model of the Island nation. These 313 guidelines will improve the economic competitiveness of Cuba, and maintain the Socialist nature of the Revolution.

The most exciting changes are in the areas of Agriculture, Small Business, and Private Property ownership. While there will be government oversight to prevent abuses and exploitation, entrepreneurship and pride of ownership will be beneficial to the people of Cuba.

Agriculture: There have been many acres of un-used farmland, and the new guidelines hope to address this problem. Tracts of un-used land will be made available to individuals and co-operatives, and loans will be made available for the purchase of equipment and other start-up costs. The aim of these agricultural guidelines are to reduce the amount of imported food products to Cuba, provide self-employment opportunities, and in some cases, provide export material that would benefit the general economy.

Small Business: Small businesses such as barber shops, coffee houses, diners, etc... are receiving permits and hiring employees. This may develop into a large part of the Cuban economy as tourism continues to grow. There will be thousands of self-employment/employment opportunities available as people from around the world discover Cuba as a travel destination.

On this same topic, restrictions and regulations on appliances have been eased. This reform is made possible due to improvements in Cuba's electric grid, and the continuing development of alternative energy. These changes were needed to ensure the best chance of success of the self-employed, and the needs of the continually growing tourism industry.

Private Property: With the changes in self-employment and agriculture, it was necessary to make some changes in property law. People will need a place to conduct business, there will be a need for vehicles for deliveries, and farmers will need to get produce to market. Also property owners, especially multi-family units, will invest in repairs and improvements on their property. This will save public funds and provide self-employment opportunities to those making the repairs.

While most of the guidelines were fully supported, two caused some concern, the elimination of some government jobs, and the phase out of the coupon book. The jobs being cut are those that are redundant or unproductive and therefore unsustainable. With transfers to other government positions, self-employment, and the increase in private sector jobs, the impact of the loss of these jobs will be minimal.

The phase out of the coupon book is perhaps the biggest concern for the average citizen. What many don't understand it that continued subsidies are not sustainable, in part because they are across the board. Many who don't need these subsidies are selling these goods on the black market, which is theft of public funds and creates an environment for other criminal activity.

Proper nutrition is important for the workforce, students, and the general health of the nation. Programs will be set up to provide for those who need assistance, and citizens will not be left "in the cold".

Healthcare and Education, two of Cuba's most successful endeavors, will not see substantial changes. They will still be provided by the national government, and any alterations will be re-directing focus and improving services.

The PCC and leadership of Cuba have adopted a pro-active and forward looking view in the implementation of this guideline package. Socialism is a dynamic science, and Cuba is enacting reforms which will carry the Revolution into future generations.