Romney and Santorum

I'm trying to avoid feeling overconfident; I really am. But as I watch the Republican primary unfold, I keep thinking it's looking more and more like 1984 in reverse.
Check out Jonathan Chait's piece in New York:

In all probability, Romney’s campaign against Santorum will work. What’s Santorum going to say – that Republicans always vote for the debt ceiling when there’s a Republican president, and that opposition to it is nothing but disingenuous partisan posturing that both sides used until last year, when it got out of hand and Republicans almost crashed the world economy with it? If the debt-ceiling issue became the vehicle for persuading the Republican base to nominate the least sincerely conservative candidate in the field, that would really be poetic justice for the tea party.

The 2012 Voting Begins

Finally, tonight, people get to make their preferences known in the 2012 presidential campaign.

True, it's a very, very tiny number of people, relative to the number who will vote in November. But still, it marks an important milestone, and an occasion for predictions. Here are mine:

1) Ron Paul will win the Republican Iowa caucuses. I realize I'm going way out on a limb here, but it seems that the party has been trending more and more toward Kooky over the last three years, and they don't get much kookier than Paul. Republicans have threatened so often to shut down the government that you have to believe that's actually a goal of many of them. And those are the kind of people who turn out in Iowa for the caucuses. Though the other candidates may try, nobody's more anti-government than Paul. Paul's support has famously always been small but intense, and that's also the kind of support that can shine in Iowa in January.

2) There are a few names we won't have to hear anymore. As soon as all the votes are counted, several candidates are going to be counted out. I'm looking at you, Bachman. You too, Perry. You three, Gingrich. The latter may hang in there for a couple of weeks, but he's toast. Expect the first two to drop out before the circus gets to New Hampshire.

3) In the end, Romney will be the nominee. And I suspect we'll know this by about April.

Will She Run? I Doubt It

Sarah Palin is making the rounds in Iowa and New Hampshire again. Tonight, she's speaking to the Tea Party in a much-ballyhooed event that some people think will be an announcement that she's running for president.

John Fund of Newsmax.com doesn't think so.

No, I don’t have “inside information,” other than that Sarah Palin has had the time of her life playing the media and political class like a fiddle by making them respond to her every Twitter twitch. She has gotten a platform for her views at places ranging from Iowa to the World Economic Forum in South Korea next month. For someone who will use her Tea Party speeches this weekend to express her disdain for how the media and the political class have let this country down, the consternation she’s caused is sweet revenge.

But her ability to make reporters and pundits dance to her tune is ending. She clearly isn’t prepared to announce this weekend. When asked recently in Iowa if she would be ready to join the race by Labor Day, Palin said "I doubt it."

Fund thinks she'll wind up endorsing Rick Perry. Slate's David Weigel thinks a Perry endorsement will serve to twist the knife in Michele Bachman.

For all her cognitive faults, I have to believe that Sarah Palin understands she won't be elected president. She must know that any influence she can have on the nation is as a celebrity, not as a government official.

But that doesn't mean she's saying no, not anytime soon, anyway. As long as she can keep us guessing, she will retain her ability to stay on the news and rake in cash—cash that she can use next year to support candidates who bow before her she likes. As soon as she admits she's not running, most of that goes away. Heck, even if she does decide to run, she'll find she gets a lot less attention than she does now, because she'll only be one of a group of candidates, not the media queen she is now.

 

So don't expect an announcement either way, particularly this weekend. My guess is that sometime this fall, when it finally becomes clear to everyone else that it's way too late to mount a presidential campaign anyway, she make a "major announcement" that she's not going to run. As for endorsing someone else, don't expect that until sometime next winter, after the first few primaries have winnowed the field to just a couple of contenders.

"Debt Crisis"

   I'm getting a little tired of hearing John Boehner on the news talking about solving the "debt crisis."
    There is no debt crisis. There's a debt problem, sure: we're spending more than we're taking in. But the fact that we're bumping up against our debt ceiling is not a crisis ... unless we fail to raise the ceiling. Then, yes, it's a crisis, but it will be a political and economic crisis, not a debt crisis.
   It's a function of how successfully the Republicans and the Tea Party have twisted our perceptions around  that people think we have an immediate debt or deficit crisis.
    We don't.
   Next week's crisis can be easily avoided by passing a clean bill to raise—or better yet, eliminate—the debt ceiling. There's no reason in the world not to do that, unless you want to hold the economy hostage in an attempt to wring political changes out of the administration.
   And that's of course the game the Republicans are playing: by endless repetition of their loaded talking points, they want to make everyone think that what they're doing is an effort to lower the budget deficit. Of course, if it were so critical to lower the deficit, they'd be willing to raise taxes from their current lowest-since-WWII levels. Instead, they just want to chop off critical parts of the government, and in the process, they're willing to take the economy to the edge—and maybe over—the cliff.

The Dumbest E-Mail Ever?

I got what may be one of the dumbest e-mails ever the other day. It came to my work address, from someone I've only met a couple of times, but someone I deal with a lot in e-mail; it was kind of a shock, because I wouldn't have expected something like this from that person.
Like a lot of these things, it was undoubtedly forwarded through a lot of people before it reached my inbox. And in fact, the person who sent it to me also sent it to at least 20 other people.
Here's the text of the e-mail, and the pictures:

An alarming observation … The United States flag is no more.  Look carefully.

For a long time, we have noticed that the decor at the White House has changed since BHO moved in.

The Oval Office is now stripped of the traditional red, white, and blue, and replaced with middle eastern wallpaper, drapes, and decor.

The hallway that he walks out of to talk to the press now has middle eastern chairs, drapes, etc. And the thing that has bothered me the most is the bright yellow drape behind him every time he speaks from the White House. It has Arabic symbols on it and has been there from the beginning.

Today I received this and it clearly shows what I have been noticing. That bright yellow curtain is highly visible, but as you scroll down, you will see what is predominantly absent.  Also, as you look at the pictures of other presidents speaking from the same spot, look at the traditional 'American' background and decor as opposed to the new decor.  Trust me when I say that this is intentional.  It should alarm every American.

What is missing at Barack Hussein Obama's press conference?

No it is not the teleprompters. See the other president's pictures for a clue.

Above are the pictures that came along with the e-mail. As you can see, every recent previous president (even that commie philandering liar, Bill Clinton) spoke with American flags behind him.
Where to start in discussing the logical fallacies, the outright falsehoods and the ridiculous innuendos?
First, of course, the Obama picture wasn't taken in the oval office; none of them were. Presidents don't have press conferences in the oval office. Or even speeches, except on rare occasions, and then they're sitting at the desk, not standing at a podium.
Second, anyone can go to Google Images and enter "Obama speech" and come up with millions of pictures of Obama speaking in front of flags; same for all of the other presidents shown.
And "Middle Eastern" decor? Really? 
It's all part of a meme being pushed by some who want to make people think that Obama is not an American like "the rest of us." The "birthers" don't want to concede anything. We went through the same thing a couple of years ago with flag pins ... and now every candidate has to wear a flag pin, or risk having some moron ask, "What, don't you love America?"
I can remember another mass-forward e-mail, from a different colleague (yeah, maybe I need different colleagues), that used a bunch of carefully selected pictures to try to convince me that Obama is Muslim. The last picture in that series was a shot of one of the planes crashing into the World Trade Center on 9/11 — a warning, I guess of what happens to us when we elect un-American, Muslim presidents.

'That's The Kind Of Demagoguery You Hear From The Other Side...'

   Don't you love it when politicians call each other demagogues? Rep. Tom Price (R-Ga.) was on NPR's All Things Considered with Melissa Block yesterday, and took the opportunity to accuse "the other side"—meaning Democrats—of demagoguery. Check it out:

   BLOCK: When you hear House Speaker John Boehner say that tax hikes are off the table, I wonder how you interpret that because, evidently, they are discussing a number of ways that would increase revenue - including eliminating things like the tax breaks on hedge fund managers, corporate jet owners, closing loopholes like that. Would that be acceptable to you?
   Rep. PRICE: Well, in fact, our budget proposed decreasing the loopholes and closing many loopholes so that we broaden the base of taxation in this country and lower the rate. But please understand, the American people know that tax increases don't create a single job and that we're not in this boat right now because the Washington tax is too little. We're in this boat because Washington spends too much.
   So, the American people are not interested in having a tax increase. The American people understand that Washington spends way too much money and we need to get our fiscal house in order by decreasing the size, scope and reach of Washington, as well as decreasing the spending from the federal government.
   BLOCK: Is there a risk, though, when you speak of what the American people want that they will perceive, they will look at what's going on and say, Congress -Republicans in Congress - are fighting to protect the wealthiest among us, corporate jet owners and hedge fund managers, what about me? You are cutting my Medicare. You're cutting my Social Security.
   Rep. PRICE: Well, that's the kind of demagoguery that you hear from the other side, but I think the people are smarter than that.

   Price performs a very artful dance in just a few seconds between claiming that "tax increases don't create a single job ad we're not in this boat right now because Washington taxes too little" and then—when the host asks whether opposing tax hikes while favoring cuts in entitlements won't be perceived as favoring the wealthy—claiming that her question is "the kind of demagoguery that you hear from the other side."

   Now, there are different definitions of the word “demagogue.” dictionary.com leads with: “a person, especially an orator or political leader, who gains power and popularity by arousing the emotions, passions, and prejudices of the people,” and I guess that’s good enough for our purposes today.

   Rep. Price wants us to think it’s the Democrats who are “arousing the emotions, passions and prejudices of the people.” And, OK, I’ll admit that people do tend to get passionate when you talk about completely overhauling Medicare or cutting Social Security—which are precisely the policies Republicans are advocating.
   But what, exactly, should we call it when Rep. Price says  “The American people know that tax increases don’t create a single job and that we’re not in this boat right now because Washington taxes too little”?

   In fact, no one claimed that tax increases create jobs (although we know from the last 10 years that tax cuts don’t create jobs either). But beyond a doubt, the 2001 tax cuts were a major factor in the current budget deficit, which is the “boat” that Rep. Price is really talking about. He claims enough money can be saved by cutting spending in the departments of Interior and Commerce to allow the government to meet its other obligations, which even he must know is a laughable assertion.
   Demagoguery, Rep. Price, is blaming our problems on “Washington” and claiming to speak for "the American people" without acknowledging that the solutions you’re proposing are going to severely hurt the very people you’re trying to court.

Welcome

Welcome to the Blue Missouri blog!

This blog will represent my Missouri-bred take on national politics, which may or may not differ from what you read from East Coast-based commentators.

The title is perhaps wishful thinking. Missouri is far from a "blue" state; in fact, it seems to be getting redder every day. But the state seems to be somewhat politically fickle, and, over time, it seems to teeter back and forth. Maybe it's not quite as regular as a metronome, but it has definitely been a "swing state" in presidential elections. It lost its "bellweather" status in 2008, but only barely; although Obama won nationally, McCain squeaked out a tiny victory in Missouri, by just a few thousand votes. Before 2008, however, Missouri had correctly picked the winner of the previous 13 elections, and all but one of the previous 25.

I'll be watching with great interest over the coming months and years to see how this plays out. If I had to guess today, on Independence Day 2011, I would say that Missouri will go red in 2012. I hope not, but that's the way it looks from here.

The purpose of this blog, though, is not to cheer-lead for the Democrats;. I plan to call 'em as I see 'em. Without a doubt, I will have some bias; I have never voted for a Republican for president--unless you count John Anderson--and I don't expect I will next year, either. But that doesn't mean I'll turn a blind eye to the faults of the Democrats. Blue Missouri isn't here to push an agenda; its purpose is to provide a new set of eyes for issues that all too often are only viewed from a coastal perspective.

And even though "Missouri" is in the title, I don't expect to be writing much about Missouri state politics. Even though I've lived in this state for basically all my life, I've never paid a whole lot of attention to what goes on in Jefferson City. The states are the minor leagues of politics, and although I'm a fan, I'm not THAT big of a fan.

I do have a day job (unrelated to politics), so this won't be a source for breaking news. I'll write here when I can, however, and I hope you'll check in regularly as well. Thanks for reading.