I have received quite a bit of blow-back for last week’s suggestion that Hillary Clinton’s foreign policy performance has made her a powerful Democratic choice for VP, and perhaps for president. My point was about her political position; the Obama foreign policy legacy is a longer (and sadder) story, but it might as well begin here.

The big picture:

1. After a doubling of our forces in Afghanistan (truly Obama’s war), we are drawing down there, have exited Iraq (where America’s influence is rapidly being eclipsed by Iran), and have had a very light footprint in places such as Libya, Somalia, and Yemen.  Al Queda is decimated, but anti-Western Muslim fundamentalism lives; we just confront it in the way that Donald Rumsfeld advocated - with small special forces operations, the CIA, and the TSA. Most would agree that it is good to be ending the larger post-9/11 wars, and that the administration is “directionally correct.”

2. To a large extent Obama tried to reach out to our adversaries – Iran; North Korea; Cuba – offering talks with no preconditions, while slighting many friends: Great Britain (removing Churchill’s bust from the Capitol for example), Canada (the XL Pipeline for example); Mexico (Fast and Furious for example); Poland (missile defense agreements for example.) This got missile tests in Korea and the back of a hand from Iran and Castro. There have been few gestures of solidarity with other major allies – Japan (despite the potential to help after the tsunami), Germany (who seems to be alone in defending financial integrity in Europe), Israel (advocating a return to the ’67 borders). The” re-set” of the relation with Russia is over, as evidenced by Putin’s snub of the upcoming G-8 meeting in New York. Overall, it has been a naive rookie performance – more like Jimmy Carter than Nixon or Reagan.

3. For neo-isolationists on the Left and Right who think that the US should not get involved in other countries’ affairs Obama has generally been good news. The Arab Spring has come and gone with little effort by the US to help bend it in the direction of western democracy – first in Iran in 2009, then in Egypt and Libya, and now in Syria, where an overthrow of Assad would be a blow to Iran. The Obama Doctrine was accurately described in the liberal New Yorker as “leading from behind”.

4. Not much karma has been used in defending American companies around the world. Trade with China – including exchange rates, intellectual property protection, and Chinese import restrictions on things such as automotive products – is a big issue which Romney will emphasize. Brazil’s criminal prosecution of US oil industry executives for a relatively small spill draws no response. And then, there is no administration response to having the world’s highest corporate income tax rate.

In political terms, Obama’s general retreat from the international stage may have been what people want – reflecting exhaustion from the Iraq and Afghan wars. The bad news is that the world is a dangerous place (particularly Iran, Pakistan, and Korea) while America’s economic success is inevitably tied to our position as the world’s economic, political, monetary, and military leader – and the result of electing a president whose inclinations are against business and the military has been predictable.

—–

This week we have two videos: one in France where  the victorious Socialist, Francois  Hollande, has promised a 75% tax on the French 1%; the other in Oakland where we may soon have a combined state/federal rate of over 60% with the proposals of President Obama and Governor Brown.

www.rightinsanfrancisco.com

Lots of ink is being spilled over Romney’s VP choice – the alternatives, the criteria, the process being managed by long-time trusted lieutenant Beth Myers - but the decision which may have a greater impact on the November outcome may actually be on the Democratic side. The conventional wisdom is that Biden is a repeat, Hillary retires for awhile, and Mario Cuomo joins the two of them in competing for the 2016 presidential nomination. But maybe not.

The premise: Most observers anticipate a close election with likely voters now saying we are on the “wrong track” by a two to one margin, placing the economy as the most important issue by a double digit margin, and favoring Romney on the economy by a similar amount. Romney will want to focus on the current malaise and Obama’s lack of any long term solutions while Obama will want to focus on income inequality and anything else. Even the “I Man” must know that he needs help.

From Hillary’s perspective, assuming that she still wants the presidency when she turns 69 in 2016 (admittedly a big assumption), there are four possibilities: sit it out and compete to replace a President Romney (worst chance); sit it out and compete to succeed a reelected President Obama; be the loyal VP candidate and compete to replace a President Romney; or be a loyal VP and compete to follow a reelected President Obama (best chance; least work). She would, of course, have to be asked.

From David Axelrod’s perspective, Hillary’s labor support would have a strong chance to solidify key industrial swing states which are likely wins anyway (Pennsylvania; Michigan), a few that are true toss-ups (Wisconsin), and a few that are more tenuous, but on a “must have” list for Romney (Ohio). Ironically, in this fifth decade of feminism, the list of leading Democratic women is very short - Nancy Pelosi (nope), Debbie Wasserman-Schultz (nope), Maxine Waters (nope). Bad luck,former Governor Jennifer Granholm of Michigan was born in Canada. Even with a reach, there is no Sarah Palin, Michele Bachmann, Nikki Haley, or Susana Martinez. And if Romney owns the economic issues, maybe it would be better to play up Hillary’s international experience.

Those who read the tea leaves make something of the apparent exclusion of Joe Biden from Obama’s weekly campaign meetings – although there are undoubtedly scratches on the outside of the door. Biden’s pushing of Obama into supporting gay marriage could have some impact on their relationship, and the former chair of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee might graciously accept a swap of roles. And if not Biden, who? The silence is deafening.

So, assuming that the Romney campaign is not asleep, what do you do about this woman who has rehabilitated herself to the point that Bush carry-over Secretary of Defense Robert Gates has described her as “Tough. Indefatigable. Patient. Smart. Knowledgeable. Superior political  instincts. Funny. Loyal team player. Finds opportunities in crises and  challenges. Skilled global advocate for American interests and American  values.” All of this has room for debate – and criticism of the handling of the Chen Guangcheng incident is aimed at Hillary as much as at Obama.

Who’d have thought that the Republicans would be hoping for another turn with Joe Biden?

—–

And in the spirit of providing equal time, this week’s video is a speech by Joe Biden praising  Jon Corzine as the smartest financial person he knows – just before Corzine bankrupted MF Global by betting on European bonds and inappropriately transferred $1.6 billion in client funds in a futile effort to cover his losses. At long last, somebody - Congressman Michael Grimm – is calling for Eric Holder to turn the investigation of $500,000 Obama bundler Corzine over to an independent counsel.

www.RightinSanFrancisco.com

OK, lets take a deep breath. Veterans and conservatives may be offended by President Obama’s self-promotion and the silly claim that Romney wouldn’t have given the SEALs a “Go”, but killing bin Laden is a political winner for President Obama – perhaps his biggest.  I’d like to focus on two aspects that the mainstream media will note only in passing, if at all.

1. It is the policies put in place by President George W. Bush and opposed by candidate Barack Obama which allowed this national success. Specifically, and unquestionably, the harsh interrogation of key prisoners – 9/11 mastermind Khalid Sheikh Mohammed, al Queda operations chief Abu Faraj al-Libi, “20th hijacker” Muhammad Mani al-Qahtani, and Hassan Ghul, an associate of al Queda in Iraq leader Abu Musab al Zarqawi – at Guantanamo Bay and CIA “black sites” led to the identification of the courier who was Osama bin Laden’s primary contact with the outside world. The courier led the CIA to bin Laden. For the remaining “deniers”, this article on Red State by Dan McLaughlin lays it out in excruciating detail.

Obama has closed the “black sites” and stopped rendition to prisons in countries with lower treatment standards. Holder’s brief effort to prosecute CIA interrogators has been put in abeyance – at least until after the election.   The Obama / Holder objective of closing Guantanamo and trying terrorists in civilian courts in New York has been defeated by Republicans in Congress.  The current policy of drone assassinations which avoids risk to ground troops and the legal thicket of where prisoners should be held and tried unfortunately also forecloses any opportunity for intelligence gathering.

For those who think moral purity trumps national security, the killing of bin Lden is “Bush’s fault.”

2. Still on this “enhanced interrogation” theme,  former House Speaker Nancy Pelosi gets the prize for the greatest chutzpah of the You Tube age for this 2009 performance in which she claimed that the CIA had lied to her and that she was never briefed on the fact that “enhanced interrogation techniques” such as water-boarding were being used.  Unfortunately for Nancy, recently retired CIA Clandestine Service manager Jose Rodriguez has discussed in a book, Hard Measures, both the measures that were used and the detail in which he explained them to the Speaker.

Don’t expect an apology.

And one final thought on the politics of it all: there is a rhythm to the campaign and a shelf life on the public’s interest in any subject. The Romney campaign is playing it best with congratulations for all, and perhaps wondering why Axelrod played his biggest trump so early in the game.

—–

To take the discussion one step further, this week’s video is a conversation between former Attorney General Ed Meese, Newt Gingrich, and Ron Paul relative to renewal of the Patriot Act. Last year the secret Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA) Court heard 1745 requests for wiretaps and espionage surveillance, approving them all. Perhaps if Washington is all-Republican, we can have a good discussion of the trade-offs without the partisan posturing.

www.RightinSanFrancisco.com

To quote America’s greatest philosopher, Yogi Berra, “It’s tough to make predictions, especially about the future.” But, with so much riding on November’s elections, everybody wants a good clue. The election of Scott Brown to Massachusetts’ “Kennedy Senate Seat” in January 2010 was a good harbinger of the Tea Party revolt that swept that year’s mid-term elections. That was a surprise. The Scott Walker recall election in Wisconsin comes with trumpets sounding and bells ringing.

A bit of background:

- Walker was elected in November 2010, with a commitment to fix a $3.6 billion dollar budget deficit. He succeeded in the short run in part by requiring public employees to contribute to pensions and health care, and in the long run by removing those subjects from collective bargaining and making membership in public employee unions voluntary. Along the way he instituted a property tax cap, passed a voter ID law (since overturned), and freed local school districts from a requirement to purchase insurance from a corrupt plan run by the teacher’s union.

- In less than a year he succeeded beyond expectations. The state budget gap was closed and local property taxes were actually lowered - except in Milwaukee, Racine, and Kenosha, union strongholds where sweetheart contracts were signed before the effective date of Walker’s reforms. Unemployment has dropped from 7.7 to 6.9 % and Walker has highlighted the difference from neighboring Illinois which chose to close their gap with a 66 % personal income tax rate increase.

- While local officials appreciate the lower labor costs and taxes, the public employee unions are apoplectic. Their 2011 recall effort fell slightly short against a state supreme court judge who approved the anti-union laws; two state senators were recalled, leaving the Republicans with a bare majority. (Another small wave of senate recall votes in June promises to fail.) The state assembly remains 59-39 Republican for the moment.

And a bit of broader perspective:

- Wisconsin has a long history of colorful politicians – Progressive “Fighting Bob” LaFollett; anti-communist Senator Joseph McCarthy; Senator William Proxmire of “Golden Fleece Awards” fame; the birthplace of the anti-slavery Republican Party; the home of the John Birch Society. The state is both strongly liberal and strongly conservative. The industrial southeast quadrant is strongly pro-union. The public has been subjected to two years of a non-stop political brawl.

- Wisconsin is a swing state whose 10 electoral votes have gone Democratic in the past three presidential elections. More recently, Reince Priebus, the new chair of the national Republican Party, oversaw a renaissance there which has included the election of Tea Party favorite Senator Ron Johnson (who defeated liberal icon Russ Feingold), a take-over of the governorship and both legislative chambers, and replacement of long-time Democrat House Budget Committee Chair David Obey by Sean Duffy. (The delegation is now 5-3 Republican, including Paul Ryan.) The wave promises to continue this year with the retirement of four-term Democratic Senator Herb Kohl who is favored to be replaced with a Republican.

And in the Walker recall election:

-  The big kahuna – now that the requisite year has passed since Walker’s taking office, it is his turn to face the union-led do-over effort.

- This is a contest between long-time adversaries. Tom Barrett, the Democratic establishment mayor of Milwaukee lost to Walker, the Milwaukee County Executive, by 52-47% in 2010. The third contender, liberal Madison-based Kathleen Falk, has, like Barrett, been running unsuccessfully for governor for a decade. Since Mayor Barrett has used some of Walker’s reforms to rein in Milwaukee workers, the unions have supported Falk in the May 8 Democratic primary, but the public disagrees and Barrett is favored to face Walker in the June 5 election.

- Polling has been volatile and reflective of a year of negative ads.   Current polling by Democratic pollster PPP and the Daily Kos  shows Walker ahead of Barrett by five points or Falk by seven, gaining among independent voters, and benefiting from the contest between the two Democrats as the only candidate whose “favorables” exceed their “unfavorables”. Amazingly, he is above 50% after a year of virulent attacks.

This election is a big deal in itself, but it also will provide a glimpse on whether Tea Party enthusiasm has crested in the industrial Midwest, whether the movement to rein in public employee unions has legs, and whether the Republicans are likely to carry Wisconsin’s 10 electoral votes and pick up one of the four seats that they need to gain control of the Senate. June 5 is by far the most important political day yet in 2012.

—–

This week’s video is a stunning clip of the Republican nominee to defeat Utah’s only Democratic congressman – Mia Love, a typical articulate female Mormon Haitian immigrant.

www.RightinSanFrancisco.com

Income tax day brings out a lot of easy symbolic stuff – Tea (Taxed Enough Already) Party rallies; hopeless Senate “Buffet Rule” votes; hopeless House “Small Business Tax Cut” votes – but the heavy damage will come at the end of the year with a lot of things that President Obama deferred until after the election. For that discussion it is worth remembering what taxes are for, beyond demagoging. Three perspectives.

1. We need to pay for government and, as Justice Holmes noted, “taxes are the price which we pay for a civilized society.” We seem to have temporarily found a way around this as 42 cents on the dollar of what the federal government spends is borrowed as a result of the “Bush tax cuts”, Obama’s increase in federal spending to 24% of GDP, and the ongoing Obama economic malaise. The Grover Norquist view is that we need to shrink government back to 19% rather than increase any taxes; the Simpson-Bowles Commission recommended three for one spending cuts over tax increases. With a $15 trillion dollar deficit, conservatives want a Balanced Budget Amendment like almost all states have. Most discussion is on the Republican side of mid-field.

2. We need a tax code which stimulates rather than inhibits the economy. Our corporate rates are the the world’s highest (for those who pay them) and encourage companies to keep their foreign profits offshore. Republican orthodoxy sometimes claims that the Laffer Curve (lower rates lead to higher economic activity and more tax revenue) offers much opportunity, but we are probably around the break-even point now. (Pick your economist.)  The personal tax code (which also applies to most small businesses) also contains decades of lobbyist-driven complication – deductions; credits; capital gains rates; dividend rates; estate taxes; alternative minimum taxes; income from Limited Liability Companies; health savings accounts; estate taxes; gift taxes; and on and on. Nobody but the lobbyists and paid tax-preparers likes it.

3. Unequal taxes can make an unfair society a bit more fair. As it is, globalization and technology have greatly increased income inequality in most countries, and we have responded by exempting almost half of our workers from paying any income taxes. (In fairness, all do pay Social Security, Medicare, and sales taxes.)  A majority of voters believe that high end earners should pay a larger share than their current 35% – a historically low rate unless you add up to 10% state levies in many Deep Blue states. Increasing taxes on somebody else is quite popular. Advantage Democrats.

The good news for Republicans, taxes will be a big issue as Romney turns from Santorum et al to Obama:

– Paul Ryan and Mitt Romney recommend that we eliminate loopholes which distort economic activity and reduce rates to be about revenue neutral. If Romney wins and has a Republican Congress, there will be a battle for the right balance between the “lower the taxes” and “lower the deficit” constituencies. IMHO the Tea Party will be in the latter camp, accepting some net increases.

–  The Obama alternative – an automatic increase of $600 to $700 billion per year as all of the “Bush tax cuts” expire on December 31, Social Security taxes go back up, the Obamacare Medicare tax kicks in, capital gains and dividend taxes double or triple, estate tax levels escalate, and a whole passel of other Obama rulings take place.

The period of easy demagoguery will soon move to a real policy debate for which Romney seems the much better prepared.

—–

My apologies for the negativity of last week’s “Deliberate Mean-Spirited Distortions” posting. Here’s David Axelrod endorsing Mitt Romney. Well, almost.

And a bonus for those who look to California to see America’s future – an opinion piece from the former mayor of San Diego.

www.RightinSanFrancisco.com

‘Tis the season. In the last month I’ve attended lots of political speeches – Chris Cristie, Newt Gingrich, Mitt Romney, Daryl Issa, Condi Rice, Sean Duffy, Michael Grimm, Kevin McCarthy, Meg Whitman -receiving  much entertainment and a bit of education. The insight with the most resonance was Meg Whitman’s observation in comparing the business and political worlds that the latter is replete with “deliberate, mean-spirited distortions.”  Whatever one thinks of Meg, this is an interesting observation.

For anyone needing an explanation of what she is talking about, take the George Zimmerman case in which NBC edited the tapes of the Trayvon Martin shooting to make it look as if the shooter was racially motivated. Deliberate. Mean-spirited. Distortion.  With an agenda. The surprise is not that the main stream media did this, it is that the Washington Post called them on it.

The first skeptical reaction to Meg is to say that business is really the same. Not so. Exaggerations in advertising claims, sure. Excessive optimism in internal department or project advocacy, sure. Puffery in personnel performance evaluations, sure.  But, particularly internally, leaders are looking for objective, fact based answers and there is not much tolerance for deliberate distortion. And “mean-spirited”?  In 26 years of corporate life I can only think of a handful of cases where facts were deliberately distorted to harm individuals.

The second skeptical reaction is to say that it is equally true of both parties. As for the pundits, probably so – Rush Limbaugh and some of the Fox commentators are not much different from Randy Rhodes and the MSNBC crowd.  But a quick You Tube  search of the party leaders, Debbie Wasserman-Schultz for the Democrats and Reince Priebus for the Republicans, shows one with lots of vitriol and personal attacks while the other much more focused on political processes and positives of their own party. A comparison of the prior leaders, Howard Dean and Michael Steele, would show the same. If there is a Republican equivalent of the Democratic ad showing Paul Ryan pushing a grandmother in a wheelchair off of a cliff, I have not seen it.

The personal nature of the attacks is also different. The Republican story line is “Barack Obama may be a nice follow, but he was not equipped to be president and he has the wrong policies.” Concede the “who’d you prefer to have a beer with?” factor. The Democratic story line is “Mitt Romney may be a good manager, but he doesn’t care about anybody but the rich.” Maybe “political correctness” protects Obama from the personal attacks (except in the fringe blogosphere), but Romney is not so lucky.  And did you hear that he is a Mormon?

With Carter-like economic malaise and a presidential vision of America which does not fit the center-right country, the central Democratic strategy has to be a broad ranging personal attack on Mitt Romney.  And any vice-presidential candidate – particularly Marco Rubio of Florida or Susanna Martinez of New Mexico – needs to understand that the Sarah Palin treatment awaits. What Meg experienced was minor league in comparison to the upcoming billion dollars of deliberate, mean-spirited distortions.

—–

And here’s a brief introduction to those who do not know the new Masters champion, Bubba Watson.

www.RightinSanFrancisco.com

Let me push this envelope a bit further than most pundits are willing to go. I don’t believe that the Court’s decision on ObamaCare will reflect any belated reaction to the President’s unprecedented snub of the Court at his 2010 State of the Union presentation to Congress. I also don’t think that the justices will be intimidated by his inappropriate and erroneous demagoging of the Courts rights and obligations – or that they will over-react in the opposite direction.  (Do read Leon Wolf’s posting on Red State.)   But I do believe that the members are not blank sheets upon which Truth is projected.

Background item I. The March 27-29 hearing on ObamaCare in which Justices Roberts, Scalia, and Kennedy unsuccessfully sought to find, under the administration’s theory, if there were any limits on the power of the federal government relative to the individual if the individual mandate were allowed to stand.  Even many liberals were disappointed by Solicitor General Verrilli’s inability to provide an answer. A theoretical question? Perhaps not.

Background item II. The January pronouncement by HHS Secretary Sebelius that the mandatory insurance to be provided by all employers must include “free” contraceptives, sterilization, and morning after (abortion) pills. If we are to have mandatory insurance, we need clear definitions of what must be covered. If the administration’s decision to re-neg on commitments to Congressman Stupak and others to exclude abortion from the legislation results in a mandate which offends Catholic employers – or any employer for that matter – they need to get over it.

And who are these members of the Supreme Court in this center-right country where the most visible religious group are the Protestant evangelicals?  Three Jews (Ginsberg; Breyer; Kagan) and six Catholics (Roberts; Scalia; Kennedy; Thomas; Alito; and Sotomayor.) Coincidence? Not really.  Presidents Reagan (Scalia; Kennedy), HW Bush (Thomas), and GW Bush (Roberts; Alito) have chosen to not re-fight Roe v Wade in their Senate confirmation hearings. Observant Catholics were equally conservative and more acceptable than observant Protestants, and – in the eyes of Republican presidents – less controversial.

So President Obama finds himself arguing to expand the power of the state, overriding both the conservative view of the constitution’s importance and the Catholic Church’s moral objections. And he gets a Supreme Court full of Catholics.  This is not to say that the majority of the Court agrees with the Catholic Church’s teachings on abortion or any other matter. It is to say that they understand more personally and profoundly than most the significance of allowing the federal government to force individuals as well as institutions to compromise their moral beliefs.

This didn’t come about by accident, and the political implications may favor Obama. He may well lose the guts of his major legislative accomplishment, but he seems to have outmaneuvered the Republicans (with the help of Rush Limbaugh) by letting the issue of Sibelius’ regulations be viewed as an assault on women rather than the unnecessary imposition of offensive requirements on those with religious or ethical objections. He is now setting the stage for an election theme that Republican control of the presidency and the Senate will result in locking in a disasterous conservative Supreme Court. It is ironic that Rick Santorum is not the candidate who would be using the prospect of overturning Roe v Wade in the 2012 election – Obama will be.

—–

Here’s a quick take of a recent House vote on a 2013 budget proposal – not Paul Ryan’s which passed 228-191, but President Obama’s which failed 409 to 0. I would offer a comparison with the Senate vote, but once again there is none.

www.RightinSanFrancisco.com

However Justice Kennedy votes, the Supreme Court’s action will not end the health care debate. A partial (seems likely)  or complete (possible) overturning of Obamacare will leave a large mess to be cleaned up. Likewise, affirmation would leave a large mess and a central election issue.

There is more than a little truth to Rick Santorum’s claim that nominating Mitt Romney puts at risk a major issue on which the voters side 56 to 39% with the Republicans - but only if Romney plays defense and does not  follow “Repeal” with “Replace”. This is one subject about which Mitt Romney has a deep understanding, and one which plays more easily in the election than in the primaries.  Lets hope that by summer he plays offense with a proposal about like this:

1. Obamacare has shown the dangers of a government take-over of health care in terms of intrusion into individual liberties, real financial costs, and an unacceptable burden on businesses and jobs. We need to start over, regardless of the Supreme Court’s decision. But we will start over.

2.  RomneyCare 3.0 (probably not a term that he will use) will be based on several realistic principles:

a. The demand for health care is infinite. The question is whether it is rationed by the government (“death panels”) , by private entities (employers; insurance companies); or by the individual (health saving accounts; choices on scope/cost of insurance purchased; co-pays). Republicans favor more decisions by the individual and fewer by the government.

b. Our society can afford a minimum level of medical care for all citizens. It is best to not have this occur in the emergency room. A voucher or tax credit system would cover all citizens and leave decisions in their hands. Citizens who wish to should be able to pay more for greater coverage as with Medicare.

c. Our current system is unnecessarily expensive. Medicaid should be structured as block grants to the states who would set their own parameters. Insurance should be purchased across state lines. Tort reform is needed to limit the cost of lawsuits and unnecessary tests. Federal agencies should be allowed to negotiate with pharmaceutical companies. Employer plans should be voluntary.  In short, all of the special interest compromises to buy support for Obamacare should be voided.

The Democrats are hoping that the public is tired of this discussion, that the amount of confusing detail and conflicting claims will prevent voters from re-thinking the controversy of 2009 – and that the simple alternative is “Medicare for All”.  What is needed by the Republican candidate is not cautious abandonment of the issue in the election – what is needed is a set of clear principles and good speechwriters. It would also help if there were a specific bill for John Boehner and Mitch McConnell to pass and President Romney to sign early in 2013.

—–

This week’s “bonus” is the brief section of Justice Anthony Kennedy’s discussion of the “individual mandate” in which the swing vote seems to lean heavily against the Obama administration’s lawyer – who incorrectly calls him the Chief Justice.

www.RightinSanFrancisco.com

President Obama has continued his campaign for civility and common ground with the observation that those who oppose his “green energy” policies are akin to the Flat Earth Society. Let’s take a brief look at the frequent media sop that the hayseed conservatives are the anti-science faction while the enlightened liberals are the 21st century’s objective thinkers.

An easy example: genetically-engineered foods. Somehow George Washington Carver’s development of hybrids was a marvelous step forward, while the application of DNA technology to seeds for corn, and soybeans results in “Frankenfoods.” Forget that these crops require fewer pesticides and fertilizers and less irrigation, that some 70% of US corn, 75% of cotton, and 94 % of soybeans are now genetically engineered, and that the ability of the planet to sustain its 7 billion human souls is dependent upon this type of technology. In San Francisco I still am asked to sign petitions to shut down that evil corporation Monsanto’s seed operations, and to require labelling which will, it is hoped, scare consumers to patronize local organic producers. Lets use the science.

A bit more difficult example, reflecting a breakdown in the “scientific method” (observation; formulation of hypothesis; prediction; and experimentation by independent scientists with various views): global warming. This posting from 2009 still provides a good review of the temperature realities, the potential causes, and a reasonable (scientific) approach to governmental response. Most of the media continues to ignore scientific malpractice of the proponents, using the erroneous “all scientists agree” theme while touting a warm American winter (and ignoring that global temperatures have cooled a bit from the past few years), and Al Gore and President Obama believe that a louder yell will overcome the lack of objective discussion. Lets use the science and really get this right.

And a most difficult example: intelligent design.  I was struck at a recent Bar Mitzvah by a Torah reference of God’s design of the human body. I thought that it was only Southern rubes who had the audacity to say this. In public! With no embarrassment! The liberal demand that a Godless evolution is the only acceptable explanation for how we got here and a complete one is patently false. What caused the Big Bang?; what caused the beginning of life?; who wrote the laws of mathematics, physics, and chemistry? Let a conservative utter any of this and beware the wrath of Rachel Madow for being “unscientific”.  Let’s understand the limitations of science.

Perhaps the Harvard professor, the superb politician, understands that science itself is not partisan but it can be a tool to marginalize those who disagree with him.  And just maybe in the echo chamber in which he lives, he really believes that he has the scientific Truth. I’m betting that the American public learned enough in high school to recognize that what “everybody knows” is often not true and that the volume level of one’s speech is inversely related to the quality of the content.

—–

This week’s audio is a collage from Red State upon the second anniversary of Obamacare. With significant public disapproval even before the Republican candidate rolls out his “repeal and replace” program, lets hope that the voters don’t get bored with the subject.

www.RightinSanFrancisco.com

One of the political truisms is that a lot will happen between now and November – for some the president will claim credit; for others it will be excuses and “there are no silver bullets”. Some he can affect; others he cannot – in the short term.

First, some that he can affect:

- Rile up the women’s vote. Give everybody “free” birth control and morning after pills. Paint it as a “women’s health” issue as we move from “choice” to “entitlement”.  Maybe some conservative broadcaster will blow the issue up. Maybe one of the Republican candidates will lock in on the immorality of contraception. Well done.

- Rile up the Hispanic vote. Sue those racists in Texas for requiring voter identifications. It’s OK that several states, including Connecticut, have similar laws and that the Supreme Court has said that they were legitimate. That’s not the point – the Republicans need 40% of the Hispanic vote. Well done.

And those that he cannot - at least in the short run – for they are a result of several years of policies and actions or inactions:

- Energy inflation – at the moment in the form of gas prices, but more broadly. Could he have allowed energy development on federal lands, in Alaska, off the coasts (including more in the Gulf)? Sure. Could he have shown some American leadership in the oil producing regions of the world? Sure. Could he have been a champion of North American energy independence with the highly symbolic Keystone Pipeline? Sure. Could he have forced a solution to the problem of nuclear waste disposal which serves as a block to new construction? Sure. Could he get a short term benefit by releasing the strategic oil reserve? Probably will. Could he get his energy secretary to stop saying that he favors “European level” gas prices? We’ll see.

- The Arab Spring – the missed opportunity to help shape and support a new political order from North Africa through the Middle East. These countries would not be liberal democracies, but it would seem that we have not tried to help pro-Western elements in Tunisia, Libya, Egypt, Yemen, or Syria. Whether help to the Iranian dissidents in 2009 would have made a difference is questionable, but we did nothing. If Egypt blows up it is their problem – and Israel’s and Obama’s.

- Afghanistan – Obama’s “good war”, as opposed to Bush’s “bad war” in Iraq. We’ve liquidated our position in Iraq and the American public doesn’t much care what happens – except as it affects gas prices. But Afghanistan – where Obama dithered for 6 months before deciding to “surge” our troop levels by 50% (while announcing a withdrawal date), and dithered again before deciding on a “handover” plan extending to 2014, and now under question.  Atrocities are inevitable in a war zone and feed the storyline of the Taliban – against the tens of thousands who are at risk if we leave precipitously. There is no good military or domestic political answer. To the rear … ‘harch.

Whatever “new news” comes up in the next several months, it is hard to see how this administration has laid the groundwork for a good outcome (except for claiming credit for the business cycle.) Hopefully the American voters will understand that longer term inept policies have led to the lack of silver bullets today.

——

Here’s the administration’s spokesman denying that there is a plan to release oil from the Strategic Oil Reserves which are intended for legitimate emergencies. When Jay Carney replaced Robert Gibbs in January 2011, the president deliberately chose somebody who was not in the inner circle and could speak untruth to the pliant media with the excuse that he just didn’t know what was going on. In a more positive vein, I wonder when Romney and Santorum will recognize the benefit of having a designated high profile spokesman to help run interference.

bill bowen – 3/16/12