JP Morgan-Chase Failure, Glass Steagall, Dodd-Frank and Financial Reform: The risk of underestimating investment banking losses!

Keywords or Terms: Investment Trading; Glass-Steagall Act; 2008 Recession; 1929 Depression; Wall Street; Dodd-Frank Financial Reform Law; Bankers; Insurance Brokerages; Trading in Derivatives; Volker Rule; JP Morgan Chase Bank; Jamie Dimon; Tempest in a tea cup; Two Billion Dollars; Politicizing Banking Reform; and Presidential Politics

During the past week, the nation has learnt of the huge loss by the Wall-Street biggest bank, JP Morgan-Chase. Many Americans wondered if banks learnt anything from the 2008 melt down of the nation's financial sector due to poor decisions and judgment regarding derivatives.

The ripple effect of trading in derivatives and the consequential impact of poor banking decisions at the nation’s biggest Wall-Street Bank are continuing to evolve; and, many Americans are wondering if it made sense to have jettisoned Glass Steagall Act. What is the Glass-Steagall Act? Glass-Steagall Act separated investment and commercial banking activities consequent to the 1929 stock market crash; a crash associated with improper banking activities just before the great depression. Unscrupulous financial banking activities that moved into stock market trading bemoaned the 1929 depression. In somewhat of a similar experience with the great depression, overzealous bankers forayed into risky derivatives trading at JP Morgan-Chase, an experience that once undermined the credibility of America’s financial sector in 2008.

The dynamics of hedging risks, or what investors are terming, gambling with investor's money, remain as confusing to investors just as it is to the public. Hedging risks while trading on derivatives looks a familiar strategy or practice to bankers and insurance brokerages; however, the average investor still sees this more of a mambo-jumbo; or magic. The excessive loss of a ginormous or humongous amount, simply referred to as a normal order of doing business in investment banking, is just too breath-taking. To appropriately quote Jamie Dimons, the loss of two billion investors' dollars in derivative trading is a "tempest in a tea port." Yet the apprehensive investors and public are wondering if the Chairman of JP Morgan-Chase appreciates the weight of his assessment or characterization. Many critics insist that, though JP. Morgan Chase is a trillion dollar corporation, two billion dollars loss, is still huge; and, characterizing this loss as just another order of doing business, is a painful underestimation of the real risk of bank derivatives trading; and one more good reason, why extensive regulations are necessary to dissuade risky trading in derivatives; an objective of Dodd-Frank Financial Reform law.

In as much as banks are expecting to face some risks, a reckless disregard for the weight of potential loss, are matter of concern to investors, and an issue that must be addressed and not underestimated. Hence, it is imperative that some tools and guidelines are in place to ameliorate risky behavior of bankers that may lead to excessive loss of investors’ money. In addition, there is the need to address other issues that are antecedent to derivative trading, which may seem very little, but can really undermine the whole investment banking sector and possibly, the whole economy. The concept of too big to fail is a reality for at least six of the biggest banks on Wall Street; and this reality, calls for responsible regulations not deregulation as sought by some bankers. The pattern of losses or failures associated with investment banking tells the whole industry that there is something missing that even well seasoned bankers can trip over, leading to huge losses of investor's money.

The financial industry and their lobbyists in congress, out of the desire to continue to engage in somewhat of an unsavory banking behavior, continue to ask for many exemptions, since the insitution of the financial reform law of 2010. Immediately Dodd Frank was signed into law by  Obama's Administration, many critics began to bemoan many of the provisions or safeguards in the law that would have prevented the type of failure at JP Morgan-Chase; and the loss of as much money as two billions dollars in a swap. Few critics indicated that the provisions in the law are stifling commerce and some regulatory goalposts in the law are unworkable. Dodd Frank Financial Reform Law, which is expected to reform trading in derivatives, was being questioned for over-regulations by the same financial gurus who were caught with their pants down in the Chase Bank loss.

The Volker rule that could have put some restraints in the way banks trade in derivatives, which had not come upstream, was until recently being bad-mouthed by the same Jamie Dimon, the Chairman of JP. Morgan-Chase Bank. While many objective minds, including some in the financial sector, insisted that we adhere to our initial game plan, that we hold fast to the reform that were recommended in Dodd-Frank, a few of the bankers advised that we better let the horses run wild on the plains. If we had not kept our eyes away from the ball, we as in investors, wouldn’t have been burnt badly, when investment bankers at JP Morgan Chase let their guards down and lost a huge some of money. Frankly, playing with fire burns badly; and as long as banks executives are not ready to take necessary precautions as recommended by Dodd-Frank, the investors and the public will continue to suffer loss and potential humiliation from wrongful investment decisions of investment bankers in derivatives. Like Grandma said: fool me once, shame on you; fool me twice, shame on me!

Investment Bankers’ choice to trade in risky derivatives is still very perplexing knowing what challenges are associated with this type of banking. For one, many investment bankers insist that they hardly understand how trading in derivatives work. A few of them who partly understand how it works, say it is fraught with unprecedented and or unpredictable risks that may cause huge financial loss to the banks and its investors. The ripple effect of a loss of two billion dollars or more from derivatives trading by the investment arm of the biggest Wall-Street Bank, a leader in the banking sector, which is claimed to be led with a bright mind in Mr. Dimon, still lost big time; what do we expect from other smaller banks getting into this realm of investment banking that seem so much of a misery? To continue to be looking away and allowing the so-called too big to fail banks to continue with their reckless investment trading without more stringent regulations, is tantamount to putting the faith of our economy in the hands of gamblers; as banker fail to appreciate their limitations under this kind of trading; and or, the huge risk. The unwillingness of investment bankers to concede to some degree of regulations, to help temper excessive risks in this kind of investment trading, will probably end up being their waterloo; and if the nation allows these rascals to continue to run loose, there is the possibility of future bank failures due to excessive risks undertaken in investment trading in derivatives.

We all by now are familiar with the unfortunate term of too big to fail. The reality that there are at least six banks on Wall Street today in this category, makes it all the more imperative that, deregulation of the banking and or financial industry can no longer be tolerated, that more regulations are essential, if we are not to fall folly of their past mistakes; and that, our national interests are probably being undermined by a few men in our banking sector, who consider themselves as above board; and due the tax payers bail out, whenever they find themselves in a log-jam. The unfortunate reality calls for tighter laws if possible and more oversight, if we are going to remain the corridors of the biggest banks on the globe.

Once again, we need to re-institute Glass-Steagall Act and tighten whatever provisions are in the Dodd-Frank financial reform law. It is good to know that Congress is seeking to hold hearings in the recent loss at J.P. Chase-Morgan; it is also a wise idea to have Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) look into the possibility of criminality in the trading loss at JP Morgan-Chase Bank. Some members of the public are asking, why the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) is involved in this debacle at Chase? There are three essential reasons: 1) was there intentional failure to disclose to investors certain risks associated with trading in derivatives that may have made them incur the overwhelming loss? 2) Was there an intentional failure to take all possible precautions to ensure that investments in derivatives follow the existing laws of the land; and 3) whether there was intentional failure to report the high volatility in investment portfolios associated derivatives in the recent failure at JP Morgan-Chase. All these reasons have some criminal undertone that is why the bureau is talking to some bankers at the biggest Wall Street Bank.

In the nature of politics, it is very important that we address the current promise to revoke Dodd-Frank Financial Reform Law by the presumptive Republican candidate for the White House’s oval office. Giving promises that can hardly be fulfilled, or ignoring the obvious, regarding how banks are managing their affairs that heavily impact citizens’ lives is not really statesman. When Banks fail, especially when they are a huge sector of our economy, they are more likely going to take some aspects of our lives and economy with them. When this happens, ordinary Americans loose their nest eggs and retirement savings; people loose their jobs, marriages and homes; and, many become depressed and in some cases, people take their lives.

Banks are important and essential part of a capitalistic system. To improve financial performance and trading activities on Wall Street, there is the need to speak with one voice. The repeal of the Glass Steagall Act has created more problems for the financial sector than we could have imagined when the law was put up for revocation a few years ago. Dodd-Frank was designed to address the kind of problems that led to the failure at JP. Morgan Chase; so is a combination of other provisions of what is now termed, the Volker Rule. To repeal these laws out of political expediency is to kick the can down the road; the nation will still have to address these issues, when the unexpected and unknown happen again: failure of many banks and the economy! The frivolity of Mitt Romney’s promise make one wonder, if the politician has the nation at heart or is just too blinded by his own ambition. There is hardly smoking without fire. The fact that our nation's number one bank in terms of capital and probably assets has suffered an untold and huge loss as this, require a well articulated and choreographed post-mortem to prevent future problems from arising. Politicizing this type of challenge is actually, irresponsible.

Now, it is one thing to claim one’s candidacy as one of a job creator, one with a private sector experience of creating jobs; however, there is another, to see one as a post-industrial investor, who is more interested in investing in private equity, maximizing wealth for investors and making businesses more efficient, even at the expense of people and the nation. The things that a leader can get away with in a private enterprise, is not the same that will happen in a public enterprise. The nation is not a private equity firm whose share holders are seeking maximum profit at the expense of the lives of its citizens. This is why this country is the land of freedom and liberty; and no one, with a reckless ambition to kick people to the curb, send millions to the unemployment and soup lines and pretend to be exercising leadership, is worthy of consideration for the oval office at 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue. Our nation cannot afford this type of ambition and person now!

Republican High School Bully for the Oval Office: You Get What You Vote For?

Keywords or Terms: Bullying; Uncivil Behavior; Youthful Pranks; Assault; Child Psychologists; Presidential Election Contest; Presumptive Republican Nominee; Morning Shows the Day; Predicting Presidential Performance; Inclusive Society and leadership; Civil Society; and Washington Post.

Bullying of any kind in the public space has been a national problem. There are even states and county governments that have put out laws and edicts to counter the problem of bullying. Bullying in Grades K-12 have sometimes been a challenge for Schools' Administrators. As trite as this problem has been, it may become a more pronounced consideration in this year's general election considering the attention this problem has been receiving by parents and voters. Yesterday, the Washington Post put out a story after interviewing very close classmates of Mitt Romney, the Presumptive Republican Party nominee, for bullying pranks in the prestigious Michigan high school that the candidate had attended. If the story is true, there is no reason to believe it is not, since there are witnesses and participants in the act of bullying at this upscale prep-school, then the presumptive Republican Party nominee has questions to answer. For instance, would he be a bully President that is out of control if he is ever elected into the office?

The details of the allegation and the subscription of many of Mitt Romney's classmates who are now Republicans as well as men of different political persecutions, indicate that the allegation(s) has some credibility to it. Other incidents of bullying which the presumptive Republican Nominee has engaged in are now surfacing, in addition to what Washington Post has put out, and it seems the presumptive nominee may actually be a "high school yard bully"; or has a bullying problem. Now, before I go further, I want my readers to know that I am invested in President Barack Obama and what might seem like thong lashing in this piece, must be taken with some grain of salt. Notwithstanding, no one wants or appreciates a school yard bully, not a Democrat or Republican, if we are to have a civil society.

Sadly, the Republican nominee went on Fox News to take responsibility for the action; and, probably others that we do not now know. By this acceptance of responsibility, it must be of equal concern to many Americans who may be looking at Mitt Romney as a candidate for the White House oval office. Can we all trust that if Mitt Romney is handed the keys to the oval office, he will not resort to his old styled behavior of bullying people who work for him or those, less privileged than him? Would Romney not engage in bullying people who are necessarily different from him? Would he abridge the rights of lesbians, gay and transgenders and other minorities among us? Would Mitt Romney mortgage all the achievements that this group has attained under President Barack Obama? Would "President Mitt Romney" turn around Don't Ask don't tell; Marriage Equality; Pay Equity Act and other public policies that the Democratic Nominee, President Barack Obama, has worked so hard to accomplish, so that we can have a more inclusive society?

The new allegation(s) against Mitt Romney reveal another side of the presumptive Republican nominee that many of us are oblivious of. The question now is: how prevalent are these types of behavior in this candidate seeking our vote? We do not know how many of these uncivil behavior(s) Mitt Romney has cultivated and how often he uses them in adulthood or when he was with Bain Capital; and probably, what remnants of this uncivil behavior remain with him. Remember, the old adage: you cannot teach an old dog new trick! Talking with child psychologists, many of our adult behavior are a residue of what we have learned or cultivated by the age of five; and many of them, remain with us till adulthood and for some, till they go to their grave. This is why one must be circumspect of belated regrets from the Republican presumptive nominee, Mitt Romney. Publicly, the candidate for the November 6th contest has shown remorse; however, old habits are hard to kick; thus, he may actually retain this behavior and is only showing the current remorse out of expediency.

Empathy and sensitivity to people's feelings are qualities of a good leader. Degrading others and embarrassing them to the point of taking actions that will be construed assault in adulthood maybe discountenanced as youthful pranks; however, if you dig deeper, you are more likely to find similar behavior or action in that person's behavior in adulthood that is disconcerting just like Romney's behavior in high school. The recent expose from Washington Post may just be politics considering the fact that this issue came to light just a day after President Obama gave an ABC News interview where he pronounced that his support for gay marriages has evolved. However, be it as it may, anytime anyone decides to run for the highest office in the land, it is the prerogative of Americans to know who or what is coming to them; and, what type of person that individual has been and would probably remain while in office. We are talking about the Presidency of the whole free world, not the mayor of an hamlet or commissioner of planning or salary of a city of 85,000 plus people.

When politicians commit to a cause, they often do so out of concern or indifference to particular issues. When politicians find themselves under stress on issues concerning the state, it is not unusual that their true nature of behavior come to light; and in many of such circumstances, it is not unusual to find such politicians taking decisions or actions that make voters wonder, if that politician was the real person they voted into office, or if it is someone else. When politicians attain an office, their first goal is to put their stamp of management or style of arrangement of the affairs of the office. No one is saying that "President Mitt Romney" may exhibit behavior in the office that may be in-congruent with the expectations of voters; however, it behooves the voters to be careful in their choice of who ends up leading them as President. To get the perfect individual for the office of Presidency may be extraneous and sometimes unpredictable; however, it is important that the voters evaluate all possible variables or issues that may impact a person when he attains the office. Carefully exonerating those issues that may impact objective decisions and policies are truly essential, to making the right choice. Now is the time, to take a second look at what Mitt Romney has done in the past, as the past may somehow predict the future.

The landscape of American politics is filled with decisions made by Presidents that have changed the course of our history. Some of our Presidents made us better-off, while others have made us worse off. Presidents that have changed us or the nation for the better have often transformed the way we do things or parts of our lives and the affairs of the nation. While very few Presidents have made little impact in our lives and nation, many a times, those periods of their occupation of the White House, have made us reflect better on what we missed in them as candidates for the office. Transformation for the better is good for the overall growth of the nation; however, when the electorate misses something, the brunt of that mistake is often borne by us; sometimes devastatingly; and in some cases, permanently changing our lives and those of other nations who are our friends and or allies. There is even an adage in foreign policy or State Department that, when America's finances sneezes, the rest of the world economy catches cold. This was exemplified by recent experience with our nation's economy, just before President Obama came to power. When the debacle of our financial sector festered, due to excessive deregulation, and our banking sector went into a tailspin as we descended into a recession, there was a domino effect felt across the globe. Many European countries are suffering from a double dip recession, partly because of what happened in America a couple of years ago. If only for the experience of the last recession, it is imperative that Americans vote the right person into office rather than accepting failures of a President, that we enthroned without much consideration of his past behavior or decision(s) in position of power.

The presumptive Republican Party nominee, who once enacted and signed into law, a prototype of the Affordable Care Act, is currently disowning this law. This was a leader, who was the governor of the State of Massachusetts, who introduced a blue-print of the Affordable Care Act in that state while governor, who has barely left that office a decade, now disowning the same health policy and law. How are we sure that when, if ever, he is elected into office of the President, he would not introduce a policy and enact laws that would make the whole nation worse off; and, after a few years, disown that same policy and law. That is the dilemma for the nation and voters who are favorably considering Mitt Romney as the next President of this great nation. Can the nation afford a flip-flapper; can the nation afford a leader that will abandon us; or introduce policies and or laws that may directly change the course of our lives permanently? Can we afford a man who bullies his mates in a position of direct authority over this great nation, and by default, the free world? Can the nation afford a President that we hardly know much about his religion, except for that religion's true insiders? Our failure(s) to choose the right Person to occupy the oval office, is significant; that is why we cannot afford to overlook any information regarding the person's behavior as he seeks to win election into the office.

Many voters still rely on campaign advertisements just before an election for making voting choices. It is now time for voters to dig deeper to a candidate's background, especially when they are putting themselves up for election into a political office in our precincts, counties, states; and national government, especially for the office of the Presidency! The current deadlock in Congress should have taught us a lesson or two. Finding out that, a politician that voters sent to Washington DC to act on our behalf, is actively refusing to enact bills that will make the country better-off than worse-off, is rather unacceptable. Having legislature refuse to support bills and laws that directly improve the job-status or employment opportunities in our nation, is not only distasteful; it must be construed a dereliction of duty; and rightly addressed in our voting booths. This is why the question of Mitt Romney's past behavior is rather relevant. First it was the domestic animal abuse charge; then, bullying of a classmate that is a little bit different; what must we expect to hear next? A vote for Mr. Romney may become a doomsday for us. Voters, please think again!

Did Mitt Romney Lie to a Cleveland Television Station Yesterday?

You be the Judge:

Mitt Romney is distorting history, again! Talking to a Cleveland Television station yesterday, he attempted to take credit for the re-organization of the auto industry. He is claiming as in the nature of the Swift Vote Veteran on John Kerry, that he deserves a lot of credit for the comeback of the auto industry.

Please tell Mr. Romney, he is a liar; he wanted the auto industry to go burst! He even wrote an opinion page to that effect in a New York Times Opinion Page on November 18, 2008**. There is nothing as managed bankruptcy; bankruptcy is bankruptcy, Mr. Magic underpants! President Obama believed in the America’s Auto industry and put his money where his mouth is! Thanks President Obama, for having the back of the auto industry. This general election is not going to be won by distortion of history. Mr. Mitt Romney has just justified Mr. Newt Gingrich's assessment of him during the Republican Nomination Process!

**HERE IS MITT ROMNEY’s OPINION IN THE NEW YORK TIMES OF NOVEMBER 18^th 2008

  

Op-Ed Contributor

Let Detroit Go Bankrupt

By MITT ROMNEY

Published: November 18, 2008

IF General Motors, Ford and Chrysler get the bailout that their chief executives asked for yesterday, you can kiss the American automotive industry goodbye. It won’t go overnight, but its demise will be virtually guaranteed. 

Without that bailout, Detroit will need to drastically restructure itself. With it, the automakers will stay the course — the suicidal course of declining market shares, insurmountable labor and retiree burdens, technology atrophy, product inferiority and never-ending job losses. Detroit needs a turnaround, not a check. 

I love cars, American cars. I was born in Detroit, the son of an auto chief executive. In 1954, my dad, George Romney, was tapped to run American Motors when its president suddenly died. The company itself was on life support — banks were threatening to deal it a death blow. The stock collapsed. I watched Dad work to turn the company around — and years later at business school, they were still talking about it. From the lessons of that turnaround, and from my own experiences, I have several prescriptions for Detroit’s automakers. 

First, their huge disadvantage in costs relative to foreign brands must be eliminated. That means new labor agreements to align pay and benefits to match those of workers at competitors like BMW, Honda, Nissan and Toyota. Furthermore, retiree benefits must be reduced so that the total burden per auto for domestic makers is not higher than that of foreign producers. 

That extra burden is estimated to be more than $2,000 per car. Think what that means: Ford, for example, needs to cut $2,000 worth of features and quality out of its Taurus to compete with Toyota’s Avalon. Of course the Avalon feels like a better product — it has $2,000 more put into it. Considering this disadvantage, Detroit has done a remarkable job of designing and engineering its cars. But if this cost penalty persists, any bailout will only delay the inevitable. 

Second, management as is must go. New faces should be recruited from unrelated industries — from companies widely respected for excellence in marketing, innovation, creativity and labor relations.

The new management must work with labor leaders to see that the enmity between labor and management comes to an end. This division is a holdover from the early years of the last century, when unions brought workers job security and better wages and benefits. But as Walter Reuther, the former head of the United Automobile Workers, said to my father, “Getting more and more pay for less and less work is a dead-end street.” 

You don’t have to look far for industries with unions that went down that road. Companies in the 21st century cannot perpetuate the destructive labor relations of the 20th. This will mean a new direction for the U.A.W., profit sharing or stock grants to all employees and a change in Big Three management culture. 

The need for collaboration will mean accepting sanity in salaries and perks. At American Motors, my dad cut his pay and that of his executive team, he bought stock in the company, and he went out to factories to talk to workers directly. Get rid of the planes, the executive dining rooms — all the symbols that breed resentment among the hundreds of thousands who will also be sacrificing to keep the companies afloat. 

Investments must be made for the future. No more focus on quarterly earnings or the kind of short-term stock appreciation that means quick riches for executives with options. Manage with an eye on cash flow, balance sheets and long-term appreciation. Invest in truly competitive products and innovative technologies — especially fuel-saving designs — that may not arrive for years. Starving research and development is like eating the seed corn. 

Just as important to the future of American carmakers is the sales force. When sales are down, you don’t want to lose the only people who can get them to grow. So don’t fire the best dealers, and don’t crush them with new financial or performance demands they can’t meet. 

It is not wrong to ask for government help, but the automakers should come up with a win-win proposition. I believe the federal government should invest substantially more in basic research — on new energy sources, fuel-economy technology, materials science and the like — that will ultimately benefit the automotive industry, along with many others. I believe Washington should raise energy research spending to $20 billion a year, from the $4 billion that is spent today. The research could be done at universities, at research labs and even through public-private collaboration. The federal government should also rectify the imbedded tax penalties that favor foreign carmakers.

But don’t ask Washington to give shareholders and bondholders a free pass — they bet on management and they lost. 

The American auto industry is vital to our national interest as an employer and as a hub for manufacturing. A managed bankruptcy may be the only path to the fundamental restructuring the industry needs. It would permit the companies to shed excess labor, pension and real estate costs. The federal government should provide guarantees for post-bankruptcy financing and assure car buyers that their warranties are not at risk.

In a managed bankruptcy, the federal government would propel newly competitive and viable automakers, rather than seal their fate with a bailout check. 

Mitt Romney, the former governor of Massachusetts, was a candidate for this year’s Republican presidential nomination.

American Voters, please, please and please, don’t be fooled and misinformed this time around! You have the front row seat, judge by what you have read above. Mitt Romney may be the first fraud seeking to inhabit the White House come 2013!

The making of another run for the White house by Barack Obama: Inertia and Momentum!

Keywords or Terms: Democratic Nominee;  Courage to Challenge; Campaign Strategy; President Obama; Achievements; The Economy; Adaptability; Inertia; Momentum; Winning the Future; Bedeviling the Campaign Process; and Winning one for the underprivileged, the poor, the elderly and the middle class.

More than four years ago, President Barack Obama launched his first campaign for the White House; and, won the keys to the Oval Office at 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue. With nothing but one very familiar message, HOPE, President Obama campaigned across the country and overseas to become the first African American to inherit the office in over two centuries. By his rise to the highest office, the land of freedom and liberty lived up to its creed: “We hold this true to be self-evident that all men are created equal”. Many Americans were overtly impressed and some skeptics were somehow overwhelmed by the love and support for a rainbow like coalition of people in support of a young sweet looking, close to baby-face mixed blood man with a broad smile and probably a perfect dentition. Today, that youthful look found in President Barack Obama, a mere four years ago, has turned to gray and the man is looking much older than even he, could have imagined when he first ran for the Presidency. The blog tonight explores another campaign for the White House, by Barack Hussein Obama II, the President of the United States of America.

President Barack Obama kicked off his second campaign for the oval office in Columbus, Ohio on Saturday, May 5^th, 2012. After cress-crossing the nation in the past two months, with various possible themes for his campaign, the now seasoned politician has made a decision to extend his reign over the free world for another four years. Would he be able to do that? This question is left for time to tell. However, unlike four years ago, President Obama seems more confident, better prepared and probably well qualified to win another term, if he can overcome criticisms for his handling of the America economy by the ultra right and mostly Republicans. Once again, unlike four years ago, when prominent and well articulate national political strategists and journalists were falling over each other, with a few dreaming about cooking dinner and having a nice quiet evening, with relatively unknown youthful looking Democratic aspirant for the White House, now the drum of criticisms and some apprehensions over his record on the economy, are gradually piling.

The idea behind the apprehension of the President’s handling of the economy is coming from the deep cognitive bias that we all have a personal interest, in the political economy of this nation. Whenever we perceive the performance of our Presidents, not up to par in any aspect of the nation’s management, we deserve answers; and, rightfully ask questions. At least, if members of his political party are kinder or softer regarding his performance, the opposition party is often more aggressive against the President in a general elections year. Unfortunately, this time around, there is a more aggressive, probably distrustful and abusive members of the opposition party, the Tea Party faction of the Republican Party; with its propaganda news outlet or machine, that have chosen to deride the President no matter what he does. In about all aspects of the nation’s political economy, the ultra right conservative Republicans have worked hard to discredit the President of the United States, even when the aspect(s) of the nation’s management they are asking questions about are not directly within the jurisdictions of the Presidential Powers.

The failure of the White House to drum up its successes in the early years of Barack Obama’s presidency can partly be blamed for the affronts and criticisms from the opposition party. However, some political strategists maintain that some of the criticisms really have nothing to do with the President’s performance, but rather: prejudice! From a nation stricken by an unprecedented recession, the lack of understanding of how deep the problem of the nation’s economy was and the tepid corrective policy instruments recommended to address the Republican President induced recession, is the real bane of the problem; and, the current criticism of the President’s handling of the economy; is probably unjustifiable. The less than critical spending on recovery projects and programs compounded the President’s efforts; and, made it seem that much was not being done to create jobs and confront the unemployment problem. The divided and probably antagonistic partisanship in congress doubly compounded the problem. Some economists and policy makers argue though, that if the Obama’s administration had gotten heavy handed on recovery spending, there was the likelihood of hyper-inflation that could have made the unemployment problem worse. Avid supporters of the President however insist that with a divided congress, the Obama’s administration had been unable to move the needle of unemployment as fast as it could.

Over the weekend, the Obama’s campaign team lounged the second run for the White House with the following achievements of the administration, highlighting in a released forward campaign video, laudable praise for the President's efforts. What are the President’s achievements as addressed or espoused in the video? With a reflective President, the Obama campaign team document his achievement as follows: 1) Fighting for a strong and secured middle class America; 2) Tax cut for businesses eighteen times; 3) Creating 466,000 New Manufacturing jobs;  4)  Increased Natural gas production; 5) Stopping unfair credit card fees and eliminating devious financial practices by enacting the Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act; 6) Wall Street Reforms; 7) Reduction of drug costs for seniors; 8) Investing $100 Billion in Science and Stem Research; 9) Ending Iraq war; 10) Liberating Libya from the oppression of Qaddafi; 11) Brought to justice Osama Bin Laden; 12) Increasing incentives to hire unemployed veterans; 13) Ending the Don't Ask, Don't Tell policy in the military; 14) Extending Unemployment benefits for Americans; 15) Signing into law, the Lilly-led Better fair pay act of 2009, thereby guaranteeing equal pay for women; 16) Health Care Reform Law; 17) Lowering Seniors' Drug Costs; 18) Doubling College Pell Grant; 19) Guaranteeing coverage for contraception under the Patients Protection and Affordable Care Act (PPACA); 20) Installed the first Latina Supreme Court Judge; 21) Protection of Medicare and Social Security;  and, 22) Saving the Auto Industry. Further, the video projected the President as a compassionate, hard working and dedicated leader who believe strongly in fairness. In addition to these accomplishments, the Obama's campaign team says, President Obama deserves another term in order to complete other goals that his administration had set out to accomplish. To this latter request came the presumptive Republican candidate's campaign press release that: Americans know they are not better off than they were four years ago!

President Obama's inertia to win over converts and counter Mitt Romney's campaign to ouster the President of United States, may be halted if his campaign is unable to debunk the following outlandish claims by some far right antagonists, a few of which are subscribed to by Mitt Romney, the presumptive Republican Party flag-bearer. These outlandish claims include: 1) Roughly 12.5 million American still remain unemployed; 2) President Obama loves by-passing congress with the use of executive fiat; 3) President Obama's Administration engaged in gun-running and illegal searches; 4) President Obama's Administration engages in obstructing justice; 5) President Obama's administration attempt to control media and protect criminal banking cartels; 6) President Obama's Administration commits war crimes; 7) President Obama's Administration loves assassinating Americans. As ridiculous and frivolous some of these claims are, there are some voters who truly believe them; and a few far right Republicans, who know many of these claims are untrue, but will rather they stick on the President, so they could unseat him from office. These are the challenges that the President and his campaign team have to deal with in order for him to retain the office of the Presidency.

The Obama's campaign team and the President have been pulling their weight in debunking a few of these outlandish claims, as you will find, in one of the comments ascribed to Josh Earnest, President Obama's principal deputy press secretary: "The President has a vision of an America, where everyone engages in fair play, does their share and gets a fair shot." While this comment has a lot of relevance to the position of the President and his campaign on several issues, including women welfare, fair taxation code, income differentials, and poverty; it also, addresses the issue of inequality in America. Unless the issues of inequality in income, in opportunities and the housing debacle problems are resolved, it is going to be challenging to over turn the problems facing the American Economy; these are part of the reasons why the Obama's campaign team must advance proposals to address these issues, apart from the ad-lib in his kick-up campaign over the weekend.

With the growing inequality in income, it is rather difficult to continue to claim that, the nation needs to continue to subscribe to cutting taxes for the rich and fighting expensive foreign wars where our national interest is hardly at stake. The famous one percent, who have be doubling their income share from former excessive deregulation of Wall Street and overzealous compensation of Corporations' Chief Executive Officers in the past administration, make it difficult for many poor to believe that they have a stake in the country. Many of the rich groups in the country, which Mitt Romney is part of, and is attempting to continue to conserve, have had some fantastical increases in income and wealth; and have had their investment interests protected at all cost, to the disadvantage of the ninety-nine percent unprotected. In terms of trend of income inequality, the gap between the rich and the poor has been rather overwhelming and outstripping the experience of many of the earlier generations of Americans since the first world war. In summation, the Elites in America are not necessarily concerned about income inequality in America; however, President Obama is, and has made the argument for fighting income inequality in America as part of the corner stone of his campaign for the second term in the oval office. Would the far right allow him to succeed in a second run? 

President Obama campaign team has to define Mitt Romney for the public at large, very early in the process of seeking the White House for the second time, if it is to maintain the momentum of support that seems to be in his favor for now. His campaign team, has to take the bull by the horn, collect all past campaign comments of Mitt Romney from his Massachusetts days in his run for the governorship and senate seat and make them issues of relevance in their definition of who Mitt Romney is. The slogan of winning the future may be great; however, you cannot win the future, if you do not go very hard and heavily on a candidate that is bent on playing to the whims and caprices of the ultra right in his campaign effort. The fight for the White House this time around, is not only to win the future, it is to debunk prejudices and devious comments from the Republicans; it is to build a fortified fortress against the conservatives, ultra-right voters, who have consistently waylaid the President since his first day in office; it is a fight to end all fights; it is a battle to end all wars against women, the elderly, the poor and middle-class Americans; it is a fight that cannot be taken for granted as long as Republicans are defining corporations as persons and allowing them to exploit that definition in bedeviling the campaign process into legislative offices and the White House.

Eclipsing the Republican Nomination Exercise: the politics of paying off competitor’s campaign debts!

Keywords: Presumptive Nominee Mitt Romney; Rick Santorum; Newt Gingrich; Acrimonious competition; “Fuffy-duddy rich; Rob-my-back-I-rob-your-back Party; Money; Flip-flopper; Middle Income Earners; Political Favors; and Campaign debt retirement.

For Republicans, the nomination process is about to eclipse. The brutal campaign among the Republican aspirants that involved a lot of mudslinging and uncharitable comments among opponents or contestants in the Republican nomination process is now effectively over. Really? Well, so we think, if we are going by what is in the Press; Newt Gingrich has chosen to completely suspend his campaign for the Republican Party nomination on the first Wednesday in the month of May, 2012. The first cherished maître among Republicans: say no evil, see no evil, or hear no evil about another Republican, that was once shamelessly ignored during the feisty and acrimonious competition among the Republican candidates, is once again about to be burnished and caressed for the whole nation to see. I imagine, Ronald Reagan was turning in his grave during the 2012 Republican Nomination Contest!

For those who forgot, here is a laundry list of what Republicans called each other in their individual effort to outclass the next Republican in the nomination process. As a precaution to the reader, these are just a few in the list. In addition, for lack of space and self-indulgence, I document here only three candidates' utterances, each with at least, 100 delegates in the Republican nomination process and race:

Rick Santorum on Mitt Romney

A) “Romney will be the Worst Candidate to Race Obama”; B) After a decisive victory in Louisiana State, Rick said: “Voters still want to see someone, who they can trust, someone, who is not running an Etch-A Sketch campaign but one that, you know, has the principles written on their heart, not on an erasable tablet; C) Louisiana overwhelmingly rejected Mitt Romney’s push to press reset button because they know [Republicans] need a clear contrast to President Obama; and D) "Romney is not conservative enough for our Party."

Mitt Romney on Newt Gingrich

A) “Nominating Zany Gingrich is not what we need in a President”; B) "Zany is great in a campaign. It’s great on talk radio. It’s great in print, it makes for fun reading. But in terms of President, we need a leader and a leader needs to be someone who can bring Americans together.” C) "People are taking a closer look at Speaker Gingrich. And like other [Republicans] who bumped up in the polls in this last year, as they take a closer look, some are happy with what they see and some would like to see something else and recognize that they may not be exactly what they wanted”; D) “Gingrich comes with a lot of baggage.”

Newt Gingrich on Mitt Romney

A) “Mitt Romney is not in touch with Reality”; B) “If Mitt Romney cannot win in any of the early primary states with more than 25% of the vote, Romney will be the weakest front-runner”; C) “Mitt Romney is a liar”; D) "The most anti-immigrant candidate"; E) I don't know of any president who has had a Swiss bank account; F) "Why should we expect [Romney] to level about anything if he is President?" H) Comparing himself to a bold Reagan Conservative, Newt Gingrich labeled Mitt Romney, a timid Massachusetts moderate.

The trend in all these utterances is the fact that Mitt Romney is perceived as either the worst or the weakest candidate to go against President Obama; or rather, the weakest Republican to go against a Democrat in a general election in two decades.

For the records, the presumptive Republican nominee is perceived by his competitors for the nomination as very imperfect, if not outright, unacceptable for the November 6, 2012 competition. There is the trepidation that Republicans are going to loose the contest, because they have chosen to field, probably the least conservative and the most unlike candidate, even among Republicans, as the party’s flag bearer. Now, the question is: how come Mitt Romney was able to maneuver his competitors in this race? The answer simply will be: Money and a broader national campaign organization that has taken close to four years to build, if you ask the Tea Party members. For this right wing group, Mitt Romney is either not conservative enough, or ineffectually unrepresentative of their position, even though he is the presumptive nominee. This group may not want to fester evil within the party, however, each of them find Mitt Romney, very distasteful.

Probably this is why Herman Cain, a one time Republican aspirant and somewhat of a favorite of the Tea Party members, who lost his credibility after the exposure that he is a womanizer, held his endorsement of Mitt Romney till now. Herman Cain was, or is, a darling of the Tea Party Group and would have done well with their support, if only for a while, before it was found out or alleged that he harasses women for cheap sex, when at the top! Funnily, this same Mr. Cain, this past week, endorsed the presumptive Republican Nominee, Mitt Romney, for the November 6th contest against Democrats. For prudent observers of the Republican race, by his endorsement of Mitt Romney, Herman Cain just threw Newt Gingrich under the bus in a bid to line up behind the presumptive nominee, after initially throwing his support behind him. Godfather Pizza former CEO uttered an interesting comment as he jumped ship: “There is a need to keep an eye on the mission of getting control of the United States Senate, maintaining control of the House of Representatives and defeating President Obama.” This kind of inconsistency and willingness to roll as the wind blows has made the new Republican Party, a house that is turned against itself. No wonder, one finds Rick Santorum, not enthusiastically willing to endorse Mitt Romney and Newt Gingrich, less skittish than Rick Santorum; but ready to play ball as long as Romney is ready to help him pay off some of his campaign debts. Now, we have a rob-my-back-I-rob-your-back Party, with probably the weakest candidate to bear the Republican flag in half a century, go against an articulate, confident, intelligent and probably, humorous and even keel President in a decade.

Considering all these new developments in the Republican Party, who could blame President Obama for mocking the presumptive Republican nominee before the Annual White House Correspondence Association’s dinner this weekend as: “Fuffy-duddy rich guy who travels with his dog in a cage strapped to the roof of the family car.” Making a comical statement like this along with visuals, showing Mitt Romney on the steps of Air-Force One, with his dog strapped to the roof top is somewhat forgivable, considering it was made in jest; or, considering that Republican aspirants did worse to each other in the bid to become the Party’s flag bearer. The incident of Mitt Romney tying his family dog to the roof of his family car while on an holiday travel, creates an image of an animal abuser; and, probably someone insensitive to the welfare of domestic animals. The presumptive nominee has not made his case better during the bitter campaign or nomination process with comments like, I love to fire people, I don’t care about the poor and I will shrink the U.S. Department of Education, if not completely eradicate the agency.

When a politician seems to be least invested in the concerns of voters, even within his Party, how is it feasible for him to win against another party’s flag bearer. When a politician engages in mudslinging and excessive character assignation of fellow contestant in a race for the nomination, how can the nation expect a different behavior against the President of United States, in Mitt Romney’s bid to attempt to unseat him? Mitt Romney will likely step up his attack of the President and his policies, the way he undermined Newt Gingrich and Rick Santorum to win the Republican nomination process. The troubling behavior about Mitt Romney, is that he has shown himself not only as a flip flopper as many critics labeled him, he has added to his accolades, a man with a mission to destroy opponents at all cost; and, someone who pretends to be an animal and or people lover, but will gladly trash both when push come to shove.

Whenever a republican nominee can labeled his opponent as someone with a lot of baggage, how can anyone consider him as presidential? The infighting among the Republican aspirants for the 2012 nomination has not only exposed Mitt Romney as UN-Presidential, it has shown that he can perpetrate some nefarious acts and remain disengaged from the populace, once he wins the White House. This is someone, who hardly finds it difficult to fire people who work for him, often ready to dismantle companies without caring about what suffering his decision will wroth on family members of fired Americans working for the company. This is someone who is more inclined to see human welfare in terms of dollars and cents, rather than, with empathy and the love of human to better self. This is someone, who once said, the 12 or more million Mexicans, with children, brothers, sisters, parents and grandparents will self-depot, once he gets into office. Like the old fellow down the street said: By their fruits, we shall know them!

Yes, Mitt Romney will help Rick Santorum and Newt Gingrich pay down part, if not all their political debts; however, he is unlikely to stand up to ameliorate all the problems the middle-income earners have been going through during the sluggish economy. Between what we know regarding Mitt Romney style of campaign annihilation during the Republican Party nomination exercise and the willing and dealing that will ensue between Mitt Romney and each of the remaining Republican Party outgoing candidate, we will likely find out what the presumptive Republic nominee is willing to trade off to buy favor or support from people. We will find out what he is willing to trade-off to get the support of the Tea Party members and other conservative Republicans in order to fend off any other opposition to his candidacy within the Republican Party. We will find out how aggressively he is willing to trade off important variables to the voters' welfare when it concerns winning the White House; and, know a little bit more of the nature of the man who wants to be President from the Mormon Church.

Seeking to be engaged with the concerns of the led is a responsible characteristic of a good leader; and, a reasonable expectation of those to be led. Encouraging programs and public policy that addresses the concerns of the led, is not only a sign of a reflective leader, it admonishes the person in the position of authority, as reflective. Possibility that 'President' Mitt Romney will be proactive in dealing with the needs of the middle income earners is debatable, as long as he continues to push Paul Ryan’s budget. Those middle income earners, who have suffered tremendously during the down turn in American economy, are being told to hold off, that ‘President’ Mitt Romney is bringing a new day to them! This is probably too optimistic considering that the same person is receiving ten million dollars yearly from Bain Capital, a corporation that builds its wealth on downsizing and re-organizing American companies for profit. No one needs be told, that CEO Mitt Romney is here to re-organize America and downsize her government to the extent that, the nation will begin to hemorrhage jobs and money again, just as in the past under the Republican Party’s custody of the White House. Those who have advanced Mitt Romney’s executive management skills as the maître solution of what is wrong with America economy should think again: Do we want to jump from frying pan to fire, once again?

Death of an Ambition: When a Republican ‘ideas’ man quit the campaign trail?

Keywords or Terms: Newt Gingrich; Permanent American Moon Colony; Flag bearer; Party Ambition and Goal; Nomination; United States House of Representatives; Hope and Change

Which Presidential candidate can take a campaign on life support, to one winning two States in a dramatically filled Republican nomination competition? Which candidate with a heavily indebted credit to Tiffany once attained the front runner status among the Republican candidates seeking nomination to be the Party’s flag bearer? Which Presidential candidate aspired to have a permanent American colony on the moon? Which Republican Presidential candidate had more fat in him than the beacon machine grinder? The answer to these questions is very simple. The candidate who was once characterized by another Republican opponent as having more baggage than all the airlines put together, Newt Gingrich? This candidate brought more ridiculous proposals to the nomination process than any of the eight candidates that initially appeared for the first debate in the nomination process. This candidate offered more mundane proposals, which to some sounded as great ideas, more dramatically to the campaign process than the movie: Toy Story! You wondered if the former speaker of the United States House of Representatives, over the years since quitting that office, had lost his wits, as he offered many laughable ideas on the campaign trail. Beyond the idea of having a permanent American colony on the moon, Mr. Newt Gingrich offered what was tantamount to an unrealistic, unworkable and most importantly, impractical taxation reform proposal in his bid to become the Republican nominee. Mr. Gingrich campaign not only lost steam from about two weeks to its start, it probably was on life support through out the campaign process. Many observers maintain that, but for the Nevada millionaire and his wife who injected ten million of theirs into New Gingrich campaign, the former speaker of the House would have bowed out much sooner.

If you have problem with understanding why Mr. Gingrich ever offered himself as a candidate for Republican nomination, maybe you should look at the 2012 class of potential Republican nominees. In a year, when it seems all great persons and personalities with better chances or potential at running against President Obama, stayed at home, we have a Mediocre Etch-A-Sketcher, A Social Conservative with torch of loud mouth, A woman molester with a flair for denials, A flunky Texas Cowboy with rather poor communication skills, A physician with knack for national isolation from the rest of the world, A former Ambassador to China who recently quit the Republican Party, A congresswomen that had better been left in the middle ages and much more! Internal discussions among the mainstream Republicans indicated that the 2012 slate of Republican candidates for nomination, are at best, second rate. Recent interviews by the Media in States like Delaware and New Jersey, said the probable Republican nominee, Mitt Romney, is a second best. That reminds me of what my buddies say while we were in high school : When the desirable is unavailable, the available becomes desirable!

What creates the opportunity for Mitt Romney to rise up to the level of the probable Republican flag bearer is the lack of candidate with depth and conservative values in the 2012 class of Republican aspirants. After a drought of well meaning conservative Republicans with name recognition, a campaign organization and followership that can be touted as being very conservative enough, the rank and file of the Republican Party are settling for a Mormon with a magic underpants, who is as inconsistent in his political views and positions as the weather in Southern States in the hurricane and tornado seasons. Once a shake and bake French speaking door-knocking Mormon missionary to a Vulture Capitalist, the Republicans are about to field a candidate which many within the Party, agree is not just good enough! Republican Conservatives don’t like him; the mainstream can barely tolerate him; and those Republican lawmakers in congress, are now just closing ranks behind him, as they find themselves, unable to present the nominee that truly represents their position. Presenting Mitt Romney as the Republican flag bearer is like marrying an ugly girlfriend out of sympathy! Truth be told, if Republicans had other options, an unlikeable, impersonal looking and sometimes awkward looking candidate, with a background in firing people, dismantling companies and destroying families and family values, is the last candidate that will be bearing the Republican flag in the November 6^th contest.

As Republicans contemplate their chances of winning back the White House, the Senate and probably retaining majority in the House, they will find that, the possibility of attaining these goals in 2012, is a very steep one, because of the disarray in the party and the class of candidates they are fielding in contests for all the offices currently held by Democrats. Beyond the class of candidates being fielded in the coming contests, there is a growing understanding among the Republican leaders in Congress, that the Party is ill-prepared; that their goal to become a stumbling block to the Democratic Administration is about to backfire, if not already backfiring; and their ambition to make President Obama, a one-term President, maybe a mirage. For instance, how do Republicans intend to repair the damage to the loyalty brand of some far right members in the Tea Party? How do Republicans change the perception in the country that their congressional leaders held the nation to ransom on legislations that could have improved the unemployment problem; and or, the fiscal health of the nation? How are Republicans going to supplant the notion that their goal is to remain a spoiler, a disagreeable and disgruntled group of gun-tattling, war-mongering and you-are-on-your-own Party? How are Republicans going to shed the image of coddler of the rich, affluent and better-off citizens and corporations in America? Time has changed, the country as a whole is wiser, information technology has opened up many unknowns; and, no one can hide under the oppression of the many over the few in isolated areas of the country. Whether many Americans like it or not, change is really here: American politics is getting more open than before because of the advent of the internet; opinion leaders are changing, never again will the editorial pages from just one tiny newspaper in an isolated enclave in a southern or northern state move the voting patterns in that area or the state. Can Republicans stand to loose the election to President Obama because of their choice of flag bearer?

In a time of improving economic standing, when and where job growth is gradually improving, after a long doldrums, it is going to be very difficult to make a claim that under President Obama, the economy has remained as underperforming, as when he took office in 2009. President Obama has done well, if not terrifically, because of the state of the economy when he took over from the Republican Administration. The plurality of Americans will remember that Republicans brought the economy probably to a stand still because of the two unpaid wars, unusual and excessive tax cuts for the rich, unnecessary grandstanding in congress, and the inability to bring in the number one enemy of America, Osama bin Laden, among others! The fastest growing minority group in America, Latinos, will remember the negative position of Republicans on immigration reform. Women will take to heart the unnecessary Republicans antagonism over their health and reproductive choices. The long unemployed will remember that when it was time to spend on job creation, Republican lawmakers balked under the pretext of where to find the money for that opportunity. Students will flock to Democrats because of the favorability and likeability of President Obama; and, because he has chosen to reiterate Republican lawmakers unlikeliest attempt to help students hold down the interest rates on Stafford loans.

In an upcoming brutal Presidential contest, which political pundits and strategists maintain is going to be a hard fought one, Republicans cannot afford to be on stand by; they cannot afford to be seen as anti-education, uninspiring on education, unhelpful to teachers and their union; and anti health care reform. Under what is probably an iffy likelihood of the Supreme Court ruling the Affordable Health Care Reform as unconstitutional and, a likelihood that the knowledgeable judges are likely going to just rule part of the law as unconstitutional and allow the law to still stand, the Republican Party are virtually towing with their ambition or goal. Republicans cannot assume the responsibility for ineffective leadership, unrepresentative and unlikeable flag bearer; the party cannot afford to deal with a fracas party convention, where some members feel left out because of the individual being put up as the Party Flag bearer. Great majority of voters among the Anglo-Saxons, Pentecostal Christians and Southerners are likely going to turn away from voting Republicans because they cannot bring themselves to voting for a Mormon. This is a reality that Republicans cannot and must not ignore. Ultimately, the leaders in the Republican Party will have to deal with the change that is to come, as Democrats over run the party come November.

Exit of a Social Conservative: When Rick Santorum throws in the towel in the Republication Nomination Process?

Keywords or Terms: Republican Nomination; Pennsylvania; Rick Santorum; Newt Gingrich; Ron Paul; Mitt Romney; Formidable Campaign; Political Strategy; Etch-A-Sketch Exercise; Game’s On; and General Elections.

The Exit of Rick Santorum from the Republican Nomination Process about a week ago is both an astute political strategy as well as a defeat of what was considered a social conservative resurgence in the Republican Nomination Process. Graciously as is often said, he who fights and runs lives to fight another day! Rick Santorum had waged a political war against Mitt Romney for the Republican Party nomination and had won eleven states just before he bowed out of the race. Despite what political pundits said about his financial anemic campaign in the earlier stages of the nomination process, Rick Santorum showed himself, a formidable campaigner; and, nearly won the hearts of the Republican status quo and many Republican voters on the fringes, except for his inability to bring in more monetary donations from supporters that could have seen him through.

As is often said, money is the life blood of any political campaign. Without enough political contributions or personal wealth, many politicians can hardly fight a formidable campaign against an opponent. The chances that Rick Santorum’s campaign could survive on a shoe string budget or piggy bank, is actually slim, considering the mammoth size of the country; and, the number of required contacts with potential voters, to triumph in a bitterly fought nomination process. The blog today, explores what Rick Santorum recent move in the Republican Party nomination process means for his future ambition(s); and, why the move probably was the best of option available to him in the scheme of things.

Any time an aspirating politician for an office drops out of contest in the middle of a campaign spree or arrangement, there is often a cogent reason for that decision. A misguided motive may be adduced but in reality, the options available to that politician may be too limited, considering the terrain of possible outcomes in an impeding primary vote. The Pennsylvania primary and voting was expected to be tough for the son of the soil, Rick Santorum. Preliminary polling for the upcoming primary in the state of Pennsylvania put Rick Santorum, a couple of digits behind the front runner, Mitt Romney. Most contemporary surveys showed that the grassroots organization of Mitt Romney was paying off; even in a state that Rick Santorum was expected to win handily, considering this is his home state. However, the risk of a loss for Rick Santorum was very evident, and the steam rolling potential of Mitt Romney from three successive primary wins, just before Rick Santorum bowed out, was very mesmerizing or convincing. The likelihood was: Mitt Romney was about to outclass Rick Santorum in his home State, Pennsylvania. No one will therefore, fault the Pennsylvania native from bowing out. Compounding his challenge in the race towards the nomination, is the reality that, it is very possible that Rick Santorum will be unable to muster 80% of the remaining contests, to beat Mitt Romney to the 1144 delegates, to become the Republican nominee or flag bearer for the November 6^th contest.

If Rick Santorum’s clout was promising, he may have been trilled to hold on till the last minute, hoping against all odds, to beat the front runner. If his campaign chest had been as rosy as Mitt Romney’s, he may have stood a better chance to wrestle the nomination from him. However, these were not so and his financiers were equally convinced that the odds were against their candidate at this stage of the contest. This is why you probably heard some backlash comments from Rick Santorum’s major financier to the effect that Mitt Romney, isn’t the best candidate to compete against President Barack Obama. Invariably, this is why some political pundits insisted that Rick Santorum was reading the writing on the wall loud and clearly; and, it would have been ingenious of him, to continue to play the odds, hoping that another candidate, Newt Gingrich, will choose to drop out, so his supporters may be heralded or convinced to throw their support or weight behind him. Yes, there were some Conservative Republicans that were not committed to New Gingrich; however, there are not enough of them that could move the needle of support for Rick Santorum to challenge the inevitability of Mitt Romney to become the Republican Party nominee.

Further, anytime Rick Santorum’s political advisers accosted the Newt Gingrich team, to see if there can be a resolution of the triage in the support from the Republican conservatives, they were often and handily rebuffed. Sadly too, a lack of commitment from this group to the social conservative message from Rick Santorum was going to undermine Rick Santorum’s chances of moving ahead. Additionally, few of some weary Republican conservatives, were interested in a war against women regarding the use on contraceptives or the place of religion in American politics or the role of government in public health, even though each of them hold some relative support for conservative values cherished by Rick Santorum. The missed opportunity or wasted chance is found in some gaffes from Rick Santorum, which placed him at a reasonable and relative disadvantage to compete against Mitt Romney for all conservative votes in the remaining states, where primaries and or caucuses were yet to be held.

Capitulation was inevitable for the second runner up to the Republican Party nomination for the flag bearer. He was only not handicapped financially; he was also handicapped by his tone of political message, even among Republicans. His choices of political fighting words were acceptable to some Republicans, many others within the Republican fold found it objectionable. Avoiding the obvious regarding the impossibility of harvesting enough delegates at this stage to stand at par or outclass Mitt Romney, will be delusional; and, this is probably one of the reasons Rick Santorum dropped out of the race. What were other reasons and what are the potential implications?

First, a prudent political observer must consider the question: what image does Rick Santorum want the Republican Party echelon or rank and file of the party, to have of him, in case he chooses to launch a possible campaign in 2016; or future years? Is it one of a spoiler or a team player, as he once construed of party politics? The road to the nomination process is not always abridged by a choice to drop out of a nomination in one year or season. An aspirant that drops out in one year to make way for another candidate with a better chance of advancing may actually create better fervor for his or her own candidacy in the future, in case he or she chooses to contest in the subsequent 4^th, 8^th or 12^th year political increment competition. To ensure that a candidate does not loose support in subsequent nomination process, it may be wise to take the decision that Rick Santorum has taken in the Republican 2012 Nomination Process.

The questions asked by some political observers that it was just too early for Rick Santorum to throw in the towel the way he has done, may be genuine, based on the myopic way individual of those pundits are envisaging the contest so far; and, what may hold for Rick Santorum in the remaining state primaries and caucuses. No one could actually tell what is to come; however, Rick Santorum has chosen to be safe than sorry. Imagine if Rick Santorum had remained in the Republican nomination process and he had been trounced by Mitt Romney in Pennsylvania, Rick Santorum’s home state. Wouldn’t that have been a disaster for him; knowing fully well that Rick Santorum was tossed out by voters from his Senatorial seat  because of what the voters considered were Rick Santorum’s excesses or weaknesses, whichever one you take, in the last contest he was involved, at the state level.

Second, many politicians have a very short shelf life because of their inability to articulate a message for a campaign. Misrepresentation and inconsistencies found in some comments coming out of politicians have derailed or put them at a disadvantage against an opponent. Questions may be different, if Rick Santorum’s had made very endearing comments regarding his campaign and his opponents within the Republican Party. Recent comments from Rick Santorum that Mitt Romney is a duplicate, or mirror image of the potential Democratic Party opponent, President Obama, was unacceptable and had infuriated some Republicans! To this group, Rick Santorum’s comment at the time was dishonorable if not, heresy. Further, a synonymous comment was found in Mitt Romney’s campaign, when he articulated that he was the only one capable enough, because of his business background, to take on President Obama. The “Iffy” issue with Mitt Romney’s Comments can also be found in Rick Santorum’s.

Everyone knows, except each would want to continue to fool him or herself that a President’s success in many affairs of the state, depends on his or her advisers. Given the Republican Party aspiration to unseat President Obama, If Mitt Romney by 2016, is unable to conquer the nation’s challenge with the under performing economy, the fault usually will not be his, and his alone; although, the political blame and or consequences will rest on his shoulders, the way President Obama is suffering right now. Governance, especially in the area of a nation’s economy, requires a lot of support from many advisors, some of which may be workable and others, probable infeasible because of some issues going on in the other areas of the economy. Much as some voters may like to take out their frustration on President Obama in the November 2012 contest, for the challenging economic climate, it is very short-sighted for these people, not to appreciate that the economic problems inherited by the present administration, were created over close to a decade, by a Republican administration, in their poor management of the fiscal affairs of the nation, including two unpaid foreign wars and the continued tax cuts for the millionaires among us.

Third, imagine the multiple gaffes from Mitt Romney in his bid to cart up to some extreme Republicans. Imagine also statements that in many instances look rather absurd, even for Conservative Republicans: “My wife drives two Cadillac’s, I don’t care about the poor, and I listen to my wife regarding women concerns regarding the status of the economy”, among others. The individualistic, make-it-on-your-own tone that Mitt Romney’s campaign messages have taken, would not sit very well with millions of high school graduates, some in low paying jobs as waitresses, but who are heads of household; many in this group form a huge segment of the Republican voters in many Red States. To make head way with this group of voters, especially in many Southern states where voters are more likely to vote Republican, will be very hard in this coming election, because of how these messages are perceived as condescending or marginalizing to many in this group.

Complex and somewhat abusive comments from a political aspirant hardly engages voters; especially those that feel aggrieved from the candidate’s comments, and can actually damage the candidate’s chances. When Rick Santorum began to make some comments regarding the American family values and the place of social conservative doctrine, many potential supporters of his, turned away and some actually turned against him. Can you imagine a comment like having a penny between the ladies knees, if they do not want to get unwanted pregnancies, coming from Rick Santorum’s major financier? Although this latter comment was not from Rick Santorum, voters made no difference as to who made this outrageous comment; they faulted the default messenger, Rick Santorum. One must expect that Mitt Romney will suffer some voters’ attrition or support from some comments he made in recent months, regarding women health, the budget cut imbroglio from Congressman Paul Ryan and the Medicare savings or reform.

The challenge from all these observations are not essentially personal to a particular politician; usually, voters tend to vote their interest and some comments from politicians that seem to erode the economic depth or social independence of voters, are often frowned upon and voted against, in many political exercises and contests. This is one of the reasons, why Rick Santorum dropped out of the Republican nomination race and the reason, why all the utterances from Mitt Romney, during the Republican Nomination Process, may come to hunt him in the general elections. It is also one reason why, at a point in the Republican nomination contest, one of Mitt Romney’s political advisers, indicated that the Republican Nomination process has the potential of being an Etch-A-Sketch Exercise towards the general elections.

Is Rick Santorum choice to drop out of the Republican nomination process the better or best option available to him in the scheme of things? A deviation, when the odds against a candidacy are so much, is as prudent, as laying in wait for another opportunity to compete to win. Avoiding a potential embarrassing or disgraceful outcome is much a better option, when all else are about to fail. A failure to win Pennsylvania may have doomed any seriousness Rick Santorum’s campaign was being been given by many voters and observers. When a politician takes time to review chances in an impending election and takes actions to avoid a possible failure, the politician is showing prudence, or necessarily being reflective.

When a political candidate fails to act or stays in a race, where voters see his or her action as disconnected from reality, his or her sense of judgment is questioned, even in other circumstances or issues that could have worked in his or her favor. This is the dilemma that Newt Gingrich and Ron Paul will find themselves. Both candidacies, for all we know, are failing towards the Republican Nomination process. For these candidates to remain adamant and continue to re-assert that they will take their odds to the general floor of the Republican Party Convention is to be failing to deal with reality. Maybe their decision(s) may not hurt either man as both are in advanced stages of their lives; however, their decision may come to hunt them in other ways. Imagine if the eventual Republican nominee decides to consider either man as part of his administration. Would this decision affect the nominee’s ultimate call or will he discountenance it? Your guess is as good as mine!

For now, all we know is that, for all practical purposes, Mitt Romney will be the Republican Flag bearer for the 2012 General Elections. A reality that I can hear the Democrats say: Game’s on!

Romney’s cloak of Inevitability: Can a liberal Republican Change America?

Keywords or Terms: Uninspiring Republican Candidate; Etch-A-Sketch Nominee; Contrasting Obama with Mitt Romney; Power Change from time to time: Democrats vs. Republicans; Paul Ryan’s Budget and 2012 Presidential Election; American Society of News Editors (ASNE).

Once again, Mitt Romney is finding his voice. The potential Republican nominee, who was hurting so bad from spree of loses last month in states like Missouri, Tennessee and Kansas, is finding his voice again after yesterday’s successes in Wisconsin, Maryland and Washington D.C. In his newly found unbanning voice, Romney is pledging tax cut across the board; he is pledging to take the country away from big government; he is championing Paul Ryan’s budget plan, he is insisting that his understanding of what is wrong with America’s Economy is over bloated government and the grounded understanding or knowledge of what it must take for the economy to start growing at a faster rate than what we now have by President Obama.

For many months, Republicans argue among themselves, if Mitt Romney was the right candidate for their so-called conservative leaning?  In a dispersed group of shareholders, where the extremists took over the party, politicians like Congressman Paul Ryan bloomed and the possibility of their voice coming mainstream became realistic for the Republicans. Enters the opportunist Mitt Romney and his desire to curry this type of extremism in America’s politics, Romney began to talk favorably about Paul Ryan’s budget plan that was all but rejected by the Republican lawmakers in congress a year ago. Is Romney realistic? Is Romney the manager he is claiming to be? How can a chief-executive subscribe to a plan that will disenfranchise majority of his shareholder? Does Romney know what is in the Paul Ryan’s budget plan?

Consider that Paul Ryan’s budget only offer anxiety, stress and exhaustion for adults and poor children on Medicare and Medicaid. Doubly consider that a conservative leaning Newspaper, Washington Post, has criticized the Paul Ryan’s budget plan in its opinion page as dire and worthless. Why then is Romney championing the course of a right wing legislator like Paul Ryan? Is it out of his newly found voice or the necessity to do anything it takes to seem more conservative than he was before his front runner status among Republicans seeking their Party’s nomination? One probable uncontested reason, is the fact that for all intense and purposes, Mitt Romney is going to be the Republican flag bearer after their convention. Other contestable reason is, Mitt Romney will do anything possible, to seem more attuned to the welfare of women, like having his wife speak for him or re-brand his campaign, even if he is intuitively nursing how to draw back on the gains of women on their reproductive issues, courtesy of the right wingers who have now taken over the Republican Party.

The most spectacular reason is the necessity to become a mainstream candidate if he is going to win votes from independents. In the frenzy fight for Republican nomination, Mitt Romney made so many gaffes that his supporters wondered, if this was truly a serious candidate that understood the plight of ordinary Americans. From my wife drives two Cadillac to, I don’t care about the poor! Yet, in a session with the American Society of News Editors today, Romney claimed that President Obama is criticizing policies that no one is proposing and failing to run on his record.

Governor Romney may be tempering his Etch-A-Sketch image by attempting to appeal to a broader audience with his pronouncements, but the reality is: Governor Romney embraced Congressman Paul Ryan’s budget that is attempting to completely destroy whatever is left of the American middle-class. While Governor Romney maybe attempting to prevent the Obama’s Campaign team from defining his campaign to the American voters as shown by the President’s speech yesterday, the reality is: President Obama has not said anything that many living Americans in the past three decades do not know: The trickle down economics doctrine, supply-side economics, once branded Reaganomics, has never worked for America and would continue to be a disaster for the nation’s middle-class if we continue to buy into it.

In the early 80’s, under President Reagan, the nation bought into the pipe dream of supply-side economics and got badly burned to the extent that it had to go back on some of the public policies before the nation start trending to a catastrophic economic depression or Armageddon.  Under the second Bush Presidency, George W. Bush, the nation went back to the same devious idea of cutting taxes for the rich after making some strides under a Democratic President, William H. Clinton. The doctrine failed so badly, the house of cards collapsed about four years ago, and everyone saw and experienced the fallacies: lost jobs, homes and savings. Lost lives, time and hope! Many economists lambasted President Reagan’s excessive correction of the economy, which some claimed was one of the reasons many social programs that were helping many Americans stay above water, went away. Once again, we are having another apostle of supply-side economics vying for the office of the presidency!

In an attempt to over-correct for some excesses of the economy, including wastage on social welfare programs in the 80', one supply-side guru, named Ronald Reagan, nearly brought the whole economy to demise, before we entered into the first Gulf War. The cutting of taxes for the wealthiest precipitated a culture of deficit spending that kept on digging America into a hole. Another Republican President who still insisted he could make it right, believing in some of the tenets of President Reagan's supply-side economics, got us into the first Gulf War and with his eyes away from the ball, lost billions in our coffers and we went spiraling into a recession. With the slogan, 'it is the economy stupid', President Clinton corrected for some slag in the economy and assisted us in building a nest house, a respite we completely lost under the voyeurism of another Republican President into the war in Iraq and Afghanistan. The unbridled spending during the second Iraq war precipitated the fast-track free fall of the economy. 

Once we entered into an unpaid war in Iraq, there is no way we could avoid falling into another of deficit spending or possible recession. With an unpaid for war and huge tax cut for the wealthy, not only were jobs not created as promised from the supply-side Republican economics gurus, we unwittingly fell into a deeper hole with financial sector laws deregulation and consequential budget deficits spending that only the 'Reaganomists' could explain. We began fearing our note holders were going to come calling; and, China and India, countries that were third world nations barely two decades ago, began dictating the rate of interest on our over-bloated debts! Correcting for many of these past mistakes, which an intelligent, sharp and cautious President, Barack Obama, is helping us figure out, is what we are still on. Now come another snake oil sales man, Republican Mitt Romney, attempting to dissuade us, calling for us to go back to our old bad habits of cutting taxes for the rich, fighting unpaid for wars and building up on our armories, one that is better than any other country's in the world, with an Etch-A-Sketch strategy campaign. Many of us who have lost our jobs, homes and savings remember this and would not allow another Republican zealot to continue to destroy America. Cutting taxes for the wealthiest, fighting unpaid wars and promising to exploit one of the nation’s natural resources till kingdom come, will do the nation and its people, no good. Any politician of that persuasion therefore, must be kept at bay, because we all saw what happened the last time. Was this point well-articulated by President Obama in his speech to the American Society of News Editors? Yes! Should President Obama apologize for his speech before this group? No, No and No!!!

As an Etch-A-Sketch politician, Governor Romney indicated that the type of health care reform in the state of Massachusetts is just as good for the nation. Once he began to show keen interest in the Presidency and critics began to ask questions about what is now called ‘Obamacare’, a prototype of ‘RomneyCare’, the flip-flopper began to backtrack. The American voters' aim is to bind Mitt Romany to the health care reform in his home state of Massachusetts, yet he is balking? Who can imagine that less than a decade of a health care reform packaged and mid-whiffed by Governor Romney, he will today be running away from the same law. What must residents of Massachusetts be thinking today: Did the snake oil governor/salesman sold us another bad investment in Romneycare? Who can imagine that a man, who can hardly be taken as reflective, is turning away from many of his statements, just to gain currency and win a general election? Is this type of person worthy of consideration to be the President of this great nation? My candid response to the last question is this: H*ll No.!  What we want as a nation is a stable hand, a consistent and dependable leader, a man of his words, not a wish-washy fly by night politician, who will do anything to be elected President of this nation. We are tired of deceptive leaders who will want to derail our dreams and ambition as a nation. We do not need another Supply-side economics or public policy before we know it will fail us again!

How might Paul Ryan’s budget figure into the 2012 Presidential Election? Sometimes, it might be wise for Americans to look back into their Economic History to be able to make better prediction(s) regarding what Congressman Paul Ryan’s budget plan has to offer the nation and its people. The hostile takeover of the Republican Party by the extreme right may offer a great debate of where America must go from here in the 2012 Presidential elections; however, regarding the welfare of the economy, Paul Ryan’s budget is the last anyone should be looking forward to getting us out of our deficit hole. Knowing what we went through towards the end of another Republican Presidency, President George W. Bush, the nation must take a long hard look at anyone selling us another tax cut policy. We must make it harder for Republicans or any deceptive leader to ascend the thrown very soon. If Paul Ryan is right, and economic history is any guide, the type of budget being proposed and receiving blessing from 'Republican Nominee' Mitt Romney, will serve the nation, no good. And if any politician is subscribing to this type of supply-side economics, we must all speak with one voice and repeat: Once bitten twice shy!

The intrusive nature of the Tea Party that has held Republicans to ransom must not be allowed nationwide; and, this is probably one of the greatest reasons to reject the Republican's likely nominee from the oval office. To paraphrase President Obama’s speech yesterday before American Society of News Editors (ASNE): If the nation buys into Paul Ryan’s plan to save Medicare and reign in spending, as passed on party vote line in the House of Representative last week, the nation would see mothers and young children loose healthy and nutritious food, college students lose financial aid, the Department of Justice and FBI unable to enforce laws and administer justice, and in certain parts of the country, air traffic controllers would vanish; even, weather forecasters would be handicapped! Is anyone prepared for such a scenario? If President Obama is not exaggerating, are we ready to stomach another Armageddon? Your guess is as good as mine. 

Yes, the government may need to speed up the economic performance so that the 8.3% unemployment rate could come down. President Obama has made it possible for rule changes in many of the government regulations that have been stifling economic growth; he has worked most recently to allow for some lease and licensing for alternative energy source exploitation and other opportunities for drilling in federal lands, and we are experiencing some life in the economy. But why should we switch in the middle of gradual progress to an unreliable switch and bait executive officer in the White house, whose only campaign logo is:  I once did it in the private sector, so I can translate my private sector success or experience to the public sectors that is well over a billion size of Bain's Capital? Governor Romney’s promise is simply that: a promise from a politician! Knowing what the nation knows right now about apathy in congress and dishonesty of politicians, why should anyone have faith in an aspirant who is depending or casting all his lot with a politician. Paul Ryan, who has hardly known what it takes to work in a framework of compromise for the betterment of the whole nation, is asking the nation to buy into another tax cut and disheveled budget, only for the sake of savings on Medicaid and Medicare. Is this necessarily right for America at this time? This is one question that must be on the mind of American voters come November 6, 2012!