Week in Review Part IV: Random Musings

With just a few days to go before the Iowa caucuses, a CNN/Time/ORC poll of likely Iowa caucus-goers was a mini-bombshell:

Mitt Romney 25 percent
Ron Paul 22
Rick Santorum 16
Newt Gingrich 14
Rick Perry 11
Michele Bachmann 9

[A follow on CNN/Time poll had Santorum at 15%, Gingrich at 13%.]

A month ago in the same survey, Gingrich was at 33 vs. Romney’s 20. Santorum only had 5. So terrible news for the former speaker (whose campaign also screwed up royally in not getting on the Virginia primary ballot, especially given it’s his home state), while Santorum basked in the late glow of the media spotlight. Heck, the guy deserves it. No one has worked the state harder and by my admittedly fickle thinking, should he finish where the above poll has him, and can hang in there another 6-8 weeks, if nothing else he has put himself in the veep sweepstakes. Seriously, he’s not a bad match with Romney. Santorum has the Washington experience Romney lacks, could be a decent go-between with Congress, has foreign policy experience, and if something happened to a President Romney, Santorum is just as qualified to be the nation’s leader as any of the others we’ve had since Bush 41. [I know…that’s not saying much.]

NBC/Wall Street Journal…Iowa

Romney 23
Paul 21
Santorum 15
Gingrich 13

Michele Bachmann’s campaign was roiled by the defection of her two main staffers, including her Iowa state chair, Kent Sorenson, who defected to the Paul camp. Bachmann said Sorenson was bought off and that he told her so in a phone conversation. Sorenson said the conversation never happened and that no money was exchanged. The timing was awful and at this point I’ll be shocked if she gets 7% and moves on to New Hampshire.

CNN/Time/ORC poll…New Hampshire:

Romney 44
Paul 17
Gingrich 16
Huntsman 9

New Hampshire Survey Center poll:
Romney 39

Gingrich 17
Paul 17
Huntsman 11

Nationally, a Rasmussen Reports survey had Romney topping Obama 45 to 39 percent. But just a week earlier, Romney trailed Obama 44-41, so not sure about this one. [Actually, I’m not keen on the Rasmussen surveys, period.]

I hope I’ve made it clear I don’t have a personal favorite yet in the presidential race. I was interested in Herman Cain for a week or two, thought Perry was intriguing for an equal amount of time just as he showed up in Iowa when I was there in August, and am glad the likes of Santorum and Ron Paul are in the race to make it interesting. Speaking of Paul, Stephen F. Hayes of The Weekly Standard:

“(When likely Iowa caucusgoers) were asked to pick the most important issue from a list of 12, 35 percent said ‘jobs and the economy,’ 24 percent said ‘the size and role of the federal government,’ and 21.5 percent said ‘national debt and the deficit.’ Asked the most important quality they were seeking in a candidate, more voters answered ‘takes a strong stand’ (32 percent) than anything else.

“Is there a candidate in the race who has taken stronger stands than Paul? Who has focused more directly and consistently on those top three issues than Paul? How has Paul overcome his often-wacky, sometimes indefensible foreign policy views? In a state that historically has some strong non-interventionist tendencies, it doesn’t take much….

“(If) Paul were to win the Iowa caucuses, he would likely do so with something like a quarter of the vote. He won’t be the nominee. But a quarter of Iowa caucus voters will have rewarded a traditional grassroots campaign and a message of aggressive free-market solutions to our problems, and will at the same time have chosen to send a message about the weakness of the rest of the field. If they do this, why couldn’t one say the Republicans of Iowa are doing their job?”

As for Ron Paul and a third-party bid, Karl Rove notes the following in his “Predictions for 2012” column for the Wall Street Journal.

“After failing to win the GOP presidential nomination, Ron Paul will not run as a third-party candidate because that would put his son, Rand Paul, in an untenable position: Does the Republican senator from Kentucky support his father and effectively re-elect Mr. Obama, or back his party and defeat him?”

But as another piece in the Journal points out this week, if Paul doesn’t run as a Libertarian, former New Mexico Gov. Gary Johnson is expected to seek that party’s nomination, while the nonpartisan group Americans Elect is now on 13 state ballots, including Florida and Ohio, two key swing states, and supposedly will have completed paperwork to get on 30 ballots by the end of this week. Which begs the obvious question; does Donald Trump go this route? It’s largely an online affair. He wouldn’t have to shake any hands, an act he detests.

I always get a kick out of the polls that say a majority of Americans view President Obama as “likeable,” regardless of whether they approve of his performance. What cracks me up is that he doesn’t like people. We had another example of this in an article by Helene Cooper of the New York Times this week.
“Air Force One had just landed in Manchester, N.H., on a brisk Tuesday morning last month when President Obama made an admission to Valerie B. Jarrett, his close friend and senior adviser.

“ ‘I just called Reggie,’ Mr. Obama said. It was his first domestic trip without Reggie Love, the former Duke University basketball player who had been his constant companion and presidential ‘body man’ until he left in November to study for his M.B.A. full time. ‘I miss him,’ the president confessed.

“More noteworthy than Mr. Obama’s spending the short flight calling his longtime aide is what he did not do: schmooze with Washington politicians. No one from the New Hampshire Congressional delegation traveled with Mr. Obama on the plane, a perk that presidents often offer to lawmakers to foster good will.

“Mr. Obama, in general, does not go out of his way to play the glad-handing, ego-stroking presidential role…he keeps Congress and official Washington at arm’s length, spending his down time with a small – and shrinking – inner circle of aides and old friends….

“His relationship with Washington insiders is described by members of both parties as ‘remote,’ ‘distant’ and ‘perfunctory.’….

“ ‘It’s about building relationships,’ said Gerald Rafshoon, a television producer who was President Jimmy Carter’s communications director. ‘Some people are saying he’s a recluse. You don’t want that reputation. He needs to show that he likes people.’”

Don’t agree? Reminder…I noted some thoughts of Michael Goodwin / New York Post, in my 10/15/2011 WIR on this very topic:

“The reports are not good, disturbing even. I have heard basically the same story four times in the last 10 days, and the people doing the talking are in New York and Washington and are spread across the political spectrum.

“The gist is this: President Obama has become a lone wolf, a stranger to his own government. He talks mostly, and sometimes only, to friend and adviser Valerie Jarrett and to David Axelrod, his political strategist.

“Everybody else, including members of his Cabinet, have little face time with him except for brief meetings that serve as photo ops. Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton and Treasury Secretary Tim Geithner both have complained, according to people who have talked to them, that they are shut out of important decisions.

“The president’s workdays are said to end early, often at 4 p.m. He usually has dinner in the family residence with his wife and daughters, then retreats to a private office. One person said he takes a stack of briefing books. Others aren’t sure what he does.”

According to a survey by the Pew Hispanic Center, Obama leads Romney by 68 percent to 23 percent, even as Hispanic adults disapprove with the way the administration is handling deportations of illegal immigrants, by 59 percent to 27 percent. His job approval rating among Hispanic voters is at 54 percent, nine points lower than last year. [The latest Washington Post/ABC News poll had Obama’s overall job approval at 49 percent.] The latest Gallup Poll has Obama’s approval rating among Hispanics at 60 percent. In 2008, Obama won the Hispanic vote over John McCain by a 67-31 margin. [Peter Wallstein / Washington Post]

Democratic Sen. Ben Nelson, 70, announced his retirement in heavily Republican Nebraska, giving the GOP another opening. Nelson joins fellow conservative Democratic senators Jim Webb (Va.) and Kent Conrad (N.D.) in bowing out, as the Republicans have a great shot at picking up the four seats they need to get back in the majority. [Nelson would have been vulnerable due to his vote for Obamacare.]

The other week I was talking about how the United States needs to drastically reduce its troop strength in Europe, some 52,000 strong (of which 40,000 are in the Army). In 2012, the U.S. is indeed reducing its troop level to the lowest since before the Cold War, cutting 4,000 or so.

On another topic I’ve discussed before, reducing the ranks of generals and admirals, Craig Whitlock of the Washington Post reports:

“Pentagon officials said they have eliminated 27 jobs for generals and admirals since March, the first time the Defense Department has imposed such a reduction since the aftermath of the Cold War, when the collapse of the Soviet Union prompted the military to downsize.

“The cuts are part of a broader plan to shrink the upper ranks by 10 percent over five years, restoring them to their size when the country was last at peace, before the attacks of Sept. 11, 2001.”

Good…we have former Sec. of Defense Robert Gates to thank for setting this in motion. But far more needs to be done. As Vice Adm. William E. Gortney, director of the Joint Staff at the Pentagon and appointed by Gates to review the number of top officers, said, “If 10 years of combat have taught us anything, it’s that flat is faster.” It’s not just about saving a few dollars, it’s about being more nimble. Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-S.C.) is among those supporting the Pentagon’s efforts in this area. But others have said the Pentagon isn’t moving fast enough

Craig Whitlock notes: “Benjamin Freeman, a national security analyst…said the number of generals and admirals on active duty stood at 970 as of Sept. 30. That represented an increase of six active-duty positions from March, when Gates ordered the cuts.”

I get so sick of this crap, and while Freeman expressed deep disappointment, I find it depressing more Americans don’t know or give a damn about their bloated and deeply corrupt Pentagon.

[Again, check out my “Hot Spots” link on the topic.]

I have to admit I cracked a smile upon hearing that the hacker-network, Anonymous, stole thousands of credit card numbers from the U.S. intelligence outfit, Stratfor, because I don’t respect Stratfor’s work. Just an opinion, but it’s highly overrated, as is, quite frankly, the CIA, as they have proved time and time again. Remember when the CIA said Fidel Castro was near death and your editor wrote “Castro will not die” on 12/30/06, referring to 2007?
Of course at the same time, it would be highly disturbing if Anonymous released stolen emails that compromised various sources Stratfor has, even if many of these same folks are worthless.

New York City Mayor Michael Bloomberg was able to brag about the past decade being New York’s safest ever, in terms of fire deaths and murders, both near record lows, though I wish he’d wait until New Year’s Day to tout the statistics (I’m superstitious, you see). As of Dec. 28, 64 people had died in fires this year, second only to last year’s record-low 62, so the mayor can rightfully say response time hasn’t been hurt despite some high-profile budget cuts. In 1969, by comparison, 310 people died in fires.

And on the murder front, there were 500 through Dec. 27, compared to 523 last year. Back in the crack epidemic years, before Rudy Giuliani took over, there were over 2,000.

Howard Bryant / ESPN The Magazine, on the horrible year in college sports:

“The NCAA – under assault from its college football programs that are bigger than it, fearful that its basketball programs will realize the same, facing its long-standing hypocrisy of generating billions at the expense of its athletes – knows its empire is collapsing. Now the child sexual abuse scandals at Penn State and Syracuse have destroyed another previously impervious front: the myth of coach as great moral influence….

“Like the rest of the NCAA foundations that have proven to be fraudulent, there’s no believing in the coach-as-guide ideal anymore. The lie of it has been exposed, the rot setting in, as the game’s biggest, richest names run from perhaps the most damaging crisis in the history of college athletics, counting their money, staying quiet, nervously checking the headlines in the hopes that their program isn’t next.”

And now my selection for “Week in Review Person of the Year.” For my purposes it must go to a political figure; the consequences of governance, or lack thereof, being central to what we explore in this column. As you can see below, if there is no obvious choice, I’m not naming one. I also stretched the definition a little in naming Gen. Petraeus (and Bernanke), but his position was as political as they come. I also readily admit, in hindsight, that these selections may have peaked the year chosen.

2001 – George W. Bush
2002 – no one…citing “unfinished business in Iraq”
2003 – George W. Bush, Tony Blair, John Howard
2004 – Hamid Karzai
2005 – Ariel Sharon
2006 – no one
2007 – Gen. David Petraeus and Defense Sec. Robert Gates
2008 – Gen. Petraeus and Sec. Gates
2009 – Ben Bernanke
2010 – David Cameron
2011 – no one…let me explain…

I stare at a big world map on the wall across from my desk all day and spent some good time scouring it for ideas this year. All of the above were deemed to have made positive contributions. For the life of me, I can’t find one national figure who fits the bill for 2011.   If I wanted, I could be cute and name Andrew Cuomo and Chris Christie as two governors who got things done in 2011, thus proving leadership matters, but their spheres of influence are too small.

So, sorry…I know this is wimpy…but I’ve been decrying the lack of leadership in the world for years. 2011 proves it.

As for “Dirtball of the Year,” this is given to the person(s) who has most negatively impacted the lives of millions.

2000 – Robert Mugabe
2001 – Osama bin Laden
2002 – Mugabe
2003 – Saddam Hussein and bin Laden
2004 – Abu Musab al-Zarqawi
2005 – Zarqawi
2006 – Mahmoud Ahmadinejad
2007 – Mugabe
2008 – Mugabe
2009 – Ahmadinejad
2010 – Kim Jong Il
2011 – Muammar Gaddafi and Bashar al-Assad…thankfully, the former is now dead. A bullet between the eyes of the latter would be quite appropriate.
-
Pray for the men and women of our armed forces…and all the fallen.
God bless America.

Gold closed at $1566…up $145 on the year despite the recent decline
Oil, $98.83

Returns for the week 12/26-12/30

Dow Jones -0.6% [12217]
S&P 500 -0.6% [1257]
S&P MidCap -0.6%
Russell 2000 -0.9%
Nasdaq -0.5% [2605]

Returns for 2011

Dow Jones +5.5%
S&P 500 -0.00%
S&P MidCap -3.1%
Russell 2000 -5.4%
Nasdaq -1.8%

Bulls 50.5
Bears 29.5 [Source: Chartcraft / Investors Intelligence]