Phila. Inquirer Columnist Slams Safer Streets, Economic Growth

Karen Heller of the Philadelphia Inquirer has written a provocative, yet dreadfully inaccurate column arguing that the last decade’s worth of growth at Temple University and in the surrounding neighborhoods have been detrimental to the community.

I first visited Temple in July 1998 in the summer between by junior and senior year in high school with my late Uncle Robert and my parents as I was considering applying to go there as an undergraduate. To this day I can vividly recall the crumbling buildings surrounding campus, trash-strewn vacant lots, vagrants stumbling around campus, drug deals occurring in broad daylight, and a general atmosphere that was both unwelcoming and relatively depressing.

While I didn’t end up at Temple as an undergraduate, I returned eleven years later as an employee and have been working towards my PhD there since September 2009. I am on campus and in the surrounding neighborhood on a daily basis and believe that Karen—who is an otherwise talented journalist—seriously misrepresents the positive changes happening at and around Temple’s campus and in North Central Philadelphia.

Each day I sense the presence of a vibrant, optimistic attitude on campus and on the neighborhood streets surrounding the university. There is a positive vibe in the air that the rest of Philadelphia would benefit from experiencing. The streets are safer. There’s less trash. There are fewer crumbling buildings. The drug dealers have retreated to the shadows and no longer contaminate the streets to the degree they did when I first visited. A grocery store, a movie theater, and several small businesses now stand on what used to be a blighted property and an abandoned lot. New buildings to house students and residents are being erected as I write this to replace the blight and other eyesores.

While Temple’s campus is improving and changing the area around campus has improved and changed as well, and for the better. While challenges remain, it’s hard to argue that we ought to allow things to drift back to the way they used to be. I suppose the naysayers want to return to the not-so good old days—more crime, dangerous streets, hookers and drug dealers running rampant, and less commerce and opportunity—instead of leaning forward.

Read Karen Heller’s Inquirer column in the paper’s May 16 edition for yourself.

Fringe Super PAC to Revive Jeremiah Wright in Ad Campaign

News sources reported on May 17 that a conservative Super PAC run by Chicago Cubs owner Joe Ricketts is considering raising and spending $10 million on an ad campaign reminding voters of Barack Obama’s past association with controversial minister Jeremiah Wright. During the 2008 campaign videos of bizarre sermons delivered by Rev. Wright surfaced, causing several weeks worth of media coverage which ultimately forced then-candidate Obama to publicly distance himself from his former pastor.

A 54 page strategy memo developed by beltway-insider media professionals and campaign operates suggests that this potential ad campaign means that “the world is about to see Jeremiah Wright and understand his influence on Barack Obama for the first time in a big, attention-arresting way,” noting that they will “do what John McCain would not let us do” in 2008. McCain, as you may recall, had the good sense to ignore the Wright controversy rather than harping on the subject in ads, speeches, and debates.

This suggests a risky strategy that could easily backfire on Mitt Romney by dragging down both candidates rather than just the president. My sense is that we are at a critical juncture when Americans want solutions to problems, a serious debate about the future of the country, and expect both candidates to present a compelling vision rather than this tripe. Rehashing a controversy that went nowhere in 2008 makes little sense and is a gamble that Republicans who want to win the White House this year should avoid.

Take a closer look at the strategy memo on how this Super PAC may use Wright to attack Obama at the New York Times web page.

Would You Take Economic Advice from This Man?

Start saving your pennies. Former President George W. Bush—the guy we can thank for frittering away a record budget surplus, starting a few wars, and leaving the economy a wreck—is writing a book on economic growth strategies.

Stop laughing. This is for real! The price tag is rumored to be a cool $25. You can use what’s left of your Bush tax cut to buy a copy or two.

Perhaps he’ll address how he entered office with a $281 billion budget surplus and managed to leave his successor with a $1.2 trillion deficit. Another chapter should address how he compiled $5.07 trillion in new spending over eight years, making Obama’s projected $1.44 trillion in new spending between FY 2009-2017 appear to be fiscally responsible (spending figures are from the New York Times, July 2011).

Note that the link does not take you to Comedy Central’s page.

The candidates in this race are decorated Vietnam veteran David Christian from Bucks County, former State Representative Sam Rohrer from Berks County, former Santorum staffer Marc Scaringi from the Harrisburg area, coal company CEO Tom Smith from Armstrong County, and entrepreneur Steve Welch from Chester County.

I’ve met four of them. They’re all very nice, respectable people. But are they Senatorial timber? Can any of them seriously compete in November?

The positions of all five candidates can be summed up pithily. None are willing to compromise on slight tax increases for legitimate debt relief, they all think Obama is a socialist, and none would have voted for the stimulus bill in 2009 that saved the country from sinking into a second Great Depression. It’s unclear if they think the federal government should do anything to ensure clean air and water, all appear to be hardliners on social issues, none offer a plan of their own for the country’s health care crisis, and none provide details for economic recovery short of trickle-down rhetoric.

In 2000 George W. Bush said that his favorite philosopher was Jesus. It sounds like this bunch is into Ayn Rand.

The frontrunners appear to be Smith, who is on pace to spend $5 million of his own fortune and Welch, a fellow multi-millionaire endorsed by Governor Corbett and the state Republican Party. Both were once very active Democrats. Smith was once an elected Democratic Committeeman and a registered Democrat between 1969 and 2011 before opting to run this year as a Republican. Welch was a registered Democrat between 2005 and 2009, voted for Obama in the 2008 primary, and once helped raise money for Democratic Congressman Joe Sestak.

Smith and Welch have been pounding each other relentlessly on television, on the web, and through direct mail. They accuse one another of being Republicans of convenience and imposter conservatives. Welch hits Smith for giving $2,400 to moderate Democratic Congressman Jason Altmire while ignoring Smith’s more than $250,000 in donations to GOP causes and candidates. Smith’s campaign blasts Welch as a closet liberal and Obama backer, although Welch too has financially supported Republican campaigns.

Both men are running very hard to the right in an effort to offset their prior Democratic affiliation. Their policy positions make Ronald Reagan and Bill Buckley look like Nancy Pelosi and Mike Dukakis. Meanwhile, the other three candidates are desperately trying to out-conservative one another to highlight the fact that Welch and Smith are not “real” Republicans.

Rohrer has embraced the 9-9-9 tax plan and is endorsed by alleged serial womanizer and presidential campaign circus act Herman Cain. Christian is backed by fringe nut Sharon Angle, who helped keep the GOP from controlling the U.S. Senate when she lost to Harry Reid. Scaringi—albeit taking courageous positions against the wars and fair trade—is running a campaign that’s much too conservative for middle-of-the-road Pennsylvania.

There’s one other huge factor to consider. The winner must face incumbent Senator Bob Casey, Jr.  He’s a pro-life, pro-Second Amendment Democrat with a history of winning elections. Casey has decisively won four statewide general elections: for Auditor General in 1996 and 2000, for State Treasurer in 2004, and for Senator in 2006. In those four races Casey averaged an astonishing 58.2 percent and amassed 10.7 million combined votes.

Republicans should recall the words of Hugh Scott, who served Pennsylvania in the U.S. Senate from 1959 through 1977. Influential in drafting Dwight Eisenhower for the GOP presidential nomination in 1952 and helping build an inclusive Republican coalition in Pennsylvania, Scott penned a 1968 book called Come to the Party. He explained why the Republican approach nationally and in Pennsylvania had to be inclusive and representative of a broad subset of interests, not merely the narrowest conservative ones.

In my view, Scott was right, which is why this Republican race will prove to be futile. It’s been a wasted primary conducted by five candidates running “me-too” campaigns. When one candidate takes a hard-line position the other four loudly shout “me-too!” They join the chorus rather than think ahead to the general election in a state where Democrats outnumber Republicans by over 1,072,000 voters.

In the end, it matters very little who wins this Republican Senate primary. Unlike midterm elections, presidential years bring out a larger, younger, and more centrist electorate. By running a “me-too” primary, the eventual nominee will be hobbled by his outside-of-the-mainstream positions. He’ll lose the ability to compete in the fall, humiliate himself, and embarrass his party. The “me-too” approach of all five GOP Senate candidates ensures that the April 24 “winner” will be steamrolled by Casey.

But alas, these are the perils of running campaigns better suited for Mississippi than Pennsylvania. It’s also the price tag of jettisoning the inclusive politics that brought GOP victories in Pennsylvania despite decades of registration deficits.

Republican primary voters should choose “none of the above” next Tuesday by skipping over the place on the ballot for U.S. Senate when they’re in the voting booth. It’s the only way to send a strong message that the “me-too” primary must not be repeated.

Only eight percent say they approve of how Congress is handling its job. I’d wager that more Americans believe they’ve been probed by aliens or think that Elvis and Tupac are still alive. Just over eight percent probably believe the Pittsburgh Pirates will finish the season above .500.

This distrust and dislike of Congress is terrible for our future as a representative republic. I believe this rock bottom disapproval rating is a result of an inability to handle serious national business without the threat of petty ideological or partisan war erupting at any moment.

Compromise has become synonymous with heresy, bipartisanship is viewed as sacrilege, and independence is treated as grounds for political lynching from the fringe right and far left. Here are three recent examples out of thousands of potential cases illustrating why Americans abhor Congress:

First, Congress engaged last year in dangerous ideological gamesmanship as Tea Party acolytes refused to pass the debt ceiling increase to prevent us from defaulting on our bills and causing America’s credit rating to tank. Instead they forced the creation of a “Super Committee” comprised of members from each congressional caucus. At least two of the appointees, Senator Pat Toomey (R-PA) and Representative Xavier Beccera (D-CA), voted against the actual creation of the commission.

Appointing members to the commission who opposed its creation and opposed a deal in the first place was utterly senseless. No reasonable person could have thought that the commission could succeed with those members guiding it. It was intentionally done to ensure that the commission would fail. But it allowed Congress to cover its collective posterior, making it appear as if they were taking action. Ideological politics trumped cooperation, and the public saw the charade for what it was.

Second, Americans oppose by wide margins the continued military involvement in Iraq and Afghanistan. 72 percent told a March 24 CNN poll that they oppose the war. 78 percent told a December 2011 CNN poll that they supported the immediate removal of all American troops from Iraq. Despite America’s collective frustration, Congress vacillates. They have the power to shut off the funding faucet for these wars, yet refuse to act. Bold, bipartisan action to bring the troops home now would help restore the people’s trust in Congress, yet there is no movement in the legislature to do the right thing.

Third, Politico wrote yesterday that Congressman Allen West (R-FL) accused 80 of his colleagues of being clandestine members of the Communist Party despite lacking any evidence for his McCarthy-like accusation. Last year, Politico reported that West attacked a Democratic congresswoman from his own state as being “vile, unprofessional, and despicable,” “a coward,” “characterless,” and “not a Lady.” Shameful words from a shameful man.

Why should citizens trust an institution whose members think so little of one other that they’d make such asinine, hurtful statements about their own colleagues and co-workers? Sane Americans don’t live or behave this way towards the people they interact with on a regular basis. They’re undoubtedly alarmed when those they place in power behave like petty thugs rather than reasonable statesmen.

What is the solution? Aside from the customary, but steadily disregarded call for improving civility and curbing the nasty rhetoric, we ought to follow the model set by former Senator Arlen Specter. In his new book, Life Among the Cannibals, Specter states that “in the Senate, I’d always been issue-oriented. I wouldn’t even call it pragmatism. It was a matter of using my own judgment and doing what I thought was right on a case-by-case basis, on whatever issue came up.”

As an undergraduate at Thiel College in Northwestern Pennsylvania I served as an intern in Specter’s Capitol Hill office in 2001. During that time I observed first-hand the philosophy which guided Specter and his staff: seek out the facts and allow them to determine the way forward.

Like most Americans, Specter made decisions on an issue-by-issue basis. Specter’s strength as a legislator was his willingness to change his mind as new facts came to light, his situational awareness changed, or if his own viewpoints shifted. This is what rational people do. Unlike those operating at the partisan and ideological extremes, most people are willing to change their minds as new facts emerge. They are not so entrenched in their positions that they refuse to adjust their views to solve problems.

Each day Americans sit around the kitchen table making important choices for their families. They evaluate the facts and render decisions based on what is realistic and attainable. This isn’t anything out of the ordinary. It’s just how life works. And it is how Americans think those representing them in Congress should work as well.

Given their paltry eight percent approval rating, members of Congress should follow Specter’s model. They should make fact-driven choices on a case-by-case, issue-by-issue basis. They should stop permitting ideological dogma or party affiliation to make the choices for them.

Renewed confidence and respect for Congress will come only when those in power begin using their own judgment to make independent evaluations of the issues as they arise. It’s the only option remaining to restore the people’s faith in the first branch of government before that eight percent fades to zero.

The Specter model

The op-ed “Specter and the scars of a survivor” (Tuesday) reminded me why I have long been a strong Arlen Specter supporter, regardless of his party affiliation (or my own).

Harold Gullan quotes Specter as saying that on the critical issues of the day, “I acted on my own judgment.” As an undergraduate at Thiel College in northwestern Pennsylvania, I served as an intern in Specter’s Capitol Hill office in 2001. During that time I observed firsthand the philosophy that guided Specter and his staff: Seek out the facts and allow them to determine the way forward.

Like most Americans, Specter made decisions on an issue-by-issue basis. Specter’s strength as a legislator was his willingness to change his mind as new facts came to light, as his situational awareness changed, or if his own viewpoints shifted.

More elected leaders should follow Specter’s model and elevate their country and constituents above ideology by following their conscience and making fact-driven choices rather than dogmatic, ideological decisions.

Nathan Shrader, Philadelphia

Weblink: Visit Philly.com ]]> http://nathanshrader.com/general/the-specter-model/feed/ 0 http://nathanshrader.com/general/legislating-by-anecdote-pennsylvanias-shameful-voter-id-bill/ http://nathanshrader.com/general/legislating-by-anecdote-pennsylvanias-shameful-voter-id-bill/#comments Fri, 09 Mar 2012 13:58:15 +0000 Nathan Shrader http://nathanshrader.com/?p=1412 President Lincoln once said that “I am a firm believer in the people. If given the truth, they can be depended upon to meet any national crisis. The great point is to bring them the real facts.” Honest Abe would feel like a stranger in today’s Pennsylvania as citizens are being left in the dark while politicians debate issues and vote on legislation without considering facts or evidence.

The Pennsylvania Senate passed House Bill 934 on March 7 by a vote of 26 to 23. The controversial legislation mandates that all voters show photo identification before casting a ballot beginning this November. The House already passed the bill on June 23, 2011 by a vote of 188 to 88 and now must pass the bill again because of Senate amendments. Governor Corbett has said that he will sign the bill if it reaches his desk.

The case of the voter ID legislation presents a fine example of legislators relying on misinformation, skirting the facts, and dismissing legitimate evidence. Here are a few important points worth chewing on.

First, those supporting voter ID were given ample opportunities to provide evidence of voter fraud in Pennsylvania and corresponding evidence that voter ID would reduce said fraud. Six committee hearings (four in the House and two in the Senate) were held on the bill and no empirical evidence was presented by proponents. The bill passed anyway, showing that legislators are content with making policy by anecdote, following a dangerous precedent that has been rampant in the first year of the Corbett administration.

Conversely, opponents of voter ID presented evidence in the form of “a report from the U.S. Department of Justice stating that of 300 million votes cast in federal elections between 2002 and 2007, there were only 86 documented cases of identification-related fraud,” says the Harrisburg Patriot-News. This shows that Corbett and the legislature are trying to kill a flea with an atom bomb.

Second, supporting this voter ID legislation exposes Corbett, Republican legislators who voted for it, and activists who lobbied for its passage as conservatives of convenience. The voter ID bill removes the state’s burden to prove that someone is not a bona fide voter and instead places the burden on the citizen. Is this not the polar opposite of what most “conservatives” claim to believe the proper role of government to be? It seems as if they only Keep reading...

REGARDLESS of the candidate’s efforts to remain cool and keep his composure, Mitt Romney’s campaign is in serious trouble. The feeling of inevitability surrounding his nomination has chilled as party leaders and the media sense that his armor has developed some serious chinks.

Last week’s Gallup tracking poll shows Romney trailing Rick Santorum nationally by four points. A Feb. 10-13 CNN Poll has Santorum leading Romney by 18 points when asked which candidate would be best for the middle class. Unfortunately for Romney, where he leads Santorum, and by 26 points, is when voters were asked which candidate most favors the upper class. Santorum also is beating Romney by seven points in the venerable bellwether state of Ohio.

Perhaps the greatest sign of Romney’s dilemma is in his native state of Michigan. A Detroit News poll shows Santorum with a four-point lead in the Wolverine State. A second poll, by the Michigan Information and Research Service, has Santorum up by nine points on Romney’s home turf.

The Mitt has hit the fan.

There is a logical reason why Michiganders are not sold on their native son Mitt, whose father, George, was a popular governor and a former auto-industry leader. Romney’s staunch and continuing opposition to the successful and necessary restructuring of the American auto industry is confounding to Michigan voters.

The good people of Michigan rely on the auto industry as their lifeline. It’s their history. They know that Romney is not on their side, especially since he says that he would have allowed the American auto industry to die on the vine, and continues to repeat that pronouncement on the campaign trail.

The auto industry doesn’t just underscore the history of Michigan and its people. It is woven into Romney’s own personal history. His dad was described by writer Joe Sherman as “a folk hero of the American auto industry,” and is remembered for improving the industry in the 1950s and 60s, and gave the people who worked on the assembly lines a fair deal. Mitt, on the other hand, authored a piece in the New York Times on Nov. 18, 2008 titled, “Let Detroit Go Bankrupt.”

Romney wrote that if the American auto industry received “the bailout that their chief executives asked for yesterday, you can kiss the American automotive industry goodbye.” He’s continued to express his most vociferous opposition; including an op-ed in the Detroit News in which he wrote: “The president tells us that without his intervention things in Detroit would be worse. I believe that without his intervention things there would be better.”

The facts show that the federal government’s auto restructuring worked. A Time cover story reported auto-industry data confirming that, instead of slumping into decline as Romney predicted, the American auto industry roared back with a vengeance. As of last November, American automakers GM and Ford led the way by grabbing 19.3 percent and 16.5 percent of the U.S. market share, respectively, in 2011.

Amazingly, Chrysler surged past Honda into fourth place, trailing Toyota by only two percent of U.S. sales. Despite those who never supported the auto-industry rescue continuing to spread falsehoods about the program’s success, Chrysler has repaid the government in full for $5.1 billion, including “interest, six years ahead of schedule,” says Time‘s Bill Saporito.

The Daily News editorial board said it best on Feb. 17 when they noted: “Contrary to revisionist history, there really was no alternative. There were no banks able to provide the funds to keep the struggling companies afloat so they could restructure. Without government money, they would have been liquidated, not only resulting in the loss of more than a million jobs but also of $150 billion in tax revenues.” These truths are lost on Romney.

Regardless of how one feels about Presidents Bush or Obama, it is incumbent upon all of us of every party or ideology to recognize the facts. The bipartisan rescue and restructuring of the American auto industry has been a successful and necessary element of the country’s gradual economic recovery that has saved jobs, increased prosperity and significantly helped the economy.

Romney continues to be on the wrong side of history. Instead of betting on the ingenuity, drive and desire of America’s workers and our domestic auto industry, Romney has been waving the white flag of surrender and defeat.

Michigan’s native son may lose that state because he forgot where he came from. Rick Santorum shares Romney’s bull-headed position that helping American workers and the domestic auto industry was a mistake. However, Santorum isn’t a Michigander, and the voters don’t see him as having betrayed his own history – and theirs.

Nathan R. Shrader is a Ph.D. candidate in Temple University’s Department of Political Science. He previously served as Legislative Aide and Deputy Director of Communications for the late Lt. Governor Catherine Baker Knoll.

Whether you like him or not, Gingrich doesn’t know the meaning of the word quit. Everyone said he was done last summer when Newt and wife number three took a long cruise rather than raising money. They said he was done when his staff resigned, accusing Newt of lacking the necessary discipline. His campaign was mocked, even when he was surging late in the fall. After his dismal fourth place finish in Iowa and his meager showing in New Hampshire they again claimed that the former Speaker’s candidacy was finished.

Then the unthinkable happened. Gingrich—a man who many thought was forever left in his electoral grave after resigning in from Congress in disgrace—again rose like Nixon from the political dead. A week before last Saturday’s South Carolina primary Mitt Romney held a ten point lead. One day before the election experts in that state predicted a five point Gingrich upset. The actual numbers told a much more incredible tale as Gingrich thumped Romney by about 13 points, essentially gaining 23 points in less than seven days.

In the Superman comics Bizarro World was the place where things are upside down; black is white, light is dark, and everything reflects an inverted image of reality. In the 2012 campaign Bizarro World, uber-establishment Beltway insider Newt Gingrich has reinvented himself as the anti-establishment, populist hero of working class, blue collar Americans. And in the process he has sent presumptive frontrunner Mitt Romney into panic mode.

Why is Gingrich so good at appealing to base voters while Romney is not? Gingrich exudes passion and determination. Romney plays it safe by saying only what he must. Gingrich radiates anger and frustration with the Obama agenda. Romney goes to great lengths not to speak in hyperbole or red-meat laced rhetoric. On the stump and in the debates Gingrich is electric while Romney is dull and dispassionate. Newt has showed them that he is ready to debate President Obama immediately without giving any ground. Romney has been less convincing.

The election night speeches given by Gingrich and Romney following the stunning South Carolina vote last Saturday present a fascinating case study. Romney delivered a subdued, monotonous message that perfectly followed the campaign’s formula: play it cool, be calm, take some weak shots at Obama and Gingrich, and avoid raising anyone’s hackles. It was a smart speech to give if you’re the guy who’s up by 20 points and safely on the path to the nomination, but not if you’re the guy who is fighting for his life.

The Gingrich speech was the extreme opposite. Before a raucous crowd he waxed blissfully about his days as Speaker, again reminding all that in 1994 he led the party out of the wilderness and into power. He took credit for the private sector jobs created in the Reagan and Clinton years, clearly articulated his complaints about the Obama administration, built a case for why he should be the nominee, and stared down the press who loathe him with every fiber of their being.

The speech was a Gingrich classic and reminiscent of his tactics from decades past that drove his enemies to madness. Gingrich took shots at the liberal media, chided the New York and Washington power elite, jabbed at Romney as being chronically out-of-touch, and slammed Obama as the “food stamp President” presiding over America’s decline. He bashed Hollywood and San Francisco with ease and cast himself as the happy warrior battling for his cause.

In his speech, Gingrich did what a master pol does best: he worked to build his base. After indirectly stating that his opponents were unelectable, Gingrich tried to co-opt their supporters by extending an olive branch, knowing that he needs a chunk of each of their votes to win the nomination. He praised Ron Paul for his fight for sound money, thanked Romney for his service in rescuing the Olympic Games, and extolled Rick Santorum’s irrational hawkishness towards Iran.

He slammed the moral relativists, excoriated the secularists, and re-issued the stern warning that President Gingrich would purge from the judiciary those who dare disagree with him. The intended recipients of Gingrich’s words were the most highly biased voters in the country who just want someone, anyone to defeat Obama. And they were listening rather than chuckling.

Ultimately, we can draw three conclusions from South Carolina where Newt staged one of the most incredible comebacks in modern campaign history:

First, we know that Romney has a glass jaw susceptible to fracture when challenged directly. Gingrich is unlikely to deliver the knockout punch to Romney, but he has helped show Obama how to do just that. The more the Democrats see of the exposed, fragile Romney, the easier it will be for them to tear him to pieces this fall.

Second, for Romney it is time to get tough or get out. He has to remove the gloves and personally hammer Gingrich instead of hiding behind his “uncoordinated” Super PAC ads aired by his millionaire pals. If he can’t hack it, he should step aside and let the Republicans find someone else before it is too late.

Finally, we’ve learned that Gingrich cares more about promoting himself than he does anything else. His candidacy is one big ego trip and lots of unsuspecting middle class and blue collar voters have been fooled into going along for the ride. I guess they know little of the man’s true history.

Meanwhile back at the ranch, Republicans anxious for a win this fall are left waiting with anxiety for Newt Gingrich, Supreme Ruler of Bizarro World to learn the meaning of the word “quit.”

[Note: Politico’s Jonathan Martin has written an extraordinary piece on how Gingrich is running a neo-populist campaign against the country club-like Mitt Romney. You can read it here: http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0112/71987.html]

We all know the basic facts about the Iowa Caucus results. Now that the smoke has cleared it’s possible to make a few observations.

First, the press has once again ignored a momentous showing by Texas Congressman Ron Paul. Just as the media brushed aside Paul’s narrow second place finish at the Ames Straw Poll in the summer, they have again written off Paul’s Tuesday performance as a mere afterthought.

Paul’s vote on Tuesday was evidence of an extraordinary surge. Four years ago Paul won 11,817 votes, one county, and 9.93 percent of the vote. This year he won 26,219 votes, 17 counties, and 21.4 percent. In 2008 Romney won 29,949 votes, 25 counties, and 25.19 percent. This year he won 30,015 votes, 17 counties, and 24.6 percent. If anyone should be touted as having made legitimate gains in Iowa, it was Paul and not Romney.

Paul’s campaign theme was largely an anti-war, pro-civil liberty, limited government message. His strong showing this week could spell trouble for the Republicans in the fall should a pro-war candidate who is weak on civil liberties emerge as the party’s nominee. If Romney, Santorum, or Gingrich are nominated and tack hard to the neoconservative right on defense and display an Bush/Obama-like disregard for civil liberties it is conceivable that a third party candidate running on a Paul-friendly platform could wreak havoc on the Republicans in Iowa (and elsewhere). If Paul’s supporters stick to their guns, they could give a third party candidate like former New Mexico Governor Gary Johnson a great base of support in this swing state.

Second, Rick Santorum remains an unelectable candidate who will greatly damage the Republican Party’s future. Santorum’s scrappy, grassroots campaign in Iowa was commendable, but it should not be viewed as a mandate for him to claim a place in the top tier. In 1988 Pat Robertson finished second with 25 percent. Pat Buchanan took 23 percent in 1996. Uber-religious right candidates Alan Keyes and Gary Bauer combined for 23 percent in 2000. Mike Huckabee scored 34 percent of the vote in 2008. All of them soon faded after their strong Iowa performances. Santorum’s 25 percent came in the tradition of other hardliners who surged in the heartland but were squashed when having to face more suburban, cosmopolitan, and moderate voters elsewhere.

Santorum is flying high at the moment, but he will soon fall back to earth as his record is scrutinized. According to the right-leaning Club for Growth, “His record is plagued by the big-spending habits that Republicans adopted during the Bush years of 2001-2006,” including support for No Child Left Behind, Medicare Part D, and the infamous Bridge to Nowhere on a remote Alaskan island. He also voted repeatedly to give Bush and Cheney a blank check to finance wars in Afghanistan and Iraq that are highly unpalatable with the voting public.

Santorum also signed a controversial pledge in 2011 stating that black children were better off under slavery than under Obama. He even used his post-Iowa caucus speech to compare Obama’s America to Mussolini’s fascist Italy of 1925. Santorum has equated homosexuality with bestiality and opposes abortion in the cases of rape, incest, or to save the life of the mother. He also favors greatly expanding presidential powers, casting votes while in Congress granting the president line-item veto power, favored presidential fast-track trade negotiating authority, and said that he would repeal “Obamacare” through an executive order rather than via the legislative process.

Third, Mitt Romney is in danger of openly embracing the establishment label in a year when the establishment is toxic. The smart money is on Romney to win the nomination. He has the money, organization, and name identification to outlast the other lesser known candidates and can go up on television in all of the remaining states simultaneously while the others cannot. Despite this, it is unclear how he will play in Dixie. He hasn’t made the final sell to get the necessary number of conservative voters on his team. Most seriously, he is quickly becoming viewed as the “establishment” candidate as the likes of Karl Rove, George H.W. Bush, and John McCain sing his praises.

In a regular year, these things would be helpful, but 2012 is not regular. The “establishment” is seen by many Tea Party types and grassroots activists as having caused the tensions in the party and led the GOP to becoming Democrat-Lite on spending and social issues. If the non-Romneys narrow to one person, that candidate may mount an outsider versus establishment insider campaign, preying upon Romney’s “changes of heart” on guns, abortion, health care, and gay rights.

Fourth, Newt Gingrich is an unelectable bully. The old saying suggests that nice guys finish last. While the merit of this axiom is debatable, nobody believes that bad, nasty guys finish first.

Gingrich’s speech on Tuesday night and his recent, vitriol-laced statements prove that he doesn’t know how to be gracious, humble, or conciliatory. Gingrich made his career by tearing people down, but as soon as the Romney campaign ran a series of factual ads about his record he whined and cried like a petulant child. Gingrich will never be president and his best chance to influence the race is to be the grumpy crank tossing bombs from the sidelines. It is quite remarkable how a once powerful Speaker of the House has fallen. Would respectable men like Sam Rayburn and Tip O’Neil have allowed this to happen to their own careers?

Republicans have a long road to travel to defeat Barack Obama. Michele Bachmann said during all of the debates and during her Jan. 4 departure speech that it is certain that Barack Obama will be a one-term president. Nothing could be further from the truth.

In order to win the presidency the GOP must discern that they can’t beat something with nothing.

Obama has the bully pulpit of the presidency and the inherent advantages of being an incumbent president. The Republicans have a flock of flawed frontrunners: an establishment type strongly opposed by a large swath of the party, a hubristic bully agitator, and a religious fundamentalist ideologue that lost reelection in his home state by nearly 20 points. Meanwhile they have brushed aside candidates like Jon Huntsman who is serious and studious and Ron Paul who performs exceptionally well with young people, new voters, and independents who the Republicans need to win. Is this any way to win an election?

All that we can be sure of today is that Barack Obama must like his odds.

A national Gallup poll conducted between November 28 and December 1, 2011 shows that a significant majority of Americans fear Big Government as opposed to Big Business and Big Labor. When asked the question, “In your opinion, which of the following will be the biggest threat to the country in the future,” Big Government gets the nod with 64 percent to 26 percent for Big Business and just eight percent for Big Labor.

Gallup has been tracking this question since 1965 and the results are quite stunning. The graph below (compliments of Gallup’s polling site) shows that while Big Government has been consistently in the lead for the last 46 years, a significant gap has developed between the three options over time. Despite edging out Big Business by just six points in 1965, public fear of Big Government as a threat to the country’s future has grown steadily.

Gallup’s Elizabeth Mendes wrote on December 12 that despite the high-profile shenanigans of the Occupy Wall Street enthusiasts around the country, “the majority of Americans do not view big business as the greatest threat to the country when asked to choose among big business, big government, and big labor. In fact, Americans’ concerns about big business have declined significantly since 2009.” Additionally, “Republicans, independents, and now close to half of Democrats are more concerned about the threat of big government than that coming from big business,” writes Mendes.

Correlated with these results are a number of other polls showing the country’s lack of confidence in our institutions, elected officials, and policymakers. Consider this: a paltry nine percent approve of Congress according to a CBS News Poll conducted in November. Last month’s CNN poll showed a ten point gap between those saying they approve of the job being done by President Obama (44 percent) and those who disapprove (54 percent). A December CBS Poll found that a whopping 75 percent believe the country is on the wrong track.

The American people don’t trust the politicians. They think Congress is doing a crummy job. More people disapprove of Obama’s presidency than approve. They believe the country is on the wrong track. These tremendous levels of fear and distrust suggest that the public is not convinced that government and the people in it can solve problems or make smart choices. Some legitimate examples highlight the causes for this distrust, dislike, and disagreement with government today:

• Last week the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) proposed sweeping, national rules prohibiting motorists from using any type of cell phone—even hands free—while driving. This would require enforcement mechanisms that would bog down police, preventing the pursuit of legitimate criminals. How can government expect the public to trust it or have confidence in it when it proposes unreasonable guidelines that lack basic common sense?

• Just days ago presidential candidate Newt Gingrich—identified by some as the Republican frontrunner—stated that if elected he would refuse to obey the decisions of the judicial branch should he disagree with their rulings. He even said he would dispatch federal marshals to arrest them and haul them before Congress for a tongue-lashing if they deviated from Gingrich’s ideology. When leading politicians wantonly engage in such buffoonish behavior the public is unlikely to express anything but fear or distrust in what they observe.

• This week Washington brought to a close a very expensive and highly unnecessary war in Iraq that has bled dry our nation’s treasury and is responsible for the significant loss of life among our own men and women in uniform and countless civilians in that nation. While we were spending a trillion dollars blowing up Iraq, our own bridges, roads, and infrastructure were left to crumble. These are not attributes likely to instill positive feelings towards governmental decision-making.

• In Pennsylvania the state legislature and Governor Tom Corbett have exerted an infinite amount of political capital to ensure that natural gas extraction companies are permitted to engage in endless drilling and fracking without proper oversight, without necessary extraction fees, and little if any accountability for the inevitable environmental disasters that may impact the people of the Commonwealth, her land, and her water. Trust in government is bound to suffer when the public interest is scuttled in lieu of deep-pocketed interests who flex their political muscle in the halls of the State Capitol Building.

• Locally, former Philadelphia School Superintendent Arlene Ackerman badly bungled her job and failed to improve the quality of education in the city. When the School Reform Commission dismissed her, it was revealed that Ackerman was given a nearly $1 million “buy-out” on her contract. This came on top of news that she was being paid $500,000 in taxpayer dollars in 2011 with 34 days of paid vacation while simultaneously overseeing huge cuts in spending on classroom instruction. It was reported in November that the Million Dollar Woman had the gall to file for unemployment benefits! The public will never trust government officials doing well and living high on the hog while they—and their children—are suffering.

These examples help highlight the fact that government is suffering from a series of self-inflicted wounds that cannot be repaired or healed without those in power changing their ways. They must acknowledge that public service supersedes self-service, replace senseless decisions with ones rooted in common sense, and employ sound judgment when expending vital resources like money or military resources.

In this season when we conventionally declare our New Year’s Resolutions, those in government who have contributed to these feelings of trepidation, apprehension, and mistrust must resolve to show the American people that government exists to preserve and improve the common good. Until this happens there is little chance to change the country’s dismal outlook of its own government, institutions, and future.

Perhaps we’ve all pegged it incorrectly. While it is fair to suggest this is the worst Congress in history, we may have been wrong in our assessment of why this is so. Forget the argument about their struggle to bargain, compromise, and negotiate. When they do decide to behave in such a manner, the public finds itself calling into question their competence and trustworthiness.

In short, they stink when they don’t take action and stink worse when they do.

While Americans were busy getting back to their lives after a restful Thanksgiving holiday, the Senate voted on November 29 to advance Senate Bill 1867—also known as the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2012 (NDAA). This annual legislation is required to appropriate money to the Department of Defense, set military personnel policy, update the Uniform Code of Military Justice, and a handle a host of other necessary housekeeping items.

Thanks to a provision arranged with little (if any) deliberation by Senators John McCain (R-AZ) and Carl Levin (D-MI), this year’s NDAA legislation will, as described by Charlie Savage at the New York Times, establish “a federal statute saying the government has the legal authority to keep people suspected of terrorism in military custody, indefinitely and without trial.” While our current policy towards terror suspects permits such actions towards non-Americans, the new provision shockingly “contains no exception for American citizens,” says the NY Times.

Critical to this provision, writes Lisa Mascaro of the Los Angeles Times is something that should concern all Americans: the federal government would be granted “greater authority to use military custody, rather than civilian law enforcement and courts.” This means a rejection of civilian court trials for potential cases involving American citizens arrested by the military on American soil.

Concerned by these developments, U.S. Senator Mark Udall (D-CO) offered an amendment to the legislation on the floor of the Senate to delay the detainee provisions pending a thorough review. Said Udall, “The least we could do is take our time, be diligent and hear from those who will be affected by these new, significant changes in how we interrogate and prosecute terrorists.”

One would think they could deliberate like adults and seek out facts before making a decision like regular people do on a daily basis. Then again, this is the 112^th Congress. Despite support for Udall’s amendment by the Department of Defense, Director of National Intelligence James Clapper, the Federal Bureau of Investigation, and civil libertarians, the Senate defeated the Udall amendment—Senate Amendment 1107—by a lop-sided vote of 60 in opposition and just 38 in support (you can see how your Senator voted here).

According to the online resource That’s My Congress, the Udall amendment “would have removed the legislation’s unconstitutional power of imprisonment without criminal charge” for U.S. citizens arrested on American soil. They suggest that the NDAA bill in its current state “grants the U.S. military the power to put American citizens within the borders of the United States into prison without any criminal charge, without any time limit. All that the federal government will need to do to imprison Americans will be to merely accuse them of terrorism, without substantiating those charges with any evidence.”

Congress, despite months of gridlock and partisan wrangling, has come together to advance this particular legislation which makes a mockery of the civil liberties enshrined in the U.S. Constitution. It would be comical if it weren’t so tragic. When will the country finally boot out this collection of amateurs and loony tunes?

If you are thinking that perhaps we can rely on the House of Representatives to fix this detainee mess, you best think again. The lower chamber voted 322-96 on May 26, 2011 to pass House Resolution 1540, which is virtually a carbon copy of the Senate bill.

Meanwhile, the Senate voted the day after defeating the Udall amendment by an even more lop-sided margin of 88-12 for cloture, effectively ending debate on the bill (you can see which of the initial 38 who voted for the Udall amendment flip-flopped and voted for cloture by clicking here).

If you think that maybe President Obama will ride to the rescue, you’re wrong on that too. An AP article from December 1 suggests that if anything, the Obama administration would prefer an even broader ability to detain whoever they want—regardless of American citizenship or arrest on American soil. The report says that the Pentagon’s legal counsel claims that “the executive branch, not the courts, is equipped to make military battlefield targeting decisions about who qualifies as an enemy.” Hooray for the Third Bush Term.

We’ve had it all wrong. This isn’t the worst Congress in history due to their inaction. They’re the worst Congress in history because when they do take action we get a dysfunctional “Super Committee,” a reauthorization of the Patriot Act, a proposed phony balanced budget bill, and disgraceful outcomes like this dubious defense legislation that empowers the government to potentially detain indefinitely American citizens, leaving the door open to streets patrolled by the military in an endless state of war.

That weird odor you smell right now isn’t the spoiled turkey in the rear of the fridge. It’s the 112^th Congress doing what it does best. Bargaining, compromise, and negotiation are clearly necessities in politics, but based on how these things have worked in the 112^thCongress, I believe that gridlock is truly preferable.