The most enjoyable moment of the debate for us Mitt Romney fans occurred when Rick Santorum and Newt Gingrich tried to gang up on moderator Wolf Blitzer for asking questions that they preferred not answering.  Specifically, Blitzer was asked whether he was satisfied with Romney’s release of his tax information, and Gingrich responded that the four candidates should agree among themselves to only address important issues during the debates.  But Blitzer was prepared for the smack down, and he replied that Gingrich had criticized Romney’s tax returns because of its Swiss/Cayman Islands accounts and millions made without working, and therefore the question was appropriate.  Gingrich rebutted by saying that talking about an issue on local news doesn’t mean that it should be a question on a nationally televised debate.  (Incidentally, he gave a similar answer to a question last week about his serial infidelity.) 

At that point, Gingrich might have won the exchange with Blitzer except Mitt Romney came to Wolf’s rescue.  Mitt said that it was not OK for a candidate to be going around making loose accusations on local media if he is not willing to defend them on national TV.  Touché. 

The other Romney highlight occurred when he castigated Gingrich for running TV ads that called Romney “anti-immigrant.”  Romney noted that his father and his wife’s father were immigrants, and he called the charge a repulsive epithet and asked for an apology.  Instead of apologizing, Gingrich meekly responded that he was the only candidate who was going out on a limb to protect the illegal-immigrant grandmothers who have been here for at least 25 years.  This is another example of Gingrich resorting to a weak Democratic argument – i.e., being against illegal immigrants renders a candidate anti-immigrant.  Gingrich did the same thing with his “right-wing social engineering” comment about Paul Ryan’s fix of Medicaid and Medicare.     

Candidates Rick Santorum and Ron Paul also had several good moments in the debate, but I can’t recall what they were, other than Paul rebutting the argument that a 76-year-old president may be too old to serve.  He said he would release his medical records, although they might amount to no more than one page.  He further said that he would challenge all of his competitors to a 25-mile bike ride in the Texas heat. 

Don’t mess with Ron Paul.

Ameritopia seems to be Levin’s attempt to burnish his credentials as a historian, to be more than a mere blowhard.  Like Gingrich claiming to be a historian for Freddie Mac, or like Bill O’Reilly writing about Lincoln or Glen Beck writing about Washington, the bona fides of a true conservative must include an intense interest in early American history.

Levin’s objective with Ameritopia is to show how America is deviating dangerously toward the failed politics of Utopia.  The first part of the book strips the bark off the term “Utopia” and reveals it for what it is – tyranny and the destruction of the human soul – and then describes several famous variations – Plato’s Republic, Thomas More’s Utopia, Thomas Hobbes’s Leviathan, and Karl Marx’s Communist Manifesto.  According to Levin, the idea of Utopia had nothing to do with the founding of America   

In the second part of the book, Levin discusses the two men who actually were the philosophical influences on the founding of America – John Locke for recognizing the ultimate importance and sovereignty of the individual (liberty and the social contract), and Charles de Montesquieu for the decentralization and check-and-balances (separation of powers) that keep government from destroying the individual.

In the third part of the book, Levin shows how far America has deviated from its founding principles, with most of his focus on Presidents Wilson, FDR, and Obama.  Documenting how the tentacles of Washington have spread throughout the American economy did not require much research. 

Although I have a degree in political science and am fascinated by the subject, I found Ameritopia too dry and abstract.  I agree with Levin’s thesis, but have no interest in being able to distinguish between Hobbes and Locke.

Concerning Gingrich’s unelectability, the evidence is clear that a majority of the voters have an unfavorable opinion of him.  According to a recent article in the Washington Examiner, Gingrich badly trails Mitt Romney and President Obama in favorability ratings:      

• Not every poll releases their full results, so here are the most recent favorability results I could find for Obama, Romney, and Newt.

Fox News, 1/12-1/14:

Obama, fav/unfav, 51%/46%, +5

Romney, fav/unfav, 45%/38%, +7

Gingrich, fav/unfav, 27%/56%, -29

 CBS/NYT, 1/12-1/17:

 Obama, fav/unfav, 38%/45%, -7

 Romney, fav/unfav, 21%/35%, -14

 Gingrich, fav/unfav, 17%/49%, -32

 PPP, 1/13-1/17:

 Obama, app/dis, 47%/50%, -3

 Romney, fav/unfav, 35%/53%, -18

 Gingrich, fav/unfav, 26%/60%, -34

Concerning the Savage host’s “least conservative” insight, that struck me as odd because Gingrich has strenuously argued that he was one of the original Reagan conservatives while attacking Romney as a Massachusetts moderate.  But upon further reflection, it occurred to me Gingrich’s politics are more reminiscent of Richard Nixon’s than Ronald Reagan’s.  Gingrich’s dalliances with cap-and-trade and health-insurance mandates reveal a pragmatic politician like Nixon, who formed the EPA and endorsed affirmative action and the ERA.  Like Nixon, Gingrich talks conservative to his base, but then governs pragmatically. 

Since few ideas are original, I wondered if anyone else had written about the Gingrich-Nixon similarity.  Sure enough, just a couple of days ago, Jon Meacham had written, “Why Newt is like Nixon.”  Meacham’s article focuses on their similarities in personality and psychology, while I’m thinking that their politics are similar.  Their objective of their politics is not conservative vs. liberal, but rather doing whatever is necessary to gain and retain power. 

During the first Florida debate, Mitt Romney accused Gingrich of resigning in disgrace as House speaker.  That sounds eerily similar to words often used in connection with Richard Nixon – i.e., the only president who resigned in disgrace.  I have always been a big fan of Richard Nixon, and so I don’t think Gingrich’s similarities to Nixon’s politics is a bad thing.  But the fatal flaw with Gingrich’s candidacy is his unpopularity.  Nixon may have been depicted by the media as unpopular, but he had the support of the “silent majority,” and shortly before the Watergate mess occurred, he was reelected in 1972 by one of the greatest landslides in American history.

Newt Gingrich is no Richard Nixon.

Mitt Romney recently disclosed that his tax obligation was less than 14% even though he made about $20 million a year.  Based on news reports, President Obama was prepared to highlight that many secretaries not only paid taxes at a higher rate than 14%, but also had to pay social-security taxes of more than 7%, which the multimillionaires were not required to pay on the bulk of their income.

I agree that rich people should not be allowed to pay reduced income-tax rates simply because their income comes from capital gains.  The argument that such a tax amounts to double taxation doesn’t make sense.  Just because someone pays taxes on earned income doesn’t mean that additional income earned on that income shouldn’t be taxed.  America’s tax system is based on levying a tax on each transaction (e.g., sales tax is assessed every time your car is sold), and that is completely consistent with taxing a person on earned income and then taxing them again when those assets are used to generate capital gains.  The tax rate on capital gains should be at least at much, if not more, than the tax rate on earned income.  This concept would also work with estate taxes, where there is a tax on income earned and then another tax on the assets when they are tranferred to a beneficiary.  

To suggest that people will be reluctant to invest their capital because capital gains will be fully taxed is ludicrous.  That’s like saying you will decide to stop earning income above $250k just because the marginal rate on income over $250k is increased to 40%.

Lane’s principal defense of the current system is also his weakest – i.e., an electoral-vote winner who loses the popular vote is the stronger candidate (Bush v. Gore) because he prevailed according to the rules.  Lane suggests that if the rules had been different, the electoral-vote winner (Bush) would have shifted his strategy to get more popular votes.  This suggestion, however, is not persuasive because the popular-vote winner (Gore) would have done the same thing.

Lane is more convincing when he matter-of-factly describes the weaknesses of the Electoral College:

• “Still, it’s easy to see why the electoral college is so unloved. It is inconsistent with the idea of one-person, one-vote; every 677,000 Californians get one electoral vote, while the 563,000 inhabitants of Wyoming get three. And it gives presidential nominees an incentive to cater to the interests of ‘swing’ states while treating the rest as flyover country.”

There is a movement to correct the Electoral College, not by amending the constitution, but by getting states with a majority of the electoral votes to agree by an interstate compact to vote for the candidate who wins the popular vote – the National Popular Vote plan.  Lane admits that the idea is ingenious, but expresses concern because of two potential unintended negative consequences – (1) it leaves 51 uncoordinated elections instead of having a national election board, and (2) it weakens the two-party system by amplifying the effect of 3^rd-party candidates. 

Neither of the concerns has merit.  With the first concern, Lane is making the perfect the enemy of the good.  We currently have 51 uncoordinated elections, and the National Popular Vote plan can’t be expected to solve all problems.  With respect to weakening the two-party system, I think Americans are becoming less enamored of the current system and would be willing to experiment with some tinkering.   

The National Popular Vote plan seems like a good idea, even if it is being pushed mostly by Blue States.  I wish it success.

A recent Associate d Press article reported that Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia has taken a similar position.  According to the article, Scalia suggested during a public discussion in South Carolina that “a simple solution for people who don’t like all the political advertisements unleashed by the court’s decision two years ago that ended limits on corporate contributions in political campaigns — change the channel or turn off the TV.”

• “I don’t care who is doing the speech — the more the merrier,” Scalia said. “People are not stupid. If they don’t like it, they’ll shut it off.”

Scalia contends that the Supreme Court should not be blamed for interpreting the Constitution as it was written.  “Instead, he said the ones who have to change things are the politicians who created the system and the voters who often reward the candidates who spend the most money.”

Justice Stephen Breyer was involved in the same public discussion, and his opinion is a bit different – “There are real problems when people want to spend lots of money on a candidate … they’ll drown out the people who don’t have a lot of money.” 

The article reports that super-PAC money flooded South Carolina.  TV advertising alone in South Carolina was estimated at $12 million, or nearly $27 per voter when calculated using the 2008 Republican primary turnout numbers.

Although Scalia’s position seems academic and ivory-towered, while Breyer’s is more worldly and pragmatic, Scalia at least provides an unlikely solution while Breyer merely grumbles.  As I noted in my blog entry, this is a problem without a solution.

I think the sentence is outrageously severe.  The lady had no previous convictions and her BAC was .14, yet she will be at least 81-years old before she gets out of prison. 

Furthermore, I don’t understand why the manslaughter of a normal person has a maximum sentence of 20 years while the manslaughter of a public servant has a maximum of 99 years.  This distinction was apparently enacted in 2005, but the press release from the major proponent of the bill, Representative Bill Callegari, fails to explain why the life of a public servant deserves more protection than the life of anyone else. 

The Mothers Against Drunk Driving has pushed for more severe penalties against those who are drunk (.15%) as opposed to those who are impaired (.08%).  That makes sense.  It doesn’t make sense to assess a stricter sentence against an impaired person who happens to kill a policemen. 

After three state contests (IA, NH, and SC), Romney has a first-place finish and two seconds, Gingrich has a first-place finish and two fourths, Santorum has a first-place finish, a third, and a fifth, and Paul has a second, a third, and a fourth.  Furthermore, Romney has the most total votes, followed by Gingrich, Paul, and Santorum.  Although those results seem to favor Romney, Gingrich has momentum and leads the delegate count with 23, compared to Romney’s 19, Santorum’s 12, and Paul’s 3.

But the betting site Intrade.com continues to believe that Gingrich is destined to be a loser.  This morning, it listed Mitt Romney as a 71.8% favorite to win the Republican nomination.  Gingrich is second with 22.5%, followed by Ron Paul with 2.6%.  The candidate who appears to have lost the most in South Carolina is Rick Santorum, who chance for the nomination is now listed at 0.7%, which trails even Mitch Daniels at 1.0%

I attribute Newt’s victory to two developments:

1. The most recent debate in which he attacked the media for asking about his 2^nd marriage and in which Romney equivocated about his tax returns.  This morning Romney finally capitulated on releasing his tax returns, so that issue will go away (if there is nothing problematic in the returns), but damage has been done.
2. Front-runner status invariably brings the front-runner back to the pack.  Although the media seems to bring heightened energy to highlight weaknesses of the front-runner and ignore weaknesses of the contenders, I suspect the voters magnify this scrutiny by rooting for the underdog.  Everyone loves a close contest.  Now that Newt will self-proclaim himself to be the front-runner (ignoring Intrade.com), the media and the voters will look at Newt with more skepticism. 

As the campaign moves to Florida in ten days, it expect to hear a lot more about Gingrich as described on the Sunday talk shows this morning – i.e., Newt may be able to attract a lot of passion by attacking the media and the establishment, but his huge negative ratings by the majority of Americans (consistently at about 60% for almost 20 years), his lack of executive or business experience, his rocky tenure and ethics problems as Speaker, and his weak conservative credentials (cap & trade, individual mandate) will preclude him from seriously challenging Romney.

The fact that I finished this 400-page book is a testament to Hillenbrand’s writing ability because the story of Louie Zamperini never captured me.  Although Louie did heroic things both before and after his WWII heroism, I never became a big fan of his.  He seemed a bit too hard and dispassionate, which, of course, probably contributed to his ability to do great things and withstand torture.     

What kept me reading was Hillenbrand’s vivid description of civilian life in pre-WWII America, the life of an airman in WWII, the torture in Japanese POW camps, and the adjustment difficulties of returning soldiers, especially POWs.

Before the war, Louie Zamperini was such a great miler that he was expected to be the first man to run a four-minute mile.  His war service prevented that from happening, but he never felt sorry for himself.  Although I wish Louie had more warmth, I think he is an excellent example of what Tom Brokaw called The Greatest Generation.  Millions of people like Louie kept the world safe for democracy.

The dad and son shared a name – Oscar Nelson – and the daughter/sister is Amy Nelson Johnson.  We spent a lot of time talking about “Oscie,” and it seems the Oscie who I came to know from parking-lot encounters and evenings lounging in the pool was the same person that his family knew – thoughtful, personable, intelligent, curious. 

When I told Amy about my lengthy pre-Christmas conversation with Oscie concerning my depression, which I mentioned in a recent blog entry, she said that he had told her about the conversation a few weeks ago and that he had been happy to help a friend in need.  Amy said that was typical of her brother; he was always a giving, sensitive person.

The problem was that Oscie was diagnosed with a mental illness nearly a decade ago, and he would occasionally resist taking the necessary medication.  That’s what happened this time.  His mother came to him from Austin and tried to get him to take his medication, but he refused.  She was in his apartment when he died.

His memorial service was held in Austin, and you can read his obituary here. 

RIP, Oscie.