The Bullock Pulpit: Calculated musings of a pragmatic idealist

Rick Santorum: running for President of the Faithful?

Much to everyone's surprise, Rick Santorum has been rising in the GOP polls for the past few weeks.  Since January, in polls of likely Republican voters, he has gone from 16% to 30%, and has overtaken longtime favorite Mitt Romney.  He fares even better among self-identified conservative voters (38% to Romney's 24%).  In the biggest blow to Romney, Santorum has also taken the lead in polls taken of Republican voters in Michigan, Romney's home state. What gives? Is it a strengthening of "anyone but Romney" syndrome?  Or are voters really looking for someone who wears his faith on his sleeve and will bring his beliefs to the office of the Presidency?

Last Saturday, Santorum actually questioned President Obama's faith.  He said that Obama's agenda was "about some phony ideal. Some phony theology. Oh, not a theology based on the Bible. A different theology".  As an example, he claimed that Obama's environmental policies promote ideas of "radical environmentalists" who oppose greater use of the country's natural resources because they believe "man is here to serve the Earth". So is Santorum saying that man should pollute the earth and destroy the environment to get at the oil and natural gas that God has left for us?  In fact, that is exactly what he seems to mean, as he added “We’re not here to serve the Earth. The Earth is not the objective. Man is the objective.”  Ummmm, but if we ruin the earth, where will man live?  Will God make us a new Earth because we destroyed the one we have while extracting and using the fossil fuels that He provided?  I'm not sure that I want to find out...and I don't want a President who uses God as his reasoning to drill, baby drill.

Although Santorum later claimed to be questioning Obama's world view, not his faith, I don't buy it.   Santorum didn't choose the word theology accidentally.  And in other speeches, he has said directly that faith should play a bigger role in the Oval Office.  He has also said that the current administration has "callousness toward life and family and faith" and I'm going out on a limb to speculate that he is attempting to plant the seed in the minds of religious and socially conservative voters that Obama's "amoral" policies have sent the country spiraling downward.  

In 1960, John F. Kennedy became the first Catholic President.  During his campaign, many voters were suspicious of his faith, and Kennedy made a point of telling Americans that his religion would make no difference in the way he would lead the country.  In a speech given to directly address the issue, Kennedy said that he was running as a Democrat, and not a Catholic, “for war and hunger and ignorance and despair know no religious barriers”.   Kennedy was able to calm the fears of voters who thought he'd bring the church into the White House, and was elected despite being Catholic. Fast forward to 2012, where Rick Santorum makes a point of saying that his faith will make all the difference, and that he should be elected because he is Catholic.

Contraception, abortion, gay marriage, divorce, evolution, feminism...these are issues on which Santorum has strong personal views because of his Catholic faith.  But he has also made it clear that he plans to take these issues on as President.   He seems to be telling others how to behave and even what to believe, using his own specific beliefs as an unshakable guide.  Particularly in this fragile economy with so many pressing issues facing the country, focusing so much on social issues is a huge risk, but one that Santorum is apparently willing to take. He is the only candidate addressing them directly and he hopes to win the favor of religious voters and social conservatives by convincing them that only a leader with strong religious beliefs can put the United States on the right path.

Rick Santorum has fashioned himself as the GOP "candidate of faith", and it seems to have helped him in the polls thus far.  The trouble is, we need a President of state, not a President of faith.  If I want to go to church, I can do that in a house of worship; there are plenty of them in this country, with a wide range of beliefs and tenets. I do not need to be preached at by the President who has implied that his way - the Roman Catholic way - is the only right path.  I would also like to think the President has more important things to deal with - such as jobs and the economy - than whether Americans are having sex for any reason other than making babies.  We are not electing a President of United States Catholics.  We are electing a President of every person in the United States, be they Christian, Buddhist, Muslim, Jewish, atheist, or any other religion.  We cannot alienate a healthy percentage of the country's population by electing a President who, frankly, does not represent them.

Why the sudden firestorm over a 12-year old contraceptive law?

President Obama is under fire from religious and right-wing groups for the Affordable Care Act's requirement that most health insurance plans cover women's preventive services, including contraception, without a co-pay or deductible, beginning in August 2012.  Some have claimed this is Obama's declaration of "war on religion", but I'm calling BS on that claim.  Why?  Because the requirement for most insurers to cover contraceptives has been around for over ten years.  
Although you'd never guess it from the current uproar, the requirement that insurance companies cover contraception is not new.  In December 2000, at the end of Bill Clinton's second term, the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission ruled that companies that provided prescription drugs to their employees but didn't provide birth control were in violation of Title VII of the 1964 Civil Rights Act, which prevents discrimination on the basis of sex.  The Bush administration did nothing to alter that ruling, and it is still in effect today.  Because it relies on Title VII, it applies to all employers with 15 or more employees, and religious employers are not exempt.  Since then, reproductive rights groups and employees who wanted birth control access have successfully sued employers that refused to comply.   In fact, DePaul University, the largest Roman Catholic university in America, added birth control coverage to its plans after receiving an EEOC complaint several years ago. As recently as last year, the EEOC was moderating a dispute between Belmont Abbey, a Catholic institution in North Carolina, and several of its employees who had their birth control coverage withdrawn after administrators realized it was being offered.  The conflict between Catholic doctrine and access to birth control started long before Obama took office.
The requirement to provide contraceptive access is not limited to federal statute.  Currently, 28 states require insurers that cover prescription drugs to provide coverage for FDA approved contraceptive drugs and devices.  20 states allow certain employers and insurers to refuse to comply with the mandate. 8 states have no such exemption.  These state laws have held up in court, notably the California Supreme Court in 2004, which ruled that Catholic Charities, because it employs and serves the general public and provides secular services, is bound by the contraceptive access requirement.  The U.S. Supreme Court refused to hear the appeal.  
The contraceptive clause of the Affordable Care Act was never meant to usurp the power of the Catholic Church.  It is meant to provide equity in coverage for all women.  That said, the administration probably should have had the foresight to predict the Church's outrage before the plan was released, rather than have to backtrack afterwards and adjust the policy specifically to address religious concerns.  The amendment to the plan, announced Friday by President Obama, will require the insurance companies and not the religiously affiliate employers themselves to provide the contraceptive access. This means that these employers won’t have to: 1) pay for contraceptive coverage; 2) say they offer it; or 3) direct employees to places where they can obtain it.  Accessing contraceptives is strictly between the female employee and the insurance company.  Houses of worship are still exempt from the requirement to provide access, as they always have been under this plan.  One issue that remains to be handled is that of self-insured religiously affiliated institutions.  In those cases, the employer uses an insurance company for administration of its health plans, but pays for coverage itself.  For those employers, a work-around will need to be set up so that the employer itself does not pay for its female employees' contraceptives.
Why not just exempt all religion-sponsored employers?  Because many religiously affiliated hospitals, universities, and charities employ hundreds of women, not all of whom are Catholic (or follow all of Catholic doctrine).  Why should a nurse at a Catholic hospital or an administrator at a Catholic university be denied coverage simply by virtue of her employer's religious affiliation?   Female employees can simply choose to not request contraceptives from their insurer; no one is forcing them to go on the Pill.  But if it's not even offered, it can become an expensive nuisance for the employee herself to obtain contraception, should she desire it.  Some argue that this is forcing religiously affiliated institutions to play a game of see-no-evil and pretend that their Catholic female employees won't be requesting birth control.  But hasn't that been going on for years?  Studies have shown that the vast majority of Catholic women have used some form of birth control.  If the Church wants to pretend that this isn't the case, and refuses to take a fresh look at their birth control policy, where's the harm in one more pretense?  
But back to the title of my post.  Why the sudden firestorm over a decade-old policy given new publicity as a part of President Obama's Affordable Care Act?  Because it is part of President Obama's Affordable Care Act.  Conservatives and wingnuts continue to grasp at whatever straws they can find, even if it means throwing an enormous number of women under the bus.   Women who use birth control also vote, you know.  We won't be forgetting this.

The poor should be very concerned about Mitt Romney

In spite of his decisive primary win in Florida, Republicans just don't seem thrilled with Mitt Romney.  That was the theme of this post when I began drafting it.  But then Mitt Romney made a statement that reflects everything that is wrong with the GOP frontrunner that I had to adjust the topic to address the statement's absolute ignorance, and Romney's seeming inability to grasp the economic plight of many Americans...the very Americans he aspires to lead.

Romney told CNN's Soledad O'Brien in an interview yesterday morning that "I am not concerned about the very poor. There's a safety net there."  He added that he is focused on “middle-income Americans…the 90 to 95 percent of Americans who right now are struggling.”  The statement was made even more troubling when he elaborated on it, an attempt at clarification that instead wedged his foot more firmly in his already-full-of-silver-spoon mouth.  Romney stated that the reason he wasn't worried about the poor is because the U.S. has an "ample safety net" and that if there were holes in that safety net, he'd fix them.  He referred specifically to food stamps, Medicaid, and housing vouchers as part of that safety net.

But wait. This is the same Mitt Romney who said that the federal government should reduce its commitment to Medicaid and food stamps (officially titled the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program) by making states responsible for both, with federal  support coming only from block grants.  Who would not extend unemployment benefits.  Who said that the government should not help prevent foreclosures, "so the market can bottom out". Who promised that if elected president he would make an immediate 5 percent cut to non-discretionary spending.  He has threatened since the beginning of his campaign to reduce the very safety net that he now touts.  He can't have it both ways. 

It's not only this contradiction that's troubling.  Data released by the U.S. Census Bureau in September showed that just over 46 million Americans—or 15.1 percent of the population—lived below the official poverty line. This is much more than the 5% of the US population that Romney claims makes up "the poor".  Is Mitt Romney honestly not concerned about 15% of the US population? And is he really only interested in keeping this segment barely afloat in their "safety net", rather than instituting policies that might actually help lift them OUT of poverty?  What about middle class Americans who are slipping ever closer to poverty due to unemployment or foreclosure? Would he stop being concerned about them once they fell into the safety net? 

But most concerning is his assumption that the United States' system of programs for the needy is "ample", which is simply incorrect. The programs that currently exist to assist the poor are insufficient for the number of people who need them today.  Medicaid is not available to everyone with low income; poor adults without children or disability often do not qualify for it.  Due to budgetary restraints, only about one in four people eligible for HUD housing vouchers (which partially subsidize rent payments) actually receive them.  And federal funding of TANF (Temporary Aid for Needy Families, the program that replaced what we often refer to as welfare)  was cut in every state in 2011 and is currently only funded on a short-term basis.   Those holes in the safety net to which Romney referred already exist, but he doesn't appear to see them.    Or perhaps he's simply decided that he's willing to sacrifice the votes of the poor in order to get the votes of the middle class.

Some will dismiss this as just an inartfully phrased comment, another Romney blooper.  Of course it was.  In was an inartful comment that shows his complete lack of understanding of the plight of those who are struggling.  I don't think Mitt Romney actually doesn't care about poor people.  He is simply so unable to relate to having a low income that he can't comment about it without looking like an insensitive buffoon. Regardless, in tough economic times, is that the kind of person who should become President?

JoePa still is...Penn State

I realize this blog post isn’t likely to make me any new friends, but I feel quite strongly about this topic, so here it is anyway.  Former Penn State football coach Joe Paterno died yesterday of complications from lung cancer, and the question of his legacy looms larger than ever.  There are those who feel that Coach Paterno is as responsible for the abuse of young boys as the alleged abuser himself, former Penn State assistant football coach Jerry Sandusky.  I am not among them.  While I wish that the child sexual abuse allegations had been tackled head on immediately, and that any number of people had shouted their allegations from the rooftops, let me be clear.  There is one person to blame for the atrocious alleged abuses of boys, and that person is Jerry Sandusky. 

That Sandusky’s abuses were allowed to continue for so long was due to an entire series of systemic failures to follow up, to grasp the sickening reality of the situation, and to take decisive action.  In 1998, a victim’s mother reports her son’s account of inappropriate behavior on the part of Sandusky to Penn State police, an investigation is undertaken, yet no charges were filed by the district attorney.  In 2000, a temporary janitor at Penn State witnesses Sandusky in the athletic center showering with, and allegedly performing oral sex on, a young boy.  The janitor informs the permanent janitorial staff but no other reports were filed.

In March 2002, Penn State graduate assistant Mike McQueary witnesses Sandusky touching a young boy inappropriately in the football facility shower.  After talking it over with his father, McQueary tells Joe Paterno the next day about what he saw.  Paterno reported the incident to Penn State athletic director Tim Curley, and to the vice-president of finance – who also oversaw the campus police – Gary Schultz.  Both men met with McQueary regarding his observations, yet neither man ever reported the incident to the authorities.  The only actions they apparently took were to confiscate Sandusky’s locker room keys and report the incident to Sandusky’s charity, The Second Mile.

Coach Paterno took the actions at the time that a reasonable person would have taken.  Sandusky had not been on Paterno’s coaching staff for 3 years, and no longer had daily interaction with Paterno; it makes sense for Paterno to conclude that not he, but higher university officials, should confront the issue.  There were no further incidents involving Sandusky on the Penn State campus; it made sense for Paterno to assume that the issue had been confronted and resolved.   Should he have followed up?  Knowing what we know now, of course he should have, and Paterno has said as much himself.  But none of us are granted the benefit of a crystal ball when we make life-affecting decisions.  We'd all make fewer mistakes if we did, eh?

Why do I even care about defending JoePa?  I’ll tell you why.  I grew up in an era when college football coaches did more than just prep young men for the pro game, and then jump to the NFL themselves.  I attended the University of Michigan while Bo Schembechler coached football.  Bo was not perfect; he had a nasty temper at times, and was, by many accounts, quite sexist.  But he cared deeply about his players as young men with potential both on and off the field, not just as position players who won games.  He cared deeply about the University of Michigan, and not just for the paycheck it provided.  Joe Paterno was cut from the same cloth.  The words of his former players, his fellow coaches, and the Penn State family do not lie.  He and his wife have donated over $4 million to the university – for a library and academic scholarships, not towards football, I should note.  His ambition was never to win Super Bowls and make more money in the NFL than he could ever dream of as a college coach, but to have a hand in helping young men reach their potential, and helping Penn State become a world-class university.  This is not erased by one day of poor judgment.  It cannot be.  Those who loved him will not allow it.

I firmly believe that Joe Paterno died on Sunday morning of a broken heart.  Not because his reputation was tarnished, but because a decision he made in 2002 caused him to let down the players he lived for, the university that he loved, and several young boys whose lives may never be made right.

 

We will not raise anyone's taxes. Except for yours.

My blog and I have been quiet for a few weeks, because I haven't really wanted to get involved in the circus that is the race for the GOP presidential nomination.  But I cannot ignore - and none of us should - what is about to happen to 160 million Americans, if a bipartisan compromise on Capitol Hill is not reached for the first time in quite a while.

In 2010, Congress passed, and the President signed, a law providing for a 2 percent reduction in Social Security tax (also known as the payroll tax), to provide relief to middle-class Americans during the economic downturn.  If the payroll tax cut is allowed to expire at the end of the year, these taxpayers (i.e. most of us) will see their taxes rise, by an average of $1000 annually. Right now, under the tax relief law, workers contribute 4.2 percent of their wages to Social Security. The normal rate is 6.2 percent, and if Congress takes no action, the rate will go back up to 6.2 percent next month...at the worst possible time for average Americans to have to pay more in taxes.  The tax cut was meant to be temporary, but now, while the economy is still fragile, is not the time to start taking a bigger bite out of middle-class paychecks. 

Democrats introduced a bill yesterday that would pay for the payroll tax cut extension in part with a temporary surtax of 1.9%  on incomes over $1 million, which would expire after 10 years.  Details of the Democratic plan can be found here: http://www.cnn.com/2011/12/05/politics/congress-new-payroll-plan/index.html  This bill is in fact a smaller version of an earlier plan introduce by Democrats, which called for an even greater payroll tax reduction, paid for with a larger surtax. 

Senate Republicans responded to yesterday's bill with a plan that pays for  extension of the current payroll tax rate through a freeze in government discretional spending, pay cuts for federal workers, and a reduction in Medicare benefits for Americans making over $750,000 a year.  That plan was voted down 20-78, with opposition comong from both parties.   Nearly half of Congressional Republicans are in favor of extending the payroll tax cut, but many conservative rank-and-file members oppose it, and arguments over whether and how to do it are dividing the party.

Republicans realize, with elections looming, that holding fast and refusing to extend the payroll tax cut could be political suicide.  President Obama and the Democrats  are taking advantage of this fact, and are increasing the pressure to pass a compromise bill, knowing that the Republicans are going to have to either hold their collective noses and vote for some version of the extension, or risk the wrath of voters come November.

Republicans object to the bill presented by Harry Reid because it is paid for in part by a tax surcharge on millionaires.  Even when faced with an economy in crisis, they won't agree to a small tax increase for millionaires that will prevent an even larger tax increase on the middle class.  If it wasn't clear before, now it's obvious;  when Congressional Republicans signed the now-infamous pledge to not increase taxes, ever ever ever, they were really referring only to the taxes of the wealthiest Americans.  They have fought tooth and nail to keep any increases from affecting millionaires and billionaires, yet, to quote President Obama, they have "barely raised a finger" to keep taxes from going up for middle-class Americans at the end of the year. 

The good news is that a compromise will likely be reached by the end of the year, and the payroll tax cuts extended.  The bad news is that the only reason the Republicans will give an inch is that voting against the extension might cost them their re-election in November.  They're not going to be voting in their constituents' interests; they're voting in their own self-interests.  So there's no need to feel bad about voting them out anyway.

Only sadness in Happy Valley

The unfortunate events at Penn State have unfolded so rapidly in the past week that can be hard to remember that the alleged incidents of abuse started over 15 years ago, and that for over half of that time, Jerry Sandusky was not on the coaching staff at Penn State University.  It's also hard to remember that the charges of abuse are ONLY against Sandusky.  I'm not saying that others didn't do wrong, far from it.  But the person who needs to be brought to the harshest justice is the one who actually committed these atrocious acts against young boys. Sandusky is the one who is alleged to have sexually abused children.  His alleged crimes cannot get lost in the outrage at several people's failure to act, the probable "code of silence" among officials at Penn State University, and the implosion of the school's football program.

I almost didn't write this blog post.  Unlike politics, which can seem like a bad sitcom or a game show, there is nothing remotely amusing about  child sexual abuse.  I must add that I do not have children.  The most visceral reactions I have seen have come from the parents of young children, and I can appreciate that.  Even though I may be able analyze the situation from more of an arms' length perspective, I do not want to in any way minimize either the anger that parents have, or the harm that was done to the victims, so I am not going to talk at all about the culpability of those who chose not to act, or who didn't take their actions far enough.   Their fate will be up to investigators, the judicial system, and God.

But I am very familiar with what it's like to go to a big-time football school and view the coach as a deity.  I would ask that - with the exception of violent acts - please don't blame the students for their reaction to Joe Paterno's firing.  I attended the University of Michigan while Bo Schembechler was head football coach, so I completely understand the reverence a school has for its most legendary figure. (Whether that reverence is proper is another subject entirely.)  Had something like this happened under Bo's watch, I know that my first impulse - and that of many - would be to defend the coach.  But it appears that most of the students in State College have, upon further reflection, realize that JoePa's firing was necessary, whether as punishment or to lessen the distraction that is going to dog the football team for the rest of the season.  They've also realized that this is not about Joe Paterno, or whether his legacy is tarnished or ruined.  It's about nine (or more) young boys, many grown now, who were exploited and traumatized by someone they admired, and who hopefully have received help and can lead productive happy lives. 

It's also important to remember that although all of the Penn State community is affected by this scandal, all of Penn State is not guilty of wrongdoing.  Penn State is still a world-class university, and their football players are innocent, hardworking, and in the running for the Big Ten championship.  Jokes like "Ped State" and "State Pen" are unfair.  Making fun of Penn State students and alumni is unfair.  Hoping that their football team loses the rest of their games because of these incidents is also unfair.  In fact, I will cheer for Penn State tomorrow, and I will hope that for a few hours, the players and fans can get their minds off of this mess and feel proud to be Nittany Lions.

Welcome to the Occupation

 Many of the Occupy Wall Street protesters' signs are clever: "Free Tampons to Stop Economic Bleeding; "One Day, the Poor Will Have Nothing to Eat But the Rich.  Some are vague: "Remember: We Are Worth More than Money".  Others are not quite on point: "Stop Greed, not Weed"; "Justice for Troy Davis".  But what is the point?  What is it the occupiers are after?  It's clear, as the OWS movement spreads from city to city worldwide, that people are unhappy with the current state of the economy, and the disparity between the uber-wealthy and the rest of us. What's not clear is what the protesters would like done about it.

Despite the spluttering accusations of many conservatives, the vast majority of the protesters are not Socialist, Communist, or anarchist.  Nor are they drugged-out, unwashed, inconsiderate rabble-rousers.  Of course there are a few fringe opportunists who will take advantage of a crowd to push their own agendas, but they are generally distinguishable from the rest of the participants.  And as for the clutter and trash, keep in mind that peaceful assembly is a Constitutional right, not "peaceful assembly as long as you don't litter".  Should everyone pick up after themselves?  Sure, but if your biggest complaint about OWS is that the protesters leave trash behind, you really need a hobby.

One way that the movement sometimes appears to have shot itself in the foot is by insisting on being leaderless.  When consensus is needed for any and all action to be taken, the risk is high that not much gets done, including the setting of objectives.  While I understand that every protester is out there for his or her own reasons, conventional wisdom would say that the movement should speak with one voice.  Otherwise, the protests wind up looking like a jumbled mess.   The New York City General Assembly (www.nycga.net) has made a valiant attempt to organize OWS, if not completely unify its voice.  The assembly has put together a list of the wrongs committed by large corporations and their cronies, and has indicated that the movement is an attempt to convince elected officials to right those wrongs, or to elect officials who will.   The assembly has made it clear that capitalism is not the enemy, nor is socialism the desired solution.  But because it is not the "leader" of OWS, the message getting out to the general public is still a bit garbled.

I can only speak for myself when I say that "end corporate greed" largely means eliminating corporate and executive tax loopholes, and insisting on fair compensation for workers when compared to executives' pay and perks.  It does NOT mean Robin-hood style redistribution of wealth.  I'm very happy for people - and corporations -  who are successful and make lots of money.  I just don't think they should be able to maneuver their assets such that they pay a lower income tax rate than the 99%, or in the case of corporations, avoid paying any income tax at all on large chunks of their profits.  I don't think that CEOs should receive huge bonuses or golden parachutes while line workers are having their benefits cut.  And I don't think that banks should refuse to modify a home loan, and then proceed with foreclosure on a homeowner trying to make ends meet.

But as I said, I only can speak for myself.  And as I mentioned above, among our Constitutional rights is the right to free speech and peaceful assembly.  Meaning that OWS has no right to mold the opinions of its participants into a single mission statement, even if it tried.  It can't remove the outliers who muddy the message by claiming that capitalism is the ruin of the country.  The very rights that make the movement possible may prevent it from becoming a solidified platform.  This has been a source of frustration to me.  I thought to myself "Okay, you're a movement.  You're loud, you make the news, you have people's attention.  But now that you have that attention, can you tell us what exactly you are moving towards?" But recently, in fact, during the course of drafting this blog, I have changed my mind somewhat.   The point of OWS may not be specific demands.  The point of OWS may simply be that many of us are mad as hell and we're not going to take it anymore.  And I'm guessing there are many more who are not marching, and who will never march, but agree with the charges put forth by the protestors against the "1%", and express their opinions with their pocketbooks and their ballots.  The point of OWS may be that when an egregious injustice is being committed, whether against an individual or an entire country, ultimately people are going to get PISSED OFF.  And when 99% of the people are PISSED OFF, something has to change. 

We Are the 99 Percent: Archive

via wearethe99percent.tumblr.com

Are these people looking for a handout so they can avoid working? Are they lazy? Are they whining? Are they WRONG?

983 GOP debates, (and nothin' on)

(My apologies to Bruce Springsteen for messing with a perfectly good song title.)

Another Republican debate was held Tuesday night, this one a rather bizarre round-table setup (the candidates actually sat around a large table like King Arthur's jesters, I mean knights, and the moderators sat with them). This debate was billed as a make-or-break for Rick Perry, who has slumped both in the previous two debates and in the polls.  Well, he didn't say anything incredibly stupid, but that was possibly because he didn't say much at all. Michelle Bachmann decried Herman Cain's 9-9-9 tax plan by saying that when you turn it upside-down it reads 6-6-6, and "the devil is in the details".  She actually looked a bit devilish when she made that comment. Rick Santorum, in a rare moment of clarity, slammed Cain's plan as a fantasy that “could not pass” Congress. Jon Huntsman, the most sane candidate on the stage, got the laugh of the night when he said he originally thought 9-9-9 was the price of one of Cain's Godfather pizzas.  But not all the talk awas about Cain's ridiculous tax plan. Newt Gingrich said that Chris Dodd and Barney Frank should be jailed for contributing to the 2008 financial meltdown.  Mitt Romney spent much of his time defending Romneycare from the attacks of the other candidates, who claimed it cost jobs and was bankrupting Massachusetts.  Ron Paul was, well, I couldn't focus on what Ron Paul was saying because I was so focused on his right eyebrow, which seemed to be falling off.  Seriously.  You can see it for yourself:  http://www.nytimes.com/2011/10/13/fashion/raising-eyebrows.html

Throughout this series of debates,  no single candidate has taken the GOP base by storm and been able to stay on top.  Herman Cain has now taken the lead; polls show him as the choice of 27% of Republicans, with Romney at 23%, Rick Perry coming in third at 16%, and once-mighty Michelle Bachmann in second-to-last place, polling a measly 5%.   It seems that each debate shuffles the deck, with a new candidate coming out on top.

Conventional wisdom still says that Mitt Romney will end up being the Republican nominee. But the public has not yet come face to face with the "Mormon problem".  The Baptist minister who introduced Rick Perry at a rally last week caused a minor furor when he called Mormonism a "cult", but the issue of Romney's religion has not become part of the general public conversation...yet.  It wasn't until 1961 that a Catholic was elected President; despite the separation of church and state, many Americans care very much about the religious affiliations of their elected officials, especially the President of the United States.  Time will tell if voters fear Mormonism and Mormons enough to not vote for one.

So really, no one has any idea who will wind up as the GOP nominee. Herman Cain is the flavor of the week, but once people really dig into his 9-9-9 plan, many will see that it is highly regressive and significantly reduces the revenues taken in by the federal government, and will understand that those aren't good things for any economy, let alone our current climate.   It's also the only thing he really has going for him.   Both Michele Bachmann and Rick Perry seem to be fading fast, largely due to recent and recurring gaffes.  Newt Gingrich, although skillful at debates, is hanging on to his candidacy by a hair. Both Newt and Rick Santorum are lagging badly in fundraising, never a good sign for a national candidate.  Ron Paul has his cult following, which is kind of cute, but will probably not lead to widespread support.  And then there's Jon Huntsman.  He is likely the most intelligent candidate on the trail, and is nearly universally supported in the state of Utah, where he was governor until 2008.  He also has an Obama seal of approval, having been appointed by the President as U.S. Ambassador to China.  Yet for some reason that I can't fathom, Huntsman has not been able to get above single digits in polls.  Oh, and he's....Mormon.  That silly hurdle that he may not be able to overcome, if he even gets the chance to overcome it.

Will Herman Cain be able to stay on top of the polls?  Will Rick Perry's economic plan gain him new followers when he unveils it later this week?   Will Mitt Romney continue to collect endorsements from top-tier officials?  We'll have to stay tuned to find out.  Oh, and there's another debate next week. I plan to check it out...you never know what might happen when 8 GOP candidates hit the stage.

Romney = McCain = Kerry? | Dispatches from the Culture Wars

I have been saying for months that Mitt Romney is the most electable Republican in the general election and that if the Republicans choose to nominate one of the wingnuts instead, they’ll be handing the 2012 election to Obama — despite the fact that, under normal circumstances, Obama would be all but unelectable next year. My argument has been that a Perry, Cain or Bachmann candidacy would send independent voters fleeing from the Republicans. But this post at Townhall.com seems to make a lot of sense to me:

via freethoughtblogs.com

This is absolutely true. I have no idea who the GOP will put forward as a candidate for that very reason.