Romney's fundamental opportunity

Peggy Noonan interview in the WSJ today:

Before rallies and town meetings, Mr. Romeny always tries to have private, off-the-record meetings with voters.  "I sit down with five or six couples or individuals and just go around the table, and I ask them to tell me abou their life.  And the stories I hear suggest a degree of anxiety which is not reflected in the statistics."

More than anything else right now, what I sense when I travel the country giving speeches (Dallas two days ago) is that people don't think their kids will have better lives than they have had, and that is a fundamental shift in US thinking.

Subjective, yes?  But subjective matters in elections.

The race card cannot work on Obama, or really any national candidate going forward

WAPO story on Romney rightfully steering clear of those within GOP who, in their desperation, consider racially motivated election attacks against Obama.

The problem with this approach is that it is magnificently self-defeating - that's how America has evolved in its racial make-up.

Obama is carrying Blacks, Hispanics and Asians - plus the "minority-majority" that are women (historically far less welcoming of racially tinged messages than men, to include white women versus white men).

All three of those major minority groups tilt decisively toward Dems, and racially-tinged political messages simply reinforce that reality and perhaps lock it in for the longer term.  Simply put, as a polity, America is past all that nonsense.

And the fact that the Republicans are considering it - even among just their fringe hardcore elements - signals just how bereft of ideas and leadership and vision they really are.

And that is a very sad day for this republic, because, quite frankly, Obama does not deserve a second term and it won't be any better than the first.

But I do take comfort in this reality, being the father of one Asian female and two future African-American women.

Wikistrat post @ CNN/GPS: Nine roads to November

Editor’s Note: The following piece, exclusive to GPS, comes from Wikistrat, the world's first massively multiplayer online consultancy.  It leverages a global network of subject-matter experts via a crowd-sourcing methodology to provide unique insights.

Upsetting both conventional wisdom and the party establishment’s preferred narrative, New Gingrich’s big win in South Carolina’s Republican primary last weekend has dramatically energized the GOP race. While it suddenly feels like a two-man fight between Gingrich and the previously presumptive nominee Mitt Romney, in truth, the party’s three main wings (country-club moderates, Reaganites,  and the farthest-right social conservatives and libertarians) remain deeply divided, suggesting a lengthy and drawn-out battle across the remaining GOP primaries. Taking that as our starting-point assumption, Wikistrat polled its global network of strategists for scenarios as to how this might unfold and what it could mean for the November general election.

Read the entire post at CNN's GPS blog.

In honor of Newt's SC victory . . . remembering a 2006 dinner with him

The post from back then, reposted in full. The dominant impression: wide-ranging knowledge, reflecting a huge memory.

Speaking with the Speaker, and a great reporter

Referenced from: http://thomaspmbarnett.com/globlogization/2006/3/23/speaking-with-the-speaker-and-a-great-reporter.html#ixzz1kJTxa9cN

THURSDAY, MARCH 23, 2006 AT 5:35PM

Last night was pretty good. Sat at the head table with the hosting general of the Joint Flag Officer Warfighting Course and Newt Gingrich, who seemed to know a lot about me (saying things like, "this is a book I know you'd find interesting" and stuff like that, and asking a lot of questions that revealed some knowledge).

Gingrich is a pretty easy guy to talk with. Inquisitive as hell, he asks question after question and then he spits out theories every so often at high speed, often linking them to American history. His favorite point of comparison to today was the tougher years of the Civil War.

I countered more with the settling of the West, and we went back and forth some on the subject, which was fun.

Also, covered Iraq, where the consensus of the table (us and five or so 3-stars) was that we toppled the regime but that we should have kept the government (mostly because we were prepared to topple a regime but not to replace a government). Gingrich really liked that enunciation, and wrote it down on his Delta flight coupon sleeve, upon which he took notes throughout the night (not a napkin note-taker, he).

Gingrich asked me about Indiana (why I was there), said he loved the zoo there (I told him we had just visited and were members; he countered that he was a zoo freak who visited them every town he traveled to), and compared his Wisconsin experiences to mine (his wife is from a town not that far from my hometown).

Chatting through a dinner with him is pretty much what you'd expect, having seen him on TV so many times: accessible, very fast, likes to hear himself talk but listens very intently as well (asking you to repeat stuff he likes, or typically following up everything you say with a question). Serious Republican, no doubt, and he wears his credentials openly on every point, but not hard to converse with or conduct a reasonable argument. It's not hard to see why the military likes to have him around so much. He's a fascinating guy, and who doesn't like all the Civil War references?!

When I got up to talk, I was a bit nervous, or rather, a bit too tired, as I often am when I talk late after talking early (I am not the young man I once was), so I stumbled a bit on the first couple of slides, in part because the mike started feeding back and in part because my clicker did not work whatsoever, which was baffling, because we tested it all out earlier in the afternoon.

I had one of the hosting personnel swap out the batteries and it did little good: instead of clicking the keypad, I could use it but basically only if I held it almost over the laptop. Very weird. Worked fine back in my room. Really wonder about the RF quality of that room, which is a none-too-rare experience for me in venues.

Anyway, once I got warmed up, it flowed. But I was surprisingly more stark and forceful than usual, which I didn't credit to Gingrich being there so much as my sense from the room: about three dozen 3-stars from all services. Basically tough faces to work: thinking hard, agreeing or disagreeing hard, and working it all out very seriously in their skulls.

You can just sense that with certain rooms: this is not entertainment to them but something far more serious. So you just go with the feeling, and the delivery adjusts.

Still, I was a bit surprised. Just didn't expect such a strong flow.

Went about 60 (norm is 30) and then did about 30 Q&A, which was exceptionally good, and tougher than usual. Seems like everyone had either read or was reading PNM.

Signed about 25 copies of BFA afterwards, and Gingrich came up and said how much he liked the talk. What was especially cool during the signings was hearing what I heard several times during the earlier one that afternoon: senior officers saying this was one of the rare times in their lives when they ever bothered to get an author to sign their copies, which is kind of a weird compliment but one I get in its meaning--namely, people saying they don't usually get touched by a book but that this one did it for them. You get that sort of feedback from a 3-star and you feel pretty good about your decision to put it into print.

Then the real treat for me: a long chat over beers with Greg Jaffe of the Wall Street Journal. He showed up at the reception because he heard I was talking (Gingrich flew in as well for the talk). Both he and Newt would have come anyway that night or early the next morning for their own stints with the JFOWC, but it was a real honor to have them both attend the dinner because of me.

I hadn't spoken F2F with Greg for a while, so a great discussion on what good reporting is over the reception before dinner, and then just a nice long private conversation (no flags) on the porch outside our rooms after the dinner and talk, a conversation that ran until midnight.

That meant I got little sleep before my flights home to close on the house this afternoon, but it was worth it. I respect Greg so much, and like him personnaly as well, that it was really great to have that time together, jawing our way through a host of defense and mil topics. Greg's been on the Pentagon beat for so long, and he's so on top of his game. Still, I'll be interested to see what the paper has in store for him next. He's simply too good a reporter just to keep doing the same thing forever. Frankly, I don't think he can get much better at what he covers now than he already is, and that's a recipe for stagnation if you're not careful.

Weird fact about Greg: his first newspaper job was in Montgomery, which is why he's easily talked into this course.

Addendum #2 to Saturday's unburdening

First, understand that I am hurting from last Sunday big time. This whole week was depression personified. Until the SB is over, I live in a sad, limbo-like existence, dreaming of Cullen Jenkins' return because the Eagles got too many old-man high-price free agents to re-sign.  It's pathetic, but there I am - Jerome stewing beside me.

David Emergy asks for a "hell yes!" on the presidential field versus an my admittedly weak endorsement for Romney and my I-can't-have-her lust for Hillary.

Emblematic of America, I don't have that candidate in hand - which is why I'm still window shopping when it comes to passion.

Yes, the right "wrong" person could warm me up again on Obama.  Santorum would do it, as would Paul, as would Gingrich in the end - as much as I admire his imagination. I wouldn't cross the aisle for any of those three.

I would get jacked for Giuliani, and have said that often.  My dream ticket remains Rudy and Michael Bloomberg. I like Giuliani's leadership capacity and I love Bloomberg's adventurous technocratic personality. I think he's the most exciting tinkerer out there, and a huge global influence in that role (vastly underappreciated, but most people don't get the coastal mega-city network vibe that's out there, making things happen on globalization). The two of them would be my version of a progressive ticket: fixers with no serious ideological bent. I had hopes for Obama on that score, but the smartest-guy-in-the-room thing got in the way. Rudy's and Mike's egos are accomplishment based, not loved based, and I really love that in leaders.

Frustrated with the field?  Let me count the ways.  I do agree with Newt: this is an historic and crucial election, and the idea that Obama just glides in with mega-buck spending stikes me as very bad for the country. I think he can win, but only with great negativity, and then I think we have four years of an embattled president whose main outlet of foreign policy is already spoiled with the strategic "pivot" choice. I don't want America to play four more years of the waiting game.  I want better.  I want progressive movement that regains the only lead worth capturing vis-a-vis the two great risers of the age - China and India: I want America once again being the best provider of sharp new answers that move the ball with purpose. Obama accomplish the basic realignment from Bush that I advocated in "Great Powers," but after that, I've seen litte-to-no strategic purpose or momentum, with the big choice on China being stunningly unimaginative in nature (i.e., he either wants to cover his defense "ass" on spending, which is silly given his vigorous killing program, or he can't stand up to the Pentagon, or he's actually dumb enough to believe this sort of empty posturing is worthwhile - I like none of my choices here).

If my only choices are Mitt and Barack, I choose the former as being more likely to achieve some momentum, but I am unhappy with this choice. Mitt feels too much like Mondale or Dole or McCain - the my-turn candidate, which to me just guarantees a second term to somebody who will do very little of value with the opportunity.

Chart of the Day: Perot sold that story too

Now let me first say that I hunger for serious competition to Obama.  If he gets back in, I want it to be a tough fight because, otherwise, his first-term arrogance will return unabated.

Let me also say that, as a rule, I think second terms are disasters. I have always favored a single six versus 2x4=8.  I haven't lived through a second term yet that I wouldn't have traded in for the 2nd election competition. I just see scandals and drift and lots of lesser talent creeping in for no good effect.

So I want Perry to be real, because Romney ain't doing it for anybody except Peggy Noonan.  And while I respect her considerable political instincts, I remain unsold (even though his campaign book cited me very favorably), primarily because I'm unsure he can win and - again - I want a real election and not some disappointing recrowning for a weak first term. If Obama is to win, I want him to earn it this time rather than have it somewhat handed to him by a weak opponent.

And so far, Perry is looking like an un-self-aware Romney.  Romney may flip a bit to win the nomination, but he at least knows who he is. Perry is for HPV vaccination so long as his friend says so, but then the religious right get on him and he flips like a pancake for no more reason, it seems, than his initial decision.

Now, he's selling the Texas miracle like H. Ross Perot sold his buffalo-tinged, I-made-my-own-fortune story, except Perot and EDS got fat mostly through gov contracts and Perry's jobs miracle seems similarly fueled:

Texas Gov. Rick Perry has leapfrogged to the top tier of Republican presidential candidates largely on the strength of one compelling fact: During more than a decade as governor, his state created more than 1 million jobs, while the nation as a whole lost 1.4 million jobs.

Perry says the “Texas miracle” rests on conservative pillars that he would bring to the White House: minimal regulation and government, low taxes and a determination to limit the reach of Uncle Sam.

What he does not say is that much of that job growth has come because of government, not in spite of it.

With a young and fast-growing population, a large and expanding military presence and an influx of federal stimulus money, the number of government jobs in Texas has grown at more than double the rate of private-sector employment during Perry’s tenure.

This guy needs to figure out if he's real or just enough of a snow job to sell in Texas.  If he is real (the other numbers are undeniably un-shabby), then he needs to start acting real, meaning acknowledging truths and acknowledging that what goes on in Texas is indicative of just about nothing in this country (Anybody else getting a one-fifth increase in gov jobs? Because those can go away too.).

So yeah, make your sale on your record, but make it honestly and show me some realistic translation to the real world known as the US outside of Texas. Indiana, for example, has a serious governor with a serious record and a serious capacity for telling the truth - Mitch Daniels.  I don't like everything he does, but at least our finances aren't a disaster amidst all the ongoing difficulty, and that counts plenty.

Perry is coming off, so far, too slick and too political.  I am not sensing the "real deal" dynamics in his presentation to date.  Some of that may be how the press is working him over, the usual rumor mills from enemies, etc., but the guy needs to get a grip before he gets himself defined down dramatically.  Maybe that's inevitable and there ain't no there there (all hat,no cattle, in TX terms), but mebbe it ain't.

It just doesn't feel like it's working so far, because I smell a Perot, and I don't want any cartoon character running for POTUS.

A deep discrediting of the political process in Washington

Economist story on party affiliation and op-ed from the NYT comparing now to the Gilded Age--a favorite theme of mine.

As I've long argued, the Boomers have been a terrible generation of political leaders.  As in the case of most revolutionary generations in history, once the initial stab at change in their youth fell to the wayside, the real talent went into business and technology and changed the world--dramatically--for the better. The dregs went into politics and, in the process, have managed to thoroughly discredit it as a career and force for good in our society.

Last time it was this bad in America was those latter decades of the 19th century.  The "revolution" then was the U.S. Civil War, and the crew that came out of that crucible was dramatically altered in character and vision and--most importantly--in personal connections.  The bonds forged by war led to a lot of follow-on business development during a great and lengthy boom time.  But it was an era much like today:  frontier integration thanks to a rapidly expanding continental economy, the knitting together of a sectional economy into world-class "rising China" of its age, huge flows of people and FDI into the country--a miniature version of today's globalization.  

And during that age of booms and busts and the early populism that accompanied it, politics became a very dirty profession, so much so that when progressive icon TR decided to step into the fray, his wealthy NYC family begged him not to do so--it was considered such a huge step down from respectable obscurity. Few of us came name any politicians from that era (distant relation Grant being my favorite), but we all remember the industrial-financial titans, whose very names equal wealth: Rockefeller, Carnegie, Morgan, etc.

We live in very much the same age now, poised to move into a progressive era.  I know that word is a favorite target of Glen Beck with his whacked-out history lessons, but it's clear to me we need a cleaning-up period much like back then.  Politics needs to be re-credentialized, but it can't happen so long as the current cast of small minds (I'm with Michael Bloomberg on this one) are on the stage.  The downshifting in talent and vision over the past three decades has been supremely depressing.  I grew up with WWII-era giants in politics, and I miss the class and the intelligence and professionalism and--most of all--the ability to forge deals.  Now we suffer such unbearable fools.

And so we get "change" after "change" election, a good corollary to the Gilded Age.  I think we'll need a few more before the next generation of leadership starts making itself known.  Obama was an avatar of this movement; he just turned out to be too much like Jimmy Carter when he got into office.

The Economist piece demonstrates the popular disaffection with politics: we are more and more a one-third, one-third, one-third electorate--as in, one-third Dem, one-third GOP and one-third Independent.  I would count myself in the Independent crowd, as I have a hard time imagining myself in either party.

When does the big change come?  A peer-to-peer generation is already remaking a good chunk of our society/economy. Eventually the Millennials move into the political realm and have their impact.  

Like so much of what I track, then, this is another thing that registers more in the 2020s/2030s, signifying the 2010s as a transition decade to be finessed--and survived.  

We navigate an age where we should setting up the big deals that shape our future, like transitioning from old alliances to new.

The evangelical bloc . . . in Brazil!

WSJ story.

Lula does the always impressive and wins himself an additional proxy term through a hand-picked successor. Great men tend to do this, like Andrew Jackson with Martin Van Buren or TR with Taft or Reagan with George H.W. Bush.  So less a win for women (although Rousseff seems more than qualified) than a vindication of Lula's highly successful tenure.

What the article highlighted, though, was the important role played by the rising Protestant/Pentecostal voting bloc, now powered by about 1 out of every 5 Brazilians.   They won 50% more votes in the congressional election than last time, and now claim 71 of 600 seats there. Yes, they do tend to the right on social issues, and make themselves known when they unite as a bloc within the congress. 

Remember my theme:  the 21st century will be the most religious ever in terms of great awakenings.  Why?  So many people shifted from substenance to abundance, so much industrialization/urbanization uprooting lives, so much connectivity afforded by globalization, and some pretty big human milestones coming (peaking of human population around 2050, serious life-extension technologies, etc.).  

The evangelicals were considered crucial for Dilma Rousseff's second-round win over her opponent.  When it came down to the binary choice, she scored better with Pentecostals (mostly on economics and the other guy was more anti-abortion) and her campaign actively sought to mobilize them.  

Much like the rising Hispanic quotient here in the U.S., this election in Brazil signals a tipping point, after which no one will run for, or likely win as, president without going hard after this vote.

Esquire's Politics Blog: 5 Ways the New Congress Changes the Future of War

What with all the Washington pundits swashbuckling before Tuesday's election about why President Obama should and shouldn't rush back to the battlefront, you'd think national security might have been a bigger campaign issue. There is that little matter of the economy, of course, but then there's that wrinkle called the Tea Party — and the Republican instinct to placate the underlying political anger by way of conspiratorial notions concerning war and peace. Well, we're not quite back to Bush/Cheney territory, but a conservative majority means a lot for America's global outlook. (And that doesn't mean the left leans left, Bill Kristol.) Assuming our old new enemies in Yemen don't hit the terror jackpot any time soon, here are the issues to track after the stunning repudiation of our Nobel Peace Prize-winning president by the American voter. We're not even going to get started on Don't Ask Don't Tell...

Read the entire post at Esquire's The Politics Blog.

Buying time on defense spending

WSJ story from 22 October.  It was the chart that caught my eye.

Per a post I should have out later today at Esquire, most experts don't see the GOP takeover of the House impacting defense spending all that much, even though it's the biggest (now at just under 20% of the Feb budget) discretionary item at over $700B in 2010.  

The Tea Partiers, most notably the new senator from Kentucky, Rand Paul, say there's plenty of waste to be cut.  But with Gates already earnestly trying to clip $100B over five years, it's hard to see the House coming after the Pentagon while Iraq is winding down and Afghanistan remains hot.

The longer-term problem:  what drives a lot of defense growth is the same thing driving Medicare's similar trajectory:  higher medical costs.

Tony Cordesman at CSIS says Gates' efficiency drive only buys time in the face of these twin internal and external pressures. In my mind, that reality makes Obama's efforts to reform healthcare look less "out there."

I am one who thinks Europe's current struggles with budgets, pensions, defense cuts, etc. are a harbinger of what we eventually end up doing.  Our engagement with the world will be deemed "excessive" (Barney Frank's term) in light of all this fiscal tightness.

And then how China inevitably steps into that void, and how we interpret that trend, will determine much.  

That's why the sad state of Sino-American mil-mil cooperation could turn out to be a decisive non-enabler of what should have logically followed.

The GOP's "young guns"

Economist piece by Lexington highlighting the "young guns" Eric Cantor of VA, Paul Ryan from WI and Kevin McCarthy from CA.  All decent picks, but not a word about NJ's Chris Christie, who, to me, is the most interesting of the lot--despite being probably not experienced enough for 2012.

I read the piece less because I'm interested in the field than because I find myself running into such a strong consensus, wherever I travel, of Obama's profound weakness with the electorate.  I've read the analysis that says, all he has to do is win the same percentages with Hispanics (easy due to GOP stance on immigration) and African-Americans (hard to see how he's disappointed them) and get himself not more than a third of whites and he wins all over again.

And yet, you keep running into signals that say the GOP base is fired up and the Dems' is not.  We see Obama getting rougher--and rightly so--in his speeches, but you don't know how that's going to go over--as in, which side gets more fired up.

And so you have to consider these early profiles with all due seriousness.  I see somebody either young or a clear outsider--just like Obama presented himself, enjoying all the same we-pour-into-this-empty-vessel-all-our-hopes-and-dreams-and-fears dynamic that our man from IL did three years ago.

All pretty near idle fancy at this point, but the mind does wander. Where is the technocrat who feels--more?

You heard it here first: Hillary and Joe switch jobs in 2012

FT column by Clive Crook.

You remember my Esquire column of 7/31/09?  It ended thusly:

End Game: A Swap with Biden?

Say Clinton puts in her four years dutifully, achieving a reasonable fraction of her ambitions. So what's her reward? Four more years of President Obama, quite possibly. But will Hillary be happy enough with four more for herself at State? Or could a bigger compensation package be in the works?

Let me lay out for you a scenario I consider most worthy for all sides to consider: Remember Don Regan and James Baker switching jobs between Ronald Reagan's two terms, with Regan going to White House chief of staff and Baker assuming the Treasury's top spot?

Well, try this one on for size: Biden has no legit hopes for the top slot in 2016, but Clinton can't be ruled out. Why not have them switch jobs in concert with the 2012 campaign run? Biden can run out his string in the job he's always wanted (four years at No. 2 is enough time served for anybody with his ego, yes?), and Hillary can make history as the first elected female vice president. Obama is thus doubly credited for shattering one glass ceiling and generously setting Hillary up to crack the ultimate one.

You heard it here first.

Well, Crook makes the argument for Hillary as a better running mate for Obama in 2012 without going the extra step of job-swapping, which I think would make the deal work for Biden (recalling Baker-for-Regan in Reagan II).

Crook's larger argument:  if you want a more successful Obama II, this would be a great way to shift course and move more to the center.  Crook actually explores doing this prior to the full-up election (as in, why would Clinton automatically rule out running in 2012?), but I don't consider that to be anything but fantastic.

I think the swap-out could work for everybody--at virtually no risk to anybody.

Chart of the day: GOP closing fast?

From the Economist, in a piece that predicts the GOP will win 42 House seats while losing 3 for a net gain of 39—just enough to get control at 218 to 217, with John Boehner taking the gavel from Nancy Pelosi.

Charlie Cook thinks it will be a bit worse.

What has gone wrong for the Dems?  “Almost everything,” says the newspaper.

All polls say Republicans and Independents are far more fired up to vote in the mid-terms than Dems.

What has gone right for the Dems?  The Tea Party’s beyond-the-pale histrionics.  But with share of voters labeling the Dems “too liberal” rising from 39% to 49%, the Tea Party’s excesses might simply be more reflective of the larger mood than subtractive for the GOP.

Latinos leaning more Democratic

WSJ story saying that Hispanics who registered to vote since the last midterm are significantly less likely to vote GOP than those who registered 4 years earlier.

The fastest-growing bloc of voters in the country is trending Dem.

GOP affiliation fell from a bit from 23% to 19%, while the Dem share rose from 50% to 58%.  Fewer independents.

The driver is no mystery: anti-immigrant fervor is more identified with the GOP.

The good news for Dems is somewhat balanced by the new non-Latino voters, who favor the Dems over the GOP by a lesser margin (41% to 34%).

How big the shift with this election?

Trio of WSJ pieces

Joe Sestak ends Spector's long career that goes all the way back to the Warren Commission (and please people, stop calling it the "magic bullet" theory, because the latest computer modeling shows that it wasn't magical in the least!), exploiting the current anti-incumbent mood.

I knew Sestak as an admiral and I've testifed in from of him.  He is as slick as they come, and I mean that in a good way. Outsider? Definitely fresher than Spector, let's say.

He's definitely a liberal, holding a 100% rating from NARAL on being pro-choice.  We also share a bond:  both our first-born girls survived cancer in childhood.

Sestak is also incredibly smart, in my opinion, so he'd be one to watch in the Senate, just like he was in the House.

So with all this talk of voter shifts, what does this latest batch of primaries say?  We should see a lot of new faces in Congress next January, and this is good.  Place is too easy for incumbents as a rule, and we should take pride in moving new brains into the mix.

But you have to remember, midterm primaries are the stuff of the party loyalists.

It's the changing mix of loyalists that bodes well for the GOP.

MSNBC/WSJ poll on party affiliation changes since start of Obama administration:

• Dems stay at 43%
• GOP goes from 30 to 37%
• That comes out of Independents (20-->16%) and others (7-->3%).

So you have to believe that the Tea Party movement is strengthening the GOP and hardly represents the rise of a viable third party.

Will the post mid-term paralysis be far worse?

Yes, says Fred Barnes in the WSJ, thus the Democrats' urgency in shoving through legislation, insinuating that Obama will be forced to concentrate on foreign affairs after 2010, because that's what you do when you can't get any domestic agenda moving.  The wild card?  Shoving a value-added tax or VAT through a post-election lame-duck Congress.

Meanwhile, The Economist laments the "perverse impact" the looming elections are having on immigration.  Wild card there?  Harry Reid pushing an amnesty bill through the Senate so he can tap the 15% Hispanic voting pool in his state.  This may backfire.