Social Activist Dolores Huerta is awarded the Presidential Medal of Freedom

I know President Obama is a centrist. I greatly enjoy claims from the whacky right that he's a radical leftist. Do these people have any understanding of political history at all? They really might want to travel a bit to see what else is out there.

I fully understand that Obama is defined by the realities of politics in America, by the art of the possible. But, I suppose, the Republican Party has moved so far to the right that the President's centrism looks like the left, if relativity is your guide.

For all that, I thought it was nice that President Obama awarded the Presidential Medal of Freedom on Tuesday to Dolores Huerta, an 82-year-old labour activist and co-founder of the United Farm Workers Union.

Huerta is also a noted civil rights and womens' rights activist. And, according to the Wiki entry for her, "as a role model to many in the Latin community, Huerta is the subject of many ballads and murals." Isn't that lovely?

Best of all, she's an honorary chair of the Democratic Socialists of America. That puts her in the wonderful company of some of my political heroes such as my former professor, Frances Fox Piven, and author Barbara Ehrenreich.

It must be hard for President Obama to show an openness to ideas not necessarily within the American mainstream, but I appreciate it when he makes the effort. I really do.

Engine Charlie at work on the Romney campaign

In a story in today's New York Times about the state of Mitt Romney's campaign now that he has secured the GOP nomination, senior Romney campaign advisor Ed Gillespie is quoted on the difficulty he believes the Obama campaign will have criticizing Romney's business experience.

He says:

"They've had a hard time painting Governor Romney as somehow sinister. The fact is every time they attack Mitt Romney for his experience in the private sector, they reinforce the idea that President Obama is hostile to the private sector."

Well, I'm not so sure. Whenever I hear something like this, my mind goes immediately to that old quote by Charles E. Wilson, also known as "Engine Charlie." Wilson was the Secretary of Defense under Eisenhower from 1953 to 1957.

During his confirmation hearings before the Senate Armed Services Committee, Wilson was asked about his large stock holdings in General Motors, a company he had led. When asked if, as Secretary of Defense, he could make a decision contrary to the interests of GM, he said he could. He then added: "because for years what I thought was good for the country was good for general motors and vice versa." Wilson never actually said: "What's good for General Motors is good for the country," which is the common misquote, but the sentiment is there.

I remember being told about Wilson's comment growing up in my working class neighbourhood. It was quite a famous statement in its time and for years after. Back then we would have had no idea what it would have meant to be "hostile to the private sector." What we understood, perhaps instinctively, was that what was good for big business was good for big business and not necessarily for the country or it citizens. To say the least, we looked upon Wilson's statement cynically.

Republicans have always tried to make the case, perhaps in more nuanced ways, that what is good for big business is good for America. I think the obvious point is, this is sometimes true and other times not true. Asking questions about particular cases does not make someone anti-private sector.

In my experience, voters are far more sophisticated than this, and no amount of back-door red baiting is going to scare them off.

Mitt Romney: Likely three-time loser in states he has called home

It does not appear President Obama will have much difficulty carrying Michigan in the fall, at least not according to recent polling by Public Policy Polling (PPP), which found the President leading Mitt Romney by a margin of 54-38 percent.

As for anything that might count as home field advantage, Romney doesn't have much of that as only 24 percent of voters consider him a Michigander as opposed to 65 percent who do not. His favourability rating is 35/57 percent in the wrong direction.

According to the PPP poll, it isn't just that Romney is so unpopular in the state, as Obama's approval ratings are strong with a 53/41 in the positive direction.

Perhaps the most telling number is that 55 percent of voters think Obama is better for the automotive industry compared to 31 percent who think Romney is better. Maybe Mitt shouldn't have taken such a public stand to let Detroit go bankrupt. Bet he wishes he could have that one back.

Here's something interesting. Mitt Romney has ties to three states, which have each been called "home states" for the presumptive GOP nominee: Massachusetts, Michigan, and California. He was born in Michigan and his father was governor. He was the Governor of Massachusetts and he has an ocean front home in California and numerous family connections there.

Unless something dramatic happens, he's going to lose all three to President Obama in the fall. I'm not saying it means anything as such, but it can't feel good to be so poorly regarded in states where you've spent so much time. I guess it adds further proof to my claim that to know Mitt is to dislike Mitt.

Hey George, you want to try again to explain this?

Sometimes politics is just weird. Check this out: The Wall Street Journal reported a few days ago that attorney George Demos was quitting the race for the Republican congressional nomination for eastern Long Island (NY-1). The primary is on June 26th.

The reason he gave was that he decided to focus on his upcoming wedding to Chrysa Tsakopoulos, which takes place in a week or so.

As the Daily Kos points out, it is true that a judge moved the primary from September to June earlier in the year, and that there may have been some scheduling tensions, but this is still an odd one.

Very Nice

What did Demos do, wake up last week and say, "Shit, I'm getting married next week. Better cancel that whole 'I want to be a Congressman' thing?"

I'll admit I can be bad with a calendar, but come on!

Inevitably, when these things happen, there's something else going on. This excuse is as credible as retiring politicians saying they want to "spend more time with their families."

Two years ago, Randy Altschuler defeated Demos and one other candidate in the same GOP primary. Altschuler lost narrowly to Democrat Timothy Bishop.

Even if Demos realized he couldn't win the nomination, the timing is strange as is the reasoning.

I'd have to guess his supporters are somewhat annoyed at the sudden decision. What do you think the chances are they'll sign up for a future campaign?

Do I see a movie in the future? Perhaps: "My Big Fat Greek Wedding and How It Ended My Political Career."

Is Mitt Romney responsive to anything outside his own little world?

Why change when you're always right?

One of the most important tools in political campaigns is the focus group. You get a bunch of people in a room. You choose them based on the demographic you're testing and you ask them a series of questions and gauge their responses. It's a little like polling, but it's a much deeper dive. You listen carefully to how the people in your focus group express themselves. How do they articulate their hopes and frustrations? How do they speak about the kinds of qualities they admire in a candidate versus those they don't like? How do thye respond to issues and the framing of issues? What do they like and dislike about your guy and the same for your opponent? That kind of thing.

When you start to hear the same things over and over again, maybe you can begin to design an approach for your campaign. Responsiveness is key.

When you start to hear the same things from focus groups containing voters who identify themselves as "persuadable," you really pay attention. That's the jackpot, swing voters who could go either way, who are undecided.

It's an extremely inexact science but it has its uses.

According to Daily Kos, a Romney campaign aide recently previewed a "Message of the Week" in these terms: "You can't be hostile to business and friendly to job creation. President Obama never managed a thing in his life other than his own personal narrative."

The first thing that comes to mind is that Republicans are fighting the last war - again. Barack Obama has been president for three and a half years. Sure, staunch conservatives might believe that Obama hasn't managed anything, but I don't think many persuadable voters see Obama as without management experience after that long in the Oval Office.

But, what is clear, is they mean he has never managed a business and therefore shouldn't be trusted managing the economy. That's their point.

I know many Republicans think business success is the only kind of success that matters. As for myself, I happen to think there are so many more important ways to lead that don't necessarily involve making oneself a lot of money. But that's me.

I understand the bias among true believers in the business conservative ranks. I'm sure they reason that if some businessman knows how to make himself a lot of money, he can do the same for the country. I know a lot of people think that way.

From my perspective there are just different skills sets at work in politics compared to business, though I can't get into that here. Suffice it to say that assuming a direct translation from one to the other is simply foolishness. Neither would I suggest success in politics would translate into the same for business, by the way.

By any measure, Barack Obama has been very successful in life and has leadership qualities in abundance. The snarky comment by the Romney aide that Obama's only successful management experience is in developing his own narrative is meant to suggest that he pulled a fast one on the American voter, that he deceived his way to the White House. In other words, whatever success Barack Obama has had is illegitimate. How often have we heard that?

But, back to the focus groups. Is Romney'a team really hearing from persuadable voters that they think President Obama lacks credible management experience because he never managed a private equity firm? Do they really think Mitt Romney's bona fides as a businessman suggest the kind of leadership skills required to guide the nation?

I'm just wondering.

Sometimes in focus groups you can fool yourself by manipulating the questions to get the answers you want. I find it hard to believe that a lot of swing voters are buying what Romney's team is selling.

The other thing to remember about campaigns is that it is not uncommon to float an idea, a way of saying things, to see if it gets any traction. Maybe that's what's going on here and nothing is validating this argument, that the Romney campaign is just making this up without the benefit of voter research.

In politics it is very possible to convince yourself of something that isn't true if you really want it to be true. I don't know how the Romney campaign is coming up with its "narrative," its "Message of the Week." It's possible they are hearing these things from citizens, though I think it's more likely they are getting them from the bubble in which they live. A campaign manager I once worked with never tired of saying, "let's be careful not to drink our own bath water."

I guess the point I am trying to make is that successful campaigns look beyond their own prejudices to gauge and respond to the concerns of voters as they find them. Losing campaigns flog an understanding of the world that is more inward than outward looking.

Of course Romney will get the votes of those who already agree with him. But I don't think he'll convince anyone of anything, I don't think he'll persuade anyone of anything because I don't think he is capable of listening and adapting. That is what focus groups should teach you how to do. That's what listening in politics is all about.

Go ahead and have your Texas primary, if you must

David Dewhurst

In case you haven't been paying attention (and why would you?), there are still Republican primaries going on to determine who the GOP presidential nominee will be. Okay, we know who that will be, but process is process. God bless democracy.

Having said that, Mitt Romney is expected to get to and beyond the 1,144 delegates he needs thanks to the Texas primary today. It's a big state with 155 delegates on offer.

Yippee! Romney wins the nomination!

More interesting, as ABC News reports, is the primary to determine the Republican Senate nominee to fill the seat being vacated by Kay Bailey Hutchinson, who is retiring. The race is between David Dewhurst, the state's lieutenant governor, and Ted Cruz, the former solicitor general.

Once again we have a candidate, Dewhurst, considered to be an "establishment" candidate, going up against Cruz, who appears to claim the Tea Party designation. The waters do get a bit muddied, though, as Sarah Palin and Jim Demint are with Cruz, while Mike Huckabee and Rick Perry, hardly moderates, are with Dewhurst.

In Texas you need 50 percent in the primary to avoid a runoff, which is, it appears, a threshold that may not be reached. But even if a runoff is required, Public Policy Polling is saying that Dewhurst is in good shape to win the nomination because most of the votes of the likely third place finisher, Tom Lepperts, are poised to go to Dewhurst

Texas is a reliably red state, so the GOP nominee should have no problem winning the general. No Delaware or Nevada 2010 shenanigans here, nor even 2012 Indiana contortions are likely.

That's right. Texans are going to the polls to choose between red and marginally redder.

Okay, this isn't a very interesting post. Sorry.

Does it matter that Mitt Romney is avoiding non-Fox media?

Politico ran a short item the other day about Bob Schieffer asking Mitt Romney advisor Ed Gillepsie why his candidate only goes on Fox. The "Face the Nation" host put it this way:

"You think we're ever going to see [Mitt Romney] on one of these Sunday morning interview shows? I know he does Fox, but we'd love to have him some time, as would "Meet the Press" and the ABC folk, I would guess."

Gillespie responded by saying that Romney "spoke to school children last week," though I am not sure what question that answered.

The rest of the conversation went like this:

Then, [Gillespie] said he'd take Schieffer's suggestion under careful consideration. "We'll have to consider a number of options, and I'm sure the morning shows are [some] of them," Gillespie said. 

Schieffer, pointedly, politely replied: "I know schoolchildren are happy to see him."

Well, that's all very cute, but it does beg the question whether you can run for the presidency more or less exclusively through Fox News? It may be one thing to secure the GOP nomination, though even there I recall Romney got a bit of a rough ride on Fox from time to time. On the one hand, so few people as a percentage of the voting universe watch public affairs programs that it probably doesn't matter. What can matter, though, is the way reporters for various other networks, that are not Fox News, will frame stories if you avoid them.

One of the best lines in a television show about politics I ever heard was a comment by fictional press secretary Toby Zielgler on The West Wing, who said that it is never a good idea to pick a fight with anyone who buys printers ink by the barrel. Metaphorically speaking, he obviously meant the press in general, that it was bad to make them angry and better to have a good working relationship with them.

I know the right has talked foolishly about the biases of the mainstream media (MSM), and I know this plays well with certain parts of their constituency. I don't think it plays well with the mainstream of the country, the kind of people you need to vote for you outside your conservative base if you hope to win the presidency.

Again, I don't know that Romney can't succeed by ignoring the MSM, but I think it is foolish to try.

A different perspective on the glorification of war

Much as war may sometimes be necessary and gratitude for those who serve appropriate, it is probably best we glorify the endeavor as little as possible so as to discourage future occurrences as much as possible. Or, put differently:

"Perhaps when we remember wars, we should take off our clothes and paint ourselves blue and go on all fours all day long and grunt like pigs. That would surely be more appropriate than noble oratory and shows of flags and well-oiled guns." - Kurt Vonnegut, Cat's Cradle

A Republican voice of reason (if you go back 60 years)

Here is an interesting quote on war on this Memorial Day from, perhaps, an unlikely source.

"Every gun that is made, every warship launched, every rocket fired, signifies in the final sense a theft from those who hunger and are not fed, those who are cold and are not clothed." - Dwight David Eisenhower

This is from an address called the "Chance for Peace" speech. It was delivered on April 16, 1953, shortly after the death of Joseph Stalin.

It is well documented that, as a former military man, President Eisenhower was concerned about increases in military spending. Many people are aware of his comments on the matter in his farewell address on January 17, 1961, which is also commonly known as his "military-industrial complex speech."

Can you imagine a Republican leader today saying anything of the kind? I think not.

Thoughts on Memorial Day 2012

Today is Memorial Day in the United States. I am not quite sure what the appropriate wish is for this day. It's hardly a happy occasion, but is it a day to remember how great are the sacrifices required by war and how considered our decisions must be before we engage in it.

I am always troubled by the attempt of some to make regard for our military a left-right issue. I've never understood this and have a hell of time getting my head around the sentiment. Some on the right seem to think that everyone on the left is naturally presupposed to cowardice and would refuse to defend the country even if the cause was clearly just. Some on the left seem to think that everyone on the right enjoys a good war every now and again just for the hell of it. Foolishness abounds on both sides.

Although I have never had to put myself in harms way for my country, I believe that most who have are likely the greatest ambassadors for peace having seen what it is really like and knowing that there should always be very good reasons for making war.

Over the past few months I've read various accounts of U.S. involvement in wars. Most recently I read John Toland's The Last 100 Days about the end of the WWII. I read Steinbeck's Once There Was A War and Stephen Ambrose's Citizen Soldiers both also about WWII. I reread Michael Herr's Dispatches and We Were Soldiers Once and Young by Lt. General Hal Moore and Joseph Galloway about the war in Vietnam. I even read a book called On Killing by Lt. Col. Dave Grossman, an account of the psychological ravages of having to kill in combat, a book actually used in military training.

I have always had an interest in military matters, though this hardly makes me any kind of expert. I have discovered that the theme occurring most often in nearly everything I have heard or read about soldiers in war is that their primary concern is survival but perhaps even primarily providing assistance to their comrades, to do all they can to ensure as many survive as possible. Killing is hard. Doing what has to be done to protect one's fellows is most frequently the goal, though it obviously involves killing. I take comfort in this idea if it is true that under duress our minds are most strongly focused on the safety of those with whom we stand.

I understand that war and the decisions to go to war are among the most politically charged of any. I understand why these decision are sometimes couched in terms of left and right, but that is not the soldiers concern. When it comes to them, our political decision-makers put them in harms way. Soldiers do what they are asked to do if they serve well and it is for this reason they are honoured.

Despite the fact that some soldiers in every war do not comport themselves honourably, I suspect that most do. Whatever the rights and wrongs of American involvement in Iraq and Afghanistan, and I think the wrongs are most prominent, I am glad that there has been little evidence of vilifying soldiers who have served, little name-calling or other thoughtless acts as we have seen in the past.

The politicians make the decision. We civilians have a right to argue with them and vote against them, but the soldiers who carry out the orders do what they are asked to do. It would be a better world if we didn't need them at all, but we do.

We cannot know in advance how just the next war will be, should it come. Let's agree that it is good that some are prepared to serve.

So, on this Memorial Day, whatever else may be true, I hope as many men and women in uniform as possible are successful in keeping themselves and their friends safe. And let us also think of the ones for whom that was not possible. It shouldn't be difficult to consider this a strongly bi-partisan perspective.