Morning Joe 12/8/2011 -- Erratic Newt and Constant Romney

On Morning Joe today at least they started out with an important issue and not more Gingrich bashing. The important issue was Blago's sentence. Scarborough was outraged at the length of the sentence, and when Mika attempted to say that Blago brought it on himself, Scarborough exploded in a rant. Mika was taken aback at this misunderstanding of her point. Scarborough looked directly in the camera and said if anyone thinks he's defending Blago's behavior, they are too stupid to be watching his program. This is the kind of passion America needs, not the erratic behavior of a Newt Gingrich. The sentence is too long, but, jeez, I think I'd save that passion for more important issues. It suffices to say that hopefully a repeal will produce a much more sensible punishment.

After this brave, passionate condemnation of unusual punishment, the topic drifted to Gingrich and his commanding lead in the polls. John Heilemann was the not-too-regular guest, then Niall Ferguson and David Gregory came on, and then the super lobbyist guy who went to prison, Jack Abramoff. Barnicle, Heilemann, Ferguson, and the rest agreed that Gingrich will kill the Republican Party if he gets the nomination. The word on the street is that establishment Republicans are pushing Romney to squash Gingrich. Republican establishment types believe they have a chance to take the House and the Senate and the presidency, and they don't want to blow it with an erratic Newt. Romney has an ad out showing how he's been constant through the years in his marriage, his job and his religion, which is supposed to contrast with Gingrich's multiple marriages, religious conversion and checkered political career.

Kudos to Scarborough for recognizing Ron Paul's influence in the race -- I just wish he'd shown a little passion here and told his viewers who diss Paul that they're too stupid to vote or breathe. The real point is not winning, but what will happen if Republicans win. If it's like the Democrat's majority win across the board in 2008, will Republicans roll back what Democrats got passed? Obamacare? Dodd-Frank? All the EPA regulations? Will Republicans abolish unneeded goverment departments and programs? Will the Fed be audited? Will the wars in the mideast end? Will energy regulations blocking production be removed? Will there be an announcement that government is going to trust the private sector and not interfere in the economy? Or, will Republicans protect the status quo and buckle at the first charge that Republicans hate old people and poor people and kids and single moms and the middle class?

What good will it do to win, if Romney doesn't  uphold classical liberal values regarding limited government and a free market. We don't need a technocrat from the Right to manage the economy -- we need for government to limit its power, leave the economy alone and stop intervening in foreign countries. I'll write something later about Romney.

Morning Joe 12/1/2011 -- Raise taxes or cut spending or both

Scarborough tried to fight his Gingrich Obsessive Disorder this morning, but both he and Mika couldn't resist another round of attacks. They had ammunition this morning from a Ron Paul ad which highlights Gingrich's shifts in positions and hypocrisy regarding Fannie and Freddie. I'll be giving my take on Gingrich later today.

The early guests this morning were Jeffrey Sachs, Niall Ferguson and Donnie Deutsche. After attacking Gingrich, the conversation moved on to the EU crisis and the American crisis. The panel agreed that the central bank efforts to buy time for Europe has not addressed the underlying problems, but the stock market went up nonetheless.

Scarborough said that Obama has made a bad situation worse in the US, although Mika and Deutsche said Obama inherited a financial mess and that Obama has plugged the dike. Scarborough reminded them that the debt is growing at an unsustainable rate, and Ferguson agreed that if spending is not controlled, before too long we'll be lucky to have enough revenue to pay the interest on the debt. Sachs and Deutsche and Mika believe we need to tax the rich first, while Scarborough believes spending has to be addressed first, then they all agreed that both raising taxes and cutting spending are necessary. Ferguson said that the best route is comprehensive tax reform that will create economic growth.

Of course, Ferguson is right, because we can't survive without economic growth and the creation of new wealth. Sachs is usually dead on target when he talks about cronyism in government, but he always goes off track by recommending policies which will kill economic growth. Like many Leftists, Sachs is so deeply angry at the rich and powerful, he's willing to harm the most vulnerable in society just to punish the most successful.

In the past, congress has promised to cut spending after each tax hike, but the spending cuts never happen. It really doesn't matter even if congress were to indentify some spending cuts, if they don't radically change the system, spending will just continue to go up in a year or two. Ferguson has the right idea -- we need systemic changes which create economic growth. Sachs is right that we need to stop the rigged game whereby government favors certain corporations. This appears to be combined solution that will work, but as long as the Left is intent on punishing producers, we'll slide toward financial collapse. Economic growth in a free market must be embraced or we can't make it. We're at a point where the mixed economy which slides gradually under statist control has failed. It will not magically fix itself if we tax the rich and make a few meaningless cuts in the growth of spending. Drastic measures are needed, and quickly.

Morning Joe 11/2/2011 -- Different forms of ignorance

On Monring Joe today, Scarborough, Mika and their guests, Michael Steele, Sam Stein, Eugene Robinson, David Gregory and Chuck Todd, had a ball ridiculing Herman Cain regarding Cain's statement on PBS that China is seeking nuclear capability. China has had nuclear capability for decades. I'm not a Cain apologist,  but I do think this morning's attack on Cain reveals more about the attackers than Cain.

As for an inexperienced person becoming president, it's ridiculous to think that a reasonably intelligent person can't hold that job and rely on experts to fill in the empty spots. I always cringed when the Right criticized Obama for his inexperience -- as long as a person has the executive skills and intelligence, the rest is merely utilizing the knowledge of the people around the president to make informed decisions. A good executive surrounds himself/herself with good, knowledgable people, but this isn't really the issue. A president is a temporary actor, and it's the welfare/warfare statist system in DC that represents our fundamental problem. Nothing was said during the fun-filled Cain-bashing about Obama's failure to make systemic changes which would free up our market, limit government power and allow America to escape the fate of Greece and Europe in general. This blindspot in the political class is a more dangerous ignorance than Cain's ignorance of China's nuclear capability -- Cain's ignorance of foreign policy can be remedied with an experienced VP, Sec of Defense and National Security advisor, but our government doesn't have a Dept of Free Markets or a Limited Government Advisor.

Gregory said that the panel risked appearing elitist as they all piled on Cain, especially Scarborough -- Steele attempted to add perspective regarding Cain's appeal -- but the appearance of elitism is not the problem. The problem with the Morning Joe roundtable is that no one seemed to understand that concentrating on Cain at this point in a primary, and talking about a potential president  as someone who is isolated and of supreme importance, and failing to put it all in perspective, also represent ignorance. Their discussion implies that solutions to our problems rely on smarter, more informed presidents. The panel members might say they were simply giving a political analysis of the Republican primary, but reducing the analysis to Cain's ignorance of China, and using this as a reason to dismiss Republicans in general and then associate it to how Obama is helped by this ignorance on the Right, is an ignorant analysis. If the point of political analysis is to detemine fundamental problems so that fundamental solutions can be found, or if the point is merely exposition and clarity, then Morning Joe failed miserably. I didn't see it as elitism, but, rather, I saw it as ignorance of the real problems facing us. The point is that it doesn't matter if Obama is reelected, or if Cain is elected, or if Romney is elected -- if our welfare/warfare statist system is not changed it's a moot point -- one man or woman won't make a difference, unless that person is a truly great leader who understands that our main struggle is how to stop statist decline and create economic growth while also preventing foreign entanglements going forward in the 21st century. Obama has failed miserably, and Cain couldn't be worse, or Romney, or anyone elected. I suppose they could be worse, but it would just quicken our decline. A balanced and fair analysis would have pointed out that though Obama appears more sophisticated and knowledgable than Cain, Obama's fundamental economic ignorance is a continuation of an ignorance that's destroying our economy, and Obama's ignorance of the consequences of politically motivated foreign entanglements will cost us dearly in precious lives and treasure.

Niall Ferguson came on later and provided a more intelligent analysis. Ferguson said that the US has to reset and recapture the virtues which created prosperity and progress in the past -- rule of law, hard work, science, free enterprise. Willie Geist added to what Ferguson said by saying that we need a government that can do big things, or something to that effect, but I would say we need a government that knows how to not interfere with the power of the private sector, a government that knows how to protect the private sector from the forces of coercion, social engineering and central planning. Even if someone is not a hardcore libertarian, they can at least realize that most of the problems facing us today are caused by government intervention. We don't need a Super-Genius Imperial President -- we need public servants who won't interfere with and block growth, innovation, equal opportunity, peaceful trade and prosperity. Ignorance takes on different forms.