POSTING #13

The US Presidential Election Campaign’s VP Debate 

The Guru called me from the Buffalo Airport where he was waiting for the arrival of his wife, Gloria, who had been visiting their daughter.

“Well,” I asked, “what did you think of the debate between Biden and Ryan?’

“Oh, damn, they’ve just announced that Gloria’s plane is going to arrive early. Would you and Paula be free tonight to drop over for coffee and dessert around 8 PM so we can hash over the debate?

“Sure we can make that, but in the meantime have you got time to give me a quick summary?’

“OK, let me read the points I’ve just finished for my next newsletter:

1. As we expected after Romney’s abominable behaviour at the first presidential debate, it wasn’t a debate, it was a brawl---a school yard brawl presided over by the stern-looking school marm, Martha Raddatz.

2. Again as we expected, Ryan would follow the tactic used by Romney in his two-minute responses to questions. He spent his first 10 seconds responding to the moderator’s question and then launched into a series of lies and misrepresentations that Biden could not possibly deal with in his 2 minute response time.(By the way, a friend tells me that this tactic was specifically banned from his college debating club.)

3. Biden was ready for the tactic and opted to fight fire with fire, by going rogue himself. He made derisory faces and gestures while Ryan talked, interrupted him and threw out comments like ‘malarkey’ and ‘stuff’.

4. And Biden used every opportunity to introduce embarrassing references to things like the 47% comment, and letters from Ryan begging for stimulus funds.

5. I chuckled when Ryan asked him not to interrupt. But Biden carried on, with a smile, as though saying ‘You want to brawl, that works for me.’

6. Martha Raddatz seemed to recognize the game Ryan was playing and allowed Biden a good bit of leeway. But she threatened the two of them with her ruler when things started to get out of hand.

7. And she asked pointed follow-up questions when one of them waffled on what she deemed an important issue.

8. I hope Candy Crawley copies Martha’s approach in the next presidential debate. That should give Obama the scope he needs to respond to Romney’s attacks.

9. John Garner, VP under FDR, famously said that ‘the vice-presidency isn’t worth a bucket of warm piss’, but Biden showed that if you add a little vinegar you can clean a clock or two.

10. Now, it is up to Obama. We know that he is competitive under the basketball net. We can expect to see him show that same 'hustle' in exposing Romney's lies and misrepresentations.

“Gloria’s plane has just arrived. See you tonight.”

“That’s good stuff! See you at 8.”

000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000

If you have any comments, please leave them below or drop me a line at johnpathunter@gmail.com. The next Icewine Guru posting will appear in the fullness of time. My other blog, The Letter from Virgil,   appears on a more regular basis.

POSTING #12

After the First Debate of the US Presidential Election Campaign

The Guru and I were driving to Grimsby, with the Guru at the wheel, so he could deliver some bottles of his best icewine for a silent auction being held by the Auxiliary of the West Lincoln Memorial Hospital. His family and mine use the Emergency Service at the hospital from time to time (it is small, personal and professional). We like to support it, through gifts and contributions.

Traffic was light on the Queen Elizabeth Way and I thought it wouldn’t distract the Guru too much if I asked for his views on the first debate of the US Presidential Election held in Denver on October 3rd. I prompted him by saying, “The pundits seem unanimous that Romney won the debate. What do you think?”

“The first thing is that it wasn’t a ‘debate’. Obama and Jim Lehrer were prepared for a debate, for a serious discussion of the different policy positions the two camps have taken over the last 18 months. But Romney wasn’t. He used the debate as an ‘etch-a-sketch’ moment in which he would reject his prior extremist right-wing policy arguments and use lies and misrepresentations to deny that he had flip-flopped. He turned the debate into a no-holds-barred brawl. It was as though Obama had come for a boxing match that would be conducted in accordance with the Marquess of Queensbury rules but Romney had come for a bout of ‘dirty fighting’ in which everything was going to be allowed---hitting below the belt, eye gouging, choking, whatever.”

“And the pundits love nothing better than a brawl, so they reported it as a brawl, not as a debate---and they scored the brawl as a win for Romney.”

“Exactly. But I believe it will prove to be a Pyrrhic victory. If Romney felt he needed to have a no-rules brawl, he should have waited until the last of the three debates. Obama would once again have been taken by surprise, would not have responded well and the voters would have gone to the polls thinking that he was some kind of wimp.”

“But”, I said, “Romney couldn’t wait until the third debate. His financial backers were deserting him and the morale of the GOP was sinking fast.”

“That’s it. So he struck without warning, catching Obama and Lehrer off guard. And he got an easy victory but his actions mean that the next two debates will have to be brawls. Think about what that means! If you were going to challenge a person from any city in the US to have a brawl with, which city would be the last on your list?

“Chicago, of course---they perfected brawling.”

“But I don’t think that Obama will come out with palpable lies and misrepresentations of the sort Romney used. Remember he spent part of his youth in Asia. I expect to see him use judo techniques in which the strength of the opponent is used against him. Romney will swing at him with some bald-faced lie and he will suddenly find himself lying on his back. At least I hope that is how the next debates will go.”

“So”, I injected, “you see him lying on his back instead of lying on his feet, as is his wont? Sorry about that! But seriously,  I suppose you would argue that by using judo techniques, he will be seen as taking the high ground.”

“Sure, the American people aren't stupid. They know that Romney played dirty and that it is OK for Obama to strike back. But he should strike back with finesse, pointing out not only Romney’s mendacity but also his attempt to conceal embarrassing specifics. And remember, there is always the big elephant in the room---Romney’s tax returns. I hope that Obama will end the next debate by looking at the camera (at the American people) and saying something like this. ‘My opponent has changed his positions, swinging as one of his primary opponent said, like a well-oiled weather vane. You need to ask whether he has any core values, any core at all. If elected will he bow to every extremist faction in his party. But worse than that, he is concealing crucial information from you. You have to ask why he is refusing to release more than two years of tax returns---what is hidden there that he doesn’t want you to know. Why he is refusing to come clean about the tax cuts he will make, why he is refusing to be specific about his Medicare changes (and on and on). Mr. Romney if you have any respect for the American people you will reveal all of this information before the next debate. ”

“Well”, I said, “I hope you are right. The polls are scaring me---I am afraid that we will see a return to Bush-Cheney, only, as Bill Clinton has said, on steroids.”

“Stay calm, and remember the worst doesn’t always happen.”

000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000

If you have any comments, please leave them below or drop me a line at johnpathunter@gmail.com. The next Icewine Guru posting will appear in the fullness of time. My other blog, The Letter from Virgil, appears on a more regular basis.

POSTING #11

Some Thoughts on the US Presidential Election and on the Republican Convention

The weekend after the Republican Convention, our wives were at a dinner meeting of the University Women’s Club so the Guru and I decided to try Niagara-on-the-Lake’s newest restaurant, The Garrison House, just off Highway 55, south of the Old Town.

We had started with heirloom tomato soup (rich, creamy---superb!) and were looking forward to our entrees. The Guru had chosen the “Free range chicken and Cumbrae farms ham Pie with tavern chips” while I had selected “Ontario lamb shepherd’s pie with whipped Yukon gold potato, aged cheddar and local vegetable sauté”.

“What’s your theory about why Romney chose Ryan?”, I asked.

“Romney had no choice. It was a bad summer for him. If he had chosen a more moderate person, such as Portman or Palenty, the gap between him and Obama in electoral vote forecasts would have continued to widen. He knew that choosing Ryan would excite the base of the GOP and might win some support from independents.”

“But Ryan has baggage such as his budget that rewards the wealthy, his proposal to voucherize Medicare, and his extreme views on social issues. Do you think Romney saw this as a Hail Mary pass?”

“I think so, just as McCain saw the choice of Palin as a Hail Mary play. But I think there is more to it than that. I feel that Romney certainly hopes that Ryan will help him win the White House but if he loses in November---despite Paul---he has a backup plan that I call the Samson and Delilah Demolition Plan.”

“You are going to have to explain that Plan to me.”

“I think that deep down Romney is incensed at the GOP and what I call the Coalition of the Crazies that now runs it. I am sure he feels that if he could have run as a moderate Republican---as he did in Massachusetts in 2002 to win the governorship---he could have beaten Obama easily, given the severe economic problems that followed the 2007-2008 financial crisis. But to win the GOP primary he had to adopt extreme positions embraced by the Coalition of the Crazies---on taxes, deficits, debts, and a whole host of social/cultural issues--- positions that have made him unpopular with independents and other voters. He has continued to follow the dictates of the Coalition by, for example, choosing Ryan, and by endorsing and even repeating outright lies about Obama’s actions on Welfare and Medicare.”

“The lies have puzzled me” I cut in. “In the past candidates have kept their hands clean, letting surrogates spread lies like the allegations that McCain had fathered a black child in the 2000 GOP primary contest. Why would Romney and Ryan lie about things that can be fact-checked so easily?”

“Well”, the Guru responded, “Remember that the Coalition of the Crazies claimed that one of the reasons McCain lost to Obama in 2008 was because he wouldn’t lie about Obama’s birth and religion. So Romney has faithfully followed the dictates of the Crazies.”

“So, if I understand your analogy, you are saying that just as Delilah weakened Samson by cutting his hair, the Crazies have weakened Romney by forcing him into indefensible policy positions.”

“By god he’s got it! You are quick. And then what did Samson do? As soon as his hair had regrown he pulled down the temple killing his enemies, and (of course) himself. I believe that Romney’s thinks that if he is defeated even though he has done everything the Crazies demand, his failure will in effect demolish or at least weaken the Coalition of the Crazies. This will allow the adult Republicans to retake control of the Grand Old Party”

“And this sacrifice by Mitt”, I said, “will mean that future Republican candidates, perhaps even one of the Romney sons, will be able to run without having to subscribe to irrational and irresponsible policy positions.”

“Exactly! And it will mean that Washington will once again be able to work---that compromise won’t be a dirty word.”

“I think you make a good point, even though the Samson and Delilah analogy is a bit of a stretch but then as Aristotle said ‘All analogies break down at some point’.

“OK, perhaps I did stretch that analogy a bit. Let me try a bit of irony on you. Isn’t it ironic that it is the Greedoholics--- the people who like Romney belong to the 1%--- who have financed the Coalition of the Crazies? Romney is being defeated by the actions of some of the members of his own class. Now isn’t that a fine bit of irony?”

“It is indeed. By the way, is Romney a Greedoholic in your view?”

 “I think he is, even though some of his actions as Governor of Massachusetts, such as Romneycare, are laudable. But, look, he has never seen a tax exception or dodge that he didn’t like---if he were elected he would be the first Tax-Avoider-in-Chief. And some of his decisions at Bain Capital were similar to those taken by Greedoholics in the coal, oil, gas and other industries that have pushed their own financial interests without any regard for the impact on the economic and financial health of the nation, or its effect on workers or the environment.”

The server slid our entrees in front of us and we spent the next few minutes enjoying the delicious food.

When we had finished, I said--- a little hesitantly, “You have been talking about the possibility of an Obama landside but here we are at the end of August and the national polls of voter intentions are showing that the two men are virtually tied. Are you worried that there may not be a landslide, and that instead Romney may be able to defeat Obama?”

“If presidents were elected by the popular vote, I would be a little worried but since they are chosen by the Electoral College, I am not. Nate Silver’s forecasts of the Electoral College votes in the New York Times show Obama with a good lead after the GOP Convention---around 307 votes to Romney’s 230, with 270 needed to win. The numbers will bounce around a bit but I still think a landslide of 330 is possible for Obama.”

“So you don’t think the GOP Convention helped Romney?’ I asked.

“As I watched it I kept thinking of Tennessee Williams’ line spoken by Big Daddy in ‘Cat on a Hot Tin Roof’: ‘Didn't you notice a powerful and obnoxious odor of mendacity in this room?’.  That described the auditorium in Tampa perfectly. Everyone was lying. Take Paul Ryan’s speech. He looked like an altar boy but he lied like those priests that denied molesting children. And all those lies that he and Romney have been telling about Welfare, Medicare, Obama’s view of small business etc. are going to come back to haunt Romney.”

“And then there are Ryan’s lies about marathons. Unbelievable!”

“It is clear”, the Guru said, “that the Obama team will focus on those lies during the Democratic convention and in speeches and advertising leading up to the debates, suggesting that persons who will lie about these important programs cannot be trusted with the White House. And then when we get to the debates, Romney will have to deal not just with the lies but with questions about the release of his tax returns, with his actions at Bain, and with his and Ryan’s budgets. I suppose it is possible that he will be so glib that some voters will believe that these are not important but I wouldn’t bet on it. I think he is hoist on his own petard. You know, I use that expression often but I am not sure of its origin. Can the Professor help me?”

“Any time”, I said. "You know of course that Shakespeare used the expression in Hamlet. The word ‘petard’ comes from the French verb ‘peter’, which means to break wind, or in good Anglo-Saxon, to fart. A petard was a 16th century bomb, a metal casing stuffed with 4 or 5 pounds of black powder. It was used to blow up gates and walls when one was trying to get into a castle or other fortification. The person lighting the bomb could be killed if the fuse burned too quickly, or if there were a blowback from the explosion. In that case, the bomber would be ‘hoist on his own petard’. Does that help you?”

“It is always good to have a professor around! No, but getting back to the presidential race, I would still bet that Obama is going to win, and handily.”

We then ordered our desserts---we both chose the summer berry pudding, and an excellent choice it was! --- and coffee.

Over the coffee, we had a discussion on the future of employment in the US and Canada.

The Guru knew I had been writing something on employment and he asked me to give him an outline of what’s in my paper.

 “Everyone knows that the job market is changing with mind-blowing speed. Unskilled, semi-skilled and even skilled jobs are being killed by mechanical and digital technology and by competition from abroad. Young people can no longer expect to spend a career at ‘the steel company’, ‘the car company’, ‘the bank’ or ‘the telephone company’ earning a good income and retiring with a generous pension. And young people are responding. I know a fellow who is a pipefitter at a refinery but is also a registered massage therapist and the owner of a lawn sprinkler company that employs a couple of people.”

“Wise fellow”, the Guru smiled, “he has a few parachutes that should protect him against whatever changes the future will bring.”

“But at the higher end of the job market”, I continued, “Job opportunities are better, at least for the moment. We both have friends whose children with good degrees in engineering, business, mathematics, the sciences that are doing well, some working in places like Dubai, Frankfurt and Singapore.”

“Those distances make it hard to enjoy the grandkids!”

“And through it all, despite the great increases in productivity, nations are growing more slowly. One of the reasons is that the 1% is being allowed to keep more for itself, depriving the 99% of income that they could use to spend on goods and services. And also robbing the ‘public goods’, such as health, education, police and fire security, a healthy environment with clean air and water, public transportation, affordable accommodation and so on. In many ways, the situation is worse, at least in the US, than in 1958 when Galbraith published his ‘The Affluent Society’ in which he decried the growing private wealth and public squalor.”

The Guru nodded, “As we expect the coming generations to be more flexible and more enterprising, it seems to me that it is essential that society focus more on the public goods that provide them with a launching pad into life and into the world of work. In that connection, can I just say that I hate ‘gated communities’ because they say that some people get to live in safe havens while the rest are left to try to survive in the midst of lawlessness. How can you raise and teach kids when the streets aren’t safe? We shouldn’t need ‘gated communities’, the whole community should be safe. And we shouldn’t need bottled water, and soon, if air pollution keeps up, bottled oxygen.”

“I couldn’t have said it better myself!”

“But at the same time”, the guru continued, “It is essential that these public goods are delivered with more and more efficiency. I know we can find more efficient and effective ways of teaching our children, policing our streets, of protecting our environment and so on. Governments have to work with employees and their unions to find ways that we can do more with less.”

“I agree. In connection with teaching, I’ve been hearing good things about the Kahn Academy that Bill Gates is funding in a big way.”

After we had paid our bills and asked the server to congratulate the chef for the superb food, the Guru smiled, “I think, if we know what’s good for us, we better come back here soon with our wives.”

“The sooner the better”, I said.

000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000

If you have any comments, please leave them below or drop me a line at johnpathunter@gmail.com. The next Icewine Guru posting will appear in the fullness of time. My other blog, The Letter from Virgil, (http://letterfromvirgil.blogspot.com/)  appears on a more regular basis.

POSTING #10

More Thoughts on the US Presidential Election

The summer drought of 2012 has been hard on Niagara’s vineyards, and this has meant much more irrigation than normal.

A few evenings ago the Guru asked if I could give him a hand connecting pipes and hoses and setting up a giant sprinkler that would shoot a fire-hose-like stream of water high into the air over his rows of grapes.

After we had adjusted the flow and direction of the water, we sat in lawn chairs, drank coffee and chatted until it was time to move the sprinkler.

I asked him if he had had any second thoughts about his prediction of a possible landslide for President Obama in November.

“You said there was a 35% chance of a landslide. By the way, a reader who had read my Posting #9 wrote in to ask whether you meant a landslide in the popular vote or in the Electoral College vote. I assumed you meant the latter but I should clarify that in my next Posting.”

“No, you’re right. I was talking about the Electoral College vote. In 2008 Obama had a huge landslide in the College with 365 votes, well above the 277 required to elect a president. He did that with only 52.9% of the popular vote. Now, I don’t think he will have a landslide of that dimension this year but I still think there is a good chance for, say, 330 Electoral College votes. By the way, I did some calculations this morning and I now feel the likelihood of a landslide has gone up from 35% to 50%.

“So you’ve upped it to 50%! “, I gasped. “I’m sure you know that Nate Silver of the New York Times is currently forecasting an Obama victory, but he thinks that he will win by only about 290 Electoral College votes.”

“Nate Silver is a bright guy but it is hard for his models to weigh the likely impact of several factors that will play out in the next three months, factors that I think are really important.”

“Which are?”

“The first is the release of Romney’s tax returns for the last 10 years. Perhaps the GOP is using a Brer Rabbit strategy---remember how the rabbit begged the fox not to throw him into the briar patch. Is it possible that the campaign is trying to distract the media and the public from more damaging matters with talk of tax returns when they know there is no ‘there’ there? I suppose it is possible but I think it is highly unlikely. It looks as though the tax returns must contain some explosive information. All of that leaves Romney in a classic ‘damned if he does and damned if he doesn’t’ situation. I think it is going to hurt him badly with independent and swing voters, whether he releases the tax returns or not.”

“And the second factor?”

“That’s Romney’s tax plan. The Tax Policy Center has pointed out in a scholarly and objective analysis that the tax plan clearly favours the wealthy. Obama’s people are already moving to use the main conclusions of the report in their TV advertising.”

“And, I suppose” I said, “that Romney’s support for the budget proposed by Paul Ryan is another one of your factors?”

“For sure! I think that after Labour Day, the White House will begin pointing out the dire consequences for middle class voters if Ryan’s budget were ever adopted, adopted primarily to allow for a further tax reduction for the 1%. That discussion about the impact on Medicare, Social Security, Medicaid and other popular programs will continue into the October debates.”

“Is there another factor?”

“There is, and I think it may be the most dangerous one for Romney. I sense there is a growing feeling that he somehow lacks the maturity and personal morality to be an effective president. For my part, I feel he often acts like a young man meeting his girlfriend’s parents for the first time, trying awfully hard not to put a foot wrong but then blurting out inanities. Think of his disastrous visits to England, Israel and Poland. And then there is the bullying side of him. Romney has not denied the story that in prep school he shaved the head of an alleged gay student (he said he couldn’t remember the incident). We saw firsthand this bullying during the primary contest as he bludgeoned Rick Perry (‘I’ll bet you $10,000’), Newt Gingrich and Rick Santorum with his caustic comments during the debates and his flood of negative ads.”

I handed the Guru a fresh cup of coffee and said, “But in addition to his immaturity, you are also questioning his personal morality.”

“I am. Years ago when I was a CEO, a junior executive came to me and said he was having trouble making a choice among job candidates, all of whom surpassed the requirements for the position. I told him to ask himself this question: ‘Which one would you pick to go with you on a month-long trip into the North?’ He looked at me as though I had lost my marbles. I explained that asking that question gets at some critical, but non-quantifiable factors. For example, which one would best share the burden of portaging? Which one would be savvy enough to avoid stepping on snakes? And, most importantly, which one would still be there when you woke up in the morning---and which one might have taken off, leaving you in the wilds without a canoe or supplies? He came back later to tell me that my question had made the choice an easy one.”

“So”, I said, “you think that if American voters ask themselves that question they might prefer Obama over Romney for that trip into the North (or the mountains, the everglades the desert, or wherever the American regional equivalent might be)? That they might conclude that Obama would still be there in the morning but that Romney might not be?”

“Yes. There is a lot of hooey talked about people favouring a candidate with whom they would like to have a beer. I believe that as the election nears, more and more voters are going to be asking themselves, perhaps unconsciously, which of the two men they can really trust, which man has their best interests at heart.”

“In the end”, I asked, “those are the factors that make you think there may be a landslide?”

“Yes. And keeping to the same metaphor, I think that if a landslide appears to be taking shape we can expect an avalanche of money from the greedoholics. They will do everything they can to prevent Obama’s re-election because they know that the next four years will be much better economically for the US, the deficit and debt problems will be on their way to resolution, the health care plan will be in effect and people will see---as they did in Massachusetts---that it is a good program.  All of that sets the stage for an 8 year Hillary Clinton presidency starting in 2016. The greedoholics are going to be telling themselves that they have to stop the Democrats this year or they can expect to be out of the White House until 2024.”

“So”, I said, you think the greedoholics will be doing whatever they can to prevent the US moving into Herring’s Innovation phase that you talked about the last time we met?” [Editor's note: scroll down to Posting #9 for more information on Pendleton Herring's theory of Innovation and Conservatism.]

“Yes, they will be like King Canute, in reverse, sweeping madly to prevent the tide of Conservatism--- which has benefited the wealthy enormously---from ebbing away. The Conservatism phase has, of course, to give way. Income inequality has grown to such an extent that the middle class no longer has the money needed to buy the goods and services that will fuel economic growth. Remember that Henry Ford broke all the labour management rules of his time by paying his workers an unheard of $5 dollars a day, not because he was a philanthropist but because he wanted his workers to be able to afford to buy one of his Model T’s. Henry Ford’s son, Henry Ford II, seems to have lacked his father’s wisdom. He is supposed to have said to the union leader Walter Reuther that someday Ford’s auto workers would all be replaced by robots and then Ford wouldn’t have any problems with unions. Reuther replied, ‘And who will buy your cars, Henry’”?

All of which means”, I said, “that the attempts to limit the vote will continue, and that the smear campaigns against Obama will become more venomous than ever.”

“Yes, there is so much at stake for the greedoholics that this campaign will be the most vicious the US has ever seen.”

“But even if Obama wins---in a landslide or not---it looks as though the GOP will continue to control the House of Representatives and may well have a majority in the Senate. How will Obama cope with a hostile Congress?”

“If he wins with a solid majority, Obama will have a mandate to govern. The American people are fed up with Washington’s bickering. Obama will not have to worry about re-election and will be able to make full use of the considerable executive powers of the presidency. And, I think the GOP will go through an intense period of internal acrimony, anger and finger-pointing about how they could have lost the presidency. Think about it:

• The economy was in the worst shape since the Great Depression with high deficits, debt, and unemployment.
• The President was unpopular among a portion of voters, particularly in the South, because he was bi-racial, and because the right-wing media had convinced them that he had not been born in the US, and was probably a Muslim.
• The President had introduced a major health care reform that had been misportrayed---successfully---by the right-wing media and the GOP as dangerous.
• The GOP had control of the House, and could and did hamstring the President’s attempts to boost the economy through, for example, an infrastructure program.
• The GOP had selected a candidate who was a very successful businessman, with an attractive family.
How, given all these ‘advantages’, had the GOP lost the presidential election? There’s going to be a nasty period of angry recrimination with the Ann Coulters, the Rush Limbaughs, the evangelicals, the Tea Partiers, the Sarah Palins etc. attacking each other.”

 “I remember, Guru, when you and I talked some months ago you argued that Obama had two goals for the campaign, one stated and one unstated. The stated one was, of course, to win re-election, while the unstated one was to help the adults in the GOP take back their party so that it could once again participate fully in governing the US.”

“That’s right. It will not be easy for the GOP to reign in their billionaire greedoholics, the people who are funding the extremist fringes in the Party. But that is the key to the re-emergence of an adult GOP that can mount a credible campaign in 2016. If the GOP can’t find a way to do that, the Party will likely be out of office until at least 2024 and perhaps beyond.”

“But”, I said, “let me play devil’s advocate. What if all the greedoholics’ money for negative ads works, and Romney wins in November?”

“I obviously don’t think that is going to happen, but if it did and Romney started to implement the Ryan austerity program, you will see Canadian companies, universities, research institutes and other organizations sending raiding teams to the US to ‘steal’ the best and brightest people. The Canadian Government would move to simplify and speed up immigration procedures for Americans---this would all be done quietly, of course, so as not to alienate Romney.”

“Perhaps”, I said, “we should have a discussion of the major initiatives Obama (assuming he wins re-election) should take in his second term”.

“Yes, let’s do that the next time we get together. I have lots of ideas and I am sure you do as well. But in the meantime I think the grapes have had a good drink. Let’s turn off the sprinkler”.

After we had done that, the Guru walked me back to my car, “We have got to have some rain soon---this irrigation is getting really expensive. Do you think you could do a Google search on ‘rain dances’? I can see you and me and our wives out in the middle of the vineyard dancing and chanting, at midnight under a full moon.”

I smiled and said I would check, but only if we could keep our clothes on.

He chuckled.

000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000

If you have any comments, please leave them below or drop me a line at johnpathunter@gmail.com. The next Icewine Guru posting will appear in the fullness of time. My other blog, The Letter from Virgil, (http://letterfromvirgil.blogspot.com/)  appears on a more regular basis.

Guru #4

 

Is Obama a Wimp?

The Guru and I were in his winery's bottling room gluing labels on his attractive, dark green 375 ml icewine bottles.

"Those damn people at the Liquor Board held up the bottling by three weeks", he complained as we readied the bottles to go under the filling spout.

He explained that the wineries can't print their labels, which have to show the alcohol content, until the Board has tested and ruled on the amount of alcohol in the wine.

"My lab equipment is as good as theirs, in fact it's probably better, and I knew it was 11.4%. But I couldn't get the labels printed until I had their results---which came in at exactly 11.4%. I can see the need for government testing to keep everyone honest, but why should it take three weeks?"

After we had finished bottling ten cases, we sat at a table in the sunny lab, overlooking his vineyard. He poured glasses of a charming Riesling wine---not icewine---from a neighbouring winery and we began to talk.

"What happened to that Op-Ed you were going to send to the New York Times on community employment programs?", he asked.

"They told me that they get dozens of Op-Eds a day and they can't print them all, etc. etc. etc. Nice letter, though."

"What did you think of Obama's Jobs Act?", he asked.

"I liked it, especially the component for summer jobs for youth. And I liked how he plans to pay for it, with revenue from the wealthiest. But he's taking a beating from both the left and the right. All those claims that he's a wimp."

"He's no wimp. It's just that people don't understand his secret strategy for re-election."

"And you do?"

"Of course." The Guru is nothing if not self-confident.

"Could you explain it to me?"

"I will but first you will have to promise not to publish it in that blog you're writing. You don't have a large readership (not like my monthly newsletter!) but I would hate to have someone leak the strategy to Obama's enemies. I want to see him re-elected, not because I like him particularly---I never got caught up in the Obama frenzy---and not because I like the Democrats, a hapless lot most of the time. But because he seems to be the only adult in Washington, and the only person who fully understands the danger of the income gap. So don't publish, OK?"

"Agreed."

I am used to being amazed at the Guru's capacity for analysis and exposition but the next 15 minutes left me in awe.

"It's a brilliant strategy, but will it work?", I asked.

"That's hard to say, it depends on the greedoholics"

(In Posting #1 in this blog, the Guru defined what he means by the word 'greedoholic': "That's what I call the billionaires and special interest groups who are so hooked on greed that they have lost all sight of what is good for the country---if they ever had it. And they have also lost sight of what is in their own self-interest as capitalists, but they are too hooked on greed to see that."

( Later, I asked him this question: "You aren't saying, of course, that all wealthy people are greedoholics?"

(And he replied: "No, certainly not. Take Warren Buffett. He has a good bit of greed about him but you wouldn't see him upgrading his yacht (if he had one) because it has just one heliport and he needs 'his and her' helicopters, like the hedge fund manager he plays golf with. I think Buffett is sincere when he complains about a tax system that means his secretary pays federal tax at a higher effective rate than he does. He's a Democrat but there are wealthy Republics who aren't greedoholics---some of them are my clients---who understand that the income gap is dangerous, but they are afraid to stand up to the greedoholics. It's sad---they know that an income gap this huge is bad for the country and bad for capitalism.")

(Although he didn't name any of the greedoholics he is worried about I think it is clear that the brothers whose family name sounds like a popular drink would be included.)

The Guru continued, "The greedoholics  have many advantages---we've talked about that before---and the economic situation inside and outside the US is so bleak that even a brilliant strategy may not be enough. But think of Eisenhower on June 5th 1944 as he pondered what would happen the next day when hundreds of thousands of troops would cross the English Channel and try to invade France. He had put together a daring and ambitious invasion plan but so much could go wrong. But it turned out well. Success has to start with a clear goal and a brilliant plan, and I think Obama and his people have both of those."

"Is there anything at all that I can tell my readers?", I asked.

"Well let's see. You could tell them to study Sun Tzu, and also read up on the Ground Sparrow".

"I'm not sure that would be very helpful to my readers, as intelligent and discerning as they are. Can you elucidate a bit, without giving away the essential features of the strategy? Perhaps by starting with Sun Tzu and his "The Art of War", which I know you keep on your bedside table."

"Well, Obama's strategy that I just outlined shows that Obama has read and absorbed "The Art of War". Let me choose one lesson that your readers might like to think about. Sun Tzu argued back in about 400 BC that a wise general will always choose the battlefield that he wants to fight on, not the one his enemies want him to fight on. Now, think about Obama and how he bypassed several possible battlefields, for example the Republican threats to close down the government in December 2010 and April this year, or the Debt Ceiling issue in August. His enemies taunted him and tried to get him to fight on those battlefields. Instead, he compromised and his enemies and even some of his allies called him weak, and a wimp."

"You talk about 'his enemies'. Who are you referring to?"

"Oh, the greedoholics, they have the money, and they pull the strings. Not the Republicans, they do what the greedoholics tell them. By the way, isn't it tragic to see some of the 'adult' Republicans being forced to grovel and recant by the greedoholics. As for the Tea Party members, they are unwitting pawns of the greedoholics."

"So, if the greedoholics are the enemy, are you saying that Obama's goal is not just to win re-election but to trounce the greedoholics?"

"That's it. The US can't begin to correct the income gap until the greedoholics are beaten, or at least have their wings clipped."

"So that brings us back to the questions of a battlefield. Are you saying that Obama has chosen a battlefield?'

"Yes, and he's fighting on it right now. The Jobs Act, the components of which the majority of Americans support, is part of it. The other part consists of the deficit and debt proposals set out in his speech in the Rose Garden on Monday this week, in which he said that he will veto any deficit/debt plan that doesn't include tax increases on the wealthy.  That's again a policy that most Americans support."

"That's not a battlefield that the greedoholics would have chosen, some pretty tough terrain for them." I added.

"Exactly, and that's why you see such weak, ineffectual attacks on Obama's proposals. 'The plan is too large' or 'It's just another stimulus program', or "It's class warfare'---the last from people who have been stealing money for years from the working and middle classes through lobbyist-inspired tax loopholes and concessions!"

"But aren't some Democratic representatives and senators opposing Obama's proposals?"

"The greedoholics are powerful, and it is understandable that some Democrats are frightened of, or beholden to them."   

"How long will the battle last, do you think?", I asked.

"That's the beauty of this as the battlefield. The greedoholics could decide in the next few months that they are being beaten and decide to retreat to fight another day. The Obama proposals could then be adopted by Congress, which would be good for the country---and by the way, give him a victory he could take into the election. It is more likely that the greedoholics will see the proposals as the thin edge of the wedge and opt to battle them right to the election in the hope that they can defeat Obama."

"And by that time", I added, "you hope that the American people will have made a choice about what kind of country they want. And the battle will have stripped away the camouflage and the subterfuges that the greedoholics have used, thus permitting the public to see how they have been manipulated by people who are only interested in lining their own pockets. "

"That has to be Obama's hope. But the greedoholics are tough, with tubs of money and many influential allies, so the battle could go either way. Closer to the election, I will be warning my readers that if Obama loses the election, the 'lame duck' period from November 6th to the inauguration of a Republican president on January 20th, 2013 is very likely to be a time of great social unrest."

"That's a sobering thought. So, getting back to what I can report in the blog, I will not discuss what you covered in our private talk but will cover the conversation we just had. OK?"

"Agreed".

"Now what's this about the Ground Sparrow?"

" When I was a kid, there was a vacant field next to our home. Sometimes when my friends and I walked through the field a little sparrow would appear and then limp ahead of us. Thinking it was injured, we at first tried to catch it to help it by fixing its wing or its leg. But it always stayed just a little ahead of us. After we had gone a hundred yards or so, it would fly away, in a perfectly healthy way. We learned that the Ground Sparrow, the Killdeer and some ducks use this ruse to lure people away from their nests and fledglings."

"So what does that have to do with Obama?"

"Think! What is Obama's most important legislative achievement, his baby, his fledgling?"

 "The health care reform."

"Exactly, and 'his baby' is getting stronger by the day, with regulations being developed, agreements with states and insurers being formed, and so on. All of this while Congress is being distracted by discussions of debt, deficit and jobs."

"So you don't think Obama is a wimp?"

"Like a fox!"

"I hope you are right, but even foxes sometimes get outwitted."

"We'll just have to see, won't we?"

000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000

If you have any comments, please leave them below or drop me a line at johnpathunter@gmail.com. The Icewine Guru postings will appear from time to time---when I have something on my mind. The Letter from Virgil postings (http://letterfromvirgil.blogspot.com/) appear weekly, on Sunday mornings.