Iran’s long-range strategy

My personal opinion is that Iran’s leadership wants to be attacked, and it doesn’t really matter to them by whom – be it Israel, the US; alone or in concert with others. I’m not sure to what degree Iran would seek to retaliate beyond some kind of token response. But that’s not the point. Iran is not seeking, this early in the game, to attack US interests or even make a serious attempt to bloody Israel.

The point is: After being attacked, Iran can act the part of innocent victim – after all, they don’t have nukes yet nor is there any proof they’re moving in that direction. However, what they can do is announce to the world that they are pulling out of the Non-Proliferation Treaty with the full intention of building nuclear weapons. They can claim that wasn’t their original intention, while adding, “In response to the attack on our peaceful nuclear program, we feel we must be able to defend ourselves from an increasingly hostile Western alliance.”

For the benefit of Third World countries, many of them formers colonies and victims of the Western Powers, the mullahs could point to Article X of the NPT, as expressed by Wikipedia:

Article X allows a state to leave the treaty if "extraordinary events, related to the subject matter of this Treaty, have jeopardized the supreme interests of its country", giving three months' (ninety days') notice. The state is required to give reasons for leaving the NPT in this notice. Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_Non-Proliferation_Treaty#Leaving_the_treaty

The extraordinary events mentioned above would be the fact that Iran was attacked without provocation and without proof they either had or were in pursuit of nuclear weapons. As for “The state is required to give reasons for leaving the NPT…,” those reasons aren’t subject to review by any international authority.

The coup de grace against the West could be expressed this way: “Once a nation leaves the NPT, it cannot otherwise be legally barred from seeking nukes. And neither the UN nor any nation that respects international law would have any legal basis for further action against Iran, be it militarily or in the form of economic sanctions. In short, the mullahs would love a chance to use Western-based law against the West – and to tempt them to attack again without any legal basis for doing so. The eyes of the Third World would be watching very carefully.

As a hedge against the West attacking again, Iran could try to build nuclear weapons’ facilities underground in heavily-populated areas, and do so openly. The mullahs could even be tempted, as the digging commences, for volunteers (that is, potential martyrs) to live above these facilities, while allowing residents to opt out and be relocated. If anyone is tempted to attack Iran now, he would be strongly advised to consider what Iran’s long-term response would be. A worst case scenario would involve Russia endorsing Iran’s pursuit of nukes after an attack, with Russia offering to intervene should the West mount another attack.

If Obama is made aware of Iran’s Long-Range Strategy, then he in turn should (privately) convey that to Netanyahu. If Israel should attack anyway, the US should not participate except, perhaps, to offer intel against a possible Iranian air or naval response against Israel.

As a further deterrent, Obama could privately tell Netanyahu in advance, “If you attack, I will make it known that you and I had discussed that attack’s inadvisability due to Iran’s Long-Range Strategy. We will make it known you acted on your own without any US green light. And I’m not worried about losing US Jewish support because I can make up for any possible losses there from increased support from US citizens who would see that Israel acted irresponsibly and entirely too early.”

If Obama’s GOP opponent(s) would then wish to rattle the war sabers, they will cut off any possible support from independent voters.

If we want to make a meaningful and positive impact on Iran, we should withdraw our warships to the Indian Ocean, we should stop responding tit-for-tat with our words to counter words coming from Tehran, we should stop the economic sanctions against Iran – which are a form of undeclared war. We should also look to the future to anticipate the impact Iran might have in light of its Long-Range Strategy. Who’s to say that a post-attack Iran wouldn’t try to acquire allies in Africa or among the Arab Spring states, trying to position itself as a benevolent (and martyred) big brother with possible designs of leading a New Caliphate?

Closing comments:

I can only guess what Iran’s Long-Range Strategy might entail. But what started me thinking was this thought: “Why doesn’t Iran simply withdraw from the NPT, 90-days after which they could openly and legally seek nuclear weapons?” In spite of how many USers feel about Iranians, they’re not a bunch of subhuman idiots. These are highly intelligent people who are very capable of long-range thinking. So there has to be a reason why they’re not simply withdrawing from the treaty. That’s what started me thinking about what their ultimate game plan might be – hence this essay.

We would do well to think long-range about this as well and not kneejerkingly end up doing something stupid – which could play directly into our “enemy’s” hands.

* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *

Steven Searle for US President in 2012

Founder of The Independent Contractors’ Party

“There’s way more going on here than meets the eye.”

Contact me at bpa_cinc@yahoo.com

Rick Santorum on drugs

Today, I’m going to address several issues springing from GOP wannabe presidential nominee Rick Santorum’s rap about drug costs and $900 iPads:

·       The desirability of Economic Disclosure Laws;

·       Genuine health care reform;

·       “Demythologizing the high costs of pharmaceutical research,” [see Footnote One];

·       Considerations based on the U.S. Constitution;

·       The importance of ridding our Congress of all Democrats and Republicans.

* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *

Rick Santorum’s rap

My Footnote One links to an article from which I offer five quotes below, as well as my comments to each:

QUOTE #1:

GOP contender Rick Santorum had a heated exchange with a mother and her sick young son Wednesday, arguing that drug companies were entitled to charge whatever the market demanded for life-saving therapies.

My Comment #1:

I highlighed four words above to disagree: The drug companies have an inflated sense of entitlement, not the patients who need their drugs. Fact is, the drug companies are “entitled” to exactly whatever the laws and the courts decide. The market isn’t an entity entire of itself; it is defined, regulated, and legislated by our government.

What Santorum really meant to say was: “Drug companies are entitled to charge whatever they feel like charging.” But do they? Consider this from Article I, Section 8 of the US Constitution:

The Congress shall have power to…provide for the…general welfare of the United States…To promote the progress of science… by securing for limited times to…inventors…the exclusive right to their…discoveries…

Congress could use its power to “provide for [our] general welfare” by insisting on only a reasonable level of profit rather than one that gouges our pocketbooks. Drug companies do have a right to make a profit but not such an unreasonable profit that negatively impacts on the “general welfare of the United States.” For how can that welfare be assured for those too poor to afford artificially inflated prices – a charge substantiated by the article I reference in Footnote One, below?

I would go even farther by suggesting: If a drug company withheld (by means of price gouging) a drug that could have saved someone’s life, that company should be brought up on charges in a wrongful death lawsuit.

QUOTE #2:

“People have no problem paying $900 for an iPad,” Santorum said, “but paying $900 for a drug they have a problem with — it keeps you alive. Why? Because you’ve been conditioned to think health care is something you can get without having to pay for it.”

My Comment #2:

Santy claims “people have no problem paying $900 for an iPad.” To which I ask, which people? I don’t think he could have meant “People like you…” when addressing the mom of that sick child, for how could he know what she spends her money on?

As for what we’re “conditioned to think,” the drug companies have done a pretty good job at that, as I’ll explain in my comment # 4, below. Besides, I don’t think any American has “been conditioned to think health care is something” we don’t have to pay for. Closer to the truth would be something like this: “Americans know they have to pay at least something for their medical care, as in the case of deductibles and co-pays mandated by their insurance policies, while hoping their investment in health insurance serves as a hedge against the possibility of catastrophic illness.”

That’s closer to the truth, which is something Santorum (pitching to the Tea Party) obviously cares little for.

QUOTE #3:

The mother said the boy was on the drug Abilify, used to treat schizophrenia, and that, on paper, its costs would exceed $1 million each year.

My Comment #3:

My gullibility detector went into high gear when I heard about a cost exceeding $1 million per year. Nobody challenged this! After doing a little routine searching on Google, I came up with $9,600 per year – based on a max daily dosage of 30 mg per day, costing $26.32. Of course, even $26 per day is a fortune for most of us, though I notice Santorum didn’t bat an eyelash when the mom claimed a cost of $1 million per year. He dutifully jumped through the Tea Party and Big Pharma hoop of let-the-market-determine-the-cost.

That mom should have asked Santorum: “If you had to pay $26 a day to save the life of your daughter, assuming you had only my kind of financial resources, would it be okay with you to let her die because you couldn’t afford the expense?” Believe me, people like Santorum don’t do well against such thoughtful questions.

QUOTE #4:

Santorum said drugs take years to develop and cost millions of dollars to produce, and manufacturers need to turn a profit or they would stop developing new drugs.

My Comment #4:

I’m sure Santorum can’t really believe this; for if he does, he’s too big a dumb ass to be President.

I cite the following from the article cited in my Footnote One:

It is widely claimed that research to discover and develop new pharmaceuticals entails high costs and high risks….

[and]

This article takes apart the most detailed and authoritative study of R&D costs in order to show how high estimates have been constructed by industry-supported economists, and to show how much lower actual costs may be. Besides serving as an object lesson in the construction of ‘facts’, this analysis provides reason to believe that R&D costs need not be such an insuperable obstacle to the development of better medicines.

By the way, this article is well worth your time to read even if you, as did I, find parts of it to be over our heads.

QUOTE #5:

[Santorum said]: “Fact is, we need companies to have incentives to make drugs. If they don’t have incentives, they won’t make those drugs. We either believe in markets or we don’t.”

My Comment #5:

Fact is, as their profits show, companies have more than adequate incentives (which should be kicked down to merely “adequate incentives”) to make drugs. As the Light and Warburton article shows:

The deeper problem is that current incentives reward companies to develop mainly new medicines of little advantage and compete for market share at high prices, rather than to develop clinically superior medicines with public funding so that prices could be much lower and risks to companies lower as well.

As for Santorum’s claim, “We either believe in markets or we don’t,” he’s being too simplistic. The markets I believe in aren’t tilted in favor of Big Pharma by a Congress that allows itself to be overwhelmed by lobbyists. The markets I believe in are tilted in favor of support for the general welfare of our citizens.

Economic Disclosure Laws

I don’t believe in excessive secrecy, though one might ask “What is excessive?” You might not want your personal financial status to be open to public inspection. Most people feel, “That’s nobody’s business but my own.” On the other hand, most of us are uncomfortable knowing that billions of US dollars are moved overseas or reside in secret Swiss bank accounts held by our 1%. The plain fact of the matter is, how can our policymakers develop economic policies without adequate information? As pointed out by Light and Warburton:

[Drug] companies tightly control access to verifiable facts about their risks and costs, allowing access only to supported economists at consulting firms and universities, who develop methods for showing how large costs and risks are; and then the public, politicians and journalists often take them at face value, accepting them as fact.

But, of course, firebrands like Santorum will thunder about the rights of corporations (which are, in his view, really “persons”) being trampled by any hint of accountability. I, however, consider such transparency to be a cost of doing business. We-the-People have a potent argument in our arsenal: “If you want to do business in the United States, if you want access to that tremendous market, there’s a certain price you have to pay.” We can make them pay that price.

Another Constitutional argument

I’d quote this earlier – from Article I, Section 8 of the US Constitution:

The Congress shall have power to…provide for the…general welfare of the United States…To promote the progress of science… by securing for limited times to…inventors…the exclusive right to their…discoveries…

Drug companies are acting against the “progress of science” by their behavior which neglects the research of other-than-the-most-profitable drugs. Congress could invoke its power to “promote the progress of science” by placing severe restrictions on patents granted to Big Pharma. For instance, the right of Congress to secure “for limited times [which, at its discretion, could turn out to be very limited indeed] to…inventors the exclusive right to their…discoveries” could result in a lengthier exclusive license for some drugs but not for others – on a case-by-case basis! Big Pharma might want to consider very carefully how a completely independent Congress could upset their apple cart.

* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *

Truth in packaging – my role in this debate

I’m not going to pretend I’m some kind of policy wonk with all the answers. I’m just a guy running for the office of US President, hoping to oppose Barack Obama and whichever hapless Republican ends up getting nominated. As President, I would like to invite Congress to assume the leadership which our Founding Fathers had intended in the first place. In order of importance, the US Constitution defines:

1)    The Legislative Branch – in Article I;

2)    The Presidency – in Article II;

3)    The Judiciary – in Article III; and

4)    The States – in Article IV.

US citizens don’t appreciate this listing as being in order of importance. However, this order was intentional, especially in view of how profoundly our forefathers distrusted kings. For further proof of their intention, look no further than this: The Congress can be said to be supreme when compared to the Presidency and the Judiciary simply because Congress can impeach them for any reason it sees fit (or for no reason at all). The power to impeach is absolute and is not reviewable, except (in a manner of speaking) by the voters who would react badly to any unreasonable proceedings.

As President, I would like to ask the Congress to pass health care legislation with an eye on decreasing costs to the public. If a special Congress were to pass such legislation by a simple-majority, I would sign it without hesitation and without making any signing statements. In fact, I would sign all laws enacted by a special Congress automatically and without comment.

Which leads to a question: “What do I mean by a special Congress?” Simply this: A Congress consisting solely of independents – without a single organized party member in its ranks. If we had a Congress that truly reflected the will of the people (instead of lobbyists), then I (as President) would find it impossible to thwart that Congress with a veto. How could I be so arrogant as to assume the right of one man to deny such a great assembly?

One can speculate as to why the Founders thought it necessary to create a head of state. My opinion is, they couldn’t wholeheartedly believe what they themselves had written in the Declaration of Independence, that “…all men are created equal…” The Founders were basically an elite who thought themselves better than the common rabble, and certainly superior to the slaves many of them owned.

But more to the point concerns their vision of what a Congress ought to be. They didn’t envision the development of our political party system, which has become so dominant in our affairs. They didn’t envision the professional politician who would remain entrenched in Congress for decades. If anything, they thought pillars of the community or retired gentlemen of leisure would seek to give service for a few years. These would be men (and that was the idea at that time, women not even being considered) who could afford to take time off from their personal affairs to dedicate two (or, in the case of the Senate, six) years of their lives to the greater good. After serving briefly, they would either permanently retire or return to their enterprises left in the hands of temporary managers.

The Congress we have now is not the Congress imagined by our Founding Fathers, and has indeed given rise to a corruption rivaled in the waning days of the Roman Empire.

* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *

Steven Searle for US President in 2012

Founder of The Independent Contractors’ Party

“As the next US President, I hope to fulfill the ideal of the Philosopher King as envisioned by the ancient Greeks – with more emphasis on ‘Philosopher’ than ‘King.’ Rick Santorum would greedily and gleefully reverse that order.”

Contact me at bpa_cinc@yahoo.com

Footnote One:

http://www.pharmamyths.net/files/Biosocieties_2011_Myths_of_High_Drug_Research_Costs.pdf

Title and description: “Demythologizing the high costs of pharmaceutical research,” a 17-page article by Drs. Donald Light and Rebecca Warburton appearing in BioSocieties, copyrighted in 2011 by the London School of Economics and Political Science.

Footnote Two:

http://abcnews.go.com/blogs/politics/2012/02/rick-santorum-tells-sick-kid-market-should-should-set-drug-prices/

Title and description: “Rick Santorum Tells Sick Kid Market Should Set Drug Prices,” by Russell Goldman, Feb. 1, 2012.

Taking an oath on the Quran

I saw an Iranian movie recently - A Separation. In it, there is a scene where swearing an oath on the holy Quran figures prominently. That inspired a thought: “If the US government were to secretly approach the Supreme Leader of Iran (Ayatollah Ali Khamenei) and ask him to swear an oath, would that help defuse tensions between our two countries?”

Side Note: For those who saw A Separation, this is a spoiler alert. At the end of this essay, I’m going to give my interpretation of the ending, called intentionally vague by many. I disagree.

Swearing an Islamic oath

I was moved to see Razieh, in this movie, refuse to swear an oath upon the Quran, even though this would prove costly to her impoverished family. That’s what inspired my thought about Ayatollah Khamenei doing so. However, I don’t know if swearing an oath upon the Quran would be relevant, since Muslims aren’t supposed to swear an oath on anything other than Allah. [Disclaimer: I don’t know how Khamenei’s brand of Islam “feels” about this.]

I am not a Muslim, although I hasten to add: Among the Muslims I’ve met, I have found all to be at least pleasant or at most exemplary human beings. I have tried to read the Quran, but have found it difficult to understand. To be completely honest, though, I have to admit my attempts to read it have been unfocused and less-than-earnest. This is something I wish to try again in the near future.

I did a brief Wikipedia search concerning Islamic oath-taking and the broader concept of lying within that culture. I was disappointed to find that lying, even when swearing an oath in the name of Allah, can be forgiven. I hope I am wrong with this tentative conclusion, for it would seem to make any such oath worthless. That is, if someone were to swear by Allah that something is true (but that intentional lying even in the name of Allah could be forgiven), how could any listener place any value on such an oath?

That, of course, leads to the larger question: “If invoking a deity’s authority can’t ever mean 100% certainty, doesn’t any oath based on that authority debase that deity?”

My intention underlying any Khamenei oath

If Ayatollah Ali Khamenei were to swear privately (say, with only one person present) that Iran doesn’t intend to build nuclear weapons, should that be enough to satisfy the US government? I suppose some might say such an oath would be more useful if publicly offered. But I doubt Khamenei would allow himself to be forced into this position. I know I wouldn’t if I were in his shoes, for it would seem that I would be debasing my religion to satisfy a hostile and secular authority.

Of course Khamenei wouldn’t swear a public oath just to satisfy (in the words of Ayatollah Ruhollah Khomeini), “the Great Satan” – i.e., the United States. However, a private oath might be a different matter, especially if Khamenei would get something in return:

·       If he swears this oath, then the US would back off from its public opposition to even an alleged or potential Iranian nuke weapons program – and, furthermore, would publicly declare that the US would not assist or defend Israel in any way if that country were to attack Iran.

·       If Khamenei would swear a different oath – “I swear by the name of Allah that Iran does intend to build nuclear weapons” – the US wouldn’t interfere or object unless Iran were to use those weapons. Furthermore, the US position would be, if their weapons were used: an insistence that Khamenei either abdicate and go into exile or that the US would retaliate militarily – up to and including the use of nuclear weapons. An additional sweetener for the Iranians: If the Israelis were to attack Iran (with or without nukes), the US would retaliate against Israel.

Of course, everything would depend on how much value we could place on this oath sworn by Khamenei. Of course, Khamenei could have the last laugh by telling our agent:

“I am flattered that you would even consider placing any value on my oath. However, suppose we announced to the world that Iran intends to pull out of the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (which any country has a right to do) and that we intend to build nuclear weapons (which we could legally do, once we pull out of the NPT). Should I make the US President swear – in public – that he would obey international law and not attack us?”

Which leads to my position

If Iran were to withdraw from the NPT, it would have every right to build nuclear weapons. We might not like it, but we’d have no legal basis for opposing it. I think the US has made a grave error by trying to bully Iran on this matter, going so far as to go tit-for-tat by ratcheting up our responses based on the rhetoric coming from Tehran. The best policy would have been silence – at least from the United States.

If the European Union, other Islamic states, or the United Nations would have wished to apply diplomatic pressure, economic sanctions, or pressure from the International Atomic Energy Agency, the United States would have defused tensions significantly by maintaining its silence – refusing to weigh in, one way or the other.

I understand that the leaders of Iran are faced with significant (though so far impotent) popular opposition, which would tempt some of them to rabble rouse. Political leaders throughout history have found it useful to deflect public attention against a foreign “Satan.” Our mistake was to knee-jerkingly oblige.

So what should the US do if Iran were to ever launch a nuke? There’s no easy answer to that except to say, “Depends on the circumstances.” And that should be enough to make us pause before deciding to react militarily. The first question to be answered: “Did Iran really launch a nuke or is somebody trying to make it appear that they did?” I’m afraid our current media propaganda campaign against Iran would make it difficult for our government to exercise judicious restraint. But, frankly, I can’t see taking action which could kill thousands of Iranian civilians as something to be lightly considered.

Clarifications

My reflections above are meant to be food for thought. And there’s a lot of room for such thought here. On the one hand, I can fully understand how the Iranians (leaders and ordinary citizens alike) could distrust the United States. After all, our CIA precipitated a coup in 1953, which overthrew Iran’s democratically-elected government.

On the other hand, I don’t understand how the crime of desecrating the Quran can be so severely punished (by death, in Pakistan and Afghanistan). And yet, Islam preaches against idolatry. Isn’t elevating a physical object (that is, the book that is the Quran), to such a point that its maltreatment calls for forfeiture of a human life, the same as idolizing it?

Besides, times are different now. Back in the Prophet's day, destroying a Quran could have been considered a severe crime because there were so few Qurans in existence. Today, even if a thousand of them were to be destroyed, it would be an easy matter to fire up the printing presses and instantly print replacements.

The ending of a movie: A Separation

As I promised in the beginning, I’ll explain the ending of A Separation.

The scene: An Iranian couple is standing before a judge, though it’s important here to mention that no lawyers are present (for one of them would have surely objected, as you’ll see). With them is their 11-year-old daughter, Termeh, whom the judge asks: “Have you decided which of your parents you wish to live with?” She answers, “Yes,” but doesn’t give her answer. The judge asks if she needs more time to decide; she says, no, that she’s made up her mind. Yet, she still doesn’t give her answer. The judge, realizing her difficulty, asks her parents to wait out in the hall, so Termeh can give her decision without feeling the pressure of their presence.

The camera shows her parents sitting outside the courtroom, on opposite sides of a heavily-trafficked hallway. And that’s when the credits start to roll. I could tell my fellow viewers were disappointed that we were not given Termeh’s decision. But, actually, we were. I didn’t get it until the following day, when I was reviewing the ending in my mind. And then it seemed all-too-obvious what that decision was:

Termeh told the judge she wanted to live with her mother, but the judge was trying to talk her out of it. Once she told the judge her decision – one way or the other – the parents should have been immediately summoned back into the courtroom. But…the lengthy running of the credits was a subtle way of letting us know that an appreciable amount of time was passing – too much time to account for, unless judicial interference was factored in.

The end-scene with the credits rolling was not a freeze-frame, so we were should have been alert enough to realize: “Hmm…what’s taking so long?” The filmmaker was trying to tell us that the patriarchal nature of Iranian society would allow for such judicial interference. At least, that’s how I understood the ending.

Superior film, by the way. I had seen other Iranian films over the years – for instance, The Circle and Iron Island – so I had a hunch A Separation would be a winner. Well…I also read some strong, positive critical reviews. So I’m not surprised that this feature became the official Iranian submission for the Best Foreign Language Film for the 2012 Academy Awards.

Best wishes on winning that prize!

* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *

Steven Searle for US resident in 2012

Founder of The Independent Contractors’ Party

“Wouldn’t it be great if the taking of an oath by one man would be enough to stop a war?”

Contact me at bpa_cinc@yahoo.com

Was Huntsman Romney’s wingman?

THESIS:  I believe Jon Huntsman was Mitt Romney’s wingman, serving to help Mitt win the GOP nomination from the very moment Jon declared his own candidacy. I further believe Jon was ordered into this role by the president of the Mormon Church.

DISCLAIMER: I don’t have any proof of my claim, beyond what follows after this paragraph. That is, neither Jon nor Mitt actually came out and told me, “This is the game plan,” nor was I a fly on the wall that overheard any such scheming. However, I can suggest a compelling case starting with certain common sense elements.

The lineage of the Princes Huntsman and Romney

According to USA Today*:

QUOTE*: Did you know Republicans Mitt Romney and Jon Huntsman are distant cousins? … Parley Pratt, an early Mormon missionary, is Romney's great-great-grandfather and Huntsman's great-great-great-grandfather. :UNQUOTE*.

What this article fails to mention is that Parley Pratt was more than just “an early Mormon missionary.” He was an original member of the Quorum of the Twelve Apostles. That would place both Huntsman and Romney in very favorable circumstances. But it would also subject them to the dictates of an extremely patriarchal and rule-bound hierarchy.

This becomes a matter of extreme importance when this claim is taken into consideration: Mormons believe that God reveals His will directly and continually to the Mormon Church president. And I find it hard to believe that any prince of the Church could resist an order (in this or similar language) coming directly from their President:

“Jon, I had a revelation from God that you will announce your candidacy for the GOP nomination, while in reality doing everything you can to help Mitt Romney obtain that nomination.”

What was Huntsman role in this ruse?

Jon’s primary role was to, crudely put, double the Mormon presence on the GOP stage. The Church president was primarily interested, not so much in the present and in Romney’s particular chances for success, but in the long-run. The long-term goal of gaining Mormon acceptance among the US general population (not to mention, eventual election of one of the brethren to the White House) wouldn’t be well enough served with only one man – the somewhat wooden Romney – being the standard bearer for the whole church.

More was needed, which Huntsman could provide. Both men are fabulously wealthy, having gained their fortunes in business. Both were state governors, speak a foreign language, have stable marriages of long duration, and aren’t members of the legal profession.

Huntsman had to self-sabotage, so as not to upstage Romney. Hence, his decisions to wear a bright lavender tie during one interview, speak in Mandarin Chinese during one of the GOP debates (way to turn off the base), and not come across as polished as Romney.

It was also important for Huntsman to attack Romney. Given Huntsman’s early emphasis on running a nice guy, civil campaign, I was surprised (at first) that Jon criticized Mitt – almost up to the point when he dropped out of the race and ended up endorsing Romney. The attacks were necessary, though, to disarm any fear that “Mormons are mindless automatons who stick together.”

Consider this item from the LA Times**:

QUOTE**: …Jon Huntsman…accused Mitt Romney of not understanding business…just a few days ago…. (His “Scared Mittless” site is still running, but the videos are gone.)… [and]…Huntsman’s the one who famously called Romney a “perfectly lubricated weathervane” and in New Hampshire said that Romney hadn’t made a “case to the American people” and has been on “three sides of every issue.” In a nod to Romney’s “I like to be able to fire people” remark, Huntsman said “Gov. Romney enjoys firing people. I enjoy creating jobs.” :UNQUOTE**.

That last sentence (about firing people) gave it away. That’s when I started to suspect Huntsman’s role as (secret) wingman. Any neutral and reasonable person who knew the context of Romney’s “firing people” comment would know he didn’t mean it in the sense of “I enjoy firing people so much, I look forward to every opportunity to do so.”

This is what Romney had actually said, “

“I like being able to fire people who provide services to me. You know, if someone doesn't give me the good service I need, I want to say, ‘You know, I'm going to get someone else to provide this service to me.’”

The highlight, obviously, is mine. Mitt Romney expressed a sentiment that we all could readily understand. Go ahead and say this out loud: “I like being able to fire people who don’t provide good service.” Now, contrast by saying this: “I like being forced to continue suffering with bad service and being denied any right to fire for bad performance.”

And yet, Jon Huntsman jumped on the bandwagon of those who gleefully (and falsely) took Romney’s words to mean he likes to engage in wanton and wholesale terminations of employment.

Anyone hearing Huntsman twist these words out of context would surely have had second thoughts about his civility and reasonableness. And that was precisely why Huntsman twisted as he did – to deflate his own good guy image and to increase sympathy for Romney among thinking people who knew exactly what Romney had meant in the first place.

After all, Huntsman was so low in the public opinion polls and going nowhere fast, he might as well have tried to give his fellow Mormon a sympathy boost, since his own campaign couldn’t have benefitted from any sincere attempt to knock Romney down.

But what about the contradiction?

Earlier this month, Huntsman had called Romney “unelectable because he lacks a core” and is “completely out of touch”…although, when endorsing Mitt, Jon said Mitt is the “best equipped to defeat Barack Obama”

Isn’t that a contradiction – to say he’s “unelectable” and “completely out of touch” while also claiming he’s the “best equipped to defeat Barack Obama?” Actually, no it isn’t, if you consider his exact words:

·       Romney could well be considered “best equipped to defeat Barack Obama” – relative, that is, to Gingrich and Santorum, who could also be accused of “[lacking] a core” and being “completely out of touch.”

·       When Jon said Mitt was “unelectable because he lacks a core,” that doesn’t prevent him from becoming electable (and here’s the interesting part) even without magically obtaining a core – by virtue of being the only person who can stop Obama from being re-elected. Of course, that assumes Mitt wins the nomination.

·       To say that someone “lacks a core” is vague and could be dismissed as merely something one candidate generically says of an opponent. It can’t be said that Romney lacks core personal values. He’s a religious man who has faithfully served his church. Even his foray into Romney Care was well-intended, which could be spun as “compassionate.” Once the one-on-one with Obama gets underway, Romney won’t have to be so defensive about what was, really, quite altruistically (and practically) motivated.

·       This whole notion of Romney lacking a core isn’t damning, in and of itself. A case could be made that Obama lacks a core, which many of his most idealistic supporters should now at least suspect. After all, didn’t Obama sink us deeper into Afghanistan? Didn’t Obama pick financial advisors who were connected to businesses directly responsible for our economic meltdown? How on earth did Obama pick Rahm Emanuel as his Chief of Staff? We’re no closer to peace between Israel and Palestine. And Obama’s position on our eroding civil liberties leaves many liberals wondering, “WTF?”

·       The public’s memory is short, and by the time Romney is nominated, he can settle into specific positions best suited to win the election. As for Romney being a “flip-flopper” – which Huntsman had meant when calling him a “perfectly lubricated weathervane – that won’t be fatal, since all politicians are known to pander when it suits their needs at any particular moment.

·       There’s a delicious irony in calling someone a “perfectly lubricated weathervane.” The intention translates to, “This guy lacks leadership; he goes whichever way the wind blows.” But it could also mean: “This guy is totally responsive to the way the electorate feels and he, therefore, points in that direction.” If he weren’t such a weathervane, he would resist the direction We-the-People would be trying to point him in by not being “sufficiently lubricated” (that is, “flexible”) to yield to their desires. Some people would call such a yielding “being responsive to the electorate, which is more desirable than leading (a euphemism for ‘dragging’) the country where it doesn’t want to go.”

What’s the long-term plan of the Mormon Church?

I believe the Mormon leaders see the Republican Party itself as either ripe for takeover or destined to resign itself to the superior political and financial resources of the LDS. With the huge amounts of money at Romney’s disposal, ads favorable to the Mormon’s long-range plans and viewpoints could prove to have long-lasting power (well past this election cycle) in terms of overwhelming the amateurish and unfocused Tea Party groups.

I believe the LDS leadership thinks Mitt Romney can beat Barack Obama. But I also believe they think having Jon Huntsman waiting in the wings for a possible 2016 run is a pretty good insurance policy – especially with the name recognition he has gained by having shared a debating stage with other GOP contenders this time around.

At least the Mormons won’t have the Tea Party to worry about if Obama gets reelected. Having failed to dislodge Obama, they will sink into the obscurity they so richly deserve.

* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *

Steven Searle for US President in 2012

Founder of The Independent Contractors’ Party

“If you think Jon-as-wingman is too far-fetched and assumes unseen powers are playing you, just remember: Sometimes ‘too far-fetched’ actually works, and we’ve all been played for decades. So what else is new?”

Contact me at bpa_cinc@yahoo.com

* USA Today’s article, published on June 24, 2011 linked here: http://content.usatoday.com/communities/onpolitics/post/2011/06/mitt-romney-jon-huntsman-family-ties-/1

 ** http://www.latimes.com/news/politics/la-pn-huntsman-wipes-history-of-romney-attacks-20120116,0,5885397.story : by James Oliphant, Jan. 16, 2012, “Huntsman wipes his history of Romney attacks”