Money Might Buy You Love But Not A Political Office

One of the most common complaints I hear about wealthy political candidates is that they are rich enough to buy their way into office. Some people will make this argument after they have heard that Meg Whitman has broken the record for spending money towards a political campaign:

"Former eBay boss Meg Whitman has shattered the record for the biggest spending candidate in any U.S. election in history

She has splashed out a staggering $119 million of her own money in her  bid to succeed Arnold Schwarzenegger as California’s next Republican governor. By shelling out another $15 million from her hi-tech fortune this week, she surpassed the $109 million spent by New York mayor Michael Bloomberg on his 2009 reelection campaign."

However, having a big fortune and spending that money on a political campaign doesn't mean a rich person can actually buy a political office. Sometimes people with lots of money will win elections and sometimes they will lose elections. However, spending that much money does have an impact on a wealthy political candidate's wallet. 

Republican Steve Poizner is perhaps the best example that money cannot buy you an office seat. It is reported that he is worth at least $1.2 Billion. He spent "$5.9 million himself to compile a $6.65 million campaign war chest, outspent his opponent more than 3-to-1 and still lost his 2004 race for an open seat in the California State Assembly." (Source.) In 2006, he ran for California Insurance Commissioner and won. by using approximately $17 million of his own personal funds. However, in 2010, he spent $25 million of his own money in a failed effort to win the California Republican Primary and the chance to compete against Jerry Brown to become the next governor of California. Losing two out of three political campaigns is pretty bad. It’s worse to lose and spend a fortune doing it...twice. 

In fact, California is the perfect state to blow the idea that wealth can  help  someone win a campaign and get a cushy political job. For example, from "the early 1960s, 18 wealthy Californians have spent lavishly from their personal fortunes on campaigns for governor or the U.S. Senate. Of those, 17 failed, many spectacularly so." (Source.) And it doesn't matter if it was a wealthy Democrat or Republican. They spent a lot of money to lose.

As if you didn't need any more examples to bust this argument, it is worth remembering that Ross Perot spent anywhere between $57 million to $65.4 million of his own money in the 1992 Presidential election and lost. Mitt Romney spent $45 million of his own money and ultimately suspended his 2008 Presidential campaign.

Money can buy you alot of things. Buying your way into a political office isn't one of them.  

Mitt Romney Looking Better And Better For 2012

Mitt Romney is looking more and more like the possible Republican challenger to President Barak Obama.  Dr. Howard Dean, the former chairman of the Democratic National Committee had this to say about Mitt Romney on Hugh Hewitt's radio show: 

HH: Who is the most formidable Republican as you look out for the fifteen months from now, Republicans vote in Iowa. Who would you least like to see come out of Iowa, New Hampshire, South Carolina, Florida as the Republican nominee to take on President Obama.

HD: Romney.

HH: Why?

HD: Same reason I was most afraid of him the last time. Very articulate, and he’s got plenty of money. He is good looking and all that kind of stuff, and that matters. I suspect strongly that his personal life is squeaky clean, very bright. And the interesting thing, however, though, is of course Obamare and Romneycare are one and the same. So Obama’s health care plan, we’ll get into this tonight, but I actually think Obama’s health care plan was incredibly bipartisan, despite the fact that I don’t think it got one single vote in either chamber, when all was said and done. And the reason is it was a carbon copy of something that Governor Romney passed in Massachusetts.

Joe Scarbourough also thinks Mitt Romney will be the eventual GOP 2012 winner to challenge Obama: 

Here's the transcript from the Morning Show:

"Just really quickly, talking about 2012.

I just have to get this out, because I've heard for the past couple hours that these elections in 2010 are going to actually make the candidate more conservative in 2012.

It's counter-intuitive: the opposite is true.

The opposite is true, because you have elections like Clinton in '92; Obama in 2008. They fire up the base, and what happens is you have a mid-term that corrects by going too far left [to] too far right.

And then, two years after that, you expect establishment Republicans like Nixon in '68. If you look at '66, the Republican Revolution gives us an establishment candidate, Nixon in '68.

You can look at Gingrich in '94, gives us Bob Dole in '96. There is always this back-and-forth.

We're going to dart way right, and you watch Mitt Romney -- mark it down this morning -- is the benefactor of the lunge to the right."

Burning The Koran On 9/11: An Incredibly Stupid Idea

As you probably all know by now, a Florida pastor named Terry Jones had plans to burn copies of the Koran on September 11, 2010.

I don't like it when people defile a Bible, Qur'an, Book of Mormon, Bhagavad Gita or any other religious book. And that is why so many different religions like the LDS Church, Catholic, Evangelical, and Judaism are united in their opposition to Pastor Terry Jones' plan to burn Qu'rans on September 11, 2010. They don't like it either. 

And there is a good reason for why they have joined forces in condemning the idea of burning Korans on 9/11. The consequences will be devastating for those religious freedom flourish around the world, especially in the middle east. The harm will last long into the future. Geoff Tunnicliffe, a prominent voice in the World Evangelical Alliance, explains the long term consequences of Pastor Terry Jones’ act:

“Here’s the reality: That video will never go away,” Tunnicliffe said. “It will be so detrimental to our work with religious liberty around the world. Everywhere I go around the world I will have to address this for years to come.”

The Pastor's actions will have negative consequences for all other religions even if they oppose the Pastor's plan to burn the Korans. Thanks to Terry Jones, the Middle East will be less inclined to allow other faiths to have the ability to operate in that region of the world. However, the Middle East, which is has little tolerance for other faiths, wants Islam to be respected around the world but will not allow other religions to be practiced in their midsts. What the Middle East refuses to recognize is that everyone wants the right to have their faith practiced at home or abroad. At some point, the Middle East will have to embrace the same task of balancing freedom of religion and speech. It will have to learn that a person has a right to be respectful as well as offensive towards other religions.

Don't get me wrong. I totally understand the feelings that Muslims feel when they hear that someone wants to burn the Koran to make a political or religious statement. I know how they feel because seeing a Book of Mormon dragged on the ground does not evoke positive emotions in me. Maybe its part of the reason why other Mormons like Mitt Romney and Glenn Beck are opposed to this Pastor's stupid idea of remembering 9/11. 

There are some who think that what the Pastor is doing is contrary to the founding principles of the Republic. Those people are wrong. Freedom of religion and speech are both protected under the the First Amendment of the United States Constitution. Neither Religion and speech are given more weight or protection than the other. One may consider that both of these freedoms have the honor of being listed first in the Constitution. In fact, they're listed together. Personally, I think they're inextricably linked together. You can't have freedom of religion with out speech and you can't have speech without freedom of religion.

Hence, there will always be tension between free speech and freedom of religion. However, that tension is what makes America so great. People have a right to speak their mind about any number of topics, especially religion. They have a right to be amazingly insensitive to a world religion that has approximately 1 billion followers.

Which is why the as much as the act of seeing a Book of Mormon thrown on the ground bothers me, the man has a right to do so. I think what the Pastor is doing is incredibly stupid. And, as stupid as the Pastor’s desire to burn the Korans maybe, it’s his right to do so.

California Going Red in 2010?

A recent poll shows that Meg Whitman and Carly Fiorina are ahead in the polls: 

"Incumbent Democrat Barbara Boxer remains locked in a tight fight with Republican challenger Carly Fiorina, according to this latest SurveyUSA poll conducted exclusively for KABC-TV Los Angeles, KPIX-TV San Francisco, KGTV-TV San Diego, and KFSN-TV Fresno. 3 identical SurveyUSA tracking polls have shown the contest within the theoretical margin of sampling error, though, in all 3 cases, the Republican has been nominally ahead, confounding many observers and, for now, preserving the possibility of a take-away. Today, it's Fiorina 48%, Boxer 46%. There is movement, or perhaps statistical noise, among Hispanic voters.

In the contest for Governor of California, it's Republican Meg Whitman 47%, Democrat Jerry Brown 40% today. Compared to an identical SurveyUSA poll 3 weeks ago, Whitman is up 3, Brown is down 3. But, compared to a SurveyUSA poll 7 weeks ago: no change. Among men, the race has been flat since polling began in July, with Whitman at 50% in each poll, and Brown at 35% to 37%. Among women, more volatility, with Brown 13 points atop Whitman 3 weeks ago, but tied with the former eBay CEO both 7 weeks ago and today."

The idea of Meg Whitman and Carly Fiorina winning in 2010 raises some interesting questions:  Is California finally turning red a permanent or temporary change for California? Will this change trickle down to the state and local level in which people will elect republicans to Sacramento? What are the implications for the 2012 elections?

I don't know the answers to some of these questions. Time will only tell. However, I think I know what a Meg Whitman victory will mean for the 2012 Presidential election. It will be a game changer for all Republican contenders. 

However, the person who might benefit from a red California with Meg Whitman as the Governor will be Mitt Romney. Mitt Romney and Meg Whitman have known each other for a long time and have been supportive of each other in their business and political careers. She worked for Bain and Company, which Mitt Romney was one of the founders of that company. She worked on Mitt Romney's 2008 Presidential campaign first on the  Finance co-chair of Romney's exploratory committee and later as the was on his National Finance Team. 

In return for Meg's support during Romney's 2008, Mitt has been a strong supporter of her bid to become the next California Governor. If she wins, she will most likely work hard to help Mitt Romney win that state in 2012 if Mitt does decide to run for President. And if he does run against Barak Obama, he could use California's 55 electoral votes to win the White House.

Hopefully, California will stay red for 2012.

Mormons Don't Think Too Highly Of Obama

The Salt Lake Tribune is reporting on a recent poll conducted by the Gallup group concerning Barak Obama's approval ratings among religious groups shows that Mormons are not too thrilled with the current president:

A Gallup survey released Friday shows only 24 percent of LDS faithful approve of the president’s job performance, down from 43 percent a year ago. Mormons have consistently given Obama his lowest ratings among religious groups, according to Gallup polls dating to the beginning of his presidency.

The slide of support among members of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints is more pronounced than with Catholics, Protestants, Jews and other religious believers in America, the poll shows.

Muslims have consistently offered the president the highest approval rating of any religious group, now at 78 percent, down from 83 percent a year ago, while half of Catholics polled backed the president.

About 43 percent of Protestants and other Christian faithful gave Obama a positive approval rating.

The reason for why members of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints give Obama the lowest approval rating among is due to the fact that they are the most conservative religious group in America. Another reason is that much of Obama's policies run counter to the LDS beliefs of personal accountability,  independence and self reliance. This may partly explain why Mormons such as Glenn Beck and Mitt Romney are some of the most vocal critics of the Obama Administration. 

Meg Whitman Ahead In The Polls!

A Rasmussen poll released today is showing that Meg Whitman now leads Jerry Brown by eight percentage points:

"The latest Rasmussen Reports telephone survey of Likely Voters in California finds Whitman earning 48% support, while Democrat Jerry Brown picks up 40% of the vote. Six percent (6%) prefer some other candidate in the race, and six percent (6%) are undecided."

Her eight point lead is even more significant when you factor in those who are not yet committed to a candidate but are leaning one way or the other are more likely to support Meg Whitman: 

"When leaners are included in the new totals, Whitman posts a 51% to 43% lead over Brown. Leaners are those who initially indicate no preference for either of the candidates but answer a follow-up question and say they are leaning towards a particular candidate.

Early in any campaign, the numbers without leaners are generally more significant. Later in a campaign, the numbers with leaners matter more. After Labor Day, Rasmussen Reports will report the numbers with leaners as the primary indicators of the campaign."

Hopefully, Meg Whitman will keep her lead as November grows near and becomes the next Governor of California. 

It’s Not The Economy, Stupid. It’s Your Manly Bits

Ms. Magazine, has published an article “It Wasn’t Your Resume, It Was Your Vagina" in which it attempts to blame the fact that women cannot find jobs due to gender discrimination. The article conveniently ignores the fact that, for the first time in the American history, more men are out of work than women. They even gave this historical phenomenon a name: mancession.

The New York Times noticed this trend in February of 2009 and became a hot topic during the summer of that year. The Atlantic, in July of 2009, cited a statistic that "eighty percent of job losses in the last two years were among men." In August of 2009, Professor Mark J. Perry, who teaches economics and finance at the School of Management at the Flint campus at the University of Michigan pointed out in his blog that the trend could be traced back to December of 2006. However, some people even questioned whether or not the mancession was real. Despite the minority who question this phenomenon, it is real and it still is an ongoing economic issue. Some people think the mancession is now slowing down and others think the trend is reversing in which they're calling it a "He-covery."

Another interesting claim made in the Ms. Magazine article is that women are not performing as well as men in job interviews because they lack job certain job skills  that are usually associated as being a masculine trait:

"men tend to fare better than women on job interviews, particularly in male-dominated fields, where hiring managers tend to value stereotypically “masculine” qualities such as intellectual rigor and mathematical ability."

This claim fails for a number of reasons. HotAir, in covering the same Ms. Magazine article, has pointed out one reason why this argument doesn't fly:

"there are certain fields in which those characteristics – like mathematical ability -  are required, regardless of gender. It’s called, you know, job qualifications."

Another reason why this claim fails is that the same reason can be said about why men can't find jobs in this economy. They don't possess job skills generally associated with the feminine trait. Julia Margo, writing for the online version of Guardian newspaper, explains:

"The emerging knowledge economy demands a new, softer skill set – empathy, sociability, confidence, resourcefulness. Women are perceived as being better at soft skills, and now they count for more. In the course of just over a decade, Demos research found, these skills became central to life chances: for those who turned 30 in 2000, such character capabilities had become 33 times more important in determining earnings." 

So, which is it? Guys can't get jobs because they don't possess the softer skill set or girls can't get jobs because they don't have the masculine skill sets needed? Could it depend on the type of field that a male or female applicant is applying to? Could it be that today's workplace is looking for both soft and hard skill sets?

To be honest, the argument that women aren't getting hired because they have a vagina isn't very convincing. As I explained above, there is a plausible case to made that men aren't getting hired because they have a penis. But I don't find that argument convincing either. 

Quite frankly, it seems to me that the fact that men and women are having difficulty finding employment has less to do with gender discrimination than it does with education, experience and the type of industry that a person is trying seek to enter into. It also has to do with the current state of the economy and the fact that many industries are going through changes to keep up with the pace of the evolution in technology.  I also suspect that our poor economy and the uncertainty about the government's expansion into the economy could also be a factor in why its hard for men and women to get hired for a job.

Let me make myself clear. I'm not saying men have it harder in finding a job than women do or that men have it harder than women do. A plausible case could me made that having a vagina or a penis can be a barrier to finding a job. I'm not denying that gender discrimination doesn't occur in hiring or in employment either. All I'm saying is that people can't find a job because of their gender isn't the best explanation for why men and women can't find a job.