Well, here we are, still alive after another whipper last night! My poor tree lost a huge branch - it was lying on the side
yard this morning. I keep thinking we've seen the last windstorm until fall; we don't usually get them in spring and never in
summer. Maybe this time....
Now, to the US primaries. Watching the news today, I see Romney getting two new endorsements. I don't know how much it really
means, since American political parties are big and complex, with lots of action behind the scenes. In fact, I've been
told that some delegates can change their minds - that the delegate counts I see on CNN may not be final. Is that true?
If the delegate pledges - or whatever they're really called - are accurate and meaningful, then last I looked, the count follows very
closely the 8:4:2:1 ratio. That is to say, Romney has 569, Santorum around 262, Newt about 136, and Paul 71. Given these numbers,
Romney has more than the other three combined.
"The eventual candidate", or "the candidate of inevitability" are descriptions I've heard of Romney. I think they're accurate. His money
raising - and spending - have been impressive, and people all say that "it takes money" to run for President. If Romney is ruler of the cash
box in the primaries, they reason, he's the best candidate to face Obama - who is, by some pundits' claims, the KING of fundraising.
Romney is a tough guy to figure out, from my point of view. He's certainly not the orator that Obama is - or even Santorum or Gingrich.
Romney strikes me as honest, but there might be the problem. The truth about America is not pretty. America's infrastructure is ravaged by
neglect, its coffers by overspending. My Dad says that anyone who tells the truth is likely not electable, because people don't like to hear
The Yanks don't need a new vision. What they need is to live as lean as possible for a few years - perhaps longer.
From an accounting point of view, I don't think America has ever been in worse shape. Even during the Civil War - to this day the
worst war for the Americans - Lincoln ran a surplus for at least one of those years.
One problem for the American government is that its obligations have ballooned much beyond what the Founding Fathers intended. I actually
doubt the constitutionality of some of those programs - or the government's revenue raising to pay for them. I believe that Americans will soon
face the hard choice of self-paying for the promises they want the government to stick to. If they decide to fund those obligations, plus balance
their books, I think the inescapable conclusion is that America will become much more a western European-style country. That eventuality is exactly
what so many Americans don't want.
Ron Paul has told Americans, right from the start, that to stay American, they have to pull back from taxing and spending. Let the individual choose and
pay - it's the American way. He's in last place. However, all runners must face the same reality. The only difference is how "un-American" (from the
Founding Fathers' point of view) their solutions are.
Some people argue that no modern industrial country can operate with the minimal style government the Americans began with. However, that raises two
questions: 1) Should the Constitution change with the times? and 2) Can America stay the spectacular country that even this Canadian has always loved,
if it keeps moving away from what its Founding Fathers wanted?
The man running for President has to confront those two hard questions, from my point of view. They're probably questions most Americans don't want to face:
once again, Ron Paul is fourth. How will Mitt finally bring those questions to the voters?
My father says America is in such a mess, no sensible man would want to be responsible for fixing it. Good luck, Mitt.