Fairness, huh...

Fairness may be an easy term to define, but it’s much more nebulous when we make an effort to point it out in reality or determine how to bring it about (or even if we want it, but that’s another story).

The reason I got to thinking about fairness is because on NPR this last week (I listen to NPR on my way to work) they've been discussing the “sequester” and the impact it will have on the defense department. NPR has been talking about how the deep cuts in defense spending will impact the civilian jobs paid for by the defense department (employees will be forced to take 22 unpaid furlough days per year), and how the cuts will affect our “military readiness”. Now, obviously Defense is posturing, because the last thing they want is for their bloated budget to get cut, and for them to actually have to tighten their belt and buy equipment that gets used and pay for personnel that actually serves the interest of the armed forces; but that’s an issue for another day. Let’s suffice it to say that the Defense Department will say and do whatever they have to do to continue to receive the portion of the budget they receive. But what struck me most about this article was not the fact that the Defense Department was whining about furlough days and military readiness, but the complete failure of NPR – the supposed mouthpiece of the left – in discussing how the other part of the sequester, the cuts in non-defense spending, will affect literally hundreds of thousands of people.

But I guess I shouldn't be surprised by this fact. Fairness doesn't matter in this country. Fairness is a buzz word used by politicians to get people to hate and deride other people, while at the same time doing things that are unfair to others. Is it fair that minor drugs offenses send people to jail and give them felony convictions which affect the rest of their lives, while investment bankers gamble with your and the government’s money and lose literally trillions of dollars, but receive nothing lighter than a golden parachute (and a government bailout)? Is it fair that the working poor can hardly make ends meet, but are not only scorned by the wealthy for (supposedly) draining government coffers, but also pay higher tax rates than those at the very top who don’t even work for a living (and actually are the one’s draining government coffers through subsidies and special tax breaks)? Is it fair that immigrants (illegal or not) come to this country every day, labor hard doing shitty work while constantly fearing discrimination and deportation, while working hard to make a living for their family, only to have politicians in this country turn around and describe them all as criminals, who are doing nothing to serve this country but instead draining our resources (which is patently false according to statistics – something conservatives are generally afraid of) and/or taking the jobs from “hard-working (but unwilling to do the jobs) Americans”.

The fact is, things are not fair. I wish they were. I wish everyone had basic health care. I wish everyone had access to a good education. I wish everyone could get a job. I wish everyone cared to get a job. I wish people didn't manipulate the system. I wish there wasn't fraud. I wish the media was open and honest. I wish politicians were open and honest. I wish people who committed financial crimes would be held responsible. I wish. I wish. I wish. The list goes on and on. But the reality is reality. But one wish that I think actually can and should come true is that people who support the system of inequality and unfairness, shouldn't be allowed to whine about it once they’re facing the sharp end. To quote John Kennedy from his inaugural address, “those who foolishly sought power by riding the back of the tiger ended up inside”.

Change and no change...

Today I wanted to write a dual post about the president and myself.

I know a lot of people did not care as much about the RE-election of Barack Obama as they did about the election. The economy is still poor. We will have wiretapping issues. We still use drone strikes. We’re still in Afghanistan. But watching the president take the oath of office, and deliver what many have considered a bold, hyper-partisan inaugural address, I couldn’t help but feel a little choked up at the idea that this country not only elected, but re-elected the first black president in our history. I read a great Eugene Robinson article today, where he talked about what an amazing statement it makes that through all of the president’s trials and tribulations during his first term, he came through with an electoral victory, and race (at least with regard to the president) has become a muted or non-existent issue. Now that is not to say that we’ve attained that post-racial world, but at least the majority of Americans now accept that it’s not strange for a black man to be occupy the White House and maintain the position as the most powerful man in the world.

It is amazing. Sure, we heard a lot of racist undertones (and overtones) throughout the first four years of Barack’s presidency, but most of that stuff was fallen off to a light din in the radical corners of American political life. The president, for all intents and purposes, has changed the dynamic of American politics by not becoming (in the eyes of prejudice people who don’t consider themselves prejudice) a token black president that we as a country can hang our hat on, and then send packing with the election of a rich old white man, but instead an enduring presence during a period of uncertainty and insecurity. Barack is no longer only the first black president, but he is now a re-elected president; and specifically a president re-elected in the midst of continuing economic turmoil. Good on you President Obama, good on you.

Now onto myself. I’m not perfect. I’m sure that I have prejudices just like everyone else, and I’m sure that from time to time I say things that some people cringe at. However, anyone who knows me knows that I make painstaking efforts to be sensitive in what I say, and am the first to correct someone who I feel has said something insensitive or offensive. Again, I’m not perfect and I’m not bringing this up to say that I’m “holier than thou”, but I at least make an effort.

This brings me to a frustrating point of contention I’ve encountered in American society. I’ve noticed this among white people, but in talking to people of other racial/ethnic groups I know that it occurs there too, that people think that somehow because you’re of the same race that they are free to say whatever they want in front of you. It’s as if because we share the same skin tone it means I automatically agree with your prejudice or outright racism. And then, when I correct the person and let them know that I’m NOT okay with what they’re saying, then I’m questioned as to why I’m so upset about, because “it doesn’t affect me”. And my response is always the same (albeit somewhat trite) – “it affect ALL of us”. I don’t to live in a society where prejudice and racism exist, so I’m offended when it occurs by anyone against anyone. I don’t need to be a member of any particular group to be offended and I shouldn’t have to defend myself for being so. I should be the one (and am) that is questioning the person for thinking that they can “get away with” talking in some loose, effluent manner, just because our skin color looks similar. It just makes me sad and angry.

Hand in hand...

Well, the election is over. Barack Obama is still president. Democrats are still in control in the Senate. Republicans are still in control in the House. Essentially nothing has changed. However (and I guess that is more of a big HOWEVER), it seems as though the American people wanted to keep both parties in control, because we are a divided nation ideologically, but want both sides to work together. The 111^th and 112^th Congresses were both complete failures. There was intra-house and inter-house fighting, along with intransigence toward the president, and it lead to not only low approval ratings, but little-to-no cross-aisle politics. That is not the point of congress, nor does it help improve our country’s economy, which has been languishing over the past 4+ years.

I’m a progressive, and therefore I tend to vote Democrat. And looking back at Obama’s first term, I personally might have a finger to point at some people that I specifically think caused the logjam in congress; but what will I have gained? What will we as a country have gained by pointing fingers? The answer is nothing. Finger-pointing will only lead to further partisanship and blaming. We are where we are, and we need big solutions to the big problems that our country still faces; the economy, international security, tax reform, etc.

Republicans and democrats are not going to magically agree about the solutions to these problems, but if both parties come to the table with an honest desire to work with one another, and to create positive, comprised solutions, I think we’ll all be better off for it. Sure, I’ll probably be frustrated that some of the legislation doesn’t go as far as I think it should (as others will think it goes too far), but that’s the country we live in.

I will say that one thing that has already frustrated me is the reaction by Mitch McConnell to the president’s victory. The same guy who said that the sole purpose of the Republican Party should be to make sure Obama is a one term president, has christened the (hopefully) new era in American politics with a big, wet blanket.

“The voters have not endorsed the failures or excesses of the president's first term, they have simply given him more time to finish the job they asked him to do together with a Congress that restored balance to Washington after two years of one-party control.

Now it's time for the president to propose solutions that actually have a chance of passing the Republican-controlled House of Representatives and a closely divided Senate, step up to the plate on the challenges of the moment, and deliver in a way that he did not in his first four years in office.

To the extent he wants to move to the political center, which is where the work gets done in a divided government, we'll be there to meet him half way."

Mitch McConnell looks like a turtle (and sounds like one), and the Republican’s first order of business should be to remove him as minority leader in the Senate, and replace him with someone that actually wants to get business done.

The country is changing. There was a lower percentage of white people overall that voted. A higher percentage of women. A higher percentage of Latinos. A  higher percentage of young people. And black voters came out in numbers commensurate with those in 2008. The electorate in this country is becoming less white-male-centric, and therefore the Republican Party needs to start adapting to those changes if they expect to remain a relevant political party in this country. Hopefully this election will be a wakeup call, helping them realize that they need to drop their social policy evangelism, and start recognizing that abortion, welfare, gay marriage, immigration, etc. are not policies that are going to win them elections. Good ideas that improve people’s lives are going to win elections. I’m not trying to help republicans win, but I just saying that it would help move the country in a better direction if everyone comes around.

It doesn't seem so, but it is important...

Paul Ryan is a hack. Mitt Romney is a weather vane. Together they lack both experience and substance at a very important time for our country. Certainly I won’t raise the specter that this is “the most important election of our lifetime”, because frankly, I don’t think it is. Even with Romney being a boring, take-no-stance candidate, and Paul Ryan being a fake budget hawk, there is probably not a huge difference (in the short term) in how a Romney presidency would run the country versus how the Obama administration has run the country.

Now, that is not to say that there would be no difference. And when it comes to fiscal and foreign policy, nuance is very important. The lack of foreign policy experience for both Romney and Ryan is troubling, especially considering their hawkish views with little to back it up. In fact, part of Ryan’s “budget plan” is to continue increasing the military budget, while slashing funding for the State Department and diplomacy. While the State Department might be somewhat more low profile than the DOD or War Department, it’s role in foreign policy is paramount to walking the delicate line in international diplomacy. We’ve already seen how effective “gunboat diplomacy” is, as displayed during the Bush administration. Two unsuccessful wars with no diplomatic efforts, lead to continued fighting and strife with virtually no end in sight. And Republicans are still talking about making a move against Iran (or at least supporting Israel in doing so); reminiscent of the definition of insanity…

Anyway, back to Romney and Ryan. While I actually do think that Romney as a person is a moderate, his political winds (or constituent winds) strategy of politicking scares me. Romney will say and do whatever he has to to get elected (which actually makes the Ryan choice a bit odd), and therefore while he himself may be a moderate, he would kowtow to the hard core Republican base as president, nominating far right ideologues to cabinet positions, and pushing ultra conservative legislation, much of which he himself personally does not espouse.

That is the difference in this election. While certainly most Democrats and liberals will allow that President Obama has been hit or miss, the fact is he’s trying to do right. He’s a pragmatist, and as a pragmatist he’s not going to make everyone happy; and occasionally is going to piss people off – even his own supporters. But also as a pragmatist, that means that he’s principled enough to realize the realities of a situation and look for rational, well thought decisions. He doesn’t bend the wills of his party’s extreme every time a tough question comes up. He instead will make the decision he believes to be right (and by right here I mean what he believes to be best for the country), and then pays the political price for it afterward.

This president has been very good (or bad, depending on how you look at it) at using his political capital. He doesn’t keep a lot in reserve. He’s constantly make concessions that will make one group happy, just to turn around and piss them off with his next decision. But what is great about this is that it shows his ultimate goal is to get things done, even if he’s not leading all of the polls. A great gauge of this is that even while poll numbers might show that a particular policy of the president, or how he’s dealing with a particular issue, may be low, overall his approval ratings remain very high (relative to the myriad of problems that our country currently faces).

I guess the point of my post is that while President Obama has not done exactly what I would do as president, his overall goal has been to improve the economy and make our country great again. Mitt Romney cares nothing for the country, and instead would govern by the  mantra that he’s lived by of “everyone for themselves”; which he’s blindly followed despite being assisted throughout his life by other people. "We've always encouraged young people: Take a shot, go for it, take a risk, get the education, borrow money if you have to from your parents, start a business.” Because we all have parents that can just hand us $25,000 to start a business. Mitt Romney is a shell, nothing more. And once he’s attained the office that he feels he’s always deserved, he’ll move on to something else. The presidency is not Mitt Romney’s way of improving the country or the lives of the people in it, but another trophy to show everyone what an important person he is.

Busy times...

A lot has occurred over the last couple of weeks.
The Republican primary is over…thank god. Well, at least it’s realistically over, if not technically over. I think Mitt Romney’s victory in the Republican primary has cemented Barack Obama as a two-term president. Mitt is boring, stiff, and totally uncharismatic. He’s out of touch with most people, and it’s palpable. While Republicans will fall in line for the most part, Romney does not excite the base, and independents are not fooled by the back and forth (etch-a-sketch) stances on every issue; they see Romney as being hollow, and blowing with the political winds of popularity. While the election will probably be close – all modern day presidential elections are – President Obama will reinvigorate Democrats (and the nation as a whole) with a charismatic campaign (even while he’s been unable to excite us as president).

George Zimmerman has FINALLY been arrested and charged with a crime. The prosecutor has charged Mr. Zimmerman with 2nd degree murder. It’s possible that this is an overcharge, because manslaughter would probably be easier to convict, but I have to assume that the prosecutor knows what she is doing. Regardless of the charge; and really, regardless of whether Mr. Zimmerman is ultimately found guilty or not guilty, the important thing is that the facts of the case will be presented in a court of law so that guilt or innocence can be determined based not on one person’s opinion, or the bias of the police, but instead based upon the facts. George Zimmerman needs to answer some questions about what was suspicious about Trayvon Martin. About why he thought Trayvon Martin was on drugs. These are questions that are important, not only in this case, but also on the national conscience about race.

This brings me to the next big update, which is that a piece of legislation has been presented in the Senate that would ban racial profiling. This piece of legislation is still in utero, but I think it’s important that this issue is being brought back into the national discourse. It’s sad that it takes the death of young black man, at the hands of white (he has also identified as Hispanic at different times) man, when there are countless examples every day of racial profiling, which, while they don’t end in death, still end in distrust and humiliation.

Finally, I have to say that I’ve been surprised (though I guess I shouldn’t be) by political television. Every time I watch political shows (it’s an indulgence that I wish I didn’t want), there are always some middle-of-the-road, independent journalists that are commenting on some particular issue, and the host is typically fairly moderate, but then there is always some wealthly, smug-looking white man or woman who completely rejects any idea that our country has issues with race, human rights, equality, or jingoism. Their (ridiculous) perspective is that the United States is God’s (big G important) gift to the planet, and it’s our manifest destiny to the “beacon of freedom” in the world, and that whatever we do, wherever we do it is completely just and right. And the idea that there is anything wrong is this country is completely absurd, because we have the Declaration of Independence which states that all men are created equal, and the post civil rights/post women’s rights era has been a society that has reached near complete equality. It’s just race/gender/etc.-bating to say otherwise. Ugh…

Let's bring everyone back in...

American systems are broken. Our political system is broke. Our economic system is broken. Our judicial system is broke. Our educational system is broke. I’m not going to go into examples of how and why these systems are broken, but I think that while people may disagree over the levels of dysfunction in these institutions, most people would agree that they’re all messed up and headed in the wrong direction.
So, short of completely overhauling our system – which basically would be mean scrapping our constitution and re-writing it (not a bad idea, but a proposal fraught with its own issues of who to write it and how to change it) – what we need is to change the way the people in this country interact with their institutions; government and other.
One major change that would help connect people more to their political system – and in my opinion, thereby connect them more to all of the institutions in our lives – would be to create a compulsory voting system in this country. Compulsory (or mandatory) voting would be helpful, because not only would it push voting numbers up to more democratic levels (the mid-terms had a 37% voter participation rate – disgraceful), but would also re-engage citizens in the politics and political process. In addition, voter participation on the level that we’re seeing in the Australia (95%), which has a fine-based mandatory voting process, would help weed out extreme candidates, and stifle ascension of highly partisan groups such as the tea party from become major political forces.
Voting day can also be made a mandatory national holiday, so that citizens have no excuses for not turning out to vote, and companies have no excuses for remaining open. Mobile voting centers can be setup to aid elderly or infirmed voters with the process, and those who are absolutely unable to participate may get a waiver through an extensive process of unenrollment, that would need to be re-submitted for every election.
Voting should be compulsory for both local and national elections. The reason this is important is because if we have extremists in our local office, they become our experienced lawmakers, and therefore will tend to move onto the next level. Rick Santorum is a perfect example of this. Santorum is a highly-partisan, ultra-religious extremist, but because he has moved through the levels of politics using a hard Christian-conservative bloc as his base, he’s been able to make his way all the way into a primary fight for the Republican nomination as President of the United States. But Rick Santorum in no way reflects the general feelings or beliefs of even a large minority in this country. His base is small, but fierce; they always vote, and always get their friends to vote. And when no one else is voting, it’s the extremists on both sides that decide both our local and national elections.
The argument against compulsory voting is that it infringes upon our rights. Personally, I feel that this argument is flimsy. There are several things that the government – whether local or federal – requires us to do. We’re required to sign up for selective service. We’re required to pay taxes. We’re required to serve on juries. And there are always caveats to these laws and people who flout the system, but on the whole, the majority of people participate in these activities. In addition, each citizen should only be required to register and show up on Election Day, they have no requirement to vote for a specific candidate, or vote for any candidate at all. There should be options to either write in a person’s own selection, or to completely abstain and select something like “I do not wish to vote”. This would give people who have a moral (or religious) opposition to the voting or political process a chance to withhold their active participation. And for those who say that they don’t want to participate because the system is broken, what is a better way to change the system than participate. The system is what the system is, and if we can’t completely overhaul it, isn’t it better to be able to change it from within.
The arguments against compulsory voting are mainly hyperbolic, and have nothing to do with any real negative impacts on the political process or the country in general. Therefore, to reduce hyper-partisanship, increase voter participation and engagement, and restore democracy to our fragile and disintegrating institutions, it’s time to implement compulsory voting into our local and national electoral processes.

Failure

I can't say I'm terribly surprised that the debt-reducation "super-committee" did not accomplish their task. Congress, whether as a complete body, the house, the senate, committees, subcommittees, or super committees, have been completely unable to accomplish anything substantial in the past couple of years, especially with regard to the the debt and deficit, and tax policy.
Congressional Democrats and Republicans have diametrically opposed views with regard to debt-reduction and taxes, and therefore it is understandable that these discussions and coming to agreement would not be an easy thing to do. However, the job of congress, of our government in general, is to serve the people in this country. So it doesn't really matter whether they disagree or not, the very nature of politics, and their responsibility as politicians, is to compromise and come to agreements regardless of their differences.
Therefore, by the simple standard of serving the citizens of this nation, and compromising to pass legislation to take care of the debt and deficit, these men and women on this committee have failed us.
But let's not let us forget that the President (regardless of his actual ability to affect legislation, or not) has also been a failure. It's a failure of a different kind, but Republicans are correct in one critique of the president - his failure of leadership. There's been a lot of hand-wringing by Republicans and Democrats, blaming the other side for the failure to pass legislation, by saying the other side is not willing to give in on anything. This would indicate to me that both sides are acting childish and obstinate. But the failure of the president has been to push congress to act, regardless of whether Democrats or Republicans are getting exactly what they want. The president has wanted to remain above the fray, but the problem is that he's been characterized as uninterested (whether fair or unfair, if people are seeing him seemingly uninvolved, it looks bad as a leader). The president needs to push the congress, house, senate, subcommittee, super committee...whatever, to get their act together and pass legislation.
So now that the super committee has failed, we're left with these "trigger" cuts that will slash funds toward both military spending and heathcare and medicare. Falling back on "trigger" cuts is totally unacceptable; not to mention the fact that Democrats and Republicans are already trying to alter the trigger, indicating that cutting military spending is a no-go (Republicans), or cutting medicare and healthcare is a no-go (Democrats).
As a liberal, I have to admit that I see a large part of the problem being Republicans standing firm on the Grover Norquist strategy of never, under any circumstances, raising taxes. We're in a MAJOR debt/deficit crisis, which is not as dire as it's made out to be, but will become so if we fail to stimulate the economy. The problem with the current tax structure, is that it continues to give tax breaks to people who do not need it, and who are hoarding the money (NOT stimulating the economy). The real tax breaks that would help the economy, should go toward the middle class who will spend the money, get the economy moving again, and then those that have the means to start or build their businesses will do so, because it will be profitable, regardless of their tax rate.
A member of congress cannot be hard-lined; especially a member of a super committee whose sole purpose is to come to an agreement about debt and deficit reduction.

Shame on you, congress.

"When are you going to unleash us..."

In case you missed it this week, my favorite California Congresswoman, Maxine Waters, was in the news this week after pleading with the black community to allow the Congressional Black Caucus to challenge the policies of the president and rejoin the political fighting in Washington.
“When you tell us it’s alright and you unleash us and you tell us you’re ready for us to have this conversation, we’re ready to have the conversation." She went on to say, “We’re elected officials. We are trying to do the right thing and the best thing. When you let us know it is time to let go, we’ll let go.” Maxine Waters was finally uttering a feeling that I think a lot of Democrats have been having about President Obama, but have as yet felt unable to speak about. I personally don't think the Obama presidency has been a failure of leadership, but as a liberal, I would say that I am frustrated with the policies that have come out Washington during his tenure.
Maxine Waters, as one of the leading voices of the liberal wing of the Democratic Party in the House of Representatives, should be able to press the president day after day on every policy to try and push the legislation - and the country - in a more progressive direction. But what congressional members are seeing, and especially Democratic - and especially especially very liberal Democratic - members are seeing, is the president continually extending the olive branch to Republicans, watching them spit in his face, and then watching him wipe the spit off and extend the olive branch again. They're feeling as though he's continually trying to work across the aisle, but by doing so has forgotten about the people who supported him and elected him in the first place.
I think this is especially true of the Congressional Black Caucus, who as Mrs. Waters so vociferously pointed out, has felt "leashed" and unable to confront the president, because they worried about a backlash from the black community. While obviously the black community, and no other group as well, vote as a bloc, I think congressional Democrats - and especially the Congressional Black Caucus - have been walking on egg shells with regard to criticizing the president, because they don't want to scare people away from voting in 2012, and they don't want to anger a constituency that will get them personally re-elected. Waters stated this point in her meeting in Detroit, “We don’t put pressure on the president. Let me tell you why. We don’t put pressure on the president because ya’ll love the president. You love the president. You’re very proud to have a black man — first time in the history of the United States of America. If we go after the president too hard, you’re going after us.”
So why is it that people are so protective of the president? Why do Democratic members of congress, and especially members of the Congressional Black Caucus, feel unable to speak freely about the president and his policies? I think that part of it might have to do with the fact that president Obama, both as a great orator, as well as the first black presidential nominee from a major party, excited a group of voters that has up til now [then, 2008] felt left out of the political process and felt like they had no one that cared about them or was representing them. And while President Obama may have seemed to be this shining knight, for congressional members he's proven to be just a politician, and not a voice for the voiceless. So what congressional Democrats - and again, especially the Congressional Black Caucus - want to do is to give voice to dissent against the president in an effort to create better policy, and stop letting Republicans be the only alternative voice to the president's, without upsetting this very group of people whose political involvement is tenuous, and who because they are either blinded by his professorial manner and oratory skill, or because they don't necessarily follow politics, still see the president as the knight that is going to be the champion of the downtrodden.

Important Note: I think I've stated this before, and I think it's worth noting again; I support the president, and I think that he's accomplished quite a lot in such a rough political climate. Has he fully represented the liberal perspective like I would like to see - not at all. But then again, he ran on a platform of change, and his idea of change was post-partisanship, not necessarily progression and reform. But look for the president to change after November 2012. I think that during the president's second term, he will be the leader that we've been waiting for, and the champion of the downtrodden that we hoped he would be. With no political ramifications to hold him back, the president will be able to push ahead with his progressive agenda unfettered. He will become what we've always wanted him to be; or maybe I'm just blinded by his professorial manner and oratory skill.

Did he just say that...?

After having missed the August 11 Republican debate, I finally had the opportunity to check it out in full yesterday. As a liberal, watching these debates are always rather frustrating and scary, but I feel that as somewhat of a political wonk, it's important to hear and understand (if possible) the perspectives of those on the other side.
While most of the questions thrown to the candidates are the standard softballs, occasionally they get hit with a tough policy question that the serious politicians and politicos like Newt Gingrich, Ron Paul and Mitt Romney have no trouble with, but the less astute candidates such as Michele Bachmann and Herman Cain find to be a little more difficult to answer.
What I think is interesting is how these candidates are trying so hard to pander to the right (most of them, anyway), that they'll probably going to end up crippling themselves in the general election. I was reading an article yesterday about how this primary is much different from that between Obama and Hillary, because in that fight they were attacking each other, but fighting for political moderacy, while in this Republican primary fight they're aiming all of their arrows at the president, but fighting for the fringe. I've got news for these candidates, the Tea Party, while it may be a vocal and vociferous movement, simply does not have the votes to give you the primary victory, or especially a victory in the general election. Winning the presidency in this country has to do with a) getting the majority of registered members of your party to actually show up to the polls, and b) getting a lot of independent voters (by registration - no voter is truly independent on the issues) to vote for you. It's that simple.
What the republicans are banking on is that they can excite their base enough so that ALL of them show up, and then the Republican establishment-types will vote Republican no matter what, because that's what they do. Then, they're hoping that Independents will be disenchanted enough with the economy (remember, stupid...) that they're turn their back on the President and his efforts to revive it. The problem with this philosophy is that it only works if Republicans sent one of their warriors to the general, and not one of their establishment candidates. Michele Bachmann will excite the base, but she has literally no chance of winning the general. Same goes for Herman Cain and Ron Paul. Mitt Romney and John Huntsman are on the opposite end of the spectrum; they can make a lot of money by appealing to the party elites, and could both possibly win a general election, but would most likely not do so because the party base would stay at home, and opt to mourn the state of the country, instead of handing the presidency over to a more mainstream, establishment Republican (to be fair, I give them credit for being principled, even if they are misguided).
Basically, I think the point I'm making is that Republicans are in a catch-22, and are probably going to lose the election. I don't know much about Rick Perry, but I find it hard to imagine that even if the guy is a great campaigner, and can play moderate for the Independent's sake, that the country would be willing to throw out the current intelligent, moderate, professorial president we now have for another governor from Texas.

Two asides--
First, I find Herman Cain's obsession with Islam and making sure that Shari'ah law is not practiced within United States courts very odd. The guy has tried to clarify his statements over and over again, but he continues to make his hole deeper. Cain has basically said that Christian values must be respected, because those are protected by the Constitution, but that Islamic values are essentially an infringement upon Christian values, and are therefore not protected by the same Constitution. When will Republicans give up their jingoist, pro-Christian agenda, and just respectfully let everyone believe what they want to believe (including Christians). Despite popular Republican opinion, respect for other religions does not infringe upon your rights.
Second, I think Sarah Palin's trailing of the Republican primary campaign trail to be kind of creepy. It seems obvious that all she wants is attention, which is probably why she will end up joining the Republican primary fight. However, with her credentials known (or lack thereof) and her name recognition already greater, than any of the other Republican primary candidates; to involve herself in the debates would probably do more harm than good. With almost 7 months before the Republican primaries are set to begin, Sarah Palin has no real incentive to join the fray, when she'll only be running as a celebrity candidate anyway, and everyone just expects her do so. She'll try and keep herself in the news, while desperately trying to bulk up her foreign and domestic policy knowledge. Look for Palin's primary campaign to be short-lived. She'll be in and out.