Fiscal Cliff 101

Finding it hard to sort thru all the gunk around fiscal cliff discussions? 

Hard to remember more confusion around basic pocketbook politics. 

Let me take a NON-partison shot – please correct me if I mess up.

 FIRST – who is waiting on whom? House members are trickling into D.C.; the Senate's been back since right after Christmas. Speaker Boehner believes the ball is in the Senate’s court, hence his pleas for them to vote on a measure the House sent over many months ago. He's apparently forgotten the Senate DID consider it, debated it, voted on it, rejected it. Which is why he put together his own bill, which crashed & burned when he couldn't muster Republican votes for it to pass the GOP-controlled House.  Does that sound spot on to you?

SECOND - what happened to the bill that passed the Senate & was sent to the House for a vote? Speaker Boehner has not called for a vote on the bill, which would leave the tax cuts in place for all but the wealthiest Americans (who have benefited far more than any other group by the tax cuts). Pundits theorize he fears it could garner enough semi-centrist Republican votes to pass. So, from what I can see, he's ignoring the fact the Senate has considered the House bill, and rejected it, and the fact that the House won't even debate the bill the Senate sent over. 

sigh..... 

Confused? Who wouldn't be??

THIRD - never occurred to me until listening to conservative columnist David Brooks & progressive E.J. Dionne that it's political suicide for most Republican representatives to vote for increased taxes >BUT< if they let the tax rates go UP on everyone then after Jan 3 they can vote to LOWER tax rates on most folks, leaving higher taxes on wealthiest Americans without technically voting to raise taxes. Besides, if he asks GOP representatives to vote for taxes, Speaker Boehner puts his leadership in an iffy position. 

This is bread & butter politics at its most basic - I strongly urge even the most politically disengaged to listen to the two pundits for yourself...

Allen West, I Hardly Knew Ye

But what little I knew was usually pretty darn jaw dropping!!

On his way out the D.C. door (sure he'll be back, in one guise or another), he had a few choice words to say about the re-elected president.  Soon-to-be former Rep. West says no how, no way he's "idiotic" enough to agree with folks who think the president has sort of, you know - an obligation to raise taxes because it's a key part of what he ran on.  Hell no, says Mr. West.

“I have to tell you that I’m not such an idiotic person where I’m going to follow someone off into the abyss," West said. "This is a horrible political gimmick that the president ran on."

Seems that Mr. West is a true modern-day Republican, seeing no fault in running on one "political gimmick" only to abandon it once in office.  Like swearing up & down that you're running to stand strong for fiscal issues, only to consistently ditching them to zero in on social issues.  

Even if it was a "horrible political gimmick," it was apparently one the majority of Americans wanted.  Remember them, s-t-b-f Rep West?  Wondering if you forgot, since most members of the modern-day GOP don't seem to give them much value, beyond their vote.

a VERY short Silly Season

GOP reminds me of little kids who threaten to hold their breath until their parents do what they want.  They STILL insist that it's up to the Dem-controlled Senate to produce a compromise bill, utterly ignoring the one already on the table, utterly ignoring that a bill by Speaker Boehner that okayed taxes on those with over $1 million annual income was shot down by his how party.  The ONLY thing the GOP is apparently able to see is a bill that continues the tax breaks for EVERYONE, which the American people have made abundantly clear would be against the will of the people.

Remember the "will of the people"?  The thing that Republicans claim to revere while demonizing Dems for ignoring?  

The past few days have been rife with examples of Silly Season thinking.  Hard to believe the GOP congressional leadership are adults, because they are acting like little kids who threaten to head for home with their baseball if they aren't allowed to call the shots.  

And how does Mitch McConnell, whose party not only failed to win back the Senate but lost seats in both houses of Congress, get to decide if a bill requires a simple majority or 60 votes to pass?  

That's not silly - that's flat-out DUMB!

We have three days to pass the sort of bill Americans made clear they want.  Get over the silliness & get it done!!  

Hear No ~ Speak No ~ Do No

Behold, the House GOP leadership, switching the word "nothing" for "no."  

They only hear what they want to hear, in spite of what's said.  

They only speak what makes sense to them, in spite of it making no sense to anyone else.  

And they do absolutely nothing, insisting they've done all they can, that the ball's in the Democrats' court. 

Sad but true, House Republicans HAVE done all they can do, because they can't agree on what to do next.  Speaker Boehner clearly does NOT want to bring up the bill that the Senate did pass (which apparently missed his notice), which compromised in good faith, asking taxes be raised on those earning 400K+, to the original 250K.  Doesn't dare, because it has enough bipartisan support to pass, and that cannot be allowed.

Once again, the GOP is utterly clueless about what to do next.  They clearly had NO strategy plan in case of an election fail.  

They are so used to a) having the ball  or b) successfully acting like they have the ball  that they clearly don't know what to do with a real life situation being played out in real time where they have no real advantage.  

The time-honored GOP gambit of saying the ludicrous & having it swallowed whole no longer works, but they keep running the play anyhow, as witnessed by today's comments from Speaker Boehner's spokesman - - "Senator Reid should talk less and legislate more," said Boehner spokesman Michael Steel. "The House has already passed legislation to avoid the entire fiscal cliff. Senate Democrats have not."

The bill Steel refers to is a relatively ancient measure the House passed that froze rates for ALL taxpayers and addressed some of the mandatory cuts. The Senate DID vote on that bill, last summer, rejecting it.  

Perhaps someone should show Speaker Boehner how to google it.  Because most Americans know who's playing pussy foot with reality.  

Scary thing is that I seriously doubt that the Speaker has even a light grasp on reality.  He is SO used to the GOP being able to get away with spouting the absurd that he doesn't seem to know the difference between reality & Republican fantasy.  He hears no reason, speaks no reason, acts entirely unreasonably!

My Theory

Looking at how the GOP has acted over the past 6+ weeks, it seems to me the party was TOTALLY unprepared for a Republican presidential defeat.  It's increasingly clear that they have NO grand strategy on how to hand the current financial situation.  

My guess is they figured everything would all be shelved once the GOP regained the White House & Senate.  Losing the presidential election, not regaining the Senate, losing seats in both the House & the Senate seems to have left them flummoxed on what to do next.

They can blame the president & the Democratic Senate as much as they want, but - finally - the majority of Americans aren't buying the baloney that the Republicans are blameless in the current fiscal fiasco.  

Cannot imagine what a rude awakening it will be when they finally realize that this is NOT a nightmare, that President Obama DID win reelection with a decisive victory, that Americans seem to LIKE what he is doing more than the alternatives offered by the GOP.  It's been almost two months, yet GOP leaders still act as if this will all go away.  They aren't grieving because the party remains stuck at denial.

It's no theory that what I said months & months ago is still true today - craziest election ever!

How Dumb Can You Get???

If  you are Republican leadership & you want Americans across this great land of ours to believe that you & yours are doing everything possible to circumvent Democratic recalcitrance in forging a reasonable, country-first compromise, you get every one of your senators & representatives BACK in D.C. on the day after Christmas.  

You have them hunker down in their House & Senate seats, resolutely refusing to budge, sending out the word to the president (who's still on his way home) and every man, woman & child in the U.S.A. - - "We are here, ready to do the business of our nation, ready to make the tough calls this president is unwilling or, god help us, unable to make."

You do NOT sit on your hands, with most of your members of congress twiddling their thumbs back in their home states & districts.  

Which is precisely what the Speaker did.  

Leave it to good ol' Socialist Bernie Sanders to be a voice of reason amidst nuttiness.  "It seems that, in the House now, Boehner has no control over his extreme right-wing faction,” Sen. Bernie Sanders, I-Vt., told MSNBC Wednesday. “You have, over in the House, a situation where the Republicans are saying, ‘Hey, we don’t think billionaires should pay a nickel more in taxes, but we do think there should be devastating cuts in programs that are impacting working families who are already hurting as a result of the recession.’ So that’s the problem that we have.”

In a gesture of hope, Starbucks' CEO Howard Schultz has ordered that "come together" be written on each & every Starbucks cup in D.C.  Yeah, it sounds a tad loopy, but it has sound roots in generating positive cosmic energies.  It should be noted that the catch phrase has to first catch on within the GOP.   

So, a total thumbs down to Speaker Boehner for being so bone-headed & dumb as to paint his House members as insensitive to the moment.  And a tip of my hat to Mr. Schultz for making way more effort at serving the nation than House Republicans appear to be doing.

True for Both

This tidbit - part of a larger harangue on Daily Kos - is spot on, regardless of your political ideology...

"...in politics you seem to be judged by how spectacularly and shamelessly you can accomplish the lie itself, regardless of context.  If you are a politician, pundits will busy themselves wondering aloud whether your  "gambit" of unabashedly bullshitting the entire American public will be "effective".   If you are a pundit, your job is, apparently, to further the bullshitting in order to make it effective.  Somewhere along the line, the word pundit became synonymous with professional liar.  It might have been a cost-cutting move."

there's more...

"It's fine to be wrong about things, mind you. It's fine to opine based on your own partisan preferences, too, so long as those suppositions do not blatantly contradict actual, right-in-front-of-everyone's-faces fact. But the people whose sole purpose is to mislead, the people whose dishonesty, whose raw hackishness, whose absolute scorn for the public, and for facts, and for their own supposed profession, whose raw hatred for anyone who dares even argue based on physical realities, as opposed to masturbatory fantasies, is most embarrassing to the whole nation—are they really necessary cogs, in the political process? The people in our discourse whose only contribution to the American political process is to injure it, on purpose?"

RED FLAG WAVING

for democracy to work, the usa needs at least two strong, VIABLE political parties. stuff like this babble in the 11/27 washington post is a red flag waving that some republicans need a reality check. 

per stuart stevens, a key strategist in the romney campaign - - "When Mitt Romney stood on stage with Barack Obama, it ... was about fundamental Republican ideas versus fundamental Democratic ideas.... lower taxes or higher taxes, less government or more government, more freedom or less freedom.  And Republican ideals — Mitt Romney — carried the day." 

let that sink in - "And Republican ideals - Mitt Romney - carried the day." 
yeah... on oct. 3.  NOT on nov. 6, the only date that matters. 

but there's more!! 

he notes it was a close race, just 320.000 votes shy of winning the electoral college ~ ah hem... wmr lost by over 2.5 million votes.  you want a close race - try g.w. bush v. gore, or better yet j.q. adams v. jackson.

geez, am beginning to sound like a broken record, but here goes again ~ ~ gop - get a grip! we need you!

Get Your Act Together!

Our nation is founded on the expectation that there will be at least two national political parties.  At this moment in time, it's up in the air what the core principles of the GOP remain.  They took a major drubbing in the 2012 election.  The party needs to get its act together by 2016, or we're in for a bad time all around.

Although the casual political observer could see the Republicans with a deep bench going into the coming election cycles, they'd be wise to remember that they're potentially going to up against a throughly credentialed liberal lioness - Hillary Rodham Clinton, who looks to be poised to make a run at a time when women have started to more fully flex their political muscle.

GOP - get your act together!  The country needs at least an opposition - loyal or otherwise - to flourish.

The President Was Reelected

Got an itsy bitsy majority of the popular vote (which is actually quite a big thing - he is the first Democratic president since FDR to win two terms with a majority) and ran away with the Electoral vote.  

And my fears about Karl Rove trying to make a mad dash with Pennsylvania & Ohio?  While they came to naught, am more convinced than ever that Bush's Brain expected to.  He went into a veritable - seriously - melt down on Fox, INSISTING that Megyn Kelly go back to the network's prognosticators for a change in their call for President Obama.  He was practically babbling - seriously - as he shuffled & jabbed at papers with numbers on them, as he rambled about having folks from the Romney campaign in Ohio on the line.  It was amazing to behold.  Things did NOT turn out the way he expected, and I have to wonder what that might have been.

I don't expect that the president's reelection is going to change the basic make-up of SCOTUS, which was the ultimate prize in this election, but at least he can keep it's occasional semblance of balance.  Ruth Bader Ginsburg can FINALLY retire without worrying about a GOP president replacing her with another Scalia or Thomas, as Gov. Romney had promised.  I foresee her retiring sooner, rather than later, so her successor can be confirmed by the Senate before the 2014 mid terms.

We shall see what we shall see.  .   

The Day Has Dawned

For months, I’ve written about my concerns with the character of the GOP presidential  candidate.  I don’t have to recount the many jaw-droppers he’s  come out with over his run for the GOP nod & his actual candidacy.  They are legion & legendary.

Today, I am going to write about his opponent.  Many of my friends feel even more strongly about him, that he will lead our great nation down a too-horrible-to-contemplate path to perhaps even spiritual Armageddon.

I don’t see that. 

When I look at President Obama, I see someone who kept his #1 campaign promise, to pass comprehensive health care reform, knowing that it would be as much a torpedo to his chances for reelection as passing the Civil Rights Act of 1965 was to LBJ’s.  He did it anyway. 

I see someone who said that he would go wherever he had to – even into the sovereign territory of a supposed ally - to get Osama Bin Laden, a position pummeled by both Hillary Rodham Clinton & Mitt Romney.  He did it anyway. 

I see someone who promised to do away with Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell, knowing it would alienate in the strongest possible way the Evangelical Right.  He did it anyway. 

I see someone who believes that a woman has the right to make decisions about her own body, someone who sees that our nation’s prosperity is intrinsically tied – like it or not – to our ability to effectively plan the size of our families. 

I see someone whose first bill signing was the Lily Ledbetter Fair Pay Act, which helps ensure  victims of wage discrimination - for whatever cause - readier access to remedy the inequality.

I see someone pilloried by gun owners for taking away their rights, which he’s made no move to do in spite of how many deadly shooting, including the attempted assassination of the amazing Gabby Giffords. 

I see someone who inherited an ENORMOUS debt incurred by a Republican President-Who-Shall-Not-Be-Named (whose tax cuts, along with unfunded wars & Medicare Part D, gutted the surplus left to him). 

I see someone who inherited the greatest financial crisis since the Depression & who kept disaster from becoming utter calamity.  

I see someone who put the auto manufacturers - our nation's most gloried private industry - through the most effective parts of a bankruptcy without the downside of wiping out their genuinely small business suppliers, many of whom would have been ruined if they had been paid pennies on the dollars they were owed (as would have happened in an actual bankruptcy).

I see someone who has taken China to court over unfair trade practices,  And won.

Whew - that’s a lot of stuff.  And it’s just the tip of the iceberg. 

Okay, so what did President Obama do that riles me, that makes me question his leadership?  Turns out they're things the GOP should be applauding, not condemning.  GITMO - still open.  Deportations went up, not down.  Drone attacks were authorized against enemy combatants.  Americans - ones who plotted against our nation - were killed instead of captured them & returned to the USA for trial.  Surveillance on our nation’s citizens, abroad & at home, hasn't been rolled back. These are things Republicans would ballyhoo if one of their own had done it.

There are many who say that President Obama is the most divisive president in history.  I can think of one who was infinitely more so – Abraham  Lincoln.  And, like President Obama, the root of his divisive nature lay not in himself, but in the hearts & minds of the people who reviled what he stood for & against.  If Barack Obama is as toxic as so many claim, I have not been able to find the toxin in him.

Today, we have two candidates before us. 

One did a lot of what he campaigned to do, including taking out Osama Bin Laden.  And the things that he hasn’t done are things that Republicans would support if he had an R after his name instead of a D. 

The other candidate was nominated by a party whose leaders got together on the very night of President Obama’s inauguration, pledging to make his life a living hell, to fight him at every turn, to make it impossible for him to achieve so much as a smidgen of true bipartisan support, whose self-proclaimed #1 goal was to make him a 1-term president  –  then they & their supporters turn around & paint the president as divisive & partisan.   (Strange but true - it worked AND no one seems to fault them for putting their party's interests ahead of country's.)

I have already written volumes - mostly on Facebook - about my concern with Mitt Romney.  Time & time & time again, he’s said jaw-droppers that only make sense within the context of narcissism.  But, to be fair, a President Romney would give Republicans what Grover Norquist said many months ago was all they seek – someone with enough working digits to sign into law laws originated in the GOP-dominated House, someone who acts as a facilitator of their wishes rather than a leader (his words, not mine).

It is true that  IF Gov. Romney is elected today, we'll see a far different relationship between president & Congress.  That's because Democrats value compromise over stark ideology, compared to Republicans who – for the last generation – believe it is more important to stand on principle than to effectively govern.

Whatever the outcome, I hope everyone holds close to their hearts that we are, as a nation, a tough old bird.  But above all, we are a nation who believes “in God we trust.” 

If your candidate wins, my heartiest congratulations.  If he loses, my condolences.  But whichever, always & forever remember the words which are the most frequently voiced commandment in the Old & New Testaments – FEAR NOT.  Take no thought for the morrow, putting your trust ~ your full, real trust, not just words ~ in God.  Because if we can’t do that, all the rest is pretty inconsequential, don’t you think?

Call Me CYNICAL ...

...but my guess is that Mitt Romney scheduled a stop in Yardley, PA (in Upper Makefield, a mega wealthy Philadelphia suburb) and tomorrow's day-of appearance in Ohio to use the enthusiasm from the events as the campaign's explanation for a win in each state.  

I Did It

Ever since I was in my early teens, I wondered why people kept silent instead of standing up to be counted as against something harmful.  And it made me wonder - what would I do?  

Now, I know.  Seeing an alarming situation unfold, I spoke up.  What might have been a major irritation for others was defining for me.  Do I think it made any difference that I pointed out the governor has no core?  I doubt it. 

Is it fair to think that a President Mitt Romney would be harmful? Absolutely.  More than harmful – downright scary.  Not just the very real possibility of his presidency – the fine, upstanding, intelligent people who support him are scary, too, as they turn blind eyes to what’s been said by their candidate.  On-the-record & off comments paint a picture of the scariest sort of person we could have as president – a narcissist. 

Mind you, we all have some aspect of narcissism - healthy narcissism is the backbone of our ability to experience a sense of self, to act from a sense of productive self-interest, even to set & achieve goals, to have that wondrous swell of personal worth, even greatness, when we accomplish various tasks.  In the narcissist, those qualities seem to be on steroids.    

It’s hard for the average person to understand the impact of a narcissistic personality.  For one thing, they tend to be quite popular.  It's human nature to gravitate to people with a strong, positive view of themselves, even when it evidences itself in negative, demeaning behavior toward others.  Just as much, it's human nature to gravitate to people who seem sincere in what they say & do, even if we disagree with what they're saying or doing - "I don't agree with his position, but I sure do respect how deeply he believes in it."   

It’s hard to top a narcissist when it comes to sincerity.  They sincerely, to the very core of their being, believe that anything they say or whatever they do is right.  His supporters, who are legion, dismiss what’s said because the underlying attitude is so powerfully sincere.  Gut feeling will top reason, every time.

And, gee, have we seen that over the past 18 months.  Gov. Romney said things, refused to do things, that would have sunk any other candidate.  But not him.  Instead of distancing themselves, what his supporters experienced was their candidate's belief in what he said in whichever present moment.

I do not bandy the word “narcissist” about lightly.  In fact, it never occurred to me until after Hurricane Sandy.  Once it did, the concerns I’ve felt about Gov. Romney fell into place. 

GOP politicos & pundits are pointing to Sandy as what stopped their candidate’s growing momentum.  But it didn’t need to be.  Any political consultant could tell you that Mitt Romney could have used the disaster as an opportunity to nail the election.  By saying “I underestimated the importance & impact of FEMA” he would have helped mute any positive press going to the president while deftly distancing himself from previous comments about eliminating the agency, sending its responsibilities back to the states, or better still privatizing it. 

He didn’t say that.

He couldn’t say that.

If his political life depended on it, he couldn’t say that.

Because Mitt Romney never apologizes.

Because Mitt Romney is never wrong.

Ever.

Ever.

Ever.

Now, put that quality in a president.  Because President Romney would be the same guy as Gov. Romney.  He’s not going to change.  Being always right IS his core. 

See, what struck me this past Tuesday wasn’t that Gov. Romney ignored his previous on-the-record (heck, on youtube) comments about FEMA.   It’s that he never said them.  Which might seem ludicrous to fine, upstanding, intelligent people, but which is part & parcel of the narcissistic personality.  

If it doesn’t suit them in THIS present moment, it didn’t happen. 

Ever.  Ever.  Ever. 

It explains why Gov. Romney CAN’T answer questions about where he stood  or currently stands on the Lily Ledbetter Fair Pay Act – it creates a source of internal angst, so is not just utterly side stepped, but actually seems to have no reality to him.  And because he is sincere at how utterly unable he is to deal with the question, however often repeated, his utter sincerity is taken to heart, not his stunning inability to answer.

Thank god for them, most people have never encountered a truly narcissistic personality.  For those who have, certain qualities about Gov. Romney stand out like a neon light flashing against a night sky:  

• his collective & conversational narcissism, 
• his (and his family’s) absolute faith in his self-worth, 
• his (and his family’s) expressed sense that he is entitled to the presidency, 
• his truly awful sense of boundaries. 

 There are other qualities associated with narcissism that I hesitate to assign to Gov. Romney because they fit so beautifully into the politician’s tool box:  the ability to effectively exploit people & situations for his ends, “magical thinking,” shamelessness, arrogance, envy.  But they certainly are part of his make up. 

It took me until Sandy to realize that the reason I’m so alarmed by the prospect of a President Romney is because I had to deal with a truly narcissistic personality for a good part of my life.  I know how easy it is for them to sway others, without even trying, and how futile it is for the more “rational” person to convince anyone otherwise.  

People don’t believe what they see;  they see what they believe.  And narcissists are remarkably believable.  No one believes in them more than themselves.  

Introspection?  Self-doubt?  Willingness to see another perspective if it’s counter to theirs?  No how, no way, not ever.  Ever.  Ever.

Take heart, my former self.  I spoke up.  Lost quite a few Facebook friends, but I spoke up.  

Now, the end is near.  One last major post to write before it’s all over.  People turned a blind eye to the voter suppression aspects of the rash of voter id laws implemented by GOP state legislatures since 2010.  Most are silent in the face of Gov. Scott's & the Ohio Attorney General's last ditch actions to limit voting.  BIG bucks is affecting big & small races.  The Grahams & other religious leaders are making epic efforts to get out the evangelical vote, in spite of their candidate being a once reviled Mormon.  

If President Obama can overcome that tsunami of forces against him - well, I think it would take more than an act of god.  It would be a certifiable miracle.  So, yes, I do believe that Gov. Romney will win.  

And then things will really get interesting.

fear not

makes me scratch my head, people who write about how they put their trust in the lord, that they know our creator turns all to a good end, THEN start in on how if this candidate or that one wins, it will mark the end of our nation.  

okay, everyone - deep breaths.

fear not.

George Romney's Crystal Ball

Seems George Romney had a pretty clear idea of where the Republican Party was headed, and none to happy about it.  The following LONG letter is a response he penned to Barry Goldwater, dated Dec. 21, 1964, and outlining the concerns that kept him from throwing his support behind the GOP presidential candidate (I put selected sections in bold):

Dear Barry:

Thank you for your letter of December 8. My apologies for not having answered sooner.

You have requested "an explanation" from me with respect to certain matters raised in your letter. I will try to cover them as frankly and fully as I can.

First, as to your remarks in Jamaica concerning the possible realignment of the Republican and Democratic parties into “conservative” and "liberal" parties. Whatever the circumstances of the statement, you have indicated that you believe that might be "a happy thing." I disagree.

We need only look at the experience of some ideologically oriented parties in Europe to realize that chaos can result. Dogmatic ideological parties tend to splinter the political and social fabric of a nation, lead to governmental crises and deadlock, and stymie the compromises so often necessary to preserve freedom and achieve progress. A broad based two party structure produces a degree of political stability and viability not otherwise attainable.

I believe, therefore, that we should exert every effort to broaden and strengthen our Republican party, as a means of preserving a strong
two-party system, which is an essential element of a free country.

Next, you state that you are "confused" about the language of the Denver statement that "we need to become inclusive rather than exclusive." It seems to me that the arithmetic of the election should make this unmistakably clear.

A political party which drops from 35,000.000 votes in 1960 to 27,000,000 votes in 1964 has certainly narrowed its orientation and support. The party's need to become more broadly inclusive and attractive should be obvious
to anyone.

Then, and I suppose this is the point which really prompted your letter, you repeatedly indicate that I was at fault for not "backing," "supporting'' and "cooperating 100 per cent with" the top of the national ticket. I suppose I could give you a short and summary answer to this but, to try to resolve misunderstanding, I will cover the point in some detail.

First, let me point out that, based upon careful analysis, I'm satisfied that, without changes in your campaign, an endorsement from me would not have made any significant difference in the results of your election.

In Michigan, it would have shifted the state campaign from our Republican record of state progress to the national issues and candidates. Your 33% of the total Michigan vote included about 70% of the Republicans, 30% of
the independents and .5% of the Democrats. Reliable polls show that these percentages remained relatively constant from well before the San Francisco convention all the way through to the election.

The figures appear to have become fixed regard to any comments or positions of mine. The Presidential campaign dominated Michigan's political consciousness, as I'm sure it did elsewhere. People made up their minds based upon your public positions and your campaign.

I don't make this point to duck responsibility. It's just a fact that should be recognized and you appear to recognize it when you say that "I don't claim for one moment that had you (and others) supported me I would have won."

Second, I believe I made every reasonable effort to bring about circumstances under which I could have "backed" and supported the national ticket. Long before San Francisco--going back to the fall of 1963, I expressed concern about my lack of understanding of your views on several matters which I regarded as vitally important.

In September of 1963 I requested, through your representatives, an opportunity to meet with you to discuss these matters privately and in depth.

(You refer in your letter to the meeting we had at my request much earlier in 1963 in your office in Washington. That discussion was largely limited to three points: (1) The fact that I had a commitment to the people of Michigan that I would not be a candidate for national office in 1964; (2) my invitation to you, as to other candidates, to appear in Michigan; and (3) my concern that your campaign in Michigan avoid, if possible, the involvement of individuals who might make it difficult to preserve party unity and harmony.

At that time I was inclined to support your possible candidacy because the issues that subsequently became of grave concern to me were not then particularly apparent. As a result, I didn't even mention them and discussed a few other matters only incidentally in that meeting.)

At any rate, the meeting I requested in September of 1963 did not occur.

During the winter of this year, after my earlier requests had been repeatedly renewed, your Mr. Clifton White did tell me he had had talked with you and that you would meet with me after the California primary. However, the meeting did not materialize.

Instead, at the Cleveland Governors' Conference, shortly after the California primary, where I had hoped to be able to meet with you, Paul Fannin handed me a copy of a statement of your positions on some issues, printed for use in the California primary.

In the newspapers I read that when you were questioned about our getting together for what by this time was my well-publicized desire for a discussion in depth, you said you had sent me a printed statement of your positions, and if I didn't understand it, I could get in touch with you.

Let me interject that that time the need for such a meeting had become all the more important. You were just about to take a position the 1964 Civil Rights Act contrary to that of most elected Republicans in and out of Congress, and there were disturbing indications that your strategists proposed to make an all-out push for the Southern white segregationist vote and to attempt to exploit the so-called "white backlash" in the North.

The delegates' mail was beginning to contain much of what I'm sure you would regard as "extremist," "hate” literature, backing you. A clear understanding of your position was needed, and I persisted.

I invited you to Lansing to meet with the Michigan delegates. You accepted. I then telephoned, inviting you through Mrs. Coerver because you were attending a meeting, to come early enough for dinner at my home and a thorough private discussion.

This was first accepted by telephone and then canceled because I was told "the boy said" you could not leave Chicago in time. I then indicated, in writing, my willingness to come to Chicago and fly back with you, so that we could visit on the plane. This was rejected and several days later reproposed by you but unfortunately, only after I had made other unbreakable commitments.

You will then recall our chance meeting at the Washington Butler Airport on June 29. You indicated you could come to Lansing earlier than expected on the following day and that you would call me when you left Chicago.

The next day I not only received no call but you arrived half an hour late for your meeting with our delegation. We talked pleasantries with others present riding in from the airport and briefly in your suite before the meeting of the delegation. I conducted the meeting on the basis of written questions previously prepared by the delegation and used in a similar meeting with Governor Scranton. In my personal view some of your comments in response to delegates' inquiries particularly on civil right and extremists, raised more questions than they resolved. However, I did not regard that relatively open meeting as an appropriate place for me to express to you my concerns. The meeting ended and without saying anything about your failure to arrive on time or of our long sought “discussion in depth," you left.

Following this all-out effort at such a discussion, I decided it was futile to try further before San Francisco.

However, my efforts to bring about circumstances under which I could support the ticket continued. In my public statements and actions, I placed heavy emphasis on the vital importance of a sound platform.

In a memorandum submitted to Congressman Laird at his request a week before the convention, I spelled out some recommendations of my own, and some offered on behalf of the Republican Governors. This memorandum dealt importantly with positive steps to avoid centralization in Government, emphasizing state, local and individual responsibilities. It also included the points on civil rights and extremism which were later to be the basis for my proposed amendments to the platform.

I presented this memorandum in person and in writing to the entire platform committee on July 8th in San Francisco. My testimony specifically urged, among other rights, that the platform pledge Federal, state, local and individual action to promote the civil rights of all Americans. I also urged the repudiation of extremists who might attach themselves to the party or its candidates. My proposals were subsequently presented in written form to the Platform Committee in debate and were rejected.

Contrary to your statement, my amendment on extremists was offered to the Platform Committee by Richard Van Dusen, the delegate from Michigan and was rejected. Both amendments were next presented, and before the convention consideration of the platform, to your Platform Committee representative, Congressman Rhodes, and he rejected them. I personally discussed the importance of such amendments, briefly and separately, before their being offered on the floor with Congressman Rhodes, Paul Fannin and Richard Kliendienst.

These were not amendments which called for any compromise of your principles, if in fact you find no quarrel with the Denver statements on civil rights and extremism. But they were essential if the party was to be soundly positioned for the campaign on the basis of principles I am convinced are essential to the future of freedom in America and around the world.

Further a platform whose basic emphasis was on state, local and individual rights and responsibilities but which failed to pledge state, local and individual action in the civil rights field was clearly vulnerable to charges of inconsistency, and more important, of bowing to the segregationists in the South. With respect to the extremism amendment, as I said at the time:

"Experience shouts the differences between success and failure are small. I do not believe our country will survive present perils unless the Republican party provides the program and the leadership that will recapture the interest , respect and support of a majority of voting Americans.”

"With extremists of the right and left preaching and practicing hate, and bearing false witness on the basis of guilt by association and circumstantial rationalization and with such extremists rising to official positions of leadership in the Republican party, we cannot recapture the respect of the nation and lead it to its necessary spiritual, moral, and political rebirth if we hide our heads in the sand and decline to even recognize in our platform that the nation is again beset by modern 'know nothings.’"

The failure of your representatives to accept concepts left the party in an exposed and vulnerable position. A leading Southern delegate in a private discussion with me, opposing my civil rights amendment after it was introduced but before it was offered, made it clear that there had been a platform deal that was a surrender to the Southern segregationists, contrary to the entire tradition of the party. And it appeared that there was a willingness to accept, perhaps even welcome the support of irresponsible extremists such as those you clearly reject in the Dec. 21, 1964, U.S News interview.

Serious as this weakness was, you could still have corrected it by speaking out clearly and unequivocally. Unfortunately, your acceptance speech moved in precisely the opposite direction, seeming to approve the platform as adopted and to throw down the gauntlet to those who had dared to suggest it could be improved. Then the replacements made on the national committee executive committee by your appointee, Dean Burch, added to the evident intention to restrict direction of the campaign and the party to those who had supported you before the convention. The very ones needed to give the campaign broad and inclusive direction were replaced.

Despite these developments, I still keep the door open for an endorsement of you. On July 15, 1964, as the convention ended, I said:

"As the national campaign progresses in a . . . responsible manner free of hate-peddling and fear spreading and devoted to the issues of the day, I will be happy to support it."

Just ahead of the Hershey conference, you invited me to Washington for the type of "discussion in depth" I persistently sought for most of the nine months before San Francisco. At that meeting I reviewed the reasons behind the proposed platform amendments on civil rights and extremism, only to be told by you that you had only read a few sections of the platform and didn't know what amendments were being offered.

On that occasion I told you of a leading Southern delegate's revelation that a deal had been made on the platform's civil rights language which our Michigan amendments violated. I also urged you to recognize the need to overcome the effect of Governor Wallace's withdrawal and some Ku Klux Klan endorsement.

You cited your personal dedication and action to eliminate discrimination and human injustice as you did many times before and during the campaign—a personal attitude I do not question now and did not question then or at any time. However, I did my best to point out the inconsistency between your personal record and public record including the arbitrary rejection of my San Francisco amendment which was offered separately from the Rockefeller-Scranton amendment because it dealt only with principle and was not related to the candidacy fight.

While this made no apparent impression on you, at the end of our conference, which also included a shorter discussion of the extremism issue, you asked me to let you have any suggestions before the Hershey conference. This I did in writing, urging a public statement by you at Hershey that would include this key language:

"The enduring solution must be a personal solution in the hearts and minds of individuals. That is why we must encourage civil rights actions by individuals, in families, in neighborhoods, and at the community and state levels of government.”

"The rights of some must not be enjoyed by denying the rights of others. Neither can we permit states' rights at the expense of human rights. The basic principles of individual rights and states' rights are indivisible from individual responsibilities and states' responsibilities."

My extremism suggestion recommended this statement on your part:

"Extremism in defense of liberty is not a vice but I denounce political extremism, of the left or the right, based on duplicity, falsehood, fear, violence, and threats when they endanger liberty."

"A political extremist in my view is one who advocates overthrow of our Government through either peaceful or violent means; one who uses threats or violence or unlawful or immoral means to achieve political ends; or one who believes that the political end justifies the use of any means, regardless of the effect on others."

"Such political extremism destroys liberty, and is a vice."

"With one or two exceptions, I cannot condemn groups as groups. Guilt by association is contrary to American principles of justice."

In the subsequent inadequate opportunity for discussion at Hershey it was apparent you were not planning to make such strong clarifying statements. As a result, three times in the group meeting I tried to point out your need to recognize and correct the conflict between your personal and public record, My final plea was voiced in essentially these words:

Barry, in essence what I'm urging is that you urge others to do in the field of civil rights what you say you have done at the private, local and state levels. To advocate it with such conviction that everyone will know you mean exactly that.

In one response, you said that I was questioning your honesty.

As far as the campaign itself was concerned, I ran as a Republican on a record of state progress built with the assistance of Republican legislators. I endorsed statewide and local Republican candidates and appeared with hundreds of them. I instructed the G.O.P. State Central Committee to extend full support based on Republican accomplishments. I ran as a Republican and I won as a Republican.

Despite our landslide losses in local and state offices, we have stopped the progressive membership shrinkage of the Republican party in Michigan and have started to broaden its base. We are now in the process of taking steps in Michigan similar to those recommended in the Denver Governors' statement designed to broaden and strengthen the party nationally. To the extent I can, I want to help in this effort.

I cannot accept the blame for the divisiveness in the party when you, your representatives, and your campaign strategy refused to encompass those of us who had reservations based on basic American and Republican principles. My reservations I voiced privately to your representatives and publicly on many occasions for some months before the San Francisco convention. Dick Nixon, since you draw the analogy, was astute enough to reach understandings with you and Governor Rockefeller in 1960.

At no time before or during or immediately following the convention did you move effectively to restore the unity of the party. You certainly knew the Hershey conference had failed to do so. Points of principle raised in discussion were not resolved nor did the conference have any apparent influence on the campaign.

Many in the party detected intransigence in your attitudes before, during and after the 1964 convention, culminating in your acceptance speech which, among other things, said:

"Any who join us in all sincerity, we welcome. Those who do not care for our cause we do not expect to enter our ranks in any case."

Indeed, the conduct of the campaign and the Nov. 3 election results demonstrated that your campaign never effectively deviated from the Southern-rural-white orientation. Preconvention discussion and postelection discussions with some who were active in your campaign brought to my attention distressing evidence that this was part of the strategy.

Now, Barry, I do not assert you were aware of this strategy or the author of it. I frankly can't believe you shaped it. You didn't read the platform adopted in San Francisco and you didn't know what amendments were being offered on the floor so you were obviously leaving many vital things almost entirely up to others, vital things about which you were not personally informed. This may account for your inability to see the inconsistencies I tried so hard to help you recognize.

However, for these philosophical, moral and strategic reasons, I was never able to endorse you during the campaign. Of course, millions did because they believed your leadership would inspire a rebirth of Americanism and a strengthening of constitutional government.

I, too, am one dedicated to these objectives, but I know they cannot be realized if foundation principles of American freedom are compromised. The chief cornerstone of our freedom is divinely endowed citizenship for all equally regardless of pigmentation, creed or race.

It is true I said on the "Face the Nation" television interview that I did not endorse you because I was not willing to compromise one iota the principles I fought for in San Francisco. But this did not make it "rather clear that you expected me and others to compromise theirs" as you assert. I have never suggested that to you or anyone else.

One reason I was so anxious to talk with you in depth before the convention was because I felt sure we would be in agreement in principle on the above issues and others, providing there was adequate opportunity to discuss them, but I was denied this opportunity until it was too late.

Now, I realize that our busy schedules contributed to the problem, but I sincerely tried over a nine-month period to arrange a discussion. Our relatively public meetings were hardly appropriate "to bury our differences " as you put it. So, if our positions were really closer than it appeared, all I can say is that I made my position known on many occasions and did my best to discuss them with you personally and in depth.

As to the governmental centralization, we do share a common apprehension and concern. But, then you ask me, "Where were you, George, when the chips were down and the going was hard?" Well, Barry, for a long time I've been right on the firing line.

All Republicans (and, I believe, most Americans) are increasingly concerned about constant centralization, but many of us believe we must have a positive rather than negative approach to this increased Federal control.

At San Francisco, I offered a detailed program for stronger state and local government cooperation and activity, plus recommendations that could result in a recovery of certain functions from Federal control. On behalf of the Republican Governors' Association, I urged the Resolutions Committee to adopt these proposals. For the most part the recommendations were ignored by the committee and in your campaign.

In Michigan, I entered public life to help modernize Michigan state and local government as an essential step in slowing and reversing the constant flow of responsibility to Washington. It is futile to talk about stopping centralization and the eventual nullification of our constitution without removing the antiquated obstacles at the state and local level that prevent meeting the needs of the people effectively in the right place.

I do not believe we can prevent unsound solutions to current problems by sheer opposition. My experience convinces me we must present sound solutions based on applying our proven principles to current problems in the development of specific, positive programs.

Only in this way can we stop the adoption of unsound national programs to fill personal, private, local, state and national vacuums. For instance, talk about states' rights will not be an adequate substitute for state responsibility. We are beginning to prove in Michigan, and in some other states, what it takes to deal with centralism.

In light of your recent public statements joining me with Nelson Rockefeller, may I point out that at no time did I publicly or privately say or do anything to create "the bomb scare or Social Security scare." I never discussed them. Nor was I part of any stop-Goldwater effort before or at the convention.

Finally, this has been a difficult letter to write. It is all too apparent that we have differing interpretations of the events of this hectic year. What I have tried to do is to answer your questions about the past. Having done so, I—as I believe you are—am much more concerned with the party's future than its past.

Just as I believed in full and frank discussion of intraparty differences (and agreements) before the election, I believe in it now. The sooner we can get together and discuss the recovery of the G.O.P., the better. The sooner we can get together with others, as well, the better.

Your agreement with the statement of principles and unifying recommendations adopted by the Republican Governors' Association bodes well for productive future conversations. I urge your early direct public endorsement of it.

I also urge you to take the initiative in calling the leadership planning group meeting that is recommended instead of fighting the implementation of that hopeful aggreement. This would be constructive and a big step in the right direction.

The real challenge for us lies in the expansion of voter support for the Republican party in all parts of the country, urban or rural, North or South, colored or white. Without common dedication to this fundamental, our rehash of 1964 positions may become of interest only to the historians of defunct political institutions.

I believe an intraparty leadership conference representing all elements of the party is essential to unifying and strengthening it. Based on our experience at the Denver Governors' Conference, I know it will take a schedule that provides adequate time for the frank, sincere, searching discussion that is essential in resolving misunderstanding and hammering out agreement on principles and programs.

The Denver conference is the only one in which I have participated involving representative party leadership from any party segment where such a procedure was used and such a result achieved.

It was a significant accomplishment to arrive at unanimous agreement in a group representing the diversity in viewpoint of a Paul Fannin and Nelson Rockefeller.

It was also significant that a preponderant majority exercised restraint and did not force their position into the approved statement contrary to the views of a significant minority.

I hope you will actively support the Denver recommendations designed to achieve needed national leadership agreement and understanding. I regret such a leadership conference could not be convened ahead of the Chicago meeting of the National Committee. This I advocated but reluctantly abandoned as being impossible considering the time problem.

You may be sure I am prepared at any time to meet with you or other party leaders to increase our effectiveness in strengthening our party for the essential task it faces of arousing the nation to the developing national crisis and providing the programs that will get us back on the road to realizing America's divine destiny.

Barry, from a personal standpoint as well as party standpoint, I wish the past year had turned out differently so I could have followed my personal attitude toward you as a friend and endorsed you.

Lenore joins me in wishing the new year will be one of health and happiness for you and Peggy and your loved ones.

Sincerely, 
GEORGE ROMNEY