Perhaps my main fear about electing Gingrich or Santorum, and to a lesser extent Romney, is that they’ll get us into a war with Iran. They’ve been sabre-rattling like crazy. I have few doubts that Gingrich or Santorum would start a war. They just seem to really really REALLY want to attack Iran. I think (hope) Romney’s sabre-rattling is just pandering to the Republican base.

We don’t need to return to the Cowboy posturing of the Bush administration. Can you imagine if the Bushies had gotten Bin Laden, how grandly they would have strutted their stuff? Obama has done a little of that, but has been quite restrained–mostly just going about prosecuting the war with more focus than Bush ever did, and keeping the braggadocio in check.

The Daily Beast ran a great article by Peter Beinart about the candidates’ war-mongering rhetoric, and their past support for the Iraq war. It’s a good reminder of what kind of people we’re electing.

We really don’t need a war with Iran. We need cool heads about this.Obama will get us out of Afghanistan. Republicans will keep us there, might get us back into Iraq, and will probably start something with Iran. Scary stuff to me.

On a related note: A good article by Victoria Toensing about Newt’s philandering.

Although Jon Huntsman is the only GOP candidate I could definitely vote for, I don’t hold out much hope that he’ll win the nomination. He’s invested everything in New Hampshire, but things aren’t looking good there.

However, the Boston Globe, arguably the most respected newspaper in the northeast (if you don’t count New York), has endorsed Huntsman. That’s a good sign. Won’t go all that far, but it’s something. They wrote that only Romney and Huntsman stand out as truly presidential

“Among the candidates, only two stand out as truly presidential, Mitt Romney and Jon Huntsman. Both have track records of success, and both, through their policies and demeanors, have shown the breadth of spirit to lead the nation. But while Romney proceeds cautiously, strategically, trying to appease enough constituencies to get himself the nomination, Huntsman has been bold. Rather than merely sketch out policies, he articulates goals and ideals. The priorities he would set for the country, from leading the world in renewable energy to retooling education and immigration policies to help American high-tech industries, are far-sighted. He has stood up far more forcefully than Romney against those in his party who reject evolution and the science behind global warming.

“With a strong record as governor of Utah and US ambassador to China, arguably the most important overseas diplomatic post, Huntsman’s credentials match those of anyone in the field. He would be the best candidate to seize this moment in GOP history, and the best-prepared to be president.”

According to research by the Washington Post, between 1984 and 2009, the median net worth of Congressmen more than doubled, from $280,000 to $725,000 (with inflation factored in). That means half of Congressmen are worth more than $725,000, half are worth less. Meanwhile, the net worth of the average American has gone down slightly.

The right-wing media teaches its lap-it-up followers to defend, applaude, and practically worship the rich, because they are Job Creators. After all, the whole system of capitalism depends on their benevolence.

So, it makes sense to have rich people in Congress. That’s where we want Job Creators. Right?

In previous times, Congress included a lot of very ordinary people–farmers, teachers, everyday workers. Mr. Smiths. But surely that’s not what the Founders intended. Congress should be populated by the rich. Because they, out of the goodness of their hearts, only want to bring prosperity to the huddled masses.

Right?

I suppose most movements have some of the same elements:

• Some mindless followers, who don’t really know what they are protesting against.
• Fringe wackos who really make the movement look bad.
• A core of legitimate grievances.

Take the Tea Party.

• You had the mindless followers–people who watched Glenn Beck and got all riled up, but couldn’t really articulate consistently what they were riled up about. They just knew Glenn Beck (and others) told them Obama was the Devil, and so they grabbed their pitchforks and stormed the castle.
• You had the fringe wackos with their blatantly racist signs, screaming that Obama was a Nazi or socialist or Muslim or whatever.

But amidst all of that, the Tea Party drew deserved attention to two things:

1. Federal spending is way out of line. Gotta make cuts.
2. The federal government is intruding too much on states’ rights, as enshrined in the Constitution.

So long after the townhall shouting ended and the signs came down, we’re still talking about reducing spending and keeping the feds out of areas best left to the states. Those are good, very good, things.

Now we come to the Occupy movement. A lot of parallel things. People who can’t explain why they are camped out in a city park. People who view it as a 2011, no-music version of Woodstock. The drum-bangers who think that’s the way to bring about social change. The fringers who think capitalism is evil, or who advocate a communist system, or who favor wealth redistribution. Lots of general silliness.

But there are, again, legitimate grievances which need to be given attention.

• A larger and larger portion of American prosperity is going to the ultra-rich, at the expense of the middle and lower classes. The 1% have commandeered the American Dream.
• Trickle-down is a myth. What we’ve seen for the past 30 years is trickle-up.
• The middle class is being decimated. Jobs that once led to a comfortable retirement no longer do.
• Our system unduly shields the rich, enabling them to prosper even more.
• Being ultra-rich isn’t a bad thing, but these people use their money to disproportionately influence what happens in America. They buy lobbyists who buy Congressmen, who then write legislation and design tax loopholes and engineer bailouts solely to benefit the ultra-rich.

It’s easy for MSNBC to find elements in the Tea Party to ridicule. And it’s easy for FoxNews to do the same thing to the Occupy Wall Street people. But both movements have valid things to say. It’s hard hearing the good stuff amidst all the surrounding Looney Tunes, but we shouldn’t out-of-hand write them off just because our preferred pundits say we should, or because somebody spotlighted in a news report is clearly a nutjob.

I’m ready for the Tea Party to go away, just as, soon, I’ll be ready for the Occupy folks to fade into the background. But I hope that, in both cases, their legitimate grievances remain entrenched in our minds and in the political agenda.

I’m really intrigued by Jon Huntsman, who has announced he’s running for President.

I’ll probably vote, again, for Barack Obama. I’m disappointed with him in several areas, but I don’t think he’s been a bad president at all, despite all the verbal sludge from the Republican Right. If conservatives were in power, we’d still be deeply involved in Iraq, we’d probably be much more involved in Libya (and might have attacked Iran by now), we’d still be in denial about climate change, and General Motors would have been allowed to go under, along with hundreds of thousands of jobs. So I have no regrets about electing Obama. Just disagreements and disappointments here and there.

But Huntsman…

I couldn’t vote for any of the other Republican nominees. Maybe Romney, but he’s too much of a chameleon, believing whatever people want him to believe. The others are too beholden to the Tea Party, which is all about No Compromise Under Any Circumstances, Or Else. Or they’re just plain not electable.

The Huntsmans in India with an adopted daughter.

Here, however, are some reasons why Huntsman interests me.

• He’s a political moderate (a dying breed in the GOP).
• He’s a clean-living Mormon, but not a very devout one. I don’t know if that’s a good thing or a bad thing, honestly.
• Though he’s a Mormon, he married an Episcopalian, and they send their kids to Catholic schools.
• He’s fluent in Mandarin.
• He respects the Presidency enough to work for a Democrat president, even when every political advisor would tell him it will hurt his own chances to become President someday.
• He’s a classically trained pianist who fancies himself a rock-and-roll keyboardist.
• He met his wife while both were working in a Marie Callendar’s restaurant (he, a billionaire’s son, was washing dishes).
• He dropped out of high school to play in a rock band (Wizard), then got his GED. Talk about the beat of your own drummer.
• He’s very pro-environment, and recognizes the threat of climate change.
• Rather than attack Obama, which he’s reluctant to do, he advances his own vision for America (the other candidates are mostly just attack dogs with scant vision to articulate).
• There have been no scandals around him.
• He’s been ambassador to both China and Singapore, and was a Mormon missionary to Taiwan. He’s well-acquainted with that highly-important part of the world.
• He’s pro-life.
• He’s been a governor, of Utah, and a very popular one at that (80% approval rating when he left to become ambassador to China).
• As governor, he expanded healthcare reform to extend coverage to children.
• He’s got a real good, pranksterish, self-deprecating sense of humor.
• He and his wife have adopted children from India and China.
• He worked for Ronald Reagan, was George H.W. Bush’s ambassador to Singapore, and was Deputy US Trade Representative for George W. Bush.
• He loves rock & roll.
• He’s in favor of civil unions. I want that to be the norm for gay couples, not marriage.
• His announcement speech included this: “We will conduct this campaign on the high road. I don’t think you need to run down someone’s reputation in order to run for the Office of President.”
• He wants to run a civil campaign. A campaign between him and Obama might be like the gentlemanly Senate race between John Kerry and William Weld. That would be a breath of fresh air.

For now, I’m just intrigued. Still way too much I don’t know about him.