Wortpresse

Mitt Romney has mentioned that he might be dropping the VP bomb some time very soon. Why he won’t do it at a point where a message like that should – theoretically – give him some upward momentum from the terrible mess of tax returns and his involvement at Bain Capital after 1999 is beyond me. But it does make me think that he might not have an A+ candidate at hand.
So I’ve been thinking about who might be up, and who might be out. Here is my definitive list on possible and improbable candidates (in no particular order):


Sarah Palin
The short answer, no. The former VP candidate during John McCain’s run for office is too well off right now to start something as desperate as that. She’s got a good thing going as a FOX News contributor, author and public speaker. Right now she has the privilege to only speak about what she wants to whom she wants, meaning conservative issues to conservative audiences. She wouldn’t trade that for anything at this point in time. Plus, Romney is not the kind of strong candidate she would support. From Romney’s point of view there is a nice ring to Romney-Palin, but in the end she is too dominant and always a loose cannon. Sarah Barracuda is just too risky for an already unstable campaign.

Allen West
Think bat-shit crazy sidekick that would really get the blood flowing: Alan West, Congressman from Florida. African-American and ex-military sounds good, but that doesn’t make him less of a war-mongering religious zealot and total buffoon. He is any Democratic strategists dream candidate: just let him talk and he will implode taking Romney down with him. No, I cannot imagine the Romney campaign ever getting that desperate.

Tim Pawlenty
Who is Tim Pawlenty? Exactly.
The former Governor of Minnesota and opponent of Mitt Romney in the 2012 Republican Presidential Race might have a small shot at this. Granted, it’s a long shot. He was already a somewhat strong contender as Vice President for the McCain campaign. What’s his problem? Noone knows him. Pawlenty seems to be invisible. No matter what he seems to be doing, he just can’t get any publicity. After eight years as Governor and two campaigns for the Republican nomination for President his name recognition is still… well, not good. Not exactly the most glamorous of choices.

Rick Santorum
I can’t really imagine there is a lot of love between Santorum and Romney. So the question is: what can Santorum offer Romney? Bible-thumping, gay-bashing right wing nuts would love this pick. Everyone else would hate it, including a good portion of independents and minorities. I just can’t see the upside to a Romney-Santorum ticket, aside from the media frenzy that will ensue. But is that enough to justify a pick that will alienate significant voter blocs? Nope…

Marco Rubio
Now here’s a good one: Young, attractive, conservative. Married his cheerleader girlfriend and has four kids. He’s the son of Cuban immigrants and currently Congressman from Florida.
This sounds like solid gold to most people. And I believe it would be… if he were in the least bit interested. He couldn’t care less about Romney and the position of Vice President. And why should he? He’s the Republican Superstar-in-waiting, he’s the next big thing. Why join a campaign that is setting itself up for failure.
Marco Rubio is looking for a bigger opportunity, and he is young enough to wait. He has no reason to rush into anything.

Chris Christie
Okay, let’s keep it real: he’s fat and not very charismatic. That right there is already a problem. Then you add his Soprano-esque demeanor and accent and his unpopularity, and he’s out.
Then again, he might just want the job and could try to talk Romney into it. And some food for thought: he’s pretty good pals with the Koch Brothers. So it wouldn’t be a total surprise…

Jeb Bush
No way, no way, no way. Jeb Bush will not be Vice President to Mitt Romney, rest assured. He might just try to run for President in 2016, but until then expect the Bush clan to stay out of the White House until the smoke has cleared.

Mitch Daniels
Mitchell Elias “Mitch” Daniels is the sitting Governor of Indiana. He is also notoriously bland and boring. He worked in the White House under the Bush Administration as Director of the US Office of Management and Budget. Everyone expected him to run for office in 2012, but he didn’t. Expect him to decline this VP invite, which he will surely get based on his expertise and competence, as well. He was just elected President of Purdue University last month.

Kelly Ayotte
One of the few women in the cards, which instantly makes her a viable option. And she would be the perfect candidate in any other year. But since she is a Senator from New Hampshire, she will not make the race. From a strategic point of view it doesn’t make an awful lot of sense to nominate a running mate from the same geographical region of New England – Romney is from Massachusetts. It would just be wasted potential in mobilizing another region, preferably a swing state. Add to that the fact that Ayotte is still quite inexperienced as a politician in only her second year in Washington and the chances fade away…

Susanna Martinez
Martinez is the current Governor of New Mexico. She would be a solid right wing pick with the added value of being a woman and Hispanic. That all sounds very good, but she is, just like Kelly Ayotte, very inexperience with only 18 months in office. Also, she has repeatedly stated that she is not interested in the VP position. But don’t completely count her out, she will be wooed by the Romney campaign.

Paul Ryan
Mr. Budget himself. The Wisconsin Congressman has made quite a splash in Washington this year making him a household name nationwide. But not always in a good way, Ryan is unpopular with many Americans. But he does serve the profile of a fiscal conservative with a strong voice on economics. He is young and quite handsome (in a big-eared kinda way). He might be a liability, but he’s not out of it completely.

Rob Portman
Rob Portman is a bulldog. The Senator from Ohio is a good campaigner, and a vicious attack dog if need be. He has great experience on Capitol Hill as well as the White House under George W. Bush. Also recognize that he has already attacked Obama in the last couple of weeks on several occasions. He might just be warming up to bigger tasks. Now take into consideration that Ohio is a swing state and there you have it: Rob Portman is the real deal. There is a very good chance that the ticket will be Romney-Portman.

John Kasich
Another possible pick from Ohio. John Kasich is sitting Senator in Washington, after an impressive 18-year career in Congress. He is a real Washington insider who could also give Romney the swing state of Ohio. Possible, but has less of a ring to it than Romney-Portman…

Terry Bransted
The sitting Governor of Iowa is popular, a real conservative and good with the Tea Party and religious folks. He would surely deliver Iowa. Look to Bransted as a go-to pick if Rob Portman falls out.



Conclusion
So there you have it. My two cents are on Rob Portman from Ohio, with Terry Bransted and John Kasich in the backhand. Look to Susanna Martinez as the dark horse surprise candidate. Don’t waste your time thinking about Palin, Rubio or Santorum joining Romney in this fight. They all don’t want to get burned…

Just a quick update on the Republican primaries during the last week in less than 400 words.

All in all, there were eight contests to be won, and all talk is about Santorum winning momentum. From one point of view that seems obvious. He won the big three: Kansas, Alabama and Mississippi.
But let us dissect briefly what really happened, and what it means.

Let’s concentrate on the Southern states, because that’s where Romney had something to prove. The rest of the country – with a few exceptions – already gave him a vote of confidence.

Let me give you three statistics by Public Policy Polling that gives you a feeling for the Republican voters in Alabama: 45% claim to be very conservative, and 68% are evangelical. So far so good, but here come two amazing stats: 42% think Obama is a Muslim fundamentalist, and a whopping 21% think interracial marriage should be illegal.
Enough said, you get the picture about the voters in Alabama. Enter Mitt Romney, “East Coast Moderate”.
But shockingly, he did well. He drove a strategy of making people like him – hardly any policy, and all referenced to “cheesy grits” and friendly “hello, y’all” ‘s.
That way, he managed to improve on his last showings in Tennessee and Georgia, and picked up 29% in Alabama, and 30% in Mississippi.
That’s big news, people. Why? Because it shows that even the most staunch Republican states are beginning to see the signs. And slowly but surely they are getting in line behind Mitt Romney.

Secondly, and most importantly: what about the delegates?
Santorum won three primaries, and granted, they were the most important ones. But that does not mean that he actually got anywhere with the delegate count. If we look at the actual count in the eight contests of the week, the winner in my mind is once again Mitt Romney.
Is Santorum really catching up? Statistically, yes, he is catching up. But barely. In fact, with these three “big wins” in his pocket – wins that cost a lot of resources, financially and emotionally – he managed to steal 11 delegates on Romney.
Gingrich, the self-proclaimed Southern conservative poised for a big comeback, lost 32 delegates. And Ron Paul, only getting one delegate in these contests, lost 52 delegates on the front runner.

So in fact, if you take away the search for a big headline, Romney has cemented his lead. He fought hard and defended himself well enough in the South, so that he can look toward the Republican convention with confidence.

On February 15th, 1898 the USS Maine sunk. An explosion had ripped the ship apart, and there was no doubt who the evil-doers were: the Spanish. The cowardly Spanish, as the press would write.

As the main source of public information, Newspapers quickly set the tone of the conversation. And they did by pushing heavily for military action against the Spanish colonial power on Cuba.

Newspapers cited old, oftentimes second- or third-hand information as truth; they painted lurid pictures of the horrors of life on Cuba under oppressive Spanish rule; there was talk of death camps, cannibalism, torture, and the noble Amazon Warriors fighting the oppression; they printed propaganda posters and plastered the streets.



Soon, most media outlets sent hundreds of reporters, artists, and photographers south to recount Spanish atrocities. Yet upon arrival they found little to report.

"There is no war," the famous journalist Remington wrote to his boss. He requested to return to America.
Remington's boss, William Randolph Hearst, sent a cable in reply: "Please remain. You furnish the pictures, I'll furnish the war." Hearst was true to his word. For weeks after the USS Maine disaster, the Journal devoted more than eight pages of fabricated war stories a day. Not to be outdone, other papers followed Hearst's lead. Hundreds of editorials demanded that American honor be avenged. Most Americans believed what they read. Soon a rallying cry could be heard everywhere — in the papers, on the streets, and in the halls of Congress: "Remember the Maine! To hell with Spain."

The propaganda had worked. The American people, and important figures of American politics – most notably one Theodore Roosevelt, Assistant Secretary of the Navy – lobbied congress into a war. And through their disregard for responsible journalism, Newspapers had successfully advocated military action.

On April 25th, 1898 the US declared war on Spain, which in turn led to the American-Philippine War.


Fast-forward to 2012. A media outlet releases a movie calling for military action in Uganda. There is talk of child soldiers and sex slaves; there are pictures of mutilated victims. And the evil-doer is presented next to Adolf Hitler and Osama bin Laden: a man called Joseph Kony.

The call to action is similar: they present viewers with pictures and stories that cater to our emotions and our feeling of justice, rather than our sense of reason. On April 20th, the organizers call onto the world to litter the streets with posters calling for military action in Uganda; they start to mobilize important figures of public life into supporting the movement; and ultimately, they ask us to lobby the American congress into a war.


The Spanish-American war shows us that media propaganda can mobilize a whole population into demanding war. It also shows us that once military action is taken, it’s not a cut-and-dry issue; violence always begets violence.

Journalists on the ground are already warning us of this propaganda. Kony is not in Uganda anymore, and his power is fading. The facts in the movie are to a large extent six years old and over-exaggerated. The region is largely at peace, with problems of health care, poverty and political stability – not the tyranny of Kony’s Lord’s Resistance Army – making the lives of Ugandans difficult.

A war is the last thing they want. And it is the last thing that we should want.
But what will we ultimately believe? Will we be lured into supporting war based on propaganda pictures catering to our emotions again?
We shall see.

Super Tuesday is over, and we are none the smarter who will be the nominee for the Republican Party. Or are we?
Some quick take-aways from yesterday’s elections.


Romney did pretty much what was expected of him. He won six states, some of them decisively. He clearly won the delegate count. Yet, there will be some major head-aches for Romney after Super Tuesday.

Mitt Romney did well as expected in Alaska, Idaho, Massachusetts and Virginia. He did worse than expected in North Dakota and Vermont. His big win of the night came in Ohio, which means he has now won his first real test with Midwestern blue-collar workers. That should put some concerns to bed although others have cemented themselves.
That one major head-ache everyone will be talking about is Tennessee. Santorum pretty much crushed Romney in the only Southern state that was really contested (Georgia went to Gingrich as expected). Among pundits and the party establishment, Romney’s showing in Tennessee will be a major red flag. He only just managed to get every fourth vote.

The question remains: Can Romney win over conservative voters in a general election?

In about a week, on March 13th, primaries will be held in Alabama and Mississippi. On March 17th it’s Missouri, and March 24th Louisiana. That’ll be it for the South. So he has just about 17 days to finally close the books on his nomination.

It’s hard to predict what happens until then. Kansas on Saturday is anyone’s guess right now, Romney will win Maine decisively. In between you have a couple of caucuses that no one cares about (Guam, Northern Mariana Island, Virgin Islands).
So in fact, Romney has six days and two contests to build momentum and prove to voters that he is the inevitable candidate not only for the East Coast and the Midwest, but also for the conservative South. He will have to put the pedal to the ground and go into beast mode. It will be a short and steep road.

But there is also good news for Romney here. What pundits say, and what voters think is one thing. What his opponents are doing is the other, and it’s way more important.
Santorum has no chance of winning the nomination as long a Newt Gingrich is in the race. Sad day for Rick, because Newt ain’t going nowhere.
Santorum after today will not have a foot to stand on. Yes, he won against Romney in Tennessee. But if you look at the race between Gingrich and Santorum, he’s in trouble. As I said before: Gingrich is dead in the water. He should not be paid any attention. Yet, Santorum is struggling to win over the votes.
This will be an important factor in the contests in Alabama and Mississippi. If Santorum and Gingrich keep dividing up the conservative vote, neither of them is going anywhere. Heck, they might just give Romney a chance to win in one of those states.
The diehard conservative bloc of the party is making it easier for Romney right now. Look for Tea Partiers and conservative talking heads to ask Gingrich to drop out.
But my prediction is that he won’t. Gingrich has a huge ego, and he won’t quit. Plus, he has a lot of money to lose with book sales and speeches if he drops out. Someone would have to pay that man quite handsomely to convince him it’s not worth the pain.

I called it about a month ago, and today, I’m going to double down. Romney will be the Republican candidate for the Presidency in November. By default.

Super Tuesday is finally upon us: 4 candidates – 10 states – 437 delegates.
Romney goes into most states as the favorite to win, and he has quite a lot to prove. For Santorum it is a question of not falling behind too much. One or two wins would boost his credentials. The same goes for Ron Paul, who will be looking to net his first win of the primary season and to stay ahead of Gingrich. As for Newt… he’s done.
The good news first (or is it bad news?): nothing will be decided today. The show will go on Wednesday morning. Though we might be nudging closer to a decision if Romney can bag a few important states.

So here is my guide to Super Tuesday with a few pointers what to watch out for:


1. All eyes on the Buckeyes.
Most pundits will concentrate on the competition in the Buckeye State of Ohio. Why? Statistics.
Americans love statistics. Conventional wisdom states that no Republican presidential candidate has ever gotten to the White House without winning Ohio. So it will be a highly symbolic win giving the victor bragging rights going into a possible head-to-head against Obama.
With 66 delegates up for grabs it’s also the second biggest state on Super Tuesday after Georgia. But because Georgia is pretty much irrelevant this time around (more to that later) Ohio matters all the more.
The polls suggest a close contest between Mitt Romney and Rick Santorum. Importantly, momentum is on the side of the Romney camp. In the last weeks Romney has made up double-digits making it a statistical tie in a lot of polls.
And don’t forget: Santorum from the neighboring state of Pennsylvania has built up his campaign on an appeal to the working people of the Midwest. It would be a tough blow for his campaign to lose against Romney, whom they are trying to label as an out-of-touch liberal millionaire.
A win for Romney in Ohio after the one in Michigan should shut up a lot of pundits and opponents claiming he is unelectable among the working class.


2. Southern (Dis-)Comfort
As I have stated before on this blog, I believe Newt Gingrich is dead in the water. And he is; he was no hope of winning the nomination. But that does not mean that he is done campaigning for it.
Expect Gingrich to do better in the Southern States than in all the other contests. He should easily win his native Georgia with 76 delegates, which will be his argument to not drop out quite yet. Of course it’s really about the money, Lebowski!

More interesting than Georgia is the contest in Tennessee (58 delegates). Romney has something to prove here: that the can win in the South. So far, he has lost both primaries in the Southern states: South Carolina went to Gingrich, and Missouri went to Santorum (absolutely irrelevant state with 0 delegates).
So far it is essentially a tie in the polls between Romney and Santorum. But it is Santorum’s state to lose. His recent wave of attacks against contraception, health care and education, and his evergreen of anti-gay messages resonate with Southern voters.
If Romney on the other hand wins Tennessee it will be a tremendous boost to his street cred. The South has been a Republican stronghold for 50 years, with a big voting bloc of bible-thumping, liberal-hating conservatives. Winning a piece of that cake would be more than money could buy for Romney. Yet, winning with a very narrow margin would definitely water it all down a bit.


3. Ron Paul’s big moment?
There are a lot of votes to be taken in the Caucus states of Alaska, Idaho and North Dakota (87 delegates in total). Romney has done fairly well in caucuses so far, as has Ron Paul.
Ron Paul might be the dark horse here. He is the only candidate who has campaigned in Alaska, where there are a lot of Tea Partiers; a crowd largely in favor of Paul and Santorum. The same goes for North Dakota. Look for strong performances of the Paul campaign in both states. They are both pretty much up for grabs. Either could be his chance to net his first victory.
Idaho should go to Romney. One word: Mormons.


4. Just win, baby… or not.
After everything I have just told you, let me tell you this: it’s not really that important who wins in most of the states.
Winning has symbolic meaning most of the times, and it gets you air-time and softball questions from pundits. But what really matters is the hard count of delegates.
Being that most states are in Romney’s favor or really close with Romney in the top 2, it is already pretty much clear that he will be the big winner in the delegate count. He should easily get enough votes to pad his numbers and stay clearly in the lead ahead of Rick Santorum.


5. Viriginia FAIL
Just for fun watch out for Virginia. Voters in that state will have a very short list of candidates to choose from: it’s either Mitt Romney, or Ron Paul. Santorum, as well as Gingrich have failed to qualify for the ballot in Virginia. So it’s not a real contest (look for Romney to win quite handsomely), but it’s fun for everybody – expect for Rick and Newt.

People who know me have come to realize fairly quickly that my knowledge of economics comes down to close to nothing. Nada, zip, ziltch.

But I believe that this makes me a good advocate for learning about economics, since I find it an interesting subject regardless of my legendary lack of expertise.
So, I have decided to talk about simple economic issues on this blog. People who know about eco-nomics: please don’t be too hard on me. I really try to get the big picture.

The first topic I wanted to tackle is economic austerity. We live with the term and concept every day, with most of Europe in economic turmoil and shouts of an austerity czar being controversially discussed. In 2009, David Cameron called out the “Age of Austerity”, and in 2010 the time-honored Merriam-Webster dictionary made it its Word Of The Year. After reading headline after headline about austerity measures and the like, I have tried to understand what it entails.
So here’s my question in a nutshell: what is austerity in its foundations, and what principle guide it?

In principle, austerity measures are government policies to reduce the amount of money it spends. Deficits are cut, and a reduction of the amount of benefits and public services provided is sought. Austerity advocates don't just see lower deficits and reduced debt as tools to promote long-term economic health. They often consider them ends in themselves as moral values. Government spending is perceived as something inherently wrong. Of course most advocates of economic austerity will make concessions – police, firefighters, teachers, nurses, you get the picture. Still, the point is to reduce all government spending to a bare existential minimum.

The theories behind austerity measures are widely contested. These include theories like the 'Barro-Ricardo equivalence', which says people won't spend money when they know their government is incurring debts they will have to pay someday. Conservative economists like Robert Barro insist this is true especially in times of widespread unemployment, like now, and argue against stimulus spending to create jobs. Oddly, they find this theory more compelling than the idea that people aren't spending money because they don't have jobs. Many critics claim that this theory is not applicable in reality as government spending would have to be much higher to actually affect buyer behavior.
Then there's supply-side economics, which argues that the best way to grow the economy is by cutting taxes and creating smaller governments. Supply-sider theorists argue that people will stop investing, producing, and creating jobs if taxes are too high. This, I am pretty confident to say, is bullshit. Even Warren Buffett, the best of the best in the investment business, said that no investor will ever shy away from a deal even if taxes were sky-high.

So do austerity measures work in real economies? I would tend to say they do not. Austerity has been a disaster for Great Britain and Europe, yet many leaders are demanding more of the same. They are often ignoring the approaches that have worked in the past, as in the Great Depression: Invest in short-term growth which gets the work force back into employment, and then address long-term deficit issues once the economy is back on its feet.
Also a point that is often misinterpreted is that debt is not something inherently bad. You can’t compare a credit you take up to pay for your house with that of a national household. The same goes for the interpretation that a debt burden will have to be paid off by future generations. That is because, unlike private individuals, a nation will repay debts by borrowing new money. As for the interest burden that is said to arise when the interest is paid by taxation rather than by fresh borrowing, it is merely a transfer payment. Income is transferred from taxpayers to bond-holders. In Germany as in many European countries these bond-holders are domestic. The transfer is therefore a redistribution rather than a loss of income. Although this is obviously a model and is not always applicable as in the case of Greece, where most bond-holders are not domestic.

In this whole ordeal of austerity-mania, the disconcerting thing is that it is a mainly politically-driven phenomenon. Look back in time, and fifty years ago most economists would have already spoken out against austerity measures in economic depression due to their empirical findings during the Great Depression. But austerity has come back in the form of political doctrine, and to the detriment of millions of workers who are paying the price.

Die öffentliche Entrüstung ist zwar schon wieder vorbei, dennoch will ich an dieser Stelle kurz einige Zeilen zu den jüngst veröffentlichten Thesen von Erika Steinbach, CDU-Bundestagsabgeordnete und Präsidentin des Bund der Vertriebenen, loswerden.

Falls es jemand noch nicht gesehen hat, hier der meist zitiert Post:



Zunächst, auch wenn es wohl kaum mehr einer solchen bedarf, die Richtigstellung.
Ein kleiner Blick ins Geschichtsbuch bestätigt uns schon das, was alle wussten. Es ist natürlich völliger Blödsinn, was Erika Steinbach da von sich gibt. Zwar ist es richtig, dass die NSDAP einen sozialistischen Flügel unter Otto und Gregor Strasser hatte, der sich aber schon 1930 von der Partei löste. Grund hierfür: Hitler hatte kein Interesse daran, Sozialisten in der faschistischen NSDAP zu tolerieren. Er warf den Strasserianern vor, die Idee höher zu setzen als den Führer, was dem Führerprinzip des Nationalsozialismus widersprach.

Über ein Treffen zwischen den Strassers und Hitler schrieb der Historiker Fest:
„Als Strasser ihm nach bewegter Diskussion die Kardinalfrage stellte, ob im Falle einer Machtübernahme die Produktionsverhältnisse unverändert blieben, antwortete Hitler: ‚Aber selbstverständlich. Glauben Sie denn, ich bin wahnsinnig, die Wirtschaft zu zerstören? Nur wenn die Leute nicht im Interesse der Nation handeln würden, dann würde der Staat eingreifen. Dazu bedarf es aber keiner Enteignung und keines Mitbestimmungsrechtes‘.“
(Joachim Fest, „Hitler. Eine Biographie“, S. 392)

Am 4.Juli 1930 verließen die Sozialisten die NSDAP, hier im NS-Archiv nachzulesen: http://www.ns-archiv.de/nsdap/sozialisten/sozialisten-verlassen-nsdap.php


Die Frage, die sich mir aber aufdrängt ist folgende: Wie kann es eine CDU/CSU-Fraktion des Bundestages zulassen, dass immer wieder solche manchmal kruden, manchmal einfach dummen Äußerungen und Fehltritte an die Öffentlichkeit geraten? Erika Steinbach beweist ihre Rechts-Links-Schwäche. Ansgar Heveling erklärt in einem völligen Blackout in martialischem Ton der Internetgemeinde den Krieg. Alexander Dobrindt spricht von einem „Gang nach Karlsruhe“ um die Linkspartei zu verbieten. Und all das innerhalb von 4 Tagen. Und das während einer Zeit, in der der Bundespräsident aus der eigenen Partei mit seinen Fehltritten zu kämpfen hat. Die Partei kommt durch die Krisen – wirtschaftliche in Europa und die Fehltritte im Inland – bislang unbeschadet durch, aber die Disziplin kommt den Abgeordneten abhanden. Man darf gespannt sein, wer als nächstes aus den Reihen ausbricht, und wann das Maß für die Fraktion voll ist…

I’m calling it. Pack your bags, Newt! Mitt Romney will be the Republican Nominee. Not only because of the decisive win by Romney in the Sunshine State Florida, but because there are some lessons to be learnt from this contest. And from now on the whole game changes. Let me explain.

Lesson #1: It’s about the money, Lebowski!
Yes, Newt Gingrich has Sheldon Adelson behind him, a billionaire casino owner from Las Vegas, but this will do him no good. First off, because although it’s a lot of money ($10.000.000 by him alone) it’s not the kind of money you want as a campaigner. It’s always a bad idea to rely on the contributions of a few heavies.
In contrast, Mitt Romney is the establishment guy. With republican mastermind strategists Carl Fonti and Karl Rove backing him, his Super PAC went from 0 to $12 Mio. All in all, Mitt Romney is looking at $240 Mio. in support to defeat Obama in the general election. Plus, a very high percentage of millionaires in the US support Romney.
And it shows: Romney spent $15,3 Mio. in Florida alone to defeat Gingrich. To give you some orientation, John McCain spent $11 Mio. in his entire bid to become the nominee in 2008.
And don’t forget, Romney has a personal wealth of $202 Mio. just in case something might go wrong. So if money is any indication, the point clearly goes to Romney.

Lesson #2: Go negative!
According to The Daily Beast 92% of all ads by Mitt Romney in Florida were negative ads. And they stick: call Gringrich out on his hypocrisy on family values, on his ethics violations as Speaker of the House of Representatives, on being a lobbyist for Freddie Mac during the financial crisis, and the list continues.
In contrast, Mitt Romney remains Mister Teflon. And as so often, Gingrich went ballistic and threw the kitchen sink: in robocalls to voters in Florida and on the campaign trail he claimed that Romney wanted to force Holocaust survivors in nursery homes to eat non-Kosher food to save $5 a day. A serious allegation in a state with a large Jewish population and 1 in 4 voters being senior citizens. Yet, it didn’t stick. Gingrich has yet to find an effective and consistent way to attack and defeat Romney.

Lesson #3: Gingrich is coo-coo for CoCo Pops!
Now, this isn’t news. Gingrich is crazy, or as he would say: grandiose. But talking about colonizing the moon until the 2020 and making it a state with 13.000 inhabitants just may be a tad too crazy even for Republican voters. It was a sad attempt by Gingrich to convince voters that he believes strongly in American Exceptionalism, but he’s failed. All he did was convince people that it’s not the millionaire Romney who’s out of touch, but it’s Gingrich who lives behind the moon.

So what’s next? As I said, from now on the game changes, and there will be a different pace from the last month: over the next week caucuses will be held in Maine, Minnesota, Nevada and Colorado. Romney did very well in all these states in 2008. Especially in Nevada where there is a large Mormon voting bloc. Also keep in mind that Ron Paul has been heavily working on these caucus states. He traditionally fares quite well in caucuses, and he will definitely take away votes from Gingrich in these states. By then, Gingrich will have been streamrolled.
Then we have primaries in Michigan and Arizona. These are both states for Mitt Romney to take. In Michigan, his father George Romney served as Governor for 6 years. In Arizona, as in Nevada, there is a strong Mormon voter turnout.
In addition, there will not be any more debates for Newt Gingrich to gain momentum from.
So if you look at the picture for February, most of the momentum is going to Mitt Romney. In my estimation, Newt Gingrich hardly stands a chance to win a lot of delegates during the coming month.
And I’m about to call it: Romney will be the candidate for the Republican Party. I know a lot can happen in a month, but this is some heavy stuff. It’s time to pack your bags, Newt…

Ansgar Heveling, selbstproklamierter „geschichtsbewusster Politiker“ der CDU-Bundestagsfraktion, hat in einem Gastkommentar im Handelsblatt den Kampf gegen die „Netzgemeinschaft“ ausgerufen. Mit einer Mischung aus martialischer Kriegsrhetorik und unverständlichen ‚Herr der Ringe‘-Analogien zieht er ins Feld. Er konstatiert: „Die mediale Schlachtordnung der letzten Tage erweckt den Eindruck, wir seien im dritten Teil von ‚Der Herr der digitalen Ringe‘ angekommen, und der Endkampf um Mittelerde stehe bevor. Das ist die Gelegenheit, schon jetzt einen vorgezogenen Nachruf auf die Helden von Bits und Bytes, die Kämpfer für 0 und 1 zu formulieren. Denn, liebe ‚Netzgemeinde‘: Ihr werdet den Kampf verlieren. […] Auch die digitale Revolution wird ihre Kinder entlassen. Und das Web 2.0 wird bald Geschichte sein. Es stellt sich nur die Frage, wie viel digitales Blut bis dahin vergossen wird.“

Was genau uns Herr Heveling mit auf den Weg geben will ist nicht klar verständlich. Fest steht erstmal, dass er dagegen ist, und dass dieses Internet mit ihrer Digitalisierung nur eine Modeerscheinung sein kann. Doch es geht, so auch klar, um vielmehr. Es geht nämlich um den befürchteten Untergang des Bildungsbürgertums, ach was – des Bürgers überhaupt. Heveling redet vom ‚citoyen‘ der französischen Revolution, der das Idealbild des freien Menschen darstelle, selbstbestimmt und unabhängig von den bis 1789 herrschenden Klassen. Die Parole war allerdings nicht „Freiheit, Demokratie und Eigentum“, wie Heveling zitiert, sondern vielmehr ‚liberté, égalité, fraternité‘: ‚Freiheit, Gleichheit, Brüderlichkeit‘. Den so hochgelobten ‚citoyens‘ ging es gerade darum, den jahrhundertealten Begriff des Eigentums im Sinn der Besitzstandswahrung zu bekämpfen: Wenige haben viel, viele haben wenig. Es ging um einen Begriff, der in der französischen Revolution wie in der Netzgemeinde als hoch angesehen gilt: Um das gerechte Teilen, die Brüderlichkeit.

Der ‚geschichtsbewusste Politiker‘ interpretiert die Historie ein wenig eigenwillig, vielleicht auch eigennützig. Doch die Reaktionen im Netz – beispielsweise auf Twitter unter #HevelingFacts – zeigen: Wo gehobelt wird, da fallen Späne. Bloß dumm, wenn sie direkt in den Antrieb fallen.

Stellt sich zu guter Letzt nur die Frage, warum Herr Heveling Mitglied der Enquete-Kommission Internet und Digitale Gesellschaft ist. Dahin gehört er allem Anschein nach mit Sicherheit nicht.

Den Gastkommentar von Herrn Heveling findet ihr hier: http://www.handelsblatt.com/meinung/gastbeitraege/gastkommentar-netzgemeinde-ihr-werdet-den-kampf-verlieren/6127434.html

Die Empörung über Griechenland wird dieser Tage wieder groß sein. 50 Mrd. Euro wollte die griechische Regierung bis 2015 aus Privatisierungen erlösen. Für 2012 waren ganze elf Milliarden Euro eingeplant, die Jannis Koukiadis, Chef der griechischen Privatisierungsbehörde, nun auf "realistische" 4,7 Mrd. Euro zurechtgestutzt hat. "Auf gut Glück" wurden die Zahlen damals festgelegt, so Koukiadis in einem Fernsehinterview am Samstagabend.

Die Geschichte wiederholt sich und gerade Deutschland kann hier einen wertvollen Beitrag leisten, vor allem einen Beitrag wie man es nicht machen sollte.

Anfang der 1990er Jahre wurde die Treuhandanstalt (auch Treuhand, THA) mit der Privatisierung der Volkseigenen Betriebe der DDR beauftragt. Etwa 8.500 Betriebe mit über 4 Mio. Beschäftigen waren der THA bei ihrer Gründung unterstellt. Der damalige Chef der Treuhand, Detlef Karsten Rohwedder schätzte den Wert der Unternehmen auf etwa 600 Mrd. D-Mark. Was ist daraus geworden? Die Ende 1994 aufgelöste Anstalt konnte einschließlich der noch nicht gezahlten, aber vertraglich vereinbarten Beträge rund 60 Mrd. DM erlösen. Diesen Einnahmen standen Ausgaben von weit über 300 Mrd. DM gegenüber. Unter dem Strich blieb also ein dickes Minus.

Was kann Griechenland sowie die europäischen Partner daraus lernen? Die Privatisierung in der ehemaligen DDR wurde damals in einem schwierigen Marktumfeld realisiert. Die Märkte in Osteuropa und Russland brachen zusammen und fielen als traditionelle Abnehmer aus. Griechenlands größte Handelspartner sind heute, neben Deutschland, Italien, Zypern, Bulgarien und Großbritannien. Europa als Handelspartner schwächelt und droht auszufallen. Die Privatisierung durch die Treuhand wurde nur unzureichend geplant und kontrolliert. Zahlreiche gescheiterte Verkäufe und Betrugsfälle legen davon eindrucksvoll Zeugnis ab. In Griechenland scheint auch wieder nur der Faktor Zeit eine Rolle zu spielen, mangelnde Planung, Fachwissen und Kontrolle gefährden den Privatisierungserfolg.
Es kostet Zeit neue Handelspartner zu finden und diese Partnerschaften zu entwickeln. Nicht anders ist das bei der Planung und Kontrolle der Privatisierung.

Griechenland muss sich diese Zeit nehmen und die europäischen Partner, allen voran Deutschland, müssen sicherstellen, dass das Land diese Zeit hat. Sonst werden alle Beteiligten länger dafür bezahlen als ihnen lieb ist.