The retirement of California Supreme Court Chief Justice Ronald George reminded me of how difficult it is to be a centrist in government these days. George is a Republican who was appointed chief justice by a Republican governor. He is considered a centrist, however, and often was the swing vote on the court. To many people, usually those on the extreme right or extreme left, a centrist is wishy-washy and don't have convictions. In fact, a centrist do have convictions but he would look at each issue and judge its merit objectively. So sometimes a centrist would side with the liberals and sometimes he would side with conservatives. Of course the side he does not agree with may criticisize him. Add to that problem is the fact that 2 centrists may not agree on a particular issue. I consider myself a centrist and I disagree with George frequently. I do respect the fact that George looks at each issue carefully and rule according how he interprets the law. This is unlike conservatives and liberals whose decision on most issues are known to everybody before the argument begins.

Couple of examples of what a centrist may do. George was the deciding vote in California approving same-sex marriage in 2008. This infuriated conservatives. Subsequently propositon 8 overturned same-sex marriage and when the constitutionality of Prop. 8 came before the Supreme Court in 2009, George voted to uphold it. This infuriated the liberals even though 2 others who voted for same-sex marriage in 2008 also voted to upheld Prop. 8. He was the tie-breaking vote to overturn a state law requiring girls under 18 to obtain consent from a parent or a judge to have an abortion. This infuriated not only conservatives but also a centrist like me. While I think women have the right to abortion, I don't think a girl under 18 should make that decision herself. Right now a girl under 18 can't come to my office to get a pregnancy test without parent approval. I can't give her a shot without notifying a parent or guardian. So why would it be lawful for someone to give her an abortion without parental notification? This is surgery where there can be complications or even death of the girl. So I disagree with George on that. But I do respect George for his overall work and I would much rather have him deciding cases than someone like Clarence Thomas or Ruth Ginsburg because I know how they are going to vote before the case starts.

Obama finished the year with some much needed victories. Sure, he is still very vulnerable in 2012 especially if the economy does not keep improving and if the Republicans nominate a moderate. But if the economy improves significantly in the next two years (a big if), then he can point to the legislations that he pushed through in the past two years as the key. As I have said before, the next two years with the Congress split, nothing will get done. So the Republicans cannot claim that they did anything if things improve. Of course, if thing go bad, then they can and will blame Obama.

Let's face it, Obama has not shown great leadership. Not the Magic Negro some had coined him during 2008. He is at least partially responsible for the Democrats getting slaughtered in the election this year. But his fault is not able to communicate his stragies and ideas to the people, not lack of understanding of what needs to be done. The stimulus program and TARP were forced moves. If he had not done them, even if the economy is exactly the same today without them, he would be roundly criticized for not doing enough. Ironically some who say that the stimulus was socialist also say that his handling of the stimulus was too slow. You know what? China's stimulus plan worked much quicker because they don't have to worry about bureaucracy of a democracy. If they want to build a road, they just do it. No legislation to pass, no arguments. His foreign policies such as the Middle East negotiations and the START treaty are all supported by experienced diplomats including former Republican Secrataries of States. Getting rid of "Don't ask, don't tell" , increased college financial aid, financial service reforms, consumer credit card protection laws are all Democratic agenda so a lot of people may not like them. But most people would understand that it is a job of a Democratic president to push them through and he did that.

Two legislations that hurt him was Healtcare reform and the extension of Bush tax cut. Healtcare reform gives his opponents an opportunity to call him a socialist. Healthcare is not an immediate crisis for overwhelming majority of the people so reform in a bad economy is going to be unpoplar. But Obama knew that we have to tackle it. My own insurance has doubled in four years and has increased again this month and I have not had a significant illness (knock on wood). So eventually the majority will feel the pain that a small minority feel today. Skyrocketing healthcare cost will also make our businesses less competitive. So Obama was right to tackle it. I don't like parts of the reform but it is a start. The problem for Obama is that both the right and left don't like parts of it and blame him, which I don't think it is fair.

The Bush tax cut extension with extending unemployment benefits and decreasing estate taxes is another legislation that both the left and right blame Obama. But again if he does not compromise then both sides will yell at him also. So it is a no win but I don't blame Obama. By the way if tax cuts are so essential for the economy, how come the economy went down after we had the tax cut? The truth is, nobody knows how a tax cut or increase will ultimately affect the economy. It doesn't matter who is the president, they use the same economists and Federal Reserve Chairman anyway.

Which brings the conclusion. Obama has not shown great leadership so far. But he has tried to do what he can. He is not better than Bush when it comes to the economy. But he has not make the horrible mistake of sending troops to Iraq. He got a lot of what he wanted to do done in the first two years. He will not get much done in the next two years with the new Congress. Whether he will be re-elected depends on the economy and if there is any more terrorist attacks, two thing probably beyond his control.

There was an article in the LA Times today about Newt Gingrich's possible run for the presidency in 2012. You have got to be kidding. This is the guy who is on his third marriage, having got rid of his first wife while she was very ill in the hospital. And of course he claims to be for family value! He was known for leading the Republicans to victory in the Congressional election of 1994. But he had to leave after the Republicans suffered big setbacks in 1998. I think with all the problems Obama is having, he would welcome Gingrich to be the Republican nominee. Frankly I think Romney has the best chance to beat Obama in a general election. I think Obama would like the Tea Party people to run Palin in opposition, split the party and maybe end up with Palin or Gingrich as the nominee. Also since Michael Steele wants another term as the head of the Republican party, this will be also split the party. So unless the Republicans can get their act together or the economy gets worse, I like Obama's chances despite his weakness in this year's election.

What is with all the crying from John Boehner? I am not against man crying. I cry if I get emotional. But why does he cry so often? He cried when he talked about his poor upbringing. A lot of people grew up poor and did great things and they don't get all emotional about it. Can you imagine if Obama cries on stage talking about growing up without a father and being a minority wherever he lived? The Republicans would call him weak and unfit to be president. Remember Saturday Night Live made fun of Pat Shroeder when she cried? I am waiting for the skit of John Boehner soon.

As all you faithful readers may remember, last year I amazingly predicted that Big Ten teams would go 4-3 in the bowl season. This easily defeated the LA Times college reporter who predicted that the Big Ten would go 0-7. While one of you thought that I should have gotten all the games correctly, I say that it is the total number of wins that matter. So I am back to do the 4 F's, ie the fantastic, fearless football forecast.

Before I start, I must mention that Mich State got robbed by not getting to the Rose Bowl. I understand the voters and computers may think that Wisconsin and Ohio State are better, but in head to head to head competition, MSU wins 1-0 vs 1-1 for Wisconsin and 0-1 for Ohio State. It is not MSU's fault that they don't play Ohio State, so I think using the BCS to decide is unfair.

This year I am pessimistic about the Big Ten's chances. I don't like most of the matchups and I think they can easily go 0-7. Of course with parity now, they can also go 7-0. I will predict that they will go 3-4 with a lot of close game. Here are the individual game predictions:

1. Missouri over Iowa. Iowa collapsed at the end so I will give MO a slight edge.
2. Illinois over Baylor. Illinois is no good and they are playing in Texas, but Baylor hasn't gone a bowl game in 1000 years I think, so they will choke.
3. Texas Tech over Northwestern. The real prediction here is that the total number of points of the game will be over 80, over 100 if they go into OT.
4. Alabama over MSU. MSU should have been in the Rose Bowl but they actually got the toughest opponent for all the Big Ten teams. Alabama should have beat Auburn so I don't think MSU has much of a chance here.
5. Florida over Penn State. Florida missed Tebow badly but they don't need a good qb against Penn State. Paterno is over the hill.
6. Miss. State over Michigan. Michigan can't beat any good team with the defense they got. At least this will give their 3 freshmen dbs a chance to play more.
7. Wisconsin over TCU. Wisconsin is on a roll and I don't think that TCU is as good as Boise State although that does not matter.
8. Ohio State over Arkansas. Ohio State already faced Ryan Mallet before when he was at Michigan so they won't be afraid of him.

So I will comment on the results after the Sugar Bowl.

The WikiLeaks memos is not a disaster. In fact I think it strengthens the U.S. positions in many international issues. It is true that the memos may put some people in danger, like freedom fighters in Iran. It is also incredible that a pfc can have access to so many secret information. We have to do a much better job of keeping information out of people who have no business having access to them. But so far the leaks are not so damaging overall.

For example it is now revealed that Saudi Arabia and other Arab countries are frightened by Iran. So they don't want Iran to have nuclear weapons either. So there will be no consequences in the Arab world if the U.S. or Israel decide to take out Iran's nuclear facilities. It may also give Iran pause to know how isolated they are in the world. The revelation that China may not be upset if North Korea is absorbed by South Korea may not be the whole truth. But the fact that China has not gone out of its way to deny it, shows that there is a grain of truth in it. This should also give Kim Jong Il pause.

Julian Assange claims that Hillary Clinton should resign because State department employees had been ordered to gather confidential information on foreign dignitaries. This is the worst indictment of our diplomats? The fact that our diplomats had unkind words about foreign leaders comes as no surprise. I am sure they say the same thing about our leaders. Imagine what they say about Bush and Cheney! Spying on each other is part of the diplomatic game. What these leaks have not shown, as least so far, is that the U.S. has engaged in double talks with allies and enemies. There is no evidence of the U.S. planning to use force to get what we want. So to me these leaks won't hurt, and possibly help, our image on the international stage. The only thing that we need to demonstrate is improving our ability to prevent leaks!