2012 Presidential election – Page 6

Dossier: Rick Perry

Political resume: Rick Perry has been involved in Texas electoral politics since 1984, when he was elected to their House of Representatives (as a Democrat.) He served three terms there before switching parties and winning his first statewide election in 1990 to become the state’s Agriculture Commissioner. There he served two terms before seeking the Lieutenant Governor’s chair in 1998, which he won as second banana to then-Governor George W. Bush. Once Bush became President, Perry became the new governor on December 21, 2000. He has served there since, winning elections in 2002, 2006, and 2010 to become the nation’s longest-tenured governor. Once Perry announced his Presidential bid on August 13, he shot to the top of the GOP sweepstakes – his current RealClearPolitics.com polling average is 29.2 percent, as he ranges from 23% to 36% in various polls they average.

On campaign finance/election reform (three points): While Rick is chastised by others for “crony capitalism” (more on that later) it appears he’s taking advantage of the open system we have now, and that’s fine as long as they’re up front about it. More to the point, he just signed a solid new voter ID law in Texas, so he gets three points.

On property rights (five points): While Rick heads a state which gets a good grade on the subject of eminent domain abuse, the process behind constructing the Trans-Texas Corridor gives me pause. As you’ll see later, this portion of his agenda may explain some other points of view, so I’ll give Rick just three points.

On the Second Amendment (seven points): Rick has been a gun owner-friendly governor, so I see no reason why he would change in Washington. Seven points.

On education (eight points): While Rick doesn’t overtly state this, the fact that he didn’t take “Race to the Top” money because he didn’t want federal control over Texas schools tells me he doesn’t have a lot of use for the Department of Education. I’ll give him seven points here.

On the Long War/veterans affairs (nine points): Unfortunately, Perry (as a governor) doesn’t have a lot of foreign policy experience and I find his shifting positions on Iraq and Afghanistan a bit troubling. But as an Air Force veteran, he’s prone to saying “there is no other state that takes care of its veterans better than the state of Texas.” So he should be a good president for veterans, and I’ll grant him five points based mostly on that.

On immigration (eleven points): Like most of his opponents, Perry is an advocate of securing the borders, but doesn’t want to commit to any sort of immigration policy until that’s done. My biggest issue with Perry is the Texas DREAM Act, which he signed way back in 2001 and still supports, despite other border state governors calling on him to repeal it. I didn’t spend time this summer trying to get a petition signed and supported to have someone who favors a bill elected. I’m deducting five points.

On energy independence (twelve points): I really wish that, as a governor of an oil and gas producing state, Rick would be a little more specific on this subject – he doesn’t even point to this as a job creator on his campaign site. Yes, he’s told the EPA where to go, but I want a little more assurance than I got here. And when he gets mealy-mouthed to Iowa corn farmers, again, I don’t know how sincere he’s being. I’ll give him just five points here.

On entitlements (thirteen points): We’ve all heard that Perry (correctly, I might add) called Social Security a ‘Ponzi scheme.’ But even better, Perry pisses off the establishment by wishing to dismantle the entitlement system. Good for him, because he’s right on the money – so don’t back away! That step back cost him one of the thirteen points. And I didn’t even mention he’d repeal Obamacare.

On trade and job creation (fourteen points): Okay, based on the record Rick has this category licked. He doesn’t fail to point out how Texas led the nation in job creation. He is also on record as wishing to be a “tough trader,” although he’s supported free trade agreements, almost to a fault (see Trans-Texas Corridor above.) Yet the Club for Growth has a point: he’s inherited a good situation with a favorable legislative climate. Will he do as well in Washington? I’ll give him 11 points.

On taxation and the role of government (fifteen points): Perry has a decent record at the state level, but I’m troubled a bit that he’s also retreating from a call in his book to scrap the current system and move to a flat tax or (preferably) the FairTax. The problem is that he’s right but may not have the guts to carry out his ideas to reduce government, and can occasionally wander into an area best left to parents. He gets eleven points.

Intangibles (three points): Rick Perry is solidly pro-life, and favors marriage between one man and woman. Again, though, he favors the Constitutional route rather than advocating states decide the right way. He’s also a supporter of Israel, so that’s a plus. But there’s an intangible that I haven’t run across with any other candidate and that’s how little issue information he shares on his website. If someone wants to know about him besides the platitudes he’s got, they have to dig deep. And as he’s walked back some of his positions it makes me question his sincerity – remember, he wasn’t going to run for President but then decided to. Was that a ploy? In all, this category is a wash.

Continue reading “Dossier: Rick Perry”

Dossier: Mitt Romney

Political resume: While his father George was a political figure in his own right, making a 1968 Presidential bid as governor of Michigan, Mitt didn’t try for office until 1994 when he ran for the U.S. Senate in Massachusetts against Ted Kennedy. After losing that race, Mitt stayed on the political sidelines until 2002 when he ran for governor of Massachusetts, winning with 50 percent of the vote. He opted not to run for re-election, however, in order to run for president in 2008. This is Romney’s second try for the Oval Office; he formally announced on June 2nd after beginning his exploratory committee in April. RealClearPolitics.com has him second overall in polling; he has regularly drawn around 15 to 20 percent of the vote and was the frontrunner before Rick Perry entered the race.

On campaign finance/election reform (three points): Apparently Mitt has had a change of heart on the campaign finance issue. While he’s come around to the right side, I don’t know how sincere he is on the subject so I’ll not give him any points.

On private property rights (five points): While Mitt “believes the Kelo property rights case was wrongly decided,” Massachusetts still ranks among the worst states for eminent domain abuse. So I’ll only give him three points.

On the Second Amendment (seven points): A National Review piece which was critical of Newt Gingrich also questioned Romney‘s gun record. Because it’s somewhat mixed I can only give him four points.

On education (eight points): While Romney supports school choice and home schooling, he’s backed away from supporting the demise of the Department of Education after once supporting its elimination. Supposedly it dampens the influence of the teachers’ unions, but I find that laughable. I can only give Mitt two points.

On the Long War/veterans affairs (nine points): Mitt seems to tie this issue together as a general foreign policy platform. But he’s certainly wavering on Afghanistan, and that worries me. I think he only deserves three points.

On immigration (eleven points): While Romney doesn’t address the issue directly on his website, this “unofficial” website makes him look downright hawkish. It’s mainly based on his 2008 statements, but I don’t think he’s flipped much on this. It’s his strongest area so far, and he’ll get nine points.

On energy independence (twelve points): Mitt shrewdly addresses energy independence in his “job creation” category. But terms like “government must be a partner,” “facilitate,” and “address market failures” don’t convince he wants a conservative, small-government solution. We see what kind of “partner” government has become, and it’s not government’s job to interfere with the market. And believing climate change is caused by mankind is a nonstarter. I’m deducting three points.

On entitlements (thirteen points): The problem with Mitt is that this sounds reasonably good but it belies his record as governor of Massachusetts. And I don’t want to reform entitlements, but set our nation on the path to eliminate them entirely. Since Romneycare was his idea, I’m tempted to dock him again; instead I’ll give him three points for saying nice things.

On trade and job creation (fourteen points): Well, I wanted details and I got them, 87 pages worth. And while I think Mitt needs to lower the corporate tax rate below 25 percent, the economic policy he lays out is worthy of exploration, particular the concepts of “Reagan Economic Zones” and cutting unions off at the knees by not allowing dues deducted from paychecks to be used for political purposes. Overall, I’d give him 12 points.

On taxation and the role of government (fifteen points): While Mitt is to commended for his ideas for job creation, he fails to address the individual tax burden in his jobs plan aside from a few paragraphs. Certainly the call for lower rates is fine, but that’s not the sort of reform he promises elsewhere. I can be better convinced he’ll restore government to its rightful place if he gets more bold on individual tax policy, as it stands I can only give him seven points.

Intangibles (up to three points): Romney claims to be pro-life and supports marriage between a man and woman. Unfortunately, he goes too far with the latter and wants a Constitutional amendment. My other intangible on Romney is that he has flip-flopped on positions far too often, generally for political expediency. Can he be trusted to do what he says? As such, I give him no points in this category.

Continue reading “Dossier: Mitt Romney”

Dossier: Ron Paul

Political resume: Ron Paul has a long history of seeking elective office. In 1974, Ron lost his first Congressional bid but won an April, 1976 special election in the same district. He only served a few months before losing the general election later that year. Undaunted, Ron ran again and won in 1978 and served in Congress through the 1984 election when he chose to run for the U.S. Senate, losing in the primary.

Four years later, in 1988, Ron ran for President for the first time on the Libertarian Party ticket and received 1/2 of 1% of the vote, which translated to over 400,000 votes nationally.

In 1996, Paul opted to run again for a Congressional seat, returning to the Republican fold. He won that year and has served there since, although he will abandon the seat for 2012. Finally, Paul made his second presidential bid in 2008, raising millions of dollars but getting only a small percentage of the overall vote. This time around RealClearPolitics.com has consistently shown him polling just under 10% of the vote, placing him a respectable fourth overall and third among announced candidates.

On campaign finance/election reform (three points): Ron has made all the right votes on campaign finance and has maintained his position throughout. Since he’s currently serving in Congress, I’m giving him three points.

On private property rights (five points): Ron is an odd case. His voting record would suggest he supports private property rights, but in looking up Gary Johnson I saw that Paul supported the Kelo decision. I can only give him two points based on voting record.

On the Second Amendment (seven points): I would have expected this from Paul – he votes the right way and gets high GOA marks (an A+) so he’ll get seven points.

On education (eight points): By and large Ron has a view that wishes the federal government out of the educational realm. But he supports tax credits for Christian schooling, and that’s choosing a winner so he gets only six points.

On the Long War/veterans affairs (nine points): This area killed Ron’s chances with me in 2008, so let me say straight out that I don’t agree with Paul’s isolationism. Maybe that stance isn’t so bad, but his defense of Iran getting nukes is just batshit crazy. Yet Ron does have some redeeming qualities that fall under the category of veterans’ affairs, so I’ll be kind to him and dock him six points instead of all nine.

On immigration (eleven points): Paul’s stance on immigration is odd because Numbers USA gives him poor marks yet what he says on his page makes some sense, and it’s borne out by his voting record. So I’ll give him six points.

On energy independence (twelve points): Ron has an energy policy I can agree with aside from one glaring exception. In Paul’s case, it’s those tax credits for purchase and production of alternative energy technologies, which belie the case he states that, “(t)he free market – not government – is the solution to America’s energy needs.” And his voting record is spotty because Ron skipped a lot of key votes. But since the rest of the ideas are sound and he didn’t make a commercial with San Fran Nan like Newt Gingrich did, I’ll give him nine points.

On entitlements (thirteen points): You know, I thought Ron would go farther in health care, But abolishing Social Security – that’s a winner in my book. Let’s hope he hasn’t changed his mind – he gets 12 points.

On trade and job creation (fourteen points): Ron is a free trader, almost to a fault. But in terms of job creation, Ron has the reputation of being anti-regulation, which is a plus. Also, Ron is the lone candidate who takes on the unions and advocates a national right-to-work law. Now that would create jobs in some benighted areas, although it would perhaps erode Tenth Amendment rights. On the whole, despite the fact he doesn’t really have a specific plan, I trust him on this issue and think he deserves thirteen points.

On taxation and the role of government (fifteen points): There is one sentence on Paul’s site which says it all: “Restraining federal spending by enforcing the Constitution’s strict limits on the federal government’s power would help result in a 0% income tax rate for Americans.” Paul is also correct in advocating for a repeal of the Sixteenth Amendment prior to adopting a flat or FairTax. The only quibble I have is that Ron advocates for certain writeoffs and deductions, which make a flat tax more difficult to achieve. He gets 14 of 15 points in this category.

Intangibles (up to three points): It appears to me that Paul is pro-life, which is a plus, and he has it just right on marriage. I also believe he would appoint proper judicially restrained judges moreso than most others. Aside from being naive about Islamofascism, I like Ron’s stance on foreign policy in general, including Israel. But I have to deduct a point based on his age – at 76, I have to believe his health may be a factor. He will net two points.

Continue reading “Dossier: Ron Paul”

Dossier: Michele Bachmann

Political resume: Michele was elected to the Minnesota State Senate in 2000, serving three two-year terms before seeking and winning the Minnesota 6th District U.S. House seat she currently holds in 2006. She announced her Presidential bid during a candidates debate on June 13. RealClearPolitics.com has her pegged as fifth among nine Republican Presidential candidates; however, she has lost significant ground since the entry of Rick Perry into the race and polls about 7 percent.

On campaign finance/election reform (three points): Michele has a limited voting record and comments on the issue, but her positions are fine so I’ll kick her off with one point of three.

On property rights (five points): Bachmann cited Fifth Amendment rights in castigating the BP settlement. I think she knows government’s place in this regard, so I’m giving her four of five points.

On the Second Amendment (seven points): On Second Amendment issues, Michele gets high marks from both of the two main gun lobbying groups (Gun Owners of America and National Rifle Association) and applauded recent Supreme Court decisions upholding the Second Amendment. She gets the seven points.

On education (eight points): Michele’s voting record on the issue is spotty, so while she wants to abolish the Department of Education, I found a little bit of fault with some of her votes. I’m giving her six of eight points.

On the Long War/veterans affairs (nine points): I like what Michele has to say about national security. And while veterans groups gripe about this proposal, it makes sense to avoid double-dipping, at least for the time being. I’m giving eight of nine points.

On immigration (eleven points): She has the right idea about securing the borders on her campaign site, but Bachmann goes no further as to how. Enforcement of existing law would be a good start, though. The anti-immigration group Numbers USA ranks her highest among GOP candidates, and while I don’t completely agree with their overall stance on the issue it’s a good indicator she’ll do what’s right for Americans. I’ll give her nine points.

On energy independence (twelve points): She does a nice job of stating the problem, but Bachmann would do well toexpand her palette of solutions. Indeed, government needs to get out of the way but maybe I’d like a little more. Her voting record is solid, though, so I’ll give her ten points.

On entitlements (thirteen points): Michele has as her “number one priority” to repeal Obamacare, and decries the “entitlement mentality” many Americans have. She advocated “reform” before she got into the Presidential race, and what she said is a pretty good start. Yet when Rick Perry called Social Security a ‘Ponzi scheme’ she was quick to call him out on it, so I don’t know if her heart would be into reforming that dying program. Six points.

On trade and job creation (fourteen points): Like many of her counterparts, Michele is a free trader. But she differs in that she doesn’t have a specific pro-growth plan yet, aside from the boilerplate reduction of regulations and government. This hurts her because she’s already got a reputation as more of a generalist than a policy wonk. I can only give her seven points in this vital category.

On taxation and the role of government (fifteen points): It’s ironic that Michele once worked for the IRS but has called for a fairer, simpler, and flatter tax system where everyone pays a little bit. To me, that actually makes sense – isn’t the idea to have everyone with a little “skin in the game”? And Michele is on target with the general critique of “crony capitalism,” I just wish she’d point out more examples of Obama doing this than Rick Perry. She has also expressed support for the FairTax but hasn’t taken the steps to back it. While she’s a TEA Party darling, I’m not sure she’s shown the bold leadership we need so I’ll give her only 12 of 15 points.

Intangibles (up to three points): Michele signed the Family Leader Pledge, which is a mixed bag: it shows she’s pro-life and for marriage between one man and one woman, but calls for its enshrinement in the Constitution, which I don’t agree with. However, she’s also a reliable supporter of Israel so I can give her a point for that. But the verbal gaffes! They are a problem, and it makes me wonder if she always thinks before she speaks. Yes, I know many candidates make them but she seems to be more susceptible and the press is quick to call her out on them. As such, she’ll net one point here.

Continue reading “Dossier: Michele Bachmann”

Dossier: Newt Gingrich

Political resume: After two unsuccessful tries in 1974 and 1976, Gingrich won a Congressional seat from Georgia and maintained it (with one move due to a 1990 redistricting) for ten terms. Despite winning an eleventh term earlier that month, he resigned as both Speaker of the House (a post which he served from 1995) and his Congressional seat in November 1998. Newt is also credited with the concept of the “Contract With America,” a platform which made him speaker once over 50 new Republicans were elected to the House in 1994. Newt formed an unofficial exploratory committee for 2012 on March 3rd, formally entering the race May 11. RealClearPolitics.com ranks Gingrich sixth of nine major contenders, but his support has steadily eroded from being a frontrunner to around 4 percent.

On campaign finance/election reform (three points): While serving in the House, Newt had a solid voting record on campaign finance so I’m giving him two points. I don’t think his positions have softened, but haven’t heard the bold sort of statement on the subject that others have made out of him.

On property rights (five points): Overturning the Kelo decision would be a good start on Gingrich‘s agenda, and I can give him all five points for that and defending property rights while in Congress.

On the Second Amendment (seven points): “It’s not in defense of hunting, it’s not in defense of target shooting or collecting. The Second Amendment is defense of freedom from the state.” So said Newt, and he tended to vote that way while in Congress. But there is something in this piece that gives me pause, so I’m only giving him six of seven points.

On education (eight points): Gingrich touches on education in a minor way on his website, but the person who now talks about abolishing the Department of Education voted for its very creation. And in 2009 he was only too happy to join Al Sharpton on a tour to “highlight the Obama administration’s efforts to reform public education.” I think he’d like to continue the federal framework which needs to be abolished, and that’s not a solution I believe in. I’m giving him no points because I don’t think he stands with me on this.

On the Long War/veterans affairs (nine points): Generally, Newt has a pretty good idea of what we need to enhance our national security and win the Long War, so I’m giving him eight points.

On immigration (eleven points): It’s telling that, aside from the usual mantra of “secure our borders,” Newt doesn’t talk about immigration on his campaign site. Maybe it’s because he’s pandering to the so-called Latino vote? I can only give him two points, and that’s in part credit for some past votes. He may think differently now.

On energy independence (twelve points): Gingrich and his “American Energy Plan” is solid, except for one flaw: he wants to use oil and gas royalties to “finance cleaner energy research.” While I like the introduction of “loser pays” on environmental lawsuits into the discussion, the idea that we should give research grants out like candy and pick winners and losers via government rubs me the wrong way. Because of that philosophical difference and his commercial with Nancy Pelosi, he gets downgraded slightly to seven points.

On entitlements (thirteen points): I have a big problem with some of Newt‘s so-called solutions because they begin with the argument that the current Medicare/Medicaid model just needs to be tweaked, with government remaining firmly in control. It’s the replacement of Obamacare he calls for rather than a repeal. I don’t buy it as “fundamental reform.” And this from the guy who got welfare reform passed? His record on Social Security is a start, but doesn’t go far enough. He gets only three points.

On trade and job creation (fourteen points): Newt is an advocate of free trade, which is a plus because it creates offshore markets. He also has a broad plan for job creation which keys on tax reform along with streamlining regulations, which I’ll return to in a moment. Generally I have given candidates who exhibit these traits nine points, but Newt goes a step further in that he’d like to return to Reagan-era monetary policies. So he gets ten points.

On taxation and the role of government (fifteen points): To put it mildly, Newt is an enigma. Just look at his economic plan: he cheers me to some extent by advocating a flat 15 percent tax, but only makes it optional. He’d like to repeal Obamacare – but replace it with something else. Same goes for the EPA, which he would like to replace with an “Environmental Solutions Agency.” The problem with reform and replace is that eventually the same old problems creep up again, and I’ve already noted before that Newt is big on federal solutions to problems – I guess one can expect that from a Beltway insider. He has the ability to think outside the box, but doesn’t use it anymore and that’s extremely disappointing. Four points.

Intangibles (up to three points): We know that Newt has a marriage problem, which isn’t necessarily a strike against him in my eyes but could be to many others. On the other hand, he is pro-life. So these two cancel each other out. He’s also made it clear that he would appoint strict constitutionalist jurists, which adds a point since not all candidates state this up front. Newt nets one point.

Continue reading “Dossier: Newt Gingrich”

Dossier: Herman Cain

Political resume: Cain has run for President before, back in 2000. More recently, he ran to be a U.S. Senator from Georgia in 2004 and placed second in a three-person primary. He announced his exploratory committee on January 12, 2011, becoming one of the first to officially enter the fray, and made it official May 21. Currently according to RealClearPolitics.com he polls in seventh place of the top nine who get one percent or more in the polls, sixth among declared candidates. His poll numbers have slowly declined over the last few weeks, though.

On campaign finance/election reform (three points): Cain noted in Politico that “civil rights groups encourage voter fraud by opposing voter identification bills…all they’re trying to do is protect the voter fraud they know is going on.” He’s got the right idea so I’m giving him all three points.

On property rights (five points): He hasn’t said much on the subject yet, and aside from a brief mention of property seizure portions of the Dodd-Frank financial reform bill on his issues page, there’s not much to go on. I’ll give him one point.

On the Second Amendment (seven points): Herman says he’s in favor of the Second Amendment, but a recent interview made people wonder if he was placing the issue too far into the lap of the states. I’m not quite sure what he means either, so I’m only going to give him four points. I think he’s on the right side, but I certainly don’t want a liberal state like Maryland overriding the clear language and intent of the Second Amendment.

On education (eight points): While Cain wants to “unbundle” the federal government from education and has a number of valid ideas about accountability and school choice, the one thing holding him back is not openly advocating for the elimination of the Department of Education – that’s a necessary component in my book. Six points.

On the Long War/veterans affairs (nine points): Herman isn’t all that specific on the issue, but sounds a good tone on Afghanistan. Still, I can’t give him more than six of nine points.

On immigration (eleven points): Cain promises to “secure our borders, enforce our laws, and promote the existing path to citizenship.” That’s all well and good, but more detail would be helpful. Assisting his cause is that he stood foursquare against amnesty. I think he’ll get nine points.

On energy independence (twelve points): He seems to be an advocate for free-market solutions, and that’s precisely what we need. Key among his statements is that private industry needs to take the lead on alternative energy, which shows a good understanding of government’s role. Again, I’d like a little more specifics on the solution, which keeps Cain from hitting all twelve points – he gets eleven.

On entitlements (thirteen points): He starts down the right road, but doesn’t go all the way down it. Moreover, he advocates more tinkering with the tax code and that conflicts with some of his other positions. Nevertheless, Cain has the right ideas about who should be the safety net, though, so I’ll give him nine points.

On trade and job creation (fourteen points): The problem with this category for Cain is that it intersects so greatly with the next category because the linchpin of his job creation strategy is to lower taxes. So I’ll give him nine points here because he’s a relative free trader and wants to cut business taxes and regulation to stimulate the economy.

On taxation and the role of government (fifteen points): Here is where Cain shines most, as he’s devised what he calls the 999 Plan. It would cut business taxes to a flat 9 percent rate, cut individual income taxes to (you guessed it) a 9% rate, and finally begin the changeover to a system we’ve long been crying out for – a modest consumption-based tax of nine percent. The eventual goal is a full transition to the FairTax. The only quibble I have with Cain’s plan is the use of what he calls “empowerment zones” – unfortunately the government picks winners and losers there and that’s not right. He still gets 14 points.

Intangibles (up to three points): While Herman has stated he’s pro-life, believes in traditional marriage, and stands with Israel it’s tempered by his support for maintaining an outmoded affirmative action program. He still nets two points.

Continue reading “Dossier: Herman Cain”

Dossier: Rick Santorum

Political resume: Santorum was elected to the House of Representatives in Pennsylvania’s 18th District in 1990, serving two terms before moving up to the U.S. Senate in 1994. He won re-election in 2000 but lost badly in 2006. According to RealClearPolitics.com Rick averages 2.6% in recent polls, placing him eighth out of nine. However, his support has increased in recent weeks.

On campaign finance/election reform (three points): He made mostly correct votes on this subject while in the Senate, and has a long enough body of work that I’m comfortable giving him two points.

On property rights (five points): Back in 2005 Rick termed the Kelo decision as “undermining people’s fundamental rights to property.” I think he gets it, so I’ll give him the five points.

On the Second Amendment (seven points): With perhaps one or two exceptions, he has a good gun record so I’ll give him six points.

On education (eight points): He may be coming around to sell himself to conservatives, but Rick’s recent call to eliminate the Department of Education comes on the heels of a voting record too enamored with federal control. He only gets two points for his efforts.

On the Long War/veterans affairs (nine points): While it’s not very detailed in scope, his policy page and this statement would lead me to believe he’d make the right decisions on the Long War. I grant him seven points.

On immigration (eleven points): He ignores the issue on his website, but his impassioned plea against amnesty in 2006 should count for something. I’ll count it as five points.

On energy independence (twelve points): Rick sees energy independence as a job creation issue. But he favors the “all of the above” approach generally held by Republicans and correctly states we should “put aside our dreams of ‘green jobs.’” The voting record isn’t bad, although I do object to one vote in particular. So I’ll grant him seven points.

On entitlements (thirteen points): His vision of entitlements is to “reform” and not eliminate. He’s absolutely right when he says the entitlement ‘addiction’ is bad for the country, but doesn’t go far enough to end it. We need more like cold turkey for the younger generation – including myself. He gets seven points.

On trade and job creation (fourteen points): Rick has come up with a common sense plan to get America’s economy moving again, with an emphasis on manufacturing. But there’s a fly in the ointment given Santorum isn’t always a free trade advocate. Still, he has some good concepts and they’re worth about eleven points.

On the role of government (fifteen points): If you look at what he states and the record, one could conclude Rick is in favor of low taxes. But those lower rates assume an extension of the current system, and the fact he sought to tinker with the code to promote a certain behavior makes me wonder how serious he would be about truly reforming the system as a whole. It’s a problem I haven’t seen him reconcile to my satisfaction, so I’m only giving him five points here.

Intangibles (up to three points): Rick covers the social conservative bases of being pro-life and for marriage between a man and a woman. But he takes the marriage aspect to the extent of wanting a Constitutional amendment, and I think that goes too far. He’s also been a flip-flopper on ethanol subsidies, which is a non-starter with me. Yet he also supports Israel, so he’s pretty much a wash in this category.

Continue reading “Dossier: Rick Santorum”

Dossier: Jon Huntsman

Political resume: Huntsman has worked with presidents from Reagan to Obama (except for Bill Clinton,) most notably as Ambassador to Singapore from 1992-93 and to China from 2009-11. In between, Jon was elected as Governor of Utah in 2004 and won re-election in 2008. He served until accepting the China post in August, 2009. He formally entered the race on June 21, about two months after resigning as Ambassador to China.

Poll standing: According to RealClearPolitics.com Huntsman currently polls ninth in the race (eighth among declared candidates) at 1.3 percent. He’s the lowest among candidates who qualify for listing by polling one percent or more.

On campaign finance/election reform (three points): Huntsman signed a decent voter-ID law as governor of Utah, so that’s a step in the right direction. But he also signed a bill allowing online voter registration, which wiped out some of that goodwill. Some things are too important to do online. So he gets just one point.

On property rights (five points): He was ahead of the curve on Kelo and advocated for American companies regarding intellectual property rights while Ambassador to China. My only knock is whether he was leading or following in his capacity, so I’ll give him four points.

On the Second Amendment (seven points): As governor of Utah, Jon had a good Second Amendment record, like this pair of bills. He gets all seven points.

On education (eight points): Huntsman has a mixed record on education, supporting school vouchers but not advocating for less federal involvement otherwise. I’m not convinced he’d be a leader on this issue so I’m giving him only two points.

On the Long War/veterans affairs (nine points): I’m not quite sure where Jon wants to go in the Long War or with national security in general. One problem is that he wants to cut Afghan troops faster than even Obama would. But he’s correct on Libya so I’ll grant him two points.

On immigration (eleven points): Normally I’m a pretty good state’s rights guy, but should we push border security onto the states as he advocates? The problem with that is California’s version of a “secure” border may not be as tight as Arizona’s. Nor does he address what to do with the illegals who are here; perhaps because he supports the DREAM Act. I’m deducting three points.

On energy independence (twelve points): “Until we put a value on carbon, we’re never going to be able to get serious with dealing with climate change longer term.” Uh, no. First of all, mankind has little to do with climate change and second of all carbon credits are just a scam for wealth redistribution. If you really believe this – and past history suggests you do – then you’re not the man for the job. I’m taking off all 12 points.

On entitlements (thirteen points): Huntsman hints at the idea of using states as laboratories, calls Obamacare ‘top-heavy,’ and likes the Ryan Medicare plan. But I’m troubled that he’s ‘comfortable‘ with a mandate. I’m not sure where he stands on other entitlements, though, so I can only give him five points.

On trade and job creation (fourteen points): One of the strongest areas of Huntsman’s resume is his stance on these two issues. He’s a free trader, which is a plus. But the cautionary note I have to draw is that he may be assuming those things which led to job creation success in Utah would translate to a national scale – some may, and some may not. While I applaud the emphasis on creating the proper business environment, perhaps I’d like more detail. I’ll give him eleven points here.

On taxation and the role of government (fifteen points): Huntsman scores some points by wanting a fairer, flatter taxation system with fewer deductions – but doesn’t go as far as true of a flat tax as he instituted in Utah. And while, as I noted in the point above that what happens in a state may not translate to a national level, the fact that spending surged while he was governor makes me wonder how serious of a budget cutter he would be, particularly if he listens to the siren song of the greenies. I’ll give him six points strictly based on the tax ideas.

Intangibles (up to three points): On the plus side, Huntsman doesn’t believe in ethanol subsidies and purports to be pro-life. There’s no negatives I haven’t already covered, so he nets an additional two points.

Continue reading “Dossier: Jon Huntsman”

Dossier: Gary Johnson

It’s back to the routine and now that the Labor Day weekend has passed I’m going to return to my Dossier series. The final of my “non-polling” Republican candidates is former New Mexico Governor Gary Johnson.

Political resume: After starting his own business, Gary decided to run for governor of New Mexico in 1994. He won and served two terms, wrapping up his tenure in 2003.

On campaign finance/election reform (three points): While his idea of transparency is admirable, I hope he’s joking about wearing the jackets with patches like a NASCAR driver. I’ll give him a point.

On property rights (five points): I would imagine Johnson would oppose the Kelo decision, but when he talks about “civil liberties” he doesn’t speak to private property rights. I’ll grant him one point since he talks about other civil liberties that most GOP candidates don’t.

On the Second Amendment (seven points): If you watch this video at about the 21-minute mark, you’ll see that Gary has a broad view of the Second Amendment. But this line in Slate is the clincher: “I don’t believe there should be any restrictions when it comes to firearms. None.” I believe this will get him a bunch of points. Seven.

On education (eight points): Helping his cause immensely with me, not only does Gary have the right ideas on the educational issue but he explains it very well. He gets the full eight points.

On the Long War/veterans affairs (nine points): This subject in particular is where I differ from Johnson. While I do agree we should bring our troops home from certain areas, I think he’s quite Polyannish on the usage of military alliances (look what NATO and the UN drag us into) and I disagree that “soft power” works with our enemies – that’s what President Obama is trying. He is docked five points.

On immigration (eleven points): I think his immigration approach is naïve, and the idea of any sort of grace period for illegal immigrants rubs me the wrong way. What saves him are some of his ideas about legalizing immigration eventually, such as “one strike, you’re out” – problem is too many already have that strike against them. I’ll call it a wash and keep his point total where it is.

On energy independence (twelve points): Gary has a mixed bag, as he placed his imprimatur on items which would suggest he’s a believer in government incentives for “green” energy but also Tweeted his opinions that we should drill in ANWR and can help our energy cause by drilling domestically. I’ll give him five points.

On entitlements (thirteen points): “Responsible entitlement reform” is his mantra. He wants to “revise the terms” of entitlement programs as well. But I thought he’d be more bold than the tinkering around the edges he seems to be advocating – a better step is doing away with Medicare Part D. I’ll give him eight points.

On trade and job creation (fourteen points): Gary is a free trader, which is a plus. I also like the idea of getting rid of the “mountain of regulation” that the federal government provides and keeping the internet free. I think I can give him eleven points.

On taxation and the role of government (fifteen points): The two things that stick out at me are Gary’s veto record as governor – meaning that he took the job of not growing government beyond its means seriously – and his support for the FairTax. I believe he has the right ideas in terms of limiting government, although I don’t agree with all the terms in his platform. I give him fourteen points.

Intangibles (up to three points): While there’s a lot to be said about his stance on civil liberties, like the legalization of marijuana, it also unfortunately extends to being pro-choice on abortion and for same-sex marriage. It nets out at minus one point.

Continue reading “Dossier: Gary Johnson”

Dossier: Thad McCotter

Political resume: McCotter began his political career in the late 1980s, serving in local offices before being elected to the Michigan State Senate in 1998 and the House of Representatives in 2002. He’s in his fifth Congressional term representing the Detroit suburbs. McCotter entered the Presidential sweepstakes on July 2.

On campaign finance/election reform (three points): He voted for voter ID on the federal level, but also voted for restricting 527s as well. I’ll give him two of three points.

On property rights (five points): Thad has a reasonable record on property rights by the look of things, so I’ll give him three points of five.

On the Second Amendment (seven points): Considering the guy plays in a band called The Second Amendments and has an ‘A’ rating from the NRA, I think McCotter should get all seven points. Don’t you?

On education (eight points): It seems to me that Thad doesn’t mind federal involvement in education, whereas I do. He doesn’t go overly far, but doesn’t reverse the trend either. I think he only gets two points here.

On the Long War/veterans affairs (nine points): A strong advocate of American exceptionalism and not “leading from behind,” McCotter says on his campaign site, “We must and will win an unconditional victory in the war of freedom against terrorism.” All nine points for Thad.

On immigration (eleven points): Couched in somewhat soothing language, the approach McCotter takes seems to be pretty sensible. My biggest objection is his caution not to “stigmatize” illegal immigrants – why not? They are flouting the law. His voting record assuages me somewhat, but I’m afraid he may get squishy when push comes to shove. So I’m only giving him five points.

On energy independence (twelve points): I suppose my biggest question for Thad is how do we “responsibly transition from fossil fuels to alternative energy” when those methods are nowhere near ready for prime time? Well, he wants to use the tried-and-true big government trick of tax credits and deductions, which rubs me the wrong way. Add in a vote for “Cash for Clunkers” and I think he may have been seduced by Washington’s ways on this issue. He gets just five points, a big disappointment.

On entitlements (thirteen points): There’s a lot to like about the approach that McCotter takes, but he has the same basic flaw Newt Gingrich does – he maintains entitlement programs with some tweaking. If the current systems are “unsustainable” I don’t think making a few fixes (which could be wiped away at any time) is the answer. Only weaning people off dependence is. He’ll get five points.

On trade and job creation (fourteen points): McCotter doesn’t seem to be a free trader in one respect as he talks about “ending Communist China’s mercantilist trade policy.” I can live with that as long as he doesn’t begin being too protectionist. He also wants to cut corporate taxes and “preserve and grow” manufacturing jobs, which would help to some extent. I think he’s got some good ideas, although they may not go as far as he thinks they may so I’ll grant him nine points.

On taxation and the role of government (fifteen points): I find McCotter to be an enigma on the whole scope of government subject. Taking one example from his issue page, he knows Social Security as it exists now is “unsustainable” but also says “we must not reduce medical benefits to anyone over the age of 55.” He talks about “stealth practices (which) infringe on our property rights” in the same breath as wanting tax credits for “homeowners who increase their energy efficiency.” All in all in terms of reducing the size of government, I think McCotter would do little more than rearrange the deck chairs on the Titanic. He’s going to get three points here for his efforts.

Intangibles (up to three points): McCotter doesn’t speak much to the issues which tend to make up my intangibles, with the exception of voting mostly pro-life. That means he gains one point.

Continue reading “Dossier: Thad McCotter”

Dossier: Buddy Roemer

Political resume: Roemer failed in his initial bid for Congress in 1978 (as a Democrat) but won election in 1980 and served in the House from 1981-88. He left after winning election as governor of Louisiana, where he served from 1988-92. In 1991 he became a member of the Republican Party, but lost the gubernatorial election later in 1991 as well as a 1995 comeback bid.

He formally entered the 2012 Presidential race on March 3.

On campaign finance/election reform (three points): He has a key point right on his current home page: “(W)e will talk about a lot of issues in this campaign. But we will start by tackling special interest money that impacts all the rest.” Roemer claims he won’t take any contribution greater than $100 nor will he take PAC money.

It’s a very populist position to take, but it’s the wrong one. I equate money with speech, and placing an artificial restriction on contributions is a limit on speech in my eyes. (It’s also suicidal when you figure Barack Obama to raise $1 billion from special interests.) I’m deducting two points only because he’s consistent with this stance since his days in Congress.

On property rights (five points): This video explains how he feels about “imminent” (sic) domain. I essentially like what he says, but that 1% and blowing the spelling will lose him two points of the five. Give him three.

On the Second Amendment (seven points): I have the feeling I’m missing something, but the limited amount I can find on Buddy (like saying “I’m a Second Amendment guy”) would make me guess he won’t trifle with the Second Amendment. Three points seems fair enough.

On education (eight points): As governor, he linked teacher pay to performance and enhanced accountability standards. But that’s all I know and he hasn’t really touched on the subject yet in his one-man debates. So I can only give him one point.

On the Long War/veterans affairs (nine points): He is half-right on Libya, but seems to have a pretty good train of thought on the Long War in general. It’s perhaps his strongest issue to date. He gets six points.

On immigration (eleven points): This video gives a pretty good summary of Roemer’s viewpoint. There’s a lot to like, although it’s still a bit short on specifics. He gives the Chamber of Commerce some necessary criticism as well. I think six points is fair.

On energy independence (twelve points): “No more subsidies.” That’s at the heart of his energy remarks. And while it sounds like he’s foursquare for more drilling (after all, he comes from an oil state) I worry about the tariff on Middle Eastern oil he’s proposing because that sets a bad precedent. So I’m only giving him three points.

On entitlements (thirteen points): Like many others, he will ‘reform’ items within the system rather than change a flawed paradigm. He likes the Ryan Plan, “but it’s not good enough.” I like his idea of the opting out of Medicare option, though, so I’ll bump him up seven points. Maybe we can get Medicare to ‘wither on the vine’ yet.

On trade and job creation (fourteen points): Here is where I have some issues with Buddy, since he’s speaking about protectionism. The problem with this approach is that we cut ourselves out of other markets as they ratchet up a trade war, and the jobs won’t be created. I can’t give him any points.

On taxation and the role of government (fifteen points): Buddy has a pretty unique feature on his website where he takes and answers reader questions. In reading some of these, I can see where he would cut a number of unnecessary departments, and that’s a good start. He would also simplify the tax system but doesn’t go as far as to support the consumption-based tax system. I think I can give him ten of the fifteen points.

Intangibles (up to three points): Buddy is pro-life and believes marriage should be between a man and a woman, which are definite pluses. So he nets two points.

Continue reading “Dossier: Buddy Roemer”

Dossier: Roy Moore

Political resume: After being appointed and subsequently elected as a local jurist, Moore won election and served as Chief Justice of the Alabama Supreme Court from 2001-2003 before being removed for not following the direction of a federal judge and removing a monument depicting the Ten Commandments. Moore has also run unsuccessfully for governor in Alabama in 2006 and 2010. He announced his presidential exploratory committee on April 18.

On campaign finance/election reform (three points): As a columnist for WorldNetDaily, Moore opined that McCain-Feingold “restricts First Amendment rights of free speech regarding political matters while making it easier for incumbents to strengthen their hold on their offices.” He’s right on the button, and I suspect he would be in favor of voter ID as well. I’ll give him two points.

On property rights (five points): While it was hinted in this article he penned that Moore was against the Kelo decision, the fact that he stood up for private property rights at a rally shows me he’s likely on the right side. Five points.

On the Second Amendment (seven points): This short treatise shows he gets why there’s a Second Amendment. Seven points.

On education (eight points): Roy states on his issue page that, “the federal government should not hamper the education systems of various states, as there is no authority for federal involvement under the Constitution. Competition between the states and freedom of various educational structures should be available to parents who are charged with the responsibility to teach their children. Charter schools, vouchers, tax credits, home schooling, Christian schools, and technical training should be encouraged.” The only part I don’t like is the part about tax credits, since I think controlling behavior through the tax code is a no-no as a permanent solution. So I’ll give him six points.

On the Long War/veterans affairs (nine points): There are parts I like about Moore and his philosophy and others I’m not so sure of. He wants a missile defense system (good) and more funding for the military (probably good, but I don’t think they need a blank check.) He believes “we should not be entangled in foreign wars merely at the whim and caprice of any President.” (I can buy that.) But to say “we must treat sovereign nations as we would want to be treated” doesn’t leave a lot of room for hammering them when needed. Maybe I’m misunderstanding his intent, but I have to grade him a step down from some others. Seven points.

On immigration (eleven points): He has a somewhat similar view to that of Jon Huntsman in that he would “allow” states to take the lead in border security. But he has a moral position on the issue as well, and I think he would be just fine on the issue because I take it he has a security “floor” in mind which states can exceed if they wish. I’ll give him seven points.

On energy independence (twelve points): “We need independence from foreign oil by freeing access to our own natural resources and developing other sources such as nuclear, solar, wind, and fossil fuels. Coal and oil supplies should be developed. Off-shore drilling should be increased but subject to reasonable regulations.” That’s the extent of Moore’s views on energy. It’s the problem with having no legislative record to back things up – I have no definition of things like “reasonable regulation.” And I’m troubled that he equates unproven pieces of the puzzle like solar and wind with items we use now. So I can only give him five points as well.

On entitlements (thirteen points): I like one statement he makes: “Churches and charitable organizations should be encouraged to help the needy and poor.” Now, if he has fidelity to the Constitution as he says he does I think he should follow through on eliminating entitlements altogether – please find for me the point in that document where Americans have a right to entitlements. I’m going to give him nine points.

On trade and job creation (fourteen points): Moore believes that we can return manufacturing by “revoking unfair trade agreements,” but doesn’t define what constitutes an unfair agreement. But he does understand the problem, as evidenced in this local paper: “Why don’t we have jobs? We’ve regulated them. We’ve taxed them out of existence. We’ve made free trade agreements and sent them south,” Moore said. I’ll give him eight points.

On taxation and the role of government (fifteen points): Roy favors a government with fealty to the Constitution and either a flat income tax or consumption-based system of taxation, either of which would be a vast improvement over what we have now. Aside from the contradiction in tax policy regarding tax credits for education it’s exactly the type of thing I am looking for, so Moore gets fourteen points.

Intangibles (up to three points): On the positive side, Moore opposes same-sex marriage, is pro-life, and supports our national sovereignty. He would defund Planned Parenthood as well. And because he doesn’t advocate a Constitutional prohibition on these items (presumably leaving them up to the states) he has no negatives so he gets all three points.

Continue reading “Dossier: Roy Moore”