Campaign 2012 – President – Page 4

When do the candidates drop out?

We’re just 45 days out from the Iowa caucuses (believe it or not) but there are still ten serious candidates seeking the GOP nomination.

I bring this up because, in the 2008 cycle, we had already lost a few people when they realized the money wasn’t going to be there or they had no path to victory. This is going to be true among probably six or so of the 2012 contenders, but they soldier on regardless.

Perhaps this is because the person who was counted out a month ago may make a meteoric rise in the polls based on a campaign plank, a great debate performance, or just the fact they were viewed as the hot new item in public perception. Thus far, this phenomenon has benefited several candidates: Herman Cain (twice), Michele Bachmann, Rick Perry, and now Newt Gingrich. Even Tim Pawlenty had his turn, although once his down cycle arrived (at the peak of fellow Minnesotan Michele Bachmann’s cycle at the Iowa Straw Poll) he decided to exit the race. Way back when, before the race had really jelled together, Jon Huntsman had a turn at the wheel too. But by the time he actually announced that support was gone.

On the other hand, one has to wonder if the turns will ever come for guys like Gary Johnson, Buddy Roemer, or Rick Santorum. They continue to suffer from abysmally low poll numbers, and the question is now getting to be whether they’ll have the money or manpower to get their message out before it’s too late.

And you’ll notice I didn’t mention Mitt Romney or Ron Paul. It’s because both seem to have a narrow strata of support which ranges in the low twenties for Romney and right around ten percent for Paul. They don’t seem to deviate much from those plateaus, which begs the question of whether the field is too crowded for them right now. Presumably they can tread water until some of the bottom-feeders finally exit the scene.

I’m going to do a poll for a few days and see what you think will be the result of the coming shakeout. I think it’s interesting to speculate who just doesn’t have the horses to continue on.

Newt’s third way

For several years I’ve received Newt Gingrich’s weekly letter from Human Events, and it’s usually a pretty decent read from a pretty smart guy. But now that he’s in the running for President and moved up onto the list of leading contenders, one needs to scrutinize his words more carefully and some of what I don’t like about Newt came out in his latest edition.

The Washington establishment’s reaction to the runaway spending is a policy of austerity and pain.

Democrats would cause austerity and pain on the individual by raising taxes, thereby shrinking family and business purchasing power.

Republicans would cause austerity and pain to government by cutting spending and thereby shrinking the services and income transfers government provides.

Clearly, shrinking government is preferable to overtaxing the American people but we must remember that there is a third alternative to pain. It is the path of innovation and growth.

So the question is whether Newt is really serious about cutting spending – after all, he is running for the Republican nomination, isn’t he? Newt would rather target his cuts around the edges, like this:

The key to today’s budget problems is to recognize that there is a world that works (largely but not entirely in the private sector) and there is a world that fails (bureaucracies in both the public and private sectors). With even a little creativity, we should be able to maximize the world that works and eliminate the world that fails.

For instance, if we applied modern private-sector management systems to government they would save up to $500 billion a year. That is three times the goal of the Super Committee.

Newt points to a website called Strong America Now, which claims that a quarter of all federal spending is wasted and advocates the Lean Six Sigma model in order to shrink spending down to size. (I’d say that number is quite low, but then again it all depends on your definition of waste.) While it’s a good idea to point this sort of thing out time and again, the trouble is that we’re working within the same parameter – if the system is irreparably broken, nothing can save it. Moreover, this working within the system will likely suffer the fate of most government estimates – the actual amount saved will likely fall short of expectations. And certainly the cuts will be just fine and no one will dispute the need for them until someone’s ox is gored, and there are a lot of sacred cows running around Washington.

My contention is that we need to shrink the services and income transfers government provides in order to bring the federal government to heel, so if Newt doesn’t want to do that I can’t get behind him very well. (I will admit in this case, though, that Newt is right about the idea of block-granting Medicaid to the states.) Being an advocate of a smaller, less powerful federal government I believe the idea of austerity there would bring some pain, but it would only be along the lines of a “you might feel this stick” pain when you’re giving blood or getting a flu shot. In the long term, the patient is much better.

To be perfectly frank, I would have less of an issue paying higher taxes in the state if I had the assurance that the federal government would shrink accordingly. The problem we have now is that all three levels of government seem to want to take more and more, and none of them will look into their proverbial mirror and ask themselves if what they are providing can’t be done better at a lower level or through the private sector. Placing a private sector model on government may be some improvement, but in terms of political philosophy it’s no different than lipstick on a pig. Unfortunately, my fear is that any money “saved” by the ideas espoused by Strong America Now would just be transferred to some other department, agency, or bureau in an ever-expanding statist paradise.

Perhaps I can borrow a phrase Newt made famous to describe the approach we should take. In my view, it’s time for government to “wither on the vine” but I just don’t think Newt is the guy to make it happen.

A secondary election day

I always thought it was the Tuesday after the first Monday, but today was quite the election day on three different fronts.

One election I participated in was a straw poll held at the MDGOP Fall Convention over the weekend, with the results tabulated and announced today. (My analysis comes after the jump.)

Continue reading “A secondary election day”

Herman Cain should be the new Bill Clinton. Right?

Haven’t we seen this movie before?

I have to admit, though, it’s sort of fun to watch it blow up in the faces of liberals who gloated for a decade about how all the allegations about Bill Clinton and the cover-ups of his sordid affairs weren’t as important as how he ran the country – to them, it was all a sideshow from Republicans who were angry they couldn’t beat him at the ballot box. (Never mind there was perjury enough for Clinton to be disbarred.)

Continue reading “Herman Cain should be the new Bill Clinton. Right?”

Required reading?

There’s any number of things I could be commenting on this evening, but tonight I’m going to talk about…books.

A story caught my eye yesterday and reminded me of something I read a few days ago about a man in a similar predicament. It seems that taxpayers have ponied up over $70,000 to buy copies of President Obama’s books, translated to a number of languages for usage in various embassies around the world. While the Washington Times story by Jim McElhatton wryly notes that the State Department didn’t spend any money buying books by George W. Bush or Bill Clinton, I’m just waiting for the first crank to tell me that the former wasn’t smart enough to write a book. (Yet no one is doubting he wrote Decision Points like some question Obama’s handiwork. They just marvel at Bush’s compilation skills.)

Continue reading “Required reading?”

Cain surges in polls: is he the anti-Romney?

According to a new Rasmussen Poll, Herman Cain and Mitt Romney are now virtually tied on the top of the Republican presidential heap as both garnered 29% in the sampling. And the new number three is Newt Gingrich, who gets 10 percent while former frontrunner Rick Perry has slipped all the way back to fourth, at nine percent.

It’s interesting to note the history of how this race has gone. Mitt Romney has always seemed to have his 20 to 30 percent support and that number doesn’t seem to waver regardless of who’s in the race; it’s enough to keep him on top or a close second in most polls.

But the role of portraying that “other” contender seems to change on a cycle of about a month or two.

Continue reading “Cain surges in polls: is he the anti-Romney?”

Dropouts 4 Romney

This is something I found interesting.

Having followed the Republican presidential nominating process for 2012 for some time, it’s telling to me that three candidates who have either bowed out or said they were never in the race have endorsed Mitt Romney. The latter category was filled yesterday by New Jersey Governor Chris Christie, with both Tim Pawlenty and Thad McCotter also choosing Romney after exiting the race.

Of course, that’s not to say that many other politicians haven’t endorsed Mitt Romney – heck, Maryland has its own list of Republicans who back him. I just don’t happen to be one of them.

Continue reading “Dropouts 4 Romney”

Palin: ‘I will not be seeking the 2012 GOP nomination’

It looks like the GOP field is set, and the cries of “run Sarah run” were ignored. Tonight Sarah Palin wrote on her Facebook page:

After much prayer and serious consideration, I have decided that I will not be seeking the 2012 GOP nomination for President of the United States. As always, my family comes first and obviously Todd and I put great consideration into family life before making this decision. When we serve, we devote ourselves to God, family and country. My decision maintains this order.

My decision is based upon a review of what common sense Conservatives and Independents have accomplished, especially over the last year. I believe that at this time I can be more effective in a decisive role to help elect other true public servants to office – from the nation’s governors to Congressional seats and the Presidency. We need to continue to actively and aggressively help those who will stop the “fundamental transformation” of our nation and instead seek the restoration of our greatness, our goodness and our constitutional republic based on the rule of law.

From the bottom of my heart I thank those who have supported me and defended my record throughout the years, and encouraged me to run for President. Know that by working together we can bring this country back – and as I’ve always said, one doesn’t need a title to help do it.

I will continue driving the discussion for freedom and free markets, including in the race for President where our candidates must embrace immediate action toward energy independence through domestic resource developments of conventional energy sources, along with renewables. We must reduce tax burdens and onerous regulations that kill American industry, and our candidates must always push to minimize government to strengthen the economy and allow the private sector to create jobs.

Those will be our priorities so Americans can be confident that a smaller, smarter government that is truly of the people, by the people, and for the people can better serve this most exceptional nation.

In the coming weeks I will help coordinate strategies to assist in replacing the President, re-taking the Senate, and maintaining the House.

Thank you again for all your support. Let’s unite to restore this country!

God bless America.

Sarah Palin

After the harsh treatment afforded to Sarah during the 2008 campaign and its aftermath, including her resignation as governor of Alaska, this decision isn’t all that surprising. Many pundits have opined that Sarah is such damaged goods as a candidate that she would have little to no chance of winning, but could do well with her broad base of supporters in doing just what she plans to do to help elect other candidates.

With that, and barring an extremely late change of heart by someone who’s decided against running this time, it appears the field of a dozen serious contenders for the Republican nomination is set. The remaining 8 to 10 percent of those polled who were pining for a Palin bid will now be free to gravitate to their second choice.

It’s worthy to note as well that Sarah has her own political action committee (SarahPAC) which can provide financial assistance to candidates she sees fit to back. And while her endorsement of Brian Murphy in last year’s race for governor of Maryland didn’t push him to victory, it placed him on the map and created a stir in state Republican circles.

Furthermore, as she tells radio host Mark Levin, not running leaves her “unshackled” and “allowed to be more active” in the effort to promote her brand of conservatism.

So there’s no Palin 2012 campaign. Since she’s only 47 years old, though, there’s plenty of time for her to gather her chits for a future run. I don’t think Sarah Palin is through with electoral politics and she sure as heck isn’t going away – you betcha.

Odds and ends number 34

Believe it or not, I have been besieged with another plethora of items which deserve perhaps an paragraph or three of comment on my part. So let me get crackin’ on them.

Since I’ve had the opportunity to speak with him in person, I would suggest that those of you who are political activists consider attending David Craig’s campaign school. It will make a stop here on the Lower Eastern Shore at the Comfort Inn in Cambridge this Saturday (October 1st) from 8 a.m. to 5 p.m. It’s absolutely free and includes lunch too. You can sign up for the event here.

You know, I’d be curious to know if any liberals show up because it’s a freebie. But if it’s conducted like the “Bloggers and Burgers” confab you should leave the Craig campaign school neither hungry nor uninformed.

Speaking of liberals and freebies, there’s 116 people in Salisbury who really must suffer from terminal ignorance. I got this in my e-mail the other day, simply because September 30 is coming:

Here’s something you don’t have in common with 116 other supporters of this movement who tell us they live in Salisbury, MD.

That many of your neighbors have decided to own a piece of this campaign by making a donation of whatever they could afford. For some, that meant just $5. For others, it meant $100 or more. But each had their own personal reason for giving.

Our records show that you aren’t one of the 116 people where you’re from who have stepped up for 2012. Now’s your chance to change that.

Since the e-mail came from Jim Messina of the Obama 2012 campaign, don’t hold your breath waiting for my gift. I might give a little to Herman Cain, though.

It makes me curious, though – how many of my readers have donated to a Presidential campaign? I haven’t done so yet this cycle, but I did donate to Rep. Duncan Hunter’s ill-fated bid last time. He was my first.

Continue reading “Odds and ends number 34”

The Cain comeback

I’d like to think my endorsement had a little bit to do with this, but…I doubt it.

Still, it’s interesting that Herman Cain was considered the “winner” of the Florida debate the other night then came back today and crushed the rest of the field at the “Presidency 5” straw poll in Orlando.

It’s intriguing because the conventional wisdom (at least expressed by one of my cohorts at Pajamas Media) figured Mitt Romney would regain momentum after Rick Perry’s dreadful debate performance. Well, guess again – he came in third with 14 percent. Cain nearly had more votes than his next three pursuers (Perry, Romney, and Santorum) combined. One caveat: Cain was one of only three contenders to speak before the gathering along with Newt Gingrich (who finished seventh with 9 percent) and Rick Santorum (who was fourth with 11 percent.)

But this result brings up another interesting question – where are all the Ron Paul people? If there’s one thing Paul usually excels at, it’s winning a straw poll – here’s a recent example. I’m sure their defense will be that this was an “establishment” event, but so was the California straw poll I cited.

Herman seemed astonished by the win, thanking the Florida voters and noting, “(t)his is a sign of our growing momentum and my candidacy that cannot be ignored. I will continue to share my message of ‘common sense solutions’ across this country and look forward to spending more time in Florida, a critical state for both the nomination and the general election.”

These developments could be the impetus to get Cain moving in the polls again. Back in late June he was second among all the announced candidates at the time with support in the low double-digits and trailing Mitt Romney by about 15 points. However, with the entry of several new candidates into the race and a serious misstep, Cain lost ground and now sits sixth in the RealClearPolitics polling average with 5.6 percent.

But a bump back to 10 percent would place him back into third and within striking distance of the top two as the fall season approaches. Newt Gingrich has seen his support plateau at around 8 or 9 percent as has Ron Paul, while onetime contender Michele Bachmann has plummeted in the polls (including the Florida balloting, where she barely received 1 percent) since making a splash with her entry into the race.

In any event, the race may soon get a little tighter and that bodes well for alternative candidates to reconsider entering at this late date. There’s always the Sarah Palin prospect, but rumblings are out there that New Jersey Governor Chris Christie is abandoning his threat to commit suicide to convince people he will not run and might indeed jump in.

More choices are good, although it would be more likely I’d consider Palin than Christie. But right now is Herman Cain’s moment, and his opportunity to jump-start his Presidential bid. Let’s hope he takes advantage.

The endorsement

Well, here’s the moment you’ve all been waiting for: who do I support for President? (Hint: it ain’t Barack Obama.)

If you’ve been playing along with my “Dossier” series and kept track of the points, this is what you’d find:

Herman Cain – 74 points
Roy Moore – 73 points
Michele Bachmann – 71 points
Ron Paul – 68 points
Rick Perry – 59 points
Rick Santorum – 57 points
Thad McCotter – 51 points
Gary Johnson – 50 points
Newt Gingrich – 48 points
Mitt Romney – 40 points
Buddy Roemer – 39 points
Jon Huntsman – 25 points
Fred Karger – (-11) points

It seems pretty cut and dried, right? Well, not quite.

One thing I noticed as I was having a bit of fun with the numbers (figuring out that my “perfect” candidate in this go-round would have only 94 points of 100) is that Herman Cain came out on top through consistent scoring, not necessarily high marks across the board. So I did a second run using factored placements in each category – the top finisher got 1, second was 2, and so forth. Anyone who was tied for a spot got the lowest number of points.

It changed the standings at the top quite a bit:

Roy Moore (2nd in points)
Ron Paul (4th)
Herman Cain (1st)
Michele Bachmann (3rd)
Rick Perry (5th)
Rick Santorum (6th)
Gary Johnson (8th)
Thad McCotter (7th)
Newt Gingrich (9th)
Jon Huntsman (12th)
Mitt Romney (10th)
Buddy Roemer (11th)
Fred Karger (13th)

In essence, my top four were turned around. The only reason Ron Paul didn’t finish first in points, though, was his isolationist stance. He actually scored well enough on the most important categories to make up for it and that’s why he moved up the scale. Roy Moore was helped along by having good marks across the board, but none of the key factors except for taxation and the role of government leaped out. And Bachmann and Cain were dragged down by a lack of specifics in some areas.

So the next step was placing them head-to-head against each other.

Once you do that it’s clear Michele Bachmann doesn’t do as well, while the other three are essentially a draw when compared that way. So I guess I have to revert to my original findings and also think about electability. I just can’t see Ron Paul being the nominee, nor can I trust him in the key aspect of foreign affairs. To me there’s a difference between entangling alliances and our very security. Declared or not, I believe we are in a state of war and we weren’t the ones who caused it.

And while I really like Judge Moore, the fact that he hasn’t advanced beyond the exploratory stage five months after forming the committee tells me he probably doesn’t have the support base to make a serious run.

Thus, after weeks of thought and study, I stand as a member of the Wicomico County Republican Central Committee – and while I don’t speak for the committee as a whole – I heartily endorse Herman Cain to be the next President of the United States.

If you would prefer to explore other candidates, my strong recommendations for the position are Michele Bachmann, Roy Moore, and Ron Paul. Each is a good candidate, but as noted above I have one or more reservations about their qualifications and eventual prospect for success – however, you may see it differently.

And by the way, I am going to do a dual Dossier on the two major declared Democratic candidates. That should be a riot.

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”