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.)
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?”
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:
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:
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.
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.
Since a number of published reports have Texas Governor Rick Perry entering the 2012 Presidential race as soon as tomorrow, the obvious question is – who will have their share of the support pie taken?
Personally I’m of the opinion that, if one was to compare this situation to the stock market, a Perry run has already been priced in. A certain number of people have already been sitting on the sidelines just waiting for an official announcement from Rick and now they will join the game – so the “pie” is a little bit larger.
Yet another school of thought intrigues me as well. Let’s break the remaining thirteen or so in the field into three groups – they’re ranked within each group in order of national support, more or less. An asterisk (*) denotes that the candidate is entered into tomorrow’s Iowa Straw Poll.
The Legislators:
- Michele Bachmann (House member from Minnesota)*
- Ron Paul (House member from Texas)*
- Newt Gingrich (former Speaker of the House from Georgia)*
- Rick Santorum (former Senator from Pennsylvania)*
- Thad McCotter (House member from Michigan)*
This group will likely have little change in the order or in their amount of support. Some think that Bachmann has the most to lose from a Perry candidacy, but I tend to disagree.
The Outsiders:
- Herman Cain (former CEO, radio host, and onetime U.S. Senate candidate from Georgia)*
- Roy Moore (Alabama Supreme Court justice and candidate for Governor)
- Fred Karger (longtime political consultant from California)
Again, since Herman Cain is by far the class of this small group there’s probably little for them to lose if he gets in, although it would make life somewhat more difficult for Roy Moore if he indeed decides to stop exploring.
The Governors:
- Mitt Romney (former governor of Massachusetts)*
- Jon Huntsman (former governor of Utah)*
- Tim Pawlenty (former governor of Minnesota)*
- Gary Johnson (former governor of New Mexico)
- Buddy Roemer (former governor of Louisiana)
This is the group most hurt by a Perry bid, because there are many voters who feel having some sort of executive experience is the best attribute for a President. Four of our previous five Presidents before Obama served as a governor, with George H.W. Bush the exception. And that exception deserves an asterisk of sorts because the elder Bush was Vice-President for eight years under Ronald Reagan.
I believe a Perry candidacy hurts Mitt Romney to a small degree because he’s sort of the anointed, establishment candidate and Rick Perry isn’t really an establishment darling. On the other side of the coin, Buddy Roemer has little support to lose and Gary Johnson is playing to a libertarian group that splits its allegiance between him and Ron Paul.
The two candidates who really have the most to fear about Rick Perry getting into the race are Tim Pawlenty and Jon Huntsman. Pawlenty is running as a candidate who won as a Republican in a Democratic-leaning state by being just moderate enough to appeal to independent voters. But Perry trumps that because he’s won twice in a state where, in theory, demographics should be favoring Democrats – Texas has a growing Latino population.
Huntsman loses out because his good economic record in Utah pales in comparison to the job creation in Texas. Jon has had trouble establishing a base of support anyway because the establishment prefers Romney and conservatives are distrustful of someone who worked for the Obama administration.
Since the Iowa Straw Poll has a write-in ballot space, it will be interesting to see how much support Rick Perry gets from those who don’t like the other nine choices presented to them. Some who are skipping the Ames gathering will probably pooh-pooh the results regardless of how they do (unless they win, of course) but I suspect the bottom three will find it more difficult as time goes on to make an impact in the race.
Yet the biggest question of all may be whether the last big name candidate will finally decide to jump into the fray. Time is running short for Sarah Palin, as building a grassroots effort takes some planning and we’re just about five months away from the start of primary season – even less time than that to qualify for the ballots.
And fourteen to me seems about four to five too many to be sustainable. If you take the four who didn’t secure a place on the Iowa Straw Poll (Johnson, Karger, Moore, and Roemer) you can probably make a pretty safe bet that the latter two won’t find their way onto a ballot. Gary Johnson will fight on to continue bringing the libertarian small-government argument into the race while Fred Karger will go as far as his status as the lone gay candidate will take him. Neither will come close to winning the nomination but they’ll press on for principle’s sake.
The two odd men out I see among those who made the Iowa Straw Poll ballot are Thad McCotter and Rick Santorum. McCotter should have started his bid much sooner because he doesn’t stand out in a crowded conservative field already dotted with more well-known House members, while Santorum probably can’t shake either the label of “biggest loser” from 2006 or the ill-fated Arlen Specter endorsement two years earlier.
By January I think the field will look like this, in about this order:
Crucify me if you must – especially those who like Bachmann and Cain – but once people begin paying attention I think they’ll retreat to the candidates they feel are most safe. I think Bachmann makes a good run but the press is out to destroy her and there’s still enough of an establishment base of Republicans out there to prevent her from winning. Nor would they let a complete political outsider like Herman Cain emerge, either.
Obviously that’s not the order of my preference, either, but I’m sure I occupy a place somewhat to the right of the GOP electorate at large – particularly in several early primary states where the balloting is open to independents as well. I’m sure I’ll be disappointed with the early state primary results like I was in 2008.
But I won’t give up the fight – come on America, I dare you to prove me wrong.
Yes, it’s another edition of those items which deserve a paragraph or three but maybe not a full post.
Let’s begin with a rescheduled event. Originally scheduled for last month, Andy Harris will hold his “healthcare discussion” fundraiser on Wednesday, August 24 at 6 p.m. at the original location. It’s still $50 and you can still contact Cathy Keim at (443) 880-5912 for details.
That may be the last time you have a spare $50 in your pocket, though, since the Maryland General Assembly is spending their summer trying to figure out just how they can squeeze more revenue out of the citizenry. Take this report done by the Maryland Department of Legislative Services.
There’s a couple not-so-obvious things which jumped out at me and were buried in the report. One is the idea of considering those who are online affiliates to a company such as Amazon.com as a presence in the state, necessitating the collection of sales tax. As a website owner who indeed acts as an Amazon.com affiliate (and makes a few pennies off the website in that manner) the last thing I really want to do is collect sales tax. Amazon doesn’t have affiliates in states with such laws, and for good reason.
But notice what South Carolina did – in order to create jobs they waived their requirement, and Tennessee is considering the same. Yes, they would lose sales tax revenue but would presumably make that up and more with increased economic activity. Maryland? Well, I guess they seem to believe that making more taxes will make the state more attractive. Not.
In fact, the Republican Caucus in the House of Delegates continues to point out this fatal flaw:
For years, the House Republican Caucus has offered plan after plan to bring Maryland’s spending in line with revenues and ultimately lower taxes; knowing that real spending cuts, not fantastical numbers games, would ultimately protect the taxpayers of Maryland from another mugging by their government. We have warned repeatedly against the reliance on federal funds. Real, meaningful spending reductions have not occurred; in fact the budget has grown year after year. Rather than listening to sound fiscal advice, the Democratic monopoly has chosen instead to demonize anyone who suggests true spending reductions and terrorize the public with tales of apocalyptic calamity should true reductions in government spending happen.
The only “apocalyptic calamity” seems to be the job creation numbers in Maryland, which are dismal to say the least.
But there’s no calamity in the ozone layer, as the EPA fortunately has held off on new, tougher job-killing ozone standards so stringent that even Yellowstone National Park couldn’t qualify. Perhaps a reason why is that Fedzilla couldn’t hide their cooking of the books nor justify the benefits versus the costs.
It’s foolish, though, to believe that this was ever about costs or even public health. It’s about control, and something tells me that well-connected companies could make sweetheart deals with regulators to carve out an exemption or two. In Washington these days you have to pay to play, and the sale of regulations favoring the highest political contributor seems to be in vogue more than ever.
Then again, drug cartels have a lot of money. And in the wake of a deepening protection scandal involving the Sinaloa drug cartel in Mexico, maybe Gary Johnson and his libertarian ilk is right on this one:
While I certainly disagree with several parts of Gary’s platform, I do believe perhaps it’s time we considered the legalization option. Granted, the cartels may still operate because there are a lot of other illegal substances out there but I’m not so sure the benefits of the War on Drugs outweigh the costs. It’s a little surprising that Barack Obama hasn’t pushed for this himself given past history – in theory, the act of drug possession could have landed him in jail in some jurisdictions.
Imagine how things may have turned out had that happened. (Oh wait, I’m undercutting my own argument!)
I must say, though, that Gary is perhaps the most blogger-friendly candidate out there. If only Herman Cain or Michele Bachmann were as accomodating… *sigh*
By the way, I didn’t forget that I’m still in the midst of grading candidates. I’ve just been a little busy lately and now I have an issue with the laptop where all those text files are, so it’s temporarily out of commission.
And now for something completely different.
I was asked by a nice lady to include her website as one of my links.
Now this sort of thing happens on occasion as spam e-mail and this particular message was in that folder as well. A lot of the time it’s one of those “we should trade links” sort of things to cover as an advertisement for a poker or porn website. But I checked out the site in question and it’s definitely legit – and it’s striking in the amount of photography used, along with the fact that Kathy covers an area that I don’t often get to for this gig – up around St. Michaels (also known as “the town that fooled the British.”) So dig in and enjoy.
A couple weeks ago, I commented on the remarks of Presidential candidate and former Governor of New Mexico Gary Johnson regarding the ‘offensive’ Family Leader Pledge signed by fellow GOP candidates Michele Bachmann and Rick Santorum.
Yesterday I was invited to participate in a blogger conference call with Governor Johnson regarding intolerance as “a formula for Republican defeat.” Unfortunately I couldn’t participate directly but I asked for the transcript knowing this was an issue I’d broached previously.
Perhaps the question closest to the one I would have asked was offered by New Hampshire blogger Skip Murphy of Granite Grok. I’m going to shorten it just a touch for this purpose, though:
I do have a question about your opening statement, on social conservatives. Certainly the Tea Party is focused on the fiscal issues, but as we all know, social issues often have a fiscal cost to them as well. If you look at Medicaid, Social Security, other entitlement programs, have an outsized cost to them. Is it really something that Republicans and conservative Republicans should do? To concede the social issues to the Democrats and step away from that arena? And thereby letting them raise the fiscal costs of their agenda, versus fighting for what we believe is our agenda, which is cutting the fiscal costs across the board?
Governor Johnson responded:
Well, if you’re talking about fiscal costs, I don’t know where an intolerance to gays, I don’t know where a woman – where decision making should be taken away from a woman, and I’m talking about abortion – and, that that should be the driving issues of the Republican Party. And I guess I could go to immigration, and to the xenophobia about immigrants, and there are costs associated with illegal immigration. I think they should be addressed, but they don’t involve, in my opinion, building a fence, or putting the National Guard arm in arm across the border. There’s some real, rational steps that can be taken, and really, a win-win situation: immigrants that want to come in to this country to work being allowed to work. And businesses that would like to take advantage of being able to get workers that they currently can’t get, because of our immigration policies and our welfare policies in this country that have us sitting at home collecting welfare checks, that are just a little bit less money or the same amount of money for doing nothing, as opposed to getting out and getting an entry level job.
Murphy pressed further:
Well, I do notice that you brought up some hot button issues that are near and dear to a lot of Republicans. But I specifically asked about some of the other entitlements: certainly the ever growing welfare state is a social issue, and it certainly has a high fiscal cost. So, what is your strategy for bringing that down, and again I ask, is that something the Republicans should just forget about, because…
Johnson interrupted:
No, Skip, I didn’t consider welfare as part of this Ames Pledge. If I missed that, I certainly apologize. I saw this Ames Pledge as, really, vilifying, or just saying “No” to tolerance. I saw it as a very intolerant document. And I am a firm believer that we need to reform welfare in this country, and at the base of reforming welfare is “If you can work, you should work.”
It’s an interesting and broad-based conversation overall, but I think the problem with Gary’s approach is that a lot of the base he’s catering to – the small-government crowd – also cares about social issues.
Johnson makes the mistake of assuming that social conservatives are monolithic in their support of government-centered approaches to issues like abortion, gay marriage, and the general decline of society. As I noted in my original post on the Family Leader Pledge (refer to original pledge here,) I didn’t find a lot objectionable except for the call for a Constitutional amendment on marriage between one man and one woman. It’s not that I have an issue with protecting marriage, but it’s properly a state issue.
Ironically, Johnson is in agreement with me on that, but still chose to call me and others who care about these issues ‘intolerant’ because I don’t fall completely into line with his libertarian views on the subject. Perhaps he hasn’t a problem with certain portions of the Family Leader Pledge (particularly its call for a more limited government) but he chose not to sign it and that should have been enough. Many of the other contestants for the Presidential brass ring have forgone the opportunity as well but they haven’t besmirched the competition who did – even Mitt Romney withheld personal condemnation in refusing to sign.
Certainly I would like to pick and choose aspects of government to strengthen (yes, there are a few) and which ones should release their stranglehold on the American people. There are a few otherwise seldom-discussed planks in Johnson’s platform with which I agree and think should be brought out into the national conversation – chief among them the folly of the War on Drugs.
He certainly would like to limit government. Consider this passage from the call:
I just think that we’ve gone way overboard when it comes to this notion of need and entitlement, if you will. So I am promising to submit a balanced budget for the year 2013, which would cut 43% of government expenditures at existing levels. That means Medicaid, that means Medicare, that means military spending, for starters. So, in that context, 43% reduction with regard to everything it is that government does, I think that is a weeding out process that gets us closer to the notion of helping those that are truly in need as opposed to this notion of entitlement and really this give away that has us in the fiscal predicament that we are in. Really, we’re broke, and we’re on the verge of a monetary collapse because we print money to cover these obligations.
Good luck getting that through Congress. although it’s only cutting the budget back to 2002 levels. It also brings up a point that across-the-board cuts aren’t necessarily the correct solution – for example I think the budget of the Department of Education should be cut 100 percent, with the savings from the extra share used to maintain a strong national defense.
Yet the point is a good one. We haven’t prioritized spending in decades because the government gave itself a blank check with deficit spending, knowing they have the power to tax (also known as the power to destroy.) It’s time for some fiscal discipline, and I think TEA Party members understand this point. The question which Skip Murphy presented so well is whether we can have it all – advances in both social and fiscal conservatism – and I think the answer is yes, they are nowhere near mutually exclusive.
I would like to thank Gary Johnson’s staff for forwarding me the transcript. He’s been one of the best in working with bloggers, and that’s appreciated whether I agree with him or not.
As the old saying goes, there are two sides to (almost) every story, and the annual event in Crisfield provides plenty of comparisons.
Take the location for example – a marina filled with boats valued in the tens of thousands of dollars hard by low-income housing. Denizens of the immediate neighborhood look forward to the Clam Bake as it provides an opportunity to sell parking spots to people who don’t wish to walk as far to the event.
In short, they create their own economic development. But bringing 3,500 visitors to Crisfield is an economic boost to the area.
While the event has a reputation as a political stop, there is a business element there too. Some companies look to get or keep their name out in the area.
Others use it as a reward to their customers, hosting elaborate parties within the party.
But the crowd was noticeably smaller than last year’s. Yes, this is not an election year but even the number of businesses which took tent space seemed smaller. How often do you see this?
Maybe it’s something about Area 51? But this is a shot I took around 1:30 or so at the peak of the festivities.
Compare that crowd to this still shot from last year.
Even the mugs weren’t being snatched up as quickly.
As you’ll notice in the panoramic picture, there are two main areas where crowds gather. On one side are the smaller tents set up for businesses and groups. But many people sit in the pavilion and enjoy musical entertainment.
I can’t say I’m a fan of country or bluegrass, but a number of people sat under the pavilion to listen.
I know, I know – you readers are saying, “Michael, you have a political website. What’s the political dirt?” Well, there are two sides to that as well.
One guy who seems to straddle that line is Bruce Bereano, who annually has among the largest tents and his own “corner.” However, with a revised setup this year he was more in the middle.
In a nice touch, Bereano has honored a local leader for the last couple years.
If you don’t believe he works to both sides of the aisle, consider that the following two signs were close together on his tent.
Could this be the gubernatorial matchup for 2014? Peter Franchot could obviously be entrenched as Comptroller for as long as he wants to be but my feeling is he wants something more. Meanwhile, David Craig is term-limited as Harford County Executive but obviously has a run for something in mind three years hence. My guess would be that “something” is a long-term stay in Government House.
A matchup which will occur sooner is a statewide battle for the U.S. Senate seat held by Ben Cardin. Presumably he was a little busy today, but a number of volunteers were sporting his colors and registering voters as they stood in the food lines.
Arriving a little later was a man who’s aiming to be his Republican rival, Dan Bongino. Here he’s talking to Bill Harris of Cecil County.
I also spied Eric Wargotz there with his wife. But he wasn’t openly campaigning at this time.
Like Senator Cardin, Congressman Andy Harris was likely a little busy today but had volunteers and signs with a sharply pointed message about. Eventually a lot of folks were wearing yellow Harris shirts.
By gosh, I think Andy is right. But there was someone quite familiar to him there.
Allow me to pose a question. Why would you spend $200 on tickets and a half tank of gas to come down and eat crabs one can probably get just as readily in Queen Anne’s County? Perhaps it’s a case of best two out of three? For all his talk about time with the family I don’t think, given the power and prestige of a seat in Congress, he can let it go just to be a cheerleader for Ben Cardin.
And there were a few cheerleaders for our state’s junior Senator.
Yet the Democrats had a modest, unassuming presence compared to the GOP.
That’s not to say both parties weren’t represented, to be sure. Here’s two of our best freshman Delegates, Charles Otto and Justin Ready.
They weren’t the only freshmen Republicans there, as I saw Michael Hough, Kathy Szeliga, and of course my Delegate Mike McDermott at the event.
Meanwhile, Wicomico County Executive Rick Pollitt was reaching across the aisle, greeting old friends in the Somerset County Republican tent.
On the other hand, Norm Conway was holed up around the Democrats’ base.
Even the unaffiliated were there. Yes, last I checked Laura Mitchell of Salisbury City Council doesn’t state a party affiliation. I did catch up to her just outside the Democratic tent, though.
Nor was national politics forgotten. Kevin Waterman (who some may know for the Questing for Atlantis website) came supporting his choice for President, Gary Johnson.
Republican politics must run in that family – his mother Diana (who I cut off in the photo) is First Vice-Chair of the Maryland GOP.
Needless to say, the media was there as well. WBOC-TV was on location shooting footage, and I saw print reporters and fellow bloggers about, too.
But I’m curious if anyone else will report on this tidbit.
Notice the flag placed in the corner of the Democrats’ tent? It’s the Wicomico County flag.
Now I’m not convinced that the official imprimatur of our fair county should be in that tent – granted, Democrats have a plurality of voters here but Republicans hold more elected seats in county government. If it’s an endorsement of Democratic principles (such as they are) for our county, consider me as a conscientious objector.
So while the turnout was smaller than in years past, it was still a good event for the Crisfield community. And the rain, which I noticed on my drive back, stayed away.
Look for an interesting cast of characters for next year’s event, which should fall after the 2012 primary on July 18, 2012.
First of all, let me define the parameters of the discussion: to me, entitlements are Social Security, Medicare, Obamacare, and the like. Anytime the government redistributes wealth that wasn’t earned by the recipient, that’s an entitlement – which means Social Security and Medicare do count once the amount originally contributed by the recipient is reached. Thirteen points are at stake this round.
Michele Bachmann 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. I’d like a faster pace myself, but she’s got the right ideas. Seven 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, Herman Cain has the right ideas about who should be the safety net, though, so I’ll give him nine points.
I have a big problem with some of Newt Gingrich‘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.
Jon 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.
“Responsible entitlement reform” is Gary Johnson‘s 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.
Fred Karger thinks the size of entitlements needs to be on the table. But that’s about all the service he gives to it so I have no idea what else he wants to do. I’ll grant him one point.
There’s a lot to like about the approach that Thad 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.
I like one statement Roy Moore 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.
You know, I thought Ron Paul 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.
Tim Pawlenty made some aggressive health care reforms in Minnesota. He also worked to “slow down, limit, or negate Obamacare” while governor. He’s a little more tepid when it comes to Social Security, though, as he favors means testing and perhaps raising the retirement age. While he makes sense at a state level I’m not sure his ideas there will translate nationally. And as for Social Security, that’s not real reform, so I’ll only give him six points.
Like many others, Buddy Roemer 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.
The problem with Mitt Romney 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 ourselves on the path to eliminate them entirely. I’ll give him five points for saying nice things.
Once again, the vision of Rick Santorum is “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.
So it’s beginning to look like a two-person race. But notice that Ron Paul has come back into contention, Roy Moore is still hanging close, and Rick Santorum is still a dark horse. The rest are fading farther behind because they don’t have that vision thing about limited government or they wish to limit some of the wrong things.
There’s one word for Barack Obama: Obamacare. That alone is worth the full thirteen point deduction.
“We will run ads talking about, in honest terms the end of entitlements.” That’s what Randall Terry said in January. “All entitlements should be phased out.” I can’t wait to see them, but for me that message is winner, winner, chicken dinner. He gets 12 points, but only because I haven’t seen the actual plan. It puts him ahead of a couple GOP stalwarts; then again, he’s running as a Democrat only to be in Obama’s primary. I bet he’d be in decent shape if he were more forthcoming.
We move next to trade and job creation. Most Republicans should score well, but this has some potential to shake up the top contenders – particularly when 14 points are at stake and five players are within that margin (not counting negative totals.)
It’s already been signed by Michele Bachmann and Rick Santorum, but don’t look for Gary Johnson to sign the Family Leader Pledge anytime soon. Instead, Johnson has placed up a YouTube ad pleading that ‘tolerance is American’:
Now, I know both Gary and I fall on the libertarian side of the GOP, but in reading the Pledge myself I only have objection to one aspect – I don’t believe we need a Constitutional amendment to define marriage as between one man and one woman. It’s a matter properly and best left to the states to determine. (Having said that, I think the people in New York should strive to overturn their recently passed same-sex marriage law by whatever means they can; alas, it may come down to ejecting those who supported it in their legislature when their re-election comes up. The same goes for other jurisdictions which have passed similar ill-considered laws.)
Another controversy within the Pledge comes from its reference to slavery; as an original version of the document noted:
Slavery had a disastrous impact on African-American families, yet sadly a child born into slavery in 1860 was more likely to be raised by his mother and father in a two-parent household than was an African-American baby born after the election of the USA‟s first African-American President.
Yet in looking at the cited research I couldn’t locate that particular tidbit spelled out – it’s more likely they extrapolated data from the late 19th century and assumed the rate of black two-parent families was similarly high in the decades prior to the War Between the States. My take is that the Family Leader group was trying to make a quite valid point but got fast and loose with the facts. (A later version of the Pledge has rightly pulled the remark.)
The controversy is unfortunate because there is a lot to like about the FLP, in particular its call for “downsizing government and the enormous burden upon American families of the USA‟s $14.3 trillion public debt, its $77 trillion in unfunded liabilities, its $1.5 trillion federal deficit, and its $3.5 trillion federal budget.” That should be right up Johnson’s alley, as it should for any Republican seeking the highest office in the land.
But perhaps what bothers me most about Gary’s stand is his embrace of “tolerance,” since that can be defined in any number of ways. Should the government be in our bedrooms? Of course not. A man’s home is his castle and what he does there shouldn’t be the subject of constant examination by government snoops. But for too long we’ve been ‘tolerant’ of radical Islam and look what that brought us. There are groups and people out there who take advantage of our openness and generosity, so we need to be aware of that disturbing truth. A blanket definition one way or the other doesn’t serve us well.
Thus, you can see in part why Gary is among the also-rans in my Presidential decision-making; meanwhile, Bachmann and Santorum are near the top. I don’t think legislating morality is the answer, but being too permissive creates its own set of problems as well. Why not have a straight-arrow conservative (as opposed to a so-called “compassionate” one) in the White House?
Gary Johnson has a lot of good attributes, but I think he should moderate his strident tone on this one. Why violate the Eleventh Commandment needlessly?
Now the party of “drill, baby, drill” should make this a slam dunk for 12 points. But you may be surprised to see how this plays out.
She does a nice job of stating the problem, but Michele Bachmann would do well to expand 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.
Herman Cain 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.
Newt 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. But because of his commercial with Nancy Pelosi, he gets seven 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, Jon Huntsman. 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.
Gary Johnson 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.
What Fred Karger doesn’t seem to understand is that forced conservation of energy is counterproductive to a growing economy. Certainly looking for ways to get more done with less energy usage is a good thing, but mandating reductions isn’t practical for growth. If someone needs to explore alternative energy, let it be the private sector (see Herman Cain above.) He loses another six points.
I suppose my biggest question for Thad McCotter 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.
“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 Roy 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.
Like Gingrich above, Ron Paul 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, I’ll give him nine points.
Tim Pawlenty doesn’t address energy independence on his issues page, and perhaps this is why. Maybe he thought it necessary to address the issue to keep his job in a liberal-leaning state, but then he doubled down and doomed Minnesota ratepayers by adopting a 25% renewable energy portfolio (even more than Maryland’s and you see where our rates are headed.) I don’t know if his recent change of heart is sincere, so I’m taking off five points.
“No more subsidies.” That’s at the heart of Buddy Roemer‘s 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.
Mitt Romney 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.
Rick Santorum, like Romney, 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.
Now I’m past the halfway point, as I’ve awarded 55 points so far. With entitlement, job creation, and taxation among my remaining issues it’s doubtful that many of the bottomfeeders have a shot – I figure my endorsee is likely at or above the 30 point mark right now. Looks like a race between Bachmann and Cain, but we’ll see.
Needless to say, Barack Obama‘s energy record is miserable. Even when he showed a few cajones and loosened oil drilling regulations, he relented after a once-in-a-lifetime accident. Of course, he loses all twelve points.
Randall Terry is, once again, silent on the issue. The problem with his approach is that Democrats who don’t like Obama may just stay home rather than vote for him as a message.
The next category should be interesting because there are a plethora of views on entitlements, so that may spread the field out a little bit more – and perhaps trip up a leading contender.
Here we should start separating the men from the boys (or the women from the girls, to be fair.) Eleven points are at stake and as most know I’m pretty much a hardliner on the subject.
She has the right idea about securing the borders on her campaign site, but Michele 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. Ten points.
Similarly, Herman 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 good. Helping his cause is that he stood foursquare against amnesty. I think he’ll get nine points.
It’s telling that, aside from the usual mantra of “secure our borders,” Newt Gingrich 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.
Normally I’m a pretty good state’s rights guy, but should we push border security onto the states as Jon Huntsman 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.
I think Gary Johnson‘s 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.
Fred Karger joins the chorus calling for “greatly improved border security” but also advocates “a path to citizenship for immigrants already living in the country.” Smells like amnesty to me, so it’s back in the hole again as I take three points off.
Couched in somewhat soothing language, the approach Thad 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.
Roy Moore 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.
At last, Ron Paul has a decent issues page which includes immigration. And it’s 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.
It’s odd that Tim Pawlenty doesn’t devote space to his stance on immigration, particularly when it’s reasonably good per the standards of Numbers USA. Just based on what they say and not having a lot to go on, I think I can safely give him six points.
This video gives a pretty good summary of Buddy 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.
While Mitt 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.
Rick Santorum also 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.
As predicted, the field is beginning to spread out. While it’s not impossible for someone outside the top six or so to catch up it’s starting to look like I’m going against conventional wisdom. So what else is new?
Meanwhile, on the other side:
While he’s supposedly cracked down on the worst illegal immigrants, Barack Obama is trying to sneak the DREAM Act through and has done little to secure the borders. He loses another seven points.
Meanwhile, the one-note samba that is Randall Terry says nothing about immigration.
