Herman Cain – Page 3

Checking in

Well, day one of the Maryland Republican Party convention is just about in the books. On the bylaw amendment front, it looks like there’s a decent chance change is a-comin’.

In case you were wondering (and I’ll have much more on this tomorrow or Sunday, depending on the time this wraps up) there were suites for both Herman Cain and Mitt Romney here, while Ron Paul has a table as well. Both Dan Bongino and Rich Douglas had spaces, although Bongino had a ballroom.

So I’m giving you this quick update at the end of a whirlwind day and week for me. I already have plenty to write about, including my Red Maryland Radio debut. (That’s called a tease.)

Back with more tomorrow…

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?”

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.

‘Buffett Rule’ = unintended consequences

Really – how dumb does President Obama think we are? He’s playing that old tired class envy card again.

His latest scheme goes like this:

Middle-class families shouldn’t have to pay a higher tax rate than millionaires and billionaires.

So President Obama has proposed the “Buffett Rule,” which would require the wealthiest Americans to pay a tax rate at least as high as the middle class. Republicans are already calling this “class warfare,” and they will fight this plan with everything they have.

Yeah, that will do wonders for investment and job creation. So I don’t call it ‘class warfare’, I call it ‘sheer stupidity.’

Continue reading “‘Buffett Rule’ = unintended consequences”

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”

My purity

Subtitled, a comment which deserves a post.

On my mullings the other day about a Maryland General Assembly leadership fight I got a comment from Anne Arundel County political observer Jerry Shandrowsky. He noted:

You talk about demanding “some ideological purity among Republicans.” I think you really want blind partisanship.

Well, let’s assume for this argument that the reason a political party comes into being is that the adherents share a particular philosophy. In American history there have been numerous political parties, with some being so narrowly tailored that they basically focused on one issue (like the Prohibition Party, which is still around but is far removed from its heyday a century ago.) But the most successful parties have a much broader palette of issues they address, normally guided by a desire for some sort of social change. As examples, the Communist Party wishes to install a Soviet-style collectivist system of government, the Libertarian Party places a value on personal freedom and tends to promote isolationism as an extension of that, and the Green Party stresses environmental issues. It goes without saying that I’m not down with every aspect of the GOP platform, which was last revised prior to the rise of the TEA Party movement. In turn, though, there arguably would not have been a TEA Party movement had it not been for the dramatic shift in governance after the 2008 election.

Certainly I’ve been disappointed with Republicans before, and toeing the party line is often difficult when their highest vote-getter is not where I am philosophically (see McCain, John or more locally Gilchrest, Wayne or Ehrlich, Bob.) At that point I have to concede the aspect of moving the ball forward and simply hope not to lose a whole lot of ground, weighing the electability factor in. But I really, really hate having to vote against someone.

Yet there can be exceptions. There have been times where I’ve strayed from the GOP reservation to vote for what I saw as a more conservative alternative – yes, I was a Perot voter and there was a scenario I could have voted for a conservative Democrat over a moderate Republican last year. (It didn’t come to pass, though.)

So let’s look at an ongoing process I’m still working on – that of selecting a 2012 Presidential candidate to support. I’m going issue-by-issue trying to find statements and other ways candidates have addressed issues important to me. None of them have been perfect, and it’s interesting to note the wide variance in philosophies in the race. We have Republicans who veer left on a number of issues who are among the bottom-feeders. Others with a more libertarian streak score highly in some areas but fall well short in the area of foreign policy because I don’t tend to be an isolationist.

What I’m finding is that those candidates who are TEA Party favorites tend to score the highest, which is why Michele Bachmann and Herman Cain are doing the best. (Bear in mind as well that I haven’t graded Rick Perry, although I suspect he may fall somewhere in a group just below the top tier based on what I understand about his immigration stance – on the other hand he’s not a favorite of the establishment and that will help him in my eyes.) These are candidates who believe in limited, Constitutional government where decisions are made away from Washington, D.C. Of course, promises may not bring results but at least this is a way to separate the wheat from the chaff and (in most cases) the records don’t lie. (Obviously this makes a Cain candidacy somewhat of a crapshoot.)

Now consider what I said in my post about the Maryland General Assembly Republicans. Unlike the party leadership fight we had last December, where we had the debate over what philosophical direction the Maryland Republican Party needed to take and by proxy who would best lead them there, I didn’t have the chance to look at what was being said by the candidates. In this case I could only look at the way those in the running voted, so I did.

Unlike that party leadership election, I don’t have a ballot in the House GOP delegation’s process. Certainly I can encourage Delegates to make the proper decision but they make the call.

Now distill the TEA Party philosophy I’ve exhibited in my Presidential choice down to the leadership race. There are two candidates for each position, and in both cases one has voted as I would quite a bit more often than the other. If I’m concerned about the direction the Republican Party takes, wouldn’t I support those who vote in the manner I believe exhibits the philosophy of limited government the best? Why would I elect a leader I only agree with 50 to 70 percent of the time when I could have one I agree with 80 or 90 percent?

There’s no doubt I’d like the Maryland Republican Party to be a strong and viable force in state politics, and it’s my contention that we should be the conservative alternative to liberal, big-spending Democrats who love the nanny state. Leadership which can’t be counted on to stand firm to principle is worse than no leadership at all, and that’s the concern I expressed.

But when push comes to shove I’m a conservative first and a Republican second. I really hate it when I have to compromise because most of the time our side ends up losing valuable ground we had maintained prior to the compromise. Think of it as the reverse of “pushing back the frontiers of ignorance,” as Walter E. Williams likes to say.

We need to take a page from the other side – they never stop trying to usurp our freedom. If they can’t win an election, they’ll use the judiciary system. If they can’t pick the judge, their bureaucracy will govern by fiat. If their bureaucracy can’t impose its will they’ll mislead voters into electing them by prosing “hope and change” or to “drain the swamp.” And so the vicious cycle continues.

I say it’s time to reverse course. If you’re on the edge of a cliff facing forward, you’d better believe “R” is a better alternative than “D.”

Bachmann takes Iowa, but Paul a close second

Well, the results of the Ames Straw Poll are in, and they’re not a complete surprise.

Michele Bachmann, 4823 votes (28.55%)
Ron Paul, 4671 votes (27.65%)
Tim Pawlenty, 2293 votes (13.57%)
Rick Santorum, 1657 votes (9.81%)
Herman Cain, 1456 votes (8.62%)
Rick Perry, 718 votes (3.62%) – write-in
Mitt Romney, 567 votes (3.36%) – skipped event
Newt Gingrich, 385 votes (2.28%) – skipped event
Jon Huntsman, 69 votes (0.41%) – skipped event
Thad McCotter, 35 votes (0.21%)

By dividing the vote totals by the percentages of the top two finishers, I’ve deduced there are roughly 187 votes for candidates not listed. That means Sarah Palin (if she received all of them, which I’m sure she did not) would have finished well back in the pack and ahead of just Huntsman and McCotter. Considering Rick Perry finished sixth without being on the ballot, perhaps she’s not the formidable “Mama Grizzly” we may have thought she’d be.

While Bachmann and Pawlenty were expected to do well, Rick Santorum probably raised a lot of eyebrows by coming in fourth. Surely Pawlenty’s team has to be disappointed by how badly he was trounced by Michele Bachmann, though – being the second-most popular Minnesotan in Iowa is bad enough, but he lost by a better than 2-to-1 margin.

Having Ron Paul come in second is no real surprise, as he tends to do quite well in a situation where voting is confined to a small space that can be packed by his rabid following. But Paul tripled his 2007 performance in Ames, going from 9.1% to 27.7 percent. Perhaps he’s more of a player this time, but most likely still not good enough to win the nomination.

A few months back in the spring, it looked like Herman Cain was the “it” candidate, but apparently his support has cooled off. It’s likely Bachmann’s entrance has cut heavily into his support and he may be an early casualty in the race because of this result.

In looking at the bottom five, you have the newly-announced write-in (Rick Perry) who did reasonably well. It would have been interesting, though, to see how he would have done had he been on the ballot. I’m sure he wouldn’t have beaten Michele Bachmann or Ron Paul but I think he would’ve knocked Pawlenty down to a fourth or fifth place finish.

The next three did not represent themselves in Ames, so their campaigns will chalk their poor finishes up to that factor and not how much they may or may not have appealed to the Republican regulars who attended. In that respect, I’m not surprised at the order in which they finished. However, with only 1/5 or so of the votes of the next person up, the much-ballyhooed campaign of Jon Huntsman may be in trouble because it’s not catching fire with the grassroots.

I’ve checked Thad McCotter’s website over the last hour, and aside from a Tweet congratulating “my colleagues” Bachmann and Paul on their finishes, there’s no indication of his future plans. But such a poor finish when he spoke for himself at the event doesn’t bode well for his chances. When your votes are outnumbered 138 to 1 by the winner’s, that’s a pretty big hill to climb.

So I suppose the silly season has begun in earnest. As I said yesterday, the only shoe which may need to drop on the GOP side is whether Sarah Palin will make a late entry into the race.

(On the Democratic side, there’s always a chance that Barack Obama may have a primary challenge from the left. If nothing else I’d just like to hear Obama say “I’ll whip his ass” like Jimmy Carter did regarding Ted Kennedy’s longshot bid. That might be the only ass our President whips since SEAL Team 6 isn’t available anymore.)

Once I get back to doing my candidate rankings I’ll add Perry in and see who I select. At the moment I’m backing the frontrunner but it’s all subject to change.

If Perry is in, then who’s out?

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:

Mitt Romney
Sarah Palin
Rick Perry
Michele Bachmann
Ron Paul
Newt Gingrich
Jon Huntsman
Tim Pawlenty
Herman Cain
Gary Johnson
Fred Karger

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.