Tag: Rick Perry

The Perry problem

My latest for Pajamas Media.

Last week was a tough week for Texas Governor Rick Perry, who had surged to the front of the GOP presidential line when he announced his bid on August 13. His Orlando debate performance was panned by critics, making it the third straight debate where Perry underwhelmed on a national stage. In that Orlando debate’s aftermath, Perry’s “all-in” strategy at the Presidency 5 straw poll failed. Observers were stunned when Herman Cain, heretofore considered a second-tier candidate, instead walked off with the Florida prize, beating Perry by a better than 2 to 1 margin.

But there was another damning piece on Perry last week which has mostly escaped notice. While it’s beyond question that Rick Perry’s immigration stance wouldn’t win him any friends at the Center for Immigration Studies, a group which favors stricter limits on who and how many are allowed into the country, the numbers they ran state a case that most of the thousands of jobs created in Texas in spite of  the national recession are going to the immigrant population (legal and illegal) rather than native-born Americans.

(continued at Pajamas Media…)

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:

  1. Herman Cain – 74 points
  2. Roy Moore – 73 points
  3. Michele Bachmann – 71 points
  4. Ron Paul – 68 points
  5. Rick Perry – 59 points
  6. Rick Santorum – 57 points
  7. Thad McCotter – 51 points
  8. Gary Johnson – 50 points
  9. Newt Gingrich – 48 points
  10. Mitt Romney – 40 points
  11. Buddy Roemer – 39 points
  12. Jon Huntsman – 25 points
  13. 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:

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

T-Paw first to go

I suppose third wasn’t good enough and the impact of Rick Perry entering the race was too much for Tim Pawlenty to overcome. Today he announced he was ending his Presidential bid.

Like Tommy Thompson four years ago, the former governor of a state adjacent to Iowa didn’t carry the day as he thought he would. While Tim received nearly 2,300 votes of the 16,800 or so cast, he lost the battle to his fellow Minnesotan Michele Bachmann by a better than 2:1 margin. That’s likely what sealed his fate.

It’s likely that Pawlenty’s support may drift mostly in two directions, since he didn’t endorse a candidate in his announcement. I think the portion that already wasn’t leaning toward Rick Perry will just go ahead and embrace the Perry campaign, while others may help Jon Huntsman keep his flailing bid alive.

Meanwhile, despite his puny 35-vote performance, bottom-feeder Thad McCotter is going to continue his long-shot bid. His campaign had its predictable spin on the results:

“For this campaign, the Straw Poll was not about votes, it was about introducing our candidate to the public in our first large forum,” said Christopher Rants, McCotter senior adviser. “For a campaign that has only just begun, it was important that we show the people of Iowa – and the rest of the country – that this was a serious candidate ready to address serious issues for our country. By any measure, we did that this weekend.”

I’m sorry, Christopher, but getting 35 votes is lousy. Rick Perry’s campaign has just begun as well and he got over 700 – as a write-in who didn’t even campaign in Iowa this week. Try again.

So we still have the same net number of hopefuls we did last week as the one who entered was countered by an early exit.

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.

  1. Michele Bachmann, 4823 votes (28.55%)
  2. Ron Paul, 4671 votes (27.65%)
  3. Tim Pawlenty, 2293 votes (13.57%)
  4. Rick Santorum, 1657 votes (9.81%)
  5. Herman Cain, 1456 votes (8.62%)
  6. Rick Perry, 718 votes (3.62%) – write-in
  7. Mitt Romney, 567 votes (3.36%) – skipped event
  8. Newt Gingrich, 385 votes  (2.28%) – skipped event
  9. Jon Huntsman, 69 votes (0.41%) – skipped event
  10. 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:

  1. Michele Bachmann (House member from Minnesota)*
  2. Ron Paul (House member from Texas)*
  3. Newt Gingrich (former Speaker of the House from Georgia)*
  4. Rick Santorum (former Senator from Pennsylvania)*
  5. 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:

  1. Herman Cain (former CEO, radio host, and onetime U.S. Senate candidate from Georgia)*
  2. Roy Moore (Alabama Supreme Court justice and candidate for Governor)
  3. 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:

  1. Mitt Romney (former governor of Massachusetts)*
  2. Jon Huntsman (former governor of Utah)*
  3. Tim Pawlenty (former governor of Minnesota)*
  4. Gary Johnson (former governor of New Mexico)
  5. 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:

  1. Mitt Romney
  2. Sarah Palin
  3. Rick Perry
  4. Michele Bachmann
  5. Ron Paul
  6. Newt Gingrich
  7. Jon Huntsman
  8. Tim Pawlenty
  9. Herman Cain
  10. Gary Johnson
  11. 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.

Thoughts and updates

I was thinking a little bit about the Presidential race this evening, and it started when I moderated a comment on my last post from Phil Collins (who I presume is not “the” Phil Collins, just like the Maryland GOP ranks have a Dick Cheney who isn’t the former VP.) He claims that he spoke personally to Buddy Roemer last Thursday and “he’ll run.”

If you believe the conventional wisdom, a guy like Roemer has no shot against a cadre of candidates who have money and name recognition. You know the names: Romney, Palin, perhaps Huntsman and Pawlenty as well. According to those “in the know” the rest may as well stay home for various reasons: they’re running horrible campaigns (Newt Gingrich), too extreme for the American public (Ron Paul, Rick Santorum), or no one knows who they are (the rest.) Funny, but I seem to recall back in 2007 the 2008 election was going to be that 2000 New York U.S. Senate race pundits were salivating over (but never occurred): Rudy Giuliani vs. Hillary Clinton.

Almost anyone who runs for President thinks they’ll win, although there is that segment of society who has the ego trip of placing their name on the ballot line. (It’s why there are 156 – and counting – who have filed with the FEC to run. Most won’t even qualify for the ballot in Maryland.) The serious candidates, though, are the ones who are planning their message and the means to get it out there.

Yet even in this age of new media punditry, conventional wisdom makes the rules. Why else would a candidate who had not announced be invited to a GOP contender debate when others who were already in the race get snubbed? It’s understandable that a stage with over 150 contenders would make for useless debate, but someone like Gary Johnson belonged on the stage in New Hampshire. (Similarly, Buddy Roemer was snubbed for both New Hampshire and an earlier debate in South Carolina.) I think the 11 contestants I list on the GOP side are the most legitimate because they have some political experience and have a viable campaign. Others I would include on that list if they chose to run would be Rick Perry, Sarah Palin, and Rudy Giuliani. That’s not to say those are the only three, just the most likely.

It’s for those candidates who have announced that I’m slowly but surely working on the series of posts which will establish the Presidential hopeful I’ll stand behind this primary season.

Now some would say my track record is not good, as I supported Duncan Hunter in 2008 and preferred Steve Forbes when he ran in 1996 and 2000, but that’s only because the rest of the nation hasn’t caught up with me yet. (I say that only half-joking. Imagine what our country would be like with a flat tax system and a tougher foreign and trade policy like Hunter prescribed. I daresay our economic circumstances would be much improved.) Obviously I have a broad mix of conservative and libertarian views on issues, but it’s very complex. Someone said that the ideal candidate would take a little bit from everyone in the race, and I think almost every GOP candidate will have areas they shine in.

But since I want to use column space for this important issue, something has to give and I think I’m going to wait until later this fall to complete the monoblogue Accountability Project. After all, we have a Special Session so there’s no point in compiling legislative awards for the year until that’s over. The good news is that I have the most of the list of votes I’m using handy so the rest is just compilation. (I only need to find three good floor amendment votes to finish the list of 25 key votes for the session. The hard part will be limiting it to three, I’m sure.) I was also going to do it by county but since districts will be changing before the next election I’ll hold on to the old format until closer to 2014. It makes my life a little easier!

That’s one update. A second piece of news is that I should have a new advertiser soon, bringing my list to three. Yes, it’s a modest number compared to other websites but all have paid me in advance. They see value in maintaining a quality website which brings a mix of content on a daily basis. (You can too.)

So look for the posts on picking the Presidential candidates, along with other good stuff coming your way.

Odds and ends number 29

Since I started cleaning out my video archives last night, today seems like a perfect time to do the same with my e-mail box. As always, these are interesting items but ones to which I need only devote a paragraph or two.

In the 2008 election I found the Club for Growth a valuable resource, as did Andy Harris (for a different reason.) And once again they are preparing white papers on each of the major GOP candidates; so far they have released two for Newt Gingrich and Tim Pawlenty. Others on the horizon (once they officially announce) are Mitt Romney, Sarah Palin, Rick Santorum, Jon Huntsman, Ron Paul, Michele Bachmann, and Herman Cain. (They may have to add Texas governor Rick Perry to that list.)

One thing which might be a campaign issue for the Club to consider is the price of gasoline. While it’s retreated slightly from its peak of a few weeks ago, there’s still a long way to go before we reach the price point of a couple years back when our current President took office. But instead of shifting blame, the problem could be solved in a matter of weeks according to the Heritage Foundation:

Others, like the American Petroleum Institute, are chiming in as well. The fact of the matter is that increasing our domestic production could assist in bringing down the price because over 2/3 of the price comes from the crude oil itself. More supply to meet the demand commonly means lower prices.

And maybe I should share this graphic with the Maryland General Assembly – I know a lot of them read here – since they’re trying to cut the western end of the state out of the Marcellus Shale bounty.

(Thanks to some good friends of monoblogue, Ericka Andersen and Jane Van Ryan, for sharing. I have another Maryland energy-related piece for tomorrow too.)

And then we have the newly redesigned fuel economy stickers for 2013 models. Now there’s a little bit of sense in trying to compare the apples and oranges of electric cars vs. conventional fuel models, but the EPA isn’t telling the full story. And considering their original intent of giving letter grades for fuel economy (with electric vehicles rating an A and SUVs generally getting a D) we can see how they’re trying to influence behavior of the carbuying public rather than letting the market determine our fate.

Let’s change the subject and return to someone mentioned above. Perhaps you recall how Newt Gingrich savaged the Ryan plan for Medicare, much to the chagrin of conservatives and others who feel Medicare is unsustainable. Well, in an e-mail to supporters and others who happen to be on his list, he furiously backtracked:

The only way our country can win the future is by engaging our fellow citizens in serious discussions about major reform—not by avoiding hard choices. Congressman Ryan has made a key contribution to entitlement reform, courageously starting the conversation about how to save and improve Medicare. And that’s exactly the kind of national conversation I want our campaign to be about!

There is a reason over 1.4 million Americans are joining me in the online conversation to help win the future.

Yes, Newt, you were busted. But it is interesting to know that you have 1.4 million on your e-mail list.

So my mailbox is now relatively clean, and hopefully you’re much more well-informed.

Has the time come for a real maverick?

A few election cycles ago Republicans ended up nominating a real, honest-to-goodness old warhorse for their presidential candidate, putting him up against a scandal-plagued incumbent Democrat. With the off-year elections two years before bringing a resounding GOP victory, Republican regulars shrugged off the 23-year age gap between the two nominees and presumed that the contrast between the incumbent’s lacking character and their nominee’s homespun charm could still score them an upset victory.

But thanks to a lackluster campaign and just enough of a third-party effort to deny the incumbent a majority of the vote, Republican stalwart Bob Dole lost the 1996 election to Bill Clinton. It was an era which placed the term “triangulation” into the political lexicon and Clinton executed that strategy masterfully in winning a second term.

In fact, recent history suggests Washington insiders don’t do well as Republican candidates. George W. Bush won because he cut his political teeth in Texas, far from the nation’s capital. Similarly, Ronald Reagan governed California before winning the White House on his second try and America expected more of the same when they elected a Beltway insider to succeed him in Vice-President George H.W. Bush. Conversely, Dole and John McCain were longtime Republican fixtures in Washington, perhaps alienating them from the party grassroots.

To that end, a number of names being bandied about for the GOP nod in 2012 come from the ranks of state governors. While Bobby Jindal of Louisiana declared last week he was not in the running, there’s still several current or former state chief executives in the mix – Tim Pawlenty of Minnesota, Texas’s Rick Perry, 2008 candidates Mike Huckabee of Arkansas and Mitt Romney of Massachusetts, and of course former second banana Sarah Palin of Alaska.

Yet there is a Beltway insider who has enough appeal among the conservatives who attend events like CPAC or last week’s Southern Republican Leadership Conference to beat most of the above-mentioned names in their straw polls – he won the CPAC vote handily and just missed winning the SRLC balloting by one vote. If nominated, he would be 26 years older than the current incumbent Democratic president.

Somehow Ron Paul has escaped the wrath of being perceived as a Washington insider despite serving three stints in Congress totaling 20 years. Obviously he didn’t do particularly well in a crowded primary field in 2008 as far as gathering votes goes, but he proved a potent fundraiser and has become a darling among the portion of the Republican Party which preaches fiscal conservatism and limited government through his Campaign for Liberty organization. More importantly, he has an appeal among young conservatives which belies his age.

And with economic issues in the forefront this time around, one Achilles heel of Paul’s 2008 bid – his strident opposition to the war in Iraq – is off the table. His domestic policies generally follow a line which straddles conservatism and libertarianism, making him a definite friend of the TEA Party set.

It’s doubtful that many of the Presidential players for the 2012 cycle are going to make their intentions known before the 2010 election because of November’s potential for upending the Democrats’ stranglehold on our legislative branch. This wait-and-see approach serves to gauge the strength of TEA Party politics and the general anti-incumbent mood.

But don’t be surprised if the gentleman from Texas doesn’t toss his hat back into the presidential ring next year and is more successful this time around. Unlike Bob Dole, it’s not likely this elderly Washington insider will be uninspiring on the campaign trail.

Michael Swartz, an architect and writer who lives in rural Maryland, is a Liberty Features Syndicated writer. This happened to be posted on April 12.