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.)
At the risk of a slow-loading post, there are 30 photos on this one. But I took a lot more, and you know every picture tells a story with me. And this is the story of the Maryland GOP Fall Convention, brought to you by…
I’ll begin with Friday night, the usual social time for the convention. Even though I’d never been to the Sheraton in Annapolis, once I saw these I knew I was in the right place.
(Of course, I took that snapshot yesterday morning.)
But first I sat through the first portion of the Executive Committee meeting. We got as far as a brief budget discussion and Chair’s Report before being tossed out when the meeting transitioned to a closed session. Perhaps the most interesting pieces of news were the search for a new Executive Director had attracted 40 applicants and the “several options” for a new home, where the goal is to choose the “place that’s most fiscally responsible.”
So it was time to find a hospitality suite and schmooze for votes. Because I’m a Cain supporter, that’s where I started out.
They had lots of balloons both inside and out. Naturally they had pretty substantial food too.
No, it’s not Godfather’s Pizza. Unfortunately, to be authentic we would have to endure cold pizza, considering the closest Godfather’s location is in Lancaster, PA – 72 miles from Annapolis. (Yes, I verified that.) It’s the thought that counts, right?
But I didn’t get the one thing I wanted from there because they didn’t have this swag on Saturday.
My car doesn’t have the Cain sticker on it yet. Maybe later.
But they also had the most witty signage by far, like this example.
Compare this to the quite understated Mitt Romney suite.
Many of those present there would be what one considers party brass. I see a former Chair and a current Committeeman in this picture.
Actually, I had an interesting conversation there with Audrey Scott there regarding a post I made awhile back. (I think it may be this one where I quoted something I wrote from 2006, before I was on the Central Committee.) I’m glad Audrey appreciates my passion but if that’s what she’s referring to she’s barking up the wrong tree.
Returning to the present day, I can’t ignore the other Presidential candidate with a presence there – although it wasn’t a hospitality suite.
I think that was the only Gadsden flag I saw there, despite the perceived influence of the TEA Party on GOP politics. I’m sure there is a segment of the TEA Party which prefers Ron Paul, but I wouldn’t go so far as saying he’s the most popular in that group.
It was a Senate candidate, though, who had the sweetest suite. Check out this spread, practically guaranteed to induce a diabetic coma.
It belonged to Senate hopeful Rich Douglas, who was holding court there with sponsor and former Ambassador Roger Noriega.
Notice the lapel poppy for Veteran’s Day; a nice touch.
Not to be outdone in the sweets department, fellow Senate candidate Dan Bongino had plenty of Smith Island cake, thanks to a friend. He also had the biggest space.
And, at the risk of making this look like a Weekend of local rock post, he’s the first candidate I’ve seen at these affairs with a band. These guys were pretty good classic rockers – I’m told the singer bassist is one of Dan’s county coordinators.
The signage was a little wordy but touted his endorsements. Dan revealed he has a few more before he’s done.
Besides the Bongino suite, which had decent traffic, I found the host county’s suite the most popular.
Maybe it’s all the elected official sponsors.
Speaking of supporters, it’s also worth further exploring something I touched upon with the Ron Paul table. A number of political organizations and businesses catering to that field had secured spaces. Here’s some of the examples.
The fairly new Maryland GOP Hispanic Coalition promoted an upcoming event – a forum on illegal immigration next week in Ellicott City.
As we were informed during the convention, the fight over Congressional redistricting is not over yet. This group is looking to install a much cleaner and fairer apportionment.
We had no shortage of social issue discussion there either.
Perhaps this group knew PMM was coming, and attempted a little bit of point/counterpoint.
Senator Nancy Jacobs, the former Minority Leader in the Senate, had her own backdrop. But it doesn’t reflect yet her probable run for the Second Congressional District seat held by Dutch Ruppersberger.
She also took a few minutes to appear on Red Maryland Radio, which was on location with co-hosts Greg Kline and Jimmy Braswell.
This looks pretty simple, doesn’t it? Here’s Kline getting set up earlier on.
And if you want true radio gold, give this a listen just after the 60 minute mark. Yes, it’s my RMR debut – long overdue, I must say.
But in all candor it was enjoyable to be part of that remote. Yet the show which was even more interesting came once the sun rose over Annapolis again.
Our breakfast speaker was Frank Kelly III. Now Frank isn’t an elected official, just an interested citizen and business owner who was tapped to speak to us about the marriage issue – something the GOP was “a little bit involved” in.
But I learned a couple things from Frank on the pro-life front. At the time of the adoption of Roe v. Wade in 1973, Maryland only permitted abortion in cases of rape, incest, or threat to mother’s life. That changed in 1990 when abortion on demand was passed through the Maryland legislature. And the chief Democratic opponent? A Senator named Frank Kelly.
The younger Kelly got emotional as he recounted how his dad’s eight day filibuster against the bill ended up costing him a pretty safe seat in the Maryland Senate, where he served three terms from 1978-90. “People were spitting on us” at the polls that year, but “my dad stood for life.”
Returning to the marriage front, Kelly also mentioned how the “language of discrimination has been artificially inserted” into the same-sex marriage issue. Gays want approval for their lifestyle, and thus anything said in disapproval is automatically labeled “hate speech.”
Frank yielded a portion of his time to Maryland Family Alliance president Derek McCoy.
McCoy echoed Kelly’s remarks, but also warned “there’s a culture war being waged” in Maryland and nationally. “We’re fighting for a signpost of morality” for future generations on the marriage issue, noting that North Carolina and Minnesota will have that issue on the ballot in 2012, and Maryland might, too, if a same-sex marriage bill succeeds this time in the General Assembly. Last time pro-homosexual advocacy group Equality Maryland “rigged the system” and threatened business which didn’t support their bill, McCoy claimed, but “we kept coming from so many sides” that a bill guaranteed to pass didn’t.
After breakfast, I sat in on an interesting training session on the media while others talked about candidate recruitment, fundraising, and other intriguing topics.
At lunch, Chair Alex Mooney went over some upcoming events before introducing our speaker, Delegate Neil Parrott.
Parrott was blunt in his assessment: “We see this great country under attack today.” He pointed out that the TEA Party delayed Obamacare by a year, which pushed back other noxious legislation like cap-and-trade. We had won victories on national issues thanks to the influence of the TEA Party.
In Maryland, though, Neil still believed “the arrogance of the liberal leadership is appalling.” Still, the petition drive he spearheaded against in-state tuition for illegal aliens was a model which could be used elsewhere. And since only 1/3 of the signatures gathered for the drive were under contention due to the collection system, there should be more than enough to place the bill on the ballot despite a pending lawsuit. The internet-based system “worked like a charm” in driving down the error rate, and was “a new tool” we could use – provided there’s follow-through and the issue wins at the ballot box, too.
Parrott also brought up redistricting, saying the Congressional map was “ridiculous” and that “we can’t allow O’Malley to get away with this” on either the Congressional or state redistricting.
In closing, Parrott brought up the real-life examples of Wisconsin, Maine, and New Jersey to conclude change is possible if we work hard enough to make it happen.
Finally, it was time for the main event.
I already detailed the fate of our bylaws amendment, but there was a lot more said in the session. I’m going to focus on the reports of the Senate Minority Leader E.J. Pipkin and House Minority Leader Tony O’Donnell.
The newly elected Pipkin called it “humbling” to be selected as Minority Leader, but spent much of his time contending that Martin O’Malley wants to drive people back to Baltimore City through the War on Rural Maryland and its 1.6 million residents. Included in that assessment were the proposed septic ban, the “dangerous” PlanMaryland, Watershed Improvement Plans” which would cost 65,000 Maryland jobs, and the refusal to progress on extracting energy from the Marcellus Shale formation under Maryland’s panhandle. “O’Malley’s policies will kill jobs in rural areas,” Pipkin countered.
O’Donnell began his remarks by pointing out the GOP success in Virginia. “I sense it’s coming” to Maryland, he said, as Free State residents react to the prospects of higher gas taxes, Congressional redistricting which “insults the people of Maryland,” and a $28 billion time bomb of unfunded pensions and retiree benefits. He also had a message for the Fifth Congressional District: we “must hold Steny Hoyer accountable.”
We also heard briefly from Prince George’s County Chair Mykel Harris about the redistricting lawsuit he’s a plaintiff to. The Maryland GOP isn’t on defense anymore, he said, but instead “went on offense.” It’s fitting from a party that “passed civil rights and…will enforce it.”
Before we got to the bylaws amendment, we also received quick reports from our National Committeewoman Joyce Terhes, National Committeeman Louis Pope, Chair Alex Mooney, and Linda Hernandez of the aforementioned Hispanic Coalition. One item I gleaned from Mooney’s remarks was his claim that PlanMaryland is indeed subject to referendum. Very interesting.
So there you have it, the sights and words from our biannual get-together. Our Spring Convention should present a united front as the Presidential race will be pretty much decided, but we will have additional national convention delegates and alternates to select. In the meantime, Heather and I will likely redraft the Rule 11 amendment to reflect feedback we received, so look for that as well.
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…
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?”
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.
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.
Political resume: Ron Paul has a long history of seeking elective office. In 1974, Ron lost his first Congressional bid but won an April, 1976 special election in the same district. He only served a few months before losing the general election later that year. Undaunted, Ron ran again and won in 1978 and served in Congress through the 1984 election when he chose to run for the U.S. Senate, losing in the primary.
Four years later, in 1988, Ron ran for President for the first time on the Libertarian Party ticket and received 1/2 of 1% of the vote, which translated to over 400,000 votes nationally.
In 1996, Paul opted to run again for a Congressional seat, returning to the Republican fold. He won that year and has served there since, although he will abandon the seat for 2012. Finally, Paul made his second presidential bid in 2008, raising millions of dollars but getting only a small percentage of the overall vote. This time around RealClearPolitics.com has consistently shown him polling just under 10% of the vote, placing him a respectable fourth overall and third among announced candidates.
On campaign finance/election reform (three points): Ron has made all the right votes on campaign finance and has maintained his position throughout. Since he’s currently serving in Congress, I’m giving him three points.
On private property rights (five points): Ron is an odd case. His voting record would suggest he supports private property rights, but in looking up Gary Johnson I saw that Paul supported the Kelo decision. I can only give him two points based on voting record.
On the Second Amendment (seven points): I would have expected this from Paul – he votes the right way and gets high GOA marks (an A+) so he’ll get seven points.
On education (eight points): By and large Ron has a view that wishes the federal government out of the educational realm. But he supports tax credits for Christian schooling, and that’s choosing a winner so he gets only six points.
On the Long War/veterans affairs (nine points): This area killed Ron’s chances with me in 2008, so let me say straight out that I don’t agree with Paul’s isolationism. Maybe that stance isn’t so bad, but his defense of Iran getting nukes is just batshit crazy. Yet Ron does have some redeeming qualities that fall under the category of veterans’ affairs, so I’ll be kind to him and dock him six points instead of all nine.
On immigration (eleven points): Paul’s stance on immigration is odd because Numbers USA gives him poor marks yet what he says on his page makes some sense, and it’s borne out by his voting record. So I’ll give him six points.
On energy independence (twelve points): Ron has an energy policy I can agree with aside from one glaring exception. In Paul’s case, it’s those tax credits for purchase and production of alternative energy technologies, which belie the case he states that, “(t)he free market – not government – is the solution to America’s energy needs.” And his voting record is spotty because Ron skipped a lot of key votes. But since the rest of the ideas are sound and he didn’t make a commercial with San Fran Nan like Newt Gingrich did, I’ll give him nine points.
On entitlements (thirteen points): You know, I thought Ron would go farther in health care, But abolishing Social Security – that’s a winner in my book. Let’s hope he hasn’t changed his mind – he gets 12 points.
On trade and job creation (fourteen points): Ron is a free trader, almost to a fault. But in terms of job creation, Ron has the reputation of being anti-regulation, which is a plus. Also, Ron is the lone candidate who takes on the unions and advocates a national right-to-work law. Now that would create jobs in some benighted areas, although it would perhaps erode Tenth Amendment rights. On the whole, despite the fact he doesn’t really have a specific plan, I trust him on this issue and think he deserves thirteen points.
On taxation and the role of government (fifteen points): There is one sentence on Paul’s site which says it all: “Restraining federal spending by enforcing the Constitution’s strict limits on the federal government’s power would help result in a 0% income tax rate for Americans.” Paul is also correct in advocating for a repeal of the Sixteenth Amendment prior to adopting a flat or FairTax. The only quibble I have is that Ron advocates for certain writeoffs and deductions, which make a flat tax more difficult to achieve. He gets 14 of 15 points in this category.
Intangibles (up to three points): It appears to me that Paul is pro-life, which is a plus, and he has it just right on marriage. I also believe he would appoint proper judicially restrained judges moreso than most others. Aside from being naive about Islamofascism, I like Ron’s stance on foreign policy in general, including Israel. But I have to deduct a point based on his age – at 76, I have to believe his health may be a factor. He will net two points.
Well, the results of the Ames Straw Poll are in, and they’re not a complete surprise.
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.
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.
For those of you who thought having an Iowa caucus right after New Year’s Day (and a full ten months before the election) was ridiculous, well, we may just see this happen again.
In a Politico story from Friday, writer Emily Schultheis revealed that Arizona Governor Jan Brewer is considering moving their primary – already scheduled prior to a date authorized by both parties (February 28, 2012) – to January 31. “It only makes sense that our state have its voice heard loud and clear,” said Brewer. I’ll bet 49 other governors feel the same way, Jan.
In turn, both Iowa (tentatively scheduled for February 6) and New Hampshire would be forced to move forward because Florida would likely jump forward from its January 31st date to stay ahead. Next thing you know, it’s a primary for Christmas – that’s the direction we’re headed. And it’s shameful.
I was hoping we’d see some common sense prevail after a 2008 Maryland primary that made our Congressman a lame duck 10 1/2 months before the end of his term (and just 13 1/2 after he’d won re-election.) And even February 12 was too late for Maryland to have a roster of picks to choose from since Mitt Romney withdrew from the race a week prior. Out of nine GOP candidates on the ballot only four were still active candidates at the time (John McCain, Mike Huckabee, Alan Keyes, and Ron Paul) while Democrats had just three of eight (Barack Obama, Hillary Clinton, and Mike Gravel.) As for the rest, you may as well have tossed away your vote.
For years I’ve advocated a solution which does two things: makes smaller states more meaningful and compacts the race to a much shorter period. I think a June-to-November campaign is long enough, and here’s how it would work in reverse order, using a 2012 calendar as an example.
Doesn’t that seem like a more logical plan? It would probably save us all a ton of money because candidates would only have a shorter window in which to make ad buys and need only travel to certain small regions rather than all over the country. It also means that, aside from Iowa and New Hampshire, regions of the country would eventually get first crack at either a Republican or Democratic nominee (or both) every twenty years or so. And smaller states could get a little more love from candidates.
But I doubt my plan would be accepted by the powers that be. Instead, by the time the 2020 cycle comes around we’ll be voting in the 2018 General Election as the primary for 2020. Don’t think I’m kidding, either.
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.)
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.
