Barack Obama – Page 22

The insanity may return

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.

November 6: General Election.
September 4-7 and 10-13: Republican and Democratic conventions, respectively.
July 24: Sixth regional primary (Alaska, Hawaii, Washington, Oregon, California, Nevada, Arizona, New Mexico). In 2016 they go first.
July 17: Fifth regional primary (Montana, Idaho, Wyoming, Colorado, Utah, North Dakota, South Dakota, Nebraska). In 2016 they go sixth, in 2020 first.
July 10: Fourth regional primary (Texas, Oklahoma, Arkansas, Missouri, Kansas, Louisiana, Alabama, Mississippi). They would be first in 2024.
July 3: Third regional primary (Minnesota, Wisconsin, Illinois, Michigan, Indiana, Ohio, Kentucky, Tennessee). They would be first in 2028.
June 26: Second regional primary (Florida, Georgia, South Carolina, North Carolina, Virginia, Maryland, District of Columbia, West Virginia). We would be first in 2032, after we work our way down the line.
June 19: First regional primary (Delaware, Pennsylvania, New York, New Jersey, Connecticut, Rhode Island, Massachusetts, Vermont, Maine). They would cycle backwards to be first again in 2036.
June 12: New Hampshire primary. By the way, in order to stay first they have to close their primary so only previously registered Republican voters vote for the GOP nominee and Democratic voters for the Democrat.
June 5: Iowa caucus.

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.

For President 2012: Entitlements

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.

Michele Bachmann – 53 points
Herman Cain – 50 points
Roy Moore – 46 points
Ron Paul – 42 points
Rick Santorum – 40 points
Thad McCotter – 38 points
Newt Gingrich – 33 points
Tim Pawlenty – 26 points
Buddy Roemer – 26 points
Gary Johnson – 24 points
Mitt Romney – 23 points
Jon Huntsman – 6 points
Fred Karger – (-15) points

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.

Randall Terry – 11 points
Barack Obama – (-60) points

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.)

What we’re up against…

It may turn your stomach to watch this, but it’s important to know what the enemy is up to. Here’s Jim Messina from the Barack Obama campaign.

I’m sort of amazed this video only had 300 YouTube views, although I have no idea whether the views on Obama’s website counted toward that total.

The key points I gleaned from this is that the grassroots efforts seem to be concentrated in places where Obama ran strongly last time – so there’s no planning sessions shown in our neck of the woods but California and the Northeast are thick with them. Notably the Carolinas have quite a few, too.

I also saw that there were over 550,000 suckers who donated this time around. While that seems like a lot, notice that Mussina said they raised $86 million “globally.” I thought foreign contributions were illegal? Where is his money coming from then?

And comparing 2011 contributions to 2007 is a bit pointless as well. Remember, there was no incumbent running in 2008 so Obama was one of a number of would-be Democratic candidates at the time. As they are now, the GOP was in the same boat so comparing the number of contributors from then to now is somewhat useless.

But it’s interesting to note that they are putting together a voter registration drive now. Wonder if they were trained by the Board of Elections? If one comes to your door, hey, invite them in to sit a spell. Ask them how that hope and change is working out for them.

Of course, no Obama spiel is complete without taking a swipe at the Republicans and our so-called special interests. If he’s planning to raise $1 billion I hope those groups raise $2 billion. Lord knows where that money will come from in these economic times, but that’s my hope. He has to be stopped.

By the way, if you have $50 to spare for someone dedicated to halting the Obama agenda, Andy Harris is holding a local fundraiser on Monday night at the residence of Cathy Keim. For more details or to RSVP, you can contact her at (443) 880-5912 or sckeim (at) gmail.com. Congressman Harris will be there to discuss the health care issue. RSVP by Thursday, July 15.

For President 2012: Energy independence

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.

Michele Bachmann – 46 points
Herman Cain – 41 points
Roy Moore – 37 points
Thad McCotter – 33 points
Rick Santorum – 33 points
Newt Gingrich – 30 points
Ron Paul – 30 points
Tim Pawlenty – 20 points
Buddy Roemer – 19 points
Mitt Romney – 18 points
Gary Johnson – 16 points
Jon Huntsman – 1 point
Fred Karger – (-16) points

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.

Randall Terry – (-1) point
Barack Obama – (-47) points

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.

For President 2012: Immigration

Here we should start separating the men from the boys (or the women from the girls, to be fair.) Eleven points are at stake and as most know I’m pretty much a hardliner on the subject.

She has the right idea about securing the borders on her campaign site, but Michele Bachmann goes no further as to how. Enforcement of existing law would be a good start, though. The anti-immigration group Numbers USA ranks her highest among GOP candidates, and while I don’t completely agree with their overall stance on the issue it’s a good indicator she’ll do what’s right for Americans. Ten points.

Similarly, Herman Cain promises to “secure our borders, enforce our laws, and promote the existing path to citizenship.” That’s all well and good, but more detail would be good. Helping his cause is that he stood foursquare against amnesty. I think he’ll get nine points.

It’s telling that, aside from the usual mantra of “secure our borders,” Newt Gingrich doesn’t talk about immigration on his campaign site. Maybe it’s because he’s pandering to the so-called Latino vote? I can only give him two points, and that’s in part credit for some past votes. He may think differently now.

Normally I’m a pretty good state’s rights guy, but should we push border security onto the states as Jon Huntsman advocates? The problem with that is California’s version of a “secure” border may not be as tight as Arizona’s. Nor does he address what to do with the illegals who are here; perhaps because he supports the DREAM Act. I’m deducting three points.

I think Gary Johnson‘s immigration approach is naïve, and the idea of any sort of grace period for illegal immigrants rubs me the wrong way. What saves him are some of his ideas about legalizing immigration eventually, such as “one strike, you’re out” – problem is too many already have that strike against them. I’ll call it a wash and keep his point total where it is.

Fred Karger joins the chorus calling for “greatly improved border security” but also advocates “a path to citizenship for immigrants already living in the country.” Smells like amnesty to me, so it’s back in the hole again as I take three points off.

Couched in somewhat soothing language, the approach Thad McCotter takes seems to be pretty sensible. My biggest objection is his caution not to “stigmatize” illegal immigrants – why not? They are flouting the law. His voting record assuages me somewhat, but I’m afraid he may get squishy when push comes to shove. So I’m only giving him five points.

Roy Moore has a somewhat similar view to that of Jon Huntsman in that he would “allow” states to take the lead in border security. But he has a moral position on the issue as well, and I think he would be just fine on the issue because I take it he has a security “floor” in mind which states can exceed if they wish. I’ll give him seven points.

At last, Ron Paul has a decent issues page which includes immigration. And it’s odd because Numbers USA gives him poor marks yet what he says on his page makes some sense, and it’s borne out by his voting record. So I’ll give him six points.

It’s odd that Tim Pawlenty doesn’t devote space to his stance on immigration, particularly when it’s reasonably good per the standards of Numbers USA. Just based on what they say and not having a lot to go on, I think I can safely give him six points.

This video gives a pretty good summary of Buddy Roemer‘s viewpoint. There’s a lot to like, although it’s still a bit short on specifics. He gives the Chamber of Commerce some necessary criticism as well. I think six points is fair.

While Mitt Romney doesn’t address the issue directly on his website, this “unofficial” website makes him look downright hawkish. It’s mainly based on his 2008 statements, but I don’t think he’s flipped much on this. It’s his strongest area so far, and he’ll get nine points.

Rick Santorum also ignores the issue on his website, but his impassioned plea against amnesty in 2006 should count for something. I’ll count it as five points.

As predicted, the field is beginning to spread out. While it’s not impossible for someone outside the top six or so to catch up it’s starting to look like I’m going against conventional wisdom. So what else is new?

Michele Bachmann – 36 points
Roy Moore – 32 points
Herman Cain – 30 points
Thad McCotter – 28 points
Rick Santorum – 26 points
Tim Pawlenty – 25 points
Newt Gingrich – 23 points
Ron Paul – 21 points
Mitt Romney – 21 points
Buddy Roemer – 16 points
Jon Huntsman – 13 points
Gary Johnson – 11 points
Fred Karger – (-10) points

Meanwhile, on the other side:

While he’s supposedly cracked down on the worst illegal immigrants, Barack Obama is trying to sneak the DREAM Act through and has done little to secure the borders. He loses another seven points.

Meanwhile, the one-note samba that is Randall Terry says nothing about immigration.

Randall Terry – (-1) points
Barack Obama – (-35) points

A messy divorce in the offing?

You know, one would think that an administration which is trying to prevent Boeing from moving production of the 787 jetliner to a right-to-work state and has stacked the National Labor Relations Board with union toadies – through recess appointments if necessary – would have Big Labor’s seal of approval. But they’re greedy and chagrined that ‘card check’ didn’t pass when Congress was fully in Democratic hands.

And now Big Labor has to worry about things at the state level. It’s the focus of a report by the Capital Research Center’s Labor Watch project co-authored by Ivan Osorio and Trey Kovacs. And to bear this out, remember that even the union-friendly Martin O’Malley was booed at this supposedly friendly gathering because he wanted to tinker with teacher pensions.

Yet Big Labor suffers from the same problem that any member of a broad coalition of special interests runs into when the Democratic Party seizes power – everybody wants everything they asked for all at once, no matter how noxious. Abortionists want easier access to abortions paid for by Uncle Sam, the gay lobby equates their cause with the civil rights movement and wants laws passed accordingly, gun grabbers want to flout the Second Amendment even more, and so on and so forth. Unions just don’t like taking their place in a long line of liberal special interest groups.

And the key question is: where else can they go? Like those on the conservative side who occasionally express their disgust with the GOP and threaten to boycott the next election if so-and-so is nominated, Big Labor is pretty much stuck with the one who brung them to the dance. They’ve obviously alienated themselves from Republicans, a party they bash mercilessly despite the fact a significant portion of their rank-and-file members vote that way at the ballot box, so I don’t doubt they’ll eventually suck it up and drop millions into the Democratic coffers because there’s nowhere else for them to turn politically. And the fact Big Labor still confiscates huge sums of money for political purposes via union dues means that, somewhere along the line, they and the Democrats will mend fences. It’s all about the Benjamins to both players in that game.

So don’t be surprised to see Big Labor make a push for a more liberal strain of Democrats to replace the ones they feel betrayed them in both state and national races. After all, if they can continue to play the class envy game with any success they’ll always dupe a few useful idiots into pulling the lever for their allies in the Democrat Party, even if they’ll hold their nose a little in the process. As long as President Obama is in office, their goals will be advanced regardless of means.

For President 2012: Long War and veterans affairs

We move on to a category that four years ago was foremost in mind, but has fallen off the radar since. In part that’s because we were successful, but the remainder is a concerted effort by the press to either not make Barack Obama look bad for following on George W. Bush’s policies or having to admit Bush was right.

For example, it may not be in our self-interest to continue in Afghanistan – but I wouldn’t want to make it public knowledge we were leaving, either. That’s the issue I have with some candidates.

Most of this category deals with the Long War, which is a phrase I’ve borrowed from my friends at the Patriot Post to describe our battle with radical Islam. But a little bit has to do with veterans’ affairs. Nine points are at stake in this section.

Having just updated her website, I like what Michele Bachmann has to say about national security. And while veterans groups gripe about this proposal, it makes sense to avoid double-dipping, at least for the time being. I’m giving eight of nine points.

Herman Cain is a little less specific on the issue, but sounds a good tone on Afghanistan. Still, I can’t give him more than six of nine points.

Generally, Newt Gingrich has a pretty good idea of what we need to enhance our national security and win the Long War, so I’m giving him eight points as well.

I’m not quite sure where Jon Huntsman wants to go in the Long War or with national security in general. One problem is that he wants to cut Afghan troops faster than even Obama would. But he’s correct on Libya so I’ll grant him two points.

This subject in particular is where I differ from Gary Johnson. While I do agree we should bring our troops home from certain areas, I think he’s quite Polyannish on the usage of military alliances (look what NATO and the UN drag us into) and I disagree that “soft power” works with our enemies – that’s what President Obama is trying. He is docked five points.

Fred Karger is an enigma on foreign policy – he wants out of Iraq and Afghanistan, but thinks we should be in Libya! Yet “Israel…must be defended at all costs.” That saves him from being docked even more. I’ll take off five points as well since he’s very, very squishy on the subject.

A strong advocate of American exceptionalism and not “leading from behind,” Thad McCotter says on his campaign site, “We must and will win an unconditional victory in the war of freedom against terrorism.” All nine points for Thad.

There are parts I like about Roy Moore and his philosophy and others I’m not so sure of. He wants a missile defense system (good) and more funding for the military (probably good, but I don’t think they need a blank check.) He believes “we should not be entangled in foreign wars merely at the whim and caprice of any President.” (I can buy that.) But to say “we must treat sovereign nations as we would want to be treated” doesn’t leave a lot of room for hammering them when needed. Maybe I’m misunderstanding his intent, but I have to grade him a step down from some others. Seven points.

Let me say straight out that I don’t agree with Ron Paul and his isolationism. But he does have some redeeming qualities that fall under the category of veterans’ affairs, so I’ll be kinder to him than I was Gary Johnson and only dock Ron three points.

Tim Pawlenty seems to have a pretty good understanding of our role in the world, with one exception: he supports our being in Libya and I see no national security interest in that civil war. So I’ll give him just three points.

Buddy Roemer is half-right on Libya, but seems to have a pretty good train of thought on the Long War in general. It’s perhaps his strongest issue to date. He gets six points.

Mitt Romney seems to tie this issue together as a general foreign policy platform. But he’s certainly wavering on Afghanistan, and that worries me. I think he only deserves three points.

While it’s not very detailed in scope, the policy page of, and this statement by Rick Santorum would lead me to believe he’d make the right decisions on the Long War. I grant him seven points.

The GOP race is beginning to take shape, and it doesn’t look much like I’m backing an ‘establishment’ candidate. The isolationists fell well back here.

Michele Bachmann – 26 points
Roy Moore – 25 points
Thad McCotter – 23 points
Herman Cain – 21 points
Newt Gingrich – 21 points
Rick Santorum – 21 points
Tim Pawlenty – 19 points
Jon Huntsman – 16 points
Ron Paul – 15 points
Mitt Romney – 12 points
Gary Johnson – 11 points
Buddy Roemer – 10 points
Fred Karger – (-7) points

Now the Democrats. Needless to say, Barack Obama has only one asset going for him: he didn’t back up his milquetoast rhetoric with action, choosing instead to maintain many of President Bush’s policies. He’s only losing five points on this front.

Believe it or not, I found this interview where Randall Terry touches on foreign policy. (It’s several years old, though.) But I’m not sure he wouldn’t be too interventionist and may discount the threat of radical Islam. He also babbles a bit about “oil policy” here. So I’m dropping him two points.

Randall Terry, (-1) point
Barack Obama, (-28) points

My next look at the candidates will involve immigration and we’ll break into double digits as eleven points are at stake. It’s sure to raise the blood pressure of my two regular illegal immigration apologists as well.

Update: With the entry of Rep. Thaddeaus McCotter of Michigan into the race, I’ll have to catch him up on previous parts.

For President 2012: Second Amendment and education

I continue my look at the 2012 race with the second of my two multi-subject posts, beginning with a look at how they stand on Second Amendment rights.

Not every candidate addresses this subject directly, but it’s rather easy to find a wealth of information on this particular stance.

On Second Amendment issues, Michele Bachmann gets high marks from both of the two main gun lobbying groups (Gun Owners of America and National Rifle Association) and applauded recent Supreme Court decisions upholding the Second Amendment. She gets the seven points.

Herman Cain 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.

“It’s not in defense of hunting, it’s not in defense of target shooting or collecting. The Second Amendment is defense of freedom from the state.” So said Newt Gingrich, and he tended to vote that way while in Congress. But there is something in this piece that gives me pause, so I’m only giving Newt six of seven points.

As governor of Utah, Jon Huntsman had a good Second Amendment record, like this pair of bills. He gets all seven points.

If you watch this video at about the 21-minute mark, you’ll see that Gary Johnson has a broad view of the Second Amendment. But this line in Slate is the clincher: “I don’t believe there should be any restrictions when it comes to firearms. None.” I believe this will get him a bunch of points. Seven.

I honestly can’t find where Fred Karger stands on the issue, so he missed what’s pretty much been a layup so far.

Considering the guy plays in a band called The Second Amendments and has an ‘A’ rating from the NRA, I think Thad McCotter should get all seven points. Don’t you?

Like Newt Gingrich, this short treatise from Roy Moore shows he gets why there’s a Second Amendment. Seven points.

I would have expected this from Ron Paul – he votes the right way and gets high GOA marks (an A+) so he’ll get seven points.

Tim Pawlenty doesn’t miss this opportunity as he’s racked up a solid record in Minnesota on gun issues. He gets the seven points as well.

I have the feeling I’m missing something, but the limited amount I can find on Buddy Roemer would make me guess he won’t trifle with the Second Amendment. Two points seems fair enough.

The same piece which was critical of Gingrich really questioned Mitt Romney‘s record. Because it’s somewhat mixed I can only give him four points.

With perhaps one or two exceptions, Rick Santorum has a good gun record so I’ll give him six points.

Updating the GOP standings – anyone who didn’t get six or seven points missed a golden opportunity here. Seven candidates are in the lead pack at the moment.

Tim Pawlenty, 14 points
Newt Gingrich, 13 points
Michele Bachmann, 12 points
Jon Huntsman, 12 points
Thad McCotter, 12 points
Roy Moore, 12 points
Ron Paul, 12 points
Rick Santorum, 12 points
Herman Cain, 8 points
Gary Johnson, 8 points
Mitt Romney, 7 points
Buddy Roemer, 3 points
Fred Karger, (-3) points

As for Democrats, Barack Obama is definitely not pro-Second Amendment, so he’s docked the seven points.

Unsurprisingly, Randall Terry has no stated position.

Randall Terry, 0 points
Barack Obama, (-15) points

Now I turn my attention to education. In case you’re wondering, my key part of the issue is eliminating the Department of Education because it doesn’t educate anyone.

Several candidates address this directly, and this will likely begin to start separating the field.

Michele Bachmann doesn’t have her website up yet, but I can find her voting record on the issue. While she wants to abolish the Department of Education, I found a little bit of fault with some of her votes. I’m giving her six of eight points.

While Herman 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. Seven points.

Newt Gingrich touches on education in a minor way on his website, but the person who now talks about abolishing the Department of Education voted for its very creation. And in 2009 he was only too happy to join Al Sharpton on a tour to “highlight the Obama administration’s efforts to reform public education.” I think he’d like to continue the federal framework which needs to be abolished, and that’s not a solution I believe in. I’m giving him no points because I don’t think he stands with me on this.

Jon Huntsman has a mixed record on education, supporting school vouchers but not advocating for less federal involvement otherwise. I’m not convinced he’d be a leader on this issue so I’m giving him only two points.

Helping his cause immensely with me, not only does Gary Johnson have the right ideas on the educational issue but he explains it very well. He gets the full eight points.

Fred Karger wants to make school “more interesting and fun.” Well, I’d like them to learn more critical thinking and actually know something when they graduate without burdensome federal regulations. I will give him a little credit for knowing the key obstacle to improving education (the teachers unions) and at least giving a nod to charter schools, but we can go much further. One point.

It seems to me that Thad McCotter doesn’t mind federal involvement in education, whereas I do. He doesn’t go overly far, but doesn’t reverse the trend either. I think he only gets two points here.

Roy Moore states on his issue page that, “the federal government should not hamper the education systems of various states, as there is no authority for federal involvement under the Constitution. Competition between the states and freedom of various educational structures should be available to parents who are charged with the responsibility to teach their children. Charter schools, vouchers, tax credits, home schooling, Christian schools, and technical training should be encouraged.” The only part I don’t like is the part about tax credits, since I think controlling behavior through the tax code is a no-no as a permanent solution. So I’ll give him six points.

By and large Ron Paul has a similar view to Roy Moore’s, wishing the federal government out of the educational realm but supporting tax credits for Christian schooling. So he gets the same six points.

The example of Tim Pawlenty as governor is relatively good – among other things, Minnesota enacted “pay for performance,” but I think he’s going to seek the same old “top-down” approach to education. Charter states? What if your state is cluelessly going to follow the federal model? I think he’s only going to get two points on this issue.

As governor, Buddy Roemer linked teacher pay to performance and enhanced accountability standards. But that’s all I know and he hasn’t really touched on the subject yet in his one-man debates. So I can only give him one point.

While Mitt Romney supports school choice and home schooling, he’s backed away from supporting the demise of the Department of Education after once supporting its elimination. Supposedly it dampens the influence of the teachers’ unions, but I find that laughable. I can only give Mitt two points.

He may be coming around to sell himself to conservatives, but Rick Santorum‘s recent call to eliminate the Department of Education comes on the heels of a voting record too enamored with federal control. He only gets two points for his efforts.

As I predicted, this certainly has shaken up the standings as some of the “establishment” candidates fall a little behind the lead pack. This also vaulted Gary Johnson into my race. Yet most candidates are hanging around within five points of the top.

Michele Bachmann, 18 points
Roy Moore, 18 points
Ron Paul, 18 points
Gary Johnson, 16 points
Tim Pawlenty, 16 points
Herman Cain, 15 points
Jon Huntsman, 14 points
Thad McCotter, 14 points
Rick Santorum, 14 points
Newt Gingrich, 13 points
Mitt Romney, 9 points
Buddy Roemer, 4 points
Fred Karger, (-2) points

Of course, Democrat Barack Obama is foursquare behind more federal control and pulled the rug out from under his own District of Columbia students, so he’s out another eight points.

While the other Democrat, Randall Terry, doesn’t explicitly state his position, the fact he campaigns at a homeschooler rally might mean something. Hey, I’ll give him one point.

Randall Terry, 1 point
Barack Obama, (-23) points

My next subject is one which has diminished somewhat in the overall scheme of things, but still remains rather important: the Long War and veterans affairs. I admit, though, my view on the subject has changed a bit since the last time around.

With nine points at stake, a candidate can help his or her cause immensely with the right viewpoint.

For President 2012: Campaign finance/election and property rights

Today I begin the process of selecting my personal favorite Presidential candidate, not based on personalities or glitzy campaign promises, but on issues. As I pointed out last month, I have a system to score candidates based on their positions on several topics key to me.

The first two topics are relatively obscure, and the candidates haven’t devoted a lot of time to them. This made it harder to get a good read on the situation; luckily if I’m completely misreading a position it’s only a few points gained or lost. For the most part, I’m betting I have a crop of three to four hopefuls who will stand out above the rest anyway.

Note I haven’t included a few candidates who may yet get into the game. I’m doing the originals as Word files so I can keep them close for reference in the future. And I’m doing both Republicans and Democrats, so let’s start with campaign finance reform and election law.

Michele Bachmann has a limited voting record and comments on the issue, but her positions are fine so I’ll kick her off with one point of three.

With Herman Cain noting 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. I’m giving him all three points.

While serving in the House, Newt Gingrich had a solid voting record on campaign finance so I’m giving him two points. I don’t think his positions have softened, but haven’t heard the bold sort of statement that Cain made out of him.

Jon Huntsman signed a decent voter-ID law as governor of Utah, so that’s a step in the right direction. But he also signed a bill allowing online voter registration, which wiped out some of that goodwill. Some things are too important to do online. So he gets just one point.

I haven’t been able to discern where Gary Johnson would stand on this issue, so no points for him.

Interestingly enough, Fred Karger supports lowering the voting age to “16 or 17.” And this report states he’s against voter ID. If anything, I question the wisdom of allowing youth to vote (maybe the age of majority needs to revert to 21) so it doesn’t sound like he and I would agree on the issue. He’s docked all three points.

Thad McCotter voted for voter ID on the federal level, but also voted for restricting 527s as well. I’ll give him two of three points.

Roy Moore hasn’t stated a public position on any of these issues, so I can’t give him points either.

Similarly to Gingrich, Ron Paul 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.

He got good marks from the Club for Growth on campaign finance as Governor of Minnesota, so Tim Pawlenty gets a good mark from me as well. I’m giving him 2 points.

Buddy Roemer has a key point right on his current home page: “(W)e will talk about a lot of issues in this campaign. But we will start by tackling special interest money that impacts all the rest.” Roemer claims he won’t take any contribution greater than $100 nor will he take PAC money.

It’s a very populist position to take, but it’s the wrong one. I equate money with speech, and placing an artificial restriction on contributions is a limit on speech in my eyes. (It’s also suicidal when you figure Barack Obama to raise $1 billion from special interests.) I’m deducting two points only because he’s consistent with this stance since his days in Congress.

Apparently Mitt Romney has had a change of heart on the campaign finance issue. While he’s come around to the right side, I don’t know how sincere he is on the subject so I’ll not give him any points.

Rick Santorum made mostly correct votes on this subject while in the Senate, and has a long enough body of work that I’m comfortable giving him two points.

Now for the Democrats:

Barack Obama, of course, disagreed with the Citizens United decision and backed the DISCLOSE Act, plus his campaign came out strongly bashing voter ID – three bad moves and a loss of thee points.

On the other hand, Randall Terry doesn’t stake out a position on the issue, so no points.

In the very early stages we have a close race. On the Republican side:

Herman Cain, 3 points
Ron Paul, 3 points
Newt Gingrich, 2 points
Thad McCotter, 2 points
Tim Pawlenty, 2 points
Rick Santorum, 2 points
Michele Bachmann, 1 point
Jon Huntsman, 1 point
Gary Johnson, 0 points
Roy Moore, 0 points
Mitt Romney, 0 points
Buddy Roemer, (-2) points
Fred Karger, (-3) points

Democrats:

Randall Terry, 0 points
Barack Obama, (-3) points

Now I turn to private property rights. Again, this was sort of tough because most candidates haven’t addressed this as directly as I’d like.

Let’s begin with Michele Bachmann, who cited Fifth Amendment rights in castigating the BP settlement. I think she knows government’s place, so I’m giving her four of five points.

Herman Cain 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.

Overturning the Kelo decision would be a good start on Newt Gingrich‘s agenda, and I can give him all five points for that and defending property rights while in Congress.

Jon Huntsman was ahead of the curve on Kelo and advocated for American companies regarding intellectual property rights while Ambassador to China. My only knock is whether he was leading or following in his capacity, so I’ll give him four points.

I would imagine Gary Johnson would oppose the Kelo decision, but when he talks about “civil liberties” he doesn’t speak to private property rights. I’ll grant him one point since he talks about other civil liberties that most GOP candidates don’t.

It doesn’t appear Fred Karger has delved into property rights issues, so no points for him.

Thad McCotter has a reasonable record on property rights by the look of things, so I’ll give him three points of five.

While it was hinted in this article he penned that Roy Moore was against the Kelo decision, the fact that he stood up for private property rights at a rally shows me he’s likely on the right side. Five points.

Ron Paul 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.

Tim Pawlenty seemed to have an eye toward protecting property rights when he signed legislation like this and this. He’ll earn the five points.

This video explains how Buddy Roemer feels about “imminent” (sic) domain. I essentially like what he says, but that 1% and blowing the spelling will lose him two points of the five. Give him three.

Mitt Romney “believes the Kelo property rights case was wrongly decided.” He’s right, but Massachusetts still ranks among the worst states for eminent domain abuse. So I’ll only give him three points.

Back in 2005 Rick Santorum termed the Kelo decision as “undermining people’s fundamental rights to property.” I think he gets it, so I’ll give him the five points.

Among the two Democrats, Barack Obama made his most egregious assault on property rights when he placed unions ahead of bondholders in the auto bailout. That offense gets him docked five points.

On the other hand, Randall Terry is winning the Democratic side by not having a position. No points.

Updating the standings shows we have a close race among a number of contenders.

Newt Gingrich, 7 points
Tim Pawlenty, 7 points
Rick Santorum, 7 points
Michele Bachmann, 5 points
Jon Huntsman, 5 points
Thad McCotter, 5 points
Roy Moore, 5 points
Ron Paul, 5 points
Herman Cain, 4 points
Mitt Romney, 3 points
Gary Johnson, 1 point
Buddy Roemer, 1 point
Fred Karger, (-3) points

Democrats:

Randall Terry, 0 points
Barack Obama, (-8) points

Can Barack Obama get to (-100)? He just might. But I think it’s shaping up to be an interesting race between as many as 8 candidates for the top spot, and you never know. Two sections in last time I had Duncan Hunter leading, Mike Huckabee second, and John McCain third (they finished first, fourth, and tenth, respectively, in a 10-man field.)

The next time I’ll probably tackle two subjects again before going to individual posts for the remainder as they have more priority. So next up is Second Amendment rights and education, for seven and eight points respectively. Once that’s done, 23 of 100 points will be decided.

Odds and ends number 30

It seems like I’m doing these quick-hitter articles more frequently; whether it’s because I’m attracting more interesting news or getting the attention span of a 14-year-old is the question. Now what was I saying?

Oh yeah. Let’s start with the public service announcement that’s part of the “Keep Jim Fineran Occupied Act”:

Due to extreme heat and drought conditions, County Executive Richard M. Pollitt, Jr., has issued a burn ban order for Wicomico County effective immediately. Pollitt took the action on the advice of his Burn Ban Committee. The group is composed of representatives of the County Health Department, the Forestry Service, Emergency Management Services, fire fighters and a local meteorologist.

Of course, there are exemptions so one can still fire up the grill and watch the fireworks after Shorebirds games. (If the ban is still in effect next month the July 4th fireworks will go on.)

It seems to me that Rick Pollitt has wised up on that account, since I recall a few years back that fireworks displays were part of the burn ban and the Shorebirds had to scrub a couple slated shows.

Speaking of which – the next resolution the county needs is to provide an exemption from the 11 p.m. curfew on fireworks. It seems like several times a season the Shorebirds manage to play their extra-inning marathons on fireworks nights and if an inning starts after about 10:40 the fireworks can’t go on. That’s ridiculous.

Now it’s time to go national. For all his faults, Newt Gingrich can sometimes get to the heart of the problem:

To make Washington smaller, we as citizens must become bigger.

We must persuade one person at a time, one family at a time, and one community at a time that we have better solutions than the corrupted, collectivist policies we’ve seen from Washington.

Because the renewal of America can only begin with you, this will be your campaign.

As someone who has been in public life for nearly forty years, I know full well the rigors of campaigning for public office. I will endure them. I will carry the message of American renewal to every part of this great land, whatever it takes.

Next Monday, I will take part in the first New Hampshire Republican primary debate.

The critical question of how we put Americans back to work will be asked of me and the other Republican candidates.

It is the most important question of this campaign.

For Newt, though, a close second in “critical” questions will be who’s going to run his effort. There’s a lot to like about Newt, but perhaps his time has passed him by. I’ll still be interested to hear what he has to say about issues but his intangibles are a definite minus.

Now we come to an interesting dichotomy. This was an e-mail I received from the Barack Obama campaign – I like to get these for laughs. (My editorial comments are in bold.)

We’ve been working on bringing new people (illegal aliens and others dependent on government) into the political process. That will be the story of our campaign from start to finish. (Aside from the billion dollars you plan on raising.)

But right now there’s a concerted effort being made in states from New Hampshire to North Carolina to Ohio to make sure fewer people (Democrats) vote in 2012.

Here’s how they’re doing it: In some crucial battleground states, more than 50 percent of ballots are cast as part of early voting, which makes voting an easier and more flexible process. In 2008, a third of voters nationwide cast their votes before Election Day. (Something tells me this includes absentee ballots, which have nothing to do with early voting.)

These voters tend to be working families and young people, and a whole lot of them voted for Barack Obama — in some states providing our margin of victory. (If they’re still working families, they’re lucky. The young aren’t generally among the working.)

So Republican-controlled legislatures are cutting the amount of time people have to vote early, restricting when and how organizations like ours can register new voters, and making the voting process itself more difficult by requiring new types of identification, which lower-income voters are less likely to have. (So we can’t commit fraud as easily. ACORN screwed the pooch for us.)

They’re doing this because they have cynically concluded that they do better when fewer people vote. (We do better when more informed people vote.)

That’s the opposite of the kind of politics we believe in, and of the kind of campaign we want to run. (Obama believes in raw power and eliminating the field before the vote is held. See Illinois.)

So when we talk about the work this campaign will do to bring new people into the political process — registering new voters, training new volunteers, building an organization — it’s not just the right thing to do. It’s absolutely urgent.

Help us protect the right to vote for all. (Whether they are legally entitled to or not doesn’t matter as long as they vote the correct way, right? That’s why you don’t work too hard to make sure military votes count.)

Personally, I’d love to see 100% of the informed voters turn out. While I think early voting is a crock and didn’t support the concept, the numbers last year proved that not all that many people in Maryland came out to vote early anyway. A state which has “shall-issue” absentee ballots for the asking doesn’t need early voting.

And it looks like voter ID is a losing issue for Obama. Here’s the other, more important half of the dichotomy:

A new Rasmussen Reports national telephone survey finds that 75% of Likely U.S. Voters believe voters should be required to show photo identification such as a driver’s license before being allowed to vote. Just 18% disagree and oppose such a requirement. (To see survey question wording, click here.)

Eighty-five percent (85%) of Republicans support a photo ID requirement at the polls, as do 77% of voters not affiliated with either major party and 63% of Democrats. But then support for such a law is high across virtually all demographic groups.

Supporters of photo ID laws say they will prevent fraud at the polls; opponents insist the laws will discourage many including minorities and older Americans from voting.

By a 48% to 29% margin, voters think that letting ineligible people vote is a bigger problem than preventing legitimate voters from casting a ballot. (Emphasis mine.)

So how does that crow taste, Jim Messina?

Often I refer to the “nanny state” of Maryland, and a study released last week shows I’m pretty much right.

With a hat tip to my uncle Jay, I found out the Mercatus Center at George Mason University ranked all 50 states on a variety of issues related to personal freedom and civil liberties. (Or maybe he reminded me of something I forgot.)

While Maryland scores reasonably well in the category of fiscal freedom – surprisingly, we are 11th while Delaware is 43rd – once we get to regulatory policy the numbers are more of what most would expect: Delaware is 20th and Maryland 44th. Yet in the economic freedom ranking Maryland is again ahead of Delaware, but not by much (28th compared to 33rd.)

The scary part comes when authors William P. Ruger and Jason Sorens calculate the personal freedom index, where Maryland is indeed the ultimate nanny state as we rank dead last. Delaware’s not much better as they rank 44th.

So what states are the most free? South Dakota leads the pack in fiscal policy and economic freedom rankings, Indiana is the standardbearer in regulatory policy, and I was sort of amazed to discover Oregon was tops in personal freedom. Yet the overall winner was the state whose very motto of “Live Free or Die” would suggest they would be on top: New Hampshire. Delaware is 39th and Maryland 43rd.

I do have a few quibbles with the author’s recommendations for Maryland to improve its rankings, because their number one priority would be to legalize civil unions. I think that’s a little bit too radical of a position to make top priority as their number two and number three suggestions are sound regarding marijuana laws and occupational licensing. Their analysis of Maryland as a nanny state is otherwise very sound.

Finally, a personal note of sorts.

There was a blogger awhile back who believed so strongly in his Alexa ratings after a number of “record days” that he thought himself mainstream media. In truth, I haven’t had any “record days” lately because my years of experience tell me political blog readership tails off during the summer, only to rebound after Labor Day.

So I was pleasantly surprised to see that my rank among websites reached a new low for me last week (like golf, a lower score is better.) Yesterday my U.S. Alexa number declined to 61,383 while my world rank reached a new low of 357,454.

Of course, when I compare this to Pajamas Media (U.S. rank 1,402) or even local media outlets like the Daily Times (U.S. rank 22,686) or WBOC (U.S. rank 23,789) I harbor no delusions of grandeur. (I am ahead of WMDT, though – their U.S. rank is 68,045. To me that’s sort of funny.)

But in the end I’m just a guy who writes and is blessed with a fairly solid readership. It’s the reason I write for Pajamas Media, because if I were a more obscure blogger no one would have read what I’d written and decided it was worth taking a chance on.

Unlike many in the writing field, I don’t have a journalism or English degree so I am essentially self-taught. God-given talent and years of practice and perfecting this craft got me to where I am insofar as ability goes, but it’s thanks to my readers that the word spread. It’s why I keep doing this day after day for not a lot of pay, because I enjoy putting together good things to read.

I have a lot of interesting items coming up over the next few weeks, so stay tuned. (No summer reruns here.)

As reelection looms for Obama, is Big Oil in or out?

My latest on Pajamas Media:

Energy industry advocates were pleasantly surprised when President Obama finally bowed to the public clamor to do something — anything — about high gas prices. In an announcement last week, the president promised to speed up lease approval in Alaska and open up a number of new leasing areas in the Gulf of Mexico. Perhaps he’s seen the light?

Not so fast. Consider this breathless excerpt from an “Obama for America” e-mail sent out by campaign manager Jim Messina:

The CEOs from the five major oil companies — which together booked $36 billion in profits in the first quarter of 2011 alone — went to the Senate on Thursday to try to justify the $4 billion in tax giveaways they’re receiving this year.

(continued at Pajamas Media…)

Does the strategy include snuffing out Osama?

I’ve had a lot placed in my e-mail box of late; fortunately this wasn’t time-sensitive.

It’s a look at how the other half plans to live in 2012:

The accompanying text noted the following, from campaign manager Jim Messina:

I want to show you a quick presentation I’ve been giving to the first staff coming on board here in Chicago, outlining our strategy to win and our overall approach to this campaign.

In the weeks and months to come, we’ll ask grassroots supporters like you to meet with one another and local organizers to take the first steps to victory on November 6th, 2012.

But before we begin meeting in living rooms and backyards across America, it’s important that we communicate with each other about a set of principles for the organization and our overall strategic thinking about how the race will shape up.

The most important aspect is this: Our campaign will be grounded in President Obama’s experience as a community organizer. This notion of ordinary people taking responsibility for the organization at the neighborhood level is not only the way to win, it’s also the way politics ought to work. Our campaign will be an example of innovation and efficiency, but it will also be an example of civic engagement at its best and most rewarding.

(snip)

This plan will evolve as we get feedback from grassroots supporters like you over the weeks and months ahead. That’s already happening — as you know, we’ve already started the process of having one-on-one conversations with people in every state to gather thoughts and ideas, and thousands more talks will take place over this spring and summer.

But this briefing should give you a sense of our current thinking about how we’ll build an unprecedented grassroots campaign to win — with you leading it.

No, that billion dollars Obama plans on raising will lead it – follow the money (if you can.) A billion dollars can slap down a whole lot of Astroturf. While they want to “act like an insurgent campaign,” the ugly truth is that Obama has an abysmal record of lacking accomplishments (save the bin Laden killing, which was in many ways handed to him by his predecessor – you know, that guy he likes to blame for all his problems.) And that thinking will by necessity evolve, based on current events we can’t yet foresee. How do you explain away $5 a gallon for gas, for example – blame the oil companies, of course!

It’s all about shifting blame for problems created or enhanced under the Obama regime.

Let’s look at a case in point, brought up by Messina in the video. Review the 2004 electoral map, which showed fairly solid Bush country in most places save along the coasts and the upper Midwest. By 2008 many of these areas had seen a slight economic decline, but a large factor in how the Democrats racked up such voter registration gains was their work in blaming Bush for every one of the country’s maladies, coupled with the drumbeat of a compliant media pounding home a message that we were stuck in an Iraqi quagmire which was sapping America’s resolve. No wonder people were ready for ‘change’ and they got it, voting out the continually moderating GOP majority in 2006 and finishing the job by electing Obama in 2008.

And regardless of who the GOP put up to follow in Bush’s footsteps he or she would’ve had a tough row to hoe. Yet John McCain was perhaps the most uninspiring Republican candidate to come along in some time. His one chance at the polls came when he picked a conservative firebrand as his vice-presidential pick, but he threw it away when he suspended his campaign to work with Obama to address the economy. It showed a lack of leadership as he played into the Democrat’s hands and, quite honestly, I think he was fortunate to only lose by 6 points. (Had McCain selected another moderate as VP, like perhaps – as one rumor had it – Joe Lieberman, I think he would have lost by 20 because conservatives would have stayed home in droves.)

But in 2012 the tables may be turned, with the exception that the media isn’t continually beating down Barack Obama. Still, the economy hasn’t improved from 2008, we’re still fighting a war on now 2 1/2 fronts (Libya rising while Iraq winds down), gas prices are back to summer 2008 levels, and government spending is surging well beyond even George W. Bush’s high deficit levels. In 2010, just as in 2006, the party in charge of Congress was tossed out. (It was only Senate demographics that saved a Democratic majority in the Senate, since they had a pretty much equal number of seats at stake with the GOP. In 2012, the large number of Democrat Senators who swept Harry Reid into power in 2006 are sitting for re-election – if Republicans make similar inroads next time they take back the majority.)

And while it’s no safe bet that Republicans won’t wear out their welcome, much of their success hinges on Barack Obama’s continued failure. It’s why killing Osama bin Laden was a godsend for President Obama, and we’re sure to be reminded thousands of times that Obama was in charge when Osama assumed sea temperature.

Hey, even a blind squirrel finds a nut once in awhile. But, as it was in 1992, it’s the economy stupid. President Obama better have less than 8 percent unemployment by the middle of 2012 or he’s toast – you can take that to the bank and hope the financial institution is ‘too big to fail.’