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 Bachmannhas 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.
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.
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.
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.
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 saidNewt 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 questionedMitt 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 McCotterdoesn’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 Paulhas 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 Romneysupports 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.
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 Cainnoting 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 Huntsmansigned 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.
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.
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 Santorumtermed 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.
I was thinking a little bit about the Presidential race this evening, and it started when I moderated a comment on my last post from Phil Collins (who I presume is not “the” Phil Collins, just like the Maryland GOP ranks have a Dick Cheney who isn’t the former VP.) He claims that he spoke personally to Buddy Roemer last Thursday and “he’ll run.”
If you believe the conventional wisdom, a guy like Roemer has no shot against a cadre of candidates who have money and name recognition. You know the names: Romney, Palin, perhaps Huntsman and Pawlenty as well. According to those “in the know” the rest may as well stay home for various reasons: they’re running horrible campaigns (Newt Gingrich), too extreme for the American public (Ron Paul, Rick Santorum), or no one knows who they are (the rest.) Funny, but I seem to recall back in 2007 the 2008 election was going to be that 2000 New York U.S. Senate race pundits were salivating over (but never occurred): Rudy Giuliani vs. Hillary Clinton.
Almost anyone who runs for President thinks they’ll win, although there is that segment of society who has the ego trip of placing their name on the ballot line. (It’s why there are 156 – and counting – who have filed with the FEC to run. Most won’t even qualify for the ballot in Maryland.) The serious candidates, though, are the ones who are planning their message and the means to get it out there.
Yet even in this age of new media punditry, conventional wisdom makes the rules. Why else would a candidate who had not announced be invited to a GOP contender debate when others who were already in the race get snubbed? It’s understandable that a stage with over 150 contenders would make for useless debate, but someone like Gary Johnson belonged on the stage in New Hampshire. (Similarly, Buddy Roemer was snubbed for both New Hampshire and an earlier debate in South Carolina.) I think the 11 contestants I list on the GOP side are the most legitimate because they have some political experience and have a viable campaign. Others I would include on that list if they chose to run would be Rick Perry, Sarah Palin, and Rudy Giuliani. That’s not to say those are the only three, just the most likely.
It’s for those candidates who have announced that I’m slowly but surely working on the series of posts which will establish the Presidential hopeful I’ll stand behind this primary season.
Now some would say my track record is not good, as I supported Duncan Hunter in 2008 and preferred Steve Forbes when he ran in 1996 and 2000, but that’s only because the rest of the nation hasn’t caught up with me yet. (I say that only half-joking. Imagine what our country would be like with a flat tax system and a tougher foreign and trade policy like Hunter prescribed. I daresay our economic circumstances would be much improved.) Obviously I have a broad mix of conservative and libertarian views on issues, but it’s very complex. Someone said that the ideal candidate would take a little bit from everyone in the race, and I think almost every GOP candidate will have areas they shine in.
But since I want to use column space for this important issue, something has to give and I think I’m going to wait until later this fall to complete the monoblogue Accountability Project. After all, we have a Special Session so there’s no point in compiling legislative awards for the year until that’s over. The good news is that I have the most of the list of votes I’m using handy so the rest is just compilation. (I only need to find three good floor amendment votes to finish the list of 25 key votes for the session. The hard part will be limiting it to three, I’m sure.) I was also going to do it by county but since districts will be changing before the next election I’ll hold on to the old format until closer to 2014. It makes my life a little easier!
That’s one update. A second piece of news is that I should have a new advertiser soon, bringing my list to three. Yes, it’s a modest number compared to other websites but all have paid me in advance. They see value in maintaining a quality website which brings a mix of content on a daily basis. (You can too.)
So look for the posts on picking the Presidential candidates, along with other good stuff coming your way.
The potential Republican field for President continues to grow, as Michele Bachmann announced her intention to run during last night’s GOP debate and Jon Huntsman is reportedly in as well. I’ve already added her temporary site to my sidebar and will add Huntsman in once things are settled.
Of course, some other names who may see blood in the water in a foundering economy and a clueless President Obama include Texas Governor Rick Perry, Sarah Palin, and 2008 candidate Rudy Giuliani. But who has actually committed?
Among GOP candidates, the FEC Form 2 filers include:
Herman Cain (May 3)
Newt Gingrich (May 16)
Gary Johnson (May 2)
Fred Karger (March 23)
Ron Paul (May 13)
Tim Pawlenty (March 21)
Buddy Roemer (March 3)
Mitt Romney (April 11)
Rick Santorum (June 6)
Of those on my list, Michele Bachmann will likely file shortly and Roy Moore claims on his website that he has an exploratory committee although no federal filing has occurred. President Obama (April 4) and Randall Terry (January 11) are in so far as Democrats.
With the prospect of two or three more joining a field already at a dozen or more serious participants, history may repeat itself later this summer once results are in at the Ames Straw Poll. Even though Mitt Romney isn’t participating, finishing outside the top ten may be a sign that a candidate won’t be viable. (Granted, two participants would be from neighboring Minnesota so results may not necessarily reflect national preference.) Although John McCain fared poorly in Ames in 2007 yet came back to win the nomination, most of those who finish out of the top six to eight are likely to be folding their tents before the primary season. There’s not enough money and volunteers out there to support 15 contenders.
If I were to make a guess at who won’t be around long-term, I would say the two obviously on the bubble are Roy Moore and Buddy Roemer. The next two who would be likely to bow out would be Rick Santorum and Michele Bachmann, since I think Sarah Palin gets in and steals her support. I also think Gary Johnson and Fred Karger will stay in to make a point, as it’s unlikely they’ll gain the nomination and barely register in polls.
Of course, that and five bucks might get you a gallon of gas by the time the Ames Straw Poll occurs on August 11. But we as political pundits need something to write about, don’t we?
Whether it’s because we have over eighteen months to go until the presidential election and about nine until the first real votes are cast, or if it’s a field which draws little but yawns, there’s just not a lot of buzz going in about the Republican presidential field. I had a poll up for a week and drew a small response – less than 5% of my readership had an opinion.
I set it up for two questions: preference for those already in the field and a wish list of those one would like to see enter. If the primary were held today, the top votegetters among my readership would be:
Ron Paul (35.48%)
Tim Pawlenty (25.81%)
Herman Cain (16.13%)
Rick Santorum (12.9%)
Newt Gingrich (6.45%)
Mitt Romney (3.23%)
In the category of zero support were Fred Karger, Roy Moore, and Buddy Roemer. That’s no surprise.
I was a bit surprised with the results of poll number 2, which asked who respondents would prefer to see jump into the field.
Michele Bachmann (25.0%)
Donald Trump (13.89%)
Gary Johnson (11.11%)
Rudy Giuliani (8.33%)
Haley Barbour, John Bolton, Mitch Daniels, George Pataki, Rand Paul, and Paul Ryan (5.56% apiece)
Mike Huckabee and Sarah Palin (2.78% apiece)
Paul Ryan was a write-in, as was Herman Cain. Somebody didn’t pay attention to my first poll.
And no one wants Jon Huntsman in the race. You would think since I allowed multiple answers on the wish list poll that someone would back him, but I guess not.
The biggest shock to me was just how quickly Sarah Palin has fallen out of favor. Had I asked the question a few months back I’m betting that she would be the top vote-getter, or at least right up there with perennial libertarian darling Ron Paul.
But it seems to me that her outspoken populist angle is being usurped by – of all people – Donald Trump. It’s surprising that a guy who has donated thousands to Democrats is being considered as a conservative darling, but he has name recognition to spare and isn’t partaking in the political doublespeak many other candidates engage in.
Honestly, I think she may have missed the boat on 2012. Whether Sarah would prefer to bide her time and wait for 2016 (which assumes an Obama victory and an open seat) or simply decided a position as a political outsider and spokesperson for conservative causes – one who can still draw a crowd – better suits her situation, well, that I don’t know. And there may be a cagey reason for her to let Trump take all the slings and arrows for awhile, since he seems to relish the spotlight regardless of how harsh it may be.
In a way, it’s great to have so many choices and not have someone considered a frontrunner at the moment. This is a time where we need a contest for the Republican nomination because it serves as a placeholder for a contest for the soul of the party itself. While the TEA Party can help elect a candidate, there’s still a faction of establishment Republicans who need to be eradicated from the levers of power before a takeover is possible. That faction is the one calculating just who would be the ‘safe’ choice acceptable to the American people yet malleable enough to control once in office.
Assuming President Obama is a one-term president, the new Republican president becomes the de facto leader of the party. It will take a strong conservative to fight not just Democrats but the establishment Republicans fighting the rear-guard action to bring the party to the center – in other words, the “No Labels” types. (Someone like Senator Jim DeMint comes to mind, but I doubt he’s running.)
I know my readership has a political compass pointing somewhere between conservative and libertarian, as it likely reflects my personal opinion. So it’s interesting to see just what kind of push that Ron Paul (and Gary Johnson, who announced shortly after I created the poll) have here as opposed to the nation at large.
In the next couple weeks I’ll begin to compile the Presidential campaign widget along with ones for the Maryland U.S. Senate seat and First District Congressional seat. (In that case I think the key question is whether we’ll see a Harris-Kratovil threepeat.) I know things slow down around here for the summer (who wants to sit inside reading blogs? Heck, I’m composing this outside in the summerlike breeze) but there’s a lot of political events going on.
Now is the time to really pay attention, since those in power know summer is a political siesta. That’s when they try and get away with the most damaging stuff.
The former Godfather Pizza CEO pulled it out in the end, but a widely split GOP Presidential poll here drew votes for nearly twenty possible contenders. This goes to show that…we need to see just who will enter the field for sure, as Cain is the first reasonable contender to establish an exploratory committee.
This is how they finished:
Herman Cain (former Godfather Pizza CEO, radio host) – 10 (12.82%)
Gary Johnson (former New Mexico governor) – 9 (11.54%)
Chris Christie (New Jersey governor) – 8 (10.26%)
Ron Paul (Congressman from Texas, 2008 Presidential candidate) – 8 (10.26%)
Newt Gingrich (former Speaker of the House) – 7 (8.97%)
Sarah Palin (2008 VP candidate, former Alaska governor) – 6 (7.69%)
Jim DeMint (Senator from South Carolina) – 2 (2.56%)
Paul Ryan (Congressman from Wisconsin) – 2 (2.56%) – write-in
Rick Santorum (former Senator from Pennsylvania) – 2 (2.56%)
George Allen (former Senator from Virginia) – 1 (1.28%) – write-in
Mike Pence (Congressman from Indiana) – 1 (1.28%) – withdrew
John Thune (Senator from North Dakota) – 1 (1.28%)
Haley Barbour (Mississippi governor) – 0 (o%)
Mike Huckabee (2008 Presidential candidate, former Arkansas governor) – 0 (0%)
If you look at your top 6 candidates in this poll, you’d find the TEA Party carried a great amount of influence along with the libertarian wing of the GOP (who would tend to support Ron Paul and Gary Johnson.)
But would all of them be viable? Time will tell, but if you look at the top contenders from 2008 there’s little desire for a rewarmed candidate. Since I don’t consider Ron Paul as an ‘establishment’ candidate, the top votegetter among the group was Rudy Giuliani with 5 votes. Even combining the other 2008 aspirants (including Paul) they collected just 16 votes, which is barely 20 percent of the total vote. Mike Huckabee was shut out.
The only 2008 names which seem to have support are Ron Paul and Sarah Palin, who didn’t run for the top job four years ago but was added to the ticket just prior to the GOP convention. She polled reasonably well in this trial, but those who believe the nomination is hers to lose may want to think again.
Over the next month or two we’ll likely see the field shake out a bit as some of the bottom-feeders (and maybe a top name or two) decide to take a pass. The remainder of the contenders will likely begin getting their teams together for the busy times one year hence.
Well, regardless of the fact the survivor of the process won’t know the final result for another 21 1/2 months, the polls have begun for the GOP nomination in 2012, with the winner most likely taking on President Obama that November.
Today Rasmussen released a poll which showed Mitt Romney has the early lead for the GOP nomination, with 24 percent replying they prefer Mitt at this nascent stage. Sarah Palin netted 19% while Mike Huckabee picked up 17 percent. The top contender who didn’t run in 2008, Newt Gingrich, had 11 percent while national newcomer Tim Pawlenty finished under the “undecided” (10%) with a 6% score. Ron Paul and Mitch Daniels rounded out the field.
One weakness in the Rasmussen Poll is that they somewhat arbitrarily picked the seven contenders, yet they point out that the leaders at this stage rarely end up with the nomination. As I recall, at this time four years ago we were supposed to have a rematch of the abortive 2000 New York Senate race between Hillary Clinton and Rudy Giuliani. Hillary was the last person standing between Barack Obama and the 2008 Democratic nomination, but Rudy was an early casualty in the GOP race.
This is notable about the methodology, though:
The survey of 1,000 Likely GOP Primary Voters was conducted on January 18, 2011 by Rasmussen Reports. Likely GOP Primary Voters include both Republicans and unaffiliated voters likely to vote in a GOP Primary.
In other words, they rely on an open primary of sorts. More tellingly:
Romney, Palin and Huckabee are essentially in a three-way tie among voters who describe themselves as very conservative. Those who characterize themselves as somewhat conservative and moderate/liberal have a clear preference for Romney.
Yet Palin has the lead among TEA Partiers, and there’s no real way of knowing just how much influence they’ll have over the GOP nominating process in states with both open and closed primaries.
New Hampshire is a state with an open primary, and a straw poll was conducted there over the weekend – 273 Granite State Republicans scattered their votes among a total of 20 candidates. It’s not particularly surprising that Mitt Romney won, but 35 percent isn’t all that overwhelming considering he comes from a neighboring state and is a name well-known to “establishment” Republicans. Ron Paul was a distant second with 11 percent.
However, if you look at the candidates who could be considered the “darlings” of the TEA Party (Paul, Palin, Michele Bachmann, Jim DeMint, Herman Cain, Mike Pence, and Gary Johnson) you get just as much support as Romney drew – they add up to 37 percent. Once the TEA Party can coalesce around one or two candiates, the race will be joined.
It’s pretty amazing to think that only one of those mentioned (Herman Cain) has even taken the step to form an exploratory committee – the rest are still considering if and when to jump in. But surely over the next few months the final field will emerge, and it will be fun to see how the race shakes out.
It was a small sample to be sure, but unsurprisingly Michael Steele won my RNC Chair poll. There were only 33 votes, which I found disappointing. I enjoyed the write-ins, though.
Here’s how the totals break down (including write-ins):
Michael Steele – 11 (33.3%)
Reince Priebus – 5 (15.2%)
Saul Anuzis – 4 (12.1%)
Maria Cino – 3 (9.1%)
Gentry Collins – 2 (6.1%)
Ann Wagner – 2 (6.1%)
Sarah Palin (write-in) – 2 (6.1%)
Michael Swartz (write-in) – 2 (6.1%)
Gary Johnson (write-in) – 1 (3%)
Rush Limbaugh (write-in) – 1 (3%)
While I thank my supporter (or supporters) for the two votes, let me just quote William Tecumseh Sherman, “If nominated, I will not accept; if drafted, I will not run; if elected, I will not serve.” Still, I’m flattered.
I think this poll proves two things, though. As I was watching this poll develop over the last few days, initially Steele had an absolute majority but as time went on it became a plurality. This is interesting because the majority (about 3/4) of my readers come from Maryland so one would naturally assume he would do well. Either I had more out-of-state voters come on board or Steele is losing his status as a favorite son.
Secondly, there seems to be a large streak of “none-of-the-aboveism” among the rank-and-file, almost as if they are asking, “is this the best we can do?” Certainly there is some celebrity involved (witness the votes for Palin and Limbaugh) but the votes for Gary Johnson (and to a lesser extent, yours truly) may suggest that a direction more conducive to the TEA Party is desired. (Just for the record, I didn’t vote in this poll.) Despite the naysayers, I think the TEA Party is finding its voice in the GOP. (I’ll have more to say on that opinion in coming days.)
Even so, among the people who count, there is a suggestion that Steele is in peril as he bids for a second term as GOP head. We’ll see how it all shakes out on January 15, although there is a debate scheduled for this afternoon among the six announced contenders. (I had other plans.) I believe a number of those who can vote may be making their mind up after they hear all six speak in a public forum, and I also think that when we get to voting in twelve days there will only be three or four nominated. The bottom-feeders know the score as well as the rest of us.
You know, it’s really hard to be stuck indoors at a convention in a place with a view like this.
Yep, it was a little windy Friday afternoon when I shot that brief video. This was prior to the first of four seminars I attended as the event was billed as a training convention. Now, because of a scheduling conflict I had to miss the Executive Committee meeting but Kim and I did arrive in time to enjoy the hospitality of various candidate suites – in truth, the partying spilled onto the Princess Royale’s pool deck.
One Senate candidate made the most of his presence there, festooning the venue with signage. It began with this creative use of bumper stickers.
Several balconies had Wargotz’s signage, so it was a good thing Eric had a special one by his suite.
Governor Gary Johnson led the state of New Mexico from 1995-2003, winning an election as an outsider who was told he had little chance of winning (it was his first electoral contest.) Here’s Eric and Gary together – it’s one of two pictures I took (the other will likely be on his campaign site sometime soon.)
I’ll come back to Johnson later. In the meantime, it’s worth noting that fellow U.S. Senate hopeful Jim Rutledge also had a presence there, with a table near the registration desk.
Rutledge did come down on Saturday to meet and greet conventiongoers.
But if the MDGOP was anticipating a lot of revenue from table rental, they had to be sorely disappointed. Aside from Rutledge and the debut of Americans for Limited Government as a presence, not much was to be found on the tables.
This table on Friday night showed the undercurrent of competition.
As I mentioned earlier, part of the idea behind this convention was to conduct training for Central Committee members. I sat in on four seminars: voter vault training, new media, treasurer’s training, and a panel discussion led by Audrey Scott and featuring General Assembly members Delegate Jeannie Haddaway-Riccio and Senators David Brinkley, Nancy Jacobs, and Allan Kittleman. Of the four that was the most interesting, but I learned something new at each and I suppose that was the intent.
I think I’m going to treat the panel discussion as a separate post because a lot of interesting statements were uttered. So let’s skip to lunch and its two guest speakers.
Being introduced by GOP Chair Audrey Scott, who said “we need Bob back to make this a business-friendly state,” Ehrlich pretty much stuck to his stock speech. Most of us knew that “Maryland has been good to us” and “the last grudge match I had was in middle school.”
To Bob, “progress” in Martin O’Malley’s terms was a higher unemployment rate, 3,000 fewer businesses, increases in sales and business taxes, a so-called “living wage,” and gifts to Big Labor – all in all, a poor business climate is O’Malley’s legacy. “You don’t raise taxes on the producers,” said the former governor.
Annapolis is “never out of excuses,” continued Ehrlich, who also said that for us, jobs are “real” and not a “talking point” as they are for O’Malley. The “worst-kept secret” of a second O’Malley term would be the “monumental tax increase awaiting us.” It’s the “politics of getting over” – getting over the next year or the next election. His biggest disappointment was dealing with the schools in Baltimore (and then-Mayor O’Malley) – he accused the Democrats of not stepping up “because it was inconvenient” for them to. Never mind the kids sentenced to a below-grade education.
Addressing the TEA Party movement – a movement which “is serious” – there’s “no doubt” this “pro-opportunity” group wil help us.
While there’s little doubt that everyone in the room supports Ehrlich against O’Malley, I would’ve liked to hear from another man present – Brian Murphy.
We’re not supposed to endorse candidates pre-primary, but by all appearances the Maryland GOP has placed its lot for better or worse behind Bob Ehrlich. Yes, it can be argued that Murphy has little chance but at least he put his name on the line while someone was dithering about which race to run in – if he would run at all. I think we owed him the opportunity to speak, or else be neutral in the race and find a different keynote speaker.
The other speaker isn’t officially running for anything – at least not yet. While the list of current and former governors perhaps seeking the 2012 GOP presidential nomination is long, should Gary Johnson decide to do so we’ll have a pretty good idea of where he stands thanks to his Our America website alluded to above on Eric Wargotz’s sign.
Johnson related his experience as an entrepreneur and being told he “can’t come from outside politics to be elected” to statewide office. But he succeeded by putting “issues first and politics last.”
Perhaps his most noteworthy achievement in two terms as governor was vetoing 750 bills. He used the example of a bill to mandate pets in a store be exercised 2 hours a day, 3 days a week – who would police such a law?
That streak of libertarian thought extended to issues which were received well, like our lack of fiscal conservatism naturally leading to inflation, the “next shoe to drop” being state pension funds, and noting “I was hoping for free-market reform” on health care.
Other issues, though, may have fallen somewhat flat with those gathered, such as taking a “hard look” at the War on Drugs and “squandering our military might” on Iraq and Afghanistan. Regarding drug laws, Johnson noted that 1.8 million are arrested for drug crimes each year and 90% of that is prohibition-related rather than use-related. Instead, we should look at nations like Holland and Portugal and adopt “harm-reduction strategies.”
Gary was definitely thought-provoking, though, and may fit in as a second-tier participant should he begin the process of seeking the GOP’s highest nomination.
After lunch we got down to brass tacks and began the convention proper with Chair Audrey Scott presiding.
I must say, though, this may have been the absolute worst hall I’ve ever sat in for this sort of gathering.
I truly felt sorry for the guests who had to sit in the back, far away from the stage. You can’t tell by the picture but our group was fairly far back; we sat at the outside corner where the room narrowed.
With those surroundings, even Andy Harris didn’t fire up the troops as he could have in nicer circumstances.
Harris did wax eloquent about “taking America back” and stopping the “systematic dismantling of the American Dream” by the “gang in Washington.” To them, electing Scott Brown was “not (a) loud enough message” because they passed Obamacare anyway.
One big flaw with Obamacare Harris elaborated on was that hospitals were unwilling to make new investments because of the uncertainty. “It’s about time Congress admits its mistake (and) repeals health care,” Andy said. Another red meat comment: “when it comes to taxes, we should be the party of ‘hell no’!”
Checking in with the usual reports were our National Committeewoman, Joyce Lyons Terhes, who opined, “Michael Steele is doing an excellent job,” and that, “America is being dismantled before our very eyes.” National Committeeman Louis Pope added that our national fundraising was “right on target” and “the TEA Party is us.” The Republican National Committee is predicting a 30-60 seat House gain and 29 or 30 governorships after this election.
In her Chairman’s Report, Audrey Scott claimed that the “party was in disarray” when she took over but she’d improved both communication and finances during her brief tenure. The recent town hall meetings had gone well “beyond her wildest expectations” and she revealed that a paid Maryland Democratic Party staffer was following her during the latter stages of the tour, recording her every remark. (There was no Democratic staffer at her Wicomico stop. I’m bummed.)
An exciting upcoming event was the annual Red, White, and Blue Dinner, which will feature Mitt Romney as guest speaker.
Yet I have an editorial comment. What was the problem these big donors had with Jim Pelura? They could have opened up their wallets just as easily then and saved the party a lot of headache. Jim must not have been the fair-haired boy they wanted I guess.
Other than that, the business at hand went more or less routinely. Three of us from Wicomico County and another from Montgomery County objected to the adoption of the rules – in my case I suggested to Audrey beforehand that the “compromise” voting system be voted on separately (as they were last fall) and when they did not I objected. So there’s four people who “get it.”
But since the only resolution was to allow the Teenage Republicans a seat at the Executive Committee table the rules were no big deal. Most disappointing was the Voting Committee – who was charged with studying the issue and suggesting a solution – punting the voting system issue down the road. Their excuse this time was that an outgoing convention shouldn’t dictate rules for the next year. Well then, I guess we should rewrite the bylaws every four years then, shouldn’t we? (Actually we did a major revision this term – we just didn’t resolve the voting issue or properly adopt the worthwhile idea of regional chairs. That’s another issue the powers-that-be will find excuses to ignore for another term.)
Okay, my rant is over. For the first time that I recall, the Young Republicans didn’t have a hospitality suite on Friday night. Instead, they capitalized on current events for this idea to bridge the gap between the convention and dinner.
Speaking of dinner, I wasn’t sure about the speaker but political consultant David Winston turned out to be interesting to a numbers freak like myself.
Some of his findings:
President Bush couldn’t capitalize on the structural advantage the GOP has – we are a center-right country.
Obama’s big misstep was tackling health care and not jobs. Almost 3 times as many respondents to polling cited jobs as the key issue over health care.
Having a high disapproval rating hurts the introduction of issues – if “there’s that guy I don’t like” talking about an issue it turns voters off.
9.7% (the unemployment rate) is “the only number that matters” this cycle.
“The political center does not mean moderates.” On a sliding scale of liberal to conservative, independent voters are far closer to the GOP than they are President Obama.
Finally, our annual awards for 2009 were given out and we were pleasantly surprised!
Charles Carroll Award (Outstanding Republican Man) – Bob Ostrom
Belva Lockwood Award (Outstanding Republican Woman) – Patt Parker
Samuel Chase Award (Outstanding County) – Talbot County
William Paca Award (Outstanding Republican Youth) – Matt Teffeau
Grassroots Activist of the Year – Katie James
Aris Allen Award (Outstanding Voter Registration Effort) – Wicomico County
Obviously we won one award and as I recall we nominated Matt for his award for his work as head of the Salisbury University College Republicans. Here are the award winners with Chair Audrey Scott.
So I don’t have a completely bitter taste in my mouth for the event. It just looks like the work won’t stop on November 2nd – when I’m reelected to the Central Committee and after we beat the Democrats like a rented mule it will be time to push for much-needed reform for the MDGOP.
