As we move closer to the Republican primaries and caucuses, voters will begin to get inundated with political advertisements. Some ads will be ominous and stress the somber tone of our economy. Some ads will be upbeat and try to create an air of optimism about the candidate they are promoting. Other advertisements will try to make a positive point about the candidate they are for through the creative use of humor. But few ads will probably be as amusing as this gem that White House 2012 stumbled upon.
To set the tone for it, let me take you back to the last time you were driving your car. Remember that fool who cut you off 0r was going 35 mph on a stretch of road with a 65 mph speed limit?. Do you remember when you noticed that Obama-Biden ‘08 bumper sticker they had stuck to their car? Well if you think like me, you probably said to yourself, “well that explains why they drive like a jackass.” You might even recall how you felt the urge to say something like “thanks a lot for giving us Obama, you fool”, to the driver of that car.
Well this ad will make you realize that you’re not alone. But the creator of this YouTube video took that thinking to the next level with the “BS Remover”.
While many whine that there is no perfect candidate to run against President Obama, a few wonder whether or not they themselves are that perfect candidate. In the case of Thad McCotter it is hard to argue that he is that “perfect” candidate. Up till the reading of this post, many may not have even heard of the name Thad McCotter. And even those who know who he is have to wonder why his name would come up when discussing who the next President of the United States may be. But apparently Thad McCotter believes that the race for President is less about him than it is about his vision. That is why, the five term conservative Michigan Congressman has decided to announce his candidacy for the Republican presidential nomination during an Independence Day festival that will be held in the “Great Lakes State” that he calls home.
While McCotter used Saturday to file the paperwork that makes his candidacy official, on Monday, July 4th, he will intertwine the symbolism of America’s defeat of tyranny, with his quest for restoring our nation’s independence from the federal bureaucracy which has come to be almost as tyrannical as King George was over the original 13 colonies. With that in mind McCotter has already launched his presidential website and in it he runs with what his campaign calls “five core principles”
Our liberty is from God not the government
Our sovereignty is in our souls not our soil
Our security is from strength not surrender
Our prosperity is from the private sector not the public sector
Our truths are self-evident not relative
In a day and age when politics has become increasingly based upon sound bites, McCotter’s five succinctly stated principles should make conservatives, TEA movement activists, and patriots of all persuasions take notice. More so than Mitt Romney, Newt Gingrich, Michele Bachmann, Tim Pawlenty, or any of the other candidates, McCotter’s initial introduction into the 2012 presidential election is a demonstration of a candidate who not only truly believes that American’s are suffering from a loss of independence, but who also knows how to articulate that concern in a way that is effective among today’s attention deficit disorder dominated society. McCotter’s five principles represent everything that should inspire true conservatives and should be the driving force behind our conservative ideology and conservative based policy positions. And his campaign’s tag line, “McCotter 2012 …….for an America that works”, is an incredibly innovative double entrende that has an impact on multiple fronts.
I do not yet know who the creative strategists behind the still embryonic McCotter presidential campaign are. As a truebeliever in conservatism, McCotter may himself be the author who articulated his campaign‘s cause so well.. If that is so, than not only is McCotter sincere in his beliefs, he also has an incredible talent and natural ability to package those beliefs in a way that is appealing enough to properly advance them. That is quite important for it goes to the heart of any candidates’ campaign……….electability. But even if McCotter does not write his own copy, it must be said that he has a knack for picking the right people with the right talent to get his point across. For that too, he would deserve credit. That is especially the case when compared to the way that the campaign’s of experienced politicians such as Newt Gingrich have presented their case so far. But will the McCotter campaign’s seeming ability to present their cause so well, enough to get him elected?
It is probably not enough to even propel Thad McCotter to frontrunner status in the race for the Republican presidential nomination. However; it should be reason enough for conservative Republicans ——– the base of the Party ———- to give Congressman McCotter a fair hearing in the race for the Republican presidential nomination. That will be a tough sell in today’s shallow, “American Idol” based society which helped turn Senator Barack Obama into a pop idol rock star and transform him into becoming President Barack Obama. But then again, Americans have to ask themselves how that’s worked for them so far? And true conservatives will have to ask themselves if they want to elect a nominee who represents the 2008 style moderate Republican Party which lost the White House and the U.S. Senate in addition to the House of Representatives, or do they want to elect Republican who represent the 2010 style Republicans who took back the House with the largest majority since the 1940’s? If they want a rock star, even though McCotter is a rock aficionado who plays the guitar and often uses quotes from rock songs in his speeches, they may not want to nominate McCotter for President. But if true conservatives believe in their principles, they will have to give McCotter a fair hearing.
In many ways, for Republicans who are attracted to some libertarian positions, and in my opinion, rightfully so, McCotter is a perfect mix of Ronald Reagan pragmatism and Ron Paul principles, but without Paul’s naive isolationist sentiments. This perfect mix could make McCotter an important bridge of compromise that links conservatives and libertarians together. Such a linking of the two will be necessary to the creation of coalition that can defeat President Obama in 2012. Dissatisfied libertarians who consistently find themselves disappointed by Ron Paul’s inability to cinch the Republican nomination, usually become Independent voters who vote for third Party candidates. In a close election, those third Party votes could cost the G.O.P. the White House and valuable senate seats. McCotter has the ability to unite the two sides behind him. But this leaves McCotterwith the need to confront his greatest problem ……………….appealing to the broader electorate beyond conservatives and libertarians.
Click here to view McCotter's White House 2012 page
Ultimately, Rep. McCotter’s relative lack of national name ID and his rather low-key mannerism will probably prevent him from catching on in a way that will propel him to the presidency in 2012. But American politics has never allowed anything to be set in stone. Early on in 1976, few thought that the rather uninspiring, vanilla personality of Jimmy Carter had a chance at winning the Democrat’s presidential nomination. So don’t be quick to discount McCotter. Thankfully , Thad McCotter is no Jimmy Carter, but while I will admit that he currently is a long shot, I must also confess that he is probably the one long shot who is most deserving of our attention. If people are willing to listen to him, he could influence the Republican presidential nomination and he will certainly force the field to move to the right, where they should be. But in order for that to happen, McCotter must meet the early challenge of registering enough national recognition in polls, to make it into the presidential debates. How much support varies. In many cases candidates must meet a two percent threshold, in other forums they must register 5 percent or more in the polls. Between the need to meet that standard and the need to raise the type of substantial money that it takes to get that type of name recognition, McCotter has his hands full and to say that his road ahead is an uphill battle is an understatement. But for those who are committed to a cause, being an underdog is not enough to make them abandon their cause.
To learn more about Thaddeus McCotter, visit his White House 2012 Page . As seen on the right, McCotter’s WH12 page offers you a one stop, online location for biographical information on McCotter, an analysis of his campaign, as well as links to his websites, Youtube Channel, Facebook page, voting record, campaign finances and filings, speeches, positions papers and a live feed to all the latest news on Thad McCotter. Just visit McCotter’s page here and scroll down to each of the links that you see circled in the image to the right.
Ronald Reagan announcing his presidential candidacy in 1980
With the backside of the Statue of Liberty as his backdrop, Jon Huntsman, the former Ambassador to China and Governor of Utah went to Liberty State Park in Jersey City, New Jersey and became the eighth Republican to officially announce his candidacy for President. In 1980, Ronald Reagan appeared in the same location to announce his presidential candidacy. Yet the exact angle from which candidate Reagan kicked off his campaign was quite different from the angle that candidate Huntsman used to kick off his campaign. Having been born in Brooklyn, New York and eventually moving to New Jersey, I am keenly aware of the fact that the Statue of Liberty faces New York, while offering New Jersey a view of her backside. Ronald Reagan’s campaign took this into account. Jon Huntsman’s campaign did not. When Reagan announced his candidacy, his campaign staged the event in Liberty State Park in such a way that aowed you to see the side of Lady Liberty from her side. 31 years later, Huntsman chose the same location, but at an angle that placed Lady Liberty’s rump in our face.
That observation may be superficial, but it is a sign of a campaign that is not as interested in the details as they should be.
Huntsman announcing his candidacy with Lady Liberty's back to him
And it was also a bit symbolic of Huntsman’s campaign kickoff. At best, Huntsman’s campaign announcement could be described as flat and uninspiring. His delivery was monotone and his need to constantly read from his written text that laid atop the podium before him, added to a performance that was not only uninspiring, but so scripted and unemotional that there was an unmistakable sense of insincerity surrounding the entire launch of his presidential campaign.
The former Ambassador ran through the now obligatory recitation of how as Governor, he did not raise taxes and how well his state was prepared to handle the national economic downturn. He spoke of how we need not “hope”, but answers, and he mentioned how the next great generation of Americans are looking for the type of leadership that will allow them to rebuild America and restore her promise.
In his speech, Huntsman also stressed civility, the need to restore it in politics and promised that his campaign will take the high road. He even went so far as to state that he greatly respects all the Republican presidential candidates and President Obama as well. However, prior to that statement, Huntsman took a subtle swipe at frontrunner Mitt Romney. In what was an obvious attempt to point out Romney’s more than decade old conversion from a pro-choice position, to a right to-life position, Huntsman pointed out that he has been a lifelong right-to-lifer. He then proceeded to call himself the “ultimate conservative.”
Calling ones self “the ultimate conservative” may seem to be smart political strategy in a field of candidates that will each be trying to outdo the other when it comes to who can move furthest to the right but it can only work if it is true and can be received without much laughter. In Huntsman’s case though, being called the ultimate conservative sounds more sarcastic than honest. Fiscal conservatives will argue that after increasing his state’s budget by 10% every year he was office, he is not fiscally conservative. Social conservatives will argue that Huntsman’s pro-gay marriage position is far from socially conservative. And all conservatives will consider his support of Cap-and-Trade from as recently as two years ago is not at all conservative.
So Huntsman’s strategic self description may not really be very smart. It only makes him a vulnerable target in the battle to win the far right base. By making his ultimate conservatism a theme of his campaign, his actual lack of conservative credentials on several issues and the willingness of his seven Republican opponents to point them out, will simply undermine his candidacy
Huntsman still has the chance to make the case that his position on gay marriage is actually where true conservatives should be. If true conservatism represents equal civil rights and limited government that refuses to interject itself into our bedrooms, our personal lives, and our personal decisions, than perhaps Huntsman has a point. However, a presidential nomination process does not afford one the time necessary to make that case and to convincingly change generations of ingrained, ideological thinking and beliefs. Rightly or wrongly, in a presidential primary contest, one must play to their base, not try to retrain them.
Truth be told, Jon Huntsman is quite qualified to be both the Republican presidential nominee and President of the United States. A carefully crafted campaign can make the case that he is probably the one person running in either political Party, with the best foreign affairs knowledge and experience of them all. His experience as a U.S. Trade Representative and his experience as Ambassador to Singapore and China, give Huntsman unique insight in the burgeoning Asian markets that are critical to the U.S. economy. And his undeniable expertise when it comes to China puts him in the unique position of understanding that world power better than all others running for President. That experience could be quite helpful in delicate and important international affairs that involve dangerously disruptive rogue regimes such as North Korea and even Iran. And as a governor, Huntsman did much to create a pro-growth environment that allowed the people of Utah to drive their state’s economy in a way that outperformed most all other states.
But is that enough to win the Republican presidential nomination? Probably not.
In 2012, Republicans want an anti-establishment candidate. And while frontrunner Mitt Romney may not be that person, since his 2008 campaign for President, he has built for himself a national level of support from those who believe he gets it, that Huntsman still lacks. Between that and the enthusiastic but albeit limited support for the anti-establishment candidacies of Bachmann,Cain, and Paul, there is little chance for Huntsman to gain the type of traction that will allow him to truly compete with Mitt Romney. That is especially the case if Huntsman keeps on trying to sell himself as the “ultimate conservative”. And it will be even worse for Huntsman if Texas Governor Rick Perry enters the race.
In the final analysis, based upon the record and Huntsman’s lackluster campaign announcement, I do not see him as being the Republican that voters have been waiting for and I see little chance for him to prove otherwise. Ultimately, just like the Statue of Liberty in the background of Jon Huntsman’s campaign announcement, I think most Republicans will turn their backs on him.
As indicated by a recent Rasmussen Reports National Republican Primary survey of 1,000 likely primary voters, since making his expected presidential candidacy official last month, Mitt Romney is solidifying his perceived hold on frontrunner status. The poll gives him a 14% lead over the rival who since Monday’s debate, is now his closest rival, Minnesota Rep. Michele Bachmann. The actual results of the poll are as follows; Romney – 33%, Bachmann – 19%, Cain –10%, Gingrich – 9%, Paul – 7%, Pawlenty – 6%, Santorum – 6%, Huntsman – 2%
This is good news for Romney, but at this early stage in the game, voter’s are quite fickle. They have yet to really focus on a decision that some won’t have to make for another 9 months and most won’t have to make for almost a year from now. So many of these people are going with Romney because he is a name that remains well known ever since he first ran for President in 2008. But among activist Republican voters, their familiarity with Romney does not make him a clear frontrunner. The biggest reason for that is his creation of the Massachusetts healthcare plan that President Obama claims was the model for his unpopular national Obamacare plan. This crack in Romney’s shell is the major reason behind why many Republicans are hoping that a knight in shining armor steps into the race and saves the day, or rather the election.
For some that savior is Sarah Palin. For others it’s Rick Perry, Chris Christie, or Rudy Giuliani.
While another Giuliani presidential candidacy ultimately won’t have much impact, the other three names would. Christie, Palin, and Perry have a style, reputation and record that it takes to be popular with the anti-government sentiments of the TEA Party age. Giuliani really doesn’t. Additionally, if he had what it takes, he would be well positioned for the nomination as either the incumbent Governor of New York or United States Senator representing the state..
Ever Since 2000, when Hillary Clinton ran to replace Senator Daniel Patrick Moynihan, Rudy was the premier New York Republican and the first and only name New York Republicans had a chance to win with. Yet since 2000, Rudy was not up to running and as a result, Republicans lost two gubernatorial elections, and twice as many chances to win a U.S. Senate seat. If Rudy was not up to beating names like Elliot Spitzer, Chuck Schumer and the virtually unknown Kirsten Gillibrand in statewide races, he is certainly not up to beating names like Sarah Palin, Mitt Romney or Barack Obama on a national level.
However the prospects of a Christie, Palin, or Perry candidacy could go far. And more importantly, they could go a long way in preventing Romney from getting the Republican presidential nomination.
This forces Mitt Romney to confront that reality and requires his campaign to make a critical strategic decision.
Romney already has his hands full with the competition he is getting from the current field of declared candidates. While the candidates were quite civil with one another and focused on what they agree on during the most recent debate, soon they will be focusing on their differences. And the most glaring difference between Romney and the rest of the field is that none of them have created a government-centric healthcare plan that President Obama adopted. No matter how much Mitt tries to frame the issue as a states rights issue that he handled appropriately as a Governor but would never think of handling the same way as a President, for many he will continue to have big-government blood on his hands. Still, among the seven major candidates that he will definitely be running against, Romney has a fighting chance. But if Rick Perry were to join the field, Romney’s fighting chance quickly becomes a major uphill battle.
For that reason, it behooves Romney to solidify his frontrunner status now.
If Romney was able to take what is currently at best, a tenuous hold on the top spot and turn it into a solid hold on the top spot, than Rick Perry and others who have been showing a real or perceived reluctance to run, will be less likely to do so.
Up to now, Romney has been attempting to lay relatively low and avoid the type of national overexposure that could cause people to get tired of him and peak too early in the long nomination process. Right now Romney is content with tirelessly meeting with and talking to relatively small organized, individual groups of influential Republicans and Republican activists and trying to win them over. Such a strategy is a necessity for any candidate. But it will not make Romney seem unbeatable quickly enough to prevent stiff competition from announcing their candidacy and sucking the gas out of Romney tank.
So Mitt needs to decide whether he wants to run a slow and steady campaign that builds momentum gradually or if he is willing to make some moves that risk early overexposure but discourage others who have a good chance at beating Romney from becoming candidates. One of those moves that Mitt might want to think about is renouncing the “Providing Access to Affordable, Quality, Accountable Health Care” that he enacted in 2006 as Governor. If Romney could come forward and describe Romneycare as a proper attempt by a state to experiment with a solution to a tough problem, and then admit that the experiment failed, he could begin to convince apprehensive, limited government voters that he gets it.
Romney has come close to this. In speech after speech, he has articulated that his state healthcare plan was not perfect and that there are things he would now do differently. But coming close to admitting that Romneycare was a failure is not good enough. What he needs to do is admit that his Massachusetts healthcare plan did not do the job he had hoped it would and then go as far as to say that it once and for all proved to him that government is not the answer.
If Romney were to go this route, he would have the breathing room to explain that he lived up to his responsibilities as a Governor and allowed his state to with its own solution to its own problems. He would then be able to get milegage by explaining that the difference between him and President Obama is that unlike the President, he understands the difference between the role that a Governor plays in their own state and that a President should play in the governance of a state. The key is convincingly making the point that his healthcare experiment as a Governor, will make him a President who is more convinced than ever that government is not the answer.
This argument would fly among limited government and TEA movement voters. Not only would it be plausible, it would begin to unwrap the healthcare albatross from his neck.
But that alone will not be enough to prevent Governors who did not make the same mistake in their states that Romney did in his, from entering the race and challenging Romney. To accomplish this, Romney needs to make an investment in a national blitz that exploit’s the economic malaise that President Obama is entrenching us in and highlight Romney’s understanding of the economy as well as the private sector and the successes he has had in the private sector. Romney needs to quickly acquire a stronger national image as a master of free market based growth, who knows how to create jobs, and as was the case in the 2002 Winter Olympics, turn things such as our economy, around. This impression must become undeniably obvious and to do so, Romney can not just create this impression in New Hampshire and Iowa. To prevent someone like from Rick Perry from challenging him, they need to see that states which hold primaries and caucuses later in the contest, also have an undeniable positive image of Romney. Romney may even want to think about taking advantage of some sketchy polls that show that Perry is currently behind others Republican presidential hopefuls among Texas Republican primary voters.
Romney’s private sector background and managerial talent is his strong suit and if he can act quickly to exploit the continuous reports of an economy that is actually getting worse, he can turn that strong suit into the type of armor that will discourage others from challenging him. That will then leave Romney to compete among an existing field of candidates who will have a hard time replacing Romney as the frontrunner.
This strategy is unorthodox. Traditional campaigns for a presidential nomination force candidates to focus on the individual state contests that can keep them in the game till the next state primary or caucus. Usually the strategy is to win enough early state primaries and caucuses to force opponents to drop out of the race and leave the nomination to them. But for Mitt Romney, as it is now, he will have a tough time winning Iowa, the first contest, and South Carolina, the third contest. And if he does not do well in Florida which holds its primary shortly after, then Romney may be in trouble. This scenario makes it enticing for someone like Rick Perry to become a candidate. Unlike Romney, Perry could easily win Iowa and South Carolina. In fact, if Perry were to run, he is the one candidate with the greatest chance to win enough early contests to force others, inluding Romney, out of the race.
For that reason, Romney may want to make his move now rather than later. Because if Rick Perry runs, later may be too late for Mitt Romney.
In a surprise announcement, defiant sexting addict and Brooklyn liberal, Rep. Anthony Weiner, announced that not only does he have the law on his side, he declared he has the Attorney General on his side. And with that, he announced he will not be seeking reelection to his congressional seat in 2012, but instead will be running for President with Attorney General Eric Holder as his running mate.
Weiner declared that with over 100,000 intimate online supporters already in place, he will run a grass root, internet based, campaign that will raise among other things, money. The embattled Congressman has not yet determined if he will challenge President Obama for the Democratic nomination. Weiner’s campaign manager, Jenny Tailia indicated to several sources that such a move is contingent upon whether or not Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, whom Weiner’s wife Huma works for, decides to challenge the President for the nomination.
Weiner waves the banner of his new LGBT (Let's Get Busy Tonight) political Party
However, the Congressman assured supporters that the Weiner-Holder ticket will have a place on the ballot under the recently formed LGBT Party (Let’s Get Busy Tonight Party).
According to LGBT Party Chairman Richard Shooter, the Party was aroused by the thought of a Weiner-Holder ticket several weeks ago when it became apparent that in his words “A Weiner -Holder ticket has the balls to put it all out there and lay it on the line”. The LGBT’s Executive Director, Devoida Taste, stated “Never before have LGBT Party members been quite so excited by the prospects of a ticket that represents their interests as much as a Weiner-Holder presidential ticket does”
Attorney General Eric Holder was unavailable for comment but his newly appointed campaign spokesman, Tess Tosterone, released a statement that indicated the Attorney General is pumped up and ready to go. However in his statement, he pointed out that while there is already a great deal of desire for a Weiner-Holder campaign, this will be a long election process and as such he reminded supporters that the way to win this race is by building momentum slowly, and insuring that they have the stamina to keep it up and not peak too early.
Reaction to the entry of a Weiner-Holder ticket into the election was mixed. Many voters in Weiner’s congressional district do not believe that Weiner has the ability to penetrate voters with a message that is virile enough to make them vote for him over President Obama. But Weiner’s handlers believe that the President’s failed stimulus package which has done little more than maintain a flaccid economy, could give Weiner a hand and allow him to rise to the occasion.
Weiner ended his rally-like campaign kickoff announcement by declaring ;
“Times are tough and I know it. No matter how you look at it, it is hard. But I can promise you this, to paraphrase Herbert Hoover, Weiner -Holder will make sure that there is meat in every mouth and a bun in every oven”
Fox News’ Neil Cavuto conducted the first interview with Texas Governor Rick Perry since he indicated that he is considering a run for President.
In it Perry claims that six weeks ago a presidential run was not on his “radar” but after conversations with several people he trusts, including his wife, he has come around to giving the possibility a good look.
The interview was one of many candidate-like opportunities that Perry took advantage of on a trip to New York City. The trip was made for the purpose of delivering a speech to the Manhattan Republican Party’s Lincoln Day Dinner. Donald Trump was originally scheduled to deliver the events keynote address, but he pulled out after rejecting his own for President. But Perry maximized the impact of his trip to the Big Apple by taking advantage of several opportunities to address some major New York based media outlets that have broad national reach. That includes the Wall Street Journal of which Perry requested to meet with its editorial board.
In the video of Neil Cavuto’s interview with Governor Perry (see below) to invite him to speak to them, Perry replied;
I think it’s the right thing for them to do to pick the Governor of state that’s got a great story to tell. When you look at we’ve done, seriously on the job creation side, you said in you’re opening, ‘what’s the secret’, the fact is it really is not a secret. You just keep those taxes low and your regulatory climate fair and balanced”.
He added that tort reform which protects from frivolous lawsuits also goes a long way in creating the right climate for job creation and a strong economic climate.
Generally, the clip below gives a good indication as to why Perry is seen by many as the strongest candidate left that can possibly run against President Obama.
Monday’s Republican presidential debate sponsored by CNN/WMUR and the Manchester Union Leader, produced few waves and even fewer opinion changes regarding the seven candidates who participated in it. While opinions vary slightly on who came out as a winner or on even if there was any clear winner, most agree that the debate’s moderator John King, was a loser. His performance offered an endless rash of irritating, inappropriate grunts of “uh, uh, uh, uh, uh, uhlright” as he tried to interrupt everyone who spoke every time they spoke.
A review of several opinions offered by WH12 staff writers all agree that while some of the candidates did well, none of them really distinguished themselves as standouts. At the same time, everyone at White House 2012 agreed that for a number of reasons, Michele Bachmann surpassed expectations. Everyone at White House 2012 also agrees that as a group, the seven candidates agreed on the main issues, the economy, and stayed focused on what that which they have in common rather than their differences. That type of unity bodes well for the Party as a whole, but it will among those running for the presidential nomination, each one will soon have to point out their differences if they want to defeat their opponents.
At this stage in the race though, as Smashey put it, “they all played it safe.”
Below are more detailed analyses form three of the White House staff writers; Smashey, Friday and Kempite.
I believe the debate proved one thing……the Republican candidates seem to be willing to lay off of differences with each other to untie against the failings of the Obama administration.
I don’t think anyone stood out as a front runner nor do I think anyone took a hit to the negative. Everyone played it safe.
I expected Bachman to be the kind of speaker she was in her SOTU reply but she was surprisingly more polished this time around. Gingrich showed he is an accomplished speaker as did Romney and as was expected. Pawlenty didn’t make a move to wow anyone as I expected him to which was a bit disappointing. Cain stayed on message as did Santorum but both also, as with Pawlenty, did little to make that impact I think they needed to get to the same level as Romney. Paul was Paul as was expected.
In short I don’t think anyone came out ahead and no one lost. They all played it safe and had a united message against the policies of Obama.
This debate was very good. Candidates did what they needed to do most and focused on the economy and on Obama. Even when egged on, the only candidate who briefly faltered in this was Pawlenty. Pawlenty, who had recently coined the term Obamneycare, was put in a tough spot when John King seized on that opportunity. When King attempted to get candidates to distance themselves from Sarah Palin, they instead put the focus on Joe Biden’s absolute failures. This was a success because each of these candidates has been portrayed as unexciting and undesirable. Whether by pact or nature, by allowing themselves to agree with one another and focusing on Obama’s massive failures, these candidates each built their capital in this primary. Even Ron Paul seemed cordial.
An obvious dynamic came through in this debate. We are starting to see a top tier and second tier emerge. Some candidates appeared to have jumped into this race with both feet, focused on their issues, but are now finding themselves relying on stump phrases without much substance. Cain and Bachmann seemed to fall into this category, while Santorum appeared as the sacrificial lamb for classic conservatism. It is good to have each of them in the race, but at this point their biggest contribution is contrast. All three would have done very well were this debate a TEA Party rally. However, Considering the TEA Party influence in 2010 and Obama’s 2008 win using the same basic campaign style, I wouldn’t write this off a as a negative just yet.
Ron Paul was well prepared and had answers ready, but not to any of the questions King asked. Paul’s anti-federal government stances were refreshing for constitutionalists and will certainly inspire his libertarian base, but he is sure to lose any liberal who opposes entitlement reform this time around. Right?
No single winner in this debate. However, Romney, Pawlenty, Gingrich and Bachmann certainly helped themselves. I don’t think this debate will give Paul, Cain or Santorum as much boost in this race.
While John King proved himself to be a horrible moderator with obvious political biases that he can’t contain himself from at least subtly projecting, the seven G.O.P. presidential debate participants proved to be an assemblage of promising leaders, even if they did not all prove themselves to be presidential material.
In the final analysis, the only standard by which you can arrive at winners or losers in presidential debates is the one that shows a particular candidate helped or hurt their chances to get elected. None of the seven debate participants did anything to hurt their chances but none of them performed in a way, or said anything that significantly improved their chances of getting elected. Under those circumstances, as the frontrunner going into the debate, Mitt Romney comes out as the winner of the debate.
If there was a trophy for second place, Michele Bachmann’s overall performance earned it for her.
Bachmann was strong and whether enough voters currently think she electable or not, they have now been forced to give her chance and with that chance, Bachmann has more control of her electoral destiny than do others like Ron Paul, who seems to be unable to run a campaign that can appeal to more than 10 or 12 percent of the Republican presidential electorate.
Tim Pawlenty, and Rick Santorum held there own but that is not good enough for either one of them. They need to begin inspiring more voters and fast. Herman Cain underperformed in that sense that he is a much more electrifying speaker than he showed himself in the debate. And as for New Gingrich, at times he seemed out of place and like Herman Cain, I believe he underperformed. However it is important to note that in my opinion, even an underreporting Herman Cain or Newt Gingrich still performs better than President Obama and would get my vote
Today President Obama made good on a 2008 campaign promise to visit Puerto Rico as president. For all intents and purposes, it was just another stop on a two day campaign swing that took him to the 2012 battleground states of North Carolina and Florida. His stop in Puerto Rico which followed his attendance at three Miami campaign fundraisers on Monday, made him the first American President to visit the American Territory since J.F.K. in 1961.
La Fortaleza, the Western Hemisphere's oldest Governor's Mansion in continuous use
While President Obama described his visit to Puerto Rico as the fulfillment of a promise, one he made on the campaign trail, it was really designed to boost his chances of re-election among the over 4.6 million Puerto Ricans who live in the continental U.S. and are an important concentrated voting block in Florida, New York, and even Pennsylvania. His final stop in Puerto Rico was at a scheduled Democratic National Committee fundraiser. But the first stop for the President was a visit to La Fortaleza, a palacious Governor’s mansion that sits atop a hill above LaFortaleza Harbor and offers picturesque views of San Juan Bay. La Forteza is the Western Hemisphere’s oldest Governor’s Mansion in continuous use .
There, President Obama met with Puerto Rico’s talented Republican Governor, Luis Fortuno, a man who White House 2012 has often been sharply criticized for considering to be a realistic Republican vice presidential candidate in 2012. The meeting gives President Obama the chance to meet with a Govenror whi is a Reagan Republican with a strong commitment to fiscal conservatism and anti-Keynesian policies, and unlike Presidednt Obama, has a record of success on the econmy.
In 2008 Fortuno became the first Republican to be elected Governor of Puerto Rico since 1969 and only the second one elected since 1949. Since 2008, Fortuno took a record breaking budget deficit of $3.3 billion—or 44 percent of the state’s revenues, and administered a fiscal stabilization and restructuring plan that successfully reduced the deficit to 11percent of revenues and will be completely gone by 2013. To achieve this, Governor Fortuno did things such as institute salary reductions of 30 percent for himself , as well as department heads and political appointments, cut expenses across the board, and implemented policies that cut taxes and created new private sector jobs in place of government handouts.
Barack Obama has the honor of meeting Puerto Rico's Republican Governor Luis Fortuno
While mismanagement and the erosion of Puerto Rico’s fiscal situation between 2001 and 2007 caused Standard & Poor’s to take 6 negative actions against Puerto Rico that gave it the lowest credit rating level before being rated as “junk” or non-investment grade. But after 22 months in office, Fortuno’s efforts turned the economic outlook of Puerto Rico around so much that its credit went from a negative rating and the brink of bankruptcy to a positive and the first upgrade in the Island nation’s credit in over 28 years.
An S&P report touts three main factors for its upgrade of Puerto Rico’s credit. They are :
The island economy’s strong ties to the U.S. economy;
The support from the GDB (Global Development Bank) “which in our view provides a stabilizing financial and management influence;”
Luis Fortuno’s “commitment to restore fiscal balance and economic growth and the progress made to date, which has required the passage and implementation of what we view as difficult and sometimes politically unpopular measures.”
In other words, while visiting Puerto Rico, President Obama should take a crash course in economic leadership from Puerto Rico’s Republican Governor Luis Fortuno.
That is one reason why Fortuno is seen as a viable vice presidential running mate for any Republican who is nominated for President. Such a consideration of Fortuno is made as politically expedient for Republicans as is President Obama’s campaign trip to the Territory. The growing Hispanic vote in the United States makes them a voting bloc with increasing electoral influence. For Republicans, the need to make inroads into the Hispanic vote is critical to the Party’s success. As the fastest growing ethnic minority in the nation, over the last decade, Hispanics even accounted for more than 57% of the population growth in the South, the G.O.P.’s strongest region. So for Republicans, a successful, conservative Puerto Rican Governor who has made great strides on the economy, the most important issue confronting voters, earns his name automatic placement on the Republican presidential nominee’s short list. Back in January, presidential candidate Tim Pawlenty even said as much in an interview with Politico.
Oddly, if Fortuno did actually become the Republican vice presidential nominee in 2012, while he is constitutionally eligible for both the presidency and vice presidency, he and his constituents back home in Puerto Rico, will not be eligible to vote for him. But as made evident by President Obama’s campaign trip to the American territory of Puerto Rico, that makes little difference since there are more Puerto Ricans in the United States than there are in Puerto Rico. And they can vote.
In the end, while the selection of Governor Fortuno as a vice presidential runningmate admittedly has only an outside chance at best, for good reason, the chance is there. Personally I believe that that there is a better chance for New Mexico Governor Susana to the vice presidential nod in 2012, but as proven by President Obama’s visit to Puerto Rico, the Puerto Rican vote is important and if Luis Fortuno is willing , he is certainly able to be the next Republican Vice President of the United States.
Next week, on Tuesday June 21st, former Utah Governor and Ambassador to China Jon Huntsman will make an announcement confirming that he is a candidate for the Republican presidential nomination. The announcement will take place at the Statue of Liberty which will serve as a backdrop for the kickoff of his presidential campaign.
After Minnesota Congresswoman confirmed her candidacy during Monday night’s Republican presidential debate, Jon Huntsman becomes the eighth major candidate to seek the 2012 nomination. The total number of candidates stands at eleven when you include the fringe candidacies of former New Mexico Governor Gary Johnson and Republican and gay activist Fred Karger.
Huntsman’s entry into the race is not expected to shake the Republican presidential field up in any significant way. While President Obama’s politicall strategists once considered Huntsman to be the Republican with the greatest chance to defeat the him in 2012, few if any Republicans currently believe that is true today. President Obama appointed Huntsman to the position of Ambassador to China shortly after he was elected and Huntsman was reelected to a second term as of Governor Utah. Some suggest the move was designed to take the one time popular Utah governor out of the electoral equation in 2012. If so, it is obvious that it didn’t work.
While Huntsman had accrued an impressive record of accomplishment as Governor, before he resigned to become the chief diplomatic envoy to China, he began to reveal some liberal opinions that fail to endear him to either the conservative base of the G.O.P. or the voters of Utah who comprise the most conservative and reliably Republican electorate of any state in the nation. In presidential elections, Republican candidates typically pull 65% or more of the vote in Utah. In 2008, even John McCain received 62% of the vote, beating Barack Obama by 28%. Unfortunately for Republicans though, Utah only has 5 electoral votes but in a close election they could be the 5 electoral votes that determine who is President. However; despite once having a near 70% approval from Utah voters, although Huntsman would surely win the state over President Obama in in the general election, it is not clear that he would win the state’s Republican primary.
Recent polls have Mitt Romney ahead of Huntsman in Utah.
While Huntsman will lack a portion of conservative approval on some social issues, his experience with China and the Far East could set him up to be strong on the issue of the economy and jobs, specifically job creation.Under Presidents George H.W. Bush and President George W. Bush, before Huntsman was Governor of Utah, he was the ambassador to Singapore and before and then a U.S. trade representative specializing in Asia. It his experience with trade and Asia that afford Huntsman a unique upper hand on just how the United States can compete with, and tap in to, the burgeoning Asian markets that are critical in striking a proper American trade balance and essential to American job creation. This is an area which Mitt Romney attempted claim expertise in and tried to parlay to his advantage in his 2008 presidential campaign. It did not work all that well for Romney then and it remains to be seen if Jon Huntsman will have any luck with trying to make that case to the American people in 2012.
As he begins his campaign, Jon Huntsman has access to a decent fundraising capability and he has a personality and charm that is a plus but there is little to initially give any reason to believe that Huntsman will occupy a place in the field that is any more significant than Rick Santorum. Huntsman certainly has the potential to make in roads and he is a shoe in for the Giuliani vote, so long as Giuliani does not run. But the Giuliani vote is not enough to win the Republican presidential nomination. To do that, Jon Huntsman needs to compete with people like Michele Bachmann and Rick Santorum for the social conservative vote that is much more inclined to vote for one of them than they are to vote him.
Texas Governor Rick Perry is in New York today to give a speech to New York City Republicans. He’s filling in for Donald Trump who was originally scheduled to deliver the speech but after pulling out of the race for President, also passed on the speech. A conservative addressing New York City Republicans is like a vegetarian trying to convince people at a rodeo to give up meat. Still, New York has a large Republican delegation to the Republican National Convention and a win its relatively early primary can give a candidate a decent lead in the nomination contest. But the news that Perry is filling in for Donald Trump at this event is not as major as the revelation that while in New York City, Perry has requested a meeting with the editorial board of the Wall Street Journal.
Such a sit down could have an impact on a potential Perry presidential candidacy that is 100 times more important than the speech he will give to the Republican gathering later in the evening. Furthermore, the request for an interview with a leading newspaper that is world renowned for its professional economic analysis and coverage, is not likely meant for the purpose of discussing prayer in schools or abortion. Perry’s request is most definitely intended for the purpose of discussing the economy or some specific issues related to it. Such an interview is also likely to highlight Perry’s superior stewardship of the economy in Texas, a stewardship that has made Texas number in job creation and created the most business friendly environment of all the fifty states. The latter being of particular interest to a publication like the Wall Street Journal.
With far too many potentially promising Republicans presidential hopefuls bowing out of the race for President, I hate to speculate about the chances of another one jumping in to the race, yet as pointed out by WH12 several months ago, the chances for a Rick Perry running for President are good. There is absolutely nothing that we know of which offers Perry a reason why he can’t run. In fact, it is just the opposite. And after Monday’s presidential debate still leaving many looking for a conservative hero, Perry may now have even more reason to run. That is probably one reason why Governor Perry wants to speak to the WSJ today. Coming from the WSJ editorial board, a positive assessment of his ideas for job creation, taxation, balanced budgets, and the creation of a regulatory environment that is pro-growth instead of pro-suffocating, has legs that can take Perry far in a race for President. And apparently Rick Perry knows it.
Perry knows that if he were to run, his conservative credentials in the primary and caucus contest will be unassailable. So he need not over emphasize them, especially since he knows that in a general election, those same unassailable conservative credentials will be used against him by President Obama among the broader electorate. So Perry is wise to try to speak to the WSJ on the main topic of the approaching presidential election…….the economy. That is where the election is on track to be won or lost. If Perry can seal the deal on his ability to turn around the national economy and make it run as strong as the Texas economy, not only will that earn him another feather in his cap among the Republican primary voters he needs to win the nomination and who want a candidate they believe can beat the President in November of 2012, it also takes the edge off of what would be President Obama’s attempts to distract voters in the general election by painting Perry as a right wing radical.
So it appears to me that while Perry may not actually be running for President, he is certainly making sure than he can win if he decides to run.
The second Republican presidential debate of the 2012 election has ended with little more to show for it other than the lack of quality and credibility that CNN and debate moderator John King have. While almost all of the candidates performed well, there was nothing that really distinguished any of them as a clear winner. However John King proved himself to be a real loser.
While the two hour debate did not put any time restrictions on the candidate’s answers, they did ask them to limit their answers to no more than a few sentences or even just “one word”. This lack of any set time constraints, caused John King to consistently interrupt with annoying grunt like sounds of uh, uh, uh, uh, uh, uh, uh, alright. I’m not exaggerating. A candidate would say a few words and there would be Johnathan King, grunting and interrupting them with these disturbing, repetitious, grunt-like, uh sounds .
In addition to the grunts, King continued what he called a CNN tradition, and from time to time, would ask a specific candidate what he called a “this or that question.” These probing questions consisted of gems such as “Coke or Pepsi?”, “American Idol or Dancing With the Stars?”, and “Blackberry or Ipod?”. While these little sidebar questions could only be described as stupid, the most absurd question came at the end when King asked, “In 2008 Barack Obama picked Joe Biden to be his Vice President and John McCain picked Sarah Palin as his Vice President. Who do you think was the better choice?”. The question was initially asked of Tim Pawlenty and his response was actually one of the best of the night. He stated that Joe Biden is the one person who has been wrong on just about every position he has taken.
King clearly attempted to paint Republicans into a corner. In addition to hoping that one of them would offend the senses of important Sarah Palin and TEA Party movement voters, on the issue of gay marriage, King asked if they would describe themsleves as a George Bush Republican or a Dick Cheney Republican? The reference was to the two men’s difference of opinion on the issue which had President Bush pushing for a constitutional amendment, while Dick Cheney favored leaving it to the states. It is obvious to me that King had hoped to be able to provide DNC operatives with footage of whoever the Republican nominee will be, describing themselves as a “Dick Cheney Republican” or “George Bush Republican”. While one or the other may not be very damaging among fellow Republicans, it is common knowledge that after both Bush and Cheney were demonized by CNN and other liberal lamestream outfits, describing one’s self as either would not help in the general election among moderates and independents. None of the debate participants took the bait.
King’s laughable performance left me asking one one question. CNN or Fox?
And in case you don’t happen to know the answer to that question, than you probably think that Joe Biden was a better choice for Vice President in 2008 and voted for Barack Obama.
While Johnathan King’s asinine display is what really stole the show, all the candidates held up well, but one did stand out a bit more than the others at times. That candidate was Michele Bachmann. Ignoring the fact that she was the only woman on the stage, Congresswoman Bachmann made her case, in a manner that was sharp, concise and powerful. From her telling the audience that they could take to the bank, the fact that she will not rest until Obamacare was repealed, to her expressed commitment to the defense of life, Bachmann was impressive. She took the first question asked of her as an opportunity to announce that earlier in the day she filed the papers that made her an official presidential candidate. One of the biggest round applause of the night came when Bachmann roared “I want to announce tonight that President Obama is a one term President!”.
Not so impressive was Newt Gingrich, Ron Paul, and Herman Cain.
Ron Paul continued to wag his bony finger while reiterating his desire to have the United States live in some sort of bubble. Herman Cain did not hurt himself, but he never seemed to find the comfort zone that usually allows him to unleash snappy, but inspirational and memorable lines. Newt was in a difficult position. With him behind a podium that stood on the wreckage of his campaign organization, Gingrich needed to really stun people with his personality, intelligence, and pragmatism. He didn’t. He needed to give people reason to believe he is someone who could beat President Obama. He didn’t. While Newt did not sink his ship in Monday night’s debate, he failed to bail out any of the water that is sloshing around in his hull. Additionally, at times, Newt looked somewhat out of place. He did however get off one of the best lines of the night when asked about solving the illegal immigration problem. On this Newt said;
“You know, I’m going to go out on a limb here and say that I think if we took just half of the people in the Homeland Security bureaucracy and put them on the Texas, Arizona and New Mexico border, we would probably solve our problem”
While his point was well received and greatly appreciated, it failed to be potent enough to put Gingrich in the game as solidly as he desperately needs.
The only real scale that can determine the winner of a presidential debate is based upon who most improved their chances of getting elected. By that standard, Michele Bachmann comes out second to one….Mitt Romney. Romney is the frontrunner, and while he landed no homeruns, no candidate landed any lethal blows on him or succeed in drawing any blood from him. This means Romney still remains the frontrunner and therefore, the debate winner.
The surprise third place winner would have to be Rick Santorum.
There are low expectations for Santorum and right now his survival in the race is linked to the social conservatives who as his key constituency, he must inspire. In Monday’s debate, Santorum did nothing to make them not want to give him a shot. He was strong on the issues that motivate the religious right and he was as well spoken and confident as any other candidate. With the exception of Michele Bachmann.
Somewhere behind Rick Santorum, but ahead of Ron Paul, fell Tim Pawlenty.
Pawlenty was mediocre. Unfortunately, that is all he was. For a candidate that is often described as “vanilla”, mediocre is not sufficient. Pawlenty remains in need of a shinning moment and while he has had a few bright spots with his admirable economic recovery plan and his shot at Romney after the inventing the word “Obamneycare”, he has still failed to put any sprinkles on his vanilla campaign. Beyond that, Pawlenty failed to take advantage of the opportunity to pummel Mitt Romney over his Massachusetts healthcare plan. When John King asked Governor Pawlenty about his recent description of it as Obamneycare, instead of reinforcing the message behind the words meaning, he backed down like a bully who found out the kid he was picking on had a black belt in Karate.
For many the debate did little to change minds or to sway voters leaning in one direction or the other regarding any of the candidates. In fact, many are still left hoping someone who can inspire them will jump in to the contets in the weeks ahead. And on a day when some correspondents reported that there is a 95% chance that Texas Governor Rick Perry will run, Monday’s debate left quite a few hoping he does.
Michele Bachmann used the first question she was asked in tonight’s presidential debate to announce that she has filed the papers to run for President and will make an official announcement shortly.
The announcement makes Michele Bachmann the only woman running for the nomination this year and the first Republican woman to ever run for the Republican presidential nomination.
As previously pointed out in detail by WH12, Mitt Romney is the biggest target that will be on the stage in tonight’s Republican presidential debate. The most recent evidence of that fact comes from former Minnesota Governor Tim Pawlenty who is so eager to hit the bull’s-eye that he has already begun taking some early practice shots at Governor Romney.
As seen in the video below, during an interview on Fox News Sunday with host Chris Wallace, Pawlenty launched what is for Romney, a MOAB (Mother of All Bombs), a memorable hit on Romney’s Achilles heal……Romneycare. In describing Governor Romney’s Massachusetts healthcare plan as the model for President Obama’s national healthcare plan, commonly referred to as Obamacare, Pawlenty called it Obamneycare. Pawlenty’s ability to coin a one word phrase that negatively links Mitt Romney to President Obama in such a memorable way, is a stroke of political genius that will prove to be a particularly potent strategic weapon as the Republican race for President moves forward.
Not only does the word help to move Romney’s thinking closer to President Obama’s thinking in the eyes of voters, it also provides Pawlenty with a perfect short and snappy soundbite that requires no explanation and continues to put Mitt Romney on the defensive and in the awkward position of having to spend valuable time trying to explain away. While Pawlenty need only to say the word “Obamneycare” to make his point, Romney has to exhaust time and spend money on using many words to defend himself against Obamneycare. While Tim Pawlenty’s campaign could now make money selling anti-Romney shirts emblazoned with the word “ObamneyCare” on them, Mitt Romney has to spend money on ads and mailings to explain Obamneycare away.
During the rest of the interview, host Chris Wallace afforded Pawlenty many opportunities to take more shots at Mitt Romney on an array of issues. But Governor Pawlenty resisted and instead maintained his focus on Obamneycare, adding,
“President Obama said that he designed Obamacare after Romneycare and basically made it Obamneycare… What I don’t understand is that they both continue to defend it.”
The one thing I do find questionable here though is Tim Pawlenty’s strategic decision to release his useful verbal weapon a day before tonight’s CNN/WMUR-TV/ Manchester Union Leader debate in New Hampshire. The newly created word was certainly laid on the desks of Mitt Romney’s talented team of experienced strategists, consultants, media mavens, and assorted opinion makers. This gives them more than 24 hours to come up with a creative response to any use of Pawlenty’s new verbal assault weapon during the debate. The question is, is Romney and his team talented and creative enough to come up with a rebuttal to “Obamneycare” that takes 15 seconds or less to articulate and sting Pawlenty with to boot?
No matter how Romney prepares to address Pawlenty’s new tool in an old line of attack against Romney, the seat that Mitt is in is only going to get hotter when the five other candidates on the stage tonight, follow Pawlenty’s lead and go for Romney’s jugular.
On Monday, June 13th, New Hampshire’s St. Anselm College will be hosting a two hour long Republican presidential debate that is sponsored by CNN, WMUR-TV and The New Hampshire Union Leader newspaper. The debate begins at 8:00 PM and will feature Minnesota Rep. Michele Bachmann; businessman Herman Cain; former House Speaker Newt Gingrich; Texas Rep. Ron Paul; former Minnesota Gov. Tim Pawlenty; former Massachusetts Gov. Mitt Romney; and former Pennsylvania Sen. Rick Santorum. This will be the second official debate for the G.O.P. presidential field. Last month, FOX News and the South Carolina State Republican Party sponsored the first debate in the Palmetto State. That forum featured Ron Paul, Herman Cain, Tim Pawlenty, Rick Santorum and former New Mexico Governor Gary Johnson.
This time around, due to Gary Johnson’s inability to achieve a high enough threshold of support in public opinion polls, has made him ineligible to participate in this particular debate.
This second debate is in many ways a much more important than the first. The first forum did little to establish any of those who participated as front runners but it proved to benefit Herman Cain the most. It was one of Candidate Cain’s first introductions to the national electorate and in it he created a positive first impression that boosted his standings more than any of the others. While Tim Pawlenty did well and performed in a way that gave good reason to consider him, people like Ron Paul and Gary Johnson simply reinforced their already known positions but did little to broaden their base of support. As for Rick Santorum, he managed to the do same by reinforcing his attractiveness to the social conservatives which he needs to build upon to remain viable.
But the addition of Michele Bachmann, Newt Gingrich, and Mitt Romney in Monday’s forum makes this debate far more important than the last one.
Mitt Romney
Romney is a very tentative frontrunner. As such he has been making many strategic decisions regarding how much of a presence he should have on the scene at this early stage in the game. Romney has been quite cognizant of the need to not be overexposed, thereby giving his opponents the ability to tear him apart and cause him to peak too early. But the fact that Romney has only the most tenuous hold on front-runner status makes him an extremely vulnerable front-runner and must therefore make a critical decision. Does he come out now with guns blazing and try to solidify his lead in the field to such an extent that it prevents other potentially strong candidates like Sarah Palin and Texas Governor Rick Perry from jumping in the race? Or does he not risk peaking too early and try to build up a slow but steady pace to victory and the G.O.P. presidential nomination?
Insofar as Monday’s debate goes, Romney had no choice but to participate. For numerous reasons, New Hampshire is a must win state for him. And it is for that reason that his agreeing to participate will make him an obvious and very large target for the six other participants. Each one of them will be trying to land a knockout punch on Mitt. He will be taking numerous upper cuts and body blows but most of the punches will be powered at RomneyCare and aimed right at his face.
For Romney, his goal in Monday’s debate will be to prove that he can withstand the hits and not only block those RomneyCare punches to the face, but that he can turn them around into knockout blows of his own. The bottom-line for Romney…………he must find a way to convince voters that his state based healthcare plan was an experiment and exercise in states rights. Romney somehow needs to use the much used conservative argument that the fifty states should have the flexibility to experiment with healthcare policies that are best suited for them and allow them to act as fifty different laboratories that can help find the best solution. Romney’s problem will be trying to make this point succinctly and convincingly.
Michele Bachmann
Michele Bachmann has not yet even made her campaign official and the bar she must meet in the debate is important but much lower than the other participants. Bachmann’s main goals in the debate are to prove that she is presidential, can be taken seriously, and has the ability to appeal to a broader base than her social conservative grass root supporters. If she can establish herself as a reasonable and legitimate candidate, she will be a winner.
Newt Gingrich
Whereas Romney has a lot at stake in this first debate and Bachmann has a low bar to reach, New Gingrich has the most at stake and a very high bar to reach. Recent events have put Newt in a position which forces him to prove that he is a force to deal with. In many ways, Newt needs to come out of this debate as the clear winner of it. He must make some points that makes voters want t give him a chance to prove that he has the ability to take his ideas from the drawing board and to the practical application of government. At the same time he must demonstrate that he can turn his ideas into a viable candidacy that voters should be open to considering.
The Primary Within the Primary
The only other real challenge in Monday’s debate is the early social conservative primary that exists within the larger Republican primary.
Cain, Bachmann, Santorum, are competing for the diehard movement conservative wing of the Party that will have an incredibly inordinate amount of influence in the Iowa Caucus and South Carolina Primary. These are two of the three earliest contests and their impact on the rest of the nomination could be quite significant. The early winner of the social conservative primary within the Republican primary will likely become the alternative candidate to the establishment’s frontrunner. Much the same way that Mike Huckabee became the candidate to challenge John McCain the longest in the 2008 primaries and caucuses.
Bachmann, Cain, and Santorum are the candidates dividing the social conservative vote the most. If one of them were to have a surprisingly strong performance in the debate, they could begin to consolidate enough support to make one of the others to consider dropping out of the race before or shortly after Iowa.
Going so long without a clear and popular frontrunner with a willingness to run in the Republican presidential field has forced many to create an almost impossible standard for those who are willing to run or even think about running for President. Republicans have themselves been the most critical but nearly all voters and pundits have become frustrated by the fact that none of the candidates or potential candidates are perfect. While I too would love a perfect candidate to suddenly materialize, I have also come to grips with the fact that there is no perfect candidate. For that reason, perhaps more than most observers, I have had a genuine willingness to give the entire field a fair chance to prove who is the best candidate.
I have been especially willing to give Newt Gingrich a chance.
No matter what, for his past achievements, Newt is a remarkable political leader. But as it turns out, one of the best things about Newt Gingrich, is turning out to be the most damaging thing to his chances of being elected President.
Gingrich is a leader who is eager to think outside of the box and go against the grain. He is undeniably innovative and always seeking and coming up with original legislative solutions that are free market based and require as little government involvement as possible. And while often viewed as an establishment politician, his independent thinking and penchant for going against the flow, makes him a true leader with an anti-establishment streak that could and should appeal to the growing TEA Party movement. Yet these same qualities that make Gingrich a uniquely qualified prospect for President, have come to seemingly derail his presidential candidacy. All of these qualities are based on an apprehension for discipline. Newt prefers to break rules rather than follow them. For him conventional rules lead to traditional thinking which he feels stifles the pace of innovation and leaves one mired in the past.
For Newt, a traditional campaign was not good enough. His dislike of a standard regimen along with a typical politicians ego that has him believing he is so special that he need not run a campaign like “traditional” candidates, has led to the resignation of his leadership team and a short term collapse of his campaign that is looking like the beginning of the end for his presidential ambitions. As such, as talented as Newt Gingrich is, it is becoming apparent that his talents are not suited for being the country’s only nationally elected leader.
In a nation that needs leadership that is modest, honest, and shrewd, I have come to conclude that Newt lacks two out of three of those prerequisites. His lack of modesty prevents him from even being honest with himself. So much so, that he can not, or is not, willing to realize that he is no more special than any other candidate in this race. By not accepting that, Newt is at a disadvantage, a disadvantage that his leadership team sees quite clearly, but that Newt quite clearly does not see. This then begs the question, if Newt is so arrogant that he can’t even properly lead a campaign which is designed to serve his own best interests, than can he do proper service to a job which has the sole purpose of serving the nation’s best interests?
There is still time for Gingrich to prove that he has the judgment needed. But much of that opportunity requires a willingness by conservatives to still consider Gingrich as a viable candidate. He may have exhausted their willingness to give him another chance. But now that hehas returned from his very inappropriately timed vacation to Greece that followed the bungled announcement of his presidential candidacy, the reality check that the en masse resignation of 16 members of his leadership team provided him, might be enough to get Newt on track. Unless of course it is too late.
Much of the team that abandoned him, quickly aligned themselves with candidates who will are running against Newt. On top of that, some of the other most talented operatives out there have already been snatched up by many of those same candidates. So it is hard to say if Newt can now assemble a major league campaign team with a minor league staff.
As much as I want to give Newt Gingrich a chance to show the promise of his potential that I do believe is there, with the clock ticking, even, I am beginning to close the door on his candidacy. I deeply believe that we have yet to begin to see just how good many of the candidates in the Republican presidential field can be. Part of that thinking is based upon the magic that I know a good campaign do. A good campaign can turn an obscure Governor of a relatively small Southern state and make them the hope of a nation, i.e. Carter and Clinton. But as we have seen with Carter and Clinton, for a good candidate to become a truly good President, they need more than just a good campaign. Eventually the campaign ends and leading must begin. Up till now, despite the personal indiscretions which remained personal and were not national scandals, and despite an initially rocky start to his campaign, I believed that Newt Gingrich could serve the conservative purpose as President. I believed that he could effectively administer limited government in limited areas where it was absolutely necessary but otherwise release the genius of the American people from the chains of excessive regulation and taxation.
The problem is that I also believe there are several others who have that ability. Of those running, or with the realistic potential to run, I believe it could be Palin, Santorum, Romney, Pawlenty, Rick Perry, or even Herman Cain. And right now, after seeing how hard it has been for Newt Gingrich to prove he has the judgment and skills that it takes to administer the conservative ideology that we share into government , I am holding out more hope for any of those other names to have a better ability to do so than Newt seems to have.
I will still keep an open to mind to the possibilities. In 2012 we Republicans must, I repeat, must get it right. And if Newt doesn’t get things right fast, he will remain a leader who I believe did great things as Speaker of the House and who is full of good ideas, but does not have the ability to implement those ideas as President.
The general lack of enthusiasm that Republicans have regarding the current crop of presidential candidates, inspires one to hypothesize about who would be the best candidate for the G.O.P. to run. We are forced to ponder who the strongest candidate could be, who has the ability to really inspire the G.O.P., and we are even compelled to think about what a strong ticket in 2012 would look like. For me a strong candidate would consist of any combination of names like Senator Marco Rubio, Congressman Paul Ryan, Congressman Allen West, Indiana Governor Mitch Daniels, and from Ohio, Governor John Kasich and Senator Rob Portman. This is not to suggest that I do not believe that the G.O.P. is unable to hammer together a strong ticket in 2012 from among any of those who are currently running. We will. Come November of 2012, we will have gone through a campaign that gives us many reasons to feel good about those on the ticket and to want to vote for them. This will especially be the case when the choice its understood that the choice comes to them or the Obama-Biden ticket. As for my list of preferred choices, that is now mere fantasy. It has become an unrealistic list of options. The people I listed are definitely not running, so in 2012, a ticket comprised of any two of those names on it is just no going to happen.
However, with a few names still considering entry into the 2012 Republican presidential contest, at this point in the process, the Republican field of presidential contenders that we will ultimately have to choose from is still evolving. As such, there is still room to discuss the merits of a truly strong hypothetical presidential ticket that could actually come to fruition and is worth trying to put together. It is a ticket that would be topped by a name that could excite the Republican base enough to make that person an immediate frontrunner and would even have a good chance to wrap up the nomination relatively early in the season. It is also a name that would probably provide TEA Party movement activists with plenty of reason to enthusiastically choose over President Obama in the general election.
I know, I know……….. The initial reaction to that consideration is a slew of superficial remarks and glib jokes referencing G.W. Bush and another Republican from Texas in the White House. But exaggerated references of that comparison would be just that………..exaggerated, superficial jokes. The reality is that unlike Mitt Romney, the man who currently has a very tenuous hold on frontrunner status, Rick Perry does not bring any of the doubts about his conviction to limited government that Romney brings to the table with RomneyCare. More so than other top-tier candidates like former Minnesota Governor Tim Pawlenty, Rick Perry brings with him an unapologetic record of conservatism. A record that has none of what Pawlenty described as faux pas and lapses in judgment on such things as a push for Cap-and-Trade measures.
In an assessment of a potential Perry presidential campaign that I prepared for Rick Perry’s WH12 page many months I ago, I wrote the following:
If Rick Perry were to run, he would become an automatic top-tier candidate. Along with a solid record of positive achievements, he has the All-American looks of the Marlboro Man and his personality is one that emanates confidence and optimism with charm and a down to earth, can-do, American spirit. This makes for a candidate who can maximize the impact of a well run campaign, and Perry has the ability to assemble a team that can run a top-notch campaign. He also has the fundraising mechanism and ability to finance a top-notch, well run campaign.
In my opinion, that assessment is as true today as it was last year when I originally wrote it. But it is the economy which makes that opinion even more relevant today than it was back then. That issue provides good reason for voters to focus on Perry.
The economy continues to be President Obama’s Achilles heal. As it keeps proving to move in the wrong direction, the Obama reelection effort is looking like a house of cards as the economy undermines everything from his approval ratings to his ideology. But for Rick Perry, a comparison between the way he runs the economy in Texas, to the way President Obama runs the nation’s economy, provides a strong contrast between the two men on many different levels. Not only do their different approaches show contrast between success and failure, they magnify the impact of many themes which will be essential to making the Republican case against President Obama. The most critical themes being the ability to bring our economy back, and the way the two men think. One thinks like an American while the other thinks like a European Socialist. Guess which one thinks like an American and which one thinks like a European Socialist?
While Barack Obama believes in government control and largess, his approach to the economy is producing stagnation, inflation, extremely high unemployment, little consumer confidence, and an anti-business, no growth environment. On the other hand, Governor Perry’s approach to the economy has produced a state that leads the nation in exports, business growth, and job creation. And under Rick Perry’s stewardship, Texas has cut taxes and spending and balanced its budget with a surplus left over.
This difference between the two records is as sharp as night and day. It also belies the differences between the two men in a way that clearly demonstrates two different views of America, and two diverging directions for America. And when you consider the fact that most Americans believe the nation is currently headed in the wrong direction, it becomes undeniably obvious that Governor Perry holds the compass that we need to trust.
More than any of the other likely choices for the Republican presidential nomination, Rick Perry’s record shows the sharpest contrast between a leader who believes in the American people and their free will, and a leader who believes in having the government control the people and their lot in life. It shows a clear difference between a leader who wants to unleash the American entrepreneurial spirit and a leader who wants the entrepreneurial spirit replaced by government subsidies. A great example of this can be seen in the video below. Imagine an ad similiar to this touting Perry’s record, compared to an ad trying to tout President Obama’s record on the same points.
Perry has just about everything Republicans want and need in a candidate, including a friendly personality that exudes strength, confidence, decisiveness and the ability to easily relate to and connect with voters. In the end, when you factor in all of the above, any negative references to former President George W. Bush and Governor Rick Perry having both governed Texas, becomes an insignificant sidebar to the real issues in a head to head match up against President Obama
If he decides to run, I do believe Governor Perry will win the nomination. And if he does win the nomination, as we look towards the general election, the question becomes who would be a wise choice to complete the Republican presidential ticket?
There is an extraordinarily long list of exceptionally good people who could balance a Perry ticket. There’s Virginia Governor Bob McDonnell, Nevada Governor Brian Sandoval, New Jersey Governor Chris Christie and any one of the names that I previously listed as candidates whom I wish were running for President. Then there are other interesting possibilities like Tim Pawlenty , Mitt Romney, Jon Huntsman, Louisiana Governor Bobby Jindal or maybe even Herman Cain. One very daring, outside-of-the-box, but still very real choice, could be the extremely fiscal conservative governor of Puerto Rico, Luis Fortuno. All of these candidates bring certain unique strengths to the ticket. But one possibility shines brighter on my radar screen than others.
Governor Martinez, is the first woman Governor of New Mexico and the first Latina Governor in the United States. These qualities bring a very real degree of both ethnic and gender balance to the ticket. Not only can Martinez appeal to women, she has the ability to make significant inroads into the already large and fastest growing ethnic minority in the nation, Hispanics.
The Hispanic population is growing much faster than any other demographic. There are currently 50.5 million Hispanics in the United States, or around 16 percent of our nation’s 308.7 million population. Between 2000 and 2010 that was an increase of 35.3 million more Hispanics. This figure accounts for more than half of U.S. population growth during that same time period. Moreover, while overall population growth in the South, the region where Republicans run strongest, increased by 14 percent, the Hispanic population in the South increased by a whopping 57 percent.
These numbers mean that if Republicans want to remain competitive, they must appeal to the Hispanic community far better than they have up to now. And while it is important to understand that the Hispanic community is not nearly as monolithic in their politics as the African-American community proved to be in the 2008, it is still clear that the G.O.P. must insure that they work hard at trying to win over a significant numbers of Hispanic voters if they intend tocontinue being viable in many states. Martinez can help expedite that process.
But in addition to the superficial characteristics which play an inordinate, but very real role in politics, Martinez is a tough lady who is right on the issues has a clear vision for her state and our nation, is committed to traditional vaues, and as seen in the video below, has the ability to articulate her vision with clarity and confidence. More so than even Sarah Palin, Martinez has a Thatcher-like persona which so far lacks any of the negative impressions that the lamestream media and liberal intelligentsia has been able to wrongly burden Palin with.
Once a Democrat, Martinez has been a Republican since 1995. In addition to a law and order background as a Republican elected District Attorney, Martinez is a fiscal conservative and although she has only been in office since 2010, she has made significant changes in the way that her state governs. Since coming in to office, Martinez has established such things as a moratorium on all state vehicle purchases, prohibited all state agencies from hiring lobbyists, limited the claim of executive privilege to help promote a more transparent government, and has created a small business friendly task force. On the legislative end she has reinstated the death penalty and signed an executive order rescinding sanctuary status for illegal immigrants who commit crimes in New Mexico while protecting victims and witnesses of criminal acts.
It is on that issue, illegal immigration, which Martinez could prove to be the G.O.P.’s most powerful asset. While the economy is sure to dominate the 2012 election, illegal immigration will not be far from the top. On that issue a Perry-Martinez ticket would have more credibility on that issue than any other previous presidential Administration. And with Martinez articulating the Party’s position on illegal immigration, the left will have a hard time trying to paint the ticket as being anti-Hispanic. The fact that Perry and Martinez are both border state governors who have directly dealt with the border security problem, will give themn an upper hand in convincing people that they truly understand the problem and how best to solve it. Together, a Perry-Martinez ticket would have a real opportunity to lead on the issue of illegal immigration and border security.
That will more than compensates for the argument that some may have against a Perry-Martinez ticket because they are both from neighboring Southern states. The fact that they are both border state governors and therefore have firsthand knowledge of, and experience with the issues surrounding illegal immigration, will appeal as much to a voter concerned about the isuue in New Hampshire or Illinois as it does to a voter in Arizona or Oregon. And besides, in this day and age, the regional balance strategy is greatly diluted by a society that is brought closer together by the internet. Furthermore; as we saw in 1992, the selection of a ticket made up of individuals from neighboring Southern states is not necessarily a bad thing. It worked for Clinton-Gore, twice. And in the case of New Mexico, it has become a Democrat leaning swing-state which in a close election, its 5 electoral votes could mean the difference between the 270 electoral votes it takes to win the White House, and losing losing the White House.
Initially some may be prone to compare the selection of Susana Martinez by Perry, to the selection of Sarah Palin by McCain. They may try to do to Martinez, what they did to Palin. But those who do will be surprised to find people will see through such an attempt and it will backfire on them. If the left tries to depict another strong conservative woman as an ignoramus that does not belong in politics, they will prove themselves to be partisan and sexist hypcrites with biases as bad as those which claim to oppose. Such treatment of Martinez will go a long way in demonstrating that the left and their mainstream media only believe in strong women who are liberals, while at the same time suggesting that strong conservative women should be in the kitchen, not the Oval Office. The media already confirmed this liberal thinking when they covered the liberal wife of a President who was running for her Parties nomination and showered her with complimentary descriptions such as strong willed, determined, brilliant and experienced, but did their best to depict a conservative female Governor as some sort of caricature.
While there are many very promising options for someone like Rick Perry to pick from, I believe that few would be as potent as Susana Martinez. But first things first. Will Rick Perry run for President? I have given up on predicting who will or will not run. But the way I see it, there is no announced candidate for the Republican presidential nomination, whose record and personality should prevent Rick Perry from running. If the decisive factor for Perry is whether or not the current Republican field has a void that he can fill, than Perry’s decision should be a positive one. If that’s the decision he makes, it is only a short amount of time before we need to convince him that Susana Martinez is the right person for the job of Vice President. And that’s a decision that shouldn’t require a great deal of convincing.
Public Policy Polling, a left leaning outfit, has put out some interesting results from a survey of how well the Republican presidential contenders are liked by the voters in their own states. The surprising winner here is former two term, New Mexico Governor Gary Johnson. The losers ………3 term Minnesota Congresswoman Michele Bachmann and former 2008 Republican vice presidential nominee Sarah Palin.
If one intends to run for national office, it is often taken for granted that the state they come from, supports them. In 1980, President Jimmy Carter only won 6 states and the District of Columbia. Fortunately for him, two of those states were his home state of Georgia and his Vice President’s home state of Minnesota. In 1984, Carter’s Vice President, Walter Mondale, was the Democrat presidential nominee and aside from the District of Columbia, the only state that he carried was Minnesota ….…..his home state.
But such favorite son or daughter results are not always the case.
In 1972, Democrat South Dakota Senator George McGovern won his Party’s presidential nomination, but in the presidential election, McGovern’s state of South Dakota voted for Richard Nixon.
And look at Al Gore in 2000.
The man had once represented Tennessee in the U. S. Senate and that same seat was once held by his own father. Yet in the infamous 2000 presidential election, Tennessee voted for George W. Bush. Had Gore been able to win his own state, the result in Florida, the state that was governed by G.W.’s brother at the time, would not have mattered.
So being the favorite son or daughter of your state is not just a good thing, sometimes it is a must.
Yet the PPP survey shows that only one candidate has a higher favorability rating than unfavorable rating. That is the understated, underdog of the 2012 presidential field ….. Gary Johnson. And not only is he the only one with a higher favorable to unfavorable rating, his favorability numbers are dramatically higher than his unfavorable numbers. Twelve percentage points higher to be exact. As seen in the graph from PPP below, 32% of New Mexico voters have an unfavorable opinion of their former Governor and 44% have a favorable opinion of him. Compare this to Minnesota Congresswoman Michele Bachman who’s unfavorable number among Minnesota voters is 26% higher than her favorable numbers, 33% favorable 59% unfavorable, and Sarah Palin who among Alaska voters stands at 33% favorable to 58% unfavorable.
What accounts for Bachmann’s bad numbers in her state is the fact that she is a national conservative voice from a relatively conservative district in an otherwise liberal state. What accounts for Palin’s bad numbers in Alaska is not quite as obvious. But much of it could be due to the fact that Alaskan’s who once gave Palin favorable ratings that were the highest of any Governor in nation, were very disappointed and angered by her decision to resign midway through her term in office. Another factor is overexposure and the disruption of life in the state that came with Palin’s sudden rise to national and international fame. On the flip-side, part of the reason for Gary Johnson’s still high positive numbers from New Mexico voters, may come from his lack of attention.
Johnson is a rather mild mannered, understated man. He was elected Governor as an outsider with no prior political experience, did a good job with no scandals or media circus scrutinizing his every move, and went on to win a second term that went much the same way. Since leaving office, unlike Palin, Johnson, stayed out of the fray avoided controversy and allowed his last impression among New Mexico voters to be a lasting impression. Those are some reasons that account for why he still is more liked than disliked.
Unfortunately, while these numbers show that Johnson could probably do well in his state’s Republican presidential primary, it does not look like Johnson will do that well elsewhere. It’s a shame too. With New Mexico being a swing state, it could be critical to reaching the magical number needed to reach the electoral vote required to win the presidency . Of course nothing is to say that President Obama has a much higher approval rating than any of those mentioned in most of these states. Still, it would be encouraging to know that you could count on your own state. The only potential Republican nominees that we should legitimately expect to lose their own state in the general election would be Mitt Romney in the case of liberal Massachusetts, and if he really was delusional enough to run again, Rudy Giuliani in adark blue New York state.
Online Conservative Talk Radio
Poitics 24/7
The Bulldog Pundit
The Right Scoop
To Be Right
Verum Serum
As we move closer to the Republican primaries and caucuses, voters will begin to get inundated with political advertisements. Some ads will be ominous and stress the somber tone of our economy. Some ads will be upbeat and try to create an air of optimism about the candidate they are promoting. Other advertisements will try to make a positive point about the candidate they are for through the creative use of humor. But few ads will probably be as amusing as this gem that White House 2012 stumbled upon.
Aprill Shines
Project WT Flint
dfcowan
ikefriday
I.M. Citizen
jsmashmouth
Kempite
mduminiak
Jonathan
Mark Levin
Michelle Malkin
The Hugh Hewitt Show
White House 2016 