To hear Mitt Romney speak in person is something strangely magical. I had the pleasure in October, 2007. I was about twenty feet from what most commenters on this site would call, “The Aura of Mitt.” When you’re listening to Mitt Romney, you forget all those silly objections and questions and you just want to believe him. I knew how the prophet Samuel felt in the book of 1 Samuel when he was looking to crown a new king for Israel and Jesse’s first son came in and Samuel thought, “Surely, the anointed of the Lord is before me.”
However, Mitt pandered too much and misrepresented a book I’d actually read at the end of the speech. The spell was broken, and I remembered all of the flip flops and doubts, and remained unconvinced.
That said, this piece isn’t about being convinced. This is about whether Mitt Roimney will run for President in 2012 based based on the five factors that I’ve discussed regarding other candidates.
1) Desire: Before the election, Mitt Romney told a Louisiana TV Station he was “unlikely” to run for President again. 2008 was a tough year for Romney and if he had to begin a campaign in October, 2008, I’d doubt he’d do it. But 2012 is another matter. John McCain has said the only thing that will cure his desire to be President is embalming fluid, and I suspect the same is true with Romney. It should also be noted, Romney changed positions on wanting to be VP this time around, so I suspect ambition is very much alive.
2) Campaign and Personal Finances: Usually, these are two separate categories, but I think they are inextricably linked in his case.
There has been some talk in the comments that Mitt Romney could run again and win without tapping into his personal wealth. Romney had to spend more money to get known this time, the argument goes. He outraised every other candidate (except Rudy) when his wealth wasn’t included. Now that he’s more known, he doesn’t need to tap into his personal fortune.
Anything wrong with this thinking? Just about everything. It assumes that Mitt Romney can win in 2012, spending less of his own money than he did in 2008 by either:
1) Raising $47 million more from private contributors.
2) Spending $47 million less.
The, “He lost with $107 million, but he’ll win with $60 million.” school fails to grasp the real world economics of campaigns. So does the idea of reaching $100 million raised without putting his own money in. Were he not to finance part of his campaign himself, it would likely end up reducing his contributions from other sources. Imagine, if someone’s asking you to invest in a business and they stop investing. Romney is dealing with Wall Street people as his financiers, and if his own money’s off the table, don’t expect them to pony up.
Romney needs the money to buy ads, hire consultants, and produce strong strawpoll showings. Romney spent $5 million at the Iowa Strawpoll alone. Does anyone really think he can run that type of campaign on $60 million?
This presents a real rub for Romney. While I’m sure Romney has been fairly bright with investments, it’s almost certain that the Romney fortune has shrunk through the current economic crisis. Portfolios of both Real Estate and stock have lost value quickly. The average Millionaire has lost 30% of his net worth. Even if Romney has lost 20%, that means the money he pulls out to run for President would be taken out after having taken a beating already and take an even larger chunk out of the old Romney estate. On the other hand, if Romney’s portfolio recovers before 2011 and selling properties and stocks wouldn’t mean taking such a big chunk out of the family fortune, that means a recovered economy. In a better economy, Romney has little chance of beating Obama.
3) Family: There have been news reports that Romney’s family doesn’t want him to run. We don’t know for sure whether the Romney boys are ready to head out across the country and take a year off to campaign for their dad, but we do know Ann Romney has had health issues. At 65, Romney will have a tough choice come 2012 in regards to his family.
4) Oxygen: Romney will most assuredly have a forum should he choose to run.
In the end, the challenge of a Romney 2012 campaign may be nothing less than this: rewrite the dynamics of modern Republican Presidential politics. If Romney runs, he’ll be facing either Mike Huckabee or Sarah Palin. While Mitt supporters may cheer for both to enter the 2012 race, Romney’s not going to be that lucky.
South Carolina has picked the last four winners of Contested Republican Primary Contests and despite spending millions in the state, Romney finished fourth. Romney surpassing Huckabee or Palin in that state seems a remote possibility, so he has to find a way around SC. The best solution to taking SC out of play would be a run by South Carolina Governor Mark Sanford. Unfortunately, Sanford would also likely drain financial supporters and voters from Romney.
Romney could try to focus his campaign on winning New Hampshire and then focus on winning big states like New York, California, and Florida. However, making a political strategy based on the result of the New Hampshire Primary is going to be tricky. While Romney narrowly won Republicans voting in the New Hampshire Primary, Independents play a huge factors and there will only be one primary for them to vote in. New Hampshire’s Independents are incredibly unpredictable, going for Pat Buchanan in 1996 and then splitting between John McCain (R) and Bill Bradley (D) in 2000.
In the end, I think that Romney is more likely to run than not, but if it doesn’t look like Obama’s beatable, you can definitely count him out.
If this poll is to be believed, it appears as if Sarah’s path to the White House will not be running through the Senate:
Dittman 2010 Alaska Republican Senate Primary Poll
- Lisa Murkowski 57%
- Sarah Palin 33%
- Undecided 9%
In my opinion, this is a blessing in disguise as I believe that such a move would backfire on Gov. Palin and hinder, not help, her presidential aspirations.
Haley Barbour in an interview with the Wall Street Journal’s Steven Moore was asked about a 2012 presidential run:
As we talk at the Willard Hotel in Washington, D.C., I can’t help noticing that he appears to have shed a few pounds in the last few years. Could it be in preparation for a presidential run? “Hail no,” he retorts in his trademark southern drawl. He self-deprecatingly informs me that “the American people aren’t likely to ever elect a former Washington lobbyist as president.”
Perhaps not, but that didn’t stop him from winning two terms as governor of Mississippi and from racking up a successful record of achievement.
Barbour’s statement’s not Shermanesque, actually Tancredoesque in that Tancredo declared he was too fat and bald to be president, but ran away. However, Tancredo’s campaign was always a campaign for an issue, not really about him. Barbour’s not going to run without a serious chance of winning and he’s skeptical from a political standpoint that that’s going to happen for any Republican. Saying the GOP brand name is damaged, Barbour points out,” “We need to understand that only once since 1896 has a party that took the White House not held on for at least two terms, and that was when Reagan beat Jimmy Carter. So the odds are stacked against us.”
Of course, should things not be looking good for Obama in the next couple of years, Barbour’s calculus could very well change.
Flying over the Capitol in Marine One for the last time, President Barack Obama waves to the cheering crowds below. The day is January 20, 2013.
Obama leans back in his chair sullenly. This wasn’t supposed to happen until 2017.
But the voters decided otherwise.
***
The image of a defeated Barack Obama leaving Washington in 2013 is the last thing on people’s minds. As I write this piece, Obama’s popularity is at meteoric levels. So was George W. Bush’s in 2002 and 2003, and he barely scraped together a victory in 2004. Over four years, a lot can change. The voters that carry you to power can turn against you in a heartbeat.
I’m not Pat Robertson. My predictions do not come with a divine guarantee, but certain predictions do not require much divine help.
I laid out my case that John McCain would not be elected back on April 7th of last year because of the fundamentals of our nation’s situation, his poor campaigning style, an unenthused base, and a huge cash gap. Many people thought I was being a jerk and unsupportive of the party nominee. Analysis is not cheerleading. It is simply taking a look at the situation and saying what you think will happen. I eventually warmed to McCain, and was one of the top 100 people placing calls for him over the Internet.
Similarly, people feel compelled to wish Obama all the best success the next four years, even to the point of wishing him another four. Many think that to predict or wish otherwise is un-American and unpatriotic. Wishing Obama ill is seen as poor sportsmanship and wishing America ill.
Au contraire. I wish the best for our nation, both short and long term. I wish that Obama’s economic policies would work, but a solid knowledge of recent history and economics indicates it probably won’t and will likely give us hyperinflation.
Similarly, I wish I was just talking campaign smack when I suggested Obama’s foreign policy views were naïve and would lead to disaster. I certainly don’t have a rooting interest in America suffering through the foreign policy failures of the Obama Administration. That doesn’t mean they won’t come.
It is not 100% certain that Obama will fail, but it is far more likely than not, and it is time to take a realistic look at what Obama’s policies will mean for our country.
Foreign Policy
Let’s be honest. It is tough to tell what the result of folks inspired by 1960s radicals revisiting the White House will be when it comes to foreign policy. On the bright side, Robert Gates is still in charge of the Defense Department and Obama has chosen Marine General James Jones for National Security Adviser, so the entire thing shouldn’t go to pot. On the downside, the appointment of Leon Panetta to run the CIA has a very real potential of coming back to haunt our nation.
Much of the terrorism in the Clinton era was relatively minor, unless your family members were victims. It was a frivolous age before 9/11. In the post-9/11 era, the frivolity of the Clinton era is dangerous. There is no peace dividend to spend, and the terror states aren’t about to give Obama a honeymoon.
I hope and pray for the best, but we must prepare for the worst, and the worst is a quite frightening possibility.
Economic Policy
This is a little more predictable, albeit no less bleak. Before any Stimulus, America has a $1.2 trillion deficit for the current fiscal year before Obama’s $850 billion stimulus plan.
Obama’s stimulus is two parts: new tax cuts and new spending. The tax cuts will not work largely because Obama’s tax cuts amount to little more than tax gimmicks akin to last year $300 per citizen tax credit last May that failed so abysmally. Giving a tax cut targeted to people in the middle to lower middle income brackets may be politically popular, but it won’t grow the economy. Broad-based tax cuts that encourage investments and savings do.
The new spending will be a mixed bag. Some will stimulate the economy (such as infrastructure projects), the rest will be a combination of special interest boondoggles and feel-good liberal ideas that in practicality will do nothing to solve the economic crisis.
Had the government stayed out of the bailout business, we would have gone through a miserable 2-3 years, hit bottom, and then come back. Instead, the policies of the government between the bailouts Obama backed and the stimulus package he’s proposing are going to spread the pain out over a longer period of time. When the economy does begin to recover from the sub-prime crisis, we’ll find that the government’s printing money by the trillions has devalued the currency, leading to hyperinflation.
Inflation means your money is worth less. If your dollar bill will only buy this year what you bought last year for 75 cents, it’s as if there was a 25% tax slapped on it. This will result in massive increases in interest rates in order to keep inflation under control. I would not be surprised if we saw the prime rate rise from 3.25% to 13.50% by 2013. Add to this, that in the middle of this crisis, the Bush tax cuts are set to expire, you’ll make a bad economy even worse.
It is not a question of if Obanomics will fail, only of when, and how severe the failure will be.
Social Issues
There are a number of issues that loom these next four years. The militant anti-Proposition 8 activists have been running a campaign of intimidation, and in a few isolated incidents, violence, against opponents of Proposition 8. The flare up of these incidents could spark further division between the majority of Americans who oppose same sex marriage, and gay rights activists who are a key component of the president-elect’s base.
It is becoming apparent from investigations in Indiana and Kansas that Planned Parenthood is a government-funded criminal enterprise that protects pedophiles who molest young girls by giving girls as young as thirteen advice on how to avoid reporting requirements and to dodge state parental consent laws. Efforts to expose Planned Parenthood to a great public awareness of its malfeasance will depend on pro-lifers.
Obama showed in the campaign that he is capable of taking ham-handed approaches that risk alienating reluctant supporters. Overall, though, it’s hard to predict what issue may come up, but despite Obama’s claim of being a unity President, nearly half the country didn’t vote for him, and the country remains bitterly divided on vital issues that he’ll be forced to take a stand on and the yellow “present” button isn’t anywhere around.
While most Americans don’t want to hear it, the fact of the matter is: the most likely outcome of the Obama administration is a complete and total trainwreck.
Any candidate we run in 2012 needs certain things to win. In these posts I identify these characteristics. The first litmus test was that a candidate needs to be able to appeal to 2008 Obama voters.
In 2012 we need a candidate who can communicate. Now communication is more than what you think.
In the Age of the Internet, the skeptical media, and HDTV we need a candidate who looks and sounds the part. A Presidential candidate should effortlessly exude sincerity and trustworthiness. A candidate needs to have a sensitive pitch to determine not just what to say, but how to say it in different situations.
A candidate does not need to have movie star good looks, but they do need a look of authority and trustworthiness.
A candidate does not need a silver tongue (although that helps). They do need the ability to speak persuasively, sincerely and authoritatively.
Some candidates just have the whole package with body language, speech, and image that seemlessly send out the same message.
We need to focus on candidates who best approach this ideal.
With George W. Bush we have a good example of what happens when we elect a President who cannot effectively communicate.
Originally published by Mike DeVine, Legal Editor for The Minority Report
Once again the Stupid Party seems to determine to miss another opportunity to score endurable political points against the Vile Party by playing the conventional wisdom beltway games.
The conservative chattering classes have decided that the best cabinet nominee for a show trial to rough up the new President, is his choice for Attorney General, Eric Holder, due to his role as Deputy AG in President Bill Clinton’s pardons of FALN terrorists and the crook, Marc Rich.
Funny how a party symbolized by an Elephant that never forgets, forgets so much and misses so many elephants in their rooms:
How does Hillary fit into all of this? Well, she is the reason — the only reason — that the pardon [FALN terrorists] was ever granted. She had a senate race to win, after all, in a state with over 1 million Spanish-speaking voters. Characteristic of White House thinking at the time was an email sent by an adviser concluding that the pardons would be “fairly easy to accomplish and will have a positive impact among strategic communities in the U.S. (read, voters).”
The Clinton political marriage partnership required Bill to let Hillary (pictured above on the NY stump in 2000) try to socialize health care in America and to do what was necessary to advance her political career after his was over. In exchange, she agreed to help advance his political career by not divorcing him over bimbo eruptions.
It speaks volumes about the Democratic Party and the State of New York that Hillary determined that pardoning 16 members of FALN, a Puerto Rican terrorist group that was responsible for a string of armed robberies as well as 146 bombings that killed 9 people and injured hundreds in its quixotic fight for independence from the United States, would increase her chances of becoming a U.S. Senator from the Empire State.
But the GOP never seems to speak those obvious volumes about the rot of the Democratic Party.
Hillary is the ONLY reason there ever were FALN terrorists pardoned. Bill Clinton decided to pardon them. They were going to be pardoned no matter what i’s and t’s did or didn’t get dotted or crossed by Eric Holder.
Attorney Hillary Clinton wants to be Secretary of State and, like Holder, will have a confirmation hearing. She could be questioned much more broadly about issues related to this matter that would have far more political relevance to the battle between the parties for hearts ad minds of America voters than Holder.
Hillary Rodham Clinton was in the midst of her state-wide “listening tour” in anticipation of her run for the U.S. Senate in New York, a state which included 1.3 million Hispanics. Three members of the Congressional Hispanic Caucus — Luis V. Gutierrez (D., Ill.), Jose E. Serrano, (D., N.Y.) and Nydia M. Velazquez, (D., N.Y.) — along with local Hispanic politicians and leftist human-rights advocates, had been agitating for years on behalf of the FALN cases directly to the White House and first lady.
The first lady called her failure to consult the Puerto Rican political establishment before assessing the entire issue a mistake “that will never happen again” — even as the cops who had been maimed and disfigured by FALN operations continued to be ignored.
Bill Clinton could and should be called as a witness. And I suspect that Holder himself could give some pretty damaging testimony as well, against them both.
But the Stupid Party is afraid of the Clintons, the Drive-By media, the PC Police and their own shadows, so they dare not displace a hair on their “honorable” colleague that they came so admire in contrast to Obama during the campaign.
After all, if Obama’s greatest qualification for the Presidency, including the power to chit chat with terrorists and the nation state sponsors, is that he ran a campaign for two years, surely Hillary’s two year operation qualifies her to be his head chit-chatter.
Eric Holder, who correctly advised soon after 911 that captured terrorists were not covered by the Geneva Convention and should not be entitled to POW status, and just a bit player in the pardons, on the other hand must be the Star player in the tired old Washington game of cabinet nominee show trials.
No matter the result of that trial, the GOP will gain no advantage on any issue that could help lead this country back in the right direction.
The GOP never misses an opportunity to miss an opportunity.
Mike DeVine’s Charlotte Observer, Examiner.com and Minority Report columns
“One man with courage makes a majority.” – Andrew Jackson
In late 2004 we thought many candidates might run for President. The majority did not run in 2008.
So I’m going to ask a couple questions here.
1) What if your preferred candidate doesn’t run in the 2012 GOP primary. Who would you consider supporting?
2) Is there anyone who could run that would get you to change your support from the person you’re currently supporting?
I ought to answer this myself.
1) If Pawlenty doesn’t run I’d consider supporting Mitch Daniels.
2) There’s no current politician who could run that would switch my preference right now. There are a few non-politicians who possibly could.
In my last post, I explained why we can’t just look for our preferred coalition and policies in the GOP. We’ve got to identify someone who can win and succeed once elected if we wish to change our party after George Bush’s terms.
So with that in mind I’m going to set out some litmus tests to judge potential leaders of the Republican Party. Before I start it’s worth noting that a party can receive its personality not just from a President (or candidate) but also from leaders from Congress. Given that Congressional Republicans kept mostly the same leadership, I’m not optimistic about a new personality altering our party from inside Congress (ala Newt Gingrich in the 1990′s).
The most important litmus test is also the hardest to judge. A potential leader who can lead the GOP must be able to appeal to significant numbers of Obama 2008 voters.
Even if Obama is a failure, we can’t depend on Obama 2008 voters to switch unless we give them a Republican that appeals to them.
This doesn’t mean we need to appeal to the far left of the Democratic Party. Those loons would probably vote for Trotsky if we gave them the opportunity. We’ve got to appeal to elements of the Obama 2008 coalition that wavered in supporting him in 2008 or may be vulnerable in 2012.
So before you trot out some ideologically perfect candidate you need to identify which Obama voters he or she will switch in 2012 to give us a majority?
Yesterday, Congress voted on a resolution affirming Israel’s right to self-defense. It was a resolution
Recognizing Israel’s right to defend itself against attacks from Gaza, reaffirming the United States’ strong support for Israel, and supporting the Israeli-Palestinian peace process.
It overwhelmingly passed the House of Representatives, but look at all of the Democrats that voted against it…oh, and a certain definitely-not-crazy Republican, too…
— ANSWERED “NO” —
Dennis J. Kucinich (D – OH)
Gwen Moore (D-WI)
Ron Paul (R-TX)
Nick Rahall (D-WV)
Maxine Waters (D-CA)
—- ANSWERED “PRESENT” —
Neil Abercrombie (D-HI)
Earl Blumenauer (D-OR)
Peter DeFazio (D-OR)
John Dingell (D-MI)
Donna F. Edwards (D-MD)
Keith Ellison (D-MN)
Sam Farr (D-CA)
Raul M. Grijalva (D-AZ)
Maurice Hinchey (D-NY)
Henry Johnson (D-GA)
Carolyn C. Kilpatrick (D-MI)
Barbara Lee(D-CA)
Betty McCollum (D-MI)
James McDermott (D-WA)
George Miller(D-CA)
James Moran(D-VA)
John Olver (D-MA)
Donald Payne (D-NJ)
Loretta Sanchez(D-CA)
Pete Stark (D-CA)
Lynn Woolsey (D-CA)
h/t Atlas Shrugs
Alex Knepper can be contacted at apkkib@aol.com. 
Mike Huckabee took the Mormon issue head in giving an interview to a Utah radio host:
Former GOP presidential candidate Mike Huckabee says he loves Mormons and believes they make the most effective public servants in America.
“Utah doesn’t need to think there is a problem with me,” Huckabee told the KSL Radio Doug Wright show Friday morning.
Huckabee has received some criticism in Utah for comments he has made about fellow former GOP presidential candidate Mitt Romney, a member of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, and about some of the church’s religious beliefs.
Romney received 90 percent of the vote in Utah’s Republican Party presidential primary just over a year ago.
In a 12-minute interview, set up with several major radio stations across the nation, Wright asked Huckabee, a born-again Christian and former governor of Arkansas, about his comments concerning Romney.
Huckabee admitted that he saw a “different Romney” than the man he knew as a fellow GOP governor. (Romney served one term as governor of Massachusetts.)
During the presidential primary campaign Romney “was not the Mitt I knew,” Huckabee said. “You could ask all the guys” who ran in the GOP primaries, said Huckabee, and they would agree that backstage, in public debates and campaigning, Romney acted differently than when he was governor or otherwise out of an intra-party race.
Huckabee said that Romney’s “attitude and atmosphere” around him was perhaps caused because “he was surrounded by people who gave him very bad advice” during Romney’s presidential run.
“Boy, do I ever know” that he is not well-liked in Utah, said Huckabee. But, he added, “I have never said anything unkind about Mormons.”
When “11 words were completely misconstrued” when spoken about the LDS religion in a long New York Times profile of him, Huckabee said he “immediately” apologized publicly to Romney and church members in general.
Huckabee said there is no religious test in running for office. “I defend Mormons running for office.”
He said when he saw the backlash against the LDS Church following the bitter Proposition 8 race in California last November, he was one of the first to say “I was gratified and proud” to see the church stand up for what it believes in.
Huckabee went on to list Mormon politicians that he likes and admires. Current GOP Gov. Jon Huntsman Jr. “would make an outstanding president” of the United States, he said. (Huntsman backed GOP presidential nominee Sen. John McCain, R-Ariz., in the Republican primaries.)
Huckabee also talked about current economic problems, his opposition to the “bailout” by the federal government of some private businesses and his support of what he calls his Fair Tax — basically a national sales tax on consumption. He would do away with taxing income and all other elements of productivity.
Saying he may visit Utah soon, he added: “It pains me” that some people think he has said “bad things” about the LDS Church. “It simply is not true.”
Utahns’ “misinformation (about him) were part of the presidential campaign — and I wrote my book (to set the record straight) because that is totally not who I am. Utah is one of the most beautiful places on earth, and I want to go there and not have eggs and rotten vegetables thrown at me.”
Listen to the interview here. Certainly, Huckabee is not going to rally all or most Mormons to his side in the primary. He sure as heck isn’t going to get the commenters on this site on their side, but I think what he’s did here was important in trying to clear the air.
The Host, Doug Wright, made the interview work. While criticized by the rabid Internet folks, Wright did a good job interviewing Huckabee, having a conversation rather than just a confrontation, questioning him on a variety of issues. Wright had made a great deal of mocking Huckabee’s book, selling a copy that was used for the mockery for $1,000 and Huckabee took it all in fun.
Wright’s comments afterwards were enlightening. He described the interview by saying “it didn’t make him like Mike Huckabee less.” While Huckabee was joking about getting him with rotten eggs and vegetables, Wright was concerned by the statement. He stated that he believed if Huckabee visited Utah he’d be treated with respect. I tend to think Wright is right.
Wright has had to work hard for this interview as Huckabee had not agreed to appear in the past (given how Huckabee has been viewed in Utah, I don’t find it surprising), but as part of the build up for his new radio series, “The Huckabee Report”, Wright got the opportunity and I think did a fantastic job. Maybe Doug Wright will never be to Mike Huckabee what Hugh Hewitt was to Mitt Romney, but Huckabee would be greatly helped if he could establish a better relationship because if he is the nominee in 2012, he’ll need the help of LDS voters in places like Nevada and Arizona. He took a good step forward and I hope he takes a few more.
Podcast: Play in new window | Download
On this site we often argue about where the Republican Party needs to go and what sort of political coalition can win again.
This is interesting but I’ve realized it’s backwards. Groups within a party don’t define the personality of a party.
In our history the personality of the parties are defined by their leaders.
In 1932, Franklin Roosevelt defined the New Deal coalition by the groups he reached out to and his rhetorical appeal.
In 1964, the election of Lyndon Johnson defined the Great Society coalition that attempted to rework the New Deal coalition with a different cast.
In 1980, the election of Ronald Reagan defined the conservative coalition that ruled from 1980-1992.
In 1994, the Republican takeover of the House redefined the Republican Party of Ronald Reagan in a Newt Gingrich direction.
During this time various Presidents and Congresses were elected without altering the soul of their party. Their failure to change their party and change our politics relates to specific leaders.
Bill Clinton was supposed to redefine the Democratic Party. He didn’t. In most ways a Democrat from 2008 is a just a more leftist version of the 1990 Democrat.
George Bush was supposed to redefine the Republican Party as a party with wider racial appeal that sold fiscal and economic moderation. By 2008 Republicans agreed on really only one thing.
Whatever our party will be, it won’t run on the rhetoric and policies of George Bush.
Of course it’s important to think about what our party must do and what coalitions we need. However we can’t do that in isolation. We can’t think of our preferred coalition and assume someone with the necessary skills to win and form that coalition will just show up.
I would love to have a party that fit the coalition I think we need. However I have to identify a politician who could actually run, win and succeed in government.
Honestly there isn’t a Republican alive who fits that profile for me. So instead of arguing about where we need to go it’s probably better to identify individuals who could lead a winning coalition even if it’s not the one we want most.
Heck if we can elect a Republican in 2012 that is _pro-life_ and looks able to govern… I wouldn’t honestly care about their stance on other issues.
Our party is in a demographic bind and the longer we stay in the minority, the harder it will be to break single party Democrat rule.
So ask not only what we must do. Ask also who can lead us out of the wilderness and succeed once in government.
For my part I think we absolutely must find a candidate who can appeal to Hispanics and succeed even with America’s entitlement mindset. We need a candidate who has the skills to push policies the public will fight for. We need a candidate who comes across as genuine, trustworthy and sincere. We can no longer appear like politicians shamelessly pandering while hiding what we really support.
It looked like former Illinois Attorney General Roland Burris was about to be seated in the U.S. once the Secretary of State was forced to sign the certificate to appoint him. The State Supreme Court ruled that the Secretary of State didn’t have to sign the certificate, but a funny thing about that:
CHICAGO (Reuters) – No one can occupy the U.S. Senate seat vacated by President-elect Barack Obama until the governor of Illinois is removed and a new appointment can be certified, Sen. Dick Durbin of Illinois said on Friday.
Durbin, the second-ranking Democrat in the Senate, was reacting to the Illinois Supreme Court’s ruling denying a motion by Roland Burris that the state’s secretary of state certify his appointment to the seat.
Secretary of State Jesse White has refused to sign the appointment by Gov. Rod Blagojevich because of corruption charges against the governor, which included accusations he tried to sell the seat.
“At this point we’ve clearly reached an impasse,” Durbin told reporters at his Chicago office.
He said the Senate seat could remain vacant until Blagojevich is removed from office and the lieutenant governor takes over, making a fresh appointment.
He said the Senate cannot waive a 125-year-old rule requiring the signatures of both the governor and the secretary of state on any election or appointment.
Apparently, the Secretary of State does need to sign the certificate and the Senate won’t just let their old 125-year rule go because the Illinois Supremes said so. This sets up an interesting showdown. The simplest thing to do would be for Lt. Governor Pat Quinn to go ahead and appoint Burris, but the odds of Quinn appointing Burris are narrow. So, what we’ll probably end up with are Burris and another person both claiming the title of appointment and a lawsuit being filled by Burris to stop the Secretary of State from certifying Quinn’s choice. Nice little train wreck you’ve set up ther.
Given Blagojevich, the Illinois Legislature, Lisa Madigan’s attempt to declare Blagojevich disabled, and now the Supreme’s ruling, is there any state in the Union with a more pathetic government than Illinois right now?
William Buckley once said, “I’d rather entrust the government of the United States to the first 400 people listed in the Boston telephone directory than to the faculty of Harvard University. ”
I’d rather be governed by the last 300 graduates of Clown College than the folks running Illinois.
GOP wrong to label tax cuts as “welfare”
Originally published by Mike gamecock DeVine as Legal Editor for The Minority Report
I have been bothered by this since McCain and other republicans characterized much of Obama’s proposed “middle class tax cut” proposal as “welfare” for those that don’t pay federal taxes.
Why?
Because most all of those that work do pay “payroll” or FICA taxes for social security and given that there long ago ceased to be any “lock box”, with all tax receipts from federal income taxes and FICA going into the same pot to pay current federal obligations of all kinds, I don’t think its fair to say that workers that receive wages and salaries from which FICA is deducted, “don’t pay federal taxes.”
Moreover, from a political PR standpoint, it certainly is not smart to tell working people of any income level, but especially those that work very hard for lower incomes, that they are welfare recipients simply because the federal dollars deducted from their paychecks is a rose by another name.
There are many reasons to oppose the stimulus bill, which I will address in a later column, but that IRS checks would be sent to workers that don’t pay federal income taxes is not one of them, in my opinion.
Of course, I favor a supply side stimulus of extending the Bush income tax rate cuts; corporate tax cuts; capital gains tax cuts and middle class tax cuts.
But I also find a proposal by Lawrence Lindsey to cut the payroll tax quite attractive and will do a column on this over the weekend.
But in the meantime, I would urge that we not alienate lower income families by suggesting that if they are sent a $500-1000 check, they are welfare recipients.
more later
Mike DeVine’s Charlotte Observer, Examiner.com and Minority Report columns
“One man with courage makes a majority.” – Andrew Jackson
Obama reluctant to “spend” tax cuts. Your income is his first.
Heee’s Baaack!
Who?
The Marxist writ large of spread the wealth; hike cap gains rates no matter that rate cuts increases revenues; bankrupt the coal industry and teach Americans a lesson via higher gasoline taxes. Not Karl (pictured).
Rather, your President-Elect.
He was raised by a Marxist mom, the dream of his father was Marxism and he lectured Joe the Plumber on the intricacies of same during the campaign.
We shouldn’t be surprised.
Here is the President-Elect in an interview this week with John Harwood on CNBC:
HARWOOD: Do you expect that the tax cut portion of your plan is going to grow in consultation with Republicans in Congress as you try to build more support for your plan?
President-elect OBAMA: You know, the attitude that I’m going to apply to the tax cuts is the same one that I apply to the investment package. And that is, is this money well spent.
This is taxpayer money, it is going to be adding to the deficit short term. And if we can’t justify it, then we’re not going to spend tens or hundreds of billions of dollars just to make somebody happy if it’s not good for the economy. And I’m going to apply that same rule across the board.
Barack Obama will apply the same rule to money the government has already collected to money you haven’t even earned yet, because “this is taxpayer money” (translated: government’s money”.
He will insist that it, tax cuts, “is money well spent.”
The whole liberal democrat oxymoronic meme of “spending tax cuts” is back, only this time not in a kook minority of Maxine Waters or Charlie Rangal.
No, its the majority now.
You see, before you even earn your money, it belongs to the government first and they choose whether to “spend it” or let you keep it. This turns the whole idea of Liberty, private property rights and limited government that creates the wealth that made this the greatest nation in history on its ear.
Its too bad that the leftists don’t apply this rule to the unborn as in Jeremiah 1:5:
“Before I formed you in the womb I knew you, And before you were born I consecrated you; I have appointed you a prophet to the nations.”
Instead, in the Book of Obama, its:
“Before you see it on the pay stub, I spent it.”
Mike DeVine’s Charlotte Observer, Examiner.com and Minority Report columns
“One man with courage makes a majority.” – Andrew Jackson
While all good conservatives were out conceding that the GOP needs to become more moderate in national elections, an extreme right wing leader at a major speech in Washington insisted the GOP lost because it wasn’t conservative enough:
I don ‘t know about you, but I am impatient with those Republicans who after the last election rushed into print saying, “We must broaden the base of our party”—when what they meant was to fuzz up and blur even more the differences between ourselves and our opponents.
It was a feeling that there was not a sufficient difference now between the parties that kept a majority of the voters away from the polls. When have we ever advocated a closed-door policy?…
Our people look for a cause to believe in. Is it a third party we need, or is it a new and revitalized second party, raising a banner of no pale pastels, but bold colors which make it unmistakably clear where we stand on all of the issues troubling the people?
The major figure then doomed his own political chances by sending an anti-moderate message and suggesting a course which, according to thousands of media wisemen, can only lead to disaster for the Republican Party. :
A political party cannot be all things to all people. It must represent certain fundamental beliefs which must not be compromised to political expediency, or simply to swell its numbers.
I do not believe I have proposed anything that is contrary to what has been considered Republican principle. It is at the same time the very basis of conservatism. It is time to reassert that principle and raise it to full view. And if there are those who cannot subscribe to these principles, then let them go their way.
At a time when the GOP needs more members not less, this “leader” suggested shrinking the party. No doubt this leader’s failure to follow the party line will doom him as well as anyone who follows him.
By the way, the name of this leader?
In my endorsement of Ken Blackwell yesterday, I decided to leave the other candidates out of it and reserve my comments on why I didn’t endorse the other candidates for another day.
As I make these comments, I don’t think any of these guys are bad people who’ll destroy the party, but they’re the wrong choice to build it back up. Here are my reasons for my non-endorsements.
Chip Saltsman and Katon Dawson: I actually like both of these guys. I think they’ve been given a bum rap on some dubious racial charges. That said, I don’t think they seriously have a shot at taking the job. The RNC doesn’t want the media to have a “racist” RNC Chairman meme to run with the next two to four years, no matter how flimsy charge.
Mike Duncan: Want to send America and the GOP base a message that you’ve learned nothing from losing seven (probably eight) senate seats and twenty-one house seats? Try re-electing the same Senate leader, the same House leader, and then to top it off, put the same guy back in charge of the RNC. Duncan’s run is unprecedented and that it has a chance to succeed shows how troubled the GOP. We need fresh blood.
Saul Anuzis: Saul Anuzis knows how to use Twitter. So do you several other million people. The challenge is not to use new technology but to leverage as a tool for political success. Can Anuzis do that? Judging by the results of his leadership in Michigan I have to say no. Show me that you can turn around a state before you try and argue that you can change the course of the national party.
Michael Steele: I like Michael Steele, but his leadership on the moderate “Republican Leadership Council” as well as his response to being challenged on it are trouble for his candidacy. Nothing has really changed what I wrote a month ago, quoting Steele’s own comment to CBN News:
Wake up people. I mean, what are you going to do? Are you going to kick these folks out of the party? I have watched this party self disintegrate for the last four or five years. I’ve watched this party isolate itself from itself.
This may be a unique opportunity to build a relationship or a bridge between the conservatives and the moderates in our party and so she asked me to serve on her board and I said well this will be good. It’ll be a pro-life conservative voice on a board with a pro-choice leadership that is looking to elect moderates. We have to elect moderates in the party.
For all you little folks out there who think that you’ve got me on this: you don’t. My being on this board had nothing to do with lessening my conservative values or somehow appeasing them or compromising them. It had everything to do with reasserting them.
Let me give a conservative assessment: What Steele said here is the equivalent of John McCain’s GOPAC statement: “Calm down.” Ultimately, this doesn’t explain the objection. In the video, he compares his service on the board of the Republican Leadership Council to appearing on Bill Maher. Bill Maher isn’t a Republican moderate who aims to “reclaim the Republican Party.” Nor to go on Bill Maher does it require you partner up with Planned Parenthood and the Log Cabin Republicans.
Steele will enter with far more mistrust than any candidate than perhaps Duncan. We don’t need a party chairman that the base of the party is lukewarm to.
Other than winning one election of his own in Maryland in a Republican year (2002), he has no real track record of success to indicate that he’ll be able to rally the GOP base in the same way that Blackwell would.
John Ziegler was the lucky dog to land a big interview with Sarah Palin and she was in pit bull mode:
Ziegler has got a film project, “How Obama Got Elected.” already generated heat with his video of Clueless Obama supporters. Then came Sarah.
She’s in rare form. The Politico has some of the juicier bits:
The Alaska governor said that when she sees some of the coverage of her daughter Bristol especially “the momma grizzly rises up in me.”
Looking back on the Couric interviews, Palin said she knew things were not going well after their first session and asked the McCain campaign to pull the plug on the remaining sit downs but insisted the campaign made her go through with the rest.
“I knew it didn’t go well the first day, and then we gave her a couple of other segments after that. And my question to the campaign was, after it didn’t go well the first day, why were we going to go back for more?” she said. “Because of however it works in that upper echelon of power brokering in the media and with spokespersons, it was told to me that, yeah, we are going to go back for more. And going back for more was not a wise decision either.”
Palin criticized Couric for the way CBS “spliced it together,” saying that “so many of the topics brought up were not portrayed as accurately as they could have, should have, been.”
She also expressed frustration with Couric’s characterization of her since the interviews. After being shown a clip of Couric complaining to David Letterman that no post-election interviewer has asked Palin why she would not tell the CBS anchor what newspapers she reads, the Alaska governor responded: “Because, Katie, you’re not the center of everybody’s universe.”
Wham. It’s good to see some fight from Republican. Palin said she’d do it again becuase the country needs reform.
Ziegler’s impressions were glowing:
Largely because of absurd claims by Democrats that she was violating ethics rules by answering campaign questions on state grounds (one of several ways in which the Democrats there, who used to love her, are now totally invested in the “take Sarah Palin down” industry), we did the interview at the Palin home. At 9 am, without a security guard or handler within sight, Bristol Palin, eight days removed from giving birth, politely answered the door and Governor Palin, not yet fully put together, rushed out to tell me and our crew to make ourselves at home.
One of the things you quickly learn when you visit the Palins is that the legend that has been created around who they are and how they live is no myth. It appears to be absolutely real and everything about them seems 100% sincere. From the stuffed hunting trophies on the wall, to the Track’s military photo by the TV set, to Piper’s crayon school projects on the kitchen cabinets, everything is exactly as you imagine it might be.
What was particularly valuable about the perspective I had was that, I am not Charlie Gibson, Matt Lauer or Greta Van Susteren (who I understand now gets her mail delivered to the Palin home); the conductors of the three most prominent interviews done in the Wasilla house on the frozen lake at the end of the drive that has the sign “Palins” posted on a tree at the entrance. Unlike them, I am virtually unknown nationally and there was absolutely no reason for anything to be done differently as a “show” for us. We saw the genuine Sarah Palin and it is patently obvious that this is the only one that exists. She is the real deal.
As a former TV sportscaster and radio talk show host, I have interviewed a lot big-time “celebrities,” and I can honestly say that, even though you could argue that Sarah Palin was the most prominent I have ever spoken to one-on-one, she was also by far the nicest, most sincere and, seemingly, honest subject that I have ever questioned.
For context, I admit to being a fan of Sarah Palin from before she was ever named John McCain’s VP candidate. I attended her convention speech and consider it to be by far the finest that I have ever personally witnessed. But, being a world-class cynic, I also wondered if maybe there was at least some truth the to the negative media narrative that had been created about her. Maybe she really wasn’t that smart, maybe she was indeed a “diva” or a “wack job.” Well, if anything of those smears are remotely true, Palin should move here to LA permanently because she is a far better actor (not to mention better looking) than the vast majority of actresses in Hollywood.
Our interview started early and ended late (ask Barbara Walters how often that happens at this level). The Governor fully answered every question I asked, even though some of them brought up media episodes that clearly got her upset and, when the subject turned to her kids being targeted, even a little emotional. She then posed for pictures and signed autographs for the entire crew and casually discussed all sorts of topics, including how the local newspaper is absurdly still trailing the “story” that her youngest son is not really hers at all (this while Todd walked around with Trig on his back and Bristol cared for her newborn Tripp in a nearby bedroom; even Trig conspiracy theorist Andrew Sullivan would have had a hard time not seeing the insanity in his own delusions).
Palin continues to wow her base by long distance. If Palin can continue to bring it like this, watch out.
Obama as cool mute: One moral standard at a time
Originally published by Mike DeVine, Legal Editor for The Minority Report
Obama’s children don’t live in Israel or Gaza, but they did live in Chicago after 911. That didn’t stop him from favoring OJ trials for Osamas or echoing the bush lied crowd.
Even Hamas notes that the President-Elect denounced the terrorist attacks on Mumbai but can’t seem to bring himself to utter a discouraging or encouraging word in a no less morally clear circumstance.
That Obama said at the site of a Hamas terrorist attack in Israel that he would take all necessary measure if his daughters were targeted, should give no Israeli or American any comfort that the Democrat gets it, when it comes to protecting any geographic area occupied by his relatives.
Democrats not named Lieberman have shown for most every day of the past seven years if not seventy that they don’t get it.
That Obama pleads “one president at a time” in the face of the governmental choice of the Palestinians that target innocents vs Israel peaks volumes about Obama and his party’s moral blindness.
I shudder for the safety of my country when President Bush (moral giant pictured) loses the power to protect us on Inauguration Day 2009.
The national Democratic Party is a vile, morally and intellectually bankrupt organization and has been for all of my adult life, and probably has been since before the Civil War with exceptions to that bankruptcy interrupted only by exceptional individuals like Grover Cleveland, FDR and JFK.
Mike DeVine’s <a href
Originally published by Mike DeVine, Legal Editor for The Minority Report
[Gamecock apologizes for recent Colorado governor faux pas; has updated his contact lens Rx and learned yet another humility lesson, this time with respect to the “two sources rule.” If you are unaware of the reason for this aside, don’t worry. This blog stands on its own.]
Given the post-1978 Three Mile Island history of Democrats standing in the way of economic development via radical environmental restrictions, which includes the President-Elects’ “green” tendencies in spades, the whole Obama promise to save or create three million jobs is called into question, unless one means only to create jobs for lawyers.
[We are also disturbed by the inclusion of the word “save” after first promising only to “create” two million jobs in an earlier ideation of the “stimulus” bill. Given that 154 million Americans are now employed, a President Obama could keep latest promise even if 151 million lost their jobs, but I digress.]
Michael Barone had earlier expressed some confidence that Obama’s choice of Colorado Senator Ken Salazar as Interior Secretary meant that Obama was serious about job creation.
I didn’t share the confidence, mainly due to the “d” after his name, and neither was environmental lawyer and conservative radio talk show host Hugh Hewitt:
In his townhall.com column, Hugh Hewitt cites my recent blogpost on Interior Secretary-designate Ken Salazar and raises the question of how Salazar will deal with polar bears. Yes, polar bears. As Hewitt points out in this column and as he has written on his blog at hughhewitt.com, environmental restrictionists want to use the threat that supposed global warming poses to polar bears as the basis of legal suits to stop economic development not just in Alaska but throughout the United States. This sounds outlandish, but it’s true. No economic growth because it might raise temperatures in the Arctic, which might in turn reduce the number of ice floes that these attractive carnivores jump on.
As Hewitt has pointed out, polar bear populations have actually been increasing lately. The species is not endangered but thriving. In February 1998, I visited the oil fields in the North Slope of Alaska. It was 40-below zero (don’t ask which scale: It’s 40 below in both Fahrenheit and Centigrade), and I was being driven around in an all-terrain vehicle on ice roads. The vehicle had been warmed up for three hours, but I could still see my breath inside; the road conditions were such that we couldn’t go more than 30 miles an hour. “Wouldn’t it be great,” I said to the driver, “if we saw a polar bear.” “No, it wouldn’t,” he said. “A polar bear can run faster than this car can go and can punch through the windshield with his paw. And to him, you’re lunch.”
Democrats say they want major infrastructure projects. The usual argument against them—that they take too long to get up and running to stimulate a recessionary economy—is weak because the current recession threatens to linger and perhaps turn into long-running deflation. But we can’t have major infrastructure projects if environmental restrictionists sue and stop them in the name of the polar bear. This is something Democrats, especially Ken Salazar, might want to think about.
The GOP will have an increasingly unemployed captive audience of non-lawyers this year that expect Obama to keep his jobs promise. Moreover, there is no greater threat to the short and long term economic health of America that Obama’s love for teaching us lessons with high energy costs and bankrupting the coal industry.
President Bush already paved the way with the prospective ban on Edison’s light bulb and inclusion of the polar bear as an endangered species.
If we don’t stop such fundamental changes sure to be disguised as “stimulus”, then the polar bear will no doubt outlive an extinct American prosperity.
Energy is what makes prosperity possible.
Mike DeVine’s Charlotte Observer, Examiner.com and Minority Report columns
“One man with courage makes a majority.” – Andrew Jackson
Sanford wins jobless benefits game of chicken with S.C. big government types
Once again the governor of the Palmetto State shows conservatives the way, whether one faces liberal Democrats, big government Republican majorities or entrenched big government bureaucracies:
Gov. Mark Sanford (pictured) agreed Wednesday to request a $146 million federal loan that will allow South Carolina residents to continue receiving unemployment checks through March.
Sanford had refused to sign the loan request because of a long-running dispute with the state agency that handles unemployment.
Sanford said Wednesday he agreed to request the aid because he got his way when several lawmakers said they would ask for an audit of the Employment Security Commission. He also found a legal provision that he says allows him to force the commission to turn over more information about how it calculates unemployment rates.
“We will not punish the unemployed for this agency’s incompetence,” Sanford said during a news conference.
For winning this game of Chicken with the General Assembly and the bureaucracy, we dub him an honorary Fighting Gamecock! (Pictured)
We reported on Sanford’s power play just before the New Year’s deadline when jobless benefits would have been cut off, in our:
This Sanford gives heart attacks to big government
In simplest form, our state is running out of money to pay unemployment benefits, and our office has been drawn into the debate because it’s up to us to request a band-aid loan of sorts so that these checks can continue being issued.
Here are my reservations:
A loan without reforming our unemployment benefits system will mean one thing down the road — a tax increase on businesses. According to the non-partisan Tax Foundation, our state is roughly in the middle of the pack on our business tax climate, except when it comes to unemployment taxes — where we rank ninth-highest in the country, our least business-friendly tax ranking.
So we have simply asked for two things before we sign off on the loan. One, we’re calling for an independent audit of the ESC.
Since beginning to highlight this issue, we’ve had a number of former ESC employees raise issues to us about the operations of the agency. For example, in order to be eligible for benefits, a person needs to be “actively seeking employment.” We’ve been told that some interpret that to mean making just one phone call in a week to qualify as “seeking employment.” In a 40-hour work week, it doesn’t seem like one five-minute phone call should qualify you as looking for work.
We’ve also been told that some companies are essentially taking advantage of the system, and use the unemployment benefits as a sort of taxpayer-funded furlough. These are the kinds of things an audit could uncover, and in the process help avert a tax increase.
Two, we’re asking for better information sharing from the ESC.
Mark Sanford was the first Republican for statewide office I ever voted for, and he is one of the few politicians that has never let me down in his unwavering adherence to conservative principles and his savvy ability to see and seize opportunities where others seek supposedly safe shelter from the PC police on the left and especially in the media that have falsely branded Republicans as heartless and bigoted for decades.
Sanford not only shows the way for conservatives on the political front but also shows the way for chief executives here in the Tar Heel State and across the country how to confront entrenched bureaucracies and legislative majorities, even of one’s own party.
Opponents should be prepared for heart attacks unlike the fake ones exhibited by that other Sanford (pictured).
Originally published by Mike DeVine, Legal Editor for The Minority Report
Mike DeVine’s Charlotte Observer, and Examiner.com columns
“One man with courage makes a majority.” – Andrew Jackson
Missouri’s “safe-Republican” Senate seat is now set for toss-up status in 2010 upon this morning’s news that Sen. Kit Bond will not seek reelection.
Romney is headed back to the business world. He’s going to sit on the board of directors of Marriott, the hotel chain. Interesting. Definitely something he should be doing, though: it’s what he does best, and it helps him boost his credibility even more as an economic leader for when 2012 rolls around…Mark Sanford, meanwhile, is standing firm against bailouts: “The advocates of the bailouts are the same people who were wrong about, for example, the need to reform Freddie Mac and Fannie Ma[e],” he says…Mike Huckabee’s down in South Carolina, too…Pawlenty might have a battle over taxes on the horizon with the Minnesota state legislature, given that Gov. Pawlenty made a pledge to not raise them…Jindal applies some common sense and calls for cuts in education spending to close a budget shortfall, but in what could be a bad omen, professors seem to like him…So does the Shreveport Times…Palin’s got herself an opponent…oh, and speaking of her…
Everyone’s got their Hot New Sarah Palin calendar, right? (I know Kristofer got his!)
(Not as hot as Nancy Pelosi, of course.)
Rockets of an unknown origin coming from Lebanon have threatened to expand Israel’s current war by firing rockets into northern Israel. Two civilians were injured. Hezbollah has not confirmed or denied involvement.
The rockets, presumably launched in support of Hamas, could presage the opening of a second front. The Israeli Army, in a brief statement, said it “responded with fire against the source of the rockets,” which landed near the town of Nahariya. Two Israelis were slightly wounded, the police said.
Lebanese security sources told Reuters that they believed it was unlikely that the rockets were fired under instructions from the militant group Hezbollah. But there was no confirmation or denial from Hezbollah itself.
Israel returned fire, killing no one. But let’s get a closer look, shall we?
The Israeli military warned civilians in the western Galilee region to stay close to shelters in the aftermath of Thursday’s attack.
No surprises there. Let’s continue to keep Israel’s humanitarian concern in mind as we move forward.
Let’s hope it’s not from Hezbollah, as such an action would undoubtedly cause the war to expand. It would also signal Iranian involvement. As has been well-documented, Hezbollah is an Iranian proxy group, and also receives backing from Syria, which is engaging in an unwritten partnership with Iran and currently putting on a charade of wanting “peace talk offerings” with Israel.
As Drudge might say: developing…
—
Alex Knepper can be contacted at apkkib@aol.com.
No senator in the history of the United States has run against as many nuts, boobs, and whackjobs as our poor Norm Coleman. In 1998, he faced future 9/11 Truther Jesse “The Body” Ventura for the governor’s mansion; in 2002, Walter Mondale was his Senate opponent after Paul Wellstone died, and he just got himself into a contested race with Al Franken — who is not only extremely liberal, but an alleged professional comedian and as outrageous in his political proclamations as Ann Coulter is on the right. Think of Mark Pryor narrowly losing a Senate seat to Ann Coulter and you’ve basically got the Minnesota scenario in reverse, except that, unlike with Pryor, nobody actually thinks that Norm Coleman is a capable candidate.
Does this say more about Norm Coleman or about Minnesota, though? While it’s certainly true that Norm Coleman has all of the charisma and insight of a plastic bag, it’s got to say something that Minnesota, that perpetual “swing state,” has the longest-running blue streak of any state in the union at the presidential level. Only Minnesota failed to vote properly in 1984. (Tennessee voted for George W. Bush in 2000, so let’s not play that they-always-win-their-home-state game. Just keeping with the other M’s, even Massachusetts and Maryland voted for Reagan, okay?) Surely any state nutty enough to vote for Walter Mondale over Ronald Reagan wouldn’t mind voting for an alleged comedian such as Mr. Franken?
But still, come on. Norm lost, albeit narrowly (he makes a habit of this), to The Body in 1998, won — again, narrowly — thanks to President Bush’s massive popularity against fellow Loser Mondale himself in 2002 after the Wellstone funeral fiasco, and now appears to have (narrowly!) lost to Franken. Does Norm Coleman himself have something to do with why he keeps finding himself in extremely narrow elections with gasbags? We are speaking about the guy who said that he’d only support CAFTA if three-year-long sugar quotas were added in to the mix (what if everyone wanted their own caveat? What kind of free trade agreement would we then have?). Far be it from me to say that Norm is an exceptionally poor campaigner or politician, but his brand of perpetual loserdom combined with Minnesota’s bizarro politics makes for a rather toxic mix.
Given Coleman’s incumbency, it was too late to bump him from the ticket for someone else (and besides, who would we have run?), but the man’s got a pretty weak electoral history: he never actually reached 50% over the past ten years. So the mere fact that he finds himself contesting an election with Al Franken, of all people, shouldn’t really shock anyone. Norm should have, in theory, run away with the election: he was running as a moderate Republican with an uncontroversial record in a center-left state against a total boob. The problem is that Minnesota loves boobs (not as much as California, though: two female senators and a governor who gropes women?), and Norm Coleman is as interesting as a paperweight. (Fellow paperweight Susan Collins fared better, but she lives in Maine, and, well, so it goes.)
My solution to this snafu? Grant Puerto Rico statehood, but give Minnesota to Canada. That way, we can still have a nice, round 100 in the Senate. We’ll have lost an interesting sideshow and even our buddy Tim Pawlenty, but as a whole, we’ll have much, much saner people as part of the country.
—
Alex Knepper can be contacted at apkkib@aol.com.
At long last, I’m going to announce my choice for Republican Party Chairman. I will not talk about the five candidates I choose not to support at this time. We’ll dish at another time. However, let’s take a look at something that I and most conservatives got wrong.
After the 2004 elections, the Democrats made what most of us thought was a bone-headed choice in selecting big-mouthed loose cannon Howard Dean to run the Democratic Party. We rubbed our hands together to enjoy the series of meltdowns, oh, and Howard Dean had his share.
Yet, we have to say without reservation that Dr. Dean has had one of the most successful party chairmanships of recent years with a solid 50-state strategy that was derided by both left and right. Why did Dean succeed?
First, was that he had a sound strategy and good vision.
Secondly, while some party insiders didn’t believe in him, the grassroots Democrats did, many of whom would be the foot soldiers in the Obama campaign. In a Washington, DC that was led by the hapless Ms. Pelosi and the inept Mr. Reid, Howard Dean got Democrats engaged and believing in the party again. He found the folks who brought the party back in many states, regions, and districts that have left the GOP shellshocked.
The Real Crisis
The Republicans are behind in money, technology, and in reaching out to minorities. But ultimately the GOP doesn’t face a crisis on any of these points.
The GOP crisis is one far more fundamental. It’s a crisis of trust. The proud Republican is a dying breed, limited to Lincoln Day Dinner attendees. Most meetings of grassroots Republicans where politics are discussed begin with the understanding that the party is messed up, dysfunctional, and broken. The only disagreements are how bad, why it happened, and how to fix it.
The idea of the GOP reaching out, adding to its membership, seems rather silly. If it’s own membership is increasingly unenthusiastic, demoralized, and disgusted with its leadership and its direction, how are they going to attract others to join? It’s like trying to be the booster club for the Detroit Tigers. People won’t work their heart out for a party they don’t believe in. They won’t give during a time of economic hardship. They won’t engage.
In the Democratic Party, when demoralization happens, it isn’t so bad. They have Unions that will squeeze people’s paychecks. They build dependency and have constituents who are beholden to them no matter how poor a job they do. There is not compulsion and guaranteed money to move a GOP that has lost its very soul.
The GOP’s success is not a one man show. It can’t be solved by being a great cable TV show guest. It can’t even be solved with a great plan to bring the party back. Any plan that doesn’t include and bring about an enthused grassroots that will implement the plan is worthless.
The GOP base needs to be engaged and brought into the fight. They need to be told that the GOP shares their values and is more than a bunch of power-grubbing White Males in their 50s and 60s working out their own personal issues with a grasping quest for power.
We need to prove to the base that the GOP is worth their time, their money, and their energy. If we fail to, all the rest is irrelevant. While the party needs to reach out, it must have an energized base. Because swing voters won’t get a party and its members to the polls.
I want to be proud to be a Republican again. I want to be part of a party that stands for things rather than just against things. I want to be part of a party that understands the world we live in, incumbent with all of its dangers, and offers solutions. This will not happen without a fundamental change in direction. We need one leader that we can actually trust.
While I believe there are many fine gentlemen running for Chairman, the man who can best bring our party through these next four years is Ken Blackwell.
Ken Blackwell would bring an exceptional dedication to the position of RNC Chairman. His commitment to both fiscal and social conservative values is outstanding. I was initially critical of Blackwell’s support, because it seemed entirely ideological, but through the course of this campaign, he’s shown himself intelligent and thoughtful. He has run a positive campaign that has gained increasing momentum.
He has presented a solid plan for our party’s future. Blackwell’s plan includes key elements like strengthening the party in the midwest, the Northeast, and the South, reaching out to minorities, and embracing new technologies. However, he understands the future of the GOP is in a confident conservative agenda that makes its case to the American people. Blackwell also writes, “We must take a stand against corruption, Republican or Democrat. We can no longer be critical of Democrats while turning a blind eye to scandals and corruption amongst our own.”
In a political process where ethics is often something we expect other people to have, Blackwell’s got the right idea, and it’s a necessary turn for the GOP to take.
I believe Ken Blackwell is the best man to lead the RNC and I give him my unconditional endorsement.
God, what a snoozefest. Hot on the heels of Jeb Bush’s announcement that he won’t run for the Senate, we learn that Chris Matthews isn’t, either. Yawn! Where are all of the celebrity candidates? Guess Arlen Specter is a shoo-in for re-election, now, barring a defeat in the primary by Pat Toomey, which is entirely possible, given the base’s anti-RINO, back-to-basics attitude…
Much to my delight, though, Meg Whitman is running for governor of California (not for the Senate, like I wanted her to, but there’s no surprises here, given her executive background). This woman is hyper-competent and should be a future face of the party. Whitman running for the presidency one day seems unlikely, though, given her pro-choice stance, although that can potentially be triangulated…
Early polls showing that Caroline Kennedy turns the New York Senate seat into a toss-up against Peter King should give Gov. Paterson pause…
Burris is probably in. Not too surprised here. But will he run in 2010, when the seat is up for re-election? Democrats especially don’t truly want to seat this guy because they don’t want to have to see Blagojevich’s pick up for re-election…
By the way, did anyone else pick up the new Ann Coulter book? (I’m about halfway done, and it’s decent — and definitely entertaining — but definitely not her best. Topics are a little shallow, and her books are becoming a little formulaic.)
—
Alex Knepper can be contacted at apkkib@aol.com.
Recently CNN looked at how Presidents age while in office and made a composite image of what Obama should look like four years in the future based on what little we know about his health.
Besides knowing he’s a smoker and athletic we’ve not got a lot to go on since he’s hiding his medical records.
This is what experts expect President Obama to look like in 4 years:
