Chris Cillizza has a nice write up on whom he believes are the most influential people in the Republican Party at the moment. Please understand, they are NOT necessarily the ones that will vie for the 2012 Presidential Nomination. These are the men and women that Chris feels has the most influence with the Party as of yesterday. In descending order he lists:
A couple of notes of interest to Race4 readers. Mike Huckabee and Bobby Jindal have dropped off the list since last time around, no explanation given. Chris places Sarah Palin at #2 primarily as the result of the impressive $733K her PAC raised from February to June of this year. Only Mitt Romney did better, doubling her take. Nobody else came close. (HuckPAC has yet to file.) When that kind of money talks, people are more than willing to listen.
I have been meaning to write on this for several days, but I have been doing a lot of thinking about the way we throw around the term “populism” to describe political figures. Specifically, I am increasingly appalled at how the various definitions of that term are becoming purposefully blurred in our political rhetoric - using the word as a way of associating people with views they do not hold.
The two figures who get most mixed up in this are Sarah Palin and Mike Huckabee – with Palin in particular being purposefully lumped with Huckabee as “fellow populists” as a way of scaring off potential conservative voters. This was done most recently in the American Spectator, with Palin being lumped not only with Huckabee, but with three time losing presidential candidate William Jennings Bryan. So, I think we need to take a long, hard look at what this word means if we are going to continually throw it around
First off, let’s be clear Populism as an ideology and populism as a rhetorical style are two very different things. In the ideological sense, a populist is one who mixes left wing and right wing views in order to craft an ideological framework that appeals to the masses (especially those in the working class). In the American sense of the term, this often means combining conservative social positions with a big-government “hose the rich” economic plan. In all honesty, there are few true Populists in the GOP today – and the ideology holds primarily among so-called “conservative Democrats”. These people are often fully in line with Obama on spending, it’s just on abortion that they differ.
Someone like Mike Huckabee, a preacher politician who believes that government has a role in helping people, could be defined as a mmild Populist – but I have trouble using the term even for him. Actually, I have always found it easier to describe Huckabee using the European ideological term “Christian Democrat” - which describes a more compassion based but still conservative ideology.
A rhetorical populist, however, is merely campaigner who use folksy, down-to-earth delivery as a way of targeting a wide audience that is inaccessible to more intellectual candidates. To illustrate just how meaning less the term is, I would note that Sarah Palin (a conservative), Jimmy Carter (a liberal), and Ron Paul (a libertarian) all employ a degree of populism in their approach. Huckabee also fits into this category, but I would note that he was one-upped on populist delivery in 2008 by Fred Thompson.
Thompson was never labeled a ‘populist’, nor was this term used to link him to Mike Huckabee (with whom he had many differences). However, we do now see that phenomenon with Palin, who is arguably far closer to Thompson in her ideology than she is to Huck (as proved by the fact that Fred and Jeri Thompson have moved to align themselves with Sarah). The key to this dichotomy is that this notion of “Huckabee the Populist” seemed not to develop until after Thompson had been in the race a while. Conversely, it was fully developed when Palin hit the scene. It then took a wild turn when certain members of the conservative intelligentsia figured out that they could lump Palin and Huckabee together as ’populists’ without noting that Huck is something of an ideological Populist wheras Palin is an ideological conservative who employs rhetorical populism. This is intellectually dishonest to the hilt, but the slight of hand does accomplish the goal of linking Palin to Huckabee’s fiscal policy (even if she doesn’t actually agree.)
Even more ridiculous is the William Jennings Bryan comparison. Bryan didn’t lose because of his rhetoric, he lost because of his devotion to bimetallism (an issue which no longer exists at all), among other things. He was an Populist ideologue in addition to his rhetoric, and that’s why he lost. I might also not that, between Bryan’s three losses, arch-rhetorical populist Teddy Roosevelt won the presidency in a landslide.
Now, there are people who take issue with rhetorical populism. They tend to be intellectuals who believe in elevating discourse and assume that anyone who talks with a drawl must therefore think with a drawl. In my opinion this is an illegitimate and almost bigoted reason to dismiss politicians – and frankly it’s juvenile.
How do you feel about health care rationing by the government? “Bioethicist” and “animal liberationist” Peter Singer, who has promoted infanticide and the killing of the handicapped, has determined, in a flash of honesty from the left, that such rationing is absolutely needed. The crux of his argument is thus: if you believe that human life is priceless, then why should we not be willing to spend as much as money as needed for a life-saving operation? Is $250,000 too much? How about a million dollars? A billion? A trillion? If there is a cut-off point, he argues, then you’re in favor of rationing. It just becomes a question of when exactly the government’s cut-off point should be.
This is a revealing argument, but not for the reasons that Singer thinks it is. Utilitarianism, originated by Jeremy Bentham and popularized by John Stuart Mill, is a philosophy that advocates “the greatest good for the greatest number.” This dehumanizing, collectivist ideology is subscribed to by many more people than know what its name is, often under the false auspices of pragmatism, and it rarely has a more honest proponent than Singer. Unlike most, he is willing to take it to its logical ends — and admit it out loud.
Singer is right, of course: the inevitable result of nationalized health care is indeed rationing, and everyone who promotes the “public option” (not such an option after all, according to Investor’s Business Daily) secretly supports it.
But he neglects the fact that there’s another option: one that promotes the greatest good — freedom — for the greatest number of all: the entire populace. That option, voluntary exchange entered into by consenting individuals, is capitalism. What better way to ration goods than by the consent of the creator and benefactor?
The inverted values that Singer and President Obama advocate are of the master/slave morality. Private property is not a value at all, under this system: medicine, like all other goods, is merely a creation that randomly came into existence and is up for grabs by whoever wants it the most — or whoever has the will to impose the most force. The conception that a person’s goods and services might be his — and only his — to dispense of as he wishes is utterly foreign to the utilitarians.
The health care battle is not one between liberals and conservatives. Rather, it is a battle between utilitarians and individualists. Health care reform is very much needed. Medicare is unsustainable, the citizenry dislikes the system, and the United States spends more money per capita than any other country on Earth. But who will triumph? The government, or the individual? Who will ration health care? Bureaucrats, or the only men who can set a truly fair price — those responsible for its creation? America must choose wisely — the consequences of this clash extend far beyond itself.
Marco Rubio tweets in:
Florida unemployment now highest since 1975. The stimulus package my opponent supported is really working well, isn’t it?
Ouch. And Rubio had space to throw in two hash tags. If the economy continues to get worse in Florida, it will really batter Charlie Crist’s popularity. Hitching his wagon to Obama’s stimulus is not something Rubio will let go of.
And of course, Rubio doesn’t sound like a man who is considering leaving. If he was, he’d play nicer. But it still looks like he’s playing for keeps.
It looks like Senate Democrats are prepared to give up card check, knowing they can’t get 60 votes to support it.
The exact nature of the compromise isn’t clear, so celebrations should be muted for the moment:
Though some details remain to be worked out, under the expected revisions, union elections would have to be held within five or 10 days after 30 percent of workers signed cards favoring having a union. Currently, the campaigns often run two months.
To further address labor’s concerns that the election process is tilted in favor of employers, key senators are considering several measures. One would require employers to give union organizers access to company property. Another would bar employers from requiring workers to attend anti-union sessions that labor supporters deride as “captive audience meetings.”
Still, card check was by itself so awful that almost anything else will look good by comparison.
Barry Casselman’s latest, “Brave Little Honduras” certainly qualifies as such. Here’s a snippet:
It was no surprise then that Chavez and his cohorts came immediately to the defense of Zelaya, and it was not unexpected that the Organization of American
States and the United Nations, both left-dominated organizations, would join in an effort to overturn the actions of the Honduran Congress and Supreme Court.The surprise was that President Barack Obama joined in and supported the transparently false claims that Zelaya had been wrongfully removed from office. Obama’s motive, I believe, was to counter the propaganda advantage that normally is ceded to Chavez and his fellow demagogues, and in that sense he was probably successful in the short term.
Please follow this link to read the entire piece.
H/T: The Fix.
Global Strategy Group 2010 Alaska Governor Poll
- Sean Parnell (R) 41%
- Ethan Berkowitz 40%
- Sarah Palin (R) 56%
- Ethan Berkowitz 35%
Favorables/Unfavorables
- Sarah Palin 56/35 [+21]
Democrats held the Alaska governorship from 1994 until 2002 as Gov. Tony Knowles (D) benefited from a fractured Republican party and serious independent candidates. As for those who argued that Palin decided to leave office for fear she would lose in 2010, this poll, which was in the field from June 14-18 suggests otherwise. Palin led Berkowitz 56 percent to 36 percent in a hypothetical general election matchup and carried a solid 56 percent/35 percent favorable to unfavorable score.
Kristofer Lorelli can be contacted at lorville@rogers.com, on Facebook and twitter/Kris_Lorelli.
My latest post on Pajamas Media is up
I’ve watched with interest the debate on how conservatives are to handle the issue of race. T.K. Farrow is right — Republicans face a tall order in winning over black voters. But, as JFK said regarding putting a man on the moon, we must do this not because it is easy, but because it is hard.
Ruben Navarrette notes correctly that certain Republicans have done over-the-top stupid things on race that have hurt the party, but he carries the argument too far. Does every Republican in the country have to worry some idiot in another state is going to embarrass the party? Following Navarrette’s argument, we do. Though I would wager the vast majority of minorities that vote for Democrats would do so even without the obscure statements Navarrette cites.
John Hawkins argues the GOP needs to nominate more minority and women candidates. Hawkins is on the right track, but the strategy of nominating minorities to gain in demographics has a spotty record. While Michael Steele received twice George W. Bush’s share of the black vote in his 2006 Senate run, Senator Mel Martinez barely ran ahead in his own ethnic group. Lynn Swann actually received a lower percentage of the black vote than his opponent. Similarly, women as a group have been even harder on Sarah Palin than men have.
Our minority congressional candidates have a ridiculously low winning percentage. The GOP’s problem thus lies not in nominating minorities, but in actually getting them elected.
Matthew E. Miller made a FPP entitled Big Money vs Small Money. In it, he shows a graph by Nate Silver purporting to show the great disparity between candidates in regards to who has a greater percentage of small doners versus fat cats. The chart purportedly shows Sarah Palin reaching the heights of 62% while Mitt Romney is shown to be down in the depths of a paltry 9%.
Since I had just recently looked at the actual FEC filings of these two PACs, something didn’t seem quite kosher. The Palin numbers looked about right, but the Romney numbers were way out of wack. So I went to the source, the FEC itself.
First a bit of background. Summaries of contributions to PACs are reported on Form 3X page 3. Line 11.a is for contributions from individuals. Line 11.a.i is for contributions over $200. Line 11.a.ii is for contributions $200 and below. Line 11.a.iii is for total contributions from individuals.
First up is the mid-year report for SarahPAC that they just filed this week. Line 11.a.ii (<$200) for her reports 420,458.91. Line 11.a.iii (total individual contributions) reports $732,867.70. That represents a percentage of 57%, not the 62% Silver reports. Well, nobody is going to quibble over a 5% error.
Now take a look at the latest available report from Romney’s “Free and Strong America” PAC. Since his mid-year report has been filed, but not yet posted, we have to make do with his June monthly report, which conveniently reports year-to-date totals. That means that the numbers we are using for SarahPAC is a five month period from February through June, and FnSA_PAC numbers come from a five month period from January through May. It isn’t a perfect match, but close enough for Government work. 
Romney reports on Line 11.a.ii (<$200) a total of $399,027.06 year to date, with at total contributions from individuals (Line 11.a.iii) of $1,341,943.24 year to date. A bit of quick math shows a percentage of 30%. Granted that is only about half the ratio of Sarah Palin’s contributions of $200 or less, but it is a far cry from the anemic 9% Nate Sliver proclaims.
Now take a look at the raw figures. Sarah Palin reports a total of $420K of donations of less than $200. Mitt Romney reports a total of $399K of donations of less than $200. That is a difference of $21K or only a 5% difference. Again, it is close enough for Government work to be called a tie.
So what conclusions can be drawn from this? The first and most obvious is that Nate Silver was not extremely accurate with his figures. He under reports Mitt’s numbers by some 200%. When comparing apples to apples or donations to PAC during essentially the same time frame, Mitt Romney attracts practically the same amount of money from “the little guys” as Sarah Palin. More importantly, he also attracts about three times as much from “the big guys” as Palin. So Mitt is doing just fine by the “grassroots”, within spitting distance of Sarah’s actual numbers in fact. Plus he is walking away with the money people.
So it would appear that in the question of “Big Money vs. Small Money”, Romney in the first part of this year is doing just about as good as Sarah Palin with the Small Money, and is running away with the Big Money. As of today, I fail to see a problem for Mitt.
For those who haven’t heard, Vice President Biden had another Joe-being-Joe moment today at a speech to the AARP:
“And folks look, AARP knows and the people with me here today know, the president knows, and I know, that the status quo is simply not acceptable,” Biden said at the event on Thursday in Alexandria, Va. “It’s totally unacceptable. And it’s completely unsustainable. Even if we wanted to keep it the way we have it now. It can’t do it financially.”
“We’re going to go bankrupt as a nation,” Biden said.
“Now, people when I say that look at me and say, ‘What are you talking about, Joe? You’re telling me we have to go spend money to keep from going bankrupt?’” Biden said. “The answer is yes, that’s what I’m telling you.”
Hey, look at the bright side: at least that gaffe machine Sarah Palin didn’t get elected VP!
In some news that may unnerve Obama, Pelosi and other Dems, the Director of the CBO Douglas Elmendorf has stated that the health care proposals we have so far seen will lead to greater health care costs for the government, contrary to the Dems’ claims. Of course, the MSM will probably gloss over Elmendorf’s declaration.
And lastly, what’s a news post without some polling?
Rasmussen 2010 New York Governor Poll
- Rudy Giuliani 55%
- David Paterson 33%
- Other 8%
- Undecided 5%
- Andrew Cuomo 48%
- Rudy Giuliani 41%
- Other 6%
- Undecided 6%
Favorability
- David Paterson 38/60% (-22%)
- Rudy Giuliani 56/39% (+17%)
- Andrew Cuomo 64/32% (+32%)
Paterson Job Approval
- Strongly approve 5%
- Approve 27%
- Disapprove 31%
- Strongly disapprove 36%
Obama Job Approval
- Strongly approve 39%
- Approve 24%
- Disapprove 10%
- Strongly disapprove 27%
Michael Steele at the NAACP Convention:
NEW YORK — Republican National Committee Chairman Michael Steele says the GOP and the NAACP have missed opportunities to engage with each other.
Steele addressed the NAACP convention on Tuesday. The organization is celebrating its 100th anniversary this week in New York City.
Steele is the first African-American head of the RNC. He says he’s committed to building a relationship between the two groups.
Steele may be committed to building a relationship, but it takes two to tango. and the NAACP has not shown itself interested in this dance, though the GOP keeps trying. I’ve been following politics for 17 years and whenver the GOP wants to start an outreach in the Black Community, they go to liberals at the NAACP to start it. It’s a colossal waste of time. Those who run the NAACP are not going to do the GOP any favors.
The GOP has got to start at the grassroots and go around the existing leadership, not try and get people who are vested in the Democratic Party to help them and form a relationship and dialogue. These are the people you want to see displaced and challenged by new voices, not the ones you court in some vain hope of getting something from.
We learn from Drudge today of a Washington Examiner article about Washington, DC, Police Chief Cathy Lanier, who is no fan of “an iPhone application and other global positioning system devices that pinpoint the location of the cameras.”
The new technology streams to iPhones and global positioning system devices, sounding off an alarm as drivers approach speed or red-light cameras.
Lanier said the technology is a “cowardly tactic” and “people who overly rely on those and break the law anyway are going to get caught” in one way or another.
DC uses 290 traffic cameras, an estimated TEN PERCENT of all traffic cameras in the entire country!
This is my favorite part of the article: Chief Lanier “promised her officers would pick up their game to counteract the devices, which can also help drivers dodge sobriety checkpoints.”
So tax money is going toward paying DC police offers to use iPhones, in order to keep up to date with what an application is telling its users? Is this an elite unit of the police force? Maybe this will develop into an early “crime”-fighting internship for teenagers, where they work part-time to monitor the applications during their study hall.
Lanier says about the technology, “It’s designed to circumvent law enforcement — law enforcement that is designed specifically to save lives.”
And it is all about safety, right? Well, no. The Examiner reports, “Photo radar tickets generated nearly $1 billion in revenues for D.C. during fiscal years 2005 to 2008.”
According to The Examiner, Lanier doesn’t support an attempt to ban the camera-avoiding software — but only because it would be “too difficult.”
“With the Internet and all the new technology, it’s almost impossible to stop the flow of information.”
I’m reminded of Scooby Doo: ”And I would have gotten away with it, if it wasn’t for you meddling kids!”
______________________________________________________________
Benjamin Hodge co-owns the Web site KansasProgress.com, based in Johnson County, KS, in the Greater Kansas City area. You can contact Hodge on Facebook, through his Web site, and on Twitter.
H/T: Matt Lewis.
I had a feeling this would happen :
Two Republican sources said today that even as former Florida House Speaker Marco Rubio campaigns for retiring GOP Sen. Mel Martinez‘s Senate seat, he has been calling around to top Republican donors and activists in the state to discuss the idea of switching from the Senate primary against GOP Gov. Charlie Crist and into the open-seat race for attorney general, where a serious Republican candidate has yet to emerge.
Kristofer Lorelli can be contacted at lorville@rogers.com, on Facebook and twitter/Kris_Lorelli.
I have several political questions that I have been unable to find the answers for and I was hoping the R412 page 2 contributors could assist me?
Thank you ahead of time. Any links you could provide to the answers would be a bonus.
- Kris
———————–
Nate Silver has a fascinating chart over at fivethirtyeight.com which notes the percentage of small donor contributions which came into various candidates. Here it is:
Paul and Palin are probably the most grassrootsy people on this list, while Dodd, Biden and Romney are the least grassrootsy. Looking at this list, it looks like candidates on either extreme suffered. Still, it seems like their may be more juice on grassroots end. Biden and Dodd were non-entities in the primary, and Mitt and, to a lesser extent, Rudy saw their well dry up as the campaign wore on. Here were Romney’s 2007 quarters in order: 21 million, 14 million, 10 million, 9 million. Here were Rudy’s totals, in order: 15 million, 15 million, 11 million, 14 million. How did the grassrootsy folks compare? Ron Paul’s numbers: 1 million, 2.5 million, 5 million, 19 million. Huckabee’s numbers: 500k, 764k, 2 million, 6.6 million. Even Thompson’s numbers mostly follow this pattern. He raised : 3.5 million (exploratory second quarter), 9.2 million, 8.9 million. All in all, the grassrootsy folks raised considerably less than the establishment types, but they didn’t do meaningfully worse in the primaries. Meanwhile, the eventual GOP nominee was, compared to these two groups, neither a grassrootsy nor establishment candidate, but something in between.
What else do I take from these charts? Two things:
1. Romney seems extremely unlikely to improve meaningfully on that 9% number in 2012. As perhaps the only major Republican of the establishment, he’s well-positioned to net some of Rudy and McCain’s big money-men. A 2012 Romney will probably raise more money than a 2008 Romney (even in comparative terms), but he’ll have a fundraising base nowhere near as wide as Obama’s or, even, McCain’s. The small donors which helped create a snowball effect for Obama, won’t be there for Romney.
2. The best long-term route to success probably lies in early grassroots support, followed by late wooing of the establishment. This is the Obama route and it pretty clearly trumped the opposite strategy, which Hillary employed. The McCain of 2008 had something of an almalgam of these strategies; he was a former grassroots (albeit, not the conservative grassroots) candidate, who’d tried to run as the establishment candidate, before finding success back in his grassroots image. At any rate, I don’t see any long-term upside for a candidate who can’t create and sustain a meaningful grassroots presence.
H/T: David All
This is a massive victory for President Obama, but this is now causing a revolt from physicians across the nation. This would be the equivalent to the NRA endorsing Michael Dukakis.
_________________________________
Concerned that the American Medical Association has taken too tepid a position on Democratic healthcare reform plans, a coalition of state medical associations and specialty organizations is breaking from the country’s largest physicians’ group to mount its own push against the inclusion of a public insurance option in any overhaul bill.Seventeen state medical associations and three specialty physicians’ groups planned a conference call late Wednesday to discuss a draft letter that would go much further than the AMA’s more measured responses to the public option.
The AMA has made clear it is not opposed to a public plan, but would resist a Medicare-like program that mandates physician participation and pays less than their costs.
The draft letter, written by members of the Medical Association of Georgia, says flatly that the physicians’ groups unequivocally oppose a government-administered insurance plan, as well as use of government-funded effectiveness tests, or “comparative effectiveness research,” to dictate which medical procedures should be eligible for coverage.
David Cook, executive director of the Georgia group, acknowledged that the AMA has expressed some concerns about legislation that would mandate physicians’ participation in a public plan. But Cook said the AMA “really doesn’t say ‘yes’ or ‘no’” to the question of slamming the door on the proposal, which President Obama pitched to the organization during its annual meeting in Chicago last month.
“We are opposed to the creation of a public option under any circumstances,” Cook said.
Once individual state medical associations have decided whether they will sign on to the Georgia group’s letter, it will be circulated on Capitol Hill “within the week,” he added.
A Republican aide familiar with the coalition’s concerns said the physicians’ groups especially worry that AMA’s position on public option language in the House’s developing legislation has been “too squishy.”
Todd Atwater, CEO of the South Carolina Medical Association, said the draft letter does not represent a break with AMA, merely a more barbed critique than the larger 245,000-member physicians’ lobby is prepared to make.
Read the entire release.
Kristofer Lorelli can be contacted at lorville@rogers.com, on Facebook and twitter/Kris_Lorelli.
Mark B. Lowe provided some interesting analysis on the new Gallup poll, but upon reading the summary I noticed that Dr. Jim Clifton’s organization provided a slightly different analysis on the results.
One other word of caution for readers; many of the caucuses and primaries are closed to Democrat and independent voters and Gallup did not specify how many of the 455 interviewed were not registered Republicans.
- Palin’s strong showing suggests she remains a contender for GOP front-runner status even after her surprising decision to resign as governor of Alaska, which she announced July 3. Some have speculated that she made that decision with an eye toward running for president in 2012.
- This suggests no widespread deterioration in her image after her surprising decision to resign her post as governor with more than a year left in her term.
- However, Huckabee’s numbers among all Americans look better by comparison. Although each GOP contender receives a similar favorable rating from the American public — 43% for Palin, 37% for Romney, and 42% for Huckabee — Huckabee’s negatives are lower.
- Though it is little over a year since the 2008 GOP primaries, Americans’ opinions of Romney and Huckabee have changed significantly. Notably, each seems to have lost a significant share of the public familiarity he built up during the campaign. There has been a double-digit increase in the percentage of Americans who do not express either a positive or a negative opinion of both Romney and Huckabee.
Kristofer Lorelli can be contacted at lorville@rogers.com, on Facebook and twitter/Kris_Lorelli.
Something positive has come from being forced to watch the above named chick flick, TWICE! I still fail to understand the emotional and intellectual expectations of the superior sex, but oddly enough, I am now better able to understand the complexities of the relationship between Hugo Chavez and the United States and Hugo Chavez and Barack Obama.
In recent weeks, Hugo Chavez has ’accelerated’ Venezuala’s move towards totalitarianism. Chavez is forcing union members to join ‘socialist groups’, restricted free speech by threatening to cut-off imports of paper products to hard-copy news publications and legislated private broadcasters to provide free advertising to his public relations campaign. Chavez has also continued to silence his opposition through the use of military force, taking over many local State controlled institutions, including hospitals and police services.
What has been the response from the US media and White House? The silent treatment! The oblivious-natured approach taken by the Obama administration has done nothing to soothe the fears of democracy loving Latin Americans, or the love struck Venezuelan President.
The most perplexing twist of events in the Chavez soap opera, is his apparent change of attitude towards the United States and Barack Obama. While still mildly critical of US interests abroad, especially the policy directed towards the southern hemisphere, Chavez is no longer playing the role of the bitter young, single person, looking to blame the stud in the Cadallac for the heart-break experienced at the hands of lesser courtee. Instead, Chavez seems more interested in obsessively lecturing and courting the United States, hoping that it will lead to a prom date with his fellow economic socialist, Barack Obama.
Hugo’s efforts have not gone unnoticed. His courtship began with lavish gifts, appropriate for his fellow manifesto-wielding community organizer. Literature, public displays of affection and most recently, a plea for a relationship building rendezvous in Honduras, has left many left-wing observers asking; what is Barack Obama waiting for? Upon first observation, Barack seems uncertain of himself and his masculinity. Could it be nerves and a lack of experience in the international game of how long to wait and who is the first to call after a date? It certainly isn’t that Barack is embarrassed to introduce the Latino Chavez to his white, racist, Kansan family, as he recently introduced them to another race-bating, class warfare proponent, wise Latina.
What else is there for Hugo to do? The US State department and Barack Obama acknowledges his courtship and accepts his demands, but they remain unwilling to accept his invitation to the dance. Whether this casual relationship is healthy for the United States remains in doubt, but to avoid having his heart broken by the United States once again, Hugo Chavez must consider one possibility. Maybe we’re just not that into you?
Kristofer Lorelli can be contacted at lorville@rogers.com, on Facebook and twitter/Kris_Lorelli.
Here is the Gallup Poll that is creating a bit of a buzz this morning. The top numbers are:
What does this mean in terms of the 2012 elections? Not much. There is still nearly two and a half years before the first votes are cast in the 2012 Iowa caucus. Nobody needs to be slitting wrists or popping corks just yet.
However, in terms of what is happening right now, it is significant.
Huckabee, according to several of his ardent supporters, has been running hard already. Five days a week he is hitting the campaign trail, making speeches, raising PAC money, dispensing it, working for other candidates, etc. And he has his popular TV show. The result of all this hard work? His numbers keep dropping.
Palin has been very much in the news lately. In what many of her supporters are claiming was a brilliant move paving the way for her to ascend to the White House, she is resigning as Governor. The trends says otherwise. Her numbers have been falling, as well.
Mitt Romney has basically been sitting quietly. He issues an occasional press release, appears in an interview now and again, makes the occasional speech, attends a fund raiser every once in a while — all pretty low-key stuff. The results? His stock keeps rising.
These trends have to be the biggest worry to Huckabee. Sarah is already in the process of making a course correction. If Huckabee is truly working as hard as his supporters claim he is, and he is still losing ground to a man who is essentially taking it easy, he is in danger of suffering Rudy Giuliani’s 2008 fate in New Hampshire. Everytime Rudy spent money, his percentages dropped. He eventually had to pull out.
Is it time for a Huckabee course correction?
There’s a favorite meme out there. “Huckabee and Palin will run, splitting the Evangelical vote, and allow Romney to take the GOP nomination?” How plausible is this dream scheme?
The problem is that it depends on one of two scenarios occurring:
Now, before, I’ve addressed this with my contention that Huckabee and Palin are both unlikely to run against one another. It’d be too much high stakes poker for both of them, as they would compete for many of the same voters. Let’s for the moment assume they do both run, however.
Both candidate simply won’t stay in forever. They aren’t stupid and they would eventually be able to read the writing on the wall. An event such as the Iowa Strawpoll might even pull one out before the primary season starts. This is very probable because of how these events are interpreted. A third or worse finish could knock Huckabee out, a 3rd place finish that’s weaker than expected could undermine Palin’s prospects and knock her out.
If we actually got to a primary, and say Huckabee won Iowa and Romney won New Hampshire, Palin would essentially be forced out. If Romney won Iowa and Palin won New Hampshire, Huckabee would be forced out. Same thing if Palin won Iowa and Romney won New Hampshire. The only situation I could think of where both of them stay in is if Huckabee wins Iowa and Palin wins New Hampshire. In which case, Romney is left trying to pull a Rudy Giuliani maneuver in Florida or another large state. I just don’t see how the advantage of Palin and Huckabee both being in the race lasts more than the first two contests. The problem with presidential campaign is that you need money to keep them going, and if your voters think you haven’t a prayer, fundraising falters dramatically.
The one scenario where the presence of the two could lead to Romney’s victory is if it allowed Romney to win both Iowa and New Hampshire thanks to split votes. It’s a plan, but as Romney proved last time, winning everything is a lot easier to plan than to execute.
Among Likely Voters
- Chris Christie (R) 53% (50%)
- Jon Corzine (D) 41% (40%)
Among Independents
- Chris Christie (R) 64% (56%)
- Jon Corzine (D) 28% (32%)
Favorability
- Chris Christie 39/20% (+19%)
- Jon Corzine 34/58% (-24%)
Corzine Job Approval
- Registered voters 33/60% (-27%)
- Likely voters 33/60% (-27%)
- Independents 24/69% (-45%)
Obama Job Approval
- Likely voters 60/34% (+26%)
- Independents 54/38% (+16)
From July 8 – 12, Quinnipiac University surveyed 1,514 New Jersey likely voters, with a margin of error of +/- 2.5 percentage points.
And some analysis:
“Good news for Christopher Christie: As voters focus on the campaign, he increases his lead slightly in the match-up against Corzine,” said Maurice Carroll, director of the Quinnipiac University Polling Institute.
“Good news for Gov. Jon Corzine: President Barack Obama is coming in and Obama’s job numbers among New Jersey voters are good.”
Huckabee on Fox News last night regarding Sarah Palin:
VAN SUSTEREN: Tell me if I’m wrong, but I would imagine, if I were you, I’d have sort of mixed feelings. On the one hand, I’d like to see a fellow governor of my party, at least ex one, out there swinging and succeeding and pushing issues. On the other hand, you know, I might have political aspirations myself and I don’t want anybody in my way. Do you feel that way, sort of, like, you know, in some ways, you know, you may be — she may be your challenger in a couple of years.
HUCKABEE: Well, she may be the person I get behind. You know, it may be a lot more fun to support somebody than it is to go out and be that person. It is a grueling, incredibly demanding schedule to run for president, and the risks are high. I love what I’m doing. I have no idea, my future, and you know, I’m not about to do anything other than right now, I hope Sarah Palin does extremely well because I think she’s an important voice for our party.
I want her to succeed, and I’m delighted to see her continuing to use her voice because I do think that she rallies people. She brought electricity to the Republican ticket last year, when, frankly, there was about as much excitement as you would see, you know, at a — at a Baptist dance, which means there wasn’t any, until she showed up for the ticket. And then there was fire going forth.
So she has a role to play. Whether she runs or not, she has an important voice, and I hope she remains — let me be real clear — a part of the Republican Party. I’m a little concerned when I hear her say that she may sort of branch out and go third party or go independent. That would be a big mistake because we need to rebuild the Republican Party, not abandon it.
Palin hasn’t so much as said she’d go third party, but there’s been whispers about it. Huckabee is right about the Palin excitement factor, and it’s why my gut says that if Palin runs, Huckabee doesn’t. We’re still talking about her resignation twelve days after the fact. Her op-eds are national news. There’s a buzz and excitement around Sarah that doesn’t seem to go away.
UPDATE
Huckabee isn’t the only one concernd about this:
On Monday, Rush Limbaugh similarly said of Palin, “I don’t know if she’s going to campaign for conservative Democrats but if she believes that conservatism is the way to go. The one thing that does slightly worry me about this is this whole third party business. Yeah, it’s remote but it’s still a possibility out there and there are a lot of people pushing a third party and that’s — third parties, they lose, they just lose.”
Rasmussen 2009 Virginia Governor Poll
- Bob McDonnell (R) 44%
- Creigh Deeds (D) 41%
This statewide telephone survey of 500 Likely Voters in Virginia was conducted by Rasmussen Reports July 14, 2009. The margin of sampling error for the survey is +/- 4.5 percentage points with a 95% level of confidence.
Inside the numbers:
A new Rasmussen Reports telephone survey of Virginia voters finds McDonnell leading Deeds 44% to 41%. Three percent (3%) prefer some other candidate, and 12% are undecided.
A month ago, just after Deeds beat two other gubernatorial candidates in the state Democratic Primary, he posted a six-point lead over McDonnell, 47% to 41%.
McDonnell has an 12-point lead among men. Deeds leads by five among female voters.
Eighty-five percent (85%) of Republicans now support McDonnell, who stepped down earlier this year as the state’s attorney general, while 79% of Democrats back Deeds, a state senator from Bath County.
Fifty percent (50%) of Virginia voters have a favorable view of McDonnell, with 25% whose opinion is very favorable. Twenty seven percent (27%) regard him unfavorably, including seven percent (7%) very unfavorable. Twenty-two percent (22%) don’t know enough abut McDonnell to venture an opinion of him.
Deeds is seen favorably by 49%, with 19% very favorable, and unfavorably by 35%, including 11% who have a very unfavorable view of him. Seventeen percent (17%) aren’t sure what they think of the Democrat.
McDonnell’s numbers are little changed from last month, but Deeds has suffered a 10-point drop in his favorables.
Random Thought: Would 2.5+ years of solid governance put McDonnell in the top tier of the 2012 GOP veep race (should he emerge victorious come November, of course)?
This is one of the most frightening reasons I did not vote for Barack Obama (though I couldn’t bring myself to vote for the other guy, either): his ideas on health care. And now the Democrats are set to ram healthcare reform through in the next three weeks before leaving for their regularly scheduled Congressional recess (and no, not the kind with monkey bars and merry-go-rounds, although that might do them some good).
It’s gearing up to be a pretty strict party-line vote, but since the Dems control both houses of Congress that’s all they need.
So here are the details of Barack’s master plan to make this world a better place, taken straight from the AP report. The plan:
That information right there ought to be enough to make anyone pause in trepidation. A massive new government program that will partially paid for by increasing costs to the very people – medical providers – that are supposed to provide the services. So while demand for medical services goes up, medical providers’ costs skyrocket and the cost of medical care goes up. That sounds like a great system.
Even better, let’s also make employers – people who give us jobs – pay for a huge part of the program, in the midst of a major recession when jobs are already tough to come by. Let’s increase employer costs at a time when more and more employers are losing money. And then let’s pretend also that those employers aren’t going to pass those increased costs on to the consumer in the form of raised prices for their goods and services. Right.
And about the “wealthy” that will help fund this: the headline is a “surcharge tax” we will now have on people making more than a million dollars – 5.4% to be exact, on top of the 35% income tax they already pay – but what that headline doesn’t tell you is the 5.4% is the point at which this new surcharge tax tops out. The tax is a gradual tax that actually begins with folks making $280,000.
All of that is scary enough. But then you start getting into the actual details of the plan and it gets worse. Again, these points are from AP reports, not from my personally biased opinions. Under the plan:
Additionally, in order to ensure that “affordable” health care is available, the government will step in acting as an insurance agent and offer their own plan – ostensibly to offer “competition” (to a market that is already flooded with literally hundreds of insurance companies).
All of this comes when, according to a survey done in June, 89% of Americans are satisfied with their healthcare – including 70% of those who don’t have any insurance coverage!
The end result of this is easy to see: the government, funded by money from healthcare providers, employers, the “wealthy”, and increased deficit spending, offers a healthcare plan cheaper than private insurance companies are able to. Meanwhile, quality of service goes down as cost of service and volume of those receiving service increases; employers shed more jobs or are hesitant to hire new employees because of the mandated insurance coverage and penalty fees; and ordinary citizens who can’t afford the “affordable” insurance are hit with a tax on top of it all.
One of the biggest issues with this “fix” is that ultimately, the way to solve the healthcare/insurance problem in this country is to get away from the notion that employers provide health insurance as a benefit to their employees. Health insurance needs to be portable, not job-related – just like car insurance, homeowners insurance, etc. However, Obama’s decree says employers must offer you insurance, and in return you must take that insurance (or the government’s alternative offer).
It’s no wonder 31 different organizations, including the Chamber of Commerce, the National Retail Federation, the National Association of Manufacturers, the National Federation of Independent Business, the Business Roundtable, and the National Association of Home Builders among others have signed a letter begging Obama and the Democrats not to pass this legislation.
They won’t listen, of course. Because providing us all with “affordable” healthcare is going to be their legacy. On the upside, all this “affordable” healthcare will only cost us is quality and speed of care, jobs, increased cost of goods and services, and more money out of our pockets for fees and taxes. Awesome.
Huckabee ally Bob Vander Plaats appears to be in the driver’s seat in this race:
The Iowa Republican 2010 GOP Gubernatorial Primary Poll
- Bob Vander Plaats 46%
- Don’t Know 27%
- Chris Rants 14%
- Neither/Other 5%
- Paul McKinley 3%
- Christian Fong 3%
- Rod Roberts 1%
- Refused 1%
- Jerry Behn 0.2%
Republican Primary Voters N=394 – Margin of Error ±5.0%
Inside the numbers:
Say what you will about Bob Vander Plaats, but his persistence has paid off. Vander Plaats is clearly the best known candidate in the GOP primary field. He has benefited greatly from his multiple campaigns for the Republican nomination. He also benefits from his association with former Arkansas Governor Mike Huckabee, but nothing has helped Vander Plaats more in his current bid for the Republican nomination that being Jim Nussle’s running mate in 2006. Having been on the general election ballot is an advantage no other candidate in this race has, and it’s catapulted him to the top of the list.
The Iowa Republican will be releasing the results of their general election poll tomorrow, so we will see how well Vander Plaats and Rants do in a potential match-up with sitting governor Chet Culver. It would not be surprising to both Vander Plaats and Rants fair well considering the effect that the current economic crisis has had on Culver’s approval ratings.
The impact of next year’s governors race in Iowa to the 2012 Republican nomination race are rather significant. Having one of his closest allies residing in Iowa’s governor’s mansion come 2012 will be quite the boon to Mike Huckabee’s presidential campaign, especially if he has to fend off a challenge from Sarah Palin.
Supreme Court nominee flees from President Obama’s “empathy” standard and her own record
What if John Roberts had declared in his nomination hearing for Chief Justice of the United States that rather than being an umpire-like judge calling balls and strikes, he intended pitch? Does anyone believe that President George W. Bush wouldn’t have immediately withdrawn the apostate before the Senate consented to appoint him the starter on opening day?
Obama’s Gold Standard for Judging: Empathy
Long time constitutional law professor, Barack Obama declared, on the occasion of his announcement of Sonia Sotomayor’s nomination, and many times over a long period of time that the most important qualification for a judge is that they have sufficient “empathy” for the poor and minorities and that a judge must follow what is “in their heart” when the law and the facts don’t lead them to a just result.
Judge Sotomayor herself has, variously and over the past 20 years, expressed similar views:
“I am willing to accept that we who judge must not deny differences resulting from experiences and heritage, but attempt, as the Supreme Court suggests, continuously to judge when those opinions, sympathies and prejudices are appropriate.”
Yet, in response to questioning from Senator Jon Kyle (R-AZ), she denied believing her own words:
No, sir. That’s — I don’t — I wouldn’t approach the issue of judging in the way the president does. He has to explain what he meant by judging.
Sotomayor was standing less than three feet away from the President (pictured above) when he declared she was most qualified to be his chief empathizer on the nation’s highest court. She appears not to be hearing-challenged. She had expressed similar views on empathy in the past.
Why the denial at the nomination hearing of her previously expressed views? And why not a peep from the Nominator-in-Chief?
I would hope that the Steelers would beat the Gators
On at least seven occasions, Judge Sotomayor stated the following or words of a similar construction:
I would hope that a wise Latina woman with the richness of her experiences would more often than not reach a better conclusion than a white male who hasn’t lived that life.
I am unaware of any non-castrated former white males that have lived the life of a woman. Not sure what form of Michael Jackson-like skin treatment could also infuse Latino ethnicity. But I do know a lot of wise Caucasians, Blacks, Asians and male Latinos with rich experiences.
The Democratic chairman of the committee, Patrick Leahy (D-VT) when asked on Sunday about the nominee’s “wise Latina” remark, expressed his hope that Republicans judge Sotomayor on what is said in the hearings. Now we know why.
Apparently we can only know what the words of liberal Democrats mean when they are under Oath in judicial nomination hearing, as yesterday, under relentless questioning from the Ranking Member of the Senator Jeff Sessions (R-AL), Sonia finally succumbed:
It was bad, because it left an impression that I believed that life experiences commanded a result in a case, but that’s clearly not what I do as a judge. It’s clearly not what I intended in the context of my broader speech, which was attempting to inspire young Hispanic, Latino students and lawyers to believe that their life experiences added value to the process.
I suspect that the white supremacists of past centuries also used such views to inspire their youth.
Fund-raising Puerto Rican PAC Board membership as slavery
The resume of the Second Circuit Court of Appeals Judge is filled with references to her memberships in numerous womens’ and Hispanic organizations, with none more prominent than the Puerto Rican Legal Defense Fund (PRLDF). The nominee was extensively questioned about her participation in the political action committee. An excerpt:
GRAHAM: OK. Are you familiar with the position that the fund took regarding taxpayer-funded abortion? The briefs they filed?
SOTOMAYOR: No, I never reviewed those briefs.
GRAHAM: Well, in their briefs, they argued, and I will submit the quotes to you, that if you deny a low-income woman Medicaid funding, taxpayer funds, to have an abortion, if you deny her that, that’s a form of slavery. And I can get the quotes. Do you agree with that?
SOTOMAYOR: I wasn’t aware of what was said in those briefs. Perhaps it might be helpful if I explained what the function of a board member is and what the function of the staff would be in an organization like the fund.
Senator Lindsey Graham (R-SC) repeatedly tried to get Sotomayor to express her opinion on the PRLDF’s exoansive definition of slavery, but all we “learned” was that this Wise Latina spent years raising money for an organization she knew next to nothing about.
Senator Leahy, other Democrat Senators and Sotomayor herself, when confronted with such extreme past statements and associations, repeatedly resort to directing sceptics to her record as an Appeals Court judge. But Appeals Court judges are bound by precedents of the Court on which she aspires to serve. That court is bound by no higher power save the Oath they take to uphold the Constitution and service during “good behavior.”
Sadly, Congresses have either approved of bad behavior or considered gross violations of the Oath to be good behavior, as it hasn’t impeached a judge for calling white, black based on a living Constitution judicial philosophy for over 200 years. So, if she can get four other justices to agree on the PRLDF’s definition of slavery, then it will be the law.
Accurate Quotations of Democrats as Defamation
So, what are we to believe, the plain and obvious meaning of Sotomayor’s statements, associations and record of the past twenty years or her characterizations of same over the past twenty hours of testimony?
The Democrats would have us apply the same standard we applied to the 20-year pew-parked butt in Reverend Wright’s Hate G-D America Church friend of unrepentant terrorist Bill Ayers. They would have us again be hear no evil, see no evil monkeys.
Judge Sotomayor has remained as coldly calm during her cross-examinations as her Empathy for Black Panther voter intimidators President. Earlier we rhetorically asked if a President Bush wedded to judges as umpires only would let a nomination go forward if that nominee renounced umpiring. And of course he would not.
So, why doesn’t President Obama withdraw his supposed un-empathetic apostate? The answer is obvious. The typical liberal game that cries libel and slander when their obvious views are recited back to them.
They wink at each other knowing they have to obfuscate their views to pass muster when in the glare of public examination lest they ignite a firestorm across the Fruited Plain.
Their radical liberal views can’t stand the light of day, so they turn down the lights….and lie, and lie and lie.
Judge Sotomayor aka Toto-deny-or of her past, now plays Robert Bork, Clarence Thomas and John Roberts in an effort to wink her way to the bench.
But given her embarrassing deconstructions at the hands of relentless white male Senators I would not be surprised to see them in 2010 and 2012 campaign ads when Democrats, partially as a result of these hearings, are denied the opportunity to appoint more Toto-deny-ors that could define away more of their Liberty by calling it slavery.
_____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
Mike DeVine’s Charlotte Observer, Examiner.com and Minority Report columns
“One man with courage makes a majority.” – Andrew Jackson
Originally published @ Examiner.com, where all verification links may be accessed.
In a bid to show why Sen McCain made her his second choice for VP (hint: it wasn’t for her looks, and it wasn’t primarily because she is female), Gov Palin vows to stump for conservative Democrats. This is exactly the kind of mindset Sen McCain would have, as it’s an attempt to transcend partisanship for the sake of her political beliefs. The problem is, while the sentiment is nice, it’s self-defeating in today’s system.
Let me explain. While individual members of each party may be conservative or liberal, the leadership of the Democrats is liberal and the leadership of the Republicans is (kind of) conservative. This is important because the leadership sets the agenda of what will be debated and voted on. If the leadership won’t bring it to the floor, it’s never going to even be discussed. Thus, if you care about the conservative agenda having a chance to be enacted, under the current system, you HAVE to support, at a minimum, Republicans gaining enough seats to be in charge. As things stand, it will take a monumental effort to get that to happen. Supporting even conservative Dems defeats that purpose, unless they are willing to vote for a Rep as Speaker. Thus, I’m much more willing to support a moderate to liberal Rep than a moderate to conservative Dem (at least in this election).
Supporting Democrats, even conservative ones, hurts the conservative movement. Gov Palin is flat-out wrong to talk of supporting them. It’s moves like these that ticked off the base at Sen McCain, and if Gov Palin isn’t careful, it will do the same to her.
Governor Huckabee recently suggested that Japan’s only military defense capability to repell a North Korean attack, was for Japan to; “toss sushi at them”. This statement was not necessarily true. In fact, the Japanese boast one of the largest and most advanced navies in the world, an army of almost 150,000 personnel and an air force equipped with the most advanced 4th generation fighters and transport aircraft.
In direct comparison to NATO forces, Japan has one of the most technologically savvy military forces in the world, but they lack many offensive armaments to destroy North Korean targets. For deterrence, Japan continues to rely on the umbrella provided by US military strike capability from sea, land and air. Unfortunately for Japan, the US is busy fighting two conventional wars and recently elected a President that seems unwilling to protect American and Japanese interest in East Asia.
The Japanese military has been acquiring manufacturing licenses to build US equipment for nearly three decades. F-4′s, F-15′s, F-16′s (F-2), AH-1′s, Ch-47′s and UH-60′s are some of US military armament found in the JSDF, most of which are equipped with the most advanced Japanese avionics. Aside from a hand-full of Mig-29′s, the Korean People’s Air force (North Korean Air Force) remains at a significant technological and performance disadvantage against the Japan Air Self-Defense Force. The North Korean regime has attempted to compensate for this disadvantage by building up a numerical superiority to the Japanese, but the lack of sophisticated and modern training methods, poor manufacturing quality and a short supply of parts and fuel has left the NorthKorean Air Force incapable of sustaining a lengthy air campaign against Japan and South Korea.
Even with this air superiority, the JSDF lacks sufficient air to ground capability to eliminate North Korean missile silos and radar installations. In their inventory, the JSDF possesses one 3rd and one 4th generation ASM missile designed for ship-born operations, but Japan’s political leadership has refused to modify their 60 year policy of not developing and acquiring ASM armaments for land-based targets. This strategic error has left the Japanese government with only one solution to deter the nuclear threat from North Korean. Develop their own nuclear arsenal and warhead delivery capabilities.
Many liberal foreign policy experts and former State department officials such as Nicholas Burns and Bill Richardson, have suggested that the threat of a Japanese nuclear weapons program will force the Chinese and Russians to finally deal with the North Korean nuclear threat, but they have made these assumptions based on non-interventionist theory rather than on any practical evidence. They fail to understand that Beijing and Moscow do not want an peaceful and democratic North Korea. The prospect of a border nation, economically and politically imploding, threatens their own national security. These two world powers would face an influx of millions of refugees to their cities and towns located in the Korean peninsula.
These liberal experts and State department officials were incorrect when they believed the oil for disarmament program would succeed and the six-party talks would lead to a more peaceful region. These failures have left the Japanese with no other choice but to consider a nuclear alternative to protect their geographic and economic interests. Do not expect this to resolve the crisis, but instead to inflame the tension and anxiety in the region and push the communist north to accelerate their WMD programs, cyber terrorism and threats of wars.
What the Chinese and Russian governments understand, yet many current and former State department officials mislead the American public on, is that Japan is already considered a para-nuclear State. The Japanese possess a massive stockpile of reprocessed plutonium from its domestic nuclear power program. Unlike the Iranians, Pakistanis and North Koreans, Japan can initiate a weapons programs and produce its first bomb before the IAEA, Chinese intelligence and media discover the change in defense policy.
With the lack of interest in Korean affairs displayed by President Obama and with the failure of successive administrations to put an end to the North Korean nuclear weapons and LRM programs, one might wonder if the Japanese are reconsidering their policy. One might also wonder if they have not already made the decision to start the program.
What we do not know, is the impact of the legacy of Hiroshima and Nagasaki on the Japanese government and its people, as they face this crisis? Does the impending threat of a nuclear launch capable North Korea and a US policy of inaction make the Japanese more likely to enter the MAD (mutual assured destruction) tango, or will they continue oppose the expansion of nuclear armed countries?
I could you tell you that only time will tell, but it appears as if time has run out for our Japanese friends.
Kristofer Lorelli can be contacted at lorville@rogers.com, on Facebook and twitter/Kris_Lorelli.
Bob Shrum, the man known for the failed presidential campaigns of Dick Gephardt, Mike Dukakis, John Kerry, and Bob Kerrey, has written a really, really bad article saying that Mitt Romney, not Sarah Palin, will be the Republican nominee in 2012 because the Republicans like to nominate the “next in line.”
And even if she somehow raised the money, Palin would be stymied by another obstacle. Republicans nominate by primogeniture; they pick the next person in line. So it was with Nixon in 1968, and later Reagan. So it was with both Bushes, and with Bob Dole in between. So it was with John McCain. They were each front-runners who were supposed to get the nod. Despite perilous moments in their primary campaigns—and a virtual collapse in McCain’s case—they all eventually did. In presidential politics, Republicans are an orderly party; they’re unlikely ever to be comfortable with the spontaneous, erratic performance of Sarah Palin.
They also have a nominee-in-waiting—Mitt Romney…
I strongly favor her nomination. But she’s not next in the Republican order, and she lacks the skill or discipline required to cut in line.
Ugh.
I’m getting really tired of beating down this myth. Let me pull up a past piece of mine:
George H.W. Bush didn’t win the nomination because he came in second in the 1980 primaries. He won the nomination because he was Ronald Reagan’s vice-president. Period. Without Reagan’s legacy, it’s doubtful that he would have walked into the nomination as smoothly as he did.
Bob Dole is the exception that proves the rule. He came in second in the last set of contested primaries, but using the 1976 Reagan-as-heir-apparent line of thinking, why didn’t Pat Buchanan win the nomination in 1996, given that he ran against Bush in 1992 and mounted a credible campaign in 1996? [There's a way around this, but] if it’s the last set of contested primaries — that is, no incumbent — that counts, then why is Reagan’s 1976 run counted?
What was George W. Bush? How, exactly, was he the candidate “next in line”? Hell, why wasn’t Pat Buchanan the next in line? He clearly came in 2nd in 1996. What about Jack Kemp? Could Jack Kemp have won the nomination if he ran? Of course not. Give me a break. Being the son of a former president does not make you the next in line. If so, is Jeb Bush the next in line, then? Do elected family members of former presidents trump former primary winners?
John McCain’s primary trimuph was by no means inevitable. A few thousand votes the other way in New Hampshire or South Carolina and John McCain would have been eliminated. He walked a tightrope to the nomination. Nobody “fell in line” behind John McCain. He never even won a majority of the votes before Super Tuesday. One different move by Mitt Romney or Mike Huckabee along the way and McCain could have been denied the nomination. What if McCain had lost South Carolina, perhaps leading to Charlie Crist and Mel Martinez endorsing Rudy Giuliani? What if Mitt Romney had won New Hampshire, leading to a Michigan blowout and a siphoning of votes from McCain in South Carolina, snowballing into a Florida win? To speak of McCain’s win as inevitable is history being rewritten under our noses.
This is just another case of people trying to find a straight line where there are only curves and loops.
So please: stop trying to square the circle of this next-in-line myth. It just doesn’t fit the facts.
Alex Knepper can be contacted at apkkib@aol.com.
