Public Policy Polling Texas 2012 Republican Primary Poll
- Mike Huckabee 25% (20%) {19%} [22%] (29%)
- Sarah Palin 21% (22%) {19%} [17%] (23%)
- Newt Gingrich 17% (15%) {23%} [25%]
- Mitt Romney 10% (15%) {17%} [18%] (32%)
- Ron Paul 9% {8%} [8%]
- Tim Pawlenty 5% (3%)
- Mitch Daniels 3% (2%)
- Someone else/Undecided 8% (20%)
Leave it to the Obama administration to begin the final destruction of the English language. The State Department just announced that starting next month passports for children will no longer ask for the name of the mother and father. No, the form wants the name of “parent one” and “parent two”. It is got to be gender neutral just to be fair to all those non-gendered parents.
The Dr Seuss creation Cat in the Hat pulled out of his box two less mischievous, but two indistinguishable little brats called “Thing One” and “Thing Two”. Coincidentally, these two genderless creatures also took on a mission to utterly destroy the family dwelling of two little children, Sally and me. At least Seuss had the sense to call the woman heading home (from shopping? Gasp!) “mother”.
The Dog in the Blog
No son or daughter, sister, brother
Grandpa, Grandma, dad nor mother.
No one here can rule the house
Parent One nor Two, its spouse
Our Parents gave us tots no aunts
For all their siblings wear the pants.
My sibling’s kids are all obese,
But none of them is named DeNiece.
Are you my daddy? I asked my father
He said be quiet and not to bother
Are you my mother? I asked my mama
Shut up kid, go ask Obama.
Original Poem by David Shedlock (copyright 2011)
You have probably noticed the considerable lag time and 500 Internal Server errors which have plagued the site over the past 3 days or so. I have filed numerous tickets and made calls to the site host, Media Temple (www.mediatemple.net). I have been told everything from the site being configured incorrectly, to a hacker accessing the Admin Panel via the comments, to that the site is working perfectly and that the problem is with my Internet Service Provider! They are basically telling me to go jump in a lake now, after being a faithful customer of their for 3+ years.
This is requiring me to ask for the help of anyone who knows anything about WordPress to help keep Race42012.com up and running. We are reaching a critical juncture in even keeping the site online anymore.
So please, if anyone knows anyone who can help out a fellow grassroots conservative who is working his tail off to fight the good fight, please have them email me at kavon_w_nikrad@yahoo.com as soon as you can. Any help would be greatly appreciated. Thank you for your time.
Sincerely,
Kavon W. Nikrad
I’m not making any predictions at this early date for the Republican contest for the 2012 presidential nomination, nor for the final contest itself, but I have some intuitions about these events, and I’ll share a few of them with you.
In spite of heavy precedents, I suspect that the GOP nominee may not be any of the current frontrunners, including Mr. Romney, Mr. Huckabee and Mrs. Palin. All three of them have high name recognition, organizations in place, and good early poll numbers, but only Mrs. Palin is strongly associated with the powerful new issues and conservative groups that have emerged in the Republican party, and continue to be energized. Mrs. Palin, however, is the least likely (at this moment) to run for president, having alienated many outside her own base.
Let me state here that the recent internal revolt in the conservative party is now nearly complete. The so-called “moderate” GOP wing which emerged in the 1960’s is almost totally local, limited to the Northeast, West Coast, a few parts of the Midwest and fewer parts of the South. In these places a few liberal Republicans hold on, thanks to local voters who continue to disdain Democrats, but who want a more socially progressive program, and some continued forms of the welfare state. Prominent U.S. senators in this group include Olympia Snowe and Susan Collins of Maine, Scott Brown of Massachusetts, and Richard Lugar of Indiana. Departing by retirement or defeat in 2008 were Arlen Spector of Pennsylvania (who formally changed his party affiliation in a desperate and unsuccessful attempt to win re-election), Kit Bond of Missouri and George Voinovich of Ohio. Lisa Murkowski of Alaska barely survived 2010 after being challenged from the right.
The old image of the Republican Party as the party of big businesses and the plutocrats who run them has been replaced with the reality that the GOP is now a blue collar and small business party. Look at the donor lists. The millionaires and billionaires, the establishment social groups and religions are now mostly liberal and support the Democrats.
Both parties have over the past two decades become more rigid on opposite sides of the social issues of abortion, marriage, gays in the military, immigration and education. Conservative or “Blue Dog” Democrats, once relatively plentiful across the nation, have themselves become a rare breed, with fewer and fewer holding office in the Congress. In the past 48 hours, two such Democrats, Kent Conrad of North Dakota and Joe Lieberman (technically now an Independent, but he votes to organize with the Democrats) have announced very early they will not run in 2012. In 2010, Blanche Lincoln of Arkansas was defeated for re-election; Evan Bayh retired rather than run. In 2012, the two Senators Nelson (one from Florida, the other from Nebraska), both moderates, face likely defeat.
The marginalization of moderates in both parties has intensified since Barack Obama has become president with control of both houses of Congress. The voters themselves overall remain in the political center, but with the passage of Obamacare and the proposal of more radical legislation, and importantly, with the continued economic downturn and accompanying high unemployment, voters increasingly could not find effective representation for their views through their own elected officials, and thus the election of 2010 took such a dramatic turn. (The explanation that the party in power traditionally loses seats in a mid-term election fails to make the case for the severe turnover in 2010.) Ironically but
understandably, moderates or “Blue Dog” Democrats took it on the political chin this year, having failed to stem the radical administration/congressional leadership agenda.
They were replaced with conservative Republicans who, if anything, have a clear mandate to begin to repeal Obamacare, and to thwart the Obama/Pelosi/Reid agenda. With a GOP-controlled U.S. house, and a cloture-proof U.S. senate, President Obama and his colleague now have to find new strategies to pass or advance their liberal program. By calling for “bipartisanship,” “compromise,” calmer rhetoric, and empty gimmicks such as both Democrats and Republicans sitting together at the state of the Union address, Democrats are attempting to find some leverage, but conservatives would be self-defeating to fall for these “appearances.” Similarly, many Democrats are suggesting that the Republicans now “must govern” after their 2010 victories. This is absurd on its face inasmuch as the liberals continue to hold the White House and control the U.S. senate. But Republicans need to now present an alternative national vision.
With control of the U.S. house, Speaker John Boehner and his GOP colleagues need to now fulfill their campaign pledges to the voters who gave them their majority.
The implications for the presidential race, I suggest, are equally critical. Mitt Romney and Mike Huckabee have excellent credentials, good track records, and in the case of Mr Huckabee, no little charm and communication skills. But neither of them were really part of the conservative insurrection of 2010, and Mr. Romney has the additional disadvantage of being known, when he was governor of Massachusetts. as the originator of a statewide healthcare reform which has some resemblances to Obamacare. In fact, there are signficant differences between Romneycare and Obamacare, and it is unfair to Mr. Romney to suggest otherwise, and yet he has not forcefully made the case about this for himself. Eminently qualified to be president, Mr. Romney also was the also-ran in 2008, and suffers from an image of being part of the GOP past. Mr. Huckabee, now with his own national TV show, and also a major candidate in 2008, suffers from his associations with the social conservative movement at a time when the real momentum is with the economic conservative movement.
I am not saying that Mr. Romney, Mr. Huckabee, and Mrs. Palin cannot be nominated, but for reasons cited and others, I don’t think they will likely emerge from the primary/caucus system ahead. Certainly, virtually all Republicans know who they are, and that may be a critical part of their electoral problem.
I am, however, taking a new look at the other candidates who, with the exception of Newt Gingrich, are generally unknown to conservative voters. Gingrich himself, it has been argued, is too well-known by Republicans to be nominated, and that may be true, but someone like Mr. Gingrich, with his extraordinary domination of most conservative issues, can easily be underestimated because of his so-called “baggage” in a presidential election year which this far out, seems quite possibly to see more economic and foreign policy crises.
Mr. Mitch Daniels and Mr. Tim Pawlenty, unknown to national voters, but with very solid records as recent governors behind them, might be able to take up the mantle of the voters’ needs and concerns next year. American voters have shown some partiality in recent decades to successful governors.
The whole field presents a complicated picture in January, 2011. Unlike 2007, no GOP hopeful is rushing into the contest. House Republicans could flub their opportunity, and take the wind out of the GOP momentum. The economy could recover, and unemployment could fall noticeably. Mr. Obama could finally have some foreign policy successes. So much could happen, and without knowing what it will be, much in fact will happen. Iowa, which usually is not as important as New Hampshire, could jump start one candidate. South Carolina could once again be a turning point. Prospects in such key states as Florida, North Carolina, Pennsylvania, Ohio, Indiana, Michigan and Wisconsin could make traditional electoral strategies moribund.
Precedents are important and useful, but a presidential election such as this one upcoming in 2012 could defy the old precedents, and produce some new ones.
__________________________________________________________
-Please visit Mr. Cassleman’s personal site, The Prairie Editor .
-Did I miss an article? Broken Link? If so, please email me at kavon_w_nikrad@yahoo.com.
Per the New York Times, Sen. Joe Lieberman will not seek a fifth term in 2012. Stay tuned…
Pay No Attention to That Abortionist Behind the Screen
My dear friend Jan Mickelson(1) at WHO-Radio has virtually thrown in the towel in the public fight against the murder of unborn children. This was illustrated in his call-in show on Friday. He chose as a topic of conversation the lawsuit against Planned Parenthood of Midland for the unlawful distribution of the abortifacient morning-after pill. But he made it clear that he didn’t want to talk about what the pill actually did (intentionally kill human beings), but he wanted rather to talk about the method of distribution as an illustration of the wonders of modern medicine.
“The Iowa Medical Board, the regulators, The Iowa Board of Medicine decided they’re not going to go after Planned Parenthood. Planned Parenthood has this really unusual way to deliver – this is not a story – I’m not starting this story to talk about abortion. We could do that endlessly. This is a story about the delivery of medical services”
Audio Clip of Jan’s Introduction of Topic
One obnoxious caller(2) tried to engage Jan about the issue to no avail:
Pay no attention to that caller….
Let’s go back to the year 1940. The location, WHG-Radio, Germany. Suppose a broadcaster had the opportunity to remind the world of the atrocities being committed against Jews. Let the talk show host explain:
We are not going to talk about the Jewish Problem. Today, the discussion is about the fascinating remote-controlled, combination gas chamber-high intensity ovens that create optimum output at a lower cost to the Nazis, as well enhance safety for those working in this area of medicine. The machines automatically extract gold fillings and also create fine quality lampshades, to boot. Please focus your comments on the technology and the economics, folks, we’re not here to pontificate about the Jews. That is so passé.
Jan’s argument is that abortion has been talked to death. (If I were a Charismatic I’d jump in here to suggest we talk it to life, but alas…). As a strategy, Jan believes that we have lost the battle and we are wasting our time. There is nothing new to be said. On one hand, perhaps he is right. It could be that no amount of talking is going to change things. But talk show hosts, Republican political talking heads, and the conservative pundit class have continued to talk, talk, talk, about high taxation, government intrusion on liberties, and unconstitutional spending for years as the debt continues to get higher and higher and higher. But it appears, we continue to be more concerned with our own wallets than the slaughter of unborn children. Shame on us all.
After a 35-year battle to speak up for life, some are ready to surrender, unless it can be used as a fundraiser or a way to get votes. Take for example the absurd fight over “partial-birth abortion” pro-life pundits and politicians have been waging for years. What a waste of energy, time and money! This crime was graphically presented as plunging scissors in the back of the skull of a viable baby who was about to be born. But not a single life has been, or ever will be, saved by banning this exceedingly rare practice. Even if the ban were successful, blood-thirsty physicians would simply use a variation of killing different enough to skirt the law. The effort was the equivalent of creating a law that banned murder by driving into a swimming pool with children strapped in the backseat (while specifically allowing all other kinds of murder, including driving into ponds and lakes with children strapped in the backseat).
Why was it such a big deal, then? The falderal provided a pretext for politicians who would not lift one finger to save a single child’s life to call themselves “pro-life.” They could shed some tears and even show some outrage.
It appears many pundits and politicians don’t want to talk about social issues. Glenn Beck thinks we should stop talking about it. Haley Barbour doesn’t want to waste energy on these topics either: “you are using up valuable time and resources that can be used to talk to people about what they care about.” Perhaps Mike Huckabee understands better than most the relationship between social issues and the economy. Shane Vander Hart summarized Huckabee’s views when he was in Des Moines, Iowa in December:
Social issues he notes also impacts the economic issues… talking about the Dad deficits – it impacts how much is spent propping up families, we see an increase in our juvenile system. The family, Governor Huckabee said, if its sanctity is not protected he said it won’t matter how much we change the tax code. It sparks the culture of entitlement, Huckabee said we’ll end up with a “generation of spoiled brats.”
All the presidential candidates for 2012 ran and hid from the debate on Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell. Will the same retreat and surrender “tactic” be used by them on gay “marriage?” Will they be intimidated by loud and obnoxious voices from the libertine wing of the Republican Party who want not only to win the issue but stifle all debate? Or will the dangling of a few carrots, like Memberships to Club PC(3), be sufficient to keep us quiet?
For sure, some of the candidates may try to differentiate themselves on some minutia on the issue, but will any viable candidate risk votes and take a clear, unequivocal stand for the God-ordained institution of marriage? Or will they continue to close every speech with “God bless you, and God bless America” while ignoring the same Creator who gave us the unalienable rights to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.
(1) This is not the insincere courtesy title given a colleague on the Senate floor. Jan and I go back 20+ years and I consider him to be a fine Christian and outstanding citizen with intelligence and knowledge vastly superior to my own. We just disagree on this one (and perhaps a few hundred) other issues.
(2) That would be me.
(3) Politically Correct
Cross-Posted at Caffeinated Thoughts
The surprising announcement of Senator Kent Conrad’s retirement is likely to set off one of the most mad scrambles in North Dakota Republican political history. Ironically, such a scramble in 2012 was already seen as a real possibility, but on the gubernatorial side of things. Fortunately, one of the things I want to do here at Race 4 2012 is assess the down-ballot races in 2012; house, senate and gubernatorial. Without further ado, then, here’s my assessment of the state of play in North Dakota politics.
There are three gentleman worth watching, in the next few weeks, whose actions will probably determine the state of play in North Dakota’s house, senate and gubernatorial elections. These three key players are: Jack Dalrymple, the acting governor, expected to run for election in his own right, Wayne Stenehjem, the very popular Attorney General and brother of state senate majority leader Bob Stenehjem, and Rick Berg, North Dakota’s newly-elected congressman, but a long-term player in North Dakota politics before that. In my opinion, any of these three men–to varying degrees–could have field-clearing capability if they jumped into the race. Ironically, Dalrymple is probably least likely to have the field cleared for him; there are rumors that he has had some tension with tea party elements. Berg, on the other hand, could probably clear the field, and win the race, if he wanted it. However, he may want to stay in his house seat for a while. In my opinion, Stenehjem is the most likely to make the race. This would mean Dalrymple would probably run for reelection. Stenehjem would be a formidable figure; he won his last two elections with Hoevenesque numbers, and should he jump into the race, Earl Pomeroy would almost certainly think twice before running against him.
These big three are, of course, not the only players. The first announced candidate is state public services commissioner Brian Kalk. Kalk is pretty young, and elements within North Dakota Republican circles are apparently not impressed with his attempt at field-clearing. But Kalk, with an agriculture PHD, is probably not a candidate who can be taken for granted in this farm state. Rumors have also already begun to swirl around North Dakota party chair Gary Emineth. Emineth definitely has the desire for a higher profile; he briefly toyed with running for RNC chair, but ultimately opted against it. Emineth has been one of the figures most openly dismissive of Kalk’s attempt to clear the field by announcing early.
There are three other potentials I can think of off the top of my head. One is newly-appointed Lieutenant Governor and former US attorney Drew Wrigley. He’s another youngish candidate, with deep connections in the party, but if Dalrymple runs for reelection, as seems likely, he may want to keep Wrigley on the ticket. Another is public service commissioner Kevin Kramer, who most recently lost a primary to Rick Berg for the at-large house seat. Finally, there is nuclear engineer, military veteran, repeat candidate and self-proclaimed tea party activist Duane Sand. Sand has had the misfortune of running against popular Democratic incumbents in good years for the Democratic party, and he may get into the race as the tea party candidate.
On the Democratic side of things, there are really only three credible statewide candidates. In descending order of viability, they are: former congressman Earl Pomeroy, ex-attorney-General Heidi Heitkamp, and 2010 senate nominee and state senator Tracy Potter. Any one of these candidates would have a tough uphill climb in North Dakota, particularly with President Obama at the top of the ticket and a very likely Republican triumph in the gubernatorial election.
Clearly, there are a plethora of potential candidates, and with John Hoeven gone, every ambitious politician in North Dakota is probably going to be interested in the race. Stay tuned to this one; while the likely scrum for Kay Bailey Hutchison’s seat will probably garner the majority of open seat primary attention, this one also has the possibility of being a genuine wild ride.
Imagine this candidate for a moment. He has two terms as Vice President under his belt. He spent five years as CEO of a Fortune 500 company. He served as Secretary of Defense for 4 years under a previous President and 2 years as White House Chief of Staff under yet another. In between, he served in the House of Representatives for 10 years. Now, this man supports same-sex marriage – in practice, if not always in name. He’s a foreign policy hawk and a staunch fiscal conservative. Is this a real person? Why yes, yes it is. Well then, you may ask, who is this man and why aren’t we trying to draft him for President in 2012?
That’s the biography of Dick Cheney. He’ll be 71 in 2012. Just putting it out there.
_______________________________________________________
-Matt Newman is a conservative blogger from Maryland who blogs Old Line Elephant and Tweets far too often.
Chris Cillizza reports that North Dakota Senator Kent Conrad will announce that he will not seek reelection today:
North Dakota Democratic Sen. Kent Conrad plans to announce his retirement today, according to two informed Democratic sources, creating a potentially prime pickup opportunity for Republicans in a GOP-leaning state.
Conrad, who currently chairs the Senate Budget Committee, has been in office since 1986 and risen to become one of the most influential — and intellectual — policy makers operating in the nation’s capital.
Conrad had been open about his ambivalence about running for another term and those doubts almost certainly increased following a 2010 election that decimated the Democratic party.
Read the rest here.
A new poll from CBS News seems to paint a contradictory portrait of the American people on the issue of spending. On one hand, 77% of the American people want to cut spending. However, most couldn’t offer a government program they would like to see cut. On the bright side, when asked about specifics, nearly three fifths of the American people were ready to see funding for projects in their districts (58%) and a majority were ready to cut farm subsidies (55%) and defense (52%).
Unfortunately, most other general ideas for cuts were opposed, including those necessary to bring the budget into balance such as cutting Health and Education spending (67%) or raising the retirement age for full social security benefits (54%).
How can congress hope to make necessary cuts without the support of the American people?
The key is to remember that we have a representative republic, not a direct democracy. We vote for members of Congress, not a set of positions. The American people, in general, don’t have the time to study all the issues that must be decided before Congress in depth and in context. Our Constitution leaves citizens free to go about their lives and business while the heavy lifting is left to Congress.
In the past, Congress has punted on making the hard decisions, using deficits to keep social programs running without raising taxes. That’s not an option anymore, Congress must make the hard choices.
Scott Rasmussen sums up what is quickly becoming the conventional wisdom on the Right — that the keys to Republican electoral success lie not in appealing to non-traditional GOP voting blocs like Hispanics, but can instead be found in yet another generation of Phil Gramm Democrats just waiting for their own Ronald Reagan:
“Republicans think they had a significant win in 2010,” he said. “White working class Democrats voted Republican in 2010 elections.”
That would be all well and good if it were true. But exit polls suggest that Rasmussen, like so many others, is buying into a false narrative. “White working class Democrats” did not vote Republican this year in any greater numbers than they voted Republican in the last few election cycles. The big shift in 2010 took place among Independents. These Independents who shifted may have largely been older, white, lower middle income voters, but the fact remains that whatever the demographic composition of these voters, Democrats they were not.
The proof is in the exit polls of close, high profile statewide races. In Pennsylvania, once the buckle of the Reagan Democrat filled Rust Belt, 90 percent of Democrats voted for Sestak in the Senate race, while 92 percent of Republicans voted for Toomey. The key to Toomey’s victory was his 55-45 percent win among Independents. In Colorado, another close Senate race saw 94 percent of Democrats selecting Sen. Bennet. Ken Buck almost won that race, however, by winning 53 percent of Independents. Meanwhile, in Wisconsin, Russ Feingold got 92 percent of the Democratic vote. Unfortunately for Feingold, the recently seated Sen. Johnson received 56 percent of the Independent vote.
Why does it matter whether Democrats or Independents provided the margin of victory for these GOP candidates? Because the narrative that is being developed has the potential to cause a sort of GOP gold rush for votes in places where Republicans have probably maxed out among persuadables. There is a certain group of Republican strategists — the kind of people who ran the Dole ’96 campaign, for example — who are essentially “Back to the Future” Republicans. During every election cycle, they pop up and suggest that we’ve been transported back to the 1980s, the GOP nominee is “just like Reagan,” and that the traditional Republican playbook is all that is needed for victory. These folks will be natural suckers for the promise of a new generation of Phil Gramm Democrats, who won’t require any creative policies or unconventional outreach.
In fact, as recently as 2008, there were plenty of Republicans — and I was often one of them — banking on the Democrats who voted for Hillary in the primary season defecting to McCain in the general election. Of course, that never happened, as Obama won the Joe Six-pack states of Ohio and Pennsylvania, doing far better in these states than “traditional” Democrat John Kerry did just four years earlier. Those of us betting on the revolt of the working class Democrats failed to recognize the similarities between the actual policies being proposed by Hillary and Obama during 2008′s myriad of dull Democratic debates. The difference between the two was primarily in tone and style. She was tough, experienced, and patriotic, while he was professorial, flashy, and patronizing. The notion that Hillary’s supporters within the Democratic Party were conservatives was a pipe dream. They were largely moderate liberals who were still closer to Obama than to any Republican on the policy spectrum.
But wait. What did happen to those original Reagan Democrats, the white ethnics in the Rust Belt who self-identified as “JFK Democrats” even though they hadn’t voted Democratic since the 1960s? The polls seem to suggest they don’t exist anymore, and I suspect that’s largely because most are no longer Democrats. They’ve either become Republicans or are now affiliated with neither party. It’s important to remember that social pressures for certain demographic groups to join the Democratic Party no longer exist. At one time in this country, to be a white ethnic was to be a Democrat. To be a working stiff was to be a Democrat. To be a Catholic was to be a Democrat. In almost all of those cases, there is no longer any “tribal” rationale for these voters to self-identify as Democrats, especially given the decreasing importance of private employees’ unions, the assimilation of white ethnics into the broader population, and the re-organization of the parties from collections of interest groups into vehicles of ideology. Since most of the aforementioned groups tend to lean moderate to conservative, and since the Democratic Party is now the “liberal party,” there really is no reason for a conservative or moderate-conservative member of these groups to be a Democrat.
None of this is to say that the GOP didn’t benefit in 2010 thanks to conservative, white, working-class voters, most of whom probably consider themselves to be Independents. But in the states that matter in a presidential election, states like Pennsylvania, Wisconsin, and Colorado, these voters were only able to nudge the Republican over the finish line, or get the Republican within striking distance of the finish line, even in a year like 2010, when lots of Democrats stayed home. In a general election year, when both parties are fully mobilized, does a Toomey still win in Pennsylvania? Does a Kirk still win in Illinois? Do the narrow Democratic wins in Nevada and Colorado become big Democratic wins? And how do the Republicans win the Electoral College in that event?
The working class Independents who voted Republican in 2010 will absolutely be needed again in 2012. And they may even be able to produce a bare majority for the GOP presidential nominee. But what’s really needed for a long-term, durable majority that shows up in 2016, 2020, and beyond is to seek out new groups of persuadables that don’t start and end with old, white, rural voters. Wooing Hispanics, Asians, and educated, suburban voters should definitely be on the GOP’s to-do list, even though plenty of Republicans will claim that going after these voters is a fool’s errand, or that the only way to appeal to them is to become a party of raging RINOs. Ultimately, some or most of these voters may be unwinnable. But still, going after voters who will be difficult to win is more productive than chasing phantom voters who no longer exist. And that seems to be the case with the Reagan Democrats, who have disappeared only to the extent that they’ve become Reagan Republicans.
Here’s a video via Draft Herman Cain on Facebook of Herman Cain when he was CEO of Godfather Pizza and Bill Clinton discussing health care reform and its potential effects on small businesses. This is what first bring the name Herman Cain to national conservatives’ attention:
_______________________________________________________
-Matt Newman is a conservative blogger from Maryland who blogs Old Line Elephant and Tweets far too often.
This week the Chris Matthews Show discussed Tim Pawlenty. Last week it was Mitt Romney.
The discussion concerning Tim Pawlenty begins at 10:06. Of his guests, three of the four were intelligent and informative. Their discussion of the topic was quite good. Matthews seems to be making a conscience effort to present a serious, well-informed series on the 2012 GOP hopefuls.
His fourth guest’s comments were anything but intelligent and informative, and were rather embarrassing. I will be quite surprised it that person gets invited back while the series is running.
Previous shows:
Pollster Scott Rasmussen said at the Louisiana Association of Business and Industry conference that he has no idea who will be the 2012 GOP nominee. He did say this, though, that “It’s not one of the big names.” Rasmussen thinks that it’ll be someone who will be nationally known, but was not previously involved in a national campaign. Rasmussen also said of the 2010 elections:
Republicans think they had a significant win in 2010…White working class Democrats voted Republican in 2010 elections…People voted against the party in power in the fifth consecutive election. It’s a fundamental rejection of both parties…People today want hope and change as much as they did in 2008. They now realize that if they depend on politicians for change, there is no hope.”
Now while the headlines today are all about his comment on 2012, his commentary on the 2010 election is also good to note and consider going forward. People still want change because, frankly, the change they’ve received from the Democrats is not what they anticipated. A hopeful, positive campaign message in 2012 could resonate.
_______________________________________________________
Matt Newman is a conservative blogger from Maryland who blogs Old Line Elephant and Tweets far too often.
T-Paw advises congressional Republicans to take a stand on the debt limited on FOX News Sunday:
- Barack Obama 51%
- Mitt Romney 38%
- Barack Obama 50%
- Mike Huckabee 38%
- Barack Obama 56%
- Sarah Palin 30%
Among Independents
- Barack Obama 47%
- Mitt Romney 37%
- Barack Obama 45%
- Mike Huckabee 40%
- Barack Obama 57%
- Sarah Palin 29%
Survey of 827 registered voters was conducted January 6-10, 2011. The margin of error is +/- 3.5 percentage points.
First off, congratulations are in order for Reince Priebus, the new Chairman of the RNC. The Chairman ran a great campaign, gathering momentum basically every day he was in the race. Secondly, he got rid of Michael Steele, which was what was really needed at the RNC. Now, Chairman Priebus has a big job ahead of him; the RNC is $20,000,000.00 in debt, which needs to be retired now if the RNC is to perform a critical role in the 2012 election. Chairman Priebus needs to restore confidence amongst the RNC’s big donors as well as our elected officials. So far, Priebus seems to get it; he told the House Republicans at their retreat in Baltimore that he will be a workhorse, not a show horse, which is exactly what is needed at the RNC. There are other tasks that need to be done: organizing the Tampa 2012 Convention, getting the RNC geared up to help our nominee in 2012 and other things.
While all these are important tasks, I think there is one more that is just as important; addressing the issue of the territories and their votes on the RNC. For the 2nd time in an RNC Chair race, the members from American Samoa, Virgin Islands, Puerto Rico, Guam, and the Northern Marianas Islands were very important. That’s 15 votes, a pretty good chunk of votes. Now, I’m sure that the members from those areas are dedicated, hard-working Republicans, but in all honesty, why do they have equal voting rights with the states? None of the Territories vote in U.S. presidential elections and what happens there doesn’t matter to wider Republican politics. Why should Guam and American Samoa be equal to Texas and California?
It may seem harsh, but I think that all the Territories should get 1 vote each. I think we should have each person who would have gotten a vote per Territory get a third of a vote (see how well people are at fractions). It simply makes sense to me to give actual states of the U.S. more of a vote than the Territories that won’t vote for President.
Now, Chairman Priebus might not want to touch this issue, but it should be addressed. I hope the Chairman has the courage to point out this problem and seek to correct it.
(Note: this is a bit off the beaten path for the 2012 focus here, but I was inspired by Dave Gaultier’s excellent post of a couple of days ago. I claim no particular expertise on minority outreach; these reflections are drawn from working for Bush-Cheney’s 72 hour program on Hispanic outreach in 2004, living in a part of Washington DC demographically dominated by minorities for the past three years, and studying comparative politics).
There’s been a lot of talk recently about GOP minority outreach, as happens every so often. In this case, the talk has been largely spurred by an editorial written by former Florida governor Jeb Bush about the need for Hispanic outreach. Yet as is so often the case, this talk mostly revolves around the proposition that all the party needs to do is follow the speaker’s own beliefs, and minorities will flock to the party. Social conservatives point to high levels of opposition to abortion, while economic conservatives talk about minority small business ownership. Self-proclaimed moderates bemoan the party’s drift to the right, which is causing Republicans to become an old, white, rural party, in their estimation.
All of this talk has one common element: it misses the point. The problem, as it so often does, cuts to a Pygmalion project tendency among people of all political persuasions. There is a common assumption that everyone—or at least all the reasonable people—secretly think like I do, and, if the unreasonable people just understood things better, they would think like me too. As politically-minded people with fixed opinions about things, we are all guilty of this, to one extent or another. However, the problem often goes much deeper. Because we—and all of our friends—often make decisions about which party and candidate to support based on complex policy calculations, we assume that everyone else will make decisions based on the same criteria. Thus, the key to attracting minorities is to create the correct precisely calibrated set of policies to attract them.
Studying politics, particularly comparatively, I’ve found a different phenomenon is more often the case.; by and large, local issues trump national concerns in the minds of voters. Let me give you an example from British local counsel elections., which illustrates this point dramatically. A BBC reporter spent a day before one of the recent local counsel elections shadowing a candidate of the Fascist, self-admittedly racist British National Party as he campaigned in a neighborhood largely inhabited by Afro-Caribbean immigrants. This reporter was baffled by the fact that some of these immigrants were voting for a party which used hatred of immigrants as a national-level rallying-cry. How could this happen? In shadowing the BNP candidate, the BBC reporter rarely heard questions asked about the BNP’s views on immigration, or the often racially-tinged pronouncements of their party higher-ups. Instead, as one of the local residents put it: “we’re voting for you because you’re the ones who took care of the rat problem.” The BNP’s national policies couldn’t have been more inimical to these Afro-Caribbean immigrants; Tom Tancredo is a La Raza advocate by comparison. Yet, because the BNP showed up, and governed competently, the locals were willing to vote for their local counsel candidates.
Now, just to be abundantly clear (this is the internet and people do like to take things out of context, so I want to be specific), I’m certainly not advocating we copy anything from the obnoxious BNP, nor do I think the situation of the Republican Party and the BNP are in any way analogous. However, I do think this anecdote is an example of a phenomenon of interest to Republicans. The lesson is simple; national-level policy is not particularly important. The crux of a successful minority outreach strategy can be summed up in five words: show up, then govern competently. This, of course, begins with “showing up”, which, it would seem, is harder for Republicans than you might think. The fact is, in many minority neighborhoods, the residents have never been visited by a Republican canvasser, let alone a Republican candidate. Urban parties, or parties in predominantly minority areas, are often very poorly resourced, if at all. At most, Republicans will make a push in these areas a couple of weeks before a presidential election, and hence way too late to counter a life-time of Democratic messaging.
Minority outreach is not going to be quick and easy, and it will take time. This needs to be a priority over multiple election cycles, not just for the 2012 cycle (it’s probably already too late for that). And, when Republicans do show up, it won’t be enough to talk about big, complex, national-level problems, and bombard these newly-contacted potential voters with information about how our policies are better than Democratic policies for them. First contact should come from local Republican parties and candidates, interested in solving local problems. Fix the sewers, curb the influence of gangs, reform the prison system in order to bring down recidivism rates for non-violent offenders, and reintegrate non-violent offenders into society, find creative, conservative policies which, at the local level, will help poor minorities stay in their homes amidst increasing gentrification. Help their kids get a better education, and real, good-paying jobs. The problems will very, but the method is simple. Show up, listen to the concerns of local people, then show them how you can solve the most pressing issues they have at a local level better than the Democrats. A good example of how this can be done (and a much less obnoxious example than the BNP) comes from the British Tories, and their excellent think tank, the Center for Social Justice. Not all of CSJ’s solutions are directly transmissible to the US, nor should they be. However, they focus their policy work not on national-level issues, such as NHS reform, but on revitalizing broken urban communities. That, not these broad, national policy issues, is the immediate focus which minority outreach will require of our policy-oriented thinkers.
But what about national elections? What about policy questions? First, minorities won’t trust Republicans with national policy until we’ve demonstrated our competence on a local level. Second, if local candidates have governed successfully, and want to move up to national-level offices, chances are they’ll vote the interests of their constituents in a uniquely Republican way. Through watching these successful Republican politicians, we will actually gain a picture of those areas of agreement and disagreement between minority communities and Republicans. What I suspect we will find is, like any other group in the history of politics, minority groups are not monolithic on matters of policy. Some will be social conservatives, some fiscal conservatives, some moderates, and some will lean left no matter what outreach Republicans conduct. This is why arguments that x policy will make minorities flock to the Republican Party in droves, or that Y policy will make minorities into Democrats for generations, are ridiculous. Surely, if the BNP can convince people to vote for them, on a local level at least, in immigrant communities by showing up and governing competently, the Republican party can do much much better by doing the same. It won’t be quick, easy, or emotionally satisfying to the Pygmalion project politics in which we all indulge. On the other hand, it has the virtue that it just might work.
Congressman Kevin Brady proposes spending cuts.
Senator Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.) raises funds off of the Tucson tragedy.
Chafee bans state officials from appearing on private talk radio. (Hat Tip: The Corner.)
Texas stays tough on spending.
Vanderbilt mandates that nursing students participate in abortion.
The cold blooded opposition to the Laci and Connor law. ‘
Christians arrested for celebrating Christmas.
Click here to listen, click here to download, click here to add this podcast to your Itunes.
Podcast: Play in new window | Download
Jeb Bush discusses Sarah Palin and Mike Huckabee on Geraldo at Large:
______________________________________________________________
-Texas Conservative blog at ILikeMikeHuckabee2012
As an Austrian-minded libertarian conservative, I’ve made it no secret that I like Gov. Gary Johnson. I have high hopes for his probable 2012 campaign, especially in New Hampshire, a state that has a history of embracing straight-talking (yes, I went there), unconventional, liberty-loving candidates.
With that in mind, I really love hearing what’s happening at the ground level. And as the Governor’s campaign staffer in the Granite State puts it, things seem “so far, so good”:
Johnson recently spent a week in the Granite State and was treated very respectfully by both the mainstream media and members of the Republican establishment.
…Are Republicans in New Hampshire responding well to these [Johnson's] not-traditionally-Republican messages?
The answer, according to Johnson’s lone New Hampshire staff member, is “so far, so good.” Manchester resident Brinck Slattery took his first job in politics as a field coordinator for Paul’s campaign in 2007, and he accepted a job with Johnson’s organization in November of 2010.
“People have been responding very well to Governor Johnson and showing him a lot of respect,” Slattery observed. “It certainly appears that New Hampshire GOP voters are ready to shake their party up a bit and consider some fresh, thoughtful policy proposals.”
Whereas Paul was never embraced by mainstream Republican groups and his candidacy was only endorsed by three state legislators, Johnson was guest of honor last week at the New Hampshire Young Republicans’ Christmas Party, and a weekday luncheon across the street from the New Hampshire state house drew no fewer than 18 state representatives interested in speaking with Johnson.
That comes from a Huffington Post (yes, I referenced them) article by Matt Simon. In the past couple weeks, Gary has also received attention from local New Hampshire media. First, from the high-profile Concord Monitor:
Johnson met with the Monitor editorial board yesterday. While we disagreed with much of what he said, it was refreshing to encounter a politician who pulled no punches. If, as he says, the nation is only a bond market collapse or two away from fiscal disaster, what would Johnson do to balance the budget and save the economy?
His answer is simple: reduce spending, starting with the kinds of cuts that few politicians would dare to endorse. Cuts like those he made as governor of New Mexico, where he vetoed more than 750 bills, saw all but two vetoes sustained, reduced state government by 1,000 employees, lowered taxes and saved the state billions.
…Johnson also wants to lower corporate taxes to stimulate growth. He would legalize, control and tax marijuana to help empty prisons. He would reduce or eliminate the federal Department of Education. He opposes building a wall along the Mexican border and stationing troops there. He would instead issue work visas to illegal immigrants and other foreigners willing to stand in line for them but deport them if necessary under a one-strike-and-you’re-out policy.
…Johnson, who governed as a Republican but faults that party as well as the Democrats, could become the most libertarian candidate in the 2012 presidential race. We share few of his views, but he is a thoughtful politician with serious, if provocative, policy proposals. We would be pleased to learn that he anted up his $1,000 to run in the 2012 New Hampshire primary.
So, to sum up, while the Monitor editorial board doesn’t necessarily agree with Johnson on policy, they seem to genuinely appreciate him as a candidate, for his authentic desire to make the tough choices necessary to restore the United States to fiscal health. Might we see this dynamic play out across New Hampshire primary voters and, eventually, the broader Republican electorate? And might it cause them to overlook their qualms with the Governor and vote with their consciences?
Lastly, Johnson also sat down to discuss a few issues with the New Hampshire Watchdog blog:
“When it comes to Medicaid and Medicare, I think the federal government ought to block grant the states the money to do that.”
Johnson advocates sweeping reforms in the large entitlement programs, including a possible increase in the retirement age from 65 to as high as 72. He says Medicare will engulf the entire federal budget unless it is reformed. Johnson calls Social Security reform “very doable” with a combination of raising the retirement age, increasing the amount of payroll subject to withholding, and means testing of benefits for wealthier workers.
“We’re spending more money than the rest of world combined on defense, and we’re 5% of the world’s population,” Johnson argues in calling for cuts in defense spending. “We can’t continue to be the world policeman. We can’t continue to nation-build when we have our own nation to build.”
Johnson admits that fiscal collapse isn’t the only threat to American security, but says country would be safer with its troops home from Iraq, Afghanistan, and elsewhere.
“I think that they issues we’ll face getting out of Afghanistan tomorrow are the same issues we’d face 25 years from now,” Johnson explained. “Are 100,000 troops on the ground in Germany necessary? In Europe? I don’t have the sense that they are.”
But Johnson says reducing America’s foreign military deployments won’t mean an end to U.S. military alliances.
“I’m opposed to foreign aid, because we’re borrowing 43 cents out of every dollar to pay for foreign aid,” Johnson said. “When it comes to military alliances, Israel is a key military ally, and will remain so.”
Gary’s statements about spending probably don’t surprise many, but a libertarian professing support for Israel? I bet most people didn’t see that coming. This and other pronouncements by the Governor suggest that he is not just a younger, more qualified version of Ron Paul. Rather, it seems we can characterize him as a realist/non-interventionist hybrid on matters of foreign policy.
And for all those individuals who claim they have grown tired of politicians spouting boiler-plate slogans and dancing around the difficult issues, you may have an intriguing option in Johnson; he expresses a desire to not just “address” entitlements, but to attack them, head-on.
In the end, Gary impresses me most with his rock-solid understanding of the fundamentally and structurally unsound nature of the U.S. economy (Austrian economic theory will do that to ya!). No longer can we kid ourselves. We need to move our country away from reliance on consumer spending and importing and back toward a model of domestic production, savings, investment, innovation, and exporting. Gary might just be the best man for the job.
From the official release:
“I congratulate Reince Priebus for his election to chairman of the Republican National Committee, and look forward to working with him on policies that will create jobs and get our economy moving again. With 15 million people out of work, Americans are looking to Republicans to offer an alternative to the job-stifling agenda of the Obama administration. If we do that, we can build on our recent victories, increase our numbers in Congress and reclaim the White House in 2012.”
Mike Huckabee discusses the Fair Tax with Eric Bolling on FOX Business’ “Follow the Money”:
______________________________________________________
-Texas Conservative blogs at ILikeMikeHuckabee2012
Nominating speeches are currently underway, and the first ballots are expected to be counted around 1:45 ET.
The final public endorsement count is as follows:
1. Priebus – 43
2. Steele – 28
3. Anuzis – 16
4. Wagner – 15
5. Cino – 12
Priebus tells Hotline that he expects to win on the fourth ballot. Cino tells NRO that she expects to take off on the third ballot en route to victory. Anuzis is being touted as the compromise candidate most likely to win by several pundits.
Several sites are discounting Wagner’s chances and saying she really lost momentum in the past week, which is a shame since she was emerging as my first choice out of the group.
Private whip counts from various sites indicate Steele will probably get around 50 votes on the first ballot (some say as high as 60) and then lose votes on each subsequent vote.
Have at it in the comments.
First Ballot Totals:
1. Priebus – 45
2. Steele – 44
3. Cino – 32
4. Anuzis – 24
5. Wagner – 23
Huge disappointments for both Priebus and Steele, and a HUGE surprise from Cino. Next: watch where Steele’s support goes.
Second Ballot Totals:
1. Priebus – 52 (+7)
2. Steele – 37 (-7)
3. Cino – 30 (-2)
4. Wagner – 27 (+4)
5. Anuzis – 22 (-2)
Nobody has signaled they will drop out before the next ballot.
Third Ballot Totals:
1. Priebus – 54 (+2)
2. Steele – 33 (-4)
3. Wagner – 32 (+5)
4. Cino – 28 (-2)
5. Anuzis – 21 (-1)
Still nobody dropping out…
Fourth Ballot Totals
1. Priebus – 58 (+4)
2. Cino – 29 (+1)
3. Steele – 28 (-5)
4. Wagner – 28 (-4)
5. Anuzis – 24 (+3)
Michael Steele is withdrawing from the race… and endorses Maria Cino! Huge news…
Steele endorsing Cino is a huge blow to Anuzis. Keep in mind it is highly unorthodox for someone who drops out to endorse anyone, and it was largely assumed as the day went on that Steele’s supporters would end up in the Anuzis camp. (Anuzis was even circulating communication among his own supporters claiming he had Steele’s support when Steele dropped out of the race.) It remains to be seen if Steele’s supporters will follow his suggestion or if they will splinter among the remaining candidates, but that move clearly wasn’t what Anuzis had hoped for.
Fifth Ballot Totals
1. Priebus – 67 (+9)
2. Cino – 40 (+11)
3. Anuzis – 32 (+8)
4. Wagner – 28 (E)
Much to the benefit of Priebus and Anuzis, Steele’s supporters splintered. Priebus is in a strong position now, needing only 18 more votes to win.
Anuzis and Wagner are both staying in for the sixth ballot…
Sixth Ballot Totals
1. Priebus – 80 (+13)
2. Anuzis – 37 (+5)
3. Cino – 34 (-6)
4. Wagner – 17 (-11)
Ann Wagner drops out of the race, does not offer an endorsement.
Seventh Ballot Totals
1. Priebus – 97
2. Anuzis – 43
3. Cino – 28
Congratulations to Reince Priebus, new Chairman of the RNC.
I have been privileged during my long engineering career of working for a number of companies that went belly-up. A number of them hired outside consultants to come in and advise them on turning the company around. To a man, these self-styled “experts” would come in and apply boiler-plate solutions to the business. For example, one common theme they pushed was, “Successful businesses in your sector apply only xx% of their budget to Engineering. You are applying more. You need to cut Engineering.”
Notice how they didn’t really study the business they had been hired to save. They made no attempt to discover what worked or what didn’t. They never asked, “What is the corporate culture like? What are the areas that are strong. What areas need improvement?” Instead, they would attempt to force a square peg into a round hole because they had seen a round peg fit in that same hole. To a man, they failed. Every single company going through this either folded or was sold.
Two or three decades ago, I was watching a business talkshow where their guest was one of the top turn-around artists in the business. He had the reputation of being able to restore the worst companies to profitability. It allowed him to charge exorbitant fees because he got solid results.
The show’s host asked him if he could tell them his secret. He smiled and said, “It’s really very simple. I talk to the employees. I walk around the office, the warehouse, the factory floor and speak to the people who are actually doing the work. I ask them what the company needs to do to become profitable again. I listen carefully and take detailed notes. Those notes I then type up in a nice format appropriate for a business person to read. I place it in a nice binder, present it to management, and collect my fee.”
Listening to the people most intimately involved with the situation was the secret to this man’s success. It was as simple as that.
My mind recalled that long ago interview when I read this account of Mitt Romney’s visit to Afghanistan in the Boston Globe:
KABUL, Afghanistan — Former Massachusetts governor Mitt Romney traveled aboard a private jet, slept in a trailer at a US military base, and met with this war-weary nation’s top leaders. But the most telling moment of Romney’s whirlwind foreign tour this week might have come when he stood before 120 young Afghans and talked about the benefits and potential dangers of democracy.
…
He is seeking advice on foreign policy matters, asking questions of foreign and US military leaders.
Throughout the trip, Romney has avoided public events and the press.
…
Steve Clemons, of the New America Foundation, a Washington-based think tank, said … “They are out there smartly going on a listening tour and not blabbing much and trying to understand these complex problems, which is a positive thing,’’ he said.
Indeed, Romney spent most of his three days in Kabul asking Afghans what they think about the challenges ahead, according to Lorne Craner, president of the International Republican Institute, the nonprofit group that supports political engagement overseas and that organized Romney’s travel to Afghanistan.
…
On Monday night, he dined at the home of Ashraf Ghani, a former Afghan finance minister who is now chief adviser to Karzai and cochairman of the committee charged with transferring security from NATO and the United States to Afghanistan by 2014. During the dinner, Romney fired off questions around the dinner table to Ghani, a former World Bank official.
Ghani said many of Romney’s questions focused on how to ensure the best relations between the two countries, as if he were a head of state.“His questions were that of a United States leader, with an eye to the highest office of the land,’’ Ghani said. “But he was engaged, thoroughly prepared and was really looking to learn. His attitude was one of engagement, not of preaching from a position that was fixed.’’
Listening and sharing. That seems to be the reoccurring theme in Romney’s visit. While Mitt is offering advice aplenty, his primary mission is not to go into Afghanistan pushing American solutions, but to listen to and ask questions of the people doing the work. How better to help a country to repair itself and get back on its feet?
And he isn’t condescending to them, either. Note how, in the words of the top official, “he was engaged, thoroughly prepared and was really looking to learn”.
How refreshing is that?
Insiders have been telling Mike Allen of Politico that Mitch Daniels is leaning towards not running in 2012. Here’s the quote:
GOP insiders say Indiana Gov. Mitch Daniels is appearing LESS likely to run for president, based in part on a slowing in the parade of fundraisers and policy gurus to Indianapolis. One prediction: Daniels will endorse his friend Haley Barbour, who shows every sign of RAMPING UP, including meeting with potential consultants and staff.
It could just be coincident or it could be a real sign that Daniels is considering skipping a Presidential run altogether.
-Did I miss an article? Broken Link? If so, please email me at kavon_w_nikrad@yahoo.com.
Over the past year there has been quite a bit of bandwidth and print given to how we need a better sort of politician and a better government. The Tea Party basically made this their mantra- the need for a turning back the clock, a rediscovering of the principles of our Founding Fathers
However, the issue, I think runs deeper than that. And unless we address the underlying issue we will continue to send people into government who simply perpetuate the faults of society at large. Walter Russell Mead has this to say about our current tendency to turn a blind eye on our own failings as a culture:
In any case, developing a sensible, honest and penetrating discourse about corrosive human failings and their social consequence is a job that simply has to be done, particularly in a society like ours where the cultures of desire and indulgence run so rampant….. It is a culture of restraint and virtue that prevents (at least some) bankers from ripping off their clients and the government, that holds politicians back from the worst kinds of demagoguery and dirty tricks — and that punishes those who break these unwritten rules.
The fact that this recession has caused savings rates to almost double among the average citizen is a good start towards remedying one of our greatest issues as a society- the need to have it all now. This combined with a relatively modest Christmas season points towards what could be a positive future.
Yet at the same time economists are claiming that all our current fiscal policies are doing is re-inflating the bubble that got us into trouble in the first place. So are the baby steps America has taken towards a country that lives not only for today, but for tomorrow, just a blip to be erased by the next upswing of consumerism, or will it last? Our forefathers knew what it meant to save and live simply.
I place economy among the first and most important virtues, and public debt as the greatest dangers to be feared. – Thomas Jefferson
Will we reclaim that lost heritage before it is too late? Who among the 2012 candidate can best lead the nation down the road to sensible thrift?
_______________________________________________________________
Crossed posted at Steve’s blog.
