Jeb Bush gives Republicans some friendly advice when it comes to reaching out to Hispanics. His advice will probably go unheeded during the next election cycle or so, but the numbers suggest that Jeb is correct that the GOP’s long-term prospects look much sunnier if the conservative base doesn’t recoil every time it is told that it must make a serious play for “the Hispanic vote.”
The conventional wisdom this year seems to be that GOP successes will come about as long as Republicans appeal to what essentially amounts to Midwestern middle-aged voters and seniors. It’s the Early Bird Special election, we’re told, and Republicans will be able to win states like Iowa and Pennsylvania far more easily than states like Nevada and Colorado. But will they? All of those blue collar “Hillary-crats” were supposed to put these states in play in 2008 as well, yet Obama won Iowa and Wisconsin by larger margins than Colorado. Pat Toomey’s supposedly easy win last year turned into a nailbiter, as did John Kasich’s, and Illinois elected another Democratic governor after flirting with the Republicans all last year.
But why are these states even important? Well, if you adjust the Electoral College numbers to their post-census, 2012 status, and if you give back to the GOP all of the states that it lost by 6 points or less in 2008 (Indiana, North Carolina, Florida, Ohio, and Virginia), Obama still holds onto 272 electoral votes. That means the GOP must pick up either an Iowa, a Wisconsin, or a Pennsylvania, OR must win back a Colorado, a Nevada, or a New Mexico. And of all of these states, Colorado was the closest in 2008.
It’s certainly possible that Republicans could eke out a win in 2012 by adding Iowa to their coalition and creating a new South-Midwest bare majority, but it’s also possible that the Rust Belt will go back to its status as the nation’s Republican tease region, and will come home to the Democrats after months of polls showing the GOP candidate leading Obama in those states. Of course, it would help if the GOP could actually produce candidates who led Obama in states like Iowa and Pennsylvania, states that seem to show Obama ahead in every poll. Perhaps instead it is time for Republicans to make peace with the Rockies.
The reasons for the base’s skepticism about GOP Western fortunes are legion. Bush won Colorado, Nevada, and New Mexico in 2004, but the GOP has fared poorly in the region ever since. And the factor that no one in the GOP wants to talk about — the Hispanic vote — is looming over the region in a way that turns off the base. That’s because most Republicans think that “the Hispanic vote” is loyal to the party of big government. I submit to you that this is not necessarily so. Small government advocate, and constitutional originalist, Gary Johnson was twice elected governor of New Mexico, probably the bluest of the Colorado/Nevada/New Mexico trio. Conservative Bill Owens used to govern Colorado. And far-right Ken Buck barely lost his senatorial race in Colorado in 2010. The West isn’t necessarily a goner for Republicans. It would help though if Republicans stepped away from the Tancredo juice, especially in those pivotal Western states.
There is a certain element of the GOP base that views any attempt to appeal to Hispanics, though, as a slippery slope to becoming, as many bloggers would put it, “McCain-Grahamnesty RINOS!” I don’t think it has to be this way. First, Hispanic-Americans who came to our nation legally, or who grew up here as natural born citizens, aren’t necessarily going to be kneejerk advocates of endless immigration and amnesty for illegal immigrants simply because of their ethnicity. That in itself is a stereotype that the GOP needs to get past, including those GOP politicians who think that being pro-amnesty will lead to a greater portion of the Hispanic vote. Secondly, there is no reason that putting into place rational immigration policies that identify who is actually present in the country at any given time, that police the borders sufficiently, and that limit immigration in a way that prevents state coffers from being sucked dry is somehow hostile to Hispanics, especially since these policies would apply to non-Americans across the board. Finally, the Tancredo Right is going to have to admit that pretty much no one is willing to round up illegal immigrants and ship them out of the country, so it’s probably best to identify who’s in the country and secure the border even if it means grandfathering in longtime illegal immigrants and instituting a guest worker program for certain seasonal types of employment.
But ultimately, immigration is just one issue of many. And there’s no reason that the classical Republican message can’t appeal to Hispanics, just as it used to appeal to Asian-Americans back in the 1980s. But the reason that Asians and Hispanics both vote heavily Democrat in the modern era is that the MSM has created a narrative, that narrative being that non-Caucasians aren’t welcome in the GOP, and that’s something that Republicans on the ground should be fighting with just as much vigor as they use to defend Sarah Palin on any given day. Something tells me that in the coming election though, given a choice between the hard work of reaching out to Hispanics, and falling back on greying Caucasian voters in the Rust Belt, Republicans will view the latter as the low hanging fruit. I just hope that, in falling back on these voters, the GOP isn’t actually falling back on a sword.
Mike Huckabee defends Sarah Palin in the controversy surrounding the aftermath of the Arizona Shootings:
_____________________________________________________________________________________________
-Texas Conservative blogs at I Like Mike Huckabee 2012
In about twenty-four hours the RNC will have a new chairman or woman. Here’s what to watch for tomorrow:
Steele’s Support
Several of the other candidates, including Anuzis and Priebus, have said they expect Steele to lead on the first ballot tomorrow. But, as Hotline notes, that will likely be the high water mark of his campaign. He is most likely one-and-done, whether he drops out or not. Many RNC members have indicated they will be voting for Steele on the first ballot as a sort of “thank you” for his service, then directing their support elsewhere on later ballots.
Priebus’ Support
Priebus is the other candidate who could lead on the first ballot, because he has far and away the greatest number of public endorsements. The key figure to watch in this whole thing is the number of votes Priebus receives on the first ballot. If it is higher than, say, 55 or 60, he may develop an aura of inevitability and run away with the thing on subsequent ballots. If it is lower than that, it opens the door for a challenger to gain some traction.
Priebus vs. the Anti-Priebus
We don’t know much about where the votes will land after the first ballot, but we do have some rumors we can couple with logical assumptions to try and make and educated guess. Priebus is largely viewed by hardcore Steele supporters as a traitor, since he was a huge Steele supporter in the last election and over the past two years. So after the first ballot, it would be shocking if a majority of Steele supporters went to Priebus. Therefore, the race is likely to come down to Priebus versus one of the other three candidates. Some pundits are predicting a Priebus vs. Anuzis showdown, while others are guessing a Priebus vs. Wagner matchup. What will be key to see is how many people stick with Steele in round two and beyond, and where those who don’t put their support.
Cino’s Voters
It will also be interesting to see where Maria Cino’s supporters go to when she drops out, most likely somewhere around the third or fourth ballot. If they stick with the other female candidate in the race, they could give Wagner traction as the anti-Priebus challenger. Or, if they decide they want to jump on board with the perceived winner, they could put Priebus over the top.
Everyone’s Eligible
Everyone filed their paperwork this morning and will appear on the ballot for tomorrow’s vote.
The Latest Public Endorsement Count
Priebus – 41
Steele – 28
Wagner – 15
Anuzis – 15
Cino – 13
Undeclared: 57
So says Ben Smith at Politico:
[Romney's] aides have told other Republicans that he expects to launch his campaign in April.
You can watch Romney slowly piecing things together, too. Smith notes that Romney stepped down from the Marriott Board of Directors yesterday, clearing the way for a Presidential run. (Romney served on the board from 1993-2002 before stepping down to run for Governor; he then rejoined the board in 2009 until yesterday.)
And Romney has made his first two staff hires as well: his political director and his pollster. RCP has the scoop:
Rich Beeson, a Republican operative who has worked as a political director at the Republican National Committee and was most recently a partner at the voter contact firm FLS Connect, will be Romney’s political director. Beeson has already moved his family to Massachusetts for his new role…
And for polling, Romney is bringing on Neil Newhouse, a partner at the polling firm Public Opinion Strategies, GOP sources told RealClearPolitics.
Says an unnamed GOP source who worked against Romney in the last campaign, “Beeson is a savvy hire for Romney’s team, as he brings an outsider perspective to Romney’s Boston inner circle.” RCP also notes that Neil Newhouse was was named “pollster of the year” by the American Association of Political Consultants last year.
Not everyone knows the name Herman Cain. He’s not a household name like Sarah Palin or Mike Huckabee. But he may become one. Cain has recently announced the formation of a Presidential exploratory committee. While some have already dismissed him, (Intrade has him at 0.2% odds to get the nomination), I wouldn’t be so sure. It would be foolish to underestimate Herman Cain.
Let me tell you a little bit about Herman Cain. Cain’s the former CEO of Godfather’s Pizza with a wealth of business experience. As I mentioned before, Cain gained national attention in the mid-nineties when he, as Chairman of the National Restaurant Association, challenged then President Bill Clinton during a town hall style meeting on their proposed health care reform. Cain pointed out the flaws in the plan when he bold face asked Clinton what he should say to workers he could no longer afford to keep on staff due to the increased health care costs from the “employer mandate.” Clinton said that there would be a number of subsidies for small businessmen to which Cain replied, “Quite honestly, your calculation is inaccurate…In the competitive marketplace it simply doesn’t work that way.” This helped reshape the debate, of which conservatives ended up winning the day. More recently, Cain has a very popular radio program based in Georgia.
In 2000, Cain briefly flirted with a Presidential bid. In 2004, he ran a spirited campaign for US Senate in Georgia against then Congressman Johnny Isakson. As Zell Miller retired, he endorsed Isakson making it a difficult race for anyone. Cain’s hope was to force a runoff, but he came short in the primary. If a runoff had taken place, many expected that Cain could have given Isakson a real run for his money. The Club for Growth endorsed Cain in his primary campaign. It’s unclear if they would in 2012, but it helps show some of his economic credentials on fiscal issues.
Cain is an amazing speaker who has a way with words like few others I’ve seen. Some have called him a charismatic Steve Forbes. When asked about those who say he doesn’t have a chance, Cain has said
People who say that Herman Cain has no chance of winning the nomination for the Republican Party or win the in presidency – I simply say thank you…Because all my life I have been in situations where I wasn’t supposed to become VP of Pillsbury, I wasn’t supposed to be able to turn Godfather’s Pizza around. I wasn’t supposed to succeed in climbing the corporate ladder in corporate America. So to the people who say I don’t have a chance I say, thank you. Because that inspires me.
Cain is a fiesty candidate who, if provided with a podium, could prove formidible. As an all around conservative, he meets the requirements of most of the grassroots. He’s a cancer surivor, successful businessman, Tea Party all star, and charismatic speaker. If certain candidates decide to pass (ex. Huckabee, Palin), Cain may be able to help fill that void. If his fundraising abilities prove strong, he’ll be able to get his name out there. There’s a reason that Tim Albrecht, the communications director for Iowa Gov. Terry Branstad, said, “Herman Cain is going to have some serious legs when he begins visiting Iowa.” I think we need not underestimate his skills and need not underestimate his chances of garnering the nomination. He may end up proving the naysayers wrong, just as he has in the past.
With her announcement that she will not seek re-election to the U.S. Senate in 2012, is a presidential run be in the works for Sen. Kay Bailey Huchison? If you recall, Huchison explored a potential run back in 2008 (as reported by the late, great Robert Novak):
Sen. Kay Bailey Hutchison has approached Republican fund-raisers in her home state of Texas to test the waters for a possible 2008 presidential nomination, but party sources believe she is mainly interested in a vice presidential nomination.
Supporters describe Hutchison as saying that if Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton is the Democratic nominee, the Republicans must consider putting a woman on their ticket. Hutchison, who has held statewide elective office for 15 years, would head the list for the GOP.
National ambitions may have factored into Hutchison’s decision against challenging Gov. Rick Perry in a bloody Republican primary for governor next year. Hutchison chose instead to seek re-election to the Senate.
Stay tuned…
The first rankings of 2011 are here!
Mitt Romney has become the solid frontrunner of the GOP field. He’s steadily been constructing his organization, lining up major donors, collecting chits around the country, beefing up his foreign policy credentials with foreign trips, and is on target to announce his candidacy in April. Though Romney has not built up the kind of financial and organizational lead that George Bush did in 2000, he is close. The solidification of his frontrunner status now hinges on who else enters the race.
Mike Huckabee continues to post solid national polling numbers, as well as a big lead in the important first state of Iowa. Huck boasts the highest favorables in the field and continues, along with Romney, to give Obama a tough matchup in polls. However, the Fox News host has done little to improve his organization and fundraising, and seems very happy remaining on his television and radio programs. Whether Huckabee is truly committed to another run is still in doubt, and the longer he waits the harder it will be to let his lucrative private sector career go. We should be able to discern more about his intentions during his upcoming book tour, slated to start in late February.
Tim Pawlenty continues to aggressively gear up for the GOP primary. Pawlenty is heading out on his book tour while also being rather blunt about his intentions. Pawlenty is beginning the task of separating himself from Sarah Palin as more credible alternative to Mitt Romney, though some of his statements have angered her loyal base. Pawlenty’s chances could improve if Palin were to pass on the race, but could be damaged by the potential entry of Rep. Michele Bachmann.
Sarah Palin has taken a significant hit in recent days. Palin’s numbers have continued to lag behind other candidates in general election match-ups, but she is still polling well among the GOP base. The events of the past week may have a lasting effect, however, as liberals aiming to destroy her and conservatives aiming to beat her exploit the tragic shooting of Rep. Gabrielle Giffords for political gain. Palin’s polarized persona now seems beyond amending, and the chances of her building a coalition seems less likely then ever. The potential candidacy of Rep. Bachmann seems to indicate that the two friends may have been in touch, with Palin perhaps leaning against a run. Should both Bachmann and Palin run, they will each damage each others’ chances to win.
In other news, Mitch Daniels and John Thune both seem to be taking bigger steps towards a run and will both be speaking at CPAC. Haley Barbour suffered a setback due to his perceived racial insensitivity, though Barbour is currently attempting to successfully install his man, Reince Priebus, as the RNC chairman. Ambassador Jon Huntsman Jr. suggested that he may run in 2012 rather then wait until 2016. Rep. Mike Pence seems to be gearing up for a run for Governor while Gov. Rick Perry continues to deny any interest in a run despite a schedule that hints otherwise. Herman Cain, a businessman and Tea Party favorite, has formed an exploratory committee, and Rudy Giuliani has cracked to door open to another bid in 2012.
On to the rankings:
1. Mitt Romney
2. Mike Huckabee
3. Tim Pawlenty
4. Sarah Palin
5. Mitch Daniels
6. John Thune
7. Haley Barbour
8. Newt Gingrich
9. Michele Bachmann
10. Jon Huntsman Jr.
Honorable Mention: Jeb Bush, Rick Perry, Mike Pence, John Bolton, Herman Cain, George Pataki, Jim DeMint, Ron Paul, Rudy Giuliani, Rick Santorum, Gary Johnson
| The Daily Show With Jon Stewart | Mon – Thurs 11p / 10c | |||
| Exclusive – Tim Pawlenty Extended Interview | ||||
|
||||
The end result of the movement for “Everybody to watch your tone because Sarah Palin put a bullseye and look what happened?”:
An aide close to Sarah Palin says death threats and security threats have increased to an unprecedented level since the shooting in Arizona, and the former Alaska governor’s team has been talking to security professionals.
The irony is rich given the theme of the week from those attacking Palin has been that you need to be careful of your rhetoric. Apparently, it didn’t occur to them that suggesting that a high profile politician was complicit in the murder of nine Americans because of a political target map might just be an example of the irresponsible rhetoric you’re saying people should avoid.
As Allahpundit said, Palin should be fine. She has the money to hire good security, plus few real assassins will send a death threat first as increased awareness decreases their chance of succeeding.
The big victim may be any effort to push civility. Many on the right already viewed “civility” movements as efforts to get conservatives to shut up and roll over. An incident like this only strengthens the meme and makes real civility has become harder to achive, not as a result of the shooting, but rather as a result of the irresponsible blood libel that poisoned the political well at what should have been a time focused on national grief.
Remainders…
-Did I miss an article? Broken Link? If so, please email me at kavon_w_nikrad@yahoo.com.
Public Policy Polling Iowa 2012 Presidential Poll
- Barack Obama 47%
- Mike Huckabee 43%
- Barack Obama 47%
- Mitt Romney 41%
- Barack Obama 51%
- Newt Gingrich 38%
- Barack Obama 53%
- Sarah Palin 37%
PPP surveyed 1,077 Iowa voters from January 7th to 9th. The survey’s margin of error is +/-3.0%. Other factors, such as refusal to be interviewed and weighting, may introduce additional error that is more difficult to quantify.
PPP Pennsylvania 2012 GOP Primary
- Mike Huckabee 26% (23%) {19%} [20%] (27%)
- Sarah Palin 21% (16%) {19%} [24%] (27%)
- Mitt Romney 16% (16%) {20%} [16%] (31%)
- Newt Gingrich 15% (15%) {19%} [23%]
- Tim Pawlenty 6% (2%)
- Ron Paul 5%
- Mitch Daniels 2% (2%)
- Someone else/Undecided 9% (22%)
Herman Cain has officially filed papers with the FEC to begin an exploratory committee, the first somewhat-serious candidate to do so for the 2012 primaries.
An exploratory committee, sometimes referred to by the media as a “testing the waters” phase of the campaign, allows a would-be candidate to begin legally putting together a campaign team and fund raise. There is a separate set of paperwork to file with the FEC to become an official candidate later, should Cain choose to do so.
So here’s the first official action towards defining the 2012 field.
(For what it’s worth, Intrade has Cain’s chance of nabbing the nomination at 0.2%, which seems about right to me.)
-Did I miss an article? Broken Link? If so, please email me at kavon_w_nikrad@yahoo.com.
Herman Cain’s potential presidential campaign isn’t the first time we’ve seen a CEO try to run for the Presidency in recent years without any other political office held. What do their campaigns tell us about how Cain might fair as a candidate.
In 1996, Morry Taylor of Titan International ran for President, as did Steve Forbes of Forbes Magazine, who made a repeat run in 2000.
Taylor finished either as an asterisk or in single digits throughout the 1996 Republican Primaries despite spending $14 million.
Forbes vaulted close to the lead in both Iowa and New Hampshire when he announced for President, only to end up finishing fourth in both. He rallied for two Primary wins in 1996 and spent much of the next four years building political organization for a 2nd campaign. This time, he finished 2nd in Iowa and a distant third in New Hampshire. But unable to repeat in Delaware, Forbes dropped out of the race. Forbes spent $76 million of own money on his campaign which raised $86 million .
So why do these CEOs and businessmen have such a hard time of it?
Pew Research did a study on candidate and how it made the public more or less likely to support a candidate (It’s on Page 13). Pew found that never having elected office made 7% of voters more likely to support a candidate and 56% less likely. The only attribute to gather a more negative response from voters was Atheism (with 63%). Among Republicans, the gap was even more pronounced on the issue of having elected office (5% positive, 64% negative.)
Cain is counting on a shift of opinion in the age of the Tea Party. Cain also has a big advantage over Forbes and Taylor on two points.
First, is personality. Forbes was the type of candidate that made George Will look intense by comparison. Taylor seemed somewhat listless and uninformed. Cain has a much more commanding and charismatic personality and doesn’t carry that type of plastic phoniness that can typify much of corporate America.
Second is social conservative problems. Morry Taylor simply wasn’t a social conservative and so was tuned out immediately by a large section of the party. Steve Forbes, on the other hand had to explain away having been on the board of Planned Parenthood in New Jersey. He did work hard to gain social conservative support and failed. Cain, on the other hand is clearly and unquestionably a social as well as a fiscal conservative.
The one thing that history suggests could be a problem for Cain is that CEO Presidential candidates are expected by the public to be strictly BYOB (Bring Your Own Bankroll.) Forbes and Taylor provided the vast majority of their own funding. How much does Cain have and how much of his fortune is he willing to spend?
In Cain’s 2004 Senate campaign, he provided $525,000 in donations and a $75,000 loan to help his campaign. Those aren’t astronomical figures for millionaire candidates and it only made of 25% of Cain’s $3 million’s raised. However, Cain also enjoyed the benefit of the support for Club for Growth in that campaign. Without that advantage, fundraising remains a huge question mark.
Cain remains a great guy and would be an interesting candidate. However, history tells us he’s going to have show party activists the money and commit some serious personal capital to a presidential campaign to be taken seriously. History also suggests that even if he does do that, he’ll still lose.
___________________________________________________________________________________________________
Adam Graham is a Pajamas Media Contributor. He is the author of the Novel, “Tales of the Dim Knight” with his wife Andrea. His personal blog is Adam’s Blog. You can follow him on Twitter and he’s on Facebook and available by e-mail.
In a meeting with conservative activists in New Hampshire today, former Rick Santorum voiced his opposition to a proposed law banning cross-hairs and bullseyes in political ads which is being sponsored by Rep. Robert Brady (D-PA):
Rick Santorum doesn’t want to restrict political speech in the wake of this weekend’s shooting in Tuscon, Arizona. The former Republican Senator discussed calls for toning down fiery political rhetoric following the attempted assassination of Congresswoman Gabrielle Giffords on Saturday, which left six people dead.
“I don’t think curbing political speech is an appropriate response to a crazy man,” Santorum said. “Societies lose freedom because of the bad behavior of the people in society, and you can’t be free unless you have a good society that is made up of moral people who lead moral lives. And when we transgress them, there is always the call for the state to do more.”
“Do we need civility in our political discourse? Absolutely. But if there’s any group of people who are not civil in their discourse, it’s the Left,” Santorum added. “The Right is out there talking about how we need to restore American first principles. The Left is out there saying if you take a different point of view on an issue, you’re a racist, or a bigot, or a hater.”
You read the entire article, as well as watch an interview with Sen. Santorum from the event, over at the New Hampshire Watchdog.
Townhall.com has a Presidential preference straw poll for its readers. You can vote here. Here are the candidates:
Who’s your favorite? Consider this an open thread to discuss who you’re liking this early in the campaign cycle.
Here is David Brody’s interview with Tim and Mary Pawlenty, which is set to broadcast on CBN today:
PPP (D) Nevada 2012 GOP Caucus Survey
- Mitt Romney 31%
- Sarah Palin 19%
- Newt Gingrich 18%
- Mike Huckabee 14%
- Ron Paul 7%
- Mitch Daniels 1%
- John Thune 1%
- Tim Pawlenty 1%
- Someone else/Undecided 8%
- Mike Huckabee 30% (27%)
- Mitt Romney 18% (15%)
- Sarah Palin 15% (17%)
- Newt Gingrich 13% (16%)
- Ron Paul 6% (7%)
- Tim Pawlenty 4%
- John Thune 3% (2%)
- Mitch Daniels 1%
- Someone Else/Undecided 10%
A new CBS News poll shows that Americans are not falling for the Left’s attempts to exploit on the Tucson tragedy for political purposes:
Most Americans Feel Rhetoric, Tucson Shooting Unrelated
Nearly six in 10 Americans say the country’s heated political rhetoric is not to blame for the Tucson shooting rampage that left six dead and critically wounded U.S. Rep. Gabrielle Giffords, according to a CBS News poll.
In the wake of the shooting, much focus has been put on the harsh tone of politics in Washington and around the country, particularly after a contentious midterm election. Rhetoric and imagery from both Republicans and Democrats have included gun-related metaphors, but the majority of the country isn’t connecting the shooting to politics.
Overall, 57 percent of respondents said the harsh political tone had nothing to do with the shooting, compared to 32 percent who felt it did. Republicans were more likely to feel the two were unrelated – 69 percent said rhetoric was not to blame; 19 percent said it played a part. Democrats were more split on the issue – 49 percent saw no connection; 42 percent said there was.
Independents more closely reflected the overall breakdown – 56 percent said rhetoric had nothing to do with the attack; 33 percent felt it did.
Read the whole post here.
PPP New Jersey 2012 Presidential Poll
- Barack Obama 52%
- Mitt Romney 37%
- Barack Obama 55%
- Chris Christie 38%
- Barack Obama 53%
- Mike Huckabee 36%
- Barack Obama 54%
- Newt Gingrich 37%
- Barack Obama 59%
- Sarah Palin 29%
As anticipated, the endorsements have begun rolling in during the days leading up to the RNC vote on Friday — with 17 additional endorsements coming yesterday and this morning already. The major winner today so far is Michael Steele who has amazingly released ten additional endorsements. Give the guy credit, he’s not giving up in the face of almost sure loss.
Here’s the most recent tally, with the movement since Friday in parentheses:
1. Priebus – 38 (+4)
2. Steele – 27 (+10)
3. Wagner – 14 (E)
4. Anuzis – 14 (E)
5. Cino – 12 (+3)
This leaves 63 members undeclared.
Anuzis has reportedly told the media that there will be no problems with him being eligible for the ballot; assumedly, this means he is sitting on some endorsements to be released later this week.
Candidates have until 10:00 am Thursday morning to file their official paperwork to get on the ballot.
Are you tired of the soft-ball interview? Have you gone cynical at the host who brags how tough he is, but when faced with a big-name guest, he asks such hard-hitting questions as, “Where did you get your pet gerbil’s name”?
Well, Piers Morgan promises to be different. Who’s Piers Morgan? He’s the guy who has hosted “America’s Got Talent” and is now taking over Larry King’s old show on CNN. He starts next week with an interview of Oprah Winfrey. Oprah had this to say about her taping:
“He is a tough cookie! … Those days of Larry King soft-balling you? Over, baby. I had to take a hot bath and a couple Anacin after that interview. It was like volleying. I said, ‘Piers, if I ask a question and they don’t want to answer it, I move on. You come back three different ways!’ You have to be on your toes.
“At the end of the interview, he asked me, ‘What did you think?’ I was so stunned I just said, ‘Surprising.’ He’s going to be so interesting.”
Why does this intrigue me? Simple. Because of the other people he has booked for his opening week:
Piers Morgan’s first guests on his CNN chatshow when it launches next week include George Clooney, Ricky Gervais and the former US secretary of state, Condoleezza Rice. Other interviewees for the show’s much-anticipated opening week include the former mayor of New York, Rudolph Giuliani, [and] former presidential candidate Mitt Romney…(emphasis mine)
Mitt doesn’t shy away from tough interviews. Neither does Rudy. And Condi is one tough lady. If Piers isn’t afraid to beat up on Oprah, it’s unlikely he will pull many punches with these three. Let’s hope he doesn’t. This will give us a chance to see exactly what they are made of.
(h/t: mittromneycentral.com)
For most of the candidates considering a run for president today, foreign policy is the area in which they have not only the least amount of experience, but also, arguably, the area with which they are the least concerned. The truth is–or so it can be argued–that unlike fiscal or social issues, foreign policy does not have a natural constituency, nor does it look to be the most important issue on anyone’s mind during the 2012 campaign. Nevertheless, having a robust and thoughtful foreign policy vision is key–particularly to Republican voters–to passing the “ready to lead” test. A lack of foreign policy readiness can strike at particularly inconvenient times; most foreign policy crises are, almost by definition, unpredictable. Mike Huckabee was caught flat-footed by the assassination of Benazir Butto, and while his poor answer didn’t hurt him in Iowa, it probably didn’t help him in less rigorously socially conservative states like New Hampshire. Likewise, Huckabee’s assertion that Guantanamo Bay prison should be closed–because accommodations were too nice or so he claimed–and his desire to subject all Canadian citizens to US Visit (a policy not destined to endear him to any northern border states) demonstrated a certain lack of preparedness on foreign policy issues.
This is not intended to “pick on” the Mike Huckabee campaign of 2008, but to use it as an example of a trend. By and large, winning the Republican nomination has required candidates who can break out of their niche as either fiscal or social conservatives, and address the nation’s international challenges (and, as some of the Palin drama in 2008 shows, even the perception that a candidate for Vice-President is unfamiliar with foreign policy can be very damaging in the long-run). This, after all, is the primary constitutional role of the President, and any candidate–particularly any candidate who calls him or herself a constitutionalist–should be prepared to grapple effectively with foreign policy issues.
So how can a two-term governor of a small state from the heartland gain the kind of foreign policy expertise he or she will need to master foreign policy challenges in the year or so remaining before primary season? The short answer is that (A) such a governor can’t, and (B) doesn’t need to. This may seem contradictory, given my earlier statement about the importance of foreign policy. However, there’s a difference between “grappling” with and “mastering” foreign policy issues. In reality, most presidents probably don’t know the name of the Uzbeck oil minister, have never read Kenneth Waltz or Alexander Wendt, and are not particularly well-versed in the history of US-Soviet competition in Africa. Most of the journalists who write about them–with some exceptions–probably know even less. This utter journalistic lack of foreign policy knowledge will, of course, not stop them from criticizing Presidential candidates unmercifully if they falsely assert that Ethiopia was a US ally during the cold war, or mispronounce the name of that Uzbek oil minister (yes Charlie Gibson, Mr. Bush doctrine, I am in fact looking at you and snickering behind my hand). Furthermore, and this is the dirtiest little secret of them all, it’s really not particularly important for a perspective President to know this stuff. If he or she does, great, but even if not, there are really only two ingredients necessary for a candidate to be successful vis-a-vis foreign policy: vision, and staff.
Let’s take vision first, because it’s the most important. Isayah Berlin, a classic liberal political theorist, wrote an essay about the parable of the fox and the hedgehog, and it’s application to politicians. For Berlin, the “fox” is a politician who knows a lot of little things, while the “hedgehog” is one who knows a few really big things. In my opinion, when it comes to foreign policy, a President should aspire to hedgehog status. It’s nice to know lots of little things about foreign policy, and indeed, missing the little things can be crucially bad in this arena. However, it’s even more important to get the big things–the guiding national vision for international engagement–right. Ronald Reagan, Harry Truman, Abraham Lincoln and, I would argue, George W. Bush were all hedgehogs, and each, in their own way, was actually a surprisingly successful foreign policy president.
If the vision is central, the staff is no less essential. The vision, of course, has to come first. Any candidate seriously considering a run for president ought to know what he or she believes is imperative and central with regard to US foreign policy. The next step is finding foreign policy professionals–the foxes if you will–who can turn this vision into reality. Staffing up with foreign policy professionals is no easy task. To be sure, there will be a whole host of right-leaning foreign policy experts looking to attach themselves to a candidate who can go all the way to the White House. The rewards of picking a winner are very real, and even working for a less successful candidate can raise one’s profile immensely. Thus, I suspect the “big four” of Romney, Huckabee, Palin and Gingrich will have the unique problem of too many applicants trying to sign onto their campaigns. The key, for these candidates, will be finding foreign policy staff who both match their vision and who can quickly and effectively brief the candidate on anything they will need to know in order to deal with a crisis. On the other hand, second-tier candidates like Pawlenty, Daniels and Thune, and dark horses like Cain, Bachmann, Gary Johnson and Pence, will have the entirely different problem of picking their own foreign policy staff, and not getting stuck with those who didn’t work out with the big four.
If I can give candidates any advice as they think about their foreign policy vision, and look for staff, it would probably be the following. First, the candidate’s foreign policy vision should flow as much as possible from his or her vision on other areas. It would make no sense, and would probably seem inauthentic, for Gary Johnson to come out as a Neocon, or for Mike Huckabee to embrace realpolitik. It would be much more natural for Huckabee and Johnson respectively to allow their libertarian and socially conservative philosophies to guide their foreign policy thinking. In subsequent posts, I intend to discuss how niche candidates can build on their base, with respect to foreign policy, while remaining credible to the rest of the political spectrum. Second, regarding staffing, the two most important areas will probably be ideological and personal compatibility between the candidate and his foreign policy team. Different candidates will have different styles; some will want all the data they can possibly get, while others will want big-picture information only. It is important for candidates to know their own preferences in this regard, and for the foreign policy team to act accordingly. Finally, it is important that campaign staff, who often know less about foreign policy than their candidate, not talk about it to the press. David Axelrod’s embarrassing (and entirely false) statement that Benazir Bhutto would not have been assassinated if the US hadn’t gone to war with Iraq could have seriously come back to bite Obama, if his opponents had played their cards right, and you can bet that a Republican campaign will not get a pass from the press on such an amateurish comment. By the same token, foreign policy staff should avoid campaign-related comments. Samantha Powers, who is a pretty sharp knife in the Democratic foreign policy drawer, was dismissed from the Obama campaign for calling Hilary Clinton a “monster”, an entirely unforced error which did no good either to Powers or Obama.
In future posts, I will begin to sketch out what this process ought to look like, and eventually what it does look like, for each of the Republican presidential campaigns. For now, please feel free to speculate regarding your favorite candidate’s foreign policy (or that of the candidate you find most interesting) in the comments.
-Did I miss an article? Broken Link? If so, please email me at kavon_w_nikrad@yahoo.com.
Thoughts on the relationship between freedom and safety in light of the Tuscon shooting and the attempts to politicize it.
Click here to download, click here to add this podcast to your Itunes.
___________________________________________________________________________________________________
Adam Graham is a Pajamas Media Contributor. He is the author of the Novel, “Tales of the Dim Knight” with his wife Andrea. His personal blog is Adam’s Blog. You can follow him on Twitter and he’s on Facebook and available by e-mail.
Podcast: Play in new window | Download
The families in Arizona have suffered quite a bit. But one group wants to make them suffer just a little bit more:
Westboro Baptist Church, the church of hate that pickets funerals to highlight its vile attacks, will picket the funeral of the little girl and five others who were killed in Saturday’s shooting rampage.
Fred Phelps, in an offensive press release you may not want to read in full, announced Sunday he will bring his tiny band of followers, fresh from last month’s Elizabeth Edwards funeral, to this wounded city because, “That’s how God the avenger rolls,” he says.
The good news: Citizens in the community are banding together to stand against this clown:
Tucson, said Gilmer — who said two of the six people killed were friends — is a “caring, loving, peaceful community.”
“For something like this to happen in Tucson was a really big shock to us all,” she said. “Our nightmare happened when we saw Westboro Baptist Church was going to picket the funerals.”
They’re planning an “angel action” — with 8-by-10-foot “angel wings” worn by participants and used to shield mourners from picketers. The actions were created by Coloradan Romaine Patterson, who was shocked to find the Topeka church and its neon signs outside the 1999 funeral of Matthew Shepherd, a young gay man beaten and left on a fence to die in Laramie, Wyoming.
“We want to surround them, in a non-violent way, to say that our community is united,” Gilmer said. “We’re a peaceful haven…”
But political persuasions don’t matter, she said. Republicans, Democrats, independents, right, left and center — they’ve all offered their support. Forty-two people have signed up on a Facebook page called “Build Angel Wings for the Westboro Funeral Counter-Protest and Meeting” and more than 4,500 have signed up on another page to “Show Support for the Families of the Tucson Shooting Victims.”
I wish the folks in Tucson well standing against this hatemonger and false Christian/fake pastor. There have been several such efforts to combat the virtriol of the Phelps clan.
The only bright side with people coming together to protest is that it may cause us to realize that whatever our differences, our mainstream political opponents are decent human beings, unlike the Phelps people.
___________________________________________________________________________________________________
Adam Graham is a Pajamas Media Contributor. He is the author of the Novel, “Tales of the Dim Knight” with his wife Andrea. His personal blog is Adam’s Blog. You can follow him on Twitter and he’s on Facebook and available by e-mail.
