Early today I received the sad news that former Idaho Senator James McClure had died over the weekend at his home in Boise. Jim McClure played an important role in my early professional life, helping to launch me on a path that led to 16 years of combined work on Capitol Hill and in the Reagan Administration. It is quite possible that most regulars on this site are not familiar with McClure since he retired from public life in 1990, but his election to the US Senate in 1972, along with the legendary Jesse Helms of North Carolina that same year, marked an early key milestone in the history of the conservative revolution of the 1970′s that culminated with the Reagan election in 1980. McClure was a staunch conservative of the Western flavor in the tradition of Barry Goldwater. In the early 1960′s he served as Majority Leader of the Idaho State Senate and was a leader of the Goldwater for President movement in 1963; he was elected to the US House from Idaho’s First Congressional District in 1966 before his successful Senate campaign in 1972.

Somewhat like the second half of the decade just past, the early 1970s were particularly frustrating for political conservatives in that we had a Republican administration in power that expanded the size, power, and reach of the federal government at an alarming rate and that was presiding over an erosion in the strategic posture of the US vice the Soviet Union. The Nixon administration had imposed wage and price controls and had presided over the creation of a plethora of “New Left” regulatory agencies such as EPA and OSHA and was signaling its willingness to sign into law legislation proposed by left wing Democrats to create a federal “Child Development” agency [talk about government social engineering!] and impose federal government control over all state and local land-use planning. Conservatives represented a minority within the Republican Party caucuses of the Senate and the House, and those willing to actively and openly resist the Nixon Administration’s bad policies were an even smaller minority. But, in 1973 Senator McClure, along with Senators Helms and a couple other freshmen senators created the first formal organization of conservative senators in order to more effectively leverage their efforts to oppose liberal initiatives and to advance positive conservative reform initiatives. Called the Senate Steering Committee and chaired by Senator McClure, the new organization hired shared staff, including veterans from the Goldwater presidential campaign, students of economist Milton Friedman, and other assorted experts on policy and Senate parliamentary procedure. More senior conservative stalwarts such as Goldwater, James Buckley (C-NY), and John Tower (R-TX) quickly joined the effort. The Senate Steering Committee thrives today infused with new blood from last year’s election. At the same time a parallel conservative operation was initiated in the House in early 1973 called the Republican Study Committee that included many of the freshman and more junior conservative House members such as Philip Crane (Ill.), John Rousselot (CA), John Ashbrook (OH), Bob Bauman (MD), Marjorie Holt (MD), Steve Symms (ID), Barry Goldwater, Jr. (CA), Bill Archer (TX), among others. The House Republican Study Committee also exist to this day, now under the leadership of Rep. Jim Jordan of Ohio.

The conservative organizations in both the Senate and the House, considering their highly minority status, were remarkably effective in derailing a number of the liberal policy initiatives described above. Particular synergy and leverage was achieved during 1975-76 as a result of the prospective and actual presidential primary campaign of Ronald Reagan. For example, the SALT II Treaty negotiated by Henry Kissinger on behalf of the Nixon and Ford Administrations in 1975 was never submitted for ratification; the federal Child Development legislation, the Land-Use Planning legislation, and proposed federal Consumer Protection Agency were effectively blocked as a result. One of the most profound achievements came in 1975 when the prohibition against American citizens owning gold was repealed. Prior to that year, it was illegal for Americans to own gold except in the form of jewelry and teeth fillings. Ownership of gold coins and gold bullion by Americans, whether held domestically or abroad, was prohibited by law in 1934 when President Franklin Roosevelt took the US off the gold standard. Thus, Americans had no easy way to protect themselves from inflation and a devaluation of the dollar. But, that changed in 1975 as a result of some highly skilled behind the scenes actions by McClure, et.al., in the Senate and by Crane, et. al., in the House, and with a little help from then Treasury Secretary William Simon and the shadow of the prospective Reagan primary challenge. The gold prohibition was repealed and just in the nick of time as Americans could legally own gold to protect themselves from the high inflation of the Carter years.

In each election from 1972 through 1978, new articulate conservative Republicans were elected to the Senate. Most importantly, of course, were Helms and McClure in ’72; Laxalt (NV) and Garm (Utah) in ’74; Hatch (Utah) and Wallop (WY) in ’76; and Humphrey (NH) and Jepsen (IA) in ’78. Each became highly effective legislators and articulate spokesman for conservative principles and each was very active with McClure’s Steering Committee. After each election, the conservative Steering Committee became more and more influential. Then, of course, there was the landmark election of 1980.

The AP wire story today announcing McClure’s death said, “McClure earned a reputation as a nuts-and-bolts legislative craftsman during his 24 years in Congress, and was genial but reserved among most colleagues.” Based on my own knowledge of him that is an accurate description. The world of conservative politics, has often times been divided between those who make noise and those who make a difference. Senator Jim, as I called him, made a difference.

EPIC/MRA 2012 Michigan Poll

In the election for President, if the election were held today, and the candidates were Mitt Romney the Republican and Barack Obama the Democrat, would you vote for Barack Obama or Mitt Romney?

• 38% Vote for Mitt Romney the Republican
• 8% Lean toward Mitt Romney
• 38% Vote for Barack Obama the Democrat
• 3% Lean toward Barack Obama
• 13% Undecided/Refused

600 MoE ±4.0%. Polling Dates: February 12-17, 2011.

With popular revolutions springing up throughout the Muslim Middle East, and with Arab populations pining for representative government and self-determination in lieu of authoritarian despots and semi-permanent police states, the American Right should, if the presidency of George W. Bush is any indication of its bearings, be cheering the supposed vindication of its most recent president’s worldview. But instead, conservatives here in the States seem to be of two minds with regard to the possibility of a pan-Arabian series of popular uprisings, with folks like Bill Kristol continuing to express optimism, while the Glenn Beck crowd looks for every possible synonym for the term, “caliphate.” This division, I think, reflects the manner in which the American Right is far from a monolithic ideology. Instead, American conservatism is really a hybrid of classical liberalism and traditional, Burkean conservatism, two seperate and distinct points of view that often conflict with one another, and that are in diametric opposition when it comes to the notion of liberal democracy in Arabia. This piece is not intended to delve into the particulars of what democracy in the region may come to look like; that is for a future piece after further study. Nor is this piece meant to argue that either classical liberals or Burkeans are morally superior. Rather, I am attempting, with this piece, to point out that both classical liberals and Burkeans have a point when it comes to their conflicting views on a pan-Arabian revolution.

A few years ago, George Will penned a piece in which he argued that Ronald Reagan’s proclamation that “we have it in our power to begin the world over again,” was in fact one of the most un-conservative sentiments ever uttered by an American president. And yet this statement, heralded by the conservative president of our generation, illustrates the manner in which American conservatism is often a mixture of oil and water. A Burkean conservative, with his focus on the limits of humanity, would never agree with such a sentiment. But the classical liberal is concerned less with practical consequences than with principle. The classical liberal is, in many ways, more of an ideologue than the Burkean. With its intellectual roots in the Enlightenment, classical liberalism holds that men are born free, and that no one has the authority to deny any individual his freedom. The right to self-determination, then, becomes an issue of right-and-wrong to the classical liberal.

But wait, says the cautious, prudent conservative, doesn’t freedom for the people of, say, Egypt, really mean the freedom to force women to cover their bodies from head to toe? Wouldn’t a secular autocracy actually lead to a much freer Arab world? The classical liberal’s response is that, if done correctly, a high-information, high-tech, modernized liberal democracy, with a constitution enumerating the rights of the citizens and the powers of the state, should yield the sort of idyllic free society that would make an 18th Century student of the Enlightenment swoon. To the classical liberal, the problem is not the notion of too much liberty, the problem is the anti-liberty forces that exist throughout society, from oppressive governments, to pointless traditions, to meaningless superstitions, all of which, in the classical liberal’s view, inhibit free and rational actions that will create the best society.

Art often imitates life, and as a bit of a movie buff, I am struck by the number of films in which classical liberalism exists as a subtle, yet important, theme. Hollywood types do tend to be leftists overall, but there is also a strong dose of classical liberalism in many films. Mel Gibson’s William Wallace, for example, wasn’t fighting for the right to be the New Socialist Man. He was fighting for freedom. But a more complex look at the classical liberal’s worldview can be found, very subtly, but probably purposely, in the Coen Brothers film, O Brother Where Art Thou. Set in the Depression-era Deep South, the film’s protagonist, portrayed by George Clooney, proclaims Enlightenment values as he exists against the backdrop of a pre-modern Mississippi, filled with corruption and bathed in mysticism.

Clooney’s character is forced to navigate a world filled with corrupt politicians and law enforcement, an empowered Ku Klux Klan, and at least one cohort who attributes his musical talent to a deal with the Devil himself. At the end of the film, the protagonist delivers his monologue, solidifying his role not as the New Soviet Man, but as the New Enlightenment Man, the voice of classical liberalism:

Yes, sir, the South is gonna change. Everything’s gonna be put on electricity and run on a paying basis. Out with the old spiritual mumbo jumbo, the superstitions, and the backward ways. We’re gonna see a brave new world where they run everybody a wire and hook us all up to a grid. Yes, sir, a veritable age of reason. Like the one they had in France. Not a moment too soon.

The character’s vision of a future society filled with high-tech, educated, interconnected, rational actors, contrasted with the low-information, provincial world in which the characters lived, where folks were easily manipulated by their superstitions, traditions, and biases, sort of sums up the classical liberal notion that an idyllic free society can come into being provided that it is implemented correctly. To Burkean conservatives, this argument sounds like one that we’ve all heard before from any number of ideologues, including aging academics who still insist that Communism would have worked if only it would have been put into place just a little bit differently. Classical liberals see tradition, tribalism, and regionalism as things that inhibit the development of a truly free society; Burkeans see those things as sustaining civilization, and preventing the return to the primitive order of the state of nature.

Bringing this discussion home to the notion of liberal democracy in the Muslim Middle East, the issue then is whether the present-day series of revolutions in Arabia and North Africa are going to yield a number of mini-Irans, or whether we truly are going to see something that would make John Locke cheer. Burkeans claim that there is a very limited choice that we face, a Middle East run by Shah of Iran types, or a Middle East run by the Ayatollahs. They feel that the ultimate endgame of democracy in the Middle East is illiberal theocracy, which would of course threaten Israel, as well as the U.S. and do nothing to liberate the Arab people. Classical liberals, though, would argue that Iran in 1979 only turned into a theocratic despotism due to the low-information society that existed at the time, where the only viable choices were the Shah or the Ayatollah. Apply the same situation to a high-tech, high-information, Twitter-ready, globalized modern world, where the revolutionaries on the ground are aware of their options, and aware of everything that’s happening in every corner of the world in real-time, and you have a recipe for the type of revolution that classical liberals have long pined for — the French Revolution done correctly. Corrupt clerics and politcians are sent to the gallows together while the individual is liberated to thrive in a new era of reason, modernity, and universality.

So are classical liberals correct that this is the beginning of the Modern Muslim Middle East? Or should we listen to the specter of Edmund Burke, wagging his finger and reminding us that the political graveyard is filled with failed ideologies, all of which looked good on paper, and all of which only needed one more opportunity to be “done right.” Is Egypt and Libya, 2011, the equivalent of Iran in 1979, or France in 1848? And even if it’s the latter, does a pan-Arabian version of the French Revolution inevitably produce its own Napoleon?

In 2008, the nation’s voters, especially after the mortgage banking crisis, turned away from the Republicans, their presidential nominee John McCain, and what were then felt to be the shortcomings of outgoing President George W. Bush.

It was a classic election in which voters were voting more against something than for something. There was also a notable factor in the Democratic nominee, Senator Barack Obama, because he was the first black nominee for president, and many Democrats, independents, and even Republicans, found the possibility of electing a black man as president of the United States to be attractive. (I might add that this was a legitimate factor; John Kennedy was the first Catholic president; Geraldine Ferraro the first woman vice presidential nominee, Joe Lieberman the first Jewish vice presidential nominee. Each of their nominations marked a maturing of the American voter who a century before had only considered white male Protestants for the nation’s highest office.)

But while this was abstractly an advance and maturing of the electorate, it did not necessarily represent the nation’s best interests to put in the White House a person of virtually no public administrative experience, minimal legislative experience, little international background, and no visible broad base of expertise to handle the undeniably toughest executive position in the free world.

At that time, I warned in print that the nation was about to put an amateur in its top job during a time of acute economic and international crises. I was far from alone in this warning. Mr. Obama’s chief rival for the Democratic nomination, Hillary Clinton, belatedly recognizing her “inevitable’ nomination was threatened by Mr. Obama’s political challenge, made focus on his experience as she tried to recover. Mrs. Clinton’s husband, former President Bill Clinton (and clearly the most experienced Democratic politician in the country) explicitly warned that Mr. Obama was likely ill-prepared to occupy the Oval Office.

But Mr. Obama prevailed, and both Clintons, as the pragmatists they are, joined up into his effort to govern.

More than two years after his residency began, it is embarrassingly clear that Mr. Obama was VERY ill-prepared to be president. The economic crisis we still face, with its chronic unemployment is excruciatingly difficult to resolve. The international crises, some already in place when Mr. Obama took office, have only grown more numerous and more troublesome.

In the off-year election just held, Mr. Obama and his party took exceptional defeats in all areas. They lost control of the U.S. house, barely maintained control of the U.S. senate (but now lack the majority they previously had which enabled them to pass their agenda of legislation), lost many state governorships and state legislatures.

But none of this means that Mr. Obama will inevitably lose his re-election in 2012. Having been given a scholarship for on-the-job training for his job, Mr. Obama is no longer as inexperienced as he once was. He will have now the opportunity to demonstrate that he has learned something, and if he does so (especially if the economy improves dramatically and unemployment falls significantly), he might win a second term.

Either way, 2012 will be primarily an assessment of the nation’s voters of Mr. Obama’s performance, and the performance of his party.

The Republican nominee, whoever he or she will be, must defer to this reality, even as their campaign must present persuasive alternatives to and credible criticisms of the Obama term in the White House.

There is a lot of discussion now in various circles of the Republican Party about who they will nominate, even as the first major candidate has not yet formally announced. Most of this discussion has been about personalities, and circumstances which are not necessarily germane to whether a candidate will be a good and effective president or not. Thus, “Mr. Tim Pawlenty is too unknown. Mr. Mitch Daniels is too short and unexciting. Mr. Mitt Romney is a Mormon. Mr. Newt Gingrich was divorced. Mrs. Sarah Palin speaks with a funny accent and manner. Mr. Mike Huckabee is too religious.” I will assert here that none of these conditions tell us anything of value about whether a candidate will be a good president.

(more…)

Most potential Republican presidential candidates agree: the economy is going to be the central and defining issue of the 2012 election. This view, however, is not a universal one. There is at least one potential candidate who believes that foreign policy may pose even greater challenges to the next president than the economy. Ambassador John Bolton is concerned about the lack of foreign policy discussion coming from Republican hopefuls, and fears the consequences of the lack may be disastrous. And, as a result, the pugnacious conservative diplomat is considering jumping into the fray. I spoke with Ambassador Bolton two weeks ago on a broad range of foreign policy issues, his impressions of the potential competition, and some thoughts on how a foreign policy candidate like Bolton might address complex domestic issues.

________________________________________________________________

A.J. Nolte: In a book review of Collin Duke’s ‘Hard Line’ written for National Review you write of the 2012 Republican nomination contest that we need “a more robust vetting on foreign policy issues during the candidate selection process”, and that this is “the only thing that stands between the Republican electorate and potentially disastrous foreign policy consequences.” What should that vetting process look like, and what role do you see yourself playing in it?

Ambassador John Bolton: Well, I think it’s very important to return national security issues to the center of the national debate over policy. Obviously, there are a lot of critical economic issues being debated now, but Obama has, in two years, largely turned off debate on foreign policy. He’s just not that interested in it, he confronts national security questions effectively only when he has to, and that approach has been mirrored, I think, too much on the Republican side. I think the world remains dangerous for the United States; I think there are any number of growing foreign policy risks that we face. You can see it in the events in Egypt in the past three weeks. So, number 1, what we need to do is simply restore the saliency of national security in the national policy universe. Number 2, we need to find out what the views are of the prospective Republican candidates. I’m hoping that most share a very sound approach to foreign policy, but we need to flush that out in specific. And we need to see, really, who is prepared, if they’re elected, to assume responsibility for foreign policy, and even before that, who’s prepared to debate Barack Obama in the campaign in the fall of next year. I haven’t decided what my role is yet—I haven’t decided whether or not to become a candidate—but I have said for quite some time now that I think it is important to get national security issues out in the forefront, and that’s what I’m still thinking about how to do.

AJN: What do you think are some ways that, with candidates who’ve got less foreign policy experience—I know a lot of the 2012 prospective candidates are governors—how do you think we can know beyond sort of the platitude foreign policy statements that they come out with, where they’re coming from on foreign policy? Do you think who they hire as their staff is the key determinant, or are there things in their records as governors before that we can look at to find that information?

JB: Well, I think one way you find out some of the answers to these issues is in debates, and what they feel they need to address in the course of their ongoing campaign. And I think a lot of it depends on citizens. Its the same as in the Iowa caucuses, New Hampshire primary and the others that come after that, Nevada, Michigan, South Carolina, Florida, that people in those states really have great access to those candidates because of their relatively early positioning in the whole process. I think the more people who ask the candidates about their foreign policy views, the more candidates will have to respond, and that would be all to the good.

AJN: You mentioned the Egyptian crisis a couple of times, and I wanted to amplify that. Its been grabbing a lot of headlines, and a lot of the potential 2012 candidates are responding to it. If you wouldn’t mind, how would you assess some of their responses, and how would a potential candidate John Bolton respond differently to the Egyptian crisis than some of the other potential candidates out there?

JB: Honestly, just in the interests of time, I talked about Egypt at some length in my CPAC speech…, and I know that it’s up on the web (click here). I think some of the other candidates have begun to address it, I noticed Governor Pawlenty did, and I told him—actually I ran into him at Fox on Friday night, Fox in Washington, and I said I agreed with the point he had made on Egypt. I think that’s an example of what I’m talking about; the more you get the candidates to articulate what their views are, the more clearly we can understand their thinking and voters can make up their minds. When you start from a place where there’s almost no discussion of foreign policy, obviously the only way you can go is up, but I think it’s important to get that process started.

AJN: Now, just very quickly, I want to hit you with a couple of foreign policy-oriented questions, and ask what you think a Republican president should do about these ongoing challenges, and how you would contrast that with the Obama administration. I want to start with Iran.

(more…)

The American Policy Summit put on by the “Tea Party Patriots” organization was held in Phoenix, Arizona this weekend. Of the 1600 people who voted in their straw poll in person, here’s the results:

• Herman Cain 22%
• Tim Pawlenty 16%
• Ron Paul 15%
• Sarah Palin 10%
• Mitt Romney 6.5%
• Michele Bachmann 5.6%

Unsurprisingly, Ron Paul won their online straw poll with 50% of the vote. His fans are a force to be reckoned with in online straw polls.

Countless individuals have compared Gov. Gary Johnson to Rep. Ron Paul, and for good reason – they both practice strongly libertarian strains of conservatism. However, Johnson wishes for the public to understand an important distinction between “Dr. No” – the Congressman – and himself – “Gov. No”:

“There was a big difference between Ron Paul and me when it came to the ‘no,’” Johnson told POLITICO. “His ‘no’ was philosophical. It was reasoned. It was right. My ‘no’ actually put a stop to legislation. It cut spending. Mine carried further than just no. I had to follow through with the debate, discussion and dialogue on why my ‘no’ wouldn’t result in people starving, schools being shut down and the delivery of services to the poor wasn’t going to be curtailed.”

…Johnson has recently made a point to distinguish himself from Paul. He stressed to POLITICO his political record of vetoing 750 bills during his two terms — more than the other 49 governors combined at that time— and thousands of line-item cuts in the state budget.

“People get caught up in the politics. ‘Oh gosh, if I veto this or that I’ll be labeled as unelectable,’” he said. “I vetoed all that stuff and found out just the opposite. In a state that’s 2-to-1 Democratic, I got reelected.”

Johnson has a potentially very powerful argument on his hands, as one of the most common (and often correct) criticisms of libertarian-leaning Conservatives centers on their seemingly greater concern for ideological purity and principle than actual governance and concrete results. Johnson, however, can turn that notion on its head by pointing to his long list of accomplishments as governor:

• Never raising taxes during his two terms and actually cutting them 14 times
• Vetoing over 750 bills, more than all 49 other governors combined
• Eliminating over 1,200 government jobs “without firing anyone”
• Becoming “the biggest advocate in the country for school vouchers”
• “Cutting the growth rate of New Mexico’s government in half”
• Leaving office with a budgetary surplus of about $1 billion
• Receiving wide praise, even from Democrats, for his leadership during New Mexico’s devastating Cerro Grande Fire
• Becoming “arguably the most popular governor of the decade”, something many would consider impossible for a decidedly libertarian Conservative

Best of all, Johnson achieved this with a Democratic legislature.  When it comes down it, Gary offers something Ron Paul can’t: a history of navigating government-limiting, freedom-promoting legislation and initiatives, through the intricacies and constraints of government bureaucracy, into action.

Ron Paul Followers Headed to Straw Poll

Ron Paul, a libertarian who wants to be President, and his supporters, have discovered the pathway to the GOP nomination and the presidency. It is to overwhelm the system. If they remain faithful and read every blogpost and newstory about him, they will increase traffic to those websites. Those websites will in return do more articles about Ron Paul, eventually pushing out all news stories about any other Republican candidates. Even New York Times stories about Ronald Reagan, Sarah Palin, Justin Bieber and Glenn Beck will become passé and nobody will publish them.

The same thing will happen with online polls and straw polls. If they are flooded with Paul supporters people won’t even bother voting in them anymore. It reminds me of an old quip I used to hear: That restaurant is so crowded nobody goes there anymore.

Soon all headlines in the blogosphere will read something like “Rep. Paul Gets 100% of the Vote in Online Poll, Election Assured”. No one will even show up this year at the Ames Straw Poll in Iowa because they know Paul has it wrapped up.

Perhaps we should go the Dana Milbank route (who boycotted Palin in February) and boycott all stories about Ron Paul in March. Don’t Read Them, Don’t Write Them….

Nah!

I’ve got traffic reports to read.

This week, the Washington Post’s Aaron Blake penned an original and entertaining analysis of Mitt Romney’s health care record. The main point of discussion? Whether the Governor’s past with MassCare amounts to the Republican version of Hillary Clinton’s Iraq war vote. As we recall, the vote raised substantial obstacles to Hillary’s path through the 2008 Democratic primaries and provided the then-Sen. Barack Obama multiple opportunities to endear himself to party members.

We begin with the similarities between the two situations:

Clinton’s vote was so toxic because it was an easy way to tie her to President Bush. In the same way, Romney’s health care bill is an easy way for his GOP opponents to say, ‘Hey, this guy’s just like Obama.’

Clinton, by refusing the apologize for her vote or say that it was a mistake, ensured that she would be asked about it at nearly every campaign stop. Romney, whose advisers did not comment for this article, looks to be headed down a similar path; after all, he didn’t even mention health care during his recent speech at the Conservative Political Action Conference.

And now, on to the discrepancies:

For one, Clinton’s vote was easy to quantify; she voted for the use of force resolution against Iraq. Period. With Romney, his opponents need to convince the public that his bill is the same as Obama’s bill even as Romney is, presumably, making the case that the two are quite different.

Second, even Romney’s potential opponents say Clinton’s Iraq vote was more of a deal-breaker for Democratic primary voters than Romney’s health care bill will be in the GOP primary.

…While Iraq was the preeminent issue for Democrats at this time in the 2008 campaign, the still-struggling economy and continued unrest in the Middle East have pushed health care as an issue to the back burner.

…What’s more, Romney isn’t as clear a frontrunner now that Clinton was in 2008. People were gunning for Clinton from the outset. That will also be the case with Romney, but not to the same extent.

For what it’s worth, I lean more toward the latter view – that the comparison does not exactly hold true, owing primarily to the fact that health care as an issue simply does not matter as much as Iraq in 2007 and 2008. While MassCare will certainly alienate some of the most hardcore members of the Republican base, it will not register as much with, say, the independents who will vote in the GOP primaries due to the lack of a Democratic contest in 2012 but don’t research each candidate’s list of policy stances in detail.

Still, we will undoubtedly hear the participants on the short end of pre-primary polling mentioning “RomneyCare” on a regular basis. How much damage that will do remains to be seen.

Hat tip to Metro for finding this: http://blogs.ajc.com/political-insider-jim-galloway/2011/02/26/the-newt-gingrich-fan-dance/. It seems that the wait for 2012 is ending, according to Mr. Jim Galloway of the Atlanta Journal Constitution:

“I was on a State Bar panel this afternoon with Randy Evans, the Atlanta lawyer in charge of Newt Gingrich’s business interests. He’s quoted below.

Before we parted, Evans told me this: ‘In 10 days, Newt Gingrich will be in Georgia, announcing his exploratory committee.’

By my count, that’s Tuesday, March 8.”

The talk recently has been about why a candidate wouldn’t want to jump into the race first and how that is preventing other contenders from the jumping in. However, Newt has never been one to bow to or follow conventional wisdom.

Now, technically an Exploratory Committee is just that… a way to explore whether or not a would-be candidate has the endorsements, the money, and plain will to win that is required to jump into the race for President. However, the formation of an Exploratory Committee is probably the greatest indication that a person is running other than an official announcement. And Newt Gingrich has been eyeing the White House for a long time. This is his last shot to be a serious or semi-serious contender for the nomination.

Right now, we are experiencing the calm before the storm. If the story from the AJC is true, then after March 8^th, there will be no turning back. After that date, the battle for the Republican nomination will commence, and it won’t end until we have a nominee to go up against President Obama.

And so it begins…

Although it is always possible to overstate, and, yes, understate our economic problems, a simple understanding of mathematics makes clear that we have run out of time to postpone action on the various nodes of our long-term economic problems.

The person at the door is no mere salesman or charity fundraiser. This time it’s the Economic Piper himself, insisting on being paid.

Fortunately, some political leaders have emerged from the individual states who are so far prepared to see that the United States of America is going to pay its bills. It should come as no surprised that these leaders have not arisen from the current federal legislatures, the house and the senate, to show us the way out of a fiscal collapse.

These four men riding grass roots horses are governors from the states, Chris Christie of New Jersey, Scott Walker of Wisconsin, Mitch Daniels of Indiana and John Kasich of Ohio are the four lead horsemen, but there is a small cavalry behind them, including several new governors elected in the 2010 election, and a few holdovers now reinvigorated to do the job they realize they must do. Only Christie was elected before 2010, and Tim Pawlenty of Minnesota, who also sounded the economic alarm in his two terms, has retired to run for president.

While the first sounds of this movement in the states came from Christie in New Jersey, the insurrection itself has arisen in Wisconsin as Governor Walker followed through on his campaign promises to begin to resolve the state’s fiscal woes, woes that incidentally affect most of the 50 states. Mr. Walker and the Republican- controlled legislature have decided to transform the state’s relationship with most of its unionized public employees, asserting that the wages and benefits of these workers are simply not sustainable. As I said at the outset, basic mathematics makes his assertion unassailable. Understandably, organized labor realizes that Governor Walker’s solutions would mean the ultimate end of the public employee unions because he has included in his remedies the removal of public employee union collective bargaining.

Massive and angry demonstrations from union leaders and members have resulted, and in Wisconsin have also resulted in the entire Democratic state senate, who are nothing more than paid agents of the unions, fleeing the state to Illinois to prevent a final vote on the enabling legislation. This ludicrous spectacle, an open defiance of the basic American principle that elections mean something, and that majorities rule, has further turned public opinion against unions. Filled with pitiable self-righteousness, union leaders have overspent a hundred years of good will among voters at large. Polls indicate that the general public opposes the union position by two to one. Unions  from across the nation have been drawn into the cause celebre. While there are a few who want to restrict all unions, it is clear that the collective bargaining rights of industrial and service workers are not being serious challenged. Nor should they be.

This is only the beginning of a series of actions which governors, legislatures, and yes, the U.S. Congress must take on the whole range of public spending, including Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid, education, social welfare and taxation.

The cliches always cited before we arrived at this point, by both Democrats and Republicans, were that fixing our economic problems was not going to be easy, painless and without hard choices. Now we are here, and the cliches are no longer mere rhetoric, but are unavoidable realities with no time to spare.

We have the most advanced and fairest economic system in the world. We are the envy of the rest of the world because of it. But we have allowed our system to be partially corrupted, compromised and unbalanced. We rested on our laurels, and indulged ourselves on feel-good actions that have undermined the fundamentals of a free democratic society.

The protests in Wisconsin are only the beginning of reactions that various interest groups will display to resist true change and common sense solutions to our problems. We are a free society, and their protests must be allowed to be voiced, but unless they are backed by a majority of the governed, the voters, they cannot be allowed to obstruct the repair of our economic system.

Much responsibility thus rests on the shoulders of these four governors, and the cavalry of their colleagues riding to join them from coast to coast. Nor is the solution restricted to one political party. Democratic Governor Jerry Brown of California, the state with perhaps the worst fiscal problems of all, is showing signs of understanding what governors and states must do now. Other Democratic governors are beginning to signal they are willing to be leaders in resolving the economic problems, and not avoiding them and not compounding them. While there are many who would wish to make this crisis only a partisan issue, it is simply not a partisan issue. Everyone has a stake in a successful resolution of our problems.

__________________________________________________________________________

-Please visit Mr. Casselman’s personal site, The Prairie Editor Blog.

Lots has been written about the effects and statistics surrounding Mitt Romney’s MassCare Health plan, also known as Romneycare. It has been compared with Obamacare.  But very little has been devoted to actually looking at what the plan requires and what a bureaucracy it has created.

Mitt Romney once claimed that he had never suggested that MASSCare would reduce the cost of health care, but his own Boston Globe article showed that wasn’t so.  It certainly didn’t lower costs as Romney promised.  Bay-Staters and employers there still pay the highest premiums costs in the country.   But is this just a free-market response to the bad economy of the last few years?  No, and Romney can’t blame subsequent Democrats for the changes in the system since he left office, for all of the regulations and mandates below were in the original Romney plan or left unchanged by Romney.

But Massachusetts Health care hadn’t been about freedom for a long time:

“The 2006 reform built on Massachusetts’ expanded public programs and its highly regulated

insurance market. The state’s small group and individual insurance markets were already

subject to rate regulations that were designed to bring down premiums and provide greater

access to health coverage.”

“required all residents over the age of 18 to obtain health insurance by July 1, 2007.”

“The 2006 reform also requires employers to participate.”

“Insurers were required to submit plans with three different levels of cost-sharing.”

Which one of these parts of Romneycare encourages a free market?

1. To Citizens: You must buy insurance, whether you want it or not.
2. To Insurance Companies: You must cover people with pre-conditions.  You cannot have caps on lifetime coverage.
3. To Both: You cannot negotiate for a low-cost catastrophic plan.
4. To Both, Respectively: You must cover drug treatment, family planning, mental health problems and pregnancies. You must pay for these things even if you don’t want them or need them.
5. To Private Employers: You must cover employees or pay huge “fees” or fines for not doing so.
6. To Insurance Companies: You must not raise rates above a certain level, regardless of rising costs.
7. To Taxpayers: You must help pay the cost of not only your own insurance, but the insurance of families making $50,000 a year (At least 15% of Massachusetts residents are almost fully subsidized, another 5% get partial subsidies).

The people who manage Romneycare like mandates and regulation, just like Romney does.

On July 1, 2007, the state merged the small group and individual insurance markets

in order to make coverage for individuals more affordable. Individuals who obtain

insurance only for themselves often have above-average medical costs, whereas small

groups share risk and attract people who have a full range of medical costs. Merging

these markets pools risk and lowers premiums for those with individual coverage.

In other words, the group that receives the greatest benefits, must pay lower premiums, which is the opposite of the law of supply and demand known as the free market.

For those who recognize the terms used to ration care (with death panels to follow?), Romneycare created a new bureaucratic state agency called innocuously, “a Quality and Cost Council. The council must set benchmarks for quality improvement and cost containment, collect data on health outcomes and health system spending from providers throughout the state’s health care system, and publish its findings on its Web site.”   Among the goals are “population health management” which include taxing high-sugar foods and coercing restaurants into changing their menus.  In spite of claims to the contrary, the program intends to impose on all doctors and hospitals such mandates/controls as this one: “reduced payments for avoidable hospitalizations and preventable readmissions.”  Another socialist idea in Romneycare is the global payment model, where instead of paying for individual treatments, doctors get paid according to how their patients improve.  Of course, this will be an incentive to drop patients who don’t show improvement.

The plan is full of bureaucrats who nothing about medicine but will be making medical decisions for the population of Massachusetts:  “available comparative effectiveness information and analysis should be utilized to develop consensus recommendations for coverage and medical necessity policies”.

To respond to the 100-page PDF document linked to above would take a couple of hundred pages of commentary.   Reading it is like reading something out of Animal Farm or 1984.   It calls for every single detail of health care to be decided by “scientists” and cost-containment experts.

Another point for those who weren’t paying attention, and only paying more for insurance in Massachusetts, Romneycare even created a form of racial quotas:

“The reform also established a statewide Racial and Ethnic Health Disparities Council to track disparities data and create Pay for Performance benchmarks.”

Apparently, the goal of REHDC is not to reduce actual incidents of diseases, but to narrow the disparities between Italians and Swedes, and even pay people to help the stats to match up.

There is another mandate mentioned by those who support Romneycare: The Reagan era requirement that emergency rooms treat any person who comes in.  While this is a legitimate complaint about the current set-up, one cannot take two wrongs and make a right out of it.  That law should not have been passed, but it could be removed or changed so that only true emergencies must be treated.  Hospitals would have to weigh the risk of not treating someone who might sue, but otherwise could turn away people who refused to pay, when they are able.

Finally, there are those who claim that the previous system rewarded “freeloaders”, who could pay for their care, but didn’t.  Because they weren’t insured, tax payers got stuck with the bill.   But those freeloaders just got signed up for free or subsidized health treatment, and guess who still pays for their care?  The taxpayers, of course.  Massachusetts just added more freeloaders, on purpose.

The Romney experiment in health care reform was a failure.   But free market economists did know or should have known it from the beginning.   Because it was anything but a free-market system.

Is it just me, or is Newt Gingrich basically writing the playbook on how not to become president in 2012? Via Ace of Spades:

Gingrich said it is too early to call for Obama’s impeachment, but did not rule it out if he fails to comply with Congress and the constitutional process.

“I believe the House Republicans next week should pass a resolution instructing the president to enforce the law and to obey his own constitutional oath, and they should say if he fails to do so that they will zero out [defund] the office of attorney general and take other steps as necessary until the president agrees to do his job.

The topic is the president’s refusal to use the power of the Executive Branch to continue to defend DOMA. Ace of Spades is not impressed:

My Problem… is that this misreads the electorate, I think. It’s not 1995.

I think the public wants tangible, realistic solutions. I feel that Gingrich here is talking like he’s a blogger, offering up a whole raft of tough-guy posturings we know to a moral certainty will never actually happen.

This to me makes him seem like a politician to me, playing for applause, looking for advantage, and not at all like what I’m imagining a successful challenger to Obama will look like.

The thing is, not only is 2011 not 1995, 1995 wasn’t 1995, at least in terms of the way Gingrich saw things playing out during the days of the 104th Congress. Bill Clinton owes much of his comeback to the fact that the soon-to-be-septuagenarian Speaker politically miscalculated at almost every turn. Gingrich’s policy prowess was second to none during the late 1980s and early 1990s, but politically, he almost always placed his bets on the wrong horse.

Further, Newt’s presidential run has the feel of a once-award-winning film star attempting to transition to a role on a hokey sitcom. Gingrich’s attempt last year to come out swinging on the Ground Zero mosque issue didn’t exactly result in the Speaker breaking out of the pack, as while most Americans agreed with the Speaker on the issue, the vast majority considered it a tertiary issue, more than eclipsed by the economy and the nation’s fiscal situation. And his suggestion now that Republicans should even begin discussing the impeachment of the president, which would be seen by the general public as baseless, and which would change the subject from issue areas where Republicans are actually winning the debate, is just another reason that Newt should presently be in retirement, not considering a presidential run.

It wasn’t quite an endorsement, but in an interview with the New York Times, Chris Christie said of Mitch Daniels:

“He’s the only one around the country, at least who is on the list as considering running for president, who is talking about it,” referring to addressing the skyrocketing costs of entitlement spending.

The comment has echoes of Jeb Bush’s comments about Daniels a week or so ago, including use of the words “the only one.” Bush said:

“Mitch is the only one who sees the stark [economic] perils and will offer real, detailed proposals,” Bush told Jacksonville business leaders …

There is a consensus forming on the importance of this issue among serious people.  No doubt other candidates will see the trend and jump on the bandwagon, but I think Daniels’ leadership on the issue, and long record, will stand him in good stead; while the late-comers will be asked what took them so long.

Christie had other wisdom on the importance of dealing with the deficit, which I’ll quote because they are so much in line with what I’ve been saying:

Mr. Christie said that any Republican who fails to offer a specific plan to address the growth in Medicare, Medicaid and Social Security is “selling people short” and will not be successful in challenging President Obama next year.

No politician in 2011-12 can be taken seriously as a leader unless they understand that the deficit is the #1 issue of our times, And any politician who claims to take the deficit seriously but pretends s/he can deal with it without touching entitlements and defense is a charlatan.

Per Gallup:

Although Mike Huckabee, Mitt Romney, and Sarah Palin lead the field of potential Republican presidential candidates among all Republicans nationwide, there are significant differences in candidate preferences when Republicans are divided by the issue they think is most important. Those focused on government spending and power are most likely to favor Huckabee or Romney, while those focused on the economy favor Romney or Palin. Republicans who say social and moral values are most important favor Huckabee or Palin.

I am not a huge Huckabee fan but it is interesting to note that he performs best when you look at the poll in total. A general election can not be won on a single issue and Huckabee seems to have his support spread out well. The question just remains…will he get in?

____________________________________________________________________________

Steve’s latest post at My Lyceum: The Authentic Adam Smith

Everyone knew that the 2012 Republican primary campaign was going to begin later than previous contests.

I’m not sure anyone thought it would be this late.

As of today, this nominating contest is the latest starting primary campaign, on either side of the aisle, in 20 years. In 2008, we had half a dozen candidates officially announced by this date. In 2004, the Democrats had the same number by now. In 2000, there were two official candidates already, and in 1996 the first official candidate launched his campaign on yesterday’s date.

We have to go back to the 1992 Democratic primary to find a contest which began later than this one. That primary began late because nobody wanted to challenge a then-popular incumbent in George H.W. Bush. Many big names passed on the chance to run, and when the candidates eventually did announce it was the fall of ’91 (when it became evident the economy would be Bush’s weak spot). We all know the story from there: Clinton, Tsongas, and Jerry Brown battled it out, Clinton became the self-labeled “comeback kid,” and he took the nomination and the Presidency.

At this point, we only have two guys barely worthy of media attention who have even formed exploratory committees, and neither one of them has a serious shot at winning anything.

We knew Romney wasn’t going to announce until March at the earliest – and then it became more likely April. Barbour and Daniels said they wouldn’t announce until April or May, after their current state legislative sessions were over. Gingrich has pointed to an April announcement date for some time now, and Pawlenty has always said he’d announce at the end of the first quarter. Huntsman can’t leave his current post until April thanks to a negotiated deal with the Obama administration. And Huckabee has said he’ll announce in summer if he runs.

So those candidates not announcing is no surprise.

But where are all the second and third tier candidates?

Pence and Thune already announced, but they announced they were not running. So where are the Duncan Hunters and Tommy Thompsons of 2012? Where are candidates like Rick Santorum, Gary Johnson, Buddy Roemer, Jim DeMint, Ron Paul, and Donald Trump — the ones that don’t really have a shot at winning but fill out the field for us every campaign?
(more…)

Your Chris Christie porn for the day:

Visit msnbc.com for breaking news, world news, and news about the economy

Democrats hoping that 2011 would be another 1995, when Bill Clinton ran circles around Newt Gingrich and set himself up for an easy re-election, are going to be sorely disappointed. Republicans have truly found their voice on these debt/spending/size of government issues, and are the only ones proposing the types of reforms necessary to curb the debt at a time when the broader electorate has finally come to terms with the severity of the issue. To swing voters, Republicans are the ones siding with “the people,” while Democrats defend powerful special interests. Like I said, Election ’96 this ain’t.

With the reports that have surfaced this week regarding Gov. Huckabee’s motivation for entering the 2012 race, I will refrain from classifying this as “friendly advice”:

Mike Huckabee tells the Brody File that Mitt Romney needs to admit that his healthcare plan in Massachusetts was a disaster.

Huckabee made the comments to me earlier this morning. You can watch the video below and read part of the transcription as well.

In essence, Mike Huckabee is giving advice to Mitt Romney on how to handle the whole “RomneyCare” issue. Isn’t that nice! I’m sure Romney will be taking notes. (Actually maybe he should)

Huckabee mentions and rips “RomneyCare” several times in his new book, “A Simple Government”. In the interview, I asked him why he used the word “RomneyCare” (as in “ObamaCare”) rather than Romney’s health care plan.

Watch the video interview here.

Gov. Romney’s Free and Strong PAC made a $5,000 contribution to the Republican Party of Wisconsin today and released the following statement:

“Liberal big government interests are fighting efforts to rein in out-of-control public employee pay and benefits in Wisconsin. It is critical that we stand with the Wisconsin GOP as it stands up for the rights of the taxpayer,” said Romney.

Look for the other 2012 contenders that have not weighed in on the standoff in a more “official” manner to do so soon.

Hoosier Access has the full text of a statement given by Mitch Daniels to the Republicans in the IN general assembly:

Republican Members of the General Assembly:

My comments yesterday afternoon were completely misunderstood by some members of the media, although not by most, and I take responsibility for it. When I began my comments by stating “Just to affirm, the activities of today are a perfectly legitimate part of the process, even the smallest minority, and that’s what we have heard from the last couple of days, has every right to express the strength of its views and I salute those who did, ” I was referring to the activities of those men and women of the public who came to the statehouse to participate in the process and share their view. I was absolutely not referring to Minority Leader Bauer and the House Democrats, whose behavior is of course unacceptable.

The rest of my comments were directed at Minority Leader Bauer and the House Democrats. They were: “Just to be equally plain, I’m not sending the state police after anybody. I’m not going to divert a single trooper from their job of protecting the Indiana public. I trust that people’s consciences will bring them back to work and I choose to believe that our friends in the minority will, having made their point, will come back and do their duty and the jobs they are paid to do.”

I try to be precise in public comments, but yesterday I was careless. What I thought would be perfectly clear, on rereading my own words, was susceptible to being misconstrued and some reporters incorrectly did so. Sorry for the confusion; all my fault.

Read the full post here.

Gallup 2012 GOP Nomination Survey

• Mike Huckabee 18% [16%] [(12%)
• Mitt Romney 16% [19%] (19%)
• Sarah Palin 16% [16%] (16%)
• Newt Gingrich 9% [13%] (9%)
• Ron Paul 5% [6%] (7%)
• Michele Bachmann 4%
• Tim Pawlenty 3% [4%] (3%)
• Haley Barbour 3% [4%] (3%)
• Mitch Daniels 3% [1%] (2%)
• Rick Santorum 2% [1%] (2%)
• Jon Huntsman 1%
• Chris Christie (vol.) 1% [1%] (1%)
• Mike Pence (vol.) 1% [1%] (1%)
• Gary Johnson 1% [1%] (1%)
• John Thune 1% [2%] (2%)
• Other 3% [2%] (4%)
• None/No opinion 14% [14%] (19%)

(more…)

Via Newsmax:

Former Arkansas Gov. Mike Huckabee says he is definitely thinking about running for president in 2012, believes President Barack Obama can be beaten – and he is the man to do it. But, Huckabee Tuesday also told Fox News’ Sean Hannity getting the nomination might be tough, and the GOP-controlled Congress could pass bills that will stop Obama from continuing to take “bizarre” actions and thereby salvage his presidency.

“Here’s the reality: I think he can be beat,” said Huckabee, who has just written a book titled “A Simple Government.” “I frankly think that I would be in a very good position to do it, because I believe that standing head-to-head with him, articulating the very clear decisive difference between our positions, would be a great contrast.

“It is the process of getting to that nomination that is tough [and] the Republicans might save him,” he said. “By that I mean that the Republicans in the House might make enough what I would call sensible votes and actually prevent him from doing some bizarre things like Obamacare, and could put him back in the game.”

Hannity asked what has changed Huckabee’s mind, as six months ago the governor was reluctant to discuss a possible 2012 run.
“Well, I think there are a couple of things. The poll numbers certainly have been favorable,” Huckabee said. “I’ve been leading in polls nationally, as well as in a number of key states, but another thing is, you know, I finished this book, I looked at it and I say: ‘You know, these ideas could help change this country.’

“Honestly, I step back from it. You know, when you write a book you get almost tired of it and you step back and you read it and you say this is what I really believe,” he said. “This is what I stand for and maybe I should put it out there and find out if there are people in this country who agree with it.”

You could argue that Huckabee won’t win. That he doesn’t have the money. That it’s too late to build a network. That his organization won’t be strong enough.

But how can anyone seriously argue he won’t run? There’s a difference between “won’t run” and “won’t win”. Huckabee obviously seems to think that he can win, and so he will act as if he can win (which means he’ll run). Whether he is being irrational or not can be debated, but he will act as if he could win, as if he has the organization – and therefore he’ll run.

And you know what, I think he’ll win.

PPP (D) North Carolina 2012 Presidential Survey

• Mike Huckabee 47% {45%} [46%] (48%)
• Barack Obama 46% {49%} [45%] (44%)

• Barack Obama 47% {47%} [46%] (44%)
• Mitt Romney 44% {44%} [43%] (44%)

• Barack Obama 48% {50%} [48%] (46%)
• Newt Gingrich 44% {44%} [42%] (45%)

• Barack Obama 51% {50%} [52%] (48%)
• Sarah Palin 41% {41%} [38%] (43%)

(more…)

The same week Somali Pirates killed Christian’s bearing Bibles, The Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR) has teamed up with the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) and is suing the FBI for surveillance of the Muslim community, particularly those who have traveled to Somalia, Pakistan, and Yemen. Last fall, CAIR sued the state of Oklahoma for passing an anti-Sharia Law statute.

CAIR has ties to both the Muslim Brotherhood (which was responsible for the assassination of Anwar Sadat of Egypt) and Hamas.

If the story is correct this was not secret surveillance, but rather the asking of questions.

In other breaking news, drug dealers are suing the DEA for targeting crack houses, and vice squads all over the country have been sued by prostitution rings for targeting – Shocking as it may sound! – brothels.

What’s next, will they check out casinos for gambling?

-Part 2 in a developing series of in-depth analysis by Dr. Jeff Fuller (See part 1 here)

It’s often revealing to turn conventional wisdom on its head and see what’s really hidden underneath.   You’ve all heard it, I’m sure, that RomneyCare is Mitt’s doom, an albatross around his neck, his biggest weakness as a potential candidate.  In Part 1 of this series I detailed not only how grave some people feel this issue is for Romney’s chances, but also pointed out that Obama and his team of key operatives (Axelrod, Gibbs, and Daley) are all praising RomneyCare as ObamaCare’s predecessor in an effort to hurt Mitt with the GOP’s conservative and libertarian bases.  However,  below I present what a great asset and strength Romney’s history and experience with health care will be to him as a general election candidate against Obama.

Yes . . . for the purposes of this post I am skipping the GOP primary altogether and how health care will effect that outcome.  Don’t worry, I will address those issues thoroughly in later installments of this series.  But sometimes it’s important to see the light at the end of the tunnel, the pot of gold at the end of the rainbow, the carrot at the end of the stick, to give a proper and more accurate assessment of the situation one is currently in.  Winning the GOP nomination and imagining how well Mitt could tackle Obama on health care is that light/pot/carrot.  Some Mitt fans or fence-sitters may be guilty of hand wringing and fretting over how RomneyCare might really be the big problem that so many are saying it will be.  This post is for you folks in particular.

First off, it’s always wise to take a step back and look at the big picture.  Health Care promises to be a big topic in the upcoming 2012 presidential election no doubt . . . but I can guarantee that it will not be the biggest. It never has been the number one issue on people’s minds and I see no reason for that to change (“It’s the Economy Stupid!“). The Exit polls from our most recent election cycle show “The Economy” dominating voter’s hearts and minds:

The economy isn’t just the most important issue to voters this year . . .  it’s roughly twice as important to them as the other top issues of concern combined . . .  Sixty-two percent of voters name the economy as their most important issue this year. Health care ranks a distant second, at 19 percent. Illegal immigration and Afghanistan follow at 8 and 7 percent.

The 2008 Presidential exit polls also showed that “The Economy” was far and away the biggest issue on people’s minds:

The economy dominated voters’ concerns at historical levels in the presidential election . . . Fully 62 percent of voters said the economy was the most important issue, six times more than cited the war in Iraq (10 percent), health care (9 percent) or terrorism (9 percent)

“The Economy” topped the 2004 presidental exit polls , and it was, again, more than triple the importance of “Health Care” in the 2000 exit polls (26% vs 8%).  And, lest you think I’m quoting outdated info, Gallup release poll results earlier this month confirming the currency of these sentiments.  “Unemployment” and ”The Economy in General” totaled 64% while “Health Care” was only 16%.  And in the crosstabs of all these polls, “Health Care” is consistently a top issue for more Democrats than either Independents or Republicans.  The Gallup poll showed it being the top issue of only 13% of Independents and 13% of Republicans, compared to 24% of Democrats.  That split along political affiliation is important as each nominee works to bring the Independent voters into the fold while keeping their base.

I think it’s plain to see that the GOP needs a nominee with “street cred” on economic issues, and there is no one better than Mitt Romney in this regard.  Hypothetically, even if Romney were the worst candidate the GOP could put up against Obama on the issue of Health Care, his economic bona fides would “cover a multitude of [health care] sins.”   There are others who also take the perspective that Romney will likely get a “pass” on health care from much of the GOP base because of the other strengths he brings to the table (article titled “Don’t count on health care ruining Romney in ’12” and, yes, it’s from Salon and is written from a snarky liberal perspective, but it makes some good points none the less).  However, I’m sticking to my guns and, as I said before, I aim to prove that Romney is actually the best nominee to go toe-to-toe with Obama on the issue of Health Care.

(more…)

Businessman Herman Cain has formed an exploratory committee and is considering a bid for President. For those who don’t know, Cain is a successful businessman who has a history of turning businesses around, from his tenure at Pillsbury to his tenure as President and CEO of Godfather’s Pizza. Cain also served as President of the Federal Reserve Bank of Kansas City and President and the CEO of the National Restaurant Association. In this last role, Cain challenged Bill Clinton in the mid-nineties when he attempted to socialize medicine in a public forum.

In 2006, Cain was diagnosed with Stage IV cancer in both his liver and his colon. With surgery and chemotherapy, Cain fought and defeated cancer. He has been cancer free since.

More recently, Cain was a radio host in Georgia on WSB until he recently decided to form a Presidential exploratory committee. I contacted his campaign recently to see if he’d be willing to answer some questions. What follows are Mr. Cain’s answers to my questions.

__________________________________________________________

Matthew R. Newman: What led you to become interested in politics?

Herman Cain: I have always been interested in the way that public policy affects businesspeople and their employees. It wasn’t until the birth of my granddaughter Selena in 1999 did I stop and think, “What can I do to make this a better world?” For me, that means lending my voice to the conservative cause and prayerfully consider using my time, talents and treasure to make this country a little bit better.

MRN: What did you learn from your 2004 campaign about connecting with voters, and how would you apply that to the disparate voters across the union?

HC: In 2004, I came in what I call an “impressive second” in the Republican Senatorial primary in the state of Georgia. I started off with no name recognition and no political record. Instead, I had an extensive and successful business background. Although I ultimately did not win the nomination, I learned the importance of talking with and listening to the people. Too many politicians talk at folks, instead of talking with them about the issues facing our country.

MRN: Do you believe that never holding elected office will be a hindrance to your campaign?

HC: Many reporters and members of the elite political class would like you to believe that attending an Ivy League school or having a lifelong political career is essential to succeeding in public policy and public service. Such a perspective indicates how out of touch they are with the American people. Most Americans cannot identify with lifetime politicians. They can identify with someone who has run several businesses, raised a family, survived cancer and achieved his American Dream.

And besides, all of the people in Washington, D.C. have political experience. How’s that working out, for you?

MRN: What are the three biggest areas that you find yourself in disagreement with President Obama?

HC: It is difficult to narrow down my disagreement with President Obama to only three areas, so I’ll try to summarize all of them in two ways:

First, I think he and I simply view America differently. He seems ashamed of this country, ashamed of our history and ashamed of our prosperity. He sees this country as greedy, reckless and inherently flawed. He sees the Constitution as a roadblock to his political agenda and his hopes for “fundamentally transforming this country.”I see this country as the greatest and most noble idea men were ever brave enough to dream up. I see America as force for good in the world, a nation that has liberated the oppressed and been the most generous nation in human history. I see the Constitution as a freeing document, a document that guarantees the liberty of the people and the restraint of government. I see the American people as industrious, innovative and just plain decent. I truly believe that a bad day in America is better than a good day anywhere else.

Secondly, I think President Obama rejects the notion that people can think for themselves. He believes the government’s role is to legislate behavior of the people through taxes and regulation. His entire political agenda has been characterized by him forcing unpopular legislation down the throats of the American people, whether it’s cap and trade, health care, bailouts, stimulus programs or the preferential treatment of unions. His view of the role of government and mine are polar opposites.

MRN: When you were at the Americans for Prosperity National Summit in August 2010, you spoke about forcing your subordinates to cut 15% from the Godfather Pizza budget. When your marketing VP could not get down to 85%, you fired that person and hired a new marketing VP. Is it possible to apply that same business style to Washington, given the nature of partisan politics and the various rules regarding the Senate and the separation of powers?

HC: It is not only possible to do so, it is imperative to do so. The American people are the collective employer of the government. If elected and appointed officials are unable to scale back the size and scope of government, including our looming debt and continual deficits, then the American people should fire them, as they did to many in Congress in November 2010. On an executive level, if I were the president, I would transfer this tried-and-true practice from my private sector experience to public service.

MRN: The 2010 census shows Republican states such as Texas making huge gains in population and in turn have the potential for big gains in Congress. However, many of those population gains are due to an influx of Latinos, who typically vote Democratic. How can Republicans stay true to their principles on border control and still win the Latino vote?

HC: There is certainly a welcoming home for Latinos in the conservative movement and the Republican Party. Latinos are generally very faithful and religious people, so our views on life issues should appeal to them. Further, those who come to this country knowing and understanding that this is a place for opportunity should understand that reaping the benefits of this great nation mean taking an active role in its maintenance.

There are a growing number of Hispanic voters who are coming to the Republican Party and the conservative movement. I hope that they identify with our philosophy as the one that will create the greatest amount of economic and social mobility for themselves and their families.

It’s important to note that many Hispanic Republicans were elected in the midterm elections across all levels of government, including U.S. Senate and governorships.

MRN: You have made your first hire in Iowa. Do you expect to focus there, or will you target other early states as well?

HC: I have been to Iowa ten times already. During this exploratory phase, I am visiting a lot of early primary and caucus states to gauge grassroots and donor support in those areas. I have also spent time in some of the key battleground states, as well.

MRN: You are extremely popular among the base of the Republican Party, as evidenced by your presences and support at Daily Caller; Red State; and AFP conferences across the nation. Should you choose to run, how would you work to garner the necessary establishment support within the Republican Party?

HC: It is my hope that whoever ends of being the nominee, they will enjoy support from Republican Party leadership and various GOP organizations.

MRN: If elected, how would a Cain administration deal with potential threats from North Korea?

HC: Appeasing our enemies should never be an option. Our current president seems to believe that compromising or “sitting down” with the world’s most threatening dictators makes the U.S. sophisticated or progressive. Moves like this exchange our security for vanity. President Reagan knew that national security wasn’t about America winning “Miss Congeniality” contests. It’s about keeping our people safe.

That means knowing who are friends are and knowing who our enemies are. In this case, North Korea is a danger not only to its own people, but also to the U.S. Most importantly, it’s about maintaining “peace through strength.”

MRN: How does your view of American exceptionalism translate into your vision for US foreign policy, and what concrete steps would you take, as President, to make that vision a reality?

HC: American Exceptionalism has two connotations. The first, and more traditional, is that the U.S. is the greatest nation on Earth because our government and laws are reflective of the understanding that “we the people” have certain God-given rights that can never be taken away.

The second was popularized by President Reagan and that is that America is simply the greatest country on Earth. I recently wrote about this in American Spectator, and the piece will appear in March 2010. I find it very alarming that our current President doesn’t share my (and millions of other Americans’) views on this. In April 2009, the President said, “I believe in American exceptionalism, just as I suspect the Brits believe in British exceptionalism and the Greeks believe in Greek exceptionalism.” In saying this, President Obama chalked up American Exceptionalism to simple nationalism. We know this isn’t the case.

In regards to foreign policy, American Exceptionalism means that we must protect and defend the gift that is America.

MRN: The Tea Party had a massive influence on the 2010 midterm elections. Recently, however, Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid said the Tea Party would dissipate as the economy recovered. How accurate do you think assessment is, and do you think the Tea Party will continue to impact both primary and general elections in 2012?

HC: Frankly, I don’t believe anyone should be treating Sen. Harry Reid as any sort of expert on the mood of America. After all, he’s the guy that declared that the war was “lost” and that it was a good thing that “only 36,000 people” lost their jobs that day.

That being said, I have been an active member of the TEA Party movement, as well as a keynote speaker at more than 120 grassroots events across the country in the past year. I see the will of the people and it is as vibrant and strong as ever.

MRN: What are your thoughts on the media portrayal of the Tea Party movement, especially in regard to their reaction to the recent attack on Congresswoman Giffords?

HC: Some members of the media have chosen to portray TEA Party activists as fringe, prejudiced and uneducated. They couldn’t be further from the truth. Their portrayal indicates their utter contempt for ordinary Americans, whom they would prefer to just “sit down and shut up.” Well, I’ve got news for them: it just isn’t happening.

In regards to the tragic incident regarding Congresswoman Giffords and many others injured or killed, their attempts to politicize such a catastrophe are disgusting. They attempted to “attack the dots” when they weren’t there, and even unfairly attributed blame to Governor Palin. Those who made false accusations should be held accountable.

MRN: It is well documented that you are pro-life. How do you feel that, as President, you would be able to help promote a culture of life?

HC: While I do believe that the economy and national security are the most important issues facing our country, I am a firm believer in the dignity of life and support a ban on partial birth abortion. If I were president, I would sign legislation that would protect the sanctity of life. Additionally, I would be in favor of any legislation that would encourage adoptions as a loving and safe alternative to abortion.

I also support a complete federal defunding of Planned Parenthood. American taxpayers should not be forced to foot the bill for abortions that destroy life and harm the mother. Furthermore, the roots of the organization, as pointed out in Jonah Goldberg’s “Liberal Facism,” are Margaret Sanger’s desire to perform eugenics and ultimately, destroy the black race. Many of America’s most revered civil rights leaders, such as Niger Innis and Dr. Alveda King, would attest to this fact.

MRN: If elected, what qualifications would you look for in a potential nominee to the Supreme Court? Do you have any specific people that you feel are good, model Judges?

HC: The simple answer: a Justice must issue rulings based on the Constitution, not on any political leanings or desires to legislate from the bench.

MRN: If elected, how would a Cain administration deal with border security and illegal immigration?

HC: First things first: the term “comprehensive immigration reform” tossed around by liberals is simply code for “do nothing” which becomes amnesty.

There are 3 steps to solving our illegal immigration problem: securing the border (we put a man on the moon, so this isn’t that hard!); enforce the laws; promote the existing path to citizenship.

MRN: Historically, the Republican Party has had difficulty reaching out to urban voters with their primary strength in rural and suburban areas. How do you feel the Republican Party should reach out to these voters and as the party’s standard bearer in 2012, how would you do just that?

HC: There are more conservative black voters out there than are willing to admit it. They fear being ostracized by other members of the black community. I think that if given the option of two black candidates for president of differing ideologies, they would be encouraged to choose based on merit and policies.

MRN: Where do you find yourself in agreement with our current President?

HC: I agree with President Obama’s stated intentions of bringing sweeping ethics reforms to the federal government. I’m just waiting on those to be put into action. We’ll see.

MRN: In closing, what is the one thing you want to ensure that potential voters know about you personally?

HC: While I prayerfully consider a run for the White House, I want people to know that this isn’t about me. Frankly, I’d love nothing more than to enjoy my retirement, playing golf every day and spending time with my family. However, I think the problems facing our country are grave and require bold leadership. At this country’s birth, we had the Founding Fathers. Now it’s time for patriots to step up to be the Defending Fathers.

I’d like to thank Mr. Cain for his time and the editors at Race42012 for helping to develop some of these questions. If you’d like to learn more about Mr. Cain, check out the website for his exploratory committee.

_______________________________________________________

-Matt Newman is a conservative blogger from Maryland who blogs at Old Line Elephant and Tweets far too often.

“It’s like Cairo has moved to Madison.” That was the reaction of Rep. Paul Ryan to the ongoing demonstrations in opposition to Wisconsin Gov. Scott Walker’s plan to declaw the state’s public employees’ unions by prohibiting collective bargaining. But while the imagery smacks of the popular uprising against a tinpot Arab despot, the roles are reversed, with Wisconsin’s protestors clamoring to uphold an antequated system that is robbing the nation of much of its wealth, all to line the pockets of the state’s many vassals.

Like the upheavel half a world away, the happenings in Wisconsin are proving to be a bellwether moment in our nation’s evolution, as a collection of largely Rust Belt Republican governors, charged with the unenviable task of modernizing a regional economy that was designed for the mid-20th Century and not the early 21st Century, are attempting to move their states forward at a time when America as a whole could easily plunge into a sea of red ink that would bring with it the decline and fall of the American Empire. What happens in Wisconsin will signal whether the nation as a whole is prepared to move into an era of smaller government, freer markets, less debt, and greater innovation, or whether we’re going to pretend that we can go back to an economic model that has long since dissipated.

I spent a fair amount of time today gauging the American Left’s position on the issue, as presented by State-Run Radio, more commonly known as NPR. The arguments being made by the Left convinced me more than ever that today’s Democratic Party is less concerned with “winning the future,” than with retreating into the past. To the Left, America could simply click its heels and be transported back into the 1950s. Not only could all public employees be protected by unions, private employees would be universally protected as well, and we’d all have the iron-clad benefits that today’s public employees enjoy. Stagnating wages would be forced up, and the only ones who would suffer would be the dastardly rich. Oh, and if we don’t follow this particular yellow brick road back to Oz, we will all soon watch in horror as corporations, without unions to balance them out, transform the American workforce into a Third World-style slave labor camp.

There is so much nonsense here that I’m not even sure where to start. The overall problem with the Left’s Roadmap to Ruin, it seems, is the assumption that a 1950s economic analysis can be applied to the world of 2011. This is prima facie absurd, and it doesn’t take a student of economics to understand why. Before I go any farther, let me assure the reader that I understand the importance of private employees’ unions in the development of an industrial economy. These unions are probably a necessity during a certain stage in a society’s economic maturation. But in today’s American economy, a largely post-industrial economy, unions are far less relevant, which is why they’ve all but disappeared in the private sector. Today’s economy is largely driven by a variety of employers, large and small, competing for individual employees with specific skill sets. This is not the sort of economic model that lends itself to a few powerful robber barons turning a vast under-educated populace into serfs, which is what the Left seems to believe will occur without unions.

Not only would unionization make little sense in most of today’s America, where individual skills and talents are paramount, but the market-distorting effects that unions have on wages and benefits would almost certainly do to America’s private sector what the unions have done to the public sector. In the past, I have been very critical of many on the Right for failing to address the stagnation of middle class wages in this country, but what the Left is suggesting is not to move those wages upward via growth, but to essentially redistribute the pie coercively, which will ultimately destroy jobs and send more and more employers overseas. At this point, leftists usually suggest putting up barriers to free trade. That would be all good and well were it not for the fact that American companies like GM are able to sell far more products to the Chinese than to Americans. If corporations are able to both make things in China, and sell the things that they make to the Chinese, what is the purpose of the U.S? America is becoming an afterthought.

And that dynamic pretty much sums up the reason that the American economy can’t be shifted into reverse, as it were, and returned to a more union-friendly era. Think about what the world was like in the 1950s. Europe had literally been blown to pieces. It was barely visible through the postwar haze. China was still a sleepy, Communist country. The Iron Curtain was in place, and everyone knew their place in the world. Now, the EU is rearing its head, China continues to outpace America, and a billion hungry Asians are about to tell us all what’s what. But despite all of that, we’re really going to solve all of our problems by ending free trade, making every American a union member, and taxing the rich? Really?

A bright future for America will not come through collective bargaining, but through individual empowerment. It will not be the result of fortifying an outdated economic model, but innovation that yields new growth. America is an actor in a global economy and nothing can change that. We have to make sure that we’re the best place in the world to do business, and that our workforce is a highly-skilled, highly-educated workforce. And we can’t do any of this while on the verge of default, which is why the fiscal house must be put in order. One necessary, but not sufficient, step to doing all of this is to restructure the outmoded manner by which government does business, and that means ending the ability of public employees’ unions to prevent those reforms.

Unfortunately, the President of the United States has shown himself, time and time again, to be on the wrong side of history at this pivotal moment. His refusal to address the long-term debt via entitlement reform was evidence of this, and his decision to come to the aid of Gov. Walker’s foes in Wisconsin should remove any doubt that President Obama does not understand the direction in which this country needs to go on economic and fiscal matters. The Republican Party has a real chance to make history next year by nominating a candidate with the courage to move the tectonic plates on these economic and fiscal issues, and with the proven ability to do so. Gov. Walker is one such candidate, but he’s got his hands full. Gov. Christie is another such candidate, and should he choose to run, he could do so late in 2011, with three legislative sessions fully under his substantial belt. That would be far more experience than Barack Obama had going into his presidential run. And then there’s Gov. Daniels, who has run the Christie/Walker gauntlet, but in a quiet way, a manner that leaves many on the Right unconvinced and wanting more. Let’s hope that at least one of these men decides to take the plunge, in order to save the nation from the Left. And from itself.

Businessman Herman Cain has formed an exploratory committee and is considering a bid for President. For those who don’t know, Cain is a successful businessman who has a history of turning businesses around, from his tenure at Pillsbury to his tenure as President and CEO of Godfather’s Pizza. Cain also served as President of the Federal Reserve Bank of Kansas City and President and the CEO of the National Restaurant Association. In this last role, Cain challenged Bill Clinton in the mid-nineties when he attempted to socialize medicine in a public forum.

In 2006, Cain was diagnosed with Stage IV cancer in both his liver and his colon. With surgery and chemotherapy, Cain fought and defeated cancer. He has been cancer free since.

More recently, Cain was a radio host in Georgia on WSB until he recently decided to form a Presidential exploratory committee. I contacted his campaign recently to see if he’d be willing to answer some questions. What follows are Mr. Cain’s answers to my questions.

__________________________________________________________

Matthew R. Newman: What led you to become interested in politics?

Herman Cain: I have always been interested in the way that public policy affects businesspeople and their employees. It wasn’t until the birth of my granddaughter Selena in 1999 did I stop and think, “What can I do to make this a better world?” For me, that means lending my voice to the conservative cause and prayerfully consider using my time, talents and treasure to make this country a little bit better.

MRN: What did you learn from your 2004 campaign about connecting with voters, and how would you apply that to the disparate voters across the union?

HC: In 2004, I came in what I call an “impressive second” in the Republican Senatorial primary in the state of Georgia. I started off with no name recognition and no political record. Instead, I had an extensive and successful business background. Although I ultimately did not win the nomination, I learned the importance of talking with and listening to the people. Too many politicians talk at folks, instead of talking with them about the issues facing our country.

MRN: Do you believe that never holding elected office will be a hindrance to your campaign?

HC: Many reporters and members of the elite political class would like you to believe that attending an Ivy League school or having a lifelong political career is essential to succeeding in public policy and public service. Such a perspective indicates how out of touch they are with the American people. Most Americans cannot identify with lifetime politicians. They can identify with someone who has run several businesses, raised a family, survived cancer and achieved his American Dream.

And besides, all of the people in Washington, D.C. have political experience. How’s that working out, for you?

MRN: What are the three biggest areas that you find yourself in disagreement with President Obama?

HC: It is difficult to narrow down my disagreement with President Obama to only three areas, so I’ll try to summarize all of them in two ways:

First, I think he and I simply view America differently. He seems ashamed of this country, ashamed of our history and ashamed of our prosperity. He sees this country as greedy, reckless and inherently flawed. He sees the Constitution as a roadblock to his political agenda and his hopes for “fundamentally transforming this country.”I see this country as the greatest and most noble idea men were ever brave enough to dream up. I see America as force for good in the world, a nation that has liberated the oppressed and been the most generous nation in human history. I see the Constitution as a freeing document, a document that guarantees the liberty of the people and the restraint of government. I see the American people as industrious, innovative and just plain decent. I truly believe that a bad day in America is better than a good day anywhere else.

Secondly, I think President Obama rejects the notion that people can think for themselves. He believes the government’s role is to legislate behavior of the people through taxes and regulation. His entire political agenda has been characterized by him forcing unpopular legislation down the throats of the American people, whether it’s cap and trade, health care, bailouts, stimulus programs or the preferential treatment of unions. His view of the role of government and mine are polar opposites.

MRN: When you were at the Americans for Prosperity National Summit in August 2010, you spoke about forcing your subordinates to cut 15% from the Godfather Pizza budget. When your marketing VP could not get down to 85%, you fired that person and hired a new marketing VP. Is it possible to apply that same business style to Washington, given the nature of partisan politics and the various rules regarding the Senate and the separation of powers?

HC: It is not only possible to do so, it is imperative to do so. The American people are the collective employer of the government. If elected and appointed officials are unable to scale back the size and scope of government, including our looming debt and continual deficits, then the American people should fire them, as they did to many in Congress in November 2010. On an executive level, if I were the president, I would transfer this tried-and-true practice from my private sector experience to public service.

MRN: The 2010 census shows Republican states such as Texas making huge gains in population and in turn have the potential for big gains in Congress. However, many of those population gains are due to an influx of Latinos, who typically vote Democratic. How can Republicans stay true to their principles on border control and still win the Latino vote?

HC: There is certainly a welcoming home for Latinos in the conservative movement and the Republican Party. Latinos are generally very faithful and religious people, so our views on life issues should appeal to them. Further, those who come to this country knowing and understanding that this is a place for opportunity should understand that reaping the benefits of this great nation mean taking an active role in its maintenance.

There are a growing number of Hispanic voters who are coming to the Republican Party and the conservative movement. I hope that they identify with our philosophy as the one that will create the greatest amount of economic and social mobility for themselves and their families.

It’s important to note that many Hispanic Republicans were elected in the midterm elections across all levels of government, including U.S. Senate and governorships.

MRN: You have made your first hire in Iowa. Do you expect to focus there, or will you target other early states as well?

HC: I have been to Iowa ten times already. During this exploratory phase, I am visiting a lot of early primary and caucus states to gauge grassroots and donor support in those areas. I have also spent time in some of the key battleground states, as well.

MRN: You are extremely popular among the base of the Republican Party, as evidenced by your presences and support at Daily Caller; Red State; and AFP conferences across the nation. Should you choose to run, how would you work to garner the necessary establishment support within the Republican Party?

HC: It is my hope that whoever ends of being the nominee, they will enjoy support from Republican Party leadership and various GOP organizations.

MRN: If elected, how would a Cain administration deal with potential threats from North Korea?

HC: Appeasing our enemies should never be an option. Our current president seems to believe that compromising or “sitting down” with the world’s most threatening dictators makes the U.S. sophisticated or progressive. Moves like this exchange our security for vanity. President Reagan knew that national security wasn’t about America winning “Miss Congeniality” contests. It’s about keeping our people safe.

That means knowing who are friends are and knowing who our enemies are. In this case, North Korea is a danger not only to its own people, but also to the U.S. Most importantly, it’s about maintaining “peace through strength.”

MRN: How does your view of American exceptionalism translate into your vision for US foreign policy, and what concrete steps would you take, as President, to make that vision a reality?

HC: American Exceptionalism has two connotations. The first, and more traditional, is that the U.S. is the greatest nation on Earth because our government and laws are reflective of the understanding that “we the people” have certain God-given rights that can never be taken away.

The second was popularized by President Reagan and that is that America is simply the greatest country on Earth. I recently wrote about this in American Spectator, and the piece will appear in March 2010. I find it very alarming that our current President doesn’t share my (and millions of other Americans’) views on this. In April 2009, the President said, “I believe in American exceptionalism, just as I suspect the Brits believe in British exceptionalism and the Greeks believe in Greek exceptionalism.” In saying this, President Obama chalked up American Exceptionalism to simple nationalism. We know this isn’t the case.

In regards to foreign policy, American Exceptionalism means that we must protect and defend the gift that is America.

MRN: The Tea Party had a massive influence on the 2010 midterm elections. Recently, however, Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid said the Tea Party would dissipate as the economy recovered. How accurate do you think assessment is, and do you think the Tea Party will continue to impact both primary and general elections in 2012?

HC: Frankly, I don’t believe anyone should be treating Sen. Harry Reid as any sort of expert on the mood of America. After all, he’s the guy that declared that the war was “lost” and that it was a good thing that “only 36,000 people” lost their jobs that day.

That being said, I have been an active member of the TEA Party movement, as well as a keynote speaker at more than 120 grassroots events across the country in the past year. I see the will of the people and it is as vibrant and strong as ever.

MRN: What are your thoughts on the media portrayal of the Tea Party movement, especially in regard to their reaction to the recent attack on Congresswoman Giffords?

HC: Some members of the media have chosen to portray TEA Party activists as fringe, prejudiced and uneducated. They couldn’t be further from the truth. Their portrayal indicates their utter contempt for ordinary Americans, whom they would prefer to just “sit down and shut up.” Well, I’ve got news for them: it just isn’t happening.

In regards to the tragic incident regarding Congresswoman Giffords and many others injured or killed, their attempts to politicize such a catastrophe are disgusting. They attempted to “attack the dots” when they weren’t there, and even unfairly attributed blame to Governor Palin. Those who made false accusations should be held accountable.

MRN: It is well documented that you are pro-life. How do you feel that, as President, you would be able to help promote a culture of life?

HC: While I do believe that the economy and national security are the most important issues facing our country, I am a firm believer in the dignity of life and support a ban on partial birth abortion. If I were president, I would sign legislation that would protect the sanctity of life. Additionally, I would be in favor of any legislation that would encourage adoptions as a loving and safe alternative to abortion.

I also support a complete federal defunding of Planned Parenthood. American taxpayers should not be forced to foot the bill for abortions that destroy life and harm the mother. Furthermore, the roots of the organization, as pointed out in Jonah Goldberg’s “Liberal Facism,” are Margaret Sanger’s desire to perform eugenics and ultimately, destroy the black race. Many of America’s most revered civil rights leaders, such as Niger Innis and Dr. Alveda King, would attest to this fact.

MRN: If elected, what qualifications would you look for in a potential nominee to the Supreme Court? Do you have any specific people that you feel are good, model Judges?

HC: The simple answer: a Justice must issue rulings based on the Constitution, not on any political leanings or desires to legislate from the bench.

MRN: If elected, how would a Cain administration deal with border security and illegal immigration?

HC: First things first: the term “comprehensive immigration reform” tossed around by liberals is simply code for “do nothing” which becomes amnesty.

There are 3 steps to solving our illegal immigration problem: securing the border (we put a man on the moon, so this isn’t that hard!); enforce the laws; promote the existing path to citizenship.

MRN: Historically, the Republican Party has had difficulty reaching out to urban voters with their primary strength in rural and suburban areas. How do you feel the Republican Party should reach out to these voters and as the party’s standard bearer in 2012, how would you do just that?

HC: There are more conservative black voters out there than are willing to admit it. They fear being ostracized by other members of the black community. I think that if given the option of two black candidates for president of differing ideologies, they would be encouraged to choose based on merit and policies.

MRN: Where do you find yourself in agreement with our current President?

HC: I agree with President Obama’s stated intentions of bringing sweeping ethics reforms to the federal government. I’m just waiting on those to be put into action. We’ll see.

MRN: In closing, what is the one thing you want to ensure that potential voters know about you personally?

HC: While I prayerfully consider a run for the White House, I want people to know that this isn’t about me. Frankly, I’d love nothing more than to enjoy my retirement, playing golf every day and spending time with my family. However, I think the problems facing our country are grave and require bold leadership. At this country’s birth, we had the Founding Fathers. Now it’s time for patriots to step up to be the Defending Fathers.

I’d like to thank Mr. Cain for his time and the editors at Race42012 for helping to develop some of these questions. If you’d like to learn more about Mr. Cain, check out the website for his exploratory committee.

_______________________________________________________

-Matt Newman is a conservative blogger from Maryland who blogs at Old Line Elephant and Tweets far too often.