I’ve been neutral to positive on the potential candidacy of Mitch Daniels for president, but I think his chances took a major hit today with his statement that Indiana Republicans should pull right-to-work legislation. Daniels’ brand is, in my opinion, entirely based on the notion that he’s a tough-talking, no-nonsense, future-oriented problem-solver, who is willing to make the hard decisions necessary to get America’s house in order. As any sane person must recognize, dealing with out-of-control, unaccountable labor unions is essential to this goal. This is true for at least three reasons. First, labor unions–public sector unions in particular–have created a huge fiscal problem by pushing for lavish, unfunded and unaffordable pensions and health plans. Second, labor unions, and the teacher’s union in particular, often cripple the industries in which they work by their focus on their own rights (those of the union collectively and not the individual worker) at the expense of consumers. In the case of teacher’s unions, the consumers in question are, of course, the students. Finally, labor unions have become highly undemocratic, and have taken steps (such as card check) to give the average worker even less say about his/her own conditions. Labor unions do have a place in society, and an important one, but they have clearly gotten out of control, and a failure to restrain their excesses will lead America down the failed corporatist path which has stifled European economic growth and gradually eroded their free markets.
Daniels’ unwillingness to take on labor unions will harm him in at least two ways. First, it furthers the narrative that he is too much of a conciliator to actually push real conservative reform. A truce on social issues combined with a capitulation to labor unions makes Daniels look weak, particularly in comparison to Chris Christie, who attends pro-life rallies and takes labor unions on directly in deep blue New Jersey. Second, it diminishes Daniels’ reputation for seriousness. Again, the issue of national solvency, fiscal austerity and the future of our dynamic economy can’t be addressed without taking on organized labor, and the public sector variety in particular. Equally, we will never be able to move beyond our ridiculously antiquated industrial-era education system without breaking the strangle-hold of the NEA, the biggest stumbling-block to real reform.
I will not say that I can’t vote for Daniels as a result of this. However, in light of his right-to-work actions today, he has to be classed with Mike Huckabee as a Republican who can’t be fully trusted on labor union reform. And I’m very much afraid that’s an issue we’ll have to address in the term of the next president, if we want to return to governmental and fiscal solvency and sanity.
Updates and clarifications:
I wanted to clarify a few points, based on the comments:
1. I will freely admit that (A) there is a vast difference between public and private sector unions and (B) public sector unions are a much bigger problem. That said, even private sector unions have become too politically powerful–and non-representative of the actual workers–for me to leave them off the hook completely. Right to work is important, in that it will weaken these tendencies, and force unions to compete for the allegiance of workers and, hence, hopefully become more in touch with their actual concerns and less with national and state-level politics. A strong, broad-based private sector labor movement, which produces bridging social capital and increases civic engagement, would be extremely helpful to the preservation of the American republic. That, however, is not what the labor movement looks like today.
2. Mitch Daniels’ supporters gave the following explanation to National Review: Right to work was distracting attention from his education reform package, which Daniels hopes to make his legacy. I’m actually sympathetic to this argument; as I intimated above, I think education reform is one of the three or four most important issues facing us on the domestic front. On the other hand, if Democratic legislators can get away with walk-out tactics on right to work, what’s to stop them from doing the same thing when Daniels inevitably crosses the teacher’s unions?
3. There have been a lot of comments about how Daniels is “toast” or a “RINO”, and so on. I don’t agree. I think he’s a generally impressive, conservative governor who has made a strategic mistake, and who seems to have an intense desire to appear moderate. That, in and of itself, isn’t a deal-breaker for me, nor is the mistake I think he made on right-to-work. In fairness to Daniels, I should point out that he has: (A) eliminated collective bargaining by executive order and (B) expressed strong support for Governor Walker. I’m not sure this will be enough to change perceptions around this issue, but it is worth pointing out nonetheless.
Thune’s not running, per a prepared statement released today. Here’s the text of the statement
For months now, my wife Kimberley and I have received encouragement from family, friends, colleagues, and supporters from across South Dakota and the country to run for the presidency of the United States. We have appreciated hearing their concerns about where the country is headed and their hopes for a new direction.During this time, Kimberley and I and our two daughters have given a great deal of thought to how we might best serve South Dakota and our nation. That process has involved lots of prayer.
Along the way, we have been reminded of the importance of being in the arena, of being in the fight. And make no mistake that during this period of fiscal crisis and economic uncertainty there is a fight for the future direction of America. There is a battle to be waged over what kind of country we are going to leave our children and grandchildren and that battle is happening now in Washington, not two years from now. So at this time, I feel that I am best positioned to fight for America’s future here in the trenches of the United States Senate.
I want to thank those who have encouraged us and prayed for us during the past several months. We are forever grateful for all the support.
John and Kimberley
It’s official, State Treasurer Richard Mourdock will be primarying Dick Lugar in the US Senate race in Indiana. His announcement today came along with his revelation that 75% of State County Party Chairs were publicly endorsing his campaign against Lugar.
Mourdock also released his first campaign ad entitled, “Obama’s Favorite Republican” which you can view here:
[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=r5gT8cjEUiI[/youtube]
I’ll be interested to see some polling on this race and what kind of traction Mourdock gets. His endorsements are a pretty big deal, especially with the big reveal as he announces his candidacy. While he’s not a “Tea Party” activist per say, he may be able to tap into that energy in a primary against Lugar, who many Tea Party activists are still upset about his support for the DREAM Act and START.
_______________________________________________________
-Matt Newman is a conservative blogger from Maryland who blogs at Old Line Elephant and Tweets far too often.
Newsweek/Daily Beast 2012 Presidential Survey
Republican Nomination
- Mitt Romney 19%
- Mike Huckabee 18%
- Sarah Palin 10%
- Donald Trump 8%
- Newt Gingrich 7%
- Tim Pawlenty 5%
- Haley Barbour 1%
- Mitch Daniels 1%
- Jon Huntsman 1%
- Not sure 31%
Recently, former Race 4 2012 contributor Dustin Siggins sent me some really interesting research from JustFacts.com founder James Agresti and co-author Steve Cardone. Among other things, they described just how badly the Social Security Administration (SSA) has underestimated the life expectancy of the Social Security Trust Fund, and how the left is simply dead wrong when it says Social Security does not have an impact on the national debt. After looking over the information, I decided to contact James and ask him about the facts surrounding Social Security.
Because the topic is rather dry (through no fault of James’), I’m going to summarize the interview into a several-paragraph article. Those who wish to read the interview in its entirety and follow links to various sources cited in the interview can follow beneath the fold.
In the beginning of the interview, James lays out the foundation for Social Security’s uncertain future. Unlike the left, he looks at reality, and finds the future of Social Security may be in far more trouble than the SSA projects. For example, were it not for payroll tax hikes throughout the years, the program would have been insolvent by 1980. Additionally, James has this gem all Americans, especially younger Americans, should be concerned with:
The Social Security Administration’s 2001 annual report projected that in 2009, Social Security would collect 13.2% more in payroll taxes than it needed to cover the costs of the program. The actual figure turned out to be 0.5%. This is way off the mark, and understandably so given the recession.
What should really concern us is that the latest projections are far more optimistic than past projections that have already turned out to be overly optimistic. For example, the 2010 annual report projects that in 2080, payroll taxes will need to be increased by 32.0% in order to cover the costs of the program. Yet, the 2001 report placed this figure at 51.3%.
One of the arguments by the left is that the national debt and Social Security are two unrelated entities. James blows this one out of the water in two ways: first, he shows that with the government in deficit-spending and Social Security now spending more in benefits than it collects in taxes many taxpayers are being hit twice to pay for the IOU the federal government has with the Trust Fund. Secondly, the irresponsible stimulus/tax cut deal from December 2010 required the decreased income from Social Security (if you’ll remember, the payroll tax was cut by 2 percentage points) to be covered by general funds from the federal government. Since we’re in a huge debt and deficit hole, shifting money from one account to the other also impacts the national debt.
Conservatives are not spared criticism by James, either. He points out that “locking off” Social Security from the general fund will not help the program’s long-term survival since Social Security is now spending more in benefits than it collects in taxes, It’s too late for conservatives to argue for a walled-off Social Security, and a waste of time in both legislative and media discourses.
The fiscal and moral disaster that is Social Security covers too many areas for me to cover in a single post, but James does a good job of outlining them below the fold. A couple of points to note (his words are in quotations, mine are not):
1. “According to the Social Security Administration, the program made $2.5 billion in improper payments during 2009, or 0.37% of all Social Security payments, or enough to pay 182,345 retired workers the average annual old-age benefit for 2010.”
Clearly, Social Security fraud is more rampant than the average person realizes.
2. “If the law stays as it is, and the Social Security Administration’s intermediate projections prove to be correct, by 2037, Social Security benefits will need to be cut by 22% or payroll taxes will need to be increased by 28% to keep the program solvent.”
Liberals like to claim that paying full benefits until 2037 is fiscally sound. I propose another way to look at that particular point: if a business signed a contract to give you lifetime benefits at a certain rate, you would sue them if they broke that contract. The federal government is breaking that contract starting in 2037 if projections are accurate. Since when is cutting benefits by 22% for people under 35 morally acceptable, when they have been promised far more by their government?
3. “Demographically speaking, younger black males get the worst deal from the program and older Hispanic females get the best. Watch how this plays out.
For workers who earned average wages and retired at the age of 65 in 1980, it took 2.8 years of receiving old-age benefits to recover the value of their payroll taxes. For workers who retired in 2003, it will take 17.4 years. For workers who will retire in 2020, it will take 21.6 years. This assumes Social Security will have enough money to pay scheduled benefits for this entire period, which it is not projected to have.
Racially and sexually speaking, 40-year-old Hispanic females have a life expectancy of 17.3 years beyond their full retirement age of 67 while 40-year-old black males can only expect to live 6.2 years beyond this age. Quite clearly, there are massive generational, racial, and gender-based inequities in the current system.”
Unless I’m missing something, two things appear obvious: first, the solvency of Social Security somewhat relies on more people dying before full benefits are received. Do we really want to give government officials that kind of disincentive to help citizens live longer, more prosperous lives? And secondly, the average lifespan in America is slightly over 78 right now. What James shows is that over a person’s lifetime, on average, he or she will not receive full return on their “investment” into Social Security. Unlike a retirement account or other personal asset, however, there is no way to pass that “saved” money onto a relative, friend or charity.
Social Security is in serious trouble, as any objective viewer knows. James has done a lot of great work on this particular issue, and hopefully more Americans will realize the reality facing them as they age and their Social Security dollars are sucked away into the void that is this government entitlement program.
James tackles other issues in the full interview, including media misrepresentations of Social Security (included is a link to an op-ed by James in which he slams Paul Krugman for factual inaccuracies about Social Security) and how he thinks Presidential candidates should handle Social Security in the 2012 elections. This can be viewed below the fold.
(more…)
One of the most-used arguments from those who claim that Huckabee won’t run is that he has done nothing to build up a donor base and organization.
Well, that’s about to change:
Huckabee said that a national tour to promote his new book, “A Simple Government,” which includes a number of stops in key primary states will help him gauge interest in his possible candidacy among both voters and professional operatives who might join his campaign. “Quite frankly, part of the process is to be able to gauge reaction to the message,” Huckabee said of his book tour and how it plays into his decision to run again in 2012.
He’ll also contact potentional donors and build up his organization:
But Huckabee also acknowledged that he was looking to hire staff to help with the organizational and financial details of a possible campaign, which he admitted were a weak point of his. He said he was concerned, also, that an early start to the campaign would wear down that infrastructure. [...] The former Arkansas governor said he’ll spend part of his book tour reaching out to potential donors in staff, in addition to his public events.
Full article here.
There’s a growing grassroots movement by Tea Partiers and small-government Republicans who would like to see comedian, television host, and outspoken libertarian-conservative Drew Carey “come on down” to Ohio again to run for Sherrod Brown’s Senate seat. A Facebook group dedicated to the idea has several hundred supporters already.
Carey maintains a residence in Cleveland, has kept involved in Ohio (particularly Cleveland) politics, and has recently slimmed down by about 80 pounds. Apparently, he’s also in the last year of his 5-year contract with The Price Is Right. There’s no word from Carey yet about whether he’d be interested in running, but his increasing political activism definitely hasn’t poured water on any speculation.
He would certainly have the name recognition, the cash, and the loyal fan base to win, but would Ohio Republicans be willing to nominate someone who stands for limited government and spending cuts, even when that includes cutting Republicans’ sacred cows (No Child Left Behind, Medicare Part D, the Pentagon budget, etc.)?
Some choice quotes from Carey:
“P.J. O’Rourke once said the government has passed enough laws — it should just stop. It oversteps its bounds so often. Giving it a little bit of power is like getting a little bit pregnant.”
“As far as your personal goals are and what you actually want to do with your life, it should never have to do with the government. You should never depend on the government for your retirement, your financial security, for anything.”
“I think a lot of people are afraid of freedom. They want their lives to be controlled, to be put into a box… People like that cradle-to-grave concept because it says you don’t have to think too much, you don’t have to worry too much, because someone else is looking out for you. But that also means you can’t do as much as you want. Why should someone else put a limit on how much fun I can have; how much I can accomplish?”
While Drew Carey wouldn’t be the first comedian elected to the US Senate (since Al Franken), he would be the first intelligent comedian elected to the US Senate.
In Governor Mike Huckabee’s new book, Simple Government, released tomorrow, he only gives two hints about whether he will run for President in 2012 or not. One is in the introduction, the other in the epilogue. In between, the focus is on Huckabee’s policy views informed by his faith, his knowledge of history, his experience as governor and his face-to-face meetings with the American people.
Though the book doesn’t proclaim “I’m running for president in 2012,”, in the introduction he applauds those who do more than complain about the government and work to fix it, because “most of the harshest critics offer their crusty curses without having the personal courage (emphasis mine) to put themselves on the ballot”.
In the epilogue he laments the emphasis on gotcha moments when people run for president. He adds this line: “I actually dread (emphasis mine) the process, having been through it before, and contemplating whether to enter it again”
In the conference call with bloggers he also delivered a mixed message. He doesn’t want to see the whole process of selecting a GOP candidate to deteriorate into a bloodbath but also suggested again that if there are no social conservatives running who see the social issues as forefront, he will consider getting in to fill the gap.
Governor Huckabee has taken some heat by some fiscal conservatives for lending support to Michelle Obama’s Healthy, Hunger-Free Kids Act. I defended the Governor when Michelle Malkin suggested that his position on this issue was proof he was a nanny-stater.
In his new book, A Simple Government, Huckabee addresses a related issue: school breakfasts. He is blunt: “What does it say about our society that so many parents apparently can’t get it together enough to give their children a bowl of cereal and a glass of juice. It is that they just assume, after years of the practiced, that it’s the government’s job to pay for school breakfasts?” In the next paragraph, he makes it plain that it’s the parents job to feed their kids.
In the paragraph after that, however, he appears to backpedal, writing that he is no way suggesting that we stop school breakfasts. In a conference call with bloggers today, I asked him plainly:
If you were president in 2013 and a Republican House and Senate voted to end the federal school breakfast program in one year and the school lunch program one year after that, and the department of education the year after that, would you sign the bill, considering that in your book you show that these things would be better handled by parents, churches, and the states, respectively, rather than the federal government, and in fact, the federal role in education is itself unconstitutional?
His answer: Yes, he would sign a bill abolishing the Federal Department of Education, if Congress gave him such a bill to sign. On the question of school lunches, he fudged a little (pardon the pun), suggesting that he would consider it if he could be assured there would a church organization or the states would make up the difference. Not a knee-jerk answer, but thoughtful and responsive, even if a little tentative.
Governor Mike Huckabee’s Simple Government: Twelve Things We Really Need from Washington (and a Trillion That We Don’t) will be released on George Washington’s birthday, February 22nd.
Of twelve chapters, one is devoted exclusively to border security and immigration policy. There Huckabee uses statistic after statistic to show that Barack Obama has reduced border security and reminds us that the president stopped building the fence. But it isn’t just illegal immigration that Huckabee tackles. In fact, it is immigration policy that elicits Huckabee to use a quote from George Washington. We as a nation have the right and duty to encourage only the kind of immigrants that will benefit us, and quotes Washington saying that we don’t need to encourage immigration “except of useful mechanics and some particular descriptions of men or professions”. Throughout the book it is clear that Huckabee is his own man. The fact that we should only allow certain kinds of immigrants, isn’t politically correct, but it is Huckabee’s position.
As I show in this review, Huckabee doesn’t shy away from controversy and we get some policy ideas we hadn’t heard before. It is clear from the beginning, Huckabee is not playing politics as usual.
The very first chapter answers the charge that social conservatives are inimical to smaller government, forcing some into thinking they have to become libertarians to be consistent. Not so. He shows that focusing on social issues will reduce the reach of government because “the so-called dad deficit added more than $300 billion to the national deficit in 2010 because of welfare payments to moms.” This is his pastor’s call to point out that without morality no amount of government can rescue us from our problems. Government can’t fix what ails us, though if often contributes to that sickness. Known for memorable zingers, his best line in that chapter is “beware the government bearing gifts, because every one of them comes with strings attached. Over time those strings grow into heavy chains”.
Chapter two discusses local government and state government, and Huckabee makes the case that the closer to home the government, the more accountable it can be held.
In the first quarter of 2009, for the first time in our history, the federal government became the largest source of revenue for state and local governments. Almost prescient about the current happenings in Wisconsin, Huckabee reminds his readers how President Obama basically blackmailed Arnold Schwarzenegger by threatening to take away stimulus money from California unless he gave into demands of the public employee’s union SEIU. When states grow dependent on federal aid, all kinds of bad things happen: the federal response to the BP oil spill in the gulf is given as a prime example.
He takes a shot at getting more government involvement in health care and says that while states have the right to experiment: “We were to learn from RomneyCare, not Xerox it into federal law”
There is not a lot new in the health care chapter that he has not said already. He believes the bigger problem is poor health and not health care. Third payer parties in health treatment are the reason costs are so high for treatment. Huckabee wants a return to the original purpose of insurance: covering catastrophic illnesses.
The lion’s share is devoted to foreign policy, diplomacy, and the fight against terrorism. He also answers the charge that he is a liberal who is too chummy with Obama. 
Since foreign policy took such a back seat during the 2008 election cycle, Governor Huckabee’s approach to it is not as well known, and he therefore devotes three chapters to it in the book. In the first of these chapters on the bullies of terrorism, he castigates Obama for downplaying both the whole notion of terrorism in general and Islamic fascism in particular. In particular, the Obama administration has refused to tie the shootings of our soldiers (and an unborn child) at Fort Hood to terrorism. Also, it seems the bureaucracies that slow down our efforts still exist and the focus is only on terrorism “over there”.
Huckabee believes we’ve forgotten the lessons of both 1993 (the first World Trace Center bombings) and September 11th. The most moving part of the book (can a policy book be moving!) was when Huckabee draws on the memory of 9/11 hero Rick Rescorla. Years of preparedness between 1993 and 2001 helped Rescorla rescue hundreds of Morgan Stanley workers from the World Trade Center. It is that kind of foresightedness and diligence we need as a nation.
In the name of political correctness we have hamstrung our military, putting our soldiers at greater risk by emphasizing “winning the hearts and minds” of the enemy rather than “killing people and breaking things?” In Iraq and Afghanistan, our men and women in uniform have spent too much time building schools and not enough time seeking out and killing Islamic extremists. Huckabee implies we need greater number of recruits in our ranks, not less, as is the current plan. We come to rely too heavily on National Guard. And he goes after Obama’s foolish timeline.
Huckabee makes clear one position. One section is called Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell…Don’t Serve” (DADTDS) and while DADT was bad, its abolition makes things worse. We should have never allowed the recruitment of homosexuals to the military in the first place. In 1993 it was not allowed until Bill Clinton brought us DADT. It destroys morale and particularly offends conservatives who serve in the military. This includes the brass, too.
Another criticism of Huckabee is that he is afraid to criticize Obama, as if they were best buds. But in Simple Government, Governor Huckabee takes him on full throttle, especially in the area of diplomacy. There is lots of bad news when it comes to Obama’s “smart diplomacy.” Our enemies not only don’t get along with us, they mock us at every turn. Obama insults our allies, too, as Huckabee reminds us of the incident at the beginning of his administration when Obama sent back the bust of Winston Churchill that was given to us by the British. He thinks that Obama is more concerned about his own history than the history of our own great nation. Huckabee is a strong believer in American Exceptionalism which Obama rejects it out of hand. Huckabee points out that when other nations build border fences it is usually to keep people from running away, we have to build one to keep them from flooding in. There is one positive for Obama’s foreign policy, though:
“Among nations that are traditionally anti-American, President Obama still enjoys high approval ratings. Why am I not surprised?”
After describing Obama’s suggestion that we don’t need to instill fear in the rest of the world, Huckabee asks” why not?”
“Theodore Roosevelt believed that the way to command the world’s respect was to “speak softly and carry a big stick”. Other presidents have chosen to speak loudly and carry a big stick. But this is the first president who believes you can command the respect of rogue nations by apologizing and throwing away the stick”.
There is a lengthy discussion of Obama’s rude treatment of Israeli Prime Minister Benyamin Netanyahu and his abandonment of many policies in support of Israel that date back decades. Particularly, the idea that Israel can’t build settlements is disdained.
Chapter three deals with deficit spending and is entitled “You Can’t Spend What You Don’t Have”. He argues that we should abolish the rule that say cuts to certain kinds of spending are off-limits. He suggests that all spending be considered discretionary and he is not afraid to tackle the so-called the third-rail of politics, Social Security. It was not initially intended to be used for long retirements because payments didn’t kick in until after the age of life expectancy which was about 60 in 1935.
There is a lot more here. See other reviews of the the book.
Conclusion.
The book is a fairly quick read with those wanting more depth encouraged to research the ample footnotes, arranged by page in a simple format. There is plenty of news in here, and plenty of controversy. But I don’t think you will find any political posturing. He simply tells us the way he sees it, in simple terms.
I gave fair warning to my readers that Barack Obama had no intention of really going to the political center to get himself, his party and the country through the next two years. In fact, Mr. Obama occupied the center for only about a nanosecond, long enough for him pause slightly as he glanced down to his teleprompter.
Nice try, Mr. President, but that won’t do the trick. Your opposition is unusually determined, at least so far, to bring some conservative principles to the solutions of our very troubled economic circumstances. Your problem is that you just don’t believe in any but left liberal principles, and your whole life so far has been to get your way.
Not this time. Not necessarily because your opponents are so strong, or always right, but because we’re in real trouble, and this does not just clear up because you raise a few taxes, bail out a few more industries, hire some more government workers to oversee the additional legislation you pass.That’s not the way it works in an economic crisis like this.
The problem is not only dollars and cents, deficits, taxes and jobs. The problem is systemic. We have created, Republicans and Democrats alike, a whole system that no longer can work. We must reform the whole system. I am not suggesting a return to the past which did have abuses, inequalities, inefficiencies and a lack of self-correcting mechanisms that would modify the system to keep up with changing ties. There are new realities. New technologies. We can no longer operate certain industries. We can and must operate new industries and services. The nature of the work force has changed dramatically in the past 75 years. Child labor is illegal, laws rightfully protect workers and other citizens from dangers in the workplace, many more women are in that workplace and hold top executive jobs. Workers are living longer, and are able to work longer, thanks to extraordinary advances in health care. Education is more available, Demographics, transportation, virtually every aspect of the U.S. economy has changed.
We are now living, however, with what amounts to feudal systems and rules in our public education that is hopelessly mired in outdated principles, administrations, curricula, political correctness, inefficiency and inevitably, mediocrity.
The political center, whether Democratic or Republican, wants to change all of this, and as rapidly as possible. Those who want to keep and prolong these old systems are the reactionaries of today. They can call themselves leftists, rightists or whatever ideology, but they are not about true change.
Good teachers are as important as ever before. They are the backbone of a good public education system. We need effective public service workers in all areas of government service. The present system of unionized public service workers not only does not promote quality work, it is not economically sustainable. Mr. President, your job is to get behind the reform of the whole governmental system, the one that is not working. You promised change. Then support change and help advance it. When you defend the old, unworkable ways, you are doing the very opposite of what you promised you would do.
Being a genuine centrist is hard work. A centrist is not halfway in the middle, arguing for compromises that only prolong the failures of the past. Most Americans are in the political center because the U.S. is the ultimate practical and creative democratic capitalist nation. The center is the true public interest.
A nanosecond of rhetoric will not do the job. We are seeing governors and legislatures across America trying to do the real job at hand. It’s time to take sides. It’s time to get things done.
__________________________________________________________________________
-Please visit Mr. Casselman’s personal site, The Prairie Editor Blog.
Hatred of a fellow GOP candidate is a healthy reason to run for President, right?
This morning, Mark Halperin notes that the Washington Post doesn’t believe Huckabee is running for President. But if he does, Politico gives the reason he may jump in the race: to stop Mitt Romney.
Mike Huckabee may be especially tempted to run in 2012 by a lingering feud between him and Mitt Romney, a severe hangover from the 2008 campaign that has created a lasting and bitter rift between the two, Republicans who know both men say.
“[Huckabee] hates Mitt, and his goal in Iowa last time was to stop him,” said one prominent Republican, who’s known both men for years. “If he sees an opportunity to cut Mitt off [during the nominating process], he will take it”…
As Huckabee weighs whether to run again, several Republicans with ties to Huckabee say his disdain for Romney is a real factor in his decision-making about whether to mount a second campaign for the White House…
Asked to comment for this article, Romney adviser Eric Fehrnstrom said in an e-mail that “Mitt Romney and Mike Huckabee ran a competitive race against each other and had their differences, but Mitt has always had high regard for Mike Huckabee as a person and as a governor.”
As they say, read the whole thing.
For what it’s worth, Hogan Gidley (executive director of HuckPAC) responded to the story by saying, “Only someone who knows precious little about running for president would put forth the ludicrous notion that a person would go through the rigors of running for president due to some personal grudge.”
I would note that when asked to respond to these “several Republicans with ties to Huckabee,” Romney’s team responded by complimenting Huckabee; Huckabee’s team responded by attacking those making the charge – with still nothing nice to say about Romney.
Courtesy of these (anonymous) sources, we now a better idea of why Huckabee is proceeding the way he is. If Mitt is the frontrunner come July, look for Huckabee to jump in as the knight on the white horse to save us from ourselves. If Mitt is losing ground to Pawlenty, Daniels, or some other surging candidate, expect Mike to sit it out and just lob grenades from the sidelines.
Anyone reading the news over the past year had good reason to believe that the 2012 election might provide some relief from the increasingly early, increasingly front-loaded Presidential Primary calendar that has been plaguing United States elections in the last few cycles. With Republicans moving back their announcements until spring, and the national party coming down in favor of a later primary schedule, there was good reason to hope we might see a saner calendar this cycle. If only wishing made it so.
While some states have been relatively supportive of the 2012 calendar guidelines laid out by the GOP, Florida, it seems, is not among them. By continuing to schedule its primary for January 31, Florida both violates the rules passed after the 2008 cycle, and threatens to pull other states up earlier. Iowa, South Carolina, New Hampshire, and Nevada would all certainly seek an earlier date – so too might Wyoming, Michigan, Georgia, Texas, and others. This calendar-jumping was chaotic enough in 2008, even when it was highly anticipated. But as we approach the 2012 season, a similar occurrence could create real problems for the candidates, most of whom have already delayed their announcements by a month, and plan to delay them even further until spring. Any front-loading now would seriously cut the amount of time candidates have to campaign for the Presidency.
Beyond the minor changes to the primary calendar that were approved after the 2008 election, both the Republicans and Democrats flirted with several alternative proposals; including a single, national primary day; regional, rotating primaries; and perhaps the most well-developed proposal: the Ohio Plan. Although it failed to pass, the Ohio plan would have divided states by size, and provided set periods for different groups of states to hold their contests. Although each of these plans has merit, they are also flawed in their own ways. A national primary would be too hard on the individual candidates, who would need to contend for the limited party resources that help to make a national campaign possible in the general election. Regional primaries are a gamble, because each region would only have its turn to go first every 20 years or so – which may or may not be when those states are particularly in need of national attention. Of existing proposals, the Ohio Plan was the most promising, but still failed to adequately distribute influence between the states…the first contests would have been the likes of Montana, Idaho, and the Dakotas. The ideal primary reform should do the following:
1. Preserve the status of traditional “bellwether” contests like Iowa, New Hampshire, and South Carolina (among others), which have become a valued tradition in American politics.
2. Prevent states from jumping position to try to gain influence. This inevitably pushes the primary contests too early into the year, and is the major flaw in the current system.
3. Introduce a predictable, routine, and compressed calendar which reduces the long gap between the beginning of the primary campaign and the conclusion of the general election (in the last cycle, this period was nearly two years).
4. Divide influence regionally and between the states, ensuring that as many contests as possible have due influence over who becomes President – whether they are big, small, critical, or largely predictable in the general election.
5. Provide the greatest possible diversity of methods for candidates to run their campaigns. The extreme frontloading heavily favors well-funded and national campaigns, providing only the smallest opening for regional powerhouses.
So, with these criteria in mind, how might we go about devising a primary schedule? The first step would be to divide the country in a manner similar to the regional primary proposal. Although not all states in a region would vote at once, this would nonetheless recognize the common, but unique character of separate areas of the country; the Northeast is important to commercial business, the Midwest values manufacturing, the South is a guardian of personal and social virtue, the Plains rely on agriculture, and the West is important to both mining and high-tech industries. Here is how the regions might be divided.
The next, and most important, step is to determine the order of the contests; this, after all, is the main point of contention among the states themselves. This is also a point where conventional wisdom needs to be discarded. The significant influence of Iowa and New Hampshire led states to believe voting early meant more influence – a trend Florida appears destined to continue this year. Yet in the end, it was California, voting on Super Tuesday and with a complicated delegate allocation, which ensured John McCain would win the Republican nomination. The Democratic contest continued even later, and was not resolved until after March. Clearly, both early and late contests can wield significant influence. To allocate this influence as equally as possible, states should be allocated into groups, with one state from each of the five regions making up an individual group, and with each group being given a set week for their contests. Smaller states, would go first, helping to weed out weaker candidates, while larger states would vote last, casting the deciding, or at least final, primary vote. This system allows progressively fewer candidates to play for increasingly larger stakes, but also leaves open the ability of individual candidates to pursue regional strategies according to their own strengths and weaknesses.
Finally, there is the exact makeup of the calendar. The 2008 primaries began in early February, followed by Super Tuesday (where half of all contests were decided), then progressed slowly all the way into June – a six month calendar. 2008 also saw some of the latest nominating conventions in history, with the official start of the general election being delayed well into the fall, just two months from Election Day. A more compact schedule, which better reflects the lives of ordinary voters, would be preferable. By switching to a 14-week calendar, starting in March and ending in mid-June (just as families were beginning their summer holidays), our electoral habits could better reflect our personal ones. There would be just five contests in March, the early states. April would follow, with a week off for the Easter holiday, a week for contests by non-US states (including D.C.), and a 15-state “Super Tuesday” contest, preserving another valued political tradition. States of moderate population would vote in the first three weeks of May, while a second weeklong break would be scheduled for the week of Memorial Day. Finally, the largest states would vote in June, before a month-long recess for Americans to enjoy their summers free of the political deluge. Ideally, conventions would be scheduled in the second half of July, while the Olympics occupied early August. The general election could begin mid-August, providing Americans ten weeks to decide their next President.
This, I recognize, sounds very confusing on paper – but it becomes far clearer when visualized. Consider the following maps (red represents states voting, dark gray represents contests yet to be held, and light gray represents prior contests): weeks 1-4 (early states), week 5, week 7 (Super Tuesday), week 9, week 10, week 11, week 12, and week 14. Note, the gaps in the schedule here are for the breaks mentioned above: Easter falls on week six, the non-state contests (Guam, Puerto Rico, American Samoa) would vote during week 8, and Memorial Day falls during week 13. You can also view the schedule as a calendar.
This system has several advantages over both the current system, and existing proposals for reform. The schedule begins slowly, the number of contests at any given time remains manageable, and candidates have several possible paths to the nomination. But perhaps most importantly, this schedule would ensure that virtually all states had the potential to play an important role in the process. Under this system, it would be impossible to win enough delegates for the nomination until you were more than two-thirds through the primaries – and that is if you win all delegates from all the contests. Even a candidate consistently winning 65% of the delegates would need until Memorial day to be officially declared the winner (see here). Since the largest contests come in the last two weeks of the season, even moderately well performing candidates are likely to remain in the race until the end. True, this could mean the primaries are not resolved by the time the voting is done, but with plenty of time left to hold summer conventions, it is unlikely this would have a negative effect on the parties – and since the consequences would be the same for both Democrats and Republicans, the end result would probably be a wash.
I cannot claim this proposal to be perfect, but I can claim – honestly – that it is fair; fair to the candidates, fair to the votes, and fair to the states. And in American politics, that is saying something.
Comments and constructive criticism are welcome.
Shmuel Rosner of The Jerusalem Post reports:
The Israel Factor 2012 favorites are, by this order: Giuliani, Gingrich, Romney, Huckabee, Bolton, Bush, Barbour, Rubio. Thune and Pawlenty are both tied with Obama at 6.
-Courtesy The Argo Journal.
Chris Christie’s long time friend, law partner, and political adviser, Bill Palatucci, has told the Courier Post-Dispatch that he may contemplate a White House exploratory committee due to the level of interest in the governor as a candidate. Palatucci said that not forming a committee would be “leaving money on the table”. Palatucci still suggested that the governor and other top aides are not currently prepping for a presidential bid, but quoted him as saying: “I might frankly contemplate that. There’s so much interest out there, it’s leaving money on the table by not having one.”
This could be the beginning of Draft Christie effort, allowing the governor to pull back from his denials and run due to a national outcry from conservatives and party leadership. It could also simply be a way for the governor’s political machine to ratchet up it’s network and donor base. However, if interest continues to be as white hot as it’s been the last several weeks, Gov. Christie might have no choice but to take the plunge.
UPDATE: From POLITICO:
The newspaper reported that Palatucci was referring to a presidential exploratory committee, but in a statement to POLITICO shortly after publication of this article, Palatucci clarified that he was merely referring to a standard federal political action committee — so-called leadership PACs that politicians use to raise money and contribute to other candidates.
“I never said nor did I intend to imply that I or anyone else was considering an exploratory committee,” he said. “I was musing about creating a federal committee.”
Over at Politico, Alexander Burns reports that top party leaders in Florida are not backing down from their state’s pre-March 1st primary date:
A deepening standoff between national Republicans and top party leaders in Florida has the potential to blow up the 2012 presidential primary calendar — and do lasting damage to the GOP in the nation’s largest swing state.
At issue is the early date of Florida’s presidential primary election, currently set for Jan. 31, 2012. As of right now, it’s the first primary scheduled.
That’s in blatant violation of Republican and Democratic National Committee rules, which say only four states — Iowa, New Hampshire, South Carolina and Nevada – can hold primary elections before the beginning of March.
But despite the pleas of GOP officials in Washington, the Republican leaders of Florida’s legislature say they have no intention of shifting the date in a way that could diminish the Sunshine State’s influence in 2012. Key officials signaled they would accept nothing less than going fifth on the primary calendar — not leapfrogging the four early states, but clearly marked off from the other 45.
“Florida’s the most important presidential state and we’d like to keep our current position as one of the early states,” said state Senate President Mike Haridopolos, who called Florida “the first so-called ‘megastate’ in the presidential race.”
“We liked our position last time, following South Carolina,” he explained.
Be sure to read the whole piece here.
In all of our coverage of CPAC, nobody mentioned Gary Johnson’s speech, so I wanted to pass it along to the R’4’12 community:
[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Dxbms8VJ7Fg[/youtube]
While it doesn’t measure up to Mitch Daniels’ address, it did impress me. For those who have seen older speeches by him, he has markedly improved his delivery. Furthermore, he displays the ability to do what Ron Paul can’t and come across as a reasonable, sensible libertarian. In other words, to the average voter, he seems like a guy who would work within the constraints of Washington to bring about the most limited, cost-effective government possible, instead of launching ideological wars grounded in idealism, not reality. His frequent references to cost-benefit analysis and best service at lowest cost provide examples of this.
While this distinction may not seem like much to political junkies like us, it may make a world of difference to the average voter. After all, while the ideological purity of individuals like Rep. Paul certainly has its commendable place in the political process, it doesn’t lend itself well to presidential elections.
Gov. Johnson still does have room for improvement. He desperately needs to work on his introductions and conclusions. In fact, his CPAC speech didn’t really have much of either, so it lacked the essential crescendo the best public addresses feature toward the end. He also must improve his timing, as he clearly ran up against his time limit and had to rush to finish. And lastly, he would really benefit from adding “personal” touches – humor, stories, vivid examples that elicit visceral responses, etc. Still, his improvement over the past year shows promise.
All in all, if he continues to hone his barnstorming skills and introduce himself to people, maybe, just maybe, Gary can achieve the impossible: becoming the libertarian candidate that appeals to the masses.
PPP conducts a national poll every month. They determine the status of the horse race between the key GOP 2012 hopefuls, and they query their individual strengths against Obama.
First the Horse Race data:
| (Horse Race) | (1/11) | (2/15) |
| Daniels | 4 | 4 |
| Gingrich | 11 | 12 |
| Huckabee | 14 | 20 |
| Palin | 12 | 15 |
| Paul | 7 | 8 |
| Pawlenty | 7 | 4 |
| Romney | 11 | 17 |
| Thune | 1 | 1 |
| Other/Undec | 33 | 18 |
“Other/Undec” dropped 15 pts. That allowed most of the hopefuls to pick up points. Gingrich, Huckabee, Palin, Paul, and Romney all went up. Daniels and Thune remained the same. Only one — Pawlenty — lost ground. In a near universal rising tide, he managed to lose nearly half his support. He dropped from 7 to 4 pts.
Here is the data in graphical form. It is limited to only those hopefuls in double digits to avoid clutter:
As mentioned above, all four improved their positions last month. Huckabee is still on top, but Romney vaulted from a third place tie to second place. Palin dropped to third, and Gingrich is left back in the fourth position.
Now on to the vs. Obama numbers:
| (vs. Obama) | Huckabee | Palin | Gingrich | Romney |
| (1/11) | -5 | -17 | -12 | -5 |
| (2/16) | -3 | -12 | -9 | -5 |
Here is the trend line graphic:
?
All hopefuls improved against Obama except Romney. Of the three that improved, Palin did the best. She gained on Obama by 5 pts. That bests Gingrich’s three point gain and Huckabee’s two point gain. As mentioned, Romney remained flat.
We continue to see the double grouping of the top tier in this data. This pattern stretches back for well over a year. Huckabee and Romney continue to trade places with each other as #1 and #2. Huckabee has been on top more times than Romney. Gingrich and Palin continue to battle it out for #3 and #4 with Palin in her usual position of dead last.
First the Horse Race numbers:
| (Horse Race) | Del | Daniels | Gringrich | Huckabee | Palin | Paul | Pawlenty | Romney | Thune | Other/Und |
| IA (1/11) | 28 | 1 | 13 | 30 | 15 | 6 | 4 | 18 | 3 | 10 |
| NV (1/10) | 28 | 1 | 18 | 14 | 19 | 7 | 1 | 31 | 1 | 8 |
| PA (1/10) | 72 | 2 | 15 | 26 | 21 | 5 | 6 | 16 | 9 | |
| TX (1/19) | 152 | 3 | 17 | 25 | 21 | 9 | 5 | 10 | 8 | |
| NJ (1/25) | 50 | 3 | 15 | 18 | 14 | 8 | 4 | 18 | 2 | 19 |
| NC (1/28) | 55 | 3 | 18 | 27 | 16 | 6 | 7 | 11 | 1 | 10 |
| WV (1/28) | 31 | 2 | 17 | 28 | 23 | 6 | 5 | 10 | 0 | 8 |
| SC (2/1) | 50 | 3 | 13 | 26 | 18 | 7 | 4 | 20 | 8 | |
| NE (2/3) | 35 | 1 | 18 | 21 | 19 | 8 | 4 | 15 | 3 | 12 |
| AZ (2/4) | 57 | 2 | 15 | 19 | 15 | 5 | 4 | 23 | 1 | 16 |
| SD (2/4) | 28 | 1 | 10 | 11 | 12 | 5 | 2 | 12 | 37 | 10 |
| CA (2/7) | 172 | 2 | 18 | 15 | 16 | 10 | 3 | 22 | 1 | 12 |
| NM (2/10) | 23 | 3 | 15 | 18 | 22 | 6 | 7 | 16 | 12 | |
| CO (2/11) | 36 | 3 | 12 | 16 | 16 | 9 | 7 | 19 | 4 | 16 |
| TN (2/16) | 58 | 3 | 11 | 31 | 17 | 10 | 3 | 11 | 1 | 14 |
| Weighted Ave | – | 2 | 16 | 22 | 18 | 8 | 4 | 17 | 2 | 11 |
Now the weighted average trend graph:
| (vs. Obama) | EV | Gingrich | Huckabee | Palin | Romney |
| PA (1/6) | 20 | -10 | -3 | -15 | -4 |
| NV (1/7) | 6 | -11 | -10 | -13 | -1 |
| NJ (1/11) | 14 | -17 | -17 | -30 | -15 |
| IA (1/12) | 6 | -13 | -4 | -16 | -6 |
| TX (1/20) | 38 | 5 | 16 | 1 | 7 |
| NC (1/25) | 15 | -6 | -4 | -9 | -3 |
| WV (1/27) | 5 | 10 | 18 | 4 | 13 |
| NE (1/31) | 5 | 8 | 13 | 1 | 12 |
| SD (2/1) | 3 | -2 | 6 | -8 | 6 |
| SC (2/2) | 9 | -1 | 6 | -6 | 7 |
| AZ (2/2) | 11 | 0 | 4 | -8 | 6 |
| CA (2/3) | 55 | -23 | -15 | -31 | -20 |
| CO (2/8) | 9 | -14 | -9 | -19 | -6 |
| NM (2/9) | 5 | -21 | -19 | -29 | -16 |
| TN (2/17) | 11 | 3 | 12 | 0 | 7 |
| Weighted Ave. | -9 | -2 | -15 | -5 |
And the weighted average tread graph:
All of our hopefuls gained last week. Beyond that, little changed in their relative positions. Huckabee is still on top and Palin is still on the bottom.
| (EV) | Gingrich | Huckabee | Palin | Romney |
| (2/19/11) | -94 | -48 | -116 | -48 |
And in graphical form:
Once again, we see where all of our hopefuls are underwater vs. Obama. Huckabee and Romney do the best while Gingrich and Palin lag behind. Palin is the furtherest back.
This site is a centre for a lot of discussions, as we all know, and claims are being made daily about the prospects of each candidate and about how the election will turn out.
Every camp has its fair share of myths – cute narratives and stories told while wearing rose-colored glasses. I have summarized a few myths (realizing this is a controversial subject). Some of them made here, others made elsewhere (and things that have been implied if not explicitly claimed).
Myth #1: The pollsters/media are conspiring against… because they are afraid of him/her
The reality: Pollsters have a reputation they have to hang on to. Even pollsters with party affiliation cannot ignore this. It’s hard to gain a reputation as a good pollster, and you can lose it quickly. There are no conspiracies. If there were, why would for example PPP be satisfied with putting Huckabee on top – why not Fred Karger? And why hasn’t Huckabee been on top all the time? When did this conspiracy start?
Also, the whole concept of Democrats attacking who they are afraid of is kind of weird. Some people here seem to think that every liberal in the country is conspiring and planning for the election in 2012. People attack those that they are angry with, the average democrat doesn’t think “No wait, if I attack that person, he/she may not get the Republican nomination and then someone more electable will be nominated”. Fact of the matter is, the only people who MAY think like that are the Obama administration – Yes, I do believe they deliberately tried to sink Romney by tying him to Obamacare (although that doesn’t mean the similarities aren’t there). Either that, or they were trying to increase the popularity of the reform among Republicans by pointing out one of the frontrunners for their nomination had done almost the same thing. The average journalist and columnist writer doesn’t work like that; you need inspiration to write, and if you’re really angry with someone, you won’t avoid attacking that person out of political strategy. There is no conspiracy.
Myth #2: Romney is laying low to prevent overexposure/other candidates are overexposed
The reality: It’s a bit more complicated than that. Romney’s problem is his lack of forum: If Huckabee is attacked, he can use his own Huckabee Show on Fox News to explain himself and counterattack. If Palin is attacked, she can always use twitter, facebook or just go on whatever show she wants to refute (or should I say refudiate) the claims. Romney lacks an own show, and so if he is attacked, he has a harder time defending himself (whether the attack is fair or not). Huckabee can afford to be controversial and outspoken, because if he gets attacked, he has an entire show where he can defend himself. Palin is pretty much the same thing. Romney doesn’t have the same opportunities to defend himself, and so has to be more careful what he says.
The other part of this myth is this thing about “overexposure”, something that really doesn’t exist. It’s all about how you handle your exposure. The more “exposed” you are, the more likely it is that you will be saying something stupid that will be put up on youtube, or even turned into an attack ad. The more interviews you have, the less time you have to prepare for them. Romney strikes me as an intellectual, a smart guy who wants to have a lot of time to explain his ideas (because they are complicated and cannot be summarized as quickly as other candidates). There are few opportunities for this in the media, and even if you get an opportunity, most people won’t bother to listen. He would quickly be “overexposed” if he was asked questions every day that he had 5-10 seconds to answer, while other candidates can handle that format very well.
I’m thinking Romney is hoping that as the interest for the election heats up, people will be more willing to tune in and listen and read about his ideas. Maybe that strategy will work – but it’s a strategy created not because Romney wants it, but because he has no other choice.
Myth #3: Favorables/Name ID don’t matter this far out
The reality: To summarize things, one could say that bad favorables matter, but good favorables doesn’t. Supporters of candidates with high negatives usually say that “Favorables doesn’t matter this far out – just ask President Giuliani or President Hillary Clinton”. Well, that’s right, but then on the other hand, maybe we should ask President Sharpton, President Buchanan or President Hunter? They were all presidential contenders, they all had negative favorables at this point in the campaign, and none of them managed to turn around and win. What’s more, their name ID ranged from a low of 6 % (Hunter) to a high of 63 %. A far cry from Palin, who’s name ID is usually around 90-95 %. A high name ID early on doesn’t appear to be a good sign either; Clinton had a name ID of 90 % while Obama’s ID was around 65 %. This probably led Clinton to underestimate what a threat Obama was, since she had a comfortable lead in the national polls for a long time. Everyone had heard about her and therefore, everyone who was going to support her probably already did. Every other candidate has room to grow, that goes especially for candidates such as Pawlenty and Daniels. That doesn’t mean they will grow, but they have room to do so. It should also be noted though that both Obama and McCain had name ID’s in their 60′s and 70′s respectively at this point, compared to the 20′s and 30′s for Daniels and Pawlenty.
Myth #4: It doesn’t matter who we nominate, Obama will be crushed by the bad economy
The reality: While the economy may continue to suffer, the centre likely won’t be America but Europe. The Eurozone is about to collapse; Spain may very well default within a year and Ireland is bound to default in the long term at some point as interest payments grow too large. Therefore, you cannot take for granted that Obama will be blamed for it.
The worst part is that if there is a double-dip recession before the election in 2012, it will most likely be caused by fiscal conservatives, not liberals. If the government decides to cut spending drastically, growth will be reduced temporarily and unemployment will go up – again, temporarily – as public sector employees are laid off. This has already happened in the UK, where growth has slowed down considerably because of cutbacks in government spending. It will pick up for sure, but if an election were to be held today in the UK, the slow growth would definitely hurt the government (luckily, there are still several years before the next UK election). If the Republican house manages to cut back spending, it will hurt growth for some time, and Republicans will have to share the blame with Obama. I hate this as much as the next guy, but it is none the less true.
Myth #5 Organization and money doesn’t matter/is everything that matters
The reality: The truth is somewhere in between. At some point in order to win an election, you must have a pretty good organisation – especially if you are running against an incumbent. But you don’t have to have it all the time or have it from scratch – you certainly don’t need a big organization to win early primaries like Iowa (Huckabee proved that in 2008). McCain’s organization was practically dead in the summer of 2007, but at the time he won the Republican nomination, it had recovered substantially. To say that someone cannot win because they don’t have the organization right now is to simplify matters, but to say that all you need is an enthusiastic base is also to simplify matters. In caucuses anyway, grassroots are the key to victory. In the general election, organization plays a much bigger role than it does in the early primaries.
The same goes with money. It should be noted that fundraising for the primaries and for the general are two different things; every Republican donor is likely to donate to whoever is the Republican nominee, even though they may hold their noses while doing it.
That’s five myths, and while I can think of more, that will have to be enough for today as I’m about to watch ice hockey soon. Please leave a comment.
Sarah Palin has posted the following on facebook concerning the events in Wisconsin:
The union-led school closures and demonstrations in Madison have left most ordinary Americans shaking their heads in disbelief. Months ago, I penned a message to my fellow union brothers and sisters when I found myself on the receiving end of union boss Richard Trumka’s wrath. Yesterday’s demonstrations reminded me of the full-page ads taken out against me when I put my foot down in dealing with union demands while I served as governor. My message then and now to good union brothers and sisters is that you have another option. You don’t have to kowtow to the union bosses who are not looking out for you, but instead are using you. You can join millions of other union members in a commonsense movement to help fight for the right causes in our great country – for budgets that share the burden in a truly fair way and for commonsense reforms that take power away from vested interests like union bosses and big business lobby groups, and put it back where it belongs – with “We the People.”
There is more. It is well worth your time to read it.
It’s good stuff for the most part. Unfortunately, I cannot recommend all of her message. I do wished she had worded these bits a little differently:
From the above excerpt:
You don’t have to kowtow to the union bosses who are not looking out for you, but instead are using you.
And from later in the message:
Hard working, patriotic, and selfless union brothers and sisters: please don’t be taken in by the union bosses. At the end of the day, they’re not fighting for your pension or health care plan or even for the sustainability of Wisconsin’s education budget. They’re fighting to protect their own powerful privileges and their own political clout.
I am sure there are at least a few union bosses out there who feel that they are “fighting for [their member's] pension or health care plans” more than “their own powerful privileges and their own political clout”. They aren’t all corrupt.
Such blanket accusations tend to raise barriers more than they lower them. Presuming to state categorically the thinking of your political opponents and ascribing nefarious motives to them weakens your position and tends to strengthen that of your opponents by engendering a backlash.
Such rhetoric is fine for a bomb thrower, but it is a mistake for someone aspiring for the Oval Office. If Sarah had left those bits out or had at least worded them more carefully, I would have given her otherwise excellent missive a solid Presidential A+. As it is, I can only give her a more pedestrian B-.
If she is serious about running for President, she is running out of time for these sorts of things.
California US House Member Jackie Speier exploited the loss of her own child by miscarriage many years ago and used her floor time Thursday night to promote the killing of unborn children. This was a shameless effort to stop Republicans from defunding Planned Barrenhood. (Planned Parenthood name is a joke, they don’t plan parents, they plan un-parents.). It was supposedly in response to incendiary remarks by congressman Chris Smith who was speaking in favor of the Mike Pence amendment.
If the baby was dead already, it wasn’t an abortion at all. That is just playing games with the terminology. We all know the difference between spontaneous abortion and elective abortion. Speier is willing to use her own personal tragedy of one kind of abortion (a miscarriage) to promote the other–the intentional killing of a baby.
It is like discussing one’s mother’s heart attack to defend shooting women in the chest. They are two different things.
We might cry with her on her loss but we won’t be fooled into continuing to fund the murder of unborn children at the hands of America’s largest baby killing organization.
Thanks to AllahPundit for this depressing news:
The House rejected a measure cutting an additional $22 billion from the Republican spending bill, as conservatives ran into a wall of opposition from the GOP establishment over the depth of reductions to federal funding.
The amendment backed by the conservative Republican Study Committee failed, 147-281, but not before putting the GOP spending divide under a spotlight on the House floor. Authored by RSC chairman Rep. Jim Jordan (R-Ohio), the proposal would have dramatically reshaped an appropriations bill that already slashes federal spending by $61 billion over the next seven months…
Like no previous proposal, the heated debate over the amendment drew a bright line through the GOP conference, pitting conservatives pushing the deepest spending cuts against senior Republicans who denounced them as “misguided,” “indiscriminate” and, in the case of Rep. Daniel Lungren (R-Calif.), “lazy.”…
While Republicans were critical of the measure, Democrats adopted an apocalyptic tone. Rep. Jim Moran (D-Va.) said that while the entire spending bill was “irresponsible,” the Jordan amendment would “commit this country to an economic death spiral.”
So let me get this straight:
1. House Republicans claimed they were going to cut $100 billion from the budget, but had to be harassed into it by the conservative Republican Study Committee.
2. Now they won’t a) hit pre-stimulus 2008 non-defense discretionary spending levels, as promised, nor b) cut the full $100 billion promised.
3. And the Majority Leader who voted against this extra bit of cuts expects us to trust he will help lead on entitlement reforms in the Fiscal Year 2012 budget?
It’s like I wrote last week at Conservative Home- 2012 may not come soon enough, and not just to oust President Obama. If the Republicans won’t even touch getting out of Iraq and Afghanistan in the next couple of years (at the latest), start to reform defense contracting practices, eliminate all private sector subsidies, enact the basic entitlement reforms everyone in Washington knows need to happen and at least try to cut down on the hundreds of billions in waste, fraud, abuse and stupidity…they deserve what’s coming down the pike their way.
$100 billion barely scratches the surface of the debt our country has and faces. What another bad week for young Americans hoping the American Dream still exists.
For the second year straight, Gallup finds more Americans that consider themselves “pro-life” than “pro-choice”:
Inside the numbers:
The conservative shift in Americans’ views on abortion that Gallup first recorded a year ago has carried over into 2010. Slightly more Americans call themselves “pro-life” than “pro-choice,” 47% vs. 45%, according to a May 3-6 Gallup poll. This is nearly identical to the 47% to 46% division found last July following a more strongly pro-life advantage of 51% to 42% last May.
While the two-percentage-point gap in current abortion views is not significant, it represents the third consecutive time Gallup has found more Americans taking the pro-life than pro-choice position on this measure since May 2009, suggesting a real change in public opinion. By contrast, in nearly all readings on this question since 1995, and each survey from 2003 to 2008, more Americans called themselves pro-choice than pro-life.
Shift Limited to Republicans and Independents
According to two-year averages of these results since 2001, Republicans have become more likely to call themselves pro-life since polling conducted in 2003/2004, as have Republican-leaning independents since 2005/2006. Independents who lean to neither party also became more likely to call themselves “pro-life” between 2003/2004 and 2005/2006, but have since held steady.
Democrats’ self-identification with the pro-life position has moved in the other direction, declining from 37% in 2003/2004 to 31% in 2009/2010. Among independents who lean Democratic, there has been no movement in either direction.
Age and Gender Trends Mirror Overall Pattern
All age groups have become more attached to the pro-life label since 2005, with particularly large increases among young adults and those aged 50 to 64 years in the latest period between 2007/2008 and 2009/2010.Both genders have also become more likely to identify as pro-life, with the increase among women coming mainly since 2008, whereas the increase in men started after 2006.
-This is part 1 in a developing series of in-depth analysis provided by Dr. Jeff Fuller
It is now a central dogma of the GOP’s 2012 pre-primary that the biggest obstacle Mitt Romney will face is his history on the issue of Health Care – mainly that RomneyCare is similar to, and was a template for, ObamaCare (which Republicans rightly loathe). In this multi-part series I will discuss the issue in depth and debunk some of the superficial and opportunistic fire (both “enemy” and “friendly”) Romney has been taking of late.?
By way of background, as a practicing physician I live and breath health care everyday. I strongly feel that, as Americans, we have the best health care available in the world and I’m proud to play a part in that. I was actually first drawn to investigate Romney back in 2005 when the Massachusetts Health Care bill (alternatively called MassCare or RomneyCare) was first passed. I was impressed with Mitt’s courage and skill in addressing such a controversial subject, and within such a liberal state. The fact that The Heritage Foundation was on board with the plan gave me an extra level of comfort as well. After thoroughly studying Romney’s history and platform on other issues as well, I strongly supported Mitt from that point, and continue to today. There are definitely major problems with our healthcare system, but rarely do you find conservative leaders willing to tackle any of those problems. It is almost ironic that it would have been a lot less headache politically for Mitt (in retrospect) if he had done nothing on this issue. What’s the old cynical saying? “No good deed will go unpunished” seems to apply here.
Never afraid to speak his mind, Democrat Ed Rendell (who is often known for his candor), summed up Romney’s apparent conumdrum quite well:
“If I were in charge of the Republican Party – by the way, this will be the kiss to death to the guy I’m going to mention – Mitt Romney would be the candidate, no ifs, ands, and buts about it,” Rendell said Friday night. “He’s got the best credentials to talk about the economy and job creation,” he said. “But Mitt Romney, I don’t think can get the nomination, because of healthcare.”
It’s that last point that is becoming the new “conventional wisdom” regarding Romney’s imminent candidacy. Even some conservative columnists have already written Romney’s obituary over the issue. In dramatic and grandiose fashion, John Podhoretz recently wrote:
Mitt Romney cannot be the Republican nominee for president and he cannot be president. He is the author, in his Massachusetts health-care program, of the individual mandate that is the heart and soul of ObamaCare… If he runs, and he will, his origination of this policy will give his opponents in the primaries a stick so large to beat him with that no amount of clever one-liners purchased from high-paid freelance political speechwriters and joke writers will be able to mitigate the damage. And that’s to say nothing of Obama talking throughout 2012 about how he doesn’t understand what the Republicans are complaining about — one of their lead candidates agrees with him! To be completely honest, I can’t understand why on earth he is even bothering to run. This isn’t an albatross. It’s a two-ton weight chained to his torso, and he’s not Houdini.
Mitt Romney has penned an editorial for the National Review Online. In it, he outlines the mistakes Obama is making with his foreign policy in general, and his policy towards Israel in particular. Here are some excerpts:
The Obama administration has been seeking a way to avoid vetoing a U.N. Security Council resolution condemning Israel. It has floated the idea of meeting Israel’s critics halfway with a U.N. “presidential statement” calling Israeli settlements “illegitimate.” Whether or not such a statement is actually issued, the very idea is a mistake. Indeed, we have here in this single idea a display of multiple foreign-policy failures of this presidency.
Isolated more than ever in the region, Israel must now contend with the fact that its principal backer in the world, the United States, is seeking to ingratiate itself with Arab opinion at its expense. Will an increasingly tenuous relationship with the U.S., at the very moment when it is becoming more vulnerable, encourage Israel to be as flexible as it has in the past, or the reverse? The answer is clear.
Putting forward a misbegotten U.N. statement as a compromise was a tactical, strategic, and moral mistake. The administration may conceive of its action as a low cost, split-the-difference gesture, but it has harmed an ally, sent a dangerous signal of inconstancy to allies and adversaries alike, and betrayed basic American principles. That’s three mistakes in one.
Be sure and read the whole thing.
Politico is reporting that New Mexico senator Jeff Bingaman is set to announce that he won’t seek reelection in 2012, setting up yet a third open seat race in the southwest. This one is a bit more of a stretch for Republicans–New Mexico is a swing state with a bluish tint–but not impossible if the GOP has a good year, and if our presidential nominee does well enough in the state. If these rumors prove true, the two most likely Democratic candidates are Ben Ray Lujan and Martin Heinrich, the state’s two Democratic congressmen. Heinrich in particular is considered a rising star by national Democrats, and–if I recall correctly–could have the ability to self-finance. So, if Bingaman is really out, my money is on Heinrich to be Democrats’ nominee.
On the Republican side, a variety of factors could come into play, depending on who runs. Unquestionably, based on recent polling at least, Republicans’ strongest candidate would be former governor Gary Johnson. Johnson performs best against both Heinrich and Lujan in head-to-head match-ups. A more likely candidate is former representative Heather Wilson, who ran for and lost the senate nomination in 2008 against Steve Pearce. My guess is that there will be considerable pressure on Pearce, from both the NRSC and NRCC, not to run again, and to hold down NM-02, giving Wilson (or perhaps Johnson) a clear shot. Another potentially interesting candidate would be Lieutenant-Governor John Sanchez. Though he’s new to his job, Sanchez’s profile (Hispanic former businessman) could help make him an intriguing candidate for this race. From an electoral perspective, however, the ideal scenario would be for Gary Johnson to give up his presidential race for a winnable senate race against Martin Heinrich, and for Heather Wilson to have a go at retaking her old house seat in an open-seat race. If Wilson is determined to run for the senate (likely) and Johnson is unwilling to come home and take a crack at it (a virtual certainty), the best scenario is probably for 2010 candidate John Barela to take a shot at NM-01 as an open seat. As I recall, Barela ran a pretty good campaign, but couldn’t prevail against Heinrich’s gobs of money. Barela might do better in an open race. I also don’t want to throw too much cold water on a Heather Wilson candidacy. While I’m not convinced Wilson can beat Heinrich, I’m not convinced she can’t either, under the right circumstances. She’s a good campaigner, who managed to beat a statewide office-holder (Patricia Madrid I believe) in the tough 2006 environment. If she can get Pearce to endorse her early on and win the primary, Wilson could make a real race of it in the general. In any event, look for this open-seat race to be one of the most closely watched contests of 2012, if caliber candidates get in on both sides.
Gov. Pawlenty will keynote the conference, which will be held from February 25th-27th in Phoenix. Rep. Ron Paul and Herman Cain will also address the conference:
PHOENIX, AZ — Tea Party Patriots, the nation’s largest grassroots organization, today announced that Former Minnesota Governor Tim Pawlenty will be a keynote speaker at its first-annual national policy conference in Phoenix, Arizona, February 25-27. The Tea Party Patriots’ American Policy Summit – Pathways to Liberty will bring tea party supporters, national speakers, 2012 presidential candidates and public policy analysts together for briefings, discussions and policy debates.
As previously announced, Rep. Ron Paul (R-TX) and Georgia businessman Herman Cain will be among the other presidential hopefuls to address the gathering.
The summit will celebrate the 2nd anniversary of the founding of the tea party movement, one of the fastest growing and most dynamic grassroots movements in American history. Within its brief history, Tea Party Patriots has drawn millions of Americans into a movement that has sparked renewed interest in the concepts of constitutionally limited government, free markets and fiscal responsibility.
“With more than 3,000 affiliated organizations across the county, this summit will be an important opportunity for Tea Party Patriots to come together to celebrate and recommit to the ideals and values that are responsible for the dramatic victories in the November election,” said Jenny Beth Martin, national coordinator for Tea Party Patriots. “We’re delighted Gov. Pawlenty, Rep. Paul and Mr. Cain understand the importance of debating and discussing these fundamental issues.”
The American Policy Summit will offer policy briefings and discussions that will hit key Tea Party themes. They will be organized around the group’s core values and its ‘Five Pathways to Liberty’ in its 40-Year Plan: education, politics, judicial, economics and culture.
Speaking of Gov. Pawlenty, the latest issue of the National Review (not available online yet) features a cover story on his 2012 prospects by Ramesh Ponnuru:
I am beginning to think that the Democratic members of the Wisconsin legislature are suffering from the mass delusion that they are somehow like Hosni Mubarak, and that supporters of the public employee unions have the mass delusion that they are the same as Egyptian protesters in Cairo.
Following the November, 2010 state elections in Wisconsin in which Republican candidates ran on specific platforms of reforming state government and its relationship with public employee workers, the GOP scored sweeping victories, replacing a Democratic governor, a Democratic senator, three Democratic congressmen, and winning large majorities in both houses of the state legislature.
So when, as might be expected, the new governor and the legislature began to initiate and pass legislation that would reform the unpopular cozy relationships between the public employees unions, their members in Wisconsin, and Democrat-controlled state government, the unions called for massive demonstrations (which is of course their right). But the Democratic minority in the state senate, trying to block a vote (Republicans lead 24-19 in that body), fled the state en masse and holed up in a motel in Rockford, Illinois, across the state line. This temporarily blocks a vote on reform legislation since one Democrat must be present for a quorum. (I think these state senators think they are really in Sharm El Shiek on the Sinai peninsula, the luxurious oasis where Mr. Mubarak fled to and spent most of his time while his government was collapsing recently, and where he is now.)
Eventually, these Democratic state senators will have to return to Wisconsin where the law requires them to show up for work. Assuming that the new governor, Scott Walker, doesn’t have a total collapse of political principle and will, the bill will pass. The bottom line is that the public employee unions which overwhelmingly supported the Democrats in 2010, and the Democratic state senators, lost control of the legislature because the majority of voters in Wisconsin rejected their point of view.
The protests, of course, are legitimate, but the unions and their minions should not think that a big crowd in ultra-liberal Madison (one of the most left-oriented cities in the nation) should intimidate legislators from other parts of Wisconsin (where voters clearly indicated they wanted reform).
The point is that protesters in Egypt were expressing their frustration with a government that they had no voice in electing. In Wisconsin, as in all other states of the United States, voters choose their elected officials, and in each election express themselves about major public policies. In 2008, voters chose to replace the Republicans in power with a new Democratic president. In 2010, voters chose to express their dissatisfaction with Democratic president’s policies.
Most disappointing is the attitude of the entire Democratic caucus of the Wisconsin state senate. They can speak against the new legislation, and can vote against it. Unlike Hosni Mubarak, they do not have the right to go absent without leave from their elected posts. Public employee reform is coming to Wisconsin (and the rest of the U.S.) It is not only inevitable, but voters have, across the nation, sent the message they want this reform to happen. The Democratic state senators in Wisconsin have every right to hold a different point of view, but they do not have the right to behave as if they were dictators in Egypt and thwart the voters will. I hope their opponents in 2012 will remind the voters in their districts how badly they have behaved.
_________________________________________________________________
-Please visit Mr. Casselman’s personal site, the Prairie Editor Blog.
