PPP’s has just released their latest horse race poll of 2012 GOP Presidential hopefuls for the state of Arizona.
| (AZ Horse Race) | % |
| Daniels | 2 |
| Gingrich | 15 |
| Huckabee | 19 |
| Palin | 15 |
| Paul | 5 |
| Pawlenty | 4 |
| Romney | 23 |
| Thune | 1 |
| Other/Undec. | 16 |
As expected, Mitt Romney won. However, his margin over Mike Huckabee is only 4%, hardly cause for celebration in Mitt-land. Gingrich and Palin are both 8% down, however.
“Your conjecture is totally wrong, I assure you. My mind was more agreeably engaged. I have been meditating on the very great pleasure which a pair of fine eyes in the face of a pretty woman can bestow.”
Miss Bingley immediately fixed her eyes on his face, and desired he would tell her what lady had the credit of inspiring such reflections. Mr. Darcy replied with great intrepidity,
“Miss Elizabeth Bennet.”
“Miss Elizabeth Bennet!” repeated Miss Bingley. “I am all astonishment. How long has she been such a favourite? — and pray when am I to wish you joy?”
“That is exactly the question which I expected you to ask. A lady’s imagination is very rapid; it jumps from admiration to love, from love to matrimony, in a moment. I knew you would be wishing me joy.”
That quote comes from the sixth chapter of my all-time favorite book, Pride and Prejudice. This masterpiece of Jane Austen’s has been designated by numerous commentators as the greatest novel ever written in the English language. Since its first publication in 1813, it has never been out of print, not even once. It is a distinction to which few novels can lay claim.
So why has a novel about young women pursuing marriage in Regency England endured while countless others have fallen to the wayside, forgotten and unlamented? There are numerous reasons, but perhaps chief among them is the fact that in Jane Austen’s exquisitely drawn characters and finely etched scenes, we see life as it is. She holds a mirror up to our eyes, and invites us to view ourselves and our lives, warts and all. We see our lives, our foibles, our passions, our pursuits and those of others around us in vivid detail.
We see the reality of human nature, and human nature doesn’t change. No one captures the essence of it better than Jane Austen. And so her works endure.
Well, if I decide to run, I’ll be planning on running nationwide. And certainly, the early states will be places where we concentrate most of our attention. So it’s nice for people who are from the outside of a campaign to offer their suggestions. But frankly, if I get in this, I’m not going to be doing so much of a political calculus as I am a calculus of what message needs to be heard by the American people, and how can I deliver it best. And that would surely take me to Iowa as well as the other early states, and probably, ultimately, quite a few of our states.
In plain English — no, Mitt Romney is NOT going to skip Iowa. Yet some people were insisting that he was. They had let their rapid imaginations get away from them, as Mr. Darcy admonishes Miss Bingley in the passage above.
A similar instance occurred late 2008 when the McCain campaign was winding down, and the anti-Palin leaks from the McCain camp started to appear. Around the web, a number of people speculated that because the leaks were damaging to Palin, and anything that damaged Palin helped Mitt Romney, it must be Romney behind the leaks. Speculation soon turned into undeniable fact, and it was firmly established that Mitt Romney would stoop to anything to destroy Sarah Palin, so he HAD to be behind the leaks. Well, eventually it was revealed that the source of the leaks was two long-time McCain helpers who had nothing whatsoever to do with Mitt Romney.
We saw the exact same thing happen just in the past few days. Jon Huntsman has been starting to make some noise about running. In response, we have seen a couple of negative Huntsman articles appear. So guess what happened? If you guessed that some people blamed Mitt Romney, you’re right. There is nothing new under the sun. Mitt Romney would gain if Huntsmen is destroyed, the reasoning went. Therefore Mitt Romney had to be behind all these critical stories.
It reminds one of how the Democrats once treated Karl Rove. According to them, he was behind everything bad that happened to them. I even saw where some blamed him for planting those fake RatherGate documents with the aim of embarrassing Dan Rather and CBS News.
Speculation is fun, but let’s remember Mr. Darcy’s observation and not let our rapid imaginations get the better of us.
Rumors from Republican sources close to Mississippi Gov. Haley Barbour have told both CNN and POLITICO that the governor will run for president in 2012.
From CNN:
“We have definitely shifted gears, there is no question about that,” the source said. “He’s running until he says he’s not.”
“He is doing the things you have to do” to gear up for a presidential bid, said the source.
From POLITICO:
Senior Republicans are increasingly convinced that Barbour will take the plunge, and a Republican familiar with his planning said he and his aides had already begun to arrange fundraisers in New York, Washington, and Las Vegas, to discuss preliminary strategy, and to interview consultants.
“They are putting together a very serious operation,” the Republican said.
Barbour recently made appearances before GOP activists in Florida and South Carolina, and will travel to Israel this weekend to meet with Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu. He will then join several other contenders as a featured speaker at CPAC.
Politico reports that Newt Gingrich’s political organization, American Solutions, raised over $4.2 million dollars in the final quarter of 2010, bringing the final tally to $14.5 million dollars for the year. Both numbers far outpaced potential 2012 rivals Mitt Romney and Sarah Palin, who PAC’s raised $6.3 million and $3.5 million respectively.
Described on its website as a “tri-partisan citizen action network”, American Solutions is registered under section 527 of the U.S. tax code, which enables the group to accept unlimited donations from individuals and corporations – advantage that Romney’s Free and Strong America PAC and Palin’s SarahPAC do not share.
@20/20 Insight Polling has released a poll taken in the State of Georgia. It can be found here.
| (Horse Race) | % |
| Barbour | 2 |
| Cain | 14 |
| Daniels | 1 |
| Gingrich | 18 |
| Huckabee | 19 |
| Palin | 11 |
| Pawlenty | 3 |
| Romney | 14 |
| Other | 3 |
| Undecided | 16 |
Wow. The top four contenders are all within five percentage points of each other, with sixteen percent of the primary voters “undecided”. If anybody tries telling you that so-and-so has the race locked up, don’t believe them.
| (vs. Obama) | Obama | Leaning Obama | Total Obama | GOP Hopeful | Leaning Hopeful | Total Hopeful | Margin over Obama |
| Palin | 44 | 2 | 47 | 38 | 4 | 43 | -4 |
| Romney | 41 | 2 | 44 | 47 | 3 | 50 | 6 |
| Huckabee | 44 | 1 | 45 | 47 | 2 | 50 | 5 |
| Gingrich | 45 | 0 | 45 | 44 | 3 | 47 | 2 |
Perhaps the most interesting tidbit from this set of numbers is the paucity of people “leaning” towards Obama. It’s either all or nothing with him. Very few people on the fence are feeling inclined to vote for him.
Another interesting tidbit is Gingrich is not polling at the top in his home state.
Candidates and potential candidates galore are lining up to take their best shot at the ultimate brass ring of American politics, the American presidency. And, for Republicans, particularly on sites like this one, this has led to a process of factionalization, and a growing belief that it is imperative for a representative of “their” faction to win the presidential nomination in 2012, since the nominee will become the “new face” of the Republican party. In a recent post, Matt Coulter breaks down these factions into technocrats, theocrats and tea partiers, and argues that one of them will win the impending struggle, and dominate the party. He further asserts that these factions–unlike the factional divisions of the 1980s–will find cooperation difficult, due to the sharp divisions between them.
I bring up Matt’s post not to respond to it specifically, but rather to a broader argument which it represents. In fact, there is a lot of sense in what Matt–and many other commentators–are saying about the future of the party. However, I have three disagreements, two major, and one minor, with it. First, to the minor disagreement. Matt has already ceded the point–at least in part–but it bears repeating; no candidate can break down neatly into one of these three boxes. Tim Pawlenty, listed as a technocrat because of his mild personality and compitent governance of a light blue swing state, is also a strong (all be it silent) social conservative, and while he lacks the fiery southern Baptist minister style of a Mike Huckabee, or even the uncompromising Catholic conservatism of a Rick Santorum, he is nevertheless committed to the same set of values. John Thune, another mild, midwestern Evangelical, is an equally difficult figure to categorize on this schema. And, looking beyond the 2012 election, as I think we must, what are we to do with the Tea Party’s enthusiasm for the wonky–dare I say almost technocratic–Pat Toomey? If to be a “technocrat” is to be compitent and less than doctrinaire in one’s policy solutions, then doesn’t Mike Huckabee, who raised taxes in a time when it seemed prudent to him–have a potentially technocratic streak, notwithstanding the fact that he’s also the favorite of social conservatives? And the ultimate technocrat, Mitt Romney, first came to the attention of social conservatives at the National Review because of his staunch opposition to human cloaning-type legislation in Massachusetts. I would argue that, for most of these candidates, factionalization is actually more a matter of emphasis than it is for their supporters.
Now, for my two major disagreements. The first is a tendency–and this is pretty widespread in my opinion–to read the political circumstances of the present moment forward into the future. For example, will there be an organized and effective Tea Party movement by 2012, or 2014 or 16? That’s no given. If–as George Friedman from stratfor argues–the tea party movement is a reenergizing of the old Perot coalition, what’s to say it won’t go back to sleep when the economy eventually turns around? Personally, I think this is unlikely, but the possibility must be admitted. This also means that the stakes for the future of the party are not as high in 2012 as it might appear. After all, the 2008 Republican Party was dominated by John Mccain, a national security hawk who was moderate on social issues and, by his own admission, new next to nothing about economics. Fast-forward to today, and most people are treating foreign policy–and many are treating social issues–as though they are/will be after thoughts. Or they were, until a major, and potentially earth-shaking, crisis in the Middle East conveniently reminded all of us that foreign policy is not going to go away. Circumstances can change, and the permanent factions of today can blow away in a puff of smoke tomorrow.
However, what if the three factions–or however many factions you care to dice the party into–really _don’t_ have that much in common? Sometimes, from the perspective of race 4 2008 at least, it can seem as though the tea party and establishment, so-cons and libertarians, have so little in common as to almost belong to different parties and movements. Do Republicans really have enough in common to keep the party together? What is the unifying belief, if there is one, on which all these diverse Republicans draw?
I believe that there is a common core which unites Republicans and American conservatives, and separates us from progressives in particular. That unifying core is a belief in a particular kind of American nationalism, which asserts that the American system of government is the best humanity has yet devised, and that, where it needs improvement, this can be done by drawing on this system’s own heritage and practices. This is a fairly easy case to make vis-a-vis tea partiers and social conservatives. But what about technocrats? Don’t they leave themselves open to pursuing solutions from other contexts? For conservative/Republican technocrats, the answer is: not really. The conservative technocracy may scoff at European-style solutions because they believe them to have failed, but scoff at them they do nonetheless. And no conservative technocrat will ever likely take on the disgustingly fawning attitude toward China held by Thomas Friedman; even if they believe Sino-American tension to be against America’s best interests, they are hardly likely to emulate the New York Times columnists’s lament that the Chinese are sooo much more efficient than we are because they don’t have to face those pesky voters. Conservative technocrats may think they can reform American government through more reasonable policy, but the key is their desire to “reform” it, not “revolutionize” it.
The modern American left does not, contrary to popular belief, seek the whole-sale replacement of the American system with that of Sweden or, as some have inappropriately argued, the USSR. Rather, they seek to draw from European models and, gradually, adapt the “successful” pieces of their social system to American conditions. The left is not satisfied with the American system of government as it exists and, importantly, tends to argue that our national greatness is dependent on making the improvements they desire. Hence, the debate over healthcare, a highly technical issue on which most of the people who sound off on both sides are not particularly well-versed, caused such a visceral reaction. For the left, making American healthcare more like the systems they admire in other parts of the world was integral to preserving America’s greatness. For conservatives of all stripes, preventing our system from emulating these inferior models (which were seen as either ineffective from a policy perspective, promoting immorality or increasing the size and scope of government too far) was just as essential if America’s greatness was to be preserved.
I don’t know who will win the 2012 presidential nomination, or which faction said person will nominally represent. But I do know three things. First, the winner is unlikely to dominate, or become the face of, the Republican Party unless he or she actually wins the whitehouse, and even then, the brand is unlikely to outlast a president who does not enjoy the stature and in-office accomplishments of Ronald Reagan. Second, the factions which look permanent today may have completely shifted tomorrow, and when they do, someone will inevitably argue that this new conjunction is permanent. And third, whatever happens in regard to 1 and 2, the Republican party is unlikely to fracture, or even crack. As great as the gaps between libertarians and so-cons, tea partiers and establishmentarians may look today, all of these groups still have far, far more in common with one another than any of them do with President Obama and the Democratic Party. And, in a two-party system where each party is, in a sense, a coalition, that will certainly be enough.
The government seems confused (even by government standards):
The unemployment rate dropped sharply last month to 9 percent, based on a government survey that found that more than a half-million people found work. A separate Labor Department survey of company payrolls showed 36,000 net jobs created — barely a quarter of the number needed to keep pace with population growth.
Uh, there’s kind of a difference between 36,000 and 500,000, guys. Don’t you think it might be worthwhile to try to figure out which number is right?
Gallup says that unemployment increased last month, based on their surveys:
I think I trust Gallup more than the government. But I trust Dilbert more than either:
-Did I miss an article? Broken Link? If so, please email me at kavon_w_nikrad@yahoo.com.
We have spent so much time on Romneycare and especially the notion of requiring all citizens to carry insurance (which only Romney supporters seem to approve of), I thought it would be appropriate to deal with the other mandate which is much more divisive and controversial, and one in which Huckabee is probably the odd man out: Opposing the requirement that insurance companies cover pre-existing conditions.
______________________________________________________________________________________________
If there is one axiom conservatives and liberals can agree on, it is this: It is difficult to undo social programs. Take Social Security. In 1982, Social Security became known as the “third rail” of politics, a taboo to be addressed by politicians only at the risk of becoming a social outcast or worse yet, a political corpse. One can hardly blame the citizenry for resisting politicians who try to take away some benefit they have come to depend on, even if the electorate agrees any benefit was suspect from the very beginning and the economic soundness was tenuous at best. In other words, you don’t go against old people and their retirement.
However, George W Bush touched the “third rail” of Social Security twice and survived both times. In 2001, ongoing discussion about 9/11 and terrorism minimized the impact of President Bush’s Commission to Strengthen Social Security Report released in December of that year. And In 2005, President Bush was never able to sell the idea to the American people. They simply paid little attention to him. But it seems he paid no price.
In some ways, things have gotten worse politically. Today, even at the height of the Tea Party movement little consideration is given to revamp or replace Social Security. Now, even a failure to embrace new social programs is considered unrealistic or foolish. What is the “third rail” in this political cycle? Perhaps it is the generally accepted idea that insurance companies should have to cover those with pre-existing conditions. Who could be against that? The prevailing view is that only heartless Barbarians and Neanderthals wanting to take us back to the stone ages could oppose it. Even Mitt Romney included this requirement in MassCare, as Obama did in Obamacare.
Enter Mike Huckabee, stage right. At the recent Value Voters Summit, he took on the new third rail. On this issue and a few others, he is a one-man party of “no” (and makes more sense than most East and Left coast economists put together). He is consistent on this kind of thing and is the only candidate leftover from 2008 that opposed the 2009 and 2007 stimulus packages as well as the TARP bailouts. He views the process on insurance as a kind of domino effect, with each new tip-over bringing about more loss of freedom.
Loss of Freedom #1: Requiring coverage of pre-existing conditions means some customers will certainly cost the company much more than the customer could ever pay in (He compares it to getting a vehicle insured after it is already wrecked or insuring a house that has already burned down[1]).
Loss of Freedom #2: The only way to make up for the loss from #1 is to raise rates higher on everybody else (few want that option since premiums in many places are well over $10,000 per year already) or require everybody to pay for insurance whether they want it or not.
Loss of Freedom #3: The only way that will work is to fine people more than the cost of insurance premiums. Nobody has done that yet, but simple laws of economics will eventually require it. Otherwise, many people will just wait until they are sick to get insurance, as Huckabee points out.
Loss of Freedom #4: Higher costs will mean some companies quit offering insurance to its employees, which means more insurance companies like Principal Financial Group of Des Moines, Iowa will get out of the insurance industry altogether. In turn, less competition means higher prices and even less options for customers.
Loss of Freedom #5: The Domino Effect will continue to destroy the health system. For example, when some companies try to exclude certain conditions this often results in more government regulation (as in Massachusetts) but because even governments recognize limits on what companies can do, the bureaucrats eventually pinch on the other end, resulting in rationed care. This will happen more and more as the whole system moves towards a single payer of medical bills, the US Federal Government, which is already staggering under the weight of trillions of dollars of debt.
Loss of Freedom #6: Another way governments try to “help” customers is limit the amount doctors and hospitals can charge for services (reducing reimbursement rates). But reducing costs in this way often leads doctors to go out of business as well. Although insurance companies also cap costs or limit coverage, demand for this coverage drives the free insurance market to make them available (as long as the government doesn’t interfere).
Loss of Freedom #7: Huckabee knows that a single-payer system (socialized medicine) cannot allow individuals to pay for their own medical care. It goes against the envy-driven mentality behind the whole notion of universal health care. It just wouldn’t be fair if “people with money” could use their own filthy lucre to buy medical treatment while everybody else was dependent on the government. Socialism not only eventually kills the free market, the free market destroys socialism. It is a fight to the death. One system or the other must prevail, they cannot both survive.
Governor Huckabee has common sense on economic issues and his principles allow him to face even potential voters with hard truths. In early 2009, an audience member on Huckabee’s Fox News television show asked Huckabee what the government should do since he, the audience member, was uninsurable due to a chronic condition (though he was not disabled). Huckabee said the man had many options (getting a job with insurance benefits, or getting help from family, church, or charitable organizations and hospitals). The federal government was not offered as an option, not because Huckabee is heartless but because he knows that the system cannot possibly sustain itself and remain the freest in the world.
In addition, I would argue that permanently reducing government regulation on the industry would increase competition and lower prices even for those with pre-conditions. Too many states now forbid companies from offering catastrophic insurance; allowing that kind of coverage would free up insurance funds usually paid out for ongoing treatment of chronic diseases to be used to cover those with pre-existing conditions. Eliminating the law forbidding customers from buying insurance across states lines would free up the industry to a certain degree from both federal and state economic regulators, further enhancing competition and making us more free, not less.
Posted October 12 on Caffeinated Thoughts
National Journal has come out with their latest Power Rankings for the 2012 GOP Presidential Race. They graded each hopeful on four items:
- Money: How much do they have? How much can they raise?
- Campaign infrastructure: Do they have the ability to assemble a competitive and competent staff, both at the national and state levels?
- Strengths: What issue(s) can the candidate truly hang their hat on? Is there a specific area of expertise they can sell to voters? Do they have a strong track record on one particular issue?
- Weaknesses: Every candidate has one — heck, most candidates have plenty — and the reality is that eventually they will have to address them. This will be easier for some contenders than others: Explaining away one vote for bad legislation is far easier than justifying a major moral lapse or some fatally flawed executive decision. At the end of the day, some candidates will have weaknesses, and others will have albatrosses. It’s the latter group who should be worried.
The results are as follows:
| Last Ranking | Change | ||
| 1 | Mitt Romney | 1 | 0 |
| 2 | Tim Pawlenty | 2 | 0 |
| 3 | Mike Huckabee | 5 | 2 |
| 4 | John Thune | 3 | -1 |
| 5 | Mitch Daniels | 9 | 4 |
| 6 | Haley Barbour | 4 | -2 |
| 7 | Newt Gingrich | 7 | 0 |
| 8 | Sarah Palin | 6 | -2 |
| 9 | Jon Huntsman | new | N/A |
| 10 | Rick Santorum | 13 | 3 |
| 11 | Jim DeMint | 14 | 3 |
| 12 | Michele Bachmann | new | N/A |
| 13 | Ron Paul | 15 | 2 |
| 14 | Herman Cain | new | N/A |
| 15 | Rudy Giuliani | new | N/A |
A few items are worth noting:
So this is how the field appears one year from the first race, the Iowa Caucus. There is still plenty of time for someone obscure to catch fire, for some to consolidate their present leads, for others to turn things around, and for still others currently enjoying the limelight to slowly but surely fade away.
It’s going to be an interesting, highly entertaining year.
PPP (D) 2012 Nebraska GOP Primary Survey
- Mike Huckabee 21%
- Sarah Palin 19%
- Newt Gingrich 18%
- Mitt Romney 15%
- Ron Paul 8%
- Tim Pawlenty 4%
- John Thune 3%
- Mitch Daniels 1%
- Someone else/Undecided 12%
PPP has released their latest poll in the important primary state of South Carolina. To the question, “If the candidates for President next year were Democrat Barack Obama and Republican xxxxxxxx, who would you vote for?”, the replies are as follows:
| Obama | Hopeful | Margin over Obama | Undecided | |
| Gingrich | 44 | 43 | -1 | 12 |
| Huckabee | 43 | 49 | 6 | 8 |
| Palin | 47 | 41 | -6 | 12 |
| Romney | 42 | 49 | 7 | 9 |
| DeMint | 45 | 47 | 2 | 8 |
As can be readily seen, Romney and Huckabee fare best against the President in the Palmetto State. Palin is bringing up the rear — double digits behind the leaders.
The Washington Post‘s Jennifer Rubin put forward a strong case of conventional wisdom against the potential of a Huntsman candidacy. While she has many solid points, she ignores one of the facts of recent GOP elections: the power of Sen. John McCain. McCain was written off much the way Rubin writes off Huntsman as inefficiently conservative, but that did not stop McCain from winning the nomination in 2008 after nearly toppling George W. Bush 8 years earlier. Clearly, there was a following for a McCain-style republican, and despite the Tea Party boom in 2010, there will be space for one again in 2012. Given the differences between Huntsman and McCain, I feel it’s important to flesh out why Huntsman may be even stronger then McCain was in the past and why he shouldn’t be so quickly dismissed.
None of this means that Huntsman is going to win. What it does mean, however, is that those like Rubin who laugh off a path for Huntsman ignore the GOP’s most recent nominating history. Over the last decade, John McCain was undeniably the most dominant GOP politician in the country not named George Bush. His longtime supporters and allies will not just disappear but instead will continue their fight with a candidate who in many ways is vastly superior to McCain. They will also head into this fight without a dominate George Bush-like opponent in their way. In a wide open field, a candidate such as Huntsman should not be underestimated.
I’ll try to address a few points that have been raised in other posts lately. Jon Huntsman, as Dave points out below, appears to be quite enthusiastic about cap & trade. As noted in the comments to that thread, several other potential candidates have spoken positively about the idea at one time or another. Here’s Mitch Daniels’ take on it, delivered as the GOP’s weekly statement in May 2009:
He has made the point in other statements that, while he thinks there are legitimate questions about the science behind global warming, the point is irrelevant, since we can’t afford the proposed solutions. He has also referred to the EPA as the Employment Prevention Agency, while proposing a rollback on regulation as part of a real stimulus program.
Regarding healthcare, here’s a description of the Healthy Indiana Plan that Daniels put in place to help meet the needs of Indiana’s uninsured while also addressing the biggest issue in healthcare — rising costs. As the article’s title states, it is a market-based plan. The key to HIP is that it is an HSA, which gives power and responsibility to the consumer, as well as an incentive to limit their healthcare consumption (as opposed to insurance-based plans, which encourage unlimited consumption and thus drive costs higher). Here, Daniels describes the philosophy behind it, in relation to the HSAs introduced for state employees as a forerunner to HIP, which reduced the state’s costs by 11%.
Education was also brought up in a post earlier today, so I thought I would mention Mitch’s drive during the current legislative session to reform education in Indiana, by offering vouchers to students to allow them choice in education and to introduce competition into the education market, to expand Indiana’s limited charter schools, to reward good teachers with merit pay while making it easier to fire incompetents, and to encourage students to graduate from high school early by giving them the cost a their last year’s schooling as an offset to college tuition. The unions, as one would expect, are resisting. Here’s an interesting take, from Chicks on the Right, about the sort of rules the unions want to defend.
An obscure item in Politico today raises the possibility of economist / journalist and former Reagan Administration official Larry Kudlow becoming a Republican candidate for the US Senate seat in Connecticut currently held by retiring Senator Joe Liberman. Apparently, Kudlow is one of a number of names being tossed about as Connecticut Republicans consider possible candidates for the Liberman seat. From my observations, Kudlow could be a formidable candidate should he choose to seriously run. He speaks very well, knows the issues, is philosophically quite solid, and could raise the necessary money. Further, he is not a career politician but is very familiar with politics. No indication as yet as to whether this is serious, but it could be an interesting possibility.
n his State of the Union address last week, U.S. President Barack Obama acknowledged that America’s “free enterprise system is what drives innovation.” He also said that if America is to “win the future,” then it must first “win the race to educate our kids.”
Mr. Obama is correct on both points – just as he was correct in acknowledging that “too many schools” in our country are falling behind in this race.
According to the 2009 Programme for International Student Assessment (PISA), America’s reading scores have slipped by four points over the last nine years. Our fifteen-year-old students now trail their counterparts in Shanghai by 56 points, with even larger gaps existing in science (73 points) and mathematics (113 points) – the subjects which form the basis of our nation’s innovative capacity.
This slippage – which Mr. Obama is hoping to mitigate with increased government funding – will only widen the “innovation gap” that exists between 21st Century America and the rest of the industrialized world.
According to a 2009 report published by the Information Technology and Innovation Foundation, America ranked sixth among the world’s top 40 industrialized nations in overall “innovative competitiveness.” However, our nation ranked dead last among these countries with respect to its “rate of change in innovation capacity.”
“Do the math,” as the expression goes.
As with our government’s ongoing fiscal recklessness, this “innovation stagnation” threatens the very survival of our Republic. Yet as America’s competitive position has steadily deteriorated, our political leaders have continued to ignore free market solutions. Instead, they have chosen to saddle future generations with record debt – while simultaneously impeding their ability to pay all those borrowed trillions back.
Now the role that government plays in every aspect of our economy – as well as the role government plays in preparing future generations of Americans to compete in that economy – must be fundamentally reexamined.
“The question is whether all of us – as citizens, and as parents – are willing to do what’s necessary to give every child a chance to succeed,” Mr. Obama said in his address.
That is the question. Yet in imploring us to meet this challenge, Mr. Obama is once again demonstrating the hollowness of his rhetoric.
For example, if Mr. Obama truly believes that free enterprise “drives innovation” in our economy, then why has he dramatically expanded government control over our financial markets? Or pushed a government takeover of the health care industry? Or used multi-billion dollar bailouts to speculatively pick winners and losers in the marketplace?
And if Mr. Obama truly believes in providing “what’s necessary to give every child a chance to succeed,” then why did he pull the plug on a successful school choice program in Washington, D.C.?
According to a U.S. Department of Education report released last summer, the Washington D.C. Opportunity Scholarships Program has “increased graduation rates by 21 percentage points” among students who took advantage of these scholarships – at a little more than half the cost of public school tuition.
Two weeks ago, researchers at the University of Minnesota released a report showing that students in Milwaukee’s successful school choice program “have graduation rates that are 18 percent higher than those of students in Milwaukee Public Schools” – at less than half the cost of public school tuition.
Meanwhile a study released by Northwestern University just last week found that public schools in the state of Florida – where a thriving tax credit and scholarship program was recently expanded – have “responded to the increased threat of losing students” by dramatically improving their performance.
“The (public school) gains occur immediately,” the study found, and “appear to be much more pronounced in the schools most at risk to lose students.”
Better academic results, dramatic savings and improved public school performance– all as a result of free enterprise. Exactly what part of that equation does Mr. Obama find objectionable?
The day after Mr. Obama’s speech, House Speaker John Boehner unveiled legislation that would reinstate Washington D.C.’s Opportunity Scholarship Program.
“President Obama spoke of the vital role education plays in making our nation competitive,” Mr. Boehner said. “We need to start by making America’s education system itself more competitive.”
Indeed we do. America has what it takes to “win the future.” In fact, a study released last month by the Massachusetts Institute of Technology found that Americans aged 16-25 “possess many characteristics necessary to become inventors, such as creativity, interest in science and math … (and the) desire to develop altruistic inventions.”
What these young minds need now is for their government to get out of the way.
__________________________________________________________________
-The author is chairman of Americans for Limited Government.
Unfortunately, there will not be a Race42012 Essential Reads morning update. However, readers are encouraged to suggest their own essential reads in the comment section.
Let’s consider this an Open Thread. So fire away!
Say it ain’t so, Governor!
This is going to put far more of a damper on the freight train of Huntsmania than the governor’s support for civil unions or his squishiness on immigration issues. Those latter issues, I think, would earn Huntsman street cred among centrists without necessarily hurting him too much among conservatives. Heck, our last Republican vice president was a big fan of civil unions, and our last GOP POTUS was about as squishy on immigration as a Republican can get. Those issues aren’t exactly dealbreakers with the base it seems.
But cap and trade is a big no-no for Republicans in a cycle like this, largely because a) it was part of the Obama/Pelosi/Reid agenda that was so resoundingly dealt a death blow by voters last fall and b) this is a year in which economic and fiscal issues are going to dominate the debate, and the battle lines will be drawn accordingly. For Huntsman to be on the “wrong” side, from a conservative perspective, of a major economic issue like this will further push him into the niche of “NPR Republican,” and the rest of the field will act accordingly, using Huntsman as a sort of liberal foil.
Incidentally, I couldn’t help but smirk a little when Huntsman kept repeating his line about how “we must put a value on carbon.” Um, isn’t it the market that puts a value on carbon, and pretty much all goods and services for that matter?
Yesterday, Ben Smith, of Politico, explored the possibility that the legal challenges to Obamacare could rescue Mitt Romney from the greatest danger his prospective campaign would face:
During last year’s debate, Romney struggled to distinguish the Massachusetts plan, which his spokesman called his “signature” accomplishment as governor…from a federal plan that shared its policy pedigree and had obviously been constructed along the same lines.
One of Romney’s weak arguments was that the Massachusetts plan was fundamentally different, as a matter of policy, because it had been enacted on a state rather than federal level.
…Romney’s argument is now much stronger. Because the main objection to ObamaCare, as its critics call it, is no longer a matter of policy nuance. Now critics primarily make the case that it’s an unconstitutional expansion of specifically federal power. And on that turf, the similar structure of the plans doesn’t matter. Romney enacted his at a state level, and states have — conservatives argue — more power to regulate the insurance industry, as they do with car insurance.
I certainly understand Smith’s central point, but I still can’t bring myself to agree with him. While the wonky federalism argument may register with the more technocratic elements of the Republican Party, the more visceral opposition Tea Partiers have toward the government’s role in Masscare will probably not change, leaving Romney’s potential obstacle intact.
Of course, future events might prove Smith right. We’ll have to wait and see.
No one denies the importance of a strong base, in either primary or general elections. A party or a candidate looks to their base as the foundation upon which a strong campaign is built.
But some people seem to think that a fired-up base is all that is required. Nothing could be further from the truth, as Sarah Palin will learn if she decides to seek the Republican nomination.
No one denies, again, that Palin’s supporters are the most deeply committed of any of the possible contenders. In this, she has even surpassed Ron Paul, who used to claim this distinction. But ask Ron Paul what that has gotten him.
In ’08 (and again this time, if he runs again), Paul had about 5-8% of the Republican Party behind him. And they were really behind him. These folks would do anything for Ron Paul – and such people are vital to a candidate.
Having 5% or so of a party strongly supporting you is a great starting point for a candidate. These are your shock troops – people who will use their two week vacations to go door-to-door for you in Iowa and New Hampshire, they’ll staff phone banks, they’ll pester their friends, they’ll supply you with seed money, they’ll call talk shows, they’ll vote in online polls (over and over), they’ll pepper political websites with comments …
… all great things, but just a starting point. Paul’s problem was that the loyal, even fanatical, base was all he had, and all he ever had. Everybody else in the party listened politely, said “No thanks”, and made their selections from the remainder of the field.
Sarah Palin’s base is a bit larger than Paul’s – about 15% or so – but otherwise the case is very similar. Her supporters are equally fanatical, and she is equally unlikely to be able to build beyond the base.
This is very disappointing to many of us who were once her supporters, or willing to be her supporters. Two years ago, in the aftermath of the ’08 election, a lot of people (I include myself) were quite willing to consider Sarah Palin as a possible candidate. We defended her against nasty and vicious personal attacks on her and her family from the left, the mainstream media, and some Republicans. When people questioned her policy background, we said, “Give her time – she’s still new on the national stage.”
We’ve given her time, and nothing has happened. If Palin had gone back to Alaska and finished her term, building a solid governing record, while studying the issues and thinking about her positions and philosophy, she would now be ready for a campaign that would build on her base of supporters.
With a record of executive experience and an ability to speak on policy questions, combined with her personal attractiveness, charm, and charisma, she would, I have little doubt, be the frontrunner for the nomination.
She did none of that – none of the hard work of governing, of learning, of preparing to be a leader. So she still has a strong, but shrinking, core of supporters, but she has nothing to offer the other 85% of the party. There’s no record of achievement, no policies we can point to as reasons to support her, no philosophy of governance to rally behind – nothing but a pleasing personality.
It’s a great disappointment, and a terrible missed opportunity. And it will be another reminder that a strong base is necessary, but not by itself sufficient.
The book tour for Gov. Huckabee’s forthcoming book, “A Simple Government: Twelve Things We Really Need from Washington (and a Trillion that we Don’t!)” will include stops in stops in Des Moines, Dubuque, Iowa City, Davenport, Waterloo, and Cedar Rapids, Iowa; as well as Anderson, Columbia, Florence, Greenville, and Spartanburg, South Carolina. These two states would be critical states for Huckabee if he wants to win the presidency in the 2012 elections. He has not announced his intentions, and said he will probably not do so until this summer.
Other cities on the tour include: Destin, Florida; Rome and Alpharetta, Georgia; Topeka and Wichita, Kansas; Alexandria, Baton Rouge, and Shreveport, Louisiana; Biloxi, Mississippi; Asheville, Fayetteville, Greensboro, and Wilson, North Caroloina; Tulsa and Oklahoma City; Cleveland, Knoxville, Johnson City, and Kingsport, Tennessee; and in Texas: Cedar Hill, Greenville, Longview, Sherman, Tyler, and Wichita Falls.
If the book tour is intended to effect the potential presidential race, it is obvious Governor Huckabee has a Southern strategy. Iowa may be in there to prepare for a caucus bid, the first state in the Republican race.
The complete schedule is here (in PDF format for printing or downloading).
The book will be available for purchase on February 22nd, 2011.
____________________________________________________________________________________________________
-Also published at Caffeinated Thoughts
PPP (D) Arizona 2012 Presidential Survey
- Mitt Romney 49% (50%)
- Barack Obama 43% (43%)
- Mike Huckabee 48% (49%)
- Barack Obama 44% (45%)
- Barack Obama 46%
- Newt Gingrich 46%
- Barack Obama 49% (47%)
- Sarah Palin 41% (47%)
There have been rampant rumors of a Tea Party challenge to Utah Senator Orrin Hatch ever since Mike Lee and the Tea Party knocked out Bob Bennett last year at the Utah Convention. However, unlike Bennett, Senator Hatch has not been taken by surprise. The Beehive State’s Senior Senator knows of the rumblings from his right flank and Hatch has found a way to stop it in its tracks.
How is Senator Hatch doing this? By making an unholy alliance with the Democrats (all 7 of them in Utah)? By threatening to go 3rd Party/write-in ala Lisa Murkowski? By bashing them? Nope, none of the above. Senator Hatch has done something even more potent, something that has succeeded in dividing would-be Tea Party opponents. Something that might just give the Senator another term in Washington. What is it?
Orrin Hatch is actually reaching out to them. (cue shocking music)
That’s right, according to Politico and other sources, Senator Hatch has been talking with, meeting with, and discussing with many of the leaders of Utah’s Tea Party movement. The Politico article I linked to shows just how clever Senator Hatch’s approach has been. The Senator still more-or-less defends his vote for the TARP and other “purity tests”, but he is still willing to discuss these things with the Tea Partiers. He keeps in constant contact with Tea Party leaders in Utah and has been talking about how his seniority, especially on the Senate Finance Committee, can be used to make life miserable for the Democrats.
Now, it’s way too early to tell if Hatch’s plan is going to be successful; the Utah GOP Convention isn’t until next June, but it’s already bearing some fruit. Tea Party leaders are now fairly divided about whether or not to mount a big challenge to Hatch next year. That in itself is a big deal; against a divided opposition, Hatch is more likely to prevail. What’s even more important is that Senator Hatch is, perhaps, showing how the Establishment Republicans can mollify the Tea Partiers without splitting the Party in two.
Perhaps the main lesson from what I’ll call the Hatch approach is the power of listening. Hatch isn’t turning into Mr. Tea Party. That simply isn’t him. What he is doing is showing the Tea Party that while he may not be one of them, that doesn’t mean he’s against them or ignoring them. That’s an important distinction, one that some Tea Party leaders seem to be acknowledge. If Senator Hatch fends off a Tea Party challenge next year, his approach will show the rest of the Republican Party just how to do that.
So Jon Huntsman is resigning from his post as Ambassador to China, in a move largely assumed to mean he will throw his hat in the ring for the 2012 GOP nomination. I can understand his calculation – after all, the GOP field clearly lacked a 60-something white LDS guy with private sector experience and fiscal bona fides who was more moderate on social issues.
Meanwhile, Jim DeMint is traveling to Iowa to explore the idea of running for President because the GOP field lacks a conservative enough candidate for the Tea Party boy hero. How anyone can look at a potential field which includes Romney, Daniels, Pawlenty, Thune, Santorum and Palin (and possibly Bachmann) and conclude there are no conservatives running is beyond me.
On the other hand, Rudy Giuliani is considering getting in the race because by his calculation, no moderates are running.
Huh.
Of course, all of these reasons are simply excuses in an attempt to hide one of the uglier character traits is takes to run for President: vanity. As someone once famously noted, anyone who wants to be President is either an egomaniac or crazy. Unfortunately, the thought that you and your ideas are the best hope for an entire country is the groundwork upon which every serious candidate necessarily bases their campaign. (And don’t tell me about “draft” movements that are largely ego-stroking exercises in their own right.)
By all measurable assumptions, the 2012 GOP field will be the largest in history. It makes sense, I guess. You have an embattled President who appears vulnerable (but who will be much less so by the time November 2012 rolls around, I believe). His policies and legislative goals seem to be tailor made for giving the opposition a reason to be passionate and fired up. And so many who have been standing in the wings of the party for a while now look at 2012 as their best chance… (also understanding that if they lose this year they can run again in 2016 and take advantage of the GOP’s widely debated “next-in-line” tendencies).
But that means a slew of people lining up, who all imagine their name replacing Obi-Wan’s in Princess Leia’s famous plea.
Part of me welcomes the huge crowd. Especially if it is comprised of grown-ups such as Daniels, Romney, Pawlenty, and Thune who can speak intelligently and substantively about the issues. We can show the GOP as the mature party of answers and solutions with a deep bench.
But part of me is concerned that a wide open primary with well over a dozen candidates will just devolve into a sniping fest as we knock holes in one another’s armor, leaving the eventual candidate bruised and battered heading into combat with Obama.
The threat is real, as the GOP field is already – before it is even formed – splintering into three factions: the technocrats, the theocrats, and the tea partiers. There is some overlap in each faction, but the 2012 nomination will largely be a fight among these three groups for the identity of the Republican Party. It’s not difficult to place all of the candidates into one of these three categories and then watch as the GOP feuds away against itself. Will we hitch our wagons to a solutions-oriented, pragmatic-based technocrat like Romney, Daniels, Pawlenty, or Hunstman? A morality-driven, Jesus-loving theocrat like Huckabee or Santorum? A government-despising, tax-hating tea partier like DeMint, Palin, or Bachmann?
I have to imagine Obama and his re-election team smiling as the circular firing squad of vanity begins lining up.
But this is a debate and a fight which we must have. Although they share some aspects, this division runs more deeply than the fiscal/social/defense three-way splintering of the GOP in Reagan’s day. Reagan was able to successfully unite those three factions into an electoral majority, but the GOP sects we find ourselves with today may very well have irreconcilable differences. In the 80s, the split in the GOP was over what issues were more important. The split today is about foundational, philosophical differences in how to approach problems.
Technocrats desire the government to base decisions on research and logical solutions. If that happens to lead to more moderate conclusions on some issues, so be it. They see it as getting results. Theocrats desire the government to base their decisions on upholding societal morals and faith principles. If that happens to make them more inflexible on the issues, so be it. They view it as having a moral compass. And Tea Partiers desire the government to base decisions on a philosophy of limiting itself and leaving the issues instead to private citizens to deal with. If that happens to set them outside the mainstream of America, so be it. They see it as returning to America’s legacy.
This is the reason why the technocrats will pay some lip service to the tea partiers, but will never fully embrace the movement. They don’t see it as being ultimately pragmatic or helpful in solving problems. Likewise, tea partiers will always view technocrats with an eye of suspicion, frequently trotting out arguments about “purity”. Theocrats are more likely to embrace the tea partiers, but only insofar as the Tea Party embraces the fact that we are a “Christian” nation and need to return to our religious roots along with our fiscal roots. Theocrats have little use, or respect, for technocrats, although a couple of the technocrats are soft-spoken representatives of the evangelical faith and will warily wade into the shallow end of the theocratic pool.
When we talk about the different wings of the party or party unity or any of those sorts of things, we’ve got to realize this isn’t our parents’ Republican Party any longer. We’ve got a different three-way split in the party now, and we would do well to view things through this lens.
So the question before us in 2012 is about much more than individual candidates. It is about the future direction of the Republican Party. If our candidate ends up winning what is sure to be a close race in 2012, he or she will be – for better or worse – the de facto face of the GOP. What will we become?
(For whatever it’s worth, I find myself squarely in the technocratic camp. I would be very pleased to see Romney, Daniels, or Pawlenty get the nomination, in that order. Also, note that the terms “technocrats” and “theocrats” are hyperbolic rhetoric, as obviously no one in either camp are pure technocrats or theocrats. Nobody wants a government run entirely by scientists, and nobody wants to turn America into a theocracy. They are merely useful hyperbolic descriptions of the division within the GOP.)
U.S. Ambassador to China Jon Huntsman has resigned, presumably to enter the Republican contest for the 2012 presidential nomination. There is much which is appealing about former Utah Governor Huntsman, a very talented Republican appointed by President Obama to one of the most important U.S. diplomatic posts in the world.
He was an ideal choice for Beijing because he served several years as a Mormon missionary in Taiwan, and is fluent in both Mandarin and Taiwanese.. He was an outstanding and popular Utah governor, and is considered a GOP moderate on some issues (although he is anti-abortion and favors gun rights).
I have been saying we are almost past the point when a new serious GOP candidate might successfully enter the field. But since no major Republican has announced their candidacy yet, it is obviously not too late. The GOP field is quite large already. There are more than a dozen “serious” candidates, although as I have been pointing out, credentials, an impressive appearance and name recognition does not necessarily make a finalist.
So far, Mitt Romney, Sarah Palin, Mike Huckabee, Newt Gingrich, Tim Pawlenty and Mitch Daniels seem most likely to make the “finals” IF they run. But nothing is written in stone yet. Mr. Huntsman, ironically, might split the Mormon vote with Mr. Romney, and Mormons are a serious factor in several western states. But his greatest obstacle would be the perception he is a “moderate.” I suspect that Ambassador Huntsman is rather conservative by most national standards, yet that may be not enough in a political year when ardent conservatism seems most prized by GOP voters nationwide (and not a few independent voters).
I am reminded of the case of former Governor Tom Ridge of Pennsylvania who, from 1996 through 2008 was a very serious candidate for vice president (by Bob Dole, George W. Bush and John McCain), and was considered to have the necessary gravitas to be a serious presidential candidate as well — except for one matter, he was a Catholic who was moderately pro-choice on abortion. This made him unacceptable to his own party. A six-term congressman from Erie, PA, Ridge also represented a working class district, and was not considered conservative enough by many of his colleagues. This did not prevent him from distinguishing himself as the nation’s first Secretary of Homeland Security (his threat level color code notwithstanding), and now only half a decade later, his performance in that office looks rather good in comparison with some of his successors. No matter, Tom Ridge passed on a “sure thing” U.S. senate race in Pennsylvania in 2010, and is now pursuing the rest of his life, more or less out of politics. Mr. Huntsman may find the Tom Ridge example instructive.
We are now entering the more combative period of the early presidential contest. Potential candidates are roving Iowa, New Hampshire and South Carolina which have the earliest primaries/caucuses, and where any successful candidate must find some traction. Already The Wall Street Journal has taken former Speaker Newt Gingrich to task for supporting ethanol in Iowa. While I happen to agree with The Journal’s general view on ethanol, it is also obvious that its editors have not visited Iowa (or Minnesota or Indiana or Illinois) recently. I certainly hope The Journal does not now come out against presidential candidates who kiss babies.
Mr. Huckabee is saying he won’t make his decision about running until late this year. This may be a serious tactical mistake. Mrs. Palin is the most charismatic person in her party, but her overall popularity has declined as a result of her appeal to her base. She is formidable, but perhaps not as a presidential candidate in 2012. Congresswoman Michele Bachmann is an almost equally provocative national figure now, and also not to be dismissed out of hand, but not likely to appeal beyond a narrow band of the electorate if she runs.
Lest I be accused of favoritism to my (former) home state governor, I would be remiss in not observing that his unannounced presidential candidacy is going rather well in its early stages. But former Governor Tim Pawlenty must do well in neighboring Iowa to advance to the finals. John McCain skipped Iowa last time, and won the nomination, but 2012 frontrunner Mitt Romney’s alleged temptation also to skip the first caucus state this time might not be a good idea. Mr. Gingrich need not win Iowa or New Hampshire, but he must do better than expected in both, and then win South Carolina. His task is to demonstrate unexpected strength from the moment he announces, and then show that his so-called “baggage” was a political myth. Mr. Daniels is showing some surprising strength already in polls in a few states, but he must overcome an image of being a “reluctant” candidate. He and Mr. Pawlenty are the “sleepers” in this contest.
If more American voters were fluent in Mandarin Chinese, Mr. Huntsman might pull “an Obama” in 2012. But if it turns out that he is also fluent in Spanish, then all bets are off.
________________________________________________________________________
-Please visit Mr. Casselman’s personal site, The Prairie Editor Blog.
-Did I miss an article? Broken Link? If so, please email me at kavon_w_nikrad@yahoo.com.
This was posted earlier on Caffeinated Thoughts, but I add it here now with a couple of changes, and some recommendations at the end as it pertains to the 2012 potential candidates.
__________________________________________________
Suppose you were given the following choices.
Option #1:
The federal government taxed everybody, rich and poor, at 75% of income, but literally threw into Lake Erie all but 10% of the revenue. The government was then forced to live on the 10% it received and only permitted certain limited functions (national defense, courts, and managing disputes between states, as possible examples). The government was not allowed to regulate wages, prices or in any other way interfere with the free market. The rate was constitutionally set and could never be changed (I know I live in a dream world, where envy doesn’t exist, but bare with me for just a moment).
Option #2:
The federal government had a flat tax rate of 50% and could spend it whatever way Congress saw fit, without constitutional limit. The rate was constitutionally set and would never be changed.
Option #3
Rates could never go higher than 35%, but rates could vary and change twice a year. Some citizens would pay 0%, others 15%, others 35%. There is no limit on government regulation or how it spends its money. (This is the closest scenario to what we have today).
My choice would be #1, without question and without hesitation. Here’s why:
First, as long as taxation is not “progressive” and the rate is fixed, taxes cannot be used for social engineering. Statists would hate that for they would lose leverage and control over the electorate. It is the combination of changing rates and progressive rates that allow governments to pit one citizen against another. It is this politicizing of taxes that opens the door to corruption. It is not campaign money that people give to politicians that is the problem, it is the taxpayers money that politicians spend to benefit those special interests that is the problem. If you cut off access to government coffers and regulation instigated by big contributors, you would see the big donations dry up in 10 minutes.
Second, even very high taxes, if unchanged, are eventually absorbed into the market. It is based upon the same principal as inflation. It is the relative value of a dollar to the past that makes inflation so onerous. Ultimately I don’t care whether bread costs $400 a loaf, as long as I make $500,000 a year and have the freedom to make more. True cost is not measured in numbers but rather man-hours required to gain a certain standard of living. This principle is easily proved by the fact our standard of living is much higher today than when bread cost 10 cents a loaf. This is true even though bread now costs 25 times as much.
Third, it is regulation and government intrusion into the market that destroys freedom, not high tax rates. If government could not spend money on nor regulate schools, retirement, health insurance, wetlands, etc., its ability to destroy our freedom would dissipate quickly.
A couple of caveats are in order, here.
A. I am not suggesting that much of this has any real possibility of happening in the U.S. in the foreseeable future. I am arguing for a change of perspective.
B. I am not arguing for higher taxes. I am arguing for flatter taxes, a stable tax rate, and less (i.e, constitutionally limited) government spending (not so much the dollar amount, but an actual reduction in the size of government). The FAIR Tax or a flat tax ought to be implemented as soon as possible, though see “A” above.
Application of these principles is simple. We better start hounding our government officials about government programs, regulation and spending as much as we do about taxes or we will end up enslaved. Lower taxes, without reductions in spending means higher debt, which can then only be solved in one of three ways: hyper-inflation, progressively higher and unstable (and unbearable) tax rates, or bankruptcy.
__________________________________________________________________________________________
Application to the race for 2012: Huckabee supported the Fair Tax in 2008. Steve Forbes supported a Flat Tax long before that. Regardless of what candidate you support we must move towards less progressive tax rates and a stable tax rate if we want the tyranny to stop.
Americans for Prosperity in New Hampshire is holding a summit in April and inviting a number of potential 2012 candidates. So far, Herman Cain and Rick Santorum will be attending. Here’s the list of invites:
Former Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin
South Carolina Sen. Jim DeMint
Former Massachusetts Gov. Mitt Romney
Former Arkansas Gov. Mike Huckabee
Former Minnesota Gov. Tim Pawlenty
Mississippi Gov. Haley Barbour
South Dakota Sen. John Thune
While a summit by AFP in New Hampshire is interesting, what’s more interesting is the 2012 potential candidate who has not yet been invited: Newt Gingrich.
_______________________________________________________
-Matt Newman is a conservative blogger from Maryland who blogs at Old Line Elephant and Tweets far too often.
