Who Should Romney’s Running Mate Be?

April 14, 2012 5 Comments

A long time reader asked for a run down of potential Romney VP picks. This is a subject that will get tossed around for the next few months until Romney settles on a running mate. There are a lot of good candidates out there but what Romney absolutely must do is pick a conservative. He must shore up the conservative Republican base otherwise he risks alienating what should be the core of his votes. Most of us are already disappointed in a liberal winning the nomination, to pick another liberal would destroy Romney’s chances.

With that in mind, let’s toss out Chris Christie and Condi Rice. I like both of these people but neither one of them is solidly pro-life. If there’s ever a group of people the GOP must appease at all costs with the VP selection it’s the pro-life majority in the party. No one trusts Romney on the subject, if he picks a pro-abortion liberal his candidacy is over. Christie is likely too bombastic and prone to the sort of gaffes the current VP makes on a regular basis but which are never reported by the media. The Governor of New Jersey gets more press coverage for his bombastic comments than the current Vice President gets for his. It would only be worse for Christie if he were the VP, the press would love the opportunity to attack a Republican. Condi would be great, if only she were pro-life.

Everyone wants to talk about Marco Rubio. He would be a great choice. He’s pro-life, thoughtful, the Tea Party likes him and he’s known nationally. There are any number of good things to say about Rubio, he would be a terrific choice. But let’s look at some of his drawbacks. He’s only been a Senator for two years. Before that he was a state Senator in Florida. It sounds awfully familiar to a certain current President. Point being, he doesn’t have a whole lot of experience in DC and equally as problematic he doesn’t have any executive experience. If there’s a drawback with Rubio, it’s this.

A month or so ago the media decided that Romney was going to pick Puerto Rico Governor Luis Fortuno as has running mate. This would be an interesting selection. But what do we know about this guy? Is he pro-life? He was elected Governor in the New Progressive Party Party yet he’s a member of the RNC. He sounds about as conservative as Mitt Romney, in short not very. This guy would get the media going but ultimately he wouldn’t be good for conservatives in the party. Which is perhaps why he may be the selection, it’s an opportunity for the leftists in the GOP to take over once and for all and win without us.

Nikki Haley, Governor of North Carolina, has been tossed around. She’s a Tea Party favorite but like Rubio she’s only been in her office for two years. Rep. Paul Ryan has been mentioned and he would certainly be helpful to Romney as he has an intimate knowledge of Congressional politics. He of course is hated by Democrats, which places him in a good light with conservatives. His budget proposal is well liked by independents. Rep. Allen West has also been mentioned as a potential running mate, Sarah Palin has gone so far as to speak of him as a good choice. West spent most of his life in the military and is beloved by the Tea Party. But like Rubio and Haley, he’s only been in office two years. His military experience is perhaps his biggest asset.

One more candidate worthy of mention is Michele Bachmann. Behind the scenes she is positioning herself for the nomination. The left hates her but she appeals to women. She did a good job running for President, she showed herself more than competent in numerous debates. Bachmann would be a nice complement to Romney, she’s conservative, a woman, an evangelical Christian, just about everything Romney is not. Her problems are two fold. She’s a Congressman and historically members of the House aren’t selected for VP. Her other problem is that she’s from a state Romney isn’t going to win and thus won’t help him win the White House. This could perhaps be offset by her nomination getting conservatives excited about the Romney campaign ala Palin in 2008.

I don’t know who Romney should pick yet. There are other candidates out there, perhaps some dark horses no one is thinking about right now. If I’m Romney I’m looking at Rubio, Haley and Bachmann. The two women can kill off what’s left of the Democrats war on women strategy (though like Palin they’ll just say these women vote against their “interest”). Haley can shore up North Carolina and maybe Virginia. Bachmann could swing Wisconsin and would get the grass roots evangelicals all a tizzy for Romney. Rubio could give Romney Florida and he would play well with hispanics, who could be the difference in this election. But of course, there are others out there and we never know if Romney will pick someone obscure like Bush did with Cheney in 2000.

Filed under 2012 election Tagged with , , , , ,

December 15th Republican Debate Review

December 16, 2011 4 Comments

The GOP held yet another debate last night, this time broadcast on Fox News. The first 45 minutes or so were relatively boring. But then Megyn Kelly asked a question about judges and the debate finally picked up. This was a very important debate and we saw a lot of good things out of most of the candidates. It also highlighted some of their problems. An all around very good debate.

Let’s start with Newt who on some level is the front runner. Newt had a very good night last night. He spent a good deal of time discussing his conservative record in Congress, including his 90% conservative rating. He rightly points out that he worked with Democrats to pass Reagan’s economic plan and he rightly points out that he forced through welfare reform and balanced budgets in the 90′s. Newt was extremely solid on the issue of judges, no one beats his historical understanding of the judicial branch. Where Newt went wrong is when he was asked about Freddie Mac. His answer was all around inconsistent. He stated he wanted to work with like minded people at Freddie Mac but he then wants it shut down. It doesn’t make any sense. Otherwise, Newt debated at a very high level last night.

Mitt Romney is back to his steady eddie routine. He said almost nothing of substance and spent a good deal of time highlighting his business background. He was asked about his flip flops, specifically on homosexual marriage, abortion and gun rights. When he tried to pretend like he had only changed positions on abortion, Chris Wallace provided him with quotes suggesting otherwise. Romney looked really bad answering this line of questioning. Romney also made a tactical error in not attacking Newt. At this point Newt is more or less the front runner, to not contrast your position with his isn’t a wise decision.

Michele Bachmann had a couple of interesting exchanges. Her exchange with Newt concerning Freddie Mac was weak. She seems to not understand the difference between consulting and lobbying. Consulting is when someone like Newt tells Freddie Mac what he thinks they should do. He’s paid for his expertise. Lobbying is when Freddie Mac pays someone like Newt to convince lawmakers to act in a way favorable to the company. Newt was paid to tell Freddie what to do, Michele doesn’t seem to understand this. Tell her otherwise and she acts like a feminist declaring she’s a “serious candidate.” She must have gotten a copy of the NOW playbook. Her other exchange was with Ron Paul wherein she exposed him as an absolute nut on Iran. In this, she made a wise political move in attacking the biggest challenger against her for third place. Overall a mediocre debate performance by Bachmann.

Ron Paul is a nut. His economic policy is what it is. It’s tiresome to listen to him rattle off the same libertarian talking points debate after debate. But it’s at least a legitimate view. His foreign policy is insane. Last night he was exposed, once again, as a foreign policy lunatic. He sees no problem with Iran obtaining a nuclear weapon and in fact pretends like it might be a good thing. In supporting a nuclear Iran, Paul shows a fundamental lack of understanding of Iran and radical Islam. Iran isn’t fighting a diplomatic battle ala Europe. Iran is fighting a holy war. Iran isn’t going to come to the bargaining table with the US and use the bomb as a bargaining chip. They’re going to use the bomb, likely to attack Israel and create a massive war in the middle east. Ron Paul doesn’t understand this and doesn’t care. He would be as bad a President as Barack Obama on foreign affairs.

Rick Santorum might as well not have existed last night. He wasn’t asked many questions and his answers didn’t stand out. Unless he has a massive ground game in Iowa, his campaign will be over in a few weeks.

Rick Perry desperately wanted to tap into Americans love for the NFL last night. He tried to make a connection between himself and Tim Tebow. Never mind of course that he’s in Big Ten and Big Twelve country and no one up here thinks much of the boys from the SEC. Then he tried to channel another NFL player, whose name he could not remember. Even when given a softball question on Fast and Furious, Perry managed to stumble around and flub it up. He offered nothing substantive last night and his performance, while not as bad as some debates, wasn’t very good.

Jon Huntsman should be ignored like Santorum based on poll numbers. Huntsman loves to brag that he made Utah a great economic state and got re-elected with 80% of the vote. When you’re a moderate running in a Republican state where the Democrats are moderate, it isn’t particularly impressive when you get 80% of the vote. He touts his experience in China where he did little more than appease the Chinese. He wants us to come together with the Chinese and find common ground. I wonder if he’ll begin with China’s one child policy or perhaps their love of throwing political dissidents in work camps.

Win: Newt gets the win because he had a solid debate performance and showed us why he would be the best guy to debate Obama next October.

Place: Romney made some tactical errors and looked weak at a couple points but he had an overall solid night.

Show: For masterfully exposing the difference between Ron Paul and the rest of the candidates on Iran Michele Bachmann earns third place.

Big Loser: Ron Paul’s momentum in Iowa was halted by his ridiculous and dangerous foreign policy positions.

Filed under 2012 election Tagged with , , , , , , ,

Newt vs Mitt? How Did This Happen?

December 14, 2011 Leave a comment

Much is being made about a poll out from Public Policy Polling which shows Newt Gingrich up 1 over Ron Paul with Mitt Romney trailing Newt by 6. While interesting, we cannot forget that PPP is a Democrat polling firm. The Democrats have the incentive to make this race appear closer than it is in order to force candidates to spend more money. Nearly every other poll shows Newt up 10 or so in Iowa.

Nearly as interesting is a NBC/Wall Street Journal poll which shows nationally Newt has hit the 40% mark. This is fairly significant because no one else has hit 40 year. Once again, Mitt Romney is in the 20-25 range, at 23 in this poll. Mitt Romney has never been able to break out of the 20-25 range despite campaigning for President for nearly six years. It’s fairly clear that the rank and file base of the party doesn’t want Romney as its nominee. The question is whether the rank and file really wants Newt.

Glenn Beck has spent the last several days hammering Newt. Apparently at one point a decade ago Newt referred to himself as a “realpolitik Wilsonian.” What that is and what Newt means by it isn’t really clear. More concerning is Newt’s praise of Teddy Roosevelt and FDR. The FDR praise is a little more tolerable, surprisingly.

Newt praised FDR because he “got things done.” He never said whether he liked what those things were, only that he got things done. That’s a praise of his political skill, which one would like to think that conservatives could recognize in someone even if they don’t agree with the outcome. Clinton was a terrific politician even though he was largely wrong. The Teddy Roosevelt praise is somewhat more disturbing. However, we shouldn’t forget that the Teddy who ran in the Progressive Party in 1912 is not the same Teddy who served as President. But it’s still a disturbing comment.

The problem with Newt is that while he often reaches conservative conclusions his reasoning is often all over the place. There’s no denying that he is responsible for balancing the budget in the 90′s. But to often he looks to big government solutions to various problems, whether it’s in health care or education. Newt isn’t a progressive but he weaves back and forth between small government, market driven solutions and big government. It’s sort of bizarre to watch because it’s completely inconsistent. He talks up both sides and comes off as truly believing both of them.

The question though is whether Newt is worse than Romney. The answer is not really. Mitt Romney is a life long progressive. His grand vision for America is contained in 59 points, which suggests he’s someone who will rely on complicated reasoning to push for complicated government programs. His tax plan is almost as progressive as Obama’s. Of course who can forget Romneycare and his ridiculous argument that the states can do whatever they want. Sure, the states can. But that doesn’t make it right or conservative. At the end of the day he enacted a state version of Obamacare, which isn’t any better for freedom than Obamacare at the Federal level.

How did we end up here in the GOP where we have two front runners, one of which is inconsistent and the other of which is consistent progressive who is suddenly calling himself a conservative? If you want proof that the Tea Party is dead, it’s seen in this GOP Presidential race. If you want evidence that the Christian Right is dead, look at this race. The Christian right should be lining up behind Michele Bachmann. Yet she’s in single digits, there is no Christian right anymore.

Christians and conservatives are going to wake up one morning early next year and they’re going to read about who won the GOP nomination and they’re going to wonder what happened. The answer is simple, the establishment will have won whether the winner is Newt or Mitt. Newt isn’t worse than Mitt because we’ve got two frontrunners who really aren’t all that conservative. The DC establishment can work with both of them to grow government in the way that establishment Republicans want to grow government. The Christian right and the Tea Party will be left out, as usual.

Filed under 2012 election Tagged with , , , , , ,

December 10th Republican Debate Review

December 11, 2011 Leave a comment

ABC held a Republican debate last night, this time in Iowa. It was hosted by Diane Sawyer and George Stephanopoulos. Sawyer seemed amazed that the idiots in fly over country took Presidential politics seriously. She seemed even more amazed that there’s actually a pharmacy in Iowa. Her condescension couldn’t have been more obvious. As for Stephanopoulos why is a Democrat allowed to moderate a GOP debate? This guy is a former Clinton press secretary and life long Democrat. How is he acceptable but Donald Trump as moderator is an outrage?

Let’s start with Newt, who was the recipient of two Stephanopoulos gotcha questions. It’s pretty clear that George is getting his marching orders from the DNC and/or Clinton. Newt was lacking on a couple of things last night, not the least of which was clearly explaining why he supported the individual mandate in 1993. His error was that he never said that support was wrong. He didn’t do a particularly good job of explaining his work for Fannie and Freddie in the early 2000′s. While this is really an irrelevant issue, it still requires a decent response. That said, Newt did a good job of countering attacks from Romney and Bachmann. His answer to Stephanopoulos’ gotcha question about Israel was excellent. Newt did a decent job, he didn’t make any major gaffes. But he isn’t going to win votes based on last night’s performance.

Romney wasn’t steady eddie like he usually is last night. When asked where he disagrees with Newt, he struggled to spit out lunar mining before rattling off three other nervous responses. Lunar mining? Really? He also tried to make a $10,000 bet with Rick Perry concerning the first edition of his book. This may have been a major mistake and not just because he would probably lose. It’s unseemly to have a Presidential candidate try to bet during a debate. But beyond that, $10,000 is an awful lot of money and it makes him appear out of touch with the middle class. Otherwise, Romney did a fairly decent job. He attacked Newt, he defended Romneycare and he was otherwise rather boring. He also seemed to have to much bronzer on because he looked a bit like and oompa loompa.

Michele Bachmann had a terrific debate last night. She’s setting herself up as the conservative alternative to Newt and Romney. In fact she rattled off a list of issues where she’s the conservative and Newt-Romney were the liberals. She did a great job calling into question Newt and Romney’s opposition to individual mandates and Obamacare. She has a solid grasp of foreign policy and she has a solid economic plan that was well articulated. Her win, win, win line that she used twice was extremely cheesy though. Otherwise, last night has the potential to be a very big night for Bachmann’s campaign future.

Rick Perry has largely become irrelevant. He has a few good points here and there. He kissed up to Newt last night, which makes one wonder if he’s shooting for VP. But otherwise, Perry just seems so unsteady on stage. Some say this is just like George W. Bush but Bush was never as unsteady as Perry. When Bush made mistakes, it was more endearing than anything else. He always appeared to be two steps ahead of where he should be in his statements. Perry always seems to be two steps behind.

Rick Santorum is good to have on stage because he’s the only one willing to talk about the importance of the family. No one else is willing to highlight the economic difference between single parent families and families with a mother and father living at home. Obama wants to play class warfare games when he blames the rich for the poor’s problems. In reality the problem is lax divorce laws and a society that doesn’t think anything of illegitimacy. Otherwise, Santorum once again can’t make any headway. He would be a good VP candidate though for whoever wins the nomination. He does have some success in DC.

Ron Paul is as annoying as ever. Iowa is about the only state that Paul has a chance to get into second or third place. But nationally Paul has been at 10-12% for the better part of four years. He has the same problem Romney has: The inability to gain more support. Paul did nothing for himself last night. He made the same whiny, self righteous points that he always makes. The Ronulans will love everything he said, everyone else got up for a Coke when he was speaking because we’ve heard it all before for two election cycles.

Win: Bachmann. This is a tough one but I have a hunch Bachmann is going to go up in the polls based on her performance last night.

Place: Newt. Again, this is another tough call. Newt didn’t win any support last night but he didn’t do anything to lose support. When you’re the front runner, that’s not a bad thing.

Show: Romney needed to have a top of the line performance and while he did a good job at times he just didn’t have it. Newt countered his arguments against him and Romney made a handful of mistakes.

Filed under 2012 election Tagged with , , , , ,

2012 Conservative Goals: Defeat Romney Then Defeat Obama

November 30, 2011 Leave a comment

Herman Cain is done. He’s the victim of the typical leftist plot to accuse any prominent black conservative of being sexually loose. It’s a sickening stereotype. Unfortunately for Cain, his response to it was poor and he lost numbers because of it. Now there’s a woman with a criminal past who claims to have had a 13 year affair with Cain. Enough is enough. Cain needs to drop out of the race for the sake of the conservative cause because in the fast moving world of primary politics, he can’t recover in five weeks to win Iowa.

From the conservative perspective, Romney must be defeated. We currently have to many conservatives running for President. Several of them need to step aside, including Cain, Santorum and Bachmann. Paul won’t step aside under any circumstances and Perry probably won’t either. Huntsman is, as usual, irrelevant. This leaves Gingrich as the conservative going up against the progressive flip flopper Romney. At this point, Newt is up in Iowa, gaining in New Hampshire and with Cain dropping he’s poised to take over South Carolina and Florida.

Newt isn’t perfect. We are not going to get the perfect conservative to win the nominee. There are things I don’t particularly like about Newt, not the least of which is that he’s on wife #3. He’s apparently repented of past sins and if that’s good enough for God then it’s good enough for me. But that’s still an issue out there. But let’s face it, Newt was Speaker when the budget was balanced. His leadership led to a surplus. It also led to welfare reform and a number of other conservative reforms during the liberal Clinton administration. But for Newt, none of those things would have happened.

If Newt is the conservative who can knock off Romney, so be it I support him. If Bachmann makes a surprise run up the polls of if Cain miraculously comes back, fine I’ll support them if they can knock off Romney. At this point though, Newt appears to be the guy. With a month to go before the Iowa Caucus, it seems unlikely that Newt will lose his position. Newt doesn’t make debate mistakes like Perry, we know everything about his personal life so nothing they come up with will shock people like the Cain accusations did. We know he can debate, we know he has experience. In short Republicans know Newt and that goes a long way in making various attacks less relevant.

We as conservatives must keep in mind that we have two goals going into 2012. First is defeat Romney. Mitt Romney must be defeated at all costs. He is a progressive Republican and a serial flip flopper. We must back one of the conservative candidates and ensure he beats Romney. All of the conservatives are essentially the same, they ought to please all of us. Our second goal is to defeat Barack Obama. Any of the conservative candidates have a good shot at knocking Obama off. In fact, they all likely have a better shot than Romney despite what the left-wing media claims.

Election season is kicking up into high gear. The next three months will determine who our nominee is. In fact, we could know who the nominee is by the end of January. We conservatives cannot allow ourselves to splinter apart over minor differences between conservative candidates. We need to decide on one and back him so that Romney isn’t the nominee. I looks like Cain is done, Bachmann wasn’t able to sustain momentum, Perry doesn’t know where he is most of the time and Santorum doesn’t appear to have the cash or basic support of the party. That leaves Newt, who is no different in policy than the others. Fine, let’s get behind him so that Romney loses.

Filed under 2012 election Tagged with , , , , , , ,

November 22nd Republican Debate Review

November 23, 2011 Leave a comment

Yesterday the GOP held another debate. This one focused on foreign policy. CNN didn’t do a dreadful job as most of the questions came from scholars at the American Enterprise Institute and Heritage Foundation. On to the review!

Michele Bachmann was the close winner last night. When she was asked questions she was able to shine. She has a clear grasp of foreign policy issues, despite what the liberal media and liberals in both parties told you. Her time on the House Intelligence Committee has helped her a lot. She understands the issues and articulates them quite well. Her last few debates have been fairly mediocre. She’s repeated what we’ve already heard her say a dozen times on domestic issues. But last night she took her debating to the next level. She’s the winner last night. Barely.

Newt would have been the winner last night but for one issue: Immigration. No one has the knowledge, skills or tact of Newt in these debates. Newt has an in depth answer for every issue no matter what region of the world is being discussed. Where he falters is on his quasi amnesty support. Let’s be quite up front about what Newt called for last night. He didn’t propose amnesty across the board. He supported not deporting illegals who have been here 20+ years and who have established themselves as otherwise non-criminals. He also didn’t want to give these people citizenship but rather he wanted to create a legalized status for them. He supported deporting all other illegals. While I don’t agree with Newt’s position, it’s at least more reasonable than the Democrats support for across the board amnesty. Newt would have won last night but for his immigration position, which ought to get a few people enraged.

Romney would have been irrelevant last night had CNN not asked him nearly every question. CNN even let Romney get into a one on one debate with a strawman: Jon Huntsman. It’s clear as day that Blitzer wants Romney to be the nominee. As for Romney’s debate performance, he’s steady eddy as always. He never makes any big gaffes, he tries to hog time as much as possible and he really doesn’t say a whole lot. Steady has worked for Romney to the point that he consistently has 20% in all the polls. But he never seems to move his campaign to the next level. Perhaps because he never takes his debates to the next level.

Herman Cain I thought did a mediocre job last night. This isn’t surprising since foreign policy really isn’t his focus. The issue with Cain is that he constantly defers to experts whether it’s in the wars or in dealings with various foreign powers. We currently have a President who governs via expert in President Obama. Why would we want to replace a liberal governing by expert with a conservative doing the same? Governing by expert doesn’t work, especially when a conservative is doing it. This is because it is absent a clear, overriding purpose. Last night, when Cain was coherent, he sounded like he was just rattling off talking points. With his poll numbers dropping he needed to do a better job last night. Instead I suspect he confirmed for a lot of people why they’re moving to Newt or other conservatives.

Rick Perry, what does one say about Perry? He didn’t say oops last night, that’s a good start. But he wants a no-fly zone in Syria for no particular reason. He’s right in being concerned about the rise of socialism in Central and South America. It was nice to hear someone bring this up. But otherwise, his positions weren’t much different than Newt’s and Newt did a better job presenting them. Rick Perry isn’t saving himself with stellar debate performances. Not forgetting the third country he’s going to bomb is nice but it doesn’t win any votes. (yes I’m kidding about the bombs)

Ron Paul is a whiny nut who wants to return the country to isolationism. He has some good points to make from time to time. There are legitimate concerns that need to be raised before we go to war. He even has some decent arguments against the war on drugs. But he’s just so whiny and off putting. At this point the libertarian wing of the party needs to find themselves a candidate who can connect with more voters than just them.

Jon Huntsman was given an inordinate amount of time to speak for a candidate consistently polling at 2%. It is absolutely ridiculous that CNN lets this guy get into a 5 minute exchange with Romney while front runners like Newt stand in silence for nearly the first half hour. Huntsman has nothing to offer that either a Democrat or other candidate doesn’t already offer. This guy is at best a liberal Republican and in reality he’s a Democrat. Which of course is why CNN let’s him speak so much.

Rick Santorum has some good points but he comes off as a snake. He sounds so arrogant when he speaks, no wonder his campaign hasn’t gained any traction. He’s also constantly whining about the lack of opportunity to speak. It’s one thing to do this at one debate, it’s another thing when he does it at every single debate. Last night he would have had a point, fellow 2% candidate Huntsman was given a ridiculous amount of time to speak. But Rick, you’re still a 2% candidate. His foreign policy positions were little different than Newt’s and Newt did a better job presenting the position.

Win: Bachmann took advantage of her foreign policy experience and brought her A game.

Place: Newt will take heat for his quasi amnesty position but otherwise no one articulates the conservative position on foreign policy better than Gingrich.

Show: Romney needs to do something to get his poll numbers above 20-25% where it has been stuck for a year.

Big Loser: Cain needed a stellar performance to overcome his recent dip in the polls. Unfortunately for him he didn’t deliver.

Filed under 2012 election Tagged with , , , , , , ,

CBS Debate Bias; Obama Says We’re Lazy

November 14, 2011 4 Comments

It’s been an interesting weekend in the world of politics. The Republicans had another debate on Saturday night. Yours truly did not watch it. To be perfectly frank, I would rather watch college football than watch another GOP debate. The debates are great, just not up against football. The news out of the debate, which was broadcast on CBS, is that Ron Paul only got to speak for 89 seconds and Michele Bachmann is crying bias. Meanwhile President Obama is out calling the American people lazy again.

Michele Bachmann’s campaign was accidentally CCed an internal CBS email in which the network declared it wasn’t going to ask her many questions and that CBS hoped to “get someone else.” It harkens back to Christiane Amanpour’s declaration that the press shouldn’t have let George W. Bush win the GOP nomination in 2000. The media really believes it’s their job to determine who our party nominates. CBS is doing exactly what leftists like Amanpour want t hem to do. It’s why Bachmann was shut out, it’s why Ron Paul, who I can’t stand, was shut out. Meanwhile Romney and from what I can gather Huntsman were asked an inordinate amount of questions. Romney is at least a front runner. But Huntsman? Come on.

The President’s poll numbers are up about 2-3 points in the last month. Interestingly the press hasn’t been talking about it much. In fact, have you noticed the lack of any message coming from the White House? It seems they’ve finally figured out that the less the American people see or hear from Obama the better. His ‘pass this now” tour is apparently over. This is a wise move by Obama’s people, in fact it’s a move that yours truly suggested more than a year ago. The less the American people see or hear from Obama the better at this point.

Of course as President he isn’t going to be able to stay silent forever. He’s recently accused the American people of being lazy. This ranks right up there with his peas and carrots speech over the summer. Eventually Obama is going to have to go before the public again and history has indicated that his numbers won’t rise at all. In fact, they’re likely to drop. His last two addresses to Congress resulted in flat numbers followed by a drop. In other words, the public seems to like Obama. Except when  he speaks, then they dislike him. It’s never a good thing for a President to be approved of when remaining silent and disapproved of when speaking.

Much was made last week of Ohio voting against government employee union restrictions. This is evidence that Obama is going to take Ohio and win another term. What has been overlooked is that there were two other issues on the ballot, neither of them friendly to Democrats. One of them is a statewide opt out of Obamacare. Both of these ballot measures passed, despite the fact that unions dominated this election. It seems to suggest that the unions can get their people out to vote on issues that directly affect them. But they can’t get their people to vote the way the union wants on other issues. Ohio is still a tossup and may even lean Republican after our nominee is picked.

Filed under 2012 election Tagged with , , , , , ,

October 18th Republican Debate Review

October 19, 2011 Leave a comment

Last night CNN hosted a debate with Anderson Cooper Vanderbilt as host. Keep in mind this host has accused Republicans of lying eight times more than Democrats on his CNN show. Not surprisingly as moderator of the debate Cooper encouraged fighting and asked loaded leftist questions. On to the analysis.

Let’s start with Rick Perry who essentially lost any hope he had last night. Perry came out with over the top attacks on Mitt Romney, including accusing him of hiring illegal house help. He brought this up repeatedly, as though his accusation would somehow make everyone forget he’s giving free college education to illegals in Texas. There’s no point in going through all that went wrong for Perry last night. But it should be noted that all of the stunts Perry pulled were straight out of the Democrat Party handbook. He grew up in that party and he clearly hasn’t given it up.

Herman Cain did not have a particularly good night. He failed to properly address concerns with his 999 plan. His plan is revenue neutral and the middle class isn’t going to be paying more in taxes. What he failed to point out last night is that 999 eliminates FICA and Medicare taxes, which total around 9%. Businesses would no longer pay their share of that 9% to employees, which effectively equals the sales tax increase thus prices wouldn’t rise. Cain had to explain that and he didn’t. It was also incredibly troubling to hear he might negotiate with terrorists for the release of Guantanamo Bay terrorists. He backed off his original statement but it was troubling nonetheless.

Mitt Romney was in the middle of a number of heated exchanges. He bested Cain, Perry and Newt last night. It won’t win him the nomination yet but it puts him a step closer. Romney is certainly capable of being President. His problem remains his flip flopping and his Rockefeller Republicanism. He isn’t a conservative, which is why the party will continue to rate him below 30%. Even after a very strong performance last night.

Newt is perhaps the most knowledgable candidate on state. He knows the conservative position and articulates it better than anyone else. His vow to challenge Obama to Lincoln-Douglas style 3 hour debates with no moderator was priceless. One wonders if Newt doesn’t become the next conservative flavor of the month if Cain drops off. He had another strong performance.

Michele Bachmann’s voice is shrill and she continues to repeat the same old lines. Though I’ll give her credit for not mentioning her 28 children this debate. Nevertheless she mentioned her tax attorney job from 20 years ago and the fact that she’ll repeal Obamacare. Bachmann has strong positions, she makes good arguments. But she makes the same arguments over and over again. The problem I have with Bachmann is that she knows everything that’s wrong with the current administration but she tells us little of her vision to replace all that she would get rid of. Until she can offer a vision outside of getting rid of all things Obama, she can’t possibly be a first tier candidate.

Rick Santorum is the only guy up there talking about the family. The family is the #1 enemy of the progressive left and it always has been. So it’s great to see one of these guys talking about it. But Santorum comes off so whiny. He comes off as the neglected underdog who wants to tell you all about how neglected he is. Last night he seemed to support Iran-Contra, which ought to end his chances completely. When you’re polling under 5% you can’t expect to stick around when you support something like Iran-Contra. Santorum loves to mention how he’s won two elections in blue state Pennsylvania. He neglects to mention he lost his last re-election battle in 2006. It’s time for Santorum to end his campaign.

What does one say about Ron Paul? It wouldn’t be a debate without Paul grousing about the Fed. He can’t help but mention it, as though we don’t know his position. It wouldn’t be a debate without him declaring that terrorists aren’t actually terrorists, as he did yet again last night. If Ron Paul were just running an economic campaign, he wouldn’t be so bad. But Paul has a well thought out foreign policy that is contrary to the overwhelming majority of Republicans. He isn’t like Cain, who’s inexperience can be made up for with solid advisers. Paul has thought about these issues for decades and like the far left he takes the blame America position. This is the single biggest issue keeping him from rising to the level of contender.

Win: Romney because he dished it to everyone and didn’t make any mistakes

Place: Newt, with Cain’s fall Newt took advantage and may be the next flavor of the month

Show: Bachmann, she’s shrill and didn’t offer anything new but she at least does a good job saying the same thing over and over again. But let’s face it, no one else did a good enough job to come in third place.

Big  Losers: Perry’s campaign is done after last nights debate. Cain didn’t do as good a job as he should have but he has enough support right now that he has a chance to rebound.

Filed under 2012 election, Republicans Tagged with , , , , , , ,

October 11th Republican Debate Review

October 12, 2011 2 Comments

Last night the GOP had another debate on something called the Bloomberg Network. It was hosted by Charlie Rose, who declared he believes in roundtables. (I believe in refrigerators) As such the candidates were seated at a table and questioned by Rose and a couple of leftist reporterettes from the Washington Post.

Let’s start with the big loser: Rick Perry. Perry needed to have a stellar debate and he did anything but. He didn’t stumble over his words this time around but he did nothing to recover from his September tumble. Perry is at best inconsistent, touting all the jobs venture socialism has created in Texas but slamming Obama for Solyndra. Either you’re for venture socialism or you’re not, let’s not play the state-federal game on this one. On healthcare, Perry spent most of his time talking about obscure Texas provisions when he should have been on the offensive against Romneycare. Outside of energy, Perry has little to say.

Romney is steady eddy. He never makes a mistake and answers all of his questions in the way he wants. Unfortunately this usually means skimming over the actual question. He was unable to explain why he has tax cuts specifically targeted for the middle class at a lower threshold level than Obama, he completely glossed over the question. He was only able to name 7 of his 59 points in his grand save America plan. But he doesn’t answer the question is such a fluid way that it isn’t until after the debate that you realize he never answered anything. Like it or not, that goes a long way in elections.

Herman Cain had a solid night. It was clear he is considered a serious challenger and a front runner by the other candidates because they all talked about him. He’s energetic and enthusiastically explains his 999 plan. He fended off Rick Santorum and Michele Bachmann’s argument that adding a new sales tax will only embolden leftists with a new revenue stream by saying his plan included a 2/3 majority to raise any of the rates. In other words if Democrats wanted to raise taxes his law would require a 2/3 majority in Congress. Whether this is Constitutional remains to be seen. Nevertheless, he fended off their attacks with ease. Cain is a serious contender.

Michele Bachmann had a solid night. Dressed in to much white, Mrs. Bachmann explained her positions with ease. She went on the offensive when necessary. Her biggest problem though is that there isn’t much substance to her arguments. She’s making them as though she’s on an evening talk show on Fox or CNN and she’s talking about what’s going on in Congress. She’s running for President though. There never seems to be anything other than her same old criticisms of Obama. Yes, we all know she was a tax lawyer 20 years ago and that she has 5 kids and 23 foster kids. At some point she has to move beyond that and her basic talking points. There’s a reason why she’s down in the polls. Those of us who have watched all the debates see the same, boring arguments from her every time. But at least she presents them well.

Newt went on the offensive against the media early in the debate. He even insisted on being allowed to answer a question twice in the first hour of the debate. Then he faded into the background. Has anyone else noticed this seems to happen at every debate? Is it because the leftist media questioners are punishing him for attacking them or does Newt tire easily? Newt is perhaps the best guy up there to present the conservative position but he didn’t do anything last night to boost his candidacy. He isn’t going to make it through January at this point. I wonder who he’ll endorse.

Rick Santorum might as well not have existed in the first hour of the debate. He was hardly asked anything and he never stood out. In the second hour he had a great attack on Cain’s 999 play only to see Cain shoot back with his 2/3 majority requirement to increase taxes. Santorum did have one solid point about families. He’s absolutely right that the bedrock of America is the family. The leftists have for a century tried to tear down the family and replace it with government. It was great to hear someone on stage bring that up. But it isn’t going to win him the nomination.

Jon Huntsman is a bore and belongs in the Democrat Party running as a blue dog. His jokes are lame and his arguments are almost irrelevant. He has as much chance of winning the nomination as Hillary Clinton.

Ron Paul is the same old boring candidate he’s always been. He makes the same arguments and has the same number of supporters he always has. He wins no votes at these debates. His supporters go wild but if he never increases his base he can’t win the nomination much less the White House.

Win: This is a tough one but I’m going with Romney because he’s still the front runner and he didn’t hurt himself.

Place: Herman Cain had a solid night. He’s a serious contender and he showed it with this very solid debate performance.

Show: I’ll begrudgingly go with Bachmann because none of the others stood out. At least she was solid in her presentation.

Big Loser: Rick Perry because he didn’t do anything to stop his fall in the polls. His legion of supporters who think he’s the next Reagan must he wondering what’s happened to their guy.

Filed under 2012 election, Republicans Tagged with , , , , , , ,

September 22nd Republican Debate Review

September 23, 2011 Leave a comment

The GOP held yet another debate last night. This time it was hosted by Fox News and Google. Having watched debates on all of the cable networks it is clear Fox has the best production. Having said that, the annoying Google ads with that blonde woman telling us all about meaningless Google searches was unnecessary. On to the review!

Let’s start this review with the big loser of last night’s debate: Rick Perry. Perry destroyed his chance of winning the nomination last night. He sounded like a liberal Democrat when he declared that those who oppose providing free education to illegal immigrants had no heart. That line alone will turn off many conservatives who may like him compared to Romney. Perry looked stiff last night as well. He had a good line planned concerning Romney’s flip flops but he flubbed it up and looked like a moron on the process. Perry clearly is trying to memorize statements and it just doesn’t come off well. Also, did anyone else notice that when he attacks Romney he never looks him in the eye? Perry did a horrible job last night and in the next week or so his poll numbers will drop as a result.

Mitt Romney comes off as the big winner last night, largely because he handled all of Perry’s attacks. It takes someone like Rick Perry to make Mitt Romney look like a reasonable, even principled conservative. Romney is still weak on Romneycare but he has a clear jobs plan and opposes illegal immigration. His social security plan is more of the same but Romney was never in this race to change social security. Another solid, albeit boring, night for Romney.

Of the conservatives Herman Cain had the best night. Cain was strong once again in explaining his 999 plan. He has a plan on social security and had a solid defense of why Americans should support Israel. Most of all he talked about leading America back to the top of the hill. Cain has solid plans and a positive vision for America. It’s a shame he can’t gain more traction in the polls.

Rick Santorum did a solid job last night. He attacked Rick Perry when need be and he came off very strong on foreign policy. He seemed to be chummy with Mitt Romney after the debate, one wonders if he isn’t angling for Secretary of State. At the end of the day, Santorum isn’t going to win the GOP nomination but he did a good job last night.

Michele Bachmann, what can we say about her? She looked like a tomato with big mega church lady hair. Yes, it isn’t fair to attack how she looks but she didn’t look Presidential wearing a sweater. From there she was practically ignored through most of the debate. She only spoke once or twice through the first 75 minutes. At one point she had to request an oppertunity to speak. She was clearly being shut out. But even when she spoke, we’ve heard her answers before. Yes, we know she has 5 kids and 23 foster kids. Yes, we know she’ll repeal Obamacare. Can’t she tell us something else? Mrs. Bachmann peaked to soon. Her coming drop in the polls opens the door for, gasp, Sarah Palin.

Newt Gingrich was masterful as usual when he was given the chance to speak. There’s no one on that stage who has a better grasp of conservative principles than Newt. It ought to be interesting to see what his new Contract With America will be like. He can vault himself to the top of the conservative race with a solid plan. Otherwise, he did a very good job last night.

Ron Paul might as well not have existed last night. He was hardly called on and when he was he gave the same old tired arguments on the same old tired issues that don’t matter much. It’s clear he couldn’t care less about winning the nomination, he’s in this for ideological reasons only. Unfortunately I don’t think many of his supporters get that.

Jon Huntsman is a Democrat and needs to go away.

Last night we saw the return of Gary Johnson. Where has he been the last few debates? Johnson has no shot at the nomination and came off as a bit of a nervous nut. He did however provide the zinger of the night when he declared that his next door neighbors dogs have created more shovel ready jobs than President Obama. It was a great line and the highlight of his Presidential campaign. He won’t get the nomination and one wonders if he’ll even be at the next debate.

Win: Romney because he maintained his frontrunner status and successfully fended off Perry

Place: Cain because he moved to the front of the conservative race to battle Romney for the nomination

Show: Santorum had a very solid night. Gingrich is right behind.

Big Loser: Perry lost big last night. He’s unsteady on stage and outraged conservatives on immigration. Perry isn’t ready for primetime

Small Loser: Bachmann is fading fast. Her performance last night didn’t help at all.

Filed under 2012 election Tagged with , , , , , , , ,

← Older posts

Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 140 other followers