Yesterday, American businessman and Republican Presidential candidate Herman Cain announced that he was suspending his campaign to seek the Republican nomination. His campaign had been mercilessly attacked by the website POLITICO (which has subsequently experienced far less traffic as they have been exposed as left-wing) and members of the media regarding his alleged sexual harassment. Ginger White also claimed to have had a thirteen year affair with the former CEO.
Herman Cain had been a Tea Party favorite known for his 9-9-9 Plan and his extraordinary ability as an orator. Having seen the damage these allegations had done to his campaign he elected to move aside. He did state that he will be endorsing a candidate soon which I expect to be Speaker Gingrich.
Out of every negative aspect of this Republican Campaign there must be a bright spot. As the businessman steps aside his support must go somewhere. Based on the actions of the candidate and current polling data we can safely assume where this support will be going.
Based on the debate performances and public statements of Herman Cain that his vocal support will go to the fellow Georgian Newt Gingrich. The two have been very complimentary of one another even while going after their rivals. There support for one another trickles down to their supporters. In a recent Quinnipiac Poll the majority of Cain supporters move to the former Speaker. The Right's ideas man seems to be the logical choice to gain the support of Cain's remaining supporters.
Should Gingrich receive the majority of Cain's support. This could put the Gingrich surge further ahead of Massachusetts Governor Mitt Romney. Nationally Newt has 26.6% of the support according to the Real Clear Politics Average of polls. The most recent poll done had Gingrich as high as 38%, 21 points over Romney, and has won the last five straight national polls. This could put him at Rick Perry levels before the Texas Governor began speaking.
This works on the state level as well. Newt has a firm hold in Iowa being the only candidate polling over 20% consistently. Cain still had about 12% left in Iowa those followers will undoubtedly move Gingrich farther away from the pack. He currently holds a 10% lead in the first in the Nation caucus.
In New Hampshire Newt has moved up quickly on Romney. During the 2008 primary Romney had a similar lead and it began to crumble away as an alternative comes around. Speaker Gingrich has already earned the endorsement of leading New Hampshire newspaper the Manchester Union Leader. The paper's editorial page has been ruthless toward the former Massachusetts Governor. While Cain was only polling in the single digits it is important to mention that Gingrich has started his run on Romney much earlier than Senator John McCain did.
Barring a Governor Perry style collapse Speaker Gingrich will more than likely become the Republican nominee.
Sunday, December 4, 2011
Wednesday, November 9, 2011
Newt Gingrich Surging To Front Likely to Stay
The steady methodical march of Newt Gingrich has placed him squarely in third place according to the Real Clear Politics average of national polls. Speaker Gingrich has climbed from the single digits into contention following the burnouts of flavors of the month, Representative Michele Bachmann, Governor Rick Perry, and now potentially businessman Herman Cain.
Newt has managed all this without going negative. Strictly adhering to President Reagan's 11th Commandment. He has gone after the media and the moderators for setting up the GOP candidates for in-fighting in an effort to expose weaknesses and allow for easier attack ads to be made by President Obama and the left-wing media machine.
The rise of Newt Gingrich can be attributed to his strong repeat debate performances. Myself and others have consistently viewed Speaker Gingrich as the most intelligent and solutions-oriented candidate on the stage. His climb has been steady and has not exploded to the front of the race only to fade into the darkness as Rep. Bachmann and Gov. Perry have done. He has not been brought to front-runner status by the falling of another individual to be the "anti-Romney" candidate as Herman Cain ascended.
Newt is not the "anti-Romney" candidate he is the Newt Gingrich candidate. He has built a campaign on being himself not from being a different human being than Mitt Romney. That is where other candidates have gone wrong. They have wanted to be seen as someone who is not Mitt Romney rather than themselves. This is the reason why other candidates have faded and Speaker Gingrich will not. There are three fields of people in this race for the GOP Nomination: Mitt Romney, the "anti-Romneys," and Newt Gingrich.
Newt appears to be holding the best hand coming down the stretch. There used to be three men at the high-rollers table: Governor Romney, Herman Cain, and Newt. I understand many conservatives and Republicans are standing behind Cain through these troubles as they view him being "Thomas'd" (If someone can invent being Bork'd I can invent Thomasing). Cain may be looking at a slight readjustment in his poll numbers leaving more voters for Newt to gain.
The final thing working in Newt's favor is that he has demanded the President meet him for Lincoln-Douglas style debates. Having seen "The Professor" Newt Gingrich debate at every single televised debate there is no way that President Obama can hang with Speaker Gingrich for three hours. The Republican primary voters are coming around to Speaker Gingrich where they may have found a permanent home.
Newt has managed all this without going negative. Strictly adhering to President Reagan's 11th Commandment. He has gone after the media and the moderators for setting up the GOP candidates for in-fighting in an effort to expose weaknesses and allow for easier attack ads to be made by President Obama and the left-wing media machine.
The rise of Newt Gingrich can be attributed to his strong repeat debate performances. Myself and others have consistently viewed Speaker Gingrich as the most intelligent and solutions-oriented candidate on the stage. His climb has been steady and has not exploded to the front of the race only to fade into the darkness as Rep. Bachmann and Gov. Perry have done. He has not been brought to front-runner status by the falling of another individual to be the "anti-Romney" candidate as Herman Cain ascended.
Newt is not the "anti-Romney" candidate he is the Newt Gingrich candidate. He has built a campaign on being himself not from being a different human being than Mitt Romney. That is where other candidates have gone wrong. They have wanted to be seen as someone who is not Mitt Romney rather than themselves. This is the reason why other candidates have faded and Speaker Gingrich will not. There are three fields of people in this race for the GOP Nomination: Mitt Romney, the "anti-Romneys," and Newt Gingrich.
Newt appears to be holding the best hand coming down the stretch. There used to be three men at the high-rollers table: Governor Romney, Herman Cain, and Newt. I understand many conservatives and Republicans are standing behind Cain through these troubles as they view him being "Thomas'd" (If someone can invent being Bork'd I can invent Thomasing). Cain may be looking at a slight readjustment in his poll numbers leaving more voters for Newt to gain.
The final thing working in Newt's favor is that he has demanded the President meet him for Lincoln-Douglas style debates. Having seen "The Professor" Newt Gingrich debate at every single televised debate there is no way that President Obama can hang with Speaker Gingrich for three hours. The Republican primary voters are coming around to Speaker Gingrich where they may have found a permanent home.
Sunday, November 6, 2011
On the Origin of Rights
There is a common misconception plaguing America. This misconception is so radically dangerous to a free society that the very liberty that we hold dear is in danger. The belief I am speaking of is the belief that we get our rights from government and not from being human beings.
Each and every human being is entitled to natural rights. These rights are enshrined in our nation’s oldest document, the Declaration of Independence. That human beings are created with certain inalienable rights endowed to them by their creator, and that these rights are self-evident. If government elects not to prescribe to these guidelines than it is the right of the people to alter or abolish said government. It is important that the United States continue to follow the idea of natural rights.
When you state that you get your rights from government the government then has the authority to take those rights away. Would you feel comfortable with the government dictating what you can say, feel, and think? To deny human beings these rights is to degrade them to the level of animals. Humans are cognitive beings and deserve to be treated as such. To allow government to have the authority to take away rights is akin to leaving the barn door open and wondering why your hay isn’t there anymore. As a dear friend of mine used to say, "God gave you a brain so you can think, a mouth so you can speak, and eyes so you can see. Government cannot take these things from you and they must recognize them."
Liberty and freedom are not passed down from generation to generation but must be constantly secured by the vigilance of a well informed populous. I refuse to grant the government that kind of power and authority into my life. For the moment you believe you get your rights from the state and not from being an individual you no longer are an individual, a citizen, or a person. You are merely a subject and I would sooner die than degrade myself to the level of a subject.
Each and every human being is entitled to natural rights. These rights are enshrined in our nation’s oldest document, the Declaration of Independence. That human beings are created with certain inalienable rights endowed to them by their creator, and that these rights are self-evident. If government elects not to prescribe to these guidelines than it is the right of the people to alter or abolish said government. It is important that the United States continue to follow the idea of natural rights.
When you state that you get your rights from government the government then has the authority to take those rights away. Would you feel comfortable with the government dictating what you can say, feel, and think? To deny human beings these rights is to degrade them to the level of animals. Humans are cognitive beings and deserve to be treated as such. To allow government to have the authority to take away rights is akin to leaving the barn door open and wondering why your hay isn’t there anymore. As a dear friend of mine used to say, "God gave you a brain so you can think, a mouth so you can speak, and eyes so you can see. Government cannot take these things from you and they must recognize them."
Liberty and freedom are not passed down from generation to generation but must be constantly secured by the vigilance of a well informed populous. I refuse to grant the government that kind of power and authority into my life. For the moment you believe you get your rights from the state and not from being an individual you no longer are an individual, a citizen, or a person. You are merely a subject and I would sooner die than degrade myself to the level of a subject.
Tuesday, September 20, 2011
A Real Economic Stimulus
A lot has been said about President Obama’s proposed legislation on how to get the United States economy moving again. The President and I do not see eye-to-eye on his plan for economic recovery. While the President plans further government spending and tax revenue increases I propose a shift to hand Americans back their hard-earned money. The solution is simple and it’s called the Fair Tax.
The Fair Tax would remove the entire tax structure as we know it. Nothing has brought more government interference into our lives than the progressive income tax (twice ruled unconstitutional) and the Internal Revenue Service. I say remove the taxes that take money away from our paychecks before we even see it, remove capital gains taxes, and taxes on repatriated profits along with most other taxes and replace them with a consumption or sales tax.
Under the Fair Tax there would be no more gross and net pay; just net pay. Instead of looking to see how much the government has taken out of your paycheck you would just get your paycheck. You would, for the first time in your life, be getting paid for literally every minute you worked. What a novel idea!
The price of everything you purchase is about 23% more expensive because of the current government tax structure. In order to keep the government at its current revenue intake the national consumption or sales tax would be 23%. This would replace the entire burdensome IRS and tax structure and replace it with a single sales tax. No more loopholes, no more favoritism in the tax code, and no more pain every April 15th.
With an end to outright corporate taxes our business environment would grow by leaps and bounds as the United States government would have one of the most fair business climates in the world. With fair business climates brings more jobs. With a lower tax burden a company can afford to give more jobs and charge less for their products. Sounds like a recovery to me.
The Fair Tax provides monthly rebate checks for all essential purchases like food so the money you spend that will be taxed will be on other expenditures. The whole idea of the Fair Tax is to no longer punish individuals for achieving and getting gainful employment. It will instead tax expenditures of that income. It’s a tax based on what you purchase not what you’ve made. If you would like more information about the Fair tax visit www.fairtax.org.
The Fair Tax would remove the entire tax structure as we know it. Nothing has brought more government interference into our lives than the progressive income tax (twice ruled unconstitutional) and the Internal Revenue Service. I say remove the taxes that take money away from our paychecks before we even see it, remove capital gains taxes, and taxes on repatriated profits along with most other taxes and replace them with a consumption or sales tax.
Under the Fair Tax there would be no more gross and net pay; just net pay. Instead of looking to see how much the government has taken out of your paycheck you would just get your paycheck. You would, for the first time in your life, be getting paid for literally every minute you worked. What a novel idea!
The price of everything you purchase is about 23% more expensive because of the current government tax structure. In order to keep the government at its current revenue intake the national consumption or sales tax would be 23%. This would replace the entire burdensome IRS and tax structure and replace it with a single sales tax. No more loopholes, no more favoritism in the tax code, and no more pain every April 15th.
With an end to outright corporate taxes our business environment would grow by leaps and bounds as the United States government would have one of the most fair business climates in the world. With fair business climates brings more jobs. With a lower tax burden a company can afford to give more jobs and charge less for their products. Sounds like a recovery to me.
The Fair Tax provides monthly rebate checks for all essential purchases like food so the money you spend that will be taxed will be on other expenditures. The whole idea of the Fair Tax is to no longer punish individuals for achieving and getting gainful employment. It will instead tax expenditures of that income. It’s a tax based on what you purchase not what you’ve made. If you would like more information about the Fair tax visit www.fairtax.org.
Monday, July 25, 2011
America's Mayor Within Striking Distance
According to a recently released CNN Poll former Massachusetts Governor Mitt Romney still has the lead in the GOP Primary. Unfortunately for Governor Romney his once insurmountable lead has vanished and has four big time contenders to deal with all within the margin of error.
The first three are all candidates or potential candidates that you would expect: Texas Governor Rick Perry, former Alaskan Governor Sarah Palin, and Congresswoman Michele Bachmann. All part of the conservative anti-Romney group. Congresswoman Bachmann is already in the race and posing a real threat to Romney in Iowa, it is almost official that Governor Perry is in according to Real Clear Politics, and Governor Palin whom I believe will not attempt to seek the Republican nomination this time through.
The shock comes from former New York Mayor Rudy Giuliani. It appears as though now moderates now have a secondary option to Romney. Mayor Giuliani has been seen in New Hampshire and has stated that he has interest in getting back into national politics if the field doesn't feel right to him. Giuliani's strong performance shocked me in two ways.
1) Romney does not have as strong support in the moderate class as people originally thought.
2) Giuliani's supporters have mostly stuck around after his disappointing campaign strategy of 2008.
Rudy appears to be garnering support from independents (53%) and Republicans (55%) along with moderates (61%) and conservatives (50%). The one area where Giuliani falters a little is in Tea Party support where only 46% support the idea of him running. Still a number much higher than would have been expected.
Rudy is going to have to prove he's serious in New Hampshire before I feel comfortable with him again. As a former supporter in 2008 I don't want to be fooled with a lazy campaign strategy again. If Giuliani can pull off a win in New Hampshire America's Mayor may be in far better shape than he was in 2008 when he was the favorite every one was chasing.
The first three are all candidates or potential candidates that you would expect: Texas Governor Rick Perry, former Alaskan Governor Sarah Palin, and Congresswoman Michele Bachmann. All part of the conservative anti-Romney group. Congresswoman Bachmann is already in the race and posing a real threat to Romney in Iowa, it is almost official that Governor Perry is in according to Real Clear Politics, and Governor Palin whom I believe will not attempt to seek the Republican nomination this time through.
The shock comes from former New York Mayor Rudy Giuliani. It appears as though now moderates now have a secondary option to Romney. Mayor Giuliani has been seen in New Hampshire and has stated that he has interest in getting back into national politics if the field doesn't feel right to him. Giuliani's strong performance shocked me in two ways.
1) Romney does not have as strong support in the moderate class as people originally thought.
2) Giuliani's supporters have mostly stuck around after his disappointing campaign strategy of 2008.
Rudy appears to be garnering support from independents (53%) and Republicans (55%) along with moderates (61%) and conservatives (50%). The one area where Giuliani falters a little is in Tea Party support where only 46% support the idea of him running. Still a number much higher than would have been expected.
Rudy is going to have to prove he's serious in New Hampshire before I feel comfortable with him again. As a former supporter in 2008 I don't want to be fooled with a lazy campaign strategy again. If Giuliani can pull off a win in New Hampshire America's Mayor may be in far better shape than he was in 2008 when he was the favorite every one was chasing.
Friday, July 22, 2011
Fox News Double Standard With Governor Palin
In early March the now embattled News Corp, which owns Fox News, suspended the contracts of contributors Rick Santorum and Newt Gingrich as they considered runs for the Presidency. This move was largely received as good move for the journalistic integrity of the network. This way the network would not appear to be favoring some candidates and not others.
So why has News Corp not suspended the contract of former Alaskan Governor Sarah Palin?
Governor Palin has made it clear that she does not know whether or not she will seek the Republican nomination in the upcoming Presidential primaries. Governor Huckabee made it clear he would not and was able to continue working for the network. Either the network knows and will not tell us or is continuing to give Governor Palin free press as a sign of contributing to her campaign.
Fox included Palin in it's newest round of Republican polling for the nomination. The governor tied with current member of the House of Representatives Ron Paul with 9%. Either Fox knows Governor Palin will run and has allowed her to maintain her role in a clear case of favoritism and bias, she has not informed them (which should still result in suspension), or they are skewing polling data by including a candidate who they know is not running.
Governor Palin should be expected to follow the same guidelines as other contributors. Either Governor Palin should let her plans be known or she should be suspended by News Corp.
So why has News Corp not suspended the contract of former Alaskan Governor Sarah Palin?
Governor Palin has made it clear that she does not know whether or not she will seek the Republican nomination in the upcoming Presidential primaries. Governor Huckabee made it clear he would not and was able to continue working for the network. Either the network knows and will not tell us or is continuing to give Governor Palin free press as a sign of contributing to her campaign.
Fox included Palin in it's newest round of Republican polling for the nomination. The governor tied with current member of the House of Representatives Ron Paul with 9%. Either Fox knows Governor Palin will run and has allowed her to maintain her role in a clear case of favoritism and bias, she has not informed them (which should still result in suspension), or they are skewing polling data by including a candidate who they know is not running.
Governor Palin should be expected to follow the same guidelines as other contributors. Either Governor Palin should let her plans be known or she should be suspended by News Corp.
Monday, July 18, 2011
Where Herman Cain Lost Me
American businessman and Republican candidate for the Presidency Herman Cain has officially lost me as a potential supporter in the 2012 race. I left the Conservative Political Action Conference (CPAC) having loved the candidate. I came in not knowing who Herman Cain was and left with him in my top three choices for the Presidency.
I loved Herman Cain so much I started my first ever Tea Party speech with the same quote he started his CPAC speech with. The appeal of a businessman as the Chief Executive is always very great for me. Which is why it is so difficult for me to withdraw my support of Mr. Cain because of his comments toward Islam, Muslims, and the idea of Mosques in the United States.
Mr. Cain consistently brings up his upbringing in the Jim Crow South and how the idea of racial discrimination caused him great difficulty in life. Then why would Cain then place the same intolerance toward Muslims and Islam?
As much as Herman Cain preaches about his love of the United States Constitution he hasn't seemed to have read a lot of it. For instance Herman Cain has spoken about his reluctance to appoint a Muslim into his cabinet and has stated that a test would have to be administered to prove loyalty to the United States and not Islam which violates United States Constitution Article VI: "...but no religious Test shall ever be required as a Qualification to any Office or public Trust under the United States."
Now when discussing the new mosque to be built in Tennessee Cain stated that people should have the right to ban mosques from there town. This of course is in violation of the very religious freedom that led the settlers to come to America in the first place, and in violation of the First Amendment to the Constitution: "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof..."
Mr. Cain's statements are hurtful and ignorant of Islam. Putting an entire religion into a category because of a few radicals is the very stereotyping Cain was against in the Jim Crow South.
It's a shame a man with such great problem-solving skills and such an adamant supporter of the FairTax has had to say these things. We are at war with Islamic Extremists not all Muslims. The dialogue of hate must be removed from his platform.
I loved Herman Cain so much I started my first ever Tea Party speech with the same quote he started his CPAC speech with. The appeal of a businessman as the Chief Executive is always very great for me. Which is why it is so difficult for me to withdraw my support of Mr. Cain because of his comments toward Islam, Muslims, and the idea of Mosques in the United States.
Mr. Cain consistently brings up his upbringing in the Jim Crow South and how the idea of racial discrimination caused him great difficulty in life. Then why would Cain then place the same intolerance toward Muslims and Islam?
As much as Herman Cain preaches about his love of the United States Constitution he hasn't seemed to have read a lot of it. For instance Herman Cain has spoken about his reluctance to appoint a Muslim into his cabinet and has stated that a test would have to be administered to prove loyalty to the United States and not Islam which violates United States Constitution Article VI: "...but no religious Test shall ever be required as a Qualification to any Office or public Trust under the United States."
Now when discussing the new mosque to be built in Tennessee Cain stated that people should have the right to ban mosques from there town. This of course is in violation of the very religious freedom that led the settlers to come to America in the first place, and in violation of the First Amendment to the Constitution: "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof..."
Mr. Cain's statements are hurtful and ignorant of Islam. Putting an entire religion into a category because of a few radicals is the very stereotyping Cain was against in the Jim Crow South.
It's a shame a man with such great problem-solving skills and such an adamant supporter of the FairTax has had to say these things. We are at war with Islamic Extremists not all Muslims. The dialogue of hate must be removed from his platform.
Thursday, June 30, 2011
North Korea to Lead UN Talks on Disarmament
The rogue nation of North Korea has been chosen to lead the United Nations Conference on Disarmament. Yes it is that time of the year again when people only recognize the United Nations as existing because of an outlandish decision to have a dictator lead a council which contradicts everything it stands for.
The United Nations have justified the appointment by stating that it was an "automatic rotation." The defense of "Well, it's their turn" should no longer be accepted by the international body. The Conference will report to the United Nations General Assembly which passes non-binding optional resolutions.
A peace-keeping body such as the United Nations should have skipped over North Korea in light of several military actions taken against South Korea over the past two years (minimum), it's continued attempts to create and grow a nuclear arsenal (contradictory?), and it's well documented ties to helping others grow theirs (see Syria, 2007).
If the United Nations wants to regain legitimacy in the American public and in places around the world where it's practices are being called into question, they must begin removing countries under sanction from chairing these important committees. There is a clear conflict of interest in letting the ambassador from North Korea chair a committee on nuclear weapons. The proper thing to do as an added diplomatic measure would have been to penalize the North Koreans by selecting the nation after them to chair the committee.
In order to keep the peace-keeping body around and to maintain a level of legitimacy by reforming the chair selection committee. When the UN allows for these kind of events it adds fuel to the fire for its growing number of critics calling for an end to the body. With principled reforms such as the one listed above and a few others we could have a legitimate place for diplomats to discuss peace, and make recommendations as to how this peace can be brought about.
Follow @mullrainee
Tweet
The United Nations have justified the appointment by stating that it was an "automatic rotation." The defense of "Well, it's their turn" should no longer be accepted by the international body. The Conference will report to the United Nations General Assembly which passes non-binding optional resolutions.
A peace-keeping body such as the United Nations should have skipped over North Korea in light of several military actions taken against South Korea over the past two years (minimum), it's continued attempts to create and grow a nuclear arsenal (contradictory?), and it's well documented ties to helping others grow theirs (see Syria, 2007).
If the United Nations wants to regain legitimacy in the American public and in places around the world where it's practices are being called into question, they must begin removing countries under sanction from chairing these important committees. There is a clear conflict of interest in letting the ambassador from North Korea chair a committee on nuclear weapons. The proper thing to do as an added diplomatic measure would have been to penalize the North Koreans by selecting the nation after them to chair the committee.
In order to keep the peace-keeping body around and to maintain a level of legitimacy by reforming the chair selection committee. When the UN allows for these kind of events it adds fuel to the fire for its growing number of critics calling for an end to the body. With principled reforms such as the one listed above and a few others we could have a legitimate place for diplomats to discuss peace, and make recommendations as to how this peace can be brought about.
Follow @mullrainee
Tweet
Sunday, June 26, 2011
We May Have Missed Our Eisenhower
Roughly a half-century ago the former commander of the most important mission in World War II ran for and won the Office of the Presidency. Dwight Eisenhower was a center-right President whom history has been very kind too. The man was a tremendous leader of men and held personal responsibility in the highest regard. There was an immense ground swell to make Eisenhower president after the Truman ended his presidency.
The same movement was around General David Petraeus. Petraeus has been entrusted with both of the War on Terrorism missions. He oversaw both "surges" which have been viewed as key and impressive victories toward ending our stay in Iraq and Afghanistan. He has worked with Presidents Obama and Bush in order to secure lasting peace in the region.
Much like Eisenhower, Petraeus has been universally accepted by Democrats and Republicans alike. They are both center-right and are well spoken and intelligent individuals. Petraeus has a PhD in International Relations from Princeton and had graduated in the top 5% of his military class. He has hands-on learning one of the most, if not the most, critical region to United States security. This experience will no doubt serve him well.
I figured General Petraeus should he have decided to run would have done so in October, November, or December of this year after his service to the President had expired. I would not expect him to leave his post as Ambassador Huntsman did with China. I feel that it shows a level of disloyalty to begin to plan against an employer and attempt to undercut your former employers credibility. Petraeus, a man committed to fulfilling his oath to the President would not have gone the Huntsman route.
I had been hoping for a potential run from Petraeus despite his constant statements to the contrary. It appears now as though we missed on one of the crucial leaders of our time. Petraeus will become the next Director of the Central Intelligence Agency and will have put the nail in the coffin for a President Petraeus. If President Obama is elected for a second term the earliest Petraeus would be able to run in 2016 when he will be in his early sixties and still viable as a candidate. He will be a tad on the older side of the field but the GOP loves running solid military men as much as it loves running governors or businessmen. Giving him a fair chance.
However, if the coin goes the other way and a Republican is elected in 2012 Petraeus may not be able to run again until 2020 putting him as one of the oldest presidents in American history. An obstacle that may not be easy to overcome. It appears as though we have missed out on an opportunity for history to repeat itself and America is losing out by not having a veteran leader of men at the helm of the nation.
The same movement was around General David Petraeus. Petraeus has been entrusted with both of the War on Terrorism missions. He oversaw both "surges" which have been viewed as key and impressive victories toward ending our stay in Iraq and Afghanistan. He has worked with Presidents Obama and Bush in order to secure lasting peace in the region.
Much like Eisenhower, Petraeus has been universally accepted by Democrats and Republicans alike. They are both center-right and are well spoken and intelligent individuals. Petraeus has a PhD in International Relations from Princeton and had graduated in the top 5% of his military class. He has hands-on learning one of the most, if not the most, critical region to United States security. This experience will no doubt serve him well.
I figured General Petraeus should he have decided to run would have done so in October, November, or December of this year after his service to the President had expired. I would not expect him to leave his post as Ambassador Huntsman did with China. I feel that it shows a level of disloyalty to begin to plan against an employer and attempt to undercut your former employers credibility. Petraeus, a man committed to fulfilling his oath to the President would not have gone the Huntsman route.
I had been hoping for a potential run from Petraeus despite his constant statements to the contrary. It appears now as though we missed on one of the crucial leaders of our time. Petraeus will become the next Director of the Central Intelligence Agency and will have put the nail in the coffin for a President Petraeus. If President Obama is elected for a second term the earliest Petraeus would be able to run in 2016 when he will be in his early sixties and still viable as a candidate. He will be a tad on the older side of the field but the GOP loves running solid military men as much as it loves running governors or businessmen. Giving him a fair chance.
However, if the coin goes the other way and a Republican is elected in 2012 Petraeus may not be able to run again until 2020 putting him as one of the oldest presidents in American history. An obstacle that may not be easy to overcome. It appears as though we have missed out on an opportunity for history to repeat itself and America is losing out by not having a veteran leader of men at the helm of the nation.
Thursday, June 23, 2011
Eric Cantor Leaves Deficit Talks
Today it was announced that House Majority Leader Eric Cantor has pulled out of the bipartisan deficit panel being headed by Vice President Joe Biden. The reason being an absolute lack of leadership and discussion with President Obama.
Cantor and Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell have called for President Obama to finally get fully involved in these discussions to help move the discussion about taxes in any deficit reduction plan. Cantor is absolutely opposed to any new tax increases especially now in the current economic status of our country. This is the kind of Republican leadership we have been waiting for.
By walking away from the deficit talks Cantor is forcing President Obama to come to the table to come and discuss the fundamental issue of his Presidency. Obama has been able to skate on this issue by creating a panel and putting Joe Biden in charge. The president has shown a lack of leadership by trying to push this onto the Vice President, speaking on the topic generically, and hiding behind his press secretary.
Republicans had been giving the president a free-pass on the debt until recently when Mitch McConnell took to the Senate floor and asked where was the president on the tax issue. Eric Cantor is showing the signs of leadership and ability to confront the executive branch that was prominent during the 1990s under Newt Gingrich. This is the leadership I had hoped for at the beginning of the new Congressional term under Speaker John Boehner.
This is a brilliant move on several levels. First being the country stands to benefit in the short and long term by agreeing to a deficit and spending reduction plan. The country has spent itself into a dangerous position and it is in need of some tough medicine. The next level is the Republicans will look much more serious on the deficit issues than the Democrats and President Obama. The debt and economy are two central issues to the upcoming 2012 election cycle. The third level being it highlights President Obama's inefficiencies as a leader and it forces him into a position where he will have to continue to rattle cages. The Republican Party has continuously hammered Obama for following the world in foreign affairs and now he appears to be following even in domestic policy. The decision will also force him into a position where he will put forth his own agenda which will not go far enough for the liberal-progressive base or he will pander to the base too well and disenfranchise an American people who will not take kindly to tax increases.
This will turn into an ideological staring contest in which we will all have a side we will lean on because of our ideological differences. We can only hope that someone's eyes dry out before the United States has successfully followed Greece into democracy and bankruptcy.
Edit: Representative Cantor has also announced today that the House will consider the Balanced Budget Amendment the week of the 25th. Cantor and the Republican Party appear to be done playing games with deficit reduction.
Cantor and Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell have called for President Obama to finally get fully involved in these discussions to help move the discussion about taxes in any deficit reduction plan. Cantor is absolutely opposed to any new tax increases especially now in the current economic status of our country. This is the kind of Republican leadership we have been waiting for.
By walking away from the deficit talks Cantor is forcing President Obama to come to the table to come and discuss the fundamental issue of his Presidency. Obama has been able to skate on this issue by creating a panel and putting Joe Biden in charge. The president has shown a lack of leadership by trying to push this onto the Vice President, speaking on the topic generically, and hiding behind his press secretary.
Republicans had been giving the president a free-pass on the debt until recently when Mitch McConnell took to the Senate floor and asked where was the president on the tax issue. Eric Cantor is showing the signs of leadership and ability to confront the executive branch that was prominent during the 1990s under Newt Gingrich. This is the leadership I had hoped for at the beginning of the new Congressional term under Speaker John Boehner.
This is a brilliant move on several levels. First being the country stands to benefit in the short and long term by agreeing to a deficit and spending reduction plan. The country has spent itself into a dangerous position and it is in need of some tough medicine. The next level is the Republicans will look much more serious on the deficit issues than the Democrats and President Obama. The debt and economy are two central issues to the upcoming 2012 election cycle. The third level being it highlights President Obama's inefficiencies as a leader and it forces him into a position where he will have to continue to rattle cages. The Republican Party has continuously hammered Obama for following the world in foreign affairs and now he appears to be following even in domestic policy. The decision will also force him into a position where he will put forth his own agenda which will not go far enough for the liberal-progressive base or he will pander to the base too well and disenfranchise an American people who will not take kindly to tax increases.
This will turn into an ideological staring contest in which we will all have a side we will lean on because of our ideological differences. We can only hope that someone's eyes dry out before the United States has successfully followed Greece into democracy and bankruptcy.
Edit: Representative Cantor has also announced today that the House will consider the Balanced Budget Amendment the week of the 25th. Cantor and the Republican Party appear to be done playing games with deficit reduction.
Tuesday, June 21, 2011
Anti-TSA Bill May Bring Perry Into Contention
Governor Rick Perry of Texas has added an anti-TSA search bill to the Texas state legislature's calendar. This move will play very well to a Republican base Perry may be trying to court as he prepares to test the waters for the Republican Primaries.
A few weeks ago while Perry was still flat out denying any interest in the Oval Office he removed the bill from the agenda of the Texas Legislature's Special Session. Perry cited a lack of votes to get the bill passed in his decision. Added pressure was applied by the federal government when a letter was sent to the Texas legislature claiming air traffic to Texas would be limited if the law was passed.
Now the buzz around Perry has becoming a deafening roar for the Texas Republican to enter the Presidential fray. He has advisers sprinting away from former House Speaker Newt Gingrich including two more today from Newt's fundraising office. He has an appeal to the Christian Right in his upcoming day of prayer for the United States and his strong pro-life stance and policies. Texas has created more jobs than the rest of the United States combined and has people coming in droves to the Lone Star State. Hell he's even authored a book entitled Fed Up! about recent government overreach into state's matters.
The big name Republican backers are waiting to see if Perry or former Alaskan Governor Sarah Palin jump into the race. My money says Palin will not run and wait for an opening in the White House in 2016. So the big money is out there for Perry to take advantage. People are waiting to establish a conservative candidate to oppose front-runner former Massachusetts Governor Mitt Romney.
When the Republican Party needs a candidate that can win elections and needs to unify the party they go to their oil-well. The Lone Star State. This anti-TSA bill will be more than enough to draw Governor Perry into the race and may even put him ahead of Governor Romney.
This bill will give Perry more than enough momentum to carry the field and headlines if he so chooses.
A few weeks ago while Perry was still flat out denying any interest in the Oval Office he removed the bill from the agenda of the Texas Legislature's Special Session. Perry cited a lack of votes to get the bill passed in his decision. Added pressure was applied by the federal government when a letter was sent to the Texas legislature claiming air traffic to Texas would be limited if the law was passed.
Now the buzz around Perry has becoming a deafening roar for the Texas Republican to enter the Presidential fray. He has advisers sprinting away from former House Speaker Newt Gingrich including two more today from Newt's fundraising office. He has an appeal to the Christian Right in his upcoming day of prayer for the United States and his strong pro-life stance and policies. Texas has created more jobs than the rest of the United States combined and has people coming in droves to the Lone Star State. Hell he's even authored a book entitled Fed Up! about recent government overreach into state's matters.
The big name Republican backers are waiting to see if Perry or former Alaskan Governor Sarah Palin jump into the race. My money says Palin will not run and wait for an opening in the White House in 2016. So the big money is out there for Perry to take advantage. People are waiting to establish a conservative candidate to oppose front-runner former Massachusetts Governor Mitt Romney.
When the Republican Party needs a candidate that can win elections and needs to unify the party they go to their oil-well. The Lone Star State. This anti-TSA bill will be more than enough to draw Governor Perry into the race and may even put him ahead of Governor Romney.
This bill will give Perry more than enough momentum to carry the field and headlines if he so chooses.
Thursday, June 16, 2011
FreedomWorks is Wrong to Target Orrin Hatch
According to an exclusive from The Daily Caller FreedomWorks first target in 2012 is Utah Senator Orrin Hatch. FreedomWorks, is chaired by former House Majority Leader Dick Armey, and the PAC associated with the Tea Party group will unveil the "Retire Orrin Hatch" Campaign at the Utah Republican Convention on Saturday.
FreedomWorks is misguided in its attempt to "Primary" the 34 year veteran of the United States Senate.
Does Hatch have blemishes on his three-and-a-half decade old political career? Yes and who wouldn't in that length of time? The list of grievances in Hatch's career as cited by the article include voting to raise the debt ceiling 16 times, his vote in favor of the Toxic Asset Relief Program (TARP), and his vote against a ban on earmarks.
These should be seen as strikes against his record from the point of view of the Tea Party/Conservative organization. However, FreedomWorks is trying to remove a long-standing ally of a Balanced Budget Amendment to the United States Constitution and a long-standing conservative.
I sat in the audience of the 2011 Conservative Political Action Conference while Hatch defended his record in a manner I deemed as acceptable. He defended his record with such vigor that it should have swayed the audience in his favor. However, it appeared the audience did not attend the panel with the open mind I would have expected.
During his time in the United States Senate Hatch has sponsored or co-sponsored a Balanced Budget Amendment 17 times, he voted against the health-care legislation of 2009, he is a constant defender of the Tenth Amendment to the United States Constitution, has stood up for religious freedom, and Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas has credited Hatch with his appointment.
Hatch has worked on a conservative record that should earn him high enough marks to avoid this kind of challenge on his political career.
I understand the Tea Party movement has a great success in Utah in 2010 with the election of Senator Mike Lee. Lee had tremendous ground support and a popular conservative upswing behind him. 2012 will be a close general election. President Obama despite slower than expected economic growth, still polls well against Republican foes. A general election, with more voters coming out, and control of the US Senate on the line we have to go with the proven element.
I for one support Orrin Hatch and his overall record. A few blemishes will not ruin a record for me.
FreedomWorks is misguided in its attempt to "Primary" the 34 year veteran of the United States Senate.
Does Hatch have blemishes on his three-and-a-half decade old political career? Yes and who wouldn't in that length of time? The list of grievances in Hatch's career as cited by the article include voting to raise the debt ceiling 16 times, his vote in favor of the Toxic Asset Relief Program (TARP), and his vote against a ban on earmarks.
These should be seen as strikes against his record from the point of view of the Tea Party/Conservative organization. However, FreedomWorks is trying to remove a long-standing ally of a Balanced Budget Amendment to the United States Constitution and a long-standing conservative.
I sat in the audience of the 2011 Conservative Political Action Conference while Hatch defended his record in a manner I deemed as acceptable. He defended his record with such vigor that it should have swayed the audience in his favor. However, it appeared the audience did not attend the panel with the open mind I would have expected.
During his time in the United States Senate Hatch has sponsored or co-sponsored a Balanced Budget Amendment 17 times, he voted against the health-care legislation of 2009, he is a constant defender of the Tenth Amendment to the United States Constitution, has stood up for religious freedom, and Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas has credited Hatch with his appointment.
Hatch has worked on a conservative record that should earn him high enough marks to avoid this kind of challenge on his political career.
I understand the Tea Party movement has a great success in Utah in 2010 with the election of Senator Mike Lee. Lee had tremendous ground support and a popular conservative upswing behind him. 2012 will be a close general election. President Obama despite slower than expected economic growth, still polls well against Republican foes. A general election, with more voters coming out, and control of the US Senate on the line we have to go with the proven element.
I for one support Orrin Hatch and his overall record. A few blemishes will not ruin a record for me.
Wednesday, June 15, 2011
Surprises of the Second GOP Debate
The CNN/WMUR debateon Monday was full of moments that made me sit up and take notice of a field I view as a lot stronger than other pundits have stated.
The results of the second debate were a mixed bag. A few candidates were impressive, a few disappointing, and the moderator was down right dreadful.
Results:
1) Governor Mitt Romney - While he has experienced great pain in media over the past two weeks he showed that he isn't going through the Sophomore Slump. Romney conducted himself well during the debate and is still playing keep away from his field of challengers. Those watching the debate were expecting challengers to go after the front-runner but all of them backed away. Instead of making Mitt discuss his policy on healthcare they all let him handle it. He came in the leader of the pack and no one did anything to stop him. Thus Romney for staying on top and gaffe free wins the second debate.
2) Rep. Michele Bachmann - In her first ever presidential debate I was completely taken aback by the composure and posture of Bachmann. She has fully stepped out of the shadow of former Alaskan Governor Sarah Palin and has become her own candidate. My only concerns from Bachmann at the debate were she used a couple of applause lines from her Tea Party days at a formal debate, and she announced her candidacy during a round of questions. Other than these two flaws in decorum for debating she has fully emerged as a serious and viable candidate.
3) Speaker Newt Gingrich - After suffering horrible setbacks in terms of his staff and his confusing campaign scheduling Newt came out firing. He was in rare 1980-1990 form as he took on the debate format, moderator, and how he answered forcefully and with conviction. He showed the disdain for how government operates that made him so popularly within the GOP. After what seemed to be a week in which Newt's campaign had fallen apart just as everyone predicted the veteran of the Clinton Era showed why you can never count the old dog out.
4) Herman Cain - The Atlanta businessman falls to the fourth slot after unarguably winning the first debate. Cain struggled to break out of the middle as the candidates above him had more buzz surrounding them. He did not present lines or analogies that would resonate with voters. After the train and caboose analogy he seemed to fall into a game that isn't his. He played the role of politician after the initial round which is where he is out of his element. His comments on Muslims and an opportunity for cabinet positions has hurt him as well.
5) Sen. Rick Santorum - Santorum bounced back to make a stronger performance than his first debate appearance. He stayed composed and took control of debate topics when posed to the entire floor of candidates. Extra face time like that can resonate with voters. He continues to make strides as a national candidate and could be a force in Iowa with his strong pro-family values. He hasn't been generating enough press but he can make some noise after this event.
6) Gov. Tim Pawlenty - My initial selection to be the candidate of the Republican Party was underwhelming at his second debate performance. He is not garnering attention, and has backed off his tough talk about Mitt Romney's healthcare legislation on the national debate scale. After coining the term "ObamneyCare" on a Sunday talk show he instantly backed away from the term and his attacks on Romney at the debate. If an opponent has screwed up in your eyes you have to go for him. Especially the front-runner. Pawlenty dropped the ball and has fallen to the sixth spot.
7) Rep. Ron Paul - Now before everyone attacks my comment section with generic Ron Paul quotes and defenses read what I am about to say. He was not performing at the same level as he did in the first debate. He also fell back on crutch words like "umm" and "uhh" and several points during the debate. He did not appear to be adequately prepared. His delivery was flawed which is an important part of publicized debates. You must be able to present yourself as well as your ideas. Not too mention very few questions posed by members of the audience were directed at Paul which may be a bad thing in New Hampshire.
8) Mainstream Republicans - When a member of the audience posed a question about how the candidates would work with the regular everyday people who make up the Republican Party and not just the vocal fractions of it everyone posed this question offered defenses of the Tea Party and did not answer the question. These candidates are running for the Republican nomination and it is about coalition building within the party. Finding a common ground between factions. This answer is what stunned and upset me the most during the CNN/WMUR debate.
9) John King/CNN - This debate was moderated horribly. John King has to make up his mind if he will be a tough moderator and cut the candidate off or let them finish the question. He constantly said "ok" during candidates answers hoping to cut them off but it just bothered the listener. CNN also had the Twitter page going and did not use it as well as I had hoped. Viewers posed questions but very rarely was it used. CNN needs to find a new moderator and if it is going to showcase all of its technological aspects it must use them.
The results of the second debate were a mixed bag. A few candidates were impressive, a few disappointing, and the moderator was down right dreadful.
Results:
1) Governor Mitt Romney - While he has experienced great pain in media over the past two weeks he showed that he isn't going through the Sophomore Slump. Romney conducted himself well during the debate and is still playing keep away from his field of challengers. Those watching the debate were expecting challengers to go after the front-runner but all of them backed away. Instead of making Mitt discuss his policy on healthcare they all let him handle it. He came in the leader of the pack and no one did anything to stop him. Thus Romney for staying on top and gaffe free wins the second debate.
2) Rep. Michele Bachmann - In her first ever presidential debate I was completely taken aback by the composure and posture of Bachmann. She has fully stepped out of the shadow of former Alaskan Governor Sarah Palin and has become her own candidate. My only concerns from Bachmann at the debate were she used a couple of applause lines from her Tea Party days at a formal debate, and she announced her candidacy during a round of questions. Other than these two flaws in decorum for debating she has fully emerged as a serious and viable candidate.
3) Speaker Newt Gingrich - After suffering horrible setbacks in terms of his staff and his confusing campaign scheduling Newt came out firing. He was in rare 1980-1990 form as he took on the debate format, moderator, and how he answered forcefully and with conviction. He showed the disdain for how government operates that made him so popularly within the GOP. After what seemed to be a week in which Newt's campaign had fallen apart just as everyone predicted the veteran of the Clinton Era showed why you can never count the old dog out.
4) Herman Cain - The Atlanta businessman falls to the fourth slot after unarguably winning the first debate. Cain struggled to break out of the middle as the candidates above him had more buzz surrounding them. He did not present lines or analogies that would resonate with voters. After the train and caboose analogy he seemed to fall into a game that isn't his. He played the role of politician after the initial round which is where he is out of his element. His comments on Muslims and an opportunity for cabinet positions has hurt him as well.
5) Sen. Rick Santorum - Santorum bounced back to make a stronger performance than his first debate appearance. He stayed composed and took control of debate topics when posed to the entire floor of candidates. Extra face time like that can resonate with voters. He continues to make strides as a national candidate and could be a force in Iowa with his strong pro-family values. He hasn't been generating enough press but he can make some noise after this event.
6) Gov. Tim Pawlenty - My initial selection to be the candidate of the Republican Party was underwhelming at his second debate performance. He is not garnering attention, and has backed off his tough talk about Mitt Romney's healthcare legislation on the national debate scale. After coining the term "ObamneyCare" on a Sunday talk show he instantly backed away from the term and his attacks on Romney at the debate. If an opponent has screwed up in your eyes you have to go for him. Especially the front-runner. Pawlenty dropped the ball and has fallen to the sixth spot.
7) Rep. Ron Paul - Now before everyone attacks my comment section with generic Ron Paul quotes and defenses read what I am about to say. He was not performing at the same level as he did in the first debate. He also fell back on crutch words like "umm" and "uhh" and several points during the debate. He did not appear to be adequately prepared. His delivery was flawed which is an important part of publicized debates. You must be able to present yourself as well as your ideas. Not too mention very few questions posed by members of the audience were directed at Paul which may be a bad thing in New Hampshire.
8) Mainstream Republicans - When a member of the audience posed a question about how the candidates would work with the regular everyday people who make up the Republican Party and not just the vocal fractions of it everyone posed this question offered defenses of the Tea Party and did not answer the question. These candidates are running for the Republican nomination and it is about coalition building within the party. Finding a common ground between factions. This answer is what stunned and upset me the most during the CNN/WMUR debate.
9) John King/CNN - This debate was moderated horribly. John King has to make up his mind if he will be a tough moderator and cut the candidate off or let them finish the question. He constantly said "ok" during candidates answers hoping to cut them off but it just bothered the listener. CNN also had the Twitter page going and did not use it as well as I had hoped. Viewers posed questions but very rarely was it used. CNN needs to find a new moderator and if it is going to showcase all of its technological aspects it must use them.
Monday, June 13, 2011
GOP Needs Unity
On the morning of the second televised debate I come to all of you with a message that has been repeated by Mississippi Governor Haley Barbour and Republican National Committee Chairman Reince Priebus. This is the case for the sects of the Republican Party coming together for the sake of winning elections. We must find the happy medium between the Tea Party's frustration and running candidates too conservative for their constituency (i.e. Joe Miller in Alaska and Christine O'Donnell in Delaware) and the moderate wing of the Republican Party.
We must remember the words of William Buckley: "Nominate the most conservative candidate who can win" and Ronald Reagan "The person who agrees with you 80 percent of the time is a friend and an ally — not a 20 percent traitor."
These words were seemingly forgotten when former House Majority Leader Dick Armey stated that the Tea Party would stay home if former Massachusetts Governor Mitt Romney wins the Republican nomination.
When must remember we are a party, a unified organization at the end of the day. We believe in a certain set of ideals and practices in Law and Government. Some believe in these principles on a much more hard line base than others. That does not make those with a more moderate stance Liberals, it makes them Centrists.
The 2012 election will be too crucial to allow for Republican/Conservative voters to sit on their hands and not go out on election day. The fate of our newly won House of Representatives, our chance to win the Senate, and the opportunity of the White House depend on it. We cannot afford to stay at home because the candidate is not conservative enough.
A candidate who will vote your ideology 60-80% of the time is far better than one who votes 5-15% of the time with your ideology is it not? At the end of the day all factions of the center-right movement must recognize this.
William Buckley was correct when he stated we must run the most conservative candidate that can win. Winning is the objective of any election. We just have to make sure we run the best candidate in the fields of ideology and region. Jim DeMint probably couldn't take a Senate race in Minnesota the way Olympia Snowe probably could not win a race in Alabama.
It's about region and ideology. It's about finding a candidate that can compete in the Heartland, Bible Belt, and coast-to-coast.
Defeating President Obama in 2012 will be an uphill battle as it stands. We do not need a splintering of the vote, the creation of another right-of-center party, or eligible voters staying home.
Do we really want to let loose four more years of Progressive Liberal policies on the United States for the sake of "purity?" Ask yourself that question if you are considering staying home in 2012. This is the future of the country we are discussing here. Everyone has a vested interest. Everyone should be voting.
This is why we must all come together.
We must remember the words of William Buckley: "Nominate the most conservative candidate who can win" and Ronald Reagan "The person who agrees with you 80 percent of the time is a friend and an ally — not a 20 percent traitor."
These words were seemingly forgotten when former House Majority Leader Dick Armey stated that the Tea Party would stay home if former Massachusetts Governor Mitt Romney wins the Republican nomination.
When must remember we are a party, a unified organization at the end of the day. We believe in a certain set of ideals and practices in Law and Government. Some believe in these principles on a much more hard line base than others. That does not make those with a more moderate stance Liberals, it makes them Centrists.
The 2012 election will be too crucial to allow for Republican/Conservative voters to sit on their hands and not go out on election day. The fate of our newly won House of Representatives, our chance to win the Senate, and the opportunity of the White House depend on it. We cannot afford to stay at home because the candidate is not conservative enough.
A candidate who will vote your ideology 60-80% of the time is far better than one who votes 5-15% of the time with your ideology is it not? At the end of the day all factions of the center-right movement must recognize this.
William Buckley was correct when he stated we must run the most conservative candidate that can win. Winning is the objective of any election. We just have to make sure we run the best candidate in the fields of ideology and region. Jim DeMint probably couldn't take a Senate race in Minnesota the way Olympia Snowe probably could not win a race in Alabama.
It's about region and ideology. It's about finding a candidate that can compete in the Heartland, Bible Belt, and coast-to-coast.
Defeating President Obama in 2012 will be an uphill battle as it stands. We do not need a splintering of the vote, the creation of another right-of-center party, or eligible voters staying home.
Do we really want to let loose four more years of Progressive Liberal policies on the United States for the sake of "purity?" Ask yourself that question if you are considering staying home in 2012. This is the future of the country we are discussing here. Everyone has a vested interest. Everyone should be voting.
This is why we must all come together.
Friday, June 3, 2011
Bad Numbers For Obama Administration
A recovery not so much.
Today's gloomy jobs report brought unemployment just back north of 9%. The projected gain in jobs was supposed to be about 150,000 whereas the real number actually gained was closer to 54,000 making unemployment 9.1%. A number we all know to be 1.1% higher than the maximum number predicted by the Obama Administration after the passage of the stimulus package.
The Dow Jones is currently concluding it's fifth straight week of loses. A number that would make the Washington Wizards jealous.
Domestic policy more so than anything else shapes Presidential elections. The economy is first and foremost in everyone's minds.
An economy stuck in a rut will lead to short term benefits that could become long term benefits for Republican contenders in 2012.
The candidates that can lead the way with this bump would be: Jon Huntsman, Mitt Romney, Herman Cain, and Gary Johnson. All three men have had fantastic successes in the private sector.
Jon Huntsman has gained the support of major financial backers. This economic uncertainty will lead to further name recognition for Huntsman who is in severe need of it according to recent polls. The name recognition will build upon an already secure base of some of the established Republican guard. This could lead to lasting benefits for the current long shot. Huntsman will now stand a better chance if he can seize the moment.
The current front-runner and Massachusetts Governor Mitt Romney will be able to capitalize on this moment with his private sector experience. When the message is solely based on job creation he can attempt to move past RomneyCare. If he can successfully move to the topic of job creation through typical conservative ideals (lower taxes, less regulation, etc.). Romney can use this to fend off a potential bid by New York Mayor Rudy Giuliani and former Alaskan Governor Sarah Palin (even though I believe she will not run).
A man with rising name recognition and with high positivity scores can keep the momentum going. That man is Herman Cain. Cain made a name for himself solely on his private sector accomplishments. His view on the private sector can translate into the public sector according to the late Jack Kemp whom Cain advised in 1996. This is assuredly put Cain in the spotlight again and when people get to know Herman Cain they love Herman Cain as evident by the Gallup Positivity Polls.
The last former businessman in the field is former New Mexico Governor Gary Johnson. Johnson has less name recognition than I do and has garnered as much national appeal. This is his now or never moment. Of course he will still lose the majority of libertarian-minded Republicans to Dr. Paul but he will attempt to steal some of the more economically minded ones from the doctor. If he doesn't look better after this economic news there will be little hope for the mountain climber.
Today's gloomy jobs report brought unemployment just back north of 9%. The projected gain in jobs was supposed to be about 150,000 whereas the real number actually gained was closer to 54,000 making unemployment 9.1%. A number we all know to be 1.1% higher than the maximum number predicted by the Obama Administration after the passage of the stimulus package.
The Dow Jones is currently concluding it's fifth straight week of loses. A number that would make the Washington Wizards jealous.
Domestic policy more so than anything else shapes Presidential elections. The economy is first and foremost in everyone's minds.
An economy stuck in a rut will lead to short term benefits that could become long term benefits for Republican contenders in 2012.
The candidates that can lead the way with this bump would be: Jon Huntsman, Mitt Romney, Herman Cain, and Gary Johnson. All three men have had fantastic successes in the private sector.
Jon Huntsman has gained the support of major financial backers. This economic uncertainty will lead to further name recognition for Huntsman who is in severe need of it according to recent polls. The name recognition will build upon an already secure base of some of the established Republican guard. This could lead to lasting benefits for the current long shot. Huntsman will now stand a better chance if he can seize the moment.
The current front-runner and Massachusetts Governor Mitt Romney will be able to capitalize on this moment with his private sector experience. When the message is solely based on job creation he can attempt to move past RomneyCare. If he can successfully move to the topic of job creation through typical conservative ideals (lower taxes, less regulation, etc.). Romney can use this to fend off a potential bid by New York Mayor Rudy Giuliani and former Alaskan Governor Sarah Palin (even though I believe she will not run).
A man with rising name recognition and with high positivity scores can keep the momentum going. That man is Herman Cain. Cain made a name for himself solely on his private sector accomplishments. His view on the private sector can translate into the public sector according to the late Jack Kemp whom Cain advised in 1996. This is assuredly put Cain in the spotlight again and when people get to know Herman Cain they love Herman Cain as evident by the Gallup Positivity Polls.
The last former businessman in the field is former New Mexico Governor Gary Johnson. Johnson has less name recognition than I do and has garnered as much national appeal. This is his now or never moment. Of course he will still lose the majority of libertarian-minded Republicans to Dr. Paul but he will attempt to steal some of the more economically minded ones from the doctor. If he doesn't look better after this economic news there will be little hope for the mountain climber.
Saturday, May 28, 2011
The GOP has Michael Jordan Syndrome
We all get caught up in greatness. It is here for brief shining moments and it is gone just as suddenly as it had appeared. These are the people who change the game and make all of us take note.
In the National Basketball Association this was done by Chicago Bulls forward Michael Jordan. Everyone who loves basketball has seen footage of “Air Jordan” leaping from the free throw line, hanging in the air for what seemed like minutes, and hitting big shots late in crucial games. Jordan left the game viewed as the greatest player to ever pick up a basketball. After leaving the game commentators have been looking for the next Michael Jordan. This label has made the likes of Kobe Bryant, Penny Hardaway, LeBron James, and now Derrick Rose have been compared to him at the prime moment in their careers and they have all fallen short. No one can truly fill the void of greatness.
Just as a young Michael Jordan was starting his career at the University of North Carolina the Republican Party was on the path to greatness as well. The elder statesman Ronald Reagan was inaugurated in the same year as Jordan began his career at UNC. President Reagan to many Republicans/Conservatives is the greatest president of the modern era. He brought down Soviet Communism, he brought America back to greatness, and brought Americans together under his presidency. Many pundits on television are trying to crown the next Ronald Reagan or describing candidates as Reagan-like. These are unrealistic and unfair comparisons. It puts unrealistic pressures on the candidates to live up to his moniker.
You cannot replicate excellence or greatness to believe so is foolish.
Pundits and politicos must recognize that it is time to create the next hero. We cannot continue to press unrealistic comparisons on candidates. The pressure and expectations can derail a candidate or put unneeded pressure in our general election season of 2012 and beyond. We cannot continue to look to the past for how a candidate should be when we have many of our own superstars in this age that bring their own special set of skills to the table can perform at a great level.
Great is not excellence but excellence happens so rarely that we are forced to take notice and wish it would come back. Excellence is going to occur again with or without these questions. We just have to wait patiently.
In the National Basketball Association this was done by Chicago Bulls forward Michael Jordan. Everyone who loves basketball has seen footage of “Air Jordan” leaping from the free throw line, hanging in the air for what seemed like minutes, and hitting big shots late in crucial games. Jordan left the game viewed as the greatest player to ever pick up a basketball. After leaving the game commentators have been looking for the next Michael Jordan. This label has made the likes of Kobe Bryant, Penny Hardaway, LeBron James, and now Derrick Rose have been compared to him at the prime moment in their careers and they have all fallen short. No one can truly fill the void of greatness.
Just as a young Michael Jordan was starting his career at the University of North Carolina the Republican Party was on the path to greatness as well. The elder statesman Ronald Reagan was inaugurated in the same year as Jordan began his career at UNC. President Reagan to many Republicans/Conservatives is the greatest president of the modern era. He brought down Soviet Communism, he brought America back to greatness, and brought Americans together under his presidency. Many pundits on television are trying to crown the next Ronald Reagan or describing candidates as Reagan-like. These are unrealistic and unfair comparisons. It puts unrealistic pressures on the candidates to live up to his moniker.
You cannot replicate excellence or greatness to believe so is foolish.
Pundits and politicos must recognize that it is time to create the next hero. We cannot continue to press unrealistic comparisons on candidates. The pressure and expectations can derail a candidate or put unneeded pressure in our general election season of 2012 and beyond. We cannot continue to look to the past for how a candidate should be when we have many of our own superstars in this age that bring their own special set of skills to the table can perform at a great level.
Great is not excellence but excellence happens so rarely that we are forced to take notice and wish it would come back. Excellence is going to occur again with or without these questions. We just have to wait patiently.
Sunday, May 22, 2011
Mitch Daniels Says No
Another favored son of the Grand Ole Party has declined running for the Presidency of the United States in 2012. Mitch Daniels, Governor of Indiana, has stated in an email last night that he will not be running.
The candidates who have stated they are not running are: Gov. Mike Huckabee, Gov. Chris Christie, Gov. Rick Perry, Rep. Paul Ryan, American business mogul Donald Trump, Sen. John Thune, Sen. Jim DeMint, Gov. Mitch Daniels, and Sen. Marco Rubio and I'm sure there are some I'm forgetting.
The list of those running or with exploratory committees is much shorter. Those with intentions of running are: Fmr. Speaker of the House Newt Gingrich, Gov. Gary Johnson, Sen. Rick Santorum, Gov. Tim Pawlenty, Rep. Ron Paul, American businessman Herman Cain, and Gov. Mitt Romney.
So who benefits from the new disappearance of another big name in the 2012 race?
I say this race comes down to two distinct groups. Pro-Romney and Anti-Romney.
There are those who look forward to the Romney candidacy and those who look at this potentiality as something to fear for the sake of the party. With more and more established candidates walking away or committing gaffes it looks like the establishment could be stuck with a polarizing figure.
So after the establishment got on their hands and knees to try to get Mitch into the race it is safe to assume that Romney isn't going to get the kind of support Daniels would have gotten. So these are establishment types who are looking to funnel resources into defeating Mitt Romney.
Who picks up support?
Newt Gingrich: Depending on how long Newt stays in the race he's the last establishment choice for the presidency. Unfortunately Newt has appeared to have gotten out of the box slower than the so-called no name candidates. No Republican has come to his defense since his attack on Paul Ryan's budget. I don't see Newt sticking around long enough without further gaffes to gain much from the Mitch Daniels exit.
Gary Johnson: The little known governor continues to poll poorly. The lone bump I see from the Daniels exit in his campaign is the social issues truce. Johnson as one of the two libertarian minded candidates stands to benefit from the group of candidates who ignore social issues going from three down to two.
Rick Santorum: The former Pennsylvania Senator is an established former politician but is a hard core social conservative. He may get a slight bump with the drop of an established candidate. This will likely be cancelled out by the bumps to other candidates.
Ron Paul: The better known of the libertarian candidates stands to get a better increase than his counterpart Gary Johnson because he has better notoriety. However the establishment money and the anti-Romney brigade aren't libertarians or libertarian-leaning so look for a better increase than the above candidates but no great. Probably within the margin of error.
Herman Cain: The prominent Georgia businessman announced his candidacy yesterday and has been surging in the polls since his dominant performance in the first GOP Debate where he was largely viewed as the overwhelming victor. Cain stands to benefit for those who looking for the strongest public speaker and can dominate a stage. He won't get the establishment money but he will get some anti-Romney money because he's a candidate who continues to gain serious consideration. He was the strongest speaker at the May 5th debate and could cost the next guy a good deal of funding.
Tim Pawlenty: T-Paw will formally announce on Monday. He has been stated time and time again as the anti-Romney candidate. He has an excellent record as governor (like Daniels), and the anti-Romney backers will look closer at Pawlenty because he has the best record of those viewed with a legitimate chance to win the election (at least according to George Will). He could in the foreseeable future benefit the most from these backers. However Cain may see an equal raise in his numbers because of how Cain overshadowed Pawlenty in the first debate.
This of course is all tentative on whether or not a big name comes out of the woodwork. There's always a dark horse. However, this dark horse may be stuck at the stable until 2016.
Thanks to The Daily Caller and Alexis Levinson for the original article.
The candidates who have stated they are not running are: Gov. Mike Huckabee, Gov. Chris Christie, Gov. Rick Perry, Rep. Paul Ryan, American business mogul Donald Trump, Sen. John Thune, Sen. Jim DeMint, Gov. Mitch Daniels, and Sen. Marco Rubio and I'm sure there are some I'm forgetting.
The list of those running or with exploratory committees is much shorter. Those with intentions of running are: Fmr. Speaker of the House Newt Gingrich, Gov. Gary Johnson, Sen. Rick Santorum, Gov. Tim Pawlenty, Rep. Ron Paul, American businessman Herman Cain, and Gov. Mitt Romney.
So who benefits from the new disappearance of another big name in the 2012 race?
I say this race comes down to two distinct groups. Pro-Romney and Anti-Romney.
There are those who look forward to the Romney candidacy and those who look at this potentiality as something to fear for the sake of the party. With more and more established candidates walking away or committing gaffes it looks like the establishment could be stuck with a polarizing figure.
So after the establishment got on their hands and knees to try to get Mitch into the race it is safe to assume that Romney isn't going to get the kind of support Daniels would have gotten. So these are establishment types who are looking to funnel resources into defeating Mitt Romney.
Who picks up support?
Newt Gingrich: Depending on how long Newt stays in the race he's the last establishment choice for the presidency. Unfortunately Newt has appeared to have gotten out of the box slower than the so-called no name candidates. No Republican has come to his defense since his attack on Paul Ryan's budget. I don't see Newt sticking around long enough without further gaffes to gain much from the Mitch Daniels exit.
Gary Johnson: The little known governor continues to poll poorly. The lone bump I see from the Daniels exit in his campaign is the social issues truce. Johnson as one of the two libertarian minded candidates stands to benefit from the group of candidates who ignore social issues going from three down to two.
Rick Santorum: The former Pennsylvania Senator is an established former politician but is a hard core social conservative. He may get a slight bump with the drop of an established candidate. This will likely be cancelled out by the bumps to other candidates.
Ron Paul: The better known of the libertarian candidates stands to get a better increase than his counterpart Gary Johnson because he has better notoriety. However the establishment money and the anti-Romney brigade aren't libertarians or libertarian-leaning so look for a better increase than the above candidates but no great. Probably within the margin of error.
Herman Cain: The prominent Georgia businessman announced his candidacy yesterday and has been surging in the polls since his dominant performance in the first GOP Debate where he was largely viewed as the overwhelming victor. Cain stands to benefit for those who looking for the strongest public speaker and can dominate a stage. He won't get the establishment money but he will get some anti-Romney money because he's a candidate who continues to gain serious consideration. He was the strongest speaker at the May 5th debate and could cost the next guy a good deal of funding.
Tim Pawlenty: T-Paw will formally announce on Monday. He has been stated time and time again as the anti-Romney candidate. He has an excellent record as governor (like Daniels), and the anti-Romney backers will look closer at Pawlenty because he has the best record of those viewed with a legitimate chance to win the election (at least according to George Will). He could in the foreseeable future benefit the most from these backers. However Cain may see an equal raise in his numbers because of how Cain overshadowed Pawlenty in the first debate.
This of course is all tentative on whether or not a big name comes out of the woodwork. There's always a dark horse. However, this dark horse may be stuck at the stable until 2016.
Thanks to The Daily Caller and Alexis Levinson for the original article.
Thursday, May 19, 2011
The Death of Garret FitzGerald
I know that the biggest news around the world today would be President Obama's remarks on Israel. However because of my recent course of Irish politics and my love for the Republic of Ireland the biggest news to me was the death of former Taoiseach Garret FitzGerald.
FitzGerald was one of the characters that seems to always compose Irish politics. He had a PhD and was the typical professorial candidate. At the time he was the complete antithesis of Fianna Fail leader Charlie Haughey. Haughey was the man comfortable being the politician and FitzGerald was far more comfortable in the front of a lecture hall.
He was a member of the Fine Gael Party a center-right party in Ireland (Ireland is blessed to have two center-right parties dominate the conversation). Garret had an unusual start to his political career with being elected to the much weaker Irish Senate (Seanad Éireann). He was elected to the Dail just four years later. Then another four years later Fine Gael would enter into coalition government with the Labour Party.
In the Taoiseach (or Prime Minister) phase of his political career he would go head to head with Charlie Haughey of Fianna Fail. Haughey was a political powerhouse with great communication skills. The intellectual FitzGerald would have two terms as Taoiseach, one from June 30, 1981 - March 9, 1982 and his second from December 14, 1982 - March 10, 1987.
After leaving the Dail in 1992 he would retire to write op-eds and get his voice out there. Dr. FitzGerald will have a special part in Irish history and will be remembered.
RIP Dr. Garret FitzGerald 1926-2011
FitzGerald was one of the characters that seems to always compose Irish politics. He had a PhD and was the typical professorial candidate. At the time he was the complete antithesis of Fianna Fail leader Charlie Haughey. Haughey was the man comfortable being the politician and FitzGerald was far more comfortable in the front of a lecture hall.
He was a member of the Fine Gael Party a center-right party in Ireland (Ireland is blessed to have two center-right parties dominate the conversation). Garret had an unusual start to his political career with being elected to the much weaker Irish Senate (Seanad Éireann). He was elected to the Dail just four years later. Then another four years later Fine Gael would enter into coalition government with the Labour Party.
In the Taoiseach (or Prime Minister) phase of his political career he would go head to head with Charlie Haughey of Fianna Fail. Haughey was a political powerhouse with great communication skills. The intellectual FitzGerald would have two terms as Taoiseach, one from June 30, 1981 - March 9, 1982 and his second from December 14, 1982 - March 10, 1987.
After leaving the Dail in 1992 he would retire to write op-eds and get his voice out there. Dr. FitzGerald will have a special part in Irish history and will be remembered.
RIP Dr. Garret FitzGerald 1926-2011
Monday, May 16, 2011
Donald Trump: Media Master
Donald Trump fires himself
We all knew it deep down. We knew that Donald Trump was playing the media into higher Apprentice ratings. We knew that the Republican field is so weak and early polling is so based on name recognition that The Donald would perform well. We still fell for it.
The idea of Donald Trump was just so promising to Republican voters. He's a strong public speaker, he's a successful businessman, and he was making himself to be the most anti-Obama candidate.
When Trump crashed the Conservative Political Action Conference he gave what looked to have been a campaign style speech. The room exploded with excitement, he received several standing ovations, and people were buzzing with excitement over a Trump run for the rest of the conference. His poll numbers skyrocketed on the back of the "birther" issue and he used that issue to gain media time.
Donald Trump was all over the news for the next few months stating he will have an announcement regarding the race for the presidency in 2012. He kept building up time on major media outlets who began to give his campaign credibility. This credibility and media blitz led to ratings increases for The Apprentice. Trump stumped in Iowa and New Hampshire and spoke at a Tea Party rally in Florida this past April.
The last two times he toyed with the idea of running he quickly dismissed the notion, this time he held on longer to make it look more convincing. He played the media and he played us. At least in 2015 he will be far too old to make this case again. His hair may be another story.
Thanks to the Daily Caller and Jeff Winkler for the original article.
We all knew it deep down. We knew that Donald Trump was playing the media into higher Apprentice ratings. We knew that the Republican field is so weak and early polling is so based on name recognition that The Donald would perform well. We still fell for it.
The idea of Donald Trump was just so promising to Republican voters. He's a strong public speaker, he's a successful businessman, and he was making himself to be the most anti-Obama candidate.
When Trump crashed the Conservative Political Action Conference he gave what looked to have been a campaign style speech. The room exploded with excitement, he received several standing ovations, and people were buzzing with excitement over a Trump run for the rest of the conference. His poll numbers skyrocketed on the back of the "birther" issue and he used that issue to gain media time.
Donald Trump was all over the news for the next few months stating he will have an announcement regarding the race for the presidency in 2012. He kept building up time on major media outlets who began to give his campaign credibility. This credibility and media blitz led to ratings increases for The Apprentice. Trump stumped in Iowa and New Hampshire and spoke at a Tea Party rally in Florida this past April.
The last two times he toyed with the idea of running he quickly dismissed the notion, this time he held on longer to make it look more convincing. He played the media and he played us. At least in 2015 he will be far too old to make this case again. His hair may be another story.
Thanks to the Daily Caller and Jeff Winkler for the original article.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)