I find Rick Perry's 'part-time Congress' idea to be a little too goofy to take seriously.
Texas isn't the United States, doesn't have a standing army, navy or air force, or embassies abroad. Back in the early 1800s, before the US was a world power, and communications were poor, a part-time legislature, both at the state and federal levels, was basically just reality.
But once America came into the 1900s, and the government, post-Civil War, had, for good or bad, Constitutionally or not, swollen in size and responsibility, it became unrealistic for Congress to only serve part of every year or term.
But one idea Perry has echoes my own- cut Congressional staffs. I don't know what details he proposed- probably none, knowing Perry.
If I'm not mistaken, I think it was even one of my 10 things I'd do to reform government.
But I believe I advocated only two aides per Representative or Senator. And no compensating budget to hire temps or consultants.
I want members of Congress themselves writing bills- not their hired, degree-heavy, detail-crazy, bribable staffs.
That's what I want...a lean Congress without staffs and coddlers, full of members who actually do all the work themselves.
Then, as the subheading of this blog suggests, we'll be a bit safer because those 435 elected members simply won't have the time and ability to write so much intrusive legislation that affects the rest of us and gives them such ongoing power.
Showing posts with label Presidential campaign. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Presidential campaign. Show all posts
Tuesday, November 22, 2011
Saturday, November 12, 2011
Peggy Noonan Comes Around To My Way of Thinking
Peggy Noonan's weekend Wall Street Journal editorial is largely about the Wednesday evening CNBC GOP candidates' event. I wrote my initial reactions about the event here.
Noonan begins with a humorous send up of manic, maniacal Jim Cramer's performance, as well as Maria Bartiromo's. On these we agree. She then meanders through the rest of her half-page piece to arrive at two succinct paragraphs,
"Republicans should sober up. They should be thinking not about what the Republican at the local GOP meeting is thinking, but what the independent across the street is thinking. He's catching the Cain story on TV and thinking: "This guy may have a problem. I want more evidence, but if it's true, then man, we don't need to go there again."
That independent is a pretty important guy. The GOP better start doing a better job of considering how he sees things. He doesn't live in Republo-world, but he's right across the street, and he votes. He's going to pick the next president."
Which is exactly what I've been contending for many months. Only I would go, and have gone, further. I think the GOP should be making sure, if among the publicly-available polls, none does this, of providing timely poll numbers, before each major primary event for the major candidates, for independents' preferences among the GOP candidates.
That's all that will matter, so there's really no point being concerned about who registered Republicans favor. With only about 25% of the voting public registered with a major party, that leaves the 50-60% of independents as far more important than the registered Republicans will be in electing a president next year.
I endorsed Cain prior the recent sexual harassment allegations. But the truth is, no matter who I'd like to see nominated by the GOP, I'll vote for the candidate on the ballot who has the highest poll numbers among independents, assuming I can learn who that is by the day of my state's primary election.
If by referring to "the GOP better start doing a better job of considering how he (independents) see things," Noonan means party officials, she's being opaque. She should explicitly counsel the RNC to publicize the GOP candidates' poll numbers among independents and make a better case to GOP voters about this important strategy for nominating a winning candidate next year.
If she means GOP voters, she's probably right. I don't know if enough Republicans realize what I have long held, and Noonan has now belatedly also come to see.
But it is critical. I tell every Republican I know about this approach to voting for a nominee. It's the only way the party will retake the White House next year.
Noonan begins with a humorous send up of manic, maniacal Jim Cramer's performance, as well as Maria Bartiromo's. On these we agree. She then meanders through the rest of her half-page piece to arrive at two succinct paragraphs,
"Republicans should sober up. They should be thinking not about what the Republican at the local GOP meeting is thinking, but what the independent across the street is thinking. He's catching the Cain story on TV and thinking: "This guy may have a problem. I want more evidence, but if it's true, then man, we don't need to go there again."
That independent is a pretty important guy. The GOP better start doing a better job of considering how he sees things. He doesn't live in Republo-world, but he's right across the street, and he votes. He's going to pick the next president."
Which is exactly what I've been contending for many months. Only I would go, and have gone, further. I think the GOP should be making sure, if among the publicly-available polls, none does this, of providing timely poll numbers, before each major primary event for the major candidates, for independents' preferences among the GOP candidates.
That's all that will matter, so there's really no point being concerned about who registered Republicans favor. With only about 25% of the voting public registered with a major party, that leaves the 50-60% of independents as far more important than the registered Republicans will be in electing a president next year.
I endorsed Cain prior the recent sexual harassment allegations. But the truth is, no matter who I'd like to see nominated by the GOP, I'll vote for the candidate on the ballot who has the highest poll numbers among independents, assuming I can learn who that is by the day of my state's primary election.
If by referring to "the GOP better start doing a better job of considering how he (independents) see things," Noonan means party officials, she's being opaque. She should explicitly counsel the RNC to publicize the GOP candidates' poll numbers among independents and make a better case to GOP voters about this important strategy for nominating a winning candidate next year.
If she means GOP voters, she's probably right. I don't know if enough Republicans realize what I have long held, and Noonan has now belatedly also come to see.
But it is critical. I tell every Republican I know about this approach to voting for a nominee. It's the only way the party will retake the White House next year.
Thursday, November 10, 2011
Dorothy Rabinowitz Makes The Case For Newt Gingrich's Nomination
Some weeks ago, I wrote a post endorsing Herman Cain for the GOP presidential nomination. It was triggered by the Wall Street Journal's Daniel Henninger's editorial in support of Cain.
The past two weeks have seen Cain engulfed in a flurry of sexual harassment charges, mostly by anonymous women. Frankly, the lateness of the charges- some 14 years or so after the alleged fact- and the anonymity of several of the women, make them less credible, in my opinion. And most people with business experience understand that there is a sort of cottage industry in people getting small- to medium-sized settlements for making unsubstantiated allegations go away, rather than cost an organization much more in legal fees.
If Cain becomes severely wounded by these allegations, e.g., even one becomes a confirmed instance, in direct contradiction to Cain's assertions last night, he's finished.
Who would I then like to see as the GOP nominee?
In prior posts, I have written of how I believe Newt Gingrich is the most intelligent GOP candidate, probably the most appropriately experienced, and, to paraphrase a Fox News Contributor, in a debate he'd 'make Obama wish he'd never left Chicago.'
But conservative friends of my age share my concerns over Newt's ego, ethical issues, and multiple marriages, with infidelities apparently leading from one to the next. Character does matter, and Newt's continues to be in question.
Never the less, here's Wall Street Journal columnist and editorial board member Dorothy Rabinowitz discussing why she believes Newt may yet be the GOP nominee for 2012.
If Newt's numbers among independents were in the same range as Romney's, then I'd clearly support Gingrich.
The past two weeks have seen Cain engulfed in a flurry of sexual harassment charges, mostly by anonymous women. Frankly, the lateness of the charges- some 14 years or so after the alleged fact- and the anonymity of several of the women, make them less credible, in my opinion. And most people with business experience understand that there is a sort of cottage industry in people getting small- to medium-sized settlements for making unsubstantiated allegations go away, rather than cost an organization much more in legal fees.
If Cain becomes severely wounded by these allegations, e.g., even one becomes a confirmed instance, in direct contradiction to Cain's assertions last night, he's finished.
Who would I then like to see as the GOP nominee?
In prior posts, I have written of how I believe Newt Gingrich is the most intelligent GOP candidate, probably the most appropriately experienced, and, to paraphrase a Fox News Contributor, in a debate he'd 'make Obama wish he'd never left Chicago.'
But conservative friends of my age share my concerns over Newt's ego, ethical issues, and multiple marriages, with infidelities apparently leading from one to the next. Character does matter, and Newt's continues to be in question.
Never the less, here's Wall Street Journal columnist and editorial board member Dorothy Rabinowitz discussing why she believes Newt may yet be the GOP nominee for 2012.
If Newt's numbers among independents were in the same range as Romney's, then I'd clearly support Gingrich.
Thursday, October 27, 2011
Rick Perry's Tax Plan & Tax Reform Scoring
GOP presidential candidate Rick Perry unveiled his tax reform plan earlier this week to mixed reviews.
Conservatives and Republicans appreciate that, regardless of how Perry's plan differs from Herman Cain's, two candidates are now "all in" on promising to send rather substantial tax code reform plans to Congress, should they defeat Wonderboy next November.
Perry's plan, unsurprisingly, is far more timid than Cain's. First, Perry would allow filers to choose which of two approaches- his new postcard-style tax form, or the current 1040, to use. This will not reduce IRS staff and taxpayer effort but, rather, increase it. Much like filing joint or separate, giving taxpayers a choice typically means they must calculate their tax liabilities under both methods. I don't know whether Perry's plan allows the choice each year, or whether, once in the new system, they can't return- pun intended- to the old approach.
Beyond that, the plan lowers tax rates, removes some preference items, but leaves others intact.
It's more complicated than Cain's plan, but at least it's a nod in the direction of doing something more than tinker with only rates.
Of course pundits immediately jumped all over Perry for the 'cost' of the plan. That is, observers are quick to cite one or another of several little-known, presumably-independent think tanks which have ostensibly estimated how much tax revenue the proposal will generate, versus existing revenue collections.
There's a problem with that, however. And a recent Wall Street Journal editorial by Martin Feldstein highlighted it. Depending upon the baseline data used, and assumptions generated from them, new tax rate plans have significantly different impacts on revenue collection.
Feldstein noted how his own analysis of post-1986 tax reform returns demonstrated real behavior change by taxpayers. And, thus how vital it is that dynamic scoring be used for analyzing new tax reform plans. Such scoring, of course, is subject to assumptions regarding how taxpayer behavior will change in response to rate and other changes, i.e., the coefficients which govern how much more money may be earned, and taxed, when rates decline, and vice-versa.
Do any of my readers know which think tanks scored Cain's or Perry's plan? I don't as I sit writing this post. Even if I did, I can't say I'm familiar with the specific methods any of them employ. Do they use dynamic scoring?
Since the CBO, unbelievably, still won't use dynamic scoring, it's unlikely any of the think tanks do, either.
Which is why I basically ignore their claims, and the claims of the candidates based upon the think tank evaluations. Unless, of course, the candidate or the think tank come forward with specific details on the scoring of the tax reform plan.
But here's another angle on these GOP tax reform plans.
Why don't the candidates emphasize that their reforms are what they would propose, but they understand that Congress must actually pass the final legislation. Therefore, they expect Congress to change their plan, and, thus, the scoring will change, too. So there's really little point in getting all excited about the revenue-neutrality scoring of any reform plan that is destined to be changed anyway.
For example, Cain's 9-9-9 plan would almost certainly have an income-level exemption for its sales tax. Who knows what would be done to Perry's more complicated plan?
So why don't these candidates wise up and just acknowledge that their proposals indicate their intentions, but they don't honestly expect the plans to pass Congress unchanged.
Conservatives and Republicans appreciate that, regardless of how Perry's plan differs from Herman Cain's, two candidates are now "all in" on promising to send rather substantial tax code reform plans to Congress, should they defeat Wonderboy next November.
Perry's plan, unsurprisingly, is far more timid than Cain's. First, Perry would allow filers to choose which of two approaches- his new postcard-style tax form, or the current 1040, to use. This will not reduce IRS staff and taxpayer effort but, rather, increase it. Much like filing joint or separate, giving taxpayers a choice typically means they must calculate their tax liabilities under both methods. I don't know whether Perry's plan allows the choice each year, or whether, once in the new system, they can't return- pun intended- to the old approach.
Beyond that, the plan lowers tax rates, removes some preference items, but leaves others intact.
It's more complicated than Cain's plan, but at least it's a nod in the direction of doing something more than tinker with only rates.
Of course pundits immediately jumped all over Perry for the 'cost' of the plan. That is, observers are quick to cite one or another of several little-known, presumably-independent think tanks which have ostensibly estimated how much tax revenue the proposal will generate, versus existing revenue collections.
There's a problem with that, however. And a recent Wall Street Journal editorial by Martin Feldstein highlighted it. Depending upon the baseline data used, and assumptions generated from them, new tax rate plans have significantly different impacts on revenue collection.
Feldstein noted how his own analysis of post-1986 tax reform returns demonstrated real behavior change by taxpayers. And, thus how vital it is that dynamic scoring be used for analyzing new tax reform plans. Such scoring, of course, is subject to assumptions regarding how taxpayer behavior will change in response to rate and other changes, i.e., the coefficients which govern how much more money may be earned, and taxed, when rates decline, and vice-versa.
Do any of my readers know which think tanks scored Cain's or Perry's plan? I don't as I sit writing this post. Even if I did, I can't say I'm familiar with the specific methods any of them employ. Do they use dynamic scoring?
Since the CBO, unbelievably, still won't use dynamic scoring, it's unlikely any of the think tanks do, either.
Which is why I basically ignore their claims, and the claims of the candidates based upon the think tank evaluations. Unless, of course, the candidate or the think tank come forward with specific details on the scoring of the tax reform plan.
But here's another angle on these GOP tax reform plans.
Why don't the candidates emphasize that their reforms are what they would propose, but they understand that Congress must actually pass the final legislation. Therefore, they expect Congress to change their plan, and, thus, the scoring will change, too. So there's really little point in getting all excited about the revenue-neutrality scoring of any reform plan that is destined to be changed anyway.
For example, Cain's 9-9-9 plan would almost certainly have an income-level exemption for its sales tax. Who knows what would be done to Perry's more complicated plan?
So why don't these candidates wise up and just acknowledge that their proposals indicate their intentions, but they don't honestly expect the plans to pass Congress unchanged.
Monday, October 24, 2011
Peggy Noonan Commenting On GOP Presidential Events
I was a bit horrified to read Peggy Noonan's weekend Wall Street Journal piece extolling the combative faux-debates in which GOP presidential candidates have been attacking each other.
Noonan seems oblivious to the damage these sessions do to all the candidates, and the ammunition they provide to Wonderboy's campaign staffers.
As I noted in my prior post, the RNC should have gotten out in front of this disturbing and destructive trend back in the spring of this year. As so-called debates, which really are not any such thing, have become the new political reality television entertainment, and only the GOP is playing, the potential for lasting damage to the party's eventual nominee is huge.
Let's be clear- what's really important is for the GOP nominee to win independent and, in the case of Herman Cain, black votes. To dwell on the attacks of 8 or 9 candidates, representing less than 10 votes, on each other, is to miss the point. The RNC should be soliciting networks to provide formats in which independent and registered Republicans can directly question the candidates. Those millions of votes are what count- not the opinions of other candidates.
Focusing on having candidates tear each other apart is a thinly-veiled insult to voters' intelligence, because it suggests that those voters don't know what is important to themselves, nor how to examine each candidate's positions.
I don't know what Noonan was thinking when she wrote that post. Her old boss, Ronald Reagan, would, it seems, have not approved.
Noonan seems oblivious to the damage these sessions do to all the candidates, and the ammunition they provide to Wonderboy's campaign staffers.
As I noted in my prior post, the RNC should have gotten out in front of this disturbing and destructive trend back in the spring of this year. As so-called debates, which really are not any such thing, have become the new political reality television entertainment, and only the GOP is playing, the potential for lasting damage to the party's eventual nominee is huge.
Let's be clear- what's really important is for the GOP nominee to win independent and, in the case of Herman Cain, black votes. To dwell on the attacks of 8 or 9 candidates, representing less than 10 votes, on each other, is to miss the point. The RNC should be soliciting networks to provide formats in which independent and registered Republicans can directly question the candidates. Those millions of votes are what count- not the opinions of other candidates.
Focusing on having candidates tear each other apart is a thinly-veiled insult to voters' intelligence, because it suggests that those voters don't know what is important to themselves, nor how to examine each candidate's positions.
I don't know what Noonan was thinking when she wrote that post. Her old boss, Ronald Reagan, would, it seems, have not approved.
Wednesday, October 12, 2011
The Bloomberg GOP Presidential Candidates' Economics Debate
I managed to watch the first minute or so of Bloomberg's GOP candidates' debate last night, and a little bit more. Mostly to see how disappointing it would be.
Sad to say, my expectations were met, and in some ways, exceeded. I was very disappointed.
As I feared, Charlie Rose, who is looking pretty old and decrepit these days, gave his trademark hound dog look and faux-gravitas tone of voice, then asked Herman Cain what he would do as president to solve the nation's economic problems.
As I listened to Rose's trite question, and Cain's pat '9-9-9' reply, I realized the futility of these sorts of so-called debates.
Bloomberg made a big deal out of declaring that it would have 40 analysts beavering away in real time to uncover flip-flops, lies, or false claims.
Then the first question out of the gate is a straw man question. Isn't it not just ironic, but pointless, to ask a GOP presidential candidate a question which assumes a president has the power to just dictate what he wants, on the day that Wonderboy's own party, which controls the Senate, can't and won't pass his jobs bill?
Despite Bloomberg's various anchors going on and on all day about how the round table format would be so groundbreaking, it changed nothing. Just more silly grasping at anything to look different.
As I surfed between the American League baseball playoff game between Detroit and Texas, and O'Reilly's Factor program from Boston, I heard Rick Santorum fumble the question about economic development in his hometown. How he contended that, sure, all those lost jobs could return.
Nonsense.
That's when it hit me how futile this Bloomberg event was on another dimension. Of the eight candidates at the big round table, only Cain and Romney had actually run businesses. Gingrich, Perry, Bachmann, Santorum, Paul and Huntsman have not, to my knowledge. Huntsman may have worked in his father's business, but he doesn't present himself as a businessman but, rather, a former governor and ambassador to China.
Thus the bulk of the field really can't speak 'off the cuff' about business or economics specifics.
This brought me to my next realization. We're not electing a chief economist or chief business cheerleader. We're electing a president.
And, by the way, only Keynesians would think that it makes sense to have a debate among presidential candidates just about economics, with warnings that they 'want specifics.'
Because non-Keynesians, such as followers of the Austrian school of economics, and/or Milton Friedman, don't believe in government intervention. Thus, no economic details beyond lower tax rates, an overhauled tax code, and less regulatory interference, would be appropriate or forthcoming from this group of eight.
Which is pretty much what every candidate said.
But that doesn't make for a very exciting, nor long so-called debate, does it?
What did get really tiring was hearing Huntsman, Romney, Perry and Bachmann continually using terms like 'innovation,' 'innovators,' small businessmen,' and the like. I wish Bloomberg's moderators- yes, there were two others who were equally ineffectual as Rose- would have banned the use of those terms.
Sadly, when in doubt, every GOP candidate begins to sing the praises of something and someone about which they know very little from experience- innovation and business risk-taking.
So why don't they just shut up and leave it to the people who do it?
I tuned back in around 9PM, halfway through the event, only to learn that the next segment was to be a round robin of each candidate asking another candidate questions- something in which I have zero interest. So I Tivoed the remainder of the event and went back to Detroit vs. Texas.
From what I did see, there were three incidents of note.
The first was Gingrich's forceful criticism of Bloomberg and all media for turning a blind eye to government officials whose behavior brought about the financial crisis. He named names- Dodd, Frank, Geithner and Bernanke. When Charlie Rose, with a bewildered, stunned look, suggested that Gingrich wasn't talking about criminal investigations, the former Speaker shot back that he was indeed suggesting precisely that.
Then Ron Paul weighed in against Bernanke, as well. If Helicopter Ben had been in Spaulding Hall, he'd have been lynched.
Which reminds me of another notable incident. Huntsman derided Cain's 9-9-9 plan, saying he thought it had come off the top of a pizza box. The camera cut to Cain, whose tight-lipped expression dripped silent rage. To be truthful, Huntsman tone and wording suggested, to me, a vague undertone of racism.
Finally, Romney had a weird reaction to a question regarding what he would do if faced with a 2013 European financial meltdown which affected the US. Instead of answering the question, Mitt went two rounds with the moderator claiming that hypotheticals made no sense and he couldn't answer one. He looked weak and confused, as if buying himself time, because after berating the questioner a couple of times, he then launched into what he wouldn't do- bail out individual banks and car companies. Big deal. Thanks Mitt, I never could have figured that one out.
But the Mitt question brought to mind what the format probably should have been. Each candidate onstage with three economic advisors of their choosing. Then a hypothetical or real economic challenge would be read, and each team would have ten minutes to huddle and produce a response.
Bad television, but more realistic simulation of how a sitting president works. We simply don't have choices among perfect, omniscient candidates. They all rely on teams of advisors more specialized than the president. Why go through a pointless exercise in forcing someone like Bachmann or Santorum to try to fabricate detailed economic policies alone in two minutes with the cameras on them?
So, from what I saw among the samples of the first hour, the Bloomberg event was pretty much what I expected- nothing new or remarkable. But it did help me realize the utter futility of asking a bunch of largely free-market presidential candidates to spend two hours discussing, in detail, how, if they were president, they would use the federal government as a Keynesian force in the US economy.
What people really want is to learn more about how these candidates would lead and govern. And governing means working with and through Congress and the states- not just assuming that whatever they say they want to do will magically pass. Voters want to get a sense of values and candor from the candidates, as well as general stands on a wide range of key issues. Not an instant detailed economic plan from a candidate who isn't an economics PhD.
Poor planning and strategy on Bloomberg's part. Poor choice of moderators. Poor choice of format.
Sad to say, my expectations were met, and in some ways, exceeded. I was very disappointed.
As I feared, Charlie Rose, who is looking pretty old and decrepit these days, gave his trademark hound dog look and faux-gravitas tone of voice, then asked Herman Cain what he would do as president to solve the nation's economic problems.
As I listened to Rose's trite question, and Cain's pat '9-9-9' reply, I realized the futility of these sorts of so-called debates.
Bloomberg made a big deal out of declaring that it would have 40 analysts beavering away in real time to uncover flip-flops, lies, or false claims.
Then the first question out of the gate is a straw man question. Isn't it not just ironic, but pointless, to ask a GOP presidential candidate a question which assumes a president has the power to just dictate what he wants, on the day that Wonderboy's own party, which controls the Senate, can't and won't pass his jobs bill?
Despite Bloomberg's various anchors going on and on all day about how the round table format would be so groundbreaking, it changed nothing. Just more silly grasping at anything to look different.
As I surfed between the American League baseball playoff game between Detroit and Texas, and O'Reilly's Factor program from Boston, I heard Rick Santorum fumble the question about economic development in his hometown. How he contended that, sure, all those lost jobs could return.
Nonsense.
That's when it hit me how futile this Bloomberg event was on another dimension. Of the eight candidates at the big round table, only Cain and Romney had actually run businesses. Gingrich, Perry, Bachmann, Santorum, Paul and Huntsman have not, to my knowledge. Huntsman may have worked in his father's business, but he doesn't present himself as a businessman but, rather, a former governor and ambassador to China.
Thus the bulk of the field really can't speak 'off the cuff' about business or economics specifics.
This brought me to my next realization. We're not electing a chief economist or chief business cheerleader. We're electing a president.
And, by the way, only Keynesians would think that it makes sense to have a debate among presidential candidates just about economics, with warnings that they 'want specifics.'
Because non-Keynesians, such as followers of the Austrian school of economics, and/or Milton Friedman, don't believe in government intervention. Thus, no economic details beyond lower tax rates, an overhauled tax code, and less regulatory interference, would be appropriate or forthcoming from this group of eight.
Which is pretty much what every candidate said.
But that doesn't make for a very exciting, nor long so-called debate, does it?
What did get really tiring was hearing Huntsman, Romney, Perry and Bachmann continually using terms like 'innovation,' 'innovators,' small businessmen,' and the like. I wish Bloomberg's moderators- yes, there were two others who were equally ineffectual as Rose- would have banned the use of those terms.
Sadly, when in doubt, every GOP candidate begins to sing the praises of something and someone about which they know very little from experience- innovation and business risk-taking.
So why don't they just shut up and leave it to the people who do it?
I tuned back in around 9PM, halfway through the event, only to learn that the next segment was to be a round robin of each candidate asking another candidate questions- something in which I have zero interest. So I Tivoed the remainder of the event and went back to Detroit vs. Texas.
From what I did see, there were three incidents of note.
The first was Gingrich's forceful criticism of Bloomberg and all media for turning a blind eye to government officials whose behavior brought about the financial crisis. He named names- Dodd, Frank, Geithner and Bernanke. When Charlie Rose, with a bewildered, stunned look, suggested that Gingrich wasn't talking about criminal investigations, the former Speaker shot back that he was indeed suggesting precisely that.
Then Ron Paul weighed in against Bernanke, as well. If Helicopter Ben had been in Spaulding Hall, he'd have been lynched.
Which reminds me of another notable incident. Huntsman derided Cain's 9-9-9 plan, saying he thought it had come off the top of a pizza box. The camera cut to Cain, whose tight-lipped expression dripped silent rage. To be truthful, Huntsman tone and wording suggested, to me, a vague undertone of racism.
Finally, Romney had a weird reaction to a question regarding what he would do if faced with a 2013 European financial meltdown which affected the US. Instead of answering the question, Mitt went two rounds with the moderator claiming that hypotheticals made no sense and he couldn't answer one. He looked weak and confused, as if buying himself time, because after berating the questioner a couple of times, he then launched into what he wouldn't do- bail out individual banks and car companies. Big deal. Thanks Mitt, I never could have figured that one out.
But the Mitt question brought to mind what the format probably should have been. Each candidate onstage with three economic advisors of their choosing. Then a hypothetical or real economic challenge would be read, and each team would have ten minutes to huddle and produce a response.
Bad television, but more realistic simulation of how a sitting president works. We simply don't have choices among perfect, omniscient candidates. They all rely on teams of advisors more specialized than the president. Why go through a pointless exercise in forcing someone like Bachmann or Santorum to try to fabricate detailed economic policies alone in two minutes with the cameras on them?
So, from what I saw among the samples of the first hour, the Bloomberg event was pretty much what I expected- nothing new or remarkable. But it did help me realize the utter futility of asking a bunch of largely free-market presidential candidates to spend two hours discussing, in detail, how, if they were president, they would use the federal government as a Keynesian force in the US economy.
What people really want is to learn more about how these candidates would lead and govern. And governing means working with and through Congress and the states- not just assuming that whatever they say they want to do will magically pass. Voters want to get a sense of values and candor from the candidates, as well as general stands on a wide range of key issues. Not an instant detailed economic plan from a candidate who isn't an economics PhD.
Poor planning and strategy on Bloomberg's part. Poor choice of moderators. Poor choice of format.
Monday, October 10, 2011
Cain's Threat To Wonderboy's Base
No less an accomplished black journalist than the Wall Street Journal's Jason Riley, a member of its editorial board, wrote a provocative editorial in last Friday's edition of the paper, entitled Cain's Post-Racial Promise.
Writing of Cain, who is unabashedly not a victim, and harbors no acrimony toward America for racial discrimination as experienced in his youth, Riley explained,
"Black individuals who don't see themselves primarily as victims are a threat to the political left, which helps explain why MSNBC commentators have derided Mr. Cain as a token and why Jon Stewart has mocked him in tones that evoke Amos 'n' Andy or Stepin Fetchit. To secure political victories, Democrats need blacks to vote for them in unison. Independent thinking cannot be tolerated.
No one is hoping more than the White House that Mr. Cain fades away. If he doesn't, Mr. Obama's fear of Mr. Romney winning independent voters next year could turn into a fear of Mr. Cain peeling away black support. Black enthusiasm for the president remains high but has slipped in recent months, and a black alternative to Mr. Obama is not a scenario that Democrats would welcome."
Quite an analysis coming from a black who doesn't even bother with the phrase "African American."
Never the less, I believe the people who are warming to Cain do so only because of his accomplishments and attitudes, not his race. Thus making him doubly-dangerous to Wonderboy.
Imagine seeing both independents and a substantial percentage of black voters desert the president for Cain, enabling the latter to sweep into the White House by a double-digit margin.
Let me add to my thoughts regarding my endorsement of Cain in this recent post. Beyond my list of reasons why I find each other GOP candidate lacking, there's also this simple approach.
Who would I prefer in the following one-on-one matchups?
Romney-Cain: Cain
Perry-Cain: Cain
Bachmann-Cain: Cain
In each case, Cain has attributes I prefer over the other candidate, while typically sharing some positive ones.
For example, he can match Romney and Perry for gubernatorial executive experience, and probably raise Romney on the type of business experience he has.
Cain shares Bachmann's outsider, Tea-Party-esque views, but trumps her on.....executive experience.
Then there's Romney's suspicious flexibility on issues which he discovers are suddenly important. He's less than convincing as a latecomer Tea Party enthusiast. He authored RomneyCare, yet won't just admit it was a mistake.
By contrast, Cain comes to politics with a clean slate and an impressive life story.
And, now we have a respected conservative black journalist suggesting that Cain will be Wonderboy's worst nightmare as the GOP presidential nominee.
That's another big reason to seriously consider Cain for the job.
Writing of Cain, who is unabashedly not a victim, and harbors no acrimony toward America for racial discrimination as experienced in his youth, Riley explained,
"Black individuals who don't see themselves primarily as victims are a threat to the political left, which helps explain why MSNBC commentators have derided Mr. Cain as a token and why Jon Stewart has mocked him in tones that evoke Amos 'n' Andy or Stepin Fetchit. To secure political victories, Democrats need blacks to vote for them in unison. Independent thinking cannot be tolerated.
No one is hoping more than the White House that Mr. Cain fades away. If he doesn't, Mr. Obama's fear of Mr. Romney winning independent voters next year could turn into a fear of Mr. Cain peeling away black support. Black enthusiasm for the president remains high but has slipped in recent months, and a black alternative to Mr. Obama is not a scenario that Democrats would welcome."
Quite an analysis coming from a black who doesn't even bother with the phrase "African American."
Never the less, I believe the people who are warming to Cain do so only because of his accomplishments and attitudes, not his race. Thus making him doubly-dangerous to Wonderboy.
Imagine seeing both independents and a substantial percentage of black voters desert the president for Cain, enabling the latter to sweep into the White House by a double-digit margin.
Let me add to my thoughts regarding my endorsement of Cain in this recent post. Beyond my list of reasons why I find each other GOP candidate lacking, there's also this simple approach.
Who would I prefer in the following one-on-one matchups?
Romney-Cain: Cain
Perry-Cain: Cain
Bachmann-Cain: Cain
In each case, Cain has attributes I prefer over the other candidate, while typically sharing some positive ones.
For example, he can match Romney and Perry for gubernatorial executive experience, and probably raise Romney on the type of business experience he has.
Cain shares Bachmann's outsider, Tea-Party-esque views, but trumps her on.....executive experience.
Then there's Romney's suspicious flexibility on issues which he discovers are suddenly important. He's less than convincing as a latecomer Tea Party enthusiast. He authored RomneyCare, yet won't just admit it was a mistake.
By contrast, Cain comes to politics with a clean slate and an impressive life story.
And, now we have a respected conservative black journalist suggesting that Cain will be Wonderboy's worst nightmare as the GOP presidential nominee.
That's another big reason to seriously consider Cain for the job.
Wednesday, October 5, 2011
The Paradox of Christie's Decision Not To Run for President
I find it ironic that Chris Christie's final announcement that he won't seek the presidency next year makes him that much more desirable in many voters' eyes.
In his speech today, he reiterated his sense of a need to fulfill his obligation to New Jersey's residents by completing his term and finishing the job he started. He said it wasn't yet his time.
For many voters, his commitment and sense of duty set him apart.
And if he had announced today that he had changed his mind, and decided to run, he would have been seen by many as simply expedient. Not to mention that he'd have reversed himself on a series of declarations that he was not running.
Which would make him less trustworthy.
So Christie's decision seemed to me to result in the height of irony.
In his speech today, he reiterated his sense of a need to fulfill his obligation to New Jersey's residents by completing his term and finishing the job he started. He said it wasn't yet his time.
For many voters, his commitment and sense of duty set him apart.
And if he had announced today that he had changed his mind, and decided to run, he would have been seen by many as simply expedient. Not to mention that he'd have reversed himself on a series of declarations that he was not running.
Which would make him less trustworthy.
So Christie's decision seemed to me to result in the height of irony.
Friday, September 30, 2011
Okay. Enough Already. I'm Endorsing Herman Cain
Daniel Henninger wrote this thought-provoking piece in his Wonderland column in yesterday's Wall Street Journal. I've reposted it in its entirety, except for videos and images.
You hear the same thing said about Herman Cain all the time: Herman Cain has some really interesting ideas, but . . .
I love Herman Cain, but . . .
But what?
But he can't win.
Why not?
At best, the answer has to do with that cloudy word "electability." Or that Mr. Cain has never held elected political office.
In 2004, Mr. Cain ran for the GOP's U.S. Senate nomination in Georgia. He lost to Johnny Isakson. Last weekend, Mr. Cain ran away with the Florida straw poll vote, winning with 37%. He torched both the "Southern" candidate, Rick Perry of Texas, who worked hard to win the vote, and Mitt Romney, who in 2008 campaigned everywhere in Florida.
The time is overdue to plumb the mystery of Herman Cain's "interesting, but" candidacy. Let's start at the top—in the top-tier candidacy of Mitt Romney.
Though he's got the governorship credential, Mr. Romney's emphasis in this campaign is on his private-sector experience. It's good, despite the knock on Bain Capital's business model. But measured by résumés, Herman Cain's looks deeper in terms of working on the private sector's front lines.
The details of his career path are worth knowing.
In the late 1970s, Mr. Cain was recruited from Coca-Cola in Atlanta, his first job in business, to work for Pillsbury in Minneapolis. His rise was rapid and well-regarded. He joined the company's restaurant and foods group in 1978 as director of business analysis. In the early 1980s, Pillsbury sent him to learn the hamburger business at a Burger King in Hopkins, Minn. Then they assigned him, at age 36, to revive Pillsbury's stumbling, franchise Burger King business in the Philadelphia region. He succeeded. According to a 1987 account in the Minneapolis Star Tribune, Pillsbury's then-president Win Wallin said: "He was an excellent bet. Herman always seemed to have his act together."
In 1986, Pillsbury sent the 41-year-old Mr. Cain to turn around their Godfather's Pizza business, headquartered in Omaha. The Herman Cain who arrived there April 1 sounded like the same man who roused voters last Sunday in Florida: "I'm Herman Cain and this ain't no April Fool's joke. We are not dead. Our objective is to prove to Pillsbury and everyone else that we will survive."
Pillsbury sold Godfather's to Mr. Cain and some of his managers in 1988. He ran it until 1996 and served as CEO of the National Restaurant Association from 1996-1999. This June, Mr. Cain visited with the Journal's editors and put the issue of health-insurance availability inside the context of the restaurant industry. He said the restaurant association tried hard to devise a health-insurance program able to serve the needs of an industry whose work force is complex—executives and managers, full-time workers, part-timers, students and so forth. Any conceivable insurance system would require great flexibility in plan-choice and design.
It's from this period that one finds the famous 1994 video, now on YouTube, of Herman Cain on a TV screen from Omaha debating Bill Clinton about his national health legislation during a town-hall meeting. After the president estimates the profitability of Mr. Cain's company, suggesting he can afford the legislation, Mr. Cain essentially dismantles the Clinton math, in detail. "The cost of your plan . . . will cause us to eliminate jobs."
None of this can be put across in the televised debates' explain-everything-in-30 seconds format. Nor is there any chance to elaborate his Sept. 7 debate remark that he admires Chile's private-public social security system. Or his flat-tax "9-9-9" proposal. (Or any of the candidates' policy ideas for that matter.) So voters get nothing, and Mr. Cain flounders.
When Mr. Cain talked to the Journal's editors, the most startling thing he said, and which he's been repeating lately, was that he could win one-third of the black vote. Seeing Herman Cain make his case to black audiences would be interesting, period. Years ago, describing his chauffeur father's influence on him in Atlanta, Mr. Cain said: "My father gave me a sense of pride. He was the best damn chauffeur. He knew it, and everybody else knew it." Here's guessing he'd get more of this vote than past GOP candidates.
Does a résumé like Herman Cain's add up to an American presidency? I used to think not. But after watching the American Idol system we've fallen into for discovering a president—with opinion polls, tongue slips and media caprice deciding front-runners and even presidents—I'm rewriting my presidential-selection software.
Conventional wisdom holds that this week's Chris Christie boomlet means the GOP is desperate for a savior. The reality is that, at some point, Republicans will have to start drilling deeper on their own into the candidates they've got.
Put it this way: The GOP nominee is running against the incumbent president. Unlike the incumbent, Herman Cain has at least twice identified the causes of a large failing enterprise, designed goals, achieved them, and by all accounts inspired the people he was supposed to lead. Not least, Mr. Cain's life experience suggests that, unlike the incumbent, he will adjust his ideas to reality.
Herman Cain is a credible candidate. Whether he deserves to be president is something voters will decide. But he deserves a serious look.
A couple of interesting points.
First, as Rick Scott noted on Fox News before the recent Florida debate, that state's GOP straw poll winner has gone on to win the nomination something like that for the last 3 election cycles. I forget the details, but Scott's point was attention-getting.
Second, I saw a black liberal Fox News Contributor last night on Bill O'Reilly's program call Cain racist for saying he can take one-third of the black votes in 2012. How rich, eh?
Third, Dennis Miller also endorsed Cain this week in one of his O'Reilly program segments. His comedy aside, Miller is typically blunt and on the question of Cain's foreign policy weakness, simply said, in effect, 'could he really be any worse than the guy we already have?'
On a more serious note, though, I do feel Cain is the GOP guy to support. At this point in the campaign, here is my reasoning.
Bachmann has self-destructed by virtue of her big mouth spitting out nonsense faster than her brain can stop it. She makes dumb factual errors in passionate moments, and it's gotten to be more than a nuisance. A liberal friend pointed out that, with Bachmann's lack of executive experience, if elected, she's likely to be surrounded and dominated by a cadre of strong ideologues. Like Wonderboy. And, says my friend, like W was. I disagreed about that, but it's what many believe, especially about W's foreign policy and the way he let Powell and Rice go soft on various rogue regimes.
Perry has proven he's not yet ready for prime time. It's not whether he knows foreign policy. To write that his pussy-footing on Social Security, after the correct and lucid 'Ponzi scheme' remark, was disappointing, is a gross understatement.
I still don't trust Romney. Over lunch yesterday with a very longtime, also libertarian friend, we agreed that Romney wouldn't be so suspect if he would just admit he made a mistake pushing RomneyCare in Massachusetts. That it is breaking that state's budget, and was badly designed. But, then, he'd have to admit that, as analyst-in-chief, which is Mitt's signature theme, he made a mistake.
So, then, you have to wonder whether he'll do a Britney Spears: Oops! I did it again!
Newt is smart and capable of defeating Wonderboy in a debate, but he's an ethically-challenged egomaniac. Doesn't really play well with others.
Huntsman is unexciting, suspect, for me, of simply being a rich man's son who's bought what he has accomplished. And he's more of a Democrat than a Republican on many issues.
Ron Paul is, while well-intentioned, a cranky nut-case. Sort of a much more right-wing McCain.
Rick Santorum, while earnest and smart, was a Senator. No executive experience, too hung up on rigid Catholicism (and I'm an ex-Catholic, so I would know). Like many Senators, good talker, suspect on getting the job done.
My major problem with Cain has been his total lack of political experience in office.
But, after reading Henninger, I'm reminded that, most importantly, like, say, Washington, Eisenhower and Lincoln (yes, I know, Lincoln had political experience. But not governing experience.), Cain has deep, rich life experience.
That's the biggest contrast between Herman Cain and Wonderboy.
And, for what it's worth, Lincoln was elected to captain, and led, a company of Illinois volunteers in the Blackhawk wars.
Then there's the race issue.
Personally, I always believed that America would elect the right black candidate as president when his/her race was not the issue, but his/her experience and qualifications were. Instead, we got the First Rookie, who basically was elected because nearly every black, and many guilt-ridden, middle-class white yuppie voters, who wanted to feel good about their morality and sense of fairness-by-repaying-slavery-with-electing-a-black.
Wonderboy has no serious life experience, and it shows.
Herman Cain, on the other hand, is a guy you'd support because of his accomplishments, irrespective of his race.
And, okay, I have to admit, how amazing would it be to watch Wonderboy have to debate and run against another of his own minority race, only older, wiser and with many more accomplishments? Where will the class warfare, hate and demonizing race rhetoric fit in for Obama in that election race? Pun intended.
And, finally, Cain seems to me to be the quintessential type of first black to earn the GOP presidential nomination. Lincoln's party nominates a man who rises to the task by virtue of his talent and determination, not on the basis of favors given him due to his race.
I believe that Cain's life experience, business experience and success, and overall common sense, put him above the rest of the GOP field running for president.
You hear the same thing said about Herman Cain all the time: Herman Cain has some really interesting ideas, but . . .
I love Herman Cain, but . . .
But what?
But he can't win.
Why not?
At best, the answer has to do with that cloudy word "electability." Or that Mr. Cain has never held elected political office.
In 2004, Mr. Cain ran for the GOP's U.S. Senate nomination in Georgia. He lost to Johnny Isakson. Last weekend, Mr. Cain ran away with the Florida straw poll vote, winning with 37%. He torched both the "Southern" candidate, Rick Perry of Texas, who worked hard to win the vote, and Mitt Romney, who in 2008 campaigned everywhere in Florida.
The time is overdue to plumb the mystery of Herman Cain's "interesting, but" candidacy. Let's start at the top—in the top-tier candidacy of Mitt Romney.
Though he's got the governorship credential, Mr. Romney's emphasis in this campaign is on his private-sector experience. It's good, despite the knock on Bain Capital's business model. But measured by résumés, Herman Cain's looks deeper in terms of working on the private sector's front lines.
The details of his career path are worth knowing.
In the late 1970s, Mr. Cain was recruited from Coca-Cola in Atlanta, his first job in business, to work for Pillsbury in Minneapolis. His rise was rapid and well-regarded. He joined the company's restaurant and foods group in 1978 as director of business analysis. In the early 1980s, Pillsbury sent him to learn the hamburger business at a Burger King in Hopkins, Minn. Then they assigned him, at age 36, to revive Pillsbury's stumbling, franchise Burger King business in the Philadelphia region. He succeeded. According to a 1987 account in the Minneapolis Star Tribune, Pillsbury's then-president Win Wallin said: "He was an excellent bet. Herman always seemed to have his act together."
In 1986, Pillsbury sent the 41-year-old Mr. Cain to turn around their Godfather's Pizza business, headquartered in Omaha. The Herman Cain who arrived there April 1 sounded like the same man who roused voters last Sunday in Florida: "I'm Herman Cain and this ain't no April Fool's joke. We are not dead. Our objective is to prove to Pillsbury and everyone else that we will survive."
Pillsbury sold Godfather's to Mr. Cain and some of his managers in 1988. He ran it until 1996 and served as CEO of the National Restaurant Association from 1996-1999. This June, Mr. Cain visited with the Journal's editors and put the issue of health-insurance availability inside the context of the restaurant industry. He said the restaurant association tried hard to devise a health-insurance program able to serve the needs of an industry whose work force is complex—executives and managers, full-time workers, part-timers, students and so forth. Any conceivable insurance system would require great flexibility in plan-choice and design.
It's from this period that one finds the famous 1994 video, now on YouTube, of Herman Cain on a TV screen from Omaha debating Bill Clinton about his national health legislation during a town-hall meeting. After the president estimates the profitability of Mr. Cain's company, suggesting he can afford the legislation, Mr. Cain essentially dismantles the Clinton math, in detail. "The cost of your plan . . . will cause us to eliminate jobs."
None of this can be put across in the televised debates' explain-everything-in-30 seconds format. Nor is there any chance to elaborate his Sept. 7 debate remark that he admires Chile's private-public social security system. Or his flat-tax "9-9-9" proposal. (Or any of the candidates' policy ideas for that matter.) So voters get nothing, and Mr. Cain flounders.
When Mr. Cain talked to the Journal's editors, the most startling thing he said, and which he's been repeating lately, was that he could win one-third of the black vote. Seeing Herman Cain make his case to black audiences would be interesting, period. Years ago, describing his chauffeur father's influence on him in Atlanta, Mr. Cain said: "My father gave me a sense of pride. He was the best damn chauffeur. He knew it, and everybody else knew it." Here's guessing he'd get more of this vote than past GOP candidates.
Does a résumé like Herman Cain's add up to an American presidency? I used to think not. But after watching the American Idol system we've fallen into for discovering a president—with opinion polls, tongue slips and media caprice deciding front-runners and even presidents—I'm rewriting my presidential-selection software.
Conventional wisdom holds that this week's Chris Christie boomlet means the GOP is desperate for a savior. The reality is that, at some point, Republicans will have to start drilling deeper on their own into the candidates they've got.
Put it this way: The GOP nominee is running against the incumbent president. Unlike the incumbent, Herman Cain has at least twice identified the causes of a large failing enterprise, designed goals, achieved them, and by all accounts inspired the people he was supposed to lead. Not least, Mr. Cain's life experience suggests that, unlike the incumbent, he will adjust his ideas to reality.
Herman Cain is a credible candidate. Whether he deserves to be president is something voters will decide. But he deserves a serious look.
A couple of interesting points.
First, as Rick Scott noted on Fox News before the recent Florida debate, that state's GOP straw poll winner has gone on to win the nomination something like that for the last 3 election cycles. I forget the details, but Scott's point was attention-getting.
Second, I saw a black liberal Fox News Contributor last night on Bill O'Reilly's program call Cain racist for saying he can take one-third of the black votes in 2012. How rich, eh?
Third, Dennis Miller also endorsed Cain this week in one of his O'Reilly program segments. His comedy aside, Miller is typically blunt and on the question of Cain's foreign policy weakness, simply said, in effect, 'could he really be any worse than the guy we already have?'
On a more serious note, though, I do feel Cain is the GOP guy to support. At this point in the campaign, here is my reasoning.
Bachmann has self-destructed by virtue of her big mouth spitting out nonsense faster than her brain can stop it. She makes dumb factual errors in passionate moments, and it's gotten to be more than a nuisance. A liberal friend pointed out that, with Bachmann's lack of executive experience, if elected, she's likely to be surrounded and dominated by a cadre of strong ideologues. Like Wonderboy. And, says my friend, like W was. I disagreed about that, but it's what many believe, especially about W's foreign policy and the way he let Powell and Rice go soft on various rogue regimes.
Perry has proven he's not yet ready for prime time. It's not whether he knows foreign policy. To write that his pussy-footing on Social Security, after the correct and lucid 'Ponzi scheme' remark, was disappointing, is a gross understatement.
I still don't trust Romney. Over lunch yesterday with a very longtime, also libertarian friend, we agreed that Romney wouldn't be so suspect if he would just admit he made a mistake pushing RomneyCare in Massachusetts. That it is breaking that state's budget, and was badly designed. But, then, he'd have to admit that, as analyst-in-chief, which is Mitt's signature theme, he made a mistake.
So, then, you have to wonder whether he'll do a Britney Spears: Oops! I did it again!
Newt is smart and capable of defeating Wonderboy in a debate, but he's an ethically-challenged egomaniac. Doesn't really play well with others.
Huntsman is unexciting, suspect, for me, of simply being a rich man's son who's bought what he has accomplished. And he's more of a Democrat than a Republican on many issues.
Ron Paul is, while well-intentioned, a cranky nut-case. Sort of a much more right-wing McCain.
Rick Santorum, while earnest and smart, was a Senator. No executive experience, too hung up on rigid Catholicism (and I'm an ex-Catholic, so I would know). Like many Senators, good talker, suspect on getting the job done.
My major problem with Cain has been his total lack of political experience in office.
But, after reading Henninger, I'm reminded that, most importantly, like, say, Washington, Eisenhower and Lincoln (yes, I know, Lincoln had political experience. But not governing experience.), Cain has deep, rich life experience.
That's the biggest contrast between Herman Cain and Wonderboy.
And, for what it's worth, Lincoln was elected to captain, and led, a company of Illinois volunteers in the Blackhawk wars.
Then there's the race issue.
Personally, I always believed that America would elect the right black candidate as president when his/her race was not the issue, but his/her experience and qualifications were. Instead, we got the First Rookie, who basically was elected because nearly every black, and many guilt-ridden, middle-class white yuppie voters, who wanted to feel good about their morality and sense of fairness-by-repaying-slavery-with-electing-a-black.
Wonderboy has no serious life experience, and it shows.
Herman Cain, on the other hand, is a guy you'd support because of his accomplishments, irrespective of his race.
And, okay, I have to admit, how amazing would it be to watch Wonderboy have to debate and run against another of his own minority race, only older, wiser and with many more accomplishments? Where will the class warfare, hate and demonizing race rhetoric fit in for Obama in that election race? Pun intended.
And, finally, Cain seems to me to be the quintessential type of first black to earn the GOP presidential nomination. Lincoln's party nominates a man who rises to the task by virtue of his talent and determination, not on the basis of favors given him due to his race.
I believe that Cain's life experience, business experience and success, and overall common sense, put him above the rest of the GOP field running for president.
Thursday, September 29, 2011
The Uneven Quality of Presidents
With all the hand wringing over the current field of GOP candidates for the 2012 presidential nomination, it's tempting to think this is new. That we're facing, for the first time ever, the prospect of a less-than-optimal president replacing an even worse one.
However, as I've written in earlier posts, ever since I voted in my first presidential election, in 1976, for Carter, I've rarely felt I was voting for the best candidate in the nation. Merely the better or best one on the ballot.
I really thought Carter could do the job, and was a worthy candidate. But, of course, he failed. In the next election, I didn't trust Reagan's intellect, so I voted for Anderson, who I didn't think was exactly presidential, but a safer choice than the other two.
I felt comfortable voting to re-elect Reagan, but didn't really think Bush senior, Dole, or Bush the younger were the best the party could have offered. Nor was I thrilled with McCain. He was cranky and over the hill.
Recalling the line of presidents from my youth, I don't think I'd have been particularly thrilled by any of the candidates except perhaps JFK, and probably Goldwater.
But, generally speaking, it's not like the US has had a steady succession of Washingtons and Lincolns for the past 50 or 100 years.
So, regardless of how much the left denigrates Perry, Romney or Bachmann, those candidates, along with Cain, Santorum, even Gingrich, are really no different in caliber than many of those who have held the office they seek.
Don't despair over the quality of the GOP candidate field. It's really no better, nor worse, than we've seen for decades.
However, as I've written in earlier posts, ever since I voted in my first presidential election, in 1976, for Carter, I've rarely felt I was voting for the best candidate in the nation. Merely the better or best one on the ballot.
I really thought Carter could do the job, and was a worthy candidate. But, of course, he failed. In the next election, I didn't trust Reagan's intellect, so I voted for Anderson, who I didn't think was exactly presidential, but a safer choice than the other two.
I felt comfortable voting to re-elect Reagan, but didn't really think Bush senior, Dole, or Bush the younger were the best the party could have offered. Nor was I thrilled with McCain. He was cranky and over the hill.
Recalling the line of presidents from my youth, I don't think I'd have been particularly thrilled by any of the candidates except perhaps JFK, and probably Goldwater.
But, generally speaking, it's not like the US has had a steady succession of Washingtons and Lincolns for the past 50 or 100 years.
So, regardless of how much the left denigrates Perry, Romney or Bachmann, those candidates, along with Cain, Santorum, even Gingrich, are really no different in caliber than many of those who have held the office they seek.
Don't despair over the quality of the GOP candidate field. It's really no better, nor worse, than we've seen for decades.
Tuesday, September 27, 2011
Regarding Chris Christie's Rumored Presidential Run
I had an impassioned call from a public union employee here in NJ this morning. She is concerned that,
"the anti-Christ is running for president."
Of course, she is referring to this week's rumors that NJ governor and enemy #1 of the state's public sector unions, Chris Christie, may be reconsidering his refusal to run for the GOP presidential nomination.
My friend then insisted that Christie is "never in New Jersey," which I immediately branded as a lie concocted by her union bosses. He may travel around the country to support fellow GOP officials, raise funds, and generally boost voter awareness of himself for some future presidential run. But that's not illegal. And my friend confessed to having no actual personal knowledge of Christie's calendar or travel schedule.
Further, I pointed out to her that, if she really believes her union's screeds against Christie, then she should be glad he might be elected out of his current office.
Then she contended that he "hates New Jersey." This, too, is, of course, a lie. The guy has ceaselessly explained that he ran for governor because he loves his home state and wanted to do what he could to save it from fiscal ruin.
But as to the recent rumors that he's now considering running in the GOP race for the presidential nomination, well, I don't think he's going to enter that race.
Is he tempted by Rick Perry's awful debate performances? Probably. And Perry's troubling off-the-cuff gaffes? Yes.
But don't think that the next Rick Perry won't be Chris Christie when it comes to gaffes. Not to mention Christie's own record.
Perry is a two-term governor of a state which has seen huge, if low-paying, job growth under his governorship.
When you think of Christie running for president, two words ought to come to mind:
Sarah Palin
Like the former Alaska governor, Christie has yet to complete a full term, let alone be re-elected. And his budgetary accomplishments, while important, are fairly modest so far. His fight with the teachers' union, while bearing fruit, isn't yet enough to solve New Jersey's $20B pension funding gap.
Everyone in New Jersey knows that, for Christie's public sector union pension and health care funding crusade to be complete, he has to take on the firefighters and police unions, too. Then get re-elected.
Christie has set New Jersey on a new, post-Corzine and -McGreavey course, but it's not yet enough to declare victory.
Then you have Christie's vulnerability, shared with Rick Perry, on foreign policy issues.
Personally, I think Christie is right to reject efforts to draft him. Even if Tom Kean is correct in saying Christie is reconsidering, I think the current governor will be making a big mistake if he decides, after all, to run for president.
"the anti-Christ is running for president."
Of course, she is referring to this week's rumors that NJ governor and enemy #1 of the state's public sector unions, Chris Christie, may be reconsidering his refusal to run for the GOP presidential nomination.
My friend then insisted that Christie is "never in New Jersey," which I immediately branded as a lie concocted by her union bosses. He may travel around the country to support fellow GOP officials, raise funds, and generally boost voter awareness of himself for some future presidential run. But that's not illegal. And my friend confessed to having no actual personal knowledge of Christie's calendar or travel schedule.
Further, I pointed out to her that, if she really believes her union's screeds against Christie, then she should be glad he might be elected out of his current office.
Then she contended that he "hates New Jersey." This, too, is, of course, a lie. The guy has ceaselessly explained that he ran for governor because he loves his home state and wanted to do what he could to save it from fiscal ruin.
But as to the recent rumors that he's now considering running in the GOP race for the presidential nomination, well, I don't think he's going to enter that race.
Is he tempted by Rick Perry's awful debate performances? Probably. And Perry's troubling off-the-cuff gaffes? Yes.
But don't think that the next Rick Perry won't be Chris Christie when it comes to gaffes. Not to mention Christie's own record.
Perry is a two-term governor of a state which has seen huge, if low-paying, job growth under his governorship.
When you think of Christie running for president, two words ought to come to mind:
Sarah Palin
Like the former Alaska governor, Christie has yet to complete a full term, let alone be re-elected. And his budgetary accomplishments, while important, are fairly modest so far. His fight with the teachers' union, while bearing fruit, isn't yet enough to solve New Jersey's $20B pension funding gap.
Everyone in New Jersey knows that, for Christie's public sector union pension and health care funding crusade to be complete, he has to take on the firefighters and police unions, too. Then get re-elected.
Christie has set New Jersey on a new, post-Corzine and -McGreavey course, but it's not yet enough to declare victory.
Then you have Christie's vulnerability, shared with Rick Perry, on foreign policy issues.
Personally, I think Christie is right to reject efforts to draft him. Even if Tom Kean is correct in saying Christie is reconsidering, I think the current governor will be making a big mistake if he decides, after all, to run for president.
Friday, September 23, 2011
Last Night's Fox News/Google Florida GOP Presidential Debate
I tried to watch last night's Fox News/Google debate from Florida. I really did. It didn't take more than, I think, five minutes before I was channel-surfing. The pace was just too sluggish for me.
God help me, I just can't take the tedious, repetitive questions and evasive answers anymore. If others can, more power to 'em.
No matter who sponsors these things, and what the allegedly ground-breaking format for cutting off run on self-promoting 'answers' and such, I typically watch the next day's Fox News and Bloomberg programs for a digest of the high points of the debate.
Last night, I actually fell asleep during the latter half of the program. At least I think I did. Evidently it was so boring there was no recency effect for my memory.
What I last recall of the debate was former governor Johnson answering a question involving something to do with spending. But the actual topic is unimportant.
What is important is how Johnson replied. He began off-topic. Completely off-topic. Something about promising to send a balanced 2013 budget to Congress. But what I quickly realized, because I've used the tactic myself in business meetings, was that he was thinking in background about his real reply while tossing up canned positions on a somewhat-related point, so that, about 20 seconds into a 60 second reply, he came around to what his mind had rapidly settled on as his answer. I remember this because his 'answer' was prefaced by a qualifier like 'somewhat' or 'options including.' Meaning he didn't really have an answer.
That was pretty much it for me. The last straw. And I don't mean poll.
I think what would be more meaningful to me would be something like the following. A network provides a weekly two-hour slot for its 'candidate of the week.' One of the GOP presidential hopefuls sits on a set with one or two moderators and answers questions from online feeds and a live audience. Moderators provide follow-up questions and/or fill in background on the candidate's prior remarks on the topic. Or contrast their stance with other candidates, etc.
And, for good measure, the original audience/online questioner gets a few minutes of give-and-take with the candidate, so if the latter evades the question, the questioner can complain about that and note it for everyone else.
I really don't care so much what Mitt thinks about Rick. Or what Newt thinks about anyone. Or what Rick (Santorum) does to try to look relevant.
In the end, I care more about how these people interact with prospective voters than how they fence with each other. I don't expect them to agree with each other, so what's the surprise in these bear-baiting formats?
God help me, I just can't take the tedious, repetitive questions and evasive answers anymore. If others can, more power to 'em.
No matter who sponsors these things, and what the allegedly ground-breaking format for cutting off run on self-promoting 'answers' and such, I typically watch the next day's Fox News and Bloomberg programs for a digest of the high points of the debate.
Last night, I actually fell asleep during the latter half of the program. At least I think I did. Evidently it was so boring there was no recency effect for my memory.
What I last recall of the debate was former governor Johnson answering a question involving something to do with spending. But the actual topic is unimportant.
What is important is how Johnson replied. He began off-topic. Completely off-topic. Something about promising to send a balanced 2013 budget to Congress. But what I quickly realized, because I've used the tactic myself in business meetings, was that he was thinking in background about his real reply while tossing up canned positions on a somewhat-related point, so that, about 20 seconds into a 60 second reply, he came around to what his mind had rapidly settled on as his answer. I remember this because his 'answer' was prefaced by a qualifier like 'somewhat' or 'options including.' Meaning he didn't really have an answer.
That was pretty much it for me. The last straw. And I don't mean poll.
I think what would be more meaningful to me would be something like the following. A network provides a weekly two-hour slot for its 'candidate of the week.' One of the GOP presidential hopefuls sits on a set with one or two moderators and answers questions from online feeds and a live audience. Moderators provide follow-up questions and/or fill in background on the candidate's prior remarks on the topic. Or contrast their stance with other candidates, etc.
And, for good measure, the original audience/online questioner gets a few minutes of give-and-take with the candidate, so if the latter evades the question, the questioner can complain about that and note it for everyone else.
I really don't care so much what Mitt thinks about Rick. Or what Newt thinks about anyone. Or what Rick (Santorum) does to try to look relevant.
In the end, I care more about how these people interact with prospective voters than how they fence with each other. I don't expect them to agree with each other, so what's the surprise in these bear-baiting formats?
Wednesday, September 14, 2011
Rick Perry's Texas Economy
I've been thinking recently about the comments would-be detractors have made concerning Governor Rick Perry's state's economy.
We know from various reports that Texas has created more jobs than any other single state in the past several years. Perhaps even the decade- I forget. And, more than any one state, I believe over a period of years, Texas has created more jobs than all other states combined.
It sounds like a really good story.
Then Democrats and Mitt Romney weighed in to say that those are low-wage jobs. Wonderboy's education secretary said he pities Texas kids for having to settle for such poor schooling.
Romney, in a recent debate, reminded Perry and viewers that Texas is blessed with gas and oil. Assets for which Rick Perry can take no credit.
Separately, a Texas university economist, while a guest on Tom Keene's noontime Bloomberg program, described the state's social safety net as 'thin.' Jobless benefits are low and of short duration. State spending on social benefits are, on the whole, low by national standards. And, yes, he said the jobs were, on average, low-paying by national standards, as well.
So we are left with the image of a large state which has coped with an enormous net inflow of residents, made the most of its energy resources, kept taxes and spending low, allowing for job creation which has absorbed the bulk of those new residents.
My question is, regardless of what credit Rick Perry does, or does not take for the Texas economy and employment situation, can and does the US, as a nation, want the Texan solution?
If Rick Perry replaced Wonderboy in the Oval Office tomorrow, what would he do to ignite job growth? Cut unemployment benefits? Social Security? Other entitlement spending?
Mind you, personally, I'm all for that. But I'm not sure that's what voters in Massachusetts, Illinois, California and other solidly blue states are expecting.
It's not clear to me that Rick Perry's Texas is a role model for employment strategies that we want to implement nationwide. In fact, regardless of Texas' spending on social programs, we really can't afford Texas-style employment nationwide.
It's not Rick Perry's fault that Texas is not home to more high-value-added, high-paying jobs. Financial service firms aren't chock-a-block in Austin, Dallas or Houston. Nor are many other large, white-collar sector employers which pay high compensation for high-value work.
Which, I think, means that Rick Perry's policies for facilitating job growth in Texas may not really matter much to the rest of the US, unless we are ready to implement, almost immediately, the drastic reduction of federal entitlement programs of which many speak, but none, save Paul Ryan, have really dared describe in detail.
That doesn't mean I wouldn't vote for Rick Perry. But it does mean I'd be cautious about believing he can transfer much of what has worked economically for Texas to the federal level very soon.
We know from various reports that Texas has created more jobs than any other single state in the past several years. Perhaps even the decade- I forget. And, more than any one state, I believe over a period of years, Texas has created more jobs than all other states combined.
It sounds like a really good story.
Then Democrats and Mitt Romney weighed in to say that those are low-wage jobs. Wonderboy's education secretary said he pities Texas kids for having to settle for such poor schooling.
Romney, in a recent debate, reminded Perry and viewers that Texas is blessed with gas and oil. Assets for which Rick Perry can take no credit.
Separately, a Texas university economist, while a guest on Tom Keene's noontime Bloomberg program, described the state's social safety net as 'thin.' Jobless benefits are low and of short duration. State spending on social benefits are, on the whole, low by national standards. And, yes, he said the jobs were, on average, low-paying by national standards, as well.
So we are left with the image of a large state which has coped with an enormous net inflow of residents, made the most of its energy resources, kept taxes and spending low, allowing for job creation which has absorbed the bulk of those new residents.
My question is, regardless of what credit Rick Perry does, or does not take for the Texas economy and employment situation, can and does the US, as a nation, want the Texan solution?
If Rick Perry replaced Wonderboy in the Oval Office tomorrow, what would he do to ignite job growth? Cut unemployment benefits? Social Security? Other entitlement spending?
Mind you, personally, I'm all for that. But I'm not sure that's what voters in Massachusetts, Illinois, California and other solidly blue states are expecting.
It's not clear to me that Rick Perry's Texas is a role model for employment strategies that we want to implement nationwide. In fact, regardless of Texas' spending on social programs, we really can't afford Texas-style employment nationwide.
It's not Rick Perry's fault that Texas is not home to more high-value-added, high-paying jobs. Financial service firms aren't chock-a-block in Austin, Dallas or Houston. Nor are many other large, white-collar sector employers which pay high compensation for high-value work.
Which, I think, means that Rick Perry's policies for facilitating job growth in Texas may not really matter much to the rest of the US, unless we are ready to implement, almost immediately, the drastic reduction of federal entitlement programs of which many speak, but none, save Paul Ryan, have really dared describe in detail.
That doesn't mean I wouldn't vote for Rick Perry. But it does mean I'd be cautious about believing he can transfer much of what has worked economically for Texas to the federal level very soon.
Thursday, September 8, 2011
Last Night's MSNBC GOP Presidential Debate
It took me a while to realize, by 8:30 last night, that I wasn't watching the GOP presidential candidates' debate. Quickly realizing it wasn't being hosted by/on Fox, I scanned the local public television and major broadcast networks. No luck. Nothing on CNN, either.
Then, in disbelief, I tried MSNBC and found it. I couldn't even name the guy I saw initially moderating, then I cringed when I saw liberal newscaster Brian Williams.
Suffice to say, between the self-serving answers of the candidates and what I assumed would be biased, nasty questions from the liberal hosts, I didn't linger long on the channel. Rather, I intended to view Fox and other networks today for post-analysis.
Sure enough, Michelle Malkin called into Fox News to provide a balanced review of the proceedings. I had missed a question someone asked which opened with,
'How can you sleep at night when.....?'
Malkin noted that Wonderboy would never be treated in that manner. She went on to compare the prior evening's debate with a Democratic candidate debate at a liberal Democratic Mecca, hosted by Fox featuring Rush Limbaugh and herself as moderators.
In effect, I don't think I missed much, nor did anyone else who failed to find the event.
Then, in disbelief, I tried MSNBC and found it. I couldn't even name the guy I saw initially moderating, then I cringed when I saw liberal newscaster Brian Williams.
Suffice to say, between the self-serving answers of the candidates and what I assumed would be biased, nasty questions from the liberal hosts, I didn't linger long on the channel. Rather, I intended to view Fox and other networks today for post-analysis.
Sure enough, Michelle Malkin called into Fox News to provide a balanced review of the proceedings. I had missed a question someone asked which opened with,
'How can you sleep at night when.....?'
Malkin noted that Wonderboy would never be treated in that manner. She went on to compare the prior evening's debate with a Democratic candidate debate at a liberal Democratic Mecca, hosted by Fox featuring Rush Limbaugh and herself as moderators.
In effect, I don't think I missed much, nor did anyone else who failed to find the event.
Friday, August 26, 2011
Rick Perry's Leap In The Polls
Rick Perry's surge past Mitt Romney in last week's GOP voter polls of presidential candidates stunned many observers. If I recall correctly, the former now leads the latter by nearly double digits.
By moving into the lead, Perry returns a spotlight to Texas, home of three former presidents. And, incidentally, a state which teaches creationism, rather than evolution.
I remember being similarly embarrassed when Mike Hickabee was leading GOP polls four years ago, and Arkansas, the state he governed, became known for the same weird educational doctrine.
How in the world, in this century, can any US state really be officially sanctioning the teaching of creationism? How is this possible?
It makes our country a laughingstock when we have serious presidential contenders who were the executives of states with this position on mankind's history. Not to mention makes you question the intellect and attitudes of people who were governors of such states.
By moving into the lead, Perry returns a spotlight to Texas, home of three former presidents. And, incidentally, a state which teaches creationism, rather than evolution.
I remember being similarly embarrassed when Mike Hickabee was leading GOP polls four years ago, and Arkansas, the state he governed, became known for the same weird educational doctrine.
How in the world, in this century, can any US state really be officially sanctioning the teaching of creationism? How is this possible?
It makes our country a laughingstock when we have serious presidential contenders who were the executives of states with this position on mankind's history. Not to mention makes you question the intellect and attitudes of people who were governors of such states.
Tuesday, August 23, 2011
Paul Ryan's Formal Refusal To Run for President
I was busy ferrying a friend from his car's dealership to his home last night, for which he bought me dinner. So I missed seeing any Fox News programs and, thus, also missed coverage of Wisconsin Congressman's official declaration that he won't be entering the GOP presidential race for 2012.
It wasn't until I read this morning's Wall Street Journal editorials that I learned of this recent development. In concert with that editorial's sentiments, I'm happy that Ryan plans to remain in the House, assuming he wins his district again next year (for the eighth time).
Much has been made of Ryan's articulate manner of explaining the necessity of entitlement and tax reforms. But, as we've seen from Wonderboy, there can be an actual loss of force in the Oval Office, whereas being a powerful committee chairman in the House or Senate can be a force multiplier, for good or bad.
In Ryan's case, were the Senate and/or Oval Office to be won by the GOP in 2012, he would definitely be able to extend his influence from his House position.
It's an irony of the American system that a Representative like Ryan has only to win a single district in order to be returned to the House and, if in the majority, have great effect on national policy. Even being a Senator means, for many states, a much more challenging and expensive campaign just to, again, be one of many in a legislature with not really a tremendously larger influence than a Representative, unless the Senate is split closely enough to make every Senator the potential 60th or 41st vote.
When I was growing up in central Illinois, both GOP Congressional leaders lived within 20 miles of me. Bob Michel was the ineffectual House GOP Minority leader, while Everett Dirksen had the same position in the Senate. Neither ever ran for president, but both had surprising influence as a result of holding fairly safe seats for decades in a then solidly-GOP downstate Illinois.
But running for and winning the White House is an entirely different matter. Especially when there is an incumbent, no matter how inept and unpopular. The requirements of running a national campaign is probably not where you want said candidate to get his/her executive experience. And that could well be what happens to Paul Ryan, were he to have acceded to the requests of the GOP fundraisers who tried to recruit him into the race.
As I wrote in an earlier post, I'm reminded of Texas Senator Phill Gramm's run for president in the post-Reagan era. Though he led in money raised, Gramm never escaped the so-called 'green eyeshade' image and a sense he was, as the Wall Street Journal put it, 'running for chief accountant, rather than president.'
Ryan infuses his fiscal messages with more moral and lifestyle content, but, down deep, it's still mostly about wonkish policy details that don't actually play well in presidential campaigns.
Perhaps a different power distribution post-2012 will provide more options for Congressman Ryan. More success in his efforts to actually reverse the growth of entitlement spending. Perhaps a VP slot or a return to Madison to follow Scott Walker as governor. Or perhaps Ryan will depart the political scene, once he's successfully accomplished his work on entitlements.
But the Journal editorial was, I think, correct to congratulate him on knowing his limits and choosing to avoid the temptation of a presidential campaign, no matter how much others wish he'd have agreed.
It wasn't until I read this morning's Wall Street Journal editorials that I learned of this recent development. In concert with that editorial's sentiments, I'm happy that Ryan plans to remain in the House, assuming he wins his district again next year (for the eighth time).
Much has been made of Ryan's articulate manner of explaining the necessity of entitlement and tax reforms. But, as we've seen from Wonderboy, there can be an actual loss of force in the Oval Office, whereas being a powerful committee chairman in the House or Senate can be a force multiplier, for good or bad.
In Ryan's case, were the Senate and/or Oval Office to be won by the GOP in 2012, he would definitely be able to extend his influence from his House position.
It's an irony of the American system that a Representative like Ryan has only to win a single district in order to be returned to the House and, if in the majority, have great effect on national policy. Even being a Senator means, for many states, a much more challenging and expensive campaign just to, again, be one of many in a legislature with not really a tremendously larger influence than a Representative, unless the Senate is split closely enough to make every Senator the potential 60th or 41st vote.
When I was growing up in central Illinois, both GOP Congressional leaders lived within 20 miles of me. Bob Michel was the ineffectual House GOP Minority leader, while Everett Dirksen had the same position in the Senate. Neither ever ran for president, but both had surprising influence as a result of holding fairly safe seats for decades in a then solidly-GOP downstate Illinois.
But running for and winning the White House is an entirely different matter. Especially when there is an incumbent, no matter how inept and unpopular. The requirements of running a national campaign is probably not where you want said candidate to get his/her executive experience. And that could well be what happens to Paul Ryan, were he to have acceded to the requests of the GOP fundraisers who tried to recruit him into the race.
As I wrote in an earlier post, I'm reminded of Texas Senator Phill Gramm's run for president in the post-Reagan era. Though he led in money raised, Gramm never escaped the so-called 'green eyeshade' image and a sense he was, as the Wall Street Journal put it, 'running for chief accountant, rather than president.'
Ryan infuses his fiscal messages with more moral and lifestyle content, but, down deep, it's still mostly about wonkish policy details that don't actually play well in presidential campaigns.
Perhaps a different power distribution post-2012 will provide more options for Congressman Ryan. More success in his efforts to actually reverse the growth of entitlement spending. Perhaps a VP slot or a return to Madison to follow Scott Walker as governor. Or perhaps Ryan will depart the political scene, once he's successfully accomplished his work on entitlements.
But the Journal editorial was, I think, correct to congratulate him on knowing his limits and choosing to avoid the temptation of a presidential campaign, no matter how much others wish he'd have agreed.
Tuesday, August 16, 2011
More Reservations About Michele Bachmann
My prior posts concerning Michele Bachmann (spelled incorrectly in the label) all mention her inexperience as an executive.
In my last post I repeated a concern, recently voiced by Dick Morris, that she risks being the conservative or Tea Party equivalent of Wonderboy- long on ideology, short on experience, and no willingness whatsoever to compromise- ever.
As I listened last night to various pundits on Fox News discuss the Iowa Straw Poll results, perhaps Bernie Goldberg's comments on Rick Perry's and Michele Bachmann's religiosity caused me to reflect anew on that strain of the Republican Party.
Goldberg's point was that, in the modern era of campaigning, no candidate can any longer expect to speak to just the audience in front of her/him. Stand-in hostess of Bill O'Reilly's program, conservative radio talk show maven Laura Ingraham, tried to excuse Bachmann's confused explanations regarding her 'submissive' comment by saying that she said it to a friendly church-going crowd.
Goldberg politely but persistently disagreed with Ingraham, noting that Iowa has a preponderance of Evangelical Christians, but that's not going to be true of the rest of the country, and, specifically, not of New Hampshire.
I think he's got a very important point.
For this election cycle, softer social issues are less likely to matter in unseating Wonderboy than clear, concise stands against larger government with more spending, and for a more vibrant private sector. Jobs aren't really the issue, so much as private sector investment and activity. Ideally, jobs will follow, but, really, how, where and when is something we really just have to leave to the private sector.
But Goldberg's point implies that by wearing her faith and religion on her sleeve, Bachmann is probably making a big mistake. And, more fundamentally, may simply be a really bad choice for GOP voters to make. Her insistence on making religion so prominent in her campaign is probably not a winning approach among independents.
Perry has ten years of gubernatorial experience with which to leaven his own religious focus. I don't personally agree with Dick Morris' semi-prediction that Perry will lose to Bachmann in Iowa, to Romney and Bachmann in New Hampshire, and win South Carolina but become a South-only candidate.
For me, considering what occurred in Iowa, then listening to critiques of Bachmann's actions, statements and attitudes in the past week or so, the real concern is that, somehow, the GOP may end up with the wrong presidential candidate. One who won't attract sufficient numbers of Tea Party-like independents.
Romney, everyone generally acknowledges, is soft on real fiscal conservatism. He gave Massachusetts RomneyCare, and now tries to paper over that gigantic mistake. Don't bet on him having true religion when it comes to Tea Party-style fiscal conservatism.
Perry is very populist in his orientation, but I can't stop thinking, as I listen to him, that the nation just isn't ready for another Texan Republican as president. Maybe unfair, but that's what I think.
I don't think Bachmann is really presidential material because she is so strident about her independent stands, while seeming incapable of articulating more productive solutions she would prefer. I suspect that, like Wonderboy, she's a better campaigner than she would be a president. She might even have difficulty with a Republican-controlled Senate and House which are not as far-right as she is.
Karl Rove mentioned that he's heard stories that Chris Christie and Paul Ryan have been so pressed by influential GOP moneymen that both have promised to reconsider their very public refusals to run for president.
Living in New Jersey, I have a close vantage point on Christie. I agree with his belief that he's not ready. He hasn't even cemented his accomplishments here, and makes the occasional public gaffe, like the now-infamous helicopter ride to his son's baseball game.
Paul Ryan is probably more than ready for the Oval Office. In the classic fashion of a manager who has grown into his boss' job, Ryan has done more presidential work as chair of the House Budget Committee than anyone else in Washington. My only concerns are losing him in the House if he loses the nomination and/or general election, and that he may succumb to the Phil Gramm disease. That is, the president is more than accountant-in-chief. Ryan's strengths look good right now, but when actually voting for president, he may look a little narrowly-described.
Then again, if Ryan can pull the independents away from Wonderboy, who really cares? He might be the guy.
In my last post I repeated a concern, recently voiced by Dick Morris, that she risks being the conservative or Tea Party equivalent of Wonderboy- long on ideology, short on experience, and no willingness whatsoever to compromise- ever.
As I listened last night to various pundits on Fox News discuss the Iowa Straw Poll results, perhaps Bernie Goldberg's comments on Rick Perry's and Michele Bachmann's religiosity caused me to reflect anew on that strain of the Republican Party.
Goldberg's point was that, in the modern era of campaigning, no candidate can any longer expect to speak to just the audience in front of her/him. Stand-in hostess of Bill O'Reilly's program, conservative radio talk show maven Laura Ingraham, tried to excuse Bachmann's confused explanations regarding her 'submissive' comment by saying that she said it to a friendly church-going crowd.
Goldberg politely but persistently disagreed with Ingraham, noting that Iowa has a preponderance of Evangelical Christians, but that's not going to be true of the rest of the country, and, specifically, not of New Hampshire.
I think he's got a very important point.
For this election cycle, softer social issues are less likely to matter in unseating Wonderboy than clear, concise stands against larger government with more spending, and for a more vibrant private sector. Jobs aren't really the issue, so much as private sector investment and activity. Ideally, jobs will follow, but, really, how, where and when is something we really just have to leave to the private sector.
But Goldberg's point implies that by wearing her faith and religion on her sleeve, Bachmann is probably making a big mistake. And, more fundamentally, may simply be a really bad choice for GOP voters to make. Her insistence on making religion so prominent in her campaign is probably not a winning approach among independents.
Perry has ten years of gubernatorial experience with which to leaven his own religious focus. I don't personally agree with Dick Morris' semi-prediction that Perry will lose to Bachmann in Iowa, to Romney and Bachmann in New Hampshire, and win South Carolina but become a South-only candidate.
For me, considering what occurred in Iowa, then listening to critiques of Bachmann's actions, statements and attitudes in the past week or so, the real concern is that, somehow, the GOP may end up with the wrong presidential candidate. One who won't attract sufficient numbers of Tea Party-like independents.
Romney, everyone generally acknowledges, is soft on real fiscal conservatism. He gave Massachusetts RomneyCare, and now tries to paper over that gigantic mistake. Don't bet on him having true religion when it comes to Tea Party-style fiscal conservatism.
Perry is very populist in his orientation, but I can't stop thinking, as I listen to him, that the nation just isn't ready for another Texan Republican as president. Maybe unfair, but that's what I think.
I don't think Bachmann is really presidential material because she is so strident about her independent stands, while seeming incapable of articulating more productive solutions she would prefer. I suspect that, like Wonderboy, she's a better campaigner than she would be a president. She might even have difficulty with a Republican-controlled Senate and House which are not as far-right as she is.
Karl Rove mentioned that he's heard stories that Chris Christie and Paul Ryan have been so pressed by influential GOP moneymen that both have promised to reconsider their very public refusals to run for president.
Living in New Jersey, I have a close vantage point on Christie. I agree with his belief that he's not ready. He hasn't even cemented his accomplishments here, and makes the occasional public gaffe, like the now-infamous helicopter ride to his son's baseball game.
Paul Ryan is probably more than ready for the Oval Office. In the classic fashion of a manager who has grown into his boss' job, Ryan has done more presidential work as chair of the House Budget Committee than anyone else in Washington. My only concerns are losing him in the House if he loses the nomination and/or general election, and that he may succumb to the Phil Gramm disease. That is, the president is more than accountant-in-chief. Ryan's strengths look good right now, but when actually voting for president, he may look a little narrowly-described.
Then again, if Ryan can pull the independents away from Wonderboy, who really cares? He might be the guy.
Monday, July 25, 2011
Dick Morris On The Undecided
I've been meaning to write this post for a week or more.
Last week, or maybe the one before, Dick Morris provided some fascinating insights on presidential election polls in one of his frequent appearances on Sean Hannity's Fox News program.
As a veritable flood of polls spew weekly, during the maneuvering over the debt limit, pundits spin the results to their particular viewpoint.
Many on the left note that no Republican challengers yet can outpoll Wonderboy. Those on the right take solace that the president's approval numbers are low and falling, his election poll results are below 50%, and it's still over a year before the election.
What Morris said is that 80% of those marked undecided in polls break for the challenger. He remarked that he used to tell Clinton this during his election campaigns, based on research Morris has done on elections stretching back to 1960.
As Morris describes it, undecided voters' dispositions toward a sitting president are like a spouse who is undecided on whether s/he'd remarry the other spouse. Simply being undecided at that point is effectively rejecting the incumbent.
Thus, most of the polls showing Republicans losing with numbers like 47% to 37% leave 16% undecided. Of those, more than 12% will go for the challenger, making the poll really 47% for Wonderboy vs. at least 49% for the Republican.
Something important to recall as the GOP field fills out and gets down to work for 2012. And clearly worrisome for Wonderboy.
Last week, or maybe the one before, Dick Morris provided some fascinating insights on presidential election polls in one of his frequent appearances on Sean Hannity's Fox News program.
As a veritable flood of polls spew weekly, during the maneuvering over the debt limit, pundits spin the results to their particular viewpoint.
Many on the left note that no Republican challengers yet can outpoll Wonderboy. Those on the right take solace that the president's approval numbers are low and falling, his election poll results are below 50%, and it's still over a year before the election.
What Morris said is that 80% of those marked undecided in polls break for the challenger. He remarked that he used to tell Clinton this during his election campaigns, based on research Morris has done on elections stretching back to 1960.
As Morris describes it, undecided voters' dispositions toward a sitting president are like a spouse who is undecided on whether s/he'd remarry the other spouse. Simply being undecided at that point is effectively rejecting the incumbent.
Thus, most of the polls showing Republicans losing with numbers like 47% to 37% leave 16% undecided. Of those, more than 12% will go for the challenger, making the poll really 47% for Wonderboy vs. at least 49% for the Republican.
Something important to recall as the GOP field fills out and gets down to work for 2012. And clearly worrisome for Wonderboy.
Thursday, June 30, 2011
Michele Bachmann's Challenge
I've watched Michele Bachmann's rise in the GOP presidential polls with great interest since writing about her candidacy a few weeks ago.
In that post, I wrote,
"Make no mistake- I believe Bachman is motivated, smart, well-educated as she has seen a need for her various political/legislative positions.
I think that, in terms of values and overall conservative disposition, she'd make a great president. But the job is, above and beyond the inevitable crises and presidential initiatives, a very large and potentially-overwhelming executive job. And I'm just not sure Bachman is up to that.
We've got one inexperienced failure in the Oval Office right now.
How does Bachman poll with independents, versus, say, Pawlenty?
Plus, Bachman keeps focusing like a laser on making 2012 a presidential election focused on the economy. If she can succeed with that, and it's clearly any GOP candidate's strongest topic, she might well make voters forget about her lack of executive experience, which matches Wonderboy's weakness, and, instead, vote for her more sensible economic policies.
So I'd move Bachman to preferable, but I'm uncertain on her electability as yet. A strong showing among independents would change my mind."
I haven't seen polls showing Bachmann's standing relative to other GOP candidates among independents, but it's remarkable how she seems to have already elbowed Pawlenty aside in Iowa. According to polls I've seen and heard referenced on Fox News, Bachmann is already about even or ahead of Romney.
On reflection, I remain comfortable with Bachmann in the Oval Office. But to get there, I believe her challenge is to make the primaries and general election about issues, not experience.
Specifically, about fidelity to the Constitution, private sector vitality and spending cuts. These don't actually require executive experience, so much as perseverance to principles and determination to use the powers of the office to drive needed change in the federal government.
In my view, Bachmann's personal and professional lives prior to her political career featured far more significant accomplishments than Wonderboy's did. So it's not like she spent her young adult life carefully scrubbing her track record to run for the Oval Office.
But, in the final analysis, to beat Romney and other former GOP governors, then the First Rookie, she'll have to change the game from experience to values and issues.
From what I've seen so far, I think she could do that. She has energy and a passion that might help her overcome Romney's financial advantage. For that matter, Romney spent considerable money last time and lost the nomination on issues. I think, given the ball and chain on his leg that is Massachusetts' RomneyCare, I think that could happen again, should Bachmann manage to stay focused on the topics that matter for her candidacy.
In that post, I wrote,
"Make no mistake- I believe Bachman is motivated, smart, well-educated as she has seen a need for her various political/legislative positions.
I think that, in terms of values and overall conservative disposition, she'd make a great president. But the job is, above and beyond the inevitable crises and presidential initiatives, a very large and potentially-overwhelming executive job. And I'm just not sure Bachman is up to that.
We've got one inexperienced failure in the Oval Office right now.
How does Bachman poll with independents, versus, say, Pawlenty?
Plus, Bachman keeps focusing like a laser on making 2012 a presidential election focused on the economy. If she can succeed with that, and it's clearly any GOP candidate's strongest topic, she might well make voters forget about her lack of executive experience, which matches Wonderboy's weakness, and, instead, vote for her more sensible economic policies.
So I'd move Bachman to preferable, but I'm uncertain on her electability as yet. A strong showing among independents would change my mind."
I haven't seen polls showing Bachmann's standing relative to other GOP candidates among independents, but it's remarkable how she seems to have already elbowed Pawlenty aside in Iowa. According to polls I've seen and heard referenced on Fox News, Bachmann is already about even or ahead of Romney.
On reflection, I remain comfortable with Bachmann in the Oval Office. But to get there, I believe her challenge is to make the primaries and general election about issues, not experience.
Specifically, about fidelity to the Constitution, private sector vitality and spending cuts. These don't actually require executive experience, so much as perseverance to principles and determination to use the powers of the office to drive needed change in the federal government.
In my view, Bachmann's personal and professional lives prior to her political career featured far more significant accomplishments than Wonderboy's did. So it's not like she spent her young adult life carefully scrubbing her track record to run for the Oval Office.
But, in the final analysis, to beat Romney and other former GOP governors, then the First Rookie, she'll have to change the game from experience to values and issues.
From what I've seen so far, I think she could do that. She has energy and a passion that might help her overcome Romney's financial advantage. For that matter, Romney spent considerable money last time and lost the nomination on issues. I think, given the ball and chain on his leg that is Massachusetts' RomneyCare, I think that could happen again, should Bachmann manage to stay focused on the topics that matter for her candidacy.
Wednesday, June 29, 2011
Karl Rove On Wonderboy's 2012 Re-election Prospects
Karl Rove wrote a fine piece in his Wall Street Journal column last week concerning Wonderboy's standing with various demographic groups, relative to his 2008 numbers. Rove's contention is that the relatively slim 6% margin of victory may be easily overwhelmed by the cumulative effects of Wonderboy's poll numbers among various voting segments- minorities, women, income, age groups, etc.
I think Rove is correct. Being a national political figure, Rove isn't really in a position to write something which I suspect he believes, but can't publicly express. But I can.
I believe many white independent moderates and slightly-liberal or moderate Republicans, especially those with college educations or more and above-average incomes and/or wealth voted for the Junior Illinois Senator out of guilt and a misplaced sense of the importance of imagery.
Given the chance to vote for a black (Democratic) candidate who wasn't Shirley Chisolm (the true first black presidential candidate), nor Jesse Jackson, those whites jumped at the chance for personal and group cleansing of their presumably-inherited racial guilt for past American enslavement of blacks.
After all, as Joe Biden said of Wonderboy, he speaks well and he's "so clean." Yes, the president dresses well, cracks jokes and appears hip and cool.
In opposition, a cranky John McCain ran one of the worst presidential campaigns in memory. Unlike the voluble, energetic challenger to George W. Bush of 2000, the 2008 vintage McCain reminded you of your ornery grandfather. Then there was that stupid campaign suspension to run back to Washington during the financial crisis. Until then, he was actually slightly ahead in the polls.
Between Wonderboy's counting on nearly every black vote, which wasn't seen by the media as racist, as it would be for a white to get all the white votes, the guilt felt by educated, wealthy whites, and McCain's personality and campaign mistakes, it's a wonder that the margin of victory for the First Rookie was only 6%.
I don't know the numbers- Rove would- but I believe that a good deal more than 6% of the electorate will be whites that won't need to feel that guilt anymore, and from whom the magical Obama pixie dust of 2008 has been shed.
Without the need to vote for the first seemingly-presidential-looking and -acting black, these whites, who may comprise as much as 10-15% of the voting electorate, are more likely to back any credible opponent of the current Oval Office occupant's who has presided over a worsening economy and unemployment numbers.
Race and racially-based voting isn't something your average, high-profile professional political handler or operative can risk discussing in public media venues. But any thinking person who follows politics knows it exists, that it affected the outcome of the 2008 election, and that it's absence in 2012 could well be enough, on its own, to doom Wonderboy's bid to become a two-term president.
I think Rove is correct. Being a national political figure, Rove isn't really in a position to write something which I suspect he believes, but can't publicly express. But I can.
I believe many white independent moderates and slightly-liberal or moderate Republicans, especially those with college educations or more and above-average incomes and/or wealth voted for the Junior Illinois Senator out of guilt and a misplaced sense of the importance of imagery.
Given the chance to vote for a black (Democratic) candidate who wasn't Shirley Chisolm (the true first black presidential candidate), nor Jesse Jackson, those whites jumped at the chance for personal and group cleansing of their presumably-inherited racial guilt for past American enslavement of blacks.
After all, as Joe Biden said of Wonderboy, he speaks well and he's "so clean." Yes, the president dresses well, cracks jokes and appears hip and cool.
In opposition, a cranky John McCain ran one of the worst presidential campaigns in memory. Unlike the voluble, energetic challenger to George W. Bush of 2000, the 2008 vintage McCain reminded you of your ornery grandfather. Then there was that stupid campaign suspension to run back to Washington during the financial crisis. Until then, he was actually slightly ahead in the polls.
Between Wonderboy's counting on nearly every black vote, which wasn't seen by the media as racist, as it would be for a white to get all the white votes, the guilt felt by educated, wealthy whites, and McCain's personality and campaign mistakes, it's a wonder that the margin of victory for the First Rookie was only 6%.
I don't know the numbers- Rove would- but I believe that a good deal more than 6% of the electorate will be whites that won't need to feel that guilt anymore, and from whom the magical Obama pixie dust of 2008 has been shed.
Without the need to vote for the first seemingly-presidential-looking and -acting black, these whites, who may comprise as much as 10-15% of the voting electorate, are more likely to back any credible opponent of the current Oval Office occupant's who has presided over a worsening economy and unemployment numbers.
Race and racially-based voting isn't something your average, high-profile professional political handler or operative can risk discussing in public media venues. But any thinking person who follows politics knows it exists, that it affected the outcome of the 2008 election, and that it's absence in 2012 could well be enough, on its own, to doom Wonderboy's bid to become a two-term president.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
