Monday, February 27, 2012
Eight Days to Super Tuesday...
... and I am still undecided.
And I'm not alone. I spoke with several of my good Republican friends - folks who are ultra-active in campaigns in terms of their time, support, and money - who were all undecided as of the end of last week. For folks that usually have their candidate a year or two before the primary, we all are in uncharted waters.
As was documented on this blog (and others), I was supporting Herman Cain before allegations of an extramarital affair proved to be too much to overcome. I even stepped up as his county chair here in Blount County. I loved Cain's straight talk, his outside-the-Beltway background, and his promise to reform the tax code. But, alas, that was not meant to be.
With the field whittled down to four, I still find myself undecided at this late hour. After the last debate in Arizona, I managed to narrow down my personal choice to two candidates. Ron Paul may have a great understanding of economic issues, but his views on foreign policy would likely get us all killed and his ultra-libertarian views eventually collapse upon themselves when freedoms eventually abut each other. I also think that Dr. Paul would have a hard time winning over voters in a general election against Obama because of his presentation. So Dr. Paul will not be getting my vote.
Neither will Rick Santorum. I really want to like Santorum. He says several good things that I can support. I even had him on the shortlist of candidates for the White House back in May of 2005. But lots has happened since then. Santorum says some strange things that even have conservatives scratch their heads, all of which could be overlooked by a conservative voter if not for all of the times that Santorum has compromised his conservative principles when it has personally benefited himself or those close to him. For example, Romney's crushing of Santorum in the Arizona debate on the Arlen Specter issue, where Santorum supported the liberal Specter over conservative Pat Toomey. I very much remember that episode, and Santorum's explanation was inadequate in parts and downright untruthful in parts. His debate performance in Arizona (I scored it last, even below Dr. Paul's) was crippling. If he were to perform similarly in a general election debate against Obama, the GOP would be looking at a double-digit loss at the top of the ticket and quite possibly losses down ticket that could take the Senate out of play. I think Rick's a really nice guy and appreciate much of his service in the Congress, but I can't pull the lever for him this time around.
That leaves Mitt Romney - the former frontrunner who tried to sit on a lead and run out the clock but instead showed weakness by allowing for one upstart candidate after another to temporarily pull ahead of him - and Newt Gingrich - the debate master who is trailing in the polls in several key states and has allowed Santorum to pull much of the conservative base by default after such bizarre talking points as building a base on the moon. I've met both men - Romney is a really nice guy, while Gingrich really isn't. I am obviously concerned that Romney has such a hard time connecting with the middle class (even if the middle class under Obama is almost non-existent). His past statements when running for Governor of Massachusetts are very tough to swallow. Of course, they won't be in the general election. In the current political climate, I told a Romney operative several months ago that Romney would have been better served to have no elected office on his resume - particularly in Massachusetts, where he had to take positions that are toxic with the GOP base.
Meanwhile, I'm also worried that Newt's campaign has been mismanaged and unorganized. (How does one not get on the ballot in major states like Virginia? Folks like myself who are, for the most part, out of the game but still know how to run campaigns and get things done regarding ballot access, aren't that hard to find. Sure, campaigns are either for the energetic young like Austin Walne and Ted Boyatt or the learned sages like Tom Ingram and Bob Davis, but there are plenty of us middle-aged folks who could have been asked to help.) Given Obama's enormous money advantage, there is no room for a disorganized campaign in the general election.
Both candidates have endorsements from folks that I very much respect - Fred Thompson, Herman Cain, and J.C. Watts for Gingrich, Nikki Haley, Jan Brewer, and Bill Haslam for Romney.
I don't plan on waiting to Super Tuesday to vote. I can't recall the last time I voted on an actual Election Day. Besides, I like the idea of voting at the old Blount County Courthouse instead of at the high school. I can see the merits in waiting - we'll know what has happened in Michigan and Arizona by then. Romney needs to win both states, and I can see him doing that. Gingrich has to win Tennessee and Georgia to remain in the national conversation, particularly given that he likely would have won Virginia but failed to make the ballot there.
I remain undecided, but I hope to make up my mind in the next 24 hours.
And I'm not alone. I spoke with several of my good Republican friends - folks who are ultra-active in campaigns in terms of their time, support, and money - who were all undecided as of the end of last week. For folks that usually have their candidate a year or two before the primary, we all are in uncharted waters.
As was documented on this blog (and others), I was supporting Herman Cain before allegations of an extramarital affair proved to be too much to overcome. I even stepped up as his county chair here in Blount County. I loved Cain's straight talk, his outside-the-Beltway background, and his promise to reform the tax code. But, alas, that was not meant to be.
With the field whittled down to four, I still find myself undecided at this late hour. After the last debate in Arizona, I managed to narrow down my personal choice to two candidates. Ron Paul may have a great understanding of economic issues, but his views on foreign policy would likely get us all killed and his ultra-libertarian views eventually collapse upon themselves when freedoms eventually abut each other. I also think that Dr. Paul would have a hard time winning over voters in a general election against Obama because of his presentation. So Dr. Paul will not be getting my vote.
Neither will Rick Santorum. I really want to like Santorum. He says several good things that I can support. I even had him on the shortlist of candidates for the White House back in May of 2005. But lots has happened since then. Santorum says some strange things that even have conservatives scratch their heads, all of which could be overlooked by a conservative voter if not for all of the times that Santorum has compromised his conservative principles when it has personally benefited himself or those close to him. For example, Romney's crushing of Santorum in the Arizona debate on the Arlen Specter issue, where Santorum supported the liberal Specter over conservative Pat Toomey. I very much remember that episode, and Santorum's explanation was inadequate in parts and downright untruthful in parts. His debate performance in Arizona (I scored it last, even below Dr. Paul's) was crippling. If he were to perform similarly in a general election debate against Obama, the GOP would be looking at a double-digit loss at the top of the ticket and quite possibly losses down ticket that could take the Senate out of play. I think Rick's a really nice guy and appreciate much of his service in the Congress, but I can't pull the lever for him this time around.
That leaves Mitt Romney - the former frontrunner who tried to sit on a lead and run out the clock but instead showed weakness by allowing for one upstart candidate after another to temporarily pull ahead of him - and Newt Gingrich - the debate master who is trailing in the polls in several key states and has allowed Santorum to pull much of the conservative base by default after such bizarre talking points as building a base on the moon. I've met both men - Romney is a really nice guy, while Gingrich really isn't. I am obviously concerned that Romney has such a hard time connecting with the middle class (even if the middle class under Obama is almost non-existent). His past statements when running for Governor of Massachusetts are very tough to swallow. Of course, they won't be in the general election. In the current political climate, I told a Romney operative several months ago that Romney would have been better served to have no elected office on his resume - particularly in Massachusetts, where he had to take positions that are toxic with the GOP base.
Meanwhile, I'm also worried that Newt's campaign has been mismanaged and unorganized. (How does one not get on the ballot in major states like Virginia? Folks like myself who are, for the most part, out of the game but still know how to run campaigns and get things done regarding ballot access, aren't that hard to find. Sure, campaigns are either for the energetic young like Austin Walne and Ted Boyatt or the learned sages like Tom Ingram and Bob Davis, but there are plenty of us middle-aged folks who could have been asked to help.) Given Obama's enormous money advantage, there is no room for a disorganized campaign in the general election.
Both candidates have endorsements from folks that I very much respect - Fred Thompson, Herman Cain, and J.C. Watts for Gingrich, Nikki Haley, Jan Brewer, and Bill Haslam for Romney.
I don't plan on waiting to Super Tuesday to vote. I can't recall the last time I voted on an actual Election Day. Besides, I like the idea of voting at the old Blount County Courthouse instead of at the high school. I can see the merits in waiting - we'll know what has happened in Michigan and Arizona by then. Romney needs to win both states, and I can see him doing that. Gingrich has to win Tennessee and Georgia to remain in the national conversation, particularly given that he likely would have won Virginia but failed to make the ballot there.
I remain undecided, but I hope to make up my mind in the next 24 hours.
Labels: 2012 Presidential Campaign, Bill Haslam, Fred Thompson, Herman Cain, Mitt Romney, Newt Gingrich, Rick Santorum, Ron Paul, Super Tuesday
Monday, February 06, 2012
What Happens in Vegas...
The MSM has become all too predictable, and Sunday's overreaction to Mitt Romney's win in the Nevada caucuses really goes to prove it.
As I've said here and on other media sources, Nevada did not matter in any way to this primary season. Romney had Nevada locked up months before Iowa. Besides the high Mormon population there (over 25% of the registered voters, which means that we could be talking about 40% of Republicans), Romney's crew had already struck deals with the unions in Nevada, including the very powerful SEIU. Nevada was even more of a sure thing for Romney than any other state.
So why the sudden need by the MSM to declare this primary season over? Romney is certainly in the lead, but he doesn't have 8% of the delegates that he needs to secure the nomination. Can we at least wait until Missouri to see what happens there, to see how Santorum does with no Gingrich on the ballot? We're a month from Super Tuesday, so it would be nice to get that far...
Why are the liberals in such a hurry to fast forward to an Obama/Romney showdown? You can be sure that it's not so that they can talk about the Democrats unwillingness to pass a federal budget in 1100+ days...
As I've said here and on other media sources, Nevada did not matter in any way to this primary season. Romney had Nevada locked up months before Iowa. Besides the high Mormon population there (over 25% of the registered voters, which means that we could be talking about 40% of Republicans), Romney's crew had already struck deals with the unions in Nevada, including the very powerful SEIU. Nevada was even more of a sure thing for Romney than any other state.
So why the sudden need by the MSM to declare this primary season over? Romney is certainly in the lead, but he doesn't have 8% of the delegates that he needs to secure the nomination. Can we at least wait until Missouri to see what happens there, to see how Santorum does with no Gingrich on the ballot? We're a month from Super Tuesday, so it would be nice to get that far...
Why are the liberals in such a hurry to fast forward to an Obama/Romney showdown? You can be sure that it's not so that they can talk about the Democrats unwillingness to pass a federal budget in 1100+ days...
Labels: 2012 Presidential Campaign, Mitt Romney, Newt Gingrich, President Obama, Rick Santorum
Thursday, January 05, 2012
Red State Update: Iowa Caucus Report
Well, who could have foreseen those results from Iowa a couple of weeks back? Despite average to below average debate performances and having done nothing of real note except for participate in Iowa evangelical leader Bob Vander Plaats' pay-for-pay scheme that "earned" Santorum the endorsement of several Iowa Christian religious leaders, Rick Santorum rolls out of Iowa with the most personal political relevance since he turned his back on Pennsylvania conservatives and worked for Arlen Specter's re-election.
Meanwhile, Bachmann does something that I can't remember ever happening - going from Ames Straw Poll winner to last amongst the active Iowa campaigns at the caucuses. Sure, her debate performances were uneven, but they weren't significantly worse than Santorum's - surely not worth twenty-points worse.
Perry comes out of Iowa not only disappointed, but significantly confused. Why on earth did he seem to signal his exit from the field Tuesday night, saying that he was returning to Texas instead of continuing on to South Carolina? Maybe it's just this experienced guy's opinion, but if it had been my call, I would have put a contrite but strong Rick Perry out in front of the cameras, shown that my candidate was a fighter and that he was going to carry the fight to South Carolina. Go all-in in the Palmetto State. Fight for Bachmann's supporters while courting Gingrich's unorganized crowd in the hopes that he straps on a figurative suicide bomb in his anger and tries to destroy Romney in a quixotic charge in New Hampshire. Stem Santorum's rise in South Carolina, where Santorum has no organization and has not campaigned with regularity. Come out of South Carolina in the top-two, marginalize Paul, and say that you are the candidate for the Anti-Romney movement. But what do I know...
I'll let Jackie and Dunlap from Red State Update take it from here on the Iowa wrap-up:
Meanwhile, Bachmann does something that I can't remember ever happening - going from Ames Straw Poll winner to last amongst the active Iowa campaigns at the caucuses. Sure, her debate performances were uneven, but they weren't significantly worse than Santorum's - surely not worth twenty-points worse.
Perry comes out of Iowa not only disappointed, but significantly confused. Why on earth did he seem to signal his exit from the field Tuesday night, saying that he was returning to Texas instead of continuing on to South Carolina? Maybe it's just this experienced guy's opinion, but if it had been my call, I would have put a contrite but strong Rick Perry out in front of the cameras, shown that my candidate was a fighter and that he was going to carry the fight to South Carolina. Go all-in in the Palmetto State. Fight for Bachmann's supporters while courting Gingrich's unorganized crowd in the hopes that he straps on a figurative suicide bomb in his anger and tries to destroy Romney in a quixotic charge in New Hampshire. Stem Santorum's rise in South Carolina, where Santorum has no organization and has not campaigned with regularity. Come out of South Carolina in the top-two, marginalize Paul, and say that you are the candidate for the Anti-Romney movement. But what do I know...
I'll let Jackie and Dunlap from Red State Update take it from here on the Iowa wrap-up:
Labels: 2012 Presidential Campaign, Iowa, Michelle Bachmann, Mitt Romney, New Hampshire, Red State Update, Rick Perry, Rick Santorum, South Carolina, Videos
Sunday, December 11, 2011
If You Missed the ABC Debate from December 10th...
Stephen Green drunkblogged it over at PJ Media. Even as his blood alcohol level increased, his analysis remained pretty much on point.
Personally, I thought that there were several shots that landed against frontrunner Newt, but that he handled himself relatively well. It was Rick Perry's strongest debate by far, and Santorum likely had his strongest night, as well.
Romney needed to come on strong, which I don't believe that he did. He looked desperate at times, and tonight might be the beginning of the end of his campaign. The proposed bet of $10,000 towards Perry was awful and made him look out of touch with the average American. (If Mitt felt that he needed to bet someone during the debate, he should have tried to get Newt to put up that $300,000+ that he scored from Fannie and Freddie Mac. That ain't chump change - ask the taxpayers who picked up the tab.)
The real surprise might be Ron Paul, who kept his crazy positions and statements to a minimum tonight and actually scored on a variety of points. I've heard from more than one wonk "in the know" that has mentioned the possibility of a Paul win in Iowa without meaning it as a punchline.
All in all, a good debate for everyone - except Mitt. I can't believe that I'm going to have to vote for one of these folks in under three months. Given that I'm not seeing any bumper stickers, yard signs, etc., here in East Tennessee, I don't think that I'm alone in that camp.
Personally, I thought that there were several shots that landed against frontrunner Newt, but that he handled himself relatively well. It was Rick Perry's strongest debate by far, and Santorum likely had his strongest night, as well.
Romney needed to come on strong, which I don't believe that he did. He looked desperate at times, and tonight might be the beginning of the end of his campaign. The proposed bet of $10,000 towards Perry was awful and made him look out of touch with the average American. (If Mitt felt that he needed to bet someone during the debate, he should have tried to get Newt to put up that $300,000+ that he scored from Fannie and Freddie Mac. That ain't chump change - ask the taxpayers who picked up the tab.)
The real surprise might be Ron Paul, who kept his crazy positions and statements to a minimum tonight and actually scored on a variety of points. I've heard from more than one wonk "in the know" that has mentioned the possibility of a Paul win in Iowa without meaning it as a punchline.
All in all, a good debate for everyone - except Mitt. I can't believe that I'm going to have to vote for one of these folks in under three months. Given that I'm not seeing any bumper stickers, yard signs, etc., here in East Tennessee, I don't think that I'm alone in that camp.
Labels: 2012 Presidential Campaign, Mitt Romney, Newt Gingrich, Rick Perry, Ron Paul
Saturday, October 08, 2011
Election Schedule Chaos A Result of Romney "Gaming the System?"
Well, Nevada moved up their primary into January. Given that New Hampshire and Iowa law dictates when their primaries are to be held, this very well could push New Hampshire's first-in-the-nation-primary to January 3rd and Iowa's caucuses to the day after Christmas. Yes, this ridiculous race by the states has caused the 2012 elections to being in 2011.
But this is getting more interesting since it very much appears that Mitt Romney and his uber-rich supporters are, in the words of candidate Jon Huntsman, "gaming the system" by having the primaries run in an order where he maintains momentum and collects victories early on in states where he is strong.
I suppose this can be spun one of two ways. Either Mitt Romney is a suburb strategist who will win at any cost, or Mitt Romney doesn't have the policy positions to win on an even playing field and his conniving suggests that perhaps he is running in the wrong primary. Not sure which spin will win out with the electorate (if either, given that voter apathy must also be seen as a possible "eh, who cares?" outcome), but both are equally plausible.
But this is getting more interesting since it very much appears that Mitt Romney and his uber-rich supporters are, in the words of candidate Jon Huntsman, "gaming the system" by having the primaries run in an order where he maintains momentum and collects victories early on in states where he is strong.
I suppose this can be spun one of two ways. Either Mitt Romney is a suburb strategist who will win at any cost, or Mitt Romney doesn't have the policy positions to win on an even playing field and his conniving suggests that perhaps he is running in the wrong primary. Not sure which spin will win out with the electorate (if either, given that voter apathy must also be seen as a possible "eh, who cares?" outcome), but both are equally plausible.
Labels: 2012 Presidential Campaign, Election Scheduling, Mitt Romney
