Let's Take a Moment to Really Look at How Things Have Changed

The GOP is known as the old white man party. The elite, good old boys club that tries to rule the world with a selfish myopic eye.
So let's take a quick look at the current candidates for the GOP nomination-

Ben Carson- most obviously not a member of the old white man's party.
Marco Rubio - A Miami-born, Cuban American, the son of Cuban immigrants
Ted Cruz - his name is actually Rafael Edward Cruz, was born in Canada, to an asylum-seeking Cuban married to an American woman.
Donald Trump - okay, obviously he would be the poster for entitled, old white men. (But if you look at Cruz' background you'll discover he was pretty entitled as well.) But let's give him some credit for having married 3 different woman, Ivana born in Czechoslovakia , Marla, an American, and Melania from Slovenia. So while still an entitled old, white guy, he does have some international influence on this thinking
Jeb Bush- again, the ultimate in entitled white guys. But he is married to Columba, a Mexican woman.
And John Kasich- the only one of the candidates without an international, non-white familial connection.

When 2 of the candidates can spar on stage about speaking Spanish, this isn't your father's Republican party.

Why I Care Less and Less About Trump

I'm starting to care less and less about Donald Trump running for president. Why? Precedent.
It's taken me a while to remember who his predecessors are, but thankfully, he does have them.

Donald Trump isn't the first three ring circus candidate we've seen ride a very early wave. And all of them have crash and burned before things got real.

Take Rudy Giuliani for instance. Seven years since he ran for president it's hard to remember he was ever a contender. He was fun, he was exciting, and he was an "alternative" candidate to the usual suits, not unlike Trump. But after the fun of the shock and awe wore off, people remembered what they really want in a leader, and it isn't tantalizing soundbites.

Remember in 2011 when Rick Perry was so far ahead of Mitt Romney that no one thought Romney had a prayer?

And then there is the distant memory of Ross Perot. Good old Ross Perot with his pie charts. I was still in high school back then, and a die hard Republican. After watching Perot on TV with his charts and diagrams, I couldn't wait to turn 18 just to vote for him. (Alas, I turned 18 in January, and missed my chance to vote for him by just 2 months.) I interned on Capitol Hill (as a high school intern- really, it's a thing) that year. The congressman I worked for was firmly in the Perot camp. After all, his district had some of the strongest Perot turn out. I can still remember Perot personally calling the congressman one day, and somehow I answered the phone. I put Ross Perot on hold and sprinted down the hall to grab the congressman who was on his way to a meeting. It was the only time I've ever seen him look the tiniest bit frazzled or excited as he sprinted his way back to answer that call.

Anyway, you recall how Perot ended, right? In a Clinton presidency. Perot pulled just enough of the GOP base away (18%), that Clinton beat Bush the First. (Of course, "Read my lips, no new taxes," didn't help Bush much either.)

But more importantly, Perot ended as a third party so-called Reformer candidate. Perot and Trump have a lot in common- both are wealthy businessman, and both like to speak in plain, blunt terms, and don't worry about political correctness. My biggest fear is Trump will follow Perot's footsteps, and cause more harm than good to his party in the long run.

But maybe Trump will stay true to the Republican party? Maybe he he won't. Only time will tell. But precedent tells us he probably won't stand the test of time. 

Donald Trump - what little I have to say on the subject

I've been doing my best to not talk about Donald Trump on this blog. But the time has come to say something, albeit grudgingly.
I had been sitting here, like so many other armchair quarterbacks, thinking and hoping that Donald Trump was in the GOP race for fun. For the shock value. Maybe I was reading some quiet nobility in his actions. Maybe he was thinking that by running his hairy dog and pony show that he was bringing some much needed attention to the early primary race? Or maybe that was just wishful thinking on my part.
But here's the crazy thing. It's not just the media watching him. People seem to be listening.
And that's when I remembered the picture above.
I took it at a Faith and Freedom Coalition event at least 4 years ago, if not longer than that. Trump spoke for a few minutes, and not as a keynote or even main attraction. If memory serves, he spoke for no more than 15 minutes.

Here are my notes from that day -

He's pro-life and Catholic. He hates ObamaCare. He is still proud of himself for making Obama produce "that excuse for a birth certificate." He occasionally refers to himself in the third person. And a few quotes, "OPEC is laughing at our leaders." "Our leaders are stupid, you know, right? I'm not a politician, I can say stupid." The thing he said that really bothered me was regarding the war in Iraq. "To the victor go the spoils." He believes that the U.S. (and Allies) have the right to take over the Iraqi oil fields, and take the oil from them. He also wants to give a million dollars to every Iraqi family hurt by the war, and to every American soldier wounded or killed in the war, from the profits of those oil fields. This is one of those huge ideas that non-politicians come up with who truly don't understand international laws. This made me a little mad to hear, because people will like it, and it is not something that could ever actually happen.But over all, I would say he's a smart guy and he knows his stuff. I'm starting to understand his appeal. And I'd be really surprised if we don't see him pull a Ross Perot towards the end.

"I would say he's a smart guy and he knows his stuff. I'm starting to understand his appeal." 

That's what I remember the most. He has a way of saying shocking things, but appealing to his audience. 

I have a feeling that Trump just might be in this for the long haul. He might actually stop being the media darling, and start being the voters' darling. 

We shall see. 

Let's Connect! 

https://www.facebook.com/AuthorErinAnnMcBride 

http://twitter.com/erinannie 

https://instagram.com/erinannie17 

https://www.linkedin.com/in/erinmcbride 

https://www.goodreads.com/erinmcbride 

https://www.pinterest.com/erinannie/ 

 http://www.amazon.com/Erin-Ann-McBride/e/B0094UQZSS/

My Predictions

It is still incredibly early in the game, but just for fun, here are my 2016 Presidential Election Predictions-

• Bernie Sanders will gain in momentum until the first real televised debate. He's fun, he's shocking, etc, but really, he's not presidential material. Once people see him on stage next to other candidates and realize he's radical, but not relate-able, he will dwindle off. 
• Hillary Clinton will always have deep pockets, so she will stay in the race. She won't exit until the Democrats produce a viable candidate who beats on a Super Tuesday in the primaries. I expect she will easily win Iowa and New Hampshire though. 
• I predict that sooner or later Joe Biden will enter the race, but not until Clinton has suffered an extreme blow that he (and Obama) can safely claim no relationship to. (Said blow, which is inevitable, since she gets them all the time, will not hurt her campaign, because said blows never do hurt Clintons somehow.) I do expect he will be a very likable candidate. 
• Carly Fiorina will continue to rise in the polls. 
• At the next major GOP debate, everyone will try to beat Fiorina, and be the anti-Donald, by being The Donald (with stunning sound bytes). 
• Donald Trump, Scott Walker, Marco Rubio, Ted Cruz, Carly Fiorina, Jeb Bush, and Rand Paul will survive till January/Iowa/South Carolina. The others will drop out due to lack of funds in the meantime. 
• There are too many GOP candidates to predict which ones will emerge as the real leaders. My hope, at this juncture, is that it will be Carly Fiorina, Scott Walker, and Jeb Bush. 
• The Democrats will eventually produce a few more candidates. 
• Bobby Jindal will be considered a VP candidate for the GOP
• We will be subjected to multiple news articles about the potential of another Bush/Clinton showdown. This will not change the actual likelihood of a Bush/Clinton showdown. 
• Iowa and New Hampshire will continue to be unfairly represented in campaigns. But the swing states will get a lot more time and attention. Ethanol will be discussed ad nauseum, because Iowa corn farmers like it, even though it's not good for the overall country. 
• I do think Jeb Bush will go far, but I can't see him winning the national election. But I do see him lasting at least 2-3 Super Tuesdays. 
• Bernie Sanders will break off and go third party. It will be an extreme, left wing third party, with the support of Ralph Nader. 

Let's Connect! https://www.facebook.com/AuthorErinAnnMcBride http://twitter.com/erinannie https://instagram.com/erinannie17 https://www.linkedin.com/in/erinmcbride https://www.goodreads.com/erinmcbride https://www.pinterest.com/erinannie/ http://www.amazon.com/Erin-Ann-McBride/e/B0094UQZSS/

A Quick Look at Jeb Bush

Governor of Florida Jeb Bush, Announcement Tour and Town Hall, Adams Opera House, Derry, New Hampshire by Michael Vadon 07" by Michael Vadon - Own work. Licensed under CC BY-SA 4.0 via Wikimedia Commons

Of all the GOP candidates, it is in my humble opinion that Governor Jeb Bush is the most serious and viable long-term candidate. He has name recognition, experience, and deep pockets. He is more credible than most of the other GOP candidates. And for that reason, it is time to take a look at him. I'll save the deeper look for later.

• Governor of Florida from 1999 to 2007
• Real name: John Ellis Bush
• He's 7 years younger than George W. Bush
• His wife, Columba, is from Mexico. He met her while she was on a summer exchange student program. She spoke little English. He spoke no Spanish. He learned Spanish just to be able to talk to his crush. 
• Supports stem cell research; opposes abortion, supports parental consent, pro-life counseling
• Supported government bailouts
• Florida budget grew by 27% under Bush
• Supports a balanced budget amendment
• Has a complicated record on gay rights, depending on how you look at it. His record on "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" has been straight forward. He's voted in favor of it, and was supportive of the related civil rights involved. As for gay marriage, he has urged "respect" for same-sex unions. He has stated support for businesses to express the religious views regarding gay marriage. "This is simply allowing people of faith space to be able to express their beliefs, to be able to be people of conscience," Bush said. "I just think, once the facts are established, people aren't going to see this as discriminatory at all."
• A former entrepreneur and business owner, he has a free-market, pro-development, pro-growth philosophy
• Pro-Common Core, supports teacher bonuses based on student performance
• It should be noted, Florida doesn't have a great record when it comes to education
• Skeptic on global warming
• In Jan 2004, he did not support Obama's actions on the Cuba embargo, "the latest foreign policy misstep by this President, and another dramatic overreach of his executive authority. It undermines America's credibility and undermines the quest for a free and democratic Cuba." This week he said, "Secretary of State John Kerry’s visit to Havana is a birthday present for Fidel Castro." He went on to say, "We need an American president who will work in solidarity with a free Cuban people, if I am elected President, I will reverse Obama’s strategy of accommodation and appeasement and commit to helping the Cuban people claim their freedom and determine their future, free from tyranny. Standing up for fundamental human rights and democratic values should not be an afterthought to America’s Cuba policy, it should be its guiding principle."
• Like all candidates, he is anti-ISIS. We'll save foreign relations and international conflicts with the Islamic state for another day, as that is a subject that shouldn't be summed up in a bullet point.

A Closer Look at Rick Perry

At the top you will find Rick Perry's 2016 campaign platform (copied from his website). After the break line, you can find his 2012 campaign platform. Compare and contrast.

Expanding Opportunity For All
ECONOMIC GROWTH
LOWER TAXES
RETIRE THE DEBT
NATIONAL SECURITY
STOP SPECIAL INTERESTS & BIG GOVERNMENT

If we want to live up to that timeless American commitment – to expand opportunity for all who come after us – we need to do big things.

We need to grow the economy, so that every American can find work, and that those who already have work can earn more.

We need to make life more affordable, by helping Americans keep more of what they earn, and by lowering the cost of everyday expenses.

We need to retire the federal debt, in order to protect the safety net for the most vulnerable, and to ensure that our children, grandchildren, and great-grandchildren can enjoy the prosperity, security, and freedom that we have promised them.

We need to make America safer and stronger by rebuilding our military, and working with our allies to promote peace, prosperity, and tolerance around the world. The federal government also needs to do its constitutional duty and secure the border once and for all.

We need to end the culture of cronyism and bailouts, a culture that caters to politically- connected people and politically-connected businesses at the expense of small enterprises and average Americans.

FAMILY and LIFE

• Under Gov. Perry’s leadership, Texas banned abortions after 20 weeks.
• Gov. Perry signed the Women’s Right to Know Act, which requires doctors performing abortions to let women know that benefits may be available to help with medical care before, during and after childbirth. He has also signed legislation funding alternatives to abortion.
• To ensure a woman has all the facts before making the decision to get an abortion, Gov. Perry signed a law requiring doctors to perform a sonogram prior to an abortion.
• In 2005, Gov. Perry signed legislation requiring parental consent before a minor daughter can receive an abortion.
• Gov. Perry championed a constitutional amendment that was supported by 76% of Texas voters defining marriage as between one man and one woman.

Health Care

• In 2003, Texas passed tort reform legislation that is touted as a national example. The number of medical malpractice lawsuits fell by nearly 2/3 between 2003 and 2011, and Texas has licensed nearly 30,000 more doctors since the passage of this bill.
• Rather than further straining a broken system, Gov. Perry refused to expand Medicaid under Obamacare.
• Gov. Perry also refused to facilitate the government takeover of health care by declining to start a state-run health insurance exchange in Texas.

Economy


Texas’ economic success under Gov. Perry’s leadership is a model for a foundation that allows employers to create jobs and opportunity for hardworking families. As governor, Rick Perry focused on keeping taxes low and regulations smart and predictable, on creating a legal system that doesn’t allow for over-suing, and on ensuring Texas has a skilled and educated workforce. The results are undisputed – Texas created 1.5 million jobs from December 2007 to December 2014, and without those jobs the nation would be a net-negative 400,000 jobs.

• Texas added over 2.2 million new jobs while Perry was governor.
• Under Perry’s leadership, Texas created nearly 30% of all new private-sector jobs in America.
• Texas created almost four times more jobs under Gov. Perry than the nation at large.
• The number of women in the workplace has grown by over 1 million since Gov. Perry took office.
• The number of jobs in the upper-middle wage quartile increased by more than 25% in Texas under Gov. Perry’s leadership, while job growth in that category has been stagnant in the rest of the country.
• Texas is the nation’s top exporting state for the 13th year in a row, and surpassed California in 2012 to become the nation’s top high-tech exporting state.
• Texas’ real GDP increased by more than 55% under Gov. Perry’s leadership.
• Texas’ real per capita GDP increased by $9,250 under Gov. Perry.

(In the interest of time and space, here's the link to the rest of his record - https://rickperry.org/record_ 

------------------------------------------------------------------

Who is Rick Perry?

Campaign Issues 
CUT, BALANCE, AND GROW
CUT Taxes and Spending. BALANCE the Budget by 2020. GROW Jobs and the Economy.

FIX THE TAX CODE

• Institute Individual Flat Income Tax Rate of 20%

• Allow Individuals to Choose Existing Tax Code or Simple Flat Tax System
• Preserve Deductions for Mortgage Interest, Charity, and State/Local Taxes
• Include Standard Exemption for Individuals/Dependents of $12,500
• Standard Exemptions and Other Deductions are Phased Out for Filers with Annual Incomes Above $500,000

Eliminate Tax on Social Security Benefits
Eliminate Tax on Dividends and Capital Gains
Eliminate Death Tax
No Federal Sales Tax or Value-Added Tax
Reduce Corporate Income Tax Rate to 20% to Enhance American Competitiveness
Eliminate Corporate Loopholes and Special-Interest Tax Breaks
Transition to a Territorial Tax System
Allow Locked-Up Overseas Capital to be Brought Back to the U.S. at a Reduced Tax Rate of 5.25%

FIX THE FEDERAL REGULATORY SYSTEM
Immediate Moratorium on All Pending Regulations
Full Audit of Every Regulation Passed Since 2008
Regulations that fail audit will be repealed
Federal Regulations Automatically Sunset Unless Congress Renews Them
Institute Annual Regulatory Budget for Each Agency
Create a Searchable Public Database with All Regulations Currently in Force

FIX SOCIAL SECURITY FOR ALL GENERATIONS OF AMERICANS
Preserve Benefits for Current and Near-Term Social Security Beneficiaries
Protect Social Security Trust Fund
Allow Younger Workers to Invest In Personal Retirement Accounts
Allow State Employees to Opt Out of Social Security
Gradually Increase Full Retirement Age to Reflect Gains in Life Expectancy
Use Price Growth to Index Benefits for Higher-Income Beneficiaries

FIX MEDICARE AND MEDICAID TO IMPROVE HEALTH CARE
-Reform Medicare to be Sustainable for the Long-Term
-Return Medicaid Responsibility to States to Increase Health Care Quality and Access

BALANCE THE BUDGET
Cap Federal Spending at 18% of GDP and Balance the Budget by 2020
Reduce Non-Defense Discretionary Spending by $100 Billion in the First Year
Demand a Balanced Budget Amendment that Does Not Raise Taxes
End Baseline Budgeting and Require Common-Sense Scoring Rules
Reform the Budget Process

• Institute Automatic Government Shutdown Protection
• Give Annual Budget Resolution the Force of Law
• No More Earmarks
• Require Emergency Spending to be Spent Only on Emergencies
• PAYGO for New Federal Programs

-Freeze Federal Civilian Hiring and Salaries Until the Budget is Balanced
-No More Bailouts

REPEAL JOB-KILLING FEDERAL LAWS
-Repeal ObamaCare
-Repeal Onerous Sarbanes-Oxley Regulations on Small Businesses
-Repeal Dodd-Frank

Energy and Jobs-
Expand energy exploration offshore and on federal and private lands across the country by executive order, creating over 1.2 million jobs
Eliminate current and proposed activist EPA regulations from the Obama administration, saving 2.4 million jobs by 2020 and lowering projected costs by $127 billion
Reduce, rebuild, and refocus the EPA federal regulators, returning authority to the states
Level the playing field for all energy producers, removing Obama’s practice of picking winners and losers and ending the Obama war on coal and natural gas production

Professional Background
US Air Force Officer (Captain) (honorable discharge in 1977)
Farmer (cotton, milo, wheat)

Political Accomplishments
47th Governor of Texas
3 terms in the Texas House of Representatives (elected 1984), as a "Reagan Democrat," switching to Republican in his third term.
Elected as Agriculture Commissioner 1990, 1994
First Republican Lt. Governor in over 100 years.
Became Governor in 2000 when George W. Bush resigned to become President. Re-elected 3 times.

Personal Background
Eagle Scout
Texas A&M University, Animal Science (1972)
Wife, Anita, 2 children

Let's Connect! https://www.facebook.com/AuthorErinAnnMcBride http://twitter.com/erinannie https://instagram.com/erinannie17 https://www.linkedin.com/in/erinmcbride https://www.goodreads.com/erinmcbride https://www.pinterest.com/erinannie/ http://www.amazon.com/Erin-Ann-McBride/e/B0094UQZSS/

Christie for VP

I got this email today from *someone* I'd say knows politics pretty well. No insider, but he knows more than most armchair quarterbacks. 

I've made my VP pick. 
Chris Christie.  I did some reading on him.  The main thing the VP candidate has to do is be the big attack dog.  And who better than Christie?  Absolutely no one!  He might overshadow Mitt in the excitement department, but that does not hurt the ticket's chances.  Romney and Obama each already have the people who are paying attention, and that is not likely to change in the next 80 or 90 days.  It is the poor (I'll not say, not real politically bright, and therefore swayable) undecideds who need to hear something interesting they have not already heard before. The press will cover every cool anti-Obama thing Christie has to say.  Christie WAY overshadows Barry Soetero or Billy Joe Biden.  Go Christie!


Interesting reasoning. I can't find a flaw in it.  I've never been completely in favor of him, but I actually have nothing against him either. I do like his Jersey style as a compliment to Romney's New England style. 

(My spidey sense says the announcement either comes today or on Monday. The news cycle is still full, so I say Monday, maybe Tuesday.)

Romney and the VP

If you had a major announcement to make that no matter what else happened in the world that week would still be a headline story, does the timing really matter?
I guess it might a little bit, just so you don't have to share the headlines, and you can get the most mileage out of it. But if you were going to do that, you would have to be 100% confident in your announcement. Because if you weren't confident in it, you might choose to do something like announce it on a Friday afternoon, during a busy news week, and as a result, getting little traction.
Which is why I predict Romney will make his VP announcement next Wednesday. Maybe Tuesday or Thursday. But Wednesday gives you two full days of headlines, plus the weekend talk shows.
The Olympics will be less exciting by then (but still underway), and the Aurora shooting stories will have quieted. Without any other obvious competition, that seems like a good time to announce. Assuming he's made his decision that is.
Not to mention, the campaign has planned out a big swing state tour in the upcoming weeks. Sure maybe it is just another stump speech tour. But you'd have to be a complete neophyte to believe that he would go on a big tour 2 weeks before the convention, without a VP at his side. 
The big tour begins August 10, and is rumored to go through Virginia, North Carolina, and into Florida. He's also supposed to be showing up in Indiana, Ohio, and Colorado. 95 electoral votes between them.
Who might the VP be? Someone completely groomed and well-vetted? (Bob McDonnell, Rob Portman, Chris Christie, Tim Pawlenty) Or someone who brings a key swing state (Rob Portman, Tim Pawlenty, Marco Rubio)? Or someone who jazzes up the ticket? (Bobby Jindal, Nikki Haley, Marco Rubio)
I have my personal choice, but I want to hear other people's preferences. Who do you want it to be? Who do you think it will be?

All Politics are Local- the VA Governor Race and the Race for the White House Collide

Gov Mitt Romney and Gov. Bob McDonnell of Virginia (linked to source: Deseret News)

Meet Governor Bob McDonnell. He's on the imaginary short list for Gov. Romney's vice presidential sidekick.
He is a former state attorney general, head of the Republican Governors Association, and all around well-liked governor of a Swing State.  His record includes a budget surplus, a drop in unemployment, and conservative support for signing a bill that requires women to have an ultrasound before an abortion.
A recent CNN/ORC International poll showed 1% of registered voters would pick McDonnell for the position, a figure largely based on name recognition. Former Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice nabbed the top spot, followed by former presidential candidate Rick Santorum, Sen. Marco Rubio of Florida and Gov. Chris Christie of New Jersey.

VA Attorney General Ken Cuccinelli (picture courtesy Atty Gen website)

Meet Virginia Attorney General Ken Cuccinelli, Republican candidate for governor of Virginia. He won't endorse Mitt Romney.
Endorsements run both ways. You scratch my back, I scratch yours. You endorse the top dog, you often get to have your picture taken with the top dog to run in your campaign materials. So why won't he endorse the top dog?

Lt Governor of Virginia Bill Bolling (picture courtesy of Lt Gov official website)

Meet Lt. Governor Bill Bolling of VA. A man who wanted to run for governor last time around, but instead, politely stepped aside to allow his friend McDonnell to take that place. He politely settled for second-in-command. Within the party it has long been known that it is Bolling's turn to ascend to the governor's mansion. And all looked promising for that to happen, until Cuccinelli stepped in.
So what does this have to do with Cuccinelli not endorsing Romney?
Virginia does third year elections. The governor's spot isn't up for grabs until 2013. If McDonnell were to get tapped for the VP spot, and Romney/McDonnell were to win, Bolling would assume the governorship for one full year before the 2013 elections. And assuming people liked him, (and people probably would, since they like him quite well already), he would have an easy "re-"election ahead of him. And Cuccinelli would not have party support to run against him. (VA is a term limits state. McDonnell will not seek  re-election.)
Even if McDonnell does not get tapped for VP, considering his standing within the party, and the work he has put into Romney's race, he is likely on a short-list for a large number of appointments. In other words, Cuccinelli does not want to see Romney win because it could potentially hurt his chances to become the next governor.
In two weeks, on May 14, the VA State Legislature will meet in a special session to review Governor McDonnell's budget, and elect some judges. And when that happens, the second and third most influential conservative legislators in the state will be in a quiet, (yet very polite- too polite really) war with each other.
Bolling, by the way, is the chair of Romney's Virginia campaign.
In other words, all politics are local.

They're All Team Romney (Sort of)

And you thought we were done hearing from these guys.


Even when he drops out of a race, he has to do it his way. The former Speaker of the House Newt Gingrich will soon be the former Republican presidential candidate- when he drops out next week.
Exactly what is the point in announcing that you will drop out in a week? How is that different from dropping out now?
When you are Newt, these things just happen. He claims it is because they are working out the details of his endorsement of Mitt Romney. Again, what is the point in announcing you are working out your endorsement, when obviously you will be endorsing?
Oh Newt, we might actually miss some of your antics. Or not.

In the meantime, someone who did not have to announce a week in advance that he would be endorsing Romney, former Republican presidential candidate and Texas Gov. Rick Perry is no longer Team Gingrich (now that Gingrich will be Team Romney (eventually)).
Here’s the full Perry statement:

“Mitt Romney has earned the Republican presidential nomination through hard-work, a strong organization, and disciplined message of restoring America after nearly four years of failed job-killing policies from President Obama and his administration. So today I join the many conservative Republicans across the nation in endorsing Mitt Romney for President and pledge to him, my constituents and the Republican Party that I will continue to work hard to help defeat President Obama. American jobs, economic stability and national security depend on electing a new president. Mitt’s vision and record of private sector success will put America back on the path of job creation, economic opportunity and limited government.”

He could have just said, "He beat the rest of us, and this is what good Republicans do who ever want to have a political future in the party," and that would have sufficed. 

Speaking of which, former Utah Governor and former Republican presidential candidate Jon Huntsman, Jr., apparently doesn't want a career in the GOP. 

In a recent speech to the Harvard Kennedy School he said, "The party is not in a good place right now, given its recent rhetoric on immigration." (Source: The Crimson) Comments like that don't go over well when a few folks are still annoyed over a comment he made in March to MSNBC. "I think we’re going to have problems politically until we get some sort of third party movement or some voice out there that can put forth new ideas. We might not win, but we can certainly influence the debate."

Silly me for thinking that a nominee emerging from the pack would mean we wouldn't have to hear from the other guys anymore. I guess everyone had to get one last word in!

Mitt and the Veep

Just me and my 2 cents on the VP-stakes

Now that we know it will be Mitt Romney on the November ballot, let's start talking about vice presidential options.
Over the weekend I had an interesting chat with some well-informed and educated family members about who we each thought might be possible VPs. I was very surprised that the men all picked white men. I am personally of the belief it will be anyone but a white male. The ticket has to be more interesting than that. The media already holds a grudge against Romney for being a well-educated, upper class, white male. (Although I've yet to figure out how being in the largest majority demographic in the country is such a bad thing.) I think Romney will get the rank and file Republicans, but it is the independent moderates that don't know where to go yet. It is that demographic in the middle that will be swayed by a "competitive," "attractive," or "historic" VP ticket. And that ticket probably won't include a white male.

So the contenders (as generally suggested by the media and armchair pundits)-

Chris Christie, Governor of New Jersey
Pros- Unique brand of charisma, smart, somewhat crass style provides enjoyable/needed contrast to clean cut Romney.
Cons-  Also from northeast, doesn't bring in a needed demographic, possibly too crass, also a white guy, he has stated his obesity may be an issue.

Bobby Jindal, Governor of Louisiana
Pros- Not a white guy, from the much needed South.
Cons- Louisiana politicians have a cloud of corruption about them, but then, so do Chicago politicians and Obama got elected anyway. He only delivers 8 electoral votes, which is practically nothing. Not enough name recognition. 

Marco Rubio, Senator from Florida
Pros- Hispanic, well-liked, very conservative, 29 electorates, battleground state. Tea party loves him.
Cons- Tea party loves him. He's needed in the Senate. He's made it clear he's not interested. While he is Catholic now, he had Mormon ties as a child, and evangelicals will not be uniting behind a Catholic-Mormon anytime ever. 

Bob McDonnell, Governor of Virginia
Pros- Very well-liked within the party, big on jobs and the economy, delivers Virginia and its 13 electorates and a swing state.
Cons- White guy, lack of name recognition outside of party insiders and home state. Lots of other white guy, Republican, governors just like him. Romney is already big on jobs and economy. He needs someone who brings more to the table.

John Thune, Senator from South Dakota
Pros- Another Republican elected something from somewhere.
Cons- Just another white guy Republican from somewhere (JAWGRFS). No real name recognition. 3 electoral votes? Total joke.

Tim Pawlenty, former Governor of Minnesota
Pros- Tea Party loves him, conservative, from a "blue state," decent name recognition thanks to the Tea Party, has "paid his dues," so to speak.
Cons- Boring! And yet again, JAWGRFS.

Paul Ryan, Senator from Wisconsin
Pros- Currently has good name recognition thanks to his current budget bill. Popular in the party and out of the party.
Cons- Must I say it again? JAWGRFS, but at least his somewhere is a swing state. Again, he's big and popular on the same things Romney is already big on.

Nikki Haley, Governor of South Carolina
Pros- Female, non-Caucasian, South, conservative, good name recognition.
Cons- She didn't deliver SC for Romney in the primaries, in spite of her major endorsement. Already a red state, not many electoral votes. 

Mike Huckabee, former Governor of Arkansas, tv host
Pros- Huge name recognition, conservative, brings the evangelical vote.
Cons- JAWGFS, serious bad blood between him and Romney in last election.

Susana Martinez, Governor of New Mexico
Pros- Female, non-Caucasian.
Cons- no name recognition. In fact, I know nothing to say about her.

Rick Santorum, former Senator of Pennsylvania, recent competition
Don't make me go there. It is always possible, but highly unlikely. Although he does deliver something besides jobs and economy I guess.

Newt Gingrich, former Speaker of the House, current competition
You have to be kidding me, right?

If it were up to me, I'd pick Nikki Haley in a heartbeat. She's pretty, well-spoken, conservative, and a double threat minority. She's qualified and she's interesting. She brings something to the ticket. 

Who do I expect it will be? No clue.

What the Republicans did and didn't do this week

A Gallup poll released today (Friday the 23rd), shows that in a national contest, Mitt Romney carries a sizable lead over Rick Santorum. 

Gallup Poll March 18-22, 2012 GOP nationwide

That's Romney at 40%, his highest number of points ever (and for all of the candidates) since Gallup began tracking last November.
The poll* has Romney rising six points since his Illinois victory, and Santorum falling four points. The Jeb Bush endorsement didn't hurt either.
It also comes right as the campaigns are getting juvenile again, drifting away from real messages, and just throwing mud at each other. That both the Newt and Santorum campaigns wasted time jumping on the "Etch a Sketch" comment all week is just ridiculous, and yes, like I said, JUVENILE.
Let's break down what happened in the world this week, and what the campaigns talked about-
1. Romney spox Eric Fehrnstrom said on CNN's "Starting Point." The absence of a GOP challenge could allow Romney to "hit a reset button for the fall campaign." He went on to say seconds later, "Everything changes. It's like Etch A Sketch, you can shake it up and we start all over again."(Which, hey, let's own up to something here, is exactly what happens when someone emerges as the nominee. They stop focusing on primaries, and start focusing on the incumbent and national election.)
2. A US soldier was charged with 17 counts of murder, for the atrocities in Afghanistan.
3. A man of Middle Eastern descent shot Jewish children at a school in France.
4. A new World Bank leader was appointed by the POTUS.
5. Syria!!!
6. The Trayvon Martin case has gained momentum across the country regarding crime and racism.
7. The Dow and the S&P dropped. 
8. Gas prices anyone??
9. Obama vows to speed up permit process to get the Oklahoma portion of the Keystone pipeline passed.

Those are just the issues that pop into my head. There's still dozens of other major hot topics out there. And yet, we've got Santorum and Gingrich making headlines about the Etch a Sketch comment!
As for the actual real issues above, here is what the candidates have said, or more accurately, this is what the media has reported them saying.
Gingrich calls Obama remarks on Trayvon Martin disgraceful.
Romney and Santorum basically say nothing about Trayvon Martin.
And that's about it. There are dozens of articles about the Etch a Sketch comment, and nearly nothing on the real issues.
I'm not the only one getting tired of the GOP talking about nothing when there are major issues that need attention. Peggy Noonan talks about it in "Kvetch a Sketch" in the Wall Street Journal.
Candidates- break the trend! Step up and be a real leader!


**Added Later**
As I sit here, finishing this post, I am watching Erin Burnett OutFront on CNN. And she is leading off the night with a conversation on exactly this subject. Why are the Republicans talking about nothing, and letting the Travyon issue pass them by?


*This is part of an ongoing poll by Gallup. At least 1,000 registered Republican voters are polled on a daily basis, and the poll drops the oldest of five days each day and adds results from the most recent day of polling.
In the latest survey, Gallup questioned 1,157 Republicans and Republican-leaning independents by telephone March 18-22, with a sampling error of plus or minus three percentage points.

I'm embarrassed for the Republican Party

I'm embarrassed for the Republican Party.
There I've said it. It needed to be said. There is nothing "grand" about the GOP this election season. There have been so many missteps away from the issues that matter, that it is painful to listen.
English for statehood in Puerto Rico?
Moon colonies?
Rush Limbaugh?
Dogs on the roof?
With all of the important issues that need to be addressed in the world today, presidential candidates are talking about requiring English in Puerto Rico? Are you kidding me? Is there anything about that subject that is vital or will make the world a better place tomorrow?
You know what, forget the "world." Let's just focus on making America a better place tomorrow, and ask ourselves which of the following issues discussed by the media and the campaigns this week will actually improve the average American's life tomorrow.

Does Rush Limbaugh speak for Republicans? and Rush Limbaugh joins Twitter.
Mitt Romney calls billionaires friends
English in Puerto Rico

And we're done. That's sad. Really sad. There are no other topics being discussed by the GOP candidates this week, at least not that the media is covering. I blame the candidates. Is this the best they can do? They are in a battle to become one of the most powerful people in the entire known universe, and they can't come up with something more important to say?

How depressing is it that the man who made headlines today for trying to end suffering in the Sudan is an actor? And not a man who is in a race to be the President of the United States?

Sure, human rights and international relationships aren't exactly Republican party favorites. But that doesn't mean they can't start now. There is a major battle going on in Syria- why aren't the candidates talking more about that? We have troops in Afghanistan! Let's talk about the military! Something! Anything but English in Puerto Rico and celebrities on Twitter!

Okay, I admit, it is hard for candidates to talk very much about international relations and military conflicts when they are not privy to intel briefings. And the media likes to ask broad questions but wants narrow answers that can trip up candidates. I get it. Sometimes it is just easier to avoid certain topics like that. So avoid the media and put out a well-written statement explaining how the candidate feels about Syria, Iran, Afghanistan, Sudan, etc? Voters don't get to hear enough about what candidates think on international relations until after they are elected. And then that becomes one of the key issues an elected official is judged on. Let's judge them now instead.


I blame Rick Santorum for really messing up the campaign trail by bringing in completely unnecessary issues (like English, Internet porn, etc). He has taken us away from the real, immediate, important issues, and spiraled us into Stupidsville, where he doesn't even have a well-crafted agenda waiting. If you are going to bring up and start a new topic, at least be ready for battle on it!

Mitt Romney doesn't get off scot-free here either. The media has well reported time and time again that he has failed to inspire and motivate the base. As a supporter I took offense to that. But now, I have to admit, I agree. He tries to set himself apart as a great leader, but he has yet to set the tone and the agenda. He seems to constantly be reacting to what is thrown at him, trying to remind people that he has a well-thought out platform on his website, and in his book. But he needs to stop reacting, and go out there and start the conversation. He needs to stop talking about how he was a good leader, and instead go out there and be the party's leader.

I'm not even going to dignify Newt Gingrich's antics with a statement, except to say he too has failed.

The candidates need to set the platform, and bring back the real issues of today. Drop the 1996 issues of English, abortion, and homeschooling. Address today and what will make the world, or at least America, better tomorrow.


 

What to Expect from the GOP Debate Tonight in Arizona

The view from my seat at the SC GOP debate

We've had 3 weeks and 6 beautiful days between GOP debates, but that all changes tonight when John King and Wolf Blitzer take to the CNN stage again.
A lot has changed in the last four weeks. First and foremost, Rick Santorum grew a spine, and Newt Gingrich drifted off into irrelevancy. Mitt Romney has lost his favored status, and Ron Paul continues to be, well, Ron Paul.
Tonight the candidates won't be trying to appeal to just one state, but instead will be trying to appeal to both Arizona and Michigan- two very different states, with very different issues. On top of that, there won't be another debate before the real Super Tuesday next week. So chances are good we won't see pandering to any one state like we did with Gingrich and the moon colony in Florida.
Rick Santorum has the most to lose tonight. He has been running on a social conservative platform since day one. And now, he's finally turned the tide and made everyone else talk about it too. But considering the extremist views he has, the real question is how long can that last?
Santorum has not performed well in any of the debates so far. He hasn't performed badly, he just has failed to connect or make an impact. And because debating hasn't been his strong suit, expect both Romney and Gingrich to capitalize on that.
If it is Santorum that wins, it will be considered Romney that lost. Romney absolutely has to connect with the voters, and he needs to re-establish his Superman-bullet-deflecting-Teflon-armor persona where the attacks just bounce off of him. I predict we will not see Romney engage with Santorum or vice versa. Both will go after Obama instead. Gingrich, as always, will be the wild card. Will he attack Romney and Santorum, or go after Obama? If he goes after Obama, we may be in for one really dull debate where no one is willing to confront each other. But Romney and Santorum would both be wise to take on Gingrich if he's not too much of a loose cannon. Taking on each other is too risky and admits the other is the competition. Shutting Gingrich up just makes people like you more.
Gingrich has everything at stake. If there is anything we have learned in the last 4 weeks it is that he fails to be relevant or interesting if he's not fighting on stage. I expect he will come out swinging, and that we may see the return of Grandiose Newt tonight. Some would suggest that he would be up for an image change right now. Gingrich doesn't do that, he refuses to change. He will definitely be the unknown factor tonight.
Ron Paul- why does he even show up at these things?
Some interesting other notes-
Tonight the debate will be held at a desk and everyone will be sitting. This may put a small damper on Gingrich's literal posturing and strutting.
The debate is being held in Mesa, Arizona, a VERY Mormon friendly town, on a Catholic holy day. It will be interesting to see how religious attitudes effect the proceedings.

Mini Tuesday Outlook

Minnesota Caucus tonight- should Bachmann have endorsed anyone? Would it have mattered?

Today isn't quite a "Super" Tuesday, that term being saved for a much bigger voting day next month, but 70 delegates are up for grabs today. Let's take a look at what is at stake, what might go down, and what to expect.

The States in play today are the Colorado and Minnesota caucuses (and Missouri primary(sort of)). However, neither state will award their delegates until down the road. In other words, they vote, CNN (and all the others) will declare a winner, but the states won't make it official until a more official party meeting is held next month.


Missouri has a nonbinding primary that is, for all intents and purposes, a fashion show and not much more. The state will vote in a primary, but doesn't actually award delegates until a caucus later on. Confused yet? In other words, the people vote, and the state listens, but just in case they change their minds and the guy they picked isn't favored to be the winner down the road, they can change their delegates to go to someone else. Stay classy, Missouri.

Let's not forget, Missouri is also our first chance to remember that Newt Gingrich had time to plan a moon base, but failed to hire someone to pay the $1000 fee, and turn in some paperwork, to get on the Missouri ballot.

What's at Stake
Minnesota has 40 proportional delegates. Pledged delegates follow the caucus results. But unpledged delegates are Republican National Committee delegates and official GOP members who get to attend the convention in August. They can vote for the candidate of their choice.

Newt Gingrich Needs to Shut Up and Sit Down

Former Speaker Newt Gingrich

The last week has been extremely volatile for the GOP candidates. Dick Armey may have said it best on CNN over the weekend regarding Newt Gingrich, "I think he's digressed into a state of taking a second rate campaign and turning it into a first rate vendetta."

If the GOP nomination race were a 'Girls Gone Wild' movie, Gingrich would be the angry, drunk chick knocking over the happy, dancing girls, just to give the camera the bird.

Gingrich brought same party politics to a new low in his post-Nevada speech Saturday night. After multiple meetings with advisers, donors and supporters, (and pleas from the general public at large) to stop attacking on Mitt Romney's character with a chain saw, Gingrich held an unprecedented press conference (in lieu of the much more traditional "election night party" with supporters) where he pummeled Romney.

Gingrich is a very talented historian (and paid handsomely to be one as well). He has shown multiple times that he has an ability to recall facts, figures, and obscure references from ancient writers. And yet, he expects us to believe his version of events and that he cannot recall certain quotes of his own, when the proof is right in front of him. (Including going so far as to have edits made to the Wikipedia page about him!)

His inability to control his anger when he cannot control a situation is frightening. The accusations he will make that other people are dishonest when he, Gingrich, doesn't get his way is worse than a 4 yr old's temper tantrum to Mommy. He cannot just walk away with his head held high from any situation. He instead chooses to insult and discredit the event, in one case calling Romney's Florida win a "fundamentally dishonest campaign."

It is frightening and foretelling to revisit his candidacy announcement from August-

"No one person in the Oval Office can get this done. We Americans are going to have to talk together, work together, find solutions together, and insist on imposing those solutions on those forces that don't want to change. There are some people who don't mind if America becomes a wreck as long as they dominate the wreckage... Let's get together, look reality in the face, tell the truth, make the tough choices, and get the job done."
(Need proof he said that? Visit Newt's official YouTube page and watch "Newt Gingrich is Running for President."

Former Speaker Gingrich, it is time for you to shut up and sit down. You, and you alone, are going to divide and ruin the Republican party if you continue with the inability to be honest with yourself and others, and face defeat like a man.

Mitt vs Newt, Pragmatic vs Epic

There is an excellent article running in the Washington Post today entitled "Romney's and Gingrich's ideas mirror their personalities: Pragmatic vs. epic."
While I am at the point in time, 100% in the Romney camp, I was very vocal about supporting Gingrich for most of the fall. I was determined to stay open-minded, and to not be another Mormon choosing Romney without considering all of the candidates first. I was torn between Romney and Gingrich for a very long time, finally landing on Romney for much of the reasons stated in this article- he makes more sense. Gingrich makes radical, huge, even epic statements, and they can be attractive. But once I stopped and thought about it, I just couldn't follow his lead anymore. Whereas, it is easy to believe, even reassuring to believe, that Romney is capable of fulfilling his ideas and promises.
When Gingrich says, "I'm more of a conservative than Mitt Romney," he really isn't. He's really just more of an extremist. Their ideas and promises (minus moon colonies) are side-by-side similar. But Gingrich just takes everything beyond capable and believable, and moves it into radical extremism.


From the article-

If he were elected president, former Massachusetts governor Mitt Romney says, he would cut companies’ tax bills. But former House speaker Newt Gingrich (Ga.) would cut them more than twice as much.
Romney would eliminate some people’s capital-gains taxes. But Gingrich would eliminate everybody’s.

And Romney would build more Navy ships to project American influence into the Middle East. Gingrich would build a moon colony, projecting it into outer space.

Gingrich has vowed to  overthrow the communist government in Cuba and ban embryonic stem-cell research. Romney? Merely wants Castro to go to Hell (and to try to negotiate with Cuba).


Both candidates (actually all four candidates) want to repeal Obamacare and the Dodd-Frank financial regulations. They all want to repeal the estate tax, tougher dealings with Iran, and they are all in favor of a same-sex marriage ban.

But back to the epic vs the pragmatic-

Romney’s plan would lower a corporation’s tax rate from 35 percent to 25 percent. For individual taxpayers making less than $200,000 per couple, he would end taxes on capital gains and interest. The cost? Probably about $180 billion less in government revenue per year, according to the nonpartisan Tax Policy Center.
But Gingrich would do far more. He would cut the corporate rate to 12.5 percent. He would eliminate all taxes on capital gains and interest. And he would allow individuals to opt out of the current tax code, giving them the option of a 15 percent “flat tax” with limited deductions.
On Social Security, the two men exhibit a similar pattern. Romney would raise the age at which future retirees could collect benefits, adding “a year or two,” he said in a debate. And he would tinker with formulas so that wealthier retirees would see their benefits grow less over time.
Gingrich, by contrast, wants to create a new kind of Social Security. He would keep the old system but allow people to opt into a separate system, in which they could keep their money in private, personal accounts. The same private-account plan has worked in Chile, Gingrich is fond of saying.
But it was installed while Chile was run by a military dictator.

 And that last line, says it all.

Exactly who or what is the Washington Establishment?

With all of the back and forth finger pointing among the candidates accusing each other of "being the Washington Establishment," it seemed like a good time to really define and figure out who or what the establishment really is.
A few answers from the internet-
WikiAnswers-
"The Washington Establishment is related to the democrat and republican party. They are highly entrenched in party politics as long as it furthers the agenda of either the democratic or republican party. The people involved in this deception are working hard to further the divide and rule mentality among the populous which if done correctly will continue to propagate the two party system. Any opposition to the two party system will be considered non-mainstream and ignored in terms of public debate. The Washington Establishment has largely been effective at maintaining political control because it seems to include the interests of the government as well as industry. However, the new Washington DC establishment has a difficult time dealing with those outside the corporate and two party system because they don't really have policy that includes these ideas. As a result they attempt to play lip service to such ideas hoping the public will accept a dumbed down version. Which often does not really protect their personal interest but in fact furthers the interests of the establishment. There can be no real substantive changes to the system unless they are in the interest of the Washington Establishment. As long as the main pillars of control are in place the Washington establishment is happy.

24 hrs till FL Returns- so let's review the polls one more time

Two weeks ago Romney was leading in Florida by as much as 26 points.
One week ago Gingrich was up anywhere from 3 to 9 points.
This week? It is Romney by 12.
Anyone else getting whiplash?

The numbers are definitely all in Romney's favor since Thursday night's CNN Debate.
But it is worth noting that 5 days of a lead don't amount to anything if the numbers slope down. Take a second look-
7 days ago Romney was leading by about 9-11 points.
4 days ago- Romney by 14.
Today? Romney only by 5.
But are the points going to Gingrich?? No. One week ago he was at 31%, and today he is still at 31%.
Santorum and Paul haven't moved significantly either. That is a very strong indication that there's as much as 30% of likely voters that are undecided!
Romney can relax enough to get 8 hours of sleep tonight, but there is no guarantee that he is going to win tomorrow. And there is no reason to think that the final primary numbers tomorrow will be the same as the last poll numbers today.
Surprisingly there still aren't any updated Nevada polls, or numbers for next week's Super Tuesday.
Nationally, Gingrich is still in the lead. But Romney supporters (and Santorum and Paul) need not get too concerned. The national polls will move after the FL returns. If Gingrich wins in an upset tomorrow, the national polls will jump even higher in his favor. If Romney takes FL, the numbers will all adjust to reflect his popularity.

It's all a numbers game- polls, delegates, and what comes next!

This Republican race is truly unprecedented. We have no historical model to follow, no pattern to expect to emerge. We have four candidates in the race, three have wins, and the fourth one is the only one who has vowed to never drop out of the race! So what happens next? The candidates start looking at the delegate numbers and the polls and weighing likelihood.

• Total Number of delegates: 2286
• Unallocated delegates: 2229
• Number of delegates needed to win: 1144

Gingrich - 25 delegates
Romney- 14
Santorum- 8
Paul - 10

Take a second look at those numbers. Ron Paul who has not won a state, has more delegates than Rick Santorum who can now claim Iowa.

Florida comes next- Jan 31- and it has 50 delegates in a winner takes all state. If you recall, Rudy Giuliani staked it all on winning FL in 2008 (which backfired on him). Five days later will be Nevada with 28 delegates in a proportional allocation state. In other words, win FL you take home 50 delegates. But in NV each candidate may take home a few delegates proportional to how many people have voted for them (which is how Paul has delegates without winning a state).

In 2008 Romney won Nevada in a landslide victory (but no one noticed as they were all focused on the bloodbath in South Carolina).

The pattern in this race has been band wagon mentality all the way. The man that has the best showing in the debate win that week's vote. There is absolutely no clear front-runner, and no one obvious path to follow yet. There are 2 debates this week, which means there are two more chances for upsets and changes.

So let's take a look at the FL numbers-

First, let's discuss the graph and not the actual numbers. Look at the green Gingrich line. He was low, he was high, he dropped, and now, as of today, he's going up again. And there's the red Cain line. Same thing- he's low, he's high, he drops. And then there is Romney with the purple line. He's fairly steady since the summer, with an uptick in the last three weeks, but a sudden fall as Gingrich jumps. Santorum and Paul have remained steady below 12% continuously.
Personally, if I was Santorum or Paul, I'd skip Florida and move on to Nevada. Why? You know you will never win Florida, and it is a winner take all state. Any time spent there is a waste of time and money where you could be elsewhere winning delegates. UNLESS, your goal is not to win the state, but to make you take away support from either Romney or Gingrich to keep them from winning.
I'll be back around later tonight to share thoughts on the debate this evening.

So now- Nevada, and then the slightly less than Super Tuesday. Nevada will holds its proportional caucus on Feb 4. There are few, if any, recent and reliable polls coming out of Nevada yet. But be looking for them to come today soon- like today or tomorrow probably. If it isn't heavily favoring Romney, consider it to be a big surprise. And if you live in Nevada, brace yourselves- the robocalls and pollsters are about to start coming. (And tell the truth to the pollsters!)

Just three days after Nevada comes the mini Super Tuesday. Colorado (36 proportional), Minnesota (40 proportional), and Missouri (52 proportional) will vote on Feb 7. Maine (24 proportional) votes over the course of a week, ending Feb 11. That's 152 proportional delegates in one week, plus the 28 proportional in Nevada. If Florida doesn't produce a clear front runner (and it won't), this race continues to be a massive battle through this first Super Tuesday. After that, the candidates can take quick naps, because the next primary day isn't for 3 more weeks, but is a much bigger Super Tuesday.

In other words, this race is far from defining a winner!