After the 20th 2012 GOP Presidential debate it became obviously clear that there was blood in the water. Romney, who has been the consistent “One to Beat” was rather low-energy, but he provided a standard performance that would neither hurt nor help him. Newt Gingrich seemed distant to the contest, and attempted to give another rebirth to his run by focusing on the energy issue (gas prices) – which I must make note of his “Americans will be happy with $2.50 a gallon under my presidency”... Newt, I am not happy with anything over $2.00. 16 short years ago when I started driving, I could get ARCO/AMPM gas for $0.69 a gallon. You’re asking me to be happy with a 250% increase in gas prices because it is better than a 550% increase? I remember the outrage when gas hit $2 a gallon... I want to get THAT wrong corrected first... but I digress. Ron Paul had a great night, where he delivered two points. First, Santorum is a “Go along to Get along” kind of politician, and that Paul’s biggest hurdle has been the misconception that he is not electable when matched with Obama. But Paul is still fighting for a state to pick him, and struggling with the media to get fair attention. This leads to the source of the blood in the water: Rick Santorum, who was the center of attention of the other candidates, yet let the moment pass without a defining example of why or how he is rightly the person to lead this nation. Four candidates making their 20th appearance before the voters; four candidates, none of whom stands poised to gain the required delegates to clinch the nomination.
Just months ago the mere mention of a brokered convention, suggesting that Romney could not clinch the nomination, was tantamount to GOP heresy. Heading into March, however, you are hard pressed to go one day without a new article discussing the looming brokered convention. Journalists and pundits have their delegate scorecards and their calculators in hand, and as each contest comes and goes, the resounding chorus is one raising the speculation of a brokered convention. But what is really making their mouths water is the speculation of who may be lurking in the shadows, waiting to step into the light and unify the party and the nation... the great savior of the 2012 election.
The speculation of the brokered convention comes down to Arizona and Michigan. Romney is in the fight of his political life after losing three states to Santorum, one being the Romney “gimme” state of Colorado. If he loses in Michigan, he could still win the nomination but would be so damaged that he would have no chance to win the general election. Once the results of Michigan and Arizona are read on Tuesday night, after the calculators come out, after the delegate scorecards are updated, we have to look at the facts:
1. Gingrich is still poised to clean up in the South, and will hold on until the bitter end hoping to gain enough delegates to be a force in the party convention. He has been waiting patiently for Super Tuesday, and a run on the southern states. He is at such odds with Romney and Santorum that he will not support one of them. So long as he has a delegate to his name, he will ride on to Tampa.
2. Ron Paul’s strategy has always been to lock up loyal delegates who may not vote with their state’s results, in hopes of being a force at the convention. If Ron Paul gets out of the race before the convention it would only be to do so as a third party candidate, focusing his attention on the general election. Based on the strength of his delegate strategy, however, I feel that Paul could enter Tampa stronger than delegate scorecards would lead you to believe.
3. Romney and Santorum are both Northeastern candidates, but Santorum does not fare as well in that region. He is clearly the favorite in the Midwest and Mountain states, where evangelicals win the day. Santorum may falter heading into the next contests due to his “cover my butt” performance at the debate, but without a chance for Newt to surge, Santorum is going to be at least neck-in-neck with Romney, splitting delegates and emboldening both candidates moving forward to Tampa.
4. If Mitt Romney can hold on in Michigan, he is strong in the west, and could pick up a large number of delegates. If Romney loses in Michigan, he may suspend his campaign. If he loses in Arizona and Michigan he will no longer be the GOP front-runner and may hold on through the convention hoping to at least be a delegate leader heading into Tampa.
If this continues to be a four horse party after Super Tuesday, we can count on a brokered convention. Period. But what is likely to happen leading up to the Convention in Tampa? Chances are slim that we will have our savior waiting in the wings until the convention.
Look for a possible draft movement to arise if Romney loses in Michigan and Arizona. Santorum is off the ballot in enough states, and is not a national contender (see Gingrich in the Southern States). If Santorum can beat Romney but not clinch the nomination, Romney will not be able to beat Obama, leaving a huge source of anxiety for the Republican Party. Look for a stronger one if he wins one or both; the people are looking for the anti-Romney and if Santorum is not that guy they will keep looking.
Who is lurking? Who is waiting? Chris Christie? Sarah Palin? Donald Trump? What about true dark horses, like Luis Fortuno (Gov. Puerto Rico)?
More importantly... What if there is a deadlock? One can assume that Ron Paul’s delegates are 100% loyal, and without his endorsement they will keep voting for him. Gingrich and Santorum delegates are more likely to swing without endorsement – they are not loyal so much as appointed by the state to vote one way or another. Romney has an army, though less loyal than Ron Paul’s... but would they be inclined to support a dark horse nominated from the floor?
There are 48 more contests (including territories and districts)... How the delegates are selected is key to how a brokered convention may play out. How Romney fares in Michigan and Arizona is key to the potential for a brokered convention. The strength of the remaining four heading into Super Tuesday is key to determining if there is an open door for a late-comer to step in and save the GOP from itself in 2012.
Showing posts with label 2012 elections. Show all posts
Showing posts with label 2012 elections. Show all posts
Thursday, February 23, 2012
Tuesday, January 10, 2012
What Would a Paul Presidency Look Like?
Ron Paul earned a solid 22% third place victory in Iowa on January 3rd, but the headlines went directly to a Santorum surge that has arguably been a "no-show" one week later in New Hampshire, where Paul is finishing 7% better than his polling average. Paul finished a very strong second tonight in the Granite State, but already the headlines are reading like a Huntsman/Romney head-to-head heat. Huntsman, of course, is finishing about 22% behind Romney and about 8% behind Ron Paul. And yet the media black-out continues. In fact, when watching the results on FoxNews, any mention of Ron Paul was met with "who will not be the nominee". Romney has had an array of "Not Romney" contenders, but no one has consistently finished stronger than Paul, and no one has the organization and momentum that Paul has after the first two contests. Arguably, after Iowa and New Hampshire it is clear that the true contender to take on Romney is and has been Ron Paul.Ron Paul polls favorably against Obama in a head-to-head contest. Paul has the youth and Libertarian votes locked up. Paul is a true anti-war candidate, which would make Obama the war-candidate, locking up leftist anti-war support in a general election. Paul is the one candidate who speaks across the spectrum. He fits into no political mold. He is the true Libertarian. In a time when the electorate are so fed up with the status-quo, Ron Paul is the most dangerous man running for the American Presidency - because he will annihilate the status-quo.
Assuming a Paul victory in November, what would America look like on January 21, 2013 and for the first 100 days of his presidency? What about beyond?
Moments after being sworn into office, Ron Paul would issue an executive order repealing the Patriot Act. He would follow that immediately with starting to roll out his Plan to Restore America, his $1 Trillion budget cut, by ordering the systematic closure of several of the Executive Departments of the Federal Government. The restructure of the government would be done in such a way that State Governments and Private Business would be required to immediately step up to take the rolls of those efforts necessary enough to survive the transition - that is right - the free market will eliminate the waste. Within weeks, several US military bases overseas will be targeted for closure as part of a first wave, followed quickly by other waves of foreign base closures. Energy prices would dive, as Paul's America First energy initiative would stop the export of US energy, aiming the US onto a track of self sufficiency, thus putting an end to our dependency on foreign oil, and the need for defense of Middle Eastern oil.
The military would be strengthened by consolidating our currently overstretched resources. The closure of foreign bases and the immediate end to decades long unconstitutional regional wars would free up resources to focus on American infrastructure and defense. The military industrial complex would be slowed to a grinding halt as US involvement in missions like Tomahawk Bombing Libya and Drone attacking civilians in Pakistan would immediately cease. Our global mission would truly go from one of aggression to humanitarianism. Where governments ask us to leave, we would respectfully exit and allow them to handle their own affairs. We would cease to be the police, and once again lead by a strong example of civility and liberty.
The Native Tribes would be cut loose from the racist policies of the Dept. of the Interior, as it would be eliminated. In accordance with Article 1 section 6, treaties made with the native Tribes would finally be upheld, and the Supreme Court ruling of 1982 regarding the Lakotah Sioux would have a chance to be realized. The US would have to face the issue of Reservations and Native land once and for all.
The US monetary system would be transitioned back under the control of the Dept. of the Treasury, thus ending the privately owned National Banking System known as the Federal Reserve. The US dollars would become real money, and our debt would be painfully real - eliminating the annoying ability of Congress to pay off debt with borrowing fake fiat money. The US would experience deflation over time, and the value of the US Dollar (not the Federal Reserve Note) would increase on the strength of our growing economy.
We would see the US debt being paid down. We would see the end to banker-owned Congresses and the era of Bail-outs. In fact, I'm almost willing to bet that Paul goes after the companies who took taxpayer monies with the expectation of collecting those debts and returning the monies. We would see the tax system completely revamped, eliminating loopholes and reducing overall taxes. We would see a bare-boned Federal Government and a rise in the importance of state and regional governments.
A Paul Presidency would be dangerous to the status-quo, which is why paul is feared amongst those in power. It would be a transition toward a smaller federal government and lower regulation of personal affairs (like taking off your shoes to board an airplane). It would be a return to Constitutional sanity... to checks and balances.
It would be the best chance America has to survive another hundred years. It would be the best chance we have to remove the burden of debt from our future generations. It would be an era of a quieter and more competitive America, a renewed era of American Exceptionalism... one of American peace and prosperity... one where America returns as the shiny city on the hill for all the right reasons... one where we are followed out of respect, not followed out of fear.
Am I being overly optimistic? Sure. As a realist I understand that there would be push back from war-hawks in Congress, lobbyists, big labor, etc. The system that has grown too large to fail would fight so very hard to keep the pork barrel full, even if this fat hog was eating the citizens out of house and home.
So the honest answer is that there would be struggle. There would be news stories of doom and gloom as the fat cats began getting isolated and eliminated. There would be a period of struggle and strife as we shake off the dirt and get to work on truly restoring our country. There would be work, transition, and a whole lot of personal responsibility - a broom in every hand to clean up this country!
We just may, through all of this, find ourselves the leaders of the next great generation of Americans.
Of course, this is all only a possibility if Ron Paul is given the fair shake he deserves as a true front runner and presidential contender. A Ron Paul America... can you imagine?
Thursday, September 15, 2011
Why Rick Perry Scares the Hell out of Me
The United States, as a nation, is in total ruin. We have a federal government that is not only morbidly obese but corrupt beyond measure and so completely impotent to address any real problems that they simply continue to compound. At the Executive level we have Barry Obama, who has been the main player in crippling this nation beyond repair. We have a legislative branch so deeply out of touch that they cannot comprehend the calamity that is truly underway (not to mention they are seeking a pay raise!) And we have a Judicial branch that is infected with political ideologues and party cronies. The state of this union is not good. There are fundamental failures and loopholes at the highest level that, left immediately unfixed, will irreversibly damage what is left to salvage from this Union of States. To fix these problems at the federal level requires vision, leadership, and sound principles. More importantly the nominee to face off with Obama must be capable. It can be argued that Obama had the three traits listed above, but his general ineptitude is what put this nation full speed ahead into a field of icebergs.
Enter the 2012 GOP Presidential Contenders, and focusing on arguably the top 5 candidates (or predicted candidates): Perry, Romney, Paul, Bachmann, Palin. Of those five names, four have declared candidacy. Of those four candidates, three are basing their core support on the religious right. Of those three, two have either strongly endorsed extremely leftist candidates or passed extremely liberal state legislation regarding healthcare.
Rick Perry, more than all the others combined, scares the hell out of me. As a Republican, but more importantly as an American, I am very afraid of the potential for a Perry presidency. Perry is the Pat Robertson of 2012. Perry was propelled into the spotlight with his 'prayer for rain', and is of the general belief that the world is in the apocalyptic end times. Setting aside his controversial anti-liberty stance on forced HPV vaccinations in Texas, tax increases, or his questionable relations to extreme liberals over the years, Rick Perry is the American Ahmadinejad. Perry has even states that the US will be "guided by Christian leaders following Christian values." Which Christian values are going to guide this nation? The same values that guided Europe into the Inquisition? The same values that led to the slaughter of the Mayan and Aztecs? The same values that lead some to believe that everyone but them is doomed to an eternity in hell? What variation of Christianity will this nation bend to? This is exactly why Religion has a place in man's heart, but it does not belong in politics. That Rick Perry believes we are in the end times, and as a dutiful Christian he will choose God over country, could one not deduce that he would use the full force of the military to bring about the Messiah? The same logic used by Ahmadinejad in Iran.
I will not and cannot support Rick Perry in the Primary or General election. I have always been skeptical of leaders who rely on religion as their running mate. The solution to America's problems are not solved by Perry's brand of politics, for the same reason that Pat Robertson's lunacy continues to solve nothing. Religion has no place in political discourse, other than to state that one man's belief or understanding of God should not be forcefully put upon another man. Any time that it is elevated beyond this I am not only skeptical, but I am terrified of the outcome.
Enter the 2012 GOP Presidential Contenders, and focusing on arguably the top 5 candidates (or predicted candidates): Perry, Romney, Paul, Bachmann, Palin. Of those five names, four have declared candidacy. Of those four candidates, three are basing their core support on the religious right. Of those three, two have either strongly endorsed extremely leftist candidates or passed extremely liberal state legislation regarding healthcare.
Rick Perry, more than all the others combined, scares the hell out of me. As a Republican, but more importantly as an American, I am very afraid of the potential for a Perry presidency. Perry is the Pat Robertson of 2012. Perry was propelled into the spotlight with his 'prayer for rain', and is of the general belief that the world is in the apocalyptic end times. Setting aside his controversial anti-liberty stance on forced HPV vaccinations in Texas, tax increases, or his questionable relations to extreme liberals over the years, Rick Perry is the American Ahmadinejad. Perry has even states that the US will be "guided by Christian leaders following Christian values." Which Christian values are going to guide this nation? The same values that guided Europe into the Inquisition? The same values that led to the slaughter of the Mayan and Aztecs? The same values that lead some to believe that everyone but them is doomed to an eternity in hell? What variation of Christianity will this nation bend to? This is exactly why Religion has a place in man's heart, but it does not belong in politics. That Rick Perry believes we are in the end times, and as a dutiful Christian he will choose God over country, could one not deduce that he would use the full force of the military to bring about the Messiah? The same logic used by Ahmadinejad in Iran.
I will not and cannot support Rick Perry in the Primary or General election. I have always been skeptical of leaders who rely on religion as their running mate. The solution to America's problems are not solved by Perry's brand of politics, for the same reason that Pat Robertson's lunacy continues to solve nothing. Religion has no place in political discourse, other than to state that one man's belief or understanding of God should not be forcefully put upon another man. Any time that it is elevated beyond this I am not only skeptical, but I am terrified of the outcome.
Thursday, February 3, 2011
The Burden of the 2012 GOP Race - Being First
By the end of January 2007, roughly all major candidates had entered the race for the GOP nomination for President; a move that lead to a mudfest / bloodfest and ruined the political futures of a few individuals. It was a situation that provided a tough lesson, a lesson being strictly and seriously taken by all potential candidates in 2012: For God's Sake, Don't Be First!
The usual cast of characters, those left over from 2008, are expected to enter the race. Being first, however, means becoming a target. If Palin goes first, the other candidates enter as a common sense alternative to the Hockey Mom who has no experience (regardless of her message). If Romney goes first, the others enter the race as small government alternatives without a history of failed state healthcare systems. If Huckabee goes first... well, you see the pattern.
Make no mistake. February will be the month where the staring contest comes to an end. Someone is going to make the first gesture toward the podium. And like Rudy Guilliani in 2008, who went from a sure thing to a has-been, the targets have already been pre-manufactured and the bloodbaths will ensue.
That being said, the RCP average has a neck-n-neck tie between Romney, Huckabee, and Palin, with Newt Gingrich, Chris Christie, and Ron Paul rounding out the field. No one candidate is clearly dead or alive. And the field looks to explode once the usual suspects have thrown their names in the ring.
Who I am most interested to see enter the race: Lou Dobbs and Michelle Bachmann.
Lou Dobbs because we, the people, may actually get a straight answer from our commander in chief. We may actually see an end to the destruction of the US borders. We may have a fiscal strategy that will drastically reduce the national debt, strengthen the dollar, and secure our interests at home. With a Dobbs administration we can expect a post Wilsonian Foreign Policy, a reduction in foreign influence on America, and a period of internal healing and soul searching.
Michelle Bachmann because strong, conservative, and Libertarian leaning women not only get my heart pounding, but because the American people share a special place for that feminine strength. It says something about our nation, and the equal footing provided to all genders or creeds. The message is important, but there is a tactical advantage in picking the right messenger. Someone like Bachmann has the influence and the recognition to put real, hardworking conservative women into the political spotlight... and hopefully remove the spotlight from less experienced celebrity conservatives, such as Palin.
Alas... the race cannot start if all the horses refuse to enter the gates... so they circle in the backfield, waiting... gritting their teeth and honing their sights on the finish... Who is going to define the field? Who is going to be first? Who is ready to become dog meat?
C'Mon guys... let the games begin... we're ready for the entertainment to begin!
The usual cast of characters, those left over from 2008, are expected to enter the race. Being first, however, means becoming a target. If Palin goes first, the other candidates enter as a common sense alternative to the Hockey Mom who has no experience (regardless of her message). If Romney goes first, the others enter the race as small government alternatives without a history of failed state healthcare systems. If Huckabee goes first... well, you see the pattern.
Make no mistake. February will be the month where the staring contest comes to an end. Someone is going to make the first gesture toward the podium. And like Rudy Guilliani in 2008, who went from a sure thing to a has-been, the targets have already been pre-manufactured and the bloodbaths will ensue.
That being said, the RCP average has a neck-n-neck tie between Romney, Huckabee, and Palin, with Newt Gingrich, Chris Christie, and Ron Paul rounding out the field. No one candidate is clearly dead or alive. And the field looks to explode once the usual suspects have thrown their names in the ring.
Who I am most interested to see enter the race: Lou Dobbs and Michelle Bachmann.
Lou Dobbs because we, the people, may actually get a straight answer from our commander in chief. We may actually see an end to the destruction of the US borders. We may have a fiscal strategy that will drastically reduce the national debt, strengthen the dollar, and secure our interests at home. With a Dobbs administration we can expect a post Wilsonian Foreign Policy, a reduction in foreign influence on America, and a period of internal healing and soul searching.
Michelle Bachmann because strong, conservative, and Libertarian leaning women not only get my heart pounding, but because the American people share a special place for that feminine strength. It says something about our nation, and the equal footing provided to all genders or creeds. The message is important, but there is a tactical advantage in picking the right messenger. Someone like Bachmann has the influence and the recognition to put real, hardworking conservative women into the political spotlight... and hopefully remove the spotlight from less experienced celebrity conservatives, such as Palin.
Alas... the race cannot start if all the horses refuse to enter the gates... so they circle in the backfield, waiting... gritting their teeth and honing their sights on the finish... Who is going to define the field? Who is going to be first? Who is ready to become dog meat?
C'Mon guys... let the games begin... we're ready for the entertainment to begin!
Tuesday, October 27, 2009
A Constitutional Amendment! R-SC DeMint Proposes Term Limits!
Praise be to God! South Carolina Republican Senator Jim DeMint has done what many of us have wished and called for over the years - He is proposing a Constitutional Amendment limiting the terms of US Senators and Congressmen to 2 terms and 3 terms respectively, reviving a key element of the Republican Contract with America of the early 1990's.
I had been preparing a blog on this very issue, suggesting that when we find an elected official willing to propose that amendment, we will have found the leader of our party.
Senator Jim DeMint, you have just been propelled to the top of my list, despite your veering from Libertarian causes in favor of Social Conservatism.
I fully support term limits for congress, but do not support lifetime limits. For instance, I would add the word "consecutive" preceding the term limitations, allowing for a congressman from one district to serve another district at another time, or a senator to serve as a congressman and then return to a senate position. What this does is removes them from the position of incumbent without eliminating their liberty to act as a public servant... though I also disagree with "career politicians" it should be the right of a citizen to seek office at the request of their constituents.
One thing I would also like to see is an amendment eliminating the "pay raise" clause of the Constitution, establishing a flat rate salary of $50,000 annually for Congressmen, $75,000 annually for Senators, and $100,000 annually for President - no adjustment for cost of living, and only allowing pay cuts. Incumbents don't fear the "pay raise" clause as it stands, and the leaders of this country are over compensated for their job performance as it is. As a matter of fact, the States should have to approve all pay increases as a vote of the people in the states. 100% required for passing such a pay raise.
Getting back on track, Senator DeMint has now officially been placed on my radar for 2012... though I don't like Senators as Presidents, this decision is worthy of special attention.
I had been preparing a blog on this very issue, suggesting that when we find an elected official willing to propose that amendment, we will have found the leader of our party.
Senator Jim DeMint, you have just been propelled to the top of my list, despite your veering from Libertarian causes in favor of Social Conservatism.
About DeMint:
DeMint was ranked by National Journal as the most conservative United States Senator in their March, 2007 conservative/liberal rankings, and again in 2008.
DeMint's main work has been opposing the increase of Federal government spending, both under the Bush and Obama Administrations. He was opposed to
federal bailouts for banks and other corporations. For his stances on budgetary issues, DeMint has been strongly supported by the fiscally conservative political group Club for Growth.
In 2009, DeMint introduced an amendment to a multi-billion dollar economic stimulus bill that would have prohibited lawmakers from using any percentage of transportation funds on bicycle, walking, or wilderness trails. Additionally, DeMint opposed the whole bill.
DeMint was one of the first members of Congress to publicly back the Honduran Supreme Court in the 2009 Honduran constitutional crisis. He went to Honduras in 2009, and met with de facto president Roberto Micheletti, who was installed after the constitutional crisis. The White House has explicitly banned meetings with the current leaders. The White House views ousted president Manuel Zelaya as the legitimately elected president.
I fully support term limits for congress, but do not support lifetime limits. For instance, I would add the word "consecutive" preceding the term limitations, allowing for a congressman from one district to serve another district at another time, or a senator to serve as a congressman and then return to a senate position. What this does is removes them from the position of incumbent without eliminating their liberty to act as a public servant... though I also disagree with "career politicians" it should be the right of a citizen to seek office at the request of their constituents.
One thing I would also like to see is an amendment eliminating the "pay raise" clause of the Constitution, establishing a flat rate salary of $50,000 annually for Congressmen, $75,000 annually for Senators, and $100,000 annually for President - no adjustment for cost of living, and only allowing pay cuts. Incumbents don't fear the "pay raise" clause as it stands, and the leaders of this country are over compensated for their job performance as it is. As a matter of fact, the States should have to approve all pay increases as a vote of the people in the states. 100% required for passing such a pay raise.
Getting back on track, Senator DeMint has now officially been placed on my radar for 2012... though I don't like Senators as Presidents, this decision is worthy of special attention.
Friday, October 2, 2009
Vetting a 2012 Republican President
Today's post will act as a conversation piece. With the 2012 presidential campaign due to start moments after the 2010 elections are over, now is a great time to look at the field of contenders and what their run or nomination would indicate. I am going to explore strategic significance, principles of libertarianism as it relates to the Tea Parties, and any noticeable advantages. One thing you may find interesting is that I have mostly found ALL mainstream "knowns" unsuitable to lead in a manner needed to fix the wrongs of the current state of the union.
Firstly, my list is going to be overwhelmingly dominated by Governors of States. It is my belief that executive offices require executive experience. Obama, the first Senator to be elected since JFK, has proven the point that Senators make bad Presidents! (I have not included Ron Paul because of his age... he is the only other candidate with impressive ideas of drastic changes needed to return Liberty to the People.)
Secondly, this list is in no particular order - but I will offer up a top three, as I see them.
Thirdly, Governors with re-elections in 2010 stand to lead the pack, as they will be backed by momentum, and could go hard against Obama on a national level during their campaign... something to watch for - but not necessarily the biggest factor!
My conversation piece of potentials:
Connecticut Gov. M. Jodi Rell. She has the ability to draw much attention due to her state's Civil Union laws - a break in ranks from hardcore Social Conservatives, leaning toward a Libertarian ideology of Personal Liberties (even in the bedroom) - This alone would make for great debate and give a good representation of the future make-up of the GOP. She is very moderate, and a nomination would not be in support of the general agenda of the Libertarian Movement. Definitely not one to win, but one to draw attention to Political Parties using Govt. to force Social Agendas. Her re-election campaign in 2010 may be an indicator as to her future aspirations.
Idaho Gov. C.L. Otter. He is a little known one-term Governor, but his early Congressional opposition to the Patriot Act and many of Bush's policies are signs of his promising Libertarian streak. He is up for re-election in 2010. There is nothing highly controversial, nor glaringly spectacular about this potential candidate. Busted for DUI and married to a much younger woman... other than that he is a fairly conservative "no-namer" with a libertarian streak that could sit well with a country ready to reduce the role of the Federal Govt. He is up for re-election in 2010. How he runs that campaign could make or break it for this Libertarian minded Republican.
Indiana Gov. Mitch Daniels. Mitch has been pinged a number of times for 2012, and has denied interest in running. He is a reformer in Indian, and could bring some energy back to the GOP in that region - however, a Daniels presidency would grossly resemble a Bush presidency. There is no indication that Daniels would openly support Libertarian ideals in eliminating the Federal stranglehold on the Union. This guy may be one to watch, but not for reasons of support... we should be wary of this "Bush Republican".
North Dakota Gov. John Hoeven. The longest serving governor in the United States, Hoeven is a Libertarian minded Conservative. His support of strict state's rights in control over drug policy, health care, gun issues, etc make him a glowing prospect to carry the Gadsden flag to the White House. As a former president of a state owned bank, he has the right credentials in times of economic woe - which I still see us being in as we approach 2012. Hoeven's term is up in 2012, so he will have to make a move on his own to rise to the national stage.
South Carolina Gov. Mark Sanford. Until recently he was my favorite for the 2012 campaign. However, the handling of his affair may have ended his political career. Regardless, he may be the best and most outspoken Libertarian Republican we have in the field... If we can get around the fact that he, like most Americans, is going through a divorce, there may be time to rebound by 2012. Pending results of a possible S.C. impeachment, I would keep Sanford on my watch list.
Texas Gov. Rick Perry. I mention Rick Perry hesitantly, and only because of his "secession" talk of late. A governor who truly understands the intent of the 9th and 10th amendments to the Constitution makes for a great President. There are, however, two drawbacks. He is from Texas, Bush was from Texas - I can already hear the Dems battle cry "we don't need another Texas Governor running this country like Bush"... It's all the dems have, and they will not be able to resist running another anti-Bush campaign in 2012. Secondly, "independent" Texas governors tend to forget the concept of state's rights once they transition into the white house... Perry may very well end up taking the reigns of tyranny without remorse, and controlling the population under the guise of "I know best" - something the Federal Government excels at.
Puerto Rico Gov. Luis G. Fortuño. Though only newly elected as Governor of PR, Fortuno's leadership experience and commitment to service of Puerto Rico's community is stellar. He leads the "New Progressive Party" of Puerto Rico, which caucuses with the Republicans and advocates for PR to become a state of the Union -the opposite mind-set of the secessionist movements. His election would quell the battle cry for freedom from the Federal Government, as it is his policy to reduce the size of government - if only for purely economic reasons. Also, as you may be wondering, he is a resident of Puerto Rico - which is a US territory and NOT a state. This would open some of the most pressing and relevant Constitutional discussions regarding the presidency in the history of the United States. If the left thought Palin caught them off guard, just try a liberty minded territorial resident aimed at healing the Union by putting to rest the policy of territories, US expansionism without representation, and re-emphasising the importance of sovereignty and autonomy while supporting a limited Federal Role. This guy may be the real ticket to a New Republican Party focused on renewed state's rights.
Guam Gov. Felix Camacho. Though less likely to stir the pot than Fortuno, Camacho has the ability to draw into question the 50 state policy of the United States, the way the US deals with territories, and the ever important role of state sovereignty and autonomy. Camacho is term limited in 2010, but could make a name for himself by challenging the Federal Government and the United States on the territory policy. This is less likely to happen in Guam as it is in Puerto Rico, but Camacho may ruffle some feathers.
Who I definitely DO NOT want to see in 2012. Jindahl, Pawlenty, McCain, Romney, Barbour.
Jindahl just doesn't have what it takes, and his hype by the GOP in 2008 for VP made me very aware of his "puppet" status as a candidate. His response to the State of the Union was weak, and he has done nothing of significance. He gets a Libertarian rating of F from me, and would prove to be a continuation of Bush Era policies. Jindahl voted yes on making the PATRIOT Act permanent, voted in favor of the 2006 Military Commissions Act, supported a constitutional amendment banning flag burning, and voted for the Real ID Act of 2005. Not a Small Government activist in the least.
Pawlenty is a McCain moderate that adds nothing inspiring to the field of potential candidates.
McCain has no chance of ever again getting the Republican nomination and should strongly consider leaving the national stage for his direct responsibility in electing Obama.
Mitt Romney has never won me over, is too similar to John Kerry, and his one term in MA Governorship was indicative of his inability to hold the line on a position. He never was and will never be a good candidate for presidency.
In July 2009, a Rasmussen Reports poll indicated that 34% of registered Republicans have a favorable view of Mississippi Gov. Barbour. However, 37% dislike him, which is the highest unfavorable percentage among 5 other possible Republican candidates for 2012: Dick Cheney, Sarah Palin, Mitt Romney, Mike Huckabee, and Tim Pawlenty. Also, 21% of GOP voters would least like to see Barbour win the party nomination in 2012. Including the Liberty Republican.
I have left Mike Huckabee and Sarah Palin until the end for a reason. She was my pick for VP, he was my pick for President.
Huckabee, at this point, lacks the willingness to end entanglements with foreign countries, reduce the size and control of the Federal Government, and eliminate the Federal Reserve. He is a proponent of the Fair Tax, which is promising. However, I fear that after Obama, a Huckabee message of Hope and Change (as in 2008) will not get far, and that his intent to use the POTUS platform to enact a strong Conservative Social agenda does nothing to advance True Libertarianism and reduced Federal Government.
Sarah Palin, the bull-dog, is a rally cry for state's rights and perceived change within the ranks of the GOP. She is the manifestation of discontent with the status quo within the Republican Party, and lacking an alternative may be our next Presidential Candidate, ensuring Obama a two term presidency. Palin cannot win votes from the left. She doesn't represent enough of a Libertarian change within the ranks of the GOP and she has not made decisions that inspire confidence in her ability to lead the nation. As a VP, perhaps... but she has yet to indicate that she has what is needed to return the Presidency and the Union to a settled state. She is too polarizing, and for all the wrong reasons - a distraction as I see it at this point. As much as it pains me to say it, She has a lot of growth ahead if she is going to win my endorsement again.
My early picks, then, would be as follows:
Puerto Rico Gov. Luis G. Fortuño
*****************************
h/t to PuertoRico.com blog:
Fortuno was born in San Juan, in 1960. He attended the School of Foreign Service (Georgetown University) where he received his bachelor’s degree and went to the University of Virginia Law, to obtain his Juris Doctorate. Politics became a part of his life early on, when he was voted Vice-President of his Freshman Class, and later became the Chairman of the Congressional Hispanic Conference. He also played a significant role in the establishment of the Congressional Friends of Spain Caucus. While working his way up in the Republican Party, Fortuno held various positions throughout his career including member of the House Republican Policy Committee, member of the Executive Committee of the National Republican Congressional Committee, served on the Committee of Education and Labor, Executive Director of the Puerto Rico Tourism Company and was the President of Hotel Development Corporation. His position as Department of Economic Development and Commerce Secretary came in 1994 and in 2005, he was elected to Congress. With the various positions held over the years, Fortuno has gathered a wealth of knowledge in various sectors and it is believed that if anyone can bring about change in Puerto Rico, it would be him.
Firstly, my list is going to be overwhelmingly dominated by Governors of States. It is my belief that executive offices require executive experience. Obama, the first Senator to be elected since JFK, has proven the point that Senators make bad Presidents! (I have not included Ron Paul because of his age... he is the only other candidate with impressive ideas of drastic changes needed to return Liberty to the People.)
Secondly, this list is in no particular order - but I will offer up a top three, as I see them.
Thirdly, Governors with re-elections in 2010 stand to lead the pack, as they will be backed by momentum, and could go hard against Obama on a national level during their campaign... something to watch for - but not necessarily the biggest factor!
My conversation piece of potentials:
Connecticut Gov. M. Jodi Rell. She has the ability to draw much attention due to her state's Civil Union laws - a break in ranks from hardcore Social Conservatives, leaning toward a Libertarian ideology of Personal Liberties (even in the bedroom) - This alone would make for great debate and give a good representation of the future make-up of the GOP. She is very moderate, and a nomination would not be in support of the general agenda of the Libertarian Movement. Definitely not one to win, but one to draw attention to Political Parties using Govt. to force Social Agendas. Her re-election campaign in 2010 may be an indicator as to her future aspirations.
Idaho Gov. C.L. Otter. He is a little known one-term Governor, but his early Congressional opposition to the Patriot Act and many of Bush's policies are signs of his promising Libertarian streak. He is up for re-election in 2010. There is nothing highly controversial, nor glaringly spectacular about this potential candidate. Busted for DUI and married to a much younger woman... other than that he is a fairly conservative "no-namer" with a libertarian streak that could sit well with a country ready to reduce the role of the Federal Govt. He is up for re-election in 2010. How he runs that campaign could make or break it for this Libertarian minded Republican.
Indiana Gov. Mitch Daniels. Mitch has been pinged a number of times for 2012, and has denied interest in running. He is a reformer in Indian, and could bring some energy back to the GOP in that region - however, a Daniels presidency would grossly resemble a Bush presidency. There is no indication that Daniels would openly support Libertarian ideals in eliminating the Federal stranglehold on the Union. This guy may be one to watch, but not for reasons of support... we should be wary of this "Bush Republican".
North Dakota Gov. John Hoeven. The longest serving governor in the United States, Hoeven is a Libertarian minded Conservative. His support of strict state's rights in control over drug policy, health care, gun issues, etc make him a glowing prospect to carry the Gadsden flag to the White House. As a former president of a state owned bank, he has the right credentials in times of economic woe - which I still see us being in as we approach 2012. Hoeven's term is up in 2012, so he will have to make a move on his own to rise to the national stage.
South Carolina Gov. Mark Sanford. Until recently he was my favorite for the 2012 campaign. However, the handling of his affair may have ended his political career. Regardless, he may be the best and most outspoken Libertarian Republican we have in the field... If we can get around the fact that he, like most Americans, is going through a divorce, there may be time to rebound by 2012. Pending results of a possible S.C. impeachment, I would keep Sanford on my watch list.
Texas Gov. Rick Perry. I mention Rick Perry hesitantly, and only because of his "secession" talk of late. A governor who truly understands the intent of the 9th and 10th amendments to the Constitution makes for a great President. There are, however, two drawbacks. He is from Texas, Bush was from Texas - I can already hear the Dems battle cry "we don't need another Texas Governor running this country like Bush"... It's all the dems have, and they will not be able to resist running another anti-Bush campaign in 2012. Secondly, "independent" Texas governors tend to forget the concept of state's rights once they transition into the white house... Perry may very well end up taking the reigns of tyranny without remorse, and controlling the population under the guise of "I know best" - something the Federal Government excels at.
Puerto Rico Gov. Luis G. Fortuño. Though only newly elected as Governor of PR, Fortuno's leadership experience and commitment to service of Puerto Rico's community is stellar. He leads the "New Progressive Party" of Puerto Rico, which caucuses with the Republicans and advocates for PR to become a state of the Union -the opposite mind-set of the secessionist movements. His election would quell the battle cry for freedom from the Federal Government, as it is his policy to reduce the size of government - if only for purely economic reasons. Also, as you may be wondering, he is a resident of Puerto Rico - which is a US territory and NOT a state. This would open some of the most pressing and relevant Constitutional discussions regarding the presidency in the history of the United States. If the left thought Palin caught them off guard, just try a liberty minded territorial resident aimed at healing the Union by putting to rest the policy of territories, US expansionism without representation, and re-emphasising the importance of sovereignty and autonomy while supporting a limited Federal Role. This guy may be the real ticket to a New Republican Party focused on renewed state's rights.
Guam Gov. Felix Camacho. Though less likely to stir the pot than Fortuno, Camacho has the ability to draw into question the 50 state policy of the United States, the way the US deals with territories, and the ever important role of state sovereignty and autonomy. Camacho is term limited in 2010, but could make a name for himself by challenging the Federal Government and the United States on the territory policy. This is less likely to happen in Guam as it is in Puerto Rico, but Camacho may ruffle some feathers.
Who I definitely DO NOT want to see in 2012. Jindahl, Pawlenty, McCain, Romney, Barbour.
Jindahl just doesn't have what it takes, and his hype by the GOP in 2008 for VP made me very aware of his "puppet" status as a candidate. His response to the State of the Union was weak, and he has done nothing of significance. He gets a Libertarian rating of F from me, and would prove to be a continuation of Bush Era policies. Jindahl voted yes on making the PATRIOT Act permanent, voted in favor of the 2006 Military Commissions Act, supported a constitutional amendment banning flag burning, and voted for the Real ID Act of 2005. Not a Small Government activist in the least.
Pawlenty is a McCain moderate that adds nothing inspiring to the field of potential candidates.
McCain has no chance of ever again getting the Republican nomination and should strongly consider leaving the national stage for his direct responsibility in electing Obama.
Mitt Romney has never won me over, is too similar to John Kerry, and his one term in MA Governorship was indicative of his inability to hold the line on a position. He never was and will never be a good candidate for presidency.
In July 2009, a Rasmussen Reports poll indicated that 34% of registered Republicans have a favorable view of Mississippi Gov. Barbour. However, 37% dislike him, which is the highest unfavorable percentage among 5 other possible Republican candidates for 2012: Dick Cheney, Sarah Palin, Mitt Romney, Mike Huckabee, and Tim Pawlenty. Also, 21% of GOP voters would least like to see Barbour win the party nomination in 2012. Including the Liberty Republican.
I have left Mike Huckabee and Sarah Palin until the end for a reason. She was my pick for VP, he was my pick for President.
Huckabee, at this point, lacks the willingness to end entanglements with foreign countries, reduce the size and control of the Federal Government, and eliminate the Federal Reserve. He is a proponent of the Fair Tax, which is promising. However, I fear that after Obama, a Huckabee message of Hope and Change (as in 2008) will not get far, and that his intent to use the POTUS platform to enact a strong Conservative Social agenda does nothing to advance True Libertarianism and reduced Federal Government.
Sarah Palin, the bull-dog, is a rally cry for state's rights and perceived change within the ranks of the GOP. She is the manifestation of discontent with the status quo within the Republican Party, and lacking an alternative may be our next Presidential Candidate, ensuring Obama a two term presidency. Palin cannot win votes from the left. She doesn't represent enough of a Libertarian change within the ranks of the GOP and she has not made decisions that inspire confidence in her ability to lead the nation. As a VP, perhaps... but she has yet to indicate that she has what is needed to return the Presidency and the Union to a settled state. She is too polarizing, and for all the wrong reasons - a distraction as I see it at this point. As much as it pains me to say it, She has a lot of growth ahead if she is going to win my endorsement again.
My early picks, then, would be as follows:
Puerto Rico Gov. Luis G. Fortuño
North Dakota Gov. John Hoeven
Idaho Gov. C.L. Otter
*****************************
h/t to PuertoRico.com blog:
Fortuno was born in San Juan, in 1960. He attended the School of Foreign Service (Georgetown University) where he received his bachelor’s degree and went to the University of Virginia Law, to obtain his Juris Doctorate. Politics became a part of his life early on, when he was voted Vice-President of his Freshman Class, and later became the Chairman of the Congressional Hispanic Conference. He also played a significant role in the establishment of the Congressional Friends of Spain Caucus. While working his way up in the Republican Party, Fortuno held various positions throughout his career including member of the House Republican Policy Committee, member of the Executive Committee of the National Republican Congressional Committee, served on the Committee of Education and Labor, Executive Director of the Puerto Rico Tourism Company and was the President of Hotel Development Corporation. His position as Department of Economic Development and Commerce Secretary came in 1994 and in 2005, he was elected to Congress. With the various positions held over the years, Fortuno has gathered a wealth of knowledge in various sectors and it is believed that if anyone can bring about change in Puerto Rico, it would be him.
Monday, July 21, 2008
Did Hillary Just Endorse McCain?
It appears that Hillary Clinton's campaign firm has just purchased the domain name HRC2012.com - a site possibly reserved for a 2012 Presidential bid. (Though it may be a parked site for her 2012 NY Senate re-election bid... merely coincidental)
If Hillary is planning for a 2012 bid, is it an attempt to outmaneuver Obama with an "I told you so" to Democrats who will lose the presidency to John McCain... Could she be pulling for an Obama defeat so she can roar back into the primaries in 2012?
I suppose we will have to wait and see... this may be a first... A presidential bid 4+ years in the making.
Keep your eyes on the site:
(ugh)
If Hillary is planning for a 2012 bid, is it an attempt to outmaneuver Obama with an "I told you so" to Democrats who will lose the presidency to John McCain... Could she be pulling for an Obama defeat so she can roar back into the primaries in 2012?
I suppose we will have to wait and see... this may be a first... A presidential bid 4+ years in the making.
Keep your eyes on the site:
(ugh)
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)