Ok, Newt Gingrich, Ron Paul, Rick Santorum supporters, this one is directed at you.
What thing has happened in the last three years that makes you think having a legislator with no executive experience in the White House is a good idea?
Sorry. I’m not going to be elected President of the Mitt Romney fan club any time soon, but supporting anyone else at this point suggests mental health issues.
Yesterday, former Governor Mitt Romney (R-MA) picked up five more states in the battle for the Republican Presidential nomination, including the all-important bellwether state of Ohio. He now moves from frontrunner status to likely nominee status.
So, yes, it looks like the Republicans once again picked the next man in line. Our nominee is going to be the man that less than two years ago, I swore I’d never vote for. I’ve reluctantly changed my mind on that score, but what hasn’t changed, is that for the sixth consecutive Presidential election, I’ll be forced to vote for a candidate that’s to the left of me. Just once I’d love to vote for a candidate that represents my views.
And yet, on the whole, it could have been worse. A lot worse.
Don’t get me wrong. I admire former Senator Rick Santorum (R-PA). The more I get to know him, the more impressed I am with him as a human being. I admire his beliefs, and I admire his willingness to stand up for them, even when he knows that he will face strong criticism for some of them. He seems to be a man who says what he believes and believes what he says. That’s a rarity for a politician these days, and it’s to be lauded.
I admire former Speaker of the House Newt Gingrich’s (R-GA-06) intellect. I admire not only his knowledge of history and world affairs, but his understanding of them. I said two years ago that he’d be a formidable debater and he has been. He’s a great idea man. I’d love to see him as Chief of Staff, or maybe even Secretary of Energy, State, or Commerce. He’d give any of those departments the top to bottom shakeup that they sorely need.
I admire Congressman Ron Paul’s (R-TX-14) fighting spirit. I admire the way he’s grabbed this issue of the power and secrecy of the Federal Reserve and he’s not letting go. He’s absolutely right on this issue. I also admire they fact that despite the R after his name, he’s probably the only true Libertarian in either chamber of the U.S. Congress.
But…
I have more than my fair share of concerns with all three of these gentlemen. As I’ve said numerous times on this blog, I’ve never been a fan of legislators as chief executives. Certainly the last 3+ years have done nothing to change my mind on that score. Ron Paul’s ideas on foreign policy are frankly, terrifying. Newt is a great idea man, but like all idea guys, sometimes he nails it, and sometimes he misses wildly. He’s not fit to be the top guy. Someone needs to be there and say “whoah, Newt, slow down”. He also has far too much baggage to make a good Presidential candidate. As for Santorum, his social conservative ideas will be sure to scare away independents and libertarians. He doesn’t appear to have a chance in his home state of Pennsylvania, or the neighboring state of Ohio. While both of those are uphill climbs for any Republican candidate, it’s hard to draw an electoral college map that gets a Republican to 270 without coloring at least one of these states red. In short, I’ve never felt that any of the three of these men are electable.
So, what do I admire about Mitt Romney? His electability. The GOP needs to make the economy and America’s fiscal situation the #1 and #2 issues going into November. No candidate is more suited to make these arguments to the American people than Mitt Romney. Do I have concerns about his “true conservative” credentials? As a former governor of Massachusetts of all states, you bet I do. I think he is much more likely to be a Republican Bill Clinton than a new Ronald Reagan. And that disappoints me more than I can say. I also think that ObamaCare should be one of the biggest issues of the campaign season (and how it directly impacts issues #1 and #2 above), and I have said numerous times that his candidacy and his own RomneyCare takes that weapon and forces the GOP to put it back up on the shelf. It’s hard to win elections when you can’t use your best weapons against the other candidate.
I got an email from Rick Santorum’s campaign this morning (using an e-mail address I provided only to Michele Bachmann’s campaign, btw) saying that the fight has just begun. I hope they rethink. Mitt is going to be the nominee, and it’s time to start planning for November, not fighting for the convention.
Remember what we’re fighting for here. We’ve got to get that clown out of the White House before he completely destroys this country.
Yes, it’s that important. And it may already be too late.
Yes, I know. I missed round 4. Actually, I didn’t. I just haven’t blogged on it.
As always, the videos are at the end.
I’m going to approach things a bit differently this time.
First I want to congratulate CNN and Wolf Blitzer. This was by far the best designed and moderated debate so far. I was worried at the beginning with their opening montage and introductions, but once they got to the meat, it was enjoyable to experience. My only significant gripe is that I don’t think former Governor Mitt Romney (R-MA) and Governor Rick Perry (R-TX) should be next to each other. CNN put them there and quite often went to a camera shot that had both of them on screen while one was talking. Made it often look like they were the only two there.
For the first hour I was generally happy and amazed. Every single candidate, even former Governor Jon Huntsman (R-UT) and Congressman Ron Paul (R-TX-14) impressed me at some point. For the first time I really felt that we have a great group of candidates here. Some people had problems with former Romney going after Perry on Social Security, but I didn’t. As I keep saying, the frontrunner(s) will remain the frontrunner(s) unless you go after him (them). Romney made some good points, too, although I think in the end he lost on the exchange, because Perry was prepared with a great one-liner about Romney’s book.
Perry seems to be following the President Reagan (R-USA) playbook. He has lots of good zingers and one liners. I don’t think he has quite the delivery of Reagan, but he’s not bad. But he needs to be better on substance. When he gets away from his strong suits, and from his one liners, he stumbles a bit. This will come in time. I’m sure he’s been in a few debates as Governor of Texas, but he’s not faced the caliber of candidates or the level of intensity of the scrutiny that he’s facing now.
Unfortunately, the second hour we returned to earth. Huntsman and Paul lost me completely. I’ve said it before and I’ll say it again. I really don’t want to see Ron Paul at any more debates. He makes the entire GOP look bad. Also, Perry and Romney hit some issues that weren’t their bread & butter ones and they also stumbled.
But Romney and Perry were the two frontrunners going in, and they’re still the two frontrunners. No one made any significant movement in their direction. I’m not sure if they really changed much amongst themselves either. I think they both made some good points, and both occasionally struggled. I’m hearing on my Twitter feed that Romney looked awful, and that he had the best performance, which leads me to believe that I’m right, that nothing really changed between them last night.
Now to the rankings. I’m going to start at the bottom and work up this time.
Ron Paul: Titanic level disaster. Vote him off the island. Now.
Jon Huntsman: He’s just way too far to the left. He has some good ideas about some things, but he’s a traditional politician. A twentieth century one. You’ve heard me rip on twentieth century politics before.
These two were so far below everyone else that they deserve special mention. Everyone else did at least a passable job, just not spectacular.
Former Senator Rick Santorum (R-PA): I’m going to say he’s next. I’ve mentioned every single time that Santorum is either great or awful during debates. It’s because he’s combative and thin skinned. I think he’s been working hard on fighting his tendencies here, and I give him credit for that. Unfortunately, that means that he’s coming across much more subdued. He had a passable performance, but completely non-memorable.
Herman Cain (R-GP): Cain has been steadily improving at the debates. He’s obviously been putting in quite a bit of work. If he’d been as good in the first debate as he’s been in the last two, he may have made some noise. Perhaps he still will. I was very impressed with Cain last night. The only reason he’s down so low on the list is that others have raised their games as well.
Rick Perry: I really don’t have much of a problem with the Gardasil issue. He admits it was wrongly handled, which puts him miles above Romney who still thinks RomneyCare is a good idea. However, I also don’t have any problems with anyone attacking him on it, as long as they stick to facts. He’s absolutely perfect on Social Security, but he’s definitely left himself open for attack here and we’re going to see more scenes like what we saw last night with him and Romney. However, I’ve said before that he’s weak on illegal immigration, and it’s true. He’s very weak here and his answers on this issue were not reassuring. At all. I had him first earlier in the night, but he dropped to fourth in the second hour. And illegal immigration is a big part of why.
Former House Speaker Newt Gingrich (R-GA-06): Frankly, Newt should be first or second, and it’s not his fault he’s not. While CNN overall did a good job last night, they still had a problem with letting candidates disappear for large parts of the night. That’s got to be hard to avoid with so many people up on stage. It certainly happened to Newt. He disappeared for long periods. But when he was on screen, I liked what he was saying and I liked his delivery. Probably one of the most impressive nights he’s ever had, when he was visible, and I’m on record as saying he’s the candidate I would least want to debate.
Mitt Romney: There’s really not much difference between any of the top 4. I put Romney above Newt because he didn’t disappear and above Perry because I thought he was a bit less uneven in his performance. His highs weren’t as high as either Perry or Newt, but his lows weren’t as low either. However his attempted attack on Perry and the Texas economy fell completely flat. He knows he needs to attack Perry on something, and fiscal issues are his best bet, but he’s going to have to come up with a better plan than “Four Aces”. Probably Romney’s worst moment in any of the debates so far.
And the Oscar goes to…
Congresswoman Michele Bachmann (R-MN-06): She’s up here because she treated last night like a marathon. Unlike others who went for some quick hits early and then fell flat, she stayed in focus the whole evening. She’s obviously found an attack point on Perry that she likes in Gardasil. While I don’t agree with her position on it, she shows quite a bit of passion and is believable. And there are a lot of people out there who share her viewpoint. But she was good to very good in every single answer she gave last night, if I recall correctly, and unlike the rest, actually improved as the night went on. Her one fault is that she’s very talking point oriented, and sometimes goes to the talking point instead of actually answering the question. I’ve noticed this every single debate. That’s not altogether surprising. Most politicians do this. It’s surprising that in this field she’s the only one who does it consistently. Having said all of that, this was the Michele Bachmann we saw earlier this year, who has all but disappeared since then. I’d love to see more performances like this. She still almost certainly won’t get my vote, but last night performance is what I’ve always hoped to see from her.
Look, it’s no news to anyone that I’m a strong supporter of former Governor Sarah Palin (R-AK). If she enters the race, I will undoubtedly support her through the primaries for as long as she’s part of them. Nothing, politically speaking, would make me happier than a Palin Presidency.
And then there’s Governor Rick Perry (R-TX). Despite my lukewarm support for his candidacy, there’s no doubt that he offers much of what Palin brings to the table. In one way, at least, he surpasses it, having been governor of TX for almost 10 years. But he’s a strong conservative. He has good fiscal and social conservative credentials. It appears that he’ll likely be a fantastic fundraiser, and he’s willing to take the fight to President Barack Obama (D-USA).
Yes, there are some things he’s done in the last 10 years that I don’t agree with 100%. But that’s part of governing. The longer a record someone has, the more likely they are to have done something that you don’t like. You need to look at the overall record, not one or two things.
He doesn’t bring the “reformer” credentials that she has, and I think she’s a tad bit to his right, but possibly not much.
In a perfect world, Palin would not have been forced, due to left wing lunacy, to resign from her governorship, and would still be governor of AK, while considering this Presidential run. And she’d have two more years of AK’s record to run on. In that world, there’s no contest in my mind. Palin’s the better candidate, and the better future President.
But that’s not the world in which we live. We live in a world where the left has done everything possible to bring down this woman over the last 2 1/2 years. They managed to twist AK’s ethics laws to work in their favor against a woman who has done everything possible to remove corruption in politics in her state, on both sides of the aisle.
This has taken its toll on the once most popular & highly approved governor in America. She is a lightning rod for the left, and instead of introducing herself to independents, she will have to re-educate them. This will be an uphill climb. Not an impossible one, but difficult. She is no longer the woman that could ride the coat tails of her 80%+ approval rating into the White House.
In other words, we live in William F. Buckley’s world.
And, here in the Buckley world, the Buckley rule must be considered. “Support the most conservative candidate who is electable.”
If Palin enters the race, she will have my support. However, if someone believes that she has electability issues and wants to invoke Buckley as their reason for supporting Perry, I can’t argue with that decision. In this case in particular, it is more than fair to consider Palin’s electability. I personally think that she’s still quite electable, but there’s no doubt that her road to the White House will be a rougher one than Perry’s.
Having said that, I think one mistake conservatives continuously make is invoking the Buckley rule too quickly. We’ve done it far too often in our history. And we end up with weak candidates because we assume that they are “electable”. If we’re going to turn this country around, it’s going to take strong conservative actions. And that requires electing strong conservatives. Which means we’re going to have to throw the dice sometimes and take a chance on the ones lower on the “electability” scale. This is true at all levels of politics, possibly even more so at the lower end than the upper.
And, it’s worth mentioning that there’s also the Limbaugh Rule.Eight GOP candidates that is.
Former Governor Tim Pawlenty (R-MN) is out. He ran an ineffective campaign. Perhaps he was limited, no matter what. I’ve seen reports that suggest that. I know that early on I found him very impressive and refreshing, and then it seemed like all the spark went out of his campaign when he refused to criticize former Governor Mitt Romney (R-MA) on ObamneyCare during the first debate.
But wait, there were eight just last week. And there’s still eight. So, nothing’s really changed. Well, except for the fact that the group became much more dynamic and tilted a bit further to the right. Both of those are good things.
Good luck in the future in whatever you decide to do, Mr. Pawlenty. I’ve enjoyed seeing your tweets on Twitter and look forward to hearing more from you. Public policy polling says that a campaign for Senate for you is a “non-starter” unless you want to be defeated twice in one cycle, but I believe that once again, PPP is trying to make the news, rather than report it. Go for it, if that interests you.
Apparently the Governor of TX made some big splash yesterday in South Carolina. Rick Perry (R-TX) announced his candidacy for President of the United States.
Melissa Clouthier has the text of his speech, and the video on her blog.
And here’s his first campaign vid.
From my timeline in Twitter, Perry is apparently either the Second Coming, or the ultimate Wolf in Sheep’s Clothing. Everyone seems to be excited about his candidacy, but that doesn’t mean everyone is happy about it.
I alone am not incredibly excited either way.
I’ve been a tepid supporter of former Governor Tim Pawlenty (R-MN). Perry appears to be a better candidate than Pawlenty, but he’s not perfect, not by a long shot (not that I expect him to be—but the adulation I’m seeing in Twitter is somewhat disconcerting). However, some of the criticism being leveled against him appears to be unfair.
There’s the article from the Wall Street Journal called “Rick Perry’s Crony Capitalism Problem”. Frankly, this is a poorly done article, and is more of a hatchet job than a piece offering legitimate criticism. Having done business with a number of state legislatures over the years, I can pretty much guarantee that there are programs like the one mentioned in the article in 49 other states as well. Some of them are very good programs, and some are little better than organized crime. But, a hardliner would probably find something to be concerned with in every single one. It’s the nature of the beast. This one might tilt a little bit too far on the ethical question, and it might not. But without something solid, I’m going to lean in the direction of…not.
The other question that is being brought up is his stance on illegal immigration. And, frankly, he appears to be weak here. Another poorly written and poorly titled piece about his issues here appears on Politico. There’s another one on TPM. Given the source, this article also needs to be taken with a large grain of salt. Weeding out the personal distaste the authors apparently have for Perry does leave the following facts (some good, some bad):
I will admit that there are things here that give me pause. Illegal immigration is one of my hot button issues, and not just because I believe it’s an economy killer. Perry seems to be trying to straddle the fence on this issue, and in my mind by doing so all he’s doing is sitting on barbed wire in a silk suit. He needs to pick a side on this issue. And if he picks the wrong one, it will be a big deal for me. I see some people claiming that his stance is ok or that it somehow makes him more electable. Amazingly, some of these same people were worried that the GOP might cave on taxes in exchange for promised future cuts. In my mind, that is incredibly inconsistent. This is an issue the GOP has given in on before, just like those tax increases, and gotten burned, just like those tax increases. There’s no acceptable middle ground here, and neither is it acceptable to be on the wrong side.
There’s a pretty good bio of Perry here, but in my mind it attempts to whitewash his stances on illegal aliens, and make him look farther to the right than he appears to be.
On the good side, Perry’s on the right side on taxes, and I believe he will open up offshore drilling. I hope he’ll open up ANWR, and investigate shale oil and other alternatives. From what I read about him, most of those things appear likely.
I have said before that while I’ll vote for my toaster over President Barack Obama (D-USA), that I can’t support former Governor Mitt Romney (R-MA) in the primaries. While I don’t really think she’s a long term player in the race, I have just as many issues with Congresswoman Michele Bachmann (R-MN-06). I don’t believe legislators make good Presidents. I never have, and certainly the last 2 1/2 years have done nothing to change my mind. So, if I’m choosing between Perry and those two, it’s an easy choice. I choose Perry.
But assuming no new candidate enters the race, the level of my support will be one of three things, and it depends on what Perry says over the next few months:
My cynicism when it comes to politicians makes me believe that I’m far more likely to end up on #1 than #3, but we’ll see.
Regardless, I’m happy to have another viable candidate in the race. Welcome, Governor Perry.
UPDATE: I forgot to mention that Perry used to be a Democrat. I couldn’t possibly care less. That was 23 years ago. Pfft. President Ronald Reagan (R-USA) used to be a Democrat too. I care what he’s done lately, and he’s clearly a conservative. Also, it’s worthwhile pointing out that he was a TEXAS Democrat. That’s like a MASSACHUSETTS Republican, i.e., you can add the INO label without too much irony.
UPDATE 2: I should point out here that the good that I see in Perry far outweighs the bad. Illegal immigration is the ONLY thing I’ve seen so far that concerns me, and he’s not exactly on the wrong side. As I said, he appears to be straddling the fence. That just makes me nervous about him, not ready to throw him over the side. As I said, I was a supporter of Pawlenty, and from what I’ve seen so far, Perry is a far better candidate than Pawlenty.
As always, the video of the entire debate is at the end.
Most of the GOP hopefuls squared off in Ames, IA last night for our third Presidential Primary debate. Like last time, the good news for many of these candidates is that very few people were likely watching. Because there wasn’t much good news in this debate other than that.
If you’re interested, you can find my thoughts on the first and second debates by following the links.
Last time I said that former Governor Mitt Romney (R-MA) was the “winner” but didn’t have the best performance. As the perceived front runner, he just has to look Presidential and not screw up. This time he was both the winner and had the best performance. His first three answers were fantastic, easily the best of the candidates. I felt that he started slipping a bit when asked about his record on taxes. Sometimes Romney reminds me of a used car salesman, and this inner voice in my head starts saying “I don’t believe what you’re saying”. That happened on that answer. And I think that answer was the tipping point for him. He was considerably less impressive after that, including flailing as usual on defending RomneyCare. And later in the debate he seemed to become the invisible man. Still, that’s a win for him. If he’s invisible it’s because no one is going after him. And if no one is going after him, he’s still going to be the front runner.
Former Senator Rick Santorum (R-PA) had his best debate by far, and at times really shone. I’ve said this now many times and it’s still true. When Santorum is good, he’s great. And when he’s not good, he’s terrible. As usual, we saw a little bit of both last night. The good news for Santorum is that for once we saw more of the good side than the bad side. I admire him for standing firm on his pro life credentials, but his no exceptions at all stance is not going to win him many votes. Still, if he’d been like this in the first two debates, the race might be a bit different. Now, though, it seems like too little too late. My big peeve with the Senator is that I believe he’s too thin skinned. And he allowed that to cause him to lose his patience with Congressman Ron Paul (R-TX-14) and Fox News’ Chris Wallace last night.
Now, it gets tricky. Other than those two, I don’t think anyone did a very good job last night. Herman Cain (R-Godfather’s Pizza) was probably the next best, but still stumbled on foreign policy, particularly Afghanistan. Wallace went after him on Cain’s statements on Muslims, and I don’t think Cain helped himself any with his answers. He clearly showed that he’s not Presidential material. I should copy-paste that last sentence. I may use it often from here on out in this post.
I guess I’d have to go with former House Speaker Newt Gingrich (R-GA-06) for the next best performance, but he bickered far too much with Chris Wallace, claiming that the debate questions were “gotcha” questions. I think they were questions these candidates are going to be asked many times over the next 15 months, and they better have good answers for them. His bit on calling Congress back to repeal Sarbanes-Oxley, ObamaCare, Frank-Dodd, the Super Committee, and a few others fell completely flat for me. And he mentioned it twice. The second time it more than fell flat, it annoyed me. Good ideas, but we need to be honest in these debates. Most of those proposals would struggle to exceed 40 votes in the Senate right now. You can forget about 60. I’ve said this before about Newt as well. He’s a great idea man. He’s the guy you want in your company to sit around and come up with new directions for the company. But you don’t want him running it. You need someone else to say “Good idea, Newt, but…no.”
Former Governor Tim Pawlenty (R-MN) probably comes next, but his performance, especially the first hour, was dismal. In fact, he lost my support. I was very impressed with him after the first debate, not so much after the second, and he’s fallen off the map now. He and Congresswoman Michele Bachmann (R-MN-06) went after each other with ferocity and bitterness. It wasn’t pretty on either side. People had differing impressions of who pulled down whom, but both came out of it looking awful. Not saying he couldn’t change my mind again, but right now, I’m in search of a candidate. And I’m not looking towards MN to find one. When he wasn’t bickering with Bachmann he looked ok, but not the guy I remember from the first debate. His best moments last night were like the guy he was in the second debate. Not good.
Next, former Governor Jon Huntsman (R-UT). All it says by having him sixth is that the other two below him were completely terrible. There’s nothing that Huntsman says that endears him to me or makes me want to vote for him. I’m sure he was a decent governor for Utah, but there’s no doubt that he’s a big government Republican, and I don’t think he’s ready for a larger stage. Not Presidential material.
I guess I’d put Ron Paul in seventh, but again, only because he wasn’t quite as bad as Bachmann. His foreign policy ideas are frankly scary. He’s a big L libertarian, and an isolationist. And last night he was even less solid than usual on domestic policy. I think when he expresses his ideas on a national stage it hurts the entire party. He either makes us look foolish, or he hands talking points to the left. Sometimes both. I’d honestly prefer it if he were not at any future debates.
Apparently winning these debates is not a good thing. I thought Pawlenty won the first, and looked bad in the second. I thought Bachmann was the clear winner of the second and looked horrible last night. In fact, I’d go as far to say that it was one of the worst debate performances I’ve ever seen. Her bickering and sniping with Pawlenty was not useful, and really her best moment was when answering an absolutely ridiculous question by Byron York on whether she’d submit to her husband as President. The question obviously caught her off guard (as I think it did to us all), but she kept her cool, responded, made some nice key points about love, marriage, family, and children, and generally made York look like a doofus for even asking it. Bachmann has been polling well, but I believe it’s more because the “anybody but Romney” crowd has jumped on her bandwagon, not because she has much strong support. I think when Governor Rick Perry (R-TX) enters the race, and if former Governor Sarah Palin (R-AK) enters, she disappears.
I’ve said both of the last two times that I thought Palin, assuming she runs, was hurt by not being there. Last night was the opposite. For both her and Perry, it was good to not be there last night. They didn’t get pulled down into the mud, and will get the stage to themselves for a while this weekend.
I think in general the candidates all made two significant mistakes. None of them really went after Romney. I keep hammering on this. He is the perceived front runner. If you don’t go after the front runner, he will remain the front runner. Second, there was almost no mention of President Barack Obama (D-USA). Obama needs to be center stage at all of these debates. In fact, they should add an extra empty podium just for him. He’s the person all of these people are running against. They need to show his faults and make clear distinctions between what he’s done and what they would do.
The bottom line? The only candidate that was there last night that can win the GOP nomination was Mitt Romney. The others are wasting their time and ours. Our GOP nominee will be one of Romney, Perry, or Palin, and you can bet the farm on that.
So, former Governor Jon Huntsman (R-UT) officially announced his candidacy for the Presidency of the United States today. The MSM likes to pump him up, but I suspect that the reaction of most voters in Iowa and New Hampshire will be the same as mine was when I first heard he was considering a run.
“Who?”
Yeah. Anyway, here’s the vid.
I know what you’re thinking. “Oh boy, Chris is going off on taxes again. Where’s the snooze button?” But if you want to fix our economy, with a lasting fix, it’s going to take fixing our taxes.
Anyway, back to the question. What DO you call a 20% reduction in the corporate tax rate?
Liberals call it a “fantasy”. I call it a good start.
Former Governor Tim Pawlenty (R-MN) released his economic plan last week. Neal Boortz has a good summary.
As we gear up for the Republican debate tonight, here’s a look at Tim Pawlenty’s economic plan that has some liberal’s tight-chested. He believes that he can implement a national economic growth goal of 5%. Here’s how:
- Take the business tax rate all the way down to 15% from 35%
- Get rid of all the deductions and quit taxing foreign earnings of American companies
- Make small-business S-Corps or LLC partnerships eligible for the new low corporate rate
- Simplify our income tax to two rates of only 10 and 25%
- Abolish taxes on capital gains, interest, dividends and estates
- Sunset all economic regulations
- Apply a "Google test," whereby if you can find a federal government good or service on the Internet, the federal government doesn't need to run it.
I’m on board with all of this. I’d prefer the FairTax over his two tiered flat income tax, but I’m not a purist. Right now as long as it cleans up the tax code I’m happy. His elimination of investment taxes is fantastic. The part about elimination of deductions appears to only apply to the corporate tax and not the individual, which is unfortunate, but again, it’s a good start. The “Google test” is a terrific idea.
But…about that corporate tax rate. 15% is still at least 15% too high. I don’t agree with the people who say we need to eliminate corporate tax breaks. We just need to give them all to everyone. Let me be blunt. Corporate taxes accomplish no good purpose. All they do is obfuscate the tax code unnecessarily and prevent business from using their resources to produce their goods and services. They are always a net drain on business productivity.
I’ve said this before, and I’ll keep saying it. Businesses don’t pay taxes. Never have. Never will. They pass the tax burden on to their customers in terms of higher prices, their employees in terms of lower wages and benefits, and their stockholders in terms of lower dividends. There are conflicting studies on which of those three groups tends to get stuck with the highest percentage of the bill, but in the end it doesn’t matter. All three of these are a drain on the economy.
Here’s something else I’ve been saying since 2008. You want to end this “economic downturn” we’re in (I can’t call it a recession right now…not until it’s formally declared a recession again), then eliminate the corporate income tax. Yes, you have to do a little more work than just that or every person in the country will immediately incorporate, but compared to reinventing health care in the United States, this is easy. Do just this one thing and we get to positive and sustained economic growth starting almost immediately. Yes, it really is that easy.
I linked this article by Megan McArdle at the top of the page, but it’s worth re-linking. She goes into far more detail about how corporate income taxes negatively effect business growth and investment. She also examines why progressives should be for it as well. Read the whole thing, but I’m just going to grab her last point, because it brings up something I haven’t mentioned even tangentially.
Without the corporate income tax, a lot of the incentive for lobbying would go away Not all of it, by any means--I am not trying to paint some halcyon future here. But an enormous amount of effort goes into lobbying for tax laws, and politicians often reward favored constituent businesses with little sweetheart fillips to the tax code. Conversely, apparently neutral changes to the tax code often turn out to be excellent ways to hamstring your competition, particularly small businesses who cannot afford a huge tax department.
Want to get corporate money out of politics? Want to erode the power of the Chamber of Commerce? Take away one of their primary motives to get involved.
We’ve been hearing a lot about corporate money in politics recently and about crony capitalism from both sides of the aisle. If you really think that either or both of these are problems, then you should be in agreement with me about corporate taxes.
Michele Bachmann (R-MN-06) announced her candidacy last night, stating that she’d filed the necessary paperwork. I think that was a spontaneous moment, as she has no accompanying vid, and her website is pretty barren.
I still think she’s too much of a hardliner and too much of a firebrand to be President. And I still don’t like legislators as Presidents. I’d rather see her run for Governor of her state, or even my state. I’d vote for her for that. Still, she’ll be a formidable candidate.
Anyway, you can check out what there is of her site at www.michelebachmann.com. Remember, one “L” and two “N”s.
Last night, the leading declared contenders for the GOP nomination for President squared off in New Hampshire. If you missed it, you’re not alone. The only people that tune in for debates like this in the middle of June the year before the election are people that are paid to do so, political junkies like me, and people with money to drop.
If you’re interested, you can find my thoughts on the first debate here.
The night had some clear winners and losers, and some people who got stuck in the mud in the middle. Overall, I was impressed. Even the weakest of the candidates had some good moments. And, just to be balanced, I don’t think anyone was pitch perfect through the entire night.
The strongest performance of the night was by Congresswoman Michele Bachmann (R-MN-05). She was solid from beginning to end, only stumbling a little bit on the follow-up question on gay marriage (she’s for a Constitutional amendment, and for states rights—that’s not impossible, but it is confusing). Maybe a couple of her answers seemed a little over-rehearsed, and she dropped to talking points once or twice, but that’s nit picking. I was impressed with her, as I always am when I see her interviewed.
She had the strongest performance, but she wasn’t the “winner”. Last time I thought former Governor Tim Pawlenty (R-MN) had the strongest performance, but Herman Cain (R-GP) might have been the winner, due to making himself known. Similarly, I think former Governor Mitt Romney (R-MA) was the winner last night. As the perceived frontrunner, what he has to do is show up, look Presidential, not screw up, and not get hammered too much by the other candidates. He cleared that bar easily. He had a couple of weaker answers, but think you’d have to be a conservative policy wonk to really catch that. In short, he showed why he’s the frontrunner.
The biggest losers of the night were CNN, the moderator John King, and former Governor Sarah Palin (R-AK). I thought during the first debate that Palin really needed to be there. Last night that felt even more true. The field is starting to look set now, and those in the field are going to be gaining momentum and attention from those with money and political pull. She’s starting to hurt her chances by not declaring. A lot of this is true for Governor Rick Perry (R-TX) as well, but I think all of the Texas references last night help him a bit. Texas is about the only thing keeping America’s economy afloat at the moment, and that’s hard to hide.
As for CNN and King, neither should be allowed to ever do a Presidential debate again. The format was awful, not giving candidates time to answer detailed policy questions with the necessary details. King was rude and annoying, constantly interrupting with “uh” to get the candidates moving or back on topic, sometimes before they’d finished a single sentence. I could deal with all of that, though, but there were subtleties that were even worse. The entire debate seemed designed around protecting President Barack Obama (D-USA) and Mitt Romney. There were very few questions on topics that harm either of them. What about jobs, inflation, foreign wars, $4 gas, cap and trade, energy subsidies, and entitlement reform? There was one question early on about the Ryan plan, and another directed at Pawlenty regarding his ObamneyCare statement this weekend. I know having 7 people there makes it challenging, but surely it’s possible to better than that. The debate was painful to watch, and not because of the candidates.
Speaking of which, here’s a friendly word of advice to GOP Presidential candidates. I know all about President Ronald Reagan’s (R-USA) 11th Commandment, and I know that we need to make this election a referendum on Obama, but unless you want Romney to be the nominee, you’re going to have to take some shots at him as well. And when the moderator gives you a nice slow pitch right down the middle of the plate, you need to hit that one out of the park. Yes, I’m talking to you, Tim Pawlenty. Why couldn’t you back up your ObamneyCare statement? Surely you had to expect a question about this? Awful. Truly awful.
As much as I was impressed with Pawlenty during the first debate, his performance last night, especially during the first hour, was a huge disappointment. He did seem to gain strength as the night wore on, something he shared with former House Speaker Newt Gingrich (R-GA-06), and Herman Cain. I thought all three stumbled early, but picked up in the second hour. Newt fumbled again discussing his position on the Ryan plan. He needs to figure out how to answer this question, or just drop out.
Cain’s biggest problem, though, wasn’t himself, but that for long periods of the night, he was basically ignored by King and the questioners. I think former Senator Rick Santorum (R-PA) also suffered from this to a lesser degree. What I saw of Santorum impressed me much more than last time around. He seemed much more relaxed and composed. I just wish I’d seen more of him.
Ok, have I left anyone out? Oh yes. My statement about Congressman Ron Paul (R-TX-14) from last time still applies. He was Ron Paul. Brilliant about some things and frighteningly scary about others. Fortunately for him, since the debate topics shied away from foreign policy to such a degree, he didn’t get as many chances to show just how scary he can be. In fact, on most of the domestic policy questions he made good points and good sense. His one answer on Social Security and Medicare may have been the right one “shut them all down”, but it’s not going to win over many voters, even in the GOP.
Overall, I was impressed with the field. Any of these people would be a great improvement over the current occupant of the White House. I have some more thoughts on the candidates themselves, but that’s a topic for another post.
If you missed the debate or just want to watch it again, here’s the vid, courtesy of The Right Scoop.
I’ve been thinking about writing this post for some time. Larry Sabato pushed me over the edge. I have nothing but respect for Mr. Sabato. He is the guru of election prognostication. But there’s been a common meme appearing about former Governor Sarah Palin (R-AK) lately, and I’ve always felt it’s nonsensical. Sabato repeated it in his last column, and it didn’t sound any better even coming from him.
Ultimately, we don’t believe she’s running for two reasons. She has more influence and a far higher income outside of elective politics than in it.
I’ll address the latter first, because it’s the easiest to destroy. The problem with that statement is that it’s essentially true for just about every single person in the field. You think former Governor Mitt Romney (R-MA) can’t make more money outside of politics? Former CEO Herman Cain (R-GP)? Ridiculous. But this point is continuously brought up about Palin and only Palin. When I see this as a criticism, I know the analysis is unserious.
Now, regarding influence. This part of the statement also does not stand up under any serious scrutiny. Let’s look at some scenarios.
So, that’s all the possible scenarios. Which ones did she lose a lot of influence that she would not have lost by staying out of the race? Yeah. None of them.
Now perhaps Mr. Sabato is not thinking long term but is instead thinking short term? That might be it, as I’ve also heard that Palin is better suited to being a kingmaker right now.
Well, she can certainly be a kingmaker. There’s no doubt about that. In fact, one would have to say that at this point, the three most sought after endorsements will be Sarah Palin, Mitch Daniels, and Mike Huckabee. The three of them together have appeal strengths that map to pretty much the entire GOP base. However, will her endorsement mean any less if she enters the race, than if she stays out? The only way that her endorsement becomes relatively meaningless upon entering the race is if she blows up and is a total dud in the primaries. Of course, that would mean that she doesn’t really have any influence now, either. So, again, this argument doesn’t hold water.
Now, I believe she’s running. But, there certainly are reasons to speculate otherwise. It’s true that she hasn’t done much of the standard political moves necessary to start a national campaign. Frankly, that’s the biggest reason to speculate that she isn’t, not the junk analysis at the top of this post.
Today, former Senator Rick Santorum (R-PA) officially announced his candidacy for the GOP nomination for the Presidency.
Here’s the vid:
I had him on my list of candidates, but somehow left him off my “The GOP Candidates-The Good” post. And therefore also the Bad post. Obviously I need an editor.
In brief, I think that Santorum has pretty decent conservative credentials, but seems a bit too thin skinned for a Presidential candidate. On the other hand, the current occupant of the White House is the most thin skinned politician I can recall ever seeing, so maybe he’ll be fine.
He is solidly socially conservative. In fact, his stances here would definitely cause him problems with independents (homosexuality, intelligent design). He’s opposed to amnesty for illegals and has long been an advocate of welfare reform. He also lost his last Senate race by 27 points, making it unclear whether he’d win his own state in a Presidential race.
So, that’s good and bad all mixed together, proving once more that I need an editor. I still see him as a second or third tier candidate at this point, and unlikely to still be in the race after South Carolina, but he’s capable of a surprise.
As promised, now the bad.
(No, I’m not going to do an Ugly, but if you look at this list, I’m sure you can find some ugly)
That’s the bad. And, sadly, there’s a lot of it. I can probably support any of these people should they win the nomination, but it will be extremely difficult for me to pull the lever for Romney, Johnson, or Huntsman. I’ve previously said I’ll never do it for Romney, but our current President is slowly making me reconsider that position. I’m pretty worried about the future of our country should President Barack Obama (D-USA) be re-elected, so despite my significant misgivings about Romney, and what he means to the future of the USA and the GOP, I’ll probably have to support him.
My Twitter timeline is full of statements good and bad about various GOPers these days, and I keep finding myself wanting to retweet with comment. Unfortunately, most of my comments would be 1) negative, and 2) comparative to former Governor Sarah Palin (R-AK). I’m really trying not to be an “all Palin, all the time” sort of person, so I’ve been mostly resistant to tweeting.
However, my fingers are still twitchy, so I’m going to write a couple blog posts about what I like and dislike about the various mainstream candidates and speculative candidates.
All comments are based upon what I know of these people right now, and are my opinion only. Remember, this post is only about the good things. The bad things are coming later.
There are other candidates and speculated candidates listed here, but I honestly don’t believe Congressman Paul Ryan (R-WI-01) or Governor Chris Christie (R-NJ) are running. As for the others, I think only John Bolton has a chance of making any noise at all, and even his noisemaking potential appears minimal.
UPDATED: Added the bit about Ron Paul and the Fed.
UPDATE 2: Forgot Jon Huntsman. Added.
Dashing my last hope that he’d change his mind, former Governor Mitt Romney (R-MA) officially announced his candidacy for the Presidency of the United States today.
Read the speech here.
Apparently this is his first official campaign vid.
Cain:
Nice to see him solidly back on the FairTax bandwagon. His support had seemed a little shaky lately.
Pawlenty:
Pawlenty’s vid is a little weak, but overall I’m still impressed with his campaign—so far. He’s not a perfect candidate, by any means, and he might still be left of me, but at least he’s in the same ballpark, and he understands the problems America is facing. I want to see more attacking from him and less touchy-feely stuff like this video though.
I’m fairly libertarian when it comes to personal rights, and conservative when it comes to most else. I’m a strong believer in the the Constitution and Bill of Rights, particularly amendments 1, 2, 4, 9, and 10. Ok, all of them.
Anyway, I’m not incredibly far to the right, although I’ve drifted farther there over the last few years. Having said all that, I’ve been able to vote in Presidential elections since 1988, and every single GOP Presidential candidate that I’ve gotten to vote for has been to the left of me. I’m tired of being forced to vote for people who don’t represent my views. After McCain I promised myself that I wouldn’t do it again. I realize that this is likely a promise that I’ll break someday, but it won’t be in 2012.
Also, I firmly believe that these centrist Republicans are destroying the party. The biggest reason that the GOP lost in 2006 and 2008 wasn’t because they lost the independents, but because they lost the base. President George W. Bush (R-USA) did many things right, but he did many things wrong too, and people like me got tired of big government conservatism. Sometimes I still wonder if Senator John McCain (R-AZ) might have turned out to be a worse President than President Barack Obama (D-USA). At least with Obama in the White House, we generally have a pretty unified GOP fighting against him. McCain would have wanted to implement many of the same types of policies as Obama, and the GOP would’ve gone right along with their leader. And that would’ve dispirited the base even further.
Instead, what we got in 2010 was a fired up, energized, and angry base. A base that has had enough of big government and just wants it to STOP.
Former Governor Mitt Romney (R-MA) is far to the left of me. Everyone knows all about RomneyCare by now, which was the model for ObamaCare. But even if I could forgive him for that (I can’t), he showed off his big government credentials in Iowa again today.
Talking to an Iowa voter, Romney said, “I support the subsidy of ethanol. I believe ethanol is an important part of our energy solution for this country.”
Romney held the same position in 2008.
He also was evasive regarding Congressman Paul Ryan’s (R-WI-01) plan.
Romney declined to say whether, if he were president, he would sign into law the GOP Medicare plan authored by House Budget Committee Chairman Paul Ryan (R-Wis.) — something that a rival, former Minnesota governor Tim Pawlenty, said Thursday he would do.
“That’s the kind of speculation that is getting the cart ahead of the horse,” Romney told reporters. “I’m going to propose my own plan, and my plan will be somewhat different than what the Paul Ryan plan is, but I support the objectives of the Paul Ryan plan, which is keeping Medicare alive, keeping it solvent and keeping the nation solvent.”
I don’t know if he’s just avoiding sticking his neck out against political pressure, or if he’s not interested in a smaller cleaner government (I suspect both), but this kind of squishiness frustrates me. Yes, I know that it’s politically risky in Iowa to come out against ethanol subsidies. But that’s what leadership is all about. Making the risky choices and standing behind them. The country is in dire shape. This is a moment of truth. We can’t afford leaders who won’t lead. At the risk of over using a quote from President Ronald Reagan (R-USA):
Our people look for a cause to believe in. Is it a third party we need, or is it a new and revitalized second party, raising a banner of no pale pastels, but bold colors which make it unmistakably clear where we stand on all of the issues troubling the people?
Let us show that we stand for fiscal integrity and sound money and above all for an end to deficit spending, with ultimate retirement of the national debt.
Romney is a pale pastel. I’ve been outspoken in my support for former Governor Sarah Palin (R-AK) precisely because she raises that banner of bold colors. I’m perfectly aware of all of the issues with a Palin candidacy. I will gladly support someone else if that person is willing to step to the front as she has, and be outspoken on issues, and attack Obama where he’s obviously wrong. Romney either can’t or won’t do that, and thus he is not qualified to lead our party or our country.
Thus, he will never get my vote, not even if he’s the GOP nominee. You can say that’s wrong, that I’m forgetting the important goal, of getting Obama out of the White House, but my response is that you’re missing the important goal, saving this country. That’s only going to happen with an energetic and enthusiastic conservative base. President Romney will not make that happen. I believe that with him in office, 2014 & 2016 will look like 2006 and 2008, only worse. We can’t let that happen. I’m more willing to see four more years of Obama than I am willing to see that.
As an aside, I will say that former Governor Tim Pawlenty (R-MN) seems to get the idea, but I’m not ready to jump on his bandwagon just yet.
Since I’ve been posting candidate vids lately, this seems appropriate:
Surprisingly, Byron York at the Washington Examiner reports today that most of the GOP field still doesn’t think she’s running.
"The bottom line is Sarah Palin is not going to run for president," says a Republican adviser close to front-runner Mitt Romney. "She's making money, she's moved on, she's kind of an entertainer rather than a politician. She still has some sway with the grass roots, but she is not going to run."
"I don't think she's going to run," says a Republican close to Tim Pawlenty. "She has faded a lot in the last few months. I look at what she's doing now and say that she's found a way to get back in the story."
Wishful thinking. It doesn’t take a psychic to read the “Tea” leaves lately. It’s now a matter of when, not if. And I expect the when to be in the next 30 days. But I wouldn’t be surprised if it’s a bit longer than that.
Former Governor Mitt Romney (R-MA) officially announced today that he’s going to officially announce his candidacy for President. Personally this whole tap dancing around getting in the race, and then announcing of announcements drives me crazy. I understand it all, but it’s still lame.
