![Healthcare Fallout: Obama’s Growing List of Coalitions]()
by | Jul 6, 2012
The bedrock of winning elections at every major level of politics is building coalitions of supporters for whom you can count on to head to the polls and cast a vote for you. Especially in a country as large and non-monolithic as ours, coalition building on some level is a requirement for victory and often explains why politicians are so willing to speak often, but say very little.
A close look at President Obama’s effort in this area reveals that he has elevated this process to an art form—but far from art, what he has created is an ugly picture beneficial to himself, but terrible for America.
While the Supreme Court’s ruling on Thursday to uphold the Affordable Care Act certainly carries the negatives of energizing Republicans and leaving him to defend a tax increase, it is foolish not to acknowledge the potential political windfall that he has unleashed. He has managed to cement a new member in his group of coalitions—a group with millions of potential voters.
As we have discussed here before, for decades the Democrat party in America has used the social safety net and the laws of this country to build a formidable coalition of voters. The newest members are the up to 33 million people who will now be guaranteed health insurance by virtue of being a breathing American. For the first time in history an American president will be able to say ‘if you vote Democrat you will have (possibly for free) health insurance, and if you vote Republican you will not’, a potent motivator.
The addition of the health care voter coalition can now be added to the two others that he has bolstered recently, in what may be the most cynical and politically motivated two months in American presidential history.
First it was going on record with the news that he had “evolved†on the issue and now supports gay marriage. This was followed by a surprise move to essentially remove the possibility of deportation for young illegal aliens. While the gay community is relatively small, bolstering his claim to the Hispanic vote was a huge benefit to his Electoral College math. Early next week, we will have a story detailing how the health care law really has more to do with sealing up the Hispanic vote than anything else.
Besides the Latino vote, Obamacare allows the Democrat Party to further stack the deck against Republicans as they try to implement the Social Security, Medicare, and Medicaid reforms in the Paul Ryan budget over the next few years. Top Democrat strategists have to be secretly celebrating, knowing full well that the already difficult politics of reforming these programs just got down right suicidal now that 16 million more people have been added to the rolls.
Moving Forward
The Presidents relentless coalition building will continue from now until November. With the economy not in position to rebound at all, and the two major initiatives of his Presidency either unpopular (health care) or ineffectual (the stimulus), he really has no other choice. I am predicting that sometime in the next few months he will make a shocking public policy jester to the unions, who remain the last sizeable group he has not tried to directly entice.
Though it goes against the grain, at this point I would consider advising Mitt Romney to not moderate on illegal immigration and stay as far right on this issue as he was during the presidential primary. The reasons for this are several.
First, it is the law and the right thing to do—we simply cannot be the only nation on earth that doesn’t enforce its borders. Though many are quick to forget it, this is a message that resonates with nearly all Republicans, and millions of Independents. Second, there is simply no way for Republicans to match what Democrats can offer. While Republicans and Latinos have large overlaps in religious beliefs and family values, Democrats are in essence offering citizenship, free or nearly free health care, and an ever-expanding web of financial assistance that delivers from birth to death.
It may be high time to face the facts—winning over the Hispanic community is not going to happen anytime soon, and the more Republicans bend and soften on these issues the more they enrage fellow Republicans and appear hypocritical to Independents.
The irony here is that many of the Republicans who have been hesitant to support Mitt Romney, largely due to their belief that he tries to be all things to all people, are the same people that are urging him to cow tow to the Hispanic vote and moderate his position on illegal immigration.
There are still tens of millions of Americans who still believe strongly that we are a nation of laws. Should Mitt Romney take a stand on this issue and add this too often ignored group to his list of coalitions, it may end up being a net positive in November.
The post Healthcare Fallout: Obama’s Growing List of Coalitions appeared first on The Conservative Reader.
![Healthcare Fallout: Obama’s Growing List of Coalitions]()
by | Dec 29, 2011
Caucus Locator Service
First of all, if you live in Iowa and don’t know for sure where your caucus site is located, you’ll want to click this link to find it.  If you still can’t figure it out (don’t be ashamed… it can be challenging) we want to help.  Please email us at [email protected].  Please include your name, email address and home address (I promise we will not keep this information for any reason).  We will reply as quickly as possible with your caucus location.
Candidates for President
If you haven’t yet taken a look at the candidates, there any number of resources available to do so.  I think it is a good idea, more than anything, to look at the candidates’ web sites and see what they have to say for themselves there.  Here are the links to those sites:
Michele Bachmann
Herman Cain (included because he is still listed as a candidate officially)
Newt Gingrich
Jon Huntsman
Ron Paul
Rick Perry
Buddy Roemer
Mitt Romney
Rick Santorum
Other Caucus Information
The Iowa Caucus is often looked upon, along with the New Hampshire Primary, as a bell-weather for the entire Presidential Nominating Process. Â Some very important points:
- The Iowa Caucus occurs every two years.
- The purpose of the Iowa Caucus is to discuss and decide on components of the party platform, elect convention delegates to the County Convention, elect representatives to the County Central Committees, and during the year of a Presidential Election to poll party members on their preferences for the party’s candidate for President.
- This is a party activity and only members of the party that are residents of the precinct may participate at a precinct caucus, although others may be granted opportunity to speak by the Chair.
- Any resident of the caucus precinct can register to become a party member at the caucus event.
- The caucus meeting is governed by Robert’s Rules of Order.
The following are some additional details provided by the Iowa GOP:
Below is a detailed overview of what will happen at 1,774 precincts in the state of Iowa on caucus night, January 3, 2012.
- All caucus participants arrive at their precincts where they will sign in at the door upon arrival. Caucuses will begin at 7:00PM CT.
- The caucus meetings begin with the pledge of allegiance. A caucus chair and secretary will be elected by the body to run the meeting and take notes.
- After the chair and secretary are elected, candidate representatives from each campaign are given time to speak on behalf of their candidate.
- Once the speakers have finished, sheets of paper are be passed out to every registered Iowa Republican from the precinct. Voters then write down their candidate preference.
- All votes are then collected.
- Every vote is counted. The caucus chair and secretary will count the votes in front of the caucus and a representative from each campaign is allowed to observe the counting of the votes. The results are recorded on an official form provided by the Republican Party of Iowa and are announced to the caucus.
- A caucus reporter is chosen to report the results to the Republican Party of Iowa, accompanied by campaign representatives to verify the results reported to Iowa GOP officials.
- RPI officials do not count results; they aggregate them from around the state and report them to the media. To ensure consistency in reporting, campaign representatives have the opportunity to be present with RPI officials as votes are reported to the public.
- We will be reporting the votes for Michele Bachmann, Herman Cain, Newt Gingrich, Jon Huntsman, Ron Paul, Rick Perry, Buddy Roemer, Mitt Romney, Rick Santorum, “No Preference,†and “Other.â€
- “No Preference†votes include those who vote “present,†“no preference, “uncommitted,†or “none of the above.â€
- Within fourteen days of the caucus, certified results will be released for a complete breakdown of all caucus votes that were cast by precinct.
- After the Presidential preference poll is completed the caucus will elect precinct committee representatives; delegates, alternates, and junior delegates to the county convention; and discuss and submit platform resolutions for consideration at the county convention.
For any other questions or inquiries please contact Nicole Sizemore at [email protected] or at 515-868-2507.
![Healthcare Fallout: Obama’s Growing List of Coalitions]()
by | Dec 29, 2011
It has been difficult to follow the Republican Presidential Campaign this year to the depth that I would like to, partly because of my own time constraints and partly because there is just so much happening all the time.  It seems like every week there is a new bomb-shell to analyze, a new complaint by one campaign about either another campaign or the press, stumbling by candidates on the debate stage or in an interview or just in general campaign failures such as the Virginia debacle.  And the mud contains so much manure that I’m glad I have iTunes to purchase much of my television programming from so I don’t even have to fast-forward past the political ads.  And don’t get me started about the Occupy Movement’s plans to disrupt the Iowa Caucus.
But the whole time working up to Christmas has been downright cheery compared to this week.
Campaigns are imploding.  Others are gaining steam.  But more than anything, it seems that people are so invested in this year’s campaign that they are willing to do just about anything to see their candidate win.  I’ve even felt some of this for the candidate that I am (privately) supporting.  I visited with the campaign office and was asked to stand up for my candidate.  At first I agreed, and then as I discussed this with my wife I realized that I was making a mistake by doing this when I had committed to remaining neutral.  Obviously, the perceived need to see the outcome I desire had clouded my mind.
Sometimes God shows you why he gives you a spouse.
So, I had to tell the campaign I was not going to be able to speak for them. Â They were very understanding, but I hope I get better at this!
But others this week have showed how much they cannot stick to their commitments, and it all seems to come from a desperate desire to be on the winning team. Â Unfortunately, politics tends to bend your principles and many become convinced that when it comes to politics, anything goes.
The most recent and public examples are Mike George at Strong America Now, and Kent Sorenson, both men I like and respect. Â I think they both have made mistakes in their recent decisions.
It may be a few months before it will make sense to ask this question of both men, but I’m wondering if after the dust has settled, they’ll be able to look back and say it was worth it.  These are both men who have made reputations for themselves based on principled leadership, and now they leave many people wondering whether they can trust anyone.  The truth is, these guys are taking shortcuts, and they’re both getting called out on it.  It may have some personal value to them in the short-run, but I expect they have both lost enough of people’s respect now to truly marginalize their influence in the future.
I hope that as voters, we don’t allow ourselves to be influenced one way or the other by the sideshows that are going on, or by poll results, but make our decisions based on our own principles, convictions, and priorities, and not simply the endorsements of others.  Everyone should set their own guidelines, but I think it is careless to rely simply upon the recommendation of friends, acquaintances, or people who seem to know what they are doing, when deciding who we support for public offices such as President.  If you are intelligent enough to read this piece, you can do the research necessary to make your own informed choice.
![Healthcare Fallout: Obama’s Growing List of Coalitions]()
by | Dec 22, 2011
“After carefully considering the whole situation, I stand with my back to the wall. And walking is better, than running away…and crawling ain’t no good at allâ€
Willie Nelson—Lyrics to “Walking†(1974)
While not known for his astute political analysis, with these lyrics Willie Nelson has managed to perfectly describe the conundrum myself and millions of other voters face in selecting a candidate to support for president amongst the Republican field.
For months now GOPers have been carefully considering the whole situation, and have yet to settle on anyone. With the voting only two weeks away a majority of those undecided now officially are standing with their backs against the wall.
In this regard I am no different—laid here are the reasons I am currently walking, and not running, toward Newt Gingrich. Like any well thought out decision there are three main factors at play—the mind, the gut, and the legitimate reservations. The following is an honest, pull-no-punches account of my thought process for each.
The Mind
The reason why the polls have been a roller coaster in this cycle is fairly simple—you have a massive pool of Conservative voters and not one single, unquestionably consistent Conservative, who could certainly beat President Obama. My sense is that the field does have strong Conservatives, namely Bachmann and Santorum, but neither have been able to garner the support necessary to win the White House—and Ron Paul will have to be addressed in full at some other time. As the polls suggest, the two with the best chance at unseating Obama are Newt Gingrich and Mitt Romney.
This being the case, the exercise has come down to a question of who I feel is more Conservative between the two and who has the better chance of successfully vocalizing Conservative philosophy to the general electorate. On both counts my answer is Newt Gingrich. As we have seen in the Republican primary, the debates between President Obama and the Republican nominee are going to be viewed by a record amount of people and will largely be the deciding factor for Independents.
Perhaps no figure in modern political history has more of a gift for the debate stage than Newt Gingrich. Making this an even larger advantage is the mythic narrative that President Obama is some legendary debater. While last cycle he may have gotten the better of Hillary Clinton and John McCain overall, he never blew either off the stage (and managed to lose to both on multiple occasions).
Along with his debate prowess, there are two other things that make me comfortable with the idea of Newt as the nominee and as President. First is his deep understanding and respect for history. Whether it be American or world history, his decision making process would be solidly grounded in the actions and outcomes of past situations. I happen to think that had the filter of history been applied to many of the decisions made by our last two presidents, many of the undesirable results we have seen could have been avoided.
Second is the structure and proven results of the concept of a “Contract with Americaâ€. The 1994 contract saw roughly 70% of its content become law—and that was with a Democrat in the White House. Any Republican taking a serious look at his “21st Century Contract with America†would likely agree that achieving even 50% of its content would result in our Country standing on immensely more solid ground than it is currently. Clearly there is no time now to go through the platform item by item, however, you can review it in detail or read a brief highlight of it here. It is only fair that serious Republicans inspect this document before discounting Mr. Gingrich.
The Gut
The biggest source of apprehension I have toward Mitt Romney is his striking similarity to our 43rd president. George W. Bush’s eight year application of a watered down “compassionate Conservatism†did a great deal of damage to the viability of the philosophy. I can’t help but shake the feeling that when inevitably faced with unpredicted situations, a President Romney would not be guided through these times of crisis by Constitutional Conservatism. Instead I see him falling back on the identical political pragmatism that Mr. Bush turned to when the pressure was on.
While certainly not without its own risks, I also prefer Gingrich’s personality to Romney’s in the area of foreign policy. My view is that in general, and especially with the Iranian nuclear situation, many of America’s national security interests can be forwarded through an aggressive posture. Though it is a fine line to walk, putting a reasonable fear into rogue nations could—as proven by Reagan—actually help us avoid potential conflicts. A Romney-foreign-policy approach would likely be strictly by the book (i.e. painfully cautious and deferential), and result in a more-of-the-same outcome. Though I see positives in both approaches, I feel our enemies would have a greater fear of (and hence a greater respect for) a President Gingrich.
At a time when a dramatic move toward the Right is a legitimate possibility, on nearly every issue Mitt Romney is far too timid for my taste. One perfect example is in the area of Federal income tax policy. The enthusiasm throughout the country for major tax reform has never been greater, yet in this climate the proposal offered from Romney is to keep the top rate at 35% and largely leave the current structure intact. Though it could use some tweaking, the Gingrich proposal is for an optional 15% flat tax, where each taxpayer could choose to use the old system or opt for the flat rate. This is emblematic of the level of change the former Speaker is willing to push for—and the type of transformation Mitt Romney will never champion.
The Reservations
The fact that a voter would have reservations about their candidate is only natural. Having said that, the lengthy nature of his list points to why I am walking, and not running, toward Mr. Gingrich.
According to my television and mailbox, and no doubt yours too, not only should Gingrich be checked off our short list—he should be arrested and checked in to Guantanamo Bay. These attacks are largely overblown rubbish, but there are three main factors I view as legitimate reasons for apprehension. Like Romney, Newt’s career includes multiple examples of unsettling “political flexibilityâ€, his past personal life has often been a mess, and a rather large number of his former Republican colleagues have been outspoken against him (noteworthy on this list for me is Tom Coburn, whom I respect greatly).
Quite honestly these things have made the decision a far more anguished one than it has been in the past—or that it ought to be I might add. If I insisted on taking solace it would be found in the fact that while both candidates I view as being able to win the nomination and defeat President Obama have strong negatives—both would be an upgrade for the Country.
The Conclusion
I personally want the Republican Party, and the Country, to move significantly to the Right. I want the 10th Amendment to be respected, the enumerated powers to be followed, and for personal responsibility to once again be required and not optional. I do not see Mitt Romney doing this to the extent I want. In my eyes Newt Gingrich is, as George Will says, the most Conservative candidate who can win.
Like it will for many voters, my decision largely came down to a risk vs. reward ratio—and there is no doubt in my mind that Mitt Romney would be the safer choice. Given the circumstances, what America needs right now is a real and powerful constraint on Federal power. Of the nationally viable candidates, Gingrich—and the 21st Century Contract—comes the closest to my vision of a positive American future…For this reason I am willing to roll the dice.
Photo courtesy of Dave Davidson, whose outstanding work can be seen at Prezography.com
The bedrock of winning elections at every major level of politics is building coalitions of supporters for whom you can count on to head to the polls and cast a vote for you. Especially in a country as large and non-monolithic as ours, coalition building on some level is a requirement for victory and often explains why politicians are so willing to speak often, but say very little.