![Willie Nelson and Walking Toward Gingrich]()
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
![Willie Nelson and Walking Toward Gingrich]()
by | Jun 15, 2011
Seven Republican Presidential contenders took the stage in New Hampshire Monday night in attempts to sway the primary electorate in their favor. Though the performances of all were respectable, their level of success in making their cases was varied. The following is a recap of what went down, who went up, who maintained, and what surely raised some eyebrows.
The Format and The Field
In general CNN did a nice job making the debate informative and substantive. What did not work was attempting to do away with the traditional bell or buzzer to limit each candidates response time and giving them only 30 seconds to answer the questions. Thirty seconds is simply not enough time for anyone to explain their position on complex issues, especially when the questions are multi-faceted. The result of this was moderator John King, who I very much respect, constantly trying to interrupt the participant’s responses, some of these interruptions were justified, most were not, and all were distracting.
In terms of the candidates, it was stunning both how cordial they were to each other and how little difference existed between them on the vast majority of their positions. Anyone who closely followed the 2008 primary debates could instantly tell that the Republican Party has shifted further to the right than it was four years ago. To Conservatives this is not only a positive on substance, but is also comforting as it guarantees that the 2012 election will be a clear ideological choice for the rest of the Country. This is something that you could not necessarily say about McCain vs. Obama in 2008 as, though it is hard to believe now, Obama actually ran as a “unifying†moderate Democrat (no chance he gets away with that this time!).
Eyebrow Raisers
Here is a snap-shot of both the good and bad headlines that were made and the things said that could have a lasting impact on the race.
1) Though provoked, Tim Pawlenty inexplicably chose not to attack Romney on health care and Rick Santorum took a pass at wounding Romney on his abortion flip-flop.
2) Michelle Bachmann replaced answering the first question asked of her with the unexpected announcement that she is officially running.
3) Bachmann played into the potential “extremist†label by implying that she believes a pregnant woman whose life is in danger, has been impregnated by a family member, or is the victim of rape should be legally required to give birth to the child. I realize that many hard-line Republicans may agree with this and that often these exceptions can be a ruse to justify an abortion, but the point is that, by and large, this will be controversial to the general electorate.
4) Even after months of running for president Herman Cain still refuses to provide any level of specificity regarding foreign policy, even after being widely criticized for his failure to do so in the first debate.
5) Newt Gingrich “re-back tracked†on his statement that Paul Ryan’s Medicare reform proposal is “right wing engineeringâ€. After saying this initially, then the following day saying his comments were “unfortunateâ€, last night he dug in and defended his original words (though he gave a fairly effective, all be it nuanced, explanation).
6) Ron Paul, in responding to what he would do regarding our current troop deployment, gave probably the best answer of the night by saying “I wouldn’t wait for my General’s; I’m the Commander In Chief. I make the decisions, I tell the Generals what to do, and I’d bring them home as quickly as possible.†This was great in that it shattered the multi-administration practice of using the Generals and there recommendations as an “excuse†to avoiding making the hard decision of ending a war. As soon as a General says, “I think we should lose this war now and leave immediately†I will characterize this practice differently.
7) Paul emphatically said that as president he would not authorize drone attacks on Al Qaeda in Yemen or in Pakistan (and presumably anywhere else).
8) Paul also said that hospitals should not be required to give illegal aliens (in this example a 5 year old child) emergency room medical care. Now even the most passionate Ron Paul supporters have to realize that, regardless of what merit one might think it has in theory, you simply can’t say something like this in presidential politics and expect to win anything.
The Winners, The Maintainers, and The Losers
This debate saw three candidates gain a great deal; two do enough to keep their position in the field unchanged; and two who likely saw the status they have worked hard to build up diminished. The following categorizations are all based on individual expectations coming in and what they needed to do to boost their place in the pack.
The Winners
Michelle Bachmann—It’s hard to imagine her first appearance in the race, and on the National stage, going much better than it did. It was not only obvious that she belonged in the race, but that she is very near the top tier already. She confidently displayed her firm grasp on the issues, effectively alluded to her large and ongoing role in the fights on Capitol Hill, and emoted aggressiveness in going after Obama—something that Republicans are starving for. She said she would not rest until Obamacare is repealed and would spur job creation by bringing down tax rates substantially and reforming/repealing the EPA. You know it was a good night for her when the only indecisiveness she showed was on the question of who she preferred between Elvis and Johnny Cash, her answer…both.
Newt Gingrich—Anyone who thought Newt was going away anytime soon must now consider that opinion a gross overreaction. Of all the candidates on the stage it was clear he was the most steeped in history, policy, and that he was the most natural debater. The immediate post-debate reaction from the CNN crew tried to make his statement that he would demand anyone in his cabinet be committed to the country and the Constitution akin to McCarthy-ism. That is complete rubbish. He called the Obama administration a “destructive forceâ€, said he would repeal the Dodd-Frank financial reform bill as well as defund the National Labor Relations Board, and would quickly work to repeal Obamacare. Speaking of Obamacare, he was the only candidate to acknowledge the importance of a Senate majority in achieving repeal. He also said that he would re-assess our whole involvement in the Middle East and would bring our troops home as soon as possible (pursuant to their safety).
Rick Santorum—Anyone who sleeps on this guy’s chances is making a huge mistake. His two debate performances have been impressive and even if he is not able to claim victory, he has VP shortlist written all over him. Though you are not hearing a lot of buzz about him he actually gave the evenings most decisive and specific answers, and once again proved that this stage is not too big for him. He fully embraced both Paul Ryan and the Tea Party, said he would cut the capital gains tax rate in half (after 5 years of 0% capital gains), and had a well thought out and specific plan to phase out ethanol. He very successfully made the case that Obama would begin cutting Medicare in 2014, while saying his approach would be to turn the whole system into something very similar to Medicare Plan-D. Overall he delivers clean, forceful sentences and already has a large natural base with the religious right (which either Romney or Huntsman would covet in a running mate should they win the nomination).
The Maintainers
Mitt Romney—Coming in as the perceived front-runner, he likely did enough to maintain this position. He made no mistakes while intentionally breaking no new policy ground. On all major issues he spoke in the most fundamental terms of all the candidates, likely foreshadowing a strategy of staying broad-viewed and specific free in the races early stage. The biggest pluses for him on this night were that he gave the most coherent and convincing defense of Romneycare to date, and was not subjected to repeated attacks from the rest of the field, as was expected.
Ron Paul—Paul gave his standard strong performance, which unfortunately also included his usual hammering on a handful of his positions that make him an unrealistic general election candidate. He is so right about nearly everything in the domestic realm, but no Republican (or Democrat) will ever win the presidency by refusing to pro-actively attack Al-Qaeda with drones. The only way this position would be feasible is if you took the drones off the table while simultaneously offering an alternative strategy to protect us from the threat of terrorism. There is no doubt that the American people would support ending all our current engagements in the Middle East, but just implying that this alone would end the risk of being attacked is never going to fly. It continued to be obvious just how much the Republican Party has gravitated his way over the last four years by how many times the other candidates referenced both his view points and his answers (something that never happened in the 2008 primary debates).
Not only did many of the candidates say, as Paul has forever, that it is time to quickly end all three wars, but I have never heard “states’ rights†mentioned so many times in a debate before…and for that we thank you Ron. If the election only concerned domestic affairs I think it would be shocking how well he would do.
The Losers
Tim Pawlenty – For a candidate that so many expect to break through any day now—the wait continues. Though his performance was solid he really needed to do more, and he had the chances to. Not only did he inexplicably fail to challenge Romney over health care, he also failed to capitalize on being the only candidate so far to have released a specific economic growth plan, which he did last week. Talking his plan up should have been the first thing on his agenda (and the second…and the third). He absolutely could have drawn the distinction between himself and the rest of the field that he desperately needs by saying “I am the only candidate on this stage that has a concrete plan to turn the economy around, the rest of these people are only offering wordsâ€. That being said, he did give strong answers on fair trade, right to work, and was the only one to mention the importance of appointing Conservative justices to the courts (which he had a good record of doing in Minnesota).
Herman Cain—While he was able to shine with the lower-tier candidates in the first debate, Cain struggled to stand out amongst the heavier hitters. What hurts him the most is that while others are able to point to decisions they have made, votes they have taken, and legislation that they have championed, he is not able to do the same. Not being able to cast himself in those roles creates a perception, probably an unfair one, that he is removed from the fight. He could counter this by bringing to the debate specific, innovative, and well thought out solutions, but as of yet these are in short supply. Driving this point home was the fact that, despite being the former CEO of a restaurant chain, he did not even have a specific opinion on the FDA—saying in response to a question that “maybe†they need to be reformed or stream-lined. There is a lot to like about him, and he did have some good moments, but how he thinks, after months of running for president, that he can refuse to give specific foreign policy opinions is beyond me. If anyone has the personality to make some populist noise it is him, but more than any other candidate he needs to be offering unique, brilliant, and very specific proposals to stand out. If he does this he will elevate his status, until then he will remain buried in the pack.
Photo courtesy of TEApublican.
by | May 30, 2011
As a life-long Iowan, I can tell you the ridiculous National stereo-type that we are all corn growers or hog farmers is bad enough without adding an even worse one…that we are a bunch of babies.
With the political season heating up and the eyes of the Nation beginning to turn toward us, now should be our time to shine—not to whine. Unfortunately, too much whining is what I have heard from some of my fellow Iowa Republicans lately.
Before this week the running gripe was over the likelihood that Mitt Romney and his campaign wouldn’t be “all in†with their Iowa effort. News reports and blogs have been filled with comments and insinuations that if he doesn’t fully participate in the State he will be punished for it by voters. This was followed by the reaction to Michelle Bachmann’s unfortunate cancellation as the featured speaker at a Polk County GOP fundraiser last Thursday.
I was in attendance at this event and saw at least 30 people walk-out during her, admittedly technically challenged, appearance via Skype. She chose the video feed as a last second alternative to missing the event all together due to a delayed House vote on The Patriot Act. In addition to the walk-outs, the fallout from this was loud grumblings by event organizers that she “dissed†Iowa, and claims from others that her potential campaign for President was over even before it got started.
Though by no means an endorsement of her or how the dinner went, these sentiments were both a hyper-sensitive reaction and grossly unfair. The reality is that scheduling problems, especially for a member of Congress, happen. Though it was not a great night for her, the event, or the Polk GOP, an important vote simply, and unexpectedly, ran long. It should also be noted that she was as contrite about it as her image on the screen was blurry…and it was very blurry.
In general, the reaction to both the Romney and Bachmann situations have made Iowa Republicans look and sound more like scorned lovers than serious judges of Presidential candidates. While I fully understand the disappointment of the Bachmann cancellation and the desire to have a bona fide contender like Romney spend time here, I shudder at a mind-set that would allow either to be a factor.
Though it certainly applies to a small minority of Iowa voters, anyone who makes their decision on the “emotional†grounds of not getting enough personal attention, in my view, is guilty of a dereliction of duty. After all, how can one argue that it is not what they say, but where they say it that matters?
With our State’s great influence in the process comes great responsibility. Considering that an Obama re-election would mean he could possibly appoint two more Supreme Court judges, a full implementation of “Obama-Care†would be certain, and that there would be four more years of a liberal president politically unconstrained to spend freely, the stakes couldn’t be higher. This makes it even more unsettling that a sect of informed Republicans are concerned about completely irrelevant things such as how much time a candidate personally spends fawning over us.
The last time I checked we are supposed to be selecting our Country’s next president—not dating. Furthermore, if we were dating we likely wouldn’t have much luck acting in this manner anyways. The word on the street would spread through the singles community like wildfire─WARNING…HIGH MAINTENANCE!
In running the ironic risk of whining too much about whining, let me quickly close by saying that I hope this attention-craving neediness is not a harbinger of things to come. Not only is it un-Iowan, it is un-American (at least it used to be anyways). The sooner we stop the bed wetting and start the vetting the better. Whether or not we are getting the attention of this or that candidate, we certainly have the Country’s attention.
Besides the fact that focusing on petty, inconsequential things will likely not lead us to the best nominee, it just plain looks bad.
I tell you this, if I have to be incorrectly typecast by the rest of the Country, I’d gladly take bib overalls and a tractor over a pacifier.
style=’clear:both’>
![Willie Nelson and Walking Toward Gingrich]()
by | May 5, 2011
If nothing else Mitt Romney is a man of firsts. Four years ago when he ran for President he became the first Mormon to make a serious run at the White House. His recent re-entry into the field for this go around has produced another, and far more unlikely one. For the first time in history we have a candidate who is simultaneously the front runner and a long shot. While his prior bid found voters faced with an assortment of unusual and unprecedented factors to consider, this run finds that list not only still in-tact, but even longer.
A look at his chances reveals a lot to like, but also a series of tough spots created for both the candidate and voters. In the following we will weigh each against the other, not so much as a comparison of pros and cons but more as a look at advantages verses disadvantages. This distinction is important because classifying in terms of pros and cons makes the presumption that the realities surrounding a candidate are good or bad. In some cases I would argue that such judgments are unsubstantiated, in others the opposite of conventional wisdom may be true, and in yet others certain considerations are neither, and frankly should not be a valid part of the debate. That being said, let’s start by looking at what is certainly a strong list of his advantages.
First and foremost, he is a serious man and a realistic candidate. He has a background of leadership in both the private economic sector and in government, a mixture that puts him in a nearly ideal position. While his background outside of politics makes it hard to clearly paint him as a life-long politician and part of the current “Washington†problem, his tenor as Governor suggests that he would not be overwhelmed if he wins the job. Another huge feather in his cap is that he can prove his skill-set and resume have transferred to success outside of business by pointing to his role in the Salt Lake City Olympics. All in all he meets the major qualifications and like him or not, he certainly does not struggle to seem Presidential.
In terms of the other areas, he also has many advantages. He is one of the most polished and well-rounded in the field, having a developed platform on the economic side and being well versed and credible on foreign policy issues. His prior candidacy showed his personal closet to be skeleton free, proved that he is a more than able debater, and demonstrated that he would have no trouble raising or, as the case may be, providing money.
His final two advantages are of note but for opposite reasons. The first is overplayed and is his business success and experience. This no doubt will be seen as a major positive, especially since so many Republicans feel down to their cores that government needs to be run as a business and not a bottomless social experiment. For Independents, Conservatives, and Libertarians alike, a business approach to government represents a realistic way out of our current financial disaster. While I agree, and unquestionably this will be his best selling point, my personal opinion is that his past business acumen will have little to do with potential future success or failure in this area.Â
Though it sounds good, there is not a shred of evidence to suggest that making it big in business translates to overseeing a thriving economy as President, mostly because it rarely has had a chance to be proven. A look back at history, meaning back to George Washington, finds only one former President ever has had a prior occupation listed as “businessman,†and only one other that could make a case to join him…and they are both named Bush. Though probably surprising, Bush the elder stands alone as a former businessman and his son, founder/CEO of Bush Exploration and general partner in The Texas Rangers, is the only President to have a master’s degree in business. The fact of the matter is that the economy had problems under each Bush while it flourished under Bill Clinton and Ronald Reagan, neither of whom ever had a sniff of the business world.
The last thing working in his favor is something I view as much underplayed—his wife. Conventional wisdom says this barely rises above a non-factor, but my sense is that liking a person’s spouse and getting a good vibe from their marriage provides a deep, hard to define, and powerfully sub-concious level of comfort. Now I’m not saying this can win it for a candidate, but I am saying that it can help lose it. In proving this I would point to 2004 and the cold, aloof, and elitist public perception of Teresa Heinz-Kerry. This perception made it hard to imagine her as a first lady, and I would argue is one of a handful of things that cost John Kerry a razor close election.
In this regard the Romneys have no such trouble. They seem naturally happy together and she is a very impressive woman who you don’t have to squint too hard at to picture as a first lady. Anyone doubting that a candidate’s marriage and spouse has some impact can either check out a “man on the street†segment to get a true sense of some of these voters, remind themselves of Newt Gingrich’s situation, or if these fail just take a quick glance at Donald Trump and his current wife.
Wow! With all that going for him how could he possibly be a long-shot? Looking at the other side of the Romney ledger leaves one channeling their inner Yogi Berra by saying, “He is the perfect candidate…except for all his flaws.â€Â While this list is indeed shorter, it’s also heavier. Included here is his much talked about implementation of state-run, mandated health insurance in Massachusetts, a clumsy reversal on abortion (is there any other kind?), and the fact that he is a Mormon.
These particular hang-ups could not be any more damaging considering how high profile an issue health care will be and that he likely has to place relatively well in Iowa. The devastation comes not only from their existence but from how he has chosen to address them, and how they all converge to create an ominous cloud of skepticism.  As much as Romney Care and abortion work against him they have been made worse by him making parsed, nuanced arguments to try and explain them away. His distinction regarding health care, that it was perfectly fine and Constitutional to address it on a state level, is technically accurate. In spite of this it simply will not play and puts him in the same camp as another prominent Massachusetts politician.
Once again going back to the 2004 Presidential election, John Kerry was immensely damaged by saying in regards to war funding, “I actually did vote for the $87 billion before I voted against it.â€Â Much like Romney on health care Kerry’s statement actually had validity in the context in which he was saying it, but in neither case will that matter. Romney’s attempt to talk his way out of a past “achievement†will puzzle some, turn off even more, and provide a generous portion of blood in the water for his primary opponents. Being forced to repeat his equivocations in every debate will continually leave him victim to a saying usually applied to more serious political misdeeds—“The cover up is almost always worse than the crime.â€
If even one of these disadvantages was not present I would be tempted to think that the others could be overcome. As it stands though, the combination of Romney Care, his reversal on abortion, the fact that he does not share the same faith of the vast majority of his potential voters, and his insistent equivocations all congeal in one area to create a feeling, for most Republicans, that they simply can’t trust or rely on him. Not exactly a formula for winning primaries, especially when at the moment so many Americans are starving for blunt honesty.
Complicating matters for Republicans is that “The Romney Predicament†is not his alone. His problems have the potential to be equally damaging to the Party, as he may very well be the candidate with the best chance of beating President Obama. If he is eventually able to win the nomination it will be because of a mixture of voter pragmatism and a very weak Republican field, likely more of the latter.Â
As the process plays out don’t be surprised if he increasingly becomes more of a long-shot and less of a front runner. As a general rule voters do not want to feel like they have to “settle†for a candidate, and for many that is exactly what they would be forced to do in supporting Mitt Romney. In spite of his impressive past and its long list of advantages, his disadvantages are heavy, untimely, and loud. The strikes against him are not only the 800 pound gorilla in the room, but one that instead of sitting there just happens to be throwing a temper tantrum. While muting this beast and claiming victory is possible, it is more likely that this man of many firsts will ultimately find himself in second.
