Last Night’s Republican Debate

I am a football fan. One of the great things about football is that when you turn on a football game, you see a football game. It is played like a football game and reported like a football game. Last night I turned on the Republican debate. I am not exactly sure what I saw. I am a Hugh Hewitt fan. He was there, sitting in a special chair. I believe he had less talking time than most of the candidates. I guess that’s okay–the candidates were the ones having the debate, but why was he there? Also, why was the debate reported as if it were a football game. It’s not a football game–it’s supposed to be a serious discussion to help voters determine who they want to run for President. Or is it?

Now I am going into some tall grass. In August, The Conservative Treehouse posted an article about the establishment Republican’s strategy to make sure Jeb Bush was the party’s nominee. Basically, the strategy was to split the conservative vote in every early primary state so that Jeb Bush would win, even without a plurality of votes. If you look at the candidates, the theory cannot easily be dismissed. Marco Rubio will take Florida, Ted Cruz will take Texas, Lindsey Graham will take South Carolina, etc. Therefore, by the time you get to the more liberal Republican states, no conservative will have enough votes to challenge Jeb Bush.

In July I posted an article by Mark Jones which explained a new rule by the GOP:

Any state, other than the four exempt states already mentioned, that holds a Primary the first two weeks of the month will be forced to allocate those delegate on a proportional basis.  This means that if 5, or even 15, candidates are on the ballot, each candidate will receive a percentage of our delegates commensurate with the percentage of the vote they receive.This may sounds like a fair process on the surface, but as usual, there is more to the story.  The RNC’s penalty will mean that a number of very conservative states,with high delegate counts like Texas, Virginia, and North Carolina, that intend to hold early Primaries, will be forced to divide their delegates among multiple candidates.  In fact, 10 of 15 Southern states plan to hold their Primaries in this window. Conservative stalwarts like Colorado and Utah also plan to hold Primaries in this window.  It is highly unlikely any candidate will emerge from these conservative states with enough delegates to establish a significant lead or gain momentum in the race to be the Republican nominee before March 14.

The purpose of the debate (in the mind of the establishment GOP) is to divide the support among the conservative candidates. The media tends liberal, so they are going to play along so that the Republicans put forth a weak candidate. Unless the conservatives running for President agree among themselves on who gets out of the race and who remains in the race, we are going to have Jeb Bush as a candidate. I can assure you his candidacy will result in a Democrat President. The success of Donald Trump has thrown a bit of a wrench into the establishment plan, but I seriously doubt that a majority of Americans support a Trump presidency.

There are some good conservative Republican candidates. If nothing else, the assembled people on the state would make an amazing Presidential cabinet. The problem is finding a conservative leader. I am sure Jeb Bush is an intelligent and very nice man–I just don’t want to see him as the Republican candidate–I don’t think he can win.

When Reality Is Inconvenient Skew It !

One of my favorite bloggers is da tech guy at datechguyblog.com. He posted a story today about recent polls touted by the Washington Post about the election in November and how voters feel about various issues. His story is based on a story posted at Hot Air by Ed Morrissey.

The secret to getting any poll to confirm anything you want confirmed is in determining who you ask the questions. The recent Washington Post/ABC poll is the poster child for this technique.

Datechguy points out:

In a poll that is only 23% republican

  • Rick Santorum and Mitt Romney draw 42% and 44% respectively nearly double the GOP sample
  • The president draws no better than 52%.

In a poll only 23% republican and with a 11 point Democratic advantage:

  • the president can only manage a 3 pt advantage on jobs.

In a poll with only 23% republicans Obama can only manage

  • A 55% rating on Woman’s issues
  • A 53% rating on international affairs
  • and a 55% rating on being “inspiring

In a poll with only 23% republicans the president can’t crack 50% on:

  • Protecting the middle class
  • Understanding people’s problems,
  • Dealing with Healthcare
  • Supporting small business
  • Handling terrorism
  • Taxes

In a poll only 23% republican Romney holds an advantage over Obama on the issues of:

  • Energy Policy
  • Handling the Economy

and holds a double digit lead on dealing with the deficit.

America cannot afford four more years of Barack Obama. He has polarized the country along economic and racial lines, he has spent money like there was no tomorrow both personally and publicly, and he has politicized all the areas of the government he could in the time he has been in office. We need to clean house–get rid of all the political hacks in high places and replace them with people who love America. President Obama does not seem to understand the whole concept of loving America–he is too busy getting even for those things he considered the wrongs of the past. When he stated that the Buffett Rule tax was not about raising money, but about fairness, he told us all we needed to know.

 

 

Enhanced by Zemanta

Something To Think About As The Presidential Primary Races Continue

On Thursday, Byron York posted a column at the Washington Examiner that says a lot about where the campaign for the presidency has gone. If you are unhappy with the direction that President Obama and his administration have taken this country, this is a column you need to read carefully.

Remember, we are in a political war. The media is not on the side of conservatives. The media controls the dialogue both by the slant of the story and by what they do not report. They also control the debates by controlling the questions.

Byron York points out:

The days leading up to Wednesday night’s debate were filled with bad feelings, and the debate itself was filled with bad feelings. Santorum found himself the target of a media pile-on after reports of old statements about — astonishingly enough — contraception and Satan. Santorum’s advisers grew angry and frustrated, feeling he was being singled out for questions about religious views that were not also directed at Romney, Paul, and Newt Gingrich. Santorum lost precious campaign time explaining himself.

Byron York relates the story of another campaign event:

Santorum spoke at length about the Obama administration’s policies on Iran, Syria and Israel. He discussed his proposal to cut taxes for manufacturers and the more general issue of jobs. He talked a lot about immigration, both illegal and legal. He went into quite a bit of detail about energy — shale oil, the Alaska National Wildlife Refuge, oil sands, the Keystone pipeline, fracking, and more. He talked about values and families — “This is what I know gets everybody on the secular left bonkers about my campaign: I say America is at heart a moral enterprise” — but he did not revisit the battles of the previous 48 hours.

It was, in other words, an entirely normal and wide-ranging campaign speech, full of substance. When it was over, Santorum took two questions. The first was about the health of his daughter Isabella. The second was about Social Security. No contraception, no Satan.

Guess which event got the most publicity.

We are in a battle for America. We can elect someone who respects our Constitution or continue with someone who generally ignores it. Unfortunately, the debates have not dealt with issues that impact Americans–debt, budget, energy, Obamacare, etc. It’s time to end the debates and begin talking about the things that matter. The Republicans have the answers to the issues–those answers are simply not being reported. One major media person commented during the 2008 election that media bias generally adds about 10 percentage points to Democrat candidates. We need to work hard to overcome that bias.

Republicans win in 2012 on the issues. The media is working very hard to keep the discussion away from those issues.

Enhanced by Zemanta

The Day Of Santorum

The Daily Caller reports today on the victories yesterday by Rick Santorum in the Colorado and Minnesota caucuses and the non-binding primary in Missouri.

The article lists the numbers:

Returns from 83 percent of Minnesota’s precincts showed Santorum with 45 percent support, Texas Rep. Ron Paul with 27 percent and Romney — who won the state in his first try for the nomination four years ago — with 17 percent. Former House Speaker Newt Gingrich trailed with 11 percent.

It was closer in Colorado, where returns from all the precincts showed Santorum with 40 percent of the vote to 35 for Romney. Gingrich had 13, and Paul claimed 12 percent.

The results of yesterday’s caucuses are interesting for a variety of reasons. Santorum is the only ‘non-Romney’ who is still a viable candidate. He is not a perfect candidate (neither party has one of those), but it will be hard to find any significant ‘dirt’ on him. He is squeaky clean and although he has not always voted perfectly in line with the Tea Party, he is pretty close. But I think there is another reason for his success yesterday. When the Obama Administration declared war on the Catholic Church last week (courtesy of Health and Human Services Secretary Kathleen Sebelius), I don’t think the President understood what the reaction of the Church and average Americans would be. Many non-churched Americans were offended by the ruling that Church organizations had to go against their religious convictions in providing healthcare services. Government (state) regulations have already driven the Catholic adoption services out of Massachusetts and several other states because of rulings that did not allow the agencies to follow their religious convictions. As abortion becomes less popular (as of May 2009 51% of Americans were pro-life and 42% were pro-choice), government funding of abortion (which is part of Obamacare) will be less popular. I think Rick Santorum has benefitted by Americans waking up and seeing what the Obama Administration is bringing us and deciding that he is the best candidate to undo the damage and stop what is happening.

Rick Santorum is not the perfect candidate (neither is anyone else), but he is consistent in what he believes and what you see is what you get. I find that refreshing. He has also avoided the nasty negative attacks that some of the other candidates have engaged in.

Enhanced by Zemanta

The Experts Talk About New Hampshire

 

Congressman Poe and Governor Mitt Romney

Image via Wikipedia

National Review Online posted an article today by a number of its political pundits on the meaning of the results of the New Hampshire Primary. I will try to summarize, but please follow the link to the article–it is very informative.

Hunter Baker stated that Mitt Romney benefited by the winner in New Hampshire being declared early–more people saw him give his victory speech, and the speech was very effective.

Mona Charen pointed out that both Iowa and New Hampshire chose Romney. She also noted that the attacks on capitalism from Newt Gingrich may have helped shore up Mitt Romney’s conservative credentials. Regardless of how you feel about Mitt Romney, you have to admit that he is a capitalist!

Jim Geraghty points out that after the Romney win in New Hampshire, the only viable opponent to Mitt Romney is Rick Santorum. Mr. Geraghty wonders if Senator Sentorum will be able to overcome the Romney momentum.

Hugh Hewitt also agrees that Santorum is the only other candidate who could possibly beat Mitt Romney. He states that Rick Perry and Newt Gingrich ended their campaigns when they went after Romney and Bain Capital. Mr. Hewitt ends his comments with the question, “So who does Jim DeMint endorse?” Interesting question.

Kathryn Jean Lopez also comments that the attacks by Newt Gingrich helped Mitt Romney from his candidacy as a defense of capitalism. This is the beginning of the narrative Mitt Romney will use in his run against President Obama.

Grover Norquist takes a different approach. He has three suggestions for Mitt Romney–who to choose for a running mate, who to choose for a chief-of-staff, and to convince Ron Paul to speak at the Republican convention. He believes the Romney needs to include Ron Paul in order to insure that Ron Paul does not run as a third-party candidate.

Henry Olsen stated that the strong victory in New Hampshire almost assures that Mitt Romney will be the candidate. He makes an interesting observation though:

Jon Huntsman? He carried only four groups — those who consider themselves Democrats, those who strongly oppose the Tea Party, those who are satisfied with Obama, and those who are dissatisfied with the GOP candidates. ’Nuff said.

Great comment.

John J. Pitney commented on the morphing of Newt Gingrich into Michael Moore. Mr. Pitney states that he hopes Newt will go back to being the Newt we saw early in the campaign–focusing more on attacking President Obama than attacking fellow Republicans.

Cal Thomas notes that Mitt Romney is well on his way to being the Republican nominee for President. Although he is not universally loved, the other candidates will be running out of money and organization soon. Mr. Thomas notes that it is still a long way to the White House.

Now, my comments. I live in Massachusetts. Governor Romney was a good governor. He did not move the state in a conservative direction (it’s Massachusetts, I am not sure that is possible, we are one of two states that voted for George McGovern for President!) He is an honest, hard-working man. If he is elected, I am sure he will do everything in his power to rescue the American economy, and I believe that he has the knowledge and work ethic to do that. He is not my first choice, but I believe that he is a good choice.

Enhanced by Zemanta

Is This A Discussion We Need To Have ?

I understand that politics as currently engaged in is a blood sport. Anyone who runs for office is fair game on any level. I don’t like that, but it is a fact of life. It also may explain why many good people choose not to run for office–they don’t want to put their families through the wringer that seems to come with a political campaign. The most recent example of this is Rick Santorum and his wife and their handling of the death of one of their children shortly after the child was born.

Senator Santorum has stated that his wife was a neo-natal nurse who was familiar with the grieving process when a family loses a child. One of the steps to healing after the death of a child is to have the other children see the child and participate in the grieving process. Frankly I don’t see this as significantly different from the old Irish Wake or some other customs practiced in other religions in the past.

I really don’t think it was proper to attack Senator Santorum on his handling of the death of his child, but I do think the discussion might cause us to take a look at how much we value a life, regardless of the circumstances of that life.

The article that is the source of my information on this subject is at Fox News Chicago.

Enhanced by Zemanta

Why Are We Making All This Noise About Straw Polls A Year Before The Election ?

Dewey Defeats Truman

Image by scriptingnews via Flickr

Many of us are not thriving in President Obama’s economy. I understand that. I also understand that there is something in human nature that wants bad things to end. However, we have somehow descended into a political system that is in campaign mode all the time. The presidential campaign starts the day after a new president is elected. We need to stop that. I realize it gives us more time to size up the candidates, but other than the political junkies, no one will be paying attention until next June anyway. What has happened to our political system?

There was a Republican straw poll in Florida yesterday (the day after the Republican debate). Yesterday’s Washington Times reported that Herman Cain received 37 percent of the more than 2,600 votes cast.

Another Washington Times story posted the numbers for all the candidates:

Herman Cain, 37.1%
Rick Perry, 15.4%
Mitt Romney, 14.0%
Rick Santorum, 10.9%
Ron Paul, 10.4%
Newt Gingrich, 8.4%
Jon Huntsman, 2.3%
Michele Bachmann, 1.5%

William Kristol at the Weekly Standard posted an article partially explaining the results. He points out that even though Rick Perry did not do well in the debate, the disappointed voters did not move their support to Mitt Romney. Mr. Kristol also points out that the debate and straw poll will result in Rick Santorum and Herman Cain both getting more serious consideration by the voters. Mr. Kristol also suggests that a lot of people will be carefully watching Chris Christie’s Reagan Library speech on Tuesday.

The bottom line here is that the debates are not necessarily constructive at this time. They are something of a ‘gotcha’ game where the Democrat party can do opposition research. I really question the wisdom of starting the debate process this early.

 

 

 

Enhanced by Zemanta