comMITTed to Romney!

Of all the groups who compose the liberal movement, few pose a greater threat to the continued prosperity of the United States than those pushing a radical environmentalist agenda. Led by Al Gore and other tree-huggers, the environmentalist are pushing a dangerous agenda that will damage economic growth and severely weaken the position of the United States in the global economy.

Those who support these absurd restrictions on carbon emissions use fear tactics to scare Americans into supporting their cause, while refusing to mention the very high costs of such restrictions. Over the past three decades, we’ve seen environmentalists gain a dangerous foothold in the American government - its been decades since we’ve built new oil refineries, decades since we’ve built a new Nuclear plant, and all along, more and more land has been declared off limits to the very kind of energy exploration that could help the United States become energy independent. Instead, they insist on a vain pursuit of novelty technologies that aren’t even close to being ready for any kind of widespread use. Not only will we never be able to completely eliminate our need for oil or synthetics - they are used in everything from rubber to plastic to makeup - but the current alternatives to fossil fuels are either inefficient, expensive, or both. Solar power requires expensive equipment and huge spaces of land. Electric and Hydrogen cars are far too inefficient for widespread use. And Wind power requires large and obstructive turbines that create resentment from nearby communities.

So in the end, liberal environmental policies do nothing but kill jobs and increase economic hardship. When a Senior Citizen who spent a career educating students is forced to choose between heat and medicine, when a company is forced to move production from the United States to China, when an unemployed autoworker is forced to choose between putting food on his table or turning on a light, when parents can no longer afford to drive their child to a better school out-of-district, and when many Americans are forced to cut back on their vacation or shopping time because of fuel bills, those are the real products of the green revolution.

Our economy is already in the middle of a deep recession, one that has claimed millions of jobs and destroyed billions in wealth. It will already take years for us to completely recover, and even longer before we are back to the roaring economy we were just a year ago. Recent proposals, such as the “cap-and-trade” scam, or more international regulations and agreements to limit emissions (which not only have an incredible failure rate - virtually all of Europe is expected to miss its carbon goals from Kyoto) will only do more damage to the economy, unemployed more Americans, and push more companies to places like China, which are exempt from global restrictions and where the Government does little to impose such dangerous caps on industry.

Just as the Obama administration tries to help pull the auto industry out of a slump, it is set to pass even higher fuel efficiency standards, which will, once again, force the industry to make smaller and smaller cars - which not only produce a smaller profit, but which the American people do not want.

Liberals, led by the current administration, have chosen the side of environmentalism, against jobs, against wealth, and against business - and its time for the American people to tell the government to stop enforing human sacrifice to the Green Gods.

Share on Facebook

Share This

There has been a growing debate recently over the “next in line theory” - which states that Republicans always choose the original favorite in their primary contests. I’m a proponent of that particular train of thought, particularly since almost all historical evidence over the past 33 years supports NIL. Still, there are many who dismiss the theory as wishful thinking on the behalf of politicos anxious for any bit of early evidence to increase the inevitability factor for their favorite candidate.

It is, however, undeniable that Republican Primaries have, since 1976, followed the predictable pattern of selecting the “next in line” to be the nominee: Reagan, who lost in 1976 to Gerald Ford, won the 1980 nomination. George H.W. Bush, who was Reagan’s primary challenger in 1980 - and his eventual Vice-President, won the 1988 election. Bob Dole, who offered Bush the best run for his money in 1988, won the 1996 Primary contest. And John McCain, who was second in the 2000 Primary, won the 2008 race. The lone exception is 2000 - when Pat Buchanan, who was the runner-up to Bob Dole in ‘96, opted to run as an independent. Now the exact reason for this pattern can be disputed, and I’m not in any position to say that it ismore than an amazing coincidence, though there is a point that you have to start thinking that such randomness does not repeat so many times.

Now, this is not enough to guarantee that Romney will be the nominee in 2012 - though I personally believe he will be - it is however, a remarkable pattern that gives us insight into the future that many polls, particularly those open to manipulation - like the NPR contest, are currently unable to offer.

Share on Facebook

Share This

Note: Below is my response to a personal criticism and editorial critique of an earlier post on this site that I authored that was posted on www.race42012.com. While I cannot allow the article to go unanswered, this response does not represent a change in my view of - or warning about - that site.

I can’t say that I was particularly happy this evening to find my name being thrown around on Race 4 2012 - a site that I am no longer welcome at because of my views - and even less thrilled when I found the article in question to contain both a personal attack (referring to me as a “The populist political glue-sniffer” - whatever that is), as well as a critique of a recent article I posted on CTR, which can be found here.

For now, I’ll ignore Kristofer Lorelli’s below-the-belt personal jab alone, except to say that when such a remark is his first argument, it throws into question the substance of his analysis.

Kristofer seemed to take issue with my assertion that Iowa retains considerable importance in the Republican nominating process. Not only did he suggest that “the Republican caucus acts only as a 4 year reunion/kegger for the media elite and pollsters”, but also that “if Mitt had skipped Iowa, he might have won New Hampshire”. On the first point, Kristofer is completely incorrect. On the second, he is probably right in his claim, but off as to its consequences.

As I posted originally, Iowa is right about half the time. Iowa Republicans became the first to cast ballots for the eventual nominee in 1976 (Ford), 1996 (Dole), and 2000 (Bush). In the other years featuring open races - 1980 (Bush), 1988 (Dole), and 2008 (Huckabee) - the state, despite voting for a candidate other than the eventual winner, nonetheless played an important role in shaping the development of the race. George H.W. Bush, who defeated Ronald Reagan in 1980, went on to become Reagan’s primary challenger and eventual running mate. Bob Dole, who beat the incumbent Vice President in 1988, also became the primary challenger, and went on to be the nominee eight years later (this follows another important trend which I’ll revisit tomorrow). And while 2008 winner Mike Huckabee did not go on to be the nominee, running mate, or runner up, his victory almost certainly altered the dynamic of the race and handed John McCain the nomination. Had Romney, rather than Huckabee, won Iowa, he would most likely have gone on to triumph in the other early states as well - which would have made him the de-facto nominee even before Super Tuesday. What exactly does this all prove? That even when Iowa doesn’t nominate the eventual winner (and its important to note that IA’s record is no worse than that of New Hampshire), it still plays a crucial role in the contest.

But What about Lorelli’s other argument, that time spent in Iowa in vain pursuit of a useless win cost Romeny the nomination by dooming him in New Hampshire? Well, at its core, that argument may be true - had Romney ignored Iowa, and campaigned in New Hampshire exclusively, he probably could have won there. But was it a missed opportunity to capture the nomination? Most likely, not. Consider, for a moment, that if Romney had captured New Hampshire, either Huckabee or Thompson would have still triumphed in Iowa - sending the whole contest to South Carolina (as so often happens), where Romney would have had a very difficult time convincing social conservatives of his dedication to their cause - particularly as he would have been viewed with even more suspicion after skipping a Conservative caucus to campaign in a moderate to liberal primary.

The same danger must be considered in 2012 - a fact which Kristofer appears to ignore in his next suggestion:

Since South Carolina is an uphill battle for Mitt, he must win the first primary, and win it big.  The fact that Romney (if his political instincts are as sharp as you claim they are), will skip Iowa in December 2011, will cause the media to downplay the election even more so and will prevent the eventual caucus winner from gathering any momentum.

Lorelli appears to recognize the difficulty Romney could have in SC against either Palin or Huckabee, but does not appear to realize the danger posed to Romney by a decision to opt out of a Conservative contest in favor of a more liberal one. Romney is still viewed, largely unfairly, with suspicion by a large number of Social Conservatives - particularly those in the south, as is almost the entire Northeast. Should Romney choose to skip Iowa in favor of the New Hampshire Primary, the danger posed by that decision to a potential campaign in South Carolina cannot be understated.

Also, if Romney were to skip Iowa, Palin and Huckabee would almost certainly skip New Hampshire, lessening the importance of both primaries - if the absence of one contestant from a caucus would discredit the contest, then the same would be the result of two candidates abstaining from the NH contest.

Share on Facebook

Share This

As much as liberals in and out of the US government have relished in attacking the kind of free-market, low-regulation policies that they claim led to the recent economic crisis, its hard not to take into account that the same policies that led directly to the credit crunch and the current recession - namely, lax lending practices that allowed those who would not normally have been granted credit to own a home, are the very same kind of practices that Democrats would have cheered on not three years ago as an expansion of the American dream.

Share on Facebook

Share This

Things are just getting worse for President Obama and his Democratic Allies. Just two months into office, Obama’s approval rating has gone from something most politicians would kill for to barely above 50%. His Presidential Approval Index, which subtracts the “strongly disapprove” rating from the “strongly approve” rating, has fallen into the single digits, and is now at the lowest level since Obama took office. If the trend continues, Obama will have a negative API rating by April 3rd.

More disturbing, perhaps, for the President, is the demographic breakdown of the poll - the “internals”. Obama now has negative approval rating from men, independents, and minorities other than African Americans (meaning, primarily, Hispanics). Those three groups form the “Swing” group required for re-election. While the country as a whole approves of Obama by a 55%-44% margin, men disapprove 48%-51%, Independents by 45%-55% margin, and non-Black minorities by a 47%-49% margin.

These numbers have to leave the White House scrambling for a way to right the ship of public opinion.

Share on Facebook

Share This

Good News from Rasmussen Reports - for the first time in more than a year, Republicans now lead Democrats in a Generic Congressional ballot. While out opportunities to take back congress in 2010, its looking increasingly likely that we will gain seats - probably enough to blunt whatever remains of the liberal advance of the past three years. Perhaps this is because voters are heavily dissatisfied. In fact, only 4% give Congress an “excellent” rating - and only 19% believe that Congress has passed signifiant legislation to improve their lives.

Additional good news comes from my - and Gov. Romney’s - home state of Michigan, a state taking one of the most severe hits from the recession. In fact, Michigan has been in a lengthy slump since well before the recession that started last October. In a poll released today, the top three potential Republican candidates for governor lead the likely Democratic nominee by considerable margins. As a swing state in the past few cycles, and one that has suffered under Democratic leadership, taking back Michigan at the state-wide level could be an important first step in taking back the White House - particularly if native son Mitt Romney is our nominee.

Share on Facebook

Share This

Since the 2008 Iowa Caucus, some, particularly within the Romney camp, have come to question the value of the first-in-the-nation Presidential contest. They argue that Iowa no longer holds an important role in the Primary process, and that a victory could easily be attained without competing in the Hawkeye State. Their claim is supported by John McCain’s victory in 2008 - he won without ever competing, and placing fourth, in the caucus.

And, to a degree, they have a point - Iowa does not have the power to decide the Republican nomination. But neither does any other state. There are fifty-plus primaries, and even when a win in one state appears decisive, it only comes after a series of wins to get the candidate to that point. John McCain did not become the Republican nominee because he won California, but because he won California after winning New Hampshire, South Carolina, Florida, and New York.

For an early state, Iowa’s record is about as good as anyone could ask for - it votes for the eventual winner about 50% of the time, comparable to New Hampshire’s record, though not as good as South Carolina (this makes sense, since SC usually cast the tie-breaking vote. - it should be noted that, apparently, there are only two tickets to SC, one from IA and one from NH).

Even if Iowa only “picks” the winner half the time, its importance the other 50% of the time cannot be underestimated. As in 1980 and 2008, when Iowa voted for someone other than the eventual nominee, it still had an impact on the final outcome. George H.W. Bush won in  1980, and became Reagan’s closest competitor - and his eventual running mate. Similarly, we all know how much different the Republican Primary (and the general election) would have been if Romney, not Huckabee, had won in Iowa.

Its easy to write off people - or things - that you are unhappy with, and there is plenty of reason for Romney fans to be unhappy with Iowa, but underestimating the importance of the state could be a terrible mistake.

Share on Facebook

Share This

I’ve debated with myself over whether or not to post this on CTR - not wanting to elevate a personal dispute between two hard-headed bloggers to a level it didn’t deserve, but recent developments have forced me to the conclusion that I should, at the last, issue a warning to other Mittheads.

Even before the start of the 2008 election (in Jan. of 2007), I began taking an active posting life at www.race42008.com (now race42012.com), and it was a sight I eagerly recommended to others, because it provided both a strong debating arena, and an open environment that encouraged people of all views to participate.

Unfortunately the site that I was once a huge fan of is no longer what it once was. The site’s administrator, Kavon Nikrad, asked me to stop posting on the site after I called out his decision not to include those polls which show Romney in the lead for the GOP primaries in considering the position of the various 2012 competitors. That, alone, would not have warranted using my position here to advise against the site, but other Romney supporters on the site were threatened with banning if they did not end their criticism of the other 2012 candidates - notably, Sarah Palin is now largely off limits to and strong criticism, though no action is taken against those who choose to spread lies against Romney, on the basis of politics, personal character, or faith.

I’d advice Romney supporters not to waste their time on the website - it appears that our views are no longer welcome.

I’m currently looking into some other 2012-themed sites so that I can put up a list, hopefully one that will help spread the pro-Romney presence across the web. If you have any, please feel free to recommend them.

Share on Facebook

Share This

shotsonthehouse.com is hosting a straw poll for 2012. Unfortunately, the Palinites seem to have gotten the message while the Mittheads missed it (I know Justin, and I had no clue).

Vote, please.

http://shotsonthehouse.com/?p=1386

Share on Facebook

Share This

Well, maybe.

IF the current trend were to continue unaltered for the rest of this month, Rasmussen’s Presidential Approval index, which is determined by subtracting the number of people who strongly disapprove of the President from the number of people who strongly approve, should be in the negatives by the second day of April. This is, again, only if the trend that has existed since January were to continue unchanged - which is unlikely.

Even without falling into a negative approval hole before the end of his third full month in office, Obama’s falling numbers have to be setting off alarms in the White House and the DNC. The PAI was, on January 22, at +30%. At it’s current level of just +6%, that’s a drop of 80% - and in the first 50 days of an administration, that a giant red flag.

Obama’s total approval number is still high - at 56%, but when you break it down, only about 57% of those who approve of Obama “strongly” approve. In contrast, nearly 75% of those who oppose Obama place themselves in the “strongly oppose” camp.

I think its safe to say that the honeymoon - or at least Obama’s time as a kind of great unifier - is finished.

Share on Facebook

Share This

New GOP Chairman Mike Steele has finally apologized to radio host Rush Limbaugh for comments he during a CNN interview in which he called Limbaugh nothing more than an entertainer - which to me, sounds as if Steele might have become defensive about the idea of anyone encroaching on his position as leader of the party - and said that his show was “incendiary” and “ugly”.

Had these remarks come from a Presidential candidate in the middle of the campaign season, there may have been some justification for the remarks, but coming from Steele, who needs only the votes of Republicans to remain in his current position. By criticizing Limbaugh, Steele allowed Democrats to frame the debate over one of the greatest assets of the GOP, he made opponents out of friends, and retreated to a submissive, defensive position in the face of even the smallest Democratic criticism. That is no way to win elections or defeat the opponent.

Mike Steele was wrong to criticize Rush, and right to apologize. Now he just needs to make sure he doesn’t repeat his mistake.

Share on Facebook

Share This

By the time the next Conservative Political Action Conference (CPAC) rolls around in 2010, we should have a much clearer picture of who will be running in the 2012 Presidential Election. That doesn’t mean the field will be completely set, but it should begin taking shape late this year, when potential candidates begin building their contacts and getting their names back in the news - or not.

But for five members of the potential 2012 race, a difficult decision lies in front of them - one they will have to make long before, though not necessarily apart from, their decision on whether or not to run for President. Like many Presidential elections, many of the biggest names of 2012 are Governors - including former VP candidate Sarah Palin, and second-tier members Jindal, Pawlenty, and Sanford. Florida Gov. Charlie Crist is also rumored to be nursing Presidential ambitions, though he is less likely to be a major in 2012 than the others. But all five must decide whether or not to seek re-election to their current offices before running for President in 2012. Four will be on the ballot in 2010, while Bobby Jindal, who perhaps drew the lowest card in the deck, must run again in 2011 if he wants to maintain his position as Governor of Louisiana.

Running in 2010 and again in 2012 isn’t impossible, but it brings up interesting questions for each of the candidates. For example, how do you convince voters to elect you to office, even if you clearly have higher ambitions? “Its my back-up” isn’t a particularly strong argument for re-election. Also, what would the effects of a loss be on their Presidential ambitions? George Allen, remember, was the favorite for 2008 until he lost his bid to keep his Virginia Senate seat in 2006 - effectively ending his Presidential run. With that in mind, the clear answer might be to give up their office to focus fully on a run for President, but that too, has its own unique challenges. Of all the candidates mentioned above, only Sarah Palin is clearly in the top tier - the group from which Republican nominees are almost exclusively drawn. And even her position is questionable, given her lackluster performance in the CPAC straw poll, and her potential to vote-split with fmr. Arkansas Governor Mike Huckabee. That leaves the potential that all five could be out of work by June 2012, and the oldest, Crist, is only 52. That’s not a particularly enviable position for any politician.

Correction: It has been brought to my attention by Dav46 that South Carolina Mark Sanford is term-limited, and will be unable to seek re-election in 2010. At least for one of the candidates, the choice has been made for them.

Share on Facebook

Share This

As CPAC winds down for another year, its time to consider what effect the results of the latest straw poll will have on the still-developing 2012 primary race. Ann Marie’s latest posting lists the results - a relatively decisive win for Romney, followed by Jindal, Ron Paul, and Sarah Palin. The poll isn’t a guarantee that Romney will triumph, but it does give us some indications about the feelings of the GOP:

1) There is no clear leader. Romney’s victory is significant, but not overwhelming. At least as a whole, Conservatives do not have a clear idea of exactly which candidate they want in 2012.

2) Palin’s lack of success in 2008 may have spoiled some on rising stars. Her own showing (behind Ron Paul) is unimpressive, and while Jindal still comes out as a winner, he probably could have done better.

3) At least for now, when faced with the choice, Republicans will choose experienced leaders (Romney, Gingirch with 30%) over party celebrities (Jindal, Palin 27%).

Winners and Losers

Mitt Romney is obviously the big winner. He is not the unquestionable favorite for 2012. Jindal, too, enjoyed a victory that could push him to the top of the second tier, and, potentially, onto the 2012 ticket as Vice President. The biggest loser, arguably, is Mike Huckabee - who attracted less than 10% of the vote. Gingrich also suffered, and it seems increasingly unlikely that he will seek the nomination to any success. Palin’s showing was neither high enough to vault her ahead of the pack, nor was it low enough to significantly damage her chances.

Share on Facebook

Share This

No reasonable person could have expected President Obama’s sky-high approval rating to remain at their previously unheard-of levels, and a moderate decline was expected by everyone, even those within the administration. But, at least according to Rasmussen’s Presidential approval index, Obama’s numbers appear to be in free-fall mode. The index, which is calculated by subtracting the number of people who strongly disapprove of the President’s performance from the number of people with the opposite view, has fallen by more than 60% since Obama first took office.

Rasmussen also counts those who do not “strongly” approve or disapprove, but does not factor tthem into the PAI. At the beginning of his term, the President had a total approve/disapprove of 65%/30%. Today, that number is 57%/41% - still numbers that any politician would love, but part a larger trend that you couldn’t pay anyone to take. Even more disturbing for the administration is that these numbers come just after - according to the DNC - a major legislative victory with the Stimulus package.

Its still too early to say exactly how low the numbers will go, or how long the negative trend will continue, but the current decline begs the question if Obama’s honeymoon will expire long before he gets through his first 100 days.

Share on Facebook

Share This

Barack Obama’s stimulus package is starting to come off the rails - and he’ll have to be careful that it doesn’t take all of his political capital with it. A new Rasmussen poll has found that Support for the stimulus package, which was never higher than 50%, has dropped below 40%. Only 37% of Americans now want the bill to pass, while 43% oppose the bill - a sign that opposition is still rising to the package. Worse for Obama is that half of the American public - including 1/3 Democrats - believes that the bill will make things worse, not better.

Obama is going to have to watch his step, or his political honeymoon is going to be over before it even began - if it isn’t already.

Share on Facebook

Share This